Below is a video that EVERYONE needs to watch. It takes the time of watching a NetFlix movie and will show how Wall Street and monetary policy these few decades threatens our national, state, and local sovereignty. It also does a good job at showing how US pols started the TELL THE VOTERS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR AND THEN DO WHAT YOU WANT' approach to politics-------the Leo Strauss philosophy of how to win control of all government offices when you are a global corporate 1%. As this video shows-----this is when the words REFORM, REFORM, REFORM is used to supposedly fix all of the neglect of the last few decades.
The Federal Reserve Bank Conspiracy Explained - Century of Enslavement // Top Documentary Films
The Federal Reserve Bank Conspiracy Explained - Century of Enslavement // Top Documentary Films.…
IF YOU KNOW PUBLIC POLICY BROADLY-----YOU HAVE KNOWN THIS WAS HAPPENING FOR DECADES----BABY BOOMERS KNOW WHEN WE HAD THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IN MEDIA AND OUR UNIVERSITIES WERE NOT CORPORATE AND OUR PUBLIC K-12 WAS NOT FRIGHTENED OF DEFUNDING AND CLOSURE FOR ALLOWING OPEN POLITICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY AND ELECTION PLATFORMS----CITIZENS WERE INFORMED.
This is why rebuilding all our public structures is so important----it gives people voice and the ability to participate in public policy decisions. It is why the Federal government structures are so important---they enforce Federal laws that keep these structures present in all states.
Let's look at the history of state's rights policies to see what they were and what they are now being used to do.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In American political discourse, states' rights refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess.
States' Rights Democratic Party
“”We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program.
—Platform of the States' Rights Democratic Party
The States' Rights Democratic Party was a segregationist American political party founded in 1948 to protect bigotry and oppression "states' rights." Members of the party were referred to as "Dixiecrats." The party was formed by a number of Southern Democrats in response to the passage of a platform including civil rights at the 1948 Democratic National Convention and Harry Truman's desegregation of the military. They ran Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright in that year's election and he picked up the states of South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana with a total of 2.41% of the popular vote nationwide. Unsurprisingly, those were the states where they had made it onto the ballot as the Democratic ticket. The party folded after the 1948 election, though the Dixiecrat moniker stuck in reference to pro-segregation Democrats. Thurmond and other Dixiecrats would go on to work within the Democratic Party to block and filibuster later civil rights legislation until many converted to the Republican Party in the 1960s thanks to the southern strategy.
I keep evoking the fact that Clinton/Bush/Obama are using Executive Order to install the FEDERALISM ACT-----pretending this gives them the right to ignore enforcement of all Federal laws and US Constitutional rights. Below you see that these Republicans view only parts of the US Constitution as valid and that is what we have seen in states across the nation these few decades all taking their own view of domestic issues. While Republican voters supported this at first because it allowed invalidation of all of the Federal laws and US Constitution they did not like------it is Republican voters who are now crying IMPEACHMENT FOR OBAMA because the original goals of Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism was to end US sovereignty and end US Constitution to install global corporate tribunal rule. The goal of global pols was to dismantle all of what was American government structures to rebuild for the US being a colonial economic outpost. This is where all the Republican posing comes into play-------global Republicans used the conservative state's rights stance to dismantle the US Federal laws and US Constitution all the while meaning to dismantle state and local sovereignty as well. Now Republicans losing all that state sovereignty are mad as heck.
States’ Rights, Depending on the Issue
By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG VIEWJUNE 28, 2015
WASHINGTON — It was a good week politically for Republicans, who won by losing.
Namely, the Supreme Court decisions upholding the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage could diminish the potency of these issues, which threatened to tie Republicans into knots. The remarkable rapidity with which Southern conservatives have called for removing the Confederate flag, in the wake of the vicious racist murders in Charleston, S.C., removes another potential problem.
As much as the party’s base hates Obamacare, the court made clear that it is now a legal reality. Republican congressional leaders would be smart to work with the administration on addressing the law’s imperfections, and get concessions in the process. The challenge on same-sex marriage is to prevent the right wing from keeping the issue front and center.
When the question of removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol grounds surfaced, the initial reaction of some conservatives, including Republican presidential candidates, was to say that it was up to the state.
Despite this claim of “states’ rights,” the flag, a symbol of racial hatred, is now coming down across the South.
But the question of states’ rights is central to political conservatives.
Appealing to the Constitution — the 10th Amendment says the federal government only has the powers specifically delegated to it — and to good policy, they argue that the government closest to the people is best able to decide.
It is undeniable that federal regulations and mandates can be too intrusive and that many public policy innovations occur at the state and local level. Yet the increasing mobility of American society, and issues such as communications and transportation, as well as the desire of major businesses for policy clarity, often require national prescriptions.
Moreover, conservatives often forsake the principle of states’ rights when it does not fit their ideological goals.
A contemporary example is the decriminalization of marijuana in a number of states, and its acceptance for medicinal purposes in about two dozen.
Starting with Colorado, four states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
But Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican candidate for president, and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who is exploring a possible bid for the Republican nomination, have vowed to brush aside local laws such as Colorado’s if elected. “I will crack down and not permit it,” Mr. Christie declared.
Even after the same-sex marriage decision on Friday, candidates such as Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin insisted this was a states’ rights issue and called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the action.
The principle that local government knows best is often ignored by conservatives when it comes to the nation’s capital, which was granted home rule 40 years ago with Congress retaining the veto right. Lawmakers, principally conservatives, have second-guessed the residents on gun control, on gay marriage and now on a law in the District of Columbia that prohibits discrimination against employees who seek contraception, family planning counsel or an abortion.
When the Dodd-Frank bank overhaul legislation was debated, conservatives opposed provisions to give states more authority to ensure the financial protection of consumers and in regulating lending practices of national banks. “We won 90 percent, despite the unanimous opposition of House Republicans and the big banks,” former Representative Barney Frank recalled.
States’ rights were invoked during the South Carolina flag episode. The flag was not raised at the state capitol in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, to celebrate fallen veterans, but in 1962, almost 100 years later. It happened in the middle of the civil rights movement to seek basic rights such as voting and public accommodations that were denied many black Americans. The flag was put up to celebrate segregation.
And it is worth remembering that the Confederacy invoked states’ rights, as a cover for the defense of slavery, to justify taking up arms in the Civil War.
Whenever the word 'liberalism' is used in mainstream media it refers to Clinton neo-liberalism-----economic liberalism. So now we are seeing Wall Street liberals using state's rights to install a few progressive issues-----but at the same time Obama/Bush/Clinton global pols are installing International Economic Zones in each state calling it state economic sustainability. Remember, International Economic Zones in Asia look just like the Medieval European CITY STATES -----think Florence and the Medicis and Venice----it was the age of Mercantilism. The rich families of global corporations carved out real estate in Italy where they ruled and the surrounding real estate for the masses were controlled by these families-----including being TAXED TO DEATH.
So, Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are posing progressive on a few issues like marijuana and gay rights to bring back state's rights issues at the same time they are installing International Economic Zones ending state and local sovereignty to create global CITY STATES.
'Historically, federalism has often meant conservative states asserting their sovereignty in the face of the federal government—most damningly, in the bad old days of Jim Crow. But that traditional understanding of state power no longer matches the country’s political reality'.
Social Democrats have always supported gay rights and legalization of some drugs------but we do not support the Federalism Act because we know we need these Federal laws and US Constitutional rights enforced.
When the South Wasn’t a Fan of States’ Rights
The strange, often forgotten, history of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
By Eric Foner
January 23, 2015
Whenever I lecture to non-academic audiences about the Civil War era, someone is bound to insist that the South fought for states’ rights rather than the long-term survival of slavery. In an extreme version of this view, Abraham Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator but a tyrant, the creator of the leviathan national state that essentially enslaved white Americans. This reading of the conflict is why a remarkable number of libertarians, self-proclaimed defenders of individual freedom, sympathize with the Old South, and why some even make excuses for slavery.
But this history omits one important part of antebellum history: When it came to enforcing and maintaining the peculiar institution against an increasingly anti-slavery North, the Old South was all too happy to forget its fear of federal power—a little-remembered fact in our modern retellings of the conflict.
The slavery exception to otherwise robust support for states’ rights was a recurring feature of antebellum Southern politics. Southerners wrote into the Constitution a clause requiring the return of slaves who escaped from one state to another, and in 1793, only four years after George Washington assumed the presidency, they persuaded Congress to enact a law putting that clause into effect. Ironically, when it came to runaway slaves, the white South, usually vocal in defense of local rights, favored robust national action, while some northern states engaged in the nullification of federal law, enacting “personal liberty” laws that barred local officials from cooperating in the capture and return of fugitives.
The Old South also invoked federal power in other ways to strengthen slavery—for example, when it came to employing federal troops in the 1830s to remove Native Americans from southern lands ripe for cotton cultivation. The most striking example was the South’s embrace of national power to capture and return fugitive slaves, especially as implemented in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. This law was the most robust expansion of federal authority over the states, and over individual Americans, of the antebellum era.
In the 1840s, as increasing numbers of slaves pursued freedom by running away to the North and a network of local groups, collectively known as the underground railroad, came into existence to assist them, southerners demanded national action. As part of the Compromise of 1850, which abolished the slave trade in the nation’s capital and allowed territories recently acquired from Mexico to decide whether or not to allow slavery, Congress enacted the new, draconian fugitive slave law. The measure created a new category of federal officeholder, U.S. commissioners, authorized to hear cases of accused fugitives and issue certificates of removal, documents that could not be challenged in any court. The fugitive could neither claim a writ of habeas corpus nor testify at the hearing, whose sole purpose was to establish his or her identity. Federal marshals could deputize individuals to execute a commissioner’s orders and, if necessary, call on the assistance of local officials and even bystanders.
The act included severe civil and criminal penalties for anyone who harbored fugitive slaves or interfered with their capture, as well as for local officials who failed to carry out a commissioner’s order or from whom a fugitive escaped. No local law could interfere with the process; northern personal liberty laws were specifically mentioned in the act as examples of illegitimate “molestation” of the slaveowner. To forestall resistance, the federal government at its own expense could deliver the fugitive to his or her owner.
This law could hardly have been designed to arouse greater opposition in the North. It overrode numerous state and local laws and legal procedures and “commanded” individual citizens to assist, when called upon, in capturing runaways. It certainly did not reveal, on the part of slaveholders, sensitivity to states’ rights. Southern political leaders insisted that northern compliance with the new law constituted the key test of the Compromise of 1850.
Anti-slavery activists predicted that the law would, in fact, strengthen their movement. The American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society predicted that it would awaken northerners to the plight of fugitive slaves and change how the underground railroad operated. “Heretofore,” it declared, “the fugitive has been aided in secret.” Now, “men will strive who can most openly do him service.” The infringement on northerners’ liberties would inspire greater defiance. This is, indeed, what happened.
The first arrest under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 took place in New York—a city whose economic fortunes were closely tied to the cotton trade, and whose political establishment was decidedly prosouthern. On Sept. 26, 1850, eight days after President Millard Fillmore signed the measure, two deputy U.S. marshals arrested James Hamlet at his job as a porter in a local store. Hamlet had escaped from Baltimore two years earlier and settled in Williamsburg, a Brooklyn village with a small black population, along with his wife and three children, all born in Maryland.
The hearing before a U. S. commissioner took place the day after Hamlet’s arrest. (The Hamlet case, the New York Tribune noted sardonically, exhibited “very little of the ‘law’s delay.’” One might add that it also exhibited little respect for individual rights.) The representatives of Hamlet’s owner identified him as a slave. Hamlet, who insisted that he and his parents had been previously set free, was not, in accordance with the provisions of the new law, allowed to testify. The commissioner directed marshals to deliver Hamlet to Baltimore at the federal government’s expense. Hamlet was handcuffed and hurried to a waiting steamboat. The day after his arrest he was back in Maryland, lodged in prison. His wife knew nothing of these events until after his departure.
Hamlet’s story did not end there. His newly-reinstated owner announced that Hamlet’s freedom could be purchased for eight hundred dollars. Two thousand members of New York’s black organizations, “with a slight and visible sprinkling of white abolitionists,” according to a local antislavery newspaper, gathered at the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church to collect contributions. A week after his arrest, Hamlet was back in the city, a free man. Few apprehended fugitives were as fortunate. Fugitive slave renditions continued to take place in New York City and in many other parts of the North until the eve of the Civil War. Before 1850, many runaways had settled in the free states; after the passage of the new law most continued on to Canada, which refused to extradite them. They were joined by free blacks who were also in danger of being caught up in the new law’s procedures. The spectacle of individuals fleeing to another country to enjoy freedom mocked the prevailing self-image of the United States as an asylum for those denied liberty in foreign lands.
At anti-slavery public meetings, speakers, black and white, invoked the heritage of the American Revolution to justify violent resistance to an unjust law. An abolitionist in New Bedford, Massachusetts, called on fugitives to “practice the art of using firearms” so that they could shoot slave catchers. Such rhetoric often amounted to little more than bravado, but in some parts of the North, efforts to assist fugitives did take a decidedly violent turn. Dramatic attempts to rescue runaway slaves punctuated the 1850s—one study counts over 80 such confrontations. In October 1850, hundreds of armed blacks gathered at a jail in Detroit where a fugitive was being held. The frightened owner quickly agreed to allow his freedom to be purchased.
When Wall Street global corporate pols---both Bush neo-cons and Clinton/Obama neo-liberals talk about state's rights they are seeing the future of US International Economic Zones becoming GLOBAL ECONOMIC CITY STATES. See where we move from the early idea of state's rights being freedom from global colonialism moving today to bringing it back.
Reagan/Clinton used the age-old state's rights stance of Republicans wanting states to control domestic policy to advance what their goal of GLOBAL CITY STATES will become.
This is why the state's rights issue has become so confusing----as has social democratic policy----on both political sides the posing is being used to install NEW WORLD ORDER----GLOBAL ECONOMIC CITY STATES replacing our US sovereign structure.
If you look at how US global corporations carved into Asian nations like India and China these US International Zones acting as independent CITIES----you can see the transfer of this Medieval/Renaissance concept of CITY STATE.
The American people are thinking US Constitution and Federal vs state's rights-----and Wall Street and global pols are thinking global economic empire and global city states.
History >> Renaissance for Kids
At the time of the Renaissance Italy was governed by a number of powerful city-states. These were some of the largest and richest cities in all of Europe. Some of the more important city-states included Florence, Milan, Venice, Naples, and Rome.
Map of Italian city-states
(click picture to enlarge)
What is a city-state?
A city-state is a region that is independently ruled by a major city. Italy wasn't one unified country, but a number of small independent city-states. Some of these cities were run by elected leaders and others by ruling families. Often times these cities fought each other.
Why were they important?
The wealth of the Italian city-state played an important role in the Renaissance. This wealth allowed prominent families to support artists, scientists, and philosophers spurring on new ideas and artistic movements.
Florence is where the Renaissance first began. It was ruled by the powerful Medici Family who used their money to support artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. One of the early architectural achievements of the Renaissance was the massive dome on the Florence Cathedral. Florence was known for its textile production as well as a banking center.
In the early 1400s Milan was still a Middle Ages city focused on war and conquering Florence. However, the Sforza family took over in 1450. They brought peace to the region and with peace came the new ideas and art of the Renaissance. Milan was famous for its metalwork which included suits of armor.
The island city of Venice had become a powerful city-state through trade with the Far East. It imported products such as spices and silk. However, when the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople, Venice's trade empire began to shrink. Venice controlled the seas around the east coast of Italy and was famous for its artistic glassware.
The pope ruled both the Catholic Church and the city-state of Rome. Much of the city of Rome was re-built under the leadership of Nicholas V beginning in 1447. Rome became a patron of the arts and supported the Renaissance through commissions to artists such as Raphael and Michelangelo. Michelangelo worked as architect on St. Peter's Basilica and painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
The city-state of Naples ruled much of southern Italy at the time of the Renaissance. It was one of the last city-states to embrace the movement, but in 1443 Alfonso I conquered the city. He supported Renaissance artists, writers, and philosophers. Naples also became known for its music and is where the mandolin was invented. Naples was captured by Spain in 1504.
Interesting Facts about the Italian City-States of the Renaissance
- Guilds were powerful institutions in the city-states. In some city-states you had to be a member of a guild to run for public office.
- The small city-state of Ferrara was known for its music and theatre.
- The city-state of Urbino was known for its library as well as its beautiful ceramics.
- Most of the people who lived in the city-states were craftsmen and merchants. This was a growing class of society during the Renaissance.
- Milan, Naples, and Florence signed a peace treaty called the Peace of Lodi in 1454. This helped to establish boundaries and peace for around 30 years.
Cradle of capitalism
When American citizens get a glimpse at what Trans Pacific Trade Pact says----we get snips of things like patent protections, copyright laws, etc all tied with making a global market fluid across borders. One thing that Renaissance City States did------addressed these same patent/copyright laws.
The American people must stop allowing global pols to pose American------both Bush neo-cons as American conservatives and Clinton neo-liberals as progressive social Democrats BECAUSE THEY ARE NEITHER.
This is how the STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUE IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE CONFUSING AND WE CAN CALL IT 'DEREGULATING' WHAT STATE'S RIGHTS MEANS.
We all know that Wall Street and global corporations see themselves now as super-rich----extreme wealth and are building global empires. We need to start looking at where they are taking the US in these goals.
'One of the reasons which explain the diffusion of the Venetian model for the protection of the rights of inventors lies probably in the fact that it responded in a relatively simple manner to a need that was widely perceived on the European continent, where political power was becoming increasingly aware of the importance of technical know-how for economic growth'.
Cradle of capitalism
Apr 16th 2009 | From the print edition
RICHARD GOLDTHWAITE has served a long apprenticeship. As a dedicated student of the economy of Florence between the 13th and 16th centuries, he has published studies of the city's buildings and banks, its private wealth and the demand for its art. Now he has stood back and produced a magisterial history which brings all the strands of the story together and becomes, among its other virtues, a persuasive account of early capitalism.
Florence became one of medieval and Renaissance Europe's great industrial cities. Its principal resource was the river, the fast-flowing Arno, which provided power and water for industry and access to the sea for imports and exports. But an even greater source of strength was the enterprise and ingenuity of its merchants, who set about transforming a healthy local wool industry into an international business by importing large quantities of better-quality wool, from England and later Spain, to manufacture the fine, light worsted woollen cloth that was in demand all over Europe.
By the 1340s the economy was sufficiently robust to survive the bankruptcy of its leading bankers, the Bardi and the Peruzzi—“the Rothschilds of the Middle Ages”—and the Black Death, which reduced the population of the city by two-thirds. (The bankruptcies were not, apparently, all due to the default of the English king, Edward III, who has usually been blamed.)
Mr Goldthwaite, professor emeritus of history at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, is an uncompromising researcher. For example, he has a revisionist view of the Medici, stubbornly refusing to eulogise Cosimo or Lorenzo de' Medici, the conventional heroes of popular histories of Renaissance Florence. “One could write the history of Florentine banking in the 15th century without so much as mentioning the Medici,” he writes. He does so, partly to record that the decline and eventual collapse of the Medici bank had little impact on the banking system as a whole.
Banking developed in Florence because of the ingenious development of bills of exchange, first as a way of paying debts without having to transport cash, then as a means of evading the church's usury laws, and finally as a means of extending credit. “When the merchant extended his traffic in the exchange market to enter the credit market, he became a banker”—and a capitalist.
Bankers became immensely rich, although they had only a minor role in channelling direct investments into manufacturing businesses. Manufacturing industry was financed by partnerships; the textile trade put out work to individual weavers and did not require capital to establish factories, though a silk workshop next to Sandro Botticelli's studio made so much noise that the painter was forced to flee.
The Florentine businessmen were unfinished capitalists. Mr Goldthwaite subtly suggests that they lacked a strong competitive capitalist instinct: “Their behaviour at home and abroad often reveals an underlying spirit of corporatism.”
They certainly knew how to spend. In Renaissance Florence greed was good. The rich lavished their wealth on luxury goods for their palazzos, and on shameless dressing up. This encouraged an outburst of great work by artisan painters, sculptors, architects and decorators. The art market in Florence at that time was not as big as in Antwerp and Bruges, and there were only a third as many painters as in Bruges. Florentine artists were kept busy by local commissions. There was, however, a trickledown effect on taste which created a market for inferior art from the Low Countries. A 16th-century art historian, Giorgio Vasari, remarked that “there was not a shoemaker's house in the city that did not have a Flemish painting.”
Early in the 17th century the banking industry was no longer a leader in Europe; that role had been acquired by Antwerp. And although specialist textiles retained an international market, the wool industry was in terminal decline.
Banking and wool had made Florence envied and admired throughout Renaissance Europe, but their shrinking did not mean that the city slipped out of Europe's consciousness. Mr Goldthwaite's conclusion is a happy one: “Wealth was recycled and invested in human capital and transformed into the patrimony of urban architecture, artwork and a tradition of craftsmanship unequalled in any other city.” It is an awesome legacy.
Below you see this confusion in the Republican Party and it looks just like me as a social Democrat calling Clinton Wall Street neo-liberals 'posing progressive'. The Tea Party is the branch of the Republican Party that is figuring out where Bush Wall Street global neo-cons are taking their party. They are defining 'state's rights' AS US CONSTITUTIONAL AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
You must have national sovereignty in order to have state sovereignty. You cannot seek US Constitutional rights if you do not recognize national sovereignty. So, REPUBLICANS ARE GRASPING AT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROTECTING STATE'S RIGHTS as global pols are dismantling all that is US sovereignty.
'The platform stresses limited government, fiscal restraint, opposition to further stimulus spending and a determination, it says, to push back against “a federal government that is too big, too intrusive and all-too-eager to seize power from the states.”'
States’ Rights Republicans?
It looks like some members of the Republican establishment are starting to fear primary challenges by the Tea Party folks. The Wall Street Journal reports that Colorado Republicans have adopted a “Platform for Prosperity,” intended to placate populist outrage, and are strongly encouraging all candidates for state office in 2010 to get on board.
The platform stresses limited government, fiscal restraint, opposition to further stimulus spending and a determination, it says, to push back against “a federal government that is too big, too intrusive and all-too-eager to seize power from the states.”
Let’s just hope they mean that last part. There’s nothing quite so aggravating as politicians who preach states’ rights when the other party is running Washington, then proceed to trample the 10th Amendment with things like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D. But then again:
“At the end of the day, the tea partiers don’t have anywhere else to go,” said Eric Sondermann, an independent political consultant in Denver. “If they show up at the polls next year, it won’t be to pull the Democratic lever.”
Of course, thinking like that is what got us here. Voters should forget party labels and back candidates whose understanding of the Constitution mirrors their own. Only then will the people, not the federal government and its courts, rule again.
Rick Perry and Romney are Bush neo-con/Reagan neo-liberal Wall Street global corporate pols and so it is becoming harder and harder for them to appear as conservative Republican. No one supports, pushes, installs Trans Pacific Trade Pact and International Economic Zone policies than the Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration started the writing of all these policies. Texas is well on its way to being completely separate from Federal and US Constitutional laws.
WHEN A REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS PUSHES FAST TRACK TPP AND ALL OF THE WALL STREET POLICIES THAT ARE GIVING US YET ANOTHER ECONOMIC CRASH THIS TIME FROM THE US TREASURY/MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT-----
You see the Congressional Republican Party is mostly Bush neo-cons as we see the Congressional Democratic Party is mostly Clinton neo-liberals. Both are moving their parties away from its platform stances. No one sees global empire-building more than Bush/Cheney----
GOP devotion to states' rights tripping some Republicans
Some Republicans, like possible 2012 contender Rick Perry, are having a hard time reconciling their reverence for the 10th Amendment and their desire to federally ban abortion and same-sex marriage.
August 05, 2011|By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
Two values many Republicans hold dear — a smaller federal government and a less permissive society — are colliding as presidential hopefuls try to reconcile their call for empowering the states with their support for federal limits on abortion and gay rights.
The conflict arises from the expanded influence of the "tea party" movement, with its crusade for a more circumscribed Washington, and the long-standing power of social conservatives, who play a major role in the GOP nominating process, especially in the early contests in Iowa and South Carolina.
Though the clash is unlikely to do terrible harm to the eventual Republican nominee — not when the zeal to defeat President Obama is such a powerfully unifying force — it has made for early friction and some uncomfortable moments, for none more than Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Perry, who is apparently edging toward entry into the race, has been among the staunchest supporters of states' rights; in 2009 he even went so far as to entertain the notion of Texas leaving the United States, before backing off amid criticism and ridicule.
A tea party favorite, Perry frequently cites the importance of the Constitution's 10th Amendment — holy writ to small-government advocates — which was intended to limit the powers of Washington in favor of the states. (Many proponents prefer to speak of state sovereignty rather than the more freighted term states' rights, which was invoked across the segregated South in opposition to the civil rights movement.)
Perry's recent troubles began with a speech to GOP donors at an Aspen Institute forum in Colorado.
"Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That's New York and that's their business and that's fine with me," Perry said to applause. "That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business."
Days later, speaking to reporters in Houston, Perry took a similar stance on abortion, saying that if Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, were overturned, it would be up to states to set their laws regarding the procedure.
The remarks quickly circulated among social conservatives, many of whom took deep umbrage.
"Certainly states' rights are paramount," said Iowa's Bill Salier, a staunch antiabortion, small-government advocate, but "not if you want homosexual marriage and the killing of unborn babies to be legal. Those are two positions that can't be sustained against each other."
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a declared GOP presidential candidate, was quick to assail Perry's remarks, first via Twitter — "So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?" — later at an Iowa campaign stop, then addressing conservative activists last weekend in Denver.
"States do not have the right to destroy the American family. It is our business," Santorum said at the Western Conservative Summit. "It is not fine with me that New York has destroyed marriage. It is not fine with me that New York is setting a template that will cause great division in this country."
Perry soon backed off his comment on same-sex marriage. In a radio interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group, Perry said, "I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me.' "
"It's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue," Perry went on. "Obviously, gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed."
Not long after, Perry retreated from his remarks on Roe vs. Wade, endorsing constitutional amendments to ban abortion and same-sex marriage as well as to require a federally balanced budget. In an interview this week with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Perry suggested there was nothing inconsistent in his support for those amendments — which could override the sentiments in dissenting states — at the same time he champions the 10th Amendment.
While respecting a state's right "to have a different opinion … our Founding Fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important you need to change the Constitution, here's the way you do it,' " Perry said.
OF COURSE IT IS THE EQUAL PROTECTION AMENDMENTS TO US CONSTITUTION THAT REPUBLICANS DO NOT MIND IGNORING.
"I support that for issues that are so important, I think, to the soul of this country."
Other candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whom many consider the GOP front-runner, have taken a similar stance, calling for greater deference to states while at the same time backing constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage.
To Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles group that advocates smaller government, that qualified position amounts to nothing more than pandering.
Republican voters do not support TPP in larger numbers than Democrats because they know how state's rights will be killed. Again, as this article states------it is the establishment Republicans who are pushing this through just as with the Democratic Party. Any support TPP has with any US voters comes from US voters not being educated on what the heck TPP is----
TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT HAS BEEN SO SECRETIVE FROM BOTH PARTIES BECAUSE IT SELLS OUT ALL AMERICAN VOTERS.
For those thinking the Libertarians are really into protecting US Constitutional rights------here is Rand Paul pushing Obama to move forward with those TPP deals.
'That being said, recent polls have found that Republican voters are less supportive of the TPP and other trade deals than Democrats and independent voters. In fact, a Pew poll back in April found that Democratic support for the TPP was a full 10 percentage points higher than Republican support for the Pacific trade deal'.
Rand Paul to Obama: Finish TPP Trade Deal“Instead of just talking about a so-called ‘pivot to Asia,’ the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the” TPP.
By Zachary Keck
October 28, 2014
U.S. Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY) is calling on President Barack Obama to conclude negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by year’s end.
Last week Senator Paul gave what his office billed as a major foreign policy address comprehensively outlining his “Conservative Realism” vision for American foreign policy.
One of the four main pillars of Conservative Realism, Paul explained, is reviving U.S. economic strength. “Our national power is a function of the national economy,” the first-term senator explained at a New York City dinner put on by the Center for the National Interest, a Washington, D.C. think tank.
Paul views increased trade as essential to reviving sluggish economic growth. The senator commended Obama’s predecessor on promoting trade, pointing out that the George W. Bush administration brokered 14 new free trade agreements during its eight years in office, and negotiated three others that were eventually ratified during the Obama administration. By contrast, Senator Paul noted, that Obama hasn’t successfully negotiated a single new agreement since taking office.
“Instead of just talking about a so-called ‘pivot to Asia,’ the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end,” Paul said during the speech.
Although he cast the slow pace of TPP negotiations as a criticism of President Obama, Paul is likely looking ahead to the next Congress when the issue could be ripe for bipartisan cooperation with the White House. A week from today the U.S. will hold midterm elections in which the Republican Party is favored to win a majority in the Senate. Indeed, according to analysis by Five Thirty Eight, the GOP has a 63 percent chance of taking the Senate in next week’s election.
Should the Republicans win the Senate, they would control both houses of Congress. Nonetheless, they will not have the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome a filibuster. Moreover, the Democratic Party would still retain the White House, and President Obama would therefore be able to veto any legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.
This puts the Republicans in a potentially dangerous position looking ahead to the 2016 presidential election. Because of its control of both houses of Congress, the American electorate could hold the Republican Party partially responsible for any failures over the next two years. Furthermore, if voters perceive the GOP as unwilling to cooperate with the president as a matter of principle, this could hurt the party’s presidential nominee in 2016. Indignation toward GOP obstructionism could even ignite the Democratic base ahead of the next presidential election.
Indeed, there are recent precedents for this. Most notably, the Republicans took both houses of Congress from the Democrats in their historic landslide in the 1994 midterm elections. However, the GOP’s near absolute refusal to work with President Bill Clinton over the next two years almost certainly hurt its chances of unseating Clinton in the 1996 presidential election, which the incumbent won in a landslide. Similarly, the Republicans took the House in the 2010 midterm election but this seemed to do them more harm than good during the 2012 presidential election.
As a Republican presidential hopeful, Paul likely recognizes that his and the party’s interests are best served by trying to find some issues on which Republicans can cooperate with the administration. This would give the American electorate confidence that the Republican Party is interested in governing, and would make it harder for Democrats to use disgust with the Republican Party to mobilize the Democratic base in the 2016 election.
Trade in general, and the TPP in particular, are ideal issues for the Republican Party to engage the president on given that the GOP has long been the party most supportive of free trade. Indeed, as The Diplomat has previously noted, opposition to new trade deals has been strongest among Obama’s own party. For example, in March 2013 nearly 20 percent of the Democratic House caucus wrote a letter to President Obama expressing their opposition to Japan joining the TPP talks. Then, in November of last year, 151 House Democrats — about 80 percent of the entire caucus — wrote to the president to express their opposition to giving him fast track authority, which many experts and the president himself see as vital to getting the eventual trade deal through Congress.
That being said, recent polls have found that Republican voters are less supportive of the TPP and other trade deals than Democrats and independent voters. In fact, a Pew poll back in April found that Democratic support for the TPP was a full 10 percentage points higher than Republican support for the Pacific trade deal.
Still, Republican support for free trade remains mostly intact at the elite level. Furthermore, by working with Obama on the TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), Republicans would demonstrate that strengthening the economy is their number one priority, and that they are willing to work with President Obama to succeed. This would certainly help them expand their voter base for the 2016 election, something that Senator Paul has been on a (largely) one-man quest to do as of late.
You can watch Paul’s entire speech on the Center for the National Interest’s YouTube Channel or below:
NO AMERICAN CITIZEN THINKS ANY OF THIS IS FREE-TRADE------
This is where both Bush neo-cons and Reagan/Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals can no longer hide that they are working against all American voters-------as we see the REAL Republicans----Tea Party shouting as loudly as the REAL Democrats-----social Democrats against these global corporate tribunal rule policies. What began as a right-wing push towards state's rights with the Clinton/Obama/Bush use of Executive Order to install Federalism Act-----cheered by conservative Republicans ----now comes back to bite them. As social Democrats are being called-----'far-left' when they ARE the Democratic base------look how Tea Party are being called---'arch-conservatives'-----they are simply the old-school Republicans we Democrats have been fighting throughout modern history.
Tea Party, Rightwing Enter Battle to Oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership
Mon, 8/26/2013 - by Dave Johnson
Members of Congress are starting to pay attention to the upcoming, secretly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “trade” agreement that isn’t really about trade. And the public is also becoming aware that this runaway job-loss express train is coming straight at us.
The TPP agreement is being negotiated — in secret, even from Congress — between representatives of governments and giant, multinational corporations. (Government negotiators are not prevented from seeking lucrative corporate jobs if negotiations are completed in favor of the those corporations.)
Groups representing the interests of labor, environmental, consumer, human rights or other stakeholders in democracy are not at the negotiating table. And, not surprisingly, it appears that the agreement will promote the interests of giant, multinational corporations over the interests of labor, environmental, consumer, human rights or other stakeholders in democracy.
Negotiated in secret, what we know about the treaty comes from leaks. Only a few of the “chapters” of the agreement are actually about “trade” at all. The rest are about the “rights” of corporations and investors. Negotiated just as the worldwide democracy uprising threatens to reign in corporate interests, the agreement will limit governments’ ability to write banking regulations, energy policy, food safety standards and even government purchasing decisions. It will allow corporations and investors to sue governments for lost profits if the governments try to make and enforce environmental, labor and other laws.
Congress Waking Up
The corporations are asking Congress to pass “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority. This would mean Congress yields its authority and duties under the Constitution, and just has a rushed up-or-down vote on whatever is presented to them. So this will be about which legislators the giant corporations own, and which they do not. (Of course this vote will occur during a major corporate-funded PR campaign that will rival the propaganda “run-up” to the Iraq war vote.)
Some members of Congress are circulating letters opposing “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority and are getting plenty of signatures from the “left” and the “right.”
Last week, conservative House Republicans Michele Bachmann and Walter Jones joined Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro began gathering signatures of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress on letters opposing granting “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority. They complain that Congress has not played their constitutionally mandated part in shaping this deal, and Fast Track removes their Constitutional authority to review and amend any such agreement.
In June, 2/3 of newly elected Democratic members of Congress warned against passing “Fast Track.” Also in June 230 members of Congress signed a letter asking that TPP address currency manipulation.
Last year many members of Congress signed letters objecting to the secrecy of the negotiations. Representative Alan Grayson has beenall over this, penning posts, holding meetings, sending emails, doing radio shows, and all kinds of other things to warn the public and rally opposition to TPP.
This public is slowly becoming aware of TPP and the threat it poses. (Corporate media is, of course, not covering this.) Last Saturday, for example, hundreds of people gathered at a rally in Madison Wisconsin to show their disapproval of TPP.
At the rally people chanted, “Secrets, secrets are no fun! TPP hurts everyone!”
Interestingly, those parts of the Tea Party that are not fronts for corporate interests are also trying to spread the news about this treaty. Gotta give them credit, their radar is really catching this one.
Tea-Party concerns include the fact that the treaty would elevate a corporate-council above American sovereignty, and Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority would strip Congress of its Constitutional role in shaping and approving the treaty.