Thread: OBAMA SECRETLY SIGNING AWAY U.S. SOVEREIGNTY AND THE INTERNET AND ALIPAC

Please read this article by Arron Klien: President Obama is getting ready for his dictatorship and the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty with 12 different countries is how he intends to do this:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-sec...s-sovereignty/


This Treaty will be voted on this December so if you want to save the US Sovereignty from the international rules for America YOU MUST MAKE THAT PHONE CALL TO YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSPEOPLE TODAY. From Tea Party Nation to beyond many people are realizing the dangers of President Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty: Please read from the Tea Party Nation in regards to the dangers the Trans Pacific Partnership will do to the internet and America if this treaty is FAST TRACKED WITH NO AMENDMENTS and is signed into law: http://communities.washingtontimes.c...r-proven-liar/ The Trans Pacific Partnership is a treaty that will destroy ALIAPC'S WEBSITE from appearing in search engines and websites can be taken down immediately just by having one person claim COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. This treaty will also allow NEW ILLEGALS to start coming to America, this time from Asia, will destroy Generic Drugs from being able to be sold in America, Cut American Wages, End MADE IN AMERICA on many food products which means your food could be made in Vietnam without lawful inspection. It could mean you could be eating poison. This is what the Trans Pacific Partnership will do if President Obama's fast tracks this dangerous Treaty with NO AMENDMENTS and sadly many sell out Republicans who supported Amnesty like Utah Senator Orrin Hatch favor the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty which will end US SOVEREIGNTY if passed. President Obama's basically will have Internet Service Providers basically spy on there customers and make it illegal to watch youtube video's or even posting video's of illegal aliens committing crimes giving Obama not just control of the internet, but also allows the President to create international courts to put ALIPAC member's in jail BASED on Human Rights abuses for protesting illegal aliens. The US Constitution will mean nothing if this Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is signed into law.

Please read about the dangers of the Trans Pacific Partnership that was just revered by Wikileaks today:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/secret-g...t-freedom.html

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...chapter-secret

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/13/5...d-draft-of-tpp


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4039357.html


Please call Congress at 2022243121 and tell them NO TO FAST TRACKING THE TPP WITH **NO** AMENDMENTS AND NO TO THE TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP. Remember this is not a bill, this is a very dangerous Treaty. Today the Drudge Report said that Amnesty for illegals is dead in the House. If websites like this do not exist ILLEGAL ALIENS WILL BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH. It is ALIPAC and it's e-mails to it's members that is stopping illegal aliens from taking over America illegally. If President Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership goes through VIA Fast Track, web pages like this WILL BE SHUT DOWN and considering ISP's will be required to give the names of there customers to this international court President Obama will be required to uphold if this treaty again goes through. International UN Courts could put us in there prisons for are American right to FREE SPEECH.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/wikilea...hapter/5358008

Please sign these 2 petitions below to stop The Trans Pacific Partnership:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/1...nd-spread-word

https://openmedia.org/Censorship

Please as well call Congressman Lou Barletta's Office (Phone)2022256511 (Fax) 2022266250.please let Congressman Barletta know that the Trans Pacific Partnership will just bring a new round of illegal aliens to the US(THIS TIME FROM ASIA AS NAFTA HELPED GIVE US ILLEGALS FROM LATIN AMERICA) if this Treaty passes. At any rate KEEP THE INTERNET AND AMERICA'S SOVEREIGNTY ALIVE. ALIPAC stopped the Houses Illegal immigration bill. If President Obama takes control of the internet and free speech things will change for the worse. STOP THE TPP FROM BECOMING LAW. SIGN THE PETITIONS AND CALL WASHINGTON TODAY.

THANKS.

Trans-Pacific Partnership

From Wikipedia

Leaders of TPP member states and prospective member states at a TPP summit in 2010.
Type	Free trade agreement
Drafted	3 June 2005[1][2]
Signed	18 July 2005[3][4][5]
Location	Wellington, New Zealand
Effective	28 May 2006 (New Zealand and Singapore); 12 July 2006 (Brunei); 8 November 2006 (Chile)[6]
Condition	2 ratifications
Parties	4 (Brunei, Chile, Singapore andNew Zealand)
Depositary	Government of New Zealand
Languages	English and Spanish, in event of conflict English prevails

The 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) is a free trade agreement amongBrunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. It aims to further liberalise the economies of the Asia-Pacific region.^[7]
Since 2010, negotiations have been taking place^[8] for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposal for a significantly expanded version of TPSEP. The TPP is a proposed free trade agreement under negotiation by (as of August 2013) Australia, Brunei, Chile,Canada, Japan,^[9] Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.^[10]
The TPP is ostensibly intended to be a "high-standard" agreement specifically aimed at emerging trade issues in the 21st century.^[11]These ongoing negotiations have drawn criticism and protest from the public, advocacy groups, and elected officials, in part due to the secrecy of the negotiations, the expansive scope of the agreement, and a number of controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public.
On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks.^[12]

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Membership and accession
  
  • 1.1 Members
  • 1.2 Potential members
  
  
• 2 History
  
  • 2.1 Negotiations
  
  
• 3 Controversy
  
  • 3.1 Scope
  • 3.2 Intellectual property provisions
  • 3.3 Negotiation secrecy
  • 3.4 Investor–state arbitration
  • 3.5 Polling
  
  
• 4 Protests
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Membership and accession[edit]

Current P-4 countries
Negotiating countries

The negotiations to set up the TPSEP initially included three countries (Chile, New Zealand and Singapore), and Brunei subsequently joined the agreement. The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".
In January 2008 the United States agreed to enter into talks with the P4 members regarding liberalisation of trade in financial services.^[13] Then, on 22 September 2008, US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwabannounced that the United States would begin negotiations with the P4 countries to join the TPP, with the first round of talks to take place in early 2009.^[14]
In November 2008, Australia, Vietnam, and Peru announced that they would join the P4 trade bloc.^[15][16] In October 2010, Malaysia announced that it had also joined the TPP negotiations.^[17][18][19]
In June 2012, it was announced that Canada and Mexico would join TPP negotiations.^{[20][21][22][23][24]} Mexico's interest in joining was initially met with concern among TPP negotiators about its customs policies.^[25]
Two years earlier, Canada became an observer in the TPP talks, and expressed interest in officially joining,^[26]but was not committed to join, purportedly because the United States and New Zealand blocked it due to concerns over Canadian agricultural policy (i.e. supply management)—specifically dairy—and intellectual property-rights protection.^[25][27] Several pro-business and internationalist Canadian media outlets raised concerns about this as a missed opportunity. In a feature in the Financial Post, former Canadian trade-negotiator Peter Clark claimed that the US Obama Administration had strategically outmaneuvered the Canadian Harper Government. Wendy Dobson and Diana Kuzmanovic for The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, argued for the economic necessity of the TPP to Canada.^[28] Embassy warned that Canada's position in APEC could be compromised by being excluded from both the US-oriented TPP and the proposed China-oriented ASEAN +3trade agreement (or the broader Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia).^[18][19][29]
Canada and Mexico formally became TPP negotiating participants in October 2012, following completion of the domestic consultation periods of the other nine members.^[30][31][32]
Members[edit]

Country	Status	Date
Brunei	Original Signatory	June 2005
Chile	Original Signatory	June 2005
New Zealand	Original Signatory	June 2005
Singapore	Original Signatory	June 2005
United States	Negotiating	February 2008
Australia	Negotiating	November 2008
Peru	Negotiating	November 2008
Vietnam	Negotiating	November 2008
Malaysia	Negotiating	October 2010
Mexico	Negotiating	October 2012
Canada[33]	Negotiating	October 2012
Japan	Negotiating	March 2013
Taiwan	Announced Interest	September 2013

Potential members[edit]

currently in negotiations
announced interest in membership

Japan joined as an observer in the TPP discussions that took place 13–14 November 2010, on the sidelines of theAPEC summit in Yokohama.^[34] Japan declared its intent to join the TPP negotiations on 13 March 2013 and an official announcement was made by Prime Minister Shinzō Abe on 15 March 2013 .^[35] The TPP formally invited Japan to enter negotiations in April,^[36] and Japan could become a full negotiating partner in August 2013.^[37]
South Korea expressed interest in joining in November 2010,^[38] and was officially invited to join the TPP negotiating rounds by the United States after the successful conclusion of the US-South Korea FTA in late December.^[39] The country already has bilateral trade agreements with some TPP members, but areas such as vehicle manufacturing and agriculture would still need to be agreed, thus making any further multilateral TPP negotiation somewhat complicated.^[40]
Other countries that have expressed interest in TPP membership are Taiwan,^[41] the Philippines,^[42] Laos,^[43]Colombia,^[44] Costa Rica,^[43] and Indonesia.^[45] Bangladesh^[46] and India^[47] have also been mentioned as a possible candidate. Despite initial opposition, China also has some interest in eventually joining the TPP.^[48]
On 20 November 2012, Thailand's government announced that it wishes to join the Trans-Pacific partnership negotiations during a visit by President of the United States Barack Obama and if it follows the process for Canada and Mexico, Thailand will be in the extraordinary position of having to accept any existing agreed text, sight unseen.^[49]
History[edit]

The TPSEP was previously known as the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP), its negotiations launched on the sidelines of the 2002 APEC Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, by Prime Ministers Helen Clark of New Zealand, Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos. Brunei first took part as a full negotiating party in the fifth round of talks in April 2005, after which the trade bloc became known as the Pacific-4 (P4). Although all original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP and TPP are not APEC initiatives. However, the TPP is considered to be a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.
The original agreement was concluded by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore on 3 June 2005,^[2] and entered into force on 28 May 2006 for New Zealand and Singapore, 12 July 2006 for Brunei, and 8 November 2006 for Chile.^[50] It is a comprehensive free trade agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for reduction by 90 percent of alltariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.^[7]
On the last day of the 2010 APEC summit, leaders of the nine negotiating countries endorsed the proposal advanced by United States president Barack Obama that set a target for settlement of negotiations by the next APEC summit in November 2011.^[51] However, negotiations have continued through 2012 and into 2013.
Negotiations[edit]

After the inauguration of Barack Obama in January 2009, the anticipated March 2009 negotiations were postponed. However, in his first trip to Asia in November 2009, president Obama reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on 14 December 2009, new United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified Congress that president Obama planned to enter TPP negotiations "with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact".^[52]
Since that time, 19 formal rounds of TPP negotiations have been held:^[53][54]

• 1st round: 15–19 March 2010, Melbourne, Australia
• 2nd round: 14–18 June 2010, San Francisco, USA
• 3rd round: 5–8 October 2010, Brunei
• 4th round: 6–10 December 2010, Auckland, New Zealand
• 5th round: 14–18 February 2011, Santiago, Chile
• 6th round: 24 March – 1 April 2011, Singapore
• 7th round: 15–24 June 2011, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
• 8th round: 6–15 September 2011, Chicago, USA
• 9th round: 22–29 October 2011, Lima, Peru
• 10th round: 5–9 December 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
• 11th round: 2–9 March 2012, Melbourne, Australia
• 12th round: 8–18 May 2012, Dallas, USA
• 13th round: 2–10 July 2012. San Diego, USA
• 14th round: 6–15 September 2012, Leesburg, Virginia, USA
• 15th round: 3–12 December 2012, Auckland, New Zealand
• 16th round: 4–13 March 2013 Singapore
• 17th round: 15–24 May 2013, Lima, Peru
• 18th round: 15–24 July 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
• 19th round: 23–30 August 2013, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei

In the United States, the majority of free trade agreements are implemented as congressional-executive agreements.^[55] Unlike treaties, congressional-executive agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass.^[55] Under "Trade Promotion Authority" (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974, Fast track (trade)Congress authorizes the President to negotiate “free trade agreements... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met.”^[55] In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is the renewal of "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority.^[56] If "fast track" is renewed, then the normal treaty ratification and implementation procedure would be bypassed, and the United States Congress would instead be required to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days.^[57]
In April 2013 APEC members proposed, along with setting a possible target for settlement of the TPP by the2013 APEC summit, that World Trade Organisation (WTO) members set a target for settlement of the Doha Round mini-package by the ninth WTO ministerial conference (MC9), also to be held around the same time inBali.^[58]
This call for inclusion and cooperation between the WTO and economic partnership agreements (also termed regional trade agreements) like the TPP comes after the statement by Pierre Lellouche who described the sentiment of the Doha round negotiations; "Although no one wants to say it, we must call a cat a cat...".^[59]
Controversy[edit]

Scope[edit]

Anti-globalization advocates accuse the TPP of going far beyond the realm of tariff reduction and trade promotion, granting unprecedented power to corporations and infringing upon consumer, labour, and environmental interests.^[60][61]
One widely republished article claims the TPP is "a wish list of the 1%" and that "of the 26 chapters under negotiation, only a few have to do directly with trade. The other chapters enshrine new rights and privileges for major corporations while weakening the power of nation states to oppose them."^[61]
Intellectual property provisions[edit]

See also: Trans-Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Provisions
There has been criticism^[62][63][64] of some provisions relating to the enforcement of patents and copyrights alleged to be present in leaked copies of the US proposal for the agreement:
The proposals have been accused of being excessively restrictive, providing intellectual property restraints beyond those in the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).^[65] A coalition of non-profit organisations, businesses and over 100,000 people have spoken out through a campaign called "Stop The Trap".
In spring 2013, over 30 Internet freedom organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation andOpenMedia.ca, came together to call for a 'Fair Deal' on the TPP's intellectual property provisions. The coalition says proposals in the TPP would take a major toll on society, by restricting innovation and by forcing ISPs to police copyright. Over 15000 citizens have joined the Fair Deal campaign.
A number of United States Congresspeople,^[66] including Senator Bernard Sanders^[67] and Representatives Henry Waxman, Sander M. Levin, John Conyers, Jim McDermott,^[68] John Lewis, Pete Stark, Charles B. Rangel, Earl Blumenauer, and Lloyd Doggett,^[69] have expressed concerns about the effect the TPP requirements would have on access to medicine. In particular, they are concerned that the TPP focuses on protecting intellectual property to the detriment of efforts to provide access to affordable medicine in the developing world, particularly Vietnam, going against the foreign policy goals of the Obama administration and previous administrations.^[66] Additionally, they worry that the TPP would not be flexible enough to accommodate existing non-discriminatory drug reimbursement programs and the diverse health systems of member countries.^[69]
At a public forum on 6 July 2011, legal experts in New Zealand presented their concerns that the agreement could undermine law regarding Māori culture, genetic modification, copyright, and remove the subsidised medicine New Zealanders have access to through Pharmac.^[70]
Opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership say US corporations are hoping to weaken Pharmac's ability to get inexpensive, generic medicines by forcing New Zealand to pay for brand name drugs.^[71] Doctors and organisations like Medicins Sans Frontieres have also expressed concern.^[72] The New Zealand Governmentdenies the claims, Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser saying opponents of the deal are "fools" who are "trying to wreck this agreement".^[73]
Ken Akamatsu, creator of Love Hina and Mahou Sensei Negima!, expressed concern the agreement could decimate the derivative dōjinshi (self-published) works prevalent in Japan. Akamatsu argues that the TPP "would destroy derivative dōjinshi. And as a result, the power of the entire manga industry would also diminish." Kensaku Fukui, a lawyer and a Nihon University professor, expressed concerns that the TPP could allow companies to restrict or stop imports and exports of intellectual property, such as licensed merchandise. For example, IP holders could restrict or stop importers from shipping merchandise such as DVDs and other related goods related to an anime or manga property into one country to protect local distribution of licensed merchandise already in the country via local licensors.^[74]
At a NicoNico live seminar called How Would TPP Change the Net and Copyrights? An In-Depth Examination: From Extending Copyright Terms to Changing the Law to Allow Unilateral Enforcement and Statutory Damages,artist Kazuhiko Hachiya warned that cosplay could also fall under the TPP, and such an agreement could give law enforcement officials broad interpretive authority in dictating how people could dress up. Critics also have derided the agreement could also harm Japanese culture, where some segments have developed through parodyworks.^[75]
Moreover, on 19 September 2012, Suzanne Nossel, executive director for Amnesty International USA, stated that TPP negotiations should show the public their cards and the draft text of the agreement. She also felt apprehensive about the freedom of speech and health. This is because TPP has the risk of restraining development and production of generic medicine by protecting patents.
Negotiation secrecy[edit]

This section requiresexpansion with: reports of secrecy-related controversy prior to May 2012. (May 2012)

On February 28, 2012, 23 organizations concerned with openness, scientific integrity, and accountability sent a letter to President Obama urging him to increase the transparency of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiating process, arguing that public access is imperative given the fears that the compact may significantly limit public protections.^[76] The issues being negotiated extend include "patent and copyright, land use, food and product standards, natural resources, professional licensing, government procurement, financial practices, healthcare, energy, telecommunications, and other service sector regulations."^[77] The secret process would establish policies binding on future U.S. Congresses and state legislatures on numerous non-trade subjects. The letter demands transparency on the front end of the pact. The signatories to this letter included OpenTheGovernment.org, Project On Government Oversight - POGO and ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression and Information, among others.
In May 2012, a group of 30 legal scholars, critical of the Office of the United States Trade Representative's "biased and closed" TPP negotiation process and proposed intellectual property-related provisions, publicly called upon Ambassador Kirk to uphold democratic ideals by reversing the "dialing back" of stakeholder participation and to release negotiating texts for public scrutiny. The law professors claimed that leaked documents show that the USTR is "pushing numerous standards that [...] could require changes in current U.S. statutory law" and that the proposal is "manifestly unbalanced—it predominantly proposes increases in proprietor rights, with no effort to expand the limitations and exceptions to such rights that are needed in the U.S. and abroad to serve the public interest."
The group claimed that the negotiations excluded stakeholders such as "consumers, libraries, students, health advocacy or patient groups, or others users of intellectual property" and that it only offered "minimal representation of other affected businesses, such as generic drug manufacturers or Internet service providers."^[78]
Kirk initially responded that he was "strongly offended by the assertion that our process has been non-transparent and lacked public participation" and that it was actually far more transparent than the negotiations for prior free trade agreements.^[79]
This prompted further criticism from the academic group that free-trade agreement negotiations, notorious for their secrecy, are "the wrong standard for assessing the legitimacy of the TPP intellectual property chapter negotiations. This is because the IP chapter in the TPP, like ACTA, is not a trade agreement. It does not adjust tariffs and quotas—it sets new international limits on domestic regulation, regardless of whether such regulation discriminates against, or even affects, trade."^[79] The group further reiterated its claim that the secretive process is antithetical to the ideals of democracy, and is "no way to engender trust and faith in international law making with such a broad impact."^[79] One critic pointed out that despite's Kirk's claim of transparency in the process, public-interest stakeholders have been completely excluded.^[80] Another accused Kirk of sidestepping the issue of transparency, and pointed out that transparency is less about the degree of public input, and more about "the flow of information the other way—information about the workings of government being visible to the people it is supposed to represent."^[81]
In a subsequent interview with Reuters, Kirk defended the secrecy, saying he believes the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has conducted "the most engaged and transparent process as we possibly could," but that "some measure of discretion and confidentiality" are needed "to preserve negotiating strength and to encourage our partners to be willing to put issues on the table they may not otherwise."^[25] He dismissed the "tension" as natural and noted that when the Free Trade Area of the Americas drafts were released, negotiators were subsequently unable to reach a final agreement.^[25]
On 23 May 2012, United States Senator Ron Wyden introduced S. 3225, proposed legislation that would require the Office of the United States Trade Representative to disclose its TPP documents to all members of Congress.^[82] Wyden said the bill clarifies the intent of the 2002 legislation which was supposed to increase Congressional access to information about USTR activity, but which, according to Wyden, is being incorrectly interpreted by the USTR as justification to excessively limit such access.^[83] Wyden asserted:

“

The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations—like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and theMotion Picture Association of America—are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. [...] More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing. We hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement.[83]

”

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) have criticized the Obama administration's secrecy policies on the Trans-Pacific Pact.^[84][85]
Investor–state arbitration[edit]

The leaked draft treaty also contains Investor-state dispute settlement, which permits foreign investors who made an investment in the territory of a Party in accordance with its laws to submit a claim to arbitration under the arbitral rules of either International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Tribunals are composed of three arbitrators. One is appointed by the investor, one by the state, and the third is usually chosen by agreement between the parties or their appointed arbitrators or selected by the appointing authority, depending on the procedural rules applicable to the dispute. The tribunal shall subject to the consent of the disputing parties and conduct hearings open to the public. The tribunal will make available to the public documents relating to the dispute such as the notice of intent, the notice of arbitration, pleadings, memorials, minutes or transcripts of the hearings of the tribunal, where available; orders, awards and decisions of the tribunal.
Substantive standards of protection include regulation of direct and indirect expropriation, minimum standard of treatment, national treatment, most favoured nation treatment. Non-discriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, and the environment do not constitute violation of the treaty.
Critics of the investment protection regime argue that traditional investment treaty standards are incompatible withenvironmental law, human rights protection, and public welfare regulation, meaning that TPP will be used to force states to lower standards e.g., environmental and workers protection, or be sued for damages.^[86] The Australian government's position against investor state dispute settlement has been argued to support the rule of law and national energy security.^[87]
Polling[edit]

A 2011 opinion poll showed the American public has moved from “broad opposition” to “overwhelming opposition” toward NAFTA-style trade deals. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll from September 2010 revealed that “the impact of trade and outsourcing is one of the only issues on which Americans of different classes, occupations and political persuasions agree” with 86% believing that outsourcing jobs “a top cause of our economic woes,” and 69% indicating that “free trade agreements between the United States and other countries cost the U.S. jobs.” Only 17% of Americans in 2010 felt that “free trade agreements” benefit the U.S., compared to 28% in 2007.
A poll conducted in December 2012 showed 64 percent of New Zealanders thought trade agreements that allow corporations to sue governments, such as the TPP, should be rejected.^[88]
Protests[edit]

On 5 March 2012, a group of TPP protesters disrupted an outside broadcast of 7News Melbourne's 6 pm bulletin in the city's Federation Square.[1]
On 7 July 2012, 200–300 people marched in a "Pots and Pans" protest march against TPP and the secret negotiations to the hotel where the negotiations were being held.^[89] There was an alternative "People's Conference" held in the evening during the week.^[90]
In September 2012 Internet freedom organisation OpenMedia and other groups launched the OpenTheTPPcampaign. The website includes a tool that collects citizens comments they then project inside the TPP meetings for officials to see.
Avaaz, an online petition website, has a petition against the TPP. As of 27 November 2012, the petition has gained over 720,000 signatures. [2]^{[importance?]}
The Occupy movement has also formed a protest rally against the TPP. [3]
In New Zealand a coalition of people concerned about the TPP have formed a group called It's Our Futureaimed to raise public awareness about, and resistance against the TPP prior to the Auckland round of negotiations from 3–12 December 2012.^[91]
Starting at first in New Zealand and then connecting with organizations and people internationally, a group of individuals from the fields of Internet policy, art, information technology and law got together to discuss a TPP campaign with a copyright focus. What resulted was the idea of a fair deal, one that opens up trade opportunities for TPP member states but doesn’t force copyright and other IP-related changes that could damage society. Over 30 organizations and 15,000 individuals have signed up in support of this Our Fair Deal campaign.
The Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) provided a list of questions that have yet to be answered:^[92]

• Labor rights: Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA include labor standards based on International Labor Organization conventions, and if included, how will they be enforced?
• Investment Provisions: Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA include so-called “investor-state” provisions that allow individual corporations to challenge environmental, consumer and other public interest policies as barriers to trade?
• Public Procurement: Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA respect nations’ and communities’ right to set purchasing preferences that keep taxpayer dollars re-circulating in local economies?
• Access to Medicines: Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA allow governments to produce and/or obtain affordable, generic medications for sick people?
• Agriculture: Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA allow countries to ensure that farmers and farm workers are fairly compensated, while also preventing the agricultural dumping that has forced so many family farmers off their land?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

Leaked Documents Of Secret Treaty Reveals Danger To Internet Freedom, Freedom Of Speech, Consumer Protections

November 14, 2013 by Sam Rolley

PHOTOS.COM

On Wednesday, WikiLeaks released details pertaining to a highly secretive, multinational trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, warning that passage of the NAFTA-esque trade agreement could have a serious negative impact on Internet freedom, innovation, medicine, patent law and civil liberty.
The portion of the trade agreement released by WikiLeaks is titled “Intellectual Property Rights Chapter” and details plans for implementing a transnational “enforcement regime” to deal with Intellectual Property, or IP, rights. The document reveals that TPP negotiators are seeking to expand the reach of intellectual property rights, while shrinking consumer rights and safeguards.
“Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty’s chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy,” Wikileaks said in a statement on the release of the TPP draft. “Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ — lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart — are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.”
The leaked portion of the treaty reveals that involved nations — including the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei — are seeking to “reduce impediments to trade and investment by promoting deeper economic integration through effective and adequate creation, utilization, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, taking into account the different levels of economic development and capacity as well as differences in national legal systems.”
The TPP negotiators will accomplish the goal — which essentially amounts to emboldening copyright and patent protections for multinational corporations — by including provisions in the treaty that mirror the abandoned Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) legislation that died in the United States following public outcry.
An analysis of the leaked documents by Knowledge Ecology International notes: “The U.S. proposals are sometimes more restrictive than U.S. laws, and when consistent, are designed to lock-in the most anti-consumer features. On top of everything else, the U.S. proposals would create new global legal norms that would allow foreign governments and private investors to bring legal actions and win huge damages, if TPP member countries does not embrace anti-consumer practices.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that the secret treaty, developed solely by government and corporate interests, is bad for just about anyone who would fall under its jurisdiction.
“If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,” Assange said.
The Barack Obama Administration has said that it would like to fast-track the treaty and sign the agreement by early 2014.
This infographic from the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains more about TPP:



2 3

0 20
Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Personal Liberty Digest™


http://personalliberty.com/2013/11/1...r-protections/