Tuesday, November 10, 2015


PC Crazies Launch Jihad Against Free Speech

Published on Nov 10, 2015
Unless actual liberals stand up for the virtues of true intellectual tolerance, the future for free speech in the west is doomed.

Mentally Ill Children Control Society
Starting With Barrages of Four Letter Curse Words on Yale University Campus
Published on Nov 9, 2015
Alex Jones goes off on the insanity displayed by today's students as a young woman shouts down a Yale professor for having an opposing view point than her.

Yale Students Harass Professor For Defending Halloween
Published on Nov 9, 2015
Yale University has been hit by controversy in the past week after professor Erika Christakis, associate headmaster of the school’s Silliman College, sent an email to the college’s members suggesting that they shouldn’t be overly sensitive about Halloween costumes that engage in “cultural appropriation.” Instead, Christakis encouraged students to tolerate them and avoid trying to censor expression.

“Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?” Christakis wrote. “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”

In response, Christakis and her husband Nicholas (Silliman’s headmaster) have been besieged by calls for their resignation by students who say they have made Yale a dangerous place for black students. The controversy has become even more intense because of simultaneous allegations that the school’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity chapter held a “white girls only” Halloween party.

Shredding constitution for offended female students 

Hidden Camera: Officials at Cornell & Yale Shredding/Ripping the Constitution
as it "Triggers" Students' Nightmares
Published on Nov 5, 2015
Officials at Cornell, Syracuse, and Yale destroy U.S. Constitution. Cornell's Elizabeth McGrath shreds the constitution, Syracuse's Sheila Johnson-Willis, cuts it up with a pair of scissors, and Yale's Jason Killheffer actually uses his bare hands to rip the constitution to shreds.

Project Veritas’ New Videos Show Constitution Shredding on College Campuses

Why Colleges Shred the Constitution
Published on Nov 4, 2015
Alex Jones covers an undercover video which showed two separate colleges jump at the chance to shred the American Constitution to protect someone from being "triggered".

Crazed PC Culture Is Divide & Conquer By The Left
Published on Nov 11, 2015
Syndicated radio host Mancow joins the show to reveal how political correctness has purged the "Princess Leia slave girl" image from existence and to discuss the Big Brother sky blimps watching your daily activities

University of Missouri Students Force President's Removal

University of Missouri Students Force President's Removal
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Flexing their muscles of influence, at least 30 black football players at the University of Missouri have forced the resignation of the school’s president, Tim Wolfe (shown).
According to the Chicago Tribune, Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin — who oversees the university's main campus in Columbia, Missouri, — also will step down, the university system's governing body, the Board of Curators, announced Monday evening.
The players had vowed they would boycott all team activities, including practice and games, until Wolfe was removed. They alleged on Twitter Saturday night that the president was negligent in not adequately addressing concerns of African-American students about multiple racist incidents on the campus over the past few months.
The tweet read, “The athletes of color on the University of Missouri football team truly believe ‘Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere.” The statement was a quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr. The tweet added, “We will no longer participate in football related activities until President Tim Wolfe resigns or is removed due to his negligence toward marginalized students’ experience. WE ARE UNITED!!!!”
Graduate student Jonathan Butler went on a hunger strike last week, demanding Wolfe’s removal. A group calling itself Concerned Student 1950 (1950 being the year the first black students were admitted to the school) led the protests, until joined by Butler and finally, members of the football team.
What had precipitated these protests, which eventually culminated in Wolfe’s demise?
The president of the student government, who is black, said in September that people in a pickup truck yelled racial slurs at him as they passed by. The next month, a white student, apparently intoxicated, made racist remarks about members of a black student organization. Then, in the recent homecoming parade, black protesters blocked president Wolfe’s car, before being taken away by police.
A swastika, drawn in feces, was recently found in a dormitory bathroom.
In an attempt to ease tensions, university officials announced that all new students, faculty, and staff would be offered “diversity training.”
President Wolfe issued a statement on Sunday that “change is needed,” and that the university was drawing up plans to promote tolerance and diversity. Apparently, that was not enough, and Missouri Tigers Coach Gary Pinkel announced that he supported his players’ actions. In a tweeted picture of Pinkel and his team with their arms linked, the coach asserted, “The Missouri Family stands as one. We are united. We are behind our players.”
Many have pointed out that the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting of a black teenager by a white police officer have contributed to the intense reaction in this case as well as others around the country.
Last spring, players at the University of Oklahoma skipped spring practice to protest a video which appeared on the Internet, and was condemned as racist. Coach Bob Stoops and Athletic Director Joe Castiglione led the protest, which took place on the school’s legendary Owen Field.
The video that sparked this milder protest, which was apparently filmed on a charter bus, featured members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ) fraternity singing that “there will never be a n***** in SAE.”
In this particular episode, OU’s President David Boren, a former Democrat U.S. senator, took swift action, expelling those who were identified in the video. He then cut all ties with the fraternity, and ordered all members out of the ΣΑΕ fraternity house — regardless of whether they had anything to do with the racist video.
While these incidents of racist activity are reprehensible, they also raise serious questions.
For example, in the Oklahoma case, while few took issue with the disciplinary action meted out against the students directly involved in the racist song, which spoke of lynchings of blacks, some raised concern about students who were not even involved being summarily punished, without any due process.
The Missouri case raises other questions. While any decent person would condemn racist slurs directed at anyone, it is not clear exactly what the students wanted the school president to do, unless the perpetrators could be identified. One demand made upon Wolfe was particularly ludicrous — the group Concerned Student 1950 demanded that he “acknowledge his white male privilege.” The Missouri Students Association wrote a letter to the board objecting to the “increase in tension and inequality with no systemic support” since the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson.
Considering that even the Obama Justice Department later concluded that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot Brown in self-defense, it is not clear what the University of Missouri was supposed to do in the way of “support.” That the student government would make such a statement despite such evidence of Wilson’s innocence should cause concern that radical groups across the nation, and not just at the University of Misssouri, will continue to use such incidents to inflame racial tensions.
The precedent established in the Missouri case is particularly troubling. If football players can now dictate the dismissal of the university president over racist actions of others, what other policies can be determined by athletes or other student groups? Perhaps they will demand the removal of professors they don't like for their politics, or even for just tough grading.
Missouri's football team has a losing record at this point in the season. So what might a team that is competing for a championship be able to change at a college campus?

University of Missouri Looks to Stamp Out "Hateful" Speech

The resignation of University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe on Monday has apparently not ended the hunt for “hurtful speech” on the campus in Columbia..
The campus police sent an e-mail today to students at the university asking them to report other members of the college community who could be engaged in any “incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech.” The e-mail admitted that “cases of hateful or hurtful speech are not crimes,” but “if the individual[s] identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”
Campus protests escalated over the weekend, demanding the ouster of President Wolfe, charging that he had not done enough to address some alleged racial incidents at the university. Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin has also lost his job as a result of the demonstrations.
Among the racial incidents cited were these: a driver in a pickup truck yelling racial slurs at the president of the student government (who is black); another person driving though campus waving a Confederate flag; and an intoxicated white male student making racist remarks about members of a black student organization. Recently, a swastika, drawn in feces, was found in a dormitory bathroom.
These incidents led graduate student Jonathan Butler to stage a hunger strike last week, demanding the removal of the school’s president. A group calling itself Concerned Student 1950 (1950 being the year the first black students were admitted to the school) led the protests until Butler joined them. Finally, several members of the football team announced that they would not practice or play until Wolfe was gone.
In a tweet from those identified as “athletes of color,” Wolfe was charged with “negligence” for failure to halt the racist incidents. Exactly what the university president was supposed to have done was not clear, but his demise is apparently not the end of turmoil on the campus.
Campus police said the purpose of their e-mail to students was “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” Students were asked to “call the police immediately” if they witnessed “hateful and/or hurtful speech.” Suggested ways to nab any potential malefactor were to write down the perpetrator’s license plate and to take photographs of “the individual with your cellphone.”
Since any such “hurtful and/or hateful speech” is not a crime in Missouri, any disciplinary action would be taken in accordance with violations of the university’s conduct code. Among the possible punishments listed in the student handbook are a written notice, loss of privileges, expulsion for the residence hall, and even ouster from the university.
If, under the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment, it is held that government at any level cannot constitutionally infringe upon free speech, one must ask if the University of Missouri’s police department is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. After all, the University of Missouri is an institution created and funded by the state of Missouri. If students in public schools do not give up their constitutionally protected rights when they go through “the school house door,” as the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Tinker case — when students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, and were punished by school authorities — is the University of Missouri campus police department saying that college students have less right to free speech than high school students?                              Universities — once seen as bastions of free speech — have in many cases  become institutions of authoritarianism. A recent poll by McLaughlin & Associates, sponsored by Yale University’s William F. Buckley, Jr.’s Program, revealed that the free exchange of ideas is not a highly valued commodity on the modern U.S. college campus. The poll queried 800 undergraduates across the country, with the startling revelation that 72 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “Any student or faculty member on campus who uses language that is considered racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive should be subject to disciplinary action.”
One must ask: Who will make these judgments as to what is racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive? After all, some consider any criticism of President Obama to be “racist.” Others castigate the Roman Catholic Church as sexist for its doctrinal position of not ordaining women to the priesthood. A Christian student or faculty member who believes the Bible is the Word of God will be labeled homophobic by many. The very existence of conservative political, economic, or social views is regarded as offensive by the American Left.
And how much more vague can an accusation be than “otherwise offensive"?
A recent article in The Austrian, published by the Mises Institute, charged that academia “is the greatest offender” in the push for the criminalization of certain types of speech. “Universities exist to pursue truth, not advance a political agenda. But the modern college student is forced to navigate a system designed to make him duller, poorer, and filled with bad ideas.”
What could be the next target of a college football team? A campus professor who expresses “offensive” ideas such as free enterprise, or believes that Western civilization is a good thing? Or even a professor who is a tough grader? If a mediocre 4-5 Missouri team has this much clout, what could a national power squad such as Notre Dame, Alabama, or Oklahoma get done?
This radicalism is already spreading, and will almost certainly infect campuses from coast to coast. A lecturer at Yale has fallen under attack this year for dismissing concerns over supposedly offensive Halloween costumes by asserting, “If you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended.” These remarks have even led to protests at the Ivy League school.
It appears that George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, in which the all-powerful Big Brother government punishes “thought crime,” is finally coming true at the University of Missouri and other college campuses.

University of Missouri Police Ask Students to Report ‘Hurtful Speech’


MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line...

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Missouri University Police Department (MUPD) sent an email to students Tuesday morning urging them to call them and report any hurtful speech they encounter on the campus.
In an email that was flagged by several Missouri-based journalists, the MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” They suggest that students provide a detailed description of the offender, their location or license plate number, and even to take a picture if possible.
In the email, MUPD readily admits that hurtful or hateful speech is not against the law. But, they write, “if the individuals identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”
In a statement to Mediaite, the MUPD confirmed that the email was real. When asked about the potential First Amendment implications, a spokesman responded simply, “We are simply asking them to report what they feel is hurtful and/or hateful speech.”
He added that the police did not consider the hateful speech “a criminal matter.” However, “We also work for the University and uphold the Universities Rules and Regulations.”
The email comes one day after University President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin resigned under pressure from students and faculty alike for what they considered a lackluster response to racial incidents. The same day, protesters and members of the media clashed, with protesters declaring a “no media safe space.”

PC Crazies Launch Jihad Against Freedom
Published on Nov 10, 2015
Alex Jones plays a clip where students and professors work together to suppress the freedom of a students journalist trying to document what's happening at the University of Missouri. Professor Melissa Click enlists "muscle" from students to eject journalist.

Free Speech Hating Professor Click Resigns

Students Threatened as Free Speech Activists Plan Rally

How YOU Can Stop Political Correctness - Watch & Learn!

College Officials Agree to Destroy “Racist,” “Oppressive” U.S. Constitution

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
(Two of three videos shown above in this post)
Leftists have often been accused of shredding the Constitution. And now it appears that many of them are more than willing to do so — literally.
So reports Project Veritas (PV), which discovered that when confronted by an undercover reporter posing as a student and claiming the “racist” Constitution upset her, most college officials were willing to destroy it.
Presented in a series of three videos (first one below), the PV journalist’s appeal was melodramatic and politically correct in the extreme. After telling a college official the Constitution was being distributed on campus, she’d make a statement such as, “I didn’t think that this would happen, but I realized that the Constitution is kind of a trigger for me. Overall, I see it just as a really oppressive document.… I mean, I am, like, scared to walk around campus and see the Constitution.”
Despite this overwrought approach, none of the academics and administrators suspected a setup.
And most responses ranged from sympathy to aggressive advocacy of the journalist’s position.
Wendy Kozol (whose responses exhibited poor grammar), professor/chair of Comparative American Studies at Oberlin College, was asked if she saw the Constitution as flawed and replied, “Yeah, yeah, right.” She then wondered if there were any groups willing to take “a critical look at the way in which the Constitution and everyday life causes people pain.” Moreover, when asked if the document could be deemphasized on campus, Kozol replied somewhat emphatically, “Absolutely.… I think there is [sic] a lot of people who will agree with you.”
Yet she appeared the campus conservative relative to colleague Carol Lasser, professor of history and Oberlin’s director of Gender, Sexuality & Feminist Studies. She chimed in with the PV reporter, “The Constitution is an oppressive document. It makes change slow; it intends to make change slow.”
Nonetheless, in keeping with leftist situational values, she did think the document had situational value. “Right now, given who is in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives, I think it’s a good thing,” she whispered. Soon afterwards she trumpeted birthright citizenship and said, “And you know that if it was up for a vote today, we would lose it under the craziness of Trump and his seven dwarfs, right?”
In other words, you have to have the correct people in power to violate the Constitution.
Lasser also said that the Founders “never envisioned giving people carte blanche to own assault rifles.” Of course, they certainly never envisioned television or the Internet either. One might wonder if she’d limit First Amendment speech rights to those with soapboxes or printing presses.
Yet it is true that the Constitution is like a conservative in that, to quote Bill Buckley, it “stands athwart history, yelling ‘Stop.’” Because the only consistent definition of “conservative” is a desire to maintain the status quo — and because this is precisely what the Constitution ensures by making change slow — it is by definition a “conservative” document. This explains why leftists dislike and continually violate it.
Note, however, that there’s a name for a creature subject to sudden change: a child. This is why children are so flighty. But age and experience bring a hardening to the soft clay that is the babe, yielding a more stable being. Likewise, a civilization subject to rapid change is a childish one. The Constitution lends stability, for change’s adoption must be slow so it can be carefully considered, as “change” so often means “new and untested.”
But no less childish was Colleen Cohen, faculty director of affirmative action & professor of anthropology at Vassar. She said, “It’s horrible that this is something that has caused you such pain” as she commiserated with the PV reporter. Some seconds later she enthusiastically asked in reference to the Constitution, “Can I destroy this?” Upon receiving the go-ahead, she promised to put it through a shredder. As for her colleague Kelly Grab, Vassar’s assistant director of Equal Opportunity, she could be seen shredding the Constitution right on (hidden) camera.
Officials at Syracuse, Cornell, and Yale universities were no better (video below). As PV wrote, “Cornell's Elizabeth McGrath shreds the Constitution, Syracuse's Sheila Johnson-Willis cuts it up with a pair of scissors, and Yale's Jason Killheffer actually uses his bare hands to rip the constitution to shreds.”
Carley Wyche, assistant equal opportunity officer at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, went even further. When the PV reporter asked if the Constitution could be removed from dormitory common areas, she was more than willing. As Campus Reform reported:
Wyche left a voicemail for the reporter in which she says, "I just wanted to let you know, I got in contact with Veronica Cooley, who is the assistant director of Northeast campus, [and] she assured me that she would talk to the RA’s and the community director about making sure that there is [sic] no longer any Constitutions in the entryway of Berry Hall."
… The reporter also asked Wyche to shred the Constitution, to which Wyche replied that she would like to hold on to it for a day or two, just to make sure that other administrators would know exactly which document she was referring to, but encouraged the reporter to "come by my office and then we’ll put it through the shredder; hopefully that would help and we should be able to deal with them in a couple of days.” [Video below.]
Only two college officials — at Duke University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill — defended the distribution of the Constitution (though somewhat tepidly) and refused to destroy the document.
PV’s sting operation won’t surprise astute observers, who’ve long recognized academia as a bastion of leftism. Yet it does illustrate well its intellectual vacuity, points out College Fix editor Jennifer Kabbany. As she wrote:
None of them dared think to turn this into a [teaching] moment by saying: “Look … the U.S. Constitution is one of the most groundbreaking documents in the history of the world, studied by students from kindergarten on up. It’s what spells out our nation’s laws and grants us the freedoms we all enjoy today. Many people in countries such as Iran, China and Russia would kill to be governed by it. You need to get a grip on yourself and gain some perspective.”
Others have made a point about hypocrisy. Under an article about how Cornell defended its resident shredder, Title IX investigator Elizabeth McGrath, one reader posted, “Somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that if a student showed up with a LGBT publication and urged that it be shredded because it was traumatizing, Miss McGrath would have declined to destroy it.” And one can just imagine the response if a “traumatized” student requested the Koran’s shredding. The reader concluded, “The left has become so vile and disgusting that nothing is beneath them.”
Yet even James O’Keefe, president of PV, was surprised the sting actually worked. Said he about the college officials, “We underestimated just how stupid, and politically correct, these people are.”
Sadly, though, PV’s request was well within the “acceptable” range on college campuses, places where one can actually find courses such as “The Phallus,” “Queer Musicology,” and “Border Crossings, Borderlands: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Immigration.” And given that President John Adams warned how our Constitution was unfit for the government of any but a “moral and religious people,” we could wonder if it’s fit for today’s moderns. For a people who would shred it cannot help but shred their rights, freedoms and the very fabric of civilization.


Published on Nov 9, 2015
President Barack Obama’s Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is ready to be considered by Congress. Melinda St. Louis, Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, told One America News’ Neil W. McCabe, the TPP threatens America’s economic sovereignty. Daniel Pearson, Cato Institute, said to McCabe that free trade is a good thing, but there are provisions in TPP that actually lock in protections for special interests.

Carson Endorses TPP, Pretending He Knows What’s In It; Fudges "Facts" in His Books Where His Memory Fails.
 Disingenuous or Liar?
Biographies or Fiction Novels?

What Is TPP And Why Does It Matter?
Published on Oct 11, 2015
As demonstrations regarding the proposed TPP deal and TTIP countinue around the world, people are wondering, what is TPP? In this video I try to explain the Trans-Pacific Partership in just over two minutes.
In basic terms, TTP is an agreement between 12 Pacifc Rim countries ( the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru.) that will cut down on regulations and tariffs in order to make trade between the countries freer and easier.
The issues with the deal relate to how it could end up handing out more power to big coporations, and how it may take away workers rights and promote unhealthy competition between the different countries workers. Many just see it as a feeble attempt to bat away at China, currently a grower superpower.
Yet Obama is pushing forward with the deal, he wants this to be his legacy and already has special powers which allow him to fast track the deal, preventing both the Senate and Congress from amending the deal. Will it go through? What will it be like?
Here is the transcript if you're interested:
What Is TPP And Why Does It Matter?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP for short is a proposed free trade agreement, between 12 Pacific Rim countries.
These 12 countries include
the US,
New Zealand,
and Peru.
The agreement is aimed at deepening economic ties between the 12 countries, by cutting regulations and tariffs, in order to allow the countries to freely trade amongst each other, which would supposedly boost economic growth.
The agreement would make the `12 countries united in a single market, similar to the EU.
TPP is very important, collectively, it affects the lives of around 800 million people, and the deal seems very remarkable to say the least, given the different standards that each country has, such as Environmental protection and workers’ rights.
Critics argue that the deal is simply a way of keeping China at bay, they say that the deal will give more power to big corporations, and allow them to treat workers unfairly.
There is also an implication that some sweeping changes are being secretly negotiated, details which the public currently has no idea about.
Currently, the deal has not yet been made permanent, it will come before congress in the US during the Presidential Primaries.
The president also has a right to fast track the deal, meaning opponents of it within the Senate and Congress are able to review the deal, but not amend it.

Carson Spurns GOP Base With Support for ObamaTrade TPP

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Pediatric neurosurgeon and 2016 GOP front runner Ben Carson has easily fended off most of the spurious attacks from the establishment press, but growing conservative outrage over the Carson campaign's recent announcement of support “with reservations” for Obama's deeply controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership deal may prove more tricky. Ironically, the Carson camp claimed Carson supported the deal, dubbed “ObamaTrade” by critics, as a “counterbalance to China’s influence” just two days after the Obama administration publicly invited the brutal Communist Chinese dictatorship and Russia's Vladimir Putin to join the TPP as well. Among many of Carson's conservative supporters, the pro-TPP position is likely to be a bitter pill to swallow, if it can be swallowed at all.    
The Obama administration has been promoting the controversial managed-trade scheme as the “most progressive trade agreement in history.” However, despite the stigma of the “progressive” label attached to the plot by its own chief architect, top establishment Republicans — often ridiculed as RINOs among conservatives — have been instrumental on the road to making ObamaTrade a reality. Among other concerns cited by critics is the fact that the TPP regime, which brings together 12 governments including communist and Islamist dictatorships, creates supranational kangaroo courts and regulatory bodies that are purportedly superior to U.S. and state law and court rulings. It also opens the immigration floodgates, and according to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), represents European Union-style “global governance.”
But none of that appears to have fazed Carson, who recently soared to the top of multiple national polls on the Republican Party presidential primary before announcing his support for TPP. Initially, he expressed skepticism over the scheme with the left-wing Huffington Post, saying he would not give Obama “Fast-Track Authority” to ram it through. On November 6, though, the Wall Street Journal, citing Carson campaign spokesman Doug Watts,reported that Carson “believes the agreement does help to level the playing field in key markets and is important to improve our ties to trading partners in Asia as a counterbalance to China’s influence in the region.” The spokesman also said Carson was “now inclined to support TPP, with reservations.” In doing so, the Journalreported that Carson was “aligning himself more with the GOP’s establishment wing than with the social conservatives who have powered his campaign.”
And not just aligning himself with the increasingly embattled establishment wing of the party, but with a demonstrable falsehood: the notion that the TPP will serve as a “counterbalance” to Beijing. As The New Americanreported on November 4, two days before the Carson campaign announced its support for TPP, Secretary of State John Kerry invited the murderous communist regime to join TPP, as well. “We invite people to come join other initiatives, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP,” Kerry said in an interview with Russian interstate channel Mir TV. “We welcome China, we welcome Russia, we welcome other countries who would like to join, as long as they want to raise the standards and live up to the highest standards of protecting people and doing business openly and transparently and accountably.” The Obama State Department later told Breitbart that, “at this time,” there are “no talks with other countries on joining the TPP.”
Of the other GOP candidates, most have officially tried to distance themselves from Obama's mammoth, secretly negotiated 5,500-plus-page “agreement” to subvert U.S. sovereignty and self-government. The other leading GOP contender, business mogul Donald Trump, recently blasted the TPP as “insanity,” saying it would be a great deal for Communist China but that only U.S. politicians “totally controlled by the lobbyists and the special interests” could support it. Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Senator Ted Cruz, and Carly Fiorina have also slammed the scheme, often using harsh words.
Senator Rand Paul, perhaps hoping to please the establishment wing of the party, shot his campaign in the foot early on among grassroots conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists when he called for Obama to “prioritize” the globalist TPP. He now says he opposes it. Even Senator Marco Rubio, who helped Obama get “Fast-Track Authority” to ram the scheme through, has now distanced himself from it, perhaps sensing the outrage among GOP primary voters. That essentially leaves only unpopular establishment candidates Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie, whose campaigns have largely become a joke among conservative GOP primary voters, still openly supporting Obama's TPP. 
Among Democrats, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have claimed to oppose the TPP. Sanders has been opposed from the start. However, Clinton called the scheme the “gold standard” while serving as Obama's secretary of state, and few credible analysts take seriously Clinton's more recent efforts to distance herself from the U.S. jobs-destroying ObamaTrade agenda on the campaign trail.  
Now that the full text of the TPP has been released, it is becoming even harder for politicians, especially Republicans, to publicly support the pseudo-“free trade” scheme, which creates essentially a regional government over the nations ensnared in it. “The text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership runs 5,554 pages,” declared Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) in a statement after the release of the agreement. “This is, by definition, anti-democratic. No individual American has the resources to ensure his or her economic and political interests are safeguarded within this vast global regulatory structure. The predictable and surely desired result of the TPP is to put greater distance between the governed and those who govern. It puts those who make the rules out of reach of those who live under them, empowering unelected regulators who cannot be recalled or voted out of office. In turn, it diminishes the power of the people’s bulwark: their constitutionally formed Congress.”
While much of the establishment media has been trying desperately to demonize Carson with phony non-scandals they invented, analysts said the attacks by the “mainstream” media have only made his campaign stronger among conservative voters — the overwhelming majority of whom distrust the left-wing national press to begin with. However, by announcing his support for the TPP, Carson may now have a real problem on his hands. Without the grassroots supporters who have boosted his campaign, Carson would never have become one of the top contenders for president. And yet, those same grassroots supporters are overwhelming and vehemently opposed to surrendering U.S. sovereignty and self-government under ObamaTrade. Analysts say TPP will be a major factor in the 2016 race. For Carson, that may be major bad news.  
Related articles: