Spiraling suicide and premature death rates of working class whites due to societal change, whites expected too much, can't adjust to new economy. Author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America.”-NY Times op-ed, 2/22/16 ("Working class whites" justifiably lack optimism, per author)

.
"Andrew J. Cherlin is a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University and the author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America.”"    
............    
2/22/16, "Why Are White Death Rates Rising?" NY Times, Andrew J. Cherlin, op ed contributor  
..............  .............

"It's disturbing and puzzling news: Death rates are rising for white, less-educated Americans. The economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton reported in December that rates have been climbing since 1999 for non-Hispanic whites age 45 to 54, with the largest increase occurring among the least educated. An analysis of death certificates by The New York Times found similar trends and showed that the rise may extend to white women. 

Both studies attributed the higher death rates to increases in poisonings and chronic liver disease, which mainly reflect drug overdoses and alcohol abuse, and to suicides. In contrast, death rates fell overall for blacks and Hispanics. 

Why are whites overdosing or drinking themselves to death at higher rates than African-Americans and Hispanics in similar circumstances? Some observers have suggested that higher rates of chronic opioid prescriptions could be involved, along with whites’ greater pessimism about their finances. 

Yet I’d like to propose a different answer: what social scientists call reference group theory. The term “reference group” was pioneered by the social psychologist Herbert H. Hyman in 1942, and the theory was developed by the Columbia sociologist Robert K. Merton in the 1950s. It tells us that to comprehend how people think and behave, it’s important to understand the standards to which they compare themselves.  

How is your life going? For most of us, the answer to that question means comparing our lives to the lives our parents were able to lead. As children and adolescents, we closely observed our parents. They were our first reference group.

And here is one solution to the death-rate conundrum: It’s likely that many non-college-educated whites are comparing themselves to a generation that had more opportunities than they have, whereas many blacks and Hispanics are comparing themselves to a generation that had fewer opportunities.
 
When whites without college degrees look back, they can often remember fathers who were sustained by the booming industrial economy of postwar America. Since then, however, the industrial job market has slowed significantly. The hourly wages of male high school graduates declined by 14 percent from 1973 to 2012, according to analysis of data from the Economic Policy Institute. Although high school educated white women haven’t experienced the same major reversal of the job market, they may look at their husbands — or, if they are single, to the men they choose not to marry — and reason that life was better when they were growing up. 

African-Americans, however, didn’t get a fair share of the blue-collar prosperity of the postwar period. They may look back to a time when discrimination deprived their parents of equal opportunities. Many Hispanics may look back to the lower standard of living their parents experienced in their countries of origin. Whites are likely to compare themselves to a reference group that leads them to feel worse off. Blacks and Hispanics compare themselves to reference groups that may make them feel better off.

The sociologist Timothy Nelson and I observed this phenomenon in interviews with high-school-educated young adult men in 2012 and 2013. A 35-year-old white man who did construction jobs said, “It’s much harder for me as a grown man than it was for my father.” He remembered his father saying that back when he was 35, “‘I had a house and I had five kids or four kids.’ You know, ‘Look where I was at.’ And I’m like, ‘Well, Dad, things have changed.’” 

African-American men were more upbeat. One said: “I think there are better opportunities now because first of all, the economy’s changing. The color barrier is not as harsh as it was back then.” 

In addition, national surveys show striking racial and ethnic differences in satisfaction with one’s social standing relative to one’s parents. The General Social Survey conducted by the research organization NORC at the University of Chicago has asked Americans in its biennial surveys to compare their standard of living to that of their parents. In 2014, according to my analysis, among 25- to 54-year-olds without college degrees, blacks and Hispanics were much more positive than whites: 67 percent of African-Americans and 68 percent of Hispanics responded “much better” or “somewhat better,” compared with 47 percent of whites. 
Those figures represent a reversal from 2000, when whites were more positive than blacks, 64 percent to 60 percent. (Hispanics were the most positive in nearly all years.)

But we size ourselves up based on more than just our parents. White workers historically have compared themselves against black workers, taking some comfort in seeing a group that was doing worse than them. Now, however, the decline of racial restrictions in the labor market and the spread of affirmative action have changed that. Non-college-graduate whites in the General Social Survey are more likely to agree that “conditions for black people have improved” than are comparable blacks themselves, 68 percent to 53 percent.

Reference group theory explains why people who have more may feel that they have less. What matters is to whom you are comparing yourself. It’s not that white workers are doing worse than African-Americans or Hispanics. 

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the median weekly earnings [BLS] of white men aged 25 to 54 were $950, well above the same figure for black men ($703) and Hispanic men ($701). But for some whites — perhaps the ones who account for the increasing death rate — that may be beside the point. Their main reference group is their parents’ generation, and by that standard they have little to look forward to and a lot to lament."

"Andrew J. Cherlin is a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University and the author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America.”"

Televised presidential debates were taken over in 1988 by a private, non-profit corporation consisting of the two parties. The Commission on Presidential Debates picks the locations, sets the rules, selects the moderators, and has sponsors it's not required to disclose

.
The Commission picks the locations, sets the rules, selects the moderators, and determines the composition of the audience. As a non-profit corporation, it's not required to disclose its sponsors.

10/3/1988 "League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud," League of Women Voters, News Release, lwv.org, For Immediate Release, Washington, DC

"LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD" "WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE"

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and was presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.

Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.

"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."

Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.

"On the threshold of a new millenium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate," Neuman said. "Americans deserve to see and hear the men who would be president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues critical to our progress into the next century." 

Neuman issued a final challenge to both Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a League of Women Voters debate."

=============
==============

(Please excuse tiny text below which is legible at links. Google dislikes free speech. Making text too small to read is one of their brilliant ideas. Susan)

The Commission on Presidential Debates "is a 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012." "The Commission sponsors and produces the debates, picks the locations, sets the rules, selects the moderators, and determines which candidates participate." As a non-profit corporation, the Commission isn't required to disclose its sponsors: "On the donor list provided to the Center for Public Integrity, the Commission blanked out the names of all six. Nonprofit organizations are not legally required to make this information public."...

1976, 1980, and 1984 debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters

2008 article

9/18/2008, "Two-party debates," Center for Pubic Integrity, Josh Israel "A Corporate-Funded, Party-Created Commission Decides Who Debates — and Who Stays Home"   

"Sixty-six million viewers watched the nation’s premiere televised presidential debate, a September 26, 1960, primetime event featuring John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. It was paid for by three major television networks, but broadcast regulations prevented them from continuing their sponsorship in the next several elections. In 1976, the independent League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to citizen education, took over. 

The League hosted three debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and one between their running mates, and sponsored debates in the 1980 and 1984 elections as well. The debates became part of the quadrennial election process, but the League’s management style ruffled some feathers among party insiders who wanted more control of the process. Republican David Norcross, who helped form the Commission, called the League’s debate organizers “too dictatorial” and criticized them for “ignoring or avoiding the politics of the whole situation.”...

Then, as Connie Rice, a prominent Los Angeles-based civil rights lawyer and commentator on National Public Radio, characterizes it, “The debates were hijacked.” In 1988, the two major political parties seized control — against the wishes of the League of Women Voters. The Democratic and Republican national committees argued in a joint press release that their co-sponsorship would “better fulfill our party responsibilities to inform and educate the electorate, strengthen the role of political parties in the electoral process and, most important of all . . . institutionalize the debates, making them an integral and permanent part of the presidential debate process.” Rather than trying to change the way the League ran the debates, the two national party chairmen simply “commissioned” their own “independent” debate entity — and put themselves in charge.

With that, the Commission on Presidential Debates came into existence, led by then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and then-Republican National Committee Chairman Frank H. Fahrenkopf Jr. They hired one full-time employee, a Republican former Senate staffer named Janet Brown. The three have led the Commission since its inception, with a board of directors made up primarily of committed partisans from the two major parties. The Commission sponsors and produces the debates, picks the locations, sets the rules, selects the moderators, and determines which candidates participate.

Corporate sponsorship

Brown’s annual salary ($175,000 as of 2004 and 2005, paid even in non-election years) the organization’s operating expenses and debate production costs are paid by a small number of major donors. In 2004, the Commission took in over $4.1 million, more than 93 percent of which came from just six contributors. On the donor list provided to the Center for Public Integrity, the Commission blanked out the names of all six. Nonprofit organizations are not legally required to make this information public.

The organization’s website identifies 11 “national sponsors” of the 2004 debates, a majority of which are corporations. They include three airlines, a cable television network, a company that helps businesses and governments outsource information technology, and the self-crowned king of the beer-making business, Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., which also sponsored several other debates in previous years. No stranger to a good party, Anheuser-Busch supplemented its quadrennial contributions to the Commission in the hours before the October 8, 2004, debate, in its hometown of St. Louis, by treating members of the media and other VIPs to a tent party featuring sirloin steak, stuffed portobello mushrooms, and, of course, plenty of beer.

The sponsorships have drawn significant criticism, most ardently from Open Debates, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that describes itself as working to “ensure that the presidential debates serve the American people first.” Instead of serving the people, the group argues, the Commission serves its corporate interests. Take the 1992 debates, it points out, during which the Commission allowed its $250,000 sponsor, Philip Morris, to hang a promotional banner in an area visible in post-debate interviews. And for its $550,000 contribution in 2000, Anheuser-Busch was permitted at the event to distribute pamphlets against taxes on beer. (According to the beer industry’s lobbying group, the federal excise tax on beer has remained unchanged since 1991.)

Brown concedes that the Commission’s reliance on corporate sponsorship “seems to be . . . extraordinarily controversial,” but she told the Center that the Commission is similar to most nonprofits in its fundraising efforts — it seeks funding from foundations, corporations, individuals, and the debate sites themselves. She insists that no funder has ever asked for a topic or question to be introduced in the debates....

Private organizations like the Commission have a legal right to take money from whomever they want and to exclude people from their events. But the concern among the Commission’s critics is whether, as Open Debates argues, the events once dedicated to public education have become “a series of glorified bipartisan news conferences” for the parties."...



.........................

In 1980 they said Ronald Reagan couldn't be trusted with nuclear codes, that he was a 'cowboy' who might blow up the world. Added: Bill Clinton lost the nuclear code and never told anyone-The Atlantic, Oct. 2010 article

.
7/30/16, "Hillary's Recycled Speech," Cal Thomas, Townhall

"Putting aside the theatrics designed to make Hillary Clinton appear to be something she is not...we've heard it all before.

First there was the charge that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes. The same was said about Ronald Reagan in 1980. Democrats called him a "cowboy" who might blow up the world. Instead, he rebuilt America's military, as Trump has promised to do, and helped bring down the Soviet Union.

Can Hillary be trusted with classified documents?"...

==========

Added: Bill Clinton lost the nuclear codes and never told anyone, former Clinton official writes in autobiography:

2010 article:

Oct. 22, 2010, "Why Clinton's Losing the Nuclear Biscuit Was Really, Really Bad," The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder 

"Former President Clinton's office declined to comment today on reports that he managed to lose the personal identification code needed to confirm nuclear launches and never told anyone about it. Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the last few years of Clinton's term, writes about the episode in his new autobiography. Shelton is especially sensitive to the proper authentication procedures, having served as deputy commander of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), through which all nuclear launch progression action chains are processed. The National Command Authority (NCA), as the process and the person of the commander in chief is called, passes from the President to the Vice President to the Secretary of Defense. (In the absence of the SecDef, the Deputy Secretary of Defense can stand in.) 

In effect, without Clinton's "biscuit," as the personal identifier is called, the President would not have been able to initiate a launch order or confirm a launch order executed by someone else. The football itself, which contains code authenticators, a transceiver, targeting menus, and continuity of government options, was always with the military aide. 

A former military officer with knowledge of NCA procedures helps fill in some of the details.

Let's say that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) detects an inbound air warning; the NMCC immediately calls the Sit Room or the military aide, which plugs in the President, who then provides an alpha-numeric code to verify his identity. Once verified, the President can (to invoke ICBM language) execute or terminate sorties. The military aide--known as the Milaide--goes everywhere with the President. Even when the President travels in a hotel elevator, the Milaide (and the president's doctor) accompany him. (Yes, every POTUS elevator trip is monitored.)

So what happens if the President doesn't have his identifier?

The commander in chief of NORAD resorts to the next person the NCA list, the Vice President.

This is a survival mechanism built in during the Cold War, in the event that Washington was decapitated without warning in a nuclear strike. NORAD continues down the list until it finds a capital P-Principle, who provides that identifier and assumes the duties of the Commander in Chief.

Sounds like no big deal, right?

Here's the reality: Losing that identifier card had the potential to create a vast disruption in nuclear command and control procedures.

So Al Gore gets "the call" because Clinton can't properly ID himself. Gore is confused, lives in Washington, knows the President is fine. He tells NORAD to hold while he tracks down the President, who can't verify his own identify anyway. Precious minutes (and I do mean precious, seconds count in the nuke business) are lost while civilian and military leadership sort things out.

And that says nothing of the fact that the President would be in gross violation of his duties by allowing the VP to execute an order that is lawfully the President's to make. Once a strike is authorized by the NCA, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pass the order to the U.S. Strategic Command through the NMCC, or through an alternate command site, like Site R in Liberty Township, PA, or through an airborne platform known as TACAMO, which stands for "Take Charge and Move Out."

TACAMO's fleet, operated by the Navy, consists of tricked-out Boeing E6-B aircraft pre-positioned at six locations across the country. They're on constant stand-by, ready to fly within 10 minutes of an alert. During the Cold War, the code name for these missions was "Looking Glass," and at least one airplane was in the air at all times. TACAMO planes are in 24/7 contact with America's fixed ballistic missile silos, its nuclear subs, and its nuclear-weapon-equipped airplanes.

Don't confuse these aircraft with the NAOC, or "Kneecap," four Air Force planes designed to physically transport the NCA -- POTUS or whomever -- to safety in an emergency. Wherever the President travels, a Boeing E4 is not far behind. The planes also ferry other members of the NCA, including SecDef, to international locations where they know they can secure their communications if they need them.

If there's a catastrophic attack on the seat of the United States government, the planes, their crews, and special mission units are responsible for ensuring that the surviving constitutional officer "becomes" the NCA until the emergency is over. The NAOC planes keep in constant contact with the NMCC, the White House's Presidential Emergency Operations Center, the HMX-1 squadron that the President uses for helicopter traffic, and various classified alternate command and control centers worldwide. (Yes, worldwide.)

On 9/11, according to Shelton, a NAOC plane was in the air, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was evacuated to Site R, and various other continuity of government measures were put into effect in case they were needed. That day, they were not.

But the emergency would convince the Bush administration to significantly retool and expand the secret programs designed to ensure constitutional government."

..........

FBI warned Hillary campaign last March that its computers weren't secure, met at her Brooklyn headquarters, no specific identity of threat was suggested. Raises question of why Hillary campaign didn't take matter more seriously. China said to have hacked both Obama and McCain computers in 2008. NASA computers were hacked 13 times in 2011 alone

.
It shouldn't be news that nothing on computers can be considered private. NASA's most secure files were hacked at least 13 times in 2011 alone. 

7/28/16, "FBI warned Clinton campaign last spring of cyberattack," Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News

"The FBI warned the Clinton campaign that it was a target of a cyberattack last March, just weeks before the Democratic National Committee discovered it had been penetrated by hackers it now believes were working for Russian intelligence, two sources who have been briefed on the matter told Yahoo News.

In a meeting with senior officials at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters, FBI agents laid out concerns that cyberhackers had used so-called spear-phishing emails as part of an attempt to penetrate the campaign’s computers, the sources said. One of the sources said agents conducting a national security investigation asked the Clinton campaign to turn over internal computer logs as well as the personal email addresses of senior campaign officials. 

But the campaign, through its lawyers, declined to provide the data, deciding that the FBI’s request for sensitive personal and campaign information data was too broad and intrusive, the source said.

A second source who had been briefed on the matter and who confirmed the Brooklyn meeting said agents provided no specific information to the campaign about the identity of the cyberhackers or whether they were associated with a foreign government. The source said the campaign was already aware of attempts to penetrate its computers and had taken steps to thwart them, emphasizing that there is still no evidence that the campaign’s computers had actually been successfully penetrated.

But the potential that the intruders were associated with a foreign government should have come as no surprise to the Clinton campaign, said several sources knowledgeable about the investigation. Chinese intelligence hackers were widely reported to have penetrated both the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008.

The Brooklyn warning also could raise new questions about why the campaign and the DNC didn’t take the matter more seriously. It came just four months after the DNC had also been contacted by FBI agents alerting its information technology specialists about a cyberattack on its computers, the sources told Yahoo News. As with the warning to the Clinton campaign, the FBI initially provided no details to the DNC.

As Yahoo News first reported this week, in early May a DNC consultant who was investigating Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort’s work for pro-Putin political figures in Ukraine alerted senior committee officials that she had been notified by Yahoo security that her personal email account had been targeted by “state-sponsored actors.” The DNC had already realized that it was the victim of a serious breach, but the red flag from the staffer prompted committee security officials to conclude for the first time that the suspected cyberhackers were likely associated with the Russian government.

By mid-May, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was telling reporters that US. Intelligence officials “already had some indications” of hacks into political campaigns that were likely linked to foreign governments and that “we’ll probably have more.”

In a talk at the Aspen Security Forum Thursday, Clapper said the U.S. government is not “quite ready yet” to “make a public call” on who was behind the cyberassault on the DNC, but he suggested one of “the usual suspects” is likely to blame. “We don’t know enough [yet] to…ascribe a motivation, regardless of who it may have been,” Clapper said.

Clapper’s comments come amid a mounting debate within the Obama administration about whether to publicly blame the Russian government for the cyberattack on the DNC. (A senior law enforcement official told Yahoo News that the Russians were “most probably” involved in the cyberattack, but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing.) On Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, wrote President Obama calling for a stern response, asserting that if the accounts of Russian involvement are true, “It would represent an unprecedented attempt to meddle in American domestic politics.”

But Clapper is reportedly among a number of U.S. intelligence officials who have resisted calls to publicly blame the Russians, viewing it as likely the kind of activity that most intelligence agencies engage in. “[I’m] taken aback a bit by…the hyperventilation over this,” Clapper said during his Aspen appearance, adding in a sarcastic tone, “I’m shocked somebody did some hacking. That’s never happened before.”

The confirmation that the campaign was warned by the FBI as early as March of an attempted breach of its computers is a further indication that the scope of the possible Russian attack may have been far wider and extensive than the official DNC accounts.

The FBI’s request to turn over internal computer logs and personal email information came at an awkward moment for the Clinton campaign, said the source, familiar with the campaign’s internal deliberations. At the time, the FBI was still actively and aggressively conducting a criminal investigation into whether Clinton had compromised national security secrets by sending classified emails through a private computer server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. There were already press reports, to date unconfirmed, that the investigation might have expanded to include dealings relating to the Clinton Foundation. Campaign officials had reason to fear that any production of campaign computer logs and personal email accounts could be used to further such a probe. At the Brooklyn meeting, FBI agents emphasized that the request for data was unrelated to the separate probe into Clinton’s email server. But after deliberating about the bureau’s request, and in light of the lack of details provided by the FBI and the absence of a subpoena, the Clinton campaign chose to turn down the bureau’s request, the source said."



 ............
.....................

Top Hillary donor Soros gleefully predicted violence in US streets: 'Yes, Yes, Yes,' followed by government crackdown and constrained liberty. Soros says US at 'end of an era,' had been motor of world economy for 25 years but 'it's finished,' 'can't continue.' Americans must 'adjust their lifestyle,' consume less, pay more for energy. Global warming requires big investment, US must have carbon tax. It will be 'painful'

..
1/31/16, "George Soros donates $8 million to boost Hillary," Politico, Ken Vogel. Soros is also a Clinton Foundation donor

==================

 
"As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, 

could bring about 

a repressive political system, 

a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would

be a break with the tradition of the United States.”"...(4th parag. from end)

=========================

Added: Oct. 10, 2008 George Soros interview on PBS about financial crisis:

Oct. 10, 2008, George Soros interview on Bill Moyers Journal, PBS

"GEORGE SOROS: We are heading for undoubtedly very difficult times. This is the end of an era. And this is a fact....The sort of period where America could actually, for instance, run ever increasing current account deficits. We could consume, at the end, six and a half percent more than we are producing. That has come to an end. 

BILL MOYERS: So what do we do now?...

GEORGE SOROS: Well, deal with the mortgage problem. Reduce foreclosures. Recapitalize the banks. And then work on a better world order where we work together to resolve problems that confront humanity like global warming. And I think that dealing with global warming will require a lot of investment. 
 
You see, for the last 25 years the world economy, the motor of the world economy that has been driving it was consumption by the American consumer who has been spending more than he has been saving, all right? Than he's been producing. So that motor is now switched off. It's finished. It's run out of — can't continue. You need a new motor. And we have a big problem. Global warming. It requires big investment. And that could be the motor of the world economy in the years to come... 

Instead of consuming, building an electricity grid, saving on energy, rewiring the houses, adjusting your lifestyle where 
energy has got to cost more

until it you introduce those new things. 

So it will be painful. But at least we will survive and not cook....You must have, in my opinion...a tax on carbon emissions. But that is unacceptable politically. So we are going to have cap and trade."... 

===============


Comment: Who is "we"?



...........................

Since globalist Hillary, if elected, will follow globalist Obama's path, she'll abandon her newly found opposition to TPP free trade deal one month after inauguration. One month after his 2009 inauguration, Obama broke his promise to renegotiate or even opt out NAFTA, confirming Canadian officials' belief in 2008 that his promises were just to get Rust Belt union workers to vote for him-Washington Post, 2/19/2009

.
Feb. 2009 article

2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear

"President Obama warned on Thursday against a "strong impulse" toward protectionism while the world suffers a global economic recession and said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait.  

Obama made the comments as he stood with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his first trip abroad as president. The two pledged cooperation on efforts to stimulate the economy, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and develop clean energy technology. 

In a joint news conference, Obama said he wants to find a way to keep his campaign pledge to toughen labor and environmental standards -- and told Harper so -- but stressed that nothing should disrupt the free flow of trade between neighbors. [NAFTA includes the US, Canada and Mexico].
...........  
"Now is a time where we've got to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," the president said. "Because, as the economy of the world contracts, I think there's going to be a strong impulse on the part of constituencies in all countries to see if we -- they can engage in beggar-thy-neighbor policies." 
...........  
The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.

 
"Much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the Canadians concluded in a memo after meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior campaign aide and now a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.
.......  
When the memo became public, Obama advisers rejected the idea as absurd and insisted that he was serious about changing NAFTA. Obama even suggested that the United States might opt out of NAFTA if the standards could not be improved to the nation's satisfaction. 
..........  
But some longtime observers of the U.S.-Canada relationship said Obama's current position appears to confirm the impression that Canadian officials got from the meeting with Goolsbee. 
..........  
"It sounds like [Goolsbee] was right," said former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci (R), who served as U.S. ambassador to Canada during George W. Bush's first term. "It looks like [President Obama has] softened that quite a bit, to put it mildly."
.......... 
That could anger some of Obama's staunchest labor supporters, who blame NAFTA for sending American jobs overseas by not requiring a level playing field in the areas of labor and the environment. 
............  
But some of those allies said Thursday that they are giving the president more time to make good on his promise and praised Obama for finding a sophisticated way to express support for trade and changes to NAFTA.  

"I am happy for him to frame his way of positioning the issue any way he wants, as long as he actually delivers on the issue," said Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. "If down the road Obama doesn't deliver on the policy, there will be a whole lot of really upset people.""...

[Ed. note: He blew you off, Ms. Wallach, scolded you with globalist cliches on the global stage. He knew he could pass ten NAFTA's, causing immense human suffering both in the US and Mexico, and people like you would never leave him. There isn't the slightest chance any globalist would trim a free trade deal. This is just common sense.] 
............
(continuing): "(p. 2) The trade discussion came as Canadians have expressed concern in recent days about the "Buy American" provision that Congress added to the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed into law this week.
.......
Harper said he has "every expectation" that the United States will abide by trade rules that forbid such preferences. But he used strong language to indicate how seriously the country takes that issue. 
........
"If we pursue stimulus packages, the goal of which is only to benefit ourselves, or to benefit ourselves, worse, at the expense of others, we will deepen the world recession, not solve it," he said. Obama and Harper also pledged to work together to battle terrorism, especially in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers have been fighting and dying for years. 
..........
In his first public comments since sending an additional 17,000 troops to the war-torn country earlier this week, Obama said that "it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up."
....... 
The president declined to say how long the troops will remain there, citing a 60-day review he has ordered. Harper also declined to say whether his country's troops will remain beyond 2011, but said the long-term goal of the war should be constrained. 
...........  
"We are not in the long term, through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan. That, that job, ultimately, can be done only by the Afghans themselves," he said.
..........
The president's trip to Canada was a traditional visit early in his term. The snow may have subtly reminded him of campaigning in the Midwest, as he said he was pleased "to be here in Iowa -- Ottawa." 
...........  
He disappointed many Canadians who had hoped to see him at a public event. Instead, he waved briefly to a crowd of about 2,000 waiting in the snow as he walked to his meetings. 
..........  
He did surprise reporters with a brief stop at a converted indoor farmers market in a historic stretch of Ottawa afterward. He bought a keychain with Canadian currency, telling reporters that he was continuing a tradition of buying knickknacks when he travels. 
Obama and Harper also pledged cooperation to revive North America's closely linked economy and signed an agreement to work toward developing clean energy technology. 
...........  
"It will advance carbon reduction technologies. And it will support the development of an electric grid that can help deliver the clean and renewable energy of the future to homes and businesses, both in Canada and the United States," Obama said."


 


..................

Trump expands lead to 7.3 points nationwide in USC Dornsife LA Times national poll as of 7/28/16. Trump 47.4, Hillary 40.1

.

Trump 47.4
Hillary 40.1

7/28/16, "The USC Dornsife LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll"

 

 

"Understanding America Study"

"The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll represents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans' opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000 respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is updated just after midnight every day of the week."...

..................

Hillary's not just a war hawk, she's a war hawk whose decision to destroy Libya increased terrorism, killed 10s of thousands of civilians, and set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. And she gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people-Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Feb. 2016

.
Feb. 9, 2016, "A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war," by Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.org

"Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more. I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS..

Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.

Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Caesar.

Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States."

CBS News: "Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died." Uploaded Oct. 20, 2011




See https://wikileaks.org/plusd/?qproject[]=cg&q=clinton#result
and https://search.wikileaks.org/?s=1&q=%22hillary+clinton%22&sort=0#results



========

TPP was specifically protected in the July 2016 Democrat Party platform which was controlled by Hillary, 'a string of trade union presidents,' and the DNC. So Terry McAuliffe saying Hillary supports TPP just restates the record-Politico, NBC News

 
The July 2016 Democrat Platform meeting, controlled by Hillary, made sure TPP was left intact: "Both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were whipping members to oppose stronger anti-TPP language." 7/9/16. If Hillary opposed TPP, the platform would've reflected that, which it didn't.
.......... 
7/26/16, "Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back," Politico, Annie Karni, Philadelphia 

"Terry McAuliffe tells POLITICO the Democratic nominee will support a deal with tweaks that Sanders' supporters hate. But the Clinton campaign calls the comments 'flat wrong.'" 

"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, longtime best friend to the Clintons, said Tuesday that he believes Hillary Clinton will support the TPP trade deal if elected president, with some tweaks.  

“I worry that if we don’t do TPP, at some point China’s going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this,” he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. “Once the election’s over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.”

Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: “Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”

Later, McAuliffe’s spokesman sought to clarify the governor’s remarks after this story published, saying he was simply expressing what he wants Clinton to do if she is elected president. “While Governor McAuliffe is a supporter of the TPP, he has no expectation Secretary Clinton would change her position on the legislation and she has never told him anything to that effect.”

A top Clinton campaign official said the Democratic nominee never told McAuliffe she would be open to changing her position on TPP -- and campaign chairman John Podesta confirmed to POLITICO she never said anything like that to her longtime ally. “Love Gov. McAuliffe, but he got this one flat wrong,” Podesta tweeted. 

“Hillary opposes TPP BEFORE and AFTER the election. Period. Full stop.” 

But Trump’s campaign immediately seized on the comments. “This should surprise nobody!” tweeted Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort. 

The battle over TPP was one of the most notable to erupt on the floor of the convention Monday, as Sanders delegates protested the fact that language opposing the trade deal was excluded from the party platform.

Sanders delegates started a cheer, “No TPP!” as Rep. Elijah Cummings was speaking and hoisted a banner that read “Economic Justice, Climate Justice, Trade Justice.” 

And McAuliffe’s comments played directly into the image of Clinton that infuriates Sanders' delegates -- especially after her selection of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate, who vocally supports the Obama-backed trade deal.

"I have no confidence she's against TPP," said Christine Pellegrino, a Sanders delegate from New York. "I haven't made up my mind about what options exist at the convention.”

McAuliffe said he feels confident Democrats will win back the Senate and even win back 30 seats in the House and be able to pass a tweaked version of the trade deal supported by President Obama. “If we get enough things done, enough opportunities to change TPP, I’m optimistic going forward,” he said. "We cannot let China write these rules for 11 other countries.”

Even as protesters headed for the exits of the Wells Fargo Center after the roll call made Clinton's nomination official, McAuliffe insisted the party was still on the road to unity. 

"Sen. Sanders was a true champion," McAuliffe said. "He sent out texts, his speech last night said we have to come together. He's done everything we've asked him to do. This is a hard business, it just takes time. I think this convention made a lot of progress.""
.........

==============

Added: 7/9/16, Democrat Party Platform leaves TPP intact:

"Sanders' side warned that Donald Trump could outflank Democrats on trade, claiming the Republican Party could include stronger language against the TPP than Democrats had in their platform." (11th parag. from end) Crony labor union chiefs lined up against American workers and in support of globalist profiteers: "It was clear as a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders amendments that his forces were outmatched." (parag. 11) Those in charge have no fear of Bernie Sanders.

7/9/16, "Bernie Sanders Defeated on Trade in Democratic Platform Fight," NBC News, Alex Seitz-Wald, Orlando, Fla.

"In a major defeat during an otherwise fruitful process for him, Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday.

Instead, the committee approved an amendment backed by a large swath of labor unions that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations (TPP) that liberals say would hurt workers."...

[Ed. note: It's not a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue. Those labels no longer apply. Labor union officials are supposedly "liberal," are on record that TPP would hurt workers, but strongly support TPP for their own reasons. As the article describes, "the labor unions acted as a political shield for the White House" making sure no language against TPP appeared in the Democrat platform.]

(continuing): ""We are proud to stand with our friends in organized labor in passing a strong amendment to the Democratic platform on all trade deals, including the TPP," said Clinton aide Maya Harris, who is quarterbacking her campaign's platform efforts....Both Sanders and Hillary Clinton oppose the TPP"...

[Ed. note: Misleading if not false about Hillary. She promoted TPP on at least 45 occasions as Secretary of State. CNN, 6/15/2015. Only in mid 2015 did she partially flip flop under pressure. At the time of the flip flop, she spoke of deferring to Obama and congress and/or changing "some specifics" of the deal. This simply isn't knowable or possible for a deal that as of Nov. 2015 was 5544 pages long, includes 11 other countries, and isn't in its final form. Further: "Although it is called a “trade” agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 30 chapters, only six deal with traditional trade issues."

(CNN) "President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton should take notice." She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns....Clinton said, "there are some specifics in there that could and should be changed. So I am hoping that's what happens now -- let's take the lemons and turn it into lemonade." But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State."

Terry McAuliffe is far from the first to say Hillary will support TPP.  Wall St. knows her very well and is backing her: Insiders all expect her to "pivot" back to her normal globalist position (7/2/16 report).]

(continuing): "but the Obama administration supports it, and the desire to avoid embarrassing the president carried the day, with the labor unions acting as a political shield for the White House."...

Delegates twice Saturday morning voted down stronger opposition language as Sanders supporters booed and chanted "sellout." Some eventually walked out of the meeting entirely.

Many said they doubted Clinton's stated opposition to the TPP and saw her delegates' votes here as a sign she intends to backtrack during a potential vote on the TPP during the lame-duck session of Congress later this year. Harris strongly denied that, saying her boss opposes the TPP "before or after the election." 
 
The actual terms of the debate were often obfuscated on Clinton's side, however, as no one speaking on behalf of the labor-backed amendment mentioned offending the president. Instead, they simply said their amendment went far enough or claimed adding anti-TPP language would make the plank too narrow, since it wouldn't mention future trade deals.

"We've had no speech here in favor of TPP, but we can't bring ourselves to say we oppose TPP," said Sanders delegate Robert Kraig. 

But it was clear as a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders amendments that his forces were outmatched....

Both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were whipping members to oppose stronger anti-TPP language, as a courtesy to Obama."...

[Ed. note: Obama? Obama will be gone in a few months.  Doesn't the author wonder why a Democrat platform to go into effect after Obama is gone has to be what Obama would've wanted?]  
 
(continuing): "Most votes occurred along party lines, with a handful of defections on both sides depending on the vote.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders, acting on behalf of pro-Clinton labor unions, which make up the vast majority of the labor movement, proposed the amendment that ultimately succeeded.
 
The 452-word amendment, which labor leaders felt went as far as possible without running afoul of the White House, lays out numerous restrictions desired for trade deals. But it does not oppose the TPP....

Former NAACP Chairman Ben Jealous, another Sanders ally, tried to add a secondary amendment to Saunders' that simply added the language "and that's why we oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership." It was voted down 106-74.

Sanders' side warned that Donald Trump could outflank Democrats on trade, claiming the Republican Party could include stronger language against the TPP than Democrats had in their platform.

A final Sanders amendment, proposed by activist Jim Hightower, failed 104-77.

The first draft of the platform, produced by 15-member working group, essentially punted on trade. That left plenty of room for non-Sanders forces [globalist profiteers] to argue they had made major additions to the platform....

Sanders is expected to endorse Clinton on Tuesday in New Hampshire."...


---------------------

Comment: Sanders helped the Democrat Party out of a bind. They needed to appear to have someone running "against" Mrs. Bill Clinton. At the first "debate," Sanders almost blew it when he melted and said he didn't want to talk about emails. Nice to be able to run unopposed.

.....................