By Jon Rappaport
To the US Congress: reveal the contents of the TPP now
It seems like a case of mass hypnosis. People claiming they can’t say what’s in the TPP trade agreement. And mainstream media accept this premise.
“That’s right. Congress must stay silent.”
Pop quiz: who says the text of the TPP must remain secret?
Under what authority?
Members of Congress are scuttling around like weasels, claiming they can’t disclose what’s in this far-reaching, 12-nation trade treaty.
They can go into a sealed room and read a draft, but they can’t copy pages, and they can’t tell the public what they just read.
If there is a US law forbidding disclosure, name the law.
Can you recall anything in the Constitution that establishes secret treaties?
Is there a prior treaty that states the text of all treaties can be hidden from the people?
I see no authority anywhere that justifies withholding the text of the TPP.
Government legislators in the other 11 nations: why can’t you reveal what’s in the TPP?
Mass silence around the world. “Sorry, we can’t say what’s in the treaty. We’ll vote on it, but you the people have no input. You have to take what we do on faith.”
Who says so? By what authority?
If a US Senator held a press conference today and explained everything he read in that sealed room about the TPP, what exactly would happen to him? Would he be arrested?
Would he be charged with a federal crime?
If he used his cell phone to take pictures of pages of the TPP, and came out of the room and sent the pictures to 500 press outlets, what would happen?
Would the DOJ roll a few tanks up to his house and put him in cuffs? Would he be placed on trial?
If so, on what charge?
Would the trial itself be secret?
Or would everyone suddenly look at each other and say, “We never realized it before, but the emperor has no clothes!”
What would happen if a Senator went into the sealed room, picked up the whole TPP text or the laptop on which it’s stored, bulled his way out of the room, passed the text to his security staff, and had them forward every page to a few hundred media outlets around the world?
Would DHS agents shoot these people in broad daylight, just to protect the interests of David Rockefeller and his Globalist heavy hitters?
Why haven’t the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, the BBC and other outlets run major stories that detail under what precise authority the TPP text is being kept secret?
What are we missing here?
Is it simply that a bunch of national leaders and corporate big shots and trade representatives nodded and said: “Keep the text a secret”?
Did they arbitrarily give the TPP negotiating process a name, a label, with the word “authority” in it?
I just met with myself and decided to establish The Naked TPP Authority. I gave it primacy over all other negotiating bodies, and by its declaration, the full text of the TPP must be published for the whole world to see, for two years, before any further votes take place.
There. It’s done.
I fully believe my Naked Authority carries more Constitutional justification than the current scheme, which is clearly criminal.
US Congressman: “I’m sorry, my lips are sealed, I’m bound, I can’t reveal what’s in the treaty that will adversely affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people.”
“Wrong. You’re lying. You can reveal secret text. In fact, it’s your duty. Otherwise, you’re guilty of cooperating in a RICO criminal conspiracy. Now, let’s start at the beginning. Who told you that you had to remain silent? What US law did they cite? Take your time. We’ll stay here as long as it takes.”
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”
Nothing there about secret treaties. Nothing there about the President having the discretion to keep the text of treaties secret.
Of course, a President could argue that treaties, if exposed to the light of day prior to a Senate vote, would face so much criticism and cross-talk that they would never pass.
But that’s a practical issue and problem. It’s called “free speech.” It’s also sometimes called “dissent.”
Read more Jon Rappaport at ActivistPost.com