Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations

from the well,-that-would-appear-to-be-your-own-fault dept

It’s become fairly clear that the TPP agreement is in trouble these days (for a variety of reasons). And it appears that President Obama is losing his cool concerning the agreement and its critics. In a press conference with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, President Obama lashed out at TPP critics, calling them “conspiracy theorists” whose criticism “reflects lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations.” Oh really?

If you take an issue like drugs, for example, the United States does extraordinary work in research and development, and providing medical breakthroughs that save a lot of lives around the world. Those companies that make those investments in that research oftentimes want a return, and so there are all kinds of issues around intellectual property and patents, and so forth.

At the same time, I think we would all agree that if there’s a medicine that can save a lot of lives, then we’ve got to find a way to make sure that it’s available to folks who simply can’t afford it as part of our common humanity. And both those values are reflected in the conversations and negotiations that are taking place around TPP. So the assumption somehow that right off the bat that’s not something we’re paying attention to, that reflects lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations.

But my point is you shouldn’t be surprised if there are going to be objections, protests, rumors, conspiracy theories, political aggravation around a trade deal. You’ve been around long enough, Chuck — that’s true in Malaysia; it’s true in Tokyo; it’s true in Seoul; it’s true in the United States of America — and it’s true in the Democratic Party.

Um. You know why those complaining may “lack knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations”? Perhaps it’s because the USTR — a part of the Obama White House — has insisted that the entire negotiations take place in complete secrecy with no transparency at all. If President Obama doesn’t want conspiracy theories about the agreement, and wishes that its critics were more informed about the negotiations, he can change that today by instructing the USTR to release its negotiating positions and promise to make all future negotiating positions public.

But he won’t do that. Why? Because the USTR has admitted that if the public knew what was going on with the TPP, it wouldn’t support the agreement. And so the negotiations continue in secret. And the President Obama gets frustrated about a lack of knowledge and conspiracy theories? Really?

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Such a lost opportunity...

I know it would take someone willing to completely torpedo their career to do it, or at least any chance they’d have to ever cover politics again, but with an opening like that, surely someone would have been willing to take the dive and point out the absurdity of his statement.

Yeah, the vast majority of people don’t know what’s going on in the negotiations, or what’s in the ‘trade’ agreement, and that’s precisely because the public, and even most of the government, have been intentionally kept ignorant of those very things.

A statement like his, that’s little more than pure whining about the ‘mean ol’ public’, deserves nothing but derision, if he’s really got a problem with people assuming the worst about TTP and other ‘trade’ agreements, then he’s only got himself and the USTR to blame for it.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Such a lost opportunity...

I think it may have to do with media owners and editors wanting to keep on having access. If they ask that very worthwhile question, that persons access would go away, and their organizations would be in jeopardy. See current references on the ScotusBlog and their current trials.

Also, because of their relationship with the government, they are not allowed to know that there is no actual access to the documents, cause the USTR says he is transparent as all get out. That is, whether they know it or not.

vancedecker (profile) says:

Re: Such a lost opportunity...

Most of the public is uneducated and stupid. What you want is every trade negotiation to be subjected to a tea party style town hall, where every delusional redneck gets to yell about controlled demolitions and the price of bacon on Wednesday.

It’s no wonder that in order to get anything done, you must disenfranchise and large part of the ‘input’ to only those who actually are informed and knowledgeable.

In fact, this country was founded on the principle that you can always count on the fact that the ‘wisdom of the masses’ is that of reactionary dumb ass and must be avoided at all costs for everyone’s best interests. That’s why we have a Republic, and not a direct democracy.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Such a lost opportunity...

Assume you’re right, vancedecker. Should we not make it our business to educate them? Keeping them uninformed and setting them against each other in the illusory culture wars has created this situation.

I do my best to inform the people by telling them what’s going on. I don’t get much thanks for it but I do it all the same. What are you doing, apart from considering yourself to be better and smarter than your fellow citizens?

Anonymous Coward says:

I do not think it means what you think it means

Any given conspiracy theory, like any other theory, should be judged by its generalizability, parsimoniousness, and explanatory power. In the case of the TPP, conspiracy theory ranks somewhere between string theory and the theory of evolution.

Vel the Enigmatic says:

Re: Insolence

I’m going to be blunt. Are you a fool or a troll? Either way, may answer is this.

You are foolish and naive to believe that Obama and the USTR have our best interests in mind. The only ones they have in mind are the concerns of their political contributors. Guess who that isn’t? The rest of us who aren’t the industries.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I was reading something hilarious the other day.

The drugs used for the lethal injection in the US are too expensive from US pharmaceutical companies so they were buying them from an EU pharmaceutical company.

When the EU pharmaceutical company found out (or it was exposed) what the drugs were being used for they cut off the supply.

My only question is how can producing the same drug within the EU be more expensive in the US?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think the reason european companies are cheaper is the insurance game running in USA. It is a good market to enter since it is not that price sensitive, making the margin better as long as you get your foot in on the market. Then again, you usually need to pay reps and other opinion changers to get your product out there, which comes off that margin.

In EU the markets are build around selling more directly to some kind of nationwide monopoly healthcare provide and the sales rep and advertisement part of the chain can be skipped or cut down to a minimum for many products, thus reducing the overall costs. Also, the lack of price competition on sale to a monopoly is countered by different types of legislation in different countries.

When dealing with lethal injections it is not valuable for the government to use the reps-system, the insurance system doesn’t cover a government using lethal injections nor do the product names matter terribly much for the government. Thus european pharmaceuticals has a far better fit to the needs of the state.

Beech says:

All y’all haters need to shut up. As a cunning linguist myself, I love the CRAP out of what Obama did right here.

1) Start a conspiracy
2) Keep conspiracy secret
3) Mock those who theorize about your secret conspiracy by calling them conspiracy theorists who don’t know anything.


Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, he’s right. It’s kind of brilliant. If I were running an organization that was up to no good, one of the first things I would do was quietly set up a very loud and obnoxious conspiracy site dedicated to “exposing” my wrongdoings as vociferously as possible, mixed in with plenty of crazy and plenty of stupid crap that’s easily proven wrong with five seconds of fact-checking. That way, anyone who actually did discover my wrongdoing could be easily discredited and mocked by associating him with those nutty conspiracy theorists, and no one would take my detractors seriously.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Agreed, this is why he loves the birther movement. He keeps them all rousted up about it for what appears to be near entertainment purposes.

In my opinion it does not really matter because his Mom was a Citizen when she gave birth and no matter where she gave birth it makes her child a Citizen.

I simply would never have voted for the turd for his political agenda.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“I simply would never have voted for the turd for his political agenda.”

You are presuming that you knew what his political agenda really was. He has lied about much of what he did say, but we did not know that until after the fact. Second time around, after knowing he lied…well sheeple I guess.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I have serious doubts about there being any really major differences in either side, despite their attempts to differentiate themselves, and this assumes that BOTH of them told the truth. What are the odds on that?

BTW, truth or not it is the perception that is believed. Politics 101, tap dancing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:


One party wants to gut the minimum wage, the other party wants to increase it.

One party wants to gut the 13th and 14th amendments, the other party wants to adhere to what was previously agreed to.

One party wants to gut the public school system, the other party does not.

One party wants to further enrich the elite ruling class, the other party … well, not as much.

…. many many more – if you are paying attention.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

One party wants to gut the minimum wage, the other party wants to increase it.

…neither of which will do minimum wage earners any good. Lowering their wages, well, that’s obvious why it’s harmful. But increasing them? That’s a bit more subtle.

First, ask the question, who earns minimum wage? When you start answering, most of the types of jobs you’ll see in the answer are pretty similar: people who provide basic services, including things as fundamental as food.

Now ask yourself, under a modern, corporatist system, where the highest duty is to increase profits and improve shareholder value, what will happen if the cost of wages, which (even at such low wages) is a significant fraction of the operating cost of a business, goes up? Two very predictable things will happen: workers will be laid off, and the price of goods will go up, to compensate for the increased costs. Including the price of things as fundamental as food. And of course, with an excuse like this, the savings will will probably be more than enough to compensate for increased costs, because that’s always how it works. (cf. the price of gasoline.)

Now if a worker’s wages go up by 20%, and the cost of the fundamental things he needs to buy to support day-to-day life (which make up a significant percentage of his expenses because he’s a low-wage worker without much discretionary income left over after taking care of the fundamentals) increases by more than 20%, how much better off is he? (Assuming he’s not one of the ones who got laid off. How much better off are they?)

Meanwhile, if you’re making 40% more than the minimum wage, and the minimum wage increases by 20%, and prices on fundamental things you need to support life go up by 20%, you didn’t get a raise, but you’re now worse off. The only people who come out of it better off are the corporatists.

Raising the minimum wage sounds like a good idea to people who can only think in one degree of cause and effect, but when you look at the later effects it turns out to be a horrible idea. What would actually work is finding a way to drive down the cost of living. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make as good a soundbite as “raise the minimum wage!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Paying a living wage – why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

1) Corporate subsidy occurs at several levels; direct subsidy, tax beaks, poverty wages. If your employees need government support in order to survive then you are not paying them a living wage and are stealing from the tax payers in order to enrich yourself.

2) The normalized net income level of the middle class been declining for some time.

3) There is much talk about the level of employment, but little detail about types and income levels of jobs lost vs jobs added. Most of the lost jobs were middle class income level and most of the added jobs are minimum wage.

4) The number one driver of the US economy is consumerism. Of all consumers, the majority falls into the middle class. What happens when the middle class net disposable income is reduced? Just look at the economy to find out.

5) Increasing the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but it also is the right thing to do for the economy. But the I’ve got mine people seemingly can not see past their long noses.

T (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

“Paying a living wage – why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?”

It’s not a difficult concept to grasp. It’s a difficult concept not to dismiss for its irrationality. The idea is no more grounded in reason than the term used to refer to it. “Living” wage, as if anything less is a death sentence. Never mind the obvious question begged: how have so many people continued to breath on “non-living” wages for so long? Yes, yes, I know you mean live well, but that embraces subjectivity like little else in economics, doesn’t it? People always want more. You cannot base an economy on paying people what they want. You can only base it on paying them what their labor is worth, which is determinable by no person, for no one is omniscient, only by the behaviors of everyone in the market (read: supply?demand equilibrium). No rational actor will pay someone more than their labor is worth, so trying to move the equilibrium wage for various jobs higher by fiat is a fool’s errand?you will only get the people you wanted to help laid off.

“If your employees need government support in order to survive then you are not paying them a living wage and are stealing from the tax payers in order to enrich yourself.”

The problem with this line of reasoning should be apparent. Employers do not ask the tax payers to supplement their employees’ incomes. The tax payers, whipped into emotive fervors by self-serving politicians, do that on their own. By your reasoning, the tax payers could decide to supplement the incomes of every worker in the country, then turn around and accuse every single employer of “stealing” from them. You’ll probably write that counter-argument off as “absurd”, but it demonstrates the flaw in your logic. The fact that an employee gets public benefits cannot itself mean their employer is “stealing” from anyone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Debate the terms, not the idea – nice deflection.

Living in denial is bliss, but what to do with those random moments of clarity … every now and then the real world comes knocking at your door, so to speak, it must be truly shocking.

So basically your point is, screw those guys – I’ve got mine!

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

That’s how Libertarianism works – in denial of the actual lack of a free market. In this case, the market is distorted by outsourcing and those jobs that are being re-shored are coming back on lower wages.

Given the complexities that would arise if the minimum wage went up, what about going with Warren Buffett’s suggestion of restricting the pay of CEOs and senior officers to 11 times that of the lowest paid worker. If the CEO gets a raise, so do the workers. Ring fence retirement/pension schemes so they’re handled by a third party and none of the company officers can touch them. That way, they can’t rob the workers (and it’s legal, folks!) of their pension funds.

Finally, profit-sharing schemes for companies whose bosses don’t earn more that 11 times their workers’ salaries should help the rest, leaving only unprofitable businesses without the obligation of laying off staff to pay their other workers more.

While the idea of subsidizing unprofitable businesses by paying welfare to workers who can’t afford to live on their wages may rankle with some of us, it’s actually cheaper than paying more welfare to an unemployed worker, and at least some taxes are being paid.

N.B. reducing or removing the tax burden wouldn’t give individuals much more money than they had before. All it would do is remove any services those taxes paid for, raising their living costs even further.

OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Mason Wheeler

You’re exactly right. Raising the minimum wage only works if everything else stays the same, which it wouldn’t. Not unlike college tuition subsidies which only end up raising the overall price of college tuition. I’m inclined to think that even driving down the cost of living might lead to the same result, as wages would inevitably drop, too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Mason Wheeler

“Raising the minimum wage only works if everything else stays the same,”

You state this as though it were fact, I doubt there are any facts to back it up. Or maybe you meant that it only works if you are not affected.

” college tuition subsidies which only end up raising the overall price of college tuition”

Again, supposition. I have seen this statement thrown about elsewhere but it is never accompanied by evidence. Higher education funding at the state and federal levels has been declining for some time but I suppose this has nothing to do with the overall cost of tuition – right?

Driving down the cost of living? Deflation is nothing to play with, in certain circumstances gasoline will put out a fire but what a way to go when it doesn’t.

OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Mason Wheeler

I think you should go back and read the comment that I was agreeing with. I don’t know how you managed to infer that I “meant that it only works if (I am) not affected”, and I’m not going to speculate. I think that it’s absolutely deplorable that 1 in 3 bank tellers are on welfare, for example. I want a solution, too; I just don’t think that this particular solution would work in the long term (for reasons Mason Wheeler explained).

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Mason Wheeler

That’s where Warren Buffett’s solution comes in. The CEOs of those banks are making obscene wages while their wealth creators (the people doing the actual work and raking in the money for them) are claiming welfare because they can’t afford to live on what they earn. It doesn’t help that there is not and never has been a free market in housing. Buying up homes and boarding them up to create an artificial shortage is not how a free market works, people.

In a buyer’s market the opportunity to seek work elsewhere is limited and in fire-at-will states even looking for another job could get you fired if your boss finds out. In theory, you could be stuck where you are unless your prospective new employers are willing to wait until after you’ve started working for them to get a reference. It costs to train replacement employees, after all. So don’t kid yourselves, there’s no free market in employment.

Let the workers in high-profit industries be paid a share of the wealth they create, and let the CEOs receive no more than 11 times what the lowest worker gets. If he gets a pay raise, so does everyone else. That’s fair and gets people off welfare.

And before anyone accuses me of socialism, riddle me this:

if the rich are wealth creators, why would they suffer if their workers went on strike?

If their money (and jobs) are to be treated as property and therefore sacrosanct, why not worker’s labor and wages?

In what way would this solution make ANYONE poor?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Well, no. I would counter with the fact that the GOP is undergoing a slow explosion of stupidity across a wide range of axes. From those supporting the racist rancher, to Akin’s comments on women’s rights, to gay marriage.

But that doesn’t also make an absolute mockery of Obama’s commitment to transparency – Obama’as administration does that easily enough.

So, I have a message for Obama – how about a nice cup of shut the fuck up?

Beech says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not that I enjoy piggybacking off of myself, but say what you will about the Obama Administration, they play the word game better than anyone else. Sure, Bush and Co. did a pretty swell job too, but Obama took that game and made a masterpiece out of it. Who else could go on a late night talk show (Letterman or Leno, i forget which) and say “We don’t have a domestic spying program” mere DAYS before the details of a domestic spying program are leaked, AND NOT GET CALLED OUT ON IT?! His excuse was literally “It’s not spying, it’s (inaudible muttering)” and people bought it! I don’t know if politicians are getting smarter or we’re getting dumber, but it seems like the equivalent of Clinton asking what the definition of “is” is, then everyone still being able to take him seriously.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

what you call word games are really just bald faced lies.

Nothing would make me happier, than if, failure to keep a campaign promise was to become a criminal offence.

if we lie to the police – criminal offence
if we lie to congress – Felony offence
if a politician lies to the public – receive campaign donations from their corporate overlords

Beech says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You just don’t get it man! They aren’t TECHNICALLY lies. “Are you spying on me?” “Well, by the technical definition of spying, no, I am not. Although I am monitoring your every movement.” It’s mis-leading. It’s a very careful, very specific choice of words, chosen so that you ASSUME you know what they mean and that everything is fine. Unless you run every word the prez sez through the “Barack Obama Special Edition Dictionary 4th Edition” you can’t pin the guy down on anything. Unfortunately I think we can assume that dictionary is Classified: Top Secret. Can’t be letting people know things. Otherwise how could we dismiss their concerns for the sole reason that they don’t know the things we refuse to tell them?

Anonymous Coward says:

The conspiracy theorists have for many years speculated that the government is spying on everyone and has tabs on all their activities. We’ve received confirmation of that last year.

They also clamor on about globalists (aka The New World Order or the Illuminati) trying to establish a one world government to strip people to the lowest common freedom, if even that. The TPP leaks have unearthed that agenda (as before with ACTA and most likely with TAFTA/TTIP and other trade agreements), not to mention the overall diminish of press freedom worldwide.

Way to prove the conspiracy theorists and other detractors right, Obama.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Just because one claim from a person is later found to be valid does not make all their claims valid.”

No, but if one claim is proven right that gives credibility to the others. If two are proven right, people start thinking that there might be something to this.

It’s a sad, sad day when the conspiracy theorists are more trusted then the US government.

John Nemesh says:

Conspiracy Theorists, Tinfoil hats, etc...

Yes, we should trust our government, right? They ALWAYS know what’s best for the general public, right? Because, it’s not like they have betrayed the public trust recently, invaded every American’s privacy, right? Or made trade agreements in the past that have harmed American workers? It’s not like the banks and special interests like the RIAA and MPAA have them twisting our laws to benefit a privileged few, right? Or that the government is directly collaborating with banks, suppressing protests, eh? Yeah, we are all just “conspiracy theorists” and uneducated fools. This behavior will only last so long, Mr. President…and then the people will realize that we are better without a government than we are with a CORRUPT government that only exists to benefit the 1%!

Anonymous Coward says:

The mouthpiece speaks……..thanks for living to expectations, thanks for fighting for the little guy………oh wait, nevermind, cant change your stripes i guess, too many “important” folks……”everytime i get out, they pull me back in”, huh…….well then, in that case offcourse i understand /s

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

For those of us with no disposable income, at all, it’s pretty insulting to be told that everyone has disposable income totaling a minimum of 8% of their net pay. Some of what the PP-ACA did is good, but it really amounts to a hand out for the insurance industry. The most disingenuous part being the idea that it’s a health care law, when it’s really a health insurance law. There is a reason that we had “to pass it to find out what’s in it”. That quote can be attributed to our next president, whose selection will be confirmed in 2016. Think what we have now is bad, just wait.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am no expert, but I was under the impression that adjustments were made in accordance with income level.

I agree, it is a boondoggle for the insurance corporations. People need health care, not insurance.

That “pass it to find out what’s in it” quote is indicative of the fact that our “law makers” are not the ones writing the laws and few representatives actually read what they are voting upon.

Point being, something in the right direction was attempted although the final result was suboptimal. Also, the reasons for these shortcomings lie at the feet of congress.

T (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Why is there so much outrage over the ACA?”

Because some of us foresee the entirely predictable consequence of even further removing price signals from medical decision making. The degenerate variant of so-called “insurance” in medical care has been much of the pricing problem, and ACA has only mandated that we continue to pay for medical care using the current uneconomical scheme.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do you mean to say that healthcare should NOT be run for profit?

I’m right with you. Running it for profit leads to abuses all over the place. As a non-profit scheme run for the benefit of the public with private enterprise running alongside, competing on service, everyone would benefit.

I’m not against for-profit medicine and medical services per se, but I have found that, when competing on service with a free scheme, it works better for all of us.

Anonymous Coward says:

…Critics Are ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Who ‘Lack Knowledge

How odd to use that line as part of your complaint when things aren’t going your way. Face it, the Obama administration is in trouble with the media. The media can’t access the pres to take photos of public events. The media can’t complain about how the administration does things without getting phone calls that cuss the reporters out over things that the administration disagrees with.

When you lock up all the info that supports what you say and it is followed by what is a scandal to the American people of spying on them and disregarding their constitutional rights, then lie to them and tell them everything is fine. They being to distrust and not believe without being shown the facts (none of which I see here in this article). Remember that other little fib? You know the one about keeping your doctor and keeping your insurance? Or the one about Holder not answering his demand for additional documentation? Or the one about the DOJ (under the executive’s branch of control) not going after James Clapper for perjury under oath?

Surely at some point even the dense people get a clue as to why no one trusts them any more and why they are uninformed.

Obama, it’s your bed you made, it’s your place to lay in it now.

no says:

this mahine didn't kill Faciests

we need to talk about the united states and the “western” world in general as what they are Fascists(let me point out that your spell check does not even recognize the word)

can I get a new speak bible?

oligarchy is wrong the state IS choosing it is fascism.

when you cannot tell the state from the private enterprise, your there.

Anonymous Coward says:

it’s about time Obama came clean with what his agenda is and how it aligns with the entertainment industries! he cant expect every other company and industry to just sit by and watch one industry get preferential treatment and have nothing for them. he also cant expect every other country to jump in bed with the USA when the advantages of a deal will be in favor of the USA in preference to anywhere else. he needs to stop this condemning as if they are stupid all the people and bodies that go against these trade deals. they do it because the deals stink and the threats are bad. sooner or later some country is going to get the real ache and tell the USA to put up or shut up, ie get the fuck out or make us!

T (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t think they’re particularly worried about whether the people of the world support it in their hearts, only that they abide by it out of fear of their governments.

The reason the administration is keeping the treaty negotiations secret is so that it can be announced, introduced in the Senate, and passed before any popular opposition can organize. Enough of the Dems in the Senate will vote for it (planning to apologize later with “I didn’t know” or “it was forced on me”), with our Dem president’s support, the whole scheme will work, and his supposedly angry supporters will reward the party with yet another election’s worth of support! (Yes, you DO have a choice: vote for libertarian candidates of any party.)

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:

Libertarians? No, thanks. Small “L’s,” perhaps, but the supply-siders don’t live in reality and that scares me. As I’ve said many times before, there’s no such thing as a free market. You can’t run a healthy society on a show-me-the-money, eff-off-you-impoverished-peasant basis.

And no, I’m not going to accept poverty with dignity. And neither should anyone else.

Anonymous Coward says:

Obama has let anyone with the MPAA, RIAA and copyright Lobbyists hi-jack the U.S. Government and it’s agenda and the TPP negotiations.

Of course it’s everyone else’s fault and other Governments that are giving these negotiations the side eye because the U.S. is trying to force it down their throats.

Obama can try and do damage control all he want’s the fact is that the details of the negotiations are leaking is because negotiators for other governments and non-stakeholders see just what a raw deal it is for their countries and their citizens.

Obama has been silent on this up till now, but when the U.S. TPP negotiators started to lose their edge in forcing this on other Govenments they have run crying to the White House to help stem off the flow of resentment building from other Governments and their citizens that are outraged at the swindle that is taking place.

Jonathan says:

More reading

See Husting (2007): Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion. The abstract alone is quite a harsh indictment of the term and of those who use it.

Also see Matt Stoller’s tumblr where he posts quite credible evidence that the things that Birchers said happened but bourgeois liberals say were only deranged “conspiracy theories”… in fact did happen, aside from minor details and alleged ulterior motives.

Finally, see this book by a former Obama staffer promoting hagiography as the only valid, correct history.

Pawn to d4 says:

Presidential parataxis

“[?] who simply can?t afford it as part of our common humanity.” While it is clear what Obama would like everyone to understand?i.e., that making medicines available to less fortunate individuals should be a constituent of common humanity?his syntax is an unfortunate example of doublespeak. Obama’s syntax also suggests that he does not preclude wealth from being a constituent of common humanity.

David E.H. Smith says:


Re; your May 1, 2014 article entitled “Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Who ‘Lack Knowledge’ About Negotiations”, you & your readers, et al, may not have had the opportunity to consider the following differences between ‘Conspiracy Theories’ & ‘Global Economic Arrangements’.

SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada tells China to “Hit the Road” if Chinese style anti-corruption Blows “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES.

(CAN) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Canada – China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada – European Union CETA may be unraveling by way of the Canadian Senate, which is being threatened with being abolished, et al.

There are several reasons for the secrecy (“omerta”) of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are:

1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada’s lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:

A) to promote corporate Canada’s agenda with governing party(ies) by:

i) reducing its taxes & thus, the “net increase” in taxes for non shareholders


ii) increase its funding for “economic development” which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed “economic development” funds, ie. those 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discressionary spending & its abuse


B) to protect corporate Canada’s agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations in order to limit the scope of the “opposition” to manageable issues that can be compromised in order that “opposing” parties can claim victories (at least a limited victory) for their constituents. Under this arrangement both, the politicians & the lobbyists’ clients are protected from scrutiny by the role of the parties’ executives.

2) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsor from having to reveal to the each others’ corporate sponsors their existing arrangements that it has with its own government & thus, each counties’ corporate sponsors are not obliged to share the benefits & considerations (& future considerations) that they receive from their respective governments ie. their non shareholding taxpayers. Often the benefits are shared as an inducement to conduct business together in the more convenient jurisdictions.

3) To Protect the parties to one treaty, &/or, agreement (referred to as the “original” treaty/agreement) from having to reveal to third parties the nature, &/or, details of their “original” arrangements to other third parties who may want to enter into a treaty, &/or, agreement with either of the parties to the “original” agreement/treaty.That is to say, that acquiring & having privileged information of an outsiders treaties, &/or, agreements will cause contention as the third party will undoubtedly insist upon more favorable terms & conditions to a new treaty/agreement than the original treaty/agreement. For example; “You did this with them, so I insist upon more, or, I’ll deal with them, or, others”. The European Union is particularly interested in preventing the Canada – European Union CETA from becoming divisive whereby individual EU member countries may be enticed, &/or, coerced into making preferential, but, “very secretive” side deals with corporate Canada, et al.

By preventing the non shareholding taxpayers from learning about the aforementioned reasons for the tribunals’ secrecy whereby the non shareholding taxpayers pay for the increase in the value of the shareholders’ stocks & dividends is insider trading & stock manipulation.

Therefore, corporate Canada, AFN & their traditional media outlets have more than just a vested interest in the continuation of the most vulnerable Canadians (95% – 99% of Native & non Native Canadians) deprivation of the information such as the comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord and the comprehensive versions of the Canada – China Investment Treaty, the Canada – European Union CET Agreement, et al, that include the mechanisms, procedures, practices used in the adjudications of the dispute resolution tribunal & its disbursement of its punitive awards.

And, while it may be regrettable that not all of the 95% – 99% most vulnerable, non shareholders are able, &/or, willing to move to a sovereign Quebec, or, other jurisdictions, in order to:

1) avoid the “unethical” & “inhumane” (see; The W.A.D. Accord), but, “legal” practices


2) start getting the relevant & quantitative information regarding the above, et al.

The issue of the secret tribunals raises some interesting questions that the “secret congress” of the lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties have no intention of answering. For instance; what do the above arrangements say about the 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers & the version of “democracy” that they are developing in Canada in the context of the growing “global” economy


what do the above arrangements say about the accelerating growth of the disparity of the wealth between the shareholders (1% – 5% of Canadians, et al) & the non shareholders (95% – 99% of Canadians), et al?

What are you, the reader, learning about the Canada – China Investment Treaty that will help you to ascertain whether the Canada – European Union Agreement is better for you & perhaps, corporate Canada?

What are some of the other questions that the non shareholders need to ask


who can answer, &/or, is willing to answer (as opposed to “respond’ to) their questions that would make them willing participants & direct beneficiaries of the C-CIT & the CETA?

Have you & your family, friends & colleagues sent PM Harper & Mr. DAN HILTON (Executive Director of the Conservative Party) your:






in order to enhance your opportunity to exculpate yourself from having to pay for:

1) the aforementioned Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord


2) the costs, penalties, punitive damages that will be derived from the C-CITreaty

& the CETAgreement?

In conclusion, it may be regrettable that the C-CITreaty & the CETAgreement has, so far, been successful at giving corporate Canada & its representatives the much higher degree of legitimacy to their aforementioned secrecy (assisted by way of the international cache) that it needs in order for them to later, & once again, claim (see; NAFTA) that they are doing/did “their best” to protect the non shareholders from the over zealousness of their foreign Treaty, &/or, Agreement counterparts.

Is it not easier & just prudent to discuss the preexisting arrangements & challenges to the Treaty & the Agreement prior to ratifying them in order to determine which is more egregious than the other (or, are both equally egregious) & thus, avoid any of the secret “dispute” resolutions & its “hefty” costs to the beleaguered non shareholding taxpayers, et al? And, how much more will these costs further erode the non shareholding taxpayers health care (privatize), educational services, etc.?

How much has corporate Canada set aside to defend the CHALLENGES, et al, that corporate Canada & the non shareholders are anticipating? How far along are they in collecting this fund & how much more does corporate Canada & its shareholders need to set aside before the non shareholding taxpayers allow corporate Canada & its representatives to proceed?

Similarly, due to a psychiatrist’s previous linking of the deprivation of information with the unconscionably high rates of despair, disenchantment, suicides, unemployment, poverty, etc., that are found in many communities across Canada,

what are the various different ways that non shareholders can guarantee that corporate Canada & its shareholders have enough financial reserves set aside in order to pay for the CHALLENGES by the non shareholders and those who will be the new victims of the aforementioned deprivation of information?

On the other hand, are there actually any non shareholding taxpayers who think that corporate

Canada is actually anxious to explain to them, or, corporate China, or, corporate EU, just how effective their secretive relationship between:

1) lobbyists’ of corporate Canada


2) the executives of the parties that are operating in Canada

has been & is continuing to be?

And, finally, without:

1) a meaningful forum in which to “further question” the Treaty & Agreement without the fear of recriminations, etc.,

2) a predetermined list of circumstances whereby corporate Canada can terminate the Treaty & the Agreement without penalties, &/or, costs to the harmless non shareholding taxpayers


3) et al,

the ratification of the C-CITreaty & the CETAgreement will eliminate for most Canadians the last remnants of “democratically” effecting the treaty/agreement by the non shareholding taxpayers

& thus,

corporate Canada, et al, will finally be able to give these arrangements the luster of legitimacy that they need that is based upon the logic that “It can’t be another gilded cage that will cause another economic melt down like the “derivative type conspiracy”** that is continuing to debilitate international finance, etc., because there are just too many vanguards of industry promoting the public financing of the C-CITreaty & CETAgreement”.

The secrecy of the C-CITreaty & CETAgreement arrangements are not dissimilar to insider trading, whereby the shareholders who are on “the inside” use secret, &/or, privileged information to make money for themselves at the expense of the group that is on the “outside”, the non shareholding taxpayers, who are being deprived of the aforementioned information & thus, are being deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the direct benefits of the treaty/agreement. And, just as some of the means

to counter these arrangements are also not dissimilar to those counter

measures that can remedy insider trading & pay punitive damages, etc. to the harmless non shareholders. And, while it is likely that the “coveted” Chinese investor*** may have enough of the insider information regarding the more “unethical”, &/or, “inhumane” arrangements in the C-CITreaty to navigate the mechanisms of the secret dispute resolution tribunal in his favor & at the peril of corporate Canada, it may be regrettable that it is highly unlikely that the European Union has been as fortunate regarding the CETA arrangements. This disparity between China’s benefits from the C-CITreaty & the benefits that the EU may derive from their CETA will continue to be dangerously contentious.

And, finally, it may also be regrettable that there is yet another vulnerability that corporate Canada, especially its Alberta chapter, is particularly desperate to be kept secret for as long as possible and it only remains to be seen when it will be most advantageous to “leak” the secret & by which party.

* The W.A.D. Accord; Reference:

For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:

“Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel..


Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,


Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project

(22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)


http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc/cl … r-eng.html

Public Registry; File #A43076

All letters of comment are under “F”. This comment is available

under the subfolder “S”.

Further questions?;


For the other information that may lead the non shareholders, corporate China and corporate European Union & their shareholders & the non shareholders, et al, to a greater certainty regarding

what corporate Canada may be sharing with you regarding the accessing of the aforementioned, information & Canadian natural resources, et al, I can be contacted at:

David E.H. Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, British Columbia, CANADA. V8L 2C8.,

Non shareholders & the other potential participants in the C-CITreaty CETAgreement can access more of the relevant articles that have been researched & posted on Facebook (& several online newspapers, et al) at:

Facebook; “David Smith”, Sidney, British Columbia.



** “derivative type conspiracy”; “The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room” by Jesse Eisinger. Upstart Business Journal, October 15, 2008, 8:00am EDT. Re; the “industrialized credit derivatives”


*** the “coveted” Chinese investor; Who is the “coveted” Chinese investor who said:

“It’s not that we are racist when we are dealing with Canadians,

it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us.”?



Reader Supported News (RSN)

1) CETA; IS corporate CANADA JUST continuing its “SUCKING UP” (C-CIT) & shi…”PURGING DOWN?,

2) FINANCIAL & HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS: EU – CAN. Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA): ‘EU may consider “Renditioning Info” as Condition of CETA Deal to Minimize “Unethical & Inhumane” Arrangements between Canadian lobbyists’ clients/parties’ executives; CHINA may follow in C-CITreaty’?,

3) WHY the AFN may be “DRAGGING its HEELS” on CRITICALLY N.B. ISSUES & Causing the Formation of a New First Nations Group?,


5) C-CI Treaty; “It’s Now SAFE…” CETA… Euros cautioned about corporate Canada,


7)> ?… WE ARE RACIST when it comes to dealing with CANADIANS…?? FINANCIAL & HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS; DEHS, Re; “A Response…” is not an answer to the questions raised in “C-CI Treaty; SPY/AGENT PROVOCATEUR…or, The RELUCTANT (Ethical & Humane) PATRIOT?,

8) Improving, or, Eliminating the China-Canada Investment Treaty via The WAD Accord,

9) FINANCIAL NEWS: Canada-European Union – Trade and Investment Enhancement Agreement (TIEA) The taxpayers/voters of Europe are cautioned… arrangements with corporate Canada,


11)(RSN) CSIS; PRIVY COUNCIL; “The THREAT ASSESSMENT”; CSIS; re; NAFT Agreement, C-CI Treaty, CET Agreement, TP Partnership, et al. (Edited; Jan., 2014),

12) > Have you HELPED YOUR FAMILY & Friends by sending your NOTIFICATION of a PREEXISTING CHALLENGE?,

13) (RSN) SPY/AGENT PROVOCATEUR for corp. China-Canada, & their Investors, or, The RELUCTANT (Ethical & Humane) PATRIOT for the Most Vulnerable (99%) of Canadians-Chinese, et al?; The Mechanism for Ascertaining & Vote to stop, &/or, Improve the Canada-China FIPPA,

14) “A Response…” is not an answer to the questions raised in “C-CI Treaty…”,

15) Improving, or, Eliminating the China-Canada Investment Treaty via The WAD Accord (“China treaty uproar signals growing rift between Ottawa, grassroots conservatives”),

16) Eliminating, &/or, Improving the C-CI Treaty (FIPPA) by Using The WAD Accord & Ms. Elizabeth May’s (MP) letter,

17) (RSN) TIRED of Political BELIEFS; why not ask QUESTIONS that can form the basis for more INFORMED OPINIONS? See; Response to Ms. Elizabeth May – MP, Nov. 2, 2012 letter.A DIAGNOSTIC TEST of Canada’s Version of “DEMOCRACY”; SIMPLE, “DEMOCRATIC” QUESTIONS for “our”(?) Members of Parliament, et al.,


19) >”WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”. – George H.W. Bush. Re; American police to operate on Canadian soil; arrangements between corporate America & corporate Canada; CETA & C-CIT.,


21) USING The WAD ACCORD to IMPROVE, &/or, ELIMINATE the C-CI Treaty (FIPPA); Response to Ms. Elizabeth May – MP, Nov. 2, 2012 letter.,

22) “Indigenous Economies” & “MUNICIPAL EMANCIPATION”,


24) “CONSIDERATIONS’ paid to ALL PARTIES to PROMOTE C-CITreaty & CETA, et al and to LIMIT “OPPOSITION” (see; The WAD Accord)?,



27) (RSN) The Termination Plan for Native Canadians, ET AL; The COUNTER OFFER REFERENDUMS; The WAD Accord, The Notification of C-CI Treaty (CETA & TPP), The Termination Plan, The T.P. Counter Offer, et al,

28) GLOBAL LOBBYISTS’ MANAGERS ACKNOWLEDGE & understand REFERENDUMS on;”The WAD ACCORD’s COMPENSATION”, “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGES to C-CI Treaty” (& CET Agreement, TP Partnership, et al,) “The COUNTER OFFER to The Termination Plan for Native Canadians, ET AL”, et al?,


30) (RSN) An OPEN LETTER to Canadian NON SHAREHOLDERS (both; Native & non Native), et al.145 years of corporate Canada using non shareholders’ tax dollars to be used to REWARD SHAREHOLDERS with punitive penalties paid by NON SHAREHOLDERS via NAFTA, C-CIT, CETA, TPP, et al, SECRET TRIBUNALS,

31) (RSN) TOWARDS A MORE INFORMED OPINION; The SHAREHOLDERS of the Global Corporate Economy VS. the NON SHAREHOLDERS; The Acceleration of The FINAL DISPARITY between the Rich & the Poor; Enbridge’s Northern Gateway (Pipeline) Project

see also;



3) PRESIDENTS; H.V. ROMPUY (EU Council), J. BARROSO (EU Commission) & M. SCHULZ (EU Parliament); YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with “The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE…CETAgreement”,


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, he isn’t credible enough to get called one by the government. They aren’t worried about say water fluoridation mind control or FEMA death camp conspiracy theorists. They are obviously wrong and there is no need for them to point this out.

As opposed to well this, or other past examples.

Bill Hughes says:

Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty

OBAMA (OBUMMER) has proven to be a consummate liar. Any President or public official that negotiates a treaty in secret is like a thief in the night. I thought Bush was a fool but at least he was more or less open about his agenda.
OBUMMER is one of the worst things to ever happen to this country. I sorry to day I voted for OBUMMER in the last election – thank god he will not be in another.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty

“sorry to day I voted for OBUMMER”

And the alternative would have been so much better?
Or maybe you meant that you should have not voted … nice.

btw, if you were to look, many presidents in the past have been proclaimed to be the worst – I doubt Obama would displace any of them from their well deserved podium seats.

Bill Swift (user link) says:

To serve and protect

Interesting article. Conspiracy theories like myths, sometimes hang around because they have a basis in truth. Corruption has become systemic in many facets of government.

It would be nice to believe that our political representatives on down to the cop on the beat truly do have adhere to their creed “To serve and protect,” rather than a focus inclined to line their own pockets.

William Boardman says:

TTP Obama

Obama says others don’t know how to negotiate??
This is the guy who starts any negotiation with “I’m a nice guy, I will compromise” and then walks away with 10% of what he started at. You’d never want this guy negotiating for a car for you, you’d end up paying over sticker price for it.
His blatant distortion of the positions of those who are opposed to TTP is disgusting and dishonest.
I know of no one of any standing who is opposed to international trade. What people are opposed to is slave labor, child labor and US government subsidies to corporations who move jobs overseas.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...