From Rand Paul 2016:
"Rand Went on the Offensive, Reshaped the Debate And Had His Strongest Performance Yet." -- Huffington Post
"Finally the Biggest Rift in the Republican Party Has Been Exposed." -- Washington Post
"Rand Paul Shuts Down Donald Trump, Debate Moderators, and Commercial Breaks." -- Vanity Fair
"Fireworks Erupt Between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul on Military Spending" -- Business Insider
"Rand Paul Drops the Mic on Donald Trump Over China's Participation in Trade Deal" -- Los Angeles Times
"Why Rand Paul Was the Stealth Winner of the GOP Debate" -- The Week Magazine
"Rand Paul had best debate of the campaign." -- Chuck Todd
"The reviews are in and it looks like Rand Paul had a good night. Libertarians say he hit his stride. It was clearly his finest performance of the four debates." -- Matt Lewis, Daily Caller
Those are just a few headlines Americans woke up to this morning describing my performance during last night's Republican debate in Milwaukee.
The battle lines between the Big Government establishment and my campaign have now been drawn.
And for daring to point out the fact that we don't have trillions of dollars to spend on Senator Rubio's new welfare plans or pour into misguided military spending, I'm already being attacked.
That's why I'm counting on you to stand with me by giving as generously as you can to my Debate Victory Money Bomb right away!
The truth is, last night's was the Big Government establishment's worst nightmare. During the debate:
>>> I explained why income inequality is worse where Democrats are in charge and how the Federal Reserve allows the well-connected to live high on the hog while the rest of us see the value of our money slowly evaporate;
>>> I explained why we need to get rid of President Obama's outrageous environmental controls to get our economy moving, and how Hillary Clinton's misguided foreign policy is really no different than several of my opponents;
>>> I showed why my 14.5% flat-tax plan would give every American a tax cut, create jobs and return $2 TRILLION to the American people over ten years.
But exposing Senator Rubio's outlandish spending plans is really what has the Big Government establishment up in arms today.
Their big hope has been, with Senator Rubio, they'll be able to put a new face on failed old Big Government policies of the past.
Like Hillary Clinton, he's supported amnesty. Like Hillary Clinton, he's supported arming Syrian rebels, strengthening ISIS. He's supported toppling Gaddafi in Libya, which strengthened radical Islamists.
Yet, even with our nation $18.5 TRILLION in debt, no one on stage last night dared question if we can afford another two trillion dollars in Congressional spending!
That's how strong the Washington machine's grip is on so many running for our Republican party's presidential nomination.
But the fact is, we can't continue to spend like there's no tomorrow on anything.
Pretending we can only makes us less safe.
The truth is, there's no way to defend this nation from bankruptcy court.
Yet even in my own Republican Party, there are those who refuse to come to grips with our country's fiscal reality.
No one but me was willing to tell the American people the truth.
We need a new direction. We need to destroy the Washington machine that's bankrupting us.
Last night, I showed why I'm the only fiscal conservative in the race.
But I'm counting on your most generous contribution of $50, $25 or even $10 to support my Debate Victory Money Bomb.
If we can reach our $500,000 goal, I believe it will send a massive message to the media and the Big Government establishment that their days are numbered.
So please act at once.
In liberty,
Rand
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Make the DEA commissioner resign over medical marijuana comments
Last week, the acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration called medical marijuana "a joke" during a Q&A with reporters. Now, medical marijuana patients are calling for his head, with an online petition demanding his resignation attracting over 10,000 signatures on change.org.
Here's what administrator Chuck Rosenberg said about medical marijuana, via CBS News:
"What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal -- because it's not," Rosenberg said in a briefing to reporters. "We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine -- that is a joke."
"There are pieces of marijuana -- extracts or constituents or component parts -- that have great promise" medicinally, he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana -- it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."
Rosenberg's argument that smoking marijuana "has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine" has been contradicted by numerous studies. A meta-analysis of 79 medical marijuana studies involving 6,462 patients, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this year, found "moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity." There was low-quality evidence suggesting marijuana had therapeutic applications for other conditions as well.
The finding that marijuana is effective at treating chronic pain is a big deal. High-caliber prescription painkillers are highly addictive and potentially deadly when misused -- they killed over 16,000 people via overdose in 2013, according to the CDC. Numerous studies have found that at the state level, the availability of medical marijuana is associated with a significant reduction of painkiller abuse rates and overdose deaths -- presumably, as patients opt to treat their pain with marijuana rather than painkillers.
Rosenberg's statements about medical marijuana aren't surprising when you consider that they comport with the official position of the DEA. The Administration considers marijuana a "Schedule 1" controlled substance, which among other things means it has "no currently accepted medical use." Most researchers reject this claim, however, with organizations including Brookings Institution, the American Medical Association, and the ACLU arguing that the current designation is inappropriate.
Given all this, marijuana advocates are furious at what they see as the DEA's dismissal of the science behind medical pot.
"My mom is a legal patient in Rhode Island, and she uses medical marijuana to deal with the severe pain she experiences from multiple sclerosis," said Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, which started the petition. "Medical cannabis is no joke to my family or the millions of other American families who have seen its real benefits."
In an e-mailed statement, a DEA spokesperson sought to clarify Rosenberg's remarks. "To clarify, Acting Administrator Rosenberg indicated that marijuana should be subject to the same levels of approval and scrutiny as any other substance intended for use as a medicine. DEA supports efforts to research potential medical uses of marijuana. To this end, DEA has never denied a registration request from anyone conducting marijuana research using FDA approved protocols."
The spokesman added, "acting Administrator Rosenberg was also clear to point out there are a number of marijuana components and/or extracts which appear to show promise as medicines, but have not yet been approved as safe and effective. His comments reflected the fact that FDA has not approved any medicinal uses for smoked marijuana."
This wouldn't be the first time Rosenberg has courted controversy over marijuana during his tenure as DEA administrator. Over the summer, he said that marijuana was "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, and then one week later clarified that "heroin is clearly more dangerous than marijuana." For the record, over 8,200 people died from heroin in 2013, compared to zero known marijuana overdose deaths.
The previous DEA chief, Michele Leonhart, had a rocky relationship with the Obama administration as well -- especially when it came to drug policy issues, which she often criticized the administration on. Leonhart left her post under a cloud of scandal earlier this year, prompting cheers from drug policy reform advocates and hopes that her successor would change the DEA's tone on certain drug policy issues.
Source
Here's what administrator Chuck Rosenberg said about medical marijuana, via CBS News:
"What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal -- because it's not," Rosenberg said in a briefing to reporters. "We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine -- that is a joke."
"There are pieces of marijuana -- extracts or constituents or component parts -- that have great promise" medicinally, he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana -- it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."
Rosenberg's argument that smoking marijuana "has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine" has been contradicted by numerous studies. A meta-analysis of 79 medical marijuana studies involving 6,462 patients, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this year, found "moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity." There was low-quality evidence suggesting marijuana had therapeutic applications for other conditions as well.
The finding that marijuana is effective at treating chronic pain is a big deal. High-caliber prescription painkillers are highly addictive and potentially deadly when misused -- they killed over 16,000 people via overdose in 2013, according to the CDC. Numerous studies have found that at the state level, the availability of medical marijuana is associated with a significant reduction of painkiller abuse rates and overdose deaths -- presumably, as patients opt to treat their pain with marijuana rather than painkillers.
Rosenberg's statements about medical marijuana aren't surprising when you consider that they comport with the official position of the DEA. The Administration considers marijuana a "Schedule 1" controlled substance, which among other things means it has "no currently accepted medical use." Most researchers reject this claim, however, with organizations including Brookings Institution, the American Medical Association, and the ACLU arguing that the current designation is inappropriate.
Given all this, marijuana advocates are furious at what they see as the DEA's dismissal of the science behind medical pot.
"My mom is a legal patient in Rhode Island, and she uses medical marijuana to deal with the severe pain she experiences from multiple sclerosis," said Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, which started the petition. "Medical cannabis is no joke to my family or the millions of other American families who have seen its real benefits."
In an e-mailed statement, a DEA spokesperson sought to clarify Rosenberg's remarks. "To clarify, Acting Administrator Rosenberg indicated that marijuana should be subject to the same levels of approval and scrutiny as any other substance intended for use as a medicine. DEA supports efforts to research potential medical uses of marijuana. To this end, DEA has never denied a registration request from anyone conducting marijuana research using FDA approved protocols."
The spokesman added, "acting Administrator Rosenberg was also clear to point out there are a number of marijuana components and/or extracts which appear to show promise as medicines, but have not yet been approved as safe and effective. His comments reflected the fact that FDA has not approved any medicinal uses for smoked marijuana."
This wouldn't be the first time Rosenberg has courted controversy over marijuana during his tenure as DEA administrator. Over the summer, he said that marijuana was "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, and then one week later clarified that "heroin is clearly more dangerous than marijuana." For the record, over 8,200 people died from heroin in 2013, compared to zero known marijuana overdose deaths.
The previous DEA chief, Michele Leonhart, had a rocky relationship with the Obama administration as well -- especially when it came to drug policy issues, which she often criticized the administration on. Leonhart left her post under a cloud of scandal earlier this year, prompting cheers from drug policy reform advocates and hopes that her successor would change the DEA's tone on certain drug policy issues.
Source
Rand Paul opposes Marco Rubio's trillion dollar welfare program
From Rand Paul 2016:
I set off fireworks on the Republican debate stage for daring to challenge massive new spending schemes from one of my GOP opponents.
The fact is, America can't afford Senator Rubio's trillion-dollar new welfare program or another trillion dollars in misguided military spending. We just can't.
Plans like these threaten to send our country to bankruptcy court, and actually endanger our ability to defend and protect this country!
In other words, it's anything but conservative.
But it's par for the course in Washington, D.C.
And it's the reason BOTH parties have helped sink our nation $18.5 TRILLION in debt.
I know I'm going to be attacked for daring to stand up to this madness.
But I'm not backing down.
Will you please stand with me by making your most generous contribution of $50, $25 or even $10 right away?
I'm counting on you. This fight is going to get hot.
In liberty,
Rand Paul
I set off fireworks on the Republican debate stage for daring to challenge massive new spending schemes from one of my GOP opponents.
The fact is, America can't afford Senator Rubio's trillion-dollar new welfare program or another trillion dollars in misguided military spending. We just can't.
Plans like these threaten to send our country to bankruptcy court, and actually endanger our ability to defend and protect this country!
In other words, it's anything but conservative.
But it's par for the course in Washington, D.C.
And it's the reason BOTH parties have helped sink our nation $18.5 TRILLION in debt.
I know I'm going to be attacked for daring to stand up to this madness.
But I'm not backing down.
Will you please stand with me by making your most generous contribution of $50, $25 or even $10 right away?
I'm counting on you. This fight is going to get hot.
In liberty,
Rand Paul
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Tell Marco Rubio not to give in to the rainbow mafia
From Public Advocate:
Why has the Homosexual Lobby’s wealthiest activist just thrown his money behind Senator Marco Rubio for President?
Billionaire Paul Singer has a long track record of trying to buy support for the radical Homosexual Agenda among Republican politicians.
He believes he can pay the GOP to delete Real Marriage and Family Values from the Party platform.
Just last year, he went head-to-head with your Public Advocate -- pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pacts of key state representatives.
These payments were made explicitly for their support of the Michigan Gay Bill of Special Rights.
In 2012, Singer’s pro-homosexual PAC spent a fortune endorsing radical candidates and anti-marriage referendums in key battleground states.
And before that, Singer paid out over a million dollars bribing state-level Republican representatives in New York for their support of homosexual “marriage.”
While his dirty tactics worked in New York, Public Advocate crushed his agenda at every point in Michigan.
His bought-and-paid-for allies were run out of office, his favored candidates lost against pro-Family contenders, and his Gay Bill of Special Rights died without any further action.
But I knew that wouldn’t stop him for long.
Paul Singer only gives his support and his funds for one purpose: the advancement of homosexual “marriage” and specialized rights for homosexuals and transsexuals.
Which begs the question, why is Singer in league with Republican Marco Rubio?
Rubio’s campaign has already publicly embraced Singer's support.
And the New York Times reports that Rubio is desperately in need of campaign funding -- which will only make Singer’s influence all the greater.
Rubio spokesman Alex Conant welcomed the support, noting that the campaign has “a lot of work to do before Marco wins the nomination, but clearly this moves us in the right direction."
Does Senator Rubio plan to endorse the Homosexual Agenda?
Or will he stand up for Real Marriage and Family Values by rejecting Paul Singer and his dirty millions?
Just weeks ago, Public Advocate asked every candidate -- Republican and Democrat -- to show their commitment to Religious Liberty by supporting Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.
It is unacceptable for Marco Rubio to respond to this request by joining forces with the Homosexual Lobby in their quest to restrict religious freedoms.
Is Paul Singer using his deep pockets to move the campaign away from traditional family values?
That’s what I need you to write Marco Rubio and ask.
Email: contact@marcorubio.com
Ask Senator Marco Rubio why he is in league with the radical Homosexual Lobby and their wealthiest backer Paul Singer.
For the Family,
HON. EUGENE DELGAUDIO
President, Public Advocate of the U.S.
P.S. Please consider chipping in a donation today to aid Public Advocate in our fight against the Homosexual Lobby.
Why has the Homosexual Lobby’s wealthiest activist just thrown his money behind Senator Marco Rubio for President?
Billionaire Paul Singer has a long track record of trying to buy support for the radical Homosexual Agenda among Republican politicians.
He believes he can pay the GOP to delete Real Marriage and Family Values from the Party platform.
Just last year, he went head-to-head with your Public Advocate -- pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pacts of key state representatives.
These payments were made explicitly for their support of the Michigan Gay Bill of Special Rights.
In 2012, Singer’s pro-homosexual PAC spent a fortune endorsing radical candidates and anti-marriage referendums in key battleground states.
And before that, Singer paid out over a million dollars bribing state-level Republican representatives in New York for their support of homosexual “marriage.”
While his dirty tactics worked in New York, Public Advocate crushed his agenda at every point in Michigan.
His bought-and-paid-for allies were run out of office, his favored candidates lost against pro-Family contenders, and his Gay Bill of Special Rights died without any further action.
But I knew that wouldn’t stop him for long.
Paul Singer only gives his support and his funds for one purpose: the advancement of homosexual “marriage” and specialized rights for homosexuals and transsexuals.
Which begs the question, why is Singer in league with Republican Marco Rubio?
Rubio’s campaign has already publicly embraced Singer's support.
And the New York Times reports that Rubio is desperately in need of campaign funding -- which will only make Singer’s influence all the greater.
Rubio spokesman Alex Conant welcomed the support, noting that the campaign has “a lot of work to do before Marco wins the nomination, but clearly this moves us in the right direction."
Does Senator Rubio plan to endorse the Homosexual Agenda?
Or will he stand up for Real Marriage and Family Values by rejecting Paul Singer and his dirty millions?
Just weeks ago, Public Advocate asked every candidate -- Republican and Democrat -- to show their commitment to Religious Liberty by supporting Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.
It is unacceptable for Marco Rubio to respond to this request by joining forces with the Homosexual Lobby in their quest to restrict religious freedoms.
Is Paul Singer using his deep pockets to move the campaign away from traditional family values?
That’s what I need you to write Marco Rubio and ask.
Email: contact@marcorubio.com
Ask Senator Marco Rubio why he is in league with the radical Homosexual Lobby and their wealthiest backer Paul Singer.
For the Family,
HON. EUGENE DELGAUDIO
President, Public Advocate of the U.S.
P.S. Please consider chipping in a donation today to aid Public Advocate in our fight against the Homosexual Lobby.
National Right To Work Committee rates the Presidential Candidates
From The National Right To Work Committee:
What if you found out Donald Trump or Ben Carson refused to support the National Right to Work Act?
How about Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Or Jeb Bush?
It's hard to believe any politician would oppose the 80% of Americans who support ending forced-unionism.
But Big Labor's claws dig deep -- on both sides of the aisle.
That's why the our 2016 Presidential Survey program is so important.
As you know, I've mailed surveys to every 2016 presidential candidate asking each one to go on record FOR or AGAINST the forced-dues agenda, including whether or not they support the National Right to Work Act.
And I'm launching a TV ad blitz in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina ensuring no candidate for president thinks they can ignore the Right to Work issue.
But to run our TV ad blitz, you and I need to raise $50,000 by this Thursday, November 12th.
I'll send you a copy of the TV ad for you to see as soon as it's ready, but for now can I count on you to chip in $10, $25, or $50 towards our goal?
Sincerely,
Greg
What if you found out Donald Trump or Ben Carson refused to support the National Right to Work Act?
How about Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Or Jeb Bush?
It's hard to believe any politician would oppose the 80% of Americans who support ending forced-unionism.
But Big Labor's claws dig deep -- on both sides of the aisle.
That's why the our 2016 Presidential Survey program is so important.
As you know, I've mailed surveys to every 2016 presidential candidate asking each one to go on record FOR or AGAINST the forced-dues agenda, including whether or not they support the National Right to Work Act.
And I'm launching a TV ad blitz in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina ensuring no candidate for president thinks they can ignore the Right to Work issue.
But to run our TV ad blitz, you and I need to raise $50,000 by this Thursday, November 12th.
I'll send you a copy of the TV ad for you to see as soon as it's ready, but for now can I count on you to chip in $10, $25, or $50 towards our goal?
Sincerely,
Greg
There are a lot of similarities between Hillary Clinton and her GOP opponents
From Rand Paul 2016:
I was talking with my wife Kelley this morning and we were discussing the past week on the campaign trail, and the upcoming debate.
She thought I should send a note to my supporters with the same points that I was making to her. She thought you needed to hear it straight from me before before this critical debate. So I penned this note this afternoon and wanted to get it to you right away. I hope you agree with this approach. More updates to come later!
Last week was a big week on the campaign.
The Senate passed in the dead of night a bill to raid social security and add trillions to our debt - they gave President Obama a blank check, and hardly even debated the topic. I stood up on the floor at 3am and protested.
I might have been a bit fired up, as you saw if you watched the speech.
With your help, and the help of Senator Mike Lee, 25 million people watched the video. It went viral and Americans took notice.
Next, I went to the Democrat debate in South Carolina and challenged Hillary Clinton head on for being a NeoCon. She shares the positions on foreign policy of Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.
After watching the Democrats debate, it became clear there really isn’t much difference between Hillary Clinton and some of the Republican candidates on the key issues.
•Hillary Clinton wants Amnesty. Marco Rubio partnered with Chuck Schumer to try and pass Amnesty.
•Hillary Clinton agrees with Marco Rubio that we should have American boots on the ground in the Middle East. They both supported the Iraq War, support a no fly zone over Syria that could lead to war with Russia, supported failed policies in Libya, etc. They both support foreign aid to the Muslim brotherhood. There is virtually no substantive difference between them on foreign policy.
•Hillary Clinton supports Obamatrade. Again, most of the Republican candidates, including Marco Rubio, agree with her on that. They want to give President Obama more authority, and trust him to use it correctly.
There is virtually no difference between Hillary Clinton and several other Republican candidates on some of the biggest issues of the campaign. How can you beat Hillary Clinton if you agree with her policies?
The debate is tomorrow night and we are down to just 8 candidates on that stage.
It is by far the most important debate of the campaign.
And now rather than talk about Ben Carson’s college applications, or Marco Rubio’s credit card scandal, we can talk about the real issues facing our country.
•No American boots on the ground in the Middle East.
•A fairer, flatter tax to replace the tax code.
•Audit the fed to provide real confidence in our money.
•No Amnesty. Not now, not ever.
We each get more time to speak because only 8 candidates will be on the stage….this means more time to discuss the issues that truly matter. And I trust Fox Business will do a better job staying on the issues than CNBC.
I am going to "paint in bold colors, not pale pastels."
And I am going to hold these Republican candidates accountable for being Hillary-lite on the critical issues of our day.
If you agree with this approach, I hope you will join me by making a contribution to the campaign. Together, we will take our country back.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul
I was talking with my wife Kelley this morning and we were discussing the past week on the campaign trail, and the upcoming debate.
She thought I should send a note to my supporters with the same points that I was making to her. She thought you needed to hear it straight from me before before this critical debate. So I penned this note this afternoon and wanted to get it to you right away. I hope you agree with this approach. More updates to come later!
Last week was a big week on the campaign.
The Senate passed in the dead of night a bill to raid social security and add trillions to our debt - they gave President Obama a blank check, and hardly even debated the topic. I stood up on the floor at 3am and protested.
I might have been a bit fired up, as you saw if you watched the speech.
With your help, and the help of Senator Mike Lee, 25 million people watched the video. It went viral and Americans took notice.
Next, I went to the Democrat debate in South Carolina and challenged Hillary Clinton head on for being a NeoCon. She shares the positions on foreign policy of Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham.
After watching the Democrats debate, it became clear there really isn’t much difference between Hillary Clinton and some of the Republican candidates on the key issues.
•Hillary Clinton wants Amnesty. Marco Rubio partnered with Chuck Schumer to try and pass Amnesty.
•Hillary Clinton agrees with Marco Rubio that we should have American boots on the ground in the Middle East. They both supported the Iraq War, support a no fly zone over Syria that could lead to war with Russia, supported failed policies in Libya, etc. They both support foreign aid to the Muslim brotherhood. There is virtually no substantive difference between them on foreign policy.
•Hillary Clinton supports Obamatrade. Again, most of the Republican candidates, including Marco Rubio, agree with her on that. They want to give President Obama more authority, and trust him to use it correctly.
There is virtually no difference between Hillary Clinton and several other Republican candidates on some of the biggest issues of the campaign. How can you beat Hillary Clinton if you agree with her policies?
The debate is tomorrow night and we are down to just 8 candidates on that stage.
It is by far the most important debate of the campaign.
And now rather than talk about Ben Carson’s college applications, or Marco Rubio’s credit card scandal, we can talk about the real issues facing our country.
•No American boots on the ground in the Middle East.
•A fairer, flatter tax to replace the tax code.
•Audit the fed to provide real confidence in our money.
•No Amnesty. Not now, not ever.
We each get more time to speak because only 8 candidates will be on the stage….this means more time to discuss the issues that truly matter. And I trust Fox Business will do a better job staying on the issues than CNBC.
I am going to "paint in bold colors, not pale pastels."
And I am going to hold these Republican candidates accountable for being Hillary-lite on the critical issues of our day.
If you agree with this approach, I hope you will join me by making a contribution to the campaign. Together, we will take our country back.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul
Help defeat TPP
From Demand Progress:
The final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was finally was released to the public yesterday, and it's every bit as awful as we feared—if not worse.1
Now the clock starts ticking on the 90-day window for President Obama to sign the deal, and we're launching a major push to stop this awful corporate giveaway. Will you help support our campaign?
Yes, I'll donate to help fund an emergency campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
If ratified, the TPP will sneak in SOPA-like attacks on Internet freedom, overturn protections against Wall Street recklessness, and allow corporations to sue sovereign nations to overturn the decisions of democratically elected officials.2
But there is already a major bipartisan backlash to the deal, and if we act fast we have a real chance to stop it.
Already, several Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have come out against the deal.3 A powerful coalition of labor, environmental, and Internet freedom organizations are leading the charge.
But we don't have much time to build the grassroots movement we need to stop the TPP. The deal was completed behind closed doors in secret a full month ago. That means that corporations and their political allies have had a huge head start lobbying for the deal.
Will you help fund our emergency campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
The first thing we need to do is comb through the details of the final agreement to identify the most outrageous corporate giveaways and impacts on Internet users. The text is 30 chapters long and 2,700 pages, so that's no small task.
Then we'll need to launch a public education campaign, using our savvy social media strategies to get around the corporate media and warn voters directly.
The next 90 days will be a furious lobbying push, with corporations spending millions in favor of the TPP. It's going to take everything we have to stop it. Will you become a contributor?
Yes, I'll donate to help stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Thanks for standing with us.
1. Details of Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Revealed, NBC News, November 5, 2015
2. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices, Public Citizen, accessed November 6, 2015
3. Where the Candidates Stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Newsweek, October 5, 2015
The final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was finally was released to the public yesterday, and it's every bit as awful as we feared—if not worse.1
Now the clock starts ticking on the 90-day window for President Obama to sign the deal, and we're launching a major push to stop this awful corporate giveaway. Will you help support our campaign?
Yes, I'll donate to help fund an emergency campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
If ratified, the TPP will sneak in SOPA-like attacks on Internet freedom, overturn protections against Wall Street recklessness, and allow corporations to sue sovereign nations to overturn the decisions of democratically elected officials.2
But there is already a major bipartisan backlash to the deal, and if we act fast we have a real chance to stop it.
Already, several Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have come out against the deal.3 A powerful coalition of labor, environmental, and Internet freedom organizations are leading the charge.
But we don't have much time to build the grassroots movement we need to stop the TPP. The deal was completed behind closed doors in secret a full month ago. That means that corporations and their political allies have had a huge head start lobbying for the deal.
Will you help fund our emergency campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
The first thing we need to do is comb through the details of the final agreement to identify the most outrageous corporate giveaways and impacts on Internet users. The text is 30 chapters long and 2,700 pages, so that's no small task.
Then we'll need to launch a public education campaign, using our savvy social media strategies to get around the corporate media and warn voters directly.
The next 90 days will be a furious lobbying push, with corporations spending millions in favor of the TPP. It's going to take everything we have to stop it. Will you become a contributor?
Yes, I'll donate to help stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Thanks for standing with us.
1. Details of Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Revealed, NBC News, November 5, 2015
2. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices, Public Citizen, accessed November 6, 2015
3. Where the Candidates Stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Newsweek, October 5, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
