Very recently, an impressive group of 564 political analysts from labor, environmental, family-farm and community organizations sent Obama a strongly-worded letter to the White House arguing that pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, undermines the Obama's message on "income inequality."

Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born dictator-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama will not only deceitfully blatter in another dishonest promotional speech that he is actually for reducing income inequality as expected, he will covertly and belligerently push for fast-track legislation on the job-destroying TPP free-trade agreement.

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The aim is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

Obama announced in his 2013 State of the Union address the plan to add the trans-Pacific free-trade agreement to the trans-Atlantic agreement already in place.

Fast-track authority would allow the Obama administration to ram the TPP through Congress with a simple majority vote. The rules would limit debate so that no amendments could be introduced to modify the language of the agreement the Obama administration has negotiated behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, the power the Citizens Trade Campaign plans to deliver to the White House can be seen by the letter's signatories.

They include labor unions such as the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; United Autoworkers (UAW); United Brotherhood of Carpenters; United Steelworkers (USW); and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Among the environmental organizations are 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club.

Family farm organizations include the National Family Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Consumer groups include Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, National Consumers League, and Public Citizen.

Income inequality and long-term unemployment are serious problems that the job-killing TPP would only worsen.

On Wednesday, another group opposed to TPP, the U.S. Business Industry Council, plans to deliver the second punch in the one-two punch act by following up the State of the Union address with a national press conference revealing the results of a bipartisan national poll on TPP.

In an unusual move, two pollsters that usually do not work together, Democratic pollster Gary Molyneux of Hart Research and Republican pollster Bob Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, have collaborated to take the poll and report the results.

The majority of responders oppose the TPP as a job-killing measure. Critics charge the Obama administration negotiated it in secret and is now trying to rush it through Congress before the American public finds out how the trade measure compromises U.S. sovereignty.

On Jan. 14, it was reported that Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

On Jan. 9, in a little-noticed statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, together with ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., announced they were introducing fast-track trade promotion authority.

The last line of congressional resistance to TPP appears to be coming from House Democrats concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

Last year, 151 House Democrats, led by Representatives Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and George Miller, D-Calif., opposed to TPP wrote a letter to Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born liar-in-chief Obama stating their opposition to using outdated Fast-Track procedures that usurp Congress's authority over trade matters.

With Boehner's decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

Fast track authority, a provision under also has the function of reassuring foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch, will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama declared that to boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Recently, he announced that he will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union because [presumably]: "trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns that previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs to nations with less expensive job markets.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

The White House seeks to pass it with a simple majority vote, without so much as introducing a single amendment to modify the language of the agreement it has negotiated behind closed doors.

With House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio already deciding to vote with Senate Democrats to grant fast track authority for congressional consideration of the TPP, the only remaining opposition to the bill seems to be coming from House Democrats.

Pressured by labor union constituents, the House Democrats have concluded the massive Trans-Pacific trade deal capitulates to corporate interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, placing under international control important U.S. environmental, public-health and labor standards.

The House Democrats are concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade fast-track steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

For too long, bad trade deals have allowed corporations to ship good American jobs overseas, and wages, benefits, workplace protections and quality of life have all declined as a result. That is why there is strong bipartisan opposition to enabling the Executive Branch to ram through far-reaching, secretly negotiated trade deals like the TPP that extend well beyond traditional trade matters. At the core of the Baucus-Camp bill is the same Fast Track mechanism that failed us from 2002-2007.

The lawmakers said their constituents did not send us to Washington to ship their jobs overseas, and Congress will not be a rubber stamp for another flawed trade deal that will hang the middle class out to dry.

Instead of pursuing the same failed trade policies, we should support American workers by making the necessary investments to compete in today's global economy.

With Boehner's decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

Most seasoned congressional watchers expect Obama, Reid and Boehner will ultimately succeed in ramming TPP through to passage. But they believe it won't happen without labor-supporting House Democrats and conservative House Republicans concerned about sovereignty wrangling to obtain last-minute concessions.

Fast-track authority is a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review a free-trade agreement, or FTA, under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame that is subject to a yes-or-no vote by Congress without any provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority is also intended to reassure foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The goal is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

As dictator Obama, in his 2013 State of the Union address announced, the addition of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to the agenda that would complement the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement to supposedly:

"Boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership," and he announced plans to launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union [allegedly] "because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns the promise is hollow, as previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs overseas to nations within the partnership with less expensive job markets.

Globalists advising the Obama administration appear to have learned from the adverse public reaction to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, during the administration of President George W. Bush. Obama has avoided the leader summit meetings that exposed to a critical alternative news media the international working-group coordination needed to create international free-trade agreements.

The Obama administration has shut down the Security and Prosperity Partnership website, SPP.gov. The last joint statement issued by the newly formed North American Leaders Summit, operating as the rebranded SPP, was issued April 2, 2012, at the conclusion of the last tri-lateral head-of-state meeting held between the U.S., Mexico and Canada in Washington, D.C.

Now, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration appears to have leap-frogged SPP ambitions to create a North American Union by including Mexico and Canada in the TPP configuration.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

For the first time, a decision by the U.S. Trade Representative within the White House to expand negotiations to create a free trade zone with Pacific Rim countries was made public, along with a similar initiative with EU countries.

Despite having demonized Republican challenger Mitt Romney as a jobs outsourcer, Obama in his SOTU address did not hesitate to sell the new globalist alliances to Congress and the American people as partnerships that would expand U.S. exports.

It's the same premise all previous administrations have used to sell free-trade agreements such as NAFTA.

Remarkably, the Trans-Pacific negotiations have received almost no publicity in establishment media, though they have concluded 15 rounds. Eleven nations are participating, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

The low-profile advancement of the TPP, now supplemented by the addition of the TAP, appears to have been accomplished by design.

The Obama administration is aware that under George W. Bush, concerns from the right about sovereignty and the left about infringement of U.S. environmental laws with both sides fearing outsourcing of jobs blocked greater North American political integration under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Expansion of NAFTA was halted and, later, the inclusion of South America under the Free Trade Act of the Americas.

Obama's open discussion of the two-oceans TPP and TAP free trade agendas during his recent SOTU attests to the persistence of globalists.

Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born melado-in-chief? has found a way to revive the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, through pushing the Trans-Pacific TPP agenda.

On March 23, 2005, at their summit meeting in Waco, Texas, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a joint statement announcing the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

With the announcement, the U.S. Mexico and Canada entered into an unprecedented arrangement in which bureaucrats from the three nations would be assigned to shadow government working groups charged with integrating and harmonizing administrative law and regulatory structures of the three nations in a broad range of public policy areas.

While much of the agreement was announced in Waco, Texas, there was virtually no explanation of whey the trilateral bureaucratic behind-the-scenes work was being initiated. Moreover, nothing was said about creating a North American Community or advancing toward a North American Union.

By the end of the Bush administration, the SPP meetings were dropped and the name was changed. All future tri-lateral meetings with Mexico and Canada were subsequently billed under the less threatening designation of North American Leaders Summit Meetings.

So far, the Obama administration has pursued the TPP not under the auspices of the Department of State, but through the offices of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

On June 16, 2012, in a notice published on the U.S. Trade Representative website, Ambassador Kirk announced that Mexico had decided to join the TPP negotiations.

Kirk said that he was "delighted to invite Mexico, our neighbor and second largest export market, to join the TPP negotiations. Mexico's interest in the TPP reflects its recognition that the TPP presents the most promising pathway to boosting trade across the Asia Pacific and to encouraging regional trade integration." They look forward to "continuing consultations with Congress and domestic stakeholders" as they "move forward."

Three days later, on June 19, 2012, with similar language, the USTR announced Canada had decided to join the TPP negotiations:

"Inviting Canada to join the TPP negotiations presents a unique opportunity for the United States to build upon this already dynamic trading relationship. Through TPP, we are bringing the relationship with our largest trading partner into the 21st century," said Kirk. "We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress and domestic stakeholders regarding Canada's entry into the TPP as we move closer to a broad-based, high-standard trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region," he continued.

To avoid mistakes made with the SPP, the USTR this time notified Congress of the intent to include both Mexico and Canada in the TPP negotiations, triggering a 90-day consultation period with Congress. A notice was published in the Federal Register seeking public comments.

By including Mexico and Canada, the U.S. government moved to revive the SPP union of North American nations in the larger regional context of a Pacific Rim union of nations.

A February 13th White House press release on the USTR website announced the Atlantic negotiations:

"We, the leaders of the United States and the European Union, are pleased to announce that, based on recommendations from the U.S. EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth co-chaired by United States Trade Representative Kirk and European Trade Commissioner De Gucht, the United States and European Union will each initiate the internal procedures necessary to launch negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The announcement suggests the new TAP stems from working groups formed through US-EU integration efforts begun long before Obama took office in 2008.

On May 8, 2007, it was reported that President George W. Bush signed an agreement creating a permanent body that commits the U.S. to deeper transatlantic economic integration without ratification by the Senate as a treaty or passage by Congress as a law.

On April 30, 2007, a Transatlantic Economic Integration agreement between the U.S. and the European Union was signed at the White House by Bush; Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the current president of the European Council; and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

The Transatlantic Economic Council created by the agreement was tasked with creating regulatory convergence between the U.S. and the EU on some 40 different public policy areas, including intellectual property rights, developing security standards for international trade, getting U.S. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) recognized in Europe, developing innovation and technology in health industries, implementing RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technologies, developing a science-based plan on bio-based products and establishing a regular dialogue to address obstacles to investment.

The April 2007 summit also involved coordinating the Transatlantic Economic Council with the work of the Transatlantic Policy Network, or TPN a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels, chaired in 2007 by former Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. It dates back to December 1995, when the United States and the EU signed what was then known as the New Transatlantic Agenda, a protocol contemplating a Transatlantic Common Market to be created between the U.S. and the EU by 2015.

The Transatlantic economic integration plan was originated in 1939 by a world government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal 'Freedom and Union,' Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN congressional policy advisory group, affirmed the TPN target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa also argued the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with a common set of economic regulations, creating by bureaucratic action the required Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure, without seeking specific Congressional approval of a new Free-Trade Agreement, or FTA.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Sen. Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the Merkel Initiative would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU in a very quiet way, contemplated then to be accomplished without introducing a new FTA to Congress.

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book 'Union Now' called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union to be formed as a step toward world government. It envisioned a new governmental federation with an international constitution governing the 15 democracies of the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, former founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, or CEERN, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett with reviving Streit's work seven decades later.

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in the same terms in 1939.

One such example is Bennett's claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) under a common regulatory standard that would become the de facto world standard regardless of what any other parties say.

Similarly, Streit wrote in 'Union Now' that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal 'Freedom and Union,' World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa acknowledged that transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end.

"As understood by Jean Monnet," he continued, "economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it."

Also recently, Obama defended a proposed mega free-trade zone between the world's two largest economies, the United States and the European Union.

"I have fought my entire political career, and as president, to strengthen consumer protections. I have no intention of signing legislation that would weaken those protections," Obama said during a visit to the EU headquarters in Brussels.

Obama was responding to criticism of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, which the U.S. has been negotiated with the EU since last July.

Besides creating the world's biggest free-trade zone, the TTIP will also bring about closer cooperation between EU and U.S. regulatory bodies while more closely integrating the two economies.

One leak about the TTIP revealed a proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council that would evaluate existing regulations in the U.S. and EU and recommend future rules while coordinating a response to the current regulations.

Writing in the left-leaning 'The Nation' magazine, foreign policy analyst Andrew Erwin said the TTIP was less about reducing tariffs and more about weakening the power of average citizens to defend themselves against corporate labor and environmental abuses.

Erwin took particular issue with a section in the TTIP called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement, which stipulates foreign corporations can sue the government utilizing a special international tribunal instead of the country's own domestic system that uses U.S. law.

The tribunals are not accountable to any national public or democratically elected body.

Last December, a coalition of more than 200 environmentalists, labor unions and consumer advocacy organizations drafted a letter asking for the Investor-State Dispute Settlement section to be dropped.

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported earlier that some American companies are concerned that protections for investors will not be part of a deal.

While Obama is negotiating the TTIP largely in secret, talks continue to forge ahead with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. The expansive plan is a proposed free-trade agreement between the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The agreement would create new guidelines for everything from food safety to fracking, financial markets, medical prices, copyright rules and Internet freedom.

On Tuesday, the leaders of Canada and Japan reportedly met on the sidelines of a nuclear summit at the Hague to discuss the TPP.

The TPP negotiations have been criticized by politicians and advocacy groups alike for their secrecy. The few aspects of the partnership leaked to the public indicate an expansive agenda with highly limited congressional oversight.

A New York Times opinion piece previously called the deal the most significant international commercial agreement since the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995.

Last October, the White House website released a joint statement with the other proposed TPP signatories affirming "our countries are on track to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations."

"Ministers and negotiators have made significant progress in recent months on all the legal texts and annexes on access to our respective goods, services, investment, financial services, government procurement, and temporary entry markets," the White House said.

The statement did not divulge details of the partnership other than to suggest a final TPP agreement "must reflect our common vision to establish a comprehensive, next-generation model for addressing both new and traditional trade and investment issues, supporting the creation and retention of jobs and promoting economic development in our countries."

In February, the Open the Government organization sent a letter to Obama blasting the lack of transparency surrounding the TPP talks, stating the negotiations have been "conducted in unprecedented secrecy."

"Despite the fact the deal may significantly affect the way we live our lives by limiting our public protections, there has been no public access to even the most fundamental draft agreement texts and other documents," read the letter.

The missive was signed by advocacy groups such as OpenTheGovernment.org, Project On Government Oversight, ARTICLE 19 and the Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression and Information.

The groups warned issues being secretly negotiated include patent and copyright, land use, food and product standards, natural resources, professional licensing, government procurement, financial practices, healthcare, energy, telecommunications, and other service sector regulations.

Normally free-trade agreements must be authorized by a majority of the House and Senate, usually in lengthy proceedings.

However, the White House is seeking what is known as "trade promotion authority" which would fast track approval of the TPP by requiring Congress to vote on the likely lengthy trade agreement within 90 days and without any amendments.

The authority also allows Obama to sign the agreement before Congress even has a chance to vote on it, with lawmakers getting only a quick post-facto vote.

A number of lawmakers have been speaking out about the secret TPP talks.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. recently proposed legislation requiring the White House to disclose all TPP documents to members of Congress.

"The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement," said Wyden.

Obama has so far refused to give Congress a copy of the draft agreement.

Only 5 of its 29 chapters cover traditional trade matters, like tariffs or quotas. The others impose parameters on nontrade policies. Existing and future American laws must be altered to conform with these terms, or trade sanctions can be imposed against American exports.

Jim Hightower, a progressive activist, wrote the TPP incorporates elements similar to the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Indeed, Internet freedom advocacy groups have been protesting the TPP, taking specific issue with leaked proposals that would enact strict intellectual property restraints that would effectively change U.S. copyright law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued the TPP would "restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector."

In a petition signed by more than 30 Internet freedom organizations, the group warned the TPP would "rewrite global rules on intellectual property enforcement."

The Obama administration appears determined to ram through Congress a key part of a grandiose trade plan that transcends the vision for a North American Union encompassing both Europe and Pacific Rim nations.

Pro-abortion-choicers/pro-homoqueer-sodomy-unions-licensing Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born deceptive dictator Obama declared in his State of the Union address his intent to complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership and announced the launch of talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union.

It was the first time a decision by the U.S. Trade Representative within the White House to expand negotiations to create a free trade zone with Pacific Rim countries was made public, along with a similar initiative with EU countries.

To implement the newly contemplated Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement, or FTA, the administration apparently plans to restrict congressional prerogatives to an up-or-down vote.

The issue centers on a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review an FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote.

Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority also treats the FTA as if it were trade legislation being negotiated by the executive branch. The purpose is to assure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process.

A report released Jan. 24 by the Congressional Research Service, 'The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress' makes clear the Obama administration does not have fast-track authority to negotiate the TPP, even though the office of the U.S. Trade Representative is acting as if fact-track authority is in effect.

The present negotiations are not being conducted under the auspices of formal trade promotion authority, or TPA, according to the CRS report. The latest TPA expired July 1, 2007. The administration, however, is informally following the procedures of the former TPA. If TPP implementing legislation is brought to Congress, TPA may need to be considered if the legislation is not to be subject to potentially debilitating amendments or rejection, the report says.

The CRS says Congress may seek to weigh in on the addition of new members to the negotiations, before or after the negotiations conclude.

The report makes clear that the TPP is being negotiated as a regional free-trade agreement that U.S. negotiators describe as a comprehensive and high-standard FTA. Obamanites hope an agreement will liberalize trade in nearly all goods and services and include commitments beyond those currently established in the World Trade Organization (WTO.)

That the Obama administration is treating the TPP like a TPA and not a formal treaty obligation strongly suggests the Democrat majority in the Senate will seek passage of the TPP by a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote, as required for the ratification of a formal treaty.

Still, the impact of the TPP will be equivalent to a formal treaty obligation, because certain agreements within the TPP will place regional authorities over U.S. law.

One of the few remaining strategies left to opponents of the TPP is to make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval.

No formal steps have been taken to consult Congress as the agreement is being negotiated.

A leaked copy of the TPP draft makes clear in Chapter 15, Dispute Settlement, that the Obama administration intends to surrender U.S. sovereignty to an international tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising under the TPP.

Disputes concerning interpretation and application of the TPP agreement, according to Article 15.7, will be adjudicated by an "arbitral tribunal" composed of three TPP members. The purpose of the tribunal under Article 15.8 will be "make an objective assessment of the dispute before it, including an examination of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with this Agreement, and make such other findings and rulings necessary for the resolution of the dispute referred to it as it thinks fits."

The TPP draft agreement does not specify that the arbitral tribunals must render decisions in compliance with U.S. law.

Investment disputes under the TPP appear to be relegated for resolution to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an international authority created by 158 nations that are signatories to the ICSID Convention created under the auspices of the World Bank.

The TPP draft agreement specifies that foreign firms from Trans-Pacific signatory countries that seek to do business in the U.S. may apply to the arbitral tribunals to obtain relief under the trade pact from complying with onerous U.S. laws and regulations. The firms would be exempt from certain environmental and financial disclosure regulations, for example, if such regulations are deemed overly burdensome.

Because the TPP agreement places arbitral tribunals created under TPP to be above U.S. law, the Obama administration's negotiation of the Trans-Pacific pact without specific consultation with Congress appears aimed at creating a judicial authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. The judicial entity could overrule decisions U.S. Federal District and Circuit courts make to apply U.S. laws and regulations to foreign corporations doing business within the United States.

The result appears to allow foreign companies doing business within the United States to operate in a legal and regulatory environment that would give the foreign companies decided economic advantages over U.S. companies that remain subject to U.S. laws and regulations.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican challenger Mitt Romney never elevated the TPP into a major campaign issue by questioning the authority or intentions of the Obama administration.

The Romney campaign even declined to refute Obama charges that the Republican nominee was a "venture capitalist" who sought to outsource U.S. jobs to the detriment of U.S. workers.

Romney did not make the TPP an issue because his free-trade strategists enthusiastically supported the Obama administration's pursuit of TPP negotiations, objecting only that Japan should not be permitted to join the discussions until it opens its markets more to U.S. competition.

The comments developed after the New York Times published in November 2012 speculations that the government of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda was considering a declaration that Japan intended to join the ambitious pan-Pacific free trade agreement as a prelude to calling a snap election and campaigning on the trade advantages to be gained by the move.

Although Japan and China are not presently participating in TPP negotiations, "docking provisions" being written into the TPP draft agreement would permit either Japan or China to join the TPP at a later date without suffering any disadvantage.

An analysis by WePartyPatriots, published by the DailyKos.com in the final days of the 2012 presidential campaign, suggested the TPP is being negotiated in a stealth manner.

The TTP "has been mentioned exactly zero times by the Presidential candidates as far as we can tell, but if/when it is secretly approved it will become the most significant foreign and domestic policy initiative to come out of the Obama administration, or out of the Romney administration," the writer said, "since both parties support it."

In the 1990s it was NAFTA, which turned our 1993 trade surplus with Mexico ($2.5 billion) into a massive trade deficit ($181 billion by 2012) and made our trade deficit with Canada even worse.

Today, it's the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would lock us into an undesirable agreement with other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Singapore.

First off, it's important to know that the TPP would make any 'Buy American' or 'Buy Local' laws or preferences illegal. The benefit, we are told, in waiving Buy American procurement policies is that we would avoid potential 'Buy Malaysia' laws from Malaysia, 'Buy Singapore' laws from Singapore, etc.

Theorizing over potential trade retaliation threats from other countries is not a valid reason to avoid or sacrifice Buy American laws on the altar of the global economy. Consider the recent $1.1 trillion budget passed by Congress.

When Congress was expected to vote on and pass a pro-Buy American amendment to exclude Canadian companies from our multi-billion-dollar clean water infrastructure market, Ottawa officials downplayed simultaneous Buy Canadian policy threats.

Even if we were able to muscle our way in and win procurement contracts in other countries, the U.S. market is over seven times larger than the markets for Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam combined. And one should argue that winning U.S. bids in other countries won't be likely since we have higher standards of living and therefore pay higher wages than most other countries, potentially making our contract bids more expensive.

Especially in today's economy, we need to be using American tax dollars to strengthen American manufacturers so they can hire more American workers and reduce the jobless rate in this country. Using U.S. tax revenue to strengthen foreign manufacturing firms makes little sense to most Americans, and rightly so.

With TPP, we would also be disposing of other regulations that have worked to provide us with a safer consumer environment and raise U.S. living standards.

For example, when our government buys something as simple as printing paper, we wouldn't even be able to specify that we prefer to use recycled materials or non-toxic dye. We would do well to pay attention to common-sense environmental standards in trade agreements. Anyone who disputes that need only look at the smog from China that has worked its way across the Pacific to plague Los Angeles.

The TPP also would seek to aggressively reduce tariffs that protect our domestic factories from cut-throat global competition from predatory foreign trading partners of which there is never a shortage. In one of the early stages of the TPP negotiations, potential member countries called for elimination of all trade tariffs by 2015. Such a stipulation would fly in the face of our U.S. Constitution, which gives our Congress the power to regulate commerce (trade) with foreign nations.

We've passed enough free-trade agreements already (three in the past year alone) and the results have not been favorable to the United States if you go by the basic definition of a good or beneficial trade agreement. A beneficial trade agreement should simply be defined as one that results in the trade surpluses for the United States, not trade deficits.

According to Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury in the Reagan administration, a trade deficit means that foreigners have even more surplus dollars with which to buy up more U.S. assets and is a way to redirect a country's revenues and profits into overseas hands.

According to Reuters, foreign companies owned 1.3 percent of all U.S. corporate assets. By 2008 that figure had risen to 14.2 percent. It's clearly past time to reverse direction, and one of the best ways to do that is to reverse the trend towards ever-more free-trade agreements.

Supporters of the TPP and free trade in general will try to tell you that America was founded upon free trade, but this is simply not the case. The Tariff of 1789 was the first major act ever to pass Congress, and allowed the collection of tariff duties on various imports to fund the cost of government. Tariffs were advocated by Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley, just to name a few.

Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, a self-described protectionist, often points out: "From 1870 to 1913, the U.S. economy grew more than 4 percent a year. Industrial production grew at 5 percent. The Protectionist Era was among the most productive in history. When it began, America was dependent on imports for 8 percent of its GNP. When it ended, America's dependency had fallen to 4 percent. The nation began the era with an economy half the size of Britain's and ended it with an economy more than twice as large as Britain's."

In 1896, the GOP platform stated, "We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of American development and prosperity." Even the 1972 GOP platform rallied against outsourcing (a key component of free trade), saying, "We deplore the practice of locating plants in foreign countries solely to take advantage of low wage rates in order to produce goods primarily for sale in the United States."

Right now, pseudo-"christian" cultic-muslim-supportive Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Barack Hussein Obama is trying to get fast track authority so he can negotiate the TPP free trade deal and have Congress vote on it with limited debate, no amendments, and a mere up or down vote. He should be denied fast track authority.

Why?

The first words of our Constitution say that, "All legislative power shall be vested in a Congress." If Congress can't amend legislation and only vote yes or no, they clearly do not have all legislative power, since allowing amendments would be an increase in the legislative power of Congress.

As a nation, we need to return to our roots and secure the American market for the American producer. Free trade works against doing that, and that is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership needs to be stopped. I hope that you will contact your legislative representatives and tell them we do NOT need fast track and we do not need more congress-bypassed free trade.