Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Signs Three Executive Orders on TPP, Abortion

Trump Signs Three Executive Orders on TPP, Abortion

NGOs that promote abortion as a form of family planning will not receive aid.

President Donald Trump began his first full day with a bang by signing three executive orders that withdraws America from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), defunds International Planned Parenthood, and freeze hiring of federal workers.

TPP became a hot topic on the campaign trail with Trump vocally against it. Former President Barack Obama worked on the agreement for almost two years with the aim of “eliminating most tariffs and other trade barriers among the U.S., Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Vietnam and half a dozen other countries around the Pacific.”

On Sunday, Trump said that he will speak with leaders of Canada and Mexico about NAFTA. He wants to stick with this “America First” slogan and views these trade agreements “as lopsided against the US.”

Obama even worked closely with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), but “Congress never approved the deal itself.” From The New York Times:

Mr. Obama and his Republican allies argued that the pact would open growing foreign markets to American businesses. But Democrats, ultimately including Hillary Clinton, even though she had helped push negotiations forward as secretary of state, said it would benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.

Mr. Trump sided with them, and he beat Mrs. Clinton in crucial Midwestern industrial states like Michigan and Wisconsin that had traditionally gone Democratic but have been hurt by changes in manufacturing over recent decades.

Since Congress never ratified the deal, the order is more symbolic to show Trump will have a tough stance on trade to make sure no one takes advantage of America. On Monday afternoon, Trump will “meet with union leaders and blue-collar workers several hours after signing the executive action, as well as separate meetings with business leaders.”

Trump also brought back the Mexico City Policy, first brought up by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, which requires “nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of receiving any federal funding that they ‘would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.'”

The bill to fully defund Planned Parenthood lies in hands of Congress, but Trump can defund International Planned Parenthood. The order means that leg of Planned Parenthood and other NGOs that promote the murder of unborn human beings as a way of family planning can no longer receive any aid from the US Agency for International Development:

“President Trump is continuing Ronald Reagan’s legacy by taking immediate action on day one to stop the promotion of abortion through our tax dollars overseas.” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser in an email to LifeNews.com. “President Trump’s immediate action to promote respect for all human life, including vulnerable unborn children abroad, as well as conscience rights, sends a strong signal about his Administration’s pro-life priorities.”

Trump then signed an order to freeze government hiring, which does not include the military:

[Chief of Staff Reince] Priebus presented him with the document, Trump interrupted to make clear that the freeze exempted the military. He made no further comment about the new directive.

Trump’s call for a hiring freeze dates back to an October speech in Gettysburg, Penn. as part of his “Contract with the American Voter.”

During that speech, he promised a “hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal work force through attrition,” but noted that there would be an exemption for military, public safety and public health jobs.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

filiusdextris | January 23, 2017 at 3:12 pm

Defunding PP International will save real lives. What a courageous stroke of the pen to permanently make certain enemies of some of the left.

I’ve often said the worst historical event in US history, after slavery, was the passage of the 16th amendment, granting the federal government its own dole, turning the states into nonentities, and creating a bloated, wasteful centralized bureaucracy. Hiring freezes are a great way to start turning back the clock.

I didn’t vote for Trump, but I’m truly grateful for these actions.

The science of human evolution is not in dispute. It is not controversial. Human life evolves from conception. Restricting NGOs from advocating and holding abortion rites as a family planning method is the first step in separating Pro-Choice Church and State, and returning to principles.

TPP is a progression of an anti-capitalist economy that remains viable with labor, environmental, and other regulatory differentials (e.g. monopolies and practices) that have placed people, ecology, and communities at risk.

I apologize for sidetracking this thread, but I have to ask a question which has been puzzling me for a long time.

Why do people who did not vote for Trump, but agree with his actions, find a need to state that they did not vote for him?

    MattMusson in reply to Mac45. | January 23, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    I think you will see a lot more of this. People will see that he keeps his promises and they will be impressed or distressed. But, they still have the nagging doubt that he is all the nasty things the Media said he was.

    Can you say Cognitive Dissonance?

      Interesting take on the subject. But, I still do not understand.

      I can understand a person saying that he held his nose and voted for Trump, simply to deny Clinton the Presidency. I did just that for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. But, if, in fact, they did NOT vote FOR Trump, then they did NOT vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton, as only Trump had a chance of beating her. In essence, they are telling everyone that, while the life and death struggle to keep this nation from continuing down the road to ruin built by Barack Obama and maintained by Hillary Clinton, they sat at home and did nothing. Why would anyone wish to tell people that they were either foolish or a coward?

        filiusdextris in reply to Mac45. | January 23, 2017 at 5:25 pm

        Wow, it sounds like you subscribe to the logical fallacy of results-based thinking. As if what is “right” when we voted depends on what Trump does now? And if the wind in Trump’s sails changes course and reverses all that he has done so far, that suddenly makes a decision not to vote for him “right” again? Another similar logical fallacy you apparently subscribe to is that if he does something good that means that voting for him was correct, but this ignores the fact that another candidate could have done even better.

        Your original post also assumes facts not in evidence – what “need” are you referring to? Perhaps you are not aware of the phenomenon of mocking fairweather fans in sports? In order not to appear so two-faced (and to head off such useless comments beforehand), it might well be wise to make such a comment. If, for example, Rags were to ever write a complimentary post on Trump, how many stupid told-you-so comments would he receive? No one likes to have those hanging over their head, and I don’t want to even see them. Since you seem determined to gloat anyways along such lines, can you please get it out of your system this once and stop making further snide comments?

          Perhaps you do not understand my position. Allow me to illustrate.

          Your country is invaded by a foreign nation. You decide to actively resist the invader in the hopes of freeing your country. Your friend decides that he does not like the general who is leading the resistance and stays home. When the war is over and the invader driven out, your friend will enjoy the same benefits as the you, who participated in the resistance. But, what type of welcome is he likely to receive, from those who fought, when he tells them he chose to stay home and not fight? Especially if he was able to participate?

          What people do, by saying that they support someone after he wins, then say that they did not support him before he won is make themselves irrelevant. You don’t get to march in the parade if you sat out the war. Clear?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to filiusdextris. | January 23, 2017 at 6:06 pm

          I loves me a critical thinker. Nailed two, but missed one fallacy.

    n.n in reply to Mac45. | January 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Plausible deniability. Trump is undertaking a reform of the establishment, which will invariably cause near-term instability. People are optimistic, but understandably anxious, about the outcomes. It’s easier to digest the changes in bite-size pieces.

    Who knows, maybe he’ll realize the whole puzzle with minimal disruption and collateral damage. It’s unlikely, but possible. In the meantime, some people will hedge their bets, while others will restrict their frame of reference.

    Immolate in reply to Mac45. | January 24, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    Oh, easy one. “I didn’t vote for him,” makes what comes after an admission against interest, strengthening the credibility of it. If your enemy pays respect to a personal quality of yours, it is unlikely that he is engaging in boosterism.

    This is equivalent to saying, “I thought I’d be bored stupid with that new movie, but it was awesome!”

Planned Parenthood should be able to apply a scalpel, remove their elective abortion and clinical cannibal divisions, and preserve the humane parts of their corporation. According to Cecile, the elective abortion and clinical cannibal divisions are not-for-profits operations, which should not affect the viability of the corporation. They can still help couples understand the responsibility of choice before conception.

    MattMusson in reply to n.n. | January 23, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    They can do what they want to. But I don’t have to pay for it!

      If it were that simple. Debasing human life, corrupting scientific knowledge, removing personal responsibility has far reaching consequences.

    Milwaukee in reply to n.n. | January 23, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    “Planned Parenthood should be able to apply a scalpel, remove their elective abortion and clinical cannibal divisions, and preserve the humane parts of their corporation.”

    Planned Parenthood is the direct descendent of Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. She was eugenist, and believed society would be better off without Blacks, other nonwhites, and other undesirable Whites. Today there are more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, and neighborhoods disproportionately nonWhite than in White neighborhoods. Abortion is their rational reason for being.

    According to Cecile, the elective abortion and clinical cannibal divisions are not-for-profits operations, which should not affect the viability of the corporation. They can still help couples understand the responsibility of choice before conception.”

    Those other things are the smoke screen for the abortions. Cecile is a liar. A woman cannot get a mammogram at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic anywhere in these United States. Besides being racist haters, they are making piles of money by doing great evil.

Obama issues executive orders =BAD Trump issues executive orders=GOOD.

Why praise one and attack the other? After all it’s about executive orders, right?

    Bob00 in reply to m1. | January 23, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    For the same reason your mother loves your brother more than you. Trump is a patriot, you and Zero, not so much.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | January 23, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    Well for one Trumps orders are legal and within the bounds of what an executive order is supposed to be.

    Second, the content of those orders matters.

    Thirdly, actually Obama didn’t do that many executive orders, because they can be challenged in court, a lesson he learned with his illegal immigration EO’s. Though you would think a “constitutional scholar” would have known that. In fact most of what are referred to as EO’s are actually just Presidential Memo’s, not EO’s.

    Lastly, regardless of your delusional memory, no one here ever said Obama shouldn’t issue EO’s, they did question what was in those EO’s so the only one who ever said; “After all it’s about executive orders, right?”, is you.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | January 23, 2017 at 5:27 pm

    Oh, btw how are things in Mom’s basement? Remember those dryer sheets you don’t want Mom’s bloomers to be staticy.

The Federal hiring freeze is a good first step, but the bloated bureaucracies anticipated that and went on a hiring frenzy over the last few months. Since there is a probationary period of time (30 or 60 days, I forget which) where a person can be dismissed without cause, Trump should also eliminate those hires – and the positions they are on.

    Miles in reply to rabidfox. | January 24, 2017 at 7:17 am

    Many, if not most, newly hired Federal employees, especially those in the executive branch for the current subject, and including those who switch either way from the competitive, or excepted service have a one year probationary period.

    Within that time-frame, basically they can be ‘fired’ for just about any reason, including a Presidential directive to OPM, the federal employees unions notwithstanding (no matter how some of the unions might opine on the matter) not just for disciplinary or performance issues. It’s all in the regulations.

    If I were one of these newly hired civil servants, I’d not be buying residences, or signing long leases, if I was moving to the new job.

would be an exemption for military, public safety and public health jobs

And how long will it take to redefine anything at all to do with the abortion industry as a “public health job”?

Abortion policy is one thing; Orwellian Newspeak and double-dealing in high places is quite another.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend