How Bill Clinton Sent Manufacturing Jobs to China

On May 28, 1993 Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12850. This improper EO changed the way the U.S. made trade deals with China and led to the loss of tens of millions of American manufacturing jobs. The story of how this was done not only proves that the Clintons are behind the loss of American jobs, but shows how Bill Clinton established a Democratic strategy for manipulating foreign policy that was copied by both Hillary while she was Secretary of State and Obama while he was president.

At the time, U.S.-China trade relations were conditioned upon China’s humanitarian treatment of its own citizens. Americans had seen protesters in Tiananmen Square crushed by Chinese tanks. The brutality of the Chinese toward unarmed protesters had shocked Americans so much that China was required to treat its citizens in a humanitarian way in order to maintain its MFN (Most Favored Nation) status.

China desperately needed to keep its MFN status for one reason: only with MFN status could it get a huge discount on tariffs it had to pay to the U.S. With MFN Chinese manufacturers only had to pay a 6% tariff. Without it they would have had to pay an unprofitable 40%. So without its MFN status China couldn’t as easily compete with American manufacturers. China’s MFN status was suspended during the Korean War, but conditionally reinstated in 1980 under the Jackson-Vanir freedom of emigration amendment to the Trade Act of 1974.

This is where Bill Clinton stepped in. With his 1993 Executive Order, he unconstitutionally seized control of the MFN conditions, removing it from the involvement of Congress, just as Obama seized treaty control away from the Senate with his Iranian nuke deal.

Clinton’s Executive Order was issued at a time when the U.S.-China trade deficit was only $18 billion a year. In 2015 the deficit was $367 billion.

It’s important to understand that at the time China’s MFN status was annually up for review by Congress. The effective law was passed in 1974. What Bill Clinton did, with an unconstitutional Executive Order, was to use “the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States” to rewrite a Congressionally approved treaty and change the terms. The way he changed it is eerily similar to the way Hillary practiced State Department decisions when she was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2012.

Bill Clinton intentionally, with great harm to jobs in the U.S., changed the terms of the law in this way: instead of requiring a vote of Congress to reaffirm China’s MFN status every year, Bill Clinton illegally shifted the decision-making role to the Secretary of State. This eliminated the power of Congress to approve the annual MFN status. President Clinton, in his 1993 statement, said this was necessary to avoid the “annual battles between Congress and the Executive” which was divisive. Of course it was divisive -- the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be so. Without the input of the elected members of Congress the people had no say.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton used her position as Sec. of State to personally approve/disapprove many agreements. President Obama was to emulate this shifting of foreign policy making to bureaucrats in 2015 with his so-called Iranian “deal.” An agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty, not a deal. This is because the authority of the U.S. government is used to both make the treaty and adhere to its terms. The Constitution properly gives the people, working through the Senate, the opportunity to have a voice in the terms of the treaty. Bill Clinton, Hillary, and Obama all stole this input from the voters and placed it under their control.

And just as the Clinton Foundation has been linked to relationships Hillary had to her speech payers and donors, Bill Clinton’s decision to send jobs to China by permanently controlling its MFN status has been linked to campaign donations. Boeing Company wanted the EO. Boeing was the parent company of the Loral Corporation, which donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee in June, 1994, according to a Washington Post report at the time. A nice reward to Clinton for his MFN status change.

The Loral Corporation is a major developer of missile flight control software and at the time they wanted to launch satellites from China. Boeing also owned McDonnell-Douglas which in 1994 made an agreement with China to open a parts factory in Beijing. If this all seems oddly similar to the deals Hillary made with foundation campaign donors, well, that’s because it is.

While Bill Clinton made this deal through an Executive Order, it’s important to note that there are other developments which have evolved from the EO. The Clinton Foundation is legally located in Canada, allowing the Clintons to hide the identities of their donors. They also used the foundation as a method of obtaining payment for delivering unprecedentedly expensive speeches. In return, it appears that Hillary allowed donors access to her office and granted State Department permission on numerous foreign trade deals. Since these agreements and deals were made through email the Clinton email scandal is seen as an effort to hide the pay for play evidence.

In 2001 Boeing got a $63 million dollar incentive “deal” from the Democratic mayor of Chicago to relocate its headquarters there. These incentives will likely be paid for, in typical Democratic Party style, by the middle-class and poor taxpayers who will have to make up that $63 million through their own family’s budgets. Boeing only brought 500 jobs to the city, costing taxpayers $126,000 per job. This, like the Chinese MFN Executive Order, promoted as a good investment for the city.

When all of these actions are thoroughly investigated, these deals will reveal that the Democratic Party’s globalization initiative is mostly a scheme to get rich by trading U.S. governmental authority, and American jobs, to enrich a tiny number of people. As the Clintons and Obama get richer the American people lose jobs and become poorer. Those are facts.

This is primarily done by shifting the authority of government. Bill Clinton bestowed the authority to reauthorize China’s MFN status to the Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton bestowed upon herself the authority to negotiate with companies with foreign interests and the foreign nations themselves. And Barack Obama seized the power of Federal agencies through his 32 czars, bypassing the restraints imposed by the Constitution. The basic strategy is to shift authority, then control that newly created authority, bypassing the role of Congress.  It’s only just begun. Voters can decide if they want to see more unrestrained power brokering by Hillary.

On May 28, 1993 Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12850. This improper EO changed the way the U.S. made trade deals with China and led to the loss of tens of millions of American manufacturing jobs. The story of how this was done not only proves that the Clintons are behind the loss of American jobs, but shows how Bill Clinton established a Democratic strategy for manipulating foreign policy that was copied by both Hillary while she was Secretary of State and Obama while he was president.

At the time, U.S.-China trade relations were conditioned upon China’s humanitarian treatment of its own citizens. Americans had seen protesters in Tiananmen Square crushed by Chinese tanks. The brutality of the Chinese toward unarmed protesters had shocked Americans so much that China was required to treat its citizens in a humanitarian way in order to maintain its MFN (Most Favored Nation) status.

China desperately needed to keep its MFN status for one reason: only with MFN status could it get a huge discount on tariffs it had to pay to the U.S. With MFN Chinese manufacturers only had to pay a 6% tariff. Without it they would have had to pay an unprofitable 40%. So without its MFN status China couldn’t as easily compete with American manufacturers. China’s MFN status was suspended during the Korean War, but conditionally reinstated in 1980 under the Jackson-Vanir freedom of emigration amendment to the Trade Act of 1974.

This is where Bill Clinton stepped in. With his 1993 Executive Order, he unconstitutionally seized control of the MFN conditions, removing it from the involvement of Congress, just as Obama seized treaty control away from the Senate with his Iranian nuke deal.

Clinton’s Executive Order was issued at a time when the U.S.-China trade deficit was only $18 billion a year. In 2015 the deficit was $367 billion.

It’s important to understand that at the time China’s MFN status was annually up for review by Congress. The effective law was passed in 1974. What Bill Clinton did, with an unconstitutional Executive Order, was to use “the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States” to rewrite a Congressionally approved treaty and change the terms. The way he changed it is eerily similar to the way Hillary practiced State Department decisions when she was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2012.

Bill Clinton intentionally, with great harm to jobs in the U.S., changed the terms of the law in this way: instead of requiring a vote of Congress to reaffirm China’s MFN status every year, Bill Clinton illegally shifted the decision-making role to the Secretary of State. This eliminated the power of Congress to approve the annual MFN status. President Clinton, in his 1993 statement, said this was necessary to avoid the “annual battles between Congress and the Executive” which was divisive. Of course it was divisive -- the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be so. Without the input of the elected members of Congress the people had no say.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton used her position as Sec. of State to personally approve/disapprove many agreements. President Obama was to emulate this shifting of foreign policy making to bureaucrats in 2015 with his so-called Iranian “deal.” An agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty, not a deal. This is because the authority of the U.S. government is used to both make the treaty and adhere to its terms. The Constitution properly gives the people, working through the Senate, the opportunity to have a voice in the terms of the treaty. Bill Clinton, Hillary, and Obama all stole this input from the voters and placed it under their control.

And just as the Clinton Foundation has been linked to relationships Hillary had to her speech payers and donors, Bill Clinton’s decision to send jobs to China by permanently controlling its MFN status has been linked to campaign donations. Boeing Company wanted the EO. Boeing was the parent company of the Loral Corporation, which donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee in June, 1994, according to a Washington Post report at the time. A nice reward to Clinton for his MFN status change.

The Loral Corporation is a major developer of missile flight control software and at the time they wanted to launch satellites from China. Boeing also owned McDonnell-Douglas which in 1994 made an agreement with China to open a parts factory in Beijing. If this all seems oddly similar to the deals Hillary made with foundation campaign donors, well, that’s because it is.

While Bill Clinton made this deal through an Executive Order, it’s important to note that there are other developments which have evolved from the EO. The Clinton Foundation is legally located in Canada, allowing the Clintons to hide the identities of their donors. They also used the foundation as a method of obtaining payment for delivering unprecedentedly expensive speeches. In return, it appears that Hillary allowed donors access to her office and granted State Department permission on numerous foreign trade deals. Since these agreements and deals were made through email the Clinton email scandal is seen as an effort to hide the pay for play evidence.

In 2001 Boeing got a $63 million dollar incentive “deal” from the Democratic mayor of Chicago to relocate its headquarters there. These incentives will likely be paid for, in typical Democratic Party style, by the middle-class and poor taxpayers who will have to make up that $63 million through their own family’s budgets. Boeing only brought 500 jobs to the city, costing taxpayers $126,000 per job. This, like the Chinese MFN Executive Order, promoted as a good investment for the city.

When all of these actions are thoroughly investigated, these deals will reveal that the Democratic Party’s globalization initiative is mostly a scheme to get rich by trading U.S. governmental authority, and American jobs, to enrich a tiny number of people. As the Clintons and Obama get richer the American people lose jobs and become poorer. Those are facts.

This is primarily done by shifting the authority of government. Bill Clinton bestowed the authority to reauthorize China’s MFN status to the Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton bestowed upon herself the authority to negotiate with companies with foreign interests and the foreign nations themselves. And Barack Obama seized the power of Federal agencies through his 32 czars, bypassing the restraints imposed by the Constitution. The basic strategy is to shift authority, then control that newly created authority, bypassing the role of Congress.  It’s only just begun. Voters can decide if they want to see more unrestrained power brokering by Hillary.