Monthly Archives: February 2017

State of the Disunion

Trump Owns The Disorder On The Border

POTUS is following through with his campaign promise to fight illegal immigration

President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to secure the United States border is happening.

https://youtu.be/S4YrLrWar4I
 

Lawsuit: Obama Robbed Private Investors to Fund Obamacare

Private investments seized to save Obamacare

Image

OBUMMER-CARE

High School Punishes Student For Supporting Donald Trump

Teacher lectured 11th grader about Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric

Patrick Ragozzine, a student at Cherokee High School, received an administrative warning after he defended Trump over claims made by other students that the president was racist.

The school is located in Canton, Georgia, which is about 45 minutes from the city of Atlanta.

“I overheard some students bashing Donald Trump, making false claims that he’s a racist, sexist, xenophobic person,” writes Ragozzine, adding that his teacher did not intervene until Ragozzine began defending the president.

“The teacher defended the other students and began lecturing me on Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric and how the other students have the right to hold those feelings,” he added.

School officials later summoned Ragozzine to a meeting and told him that he couldn’t discuss politics in the classroom. Ragozzine says he was told that the area has a large Latino population and that “it’s wrong to be discussing a wall”.

The “description of offense” on an official administrative referral form states, “Student has been given several warnings about making unnecessary comments about politics or keep saying “build the wall”.

Ragozzine originally received an ISS (in school suspension), but this was changed to an “administrative warning” after he posted about it on Snapchat and friends and parents complained to the school.

“The referral still goes on my permanent record (which colleagues will see when I try applying) and they had to call my parents about it,” writes Ragozzine.

Since Trump’s victory, there have been a number of incidents in schools where teachers have acted out against Trump.

Last month, a Dallas public school teacher was filmed shooting a toy gun at Trump during his inauguration while shrieking the word “die!”

Earlier this month, a teacher in Tennessee was fired after posting, “The only good Trump supporter is a dead Trump supporter,” to his Facebook page.

Meanwhile, in Naples, Florida, an elementary school teacher was reassigned to administrative duties after praising Trump’s executive order on immigration.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Exclusive: Obama Illegally Robbed Fannie, Freddie to Fund Obamacare

Obama diverted money from low-income housing to keep Obamacare alive

Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.
In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.

The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.
A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

https://youtu.be/7P22TD0XdVw
Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.
“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded. “Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since.”
“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”
The U.S. District court in this ruling entered judgment in favor of the House of Representatives, barring HHS from using unappropriated money to pay insurers under Section 1402.
What was at issue in Section 1402 was the Obamacare provision that capped the amount of federal subsidies under Section 1402 that lower-income families could use to pay for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges, particularly the difference between the capped maximum based on a person or family’s income in relation to the federal poverty level.
https://youtu.be/JHxLF-HBWPc
Congress had refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402 – the section of the ACA that called for making the insurance subsidy payments.
In a report issued in March 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost for providing Section 1402 subsidies over the next ten years (2016-2026) was estimated to be $130 billion.

Forbidden by Judge Collyer’s decision from diverting money Congress appropriated for other ACA provisions to pay Section 1402 subsidies, the Obama administration faced the prospect that the government could not pay subsidies to permit lower-income persons and families to buy the amount of health insurance Obamacare was written to provide them.
Either this, or insurers would be forced to charge middle and high income-persons and families such outrageous amounts for their insurance coverage (to subsidize the poor under ACA) that only the wealthiest could afford to buy health insurance.
In other words, Obamacare was dead in the water if the Obama administration could not find a way to circumvent the District Court’s decision U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to fund Section 1402 despite the fact Congress had refused to do so.
Determined to keep Obamacare alive, the Obama administration decided to find a way around Judge Collyer’s ruling.
The fix involved the Obama administration redefining the terms of the 2008 conservatorship agreements which advanced funds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from a 10% dividend on moneys borrowed to the federal government’s confiscation of 100% of the future and imminent profits of these Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.
https://youtu.be/1PihNrRTzSs
Miraculously, the Freddie and Fannie “pot of gold” turned out to be almost exactly the amount the Obama administration needed to meet the anticipated insurance company subsidies required to keep Section 1402 in business.
So, how did Fannie and Freddie get this pot of gold, given that only a few years earlier both GSEs were bankrupt?
In 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis caused in part by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, the federal government decided to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at the time were two shareholder-owned companies.
In passing the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), the U.S. Congress had fixed the regulatory issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, creating a mechanism for them to be placed into conservatorship at federal government’s discretion AND providing up to $187.5 billion in funds that could be advanced to the GSEs through a purchase of senior preferred stock paying a ten percent dividend.
In deciding to bail them out, the federal government took control of the two giant mortgage GSEs, with Fannie and Freddie effectively put into government “conservatorship.”
As part of the conservatorship, the federal government effectively acquired warrants, convertible at a nominal price, which allowed the federal government to acquire 79% of the GSE’s common stock.
This resulted in causing dilution in the percentage of Fannie and Freddie common stock ownership that was left in the hands of private and institutional investors.
Congress’ intent was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay back the Treasury as the mortgage giants returned to profitability.
But after the Treasury was paid back, the terms of HERA anticipated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay appropriate dividends to stockholders, including the federal government, leaving enough funds within Freddie and Fannie to “conserve and preserve” the assets of the two GSEs, anticipating their eventual return to a “safe and solvent” operating condition.
In 2012, the Obama administration unilaterally decided to change the terms of HERA by sweeping all the profits of Fannie and Freddie into the Treasury’s general fund.
The Obama administration took this action, the so-called “Net Worth Sweep,” without any Congressional authority to do so.
The result was that the U.S. Treasury “found” a way to sweep 100% of Fannie and Freddie profits into the Treasury’s “general fund,” leaving the giant mortgage GSEs vulnerable to the need for another government bailout should another disruption occur in the nation’s economy.
Because of this decision, the Obama administration on its own authority simply decided to discontinue paying dividends to private and institutional owners of Fannie and Freddie common and preferred stock.
Congress, in passing HERA, never anticipated the Obama administration would take over Fannie and Freddie and strip the agencies of all profits – a move that left private and institutional shareholders in the cold.
Leading up to the decision to sweep Fannie and Freddie’s profits, the GSEs return to imminent profitability was known only by a few government officials and their consultants.
Their own internal forecasts, uncovered in unsealed court documents, showed that Fannie and Freddie’s profitability would soon dramatically outperform the amount of the allowable 10% dividend that the Treasury would receive under the existing Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements.

On August 17, 2012, these same officials and consultants succeeded in engineering with the Federal Housing Financial Agency, FHFA, and the Department of Treasury an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab ALL Fannie and Freddie profits – regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.
Between 2012, when the Obama administration began its policy of confiscating all Fannie and Freddie profits and now, Fannie and Freddie have paid the U.S. Treasury general fund more than $240 billion in dividends.

The point is that after May 12, 2016, when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that HHS had to stop diverting ACA funds to pay Obamacare subsidies, the Obama administration realized that HHS somehow had to fund the estimated $130 billion the HHS would need in un‐appropriated monies to pay health insurers the ACA subsidies required to keep Obamacare alive in Fiscal Year 2013.
Plaintiffs litigating against the Obama administration’s confiscation of Freddie and Fannie earnings have challenged in court whether the Obama administration’s decision to amend the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement in August 2012 and sweep GSE profits of $130 billion in 2013 ($82.4 billion from Fannie Mae, and $47.6 billion from Freddie Mac) was an attempt to circumvent Congress on the single most important policy priority of the White House.
The timing was particularly interesting given that September 2012 marked the beginning of the sequestration discussions.
Government documents leave little doubt profits from Fannie and Freddie confiscated by the U.S. Treasury have been used by the Obama administration to pay Obamacare subsidies and other items not appropriated by Congress, in complete and illegal circumvention of the District Court’s ruling and the Constitution’s determination that only the Congress shall have the power to tax and spend.
For instance, Chapter 3 of the Congressional Budget Office publication “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025” notes on page 63 that the major contributors to mandatory U.S. government spending include “… outlays for Medicaid, subsidies for health insurance purchases through exchanges, and the government’s transactions with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
Why Fannie and Freddie are specified in this context, when Fannie and Freddie have had sufficient earnings to operate without government subsidies since 2008 is made clear a few pages later.
On page 65, in Table 3-2, the CBO report notes “mandatory outlays projected in CBO’s baseline” from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2014 is -$74 billion and for 2015 a total of -$26 billion.
The figures are “negative dollar amounts” because instead of paying out to Freddie and Fannie, the U.S. Treasury is collecting from Freddie and Fannie, with the proceeds going into the U.S. Treasury general fund to pay “mandatory outlays,” including evidently continued subsidies to insurers, as specified by ACA Section 1402.
In footnote 14 on page 8 of that CBO report lets the cat out of the bag, noting the Obama administration considers payments from Freddie and Fannie “to be outside of the federal government for budgetary purposes,” recording cash payments from Freddie and Fannie to the Treasury as “federal receipts.”
The Obama administration evidently considered this all-too-convenient redefinition of terms allowed the government to argue the use of Fannie and Freddie profits to pay Obamacare Section 1402 subsidies was not in violation of the District Court ruling.
Why? Evidently because Fannie and Freddie profits were not taxpayer-generated, but were profit payments generated by Government Sponsored Entities that still had some common and preferred stock private and institutional shareholder ownership.
In the same footnote, the CBO takes exception with the Obama administration, commenting the CBO considers profit payments to the Treasury made by Fannie and Freddie to be “intragovernmental” receipts going into the same Treasury general fund pot, to be mixed indistinguishably with taxpayer revenue, not distinct public/private GSE “receipts” separately accounted for in the Treasury general fund as distinguishable from taxpayer revenue.
If the federal courts conclude Fannie and Freddie GSE “receipts” to Treasury still need Congressional appropriation to be spent legitimately by the executive branch of government, the Obama administration will have been exposed as having operated outside the Constitution in its desperate attempt to keep the ACA from imploding.
What should be outrageous to progressives understanding the Obama administration subterfuge to keep the ACA alive is that by confiscating Fannie/Freddie profits to keep Obamacare alive, Obama ignored core members of the Democratic Party’s core constituency – affordable housing advocates and minority groups – with little explanation.
 

Video: Trump Supporters Thrown Out On The Street!

Authoritarian left economically target Americans

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10155108860108459/
 

NEW NSA CHIEF, McMASTER, BREAKS WITH TRUMP ON “RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM”

NewsWithViews.com

Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. There are moments in Life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation. A civic duty, a moral challenge, a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape. —Journalist Oriana Fallaci

The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world. —Mahmoud Ahmadinejah, President of Iran

The very title of this article should worry all of us. The newly appointed National Security Adviser thinks the term, “radical Islamic terrorism” is not beneficial because terrorists are “un-Islamic.”

Peter R. Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served with McMaster in Iraq during the 2007 surge of U.S. troops, said earlier that McMaster “absolutely does not view Islam as the enemy. So, I think he will present a degree of pushback against the theories being propounded in the White House that this is a clash of civilizations and needs to be treated as such.”

“McMaster, like (President) Obama, is someone who was in positions of leadership and thought the United states should not play into the jihadist propaganda that this is a religious war,” William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The Times. [Link], [Link]

President Trump repeatedly slammed President Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for avoiding explicitly saying “radical Islamic terrorism.” Trump argued that not identifying enemies hinders the fight against terror, while Democrats argue that such words unfairly link Islam with terrorism.

Trump was right, and so was General Flynn. So, who vetted McMaster, and who is advising our President, and it’s even more worrisome that Senator McCain is thrilled with Trump’s latest choice.

McCain Lauds McMaster for NSA

When Trump selected General H.R. McMaster to be his National Security Advisor, most folks breathed a sigh of relief that CFR member, John Bolton wasn’t chosen, but that relief may have been premature.

General McMaster, like his supporters, Senator McCain, and Moscow born, Max Boot, the Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, are all members of the CFR.

Sen. McCain, who in Munich, stated his not-so-subtle attacks on Trump for not being harder on Russia, said that, “McMaster knows how to succeed. I give President Trump great credit for this decision, as well as his national security cabinet choices. I could not imagine a better, more capable national security team than the one we have right now.”

Max Boot stated much the same thing, “H.R. McMaster is one of the most impressive army officers of his generation—a rare combination of soldier and scholar,” said Max Boot, in an email to The Daily Beast. “But not even the most talented individual will succeed in that job as long as Bannon and Kushner continue to run their own foreign policies.”

Apparently, McMaster is not the man to guide President Trump toward better relations with Russia and less US interference in the internal affairs of other nations, as was former NSA Chief, General Michael Flynn.

In a speech delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies just last May, Gen. McMaster blamed the lack of sufficient US military presence overseas for what he calls a more aggressive Russian geostrategic posturing. Take note of what the General said:

Even though it may have been apparent, at least since 2008, that Russia was changing its geostrategic behavior and engaging in…probing, probing at the far reaches of American power, our strategic response was to accelerate our withdrawal of…army forces from Europe. And what we’re seeing now is we’ve awakened to obviously this threat from Russia who is waging limited war for limited objectives. Annexing Crimea. Invading Ukraine. At zero cost. And consolidating gains over that territory, and portraying the reaction by us and partners as escalatory. … What is required is forward deterrence. To be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier.

The General also made the completely fallacious assertion that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Even the overtly anti-Russia European Union concluded that Georgia was to blame for launching an ill-advised attack on Russian peacekeeping forces that were part of an international mission in South Ossetia.

This certainly doesn’t sound like someone who is going to work to help our President improve relations with Russia. In fact, McMaster is a hawk and is all about conflict with Russia. Is it any wonder that the likes of Max Boot and John McCain are thrilled with Trump’s new NSA Chief?

McCain’s Long Feud with Trump

The Bezos owned Washington Post reported that Trump had stated, “McCain is no war hero,” but they misled the people by misstating what Trump had actually said, as clarified by Sharyl Attkisson. Nothing new here, misquotes and lies are a common thread of media since the 1964 NYTs v. Sullivan Supreme Court decision allowing media to lie with impunity. And this is the reality of what Trump calls, “fake news.”

Remember too that in September of 2016, Trump endorsed John McCain for re-election and said nice things about him.

So, what’s with the Senator from Arizona?

The Real John McCain

He served our country, and we do not know what he went through as a POW, so we honor him for his service.

However, the truth of the matter is that despite McCain’s military service, he has never been a man of or for the American people, and the “R” he wears behind his name more often than not comes across as a “D.”

In fact, last October, this alleged Republican stated that he would not be voting for Donald Trump, the nominee from his own party! So, who did he vote for…Hillary?

Trump did state that McCain graduated at the bottom of his class, and he was right. Even McCain alluded to his academic record during a commencement speech in 1997 when he stated, “This is quite an unexpected honor for a Naval Academy midshipman who graduated fifth from the bottom in the Class of ’58.” He actually graduated 790th out of 795 students.

There are countless stories on the web of McCain’s actual service and his actual imprisonment by the Vietcong, but there is one by Philip Giraldi that elucidates truth. He tells of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sydney Schanberg, who was intrigued by the Vietnam POW issue, and began pursuing the McCain story in the late 1980s.

Schanberg makes two key points: first that a number of American prisoners of war were left behind in Indochina in 1973 with the connivance of top levels in the U.S. government (See Henry Kissinger, Soviet Agent), and second that John McCain has worked assiduously to obstruct any efforts to open Pentagon files and follow up on leads to determine the status of the POWs and the “missing in action.”

John McCain is still a powerful voice in the Senate consistently advocating policies calling for the United States to use military force around the world. More troubling perhaps, McCain has consistently and irrationally advocated an undeviating hard line against Russia, the only country with the military capability to confront and destroy much of the United States through its nuclear armed ballistic missile forces. Perhaps this is why he is so enamored with General McMaster, and why he so hated General Flynn.

McCain’s Voting Record

Conservative Review grants McCain an “F” with a 48 percent rating, calling out McCain for an extensive 32-year entrenchment in Washington. CR Editor, Gaston Mooney, said, “McCain’s consistent support for gun control, cap and trade, amnesty, and tax increases have put him at odds with just about every coalition inside the Republican Party. McCain pandered to the right in 2008, and he did it again to be re-elected in 2016.

“There are few Republicans who have betrayed our conservative principles more than John McCain,” read the Senate Conservatives Fund letter. “McCain lost his way a long time ago.”

The Senator has also been criticized for his part in the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform and his support for amnesty, his vote for the taxpayer funded “Wall Street” bailout, his vote to fund implementation of Obamacareand criticism of efforts to halt that funding, opposition to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, support for a $600 billion tax hike, repeated votes to raise the debt limit and voting against term limits.

Mincing no words, the Senate Conservatives’ letter refers to McCain as “one of the most anti-conservative RINOs in the Senate.”

McCain’s Munich Conference Comments

What kind of American is John McCain? He’s certainly not one who represents the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

McCain apparently had no problem bashing our President in foreign countries recently. Why didn’t McCain honor the tradition of standing for America in foreign countries? He has embarrassed our nation, and himself, just as Obama did over and over again.

Here is the transcript of McCain’s speech in Munich. Without mentioning President Trump even once, he ridiculed and slammed his policies, his presidency, and his abilities. In doing so, McCain also slammed every American who voted for Trump and wants his policies to succeed.

But what I found the most telling was his comment, “I refuse to accept the demise of our world order.” He actually mentioned “world order” five times in his short Munich speech. What world order John? The New World Order you’ve been pushing since you took office in 1987?

The Senator even stated that VP Pence, and Generals Kelly and Mattis, all disagree with Trump’s stances and policies and have also voiced those opinions at the Munich Conference.

The Senator’s latest attacks on our President are unconscionable and absolutely bordering on sedition.

McCain on Meet the Press

On Sunday, during an interview with Chuck Todd, the senator again talked about the “new world order” established after World War II, and how he is fearful it is under assault from a variety of forces. (Does this remind you of George H.W. Bush’s 1991 NWO speech?)

He also claimed to be worried about presidential advisor Steve Bannon’s role on the National Security Council. Then he attacked Trump by saying, “A free press is vital and suppressing a free press is “how dictators get started.”

His comments were ridiculous. My friend Vin Sabella said this:

First, he claimed that the president was destroying freedom of the press. Then he said that’s what all dictators do to gain power. Then he said he didn’t mean that Trump was trying to be a dictator.

And, if that’s true, Senator, why did you bring up the fact that you thought Trump was muzzling the press and say that that is what dictators do in the same breath? I think the answer is obvious. You wanted to call Trump a potential dictator and be able to weasel your way out of having done so if you were called on it.

As Rand Paul said, McCain is deliberately blowing Trump’s criticism of the press out of proportion. Every president has criticized the press throughout history. But, as Paul says, there is a big difference between criticizing the press and passing a law or issuing an executive order to suppress the press. Trump has obviously done neither.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, (daughter of Zbignew Brzezinski) recently made it clear that she believes it is the media’s job to control what people think. Really Mika? One need only watch Chris Cuomo or Van Jones to understand their propaganda and socialist/communist allegiances.

Bannon’s NSC Status

The question arises, could we lose another valuable man in the National Security Council? Fox News reported the following:

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that if President Donald Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser wanted to remove chief strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council’s principals committee, the president would “take that under serious consideration.”

“The president has made clear to him he’s got full authority to structure the national security team the way he wants,” Spicer said of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, whom Trump appointed last Monday as his new NSA chief. Spicer made the remarks in the daily White House press briefing.

Does this worry me? You bet it does. Bannon is one of the most trusted insiders and as such, he should remain exactly where he is for our President.

Conclusion

Donald J. Trump is in new waters, and he is learning as he goes. He wants to keep his promises to the American people. He’s the boss, and his employees should follow his lead.

Our President has a huge job, and he is wrestling against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places. Pray for him, and pray for our country.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, HERITAGE FOUNDATION IS CONTROLLED OPPOSITION

NewsWithViews.com

Don’t fear the enemy who attacks you, but the fake friend who hugs you.

The government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. —Thomas Jefferson

In my last article, I documented Heritage Foundation’s drafting and promotion of job destroying NAFTA, but Heritage is also responsible for many other ills that American citizens face today, including healthcare and education.

Who Funds Heritage

Heritage is not required to disclose its donors, but according to a Media Transparency report in 2006, donors have included the John M. Olin Foundation, the Castle Rock Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation (founders of Amway and father-in-law to newly appointed Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos), Bradley Foundation (board members include Federal Reserve and CFR members), the Koch Brothers and Claude Lambe Foundation, and Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave over $30 million to Heritage.

Scaife supported abortion, and paid for a full-page ad in the WSJ in 2011, “From the Desk of Richard M. Scaife – An Open Letter to Fellow Conservatives: Why Conservatives Should Oppose Efforts to Defund Planned Parenthood.” His mother was a good friend of Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, and had her in for tea every Sunday afternoon.

The list of President Trump’s Supreme Court justices was culled with the aid of the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. Only two justices on the list are truly pro-life. There are now 70 signees on the Coalition Letter on the Pledge for a Pro-Life Nomination for Justice Scalia’s Seat on the Supreme Court.

Over the past 25 years, Heritage has also been funded by private foundations such as Pew Charitable Trust which also funded many GOALS 2000 initiatives. Bill Clinton signed the Goals 2000 law on March 31, 1994, creating new education bureaucracies and facilitating federal control of local education institutions. William Greider’s bestseller, Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy reveals other benefactors: “Heritage received grants from Amoco, General Motors, Chase Manhattan Bank (David Rockefeller) and right-wing foundations like Olin and Bradley.”

Heritage and National Healthcare

As John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Heritage has promoted much that is anathema to our Constitution. Let’s look at the facts.

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans is the Heritage Foundation plan, written by Republicans and endorsed by the so-called conservative right. You will notice that Stuart M. Butler wrote this Heritage monograph. Butler is a Brit who is a senior fellow at the liberal Brookings Institute, the same Institute that is promoting the privatization of education. Please pay particular attention to Item #2 on page 6 of this document wherein it states, “Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”

James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

Taranto writes that he was there when the Heritage Foundation was promoting the mandate:

Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated Hillary Care by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”

The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Heritage Senior Researcher, Edmund Haislmaier. We seem to have mislaid our copy, and we couldn’t find it online, but we did track down a 1990 Backgrounder and a 1991 lecture by Butler that outlined the plan. One of its two major planks, the equalization of tax treatment for individually purchased and employer-provided health insurance, seemed sensible and unobjectionable, at least in principle.

But the other was the mandate, described as a “Health Care Social Contract” and fleshed out in the lecture. [Link]

Now, Stuart Butler claims we shouldn’t blame Heritage for the Obamacare mandate. He links to the Amicus brief filed in the 11th circuit court of appeals, dated May 11, 2011. If you read the Amicus brief, notice Edwin Meese’s name as well as Randy Barnett, of Georgetown University who has long been promoting a Constitutional Convention with Michael Patrick Leahy of Tennessee.

I find it interesting that the Affordable Health Care Act was signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama on March 23, 2010, but Heritage Foundation didn’t file their Amicus brief until over a year later. Ahem!

Heritage’s Mandate for Leadership

In 1980, Heritage published their Mandate for Leadership to guide the incoming Reagan Administration and its transition team. Working the high-level inside track on these personnel hiring’s was Reagan’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” of which Council for National Policy member, Joe Coors, was probably the best-known member.

A Reagan loyalist since the 1968 GOP convention, Coors began spending a lot of time in Washington, D.C. and at the White House. The attempt at governance by the Kitchen Cabinet became so elaborate that they actually established an office in the Executive Office Building across from the White House.

Embarrassed by the image of a covey of millionaires seeming to run parallel and sometimes conflicting personnel recruitment operations, senior White House staff produced legal opinions saying that it was illegal for a private group to occupy government property, in this case a White House office.

Although Coors produced a legal opinion arguing there was no violation of law, Coors and friends were evicted. Heritage could hardly claim diminished relations with the Reagan Administration, however, as an estimated two-thirds of its Mandate recommendations were adopted in the first year of the Administration.

Further, Heritage was using a letter of endorsement from White House Chief of Staff, Ed Meese, CNP charter member, in a December 1981 fundraising effort. In his letter of endorsement, Meese promised Heritage’s president, Edwin Feulner, that “this Administration will cooperate fully with your efforts.” The newly elected Ronald Reagan passed out copies of the Mandate at his first Cabinet meeting, and it quickly became his administration’s blueprint. By the end of Reagan’s first year in office, 60 percent of the Mandate’s 2,000 ideas were being implemented. After leaving the Reagan Administration, Meese joined the staff of the Heritage Foundation and is still there today.

Meese and his cronies were also involved in the theft of the Inslaw/Promis software that enabled the Justice Department to track criminal prosecutions. [Link] Meese had his intelligence buddies put a trap door in the software so the Bushes could monitor everyone. The Justice Department started sharing the illegally obtained PROMIS software with other agencies, including agencies where PROMIS was modified for intelligence purposes and sold to foreign intelligence operations in Israel, Jordan, and other places. Michael Risconsciuto of the Wackenhut security firm (former FBI and CIA) had testified that he was contracted to install a “trap door” in the software to allow the CIA to tap into PROMIS software worldwide. It appears that the original petty crimes of the Justice Department led to the exposure of a sensitive national security operation. [Link]

It also monitors all of us, and today there’s an even greater software program out there…but that’s another story.

Edwin J. Feulner, formerly the president of Heritage Foundation, had a yearly income including deferred compensation of $1,098,612. Former Attorney General, Edwin Meese, takes home half a million a year from Heritage. This is where your $25 monthly donations go…to enrich the lives of these top dogs. Feulner is also a charter member of the Council for National Policy (CNP).

The Rockefeller/Heritage Connection

Education researcher Chey Simonton states in her article on the Rockefeller/Heritage Connection,

“The top men of the Heritage Foundation, first Weyrich, then Ed Feulner, and now Jim DeMint, with the trust and cooperation of masses of sincerely committed conservatives, have been in a position to further elitist Rockefeller goals. (These are the Rockefeller Republicans Phyllis Schlafly called the Kingmakers, in her book, “A Choice Not an Echo.”) Along with radical World Government advocate, Walter Hoffman of the World Federalist Association, they participated on the 16 member U.S. Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations. Working with the US Information Agency, Feulner also participated in facilitating the infamous 1985 US-Soviet Education Technology and Cultural Exchange Agreement. Soviet pedagogy, based on behavioral conditioning for a compliant collective labor force, is a dream come true for the dozens of multinational corporations funding all the think tanks promoting American education reform. The humanist Carnegie Foundation, a century-long collaborator with Rockefeller philanthropy, facilitated the Soviet side of this Exchange Agreement.”

Remember, in 1934, the Carnegie Corporation called for a shift from free enterprise to collectivism. They wanted the Soviet planned economy. [Link]

Thus, Heritage’s communist connections, were established rapidly after the historic meeting between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva Summit.

Feulner was appointed by Reagan as chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. The commission was responsible for expediting a signed Soviet-American Educational Exchange Agreement. The National American Legion was one of hundreds of conservative groups refusing to do anything about the US/Soviet Education Agreements.

In 1995, education researcher, Charlotte Iserbyt, identified conservative “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” who not only gave the Soviets access to American education, but whose act of treason “virtually merged the two educational systems.”Leading the pack for an educational exchange initiative was none other than:

“Edwin Feulner, former President of Heritage Foundation, who strongly supported the U.S.-Soviet education agreements, and who had an office in Moscow, supported Soviet-style magnet schools (i.e., tax supported choice/charter schools), and had state affiliate organizations across the nation writing charter school legislation that reads like it has been written by the U.S. Department of Education, the Carnegie Corporation and the National Education Association.”

“Paul Weyrich’s constitutional-convention promoting American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) gave an award to Oregon’s Department of Education for its education reform, especially the work force training component and its certificate of initial mastery (CIM) necessary to get a job. Same old Common Core folks! See the June, 2011, WSJ article, “Industry Puts Heat on Schools to Teach Skills Employees Need.”

We must remember, the 1955 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) book, MENTAL HEALTH IN EDUCATION, is the earliest reference to the need for “choice” in education. The Charter Schools concept, strongly marketed around the country by Heritage affiliates, with the help of many CNP members in every state, attempts to link patriotic free enterprise themes to a blatantly unconstitutional system of corporate fascism to business/government partnerships in the education of our children.

At the same time, note that Heritage founder, Paul Weyrich, once served as advisor to former Russian President, Boris Yeltsin of Chechnyan genocide fame. He wrote about it in an article in the Heritage affiliate, Townhall Magazine. In 1987, Weyrich also wrote an article in The Washington Post, A Conservative’s Lament, which virtually recommended a new Constitution and parliamentary form of government for the U.S.

Both Feulner and Weyrich were also involved with other powerful players and shadowy figures, some from the right and some from the left. They have been included in groups formed to reinvent the UN, supposedly to face the 21st century. It is becoming more and more evident that Weyrich and Feulner were in fact organizing a tight group that represented the merger of right and left, which we have seen over the past 65 years, and which was quite obvious in our recent election.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION DRAFTED NAFTA, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN SCRAP IT

NewsWithViews.com

In 1992, President Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans, that it would reduce illegal immigration. Ross Perot warned that just the opposite would happen. He warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a “giant sucking sound” as thousands of businesses and millions of jobs would leave this country. Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton. Well, it is 24 years later and it turns out that Perot was right and Clinton was dead wrong.

United Technologies (Carrier) is staying in Indiana, all because Mr. Trump made it beneficial for them to stay! He used the direct approach and went right to the head of Carrier and asked what they needed to remain in America.

Our newly elected president has stated time and again that NAFTA was the cause for American jobs being decimated. The North American Free Trade Agreement has done far more than destroy over 30% of our manufacturing. Our economy (jobs), our healthcare, and academic education have all suffered. William F. Jasper, summarized what NAFTA was really about: “The planet is quietly being divided up into regional blocs ruled by an unelected and unaccountable cabal.”

NAFTA is seen by globalists here as a step toward a North American Union (NAU). Robert Pastor, professor of international relations at American University, and a strong supporter of NAFTA’s ultimate goals, wrote in Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the globalist CFR, “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic Constitution for North America.”

Big Business, Big Finance, Big Media, ex-presidents, and former secretaries of state all supported the deal. Murray Rothbard was right when he said, “The fight was about foreign policy, about the globalist policy that the United States has been pursuing since Woodrow Wilson, and certainly since World War II. It was about the Establishment-Keynesian dream of a New World Order. NAFTA was a vital step down the road to that order.”

Our President-elect has promised to do something about it, and the best thing he could do is to scrap NAFTA in its entirety! Chapter 22 of NAFTA permits each chief executive of the three members of NAFTA (the United States, Canada, and Mexico) to exit the deal, simply by giving six months’ written notice. Trump should do it the very first day in office!

Scott Miller of the Center for Strategic and International Studies admitted that Trump has the power to take the United States out of NAFTA, on his own, without any approval by Congress: “Congress has delegated authority [on trade] to the president over the last 100 years.”

Let’s hope Trump has the courage and fortitude to save us from this horrid trade deal!

Who started these trade deals anyway?

Heritage Foundation and NAFTA

The 1993 Annual Report of the Heritage Foundation of Washington, D.C., dedicated to their twentieth-year celebration, stated the following:

The idea of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) originated with Heritage Fellow Richard Allen and has long been advocated by Heritage policy analysts…. The idea of creating a North American free trade zone was first proposed by Heritage Distinguished Fellow Richard Allen in the late 1970s, refined by then Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, and further developed in a major 1986 Heritage Foundation study.

Please note that Richard V. Allen is a member of both the rightwing Council for National Policy, and the globalist Council on Foreign Relations.

Former Heritage President, Ed Fuelner

In Lee Edwards’ 2013 book, Leading the Way: The Story of Ed Feulner and the Heritage Foundation, on page 233 Edwards states,

“Heritage played a crucial role in the debate on NAFTA, signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney on December 17, 1992. Consistent with its belief in free trade and with Ed Feulner personally involved, the foundation supported NAFTA from beginning to end; Heritage’s support came naturally inasmuch as the idea of such an agreement had first been broached by Richard Allen, Ed Feulner’s long-time colleague, before Reagan was elected president. Ed Feulner invariably describes the passage of NAFTA as one of Heritage’s most important ‘scalps’ or victories.”

“One of Heritage’s most influential papers was a state-by-state survey compiled by analyst Doug Seay. The survey showed that forty-two governors, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, strongly favored the agreement because it would create thousands of new jobs and improve the economy of their states.”

They were wrong, and they knew it.

Jobs, Living Standards, and the Economy

NAFTA was the door through which American workers were shoved into the neoliberal globalist labor market.

By establishing the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, NAFTA undercut the bargaining power of American workers, which had driven the expansion of the middle class since the end of World War II. The result has been 20 years of stagnant wages and the upward redistribution of income, wealth and political power.

Despite the pro-Trade rhetoric of Heritage and our politicians, the central goal of NAFTA was not “expanding trade.” After all, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada had been trading goods and services with each other for centuries. NAFTA’s central purpose was to free American corporations from U.S. laws protecting workers and the environment. Moreover, it paved the way for the rest of the neoliberal agenda in the US—the privatization of public services, the regulation of finance, and the destruction of the independent trade union movement.

The inevitable result was to undercut workers’ living standards all across North America. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico.

Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits.

Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in illegal alien workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.

Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. In other words, the corporations got rich, and the workers got shafted. Thus, NAFTA is both symbol and substance of the global “race to the bottom.”

Talk about the American worker getting royally screwed! I remember listening to talk radio at the time, and Chuck Harder worked endlessly to inform the American people of the imminent dangers of NAFTA.

NAFTA and American Health Care

The dramatic increase in illegal aliens, caused by NAFTA, has put such a strain on hospital emergency rooms on our southern border and in California, that many of them have closed.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act passed by Congress in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

The good side is that patients with emergency conditions are being taken care of; they must have an evaluation exam, and they have to be stabilized. The negative side is that EMTALA is the largest unfunded mandate [on providers] that the government has ever instituted. Congress, through Medicare, gave $1 billion of our tax dollars to help these Medicare hospitals, but that has now expired.

Who is picking up these costs? Every American taxpayer — not to mention medical facilities and insurance companies who turn around and raise their rates for everyone else. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the current cost of treating uninsured immigrants who entered this country illegally at all levels of government to be $4.3 billion a year, primarily at emergency rooms and free clinics. This doesn’t take into account the billions being absorbed by in-patient care delivered by hospitals.

In March of 2016, Newsmax claimed there are 61 million illegal aliens in America, and Breitbart mentioned 30 million in August of 2015. Whatever the case, we know that for 20 years the media has said 11-12 million illegals are in America, and it is far more.

NAFTA and American Education

Illegal aliens cost America’s states over $761 million per year in our school systems, and six chapters of NAFTA have a direct impact on the public education system.

Under NAFTA, education in all three countries was to be privatized.
Privatization is the transfer of a government organization to a private entity.

The rise of charters is the prime example, touted by both the left and right. The privatization effect of charters goes much further, both for-profit, and not-for-profit charters conform schools to principles of privately run enterprises. Despite much evidence to the contrary, competition is touted as the high virtue that makes charters superior. Their very ability to exclude is an important factor in the success, for the few charters who actually are successful. Remember that charters are tax funded! Yet, they do not report to local school boards!

Should taxpayer dollars intended for schools be permitted to generate a private profit? I don’t think so!

Educators knew from following the NAFTA negotiations that turning public education into a commodity for sale in the capitalist marketplace was a central component of the agreement. They understood that at stake was not just public education, but the very idea of the “public.”

Part of the dialogue that has come out of NAFTA was from United States Information Agency Director, Joseph Duffey. In a September 12, 1993 Washington Times article, he stated that he expects the North American countries to succeed in achieving a sense of regional community(regionalism is communism) where the quest for a common community of nations in Western Europe has foundered. He’s talking about a North American Union (NAU), just like the European Union.

He went on to say, “We’re trying to reverse the tradition of nationalism and people, who in looking to their identity, look backwards to the past. Instead, we want them to look to the future.” In other words, Americans should no longer think of themselves as Americans whose founders were for freedom, liberty and individuality, but rather as world citizens, or citizens of the NAU.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA establishes the principle that foreign investors should be granted the same facilities as national investors, without any restrictions.
Chapter 12 of NAFTA (cross-border commerce of services). The new NAFTA rules have accelerated the imposition of new evaluation methods in education, developed by private institutions and based on standardized tests. Such tests are an effective means to restrict access to higher education and to assign young people coercively to technological schools that are not their vocational choice.

Key words are “education reform,” “standardized tests,” “state standards,” all of these are part and parcel of the destruction of education via Common Core, which actually started in the 1960s with mastery learning, and which was accelerated with NAFTA.

The Free Trade Agreement got the ball rolling for the development of skills standards by the newly formed National Skills Standards Board. It was endorsed by the U.S. Labor Department Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) study originated under Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole. This eventually led to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the dumbing down of American education curriculum for global workforce training.

With all of this emphasis on “standards” it should be pointed out that NAFTA allows exchanges of all categories of professionals, with those coming from Mexico and Canada having met their own countries’ standards, not necessarily equal to those required in the United States.

If this process evolves the way most of these exchange processes have in the past, that disparity will be addressed in one of two ways—by changing U.S. standards to match foreign standards, or by altering both NAFTA nations’ standards to align with international standards like ISO 9000 or ISO 1400 monitored by UNESCO. This should be of concern to professional organizations in the United States. See page 315 in The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America to see the impact on education in the US by the signing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Conclusion

As Murray Rothbard explained at the time NAFTA was passed, “In the first place, genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty or trade agreement. NAFTA is called a trade agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two thirds of the Senate. If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is repeal all our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions on trade.”

No wonder Trump carried Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. One way he could now repay those voters who put him in the White House is to cut out the sovereignty-killing cancer called NAFTA, and help restore the American Dream for millions of American workers.

President-elect Trump, you should have dumped NAFTA your very first day in office!