Tag Archives: NAFTA

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!

Treason on the Installment Plan

Treason on the Installment Plan

Treason on the Installment Plan

If there has been a single family that has had more influence and done more damage to this country than the Rockefellers, I don’t know who it would be. In a U.S. State Department history of the founding of the United Nations is written:

“The delegations negotiated a role for regional organizations under the United Nations umbrella and outlined the powers of the office of the Secretary General, including the authority to refer conflicts to the Security Council.”

According to Nelson Rockefeller’s Senate biography, he was responsible for the inclusion of United Nations recognition of regional pacts inherent in which is the regional organization assigned to oversee the regional pact.

“He played a key role in hemispheric policy at the United Nations Conference held in San Francisco, developing consensus for regional pacts (such as the Rio Pact and NATO) within the UN’s framework.”

By now, most people should understand that U.S. trade policy was not intended to improve the economy of the United States – quite the opposite in fact. Trade policy was used to build a harmonized system of law in the U.S. corresponding to the body of international law that was being built. Concessions in trade agreements that caused entire industries to move out of the U.S. were designed to buy approval for the international law system under the United Nations. Every international agreement that was ratified by the U.S. Senate on issues to be decided under international law transferred U.S. sovereignty to international bodies. It also transferred governing and oversight domestically to the U.S. State Department because they are the agency that oversees and enforces international agreements.

In 1983 the Senate ratified a treaty with Mexico known as the La Paz Treaty (TIAS 10827) that created a geographically defined border region under the management of the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of the State Department because the State Department oversees and enforces international agreements. This treaty put that territory for the entire length of the border with Mexico under international law. In 1986, the U.S. added an annex to the La Paz Treaty concerning the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. They also negotiated and got a treaty with Canada on the same subject (TIAS 11099). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) included the 1983 La Paz Treaty and the 1986 Treaty with Canada as Annexes which means they were incorporated into the agreement in their entirety.

What this did was to put the entire North American continent under international law under the management of the State Department as the agency to oversee international agreements. The NAFTA agreement had to do with the economy and the two other treaties had to do with the environment. Since everything we do is within the definition of the environment, sovereignty over our lives was effectively transferred. (More info on this can be found here: Puppet Regime).

In 1994, the first of a series of summits was held to finalize the treason that has been in progress since 1945 with the creation of the United Nations. The objective of the summits was to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas which is really a euphemism for ‘common market’ which – following the pattern of the European Union would end with creation of the North American Union – a region under international law. What that means is the end of sovereignty of the United States as a nation-state with governing authority transferred to an unelected regional commission unseen and unknown to the American people.

The FTAA summits were:

1994 – Miami Summit of the Americas

1998 – Santiago, Chili Summit of the Americas

2001 – Quebec City, Canada Summit of the Americas

Of course the whole thing was managed by the U.S. Trade Representative’s office along with the State Department because anything having to do with international affairs falls under the purview of the State Department.

Succinctly, what they’ve done has been treason on the installment plan – putting the United States into a regional “governance” system under the United Nations system.

United Nations Regional Commissions

UN NGOs

UN Reporters *flashing red signals and sirens – recalling Ted Turner and his billion donation

Regionalization under the United Nations System

US_Regionalization
United_Nation_Association

On December 14, 1960, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514:

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

A paper written by International Law Professor Edward McWhinney published on the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law provided background and analysis of this Declaration. The Declaration was put before the General Assembly rather than the Security Council so that the veto power of the permanent members was not applicable. In effect, this was a coup d’etat on the permanent members by the majority of member countries occurring as Professor McWhinney wrote, on “cultural and ideological terms”. Since the United Nations operates as an association under international law, the Declaration provided the opportunity to use the international courts and their armies of non-governmental, civil society organizations to begin breaking down the Westphalian nation-state system. In 1960, the Declaration was like a hairline crack in a sidewalk. Over time, the entire sidewalk will crumble away to dust and debris and that is exactly what is happening to the United States.

Regionalism and privatization of government functions were marketed to the American people as being good economic policy and efficiency of government operations. Regionalism was promoted through what was falsely presented as trade agreements when all evidence indicates the real objective was to transfer economic sovereignty to unelected commissions under international law. The privatization of government functions using federal tax money to disempower the states and elected government officials has been used to transfer governing power to unelected groups of people creating a fourth column of operatives ready to aid and abet a fifth column occupation of the country in the final phase of de-colonization. Towards that goal, the U.S. State Department, acting as an agent of a foreign power in conspiracy with the networks of the fourth column is engaged in massive importation of tribal peoples hostile to western civilization and the Westphalian nation-state system who are the fifth column deceptively being described as “refugees”.

On September 25, 1961 President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at the United Nations calling for the complete disarmament of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Congress dutifully passed Public Law 87-297, “Arms Control and Disarmament Act”. The U.S. State Department released Memorandum 7277 explaining the United States introduced at the Sixteenth Assembly of the United Nations, a program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

It’s not a stretch to think that the logic of disarmament with legislation passed that close to the 1960 United Nations Declaration on De-Colonization was taken as a step towards the dismantling of the lawfully constituted American government. The military is the protection for the nation-state and the people of the nation. Disarmament removes that protection. The last line of defense is the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and that right of the people under our lawfully constituted government has been under attack for decades.

We, the majority of the American population have been at a disadvantage because we don’t have a common understanding of history. It’s time to remedy that and it’s absolutely imperative that we do.

In Michigan, Donald Trump takes aim at Ford Motor Co., illegal immigrants

By Keith Naughton Bloomberg News, for CRAINSDETROIT.COM
DONALD TRUMP
BIRCH RUN — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump came to the home state of the auto industry and attacked Ford Motor Co. for building factories in Mexico. And the Michigan faithful in attendance sided with the bombastic mogul.
“Ford is building a $2.5 billion plant in Mexico,” he roared to a packed auditorium in Birch Run, and 2,000 voices responded with lusty boos. “I’ll actually give them a good idea. Why don’t we just let the illegals drive the cars and trucks right into our country?”
americans are offended
The real estate developer and former reality TV star boasted that “President Trump” won’t let Dearborn-based Ford move jobs to Mexico and will convince the automaker’s CEO Mark Fields to bring jobs back to the United States.
“I would say, the deal is not going to be approved, I won’t allow it. I want that plant in the United States, preferably here,” he said, as the crowd rose to its feet, chanting “U.S.A.,” punctuated by a woman shouting “Detroit.” “So then I only have one question: Do they move the plant to the United States the same day or a day later?” Trump asked.
Playing to the fears of local residents in this ravaged industrial region 90 miles north of Detroit, Trump gave insight into why he continues to dominate the Republican field despite media firestorms over his comments on Mexican immigrants, Arizona Sen. John McCain’s war record and women. Standing before four American flags at a rostrum decorated with a small Republican elephant, Trump showed how he can fire up a GOP crowd still worried about the economy, terrorism and illegal immigrants.
“I’ve been waiting for somebody with cojones for a long time,” said Jim Maratta, 68, a Vietnam veteran sitting in the front row wearing his VFW cap and an American flag shirt. “We need somebody with guts. I want to see him do something for jobs and get those deadbeats in Congress off their butts.”
Ford countered that it is creating jobs in the United States. The automaker in April announced it is investing $2.5 billion in Mexico on two new factories to make engines and transmissions. The United Auto Workers union also objects to Ford’s growing Mexican investments and has said that will be a focal point in contract talks this summer.
“We are committed to leveraging our global manufacturing footprint and will continue to invest where it makes the best sense for our business,” said Karl Henkel, a Ford spokesman. “We are proud that we have invested $6.2 billion in our U.S. plants since 2011 and hired nearly 25,000 U.S. employees.”
Trump managed to avoid the controversy over comments about Fox News reporter Megyn Kelly that has dogged him since last Thursday’s Republican debate. After Kelly questioned him aggressively during the debate, Trump told CNN: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”
Despite those comments that many viewed as relating to a woman’s menstrual cycle — which Trump denied — his wide lead in the polls has remained steadfast. He won the support of 23 percent of those polled by NBC News/Survey Monkey over the weekend. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was next with 13 percent.
But Trump didn’t shy from assailing illegal immigrants from Mexico while in Michigan.
“If it weren’t for me, the words ‘illegal immigrant’ wouldn’t be spoken right now,” Trump shouted, waving his hands with the cobra flick that suggests he’s about to fire someone. “We have to build a wall!”
With that, the crowd began stomping and chanting “Trump, Trump, Trump.”
“You can be a natural born citizen and not get a 10th of the benefits that illegal immigrants do,” John Grant, a real estate developer from Brighton said as he left the speech wearing a newly purchased Trump button. “We need someone to say what’s on their mind and to speak the truth.”
In comments to reporters prior to his speech, Trump said he is 100 percent certain — “mark it down” — he could convince Mexico to pay for a wall along the U.S. border to curb illegal immigration.
“Mexico is going to pay for the wall and they’re going to be happy about it because the cost of the wall is peanuts compared to the kind of money they’re making” off the United States, Trump said. “Their leaders are much smarter and sharper and more cunning than our leaders.”
Outside the Birch Run Expo Center, however, the mood was less pro-Trump. Gilberto Guevara said he feels like he’s in the crosshairs whenever the billionaire “shoots from the hip.”
Guevara, a Vietnam veteran and Mexican American, said he was offended when Trump questioned McCain’s heroism as a POW in Vietnam and he’s tired of the characterization of Mexican Americans are a menace to society. That’s why he joined about 200 other protesters waving Mexican flags, holding “Dump Trump” placards and shouting “No bullies in our state.”
“When he makes his comments, he’s just looking to get on the national news,” said Guevara, 72, wearing his VFW hat and holding a sign that read “All American Veterans Are Heros.” “My parents came from Mexico. And we are law abiding citizens. We’re productive. We contribute to the economy and we’re educated. He just needs to stop shooting from the hip.”
Ironically, Guevara may have an ally in Michigan’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder, who last week criticized Trump’s incendiary rhetoric.
“He’s had a lot of success in terms of business, but a number of his comments are clearly inappropriate and would be a major concern,” Snyder said in an interview last week with the Associated Press. “And I think that’s something people need to take into account in their decision-making process.”

Council On Foreign Relations

Written by James Perloff for THE NEW AMERICAN MAGAZINE
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama consistently promised Americans “change.” Such promises aren’t new to the voting public.

When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said: “The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.” And top Carter aide Hamilton Jordan promised: “If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.” Yet Carter selected Vance as Secretary of State and Brzezinski as National Security Adviser; the “same group of insiders” had been shifted around; and Jordan did not quit.
Carter’s administration was dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission, which had been founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was campaigning against Carter, he protested:
I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction.
Yet after his election, President Reagan picked 10 Trilateralists for his transition team, and included in his administration such Trilateralists as Vice President George Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, U.S. Trade Representative William Brock, and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Yet the entire North American membership of the Trilateral Commission has never numbered much over 100.
The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in office: they draw their top personnel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one.
Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. As we will later see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence.
Power Behind the Throne
In theory, America’s government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” While this concept rang true in early America, and many individuals still trust in it, the last century has seen the reality of power increasingly shift from the people to an establishment rooted in banking, Wall Street, and powerful multinational corporations. Syndicated columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, explained:
The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.
Roosevelt added that this group’s goal is “a One World Socialist state governed by ‘experts’ like themselves.”
David Rockefeller, the longtime chairman (and now chairman emeritus) of the CFR, acknowledged the role of the establishment in trying to lead America in the one-world direction in his 2002 book Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Two major means the establishment employs for controlling government policy: (1) through its influence within the two major parties and the mass media, it can usually assure that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates will be its own hand-picked men; (2) by stacking presidential cabinets with CFR members at key positions — especially those involving defense, finance, foreign policy, and national security — it can assure that America will move in the direction it wants. Since the council’s founding in 1921, 21 secretaries of defense or war, 19 secretaries of the treasury, 17 secretaries of state, and 15 CIA directors have hailed from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Background
Prior to the CFR’s founding, what Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr. (the father of the famous aviator) called the “Money Trust” — a cabal of international bankers including the houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild — conspired to create the Federal Reserve System. Their agents, such as Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong, who had secretly planned the Fed at a nine-day meeting on Jekyll Island, were then put in charge of the system itself. This gave them control of American interest rates, and, by virtue of this, control of the stock market, as well as the capacity to have the U.S. government spend without limit by having the Fed create money from nothing. The result has been decades of inflation and skyrocketing national debt. (For full details, see the April 13, 2009 New American or Our Monetary Mayhem Began With the Fed.)
Not just an accumulation of wealth, but a consolidation of political power was involved. The Money Trust had backed Woodrow Wilson in the presidential elections, and then controlled him through their front man, Edward Mandell House, who lived in the White House. The trust recognized how the power of government could be used to advance their own interests.
Wilson, surrounded by the bankers, traveled to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which was settling the aftermath of World War I. His chief proposal there, of course, was the League of Nations — a first step toward world government. However, although the League was established by the Versailles Treaty, the United States did not join because the Senate refused to ratify the treaty.
In response to this rejection, the bankers’ circle, still in Paris, held a series of meetings and proposed to establish a new organization in the United States, whose purpose would be to lead America into the League. This organization was incorporated in New York City two years later as the Council on Foreign Relations.
Architects of a New World Order
The CFR’s goal was formation of an incrementally stronger world government. Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
After World War II, the League’s successor, the United Nations, was born. Contrary to what the public is commonly told, the UN was not founded by nations who had tired of war. The UN was conceived by a group of CFR members in the State Department calling themselves the Informal Agenda Group. They drafted the original proposal for the UN, and secured the approval of President Roosevelt, who then made establishing the UN his highest postwar priority. When the UN held its founding meeting in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates were CFR members.
Though the UN was not initially set up as a world government, the intent was that it would develop into one over time. John Foster Dulles (CFR), an American delegate to the UN founding meeting who later became Secretary of State under Eisenhower, acknowledged as much in his book War or Peace: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”
Two other postwar institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, were technically created at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. But the initial planning was done by the CFR’s Economic and Finance Group, part of their wartime War and Peace Studies Project. The World Bank and IMF act as a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.
Despite what Americans were told, the postwar Marshall Plan was not invented by General George Marshall, though he did announce it in a 1947 Harvard commencement speech. The Marshall Plan was dreamed up at a CFR study group with David Rockefeller as its secretary. Marshall was simply selected to announce the plan because, as a general, he would be perceived as politically neutral and help garner bipartisan congressional support for the plan. Unknown to the public, Marshall Plan funds were circuitously rerouted by John J. McCloy — appointed U.S. High Commissioner to Germany — to Jean Monnet, founder of the Common Market, which evolved into today’s European Union, a microcosm of world government. McCloy returned home to become chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1953.
The tragic Vietnam War was run almost entirely by CFR members. William P. Bundy (CFR) drafted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution before the now-discredited Tonkin Gulf Incident even took place. Bundy’s father-in-law, Dean Acheson (CFR), as leader of a senior team of advisers nicknamed “the Wise Men,” persuaded Lyndon Baines Johnson to dramatically escalate the war beginning in 1965. And Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (CFR) helped develop the “rules of engagement” (e.g., preventing the Air Force from attacking critical targets) that guaranteed the war’s disastrous prolongation. This generated a huge slide to the left among American college students. When Bundy left the State Department, David Rockefeller appointed him editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs. And McNamara, one of the leading architects of the Vietnam War debacle, became president of the World Bank.
Broadening the Scheme
The CFR is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It has counterpart organizations throughout the world — e.g., the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England, the French Institute of International Relations, etc.
To help coordinate policy on an international scale, CFR chairman David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973. “Trilateral” refers to the coordination of three global regions: North America, Europe, and Asia. The commission’s meetings allow the gathering together of heads of state, banks, multinational corporations, and media. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater called the commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and said, “It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.” The commission, like the annual secretive meetings of the Bilderbergers and the notorious Bohemian Grove, enables the international power elite to privately assemble and plan our destiny.
Jimmy Carter was a member of the commission, hand-picked to be president after meeting with Brzezinski and Rockefeller at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York, estate. Carter filled his administration with CFR members and Trilateralists. Indeed, Brzezinski noted in his memoirs that “all the key foreign policy decision makers of the Carter Administration had previously served in the Trilateral Commission.” Carter then embarked on a destructive course of foreign policy that included betraying the Shah of Iran, leading to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini and the U.S. hostage crisis; betraying President Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, resulting in a Marxist dictatorship under the Sandinistas; and betraying Taiwan in order to recognize Communist China — a move previously set up by Richard Nixon’s overtures to China, dictated by his own CFR advisers.
Under Bill Clinton (a CFR member who selected 12 CFR members for his cabinet), the United States enacted NAFTA, an economic alliance with Mexico and Canada. This arrangement was created by the establishment, not by the American people, who did not suspect the game being played on them. Not only did NAFTA swamp us with cheap, job-destroying imports, but it was designed to be the foundation for a continental economic union leading to political union. Robert Pastor (CFR), a key architect of North American integration, acknowledged in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” And Andrew Reding of the World Policy Institute said: “NAFTA will signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit — North America. With economic integration will come political integration. By whatever name, this is an incipient form of international government. Following the lead of the Europeans, North Americans should begin considering formation of a continental parliament.” [Emphasis added.]
A similar stratagem had been used against the peoples of Europe — by first deceptively hooking them into an “economic” alliance called the Common Market, which then, requiring common laws to regulate trade, transformed via a series of steps into the European Union, the super-national government of Europe that is swallowing up national sovereignty.
Following the initial step enacted under Clinton, President George W. Bush, whose father was a CFR director, moved toward politicizing the NAFTA alliance. On March 23, 2005, he met Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to launch the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the rudiments of a North American Union. CNN’s Lou Dobbs said of it: “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it.”
Furthermore, regional alliances such as the European Union and proposed North American Union are not ends, but only steppingstones to world government. As CFR/Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”
In furtherance of this, on April 30, 2007, President Bush stood at the White House beside Angela Merkel, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and announced the signing of a new agreement to “strengthen transatlantic economic integration.” It called for “joint work in the areas of regulatory cooperation, financial markets, trade and transport security, innovation and technological development, intellectual property rights, energy, investment, competition, services, and government procurement,” and various other steps toward economic integration. But as usual, “economic integration” is the predecessor of political integration. CFR members have dreamed of a political union between the United States and Europe since the 1950s, when the CFR-dominated Atlantic Union Committee promoted a merger they called “Atlantica.”
Enter Obama
Candidate Barack Obama revealed he would proceed with the Bush initiatives. In a speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he stated:
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down…. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together…. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
Obama had only been president for a little over two months when he traveled to Europe for a series of meetings with European leaders. He attended the G20 Summit, which ended with a tentative agreement to launch a new global financial system, using as the rationale for this major step toward global government the recent Fed- and government-spawned financial meltdown.
Henry Kissinger — foreign policy mouthpiece of the establishment for four decades — wrote an article for the January 12, 2009 issue of the International Herald Tribune entitled “The Chance for a New World Order.” He stated:
As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy….
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being….
The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
Kissinger also stated on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”: “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously…. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
Past statements reveal that the establishment wants a single currency for the world, just as the EU has consolidated its currencies into the “euro.” As far back as the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes proposed a world currency he dubbed bancor. Richard L. Gardner (CFR) wrote in the Fall 1984 Foreign Affairs: “I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of common currency for all the industrial democracies and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that Monetary Policy.”
In March of this year, Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with reporters at the White House. Brown announced that “there is the possibility in the next few months of a global new deal that will involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system.” Obama added that
Globalization can be an enormous force for good…. But what is also true is … we still have a 1930s regulatory system in place in most countries designed from the last great crisis, that we’ve got to update our institutions, our regulatory frameworks, so that the power of globalization is channeled for the benefit of ordinary men and women.
If trends continue, however, the changes can be expected to benefit a tiny handful of the global elite, not “ordinary men and women.” Further evidence that Obama’s administration will simply continue the globalist agenda is indicated by his appointments.
CFR Domination Continues
During his campaign, Obama selected the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), promoter of the “regional” approach to world government, as one of his top foreign policy advisors. Obama called Brzezinski “one of our more outstanding thinkers” and “somebody I have learned an immense amount from.” Presumably Brzezinski’s teachings included the world government he advocates.
For Treasury Secretary, Obama chose Timothy Geithner: Senior Fellow in International Economics at the CFR, Bilderberger, former head of the New York Federal Reserve, and former employee of both the IMF and Kissinger Associates. One doesn’t get more establishment than that! It is Geithner who is managing the bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. Assisting Geithner at Treasury in overseeing the auto industry bailout is fellow CFR member Stephen Rattner.
For Director of the National Economic Council — a U.S. government agency created by a Bill Clinton executive order — Obama selected Lawrence Summers (CFR, Bilderberger). Former Chief Economist at the World Bank, his last position was at the investment firm of D. E. Shaw & Co, where he earned $5.2 million in one year while working one day per week. Henry Kissinger had said Summers should “be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas.”
For Defense Secretary, Obama elected to continue with Bush pick Robert Gates (CFR, Bilderberger). During the Carter administration, Gates served as a special assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski. In 2004, he co-chaired a CFR Task Force on Iran with Brzezinski, who lauded Gates in Time in 2008. Joining Gates in the Defense Department are fellow CFR members Michele Flournoy (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), Jeh C. Johnson (Defense Department General Counsel), and Kathleen Hicks (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Forces).
For Secretary of State, Obama chose Hillary Clinton, who has attended the top-secret Bilderberger meetings. Hillary is not a CFR member, but husband Bill is, and her State Department is laden with CFR members, including James B. Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Burns (Under Secretary for Political Affairs), Susan Rice (U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Jacob J. Lew (Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources), Todd Stern (Special Envoy for Climate Change), and many others.
The Department of Homeland Security, which many Americans fear may turn our country into an Orwellian surveillance society, was conceived before 9/11 by a task force called the U.S. Commission on National Security, nine of whose 12 members belonged to the CFR. The administration of the department under Obama is particularly heavy with CFR members, including Janet Napolitano (Secretary), Jane Holl Lute (Deputy Secretary), Juliette Kayyem (Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental Programs), and Alan Bersin (Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs).
Thus the CFR continues to dominate our government’s key areas: finance, defense, foreign policy, and security. To this may be added various other Obama CFR appointees, such as Mona Sutphen (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board), Peter Cowhey, (Senior Counsel, Office of U.S. Trade Representative), and Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
The Future
The idea that Barack Obama became president from a “grass-roots” movement is illusory. American government policy continues to be largely dictated by the rich and the few. This is generally unknown to the public — not because it is a bizarre conspiracy theory, but because the same power elite who run our government, mega-banks, and multinational corporations also run the major media, as an inspection of the CFR membership roster would reveal.
Membership in the CFR, of course, is not an automatic condemnation. A few people are added as “window dressing” to give the group distinction and a veneer of diversity. An example is movie star Angelina Jolie. No one suspects Jolie knows much about foreign affairs or is a conspirator for world government. But within the CFR are hardcore globalists who, linked with their foreign counterparts through the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission, head the drive for one-world government.
Though numerically small (less than 1,000 members during the Kennedy years, less than 4,500 today), this organization has dominated every administration for over seven decades.
As long as the CFR controls our government, we can anticipate more of the same: diminishing national sovereignty; free flow of immigration (which confuses national identity and weakens national loyalties); increasing jobs losses through multinational trade agreements; further internationalization of law (Law of the Sea Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, global taxation, etc.); increasing loss of freedoms in a “surveillance society”; progressive organization of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union; and ultimately, broader merger into a world government where all power will be concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Eternal vigilance continues to be the price of freedom.

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 6

3Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. -Isaiah 59:7

Heritage and NAFTA

The idea of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) originated with Heritage Fellow and CNP member, Richard Allen, and has long been advocated by Heritage policy analysts. The idea of creating a North American free trade zone from the Yukon to the Yucatan 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.

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 the 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.

Heritage and National Healthcare

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. 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 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 outline 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.

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.

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 CNP 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, and the Republican Party’s status as a hotbed of intellectual energy was ratified. 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 Bush’s 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 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 have 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. Feulner is also a charter member of the Council for National Policy.

The Rockefeller/Heritage Connection

From education researcher, Chey Simonton’s article on the Rockefeller/Heritage Connection, she states, “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. 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. Charlotte Iserbyt’s Maine State Legion voted unanimously to go up against what Reagan had done.

In 1995, 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 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 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. [Link] In 1987, Weyrich also wrote an article in The Washington Post, A Conservative’s Lament, which virtually recommended a new Constitution and 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. The Council for National Policy members love Heritage…and their members have been Heritage’s presidents.

Remember folks, Heritage Foundation is inextricably tied to the CNP, and the CNP is nothing more than the right arm of the CFR. 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: “Notwithstanding, its role as ‘populist’ spokesman, Weyrich’s organization, for instance, has received grants from Amoco, General Motors, Chase Manhattan Bank (David Rockefeller) and right-wing foundations like Olin and Bradley.” They’ve also received millions from wealthy donors which we’ll discuss in upcoming articles.

In Part 7, we’ll take a gander at Weyrich’s American Legislative Exchange Council, and his strong affiliation with the Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family and Property.

Enemies on The Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 5

“Only if we desire to know the truth and desire it fervently can we stand to be told that we the people are public enemy number one. If, on the other hand, we are too far gone to accept the truth, we shall continue to lose the little freedom and property we have left. This is a promise!” The Don Bell Report 

The number one mover and shaker in the Council for National Policy was Paul Weyrich, albeit there were others with more money and power, the Coors family, and Richard Mellon Scaife, heir to the Carnegie Mellon fortune. The latter has just announced he is dying from incurable cancer. First, let’s take a look at the founder of Heritage Foundation and his affiliations. Mr. Weyrich wielded such power, and had so many organizations, that I’m only able to skim the surface of his many involvements.

Please understand that I’m writing this series to make people aware that all those great sounding rightwing groups have hidden agendas and affiliations with the Communist left and the shadow government of the CFR. We must know our enemies. In doing so, we can counter their efforts with the truth.

Paul Weyrich

weyrich

Paul M. Weyrich was born in 1942 and died in 2008. He was allegedly an American religious conservative and figurehead of the New Right. The latter has nothing to do with old-right Constitutional conservatives. The New Right is made up of neo-con Trotskyites and corporate fascists. They masquerade as “moderate” Republicans. See Part 3 of this series.

Weyrich was the Grand Poobah of the Council for National Policy. He was on the CNP Board of Governors in 1982 and 1996, and was the CNP Secretary-Treasurer as well as being on the Executive Committee in 1984-1985 and 1988. The Executive Committee decides who can become a member, and who can be an invited guest. He co-founded the conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). He coined the term “Moral Majority“, the name of the political action group Moral Majority that he co-founded in 1979 with fellow CNP charter member, Jerry Falwell.

The Heritage Foundation

heritage wolf

As major founder of the Heritage Foundation, Paul Weyrich served as the first president in 1973-1974. Funding came from Joseph Coors, and Richard Mellon Scaife.   Here is a list of Heritage’s top funders today, along with their board of trustees. Note that Carthage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and Scaife Family Foundation are all Richard Mellon Scaife foundations. Here is Weyrich’s own story of how he and Joe Coors worked together to create Heritage Foundation.

In 1971, Joseph Coors along with Jack Wilson and Paul Weyrich, founded Analysis and Research Inc., to establish a political research entity, that being Heritage Foundation. CNP member, Joe Coors donated the first-year Heritage budget of $250,000 for 1973 from the coffers of the Coors Corporation, and for the next two years gave $200,000. He then pledged $15,000 per month, but eventually gave more. Coors and Weyrich set up the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, which evolved into the Free Congress Foundation, to carry out political activities, and the Heritage Foundation as a tax exempt educational research entity.

The Coors company provided Heritage Foundation with $20,000 per month during the foundation’s first year. Weyrich was Heritage president until February 28, 1974.

The Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors included Weyrich who was an ardent supporter of the Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family and Property (more on them later) and Charles Moser, an editorial adviser to a publication that praises the Nazi Waffen SS.

Weyrich, who for years represented the ongoing political interests of the Coors family in Washington, DC, sponsored and worked closely with convicted Austrian Nazi collaborator, Laszlo Pasztor, a Hungarian-American who was employed at Free Congress Foundation, the political arm of Heritage Foundation. Pasztor’s Coalitions of the Americas was housed as a subsidiary of the Free Congress Foundation. The Coors and Scaife-funded Heritage Foundation co-sponsored a 1989 forum with a pro-Nazi group, the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations.

In Martin Lee’s book, The Beast Reawakens, he refers to Pasztor as Weyrich’s right hand man:

“In addition to homegrown agitators who dredged up anti-Semitic motifs that harkened back to the 1930s, some countries had to contend with groups that were led or supported by pro-fascist exiles who repatriated from the West where they had carried on as vocal anti-Communists during the Cold War, often with CIA support. The Free Congress Foundation, founded by American far right strategist Paul Weyrich, became active in eastern European politics after the Cold War. Figuring prominently in this effort was Weyrich’s right-hand man, Laszlo Pasztor, a former leader of the pro-Nazi Arrow Cross organization in Hungary, which had collaborated with Hitler’s Reich. After serving two years in prison for his Arrow Cross activities, Pasztor found his way to the United States, where he was instrumental in establishing the ethnic-outreach arm of the Republican National Committee.”

In the 1970s, Weyrich and Coors made appointments and set up political contacts on Capitol Hill for one Franz Joseph Strauss, Bavarian Head of State who helped émigré Nazi collaborators. Another fascist, Roger Pearson, writer and organizer for the Nazi Northern League of Northern Europe joined the editorial board of Policy Review (Heritage’s monthly publication) in 1977. The following brief mention of Roger Pearson on the British Eugenics Society web site is an indicator of his abiding contribution to pure racial breeding:

“Hans K. Gunther, a Nazi anthropologist and eugenicist… was assisted by Roger Pearson of the Eugenics Society, an important figure on the racist journal, Mankind Quarterly… Mankind Quarterly is a racist journal still pumping out venom in 1994, still influenced by Roger Pearson. Josef Mengele’s co-researcher at Auschwitz, Von Verschuer, was on the editorial advisory board of this journal before his death in 1970.”

The Northern League merged newsletters with Britons Publishing Company, an anti-Semitic publisher and a major distributor of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was theosophist, and Russian occultist, Yuliana Glinka, who cooked up the Protocols, and she was the companion and coordinator for Madam Helena Blavatsky‘s Theosophical Society. Link All anti-Semitics, please refrain from writing to me.

The Policy Review was then published by the Hoover Institute whose members include Ed Meese, CFR Condi Rice, and NAFTA’s Richard Allen. It was discontinued in 2013.

Pearson’s racialist theories are still circulated worldwide by neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations. Pearson was a recipient of white supremacist and pro-eugenics grants from Pioneer Fund to the tune of a million dollars. One of the funds’ founders was former Senator Jesse Helms, 33rd degree mason, and Council for National Policy charter member.

To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. was then, and still is today, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement.” The document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation’s website for obvious reasons. The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:

Paraphrased here are the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:

1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication. (Doesn’t this sound like the Third Reich’s Goebbels who said, “If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.”)

2) It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”

3) Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks. (This is an Alinsky tactic, as are others.)

4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.

Huebeck goes on to say,  “There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture.

And just what are they changing it into?

According to Jeffrey Sharlet, Hitler’s Mein Kampf and William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are studied as textbooks in a particular leadership training group he wrote about in Harper’s Magazine. Link

Paul Weyrich wrote an article in 1987 entitled, “A Conservative’s Lament.” In it he stated, “If we are going to be a serious nation, we need a serious system for selecting our leaders and advisors. We need some type of shadow government, in which leaders and top advisors can be identified and developed, and through which our politics can be better focused on policy choices. The world is a professional league, and we cannot win fielding amateur teams.”  What does he think the CFR is? Of course he loved the parliamentary form of government.

In Part 6, we’ll continue looking at Heritage Foundation and their UN connections, NAFTA, and the Health Care mandate. Please remember that I’m simply skimming the surface of these people involved with the Council for National Policy. Throughout the rest of this series, Heritage Foundation is at the center of the Council for National Policy.

GLOBAL ETHICS AND WORLD GOVERNMENT

The article below was written in 2002 and is about a document written 83 years ago but the information in it is more relevant today than many articles written about education and what the government is doing to our children. Read it, share it. Seek out his other articles if you like this one; he is a wonderful researcher and writer about the issues that affect us now.

___________________________________________________________
By Dennis L. Cuddy Ph. D.
June 15, 2002
NewsWithViews.com

The Florida Forum Editor’s note: This article is a very valuable document showing the goals of the NEA nearly 70 years ago in 1932. This is about the time that William Z. Foster wrote Toward Soviet America and the Humanists wrote their First Manifesto. It should be read and kept as a clear understanding of the subversive plans the NEA had for using America’s schools. Many people think of these goals as recent. This article should serve to set them straight.

Concerning the movement toward a one-world government today, if the power elite are to accomplish their objectives, traditional values would, of course, have to be undermined. In that regard, education has played a critical role for many years, and a typical example can be found in The Tenth Yearbook of the National Education Association’s Department of Superintendence, published in February 1932, and titled Character Education, in which one reads:

“Relativity must replace absolutism in the realm of morals as well as in the spheres of physics and biology.

“…If the individual is to be happy in the contemporary order, he must be open-minded with respect to new values and new arrangements.

“…Loyalty to the family must be merged into loyalty to the community, loyalty to the community into loyalty to the nation, and loyalty to the nation into loyalty to mankind. The citizen of the future must be a citizen of the world.

“…Also, within the limits of a particular society, individualistic and competitive impulses must be subordinated increasingly to social and cooperative tendencies.

“…Interdependence rather than independence is the rule of life.

“…Under the condition of freedom and plenty generated by industrial society, the youth of the country are abandoning the severe sex taboos of the past; the sanctity of the marriage relationship is being challenged; the dogmas and ceremonies of the church are losing their power.

“…Until we have a more equitable distribution of property and income in this country, great numbers of families will remain totally unfit agencies of character education.

“…The church seems never to have been able to win either the masses or the statesmen of the Western nations to the Christian way of life. “…The position of the church today is one of confusion and uncertainty. It has lost much of the authority with which it at one time was clothed.

“…Only when it employs the outworn dogmas of the past and appeals to certain of the traditional prejudices of the people does it appear to have confidence in its own pronouncements.

“…This analysis shows a need for statements of objectives which….stimulate the creation of new moralities in accord with our changing society.

“…The center of attention is not to be some traits to be expressed, some rules of conduct, some ideal of truth or beauty. The center of attention is to be the situation.

“…The old structure passes. Religion, morality, business, family, school, and state change.

“…Emotional conditioning does determine a great deal of one’s attitudes toward persons, things, and ideas, and is responsible for a large part of one’s outlook on life. Conditioning is therefore a process which may be employed by the teacher or parent to build up attitudes in the child and predispose him to the actions by which these attitudes are expressed.

“…It is probable that the chauvinistic teaching of much of the history of the home country is responsible for a good share of the international friction and conflict.

“…An eminent teacher of ethics, Professor George Herbert Palmer (said): ‘Many here (New England) carry a conscience about with them which makes us say, “How much better off they would be with none!”‘

“…Education must be redirected if it is to become the chief means whereby society will attempt to remake itself.

“…School life will begin with the nursery school and extend to include adult education in various forms. “…It may come to be, in this changing world, that society will come quickly to support and control a program of education extending, for the individual, from the cradle to the grave.

“…As need arises, it will offer the individual opportunity to change quickly or slowly from one vocation or profession to another.

“…The question of demand and supply of workers in the various professions and occupations may in time also become a part of our social planning.
“The objective of character education is to teach the child that he will do the best possible thing in each situation, old and new.

“Presumable the person which has specialized in child psychology and other sciences is better prepared to engineer a group of boys and girls in certain socialized activities than is the lay parent….”

Does this sound like the sexual liberation, situation ethics, social engineering, lifelong learning, school-to-work, redistribute-the-wealth, interdependence, and world citizenship promoted and accepted by many toward the end of the 20th century?

The world government of the power elite will be Socialist in nature, and thus during the 1930s, the United States began to move toward Socialism at the national level. In 1940, former Indiana Congressman Samuel Pattengill authored Smoke-Screen, in which he wrote: ”
I have not believed the immediate threat is Communism. The outright confiscation of property, and the overnight destruction of liberty are not likely. The danger today is something else. It is creeping collectivism.

“…The progress will be gradual but the end inevitable. There will be no sudden coup d’etat. The march will be step by step, and by muffled tread. It will move under the smoke-screen of laudable ‘objectives’ to its hidden goal. That goal is National Socialism.

“…We are yet a long way from National Socialism of the Hitler species. We will probably never get that variety. But that we are moving toward some form of National Socialism and away from our form of government seems hard to not believe.

“…What is really at stake in America today is our form of government. The issue is “Freedom or Feudalism.”

Congressman Pattengill’s reference to the march being “step by step” and his warning about a future feudalism are striking, because in the April 1974 edition of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs, Rhodes Scholar and CFR member Richard Gardner declared that “the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. “…but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

Gardner in this article went on to explain how GATT would be part of this, and the GATT’s World Trade Organization has today become something of a feudal mechanism whereby the global elite are managing labor serfs in a global economy.

The plan developed many decades ago was that in order to achieve International Socialism with a World Socialist Government, nations (including the U.S.) would first have to move toward the National Socialism about which Congressman Pettengill warned, and then those National Socialist nations could more easily be merged under an International Socialist World Government. Likewise, regional economic arrangements (e.g., NAFTA, the European Community, etc.) would be formed and then merged into a world economic structure such as the WTO, which the power elite would then say had to be managed by a World Socialist Government.

Most people are already familiar with how the global economy has caused American jobs to go overseas to third world nations and how the WTO has coerced the U.S. Congress into changing our laws. Senior writer for the Chicago Tribune, Richard Longworth, in Global Squeeze (1998) wrote that “…the big story of the twenty-first century will be globalization’s impact on the nations of the world. But already, secure jobs at ever-rising wages are becoming a thing of the past.

“…The poor (in the U.S.) are getting poorer, and there are more of them.

“…This is the ‘race to the bottom,’ a process that drives income ever lower.

“This is the dehumanization of labor. No other major country treats its workers as commodities in this way, as raw materials or components that can be bargained to the lowest price.

“…Globalization has already weakened the ability of the governments to control their own economies.

“The global economy is a reality and cannot be denied. But uncontrolled, it can destroy these civilizations, to the point that we will wake one day to discover that we are neither consumers nor producers nor citizens at all.”

How does this bargaining of workers to the lowest level play out in the cities and towns of Florida and all across America? Let’s say there’s an influential businessman who has a grass-cutting or carpet-cleaning or fast food business or one of many other enterprises. And let’s say he gets work permits for 10 migrant workers whom he lodges in a 2 bedroom house. He then goes to his 10 lower middle-class American workers, each of whom has a wife and children and small houses with mortgages, and tells his workers that they are being let go because he can pay his migrant workers a lot less because they share expenses (each would pay only $10 per month on a $100 electric bill, for instance). All it takes is for one businessman in an industry in a community to do this, and others in the same industry in the community are forced to do likewise if they are to remain competitive. This type of thing is happening all across America, and the consequences for American workers and their families are traumatic.

Of course, if we are to have a world government, there will have to be an enforcer. And in that regard, the U.N. tribunal’s arrest of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic is precedent-setting. Some years ago, the World Federalist Association, which promotes world federal government, outlined a plan for the U.N. to have agencies such as the International Criminal Court whereby national sovereignty would be gradually eroded and a world federation established. President Clinton wrote a letter to the WFA wishing them in general “future success,” and Clinton, of course prosecuted the war against Milosevic over Kosovo. Recently, the Bush administration threatened to withhold reconstruction aid unless Yugoslavia turned Milosevic over to the U.N. tribunal at the Hague on the charge of crimes against humanity. Though the current head of Yugoslavia protested, leading Serbians turned Milosevic over for trial. Of course this is hypocritical, because while current President Bush and former Presidents Bush and Clinton have approved of this action, they at the same time have applauded Mikhail Gorbachev even though he prosecuted the Soviet war against Afghanistan, which included exploding toys that maimed and perhaps even killed some Afghan children. Also, it raises the question of whether Henry Kissinger will be turned over to a U.N. tribunal for what Cambodian leaders have called his illegal war against them 30 years ago. And since the vast majority of the international community was opposed to former President Bush’s invasion of Panama, could he be taken to a U.N. tribunal for trial?

But how would such a U.N. tribunal get around Americans’ Constitutional rights? I’ve said for some time that it would be through crises. Recently, more than one mother has killed her children, and so the cry goes up for the government to monitor families carefully because children may be at-risk. Furthermore, eco-terrorists have recently been committing arson in the northwest, and on June 25, the CBS Evening News showed one of the victims saying:
“A month ago, if you’d asked me, I would have said I didn’t want to live with security systems ruling my life because I didn’t want a fortress mentality. And now I welcome them.”

Crises cause Americans to be more willing to give up Constitutional privacy rights. And every time there’s a shooting, there are calls to limit our Second Amendment right to bear arms. and without that right, how can we defend ourselves if a U.N. tribunal comes after us?

© 2002 Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph. D., All Rights Reserved

Fact-Checking the Obama Administration on Trade:

Reposted from THE PUBLIC CITIZEN

Years of unfair trade deals modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have contributed to ballooning U.S. trade deficits, mass offshoring of good U.S. jobs, and a historic increase in U.S. income inequality.

But rather than change our failed trade policies, the administration appears bent on trying to hide the facts — by changing the data.

As U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman pushes for the largest expansions of the NAFTA model to date — the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) — his office has resorted to data distortions to obscure the dismal outcomes of past trade deals.

Here’s a sampling of USTR’s recent outlandish claims, based on data distortions and omissions, alongside the sobering realities about our trade policies, based on official U.S. government data.

USTR’s Trade Myths | “Factoryless Goods” | Corporate America’s Trade Myths

USTR’s Trade Myths

Reality

“The driver on our trade balance with Canada and Mexico” is fossil fuels.” The fossil fuels share of our trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has declined under NAFTA, while the total NAFTA deficit has soared 550 percent, topping $170 billion.
We have a manufacturing trade surplus with our NAFTA partners, Mexico and Canada. We have a manufacturing trade deficit with our NAFTA partners of more than $60 billion.

See the data tricks behind USTR’s NAFTA trade myths.

“Our trade balance [with Korea] has been affected by decreases in corn and fossil fuel exports” under the first two years of the Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Our trade deficit with Korea has ballooned 50 percent under the FTA, and exports to Korea have fallen. Without corn and fossil fuels, the deficit rise and export fall remain.
Under the Korea FTA, we have seen “dramatic increases in U.S. exports of key agricultural products.” Total U.S. agricultural exports to Korea have fallen more than 30 percent under the FTA.
“Sales of ‘Detroit 3’ vehicles [in Korea] are up 40 percent” under the Korea FTA. Sales of ‘Detroit 3’ autos in Korea have increased by fewer than 3,100 vehicles per year under the FTA, while sales here of imported Korean autos have increased by more than 184,000 vehicles per year.

See the data tricks behind USTR’s Korea FTA trade myths.


The Obama Administration’s “Factoryless Goods” Scam
A Proposal to Disguise the Offshoring of U.S. Manufacturing

 

A recent administration proposal would even further distort government trade data. By counting products made offshore as ‘U.S. exports,’ this scam would hide the devastation of U.S. manufacturing. It would obscure the U.S. job offshoring that unfair trade deals incentivize.

Under this Orwellian “factoryless goods” rebranding initiative, U.S. firms like Apple that have offshored their production jobs would be reclassified as “factoryless goods” manufacturers. An iPhone made in China and sold in Europe would somehow perversely count as a U.S. manufactured export. This would deceptively deflate the reported U.S. manufacturing trade deficit — and artificially inflate the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Apple’s brand managers and programmers would suddenly be counted as “manufacturing” workers!

Thankfully, a groundswell of public opposition has helped to stall this proposal. But it has yet to be permanently buried. As we push to change our failed trade policies, we will need to keep pushing against efforts to try to take away the evidence that such a change is direly needed. Learn more.


 

Corporate America’s Fact-Deprived Trade Factsheet Flurry

Corporate proponents of expanding the unpopular NAFTA model through the TPP and TAFTA have been hard at work to churn out “fact”sheets and studies praising the deals. But among the many sheets, you will find few facts. Below we wade through the spin from industry coalitions and corporate-driven think tanks to debunk the counterfactual claims.

Corporate Trade Myths

Reality

Peterson Institute of International Economics: The TPP “promise[s] substantial benefits and could lead to…a more peaceful and prosperous world economy.”It was the Peterson Institute that projected in 1993 that NAFTA would create 170,000 net new U.S. jobs in the pact’s first two years. The promised jobs never materialized, and instead hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs have been lost under NAFTA. Using optimistic assumptions, this pro-TPP study projected the deal could result in a meager 0.13 percent increase to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) – a fraction of the GDP increase from the latest version of the iPhone. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that for 9 out of 10 U.S. workers, these tiny gains likely would be outweighed by a TPP-spurred increase in income inequality. The net result? A pay cut for all but the richest 10 percent.
Corporate alliances of the “Trade Benefits America” coalition: The TPP will “open new markets in countries that are not current FTA partners.” In fact, U.S. exports have lagged under FTAs. Under the Korea FTA – the U.S. template for the TPP – U.S. exports to Korea have actually fallen. Overall, U.S. export growth to non-FTA partners has actually been 30 percent higher than to FTA partner countries. How can we do more of the same and expect different results?
The Third Way think tank: Fast Tracking the TPP would help the United States “increase U.S. exports by almost $600 billion” to “Asia-Pacific markets.” This study’s $600 billion projection was based on a hypothetical rise in exports to 12 countries. Seven of them are not even in the TPP. Two more are in the TPP but already have FTAs with the United States. That leaves three of the 12 countries for which the TPP could even plausibly boost exports…if we ignore the fact that past FTAs have not brought higher export growth.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The TPP could create “700,000 new U.S. jobs.” The Chamber did not say how they decided this would be the TPP’s impact on jobs. They simply said it was based on the above Peterson Institute study, which included a miniscule GDP projection, but no jobs projection. It is unclear how the Chamber pulled a jobs number from a study that did not produce one.

See the TPP’s threats to U.S. jobs, wages and consumers.

Emergency Committee for American Trade: “recent data suggest that trade agreements, on the whole, actually help to improve U.S. trade balances with FTA partner countries.” The aggregate U.S. trade deficit with FTA partners has increased by more than $147 billion, or 443 percent, since the FTAs were implemented. In contrast, the aggregate deficit with all non-FTA countries has decreased by more than $130 billion, or 16 percent, since 2006 (the median entry date of existing FTAs).

See the deficit-boosting record of U.S. “free trade” deals.

European Centre for International Political Economy: Elimination of tariffs under TAFTA could result in a 0.1 to 1 percent increase in U.S. GDP. Tariffs between the EU and the United States are already quite low. That is why this study on the potential impact of TAFTA tariff elimination produced paltry results. Even if we accept the study’s unrealistic assumption that TAFTA would eliminate 100 percent of tariffs, the projected gain would amount to an extra three cents per person per day.
Centre for Economic Policy Research: Assuming that TAFTA will not only eliminate tariffs, but “non-tariff barriers,” the deal could produce a 0.2 – 0.4 percent increase in U.S. GDP. This study assumed that TAFTA would reduce or eliminate up to one out of every four “non-tariff barriers” – which, according to the study, could include Wall Street regulations, food safety standards and carbon controls. The study used a hypothetical model to project tiny gains from this widespread degradation of public interest protections, while making no effort to measure the economic, social or environmental costs that would result.
The Atlantic Council, the Bertelsmann Foundation, and the British Embassy: Under TAFTA, “all states could gain jobs and increase their exports to the EU.” This study was a recycled version of the one above from the Centre for Economic Policy Research. It used the same assumption: that TAFTA would produce small economic gains from the weakening of financial regulations, milk safety standards, data privacy protections and other “trade irritants” – at no cost to consumers.

See TAFTA’s threats to consumers and the environment.