Showing posts with label Corporatocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporatocracy. Show all posts

Sunday, September 3, 2017

Study Finds Disturbing Spike in Birth Defects in US Women Living Near Industrial Agriculture


An exhaustive new study is sounding the alarm over industrial pesticide use and its effect on human health. Pregnant women in California’s San Joaquin Valley have a significantly greater chance of premature birth or birth abnormalities if they live near agricultural fields with high pesticide use.



“[F]or individuals in the top 5 per cent of exposure, pesticide exposure led to 5 to 9 per cent increases in adverse outcomes.


The magnitude of effects was further enlarged for the top 1 per cent, where these extreme exposures (more than 11,000kg over gestation) led to an 11 per cent increased probability of preterm birth, 20 per cent increased probability of low birth weight, and about a 30g decrease in birth weight.”



The good news is that most do not experience birth problems, but the study tells us that pesticides do have an association with serious health problems. Focusing mitigation efforts on areas with high pesticide use could have a dramatic beneficial impact.


Hailed as a major advancement in scientific understanding, the study compared 500,000 birth records in the San Joaquin Valley between 1997 and 2011 with levels of pesticides used in the area. Researchers note that their study design “has far stronger statistical power to identify effects than previous studies,” and it allows us “to evaluate many details of the nature of pesticide exposure.”


The one “devil” is that they were unable to isolate the roles of specific pesticides, although their analysis can be applied for the type of crops sprayed—such as grapes, which receive about 50 kg per hectare per year of insecticides. Researchers “focused on aggregate chemicals grouped into high and low toxicity pesticides by their EPA Signal Word.”


Advertisment




READ MORE:  Man Facing Felony Murder Charge for Telling an Acquaintance Where he Could Find Marijuana



This study is critically important because there is a dearth of knowledge on the relationship between pesticides and human health. While we know much more about the effects of air pollution—mainly due to a robust network of monitors–we know less about the chemicals unleashed by the industrial agricultural industry and their companions such as Monsanto and Dow.


Even though chemicals are stamped “safe” by agencies such as the EPA—after relying on the company’s own, often questionable safety data—the lesser-known truth is that pesticide companies hide their toxic legacy behind “trade secrets.”



In a corporatocracy, we would expect nothing less than a regulatory agency to have a backdoor for corporations to rape human and environmental health for profit.


The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976 and administered by the EPA, is the primary gateway for chemicals to be introduced on the market. The TSCA is supposed to protect Americans from “unreasonable risk to health or to the environment,” but thanks to the trade secrets provision we are denied information on 65 percent of chemicals that have been introduced over the past 27 years.


We cannot access “17,000 of the more than 83,000 chemicals on the master inventory compiled by the EPA” for independent researchers to perform testing. A “confidential business information” label has been applied to 13,596 chemicals produced since 1976, and the rate is increasing. The identity of these chemicals is kept secret from most EPA employees.



Considering that President Trump has appointed Scott Pruitt—with a long track record of using government power to serve the interests of corporate titans—to head the EPA, we can expect the trade secrets provision to be thoroughly abused.



READ MORE:  Man Facing Jail Time For Having a Windmill on His Own Property, Just Bucked the System!



Make no mistake though, EPA has a long history of serving the corporatocracy. As we reported in August, bombshell documents reveal decades of collusion with chemical companies, including a secret meeting where EPA assured companies such as Dow that their products would continue being sold despite fraudulent safety data.


A large portion of the toxicology studies exposed in the 1970s as invalid or fraudulent were never redone, and they still underlie the U.S. chemical regulatory system.


The chemical and industrial agriculture industry spends millions to get politicians in their pockets and convince the public that pesticides are necessary to feed the world. But that is is a myth driven by a centralized agricultural system that promotes constant chemical inputs, monoculture crops and government patents to exclude competition.



It is possible to move beyond pesticides. To protect the health of those living near agricultural areas, and everyone in general, we must break the crushing grip of centralized industrial, chemically-dependent agriculture.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

The Problem is Bigger Than Trump and Obama — The Presidency Should be Abolished

president

There was something very revealing about Charlottesville and its aftermath. Not the behavior of the president, or the disturbing resiliency of Nazism, or the willingness of some counter-protesters to initiate violence. We saw how the repugnant actions of a very tiny percentage of people can be manufactured into an all-encompassing narrative – while the corporatocracy continues fleecing America.


With his (perhaps intentional) bungled response to Charlottesville, President Trump propelled race onto center-stage, as corporate media piled on to cash in on Trump controversy. Race issues should undoubtedly be part of the national discourse, but Trump and the MSM are using Charlottesville in a manner nothing short of ‘divide and conquer.’


This demonstrates one of the main reasons why the U.S. presidency should be abolished.


Having a president is a prime driving force in the devolution of debate. Complexity is boiled away, leaving cartoonish characterizations promoted by cable TV personalities armed with clichés and the day’s talking points.


With a president, emotions are channeled into supporting or opposing the words of one person. Rationality is completely overshadowed by fear-based fallacies and the tendency toward violence. Middle ground continually disappears, growing a dichotomous world of fawning followers and rabid dissenters – regardless of which of the two parties is in power.


A president makes it easy to produce ‘fast food’ news, irresistible to short attention spans and poisonous to the system. Every four years, two people are made to represent the myth of ‘liberal vs. conservative,’ directing everyone’s energy into straw man issues. There is no room for nuance, let alone building a rational case on an issue of importance.


If you are against candidate X, then you must be a [insert buzzword] who follows candidate Y. So goes the narrative. And every four years the corporatocracy celebrates another win.


Advertisment



A president makes it easy to distract the masses with issues that have nothing to do with how government actually spends your money (besides Confederate statues, of course). Trump does it, Obama did it, Bush did it, and so on.



READ MORE:  Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration" ever



Under this framework, people are easily labeled and put into neat boxes to be used for cable TV talking heads. Sound bites from shouting matches have replaced well-informed essays. The president makes all of this easy, because he or she is willing to represent one side of the fictional debate.


Much of what is fed to the voting populace is essentially fake, but the power of the president has never been greater – especially since 9/11. The person who gets into the Oval Office has immense power to shape the federal bureaucracy to his or her will.


Every candidate claims to be working on behalf of the people, but every president in reality is paying back the relative few who helped put him in power, while strengthening the centralized State in his own fashion. Trump is pumping up the police state with his “law and order” crusade, just as Obama vastly expanded the surveillance state.


What real function does the president serve, anyway?


For many, the first thought is “commander in chief.” But nothing prevents a representative body from selecting a commander in times of war (which really isn’t necessary in an enlightened society). The president is really there to convince Americans to ‘rally round the flag’ when the military-industrial complex wants another armed conflict. The president greases the wheels of American hegemony and economic sabotage.



Now, with the help of such things as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force – given to the executive in the wake of 9/11 – the president can bomb and invade countries at will. A single person can decide to invade Iraq, drone bombs kids in Pakistan, or drop nuclear bombs on North Korea.


Picking a Supreme Court judge? Who says a judiciary panel of representatives can’t select someone? Instead of multiple voices from different parts of the country debating over the best pick, a single person called the president is free to pick someone far more interested in ideology than rationality.



READ MORE:  Death Rattle of Mainstream Media: Multiple Corporate Outlets Now Labeling Each Other "Fake News"



This is not a defense of the current legislative and judicial bodies. The executive branch is the focus here. Instead of serving useful functions, presidents serve as lightning rods for creating a false narrative.


And while they’re at it, presidents live a lifestyle that monarchs would envy – costing taxpayers untold billions.


As Ryan McMaken pointed out in February:



“Just last month, the taxpayers were forced to pay more than 100 million dollars to throw an immense party for the new president so he could be honored with fanfare and solemn ceremonies that would have made the Caesars envious.


As the head of this huge unitary executive, Presidents can command a huge national audience and face no opposition from any peer. They hand our awards to their friends, enjoy sumptuous food at state dinners, travel in luxury on Air Force One — at great cost to the taxpayer — and shut down entire highways and city blocks wherever they choose to go.”



McMaken, who argues that the Founding Fathers “were not nearly as insightful as is often pretended,” provides an interesting analysis of what they had to say at the Constitutional Convention.



Alexander Hamilton, in pushing for a strong executive branch, cited the need for “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” Hamilton would be overjoyed today, as the presidency now exerts inordinate amounts of activity and secrecy.


Not everyone was fooled at the Convention, including George Mason who correctly noted:



“If strong and extensive powers are vested in the executive, and that executive consists only of one person, the government will of course degenerate (for I will call if degeneracy) into a monarchy – a government contrary to the genius of the people that they will reject even the appearance of it.”



Mason was not insightful in his prediction that people would resist the slide to an executive branch with monarchic powers. Now, we see more polarization than ever – centered on the president – and more people saying they would support the president no matter what he does.



READ MORE:  Here"s How 72% of Fortune 500s Use Congress to Avoid Paying Taxes, Sticking You With the Bill



The pestilence of presidential politics is growing, and it’s creeping more and more into Congressional races – choking out debate about local issues in favor of divisive sound bites about allegiance to or resistance to the sitting president. Thus it serves the purpose of sustaining central authority.


Decentralization is needed now more than ever, especially considering the size of the U.S. in terms of landmass and population. Perhaps we should be looking to our northern neighbor, Canada, which has regional provinces more reflective of local populations.


Different parts of the country have different ideas about doing things; one person called the president will never get even close to getting everyone to agree. Isn’t it uncanny how, despite decades of U.S. presidents who profess a desire to “mend the nation,” America seems more polarized than ever?


Things are not getting better. Having a president is only making it easier for centralized power structures – represented by many factions including the Federal Reserve – to cement control over people’s lives and their economies.


McMaken proposes to break the executive branch into several administrators, which is the way most states govern. It’s difficult to fathom any solution to the situation as long as corrupt money rules politics.


If things are bad now in terms of presidential power and false narratives, there’s one thing that would drive American over the proverbial cliff. A terrorist attack the likes of 9/11, regardless of the potentially questionable circumstances, would sweep away any remaining opposition to virtual dictatorship.



Before that happens, let’s abolish the presidency.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Meanwhile, Spotted Together At A Party In The Hamptons…

(ZH) — While publicly polarizing average-joe America at every opportunity, it appears the ‘elites’ are having a blast ‘together’ behind the scenes





As Politico reports…




OUT AND ABOUT IN THE HAMPTONSLally Weymouth held her annual summer party last night at her house in Southampton.


There was a long gold carpet entrance from where the parking was to a big tent next to her house. She served champagne, rare filet, fried chicken, cornbread, a big chocolate cake, ice cream and cookies decorated as American flags. Brother Don Graham did a big tribute to toast Lally (whose birthday is tomorrow) and shouted out Steven Spielberg’s upcoming film about how Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham challenged the government for the right to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971 (Tom Hanks is playing Bradlee and Meryl Streep is playing Graham). Don made a big deal that Spielberg was there and jokingly conceived a Spielberg movie about Lally and described the cast (some actors and some in the room).


SPOTTED: Jared and Ivanka chatting with Joel Klein and Alan Patricof, Kellyanne Conway on the dance floor, Boyden Gray, Chris Ruddy, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and wife Iris, Katharine Weymouth, Mary Jordan, Richard Cohen, Margaret Carlson, Gillian Tett, Steven Spielberg chatting with Steve Clemons and Robert Hormats, Carl Icahn, Tom Lee (famous for doing a leveraged buyout of Snapple and now lives in Princess Radziwill’s house), David Koch, John Paulson, Dina Powell, Richard Edelman, George Soros and his wife Tamiko Bolton, former Florida Gov. and Sen. Bob Graham (Lally’s uncle), her cousin Gwen Graham (who is running for Florida governor), Maria Bartiromo, Ray Kelly, Bill Bratton, Jeff Rosen, William Drozdiak, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.).



As DailyWire.com writes, David Koch was at a party with George Soros? Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, and Kellyanne Conway, too?








This should surprise absolutely no one. It must be noted that attending the same gathering as someone with whom you disagree isn’t wrong, nor is it a sign that you are colluding with them.


That said, it shouldn’t come as a shock that these people — Soros, Conway, Kushner, etc. — were all partying together. They are the Washington elites. The majority of those in the D.C. political world are homogeneous. They may play enemies on the great American stage, but behind the curtain, this acting troupe is thick as thieves.


This is actually a good lesson on perception. We, as voters, must be able to discern who is simply playing the game, and who is truly trying to change Washington for the benefit of the people.


The men and women who are doing everything they can to bring the United States back to constitutionalism are in the minority. It’s our job to recognize the value in these people, and vote for them. It’s also our job to see the actors for what they really are, rebuke them, and remove them from office.



This slice of life – this snapshot from a party – tells a thousand words. Washington, D.C. is a carefully crafted stage play, designed to distract the American people from what goes on behind the scenes. If we fail to recognize that, we will never achieve substantial change.


By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero HedgeReport a typo





Monday, May 1, 2017

Pro-Clinton Probe of 2016 Reveals That, Yes, Democrats Have a ‘Wall Street Problem’

(COMMONDREAMSUnderscoring previous assessments that the Democratic establishment, including the party’s 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has “a Wall Street problem,” new polling and focus group data shows that Democrats are perceived as woefully out of touch when it comes to the economy.





The pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA surveyed 801 voters who backed former President Barack Obama in 2012 but who then voted for Donald Trump in 2016, as well as hundreds of drop-off voters who opted to stay home on election day. Priorities USA also conducted a series of focus groups with voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida—swing states that had voted for Obama but switched to Trump, handing him the presidency.



Reporting on the survey, the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent wrote Monday: “One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy—twice the percentage that said the same about Trump.”







Forty-two percent of Obama-Trump voters, according to the survey, believe the ultimate goal of Congressional Dems’ is to benefit the elite, compared with 21 percent who said that of Trump, despite the fact that he is a billionaire real estate mogul.


Also, 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters, Sargent notes, “said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.”


Notably, 40 percent of drop-off voters and 47 percent of Obama-Trump voters said they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the state of the U.S. economy. Further, 43 percent of individuals who voted for Trump despite having “mixed feelings” about him were drawn to “the fact that he is not a typical politician.” A full 53 percent from that group said their vote was “more a vote against Clinton.”







As the pollsters wrote in their key take-aways: “Clinton and Democrats’ economic message did not break through to drop-off or Obama-Trump voters, even though drop-off voters are decidedly anti-Trump.”


Sargent was also given access to video of the focus group activity, he reports:



In one, Obama-Trump voters were asked what Democrats stand for today and gave answers such as these:


“The one percent.”


“The status quo.”


“They’re for the party. Themselves and the party.”


One woman, asked whether the Democratic Party is for people like her, flatly declared: “Nope.”



The Priorities USA results were released just days after Obama set off a firestorm for receiving $400,000 for one speech to Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, scheduled to take place in September. Many criticized the exorbitant fee for being “an apparent retroactive reward for his administration’s soft stance toward the one percent,” as Common Dreams reported.


The New York Times editorial board on Monday criticized the former president for his decision to conform to this “lamentable post-presidential model,” writing that the Democratic Party “badly” needs an alternate example to follow. Citing another recent survey of voters, the editorial continues:



As the presidential election clarified so painfully, the traditional party of working people has lost touch with them. In a poll released last week, more than two-thirds of voters, including nearly half of Democrats themselves, said the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of the American people. For the first time in memory, Democrats are seen as more out of touch with ordinary Americans than the party’s political opponents. There’s little doubt that Democratic leaders’ unseemly attachment to the party’s wealthiest donors contributed to that indictment.



In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian published Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who many want to see take on Trump in 2018, lamented on the growing corporate overlap between the two major parties.


“I think left-right is less and less an accurate description of the political landscape,” she said. “Now, having said that, I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States. The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats. You know, it’s a question of walking the walk on working people, on fighting for working people.”


All of this comes amid tense intra-party hand-wringing over why Democrats lost so badly in November and what they can do better next time. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised eyebrows last week when it refused to disclose the findings of its autopsy of the 2016 election.


Sargent asked Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, if “Clinton’s association with Wall Street was part of the problem and whether [Obama’s $400,000 speech] risked feeding it?” In effect, “Do Democrats have a ‘Wall Street problem’?”


In response, Cecil acknowledged the party should do more to take on “these systemic problems,” including putting forth a “real, forward-looking economic plan that does more than rehash the same four policy proposals from the last 20 years.”


Cecil also expanded on what he saw as the upside of the findings, that Obama-Trump and drop-off voters are hugely concerned about losing their social services and healthcare. So if Trump follows through with those cuts and if Democrats can successfully launch a “persuasion campaign,” the party might have a fighting chance in 2018.


As Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote on Twitter in response to the Priorities USA survey:  “Trying to understand why Dems have so spectacularly failed isn’t a distraction from battling Trump. It’s the key prerequisite for doing so.”


by Deirdre Fulton / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo






Welcome To The Corporatocracy

Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,


The interests of Washington and large corporations have merged so completely they are now inseparable.



America’s large corporations and its government have merged. Or was it an acquisition? If the latter, who acquired whom? Unfortunately, the labels affixed to purely corporate combinations lose their analytical usefulness here. While the two retain their own distinct legal structures and managements, so to speak, such a close community of interest has evolved that it’s no longer possible to separate them or delineate their individual contours. Political labels are no help; the ones most often used have become hopelessly imprecise. The Wikipedia definition of “fascism” is over 8,000 words, with 43 notes and 16 references.


However, the conjoined blob is so big, rapacious, and intrusive that akin to Justice Potter Stewart’s famous non-definition of obscenity, everybody knows it when they see or otherwise come into contact with it. This article will use the term “corporatocracy.” It’s less letters, dashes, and words to type than “the corporate-government-combination.” No serviceable understanding of either US history or current events is possible without close study of the corporatocracy. Unfortunately, such study, like entomology or cleaning septic tanks, requires a stout constitution. But take heart, entomologists grow to love their creepy crawly things, and septic tank cleaners say that after a few minutes you don’t even notice the smell.


A cherished delusion of naive liberals holds that big government is a counterweight, not a partner, to big business. Such a rationale is touted when the righteous demand new regulation, the public and media endorse it, the legislators pass it, and the president signs it into law. However, there are always unpaved stretches on the road to hell—once regulation is law, the righteous, public, media, legislators, and president, and their ostensibly good intentions, are on to the next cause.


In the quiet obscurity they relish, regulators and regulated get down to doing what they do best: bending the law to their joint benefit. Business, whose P&L’s can be powerfully affected by regulations, hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers in a never ending effort to tilt the playing field in their direction, and improve bottom lines, stock prices, and executive bonuses. The return on such investment is far higher than on old fashioned expenditures like research and development, plant and equipment, and job-creating expansion.


Not-so-naive liberals, professed conservatives, and apolitical opportunists work both sides of the street. The revolving door ensures that all concerned do well. Playing this game isn’t cheap, which serves as a barrier to entry to scrappy competitors who compete those old fashioned ways: innovation, hustle, and better products and services at lower prices. Regulation cartelizes industries; look, for instance, at banking and medicine. No surprise that regulatory barriers are one of Warren Buffett’s favorite “moats”: deep and hard-to-cross waterways that protect durable commercial advantages.


Washington doesn’t just fortify favored corporations’ business plans. A $4-plus-trillion-a-year enterprise, the government is the world’s largest purchaser of goods and services. Procuring those contracts employs more armies of lobbyists and lawyers, and has a powerful effect on policy. The shoddy premises supporting the welfare and warfare states, and their epic waste, are obvious to many of the taxpayers forced to underwrite them. They’ve decried them for decades, and voted for candidates promising to cut welfare, waste, war, and taxes. However, beyond voting, taxpayers can devote little time to stopping or slowing the gravy train. Their resources are infinitesimal compared to the resources its passengers expend to keep it running.


The modus operandi for Washington and big business have converged. Debt, its issuance and marketing, is the pillar of the financial nexus and revolving door between Washington and Wall Street. The government and its central bank artificially pump up the economy and hide its deterioration with debt and machinations: ultra low interest rates, quantitative easing, and debt monetization. Big businesses lever their balance sheets to pump up their stock prices or make acquisitions, machinations that do nothing to improve core businesses but often hide ongoing deterioration.


The history of any long-running government program is a catalogue of failures and expanding budgets. Washington cherishes failure, the fountainhead of larger appropriations and more power. Success would put bureaucrats out of work and give politicians less influence to peddle. Likewise in business, failure has become much more acceptable than it was during those bad old days of cutthroat capitalism. Marissa Mayer’s undistinguished five-year tenure at Yahoo, while perhaps not a complete failure, certainly can’t be termed a success. Nevertheless, she’s walking away from the company with at least $186 million for her middling endeavors. Given all that discrimination out there against women, one can only imagine what she would have made if she were a man.


Silicon Valley puts billions into companies like Uber, AirBnb, Snapchat, and Lyft that lose those billions and will continue to do so for the foreseeable—and probably the unforeseeable—future. Private equity shops load up companies with debt that gets paid out as special dividends to the private equity shops, leaving the indebted and enfeebled companies unable to compete and the rest of us wondering how such rape is legal in our rape-conscious age. This recipe for inevitable failure is now playing out in the beleaguered retail sector, which would be nowhere near as beleaguered if it wasn’t so beset with debt.


Tesla, a stock market darling and the quintessence of companies in which failure is the business plan, milks Wall Street for financing and Washington (and a bunch of state and local jurisdictions) for subsidies. It has lost billions during its ten years of existence, but its many admirers sing the praises of CEO Elon Musk, always using the term “consummate salesman”—perhaps it’s on his business card. Musk and fan club dream of “the next big thing” and engage in mutual masturbatory fantasies of transforming the world…and Mars. All this is harmless enough as fodder for dazzling audiovisual presentations and slick speeches, but downright dangerous when real billions, private and public, gets sucked in.


Meanwhile, the corporatocracy crucifies an old-line, profitable corporation, Volkswagen, that cheated on one of its hundreds of thousands of regulations. It undoubtedly wasn’t the cheating that got VW in trouble. Regulations are made to be cheated—it’s impossible to run a business without doing so—but the proper offerings must be made to the corporatocracy. If that were not the case, there would be Wall Street, Pharma, and Defense Contractor wings at federal penitentiaries. VW didn’t kowtow low enough or pay high enough to the bureaucrats and politicians, who retaliated, probably “nudged” by a VW competitor.


As a successful businessman, President Trump knows many of the corporatocracy’s skims, scams, and schemes. Perhaps that will enable him to keep his pledge and drain the swamp. However, it’s extensive, fetid, and teems with loathsome creatures, so a bet he’ll succeed involves exceedingly long odds. You’re probably better off buying Tesla stock.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

In the Land of the Free, Sustainable Living is Becoming a Crime

sustainable



In order for the State to make people believe that “democratic” centralized government is necessary for a functioning society, it must work to keep the people from gaining too much freedom and self-sufficiency.


But technology and information sharing are allowing people, like never before, to break from entrenched power interests that control our money, our economy, our energy, our food, our property – and thus our lives.



For decades the State has partnered with corporate giants – such as the fossil fuel and biotech industries – to maintain the façade of freedom and choice, all the while fleecing the masses. Meanwhile, government employs overt means such as “ordinances” to maintain dependence and thwart the sustainable lifestyle.


As we reported in Nov. 2016, towns and cities across the U.S. are banning tiny homes or severely limiting one of the main reasons for their existence – self-sufficiency. Where tiny homes are allowed, they often must be affixed to the ground in a government-approved fashion and are required to connect to the utility grid.



So, even if someone can power their tiny home with solar energy, they must be ‘connected’ and pay the utility company and government taxes. The State and its corporate partners certainly see the slippery slope to freedom that the masses can gain by harnessing free, clean energy from their rooftop and water from the sky.


Several U.S. states either prohibit rainwater collection or have very strict laws regarding such. While there is a legitimate concern in arid regions about preserving natural streams, does residential rainwater collection (i.e. a 1,000 gallon cistern) actually have any effect on stream water levels? Governments immediately jump to restricting the public’s ability to live self-sufficiently, without providing actual data to justify their actions.



READ MORE:  Since this Cop Attacked a School Girl, Only Ones Facing Jail are the Victim and a Girl Who Filmed It



Solar panels are a bigger target for establishment forces that can only thrive if the masses conform to a centralized grid. States such as Indiana and Nevada are passing bills that are designed to cripple the fast-growing solar industry, while keeping in place the same old favors for fossil fuel interests. Solar energy technology is improving at light speed (pun intended) and prices are crashing due to market forces, meaning that rooftop solar – and self-sufficiency – threatens to upend the long dominance of fossil fuels.


Vegetable gardening is not even immune from State interference. In Miami Shores, a couple was forced to destroy their front yard vegetable garden after government threatened them with a fine of $50 each day it remained.


When our garden was in full production, we had no need to shop for produce. At least 80 percent of our meals were harvested fresh from our garden,” said Hermine Ricketts. “This law crushes our freedom to grow our own healthy food. No one should have to expend time and energy dealing with such nonsense.


In any reality but the American police state, a front yard vegetable/herb garden would draw respect and admiration. In the corporatocracy, though, buying food produced in centralized factories is preferred.


‘Death by a thousand cuts’ could sum up the strategy of the State to derail the movement toward freedom and self-sufficiency. Everything essential to living is subject to rules and regulations which seems to have a natural tendency toward ever greater restriction.


However, it is entirely possible for an informed populace, armed with technology, to overcome the forces that would keep us dependent on centralized, corrupted systems.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

On The Left's Descent To Fascism

Authored by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,


The Left is morally and fiscally bankrupt, devoid of coherent solutions, and corrupted by its embrace of the Corporatocracy.


History often surprises us with unexpected ironies. For the past century, the slide to fascism could be found on the Right (conservative, populist, nationalist political parties).


But now it"s the Left that"s descending into fascism, and few seem to even notice this remarkable development. By Left I mean socialist-leaning, progressive, internationalist/globalist political parties.


What is fascism? There is no one tidy definition, but it has three essential elements:


1) State and corporate elites govern society and the economy as one unified class.


2) This status quo (i.e. The Establishment) seeks to impose a conformity of values and opinion that support the dominant narratives of the status quo via the mass (corporate) media and the state-controlled educational system.


3) Dissent from any quarter is suppressed via mass-media ridicule, the judicial crushing and silencing of whistleblowers, and all the other powers of the central state: rendition, extra-legal imprisonment, political gulags (in our era, disguised as drug-war gulags), character assassination, murder by drone, impoverishing dissenters via firings and blacklists, and on and on.


The Left is now the political wing of the corporatocracy. As Phillipe Poutou, a Ford factory mechanic from Bordeaux who is the sole working-class candidate in France"s presidential election, so deliciously pointed out, the Left and Right status quo candidates are indistinguishable in terms of their self-serving corruption and elitism: Mechanic-Candidate Bursts French Political Elite"s Bubble (NY Times)


Here in the U.S., the self-serving Democratic Party elites operate within the Corporatocracy structure, in which the state protects and funds private-sector cartels; the two intertwined and self-reinforcing elites manifest and enforce state policies.



This state-corporate elite domination is fascism. Some may claim the Left was co-opted by the Corporatocracy structure, others will blame capitalism (never mind the dominant form of capitalism is state-cartel, and it cannot exist without the central state enforcing the privileges of monopoly).


But these are simply excuses for the abject surrender of the Left to self-enrichment and power. Since the Left has always claimed the high moral ground--and continues to do so--see my essay Virtue-Signaling the Decline of the Empire (February 28, 2017)-- the Left must mask its own corruption and role in the Corporatocracy structure.


The Left accomplishes this by imposing a virtue-signaling conformity on corporate media, social media, and the state institutions under its control-- higher education, government agencies, etc.


Dissent is by definition fake news or hate speech--Orwell would be so proud of the Left"s deft doublespeak.


The suppression of skeptical inquiry and alternative narratives is fascism. There is no way to sugar-coat this, so let"s not even try, shall we?


The principle of substitution reveals the underlying truth. If a Rightist state imposed a virtue-signaling conformity on corporate media, social media, and the state institutions under its control, the Left would be very quick indeed to identify this as fascist.


It"s still fascist if the Left does the same thing.


While the Left attempts to deflect a wider understanding of its descent into fascism with obsessive accusations of fake news and incessant demands for virtue-signaling conformity, the developed-world economies are circling the drain. The Left"s obsession with meaningless speech acts is a direct result of its lack of will and intellectual firepower to tackle the erosion of working-class/middle-class income, wealth and political power.


This is the harsh reality: wages are no longer an adequate means of distributing the dwindling surpluses of advanced economies:



The Left"s single "solution" to this profound structural trend is for central states to "fight austerity" by borrowing and blowing trillions of dollars, yen, yuan, euros, etc.--with no end in sight. But as even the most economic illiterate Leftist understands somewhere in their muddled soul, borrowing trillions from future generations is morally and fiscally bankrupt, and the very opposite of a "progressive" policy.


Here"s the U.S. central state debt: if the Left claims this trajectory is sustainable, what is this claim based on? It"s based on magical thinking.



The magical thinking of the Left is that decades of slowing growth will be reversed and the clock of history magically reset to 1946 if the central state borrows even more trillions from future generations. But there is abundant evidence (see the wages chart above) that borrowing and squandering immense sums has not boosted growth rates in a sustainable fashion--rather, the staggering debt loads are squeezing current spending and shackling future policy-makers with an ever-grimmer slate of self-reinforcing bad choices.


The Left is morally and fiscally bankrupt, devoid of coherent solutions, and corrupted by its embrace of the Corporatocracy. Its descent to fascism has too much momentum to be stopped. Isn"t it obvious that the only way forward is to jettison both the Left and Right flavors of state-cartel Corporatocracy and pave a third way?

Monday, April 17, 2017

Why the Fed Hasn’t Been Audited Even Though Most Americans Want it to Happen

(RPIAudit the Fed recently took a step closer to becoming law, when it was favorably reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This means the House could vote on the bill at any time. The bill passed by voice vote without any objections, although Fed defenders did launch hysterical attacks on the bill during the debate as well as at a hearing on the bill the previous week.





One representative claimed that auditing the Fed would result in rising interest rates, a stock market crash, a decline in the dollar’s value, and a complete loss of confidence in the US economy. Those who understand economics know that all of this is actually what awaits America unless we change our monetary policy. Passing the audit bill is the vital first step in that process, since an audit can provide Congress a road map to changing the fiat currency system.



Another charge leveled by the Fed’s defenders is that subjecting the Fed to an audit would make the Fed subject to political pressure. There are two problems with this argument. First, nothing in the audit bill gives Congress or the president any new authority to interfere in the Federal Reserve’s operations. Second, and most importantly, the Federal Reserve has a long history of giving in to presidential pressure for an “accommodative” monetary policy.







The most notorious example of Fed chairmen tailoring monetary policy to fit the demands of a president is Nixon-era Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns. Burns and Nixon may be an extreme example — after all no other president was caught on tape joking with the Fed chair about Fed independence, but every president has tried to influence the Fed with varying degrees of success. For instance, Lyndon Johnson summoned the Fed chair to the White House to berate him for not tailoring monetary policy to support Johnson’s guns and butter policies.


Federal Reserve chairmen have also used their power to shape presidential economic policy. According to Maestro, Bob Woodward’s biography of Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton once told Al Gore that Greenspan was a “man we can deal with,” while Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen claimed the Clinton administration and Greenspan’s Fed had a “gentleman’s agreement” regarding the Fed’s support for the administration’s economic policies.


The Federal Reserve has also worked to influence the legislative branch. In the 1970s, the Fed organized a campaign by major banks and financial institutions to defeat a prior audit bill. The banks and other institutions who worked to keep the Fed’s operations a secret are not only under the Fed’s regulatory jurisdiction, but are some of the major beneficiaries of the current monetary system.







There can be no doubt that, as the audit bill advances through the legislative process, the Fed and its allies will ramp up both public and behind-the-scenes efforts to kill the bill. Can anyone dismiss the possibility that Janet Yellen will attempt to “persuade” Donald Trump to drop his support for Audit the Fed in exchange for an “accommodative” monetary policy that supports the administration’s proposed spending on overseas militarism and domestic infrastructure?


While auditing the Fed is supported by the vast majority of Americans, it is opposed by powerful members of the financial elite and the deep state. Therefore, those of us seeking to change our national monetary policy must redouble our efforts to force Congress to put America on a path to liberty, peace, and prosperity by auditing, then ending, the Fed.


By Ron Paul / Republished with permission / RPI / Report a typo






Thursday, April 6, 2017

Media Silent As Federal Reserve Official Admits to Leaking Info to Hedge Fund




(ANTIMEDIA) Richmond, VA — The president of the Virginia Federal Reserve won’t face charges after admitting his part in leaking information about the government’s fiscal policy plans — information that was then shared with a select group of investors.


Jeffrey Lacker, 61, had been the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond since 2004. Along with the written admission of guilt he published Tuesday, he also announced his immediate resignation.





“I apologize to my colleagues and to the public it has been my privilege to serve,” Lacker wrote. “I have always strived to maintain the appropriate balance between transparency and confidentiality, but I regret that in this instance I crossed the line to confirming information that should have remained confidential.”




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




Essentially, back in 2012, someone called Lacker with data suggesting the Fed was going to continue its bond-buying policies — the oft-mentioned “quantitative easing.” Lacker claims he inadvertently confirmed that analysis.







Whether he meant to or not, Lacker admits in his letter that once the information was published, he realized what he’d done and chose to remain silent, all while the hedge fund players at Medley Global Advisors enjoyed the heads up he had given them.


In fact, he admits he intentionally withheld the information in the initial 2012 investigation into the leak. It was much later, in a separate investigation by the F.B.I., that Lacker came clean about what he knew.


In the letter, Lacker says he understands he violated the Fed’s two primary confidentiality policies, one of which “prohibits providing any profit-making person or organization with a prestige advantage over its competitors.”


No worries, though. Lacker’s attorney announced Tuesday that the investigation into the former Fed president is closed, and he’s now free to drift off into retirement.


“Dr. Lacker has cooperated with the Department of Justice,” attorney Richard Cullen said in a statement, “and has been informed that no charges will be brought and that the investigation as to him is complete.”


Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Monday, March 20, 2017

FLOOD THE SWAMP




(ANTIMEDIA) The duty of a Washington DC lobbyist is to bend the ears of lawmakers and administration officials in the hopes of influencing bills and initiatives that might divvy out taxpayer dollars to corporations or keep regulatory agencies sniffing in other directions. When Trump assumed the presidency, many lobbyists were wringing their hands. His pledge to “drain the swamp” and widely praised policy to discourage revolving doors between the private and public sectors indicated they would fall on hard times. However, President Trump’s choices of appointees to his administration have repeatedly shown that even if Trump appears unswayed by lobbyist influence, D.C.’s love affair with the corporate state is far from over.




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




Goldman Sachs was, to some extent, ousted from a long-standing seat of power after the recession. Though President Obama invited Wall Street insiders into his administration, he also signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, a bill that, among other things, established the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, an agency designated to place a stricter emphasis on evaluating the practices of big banks.





Trump, whose administration is filled with Goldman Sachs affiliates, has repeatedly expressed his eagerness to repeal that bill. Sach’s spent millions on the election cycle alone; the Center for Responsive Politics reported that the Wall Street juggernaut forked over upwards of $5 million. Though the Trump administration did not receive those funds, he has nevertheless appointed a number of Sach’s alumni, including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnunchin and Senior Adviser Anthony Scaramucci. Even Steve Bannon, who is widely regarded as the most influential man in Washington, cut his teeth at the bank. Gary Cohn was working as Goldman’s Chief Operation Officer until Trump appointed him Director of the National Economic Council.


Despite Trump’s strong support among voters who feel ostracized by big industries, corporate America seems to have a seat at the table in the White House. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson faced a blistering confirmation hearing in which his ties to Exxon Mobil, the company he once led, were scrutinized. CNN reported that Tillerson has placed his stocks in that company under a blind trust, and while Exxon was one of the top spenders on lobbying during 2016, many hoped Tillerson’s former employer wouldn’t enjoy any privileges. Yet in a press release, the White House appeared to have plagiarized from the oil giant. Both press releases, one from the company and one from the White house, praised Exxon, reading:


“ExxonMobil is strategically investing in new refining and chemical-manufacturing projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast region to expand its manufacturing and export capacity. The company’s Growing the Gulf expansion program, consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Investments began in 2013 and are expected to continue through at least 2022.”







Like Goldman Sachs, Exxon did not contribute funds to Trump’s campaign (Exxon employees did contribute over $90,000 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign while Sachs paid big fees to entice the former secretary of state to deliver private speeches at their company). Nevertheless, Exxon is enjoying ties to positions of extreme influence.


Trump continued this trend with his appointment of Patrick Shanahan as deputy defense secretary this week. The move gives another company — this time, Boeing — a voice inside the administration. The Hill notes that “Shanahan has been Boeing’s senior vice president for supply chain and operations since April.” On Boeing’s website, Shanahan enjoys a lengthy bio that states he “was vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems, starting in December 2004.” He held that position, one based out of Washington DC, until 2007, and worked in the company in various positions for years before assuming that role.


Boeing has a longstanding relationship with the government as a leading supplier of military aircraft, and they’ve spent a great deal of money on lobbyists ($17 million in 2016) to ensure that their relationship with the Pentagon is strong, regardless of who is in the White House.


On Twitter, the president previously criticized government deals with Boeing. In December, he wrote, “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” However, he has also praised the company. In February, he visited a Boeing plant in South Carolina where he declared, “[W]e are looking seriously at a big order…the problem is that [Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg] is a very, very tough negotiator, but I think we may get it.”


Earlier this week, Trump unveiled his budget, which among other things, proposed a $54 million increase in military spending. That weighty investment could spell a big payday for industries like Boeing, and while there will likely be plenty of lobbying before the budget is finalized, companies like Boeing, Exxon, and Goldman Sachs each have inside men and are likely to continue to enjoy loud voices in Washington D.C. — without paying the president a dime.


Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Assange: Hillary, Intel Officials ‘Quietly Pushing A Pence Takeover’ of the White House




(ZHELast week we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as “the Deep State’s insurance policy,” and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan…




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.






Adding that…









As The Daily Caller notes, Assange’s claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening…




As we concluded previously, if Trump doesn’t adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.


No matter what one makes of Trump – or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far – the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia –  a nuclear power –  could possibly endanger American lives.


Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us. The first path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops, who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.


Mike Pence


By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo

Thursday, March 9, 2017

House Passes $578 Billion Military Spending Bill




(ANTIWARThe House of Representatives today voted 371-48, with massive majorities in both parties, in favor of another $578 billion military spending bill to cover the remainder of fiscal year 2017. The bill now moves on to the Senate, where it again is expected to easily pass.




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




The exact meaning of the figures is a little difficult to understand this time around, because Congress had already passed a military spending bill for fiscal year 2017 back in December, which was $611 billion. That bill was only ever intended to be a fraction of what was to be spent, aiming to give way to a second “emergency” bill before April, which is today’s bill, which would cover the rest of the year. That said, there is a lot of overlap between the two and the overall budget is not just a matter of adding the two together.





Indeed, the $578 billion one voted on today probably will be bigger by the time it gets signed, with President Trump seeking to add another $30 billion, which is meant to be a first step toward what he promises will be a 9% increase in spending in fiscal year 2018.


The new bill intends $516 billion for “basic” military requirements, which is more than double any other nation on the planet’s spending, and also includes about $62 billion in additional spending for America’s assorted wars and occupations.


The only potential obstacle in the Senate is from the usual hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) and John McCain (R – AZ), for whom any military budget, no matter how substantial its growth, is much too small, and doesn’t include nearly enough new wars to appear sufficiently patriotic.







By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / AntiWar.com / Report a typo

Saturday, February 25, 2017

#DemExit: R.I.P. Democratic Party?




(ANTIMEDIAAfter contentious debate, the Democratic Party has selected a new DNC chairman: Tom Perez. The choice, however, is not being celebrated by everyone in the party. In fact, the progressive so-called “Bernie Sanders wing” of the Democratic Party is up in arms, using the hashtag #DemExit, over Perez’ win.


Progressives favored Keith Ellison, who was backed by Bernie Sanders, and see Perez as another establishment tool that conspired to boost Hillary Clinton over Sanders in the 2016 primary. As The Intercept noted, Perez was overly friendly to big banks as secretary of labor under Obama, granting privileges to banks that plead guilty to market manipulation.







Calls for a #DemExit have now began to resurface, and Twitter has been flooded with disgruntled Democrats looking to leave the party. You can see the progressive meltdown unfold in the tweets below:




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




#demexit


#demexit












































Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Friday, February 10, 2017

Cash No Longer King: Europe Moves to Begin Elimination of Paper Money

February 9, 2017   |   Shaun Bradley




(ANTIMEDIA) — In the shadow of Donald Trump’s spree of controversial actions, the European commission has quietly launched the next offensive in the war on cash. These unelected bureaucrats have boldly asserted their intention to crack down on paper transactions across the E.U. and solidify a trend that has been gaining momentum for years.


The financial uncertainty amplified by Brexit has incentivized governments throughout Europe to seize further control over their banking systems. France and Spain have already criminalized cash transactions above a certain limit, but now the commission has unilaterally established new regulations that will affect the entire union. The fear of physical money flowing out of the trade bloc has manifested a draconian response from the State.



The European Action Plan doesn’t mention a specific dollar amount for restrictions, but as expected, their reasoning for the move is to thwart money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Border checks between countries have already been bolstered to help implement these new standards on hard assets. Although these end goals are plausible, there are other clear motivations for governments to target paper money that aren’t as noble.


Negative interest rates and high inflation are a deadly combination that could further destabilize the already fragile union in the future. With less physical currency circulating, these trends ensure that the impact of any additional central bank policies will be maximized. If economic conditions deteriorate, the threat of citizens pulling cash out of their accounts and starting a bank run is eliminated in a cashless system. So long as the people’s wealth is under centralized control, funds can be shifted at will to conceal any underlying problems. But the longer this shell game is allowed to persist, the more painful it will be when reality overrides the manipulation.


Since former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Kenneth Rogoff, published a paper last year advocating for the U.S. $100 bill to be removed, governments around the world have pushed forward their agendas towards a cashless society. He wrote:



“There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the U.S. $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism. There are substitutes for cash—cryptocurrencies, uncut diamonds, gold coins, prepaid cards—but for many kinds of criminal transactions, cash is still king. It delivers absolute anonymity, portability, liquidity and near-universal acceptance.”


This announcement comes just months after the 500 euro note was discontinued, and it follows India’s lead in subverting the financial independence of their citizens. The incremental steps currently being taken may look trivial in isolation, but the ultimate end is to lay the foundation for an entire network for economic repression.


The German people have placed themselves in strong opposition to the action and previously pushed back hard against domestic legislation that would have limited cash. Nearly 80% of all transactions in Germany are made with paper currency, putting Europe’s economic engine in direct conflict with the vision coming out of Brussels.



The spillover effect has affected new forms of investment, like Bitcoin, which witnessed an astronomical rise over the last months and has been brought back into the discussion as a viable alternative to fiat currencies. Of course, the E.U. Commission is also attempting to impose similar limitations on crypto-currencies to make sure no transactions fall outside of their domain. The ECB and BOJ are working towards a trojan horse blockchain network that will serve only to entrap those naive enough to trust it.


Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers wrote last year that the E.U. would likely be the trailblazer of the West towards this new digital model:


“But a moratorium on printing new high denomination notes would make the world a better place. In terms of unilateral steps, the most important actor by far is the European Union. The €500 is almost six times as valuable as the $100. Some actors in Europe, notably the European Commission, have shown sympathy for the idea and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi has shown interest as well.”


Since the public’s attention has been drawn to emotional manipulations and political stunts, the threat the war on cash represents has gone unrecognized. Instead of feeding energy into systems meant to divide and conquer, individuals must educate themselves to secure their own financial futures. By submitting to the hive mind and following the media down whichever rabbit hole they choose, the most important issues of today will go unnoticed. The value of advocating for decentralized and physical alternatives to the banking system may not be easily grasped by the activists of today, but few other things have the potential to erode freedom on such a massive scale.



This article (Cash No Longer King: Europe Moves to Begin Elimination of Paper Money) by Shaun Bradley is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Shaun Bradley and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

What We’re Not Being Told About Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education

February 9, 2017   |   Alice Salles




(ANTIMEDIA) After one of the most contentious confirmations in history, wealthy Republican donor Betsy Devos was confirmed as the United States education secretary. President Donald Trump’s pick had faced intense scrutiny over her lack of experience in public education, as well as her history of heavy donations to the Republican Party. But with the help of a historic tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Mike Pence, DeVos was finally confirmed as the head of the Department of Education.


Prior to the confirmation, however, many of DeVos’ critics mentioned her policies as the main reasons why they would oppose her.



Claiming she fought against policies that would allow “our young people, all of them, to participate in our democracy and compete on a fair footing in the workforce,” these critics also suggested her support for “voucher systems that divert taxpayer dollars to private, religious and for-profit schools without requirements for accountability” would hurt children.


In defense of DeVos, many contended that the strong opposition she experienced prior to the confirmation had a lot more to do with who teachers unions prefer to see in power than who will keep the welfare of kids in mind. As the New York Post pointed out, the only two Senate Republicans who opposed DeVos are the only two who “routinely get A’s on the National Education Association’s ‘report card’ because they vote the union line.”


But the aversion teachers unions have to DeVos is on display. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, went as far as to say that the day DeVos was confirmed was a “sad day for children.”  But the AFT isn’t an innocent party in the politics game. It invested heavily in Democratic politicians like former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.



In the 2016 election cycle alone, the AFT spent over $19 million in Washington, and Hillary Clinton was their top recipient.


The former Democratic presidential nominee, the ATF wrote at the time, “shares our vision for America,” which includes blind support for teacher tenure — a policy that forces schools to keep bad teachers in classrooms and that DeVos vocally opposed long before Trump picked her as his education secretary. So it isn’t a surprise that organizations like the ATF would be so adamantly opposed to her nomination.


But despite the rhetoric, the Department of Education was created as a promise to teachers unions, meant to “fix” the problems created by state governments running public education at the time. The agency was never supposed to exist, as even Democrats disliked the idea at the time. As Reason Magazine’s Anthony L. Fisher explains, then-President Jimmy Carter created the department in 1979 as “a favor to a large and powerful special interest group,” and not “a necessary reorganization to allow the federal government to ‘meet its responsibilities in education more effectively, more efficiently, and more responsively,’ as then-President Jimmy Carter put it.”



DeVos may have undeniable ties to the Republican party, but her policies scare union leaders because they would allow for institutions to use public funds to run schools where staff members aren’t required to be unionized — not because either party is willing to put an end to the federal government’s control of public education.


Despite the fuss, DeVos isn’t the witch opposition leaders claim she is. But Democratic leaders aren’t the supporters of equality in education they claim to be either. The truth is that freeing education from the hands of bureaucrats would be the only answer to this problem, rendering both sides useless when it comes to setting an agenda.


Department of Education: Doing More Harm Than Good


The department was first created as a bureaucratic “fix” to state-run education, allowing the federal government to intervene in the educational affairs of individual states across the country. But instead of accomplishing what it set out to achieve, the department has, instead, used copious amounts of public funds to create and maintain bureaucracies that create and enforce regulations, including rules that hurt minorities who choose to attend for-profit “career” colleges or career schools — institutions that cater to the low-income population.


After all, if the federal government is going to offer student loans to the poor, why should it discriminate against those who opt for a technical school? Does Washington have something against offering low-income students an opportunity to have hands-on experience related to their career interests? Or perhaps they aren’t too fond of welders?


On average, the country spends over 23 percent of per capita income on its students, and yet it is clear that spending so much taxpayer money on education over the years has resulted in little to no improvement in quality. In 2015, America ranked 17th in educational performance out of forty countries. It ranked 2nd in general ignorance regarding voting patterns, social statistics, and other subjects.


When it comes to overall performance, private schools still beat public schools. This is a fact politicians all know about since most public school supporters opposing DeVos have children or grandchildren enrolled in private institutions. So why are we still debating who should head the Department of Education as opposed to how soon we could put an end to it?


Educating or Indoctrinating? Facts are Stubborn Things


Over the 30 years of its existence, the Department of Education has exerted a great deal of influence on K-12 education, mostly because public schools are only able to receive federal funding if theyfollow certain federal guidelines.”


Teachers applying these standards are also the product of this influence, having been in the public education system before running off to college themselves.


In an article for the Mises Institute, professor of communication at the University of South Florida Loyd S. Pettegrew writes that the overwhelming majority of K-12 teachers working today in the public school system are highly politicized, with K-12 English classes becoming “ersatz social studies classes with biased content taught by moralizing pedagogues.”


He quotes David Labaree, professor in Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, who claims that “education schools are solidly in the progressive camp ideologically.”


But now that the Department of Education will be run by partisans of different political ideologies, is it fair to contend that education standards may shift, allowing for different political ideas to take over?


When progressivism became a powerful force in America, the U.S. government became a powerful interventionist machine — domestically and abroad. The central tenet of progressivism, historian and author Thaddeus Russell writes, is that “the American national government is responsible for the reform and uplift of those ‘we’ deem to be living below ‘our’ standards, and that ‘they’ must be protected from their oppressors.” President Carter was a proud progressive who claimed he had seen the “lives and the hopes of people enriched beyond all expectations by actions of the Federal Government” during the inauguration of the then-newly minted Department of Health and Human Services.


He believed that the federal government has a role in ‘changing people’s lives’ as it sees fit, thus the creation of a federal bureaucracy tasked with the goal of overseeing the education of all American children.


As with anything else in government, these agencies aren’t nonpartisan institutions. They are run by people — people with agendas and political preferences.


Unless we’re willing to succumb to the standards defended by current and future administrations, having and supporting a federal education department should not be a priority. Abolishing it would still not be enough since education departments run by state governments would remain in place. After all, public schools in America have, for the past decades, worked to make students comfortable with the idea of living in a “Big Brother police state control grid.” This is just the type of “schooling” the youth requires to stay obedient throughout their adulthood, never questioning the government’s official narrative.


Instead of giving in to conformity, what we must remember is that unless parents are willing to surrender their children’s education entirely to what the government deems appropriate, choice is what should guide personal education policy. And more choices are only possible when there’s freedom to experiment. Having a powerful education department in Washington D.C. overseeing every single aspect of every child’s education is the very opposite of freedom.



This article (What We’re Not Being Told About Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alice Salles and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.