Milton Friedman & Conservatives Are Wrong In Education

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

Once upon a time, some conservatives used to call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education. Lamentably, conservatives today celebrate when a “free-market advocate” like multimillionaire Betsy DeVos is appointed U.S. Secretary of Education, and they get terribly excited when she speaks at conservative conferences.

Meanwhile, even while conservatives continue to pronounce their allegiance to their favorite mantra — “free enterprise, private property, limited government” — they continue to embrace not only public schooling itself but also their favorite public-schooling fix-it program, school vouchers.

Over the years, conservatives have developed various labels for their voucher program: a “free-market approach to education,” “free enterprise in education,” or “school choice.” They have chosen those labels to make themselves and their supporters feel good about supporting vouchers.

But the labeling has always been false and fraudulent. Vouchers are nothing more than a socialist program, no different in principle from public schooling itself.

The term “free enterprise” means a system in which a private enterprise is free of government control or interference. That’s what distinguishes it from a socialist system, which connotes government control and interference with the enterprise.

A voucher system entails the government taxing people and then using the money to provide vouchers to people, which they can then redeem at government-approved private schools.

Does that sound like a system that is free from government control or interference? In reality, it’s no different in principle from food stamps, farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other welfare-state program. The government is using force to take money from Peter and giving it to Paul. That’s not “free enterprise.” That’s the opposite of free enterprise.

Conservatives say that their voucher system is based on “choice” because the voucher provides recipients with “choices.” But doesn’t the same principle apply to recipients of food stamps, farm subsidies, Social Security, and other socialist programs? Sure, the recipient of the loot has more choices because he has more money at his disposal. But let’s not forget that the person from whom the money was forcibly taken has been deprived of choices. After all, after a robber commits his dirty deed, he too has more choices with the money he has acquired. His victim, on the other hand, has been deprived of choices.

In FFF’s first year of operation, 1990, I wrote an article entitled “Letting Go of Socialism,” in which I pointed out that school vouchers were just another socialist scheme, one that was intended to make public schooling work more efficiently.

Imagine my surprise to receive a critique from none other than Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who is the father of the school voucher program. Friedman leveled his critique in a speech he delivered that was entitled “Say No to Intolerance,” in which he took to task such libertarian stalwarts as Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand for adhering to principle.

Interesting enough, Friedman’s speech was recently reprinted in an issue of the Hoover Digest, a premier conservative publication. You can read it here.

Friedman’s critique of my article was nice enough. First pointing out that FFF was doing “good work and making an impact,” he addressed my criticism of vouchers:

But am I a statist, as I have been labeled by a number of libertarians, because some thirty years ago I suggested the use of educational vouchers as a way of easing the transition? Is that, and I quote Hornberger again, “simply a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently”? I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that you can simply say what the ideal is. This is what I mean by the utopian strand in libertarianism. You can-not simply describe the utopian solution, and leave it to somebody else how we get from here to there. That’s not only a practical problem. It’s a problem of the responsibilities that we have.

With all due respect to a Nobel Prize winner and a true gentleman, Milton Friedman was wrong on education then, and conservatives who continue to support vouchers are wrong today.

Notice something important, a point that conservatives have long forgotten: Friedman justified vouchers as a way to get rid of public schooling. For him, vouchers were a “transition” device — i.e., a way to get from here to there, with “there” being the end of public schooling.

That’s not what conservatives say today. They justify vouchers by saying that they will improve, not destroy, the public-schooling system. I can’t help but wonder what Friedman would say about that if he were still alive, given that his support of vouchers was based on the notion that it would serve as a way to get rid of public schooling. Would he still support vouchers if he knew that they would save public schooling and make it more efficient?

Why did conservatives end up rejecting Friedman’s justification? They came to the realization that some people would be less likely to support vouchers if they were told that their real purpose was to destroy public schooling. Therefore, to get more people to support vouchers, conservatives shifted Friedman’s justification to the exact opposite of what Friedman was saying. Conservatives began telling people that vouchers, by providing “competition,” would improve the public-schooling system. In fact, voucher proponents today, when pressed, will openly tell people that they are opposed to abolishing public schooling but only want to make it better by providing people with the means (vouchers) to leave the public-schooling system.

Almost 30 years after Friedman leveled his critique at me, there is not one instance of where his system of school vouchers have served as a “transition” to educational liberty. Time has confirmed the point I pointed out almost three decades ago — that school vouchers, no matter how they are labeled, are nothing more than a socialistic program designed to make socialism (i.e., public schooling) work more efficiently.

Friedman and conservatives have been proven wrong on education. There is only one solution to the educational morass in which Americans find themselves: Separate school and state, just as our ancestors separated church and state. Repeal all school compulsory-attendance laws and school taxes and sell off the school buildings. End all government involvement in education, including licensing of schools.

Establish a total free-market educational system.

*  *  *

For more information on this issue, see FFF’s award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families by Sheldon Richman.

Trump To Rewrite Obama Rules On Student Loan Foregiveness

A few months ago we noted that 31% of college students in the U.S., or roughly 2.4 million kids, literally admitted to using student loan money to fund their binge drinking trips to Cancun and Daytona Beach for spring break.  Now, while most of us who"ve had the opportunity to live in the real world, outside the comfort of mom and dad"s basement, would consider it a bad idea to borrow 10-20 year debt to take a vacation we couldn"t afford, many college students seem to think it"s a perfectly acceptable practice. 

Now, to be clear, we have no problem with making bad decisions, sometimes those are the most fun (see pic below for evidence).  We only ask that the people who make the bad decisions are also the same people who get to deal with the consequences of those bad decisions.

Unfortunately, in the Obama administration the lines between victim and perpetrator were often blurred to be point of being interchangeable.  So, while we may say that a college student who borrows money to binge drink is a moron (best case) or a criminal guilty of loan fraud (worst case), Obama would describe that same person as a victim of predatory student lending practices who had no idea that his/her 2.1 GPA in Anthropology from the University of Phoenix wouldn"t automatically guarantee him/her to a "career" making $200,000 a year immediately upon completion of their 7-year Bachelor of Art degree....call it a po-tay-to, po-tah-to sort of conundrum.

Of course, faced with such a conundrum, the Obama administration did what any self-respecting liberal politician would do: it drafted new, confusing regulations to punish for-profit schools and basically made taxpayers backstop the ill-informed financial decisions of their students.  The Washington Post described the resulting regulations as follows:

Under the borrower defense rules, students could have their loans erased if their college misrepresented the quality of its programs or broke a “contractual promise” with its students. The gainful employment rule was designed to ensure that graduates would be able to earn enough money to pay off their student loan debt.

The Obama administration had led a crackdown on for-profit colleges accused of misconduct. The Corinthian Colleges chain was under heavy pressure from the Education Department when it shut down in 2015. In that case, more than 15,000 student claims for loan discharge because of fraud have been approved, totaling $247 million in loans.

Last year, the ITT Technical Institute, one of the nation’s largest chains of for-profit colleges, shut down, saying it couldn’t survive sanctions by the department. The chain had been accused of misleading students about the success of its graduates and was at risk of losing its academic accreditation.

But, apparently the Trump administration isn"t susceptible to the same visual impairment when it comes to deciphering between "victims" and adult-aged students capable of making logical financial decisions, should they so choose.  So they"re tossing out the Obama rules and writing new ones...

The Education Department announced Wednesday that it will change two key Obama-era rules governing student loan forgiveness in cases involving fraud and misconduct by universities.

The department said it will convene special committees to rewrite Borrower Defense to Repayment and Gainful Employment regulations.

DeVos said in a statement Wednesday that the regulations were “overly burdensome and confusing” and need to be streamlined.

“The result is a muddled process that’s unfair to students and schools, and puts taxpayers on the hook for significant costs,” DeVos said.

She said many colleges have complained that the definition of misrepresentation and breach of contract is too broad and that institutions lacked meaningful due process. The Education Department will conduct hearings on the regulations in July.

“It is the department’s aim, and this administration’s commitment, to protect students from predatory practices while also providing clear, fair and balanced rules for colleges and universities to follow,” DeVos said.

...which has left some Attorneys General in snowflake states severely "triggered."

Eight states and the District of Columbia filed a motion in federal court Tuesday seeking to retain the rules.

“The borrower defense regulations provide critical protections for borrowers who were subjected to misleading and predatory practices by their postsecondary institutions,” the motion says. It was filed in the case California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools v. Betsy DeVos.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey added that she plans to sue the Education Department “to defend these critical regulations and the rights of our students and taxpayers.”

“This is a betrayal of students and families across the country who are drowning in unaffordable debt,” Healey said in a statement.

Sorry snowflakes, you may have to repay for those Cancun trips all by yourselves...and, no, "I do not recall" the trip is not a valid excuse whether it"s true or not...that only works for Hillary and email scandals.

Why Force Parents To Keep Their Children In Failing Public Schools?

Via Duane of Free Market Shooter blog,

The nomination of Betsy DeVos was fraught with criticism from the left.  She was derided for having “no experience with public education, no political experience, no government administrative experience,” and her support for school vouchers/charter schools, among many other things.  Notably, most of the criticism came from educators, many of them members of the teachers’ unions, who have had many years and more than enough funding to fix failing public schools, with little (if any) success.

Which all begs the question – if your student is enrolled at a failing public institution, why should he/she be forced to remain enrolled there?

Recently, someone shared the experience of “Madeline” (the mother of a Philadelphia school student) and “Steve” (the student himself).  Their names have been changed for the purpose of this article, which as Madeline explains, is more than likely necessary, so they do not face reprisal from public school educators and administrators.  For her and her son, having a choice has meant the difference between years wasted in a failing school, and a real chance at a real education.

Madeline and Steve, both African Americans, live with Madeline’s husband in West Philadelphia, where most families are hard working but underpaid by any standard.  Steve attended John Barry Elementary School (Grades K-8) from Kindergarten through 3rd grade.  They both described the school as “terrible,” among several other less than savory terms.  Every day there were fights, with girls pulling hair out, and kids would turn over desks/chairs before running through the halls while class was in session.  Teachers would try to break up fights, but would more often call security, who would remove the offending student.  If the issue couldn’t be resolved, parents would be called, who wouldn’t always show up to take the child away.  If teachers took away phones from students who used them during class, they would curse at teachers and administrators with little fear of reprisal, sometime assaulting teachers.

Security consisted of one police officer.  Lockers were not considered safe, and oftentimes items left in them would be stolen by other students.  The food was considered to be “awful” by Steve, and the bathrooms were filthy, with urine on the floor and by the drains.  Classes were approximately 30 students each, with the principal changing every year.  Notably, Steve was academically ahead of his classmates – most of the students did not want to be in school, and were extremely disruptive.  Steve had one good teacher, but he noted that the teacher had difficulty actually teaching anything, since there were so many disruptive students.  Steve stated his only positive experience from the school were his field trips to a farm and a circus.

If you look at the performance of John Barry Elementary School, you can see this for yourself.  Reproduced below are the PSSA charts for Grade 3 (the one grade listed that Steve was in attendance for), and unsurprisingly they are far below the SDP average. 

Also below is the teacher attendance for John Barry, which is far below the SDP average as well.

Madeline (unsurprisingly) did not want to keep Steve in John Barry, seeing it as a hostile environment to not just learning, but Steve’s safety, and his development as a person.  She feared that leaving him in this school would bring out the worst in him, and that could lead him to a life of crime or worse.  Madeline put her son on a waiting list to get into a charter school, later finding out that only 1 of every 3 applicants were accepted, and she believes some schools have a lottery.  Her son got into Mathematics, Civics, & Sciences Charter School of Philadelphia (K-12), courtesy of two friends’ cousins who used to teach at the school.

Her son said that from the day he got to the school, he was actually learning.  The kids were all serious, and not playing around.  The teachers were “not soft, striking fear into unruly students,” and the students subsequently respected the teacher and wanted to be productive.  The teachers, in turn, trusted the kids, but there is still far more security, with one guard in each hallway.  The principal frequently interrupts classrooms and asks students what they are learning, sometimes having “guests” present to evaluate the teachers.  The most positive experience that Steve shared is the teachers are “top notch,” and he feels he is finally learning something at school.

It’s not all perfect for Steve though – the school doesn’t have a gym, and not a lot of sports and physical education are available.  There is a basketball program, but the school needs to use facilities at other schools.  Still, that was the only negative relative to John Barry that MCS Charter had in everything that was discussed.  A recent article in Philly.com which described a similar charter school in Northeast Philadelphia was described by Madeline as “very similar” to her experience with MCS.

Finally, Madeline was asked about Betsy DeVos – if she know who she was (she did), and of the criticisms that were sent her way.  Her answer was brief – “the criticisms are true – she doesn’t know much about public school.”  But then she added, “would anyone really want to know more about John Barry, besides how to get their student out of the school?”

Which brings me back to the criticisms lobbed at DeVos, again by HuffPo.  They quoted some things the DeVos said in March 2015 at the SXSW conference in Texas.  Some excerpts:

Government really sucks. And it doesn’t matter which party is in power. Having been around politics and government my entire adult life, I have five observations about government for you:

Government tends to believe in top down solutions and government fears of bottom up solutions.

We don’t pay teachers enough, and we don’t fire teachers enough.

In that one sentence, I have raised the ire of both the Republican and Democrat political establishments.

The Republicans don’t want to pay our best teachers enough, and the Democrats don’t want to reform tenure laws. It’s another partisan standoff.

But I am willing to bet that every one of you had one or more teachers who made a big difference in your life, who opened your eyes to possibilities and to opportunities. You probably recall them in your mind’s eye right now.

And likewise, I am pretty sure that every one of you had one or more teachers who should not have been teaching. That doesn’t mean they were bad people, or maybe they were, but regardless, they weren’t any good at teaching. You are probably thinking of those teachers right now.

And by the way, teaching is hard. It takes a lot of skill. Not everyone who tries can do it well. We need to admit that and act accordingly.

We should reward and respect great teachers by paying them more, and we should stop rewarding seniority over effectiveness.

As it applies to education, you would be hard pressed to find Madeline not in agreement with DeVos.  Top-down solutions to education and government (read: teachers’ union) fears of bottom up solutions to education have led to a public school system that is behind the curve in nearly all examples.

This is not hyperbole – the US spends approximately $115,000 per student, which is fifth globally, behind only Austria, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland.  But throwing money at the problem has not led to increased performance, as the Pew Research Center recently analyzed – our students score similar to the Slovak Republic, which spends less than half, at $53,000 per student:

What a surprise – a PISA report has noted the following:

…among OECD countries, “higher expenditure on education is not highly predictive of better mathematics scores in PISA.”

We can reasonably conclude that instead of trying to throw money at the problem, it appears Betsy DeVos intends to “fix” the public school system by giving parents a choice of where to send their students to school.  She appears prepared to use the exorbitant cost of public education to finance this choice, and forcing all schools financed with public dollars to become far more accountable for their own performance.  Who ends up the big loser?  Obviously, failing public schools – if enough students leave the failing schools behind, they will be forced to shutter their doors.

It should be of no surprise then, that teachers’ unions are fighting charter schools at every turn.  A recent Forbes article did an exemplary job of dissecting their opposition:

Teachers’ unions often fight charter schools by claiming that they are less accountable to students and families because many operate under less burdensome regulations than do traditional public schools. The real reason for their opposition, of course, is that charter school teachers are not unionized. The reality is that charter schools are much more accountable to young people and their parents than are traditional public schools. If parents do not like their children’s charter schools, they can send their kids elsewhere. This threat of exit gives charter schools an incentive to raise the quality of the education they offer in order to retain students.

Despite union scaremongering, the verdict is in on charter schools: The public favors them 2 to 1. Among African Americans, who are arguably the biggest beneficiaries of alternative schooling options, the favorability ratio is greater than 3 to 1. Even public school teachers desert the union position on charter schools by a slim margin—38% of teachers favor them, and 35% are opposed.

With a favorability rating of 3 to 1 among African Americans, the ethnic group with the largest percentage of students in failing public schools, it should be quite surprising to learn that the NAACP opposes charter schools.  Recently, the NAACP ratified a controversial resolution calling for a moratorium on expansion of charter schools, and stronger oversight of charter schools currently in existence.

Publications ranging from U.S. News to The National Review have struggled to answer this question:

The NAACP board will vote this weekend on a resolution urging a moratorium on the creation of new charter schools, on grounds that they worsen segregation and erode local control. This is not a new position for the nation’s oldest civil-rights organization, but it’s gotten more support than ever before — for example, from groups such as those affiliated with Black Lives Matter — and has drawn thoughtful repudiations by the New York Times and the Washington Post as well as the Wall Street Journal. As the Post’s editorial board noted, “that the beneficiaries of [charters] are, in large part, children of color hopefully is not lost on an organization that is supposed to be looking out for the interests of minority people.”

But Education Week said what no one else would:

“The African-American community was shut out of power and authority for so many years, even if African-Americans see the warts on the local district, it’s their district.”

So something else needs to be said, because no one else has said it: if you want your failing public school, you can keep your failing public school – no one is forcing anyone to put their kids into a charter school.  But do not take away the option for someone else to remove their child from a toxic environment, and make their own choice on whatever they feel is the best place to send their children to school.

Betsy DeVos wasn’t brought in to enact more “reforms” or toss more money at what appears to be an unsolvable problem – instead, it appears she intends to do something that no one else has done in the past – give more students a choice of what to do with their education.  The criticisms about her are all correct – she isn’t well versed in public school education, something she readily admits, but knows that it is failing our country’s students, no matter how much time and money has been spent for who knows how long to repair it.  Isn’t a new approach long overdue?

Take note – former President Obama sent his kids to Sidwell Friends, a private school in the D.C. area.  And who can blame him?  D.C. public schools recently ranked dead last in the nation.  Why should the rest of our nation’s students be given a “one size fits all” approach to public education, when that “one size” is a well-funded yet underperforming public school system?

Trump To Revoke Obama's Transgender Bathroom Rule

"He, she, and ze" will be not be happy. The Trump administration is set to revoke President Obama"s controversial transgender bathroom rules.

In yet another leak, a draft of a letter to the nation"s schools obtained by The Washington Post, administration officials plan to say they are withdrawing guidance issued by the Obama administration that found that denying transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice violates federal prohibitions against sex discrimination.

“This interpretation has given rise to significant litigation,” states the two-page draft, which indicates that the Education and Justice departments plan to issue it jointly. The draft says administrators, parents and students have “struggled to understand and apply the statements of policy” in the Obama-era guidance.

As a result, the departments “have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further consider the legal issues involved.”

The letter makes clear that schools must protect all students and that the withdrawal of the guidance “does not diminish the protections from bullying and harassment that are available to all students. Schools must ensure that transgender students, like all students, are able to learn in a safe environment.”

A final version of the letter is slated to be issued Wednesday, according to a Republican operative with knowledge of the conversations within the Trump administration on the issue. The administration is expected to release the letter despite objections from Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who did not want to rescind the guidance, the operative said. Officials with the Education and Justice departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday night.

Notably, Betsy DeVos, the new education secretary, wanted to keep Obama"s guidance intact, according to WaPo"s sources.

Full leaked letter (via Reuters)

Dear Colleague:

The purpose of this guidance is to inform you that the Department of Education and the Department of Justice are withdrawing the statements of policy and guidance reflected in:

• Letter to Emily Prince from James A, tvkCacI1L,..ria, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education (OCR) dated January 7, 2015; and,


• Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students jointly issued by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and OCR dated May 13,2016.

These guidance documents take the position that the prohibitions on discrimination "on the basis of sex" in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulations, see, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, require access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity rather than biological sex.

This interpretation has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the term "sex"s in the regulations is ambiguous and deferred to what the court characterized as the "novel" interpretation advanced in the guidance. That case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. By contrast, a federal district court in Texas held that the term "sex" unambiguously refers to biological sex and that, in any event, because the guidance was "legislative and substantive," formal rulemaking should have occurred prior to the adoption of any such policy. The Texas court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the interpretation, and that injunction currently remains in effect.

In addition, over the past two years, school administrators, parents, and students have expressed varying views on the legal issues arising in this setting. They have also struggled to understand and apply the statements of policy and guidance in the two documents identified above.

In these circumstances, OCR and DO] have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further consider the legal issues involved, The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.

Please note that the withdrawal of these guidance documents does not diminish the protections from bullying and harassment that are available to all students. Schools must ensure that transgender students, like allstudents, are able to learn in a safe environment.

This guidance does not add requirements to applicabFe law, but provides information about how OCR and DOJ will proceed in developing the appropriate approach for determining whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations in this context. If you have questions or are interested in commenting on this guidance, please contact OCR at ocr@ ed.gov or B00-421-3481 (TDD 800-877-8339); or DOJ at education @usdoj.gov or 877-292-3804 (ITV: 800-514-0383).

Without federal guidance, the issue will be resolved on a state-by-state basis, as White House spokesperson Sean Spicer most recently confirmed...

The Latest Trump Casualty: Labor Pick Puzder Withdraws

To summarize:

• In the latest blow to President Donald Trump as he tries to assemble his administration, labor secretary nominee, Andrew Puzder, withdrew his name from consideration on Wednesday amid concerns that he could not garner enough Senate votes to be confirmed. The reason for the pulled nomination is that Puzdre admitted earlier this month that he and his wife had employed an undocumented person as a housekeeper.


• He faced a flurry of complaints and legal cases brought in recent weeks and months by workers against his business and its franchises. Workers at some of CKE"s restaurants have filed claims in recent weeks alleging they were victims of wage theft or victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.


• At least seven Republican senators, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, declined to publicly back Puzder in advance of the confirmation hearing, thereby making his election virtually impossible.


• “After careful consideration and discussions with my family, I am withdrawing my nomination for Secretary of Labor," Puzder said in a statement.


• Puzder"s decision to withdraw is yet another setback this week for a White House still grappling with fallout from Monday night"s abrupt resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn, after less than a month in the job.


• Puzder, the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants Inc, which franchises fast-food chains including Hardee"s and Carl"s Jr, has been at the center of a swirl of controversies, complaints and potential conflicts. CKE declined on Wednesday to say if Puzder will remain as CEO after his decision to withdraw.

Update 2: It"s confirmed:

• PUZDER TO WITHDRAW NOMINATION FOR LABOR SECY: FOX NEWS

* * *

Update: that didn"t take long. As CBS" Chief White House reporter Major Garrett reported moments, ago a "source very close to Labor Secretary nominee Andy Puzder tells me he expects Puzder to withdraw. "He"s very tired of the abuse." And now begins the scramble by Trump to find a replacement.

News: Source very close to Labor Secretary nominee Andy Puzder tells me he expects Puzder to withdraw. "He"s very tired of the abuse."

— Major Garrett (@MajorCBS) February 15, 2017

* * *

Following Betsy DeVos" narrow confirmation, it seems Andrew Puzder may not be so lucky.

The President"s pick for labor secretary faces a Republican revolt as CNN reports a number of top Senate Republicans have urged Trump to withdraw the Carl"s Jr. CEO"s nomination.

EXCLUSIVE: Top Senate Rs have urged the WH to withdraw Puzder nomination. There are 4 firm no votes and up to 12, source says. Next on CNN

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 15, 2017

As CNN reports,

Top Senate Republicans have urged the White House to withdraw the Andrew Puzder nomination for labor secretary, a senior GOP source said, adding there are four firm Republican no votes and possibly up to 12.

Puzder needs at least 50 votes to pass with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Mike Pence, and Republicans only hold control of 52 seats.

Puzder, the CEO of the company that owns the Hardee"s and Carl"s Jr. fast food chains, has faced fierce opposition mostly from Democrats in part related to his position on labor issues as well as the fact that he employed an undocumented housekeeper.

This would inject yet more turmoil into a tempestuous first few weeks for Trump"s tenure as Republicans can lose 2 Republican votes and still secure a nominee, as they did with DeVos, but 4 is a dagger, as Democrats have solidified in opposition.

By way of backgrund The LA Times notes that concerns had been mounting as new controversies have arisen in recent days, including Puzder"s admission that he had employed a housekeeper for years who was in the U.S. illegally.

Puzder paid back taxes related to that employee after Trump picked him for Labor secretary in early December.

Some Republicans also have viewed a 1990 episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" in which Puzder"s ex-wife, Lisa Fierstein, made allegation of spousal abuse, according to Politico.

Fierstein wrote to the leaders of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last month saying she later withdrew the allegations and vouching for Puzder as a "a good, loving, kind man."

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she had viewed the Oprah episode and told reporters Tuesday she had not made up her mind on Puzder"s nomination.

"There have been issues that have been raised about him, and I’m sure that all of them will be thoroughly addressed in the hearing," Collins said.

Asked about Puzder on Wednesday, Collins said, "I"ve expressed my concerns."

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) also said this week that they were awaiting the confirmation hearing before making a decision. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio also expressed concerns.

"I think it’s important that before we come to any conclusions or make any judgments that we have an opportunity to hear from him at his confirmation hearing respond to some of the questions that have been raised," Thune said Tuesday.

The issues involving his housekeeper and ex-wife came on top of controversial comments Puzder has made in recent years opposing an increase in the minimum wage to $15 and musing about deploying increased automation to his restaurants.

Democrats also have highlighted labor law violations at CKE Restaurants, and fast-food workers have staged protests against Puzder’s nomination in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

Finally we noted that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for Puzder to withdraw, calling him "probably the most anti-worker" choice ever for the Cabinet position... which means whoever Trump chooses next for the role is - by defintion - not "the most anti-worker" choice.

Protesters Around the US Have Started Speaking Out Against Local Representatives

(ANTIMEDIA)  —  On Friday morning, protesters blocked newly-confirmed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos from entering a school in Washington, D.C.

The day before that, Representative ’s words were drowned out by taunts from a raucous crowd in Utah.

On Tuesday, over 100 protesters showed up at the congressional office of Arizona Representative Martha McSally.

And last weekend, California Representative Tom McClintock’s town hall speech was met with such hostility that he had to be escorted from the premises by police.

There may have been others. There certainly will be more in the days to come. We know that for certain because last week the Washington Post told us so.

“What’s organizing people is that they’re fearing for the country they grew up in,” Neera Tanden, Hillary Clinton advisor and president of the Center for American Progress, told the Post. “People are definitely seeing the purpose of working through the political process to oppose him.”

The him, of course, is Donald Trump. There could be no other him in a Democrat’s mind. But the “process” being referred to by Tanden is, as we speak, going through a metamorphosis — one the Clinton aide seems not to notice.

The Post’s article on Sunday opened with the following:

“A super PAC formed to reelect Barack Obama in 2012 is driving activists to congressional town halls.”

It doesn’t seem like much. Innocuous, even. But upon reflection, it’s actually a game changer.

The Post, after noting that Neera Tanden’s Center for American Progress (CAP) was “founded by Clinton administration exiles,” went on to detail the trend that’s taking shape:

“CAP Action, the political arm of Tanden’s think tank, is one of several progressive and center-left groups urging activists to attend congressional town halls.”

How many of the protesters are showing up at Republican doorsteps at the behest of progressive super PACs, and how many are there of their own volition, is an unknown. But the effect has been the same — and immediate. From a February 7 report by Politico:

“House Republicans during a closed-door meeting Tuesday discussed how to protect themselves and their staffs from protesters storming town halls and offices in opposition to repealing Obamacare, sources in the room told Politico.”

Citing those sources, the news outlet continues:

“Among the suggestions: having a physical exit strategy at town halls, or a backdoor at congressional offices to slip out of, in case demonstrations turn violent; having local police monitor town halls; replacing any glass office-door entrances with heavy doors and deadbolts; and setting up intercoms to ensure those entering congressional offices are there for appoints, not to cause chaos.”

The effect has been so great, in fact, that some Republicans are now declining speaking engagements in fear of what Martha McSally — the Arizona representative who was confronted by over 100 protesters at her office last Tuesday — called a “political ambush.”

Stating that “the Democratic Party and progressive establishment have almost entirely adopted the demands of a restive, active and aggressive base,” the Washington Post, in last week’s article, said the Democrats are “hopeful that the new activism” embraces the idea of electoral politics — new activism that apparently condones super PACs spending funds on protests at enemy lines. And it’s a form of activism the Post just gave credibility to:

“Yet even now, at every level of national Democratic politics, the discussion of how the party can win back voters it lost is subsumed by the argument about how to oppose Trump,” wrote the newspaper. “The answer is always: as much as possible. And for the moment, that does seem to be engaging a broad, new population of activists.”

And it’s a form of “activism” the conservative super PACs are certain to make use of, now that the precedent has been set — and, again, sanctified by the Washington Post itself.

So it’ll be interesting, to say the least, to read the comments from Democrats when it’s their turn to worry about escape routes. And heavy doors. And deadbolts.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

BAM! Photo shows Betsy DeVos had the LAST LAUGH at today’s visit to DC school

Earlier today, Feb. 10, 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was blocked from entering a school by protesters.

However, she simply used a different door.

Posted on Twitchy at 5:21 pm on February 10, 2017 by Greg P. –

As we’ve been telling you all day, protesters blocked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos during her visit to Jefferson Academy today, but guess what — she had the last laugh.

Here she is inside the school:

DeVos later issued a statement on her visit, thanking everyone at Jefferson and saying she will not be “deterred in executing the vital mission of the Department of Education”:

“I thank D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Antwan Wilson, Jefferson Middle School Academy Principal Greg Dohmann, Superintendent Natalie Gordon and a tremendous team of administrators, teachers and students for welcoming me to Jefferson Middle School Academy today. Jefferson Academy is a public middle school on the rise and a great example of the successful collaborative innovations occurring within the D.C. Public Schools system.

“Focusing on their students and families is at the heart of Jefferson Academy’s approach, and that’s exactly what I believe is at the heart of providing an exceptional education. Great teachers and leaders help make great schools, and I was honored to speak with Jefferson’s team about our shared commitment to strengthening public education.

“I respect peaceful protest, and I will not be deterred in executing the vital mission of the Department of Education. No school door in America will be blocked from those seeking to help our nation’s school children.”

Read more at twitchy

Photo credit Washington Post

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 they “follow 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.

Did Trump Con Everyone?

Donald Trump spent his entire campaign railing against the establishment and promising to “drain the swamp.” But now that he has begun announcing his cabinet choices, many liberty-loving people are getting increasingly uncomfortable with the Wall-Street-studded, war-loving picks. Instead of draining the swamp, it seems like he may be repopulating the swamp with bigger predators than before.

In the following article, Aaron Dykes provides some startling information about the new cabinet members, including their net worth.

I really hope the President-Elect proves me wrong, but we have a responsibility to speak the truth, regardless of how unpleasant it is. The question has to be asked…did Donald Trump just run the biggest confidence game in history by telling us all what we wanted to hear?

~ Daisy

Hedge Funds “Gleeful” That Trump “Conned His Supporters” and Appointed Wall Street to His Cabinet

by Aaron Dykes of Truthstream Media

It seems apparent now that Trump supporters – believing they were electing an outsider and populist reformer – got conned.

President-elect Trump may or may not go on to keep some of this campaign promises; then again, he may not. What he has done is invite the elite of the elite into his cabinet, and it is absolutely not a good sign for things to come under a Donald J. Trump presidency.

For better or worse, Trump can’t effectively be held accountable for four more years. Until then, he has something like a blank check – and that should worry everyone because he has already proven to be very duplicitous and he hasn’t even officially been sworn in yet.

People ignored the warning signs – like having War on Terror-monger Rudy Giuliani as one of his closest allies – because voters, fed up with the status quo, tend to project their own values, hopes, and dreams upon the often vague or empty promises made by candidates.

That isn’t specific to Trump, but ubiquitous to most all politicians, but this guy is different, I promise.

Now Wall Street is laughing at Trump supporters.

Via Bloomberg:

Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson was feeling happy Wednesday morning.

After Donald Trump ridiculed Wall Street on the campaign trail, the President-elect tapped former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Steven Mnuchin to be his Treasury secretary and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross to lead the Commerce Department. Trump even met with Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn inside Trump Tower.

It would suit Tilson just fine if voters who backed Trump because he promised to rein in Wall Street are furious now that he’s surrounding himself with bankers and billionaires.

“I can take glee in that — I think Donald Trump conned them,” said Tilson, who runs Kase Capital Management. “I worried that he was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he’s appointing people from within the system is a good thing.”

It is indeed time for Trump supporters to suck it up and face the facts – they have been conned. Period.

Stop trying to rationalize it. Get ready to fight a new front in the war against elite domination. It is not over because Hillary (who was obviously a very dangerous and loathsome choice) lost.

While Trump has not finalized most of his picks, and all will still have to face confirmation, the list is pretty overwhelmingly packed with Wall Street and big bank insiders, establishment creatures, and neocon war hawks, etc.

Trump’s Admin to be will be run by the big banks – here’s just a few of his many cabinet, appointee, and advisor picks:

* Steven Bannon, Chief Political Strategist (net worth $10 million) – Breitbart publisher, ex-Goldman Sachs exec, and film producer

* Elaine Chao, Transportation Secretary (net worth $22-25 million) – Wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell, Bank of America executive; Labor Secretary under Geroge W. Bush; member of CFR; father was a shipping magnate

* Steven Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary (net worth $40 million) – Second generation Goldman Sachs partner/executive; previously worked for Soros group; at Yale, he allegedly ‘passed’ on Skull and Bones membership after being tapped

* Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce (net worth $2.9 billion) – Billionaire investor; senior managing director at Rothschild, Inc.; Yale, Harvard Business alumni. and board of advisors of Yale School of Management; and, to top it all off as Kurt Nimmo recently reported,

Ross “also worked as New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s privatization advisor and was a member of the Wall Street secret society Kappa Beta Phi made up of high-ranking financial executives. Robert Rubin, Jon Corzine, and John C. Whitehead, the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Rockefeller confidant, and Goldman Sachs chairman are also members. Ross is the “Grand Swipe” or leader of the group.”

* Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education (net worth “billionaire”; husband Dick DeVos has Amway fortune) – Windquest Group energy/renewables; Father built up auto parts fortune; Brother is Eric Prince, founder of Blackwater/Xe/Academi; Prince is, in turn, featured on Breitbart frequently

* Gen. David Petraeus, possible Secretary of State (net worth $2 million) – After serving as commander of CENTCOM and other miiltary positions, he was director of the CIA, before being forced to step down after pleading guilty to the misuse of classified information, which he reportedly shared with his mistress and biographer (*he would make a hypocritical Secretary of State choice given the scandal surrounding Sec. Clinton’s misuse of classified info); Petraeus went to head KKR Global (Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts) and became a frequent Bilderberg attendee; member of CFR

• Mitt Romney, possible Secretary of State (net worth: $250 million) – Former Massachusetts Governor; former GOP nominee for president; former Vice President and senior partner at Bain Capitol, private equity/venture capital fund; father was former governor of Michigan; Romney is already well known as an establishment lackey, so there is no need to go on…

* Peter Thiel, potential position unknown, possibly informal (net worth $2.7 billion) – Co-founder of Facebook, PayPal, Palantir Technologies (NSA’s data mining partner), and many other firms; Silicon Valley tycoon known for initiating the so-called “PayPal Mafia”; Bilderberg steering committee member who has brought many technology leaders to the power group’s table

Notably, Peter Thiel and Donald Trump have been working closely together on a plan to “open libel laws” to, apparently, facilitate lawsuits and new forms of legal action against defamation and certain types of reporting – a la Thiel’s controversial role in funding lawsuits against Gawker, which caused its bankruptcy.

There are many other potential appointees and advisors worth paying attention to, but it is labor intensive, many have yet to be selected, and this is already enough to make the point anyway.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Nearly eight years ago, I had the honor and distinction of being an associate editor and second hand in general to the production of “The Obama Deception” – a film which rightly blasted the myth of Barack Obama’s divine anti-establishment, hope-and-change rope-a-dope routine.

We now know that play, and we should not let ourselves get fooled again.

In 2008, Despite campaigning as a fresh face who would end wars, corruption and the ways of Washington politics, President Obama quickly appointed Wall Street insiders, CFR and Trilateral Commission members, Bilderberg attendees, and some of the very neocons who had defined the Bush Administration that so many had come to reject and loathe.

Obama remains cool and popular on the surface and in press conferences, but behind the scenes he helped the big banks secure their bailout after the collapse. He gave cover for what became the greatest looting ever of the American people. Millennials, in particular, were oblivious to the deception, despite our effort to warn them.

Today, in 2016, Donald Trump is already showing himself to be the new face of that same deception; only this time, lots of well meaning liberty activists, truthers, libertarians, constitutionalists, populists and paleo-conservatives were the victims.

Helping Trump gain office on the idea that he would destroy NAFTA, stop the TPP, curb illegal immigration and bring good jobs back to America, these people were betrayed within days and weeks of Trump’s election victory as his elitist appointments became clear.

As Michael Krieger wrote:

If you give cover to Trump to appoint swamp creatures to his cabinet, you have no right to criticize Obama for having done the same. Let’s grow up and start rallying around ideas, not cheerleading political figures.

[…]

What allowed Obama to do all the bad things he did, was the fact that his supporters made endless excuses for him. Don’t make excuses for Trump. If you do, your life will get a lot worse and this country will decay far more into an authoritarian oligarchy than it already has. It is up to you to make sure he doesn’t become the Wall Street puppet I always feared he would be.

In hindsight, Trump made his fortune, and stayed out of trouble, by operating in the heart of Manhattan, just a short distance from Wall Street, the World Trade Center, Rockefeller Center, the Council on Foreign Relations and other exclusive white glove, bow tie clubs and business centers… So it isn’t exactly a stretch of the imagination that he would pack his cabinet full of these same creatures.

There is no shame in having supported one candidate to oppose another, or to be misled by someone you thought would make a difference. But the question is, will those who supported Trump the most admit that he has indeed “conned” and “betrayed” the base that got him elected – or will they keep on making excuses for him for the next four years, while Washington and Wall Street accelerate their operations?

Mark Twain, himself a member of the elitist Bohemian Grove back in his day, made two succinct and relevant observations about our political system which seem more fitting now than ever:

“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” – Mark Twain

and

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain

Sustaining the Swamp: Top 10 Trump Cabinet Picks – Part 1

(image: © Mike Segar / Reuters )

Draining or sustaining the swamp? The Trump cabinet choices have now mostly been selected, as only 6 weeks remain until the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. Trump has met all sorts of people, including top NWO (New World Order) insiders like war criminal Henry Kissinger, ex-CIA director and Bilderberger David Petraeus, and CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) chief Richard Haas. Trump seems to have considerable reverence and admiration for these figures, e.g. he said he has “tremendous respect” for Kissinger and “likes and respects [Haass] a lot”. Meanwhile, some of the old Republican neocons (neoconservatives) that were present during the Bush Jr. years have been buzzing around Trump like flies around you know what, including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. Trump has also been attracting Goldman Sachs men like Anthony Scaramucci and Gary Cohn, in addition to the “Goldmen” below who are among the Trump cabinet picks. At this point many are wondering whether Trump is making America great again or making the swamp great again. Is he draining or sustaining the swamp?

Wilbur Ross

Trump Cabinet Picks #1: Wilbur Ross for Secretary of Commerce

Ross is the head of Secret Society Kappa Beta Phi, which was infiltrated by journalist Kevin Roose in January 2012 when they had they meeting and dinner in Manhattan, New York. He is estimated by Forbes to be worth $1.9 billion. He has worked for the Rothschilds (the preeminent powerbroking family of the New World Order) for 25 years! Not much more probably needs to be said. Here is an article describing what Roose saw inside the Kapaa Beta Phi meeting:

“The first outside to infiltrate Kappa Beta Phi in its eight decade life-span, Roose calls the fraternity so exclusive it is akin to a one-percenters club … Staying long enough to record skits and speeches given by new inductees and to take a few pictures, Roose was exposed when he tried to video a parody version of ‘I Believe’, the big number from musical, The Book of Mormon – for which the neophytes had dressed as missionaries. Indeed, the lyrics were changed to include the line, ‘I believe that God has a plan for all of us. I believe my plan involves a seven-figure bonus.’”

Steven Mnuchin

Trump Cabinet Picks #2: Steven Mnuchin for Secretary of the Treasury

Mnuchin is a former Goldman Sachs man. He is a Goldman trader turned hedge fund manager and Hollywood financier. During his 17 years at Goldman Sachs, he accrued a net worth estimated about $40 million. He actually become a Goldman Sachs partner. In 2004 he started Dune Capital with money from arch-manipulator George Soros. In 2009, in partnership with Soros, John Paulson and others, Mnuchin bought the failed housing lender IndyMac for $1.6 billion. It was renamed OneWest.

OneWest was involved in a plethora of lawsuits surrounding its highly dubious foreclosure rate. Apparently, according to Politico, one case involved Mnuchin foreclosing on a 90-year-old Florida woman over a $0.27 payment mistake. Protestors flocked to the lawn of his $26 million mansion in Bel Air in 2011 due to all the predatory foreclosures. If approved by Congress, as Secretary of the Treasury, Mnuchin would become 5th in line for the presidency.

Mnuchin has indicated he wants more deregulation of Big Banking, such as undoing parts of the Dodd-Frank Act which come into being after the 2008 economic disaster. Just as Bill Clinton’s repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act led to the 2008 crash, will the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act lead to a future crash?

Elaine Chao

Trump Cabinet Picks #3: Elaine Chao for Secretary of Transportation

Trump wants Elaine Chao as his transportation secretary. Chao was the Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. She is also the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, an entrenched American politician (some may even say a swamp-dweller). If her appointment is successfully confirmed by the Senate, Chao would control the Transportation Department which oversees administrations under it such as the United States Maritime Administration. AlterNet reports on the conflict of interest in this selection:

“The appointment of Chao to this position is striking for at least one major reason: her family owns a major international shipping company. Chao’s father, James Chao, is the chairman of the Foremost Group, which he founded in 1964. Elaine Chao’s sister Angela is currently the deputy chairman of the company … Foremost purchases vessels and coordinates the shipment of commodities throughout the globe. In 2014, the Nation’s Lee Fang reported that 90 pounds of cocaine was seized by the Colombian Coast Guard from a vessel owned by Foremost … A 2014 report from the Louisville Courant revealed that Chao registers his ships in Liberia to avoid paying taxes in the United States.”

Betsy DeVos

Trump Cabinet Picks #4: Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education

Betsy DeVos is another extremely wealthy choice among the Trump cabinet picks. According to Forbes, her family has a net worth of $5.1 billion! She is the daughter-in-law of Richard DeVos, the co-founder of Amway, and the sister of Erik Prince! You may recall that Prince founded the infamous and notorious company of mercenaries (paid killers) used in Middle Eastern wars. First it was called Blackwater, then Xe, then Academi, as it kept changing its name to avoid scrutiny.

Strangely enough, DeVos is a big proponent of private charter schools, and has never worked in public education. RT quotes the NEA (National Education Association) president:

“DeVos’ “efforts over the years have done more to undermine public education than support students,” NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia said in a statement. “She has consistently pushed a corporate agenda to privatize, de-professionalize and impose cookie-cutter solutions to public education. By nominating Betsy DeVos, the Trump administration has demonstrated just how out of touch it is with what works best for students, parents, educators and communities.””

Trump cabinet pick Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator.

Trump Cabinet Picks #5: Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator

NWO Agenda Will Move Forward with Trump – Just in a Different Way

If you look around you can find many conspiracy theories saying that Trump is going to be assassinated. For me, these are just wild speculations – and maybe even good clickbait for those deliberately trying to attract traffic with sensationalistic headlines. Or maybe it’s the alt right (alternative right) trying to save face after unabashedly promoting Trump like there was no tomorrow. I (not so boldly) predict that Trump won’t be assassinated before he takes office, and I doubt he will be even once he’s in office. Trump is not the outsider he likes to portray himself to be, as I highlighted in my March 2016 article Outsider or Insider Trump? Donald Trump’s NWO Connections.

The real rulers of the planet are quite content with Donald Trump as US President. Sure, some aspects of the NWO agenda won’t be pushed forward as much, but others will be. The Clinton NWO agenda would have involved things like war with Russia, climate change carbon tax, gun control and corporate treaties like the TTP, TTIP and TISA. The Trump NWO agenda involves things like war with Iran, escalated tension with China (Trump already criticized them through Twitter) and trade wars. Yes, Trump may roll back parts of Obamacare and bust the manmade climate change hoax, but he will advance the Zionist cause more than Obama. The NWO controllers are calculated and patient; they will get what they want from Trump before the next person comes in push forward other aspects of the agenda. One bird, one flight plan, 2 wings. The West may get war wth Iran and China instead of war with Russia.

Trump has already assembled the richest presidential cabinet in US history, stuffed with multi-millionaires and billionaires. Is this really a victory worth promoting and celebrating?

Part 2 will examine Trump’s cabinet picks #6 – #10.

Sources:

*http://www.activistpost.com/2016/11/trump-just-met-henry-kissinger-tremendous-respect.html

*http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/03/donald-trump-held-briefing-with-richard-haass-head-of-council-on-foreign-relations/

*http://sttpml.org/inside-wall-streets-most-secret-society-the-billionaire-banker-fraternity-where-cross-dressing-new-members-make-jokes-about-hillary-clinton-and-drunkenly-mock-the-financial-crisis/

*http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-treasury-foreclosed-homes-mnuchin-232038

*http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-treasury-choice-steven-mnuchin-vows-to-strip-back-dodd-frank-1480513188

*http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/another-conflict-interest-new-transportation-secretarys-family-runs-shipping

*https://www.rt.com/usa/367971-betsy-devos-education-secretary/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/insider-trump-nwo-connections/

*http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/04/president-elect-trump-picks-fight-with-china-on-twitter/

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/30/donald-trump-is-assembling-the-richest-administration-in-modern-american-history/