Tag Archives: Global Governance

Alex Newman: Coronavirus: Deep State Assault on Economic Freedom 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

Under the guise of fighting the coronavirus, globalists are instituting policies that will bring about global government, total surveillance, and unending personal controls.

Using the panic over the coronavirus as a pretext, the Deep State and its propagandists have been working overtime to fundamentally transform society — especially on the economic front. Virtually every Deep State objective is being peddled as a supposed solution or treatment for the Chinese virus. From going “cashless” with digital currency, to endless money printing by the Federal Reserve, to crashing the economy with “stay-at-home” orders, to getting everyone dependent on government with so-called stimulus payments as the productive economy grinds to a halt, to globalizing the monetary system, the danger is very real. The push to crush privacy, the middle class, and what remains of the free market system has gone into overdrive. The risks are enormous.

The economic devastation unleashed largely by government decree — mostly at the state level — has already been catastrophic. Stocks lost almost 30 percent in less than a month, wiping out all the gains made under President Trump over three years. Everyday Americans were fleeced. According to the Wall Street Journal, though, top executives at U.S.-traded companies dumped almost $10 billion in shares of their own firms between early February and the market collapse, saving them billions. A number of lawmakers also had amazing timing, including Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and others with access to inside information, selling millions of dollars worth of stock before the collapse.

But the stock market collapse and the pain felt by Wall Street may be overshadowed by the devastation of main street. Millions of Americans are losing their jobs amid the crisis, and more probably will soon. The wave of firings and furloughs was so huge that it crashed unemployment websites nationwide. St. Louis Fed projections estimate some 47 million Americans could lose their jobs. Because surveys show most Americans still live paycheck to paycheck, those job losses are going to continue reverberating through the economy as payments are missed for cars, rent, credit cards, and more. Countless small businesses — and potentially even major companies — may shut forever, even with federal bailouts. Just look at car sales: down about 36 percent just from February to March.

In response to the economic chaos unleashed by the government-ordered shut-down of the economy, Congress and the Federal Reserve System sprang into action to make the problems worse. While ostensibly aiming to prop up markets and provide $6 trillion or more of “stimulus,” or about $70,000 per American family of four, the goals are obviously much broader. Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., for instance, immediately launched plans for a $2 trillion spending bill that would shower funny money on companies, individuals, and practically everybody — at least those with lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described it as a “wartime level of investment.”

Naturally, Democrats advanced proposals to tie the “stimulus” funding to mandates that would fundamentally transform America. They tried to sneak in everything from “climate” regulations on air travel to “diversity” mandates for corporate boards to big bucks for abortion giant Planned Parenthood and other Democratic cronies. “All private hospitals should be made public for the duration of the virus,” U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) wrote on Twitter, in one of many Democratic proposals to further empower Big Government. Democrats also pushed for more “collective bargaining” for federal employees. Many of those schemes, though not all, were killed by GOP lawmakers, who were more interested in peddling corporate welfare. Still, the devastating consequences of this bailout bonanza will be felt for decades to come.

The “Stimulus” Scam

In the end, the package included a $500 billion “corporate liquidity” welfare slush fund that will bail out big corporations such as airlines, hotels (not President Trump’s), and others impacted by the coronavirus hysteria — all of it with “strings” attached, of course, such as no stock buybacks allowed for at least a year, and no arguing with Big Labor. Small businesses got a $350 billion fund. The bailout bill also provides $100 billion for hospitals as part of what was described as a “Marshall Plan.”

Lobbyists for bloated state and local governments, which have trillions in outlandish pension liabilities, managed to convince Congress to include an unconstitutional $150 billion bailout not only for pensions, but for state/local bonds and debts, and government spending. There are also smaller amounts to bail out everything from tribal governments and farmers to the government propaganda scheme known as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The IRS, refugee resettlement agencies, museums, universities, and more all got bailouts too. Government schools at the K-12 level will be receiving almost $15 billion to start as the education establishment scrambles to keep children trapped in “failing government schools,” as President Trump put it in his 2020 State of the Union address.

Individual Americans below certain income thresholds, meanwhile, were slated to receive a $1,200 check each, plus an additional $500 per child, in addition to massive infusions of cash for state unemployment systems to pay out 100 percent of lost wages. Congressman Thomas Massie called that the cheese in the mousetrap. More than a few socialists are pushing the narrative that it is time to consider a government-provided “Universal Basic Income” that would get everyone dependent on the feds.

Where that money was supposed to come from was hardly discussed — especially odd considering the $23 trillion national debt, not counting the new spending for the stimulus. Instead, Republicans and Democrats squabbled about who would get it, what strings would be attached, and what sort of other unconstitutional policies could be hidden inside the gargantuan package. In reality, it would be hard to find enough suckers to lend Uncle Sam another $2 trillion when they are guaranteed to lose money on the spread between inflation and the interest. Experts say Congress will likely just “print” the money by issuing more Treasury bonds and then expecting the privately owned Federal Reserve System to “monetize” that debt by creating currency out of nothing.

Critics blasted the scheme. “This profligate spending will do little to help the American economy or average citizens in the long run,” explained Jeff Deist, president of the pro-market Ludwig von Mises Institute. “But the additional debt added to an already whopping $1 trillion 2020 federal deficit will plague taxpayers for years…. More money and more cheap credit can’t stimulate anything in such an environment, because money and credit aren’t goods and services. It can and will, however, saddle future generations of Americans with more debt misery and entrench a standard of moral hazard for corporations from which free markets may never recover.”

Federal Reserve

Aside from the enormous congressional spending spree, the Federal Reserve has once again decided that opening the floodgates with “unlimited” trillions in new currency is the way to go as well. The infusion of trillions of newly created dollars into the economy will further erode the purchasing power of the money in circulation, resulting in rising prices. But the Fed will not only be firing up the printing presses, it will also be buying everything in sight, ranging from U.S. Treasury debt and municipal bonds to mortgage-backed securities and even corporate bonds. The Fed is now literally loaning money it creates out of thin air directly to businesses, both large and small, at interest. Early estimates suggest the Fed may create as much as $4 trillion for “stimulus” and bailouts. Despite almost a decade of outrageously low interest rates, the central bank also slashed interest rates down to zero in the largest single-day interest rate cut in U.S. history.

The new schemes, which will amount to trillions of new dollars injected into Fed-backed sectors of the economy, may go beyond even the unprecedented policies from the 2008 crisis. By the time that fiasco was all over, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) estimated the potential total cost of the combined crisis bailouts at $23.7 trillion — more than $75,000 per person in the United States. The Fed also ended up owning such prize assets as the Red Roof Inn, a national hotel chain that the banking cartel purchased with fiat currency that it created from nothing.

Even establishment analysts expressed surprise at the enormity of the current Fed machinations compared with those from the last crisis. “The actions taken are breath-taking in their scope. Indeed, these steps surpass in breadth and depth the measures that the Fed created in the midst of the financial crisis a decade ago,” explained Wells Fargo’s Jay Bryson, comparing the new policies to the relatively less gigantic interventions under former Fed boss Ben Bernanke. “If the Fed pulled out a monetary policy ‘bazooka’ during that crisis, then the steps it announced this morning are the central bank equivalent of ‘going nuclear.’”

The consequences of this, of course, may prove cataclysmic to the economy and the currency, as more than a few experts pointed out. “None of this is working — none of this can work,” fumed Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital, noting that the coronavirus was just the “pin” and that a dollar crisis was inevitable even without the viral hysteria. “Nothing is going to stop the bottom from falling out from under the dollar.” Pointing to Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and the Weimar Republic before them, Schiff said the same money-printing policies pursued in America will produce the same consequences as they did in those nations: hyperinflation and economic catastrophe.

This is the crisis Schiff has been warning about for many years, he said. “This is the beginning of the end,” warned Schiff, touting gold as a safe haven amid the chaos. “This is how it starts. And believe me, when you see how this finishes, this is going to be unlike anything we have experienced. I think we have passed that point of no return. It’s like we’ve already jumped off the top of the building, off the top of the Empire State Building. There’s no way to change our minds now. We’re going to hit that pavement. I can’t see any way we can avoid that. All we can do is brace for impact ourselves.”

While Schiff and other analysts have touted gold and precious metals ahead of the expected destruction of the currency, some experts are sounding the alarm on that as well. Trends forecaster Gerald Celente, for instance, echoed President Trump about the cure being worse than the disease, and warned of coming gold confiscation by government. “They are destroying the global economy. They are destroying people’s lives,” he said. “When people lose everything and have nothing left to lose, they lose it. You are going to see gangs like never before.”

Just as during the Great Depression and other economic crises, the poor and middle-class in America are being looted. As asset prices collapse in this controlled demolition of the economy, globalists and mega-bankers will step in and scoop up real-estate, businesses, and more for pennies on the dollar. Americans will be left holding the bag in the form of higher taxes and ever-greater debt levels.

Globalist Currency 

The push to globalize the monetary system in response to coronavirus is also on. As regular readers of this magazine know well, the Deep State has been grooming the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to become a global central bank for decades. And during this crisis, there has been quite a bit of chatter about transforming the IMF’s proto-global currency, known as “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs), into a full-blown global currency. There is also talk by top IMF leaders of “boosting global liquidity” by creating SDRs. Less than a year ago, top globalists at the World Economic Forum, including José Antonio Ocampo, a Columbia University professor, were openly calling for turning the SDR into “a true global currency.” Many top officials from around the world have said the same thing.

In her response to the virus, IMF boss Kristalina Georgieva of Bulgaria sounded ready to push globalism full speed. “How deep the contraction and how fast the recovery depends on the speed of containment of the pandemic and on how strong and coordinated our monetary and fiscal policy actions are,” she said during a March 26 G20 meeting. (Emphasis added.) “We must act at par with the magnitude of the challenge. For us at the IMF it means working with you to make our crisis response even stronger. For this we ask your backing to double our emergency financing capacity and boost global liquidity through a sizeable SDR (Special Drawing Right) allocation, as we successfully did during the 2009 global crisis and by expanding the use of swap type facilities at the Fund.”

Georgieva also boasted that the IMF could “quickly disburse $50 billion through its emergency financing facilities” to “help” poorer nations “dealing with COVID-19.” Those governments have already “asked the IMF to make an SDR allocation” for them, she said. The IMF boss vowed to make up to $1 trillion in lending capacity, too. In short, global “quantitative easing” with the global wannabe currency SDR, made up of a basket of national currencies including the dollar, is setting the stage for even “bolder” actions during the next crisis. They are laying the groundwork for turning the SDR into a true global currency, so that eventually, the IMF can do what the Fed is doing, on a global scale. “Together we will lay the ground for a faster and stronger recovery,” she concluded, saying this is “a global problem calling for a global response.”

Digital Dollars: War on Cash and Privacy

Making sure that the crisis created by government and the Fed does not go to waste, totalitarians have been pushing the Deep State’s cashless-society agenda like there is no tomorrow. The accelerating war on cash is now being justified by the establishment’s propagandists because cash is supposedly transmitting coronavirus. And the propaganda is having the desired effect. According to Fox News, many businesses nationwide are discouraging or outright declining to accept cash. In South Korea, authorities removed all currency from circulation for two weeks while encouraging everyone to use cards and mobile phones. Other governments are joining in.

Seeking to exploit the fear to advance the war on cash (and privacy), American Democrats twice tried to sneak language creating a “digital dollar” and a “digital wallet” controlled by the Federal Reserve into coronavirus legislation. Under the scheme, which was removed before passage, Americans would have received their “stimulus” payments as “digital dollars” via a “digital dollar wallet.” Proponents of the scheme were thrilled. “It is worth exploring, testing, and piloting a true USD CBDC [Central Bank Digital Currency] and broader digital infrastructure in order to improve our future capabilities and resiliency,” founding director of the Digital Dollar Project Daniel Gorfine told Forbes.

The two Democratic bills defined a digital dollar as “a balance expressed as a dollar value consisting of digital ledger entries that are recorded as liabilities in the accounts of any Federal Reserve Bank or … an electronic unit of value, redeemable by an eligible financial institution (as determined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System).” The digital wallets, also defined in the legislation, would be tied to a “digital identity” and would be maintained by the Federal Reserve, according to the original bills. In short, globalists and central bankers and their allies and dupes in legislatures are hoping to exploit this crisis to advance a cashless society — something that would enable total surveillance, and, incidentally, the negative interest rates they have been pushing for so long, making people pay for the privilege of having their money in a bank, rather than simply keeping their cash at home.

Communist China seems to be the model for shifting away from cash and toward electronic payment systems and digital currency. In fact, the dictatorship appears to be the preferred Deep State model when it comes to “fighting viruses.”  Consider a 2010 report by the Rockefeller Foundation titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.” The document envisions a future pandemic scenario, dubbed “Lock Step” in the report, in which the United States suffers due to a lack of tyranny, while China fares much better.

“The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens … saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery,” the report says, touting the imagined responses of other authoritarian regimes, too. The document then goes on to outline the citizen-demanded “top-down direction and oversight” over nations and economies. It mentions, among other policies, “biometric ID for all citizens,” “tighter regulation of key industries,” “a suite of new regulations and agreements,” and more to “restore order and, importantly, economic growth.”

Not surprisingly, these are exactly the sort of schemes that Deep State globalists are pushing for coronavirus. The “ID2020” scheme backed by billionaire population-control zealot Bill Gates of Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, falls right in line. According to the effort’s website, the plot seeks to give everyone on Earth a “digital identity” that would follow them from birth to death. And it would also keep track of all sorts of data, including health and vaccine information, enabling governments and globalists to keep people everywhere under control.

Separately, Gates, who backed the Orwellian Event 201 (see page 39), partnered with other globalists to fund research at MIT on “a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history: storing the data in a pattern of dye, invisible to the naked eye, that is delivered under the skin at the same time as the vaccine.” In a press release about the scheme released right around the time COVID-19 was identified in Wuhan, MIT said the technology “consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots.” This tattoo-type scheme would “remain under the skin where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.”

As far as new regulation, the establishment’s propaganda organs have gone into overdrive peddling new and “improved” controls over the economy. As previously mentioned, Democrats tried to stuff the “stimulus” bill with all sorts of new mandates, including large parts of the “Green New Deal” agenda. Climate alarmists everywhere, meanwhile, are publicly working to ensure that America and the world will never go back to the pre-coronavirus economy with its heavy reliance on petroleum and other fuels by trying to make the new regime permanent. How much they will be able to get away with considering President Trump is in office remains to be seen. But the precedent has now been set — just wait until the next “pandemic” or “crisis” to see how far they will go.

Real Solutions

The only real solution to the economic calamity afflicting the American economy is to get the people back to work, and the government out of the way. It was government, the Deep State’s propaganda machine, and the Fed that caused this crisis — period. And they know very well that a collapsed economy would kill and maim far more people than the Chinese virus ever could. Transferring America’s wealth to the elites connected to the Federal Reserve and the political class via this engineered destruction of the economy is a crime of epic proportions.

To prevent an even greater economic disaster going forward, Americans must first go back to work, followed by a drastic cut in the size and scope of government. Holding Communist China and the global elites accountable is important, too. Finally, the Federal Reserve must be dismantled so that an honest, sound monetary system can take root and unleash genuine prosperity. Freedom is literally the cure!

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/35356-coronavirus-deep-state-assault-on-economic-freedom


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: Freedom v. Force 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

Freedom irritates the left. Not their own freedom—but yours. Democrats live with a hatred; a despising of the very principle of liberty. This is the essential difference between the left and the right—not merely how spend money and upon what—but whether or not to curtail your freedom.

Consider free speech. The free and open exchange of ideas has been the hallmark of American society for over two centuries. The First Amendment has served as a prohibition against the Federal Government from managing any kind of speech. Alarmingly, however, more than one-half of Americans today favor a “re-writing” of the First Amendment whereby “hate speech” would be illegal. The survey was taken by the nonpartisan Campaign for Free Speech (CFS).

As everyone knows, the determination of what constitutes “hate speech” is the crux. Who will determine what type of speech is hateful enough to be illegal? (see First Liberty Institute article, 11-15-19).

College campuses lead the nation in showing contempt for free speech. Most college students, according to surveys, want restrictions on what they call “offensive” speech. Marxist professors have instilled a pure hatred for free speech in the student bodies. Witness the hostile reception conservative speakers have had at various Universities around the country.

Even the liberal American Bar Association (ABA) documents in a recent article the silencing of various speakers at college campuses. The authors, Stephen J. Wermiel & Josh Blackman, try to explain that it comes from “both sides”, left and right, but conclude that the “incidents” of disruption to speakers on the liberal side are “less common.” Indeed! And it is more than a stretch to say that “hecklers” wearing “Make America Great Again” hats equate with the violence of shutting down speakers and forcing college campuses to withdraw conservative invitations to speak. Silencing by force is the leftist method.

Force has been used so much by the left that some Republican-led state legislatures have felt the need to impose policies on their state university campuses to allow free speech.

Under the rubric of “hate speech” the big tech giants Facebook and YouTube have already shut down Alex Jones’ voice on InfoWars.  Some Christian voices, like Julio Severo, are put in “Facebook jail” for posting Bible verses such as about homosexuality. Google suppressed Prager University and Twitter temporarily banned Candace Owens. So prevalent has this forcible silencing of speech been on the left that Bill Maher was compelled to ask, “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech that you hate.”

Consider Climate Change. The Paris Climate Accord from which Trump withdrew in 2017 is all about force. Those who preach the Green Gospel of saving the planet cannot garner enough support for their message by normal debate and means of persuasion. Therefore, these globalists wish to sign American taxpayers on to a globalist “Carbon Pricing Panel” whereby the dictators of the United Nations will force reparations from the United States to pay for our environmental sins. These payments will be distributed to Third World and developing nations.

All of us have pulpits. Some of us preach the gospel of Christ and by reasons addressed to the mind ask worshippers to contribute in collection trays. Leftists and socialists of the Democrat Party cannot garner enough support for their doomsday message that the Sky is Falling, consequently they must save us all—by forcing us to pay contributions to their collection baskets. They cannot rely on freedom or the free-flow of ideas, so proponents of the Green Gospel use force.

Fred Singer, prominent scientist at the Heartland summit, a University of Virginia environmental science Professor Emeritus, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, observed, “This is about money and power. Science plays a small role, and mostly it’s being misused….It’s a matter of really trying to control things.”

Consider attacks on private property. So essential is this to freedom that John Adams commented that this was the single foundation stone undergirding all human freedom and liberty. “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”

The left knows this as well. The all-out attack on private property by the program Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), fostered by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development program and flourishing under HUD funding, has become common-place in American cities.

Big government planners do not like that you have the “freedom of association.” Liberty to live where you like and with those whom you are most comfortable is anathema. We must pare down your liberty branches! Cities are bribed with the endless access to federal money to “re-distribute” the racial mixes of their populations. Cities such as Baltimore, MD are placing minority families in white suburbia. No freedom here.

Liberal bastion Minneapolis, Minnesota became the first city to end single-family zoning. The Mayor of the city called such housing a mark of racism and “self-segregation” that must be halted at once. The white population is in his cross-hairs. Other cities are beginning to follow suit. 1

There are also a large number of organizations, such as Center for Study of Social Policy, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Center for American Progress (CAP); W. Kellogg Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and others, that are in the business of bribing cities with large amounts of George Soros money to forcibly re-zone various neighborhoods or re-draw school boundaries to dismantle schools that have “too large a white or Asian population.” 2

Another group, PolicyLink, a radical activist group, pushes policies such as “parks equity” which states that lack of access to city parks are partly responsible for “racial performance gaps” in school and on the job. The manifesto therefore is for middle-class tax-payers, once again by force, to begin funding more parks in slum areas of the country.

The common denominator in all of this is lack of freedom. Force replaces it. This is the tool of the left.

Kathleen Marquardt: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, REDISTRIBUTING OUR WEALTH BY THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS. 0 (0)

by Kathleen Marquardt

We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

But again, Tom nails it: Public/Private Partnerships = Government-
Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.

In a must-read article from Thinking HighwaysRandy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.

Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.

Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.

But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.

Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.

A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)

So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.

A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”

My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.

Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/09/public-private-partnerships-redistributing-our-wealth-by-the-millions-and-billions/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Alex Newman: Government to Re-Educate Kids of “Right-Wing” Parents 0 (0)

Government to Re-Educate Kids of “Right-Wing” Parents  “In other words, treating a daughter as a daughter and a son as a son is now considered harmful to children by the extremist regime ruling Germany.”

by Alex Newman

In what was seen by many observers as a throwback to evil ideas from Germany’s National Socialist (Nazi) days, German authorities helped publish a pamphlet advocating the re-education of children whose parents disagree with the regime’s official (and totally insane) ideology. Among the ideas that are verboten: opposition to “gender theory,” the “sexualization” of children, and mass immigration. So-called education must help combat “right-wing populism,” the document added.

Critics blasted the document’s instructions for using the language of children to detect thought crimes by parents. According to the brochure, parts of which were translated into English for an article by LifeSiteNews.com, parents with attitudes the state deems unacceptable can be sniffed out. In particular, they can be detected through the use of “seemingly harmless words which stem, however, from the jargon of the New (or Old) Right and which imply a deeply misanthropic attitude.”

The Orwellian propaganda also gives examples of warning signs that children may come from a “racist” or “right-wing” family. One involves a brother and sister who seem “especially obedient” and have no “so-called disciplinary problems.” The siblings in question also display “traditional gender roles,” with the sister wearing “dresses and braids” and learning “needlework” at home while the boy “is physically being strongly challenged and drilled.”

Another example involves a mother coming to school to complain that her son was dressed up as a girl and had his finger nails painted at school the previous day. The mother “declares that this has a bad influence upon her child; children should not be further confused; boys are boys, girls are girls.” Such attitudes are not allowed in today’s totalitarian Germany, it seems.

According to the document, “gender-stereotype parenting styles limit the manifold possibilities of children and [adversely] affect their development.” In other words, treating a daughter as a daughter and a son as a son is now considered harmful to children by the extremist regime ruling Germany. Another issue raised in the document is when parents complain about the “premature sexualization” of their children.

To deal with such situations, the document calls on the school brainwash the children with “diversity” propaganda and “children’s rights” ideology, holding that children have a right to be whatever gender they please. The teachers are also expected to “explain that gender diversity and tolerance are welcomed at the pre-school” and that children must be encouraged to “experiment with themselves.” The teachers are also supposed indoctrinate them with far-left political views.

The controversial brochure, which was funded by the German Ministry of Family Affairs and published by a tax-funded foundation, includes a lengthy forward by Family Affairs Minster Dr. Franziska Giffey. The dangerous left-wing extremist claims that children must be trained in a “democratic manner” and that education must be steered toward “children’s rights,” which is code from trampling on parental rights. Giffey also lashes out at the “significant increase of right-wing populist movements,” suggesting the regime’s indoctrination centers will be used shift the political system in a more totalitarian direction.

The tax-funded “foundation” that published the tax-funded brochure, known as the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, is led by a confessed spy for the barbaric Stasi, the infamous “intelligence” agency of the murderous communist regime that enslaved and terrorized East Germany. And so, more than a few critics highlighted the resemblance and parallels between the totalitarian ideology in the brochure and the the totalitarian ideology of the communist and National Socialist regimes in Germany.

Unfortunately, the disgusting hatred of families, faith, and freedom exhibited in the brochure is simply a local manifestation of a global movement — a totalitarian movement that has thoroughly infiltrated American education, too. But unlike in Germany, where Adolf Hitler’s ban on home education remains in place, American parents still have options. Now would be the time to exercise those options, before it is too late.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.

Alex Newman: Atlanta School Ends Morning Pledge of Allegiance to be “Inclusive” 0 (0)

Atlanta School Ends Morning Pledge of Allegiance to be “Inclusive” “The globalist establishment is working overtime to sideline nations, national identity, self-government, and patriotism…  “

by Alex Newman

A tax-funded school in Atlanta, Georgia, announced that students would no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Instead, the school said students would be expected to recite the “Wolf Pack Chant” that will “focus on students’ civic responsibility to,” among other things, “our global society,” officials said. It was all in the name of “diversity.” But the backlash was fast and furious.

The controversial decision at the K-8 Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School, announced earlier this month, was made “in an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community,” elementary Principal Lara Zelski said in a statement. “Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing to not stand and/or recite the pledge.”

Apparently, a number of pro football players choosing to protest during the national anthem inspired some of the faculty and students to refuse to participate in the pledge at school. “There are many emotions around this and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner,” Zelski continued. “After all, that is the whole purpose of our morning meeting.”

She noted that students would continue to “lead the meeting.” But instead of standing at the meeting to pledge allegiance to their Republic, under God, with liberty and justice for all, the students would participate in the yet-to-be-developed “Wolf Pack Chant.” As part of that “chant,” the students would pledge responsibility to “our global society,” a frequent term used by globalists to refer to the dictator-dominated United Nations. Then the pledge could be said in classrooms if students wanted to.

When the news got out, it caused outrage across Georgia and beyond. “I’m sure our House Education Committee will examine whether taxpayer funds should be used to instill such a divisive ideology in our students,” warned Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, a Republican. Other top officials and political leaders echoed those remarks, citing Georgia law that requires tax-funded schools to have a time set aside for the pledge.

After the statewide and national uproar, the school quietly backtracked. “It appears there was some miscommunication and inconsistency in the rollout,” Board Chair Lia Santos said. “Starting next week, we will return to our original format and provide our students with the opportunity to recite the Pledge during the all-school morning meeting.”

The globalist establishment is working overtime to sideline nations, national identity, self-government, and patriotism in its quest to build what multiple former presidents have described as a “New World Order.” And of course, school children are in the crosshairs. Obama’s “Education” Secretary Arne Duncan boasted repeatedly that the UN and the Obama administration were both aiming “to prepare better global citizens.”

With government schools and the establishment working overtime to demonize America in the minds of children using lies and fake history, it is no surprise that a growing number of students refuse to say the pledge. Those numbers will continue to grow. And fixing this problem will require more than just pressuring schools to continue the pledge.

What is needed instead is a total overhaul of the education system to stop the indoctrination and the dumbing down. In the meantime, parents must do everything possible to protect their children from the anti-American, globalist agenda being force-fed to them in government schools.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

A mishmash of the mess the world is in thanks to technocrats, communitarians, and an uneducated electorate 0 (0)

A Mishmash of the Mess the World is in Thanks to Technocrats, Communitarians, and an Uneducated Electorate 

by Kathleen Marquardt

“Save the planet” by herding us into “EcoCities”

Summiteers seek to address “the way humanity builds its home” and focus on “key actions that cities and citizens can take to rebuild our human habitat in balance with living systems.”  Concerns include slowing down and reversing “global heating, biodiversity collapse, loss of wilderness habitat, agricultural lands and open space, and social and environmental injustices.”

At the ECOCITY session “Priorities and strategies for mobilizing the finance needed to create zero-carbon ECOCITIES” solutions included things like a vehicle mile travel tax, carbon tax, government subsidies, and dipping into pensions.  This is eerily similar to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI.org) where retirement system investors use Environmental Social Governance (ESG) as their “fiduciary responsibility” excuse to implement the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and force industrial and societal behavior change.

What is an ECOCITY?  According to those gathered in Melbourne:
An ECOCITY is a human settlement modeled on the self sustaining resilient structure and function of natural ecosystems. The ecocity provides healthy abundance to its inhabitants without consuming more (renewable) resources than it produces, without producing more waste than it can assimilate, and without being toxic to itself or neighboring ecosystems. Its inhabitants’ ecological impact reflect planetary supportive lifestyles; its social order reflects fundamental principles of fairness, justice and reasonable equity.
[Read more]

Left Blames Global Warming For Enormous Iceberg Breaking. There’s Just One Problem.

Talk about burying the lede. “An iceberg roughly the size of Delaware and 600 feet thick is about to break off from one of the largest floating ice shelves in Antarctica, and the prospect is precipitating fierce debate as to whether global warming is the cause. The iceberg is part of the Larsen C ice shelf in the Weddell Sea, south of the tip of South America. The calving has been expected; a crack in the ice shelf had grown to be over 100 miles long in recent months.”
[Read more]

UN Reports Urge Tackling Water Source Problems, WWC Publishes Annual Report

In its annual report, the WWC describes actions undertaken to make water a global priority. For instance, the Council has engaged with various international processes, including contributing as an observer in the UNFCCC, providing recommendations to the New Urban Agenda adopted at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) and convening a one-day seminar on financing water infrastructure at World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden, in August 2017.

It has also undertaken preparations for the 8th World Water Forum, which will be held in Brasilia, Brazil, in March 2018. The WWC also describes its work with the High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) to help deliver on the Sustainable Development Goal on clean water and sanitation (SDG 6). To this end, it has supported increased investment in water-related services and a globally-coordinated approach to water issues.”
[Read more]

Elon Musk: The World’s Population is Accelerating Toward Collapse and Nobody Cares

Demographic implosion has been well-known by sociologists for decades, but the Technocrats are just now acknowledging the facts. Contrary to statements by over-population alarmists, world population could literally be cut in half within 50 years. Sustainable Developers should be thrilled with the attendant reduction of resource usage.” Patrick Wood, Technocracy News & Trends
[Read more]

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

The Failure of the Green State Religion 0 (0)

The Failure of the Green State Religion

by Bill Lockwood

America does indeed have an official state church. It is the Green Environmental Sect which preaches the Gospel of Sustainability. Effectively, for all practical purposes, it has become the endorsed “religion” of the state and has supplanted Christian precepts in the minds of our indoctrinated youth. The ideals of the Sustainability Movement with a socialist-style utopia has displaced academic freedom and transformed students into firebrands for Global Governance.

It might be well here to remind ourselves that our nation repudiated the concept of a state-sponsored religion. The idea that tax monies would be confiscated to support a particular doctrine whether or not the citizens believed that doctrine was to fall into the same European trap from which the founders of this nation fled. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, if Christianity be true, allow it to compete in the free-marketplace of ideas. “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God,” he advised Peter Carr. Christian welcome this test.

Free-Marketplace of Ideas

It is precisely this test, the “free-marketplace of ideas,” where the Environmental Movement of the Green Gospel fails most miserably. Led by the powers-that-be in Washington, D.C. and the Academy of Professorships from Maine to California to the U.N., sustainability activists work through government force to impose their own version of a carbon-free economy.

What exactly is “Sustainability?” It is not simply care for the “environment,” though it includes that. The word “marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which it is claimed curtailing economic, political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations” (Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism; An Executive Summary of a Report by the National Association of Scholars, 2015).

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the original analysts of “global development,” served for twelve years as director of Earth Institute at Columbia University and has spent thirteen years advising the United Nations secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals, recently wrote a textbook calling for “global justice” entitled The Age of Sustainable Development. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon writes the forward. Sachs explains very clearly what is involved in Sustainability.

It is “governance” (read, “government”) that will “motivate” (p. 486) member-states to “End extreme poverty, including hunger” by “giving support for developing countries.” “Giving,” according to socialists, really means “forcibly extracting monies from citizens” to apply to projects in which they believe. This is how the Democratic Party has used the word “investment.” A cloaked concept meaning forced taxation. When you are forcibly taxed for their projects you are “investing!”

Involved in Sachs’ plan is the goal to “achieve gender equality…and human rights for all.” ObamaCare and Nationalized Health Care are small measures. He calls for “Universal health coverage” (p. 487) and implementation of global policies to “help individuals make healthy and sustainable decisions regarding diet, physical activity, and other individual or social dimensions of health.”

But all of that does not really spell out in one bottom line the question, “What is Sustainability?” Sachs unveils much of it with this: “Curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy” (p. 488). To accomplish this he finalizes plans to “transform governance for sustainable development” (p. 489). In other words, Sustainability means forcibly rationing resources and controlling human activity. And Sachs tells us what this requires: “GOOD GOVERNANCE” (p. 502). A clarion call for World Government.

Another founding father’s words come to mind here: George Washington. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.” World mastery over all human activity is what the global environmental movement is about.

The Brundtland Report

In 1987 a United Nations report was issued entitled Our Common Future. It is better known as the Brundtland Report. “It united environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for ‘social justice’” (NAS Report). The Brundtland Report defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This means, of course, that a “global governing body” must “watch over” the amount of energy and resources that we use and forcibly limit those nations (America) that seem to splurge by utilizing too many natural resources. Freedom causes “splurging,” therefore the “splurgers” must be “mastered.” Those societies must be transformed from the top down. “Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society.”

That transformation has been underway for a long period. There are over 1,400 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focused on or relating to sustainability studies. The number of institutions which are “signatories” of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, obliging them to eliminate or offset 100% of all greenhouse gases emissions and to integrate sustainability into the curriculum is 697.

Middelbury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings. Cornell University offers 290 sustainability courses, 13% of all course offerings. More than 400 student-led fossil fuel divestment campaigns are active on campuses across the United States. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

A Religion

At root level, Sustainability is the primary doctrine of a failed Green Environmental Religion. It includes the preaching of virtue: “Thrift and forethought.” “Sin” is the selfish usage of resources. America is the chief sinner. “Places like the United States are causing far more damage and risk than other parts of the world” (Sachs, 394). “The United States, … needs to learn to live sustainably” (p. 485).

Not only is Environmentalism a religion, but it is a weak and failed religion that can only rely on government force to “sustain” itself. Its “sustainability doctrine” cannot depend upon mere persuasion and preaching in an open market-place of ideas but, like the Roman Church of the Middle Ages, depends upon government-enforced edicts.  Academic freedom is lost. “[On] matters such as global warming, the campus version of sustainability replaces debate with doctrinaire declaration and enforces the party line” (NAS Report, 3). No open discussion. No debate. No reasoning. No examining upon what evidence the pretensions of the ideas are founded. Only government edicts that “the debate is closed.” Collegiate indoctrination is all about the transfer of governing power: Global Governance.

Back to Homepage