Aggregatore di feed

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

Oliver Stone explained on X how he agreed to appear on the ABC News Special on the JFK assassination and then how the network set him up and deceived him.

The recent @ABC News Special “Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK?” went to great pains to convince me to appear (along with #JimDiEugenio, who I insisted would join me on the air for “protection purposes,” as I made the mistake of giving an interview to Peter Jennings in 2003 that… pic.twitter.com/Us0pYBVJl6

— Oliver Stone (@TheOliverStone) December 4, 2025

The post Oliver Stone Denounces ABC News Special on JFK Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

Jimmy Dore says Trump wants to turn Venezuela into Libya and compares Trump’s endorsement of the US overthrow of Libya’s government with his planned overthrow of Venezuela’s government.

See here.

The post Planned Venezuela Regime Change Replay of Libya appeared first on LewRockwell.

Pearl Harbor Historiography: A Lesson in Academic Housecleaning, By Gary North

The Establishment Cover-Up Continues

The Truth About World War II, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

More Truth About World War II, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

More Falsehoods of World War II, by Ron Unz

The True History of World War II — Ron Unz video

Pearl Harbor Facts and Proof, by Carl Herman

Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy –– Book by Percy L. Greaves, Jr.

Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War — Book by George Morgenstern
George Morgenstern’s Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War has to be one of the bravest books ever written. It’s a wonder it came out at all, but it did, in 1947, just as the war ended and FDR had died. It argues that the bombing was not unexpected, but provoked—and even wanted—by the administration as a “backdoor to the war” that FDR really desired as a means to rescue his presidency.

The McCollum Memorandum: A Story of Washington, D.C. in 1940-41: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Journey from Deterrence to Provocation on the Road to Pearl Harbor,  by Douglas P. Horne

The McCollum Memorandum: A Story of Washington, D.C. in 1940-41, is the most accurate and complete account yet published about how the United States truly entered the Second World War. It is the story of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s gradual journey from deterrence to provocation—from October 7, 1940 through December 11, 1941—on America’s road to Pearl Harbor. The author utilizes official memoranda, state documents, the diary entries and sworn testimony of the principal actors in the story, and the documented results of the remarkable American and British codebreaking efforts in 1940 and 1941, to tell the dramatic story. In numerous scenes reminiscent of the best historical novels, the inner thoughts and private conversations of many of the key historical figures of the day are presented as dramatic reenactments, based faithfully on the hard kernels of truth in the documentary record.

Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War (Vol. 1 of 2): A Chronology of Significant Events Detailing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Successful … Against Germany During the Second World War, by Douglas P. Horne

Deception, Intrigue, and the Road to War (Vol. 2 of 2): A Chronology of Significant Events Detailing President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Successful … Against Germany During the Second World War, by Douglas P. Horne

Over 75 years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that launched America’s entry into the Second World War, one persistent question remains unanswered: “Did President Franklin D. Roosevelt have foreknowledge of the attack—and did he (and his senior military leadership) then withhold that knowledge from his overseas commanders in Hawaii?” Douglas P. Horne, a former Naval Officer who recently completed 40 years of combined military-and-civilian service to the Federal Government, deals directly with this most difficult of all questions about World War II, in the first major “Revisionist” work about Pearl Harbor written in the last decade. Contrary to recent assertions by mainstream historians that the Revisionist hypothesis is now dead, Horne finds it to be more robust than ever. In the first known work that studies FDR’s foreign policy “on the road to Pearl Harbor” as a timeline, or chronology (which assesses numerous factors—including codebreaking, diplomacy, military strategy, the unfolding events in Europe, and the personality and words of FDR himself), the author compellingly presents his own unique findings regarding the longstanding allegation by Revisionists that FDR used the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a “back door to war.” Horne concludes there is, indeed, persuasive evidence that once FDR’s undeclared naval war against Hitler in the north Atlantic failed to provide the desired casus belli (which would have allowed him to request a declaration of war against Nazi Germany), then consequently, permitting the Imperial Japanese Navy to attack Pearl Harbor—without providing any specific advance warning to the Hawaiian field commanders (i.e., allowing the Japanese to “fire the first shot” and commit “an overt act of war”)—became the last, best chance for FDR to get a united America into the Second World War. FDR’s overriding goal throughout 1940-41 was the imperative to get America involved, as a belligerent, in the war against Hitler’s Germany, and the Japanese attack accomplished that goal, as Roosevelt knew it would. Both the timing of when FDR apparently received his foreknowledge of the impending attack, and the mechanism by which it was likely delivered, are thoroughly considered in this work. Author Douglas Horne also provides a critical assessment of the most recent Revisionist works, and using a new approach to the “big question” about Pearl Harbor, provides a bold new interpretation of events that will surprise most readers.

Horror in the East — Documentary

Part I

Part II

Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II (2000) is a two-part BBC documentary film that examines certain actions, including atrocities, and attitudes, of the Imperial Japanese Army in the lead up to and during World War II. The film also examines attitudes held by the British and Americans, toward the Japan

Japanese War Crimes and Trials

A shocking in-depth look at the extreme inhumanity and atrocities committed by the fascist Japanese military during World War II. The horrific conduct of the Japanese rival if not exceed the brutality of Hitler’s SS

The Looting of Asia — Chalmers Johnson review article

The post Pearl Harbor — December 7, 1941 — “A Date Which Will Live In Infamy” appeared first on LewRockwell.

The conclusion that soaring asset prices mean the economy is strong is a hallucination that goes unrecognized because the entire financial system is hallucinating.

Consider the data that the financial sector bases conclusions / decisions on (i.e. the data that the financial sector “trains” on) in a Bubble Economy like the present. The Bubble Economy’s core goal is to inflate the valuation of assets not by increasing utility-value or productivity but by artificially expanding credit and leverage.

This benefits those who already own assets, as their collateral (i.e. “wealth”) expands without any effort, and this swelling collateral enables them to borrow money to buy more assets.

This also benefits those with high incomes and modest debt, as these boost their credit rating, enabling them to borrow at lower rates than the bottom 90% of the workforce–credit they can use to outbid the bottom 90% to snap up assets which are soaring in value.

This Bubble Economy dynamic is a self-reinforcing series of iterations: the central bank expands credit and leverage, goosing asset prices higher, which boosts the collateral foundation for further credit expansion. This flood-tide of credit flows to those whose assets are generating more collateral, enabling them to buy more assets and outbid the less creditworthy while also increasing their consumer spending.

Since the top 10% own most of the assets bubbling higher, this “wealth effect” is concentrated in the top 10%, who account for roughly 50% of all consumer spending.

The Bubble Economy financial system uses this self-referential data to “train” its responses and conclusions. This is analogous to the way that AI systems “train” on data they generated in previous iterations.

This leads to the topic of Model Collapse, the degradation of AI’s output (answers) when it starts training on its own curated output rather than raw data. This then leads to a provocative Unified Theory of Model Collapse (via Tom D.), which posits that model collapse is not limited to AI, it applies equally well to humans, mice and pretty much every other system.

The basic idea is that raw, unadulterated data–“in the wild” data that hasn’t been “cooked,” curated or massaged–is the foundation of model stability and utility. We can call this authentic data, as it includes outliers, conflicting data points, ambiguous readings and all the messiness of the real world.

Once the “raw” data has been “cooked” (channeling French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss), its authenticity is lost and the “cooked” / curated / processed data is increasingly artificial.

Each iteration of curating / processing data further distances the new output from “raw” / authentic data. Over time, the coherence and meaning of the output is degraded to the point at AI generates hallucinations that are presented as “accurate answers.”

This is the dynamic I describe in my book Ultra-Processed Life: the substitution of authenticity with artifice leads to system collapse, not just in the digital realm but in the realm of human experience.

As artifice–data and models drawn from “cooked,” curated, massaged, processed sources–replaces “raw” authenticity, entire populations and systems start hallucinating while believing the artificial model is “real.” In this state of delusion, they believe their hallucinations are reflecting “the real world”: they’re blind to the distance between the Ultra-Processed Life they accept as “real” (i.e. “raw”) and the actual raw real world.

In this state, the conclusions / answers provided by both AI and humans are hallucinations that are presented as “fact.” Those who have lost touch with “raw” real world data then accept these hallucinations as “fact” until the inevitable collision with reality.

The conclusion that soaring asset prices mean the economy is strong and so all is well is a hallucination that goes unrecognized because the entire financial system is hallucinating because it’s “training” on artificial data that it generated in a self-referential feedback loop of artificial stimulus and the resulting rise in asset valuations and spending. That none of this stimulus boosted utility value or productivity is left out of the “training,” which focuses solely on curated data that supports the hallucination.

Here is how the author of the Unified Theory of Model Collapse describes this process:

“Training on AI-generated data causes models to hallucinate, become delusional, and deviate from reality to the point where they’re no longer useful: i.e., Model Collapse.

The more ‘poisoned’ the data is with artificial content, the more quickly an AI model collapses as minority data is forgotten or lost. The majority of data becomes corrupted, and long-tail statistical data distributions are either ignored or replaced with nonsense.

Those models lose the capacity to understand long-tail information (improbable, but important data) that is no longer represented. Information on topics like serious injuries, getting punched in the nose, how dangerous wild animals can be, and what it’s like to truly be hungry because you can’t find food. Their models default to synthetic human artifice instead of understanding real implications.

The proposed thesis is that AI models, human minds, larger human cultures, and our furry little friends, all train on available data.

Brains (or brain regions) undergo model collapse just like AI systems. They become unable to reference reality, they become delusional, and hallucinate things that make no sense. Hence, the ‘Why do we need farmers when food just comes from the store’ level of disconnection observed in urban populations.

In a heavily urban setting, humans train on ‘data sets’ that are nearly wholly artificial. The less time spent outside, the less time spent interacting with the real physical world around them, the less accurate their model of reality becomes. A rocky slope up a hill may be 100% real, a grass playing field may be 70% real, and a concrete sidewalk may be around 40% real. At some point, however, the ‘salted’ artificial data is sufficient to corrupt the real-world knowledge of individuals and cause model collapse.

I am reminded of an anecdote from when I was a child. A cousin came to play with my siblings and I. My family had been raised going camping and hiking and wandering the wilds since before I can remember. Somewhere around age 3 or 4, our cousin came to visit and we went cruising up a hill hiking with our fathers in tow.

This cousin, however, had grown up in a suburban hellhole where everything was artificial. As such, he found it nearly impossible to navigate a sloped hill. His experience with walking and running had only ever consisted of flat, soft, curated environments produced by other people. He had no experience, or ability, in navigating a dirt trail at a 20 degree incline. His neurological model of the world was trained on human-produced data, and could not function when confronted with reality.

The universal thesis for model collapse is that advanced modeling systems, when trained on information produced by entities of their own class, lose information fidelity inter-generationally. After multiple generations of training on poisoned datasets, the models themselves become delusional, hallucinate false information, and cease to function.

In the same way that AI models become delusional and hallucinate when too much AI-generated data is in the training dataset, humans also become delusional when too much human-generated data is in their training dataset.”

The author then applies this to the famous Mouse Utopia experiment of John Calhoun, in which a handful of breeding-pair mice were put in a large artificial “world” with unlimited food and water and space for 6,000 mice. The researchers anticipated the mice would proliferate to the maximum limit of 6,000 and then experience some version of population overshoot.

Read the Whole Article

The post Model Collapse: The Entire Bubble Economy Is a Hallucination appeared first on LewRockwell.

A heist has a scoreboard. After the robbery, you don’t argue about theories. You count what’s missing.

For fifty years, we’ve been told a story: that your struggle is a personal failure. That the economy is just “evolving.” That the system is broken.

The system is not broken. It was picked clean.

The following numbers are the evidence. This is the financial autopsy of the American Dream.

CRIME #1: THE GREAT WAGE THEFT

• The Promise (1947-1973): Historically, there existed a fundamental agreement between labor and capital, often referred to as the social contract, which dictated that for every 1% increase in the economic value generated by a worker (their productivity), their compensation would also rise by a corresponding 1%. This reciprocal relationship was widely perceived as equitable, ensuring that the benefits of increased efficiency and output were shared fairly between those who contributed their labor and those who provided the means of production. This arrangement fostered a sense of shared prosperity, where workers could reasonably expect their efforts to translate directly into an improved standard of living.
• The Heist (1973-Today): This pivotal agreement, which once promised a fair exchange between labor and reward, was systematically dismantled. The consequences have been stark and undeniable. Since 1973, the productivity of the American worker has soared, demonstrating an increase of over 65%. This remarkable surge in output, a testament to dedication and innovation, has not been met with a commensurate rise in compensation. In sharp contrast, the inflation-adjusted pay for these same workers has stagnated, growing by less than 10% over the same period. This widening chasm between productivity and pay reveals a fundamental shift in the economic landscape, where the gains of increased efficiency are no longer equitably shared, leading to a significant erosion of the American worker’s economic standing.
• The Takedown: They convinced you to work harder, smarter, faster. You did. You delivered 65% more value. And they paid you almost nothing for it. All that extra wealth you created—the trillions of dollars—was stolen directly from your paycheck.

This wasn’t a natural progression of the economy; it was a deliberate strategy, a silent war declared on the American worker. For decades, a systematic dismantling of labor protections, a weakening of unions, and a fervent push for “efficiency” paved the way for this grand heist. Companies reaped record profits, executives received astronomical bonuses, and shareholders saw their portfolios swell, all while the average worker’s wages stagnated or barely kept pace with inflation.

The promise was always the same: if you just pushed a little harder, if you adopted the latest productivity tools, if you embraced the “gig economy,” you would share in the prosperity. But that promise was a mirage. The “trickle-down” never reached the bottom. Instead, the wealth flowed upwards, concentrating in the hands of a select few, leaving the vast majority struggling to keep up with rising living costs, dwindling benefits, and an ever-increasing sense of precarity. The American Dream, once built on the bedrock of fair labor and a path to upward mobility, began to erode, replaced by a new reality where hard work no longer guaranteed a fair share of the bounty. This was the first offensive, and the American worker, unknowingly, bore the brunt of the assault.

CRIME #2: THE CEO PAY EXPLOSION

• The Old Rule (1965): The average CEO of a major company made 20 times what their typical worker made. This was seen as a responsible balance.
• The New Rule (Today): The chasm between the compensation of top executives and their average employees has widened to an astonishing degree, reaching a point where the typical CEO now earns a staggering 350 times what their typical worker brings home. This isn’t a static figure; in certain years, this disparity has even surged past the 400-to-1 mark, highlighting a troubling trend in corporate compensation structures. This immense gap isn’t just a matter of numbers; it reflects a fundamental shift in how value is perceived and distributed within companies, raising questions about fairness, economic equality, and the very definition of a “living wage” for the vast majority of the workforce. The increasing concentration of wealth at the very top, while wages for the rank and file stagnate or grow minimally, has profound implications for social mobility, consumer spending, and the overall health of the economy.
• The Takedown: This isn’t a reflection of 20-fold genius. It’s the insidious outcome of a system deliberately designed to favor the powerful. The boardroom, once a place of strategic leadership, devolved into an exclusive, self-serving club. Within its insulated walls, executives awarded themselves exorbitant paychecks, diverting vast sums of money that rightfully belonged to the very individuals who powered their success: the American worker. This capital, generated by their labor and dedication, should have translated into substantial raises, comprehensive benefits, and secure pensions. Instead, it became a private fund for the elite, enriching a select few at the expense of the many, systematically undermining the economic well-being and future security of the workforce. This systematic siphoning of wealth is not an accident; it is the calculated result of a deeply flawed and deliberately rigged system that prioritizes corporate greed over the prosperity of its people.

CRIME #3: THE DISAPPEARING PENSION

• The Old Rule (1980): At the peak of American industrial strength, a remarkable figure – over 60% of the nation’s workforce – enjoyed the security of a defined-benefit pension. This wasn’t merely a savings plan; it was a promise, a guarantee of a stable and predictable income throughout their retirement years. This robust system provided a bedrock of financial certainty for millions of families, allowing them to plan for the future with confidence, knowing that their golden years would be cushioned by a reliable stream of income, independent of market fluctuations or individual investment decisions. It represented a fundamental component of the social contract between employers and employees, a testament to an era where corporate responsibility extended beyond immediate profits to encompass the long-term well-being of its workforce. This widespread access to defined-benefit pensions played a crucial role in fostering economic stability, empowering workers, and shaping the American middle class.
• The New Rule (Today): This alarming statistic marks a dramatic decline in an area once considered a cornerstone of American economic strength and worker protection. The percentage of the workforce represented by unions has plummeted to less than 15%, a stark contrast to historical highs. This collapse signifies a significant shift in the power dynamics between labor and management, leading to widespread implications for wages, benefits, working conditions, and the overall economic security of American workers. The erosion of union membership is not merely a number; it represents a fundamental change in the landscape of the American labor movement, weakening its ability to advocate for fair treatment and a living wage for a vast segment of the population.
• The Takedown: The American dream, once built on the bedrock of secure employment and a comfortable retirement, has been systematically dismantled. They, the architects of this economic shift, didn’t just tinker with the system; they fundamentally overhauled it, exchanging the promise of a secure retirement for the perilous gamble of a 401(k). This move, far from an improvement, effectively hitched the financial security of millions of workers to the volatile whims of Wall Street – the very same institution whose reckless behavior triggered the devastating market crash of 2008.

This wasn’t an accidental outcome but a deliberate transfer of risk. Corporations, once responsible for managing pension funds and ensuring their employees’ golden years, deftly sidestepped that obligation. They shed the burden from their own balance sheets, effectively pushing the financial precarity from their boardrooms directly onto the kitchen tables of working-class families. The individual, once shielded by collective responsibility, was now singularly exposed to the market’s unpredictable surges and devastating downturns, forced to become an amateur investment manager in a complex and often unforgiving financial landscape. This shift represents a profound betrayal of the social contract, leaving the American worker more vulnerable than ever before.

CRIME #4: THE UNION BUST

• The Peak (1954): In the mid-20th century, a significant portion of the American private-sector workforce—approximately 35%—was represented by labor unions. This robust union membership served as a crucial counter-balance to the inherent power of corporations. Unions played a vital role in advocating for workers’ rights, negotiating for fair wages, safe working conditions, and reasonable benefits, thereby contributing to a more equitable distribution of wealth and influence in the economy. This period is often seen as a golden age for the American worker, where collective bargaining provided a powerful voice that ensured employees were not merely cogs in the industrial machine but valued contributors with a share in the nation’s prosperity. The presence of strong unions compelled businesses to consider the welfare of their employees, fostering an environment where a significant portion of the workforce enjoyed a degree of economic security and upward mobility that is less prevalent in later decades. This era truly represented a time when the power dynamics between labor and capital were more evenly matched, due in no small part to the widespread embrace of unionization.
• The Collapse (Today): That number, which once represented a significant portion of the workforce, has been systematically crushed, plummeting to a mere 6%. This drastic decline reflects a concerted and sustained effort to dismantle the power and influence of the American worker, stripping away their collective bargaining rights and eroding their economic security. The consequences of this systematic crushing are far-reaching, impacting not only individual livelihoods but also the broader economic landscape and the very fabric of American society.
• The Takedown: The most crucial metric on this scoreboard is undeniably the strength and prevalence of labor unions. These organizations stood as the singular, well-structured, and adequately financed entities whose fundamental purpose was to champion the cause of the average worker, ensuring they received a fair share of the profits generated by their labor. The deliberate and systematic dismantling of these unions was not merely an incidental outcome, but rather a calculated and indispensable prerequisite for the entire audacious economic heist that followed. Without the formidable opposition posed by organized labor, the path was cleared for a redistribution of wealth that overwhelmingly favored corporate interests and the ownership class, at the direct expense of the working population. Their destruction effectively neutralized the primary force dedicated to economic justice and equity for the American worker, setting the stage for an era of unprecedented wage stagnation, benefit erosion, and increasing income inequality.

These numbers are not abstract. They are the reason you feel it every day:

The Erosion of the American Dream: A Generational Crisis

The American Dream, once a beacon of opportunity where a single income could comfortably support a family, has become an increasingly elusive ideal for many. The stark realities of modern economic life paint a sobering picture, revealing a systemic shift that has fundamentally altered the financial landscape for the average worker.

The Two-Income Trap: Fifty years ago, the notion of a single income sustaining a household, including homeownership, education, and a comfortable retirement, was not just a pipe dream but a common reality. Today, the necessity of two incomes to achieve a comparable standard of living highlights a dramatic and alarming decline in purchasing power. This isn’t merely an anecdotal observation; it’s a testament to the stagnation of wages relative to the skyrocketing costs of essential goods and services, from housing and healthcare to education and everyday necessities. The economic pressure on families is immense, often leading to increased stress and a diminished quality of life, as both parents are compelled to work simply to keep pace.

The Disappearance of Secure Retirement: For previous generations, the promise of a dignified retirement often came in the form of a pension – a guaranteed income stream that provided security and peace of mind in one’s golden years. Today, pensions are largely a relic of the past, replaced by the precariousness of the 401(k). This shift has transferred the burden and risk of retirement planning squarely onto the shoulders of individual workers. The anxiety associated with a 401(k) statement is palpable, as market fluctuations, insufficient contributions, and a lack of financial literacy can easily jeopardize one’s future. The dream of a comfortable retirement has been replaced by a pervasive fear of outliving one’s savings, forcing many to work longer or postpone retirement indefinitely.

The Widening Chasm of Inequality: The chasm between the compensation of corporate executives and the average worker has grown to an unprecedented and morally questionable scale. The fact that a CEO’s annual bonus can eclipse the entire payroll of a small town underscores a profound imbalance in our economic system. This disparity is not merely a matter of unfairness; it reflects a fundamental breakdown in the distribution of wealth and value. While executive compensation continues to soar, often regardless of company performance or worker productivity, the wages of the frontline employees who generate that wealth remain stagnant. This ever-widening gap fuels resentment, erodes trust in corporate leadership, and contributes to a sense of economic injustice that undermines the very fabric of society. It raises critical questions about corporate accountability, ethical compensation practices, and the long-term sustainability of an economic model that disproportionately rewards the few at the expense of the many.

This was not an accident. It was a transfer. The money that should have been in your pocket was moved. The security that should have been yours was dismantled.

The Powell Memo declared the war. The Volcker Shock was the first battle. And these numbers—your stagnant paycheck, their exploding bonuses, your vanished pension—are the territory they conquered.

This article was originally published on Preppgroup.

The post The 50-Year Crime Report appeared first on LewRockwell.

Do you have a silver card? I do. I live in New London, Connecticut, and while I don’t get EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfers) anymore, I still carry the card as a talisman. It’s nestled in my wallet right behind my driver’s license. It reminds me that there was a time when I needed help and was able to get it. It’s the kind of reminder we all need — and one that’s in ever shorter supply these days.

When I was poorer, that card filled every month with money I could spend on food — fruits and vegetables, oil, spices, and cheese at the grocery store. I marshalled my resources carefully then, never taking them for granted.

When Congress and the Trump White House shut the government down recently, they hit 42 million Americans right in their wallets. They took that stability away. They hit mine too, after a fashion, because suddenly my neighbors and friends had empty cards and wallets. People rushed in to help. The little libraries in our neighborhood were suddenly filled with canned goods and jars of peanut butter and jelly. All the downtown businesses started offering discounts or free things if you showed your silver card. A teenager gave out free hot dogs in a local park, and our food co-op started a drive to pay for $20 gift cards to offer struggling shoppers.

After about a week and in response to calls, emails, and letters — a clamor from so many in the Nutmeg State — Connecticut did the right thing. Hartford used its “rainy day fund” to fully fund cards for residents. Our millionaire governor, who recently announced that he’s running for a third term, insisted that he’d bill the federal government for the cost of the stolen benefits.

And the goodwill is still going strong. This is shaping up to be a bountiful Thanksgiving for food pantries and soup kitchens in our area, and I’m already planning my outfit for directing traffic at our local food pantry next Friday. I’ll be head-to-toe in high viz.

This is all beautiful. It’s heartening — and we need more of it. It’s an all-too-human response to the Trump administration’s assault on what was left of good government. His graft machine came into power promising to make the government small enough to drown in a toilet. He unleashed Elon Musk and his army of young bros to smash and trash the bureaucracy. In the first weeks of his new administration, a century — whoops, I mean months — ago, more than 200,000 federal employees were pink-slipped, shown the door, or simply locked out. Foreign aid to the globally needy was left to moulder. Contraception bound for the Global South was incinerated. Effective, long-standing programs were shuttered without warning.

Small Ways to Be Useful

I struggled through all of that, feeling small and far from the power centers where good people were being shown the door. I tried to keep my eyes focused on what my own community needed most and did indeed find a modest way to be useful.

On Mondays and Wednesday mornings, I bundle up, don a high-viz vest, and head out to a nearby corner. For an hour, I walk that intersection, accompanying middle schoolers across the street and standing with little kids waiting for buses. I chat with parents and wave at cars, the trucks of contractors, and city buses. People toot their horns or shout my name from open car windows, waving good morning as they head to work.

I give speeders the stink eye and, when there are lulls, I pick up garbage and think about the day ahead. And then I see more kids coming and plan to casually help without letting them break stride. I greet them with warm respect. It hasn’t taken me long to recognize them all.

You may wonder: How did I get here? Let me back up and tell you the story because it connects to how our community is bulking up its care response network in the age of Trump.

During the last budget session, our town was in a fiscal crisis. Inflation, health insurance increases, and rising costs made for major belt tightening. The People’s Budget Coalition, a network of organizations and individuals I work with, turned out scores of people to fill City Council chambers through the budget season. We signed up dozens of people to speak to the City Council and wrote emails to or button-holed councilors at public events. We had marches and rallies. We met one-on-one with school board members and city councilors. We went to Hartford and demanded more money from the state. We worked so hard!

Sometimes, my two kids, 11 and 13, came with me to those City Council meetings, drawing, reading, and shifting around constantly in those uncomfortable seats as their teachers spoke passionately about the work they did. Again and again, people made the point that it isn’t just a school budget, it’s a community budget. After all, the schools provide breakfasts and lunches, before and after care, health and special-ed services, as well as support for more than a dozen languages. And if that isn’t enough to deal with, there are 300 to 400 kids in our school system who are homeless on any given night, and our schools have to contend with the disruptions such instability wreaks on families and so the ability of their kids to learn.

We went back and forth on this for months, but sadly the upshot was that the City Council flat-funded the schools, while the Board of Education had to cut positions and shave costs. One cut was to eliminate all but one crossing guard position, pushing five guards out of their jobs. Amid the massive disruptions at the federal level, this may seem like small potatoes. But it was an obvious and impactful cut, visible evidence of the whole system under attack.

We live between two schools and I’ve always admired crossing guards for being steady and stalwart in the heat and the cold. I was ready to help out and the People’s Budget Coalition stepped in to organize us into a volunteer crossing-guard cadre.

But It Isn’t Enough! Tax the Weapons Contractors!

Of course, I want to do more than just volunteer. I want the whole system to change. While the school board shaved positions, the city offered early retirement to people in key jobs, and everyone was called on to economize, there is a gold-plated example of a tax scofflaw right in our neighborhood. General Dynamics is the fourth-largest weapons manufacturer in the United States, with a huge complex in New London. In 2024, it reported profits of $3.8 billion, up 14.1% from 2023. Its CEO, Phebe Novakovic, made more than $23 million in 2024 (with all her stocks and options). However, the company shortchanges its workers, even as it rakes in record profits.

In 2021, General Dynamics/Electric Boat took the city of New London to court to contest its tax bill, according to documents uncovered by the War Resisters League. The city had assessed its New London office park at $78 million, but the company wanted it lower. They eventually settled in court on an assessment of $57 million. That big break saved the company $563,000 a year in local taxes! Add that up for the five years since that decision was made and you get $2.8 million!

It could have been even more. As local Patch news site reported, General Dynamics bought the complex for $55 million in July 2010 — a fire sale price, given that the previous owner, pharmaceutical behemoth Pfizer, had spent $300 million to build it less than 10 years earlier. When General Dynamics moved in, the fair market value for the property was $309 million, putting the tax assessment on the property at something like $216 million. So, the company’s fair tax burden to the City of New London should be nearly $6 million a year! How different life would be for New Londoners if General Dynamics were paying that annually.

After laying that out before the City Council, I concluded (all in less than three minutes) by saying, “I offer for your consideration that you stop cutting positions, stop threatening to flat-fund the schools and our kids, and that you tax General Dynamics with the same resolve that you tax the citizens. They can afford it, a lot more than we can.” There was some applause for that last line, even though many people are afraid to criticize General Dynamics, fearing that (no matter the real finances) the goose could stop laying what still passes for a golden egg.

Sandwiches, Not Submarines

The People’s Budget Coalition has begun looking into how we can take this issue on, especially because so much of our housing boom and the gentrification that goes with it (and pushes poorer people out of our area) is related to the U.S. Navy’s massive contract (a whopping $132 billion) with General Dynamics/Electric Boat for a new class of nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable submarines. I mention all of this because it’s the kind of thing I think about while waiting for the next cluster of middle schoolers to arrive at my intersection.

At the end of the school year, as they cut school positions, proud parents put up lawn signs advertising where their kids were headed to college. One common sign was for Electric Boat, not a college. But most of the positions they’re filling with new grads aren’t actually high-paying, fast-advancing ones that will provide future stability for those young people. A recent report by the War Resisters League found that entry-level wages at Electric Boat, even after signing bonuses, were low enough that workers also often qualified for state health care and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits!

Imagine that, if our tax system were fair, New London would get six million dollars more in taxes. Of course, then there’s the question of what it would be like if we Americans weren’t investing $132 billion for those 12 new nuclear-armed submarines capable all alone of destroying the world. Why is there money for those submarines but not for sandwiches (and other food), housing, and medicine for people who truly need it?

How can companies like General Dynamics/Electric Boat make insane profits with plenty of money left over for stock buybacks and CEO bonuses, while people in my world are digging through their pantries to find cans of food to share with their neighbors?

Planting Figs on the Strangest Planet Around

Only recently, when SNAP ran out of its federal funding during the government shutdown and the Trump crew decided to force millions of low-income people to reapply for their food stamps (supposedly in an effort to stop “fraud”), my social media filled up with images of World War II victory gardens and videos of how to replace such federal support with your own labor and ingenuity. And yes, it made a certain sense to me on one level, though it also couldn’t have been more tone deaf or unrealistic on another.

Here’s what I mean: I grow food in my yard. I devote three or four hours a week to watering, weeding, reseeding, and harvesting. Right there I’m way ahead of the curve, since I’ve got the space and time, two significant privileges. I had a great garlic harvest this year. My blueberry bushes and strawberry patch were both prolific. I lost all my hazelnuts to the squirrels during an ill-timed road trip. Our mushroom patch never came up. My care for the fig tree paid off — finally — and I got a tidy little fig harvest for a week or two in September. An asparagus patch I’ve been developing for a few years took off and, for a few weeks, we ate so much asparagus that we all got a little sick of it.

Parsley, basil, collards, kale, and lettuces all did great, and we ate pesto and salads and slaws from May to October, almost turning green in the process. Last year’s jack-o’-lanterns took off in spiky abundance and I let them take over a whole part of the yard. Eventually, I found five beautiful feral pumpkins that we carved up again, roasting the seeds with tamari and garlic powder for a messy and delicious treat. I grew corn but didn’t water it enough for it to be anything but chicken food. And yes, we have enough chickens to meet our egg needs, but we’re far from being self-sufficient.

You see what I’m getting at, I hope. Gardening is a lot of time and work, while the outcomes are anything but guaranteed. A handful of missed days, a few missteps, and all your work is for nothing. Still, this summer, there were weeks when my family could skip buying vegetables and fruit. That felt good and was nice for our bottom line, but even that depended on my having some free daytime, a luxury all too many of us don’t have.

Our true food system is all about commandeered water and stolen land, subsidized fertilizer and exploited labor, shipping and storage. Every little way I opt out from all of that is undoubtedly a good thing, but I can barely share a handful of figs with my neighbors and can’t solve anyone’s food crisis by my occasional neighborly drop-offs of a dozen backyard eggs.

Maybe it’s different in places where more people grow more food and aren’t dabblers or amateurs like me. But as I think about how to contend with the acute crisis and widening fissures in our whole international food system, with its Trumpian tariffs, excise taxes, and systemic abuses, I wonder how long this can go on.

How long can we live in the strange world of President Donald Trump and his version of what might be thought of as Defeat Gardens before we figure out a better way — how to truly feed and care for ourselves and one another? What are the systems that we need to build to replace the distinctly broken and shattered ones in this world of ours?

Those are some of the questions I ask myself daily as I wait for those schoolkids to get to my corner.  But I can’t ask them alone or answer them by myself. Still, it feels meaningful to at least pose the questions and explore how, in this Trumpian universe of ours, not just I but we can try to answer them together.

The post Giving a Fig appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Trumpian attack on immigrants is about as anti-supply side, pro-statist and inimical to free market prosperity as it gets. As we have seen in Parts 1 & 2, immigrant labor accounted for 42% of the thundering 3.62% annual real GDP growth during the golden age of American industrial expansion between 1870 and 1920, but that wasn’t the end of the story.

During the most recent 50-year interval between 1970 and 2020, fully 35% of the far more tepid real GDP growth rate of 2.52% per annum was due to the increase in immigrant labor. Stated differently, without the added work force derived from the 83 million gain in new immigrant arrivals and their off-spring during 1970 to 2020 (middle column, line d of the table below), real GDP growth would have slowed even further to just 1.94% per annum (see below).

Needless to say, the downward arcing march of demographic history shows no sign of reversing when we look at current fertility rates of the native-born population. In the third column of the table below, therefore, we display the standard Census Bureau/CBO baseline case for the 50-year interval from 2025 to 2075. It shows that the current 350 million US population is expected to grow by only 55 million during the next half-century, resulting in a continued sharp trend-line decline in the overall population growth rate.

Per Annum Population Growth Rate:

• 1870-1920 actual: 2.04%.
• 1970-2020 actual: 0.99%.
• 2025-2075 CBO projected: 0.29%.

Alas, the above isn’t the half of it. As it turns out, the current US population as of 2025 will actually shrink by about 15 million during the next 50 years because the sub-replacement fertility rate of just 1.61 (and still falling) will mean that by the mid-2030s deaths among the current population will exceed births. Accordingly, the entire 55 million population gain projected in the CBO base case for 2025 to 2075 is entirely due to immigration and then some.

That’s right. Embedded in the mainstream Census Bureau population projections and CBO’s longer term economic outlook is an assumption that immigration will add an average of 1.4 million persons per year to population growth. In whole numbers that would amount to the following over the next 50 years:

• 45 million new immigrant arrivals or 900,000 per year.
• 25 million children of these new immigrant arrivals or 500,000 per year.

Of course, these figures are not remotely consistent with the Stephen Miller/Trump/MAGA anti-immigrant howling that continuously emanates from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Their policies include deporting millions of illegals that are already here; sharply curtailing the H1-B program for tech workers and PhDs; eliminating the 50,000 per year Diversity Visa program; cutting refugee admission from 125,000 per year to 7,500; and shutting-off virtually all of the unskilled labor that enters through the backdoor of asylum-seeking at the southern border.

In short, the Trumpified GOP’s policy amounts to a zero net immigration strategy for the long haul. To place the potential long-term impact of this radical departure from past policy in historical perspective, we have summed in line (d) of the table below the figures for new arrivals plus their offspring during each of these half-century periods, as follows:

Total New Immigrants Arrivals and Their Offspring—History and Base Case

• 1870-1920 actual: 35.3 million.
• 1970-2020 actual: 83.1 million.
• 2025-2075 base case: 70.0 million.

Based on these immigration totals, a counterfactual is shown in the Memo line, which represents the end year population excluding the line(d) new immigrant population for each of the 50-year intervals. The effect is to isolate the underlying growth rate of the starting year population. Needless to say, the US population, absent new immigration has been and will continue to be on a slippery slope toward contraction.

Counterfactual: Per Annum Population Growth Rate Absent New Immigration

• 1870-1920: +1.22%.
• 1970-2020: +0.40%.
• 2025-2075: -0.09%

The three figures above are dispositive. They show that America’s robust population growth over the last 150 years has been heavily dependent upon new waves of immigrants decade after decade. The graph below shows that this heavy immigrant inflow—driven by the magnet of economic opportunity—has been continuous, and broke below the zero line only during the economic collapse of the Great Depression.

Going forward, however, organic population change and its impact on economic growth will be negative as far as the eye can see for the first time in American history. That’s because the 2.1 fertility barrier was broken to the downside decades ago, meaning that the only possible source of stabilization for the future US population—to say nothing of a return to robust historic growth—is a continuation of large-scale immigration.

Needless to say, negative total US population growth under the Trumpian ZIPG (Zero Immigrant Population Growth) has dramatic implications for both overall economic growth and most especially for the fiscal burden of America’s unfunded social insurance and retirement programs. We address the economic growth barriers in the section below, but here is it worth looking at the last five lines of the table which show the working age population with and without new immigration during the period, the projected retirement population at the end of each period and the ratio of working age population to the retired population in 1920, 2020 and 2075.

These figures reduce to a nightmare in a single ratio. To wit, as of 1920 (before Social Security was enacted) the actual ratio of working age population to the retired population was 13.3:1 and even without new immigration during the previous 50 years the ratio would have been a robust 10.6:1.

In other words, even prior to the modern liberal invention of social insurance there were more than enough workers to help support the old folks, albeit under the historic norms of extended family obligation.

Of course, in 1920 there were only 4.9 million persons 65 and older in America—-so the burden of support was moderate. Fast forward a century to 2020, however, and the retired population had soared to 52.5 million, bringing the worker/retiree ratio down dramatically just as Social Security reached full swing.

Still, immigration during the 1970-2020 period made a considerable difference. The working age population of 207.3 million was +29.3 million higher due to immigration during the prior 50 years than it would have been based on growth of the 1970 population alone. Accordingly, the working age-to-retirement population ratio in 2020 was down sharply, but still computed to 4.0:1, and was also well above the 3.4:1 ratio that would have prevailed based on the 1970 population growth alone.

Alas, the slide towards virtually impossible retirement support burdens will continue unabated during the next 50 years. The retired population will double again to 120 million by 2075, while the working age population under Trumpian ZIPG will total only 182 million or 48 million less than would be the case with status quo policy, which results in baseline immigrant growth of the aforementioned 1.4 million per year.

Either way, the burden of 120 million retirement age persons will be excruciating. The ratio would be 1.9:1 under baseline (i.e. status quo policy) immigration levels, but barely 1.5:1 under Trumpian ZIPG.

Needless to say, the latter is not merely a scary sounding number. The projected average wage replacement rate under current benefit law is 41% by 2075. Accordingly, under Trumpian ZIPG one way or another 27% of every worker’s paycheck would need to be taxed just to pay OASI benefits!

Back in the day during the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was attempting to raise the payroll tax to keep Social Security solvent for the long haul, we used to joke that annexing Mexico, with an average population age of just 32 years, would be an easier alternative. But the figures below suggest that this was not actually a joke at all.

Decomposition of U.S. Population Change: 1870→1920 vs. 1970→2020 vs. 2025→2075 (50-year periods in millions)

Back in the day, the supply-side model was all about optimizing policy in order to foster higher economic growth. The irony, of course, was that the most potent tool available to actually move the needle big time was the enhancement of labor force growth via immigrant workers. Yet now the once and former supply-side GOP has abandoned this growth tool entirely.

Thus, in the heyday of America’s industrial expansion during 1870 to 1920, the robust average real GDP growth of 3.62% per annum reflected a 28% gain over the2.83% annual growth that was attributable to the labor force increase from the 1870 population and its offspring alone. That is, the actual contribution to real GDP growth from labor hour increases of 2.01% per annum would have been only 1.22% per year without the immigrant arrivals and their off-spring during the 50 years after 1870.

Likewise, during the most recent 50-year period, the more modest 2.52% per annum growth during 1970 to 2020 was fully 30% higher than would have been the case without new immigrant workers. In that case, the already weakened labor force growth of0.98% per annum would have been reduced by more than half to just 0.40% per year without new immigration.

And that gets us to the folly of Trumpian ZIPG. As it is, the CBO base case over the next 50 years is already punk with real GDP growth of just 1.62% per annum. But of the 90 basis points reduction in the growth rate of the CBO baseline relative to the 1970-2020 CAGR, nearly two-thirds of the drop is due to sharply reduced labor force growth of just 0.40% per year. Yet even that is due to the aforementioned 1.4 million per year growth of the immigrant population per the CBO base case.

In fact, however, if you overlay Trumpian ZIPG on the CBO baseline, the labor force growth rate drops to -0.09% per year, as previously explained. This means that even with CBO’s assumption of 1.22% per annum productivity growth, real GDP would rise by only 1.13% per year.

In other words, the real GDP growth rates during the much maligned “open borders” period of 1870 to 1920 (3.62%) would stand at 3.2X the 1.13% per annum rate we have projected under the closed borders of ZIPG. And there is no mistaking that conclusion because a shrinking homegrown labor force is already baked into the cake by the crash of fertility rates.

Of course, the GOP politicians noisily repeat the Laffer Chorus—-namely, cut taxes, close your eyes and wait for 4% growth to shrink the nation’s massive deficits and soaring public debt. But the cold truth is that with a closed border and radically capped labor supply the only way you could get 4.0% real GDP growth is with 4% per annum productivity growth.

And that’s barking madness. During the next decades rising real interest rates from the crowding out effect of soaring Treasury borrowing and the diversion of available capital into speculation-fueled malinvestment in bubble-ridden sectors like AI will make even the 1.22% per annum productivity growth assumption in the CBO baseline case exceedingly difficult to reach.

At the end of the day, that’s the real downside of ZIPG. A disastrous baseline fiscal outlook that is already taking the public debt to $185 trillion and 168% of GDP by mid-century under the current CBO baseline could be turned into a veritable financial nightmare.

That is to say, ZIPG is likely to foster a scenario where real economic growth easily drops below 1% per annum under the weight of debt, soaring interest rates, chronic labor shortages, stubbornly high inflation, rising payroll taxes (to fund Social Security after trust fund insolvency in the early 2030s) and rampant Wall Street speculation owing to easy money.

U.S. Real Economic Growth And Its Components By 50-Year Intervals (trillion $)

Part 4

Needless to say, all of the above is likely to come as a shock to MAGA Hat followers who have been fed the false line that immigration amounts to an “invasion” and that its all just plain bad. Undoubtedly, the crime horror story anecdotes that are attached to this canard makes tribal politics and the Trumpian weaponization of the immigration control machinery of the state seem plausible.

In fact, the GOP’s wholehearted embrace of Trumpian immigrant bashing is not surprising. In recent decades while foraging for defining issues to mobilize the electorate, Washington Republicans have pretty much given up on the GOP’s true calling in American governance, which is to be the Opposition Party in the contest for power with the Government Party controlled by the Dems.

In turn, that boils down to functioning as the Watch Dog of the Treasury in the unending battle against spending, borrowing, money printing and socialist redistribution of societal resources and wealth, whether through fiscal, regulatory or tax policy channels. This is logically the GOP’s job because America surely doesn’t need another pro-state Big Government party to compete with the endless follies of the Dems.

Yet for whatever reason, the careerists who manage the Washington GOP’s campaign and fund-raising machinery concluded long ago that the old time Republican fiscal religion symbolized by balanced budgets had become passe at best and an outright electoral looser, at worst.

So for decades they have been persistently hunting for non-fiscal issues capable of materially moving the electoral needle. And frequently they have found such opportunities in the “culture wars” arena. They learned, for instance, that the “right to life” cause—which should not be a Federal government matter at all— was far more potent with some segments of the electorate than, say, the traditional GOP causes of welfare reform or stanching the growth of the public debt.

To be sure, there are some culture wars issues that involve the machinery of the state encroaching upon economic freedoms and personal liberties that very much needed to be resisted. The battle against state-enforced and encouraged DEI was self-evidently one of these, as was resisting the secular religion of Climate Change and its lethal threat to free market prosperity anchored in the efficiency and superiority of fossil fuels.

But mainly, separation of Culture & State is simply a modern day extension of the Founders’ insistence on the separation of Church & State: Religion and culture alike are not the appropriate business of government. Full stop.

Yet violation of that axiom is essentially the entrepot by which the GOP stumbled into its destructive embrace of the anti-immigration cause. That is to say, a polity predicated upon maximum personal liberty, free markets, constitutionally-shackled government and autonomous social life unencumbered by the state can’t be in the business of regulating the ethnic, racial and cultural composition of civil society—to say nothing of actively promoting or legislating bigotry.

This is especially the case because America is, was and likely always should be a Melting Pot of the world’s pre-existing nationalities, races, ethnicities and cultural heritages. And, as we have seen in the economic brilliance of the 1870-1920 growth explosion, it is that Melting Pot and the associated “open borders” that fostered that great outpouring of capitalist prosperity, a resilient civil order and constitutional liberty that eventually spread across the North American continent from sea-to-shining sea.

The historical evolution of the American Melting Pot, of course, had its episodic spasms of nativist reaction, frequently originating within the second to most recent wave of immigrants. Thus, the English settlers resisted the Irish, even as the latter assumed less than a welcoming posture toward the newer arrivals from Italy—who, in due course, afforded the Poles the same courtesy.

In the process, there was more than a little racial and religious bigotry that welled up as the 19th century immigration waves flowed into the 20th century peak before WWI. Thereafter, of course, the open gates for free immigration were officially closed in 1924 and replaced by a state-regulated immigration management enterprise via the national quota-based act of 1924. Trumpian ZIPG is only its extreme logical extension.

Needless to say, this new regulatory enterprise was grounded in a kind of rolling nativist bigotry that had emerged during the prior century or so. The tip off is that the quotas in the 1924 Act were set at 2% of the foreign-born population of each nationality living in the U.S. based on the 1890 Census. In effect, the older arrivals used the border control powers of the state to restrict the newer arrivals from Southern and Eastern European (e.g., Italians, Poles, Jews), which were seen as less desirable by nativists compared to Northern and Western Europeans.

By the next big Immigration reform act of 1965, however, the country-based quota system had become at once too rigid, but also too permissive by the lights of some nativists—-since the 1920s legislation had generally not restricted Western Hemisphere based immigrants at all. So the new post-1965 quota system covered the entire world including the brownish peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia. This bias, in turn, was compounded by the heavy role for family reunification in the 1965 act’s quotas—which favored immigrant groups already here, as well as a cold war era focus on slots for scientists and highly educated workers.

The 1965 act was allegedly “progressive” because it didn’t arbitrarily favor German or Irish green card applicants, but it inadvertently suffered a worse disability. Namely, it put an aggregate cap on total immigration at at time when the US birth rate was plummeting, meaning that growth of the native born labor force 20-40 years hence would follow the same plunging curve downward.

So while on the surface the 1965 act stabilized the immigration rate in the 2-4 per 1,000 population range, this was far below the 5-10 immigrants per 1,000 annual rate which had prevailed during the open borders era prior to the 1920s; and, more importantly, it was also far below what would be needed to even stabilize the growth rate of the US labor force, given the collapse of native born births after the Baby Boom ended in 1962.

As is evident in the chart below, during the post-war Baby Boom, the fertility rate—as measured by births per 1,000 women—soared from the depressed levels of the Great Depression years back toward its historic peak of 120 per 1,000 in the late 1950s.

But then it plunged during the 1960s and never looked back. Today’s rate of just 54.5 per 1,000 is literally in the sub-basement of history, as shown in the graph below.

What this means, of course, is that the US labor force tracks the pink line in the chart with a lag of 20 to 40 years. As we have seen, therefore, by mid-century the native born work force will be shrinking and will continue to do so as far as the eye can see, meaning that the nation’s capacity for historical levels of economic growth will be deeply impaired without large scale immigration, as we have also seen.

Consequently, this baked-into-the cake shriveling of the homegrown labor force has already unleashed forces that powerfully debunk the “immigrant invasion” story peddled by the Trumpified GOP.

To wit, the baby crash and the subsequently unfolding collapse of native-born labor force growth is actually what has brought tens of millions of immigrants to the US borders in recent decades. They were mainly economic migrants, sucked into the US economy by a labor market that is literally parched for supply. That is, they weren’t invaders and raiders sent by enemies abroad; they were job-seekers lured across the southern borders by what amounted to a giant and continuous Help Wanted Ad wafting up from the US labor market.

So for crying out loud. The 28 million “encounters” at the US border over the last decade as ballyhooed by the Trumpites did not constitute a foreign-sourced “invasion”. Foreign governments in this hemisphere or elsewhere were not plotting to empty their jails, mental institutions or military battalions of undesirables intent upon harming American citizens and undermining American society.

To the contrary, the border has been flooded by work-seeking immigrants earnestly searching for a better life for themselves and their families—just as has been the case with wave after wave of immigrants to the US since the very beginning of the Republic. And the current intensity of these immigrant flows is driven by plain old market economics: that is, a severe shortage of entry level labor owing to native babies that have never been born—plus a mushrooming Welfare State that has removed potential native born labor hours from active commerce by the tens of billions each year.

The latter includes the removal of billions of potential labor hours from the US economy via early retirements, ballooning disability rolls, an ever expanding potpourri of food, housing, medical and cash welfare programs and the giant scam of student loans and grants that removes millions of potential workers from the labor force on an extended basis.

At the same time, anecdotes about horrific crimes which happen to have been committed by immigrants is not the same thing as factual analysis. Thus, among the illegal alien population of 20 million, as recently claimed by Homeland Secy Noem, dangerous criminals account for less than0.3% of the total, and most of those are already incarcerated in state and Federal prisons.

That’s right. Contrary to ICE Barbie’s exaggerated statistic there are by all reliable estimates currently between 12 million and 16 million undocumented aliens in the US. And the overwhelming share of these immigrants came here looking for jobs in the guise of seeking “asylum” from alleged political and criminal threats in their home countries. So call the number of illegals around 15 million at the outside.

But according to the widely cited letter from ICE to Congressman Gonzales in mid-2024, there are about 425,000 names of undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions on ICE’s so-called “non-detained docket”. That is, persons not currently under ICE detention.

While this is just 2.8% of the 15 million illegal aliens and in itself debunks the Trumpian refrain about the borders being overrun by criminals released from Latin American jails, that’s not even the half of it. Actually, the list sent to Rep. Gonzales spans 40 years and also includes upwards of 300,000 persons mostly convicted of traffic violations, drug possession, minor misdemeanors and also breaking immigration laws, which they have to do in order to apply for asylum—thereby making for a catch 22 of no mean aspect.

So what might be called actual “dangerous” criminals on the ICE list amount to 130,000 or about 0.9% of the undocumented population. However, even on this list the total of convicted violent criminals is small indeed.

According to ICE, 13,099 of these persons have been convicted of homicide or just 0.1% of the undocumented population. But, alas, virtually all of these individuals are already in Federal, state or local prisons. The don’t have to be deported to protect the safety of the American public because they have already been apprehended, convicted and incarcerated!

Likewise, there are another 15,800 on the list who have been convicted of sexual assault. Again, however, according to GROK 4 upwards of half of these are also serving their justly deserved time behind bars.

In short, the streets of America are not crawling with illegal aliens who are convicted violent criminals. There have obviously been some horrific murders by illegal aliens, just as there unfortunately are year-in-and-year- out by native-born criminals, too. But when it comes to eliminating the undesirable elements of the immigrant population, deporting a few thousands real criminals is all that’s actually required.

So we return to the real dynamic at work—the giant magnet for economic migrants formed by America’s still growing labor-short economy. For want of doubt as to the latter truth, here is the change in employment as between native-born (red line) and foreign-born (blue line) workers since early 2020.

The former is up by a mere 2% while foreign-born employment has risen by 14%. Needless to say, the current sweeping Trumpian deportation campaign will actually cause millions of “no shows” in the blue line segment of the labor market owing to midnight ICE raids or fear-driven self-deportations. Either way, the downward pressure on the blue line and the resulting labor market turmoil and disruption is sure to become a supply-side barrier to US economic growth.

Foreign-Born Versus Native-Born Employment Since January 2020

Indeed, when looked at on a longer term basis, the foreign-born source of America’s current labor force growth is even more dramatic. Since the pre-crisis peak in Q4 2007 the number of foreign-born workers ( blue line) employed in the US has increased by 7.6 million thru September 2025, while the far larger population of native born workers has grown by only 9.2 million (red line).

In relative terms, however, the data leave nothing to the imagination. Foreign-born employment is up by +33% since Q4 2007, while native-born job holders have grown by only +10%. And due to demographics that are already baked into the cake, the red line will be falling for the next several decades or, actually, for as far as the eye can see.

Index of Change In Foreign Born Versus Native Born Workers Since Q4 2007

Needless to say, these facts as to scant few criminals among the undocumented population and vast labor market shortages in the US economy point to a modern-day supply-side solution. That is, a constructive policy remedy that goes in the very opposite direction of the restrictive Trumpian anti-immigrant and deportation campaign.

We are speaking, of course, of the need for a large expansion of the current tiny 10,000 per year EB-3 quota for entry level workers. Uncapping that quota entirely for fully-vetted low skill workers would essentially eliminate the so-called flood at the border, and do so without adding a single Border Patrol or ICE agent, and likely enabling an actual shrinkage of Washington’s costly border regulation operations.

This virtual clearance of the so-called “invasion” would happen because with no quota on new immigrant worker visas, willing, law-abiding job-seekers would go to the US embassies and consulates in their home countries to fill out their visa applications and be vetted by State Department professionals. There would simply be no need to cross the US border seeking “asylum”, and to then be arrested, herded and man-handled by the Border Patrol and eventually wait-listed for years in the hideous immigration court system while out on “parole”— free to wonder around in the wild anywhere in the US.

The proof for this proposition is in the pudding. Again, here are GROK 4’s best estimates of the number of undocumented workers employed in the US by industry. Essentially, 8.85 million of the 15 million illegal alien population is employed in basic US industries, and the rest are mostly their kids and stay-at-home spouses. In the case of the first three low-skill BLS categories listed in the table below, undocumented workers account for a double-digit share of the employed workforce.

That is to say, they got here not thru the current tiny 10,000 per year EB-3 pinhole for unskilled visas, but through the rough and tumble, unvetted expedient of backdoor entry as asylees and refugees.

So here’s the thing. There are probably 10,000 or fewer violent undocumented criminals actually at large in the US versus a proven 9 million undocumented law-abiding, tax-paying, family-supporting workers accounting for 5% of the entire US labor force. That’s a 900:1 ratio of people we need versus those we don’t.

Yet the supply shock from the disappearance of millions of workers that the Trump Administration is deporting each and every day and the millions more who are likely self-deporting for fear of being sent to the Donald’s Gulag in El Salvador is going to rip through the labor market like the proverbial neutron bomb. Businesses will be left standing, but they will be stripped clean of the workers they need to function, to say nothing of thrive and march toward the Donald’s ballyhooed Golden Age.

So Trump-O-Nomics has the policy framework upside down. The only thing that is needed is to excise a few pages of statute and regulations and thereby uncap the low skill quota for vetted migrant workers.

That is to say, a pro-supply side, anti-statist initiative to relieve the regulatory straight jacket foisted upon the US economy by an idiotic immigration quota system that rooted in the bigotry of the 1920s and the progressive delusions of the 1960s would solve the border problem and boost the American economy and tax base in one fell swoop.

Estimated Undocumented Workers in U.S. Industries (2025)

Ordered by Highest to Lowest % Undocumented

Accordingly, almost anyone abroad who has a legitimate reason to come to the US under a supply-side immigration policy would not need to wade through the Rio Grande or cross the Arizona deserts in the dead of night. Instead, they would go—possibly in suit and tie—to one of the 38 embassies and consulates that the US operates in Mexico and Latin America and hundreds more elsewhere around the world.

As it happens, the infrastructure is already there to handle a resumed inflow of work-seeking migrants. Currently, the State Department processes and effectively vets about 11 million visas per year at its worldwide diplomatic outposts depicted below. The overwhelming share or 10.5 millionof these are nonimmigrant visas for tourists/business (7.8 million), temporary work (900,000), students/exchange (800,000) and others (300,000).

Moreover, in the immigrant visa category of 550,000 per year, the overwhelming share of visas issued is according to the updated provisions of the 1965 act. That is, for immediate family and relatives reunification (340,000), skilled and technical employees (120,000), the diversity lottery by country (55,000) and last and, unfortunately, least is a mere 10,000 for entry level and unskilled workers.

Our point here is two-fold. First, all of these applications are processed through an orderly, computerized and professionally conducted process at hundreds of State Department locations—backed-up by Washington based infrastructure and systems. That is to say, the well-oiled machinery to re-channel and decentralize what had been the massive flow of migrants to the Mexican/US border is already in place, and would need only modest incremental personnel and budget resources.

Map of US Embassies and Consulates Around the World

But secondly, and crucially, this logical solution doesn’t happen now because the overwhelming share of the 28 million border-crashers were young workers and their families who entered the US illegally in order to get arrested and thereby placed in the queue for asylum. They didn’t go to the embassies and consulates like the 11 million other worldwide visa seekers because in their case it would have been futile: Again, there is only 10,000 slots in the quota system per year for unskilled workers who can do a job with less than two-years of training.

In short, the US immigration quota structure is consciously and stupidly designed to force these tens of millions of entry level job-seekers, which the US economy desperately needs, through a tiny pin-hole of 10,000 slots per year under the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3) “Other Workers”category.

To be sure, there are currently about 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas allocated yearly, but politically powerful lobbies for Silicon Valley and and the Fortune 500 typically scarf up 130,000 of these, including—

• 40,000 for EB-1 professors, researchers, multinational executives and STEM workers.
• 40,000 for EB-2 advanced degree holders with exceptional abilities in science and tech.
• 30,000 for EB-3 skilled workers requiring more than 2 years of training.
• 9,900 for EB-5 immigrant investors.
• Subtotal, high skill employment based visas: 130,000

Needless to say, Goggle doesn’t send its EB-1 recruits from Taiwan to wade across the Rio Grande in order to enter the USA. Some smart immigration lawyer in Taipei handles all the paperwork and arranges the office based interviews at the US consulate.

No muss, no fuss. NO INVASION.

To the contrary, the whole “invasion” is owing to the fact that unions and Silicon Valley lobbies make sure that the hideously tiny 10,000 cap for entry level workers stays in place, and that therefore there is no other route for unskilled workers to get a permanent visa except to invade the border, break the law and get in the queue for asylum.

Once this fundamental dynamic is understood, then it is evident that the Donald’s whole INVASION motif is upside down. The hordes at the border were not due to foreign evil doers and criminal cartels sending them north, but were owing to the economic magnet effect of today’s native-born baby dearth.

At the end of the day, the ZIPG essence of Trump-O-Nomics surely has Ronald Reagan rolling in his grave. He properly championed the notion that economic growth and rising prosperity are everywhere and always a function of supply-side energy and enterprise. So the Donald’s anti-supply side immigrant bashing is truly a recipe for economic disaster, not a Golden Era of Prosperity.

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The post The Nightmare of Trumpian ZIPG appeared first on LewRockwell.

Whitney Webb is right. America is One Nation Under Blackmail. From the White House to Congress to state governors and legislators to the mainstream media to mega churches and televangelists, they are on the take. And the godfather with the money—our money (and the enforcers to make sure they take the bribes)—is Israel.

From Bill Clinton to Donald Trump and every U.S. president in between (with slight hesitation from Bush Sr.), each of these men has been but a mere pawn and puppet of the Israel lobby. For all intents and purposes, the U.S. president is not Donald Trump (or Joe Biden or Barack Obama or G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton); he is Benjamin Netanyahu—or whoever else might be Israel’s Prime Minister.

It has been common knowledge for decades that many of our major cities’ police officers have been and are being trained in Israel or by Israelis here in the U.S.

Back in 2020, I wrote a column entitled Prelude To Martial Law. I quote:

Minnesota cops receive training from the Israelis.

Officers from the US police force responsible for the killing of George Floyd received training in restraint techniques and anti-terror tactics from Israeli law-enforcement officers.

Mr. Floyd’s death in custody last Monday, the latest in a succession of police killings of African Americans, has sparked continuing protests and rioting in US cities.

At least 100 Minnesota police officers attended a 2012 conference hosted by the Israeli consulate in Chicago, the second time such an event had been held.

There they learned the violent techniques used by Israeli forces as they terrorize the occupied Palestinian territories under the guise of security operations.

The so-called counterterrorism training conference in Minneapolis was jointly hosted by the FBI.

I have documented several times in this column how U.S. law enforcement personnel are increasingly receiving training from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Our police officers are being trained by the terrorists of Tel Aviv in the terrible art of torture and death.

This knee-on-neck technique is straight out of the Israeli handbook. This technique is often known to slowly break the necks of the victims. And this training is widespread throughout the United States. Hundreds—maybe thousands—of American law enforcement officers from Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington State and Washington, D.C. (and doubtless many other states), have been flown to Israel for training.

On a recent podcast, retired Green Beret Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar and Army Captain Josephine Guilbeau again noted that American police personnel and federal police agencies such as ICE and US Department of Homeland Security train with the Israelis.

They provided this quote:

So, these National Guard soldiers that will soon be in or are in Chicago have trained with  Israel habitually for years. So, when you look at all of these pieces of “who do we have operating on the streets of Portland and the streets of New York and in DC, and who’s going into Chicago?” All of these components and elements have trained hand-in-hand with the IDF or the Israeli Ministry of the Interior, gendarmerie, paramilitary police.

Last month, The Jerusalem Post ran a major story on how the U.S. has secured a contract with an Israeli drone manufacturer for AI one-way attack drones.

Israeli drone start-up XTEND has secured a multi-million-dollar contract from the US Department of Defense (DoD) to develop and deliver AI-enabled, modular, one-way attack drones designed for close-quarter combat.

The award was announced by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War (OASW) for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC), and highlights Israel’s growing leadership in the drone market as the US military boosts its drone procurement.

The Affordable Close Quarter Modular Effects FPV Drone Kits (ACQME-DK) program will provide the US military with small, lethal automated aerial systems (UAS) optimized for irregular warfare in dense urban terrain and confined rural environments. They will feature XTEND’s ESAD high-voltage fuse, the only US-approved high-voltage fuse in the category.

The drones form a Modular VTOL + munitions kit. This reloadable, reusable distraction device allows for rapid reconfiguration in the field, day or night reconnaissance and surveillance operations, lethal inert training payloads, and lethal payloads.

XTEND will deliver training, spares, maintenance, and production from its Tampa headquarters, ensuring a domestic supply chain for the US Department of War. [Emphasis added]

The use of the U.S. military for domestic policing, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth’s murder on the high seas under the pretext of fighting a “war on drugs” (where have we heard that before?), calling the victims “narco-terrorists” (where is the evidence?), President Trump’s (and state governors such as Ron DeSantis’) fanatical attempt to curtail the freedom of speech to criticize Israel (the First Amendment be damned) and now an American partnership with Israelis to bring millions of drones into the government’s arsenal (to be used against whom?) form a reliable track record of a maniacal and perpetual political and military collaboration that exists between Washington, D.C., and Tel Aviv.

As I said in my message last Sunday entitled The Biblical Remedy For Warmongers:

Our parents cautioned us that we tend to behave like the people we befriend, so choose your friends wisely.

Well, the American government has befriended the murderous State of Israel for so long that it is now behaving like Israel.

So, exactly whom will uber-Zionist, uber-war Pete Hegseth use these Israeli drones against? The answer is: It could be anybody—including you and me.

Again, Whitney Webb is right: We ARE one nation under blackmail.

But it is actually worse than that. Not only are our politicians under Israeli blackmail but more and more frequently, our military and police are under Israeli training and direction.

It is no hyperbole to suggest that virtually every U.S. military operation (including the ones in Venezuela and Ukraine—and obviously the ones all over the Middle East) is conducted in cooperation with and under the guidance of the Israeli government.

Come on, folks! If the Israelis are embedded in our federal police agencies inside the U.S., you know they are embedded inside our U.S. military establishments.

The United States of America has not been an independent nation since the Zionist State of Israel came into existence. And it will not be an independent nation as long as the Zionist State of Israel stays in existence—or perhaps until the Boomers die out and the Millennials and Generation Z permanently cut the umbilical cord between us and the genocidal Zionist state.

All I know is: It cannot happen soon enough.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post IDF Soldiers Working With ICE Agents in the U.S. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Remember to click on our Amazon link to support LRC this week. 

LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2025, please remember to DONATE TODAY!

1. Everlasting Comfort Adjustable Cloud Foot Rest for Under Desk at Work with Pressure Point Nodes 
2. Leather Briefcase for Men 17 Inch Laptop Crossbody Shoulder Messenger Bag Attache Case for Business Travel Work Lawyer
3. Wogarl Weekender Bags for Women Large Overnight Bag Weekend Travel Duffel Bag Carry on Shoulder with Shoe Compartment Toiletry Bag for Travel Business Gym
4. Innova 5210 OBD2 Scanner & Engine Code Reader, Battery Tester, Live Data, Oil Reset, Car Diagnostic Tool for Most Vehicles, Bluetooth Compatible with America’s Top Car Repair App
5. NOCO Boost X GBX45: 1250A UltraSafe Jump Starter – 12V Lithium Battery Booster Pack, Portable Jump Box, Power Bank & Jumper Cables – for 6.5L Gas and 4.0L Diesel Engines
6. Dreo Space Heater, 1500W Portable Electric Heaters for Indoor Use, PTC Ceramic Heater for Office with Remote, Thermostat, 70°Oscillation, 12H Timer, 5 Modes, Safe Quiet Room Heater for Bedroom
7. Waterdrop 15UB Under Sink Water Filter, Under Sink Water Filtration System for 2 Years, NSF/ANSI 42 Certified, Reduces PFAS, PFOA/PFOS, Lead, Under Sink Water Filter with Faucet, 19K Gallons
8. Stardrops – The Pink Stuff – The Miracle All Purpose Cleaning Paste
9. Personalized Charcuterie Board – Large Cheese Boards for Wedding & Anniversary, New Home, Christmas, House, Bridal Shower, Birthday, Retirement Gift for Women, Custom Wedding Gifts
10. LifeStraw Personal Water Filter for Hiking, Camping, Travel, and Emergency Preparedness
11. Bedsure GentleSoft Grey Fleece Twin Blanket for Couch -Cozy Soft Blankets for Women, Cute Small Throws for Girls, 60×80 Inches
12. ZWILLING Twin Signature 3-pc Starter Knife Set
13. 2PCS Patella Band, Patellar Tendon Support Strap for Knee Pain and Tendonitis, Knee Brace for Women & Men, Patella Support Strap for Soccer, Basketball, Running, Tennis, Lightweight Patella Stabilizer for Left & Right Knee – Gray
14. Red-Light-Therapy-Wand, 7 Colors LED Facial Light Therapy Wand for Face and Neck Rejuvenation, Face Massager Eye Beauty Tool at Home
15. BOB AND BRAD C2 Massage Gun, Deep Tissue Percussion Massager Gun, Muscle Massager with 5 Speeds and 5 Heads, Electric Back Massagers for Professional Athletes Home Gym
16. Personalized Hand Crafted Leather Toiletry Bag for Men, Shaving Bags, Travel Pouch, Engraved Monogrammed Leather Dopp Kit, Toiletries, Grandpa, Boyfriend, Groomsmen, Birthday, for Men
17. Tallow & Goat Milk Body Lotion for Sensitive Skin, Organic moisturizing Lotion – Soothes Dry skin, Goat Milk face and body Moisturizer – Handmade Tallow for skin cream (12 OZ, Christmas Wish)
18. Alpha Grillers Meat Thermometer Digital – Instant Read Food Thermometer for Cooking and Grilling Stocking Stuffers for Men Christmas Gifts for Men
19. Wild & Organic Turmeric and Ginger Supplement Drops – Joint & Immune Support – Liquid Turmeric Curcumin with Black Pepper and Ginger – Curcumin Supplement – Vegan, Sugar & Alcohol-Free Tincture – 4 oz
20. The Christmas Ring: A Holiday Romance (Kingsbury, Karen) 

The post Top Gifts for Everyone on Your Shopping List! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The people of Honduras had not yet made up their minds. So, Donald Trump intervened to help them.

The major candidates in Sunday’s election were Rixi Moncada, the former defense minister of the ruling left-wing LIBRE party, who had promised to continue President Xiomara Castro’s agenda; Nasry “Tito” Asfura, a construction magnate who is running for the right-wing National Party on a free market platform; and Salvador Nasralla, formerly of the LIBRE party, who broke with them and moved to a centrist anticorruption platform.

In the lead-up to the election, the polls suggested a three-way race with no clear favorite. But Trump had a favorite.

Firing off two Truth Social posts within 18 minutes of each other, Trump dramatically intervened in the election.

With Venezuela under threat of U.S. military intervention, Trump’s posts widened the focus of the threat to encompass Honduras. “Will Maduro and his Narcoterrorists take over another country like they have taken over Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela?” Trump asked. The only way to remove themselves from America’s gun sights was, apparently, to vote for Asfura, the right-wing candidate. “The man who is standing up for Democracy, and fighting against Maduro,” Trump said, “is Tito Asfura, the Presidential Candidate of the National Party.” The threat was clear: a vote for Moncada is a vote for Venezuela that puts Honduras at risk of war; a vote for Asfura is a vote for America to fight against Maduro. “Tito and I can work together to fight the Narcocommunists…. I cannot work with Moncada and the Communists,” Trump told the voters of Honduras.

And the threat was not only military but also economic. Right after hitting “post” on his first message, another thought struck Trump that Hondurans needed to hear: “If Tito Asfura wins for President of Honduras, because the United States has so much confidence in him, his Policies, and what he will do for the Great People of Honduras, we will be very supportive. If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad.”

With the threat of military and economic intervention now clear, Trump declared, “Democracy is on trial in the coming Elections,” and he left it to the people of “the beautiful country of Honduras” to decide.

Moncada was not guilty of hyperbole or sensationalism when she complained that Trump’s posts, “three days before the election,” were “totally interventionist.”

This is not the first time the U.S. has lacked the patience to wait for an election before undertaking an intervention or a coup. The preemptive soft coup, whether by endorsement, diplomatic support, removal from the ballot, threat of sanctions, or smearing the vote as illegitimate ahead of its taking place, has recently been a popular page in the American interventionist handbook. Such interventions have been undertaken in several recent elections, including Venezuela, Haiti, Ecuador, and Argentina.

One of the key congresspeople keeping tabs on the Honduran election is Rep. Maria Salazar (R-FL). She is hardly averse to non-democratic transfers of power in Honduras. When Honduras’s President Manuel Zelaya, the founder of the LIBRE party, was ousted in a 2009 coup, Salazar said “thank God… Mr. Zelaya was out of office.”

The U.S. role in the 2009 coup has not given America a good résumé in Honduras. On June 28, 2009, Manuel Zelaya was seized at gunpoint and whisked away in a plane that, unsubtly, refueled at a U.S. military base. The U.S. knew it was a coup. A July 24, 2009 cable sent from the U.S. embassy in Honduras says, “There is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup….” As an exclamation point, it adds, “none of the . . . arguments [of the coup defenders] has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution.”

Nonetheless, when the UN and the Organization of American States (OAS) called for the return of the elected president, the U.S. did not. And when the UN and the OAS refused to recognize the coup president, the U.S. did. Then-Secretary of State Clinton has admitted that she aided the coup government by shoring it up and blocking the return of the elected government: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico. We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Trump’s War on Democracy in Honduras appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Trump administration’s killings of scores of Venezuelans are justifiably provoking outrage. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently proclaimed, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.” Donald Trump and Hegseth are cashing a blank check for carnage that was written years earlier by President Barack Obama.

In his 2017 farewell address, Obama boasted, “We have taken out tens of thousands of terrorists.” Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, helping fuel anti–U.S. backlashes in several nations.

As he campaigned for the presidency in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama declared, “We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers.” Many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 expected a seachange in Washington. However, from his first weeks in office, Obama authorized widespread secret attacks against foreign suspects, some of which spurred headlines when drones slaughtered wedding parties or other innocents.

On February 3, 2010, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stunned Washington by announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing. Blair revealed to a congressional committee the new standard for extrajudicial killings:

“Whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American has—is a threat to other Americans. We don’t target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

But “involved” is a vague standard—as is “action that threatens Americans.” Blair stated that “if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” Permission from who?

Obama’s first high-profile American target was Anwar Awlaki, a cleric born in New Mexico. After the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was showcased as a model moderate Muslim. The New York Times noted that Awlaki “gave interviews to the national news media, preached at the Capitol in Washington and attended a breakfast with Pentagon officials.” He became more radical after he concluded that the Geoge W. Bush administration’s Global War on Terror was actually a war on Islam. After the FBI sought to squeeze him into becoming an informant against other Muslims, Awlaki fled the country. He arrived in Yemen and was arrested and reportedly tortured at the behest of the U.S. government. After he was released from prison eighteen months later, his attitude had worsened and his sermons became more bloodthirsty.

After the Obama administration announced plans to kill Awlaki, his father hired a lawyer to file a challenge in federal court. The ACLU joined the lawsuit, seeking to compel the government “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.” The Obama administration labeled the entire case a “State Secret.” This meant that the administration did not even have to explain why federal law no longer constrained its killings. The administration could have indicted Awlaki on numerous charges but it did not want to provide him any traction in federal court.

In September 2010, The New York Times reported that “there is widespread agreement among the administration’s legal team that it is lawful for President Obama to authorize the killing of someone like Mr. Awlaki.” It was comforting to know that top political appointees concurred that Obama could justifiably kill Americans. But that was the same “legal standard” the Bush team used to justify torture.   

The Obama administration asserted a right to kill U.S. citizens without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked men to legally object. In November 2010, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter announced in federal court that no judge had legal authority to be “looking over the shoulder” of Obama’s targeted killing. Letter declared that the program involves “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”

The following month, federal judge John Bates dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit because “there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas” is “judicially unreviewable.” Bates declared that targeted killing was a “political question” outside the court’s jurisdiction. His deference was stunning: no judge had ever presumed that killing Americans was simply another “political question.” The Obama administration’s position “would allow the executive unreviewable authority to target and kill any U.S. citizen it deems a suspect of terrorism anywhere,” according to Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Pardiss Kebriae.

On September 30, 2011, a U.S. drone attack killed Awlaki along with another American citizen, Samir Khan, who was editing an online Al Qaeda magazine. Obama bragged about the lethal operation at a military base later that day. A few days later, administration officials gave a New York Times reporter extracts a peek at the fifty-page secret Justice Department memo. The Times noted, “The secret document provided the justification for [killing Awlaki] despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.” The legal case for killing Awlaki was so airtight that it did not even need to be disclosed to the American public.

Two weeks after killing Awlaki, Obama authorized a drone attack that killed his son and six other people as they sat at an outdoor café in Yemen. Anonymous administration officials quickly assured the media that Abdulrahman Awlaki was a 21-year-old Al Qaeda fighter and thus fair game. Four days later, The Washington Post published a birth certificate proving that Awlaki’s son was only 16-years old and had been born in Denver. Nor did the boy have any connection with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. Robert Gibbs, Obama’s former White House press secretary and a top advisor for Obama’s reelection campaign, later shrugged that the 16-year-old should have had “a far more responsible father.”

Regardless of that boy’s killing, the media often portrayed Obama and his drones as infallible. A Washington Post poll a few months later revealed that 83% of Americans approved of Obama’s drone killing policy. It made almost no difference whether the suspected terrorists were American citizens; 79% of respondents approved of preemptively killing their fellow countrymen, no judicial niceties required. The Post noted that “77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.” The poll results were largely an echo of official propaganda. Most folks “knew” only what the government wanted them to hear regarding drones. Thanks to pervasive secrecy, top government officials could kill who they chose and say what they pleased. The fact that the federal government had failed to substantiate more than 90% of its terrorist accusations since 9/11 was irrelevant since the president was omniscient.

On March 6, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech on targeted killings to a college audience, declared, “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process.” TV comedian Stephen Colbert mocked Holder, quipping “Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do.” One purpose of due process is to allow evidence to be critically examined. But there was no opportunity to debunk statements from anonymous White House officials. For the Obama administration, “due process” meant little more than reciting certain phrases in secret memos prior to executions.

Holder declared that the drone attacks “are not [assassinations], and the use of that loaded term is misplaced; assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self-defense.” Any termination secretly approved by the president or his top advisers was automatically a “lawful killing.” Holder reassured Americans that Congress was overseeing the targeted killing program. But no one on Capitol Hill demanded a hearing or investigation after U.S. drones killed American citizens in Yemen. The prevailing attitude was exemplified by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY): 

“Drones aren’t evil, people are evil. We are a force of good and we are using those drones to carry out the policy of righteousness and goodness.”

Obama told White House aides that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” In April 2012, The New York Times was granted access for a laudatory inside look at “Terror Tuesday” meetings in the White House:

“Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.”

It was a PowerPoint death parade. The Times stressed that Obama personally selected who to kill next:

“The control he exercises also appears to reflect Mr. Obama’s striking self-confidence: he believes, according to several people who have worked closely with him, that his own judgment should be brought to bear on strikes.”

Commenting on the Times’ revelations, author Tom Engelhardt observed, “We are surely at a new stage in the history of the imperial presidency when a president (or his election team) assembles his aides, advisors and associates to foster a story that’s meant to broadcast the group’s collective pride in the new position of assassin-in-chief.”

On May 23, 2013, Obama, in a speech on his targeted killing program at the National Defense University in Washington, told his fellow Americans that “we know a price must be paid for freedom”—such as permitting the president untrammeled authority to kill threats to freedom. The president declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set.”

Since almost all the data on victims was confidential, it was tricky to prove otherwise. But NBC News acquired classified documents revealing that the CIA was often clueless about who it was killing. NBC noted, “Even while admitting that the identities of many killed by drones were not known, the CIA documents asserted that all those dead were enemy combatants. The logic is twisted: If we kill you, then you were an enemy combatant.” Killings are also exonerated by counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants…unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” And U.S. bureaucrats have no incentive to track down evidence exposing their fatal errors. The New York Times revealed that U.S. “counterterrorism officials insist…people in an area of known terrorist activity…are probably up to no good.” The “probably up to no good” standard absolved almost any drone killing within thousands of square miles in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Daniel Hale, a former Air Force intelligence analyst, leaked information revealing that nearly 90% of people who were killed in drone strikes were not the intended targets. Joe Biden’s Justice Department responded by coercing Hale into pleading guilty to “retention and transmission of national security information,” and he was sent to prison in 2021.

Sovereign immunity entitles presidents to kill with impunity. Or at least that is what presidents have presumed for most of the past century. If the Trump administration can establish a prerogative to preemptively kill anyone suspected of transporting illicit narcotics, millions of Americans could be in the federal cross-hairs. But the Trump administration is already having trouble preserving total secrecy thanks to controversies over who ordered alleged war crimes. Will Trump’s anti-drug carnage end up torpedoing his beloved Secretary of War Hegseth and his own credibility with Congress, the judiciary, and hundreds of millions of Americans who do not view White House statements as divine revelations handed down from Mt. Sinai?

This article was originally published on The Libertarian Institute and was reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Obama Paved the Way for Trump’s Venezuelan Killings appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since our society is conditioned to believe all vaccines are “safe and effective” many do not realize the risk and benefits of each vaccine vary greatly. One of the most controversial vaccines has been the Hepatitis B vaccine, which is given to every newborn in the country at their most fragile moment of life despite their risk of contracting hepatitis B being negligible.

Bonnie Dunbar PhD has also been in contact with numerous physicians and research scientists from several countries who have independently described thousands of identical severe reactions occurring in Caucasian recipients of the hepatitis vaccine.

Since entering the market, the hepatitis B vaccine has been marred with safety concerns:

• As early as 1976, one researcher cautioned that since autoimmunity is involved in the pathogenesis of hepatitis B infections, it they might also be provoked by molecularly similar hepatitis B vaccines. Numerous papers and major news articles since have shown that vaccine provokes a wide range of autoimmune disorders.1,2,3,4,5,6

• In 1998 Scientist highlighted growing concerns threatening to derail the hepatitis B vaccine program, such as more and more people claiming it caused serious autoimmune diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis [RA], optic neuritis, and multiple sclerosis [MS]), that one doctor had collected over 600 cases of this happening, and that in July, attorneys representing 15,000 people sued France’s government for exaggerating the vaccine’s benefits and downplaying its risks (after which France suspended the vaccine in schools—a move widely condemned by health authorities).

• In January 1999 ABC News aired a scathing criticism of the Hepatitis B vaccine.

Note: 55 other news programs criticizing vaccines they would never air today can be read here.

•A May 1999 Congressional hearing on the vaccine highlighted that:

• Serious side effects included infant death, seizures, autism, dysautonomia, MS, RA diabetes, and rare cases of liver cancer in children post-vaccination, with (vastly underreported) VAERS data showing over 8,000 reactions, including 43 deaths in children under 2 in 1997. In contrast, there were only 95 (or less) annual hepatitis B cases and no infant deaths, indicating the risks of newborn vaccination vastly outweighed any possible benefit.
• There was massive underreporting of injuries (e.g., 4-5 day trials were too short to identify them, and physicians denied they’d occurred when parents reported them) and no effort had been made to identify injury susceptibility.
• All long-term research into the safety of the vaccine was being stonewalled, yet the medical community argued the lack of robust long-term safety studies actually proved the vaccines were “safe” but promised to do future research to determine if the vaccines were safe (which 25 years later still has not happened—but again was repeatedly promised this year as a way to dismiss proposals to stop giving the vaccine to newborns).
• Vaccinating low-risk newborns for an adult-associated disease is inappropriate, particularly since immunity can wane before adolescence and 10–30% of individuals fail to produce antibodies, questioning efficacy.
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program denied most claims, leaving debilitated victims unsupported despite a $1 billion trust fund, with restrictions limiting filings for hepatitis B vaccine injuries.
• There was no informed consent as parents were not provided with information on the vaccine’s risks, newborns were vaccinated without parental consent, and parents faced coercion, including threats of social services intervention if they did not vaccine.
  Note: this is still an issue. Consider what these readers reported.

Vaccine Autoimmune Disorders

One of the Congressional witnesses produced a report highlighting the dangers of the hepatitis B vaccine including cases of encephalomyelitis he’d observed (resulting in a two week coma for one, a four week coma for the other, along with optic neuritis and significant neurological disability for both). He and others1,2,3 ultimately identified hundreds of publications linking that vaccine to a wide degree of autoimmune disorders:

• MS,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 myelitis,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 encephalitis,1 encephalomyelitis,1 optic neuritis,1,2,3,4,5 Guillain–Barré syndrome,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 neuropathy,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 myopathy,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Myasthenia Gravis,1,2,3 APMPPE (an eye disease)1 uveitis1,
• Arthritis,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Lupus,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 juvenile dermatomyositis,1,2,3,4,5 macrophagic myofasciitis,1 polyarthralgia-myalgia,1 Still’s disease1
• Vasculitis (general,1,2,3,4 pulmonary and cutaneous,1,2 Churg-Strauss,1,2 Henoch–Schonlein purpura,1 Kawasaki’s disease1 polyarteritis nodosa1), hemolytic anemia,1 thrombocytopenia,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 antiphospholipid syndrome1,2
• Lichen planus,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 lichen striatus,1 bullous pemphigoid,1,2 erythema multiforme,1,2,3 erythema nodosum1 Gianotti–Crosti syndrome,1,2 alopecia,1,2 buchal aphthosis1
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome,1,2,3,4,5 Fibromyalgia,1 Graves’ disease,1,2 Sjogren’s syndrome1
• Hepatitis,1,2,3,4 glomerulonephritis,1 pancreatitis1 pneumonitits1

Note: this vaccine has also been linked to a variety of other disorders not classically classified as autoimmune disorders such seizures,1,2 Bell’s palsy,1,2 cerebellar ataxia,1 tic disorders,1 anorexia,1 tufted angioma1 and to increase common childhood illnesses (e.g., one study found a 1.6X increase in acute ear infections and a 1.41X increase in pharyngitis and nasopharyngitis). Worse still, one study found an 81% increase in death.

Molecular Mimicry

If an immune provoking substance (e.g., an infection or antigen co-administered with an adjuvant like aluminum) overlaps with human tissue, it can cause the immune system to target human tissue and hence cause autoimmunity. From the start, many believed the Hepatitis B vaccine’s issues resulted from it overlapping with myelin (what coats nerves).

This link was vociferously denied by the medical community (yet never researched) but in 2005, proven by a study which showed until the hepatitis B vaccine had a significant overlap with myelin and that 60% of its recipients also developed immune reactivity to the myelin coasting their nerves (which in the majority of cases persisted for over 6 months).

Furthermore:

• A 2005 VAERS study found the hepatitis B vaccine, in adults, (compared to a tetanus vaccine) was more likely to be followed by a variety of autoimmune disorders (5.2X for MS, 18X for rheumatoid arthritis, 14X for optic neuritis, 9.1X for lupus, 7.2X for alopecia, 2.6X for vasculitis, and 2.3X for thrombocytopenia). A similar 2002 study found a 6.1X increase for chronic arthritis (persisting for at least one year), which affected women 3.5X as much as men, and on average occurred 16 days after vaccination.

• A 2002 study found individuals who received a hepatitis B vaccine, within the next two months, were 1.8 times as likely to experience a demyelinating event.

• A 2015 study found cases of MS in France rose by 65% in the years following an aggressive national campaign to increase hepatitis B vaccination rates, and that a statistically significant correlation existed between the number of hepatitis B vaccine doses given and the number of MS cases 1-2 years later.

• A 2004 English study compare 163 MS patients with 1,604 randomly selected matched controls without MS. It found that MS patients were three times more likely to have received the hepatitis B vaccine within three years of symptom onset (which was not seen from tetanus or influenza vaccination).

• A 2009 study in children found that the GSK’s hepatitis B vaccine, which contains five times more yeast protein antigen than other brands, was associated with a 2.77X increased risk of developing MS. A smaller increase (1.5X) was observed for other CNS inflammatory demyelinating disorders.

The hepatitis B vaccine has also been repeatedly linked to autism and other developmental disabilities:

• Secretary Kennedy revealed that in 1999, the CDC conducted a study which found that receiving a hepatitis B vaccine in the first 30 days of life caused a 12.35X increase in autism—after which the study was buried.
Note: Kennedy likely referred to this (unpublished) study, which, via the CDC’s private database, found the highest doses of mercury containing vaccines caused a 1.8X increase in neurologic development disorders, a 7.6X increase in autism, a 5.0X increase in nonorganic sleep disorders and a 2.1X increase in nonorganic sleep disorders.

• A 2007 study of 1824 children found boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine were 9 times as likely to have a developmental disability.

• A follow-up 2010 study found giving the hepatitis B vaccine at birth increased autism 3X, while a 2017 study found newborn (mercury containing) hepatitis B vaccines increased the risk of autism by 4.6-6.7X.
Note: a 2015 study found they increased the risk of developmental delays by 1.6X-1.7X (which a 2016 study estimated equated to over a trillion in healthcare costs).

Similar results were also seen in animals:

• A 2010 monkey study determined that the vaccine caused a significant delay in the acquisition of root, snout, and suck reflexes (critical processes for development).

• A 2016 mouse study found the vaccine impaired neurogenesis, behavioral performances and hippocampal long-term potentiation which simultaneously increased brain inflammation (that was proportional to the neurologic damage which occurred), later determined to largely result from elevated IL-4.
Note: a 2013 study found that hepatitis B vaccination spiked their inflammatory CRP levels, and in 22 out of 70 infants, this increase was large enough to pass the diagnostic threshold for sepsis.

In contrast, the licensing studies for the vaccines only monitored for side effects during a short window long before these side effects would emerge (typically 4-5 days), and did not use actual placebos.1,2 This limited data shows:

• 17%-22% of adults reported injection site reactions.1,2

• 5%-14% of adults and 10.4% of children reported systemic adverse reactions (e.g., fatigue/weakness, dizziness, headache, fevers above 100°F, malaise, nausea, diarrhea, pharyngitis, upper respiratory infection).1,2

• Around 1% (or 3.8% of diabetics) had significant systemic reactions (e.g., anorexia, somnolence, hypotension, a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, hives, irritability, and weakness).1

• In newborns, within 48 hours of vaccination, the following were reported: pain (9%), erythema (20%), swelling (4%), irritability (20%), vomiting (23%), diarrhea (12%), feeding difficulties (17%), drowsiness (28-32%), restlessness (31%), and fever ≥38°C (0.7%).1,2,3
Note: many of these symptoms can be immensely consequential in infants (e.g., fevers trigger invasive sepsis workups).

• The only long-term study of these vaccines found that after 7 months, 5.8-6.2% of recipients reported a serious adverse event.1,2,3

Note: a definitive 1994 report by the Institute of Medicine noted that preliminary data existed for many of the injuries attributed to the hepatitis B vaccine, no further research had ever been done (and still has not been), so there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove a link between these conditions. Remarkably, that was taken as proof the vaccines did not cause harm.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Is Every Newborn Forced To Get a Hepatitis B Vaccine? appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: A recent BHG Financial survey found that 62% of Americans earning over $300,000 a year still struggle with credit card debt.

What’s your take on this?

Doug Casey: BHG is basically a Shylock for the upper middle class. They loan mainly to doctors and successful small businessmen, typically at around 12%. They’re in a position to know when their demographic is in trouble. But why are they in trouble? I suspect it’s because middle-class borrowers have assumed lower-class time preferences. In other words, instead of saving for something you want— a house, a car, or whatever—people want it now and are willing to mortgage their futures to get it.

The average person’s psychological mindset is “I want it all, and I want it now!” I guess you can get it now—but only by borrowing. If you think like a consumer rather than a producer, you likely won’t have savings. And if you live even more imprudently, not only won’t you have savings, but you’ll have lots of debt. We famously live in a “Consumer Society”—a ridiculous and degrading concept. Once upon a time, America identified as a country of producers, not consumers.

It’s hard for a middle-class person to get by when a new car, one that you feel suits your station in life, costs $50,000 or even $100,000. And it’s financed over seven years. Or leased, so there’s zero chance you’ll ever own it. So I don’t doubt that what BHG says is true: almost everybody is in debt, and few have any savings.

It makes for a very unstable financial, economic, political, and social situation.

International Man: Is the erosion of the upper-middle class deliberate or an unintended consequence of inflation?

Doug Casey: Socialists—in fact, all stripes of statists, elitists, and authoritarians—despise the middle class. That’s because the bourgeois tend to be independent and entrepreneurial. Lenin famously wanted to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. It’s a question of eroding values. It is not just a deteriorating economic situation we’re dealing with; the culture and public psyche are on a slippery slope as well.

In other words, it seems that society has adopted a hand-to-mouth approach to living. That’s the antithesis of the American Dream. The BFG people found that the average person has little or no savings. An article by an investor named Michael W. Green has gone viral because he calculates that a family of four needs about $130,000 per year in earnings to stay out of poverty. That’s pretty shocking, in that the official poverty line is $31,200, and the median income is $80,000.

The argument is that if the Joe Sixpack family earns $130,000, both parents need to work, which necessitates childcare (about $32,000), which is their largest single expense. Then comes housing ($23,000—seems low), food ($15,000), transport ($15,000), healthcare ($12,000—very low, in that average medical insurance alone is twice that), and other essentials ($21,000). Taxes are about $18,500. There’s no room for either bad luck or saving for the future. This large subset of the population doesn’t get any welfare benefits from the government—food stamps, Medicaid, or a myriad of other freebies.

The above calculation doesn’t include debt service, which almost everybody in what passes for the middle class has lots of. The numbers just don’t work.

Trump’s promised fraudulent so-called “dividend” of $2,000 from import duties is trivial by comparison if it’s even paid, which I doubt.

International Man: If even relatively high earners are now pushed into survival mode—a sign the system has drained almost everyone—does this point to an approaching collapse or a fundamental change of the political and economic system?

Doug Casey: I’ve been saying, for about 10 years, that we’re headed not only for the Greater Depression, but something like a civil war.

One thing that’s for sure is that people close to Washington, D.C., and New York, who are wired to the current political and financial systems, are making much, much more than the median. And they benefit from the newly created money early on before it loses value as it “trickles down.” Again, this has created an unstable system. So yeah, we’re headed for a serious political, economic, and social upset. That’s been predictable for decades. But it would seem we’re now at the edge of the precipice.

What makes it worse is that stocks, bonds, and housing are at close to all-time highs. There’s reason to expect a lot more stress is about to be added to the system as they revert to the mean, or go further, to the opposite extreme. That’s not a prediction, so much as an inevitability.

International Man: If income no longer maps onto wealth, mobility, or destiny, what does that do to the cultural mythology of the American Dream?

Doug Casey: Sweeping away a country’s founding principles—it doesn’t matter if they’re essentially myths—is very dangerous. But it’s happening.

The next generation is being born into serfdom because of the national debt—about $38 trillion officially, but over $100 trillion in reality, if you count the many contingent and deferred liabilities. US citizens, especially the young and unborn, will have to pay it, one way or the other.

Why? Because the prime directive of all living things, from amoebas to governments, is: “Survive!” And if the US government’s going to survive, it must service its debt, which means its subjects must pay for it. Kids born today are being born behind the eight-ball. Meanwhile, Trump comes up with ridiculous palliative solutions, such as the 50-year mortgage. It’s odd to take a 50-year mortgage on your house. Most houses built today won’t last 50 years. Nor will the average buyer, who’s about 40. That’s apart from the fact that houses aren’t investments—things that produce more wealth. They’re just long-lived consumer goods.

Most kids go to school, financed by $1.9 trillion of loans. They need a car, which accounts for the $1.7 trillion of auto debt. Add on about $1.3 trillion of credit card debt, which is financed at around 20%. It seems that everybody is living on debt today. The American Dream didn’t used to be about being buried in debt. As George Carlin liked to say, you have to be asleep to believe in the American Dream.

International Man: What practical steps should individuals take to avoid going down with the ship?

Doug Casey: Debt does not have to be a bad thing. The other side of debt is savings. They’re loaned, paying savers interest. But, historically, and in a sound baking system, savings were loaned for production, not consumption. In other words, debt was incurred to build factories and farms. The factory’s and field’s production made the debt self-liquidating. But consumer debt is never self-liquidating, and the average American doesn’t borrow for production purposes. He borrows to increase his current standard of living. It’s a dead-end road for the borrower, as well as the banks. But the banks are another story…

In a sound economy, you produce more than you consume, and you save the difference. But when the currency is inflated, how can you save? You’re saving something that’s losing value almost as fast as you can save it. This is a real problem for Americans.

Inflation is forcing the average American to speculate in stocks, real estate, or cryptos, in the hope of staying ahead of currency debasement. But the average person is not qualified to do that.

It can only end badly.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Why Making $300,000 No Longer Means You’re Secure appeared first on LewRockwell.

Six political prisoners who targeted factories arming Israel’s genocide are weeks into a hunger strike. But in contrast to the IRA’s 1980s hunger strike, this one is being blanked by the media

If we truly had a free media in the UK, rather than one serving the interests only of the state and billionaire class, this would be a front-page news story:

Six political prisoners – held unlawfully for a year or more on remand, and retroactively deemed to be “terrorists” for trying to stop the Gaza genocide – have been on hunger strike for many weeks in prison. At least one is already seriously ill.

There has been blanket silence from the media on these developments, and barely any coverage of the appalling conditions these political prisoners are being subjected to since Palestine Action was reclassified by Sir Keir Starmer’s government as a terrorist organisation – after their arrests.

Notably, it is the first time a direct-action group, one that directs its violence against property – that is, factories making weapons to kill civilians in Gaza – rather than people, has been declared a terrorist organisation and put on the same footing as al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

Under Britain’s draconian Terrorism Act, anyone expressing an opinion, even inadvertently, that might “encourage support” for a proscribed organisation – now including Palestine Action – can be arrested for supporting terrorism and faces a terrorism conviction.

With at least 2,500 people arrested for holding placards stating “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”, Britain’s jails could soon be flooded with many more such political prisoners.

A judicial review of the government’s decision was heard in the past few days at the High Court, though again you are unlikely to know this, given the lack of interest from the British media. The judges’ ruling on the lawfulness of the government’s decision is expected in mid-January.

But a related ruling this week from a judge in Jersey, hearing a terrorism case against peace activist Natalie Strecker, opens the door even more widely to political prosecutions. Despite freeing Strecker, Judge Saunders appeared to accept the British government’s argument that it is unlawful to advocate for international law, which expressly states that occupied peoples such as the Palestinians have a right to resist their illegal occupation.

For anyone with a long memory, the current silence from our media should be shocking. The last major hunger strike by political prisoners in the UK occurred in the early 1980s. It was then that the Provisional IRA – an organisation that expressly claimed responsibility for bombing pubs, hotels, and public parks, in acts that killed many hundreds of civilians – organised a hunger strike in the Maze Prison, near Belfast, demanding improved prison conditions.

One of the hunger strikers, Bobby Sands, became a household name in Britain. His story dominated headlines for weeks, and led to a major confrontation, through the media, with the Thatcher government. His death reverberated long afterwards, and ultimately ushered in the Northern Ireland peace process.

Contrast that with our current moment. Imprisoned members of Palestine Action, an organisation that expressly eschews violence against people, and which is trying to stop a slaughter in Gaza that major human groups and genocide scholars are agreed amounts to a genocide, are on hunger strike because their rights are being grossly and systematically violated – as political prisoners. And there’s barely a peep from the media.

Notably, there was similarly minimal media coverage of the prison conditions and legal abuses of another recent political prisoner. Journalist and publisher Julian Assange spent five years in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison, on trumped-up charges to justify extradition to the US for publishing details of British and US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The media gave his case the most cursory coverage and avoided detailing what he was accused of – because those details would have painted a damning picture the British and US governments. Without a trace of irony, the press paid more attention to speeches from the very politicians jailing Assange in which they condemned the suffering of political prisoners, including journalists, in Russia and China.

None of this should be normal. The Palestine Action hunger strike is very obviously a major news story. The fact that it is getting almost no coverage is evidence of active government suppression, and active media collusion in that suppression.

Even hunger strikes by Palestinian political prisoners held illegally in Israeli jails receive more coverage from the Israeli press than the British media are giving a hunger strike by the political prisoners of Palestine Action.

Francesca Nadin, a former Palestine Action political prisoner, has told the Electronic Intifada that “mainstream” journalists who show interest in the hunger strike cannot get their stories past editors. She observes that there has been “almost a complete blackout in the mainstream media about this story”.

Editors, it seems, are often using legal concerns as cover for refusing to report the strike. This is a pretext, not a reason.

Britain has a voluntary system of military censorship, called the D-Notice Committee. By joining the committee, British editors effectively agree to avoid reporting on anything the government declares to be a “national security” matter. In practice, that often concerns issues that might embarrass the government.

For editors, the system offers plausible deniability as they collude in censorship. For readers, it makes the media more than useless on the most urgent and serious matters of our time.

In contrast to the 1980s, when the British media was reporting – even if rarely sympathetically – IRA hunger strikes, the media is now even more under the thumb of the British state. As evidence, note the Guardian’s U-turn on the D-Notice Committee in 2014, when it faced harsh pushback from the security services over its Edward Snowden revelations into illegal mass surveillance by western states of their own populations.

For the first time the paper agreed to join the D-Notice Committee, becoming fully absorbed into the architecture of the national security state. It was rewarded with front-page “exclusive” interviews with the heads of MI5 and MI6. The Guardian revelled in what should have been the ultimate mark of shame for a newspaper that claimed to be a watchdog on power.

The truth is the assault on basic freedoms in Britain is now well advanced. Political dissent is under siege. The hunger strikes are not being televised, nor will the last gasps of our dying freedoms.

This article was originally published on JonathanCook.net.

The post The Hunger Strike Is Not Being Televised – Nor Will the Last Gasps of Our Dying Freedoms appeared first on LewRockwell.

The American contract, a combination of Constitution and myth, is unraveling like the marriage of an unimaginative yet loyal wife who wakes up to find the money gone, eviction imminent, and he loves another.  Further, in a battle for the kids, or any remaining resources, our lying spendthrift plays cards with the judge and drinks with the sheriff, while we are friendless.

This is late stage American empire.  Some citizens still refuse to acknowledge the empire, much less our dead broke, meddling, force-driven and corruption-wracked empire led by fools and grifters.  But a growing number do.

At this time of year, winter brings a mental and physical rest, introspection, a time to connect, heal, dream and plan for a better spring, summer and fall. Yet how many of us really feel rested, connected, healed or able to dream?  The gifts of the season have been stolen by the Krampus state, and even the good children will not be spared.

Weak and weaker generations of men warped a tiny idealist republic into sick, hollow empire.  Generations of serfs more enslaved and impoverished than their European namesakes have been cultivated in town and country alike. The quality of material life has increased slightly, but the quality of rebellion, of courage, and of character and community has been obliterated.  There is no vague thought of bringing pitchforks and tar to a government meeting, no possibility of a Robin Hood to take on state theft and arrogance, no possibility of revolution beyond spasmodic rage, something the empire leverages, and even welcomes.

We are unable to put down our existent empire like an aged pet, to fond memories, with peace preserved, liberty regained, and prosperity nurtured.  Instead, we may have to treat the terrorist state as it treats those it calls terrorist –  with roughness, disrespect for law, using the language of pain rather than persuasion.  The US empire has killed 20 million, and destroyed the livelihoods of many more in the past 70 years. It has created modern fairy tales that allow it to shoot survivors on the high seas, and it views the world through the eyes of the mad, the thieving, and the paranoid.  This empire overwhelmingly funds, fuels, and supports obscene mass murder in Gaza and obscenities in the West Bank, and allocated billions to a destructive and deadly war in Ukraine, both for no reason that it can articulate, other than hatred.  The United States has fully earned the label of terrorist state, and relishes it.

Washington, under any president, will unhesitatingly launch violence at home and abroad.  Today, the coarse bold language of threat emanates from every Washington podium.  The threats are aggressively aimed, trigger-ready, at those who seek to question it. DC treats Venezuelans who resist the empire the same as it does Americans who simply ask questions about it.

We the people have been reduced to the abused spouse of a corrupt and overbearing state.  As such, we may come to be grateful for the unexpected slap that jars us awake, quickens our pulse, and sharpens our gaze and our instincts.  Just as the key to a bad dream is suddenly waking up, the key to ending war and empire is a new and unsettling recognition of reality.  We must not be afraid to measure Washington’s words and actions against mathematical and natural facts, evidence, and common sense.

Our masters – as well educated as they are – cannot do math in their heads, and lack ability to apply even basic theorems or formulas.  As Glen Greenwald points out, they cannot even add, and quite possibly cannot read.  It goes without saying they cannot hear, and most cannot see.  Congress, with a handful of exceptions, do not understand how the Federal Reserve works, believing it both moral and effective to inflate their debt away, shift it to the unborn, and make war to steal from their creditors.  They believe they are not only authorized, but honor-bound to steal from the people.

The Trump administration plans a war or controlled coup for oil and leverage of Caracas – having learned nothing about the impacts and results of their previous dozen attempts to do the same thing around the world.  Their “this time it will be different” claim indicates that these the elite corporate banker imperialists do not live in our world, but they do intend to milk and ultimately sacrifice it.  They will claim in their memoirs it was all an innocent mistake or “they were misinformed.”

We cannot vote to get a “better” president, and the facts bear this out. This reality should not encourage us to vote harder but instead make Americans quietly angry, confidently disobedient, and newly clear-eyed as to the future of this country. Instead of hoping against hope that every election is the most important one, and “our” sorry candidate better than the sorry opposition, let us join the over 100 million Americans who do not vote, and therefore do not consent.

MAGA voters were shocked when Trump endorsed liberal COVIDiot Cuomo in the NYC mayoral race, protected a foreign spy-controlled elite pedophilia operation, and said there was no inflation.  They were mystified at his pardon of a convicted Honduran drug dealer while ginning up their support for a new narco-terror war.  It didn’t make sense to them that a politician was given grace, while unknown Venezuelan and other Caribbean fishermen were served machine gun fire without trial.

In further strange news, Trump received the first ever FIFA World Peace Prize this week.  Trump’s government mandated untested genetic therapies killed hundreds of soccer players, some dropping dead during games and practices, and he fueled and funded wars around the world that killed hundreds of soccer players in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as destroying their schools and playing fields.  A day in the life of empire, I guess.

It shouldn’t be difficult for anyone at this point to decide where they stand, but it does have consequences.  Massie and MTG are ridiculed by the state, and targeted for elimination, as the most exceptional public servants like RFK, Jr and Gabbard are sidelined and internally plotted against.  Rising awareness of assassinations and plots to kill enemies of this state or another is undeniable.  It is clear cause for a dissolution, the right reason to seek and claim liberty, and yet like the divorcing spouse, a cause for some caution.

Is doing basic math a form of violence?  Is refusing to follow the unconstitutional and unwarranted commands of our utterly contemptuous and spineless ruling class violent?   Is pointing out the bankrupt nature of imperial war an act of violence?  Is living our lives in such a way that the state is ancillary or even optional an act of violence? Is pointing our finger at the ridiculousness of the empire an act of violence?

In the coming divorce court, the prosecution and many witnesses will be state fiduciaries, beneficiaries, and criminals.  Justice will be nothing less than the end of our contract with DC, and our collective refusal to fund their crimes or tolerate them ever again.  Americans must repudiate the empire before it literally beats them to death and burns down the house.

The post Divorcing the Empire appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump had a very clear choice in front of him starting in January — Try to save America, or try to save the bankrupt Empire that lives at the expense of the American people. The time had finally come, after 100 years of almost non-stop wars, to make the choice. It has to be one or the other. The American people overwhelmingly voted to “Make America Great Again” as it was before the Empire’s endless wars — drastically cut the government and free the American people. But President Trump chose to do the exact opposite, and the results throughout the economy and American society reflect his choice; in just less than a year.

The post The “Golden Age” of Job Layoffs? appeared first on LewRockwell.

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-drenaggio-della-lbma-e-la-ricapitalizzazione)

La “eco chamber” della propaganda europea/inglese è andata in modalità “berserk” nell'ultima settimana sventolando una crisi della liquidità negli USA a causa dell'impennata del SOFR e dell'uso del Repo facility da parte della FED. Come fare a non finire vittime del rumore di fondo? Leggete Il Grande Default. In questo modo vi sarà più facile capire la fondamentale differenza tra mondo finanziario pre-LIBOR e post-LIBOR, l'intervento della FED nell'esclusivo caso in cui il mercato dei titoli del Tesoro americani diventi bidless e che il malato per eccellenza è il sistema bancario europeo. Gli stress attuali nel SOFR possono essere sfruttati al rialzo solo direttamente (vendita di titoli del Tesoro americani di cui inglesi ed europei sono gonfi, ma sanno che è una misura temporanea dato che rappresentano la principale garanzia collaterale credibile attualmente); quelli al ribasso indirettamente, tramite “l'effetto fionda” e la scommessa che la leva finanziaria verrà di nuovo abusata.

Il caso specifico della prima settimana di novembre è stato un attacco esterno agli USA solo a livello mediatico. Infatti il mercato dei pronti contro termine è stato in subbuglio poiché le pressioni sulla liquidità di fine mese si sono scontrate con lo shutdown, che ha causato l'accumulo di liquidità non erogata sul Treasury General Account presso la FED. Nel giro di un paio di settimane ha assorbito $200 miliardi di liquidità dai mercati monetari e i rendimenti del mercato dei pronti contro termine hanno iniziato a salire. Le banche sono intervenute prendendo in prestito fondi dal Repo facility e prestandoli per trarre profitto dallo spread. Si trattava di pronti contro termine overnight che si estinguono il giorno lavorativo successivo, quando la FED recupera i suoi fondi e le banche recuperano le loro garanzie.

Il lunedì suddetti fondi sono stati liquidati e le banche hanno incassato gli interessi. Il mercoledì non sono stati effettuati nuovi pronti contro termine e il saldo era pari a zero, poiché a quel punto i tassi del mercato dei pronti contro termine erano scesi ben al di sotto di quello del Repo facility e ieri il saldo era pari a zero. E il mercato dei pronti contro termine si è calmato; il Repo facility della FED ha fatto il suo lavoro. Quindi prima di seguire gli “starnazzamenti” sui social e diventare “utili idioti” della propaganda europea/inglese, è bene sapere quali sono le nuove basi su cui operano gli Stati Uniti e chi sono i loro avversari. “Stranamente”, però, nessuno si è chiesto a quanto fossero arrivati invece quelli inglesi.

Ma non mancano anche altri gli attacchi da parte della cricca di Davos: sintomi di stress nei mercati del credito, SOFR che schizza in alto, dichiarazioni di gente come Bailey e Carney che parlano di crisi finanziaria negli USA. E la grancassa di utili idioti sui social amplifica questo messaggio fraudolento. Questa è una guerra e si usano i mezzi della guerra per combattere. Affinché Trump possa avere successo deve confondere gli avversari e mostrare al mondo chi sono. Powell sta mostrando al mondo che uno dei nemici è Blackrock. Semmai la FED dovesse tornare al QE, il mercato immobiliare andrebbe su di giri e Blackrock guadagnerebbe senza doverlo manipolare, perché l'offerta di case è esigua. I prezzi schizzerebbero alle stelle e nessuno vuole questo esito. Blackrock, sin dal Build Back Better, non ha fatto altro che acquistare proprietà immobiliari e venderle a un tasso manipolato per intascare dalle tasse sugli immobili e uccidere la classe media americana. Se però Powell tiene i tassi laddove sono adesso o li abbassa per un'altra volta ancora, il mercato immobiliare rimane dove è adesso, le espulsioni continuano e il mercato del lavoro continua a migliorare (come sta accadendo già adesso), l'offerta di case verrà ampliata tramite lo stimolo del settore delle costruzioni. Il valore delle case esistenti calerà, e sarà un bene, e cambierà il tipo di casa (e il prezzo) a cui possono accedere le nuove famiglie. Istituti come Blackrock subiranno un haircut pesante e finalmente finirà il mito della finanziarizzazione del settore immobiliare. Questo circolo virtuoso, coadiuvato dalla IPO di Fannie/Freddie, darà slancio e sostenibilità ai mutui a 30 anni.

La formula “tutte le strade conducono a Londra” rappresenta il modo in cui i vecchi interessi bancari hanno gestito il loro impero mercantilista per centinaia di anni. Oltremanica, ovviamente, perché erano in competizione con gli olandesi. Nel corso del tempo hanno costruito una immensa rete di persone e relazioni finanziarie in tutto il mondo. C'è un intero universo di persone che non è coperto da Wikipedia e di cui non sappiamo niente, ma ai fini della comprensione di come funzionano le meccaniche è più importante la rete e le relazioni piuttosto che le singole persone o i singoli gruppi. Questa rete/relazioni si manifesta attraverso le linee di politica: arrivano le proverbiali telefonate dall'alto e vengono prese da chi deve mettere in atto gli ordini... e così ci ritroviamo roba come lo Steele Dossier, l'MI6 infiltrato nella CIA, conflitti settari che scoppiano improvvisamente (es. India-Pakistan, Azerbaijan-Armenia, ecc.).

Alla domanda perché l'abbiano fatto e lo facciano tuttora, la risposta è: non hanno collaterale. L'Europa ha da sempre costruito imperi coloniali perché non ha abbastanza risorse naturali da poter restare nel cosiddetto “Primo mondo” e quindi le deve prendere da qualcun altro. In un certo senso questa è la sua storia degli ultimi 500 anni. In quest'ottica Londra ha sparso “gaslighting” cucendo addosso agli USA l'etichetta di “impero del male”: gli americani hanno adottato la politica estera inglese, il sistema bancario centrale inglese, policy di tasse e spese inglesi, un maggiore centralizzazione della società in stile inglese. Va bene essere critici del passato degli Stati Uniti, anche del presente sotto certi aspetti, ma quest'ultimo è di certo tutt'altra cosa rispetto a quando c'erano Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney.

“Tutte le strade portano a Londra” perché adesso l'Europa è il giocatore più debole al tavolo della geopolitica (inclusa la City di Londra ed escluso il Vaticano). Qual è un ulteriore elemento di “gaslighting” sparso dagli inglesi? Il mito dell'onnipotenza degli ebrei. Mettere gli uni contro gli altri serve solo al miglior interessi della City di Londra in modo da disinnescare eventuali minacce.

The Great Dragon or London Money Power, è uno dei tanti libri dimenticati dalla storia (o volutamente fatti sparire dal radar pubblico) che disegnano meglio la mappa di come “tutte le strade conducono a Londra”. Uno degli aspetti principali discussi è la nascita dei cosiddetti Board of Trade negli Stati Uniti, quelli che oggi sono i mercati dei futures. Quando ne veniva creato uno, ad esempio sul mais, sul frumento, sul grano, ecc., finivano sempre per distruggere gli agricoltori. Inizialmente avrebbero emesso un sacco di credito nei confronti degli agricoltori, questi ultimi avrebbero creato fattorie sulle loro terre, coltivato i campi, curato i raccolti e infine avrebbero portato i prodotti risultanti nei mercati diretti dai Board of Trade. Essi si sarebbero arrogati il diritto di regolamentare i mercati, saldare  gli scambi, stipulare i termini dei contratti. Il libro ci mostra come questo “diritto” di regolamentazione si sarebbe sempre concluso con la depressione dei prezzi agricoli, la bancarotta degli agricoltori e l'acquisizione di tutti gli asset liquidati per saldare i loro debiti. La fonte dei capitali dati in prestito? La City di Londra. L'evoluzione dei futures altro non è che la finanziarizzazione selvaggia delle commodity che negli ultimi 50 anni non hanno fatto altro che scendere rispetto a una valuta fiat che invece s'è deprezzata costantemente. Il ciclo di manipolazione unidirezionale è stato interrotto 3 anni fa con l'emancipazione della FED dalla cosiddetta “coordinated central banks policy”. Ecco perché, ad esempio, la LBMA viene drenata di oro dai suoi caveau. La cavalcata dei prezzi dei metalli preziosi segna una nuova era per le commodity, sostituendo la mano onnipresente dalla City di Londra con qualcosa di più sostenibile e in linea con la realtà.

1/2
L'elefante nella stanza: il drenaggio delle riserve della LBMA. Questo campo di battaglia fa parte della strategia dei NY Boys di ridimensionare la leva nel mercato degli eurodollari e l'influenza degli inglesi sugli USA. pic.twitter.com/lyuBM1Pvk1

Prima di passare a trattare il tema dell'articolo di oggi, però, ecco un promemoria di come funziona la geopolitica inglese. Prima dello scoppio della Prima guerra mondiale Kuwait e Iraq erano un solo stato. Poi sono arrivati gli inglesi e “hanno separato” il Kuwait dall'Iraq, affinché quest'ultimo non avesse più uno sbocco sul mare. Come hanno fatto “ad arrivare”? Si sono inseriti all'interno delle linee etniche stressando una fazione affinché ne attaccasse un'altra, in modo da tenere in perenne divisione l'intera nazione ed esercitando così con estrema facilità il potere. Saddam Hussein aveva lo scopo di riunificare ciò che era stato diviso tramite trame sotterranee inglesi nel sottobosco della società. I neocon americani, trotskisti fino al midollo, sono stati facilmente raggirati dagli inglesi affinché facessero il “lavoro sporco” al posto loro. Stesso discorso si può farlo per India e Pakistan.

Lo schema è sempre lo stesso. C'è una maggioranza al controllo di un Paese, e se prendiamo un Paese musulmano ad esempio, diciamo che siano gli sciiti. Un 80% sciita, quindi, e un 20% sunnita. Allora gli inglesi prendono contatti con la minoranza del 20% e la armano, creando i presupposti affinché ci sia una guerra civile. L'obiettivo di armare la minoranza affinché sfidi la maggioranza è quello di alimentare il malumore. La stessa cosa l'hanno fatta al Sud degli Stati Uniti: hanno nutrito l'odio del Sud nei confronti del Nord, quest'ultimo ha imposto dazi al primo, hanno amplificato il movimento abolizionista e, in sostanza, hanno agitato entrambi gli animi affinché arrivassero allo scontro.

E la stessa cosa l'hanno fatta tra Stati Uniti e Canada all'indomani della Guerra d'indipendenza. I lealisti del Nord-est si spostarono più a Nord e presero l'area di Toronto. Trent'anni dopo ci fu la guerra del 1812. I canadesi si credono una potenza militare solo perché sono un'appendice dell'Impero britannico ed ecco perché ancora oggi obbediscono ai dettami del “padrone”.

NOW - Canada PM Carney says AI data centres must be carbon neutral, by paying carbon credits, "We need a price on carbon, I salute my neighbor, the European Union, in pricing carbon and putting in place a CBAM." pic.twitter.com/u8Sja2deT9

Ma quella spiegata qui altro non è che la filosofia del “divide et impera”. Se ci spostiamo poi a livello finanziario, vediamo le stesse impronte digitali: sono le succursali della Banca d'Inghilterra, inclusa la Banca del Canada, e la BoE stessa che stanno cercando di manipolare il mercato obbligazionario americano per scatenare una crisi tale da spingere la FED a inondare i mercati di dollari. Non essendoci più il LIBOR un tale compito non è più semplice come una volta. Per avere un indizio che punta in questa direzione basta guardare le relazioni del TIC: Banca d' Inghilterra e Banca del Canada si avvicendano nel ruolo di posizionamento short e long dei titoli del Tesoro americani. Stanno giocando nello spazio dei decennali e trentennali, fingendo un'inversione nel front-end della curva dei rendimenti; solo che a questo giro non c'è una Janet Yellen che vende il front-end e compra il back-end per semplificare la vita a gente come la Lagarde e Bailey: ci sono i capitali della BCE e della BoE in prima linea adesso. Infatti Bessent non sta amplificando l'inversione della curva dei rendimenti americani tra i 6 mesi e i 3 anni. Ma, soprattutto, non c'è fuga di capitali dagli Stati Uniti, anzi...

Attenzione, però, perché non si tratta solo del mercato obbligazionario americano: tramite rehypothecation e leva finanziaria gli inglesi e le relative succursali hanno gonfiato l'importanza delle cosiddette MAG7 rispetto alle 493 voci restanti nell'indice S&P. Questo significa che quando vogliono ingegnerizzare il panico finanziario, come hanno fatto la penultima settimana di novembre, basta solo vendere un po' di azioni MAG7, vendere un po' di trentennali, vendere un po' di Bitcoin e usare i proventi per soffocare l'ascesa dell'oro. Quest'ultima è una variante dell'attacco al SOFR della scorsa primavera, quando tutti sventolavano il feticcio del “basis trade” senza capire che gli spike violenti che si vedevano lungo la curva dei tassi SOFR era un preciso assalto alla sua tenuta. Powell sta facendo esattamente quello che deve fare, ovvero, drenare liquidità dal mercato dell'eurodollaro. Uno degli “effetti collaterali” dello shutwodn era che il Dipartimento del Tesoro ha riempito il suo conto presso la FED (TGA) e la cosa ha fatto schizzare in alto il SOFR. Nessuna crisi di liquidità nei pronti contro termine, ma semplicemente denaro che non scorreva nel sistema. Ma chi è che è stato danneggiato e ha ottenuto un “free ride” sui social e sui canali d'informazione principali? La Banca d'Inghilterra, l'uso del proprio Repo facility è stato 3 volte superiore a quello della FED. La BoE, insieme alla Banca del Canada, ha attaccato il SOFR all'indomani del termine dell'ultimo contratto saldato col LIBOR lo scorso marzo. Migliaia di miliardi di (euro)dollari a leva gettati per attaccare le curve dei futures del SOFR, ma il tentativo è fallito soprattutto perché Bessent, tramite il sopraccitato TGA, ha iniziato a drenare d'oro fisico la LBMA e successivamente s'è spostato sul rame. Un lasso di tempo di 6 mesi.

Quali altri eventi hanno mostrato lo stesso lasso temporale? Crisi nei pronti contro termine nel settembre 2019 e il successivo intervento della FED a marzo 2020, crisi nei pronti contro termine nel settembre 2007 e successivo crollo di Bear Sterns a marzo 2008. La FED doveva sempre intervenire per stabilizzare i mercati, giocare in difesa. Il gigantesco cambiamento che ancora pochi riescono a percepire è questo: mentre la FED gioca in difesa, il Dipartimento del Tesoro va all'attacco. Sono coordinati adesso nell'intenzione di difendere gli Stati Uniti, mentre invece in passato il coordinamento verteva sulla loro spoliazione. Lo shutdown (ricordiamolo, voluto dai Dem) doveva spingere il drenaggio di liquidità dai pronti contro termine e creare lo stesso tipo di crisi vista nel passato. Cosa ha fatto desistere Londra dal perseguire questo tentativo? Il Dipartimento del Tesoro americano (aiutato dai cinesi tra l'altro) all'assalto del mercato dell'argento fisico, di gran lunga più importante per gli inglesi, e la FED che ha fatto uscire una relazione in cui smascherava le Isole Cayman per le succursali della BoE che sono e le minacciava indirettamente.

La ciliegina sulla torta di tutta questa storia è che se ci sarà un nuovo giro di stimoli fiscali agli americani, non avverrà allo stesso modo di quello del 2021 causando un boom al consumo. Stavolta ci sarà un boom del ripagamento di debiti ed ecco perché le grandi aziende continuano a sfoltire personale. Sarà un problema? No. Facciamo una digressione su questo tema. Lo shutdown voluto dai Dem aveva lo scopo di frenare l'uscita dalla conservatorship da parte di Fannie/Freddie, frenare l'approvazione del Clarity Act e frenare la ripartenza dei mutui a 30 anni (potenzialmente a 50 adesso). La FED è ancora stracolma di titoli garantiti da ipoteca, ma se si cambia il modo in cui funziona il mercato dei mutui negli Stati Uniti allora i titoli sopraccitati potrebbero avere di nuovo un mercato. La FED potrebbe vendere questi titoli, contrarre con decisione il proprio bilancio e non avrebbe più bisogno del quantitative tightening. A spese di chi? Private equity.

La ricapitalizzazione della classe media e la re-industrializzazione del Paese passa dalla capacità degli americani di accendere un mutuo a tassi sostenibili e in un ambiente economico che permetta loro di abbassare l'incertezza. I colletti blu, quindi, devono essere in grado di potersi permettere una casa da $200.000 a un tasso del 3% da estinguere in 50 anni. Questo tasso sarebbe fisso e al di sotto dell'ottimale di mercato, la cui sostenibilità verrebbe scaricata sul private equity che invece si vedrebbe aumentare le proprie commissioni. Il denaro rubato durante la demolizione controllata degli Stati Uniti, sponsorizzata dalle amministrazioni Obama, verrebbe re-investito nella crescita delle industrie manifatturiere e nel sostentamento finanziario di giovani famiglie. Realtà come Blacorock e Blackstone vedrebbero invertiti quei privilegi finanziari che hanno caratterizzato i loro affari immobiliari a spese della classe media americana: si vedrebbero caricato un costo del capitale più alto per le loro proprietà in affitto e i loro spazi immobiliari nella sfera commerciale, pagherebbero più tasse che verrebbero canalizzate per finanziare l'industria dei mutui per la classe media, gli agenti ICE che buttano fuori dal Paese tutti gli H1-B farlocchi potrebbero accendere un mutuo a tasso agevolato e... sentite questa, perché è grossa e la sentirete dapprima qui... esportare un tale modello a livello internazionale tramite Tether.

Vediamo di spiegare ancora meglio la questione immobiliare e mutui. Siamo d'accordo che l'idea di un mutuo a 50 anni, sulla carta, sia tutt'altro che l'inizio di un processo di deleveraging, anzi probabilmente un modo per calciare ulteriormente il barattolo lungo la strada. La questione rimane: come si fa a ricostruire la classe media? Dando loro una possibilità. E non è tanto diverso da quanto fece Roosevelt coi mutui a 30 anni. Durante la Grande depressione non c'erano mutui, permettersi una casa era un lusso per pochi e la povertà dilagava. Il governo federale avviò il programma dei mutui iniziando da quelli a 1 e 2 anni, passando poi a 5 e infine a 30. L'idea dei titoli garantiti da ipoteca nacque allora: venne creato un mercato dei mutui per aiutare la classe media, permettergli di trovare un lavoro, dargli la capacità di poter avere accesso a tutta una serie di beni  che avrebbe agevolato la loro vita. E la cosa funzionò abbastanza rapidamente. Quale fu il meccanismo di base: togliere il denaro dagli “oligarchi” e darlo alla classe media, creando la “proprietà sulla casa” e altresì il motore di un'economia.

Oggi ci si lamenta che passare dai mutui a 30 a quelli a 50 anni fa risparmiare molto poco, i dati sono pessimisti, ecc. Ma se lo si fa mettendo in prima linea il denaro del private equity, “persuadendolo” che adesso deve pagare per il salvataggio ottenuto sulla scia della crisi del 2008, allora le cose cambiano: subirà un haircut sugli MBS esistenti e in questo modo il denaro “risparmiato” sarà dirottato sulla classe media che usufruirà di tassi per i mutui al di sotto di quelli di mercato.

Il sistema fiscale americano è stato costruito dagli inglesi per estrarre quanta più ricchezza possibile dalla loro colonia, soprattutto dalle generazioni più giovani. Circa il 12% delle tasse pagate dai contribuenti va a finire in uno dei peggiori veicoli d'investimento possibili: la previdenza sociale. Senza contare poi i premi dell'assicurazione schizzati in alto a causa dell'Obamacare e i mutui trentennali ibridi (5 anni di tasso fisso, 25 anni di tasso variabile che richiedono giocoforza un rifinanziamento lungo il percorso e rata finale cospicua; in alternativa c'è il mutuo a 30 anni classico a tasso fisso che richiede però un anticipo del 20% della somma totale) che sono una trappola per aragoste piuttosto che la possibilità di comprarsi una casa. Guarda il caso, poi, allo scadere esatto di ogni 5 anni abbiamo assistito a una crisi importante che ha inevitabilmente ritoccato i tassi variabili a livelli più alti. Uno, quindi, parte all'1% e si ritrova dopo 5 anni all'8%. C'è stata letteralmente una flessione economica ogni 4.7 anni sin dal 1971 a causa dell'instabilità crescente del mercato degli eurodollari. E questo spiega anche perché le banche sono reticenti a prestare denaro oltre l'arco temporale dei 5 anni.

Ecco perché, in base all'assetto qui descritto, i mutui a 30 anni con tasse agevolate dal governo federale sono un compromesso pratico percorribile: il mutuatario pone un piccolo anticipo e il rischio viene diluito attraverso i titoli garantiti da ipoteca. Si passa quindi da un modello bancario 3-9-3, a uno 3-6-3 o 3-5-3. La necessità di mutui a 50 anni rappresenta quanto gli Stati Uniti siano stati devastati dagli infiltrati nelle precedenti amministrazioni e quanto siano sbilanciati salari e prezzi degli asset. Certo, si può lasciare che questi ultimi calino del 50% e poi vedere quanto indietro regrediamo all'era della pietra, oppure invece di perorare l'ulteriore implosione della società si può cercare una certa stabilizzazione della stessa e ripartire da lì. Sì, il livello dei prezzi fa schifo, ma due delle principali caratteristiche dell'azione umana sono l'inventiva e l'ingegno... soprattutto in un ambiente che permette la loro piena espressione.

Ripartire dal settore immobiliare, conosciuto molto bene da Trump, ha i suoi vantaggi per ricostituire comunità solide che rimangono in un posto e lo fanno prosperare. Pensate alla Florida dove le tasse sulla proprietà sono state fortemente abbattute e potrebbero addirittura essere portate a 0. Chi avvierà un progetto edilizio avrà la possibilità di incanalare tutte le risorse in quello che sta costruendo, senza dover pensare a mettere una parte dei suoi fondi per pagare burocrati e roba del genere. L'incentivo sarà quello di costruire qualcosa che dura, col tempo necessario e anche bello; non più qualcosa di rassomigliante a una casa nel minor tempo possibile. I materiali saranno più longevi perché l'incentivo è quello di costruire qualcosa di bello e che dura piuttosto che funzionale e conveniente. È questa distinzione che ha permesso di far entrare nell'immaginario collettivo il semplice fatto che le case erano un investimento per le generazioni, facendone aumentare il valore nel tempo. Adesso quest'ultimo cala e la casa si deprezza. Con la IPO di Fannie/Freddie e un mutuo a 50 anni, con una rata inferiore a quello di 30 anni e tassi meglio definiti/prevedibili, le cose cambierebbero. Ma non è finita qui, perché togliere le tasse sulla proprietà oltre ad agevolare la vita a chi costruisce e a chi compra, e avere più asset il cui valore è dettato da materiali solidi alla base, renderebbe più credibili strumenti finanziari come i titoli garantiti da ipoteca (MBS). Un circolo virtuoso tra Fannie/Freddie, compagnie d'assicurazione/fondi pensione e classe media: listare gli MBS costerà una commissione (anche dello 0.1% e Fannie/Freddie passeranno dall'essere una compagnia da $600 miliardi a $3.000 miliardi con utile netto raddoppiato rispetto a quello attuale), ciò permetterà di finanziare i mutui degli americani, gli investitori istituzionali opereranno con derivati coperti dalla solvibilità dei mutuatari e di solidi immobili.

Ciò che davvero conta qui è la prevedibilità, a differenza dell'incertezza seminata dagli inglesi. Infatti anche se le persone si muovessero da un posto all'altro, e vendessero casa, i termini precedenti se li porterebbero dietro attraverso la cosiddetta “portabilità dei mutui”. Infatti qual è il super potere degli inglesi? Manipolare il costo del denaro attraverso l'arbitraggio delle valute e manipolazione del mercato obbligazionario. Se si permette agli americani di impostare un mutuo a 50 anni a tasso fisso e portabile vengono schermati da tali manipolazioni. Niente più finanziarizzazione della classe media: essa ha un flusso di cassa stabile, le compagnie d'assicurazione hanno flussi di cassa stabili e il modello delle agenzie di credito per impostare i tassi dei mutui può essere mandato al diavolo perché non ce n'è più bisogno. E perché Bessent parla di Bitcoin? Perché l'amministrazione Trump ha aperto a Bitcoin? Perché potrà essere usato come collaterale per i prestiti, così come oro e argento (cosa che non si poteva fare prima). Il Dodd-Frank Act precludeva anche questo, soprattutto per le piccole-medie imprese, impedendo di porre flussi di cassa e margini di profitto come base per ottenere prestiti.

Questo è ciò su cui sta lavorando l'amministrazione Trump.

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

???? Qui il link alla Seconda Parte:

When I first wrote (“Murderers for Trump”) about President Trump ordering air strikes against “narco-terrorists” on boats in international waters in the Caribbean Sea, there had been three “lethal kinetic strikes.” The last time I checked, there have now been 21 such air strikes in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, with 83 people killed.

The Pentagon has not acknowledged what aircraft the military is using to conduct the strikes, but it is supposed to include MQ-9 Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles, AC-130J gunships, and F-35 fighter jets.

Because there was no search, seizure, arrest, indictment, arraignment, prosecution, trial, conviction, or sentencing; no proof of what exactly was on these ships; no threat to the United States by the boats or their occupants; no death-penalty offenses (although Trump and some Republicans would like there to be a death penalty for drug offenses); no boats were near American territory; and because Trump took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner; I concluded then, and conclude now, that all of the air strikes are simply extrajudicial murder.

Many of those in the miliary who participated in this extrajudicial murder are no doubt professing Christians. According to the Pew Research Center, 62 percent of Americans identify as Christian. The percentage of military personnel who identify as Christian is higher than the general population. This has been estimated to be between 65 and 75 percent. The percentage of veterans who identify as Christian has been estimated to be 91 percent. That number seems a little high, but the point is simply that a majority of military personnel identify as Christian.

We can be certain, then that professing Christians were involved in the extrajudicial murder of the people on these boats. Just like we can be certain that professing Christians help to carry out the death and destruction meted out by the U.S. military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea, and all the minor military operations that the U.S. military has been involved in since World War II: Bosnia, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Panama, Somalia.

So, my question is a simple one: Why do Christians kill for their government?

Christians are told to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), to “recompense to no man evil for evil” (Romans 12:17), to “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18), to not kill (Romans 13:9), to not “render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:15), and that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4).

So, why do Christians join the military and so easily and callously kill for their government?

There is no draft. There is no universal military service. No American is forced to join the military and kill on command. The fact that the Bible admonishes Christians to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13) and to “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Romans 13:1) has nothing to do with anything.

If the government were to come to a Christian and say: “Put on this uniform, take this gun, go to such and such address across town, and start shooting people,” I can’t imagine any Christian not being horrified and refusing to do it. But if the government comes to a Christian and says: “If you voluntarily, of your own freewill, join the military, you will be required to put on a uniform, take a gun, go to such and such country, and start shooting people,” then Christians line up at their local military recruiter’s office and say “sign me up.” Why is it that Christians will defend the foreign military action by saying “I was just following orders,” but not the domestic one?

Isn’t it strange that Americans only object to the “I was just following orders” defense—a defense that was used to no avail by Nazis at Nuremberg—when soldiers from other countries attempt to use it?

Christian soldiers who kill for their government are guilty of idolatry. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3), the Bible says. They have made a god out of the state. They think the state can sanctify murder.

The U.S. military is a giant killing machine. Christians who join the military will be expected to unconditionally follow orders and kill on command to help carry out the U.S. government’s reckless, belligerent, and interventionist U.S. foreign policy. They will not be defending America or its freedoms.

No Christian should kill for his government. No matter how loud the government screams “narco-terrorist.”

The post Why Do Christians Kill for Their Government? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Back in March of 2014, I wrote about how the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operates an extortion racket-style scheme via its PreCheck program that gives travelers who pay a fee and jump through a bunch of hoops including submitting to fingerprinting and a background check a chance, though no guarantee, that they can evade some harassment from the TSA itself. In the same vein, starting in February, TSA is planning to roll out a new tax and other demands, termed Confirm.ID, that will be required of individuals who do not have REAL ID compliant identification documentation in order for them to travel from point A or point B.

As reported Monday in an Associated Press article, a new 45 dollars fee (really a tax since it is charged by government) will be imposed by TSA on travelers who do not have REAL ID compliant identification documentation. The rollout of the United Sates government’s REAL ID mandate, authorized by congressional legislation 20 years ago, was delayed until last year due largely to opposition from people concerned about REAL ID’s threats to liberty. By paying the fee and complying with other TSA demands in its Confirm.ID process, the AP article relates, a person will be able to seek travel permission from TSA via an alternative method that may take up to half an hour to complete and, if successful, will result in approval for traveling for just 10 days. People have been concerned about the collection of biometric information coming with REAL ID. Confirm.ID may not provide a way around such requirements given that it has the collection of biometric information built into its process.

Americans already fund TSA with their tax dollars, including a “Passenger Fee” or “September 11 Security Fee” included in the total price of each airline flight ticket. But, the TSA, like many of its agents pilfering from travelers’ bags put in jeopardy by the TSA enforced “security” procedures, keeps gaining new means to separate Americans from their money.

The new tax and other demands on people traveling without REAL ID is adding insult to injury given that the push for people to obtain and use REAL ID was itself fueled by rejection of each individual’s right to travel. The new tax is also piled on top of already significant harassment that TSA routinely dispenses. I listed off some aspects of this harassment in a July article regarding Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem trying to gain some support from people fed up with TSA through announcing a minimal rollback of TSA bullying related to if people may keep their shoes on at checkpoints. I wrote:

Additionally, the TSA demanding passengers take off shoes has been just one small part of the harassment it metes out on travelers. Noem is leaving in place the rest — waits in line, demanded production of identification documentation in violation of the right to travel anonymously, zero privacy in regard to what is in bags or pockets, confiscation of nonthreatening though verboten items, subjection to potential harm from never properly safety tested “full-body scanners,” “pat downs” that are pretty much the same as friskings by police and that without special governmental protection would be regarded as assaults or sexual assaults, etc.

While the TSA’s new tax and demands on travelers who lack REAL ID compliant identification documentation is repugnant, so too is REAL ID, as was explained by then-United States House of Representatives Member Ron Paul (R-TX) on the House floor when REAL ID legislation passed twenty years ago. You can watch Paul’s speech here.

Neither REAL ID nor Confirm.ID is compatible with respect for liberty. They should be thrown away along with the TSA’s long list of harassment activities.

This article was originally published on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post TSA’s New Confirm.ID Tax appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump said on Tuesday that in addition to the airstrikes on Venezuelan boats suspected of trafficking drugs to the United States, the U.S. military would begin hitting targets on land. Not only are all these strikes unconstitutional by any construction, but they are also unprovoked acts of war against a country that poses no threat to the United States.

Since September, the administration has carried out at least twenty-one attacks on civilian vessels in the Caribbean, resulting in eighty-three deaths. Not one of those killed by American forces was charged with a crime in any court, much less convicted at trial. This behavior wouldn’t pass muster under Magna Carta, written by barbarians by our standards today, much less the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This doesn’t require any fanciful 20th-century reading of the Bill of Rights, like the one that produced Roe v. Wade. That this is impermissible is firmly rooted in constitutional interpretation dating to the man who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights himself.

There were several reasons for the War of 1812, not all of them legitimate. A certain faction among the war hawks of the day just wanted to steal Canada from the British empire. But foremost among the legitimate grievances cited by James Madison in asking Congress for a declaration of war, and frankly the only one most people remember, was the impressment of sailors on American ships into service in the British Navy.

It is important to understand the complaint was not against returning true deserters from the British Navy to Great Britain. As Madison said in his address, “And that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the practice, the British Government was formally assured of the readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such as could not be rejected, if the recovery of British subjects were real and sole object.”

The problem the Madison administration had was that, in addition to disrespectfully boarding American ships by force, the British “so far from affecting British subjects alone, that under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of American Citizens, under the safeguard of public law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and from everything dear to them.”

That’s the whole point of due process. The government not only has to prove a crime was committed, but that they have indeed arrested the right person, which they frequently haven’t. This is why the mobbish retort, “narco-terrorists don’t deserve due process” is so counterintuitive. Without it, we don’t even know if the government has arrested the person they believe they have, much less whether this person committed a crime.

The founders risked surrendering their independence from Great Britain over this principle. Now, Trump supporters dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

This is not the only time when due process loomed large in a national issue. Nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by northern states was firmly rooted in the same principle. Like the impressment issue, the northern states did not deny the constitutionality of returning escaped slaves to their masters. They objected to alleged escaped slaves being summarily seized without due process.

First, you must prove John Doe was a slave who escaped, and also that this is indeed John Doe and not someone you’ve mistaken for him – which, again, the government does all the time to this day.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has cited statistics on this in opposing the administration from a letter written to him by the Acting Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) indicating that 21% of all ships boarded by USCG between September 2024 and October 2025 contained no drugs.

All were boarded because the government thought they were carrying drugs, but one out of every five were not. On what basis are we to believe a similar percentage of those summarily blown to bits on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s orders weren’t similarly innocent?

As with many of Trump’s abuses, there is precedent to which he can point. Thirteen years ago, President Obama killed an American citizen he unilaterally deemed a terrorist without a trial or any formal charges. He made the ridiculous claim he had satisfied the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements by a panel of his own self-appointed czars and cronies reviewing the case. But judicial power is delegated exclusively to the judicial branch in the Constitution.

Obama admitted to having a whole list of people he reserved the right to kill at his sole discretion, which his 2012 opponent Mitt Romney fully endorsed.

While no less unconstitutional or un-American, Obama’s crime was at least committed against someone he claimed had incited murder of American citizens. This made him a terrorist, by presidential pronouncement, and therefore subject to extrajudicial homicide as part of the Orwellian “War on Terror.”

The Venezuelans vaporized by the Trump administration, aren’t accused of blowing up, shooting, stabbing, or otherwise committing violence against Americans. They are called terrorists for selling willing American buyers drugs. Yes, the drugs are illegal in the United States, but there is no drug law prescribing the death penalty for violating it, much less without a trial or even a formal charge.

As with most of the other enormities committed by the U.S. government during this century, this one is easy to dismiss because it happens in some other country, to a foreign people most Americans know nothing about. Imagine if Americans walking on the sidewalks of American cities and towns saw people vaporized before their eyes by government drones without any attempt to arrest them or even verify their identity. No American would stand for it.

But what the Trump administration is doing now is even worse because it adds to trampling American liberty the crime of committing acts of war against a nation we are not at war with, which has not attacked us. The United States declared war on Great Britain on precisely the same principle, for acts less egregious than those being committed by the U.S. government against Venezuela.

The United States was once rightly considered an inspiration to the entire world. The “land of the free” achieved a society where the inalienable rights of the individual were more sacred and more protected than in any society in history. Today, it stumbles around the world stage like a drunk, shouting accusations in every direction, mumbling slurred pronouncements about “democracy,” and beating up on weaklings, while the world stands by and waits for it to pass out.

Will we ever sober up?

This article was originally published on Tom Mullen Talks Freedom.

The post Summarily Murdering Venezuelan “Narco-Terrorists” Is Profoundly Un-American appeared first on LewRockwell.