Aggregatore di feed

News anchor Dan Rather’s reaction to the THIRD total building collapse on 9/11

AE911Truth

So, as you can see, despite the extreme flexibility of it’s modeling tools, not only was NIST unable to model the actual collapse with it’s simulations it couldn’t even show a realistic initiation sequence, not even after four extra years of trying.

AND, in the same vein, NISTs simulations were also unable to model the actual collapse of either of the Twin World Trade Center towers, thus ignoring two other elephants in the room.

On the other hand, a more detailed analysis using up-to-date modeling software, strongly suggests there’s no way fire could have caused Building 7 to collapse the way the videos show it did.

But the final affront is that, fighting off a persistent string of FOIA requests using the national security blanket thrown to it on Monday, Aug. 4, 2008 by Obama’s Executive Order 13470, NIST refused to release 74,777 (about 80%) of the key simulation files it used to come up with its shall-we-say-to-be-kind, dubious Column 79 hypothesis.

This makes replication, the back-bone of science, not to mention checking its work for logic, rigor, errors and fibs etc. impossible.

NIST’s excuse for not releasing the key files? Their release “might endanger public safety.” They may have that right if bureaucrats and certain politicians in the stocks or hanging from trees and lamp-posts, etc. is dangerous to public safety.

Or do they wish to assert their work proves U.S. skyscrapers are so delicate that, as another compadre quipped, “They’re afraid terrorists will realize they can bring down our high-rises by setting a wastebasket on fire in the parking garage?”

You can find much more thoroughly detailed and documented critiques of NIST’s less-than-forth-coming shennanigans with its approach, data, and technique, here, here, and here for starters.

You can find an extensive list of what else was ignored and hidden — and how it was done — HERE.

It’s clear that none of the NIST personnel wanted to be “the first bureaucrat on their block to suggest — let alone prove — demolition brought down even one building on 9/11.”

Given their career path and the political implications, can you blame them for trying to hide it? Well can you?

And did NIST provide the hellacious proof that would convince Carl Sagan of their extraordinary claim that fire was the ultimate cause of those three — count ’em, THREE — different completely unprecedented collapses upon which the Police State is being constructed?

And of course, their work, shabby as it is, is moot anyway since they failed to seriously investigate the most obvious prima facie explanation, controlled demolition.

Or, now that its foundation has been compromised, is it time to start deconstructing the Police State? Is it time to throw sand in the gears of the out-of-control machine and indict some of its psychopathic minions? As they have in Malaysia. What do you think?

For updates, comments, and corrections, see The Strangest Fires updates, comments, corrections.

AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

The post 911 The Strangest Fires Ever Told appeared first on LewRockwell.

Charlie Kirk’s job was to talk. He was far better at that skill than most people, and thousands upon thousands of people found what he said compelling. He talked mostly about controversial topics—although everything he advocated was mainstream opinion just two decades ago—always in a spirit of charity and constructive debate. He never advocated violence, nor did he ever demean those with whom he disagreed.

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed for that job.

This feels like a watershed moment, a turning point, to use the phrase with which Kirk named his organization.

In late 19th-century Europe many revolutionary forces were percolating and they all had one thing in common: violence. Political assassinations were widespread, culminating in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which led to the War to End All Wars. All of Western society was reshaped in the period from the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s, with monarchies being overthrown and liberal democracies often replacing them (although in some cases, totalitarianism filled the void). The sad lesson of history is clear: political violence is effective, if the goal is a radical overthrow and transformation of the existing political order.

The increase in political violence today makes me wonder if we too are in a revolutionary era, at least politically speaking. It’s become obvious to most everyone that our current liberal democratic system doesn’t work; contrary to its promises, we are on a clear path to less freedom, less order, and less respect for the common good. The current system is simply powerless to defend its citizens against the evil forces at work in the world.

So what will replace it?

My fear is that it will be replaced by another round of totalitarianism. Many on the right might even cheer on that development in their understandable desire to crush our enemies. Don’t get me wrong: I believe we must restore order and relentlessly hunt down and punish those who violently oppose the common good. The degenerates and their defenders must be removed from the public square. Doctors who perform abortions or transgender surgeries should be in jail. College professors who attack our Christian culture should be fired. News outlets like CNN and MSNBC pushing lies that undermine our nation should be run out of business. We’re in a fight, and stronger means are needed to defeat our enemies.

And yet, as Christians we must look beyond the here and now, and beyond our desire for revenge. Our Lord told us to pray for our enemies, and so even while we strive for justice we must not forget mercy. A response that’s not built on true justice and mercy and the Christian tradition is doomed to failure and might be worse than our current situation. We cannot become that which we oppose; violence in response to violence just leads to more violence. We must go back to basics; we must go back to Christ.

We like to pretend that America is a Christian country, but in our heart of hearts we know that hasn’t been true in a long time. Our country has become so lost that we need to start from the beginning, and that means bringing souls to Christ, building Christian families, and creating Christian communities.

This must be more than mere pious associations, however. I’m not calling for small groups to get together and sing kumbaya and hope the problems magically fade away. Instead, these souls, families, and communities must be fundamentally ordered to Christ, which means they must be intolerant, the worst sin of liberal democracies. They must be intolerant of evil, of chaos, and of anything that opposes Christ.

Don’t be quiet when the local library has a transgender display in the children’s section. Speak out at work when someone promotes anti-Christian evil, even if it means risking your job. Remove politicians who coddle criminals while criminalizing Christians. Urge your bishop to speak out against anti-Catholicism in our midst. Only by being radically conformed to Christ and building intolerant Christian people, families, and communities can we hope not only to overcome this present evil, but to prevent an even greater evil from replacing it.

The time for talking is over. Charlie Kirk’s whole work was directed toward talking with those on the other side in an attempt to get to the truth. It’s obvious that the other side has no desire for dialogue; in fact, they see it as a sign of weakness. This is something too many Catholic leaders fail to recognize in their veneration of the power of dialogue. Dialogue can be effective if both sides are open-minded and seek the truth, no matter where it leads. But dialogue is worthless when one side wants to destroy the other by any means possible. Charlie’s death shows clearly that dialogue is no longer possible; the Left put a literal bullet in that effort. Now is the time for action—true Christian action based on charity and justice.

Now is the time to build up a new culture, and a new society that puts Christ first and doesn’t tolerate those who oppose Him. Christ is King!

Eternal rest give unto him, O Lord, And let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen. 
May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Charlie Kirk’s Murder Is a Turning Point for America appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”. – Voltaire appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

John Leake

 

The post Ideology: Evil’s “Long-Sought Justification” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

RT News

 

The post Charlie Kirk once questioned if Ukraine would try to kill him appeared first on LewRockwell.

Rick Rozoff wrote:

Senior Russian MP says Kirk’s assassination was warning to Trump.

 

The post Senior Russian MP says Kirk’s assassination was warning to Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

Rick Rozoff wrote:

British PM sacks ambassador to Washington over Epstein ties.

 

The post British PM sacks ambassador to Washington over Epstein ties appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Hi Ed,

I just read your article on 9/11 propaganda on LRC. Great article. The 9/11 to 9-1-1 “What’s your emergency” link is obvious. Why people don’t see that it was planned that way is odd. 

As an aircraft mechanic, I knew the whole government story was bullshit from the get-go. I saw “Harley Guy” get interviewed “live” on TV. I laughed out loud. “Ground Zero”… “fire’s high intensity did structural damage”…LOL I know jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt structural steel. If it did, jet engines would melt. Airliners don’t fly fast into buildings or any small object like the Twin Towers. One plane was going 500 mph, and the other 585 mph. That’s a mile every 7-9 seconds. The pilot would have NO reaction time to make course corrections to hit a narrow target(s) like the Twin Towers. The collision would have bent some steel girders, maybe, but they wouldn’t break. Besides, the Twin Towers had an outside box of steel girders and an inner box of steel girders supporting the building. No way the building collapses. The Towers were designed for two airplanes to hit each tower and withstand it.  

You see the propaganda reasons the government’s story was bullshit. I see the physical reasons the government’s story was BS. Same conclusion, just a different path to get there.

 

The post Language and September 11th appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Slouching Toward WWIII? With Guest Col. Douglas Macgregor appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Rick  Rozoff.

The post The Charlie Kirk Assassination And Reaction From The Left appeared first on LewRockwell.

1968 – The Year That Shaped a Generation (Outstanding Documentary Illustrating Many Turbulent Parallels to Today)

This is a documentary posted specifically for those persons not alive in the chaotic turbulent year of 1968.

In 2025, we have yesterday experienced the wrenching tragedy of the assassination of the brilliant, adroit young conservative influencer/spokesman Charlie Kirk in the midst of this chaotic, indecisive era defined by the complex, towering man who will continue to define and shape this time more than any previous political person on the world stage, Donald J. Trump.

We have the witnessed the weakened incumbent president Joe Biden announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race after losing his artificial, concocted and spurious mandate for leadership, with chronic lying and disgust surrounding him and his criminal regime and its unpopular policies of war abroad and repeated failures at home, widespread distrust in the efficacy and believability in the “fake news” legacy media, the insurgent presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. following courageously in the footsteps of his father Robert Kennedy who was assassinated in 1968 on the triumphant victorious pathway towards the nomination of his party in Chicago, the massive disruptive anti-war protests and riots expected in Chicago at the 1968 Democrat National Convention, and the tremendous outpouring of empathetic support directed to the defiant courageous Donald Trump who like RFK and MLK was targeted by the deep state for assassination.

This outstanding PBS documentary details the tumultuous impact of how events such as the Vietnamese Tet Offensive, the credibility gap between the Johnson administration’s lies and evasions on the War and growing skepticism on the part of elements of the establishment regime media expected to follow in lockstep in the fake news narrative (was Walter Cronkite an early version of Tucker Carlson in this regard?), the insurgent presidential campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy against the incumbent Lyndon Johnson, Johnson’s shattering announcement of his refusal to seek re-election, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the rise of the counter-culture and student protests at Columbia University, the Parisian student-led revolution in France in May, the impactful wrenching assassination of Robert Kennedy, the police riot at the Chicago Democratic National convention, the massacre of protesters in Mexico City, the Prague uprising, the insurgent presidential campaign of George Wallace, and the presidential race between duplicitous Republican Richard Nixon and the banal Democrat Hubert Humphrey, made 1968 the pivotal year which shaped a generation of Americans.

It was a time when a generation rebelled and lost its innocence. From the Vietnam War to the struggle for racial equality to the birth of a counter-culture explosion, the 1960s were a decade of change, experimentation and hope that transformed an entire nation.

The post 1968 – The Year That Shaped a Generation (Outstanding Documentary Illustrating Many Turbulent Parallels to Today) appeared first on LewRockwell.

1.  A professional hitman employed by the Marxist Mafia that runs the Democrat party whose political arsenal includes its military wing of Antifa and the [Only] Black Lives Matter rioters and arsonists.
2. Yet another “lone nut” like the two who tried to assassinate Trump in the past year.

The post Two Likely Suspects in the Political Assassination of Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

III. Closing Argument: Remembering Charlie (Robert Barnes)

• On discovery his friend Martin Luther King had been assassinated, Robert Francis Kennedy took to the platform to inform the audience and try to redirect their rightful anger toward a more productive path. While much of the country rioted, the place RFK spoke — Indianapolis – was one of the few that did not. Here is what RFK spoke:
• “What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice towards those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black. We must dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and to make gentle the life of this world.”
• We would all be wise to remember these sage thoughts today in honoring and respecting the legacy of Charlie Kirk, a man dedicated to freedom, truth, family, country, and God, a faith worthy of continuing his legacy rather than letting it rot at the hand of an assassin. Let us indeed work “to tame the savageness of man and to make gentle the life of this world.” Let us be more like Charlie and listen to the better angels of our nature.

The post RIP Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato fuori controllo negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Mark Jeftovic

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/bitcoin-e-il-punto-di-riferimento)

Vorrei ribadire una citazione di Willy Woo che ho usato come apertura per il mio Bitcoin Treasuries Playbook:

La più grande opportunità fintech nel prossimo decennio non è la DeFi.

Si tratta della fusione di BTC + TradFi.

Questo riassume tutto ciò che abbiamo visto nell'ultimo ciclo: Bitcoin che si afferma come livello di base per la prossima generazione di strumenti finanziari, con le stablecoin che fungono da collegamento tra il sistema del dollaro tradizionale e quello nuovo basato sulla tecnologia finanziaria.

L'investitore miliardario e venture capital, Tim Draper, ha sottolineato il continuo predominio di Bitcoin, sostenendo che ciò a cui stiamo assistendo è un esempio di un fenomeno in cui il vincitore prende tutto:

Di recente Bitcoin ha raggiunto una quota di mercato del 61%, in aumento rispetto al 40% registrato dopo il primo ciclo di espansione e contrazione e rispetto al 50% registrato dopo l'ultimo.

C'è un'attrazione gravitazionale verso Bitcoin. Tutte le innovazioni di successo su altre piattaforme vengono ora trasferite su di esso.

Ciò è molto più importante di quanto la gente pensi.

Tutta l'innovazione iniziata con le altcoin (smart contract, applicazioni blockchain, ordinal) si sta spostando su Bitcoin.

Paragono questo fenomeno a quello di Microsoft ai tempi dei sistemi operativi.

Quando Lotus 1-2-3 decollò, Microsoft creò Excel e lo integrò nel sistema operativo. WordPerfect ebbe successo, quindi Microsoft creò Word. Poi Microsoft acquistò PowerPoint in anticipo. Tutte queste applicazioni divennero standard per l'azienda, mentre le prime startup furono marginalizzate. 

Bitcoin vale $1.800 miliardi; il secondo token più grande, Ethereum, vale solo $250 miliardi. Bitcoin ora cattura la maggior parte dei programmatori.

Le cinque applicazioni davvero importanti sono basate su Bitcoin: DeFi (pagamenti peer-to-peer, trading, exchange, inclusione finanziaria, ecc.), Smart contract (trasparenza e tracciabilità della supply chain, trading di asset e monitoraggio delle risorse), Ordinal, Rune e soluzioni Layer 2 come i micropagamenti a basso costo.

Questa attrazione gravitazionale sta accelerando.

Ogni imprenditore che investe in Bitcoin ha alle spalle lo slancio dell'intero ecosistema.

Gli imprenditori intelligenti costruiscono sempre sulla piattaforma con la maggiore attrazione gravitazionale.

E quella piattaforma è Bitcoin.

Quando mi chiedono quanto varrà tra 5 anni, rispondo che varrà un bitcoin. Potrebbe essere infinito rispetto al dollaro, mentre quest'ultimo continua a essere inflazionato.

La dominanza di Bitcoin era al 61% quando Draper ha pubblicato questo post meno di una settimana fa; ora è al 64%.

Nel frattempo Ethereum continua a languire, anche se c'è chi dice che è sottovalutato e pronto per un ritorno spettacolare, ma io non lo vedo.

Come evidenziato nel Treasuries Playbook, stiamo iniziando a vedere spuntare nuove società che mettono a bilancio ETH; nella stessa relazione abbiamo menzionato SBET, che attualmente viene trattato a un prezzo addirittura inferiore rispetto a quando l'abbiamo citato per la prima volta.

Ora un miner Bitcoin, BitMine Immersion Tech (NYSE: BMNR), ha nominato Tom Lee (non il batterista dei Motley Crüe) come presidente e ha chiuso un round di finanziamento da $250 milioni per includere nel suo bilancio ETH.

BitMine è la 62esima azienda tra quelle più grandi che detengono Bitcoin sul proprio bilancio, con 161 BTC all'attivo, e non è chiaro se intendano liquidarlo per ulteriori acquisti di ETH. Io non credo.

Bit Digital (BTBT) – anch'essa ignorando il mio consiglio – abbandonerà completamente il mining di Bitcoin per  “diventare un'azienda puramente Ethereum”: venderà i suoi bitcoin (che a marzo ammontavano a 742 BTC) per acquisire ETH – e venderà o chiuderà l'intera attività di mining di Bitcoin. Non abbiamo mai posseduto BTBT nel nostro portafoglio, buona fortuna a lei comunque.

Abbiamo detenuto Sol Strategies, che si è prefissata di creare una società Solana Treasury circa un anno fa, e siamo riusciti a cavalcare l'onda quasi alla perfezione, uscendo dalla nostra posizione (con un rendimento stellare del 2043%) quando ho ipotizzato che il trading di memecoin fosse terminato e che non ci sarebbe stata una stagione alternativa come quella che avevamo visto nei cicli precedenti.

Anche Sol Strategies detiene BTC in bilancio, che speravo mantenesse come punto di riferimento, ma li hanno venduti per acquistare più SOL, vicino ai massimi; nel frattempo Bitcoin ha raggiunto nuovi  massimi.

Un giorno i futuri studenti di finanza potrebbero ripensare a quest'epoca e dedurre che le strategie di tesoreria possono avere successo solo quando l'asset accumulato è quello dominante, e soprattutto deve superare un ostacolo magico come il 50% di predominio sul mercato.

Deve inoltre avere un CAGR a quattro e dieci anni superiore a qualsiasi altra cosa, altrimenti non ha senso accumularlo rispetto a qualcosa con un tasso di rendimento più elevato.

In altre parole deve essere Bitcoin, altrimenti tutte le altre azioni diverse da un suo acquisto saranno inefficaci. E su questo potete contarci.

Quindi se Bitcoin è l'unica valuta disponibile per le tesorerie aziendali e per lo strato di base del sistema finanziario di nuova generazione, “perché BTC non sale?” è la domanda che sentiamo spesso sui social media...

Soprattutto dopo quel terribile crollo fino a $98.000 il 22 giugno, perdendo il livello psicologicamente importante dei $100.000 per quasi otto ore.

Le persone sono rimaste segnate in modo permanente, molto probabilmente a causa della Classe del '24.

Una delle cose su cui mi sono sbagliato durante tutto questo ciclo è che dovremmo aspettarci almeno un paio di ribassi del 30-40%.

Ma non c'è stato nulla che abbia superato il 30% da novembre 2022, quando è terminato l'inverno delle crittovalute e Bitcoin ha toccato il fondo a $16.000 (sì, davvero).

Il grafico qui sotto mostra i due principali ribassi di questo ciclo: quello dopo le approvazioni degli ETF spot e i postumi post-halving sembrano un'unica fase di rallentamento, mentre quel piccolo ghirigoro lì ad agosto si è verificato quando l'intero sistema finanziario si è spaventato dopo che la Banca del Giappone ha rovinato tutto con un rialzo a sorpresa dei tassi di interesse di soli 15 punti base in più rispetto alle aspettative.

In questa analisi del perché “il prezzo non sale”, Bitcoin Magazine ha esaminato le ondate di HODL e ha concluso che ci sono molte balene sedute su BTC che stanno ritirando i loro gettoni per vivere la bella vita, con oltre 240.000 BTC venduti da wallet che li hanno conservati per un periodo da uno a cinque anni negli ultimi mesi.

Questa vendita ha ampiamente controbilanciato l'accumulo istituzionale. Dato che l'emissione giornaliera dei miner aggiunge altri ~450 BTC al mercato, capiamo perché il prezzo abbia faticato a salire: il mercato è in uno stato di equilibrio tra domanda e offerta.

Considerati gli shock sistemici e le crisi apparentemente esistenziali che si stanno verificando a un ritmo costante (l'implosione del Giappone, i rendimenti obbligazionari, la guerra in Medio Oriente, la guerra in Ucraina, ecc.), “perché Bitcoin non sale?” non è la domanda principale che mi viene in mente.

“Perché non scende di più in questi periodi?” è quello che mi sono chiesto.

È possibile, anzi sembra probabile, che la struttura del mercato sia cambiata radicalmente, forse al punto che (oso dirlo?) il ciclo quadriennale potrebbe essere un ricordo del passato.

Oppure, forse, in forma più estesa, quest'altro articolo di Bitcoin Magazine esamina la media mobile a 200 giorni rispetto ai cicli precedenti, notando che:

[...] è emerso un andamento notevolmente coerente quando la media mobile a 200 giorni supera il suo precedente massimo storico. In più cicli, quando si verifica questo crossover, il prezzo di Bitcoin ha raggiunto il picco massimo o è andato molto vicino a esso.

Se questo schema dovesse reggere, sembrerebbe che il picco di questo ciclo si verificherà intorno a maggio o giugno 2026 (normalmente ci aspetteremmo che BTC raggiunga il picco del ciclo nel quarto trimestre di quest'anno, o all'inizio del 2026, se il ciclo quadriennale regge).

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

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

In November 2022 the (former) President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelenski published a 10 point ‘peace plan’.

It included:

5. Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Russia reaffirming it according the U.N. Charter, which Zelenskiy said is “not up to negotiations”.

6. Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities, restoration of Ukraine’s state borders with Russia.
…
10. Confirmation of the war’s end, including a document signed by the involved parties.

In September 2024 Zelenski raised the curtain of his Victory Plan for Ukraine. As I wrote at that time:

The ‘victory plan’ is not about a real plan for Ukraine’s action but a list of demands towards the ‘western’ supporters of Ukraine.

The theory in Kiev is that a fulfillment of these demands will allow Ukraine to win the war and to press Russian into accepting Ukraine’s 10 point ‘peace plan‘.

As explained by a Zelinski advisor:

A source close to Zelensky told the Kyiv Independent that the “victory plan” aims “to create such conditions and such an atmosphere that Russia will no longer be able to ignore the peace formula and the peace summit.”
…
“The problem is, to get to that point where we have any sort of peace negotiations, Russia must feel like they’re going to lose, and we are not there yet,” Rep. Jimmy Panetta, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee in Congress, told the Kyiv Independent.

“I hope part of this victory plan is how we can shape battlefield conditions to reach that point,” said Panetta, who met Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials in Kyiv last weekend.

I commented that:

The ‘victory plan’ requests are of course outrageous and delusional and have little to no chance to be fulfilled.

Nearly a year later the delusional demands of the 10 points ‘peace plan’ and the Victory Plan have made room for more realistic expectations. There will be no NATO or EU membership for Ukraine. It will lose a significant part of its land to Russia and will have to settle the war under Russian conditions.

Zelenski seems to now acknowledge that when he redefines what victory means:

Zelenskyy spoke to ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz Friday in an interview that aired on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.
…
Asked by Raddatz what victory looks like for his embattled country, Zelenskyy said the survival of Ukraine.

“Putin’s goal is to occupy Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said.

“[Putin] wants, of course, to occupy us totally. For him, this [is] victory. And until he can do it, the victory is on our side,” he said. “So that’s why for us to survive is a victory. Because we are surviving with our identity, with our country, with our independence.”

There is zero evidence that Putin’s, or -more correct- Russia’s goal was or is to occupy Ukraine.Russia wants to liberate the Russian population that, since the 1990s, was trapped in east Ukraine. He wants to prevent that Ukraine joins NATO. Neither requires the Russian army to move into the feverish anti-Russia center and western parts of Ukraine.

But it is of course convenient to claim that and to declare victory even after the government has moved to Lviv (aka Lvov, Lemberg) near the Polish border and called it a day.

I just wonder how the population there would react if Zelenski or his successor were then to arrange a well deserved Victory parade.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine’s Victory Redefined appeared first on LewRockwell.

Most Members of Congress violate their Sacred Oath to the Constitution, which means they are Criminals without any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Congress takes its orders and bribes from the Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC) to Intimidate, Murder, Destroy entire countries,and Engineer Revolutions. The money they spend destroys the living standard of Americans, enriches the PSRRC and makes the the world hate Americans. But they do generate money for the PSRRC and their Whores in Congress.

The FBI must investigate, charge, convict and jail criminals in Congress! But if the FBI was not complicit, they also would be in jail!

The FBI has done nothing for 100 years, so disband them and activate the Militia of the Several States as specified in the Constitution.

With only a quick look, I was able to uncover $428.4 Billion that Congress spent Unconstitutionally overseas without need or justification, for their own benefit, not The People’s. In fact, at this time they were willing to reduce the Social Security Trust Fund by $102 Billion. Let Seniors eat dog food, if they can afford it.

Following are the individual amounts: Foreign Aid for 2024 $63.3 Billion Israel War in Gaza $17.9 Billion Humanitarian Aid for Gaza $9.2 Billion Ukraine War $195 Billion (2024) 177,000 troops,750 bases $80 Billion (2024) Building  and Repair of bases $55 Billion.

When you add these Unjustified and mostly Unconstitutional foreign expenses, you get $428.4 Billion, which is almost 10% of total government income. Congress has robbed the American People of this amount and more toenrich the Military Industrial Complex of the PSRRC and ensure Congress gets their bribes. Members of Congress who vote for this blatantgraft and corruption belong in jail. These Overseas Expenses have no Justification in the Constitution or Heaven. These expenses can only be Justified in hell.

I want to remind you that we have been in wars for eighty years without a single Declaration of War; all of the conflicts were for profits of the PSRRC and not one was to defend the National Security of the United States. I can prove that not one of the wars was for National Security for the simple reason that we can’t be invaded because of our oceans. We can only be defeated by Weapons of Mass Destruction or within by the 21 million illegals in the Democrat aka Communist army. FAIR reports that this illegal army costs us a minimum of $150.7 Billion a year, which is money that should have been spent on Americans. Add this expense to the overseas expenses and it amounts to more than 10% of government income. The Constitution of the United States specifies that any aid to illegal invaders is Treason, but with a lawless government what can you do?

The Democrat aka Communist party did catastrophic, if not fatal, damage to the Republic, more so than any other event, by bringing in over 21 million illegal invaders . Those responsible should be prosecuted and their party declared an Unlawful Enemy of the Republic.

We need our military, all of it, and more, to confront and deport these invaders using deadly force if required. We should have a Declaration of War against Illegal Invaders and all who support them. Supporters of Illegal Invaders are guilty of Treason (Declaration of War or not). Unlike any other war, this is a war for our very existence. Any Judge that interferes with Deportation of illegal Invaders after a Declaration of War is guilty of Treason. We may have to reinstate the draft and restrict Habeas Corpus.

No other country can invade us, so NATO can’t honor their reciprocal duty under treaty to defend us. NATO is a sick joke on us. We spend 20% of government income on defense and NATO spends I or 2%.

You may ask how do you punish a Member of Congress for accepting bribes or other crimes? An honest federal law enforcement agency could investigate and charge them, but we don’t have an honest enforcement agency. You can’t impeachmembers of Congress; you can only expel them with a two-thirds vote of the chamber. But since most members of Congress are equally guilty, you will never get a two-thirds vote.

The Senate is a special case since the Coup of 1913 that transferred the selection of Senators from the states to big money. People lost their voice in the Senate and the people didn’t get it.

I don’t think you can clean up the FBI by changing a few top officials.  You must fire most of them and start over, or follow the Constitution and use the Militia of the Several States.

Everyone must realize that about 50% of our government is an unconstitutional Criminal Enterprise and this happened because of a corrupt and complicit FBI, the Jewish lobby and Media.

I repeat, we need a Declaration of War against Illegal Invaders. Communist aka Democrat supporters of Illegal Invaders must be charged with Treason (see the Constitution).

This Article proves that more than 10% of Government income is stolen from the people  for foreign expenses that are not justified by the Constitution, but benefit Congress and the PSRRC. THIS HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY ($579.1 BILLION) STOLEN FROM TAXPAYERS HAS DEPRIVED AMERICANS OF PROSPERITY AND THE AMERICAN DREAM.

The post Congress impoverishes Us To Commit Global Bribery, Intimidation, Murder, and Revolution appeared first on LewRockwell.

I don’t know US Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Scott Bessent, but I am told by people who worked with him on Wall Street that he is a really smart guy. But based on his most recent claim over the weekend that he believes a new round of sanctions — which includes shutting off the flow of Russian oil and natural gas to China and India — will collapse the Russian economy. Bessent’s statement tells me he understands nothing about the resilience of the Russian economy, nothing about the nature of Russia’s bilateral relations with India and China, and not a damn thing about Russia’s military industrial complex. In short, he may be really smart about trading bonds and securities on Wall Street, but he’s a dummy when it comes to Russia and its economy.

The belief in Washington policy circles that the Russian economy can be collapsed is not a new goal hatched by Bessent. That scenario figured prominently in the Rand Corporation’s April 2019 report, which was prepared for the US Department of Defense — Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground. The authors assessed the Russia economy in 2019 as follows:

The common charge that modern Russia is just a petrostate like Saudi Arabia is grossly overstated, but its economy and state budget are disproportionately dependent on energy exports, the value of which has collapsed.28 Russia possesses sizable manufacturing and service industries, but these are relatively uncompetitive on the world market, and the country exports few manufactured goods other than weapons. Recognizing the folly of Russia’s economic dependence on energy exports, the liberalizing technocrat Dmitry Medvedev pursued a policy of economic modernization during his presidency that sought to diversify Russia’s economy. . . .

Russia’s overall economic outlook is unfavorable for both the short and long terms. Between the collapse in energy prices and the international sanctions imposed after the Crimea and Ukraine invasions, Russian GDP fell and is now stagnant.31 The ruble lost half of its value against the dollar and euro in the aftermath of the crisis, but Russia has nevertheless developed a dependence on imports for both consumer and capital goods. Predictably, these conditions have resulted in a massive tax shortfall and the imposition of austerity measures. For the past two years, the Russian government has been making up the gap by spending down the hard currency reserves built up during the boom years, but these will be exhausted soon, necessitating politically fraught choices to slash social spending. The likelihood that oil prices will remain stagnant for the foreseeable future gives little hope that the Kremlin can make an easy escape from this conundrum. While much of Russian industry was de-privatized (renationalized) under Putin, the government is rumored to be planning a selloff of some of these assets to raise desperately needed cash.

Do I need to write it out for you? These brainiacs were and are wrong! Russia is now the 4th largest economy in the world in terms of GDP as measured by Purchasing Power Parity (i.e., PPP), notwithstanding more than three years of heavy Western sanctions. Russia has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all of the top economies in the world… now estimated to be, at most, 19%. That means in the event of a major financial crisis, Russia has ample financial means to weather a major storm. But let’s look at the term, collapse.

To say that a country’s economy “collapses” means there is a widespread breakdown of normal commerce and market mechanisms, resulting in severe, prolonged economic distress that goes far beyond a typical recession or depression. An economic collapse is marked by:

• Massive failures in banks, businesses, and markets
• Very high unemployment
• Bankruptcies and widespread poverty
• Chaos in the currency, sometimes including hyperinflation or a currency crash
• Breakdown of law, public order, and often social unrest
• Failure of government economic interventions to restore stability in the short term

Unlike regular downturns or recessions, an economic collapse is not a normal part of the economic cycle; it often follows a crisis and can last for years or decades. Classic examples include the Great Depression in the US, or the hyperinflation-era Weimar Germany. Social chaos and civil unrest often accompany a collapse, and recovery is slow and painful. The Russian economy collapsed in the 1990s, and that experience left an indelible scar on the soul of the Russian people. If you want to place your bets, I believe that the US will experience a collapse before Russia.

So how vulnerable is Russia to tough sanctions on oil and gas? Oil exports account for 15–20% of Russia’s GDP in recent years, including 2025. The oil and gas sector as a whole makes up roughly 15.2% (2020), 19.2% (2019), and up to 21.1% (2018) according to Russian government data, but the share for oil alone is typically at the lower end of this range, around 15–17%. Oil and petroleum products account for about 40–45% of Russia’s total exports as of 2025. This figure includes both crude oil and refined petroleum products, making them the largest export category for the country.

Where do China and India fit in? China and India together account for around 63% of Russia’s fossil fuel export revenues in 2025, with the EU and Turkey trailing behind but still significant players. Check out this table:

Let me take you to fantasy land. Let’s assume that China, India, Turkey and the European Union stop buying Russian oil and gas. That would be a 15% hit to Russia’s economy… painful, but not debilitating nor devastating. But that is not going to happen. China, which is the largest importer of Russian oil, just inked a deal with Russia to build a new pipeline to deliver more oil and gas to China. India also is unlikely to cave to US and European pressure because it needs inexpensive oil more than it needs trade with the NATO-block.

If Trump is counting on Bessent to give him leverage over Putin and the Russian economy, then he is making an ill-advised wager. The West’s failure to understand the simple fact that Russia, by virtue of its vast natural resources, does not need international trade to grow its economy. It is self-sufficient. But Russia is not sitting still… It has forged close economic ties with its BRICS partners and, along with those partners, is building an alternative to a Western hegemonic economic and financial system. Donald Trump is no longer in a position to take Russia as an economic and financial hostage. Pax Americana is kaput.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Trump’s Economic Team Pursues the Chimera of Collapsing the Russian Economy appeared first on LewRockwell.

The end of the Cold War in 1989 provided a fantastic opportunity for a major reset in relations between the American people and the people of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and other nations that U.S. officials had long designated as official enemies of the United States. For almost 45 years following the end of World War II, U.S. officials had inculcated a mindset of deep fear among the American people — fear that the Russians, Chinese, and other communist nations were coming to get us.

It was all one great big racket designed to justify the conversion of the U.S. government from our founding governmental structure of a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of totalitarian-like governmental structure that wields omnipotent powers, such as the power of engaging in state-sponsored assassinations.

Fear-mongering, propaganda, and indoctrination are central to a national-security state governmental structure. The national-security state must convince the citizenry that there are scary enemies coming to get them so that the citizenry will continue to support and embrace the national-security state governmental structure and the ever-increasing power and taxpayer-funded largess that is necessary to sustain it.

The racket worked almost perfectly. Americans fell for it hook, line, and sinker. “The Russians are coming!” people cried. “The Reds are everywhere!”

One big exception was when President Kennedy achieved a personal “breakthrough” after the Cuban Missile Crisis by recognizing that the Cold War and the anti-communist crusade were nothing more than one great big racket. After he vowed to bring the racket to an end in his Peace Speech at American University in June 1963, the U.S. national-security establishment dealt with him in Dallas five months later.

Thus, the Cold War racket continued all the way until 1989, when the Soviet Union suddenly and unexpectedly dismantled itself. The Berlin Wall came crashing down and West Germany and East Germany recombined into one nation. The Warsaw Pact dissolved, Russian troops withdrew to Russia, and Eastern European countries gained their independence.

There was an obvious readiness among Russian officials to do a complete reset with respect to relations with the United States. They made it clear that they desired to establish a world of peaceful and friendly relations. The same held true for China, notwithstanding the fact that it was still headed by a communist regime. The same was true for Cuba.

This was a time of great optimism and hope for the American people and the people of the communist world. Why, for a few years afterward, there were even libertarian conferences being held in both China and Russia.

But the hope and optimism did not characterize the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Remember: They needed big official scary enemies to justify their existence. They knew that many Americans were advocating a post-Cold War “peace dividend,” which would have entailed a severe reduction in military-intelligence spending. There was even the danger that Americans might even begin demanding the restoration of their founding governmental system of a limited-government republic.

The U.S. national-security establishment was not going to let that happen, at least not without a big fight. A deadly invasion of Iraq, followed by 11 years of brutal and deadly economic sanctions against the Iraqi people, produced the “blowback” of the 9/11 retaliatory attacks. The national-security establishment was back to the races, this time replacing communism with terrorism as the new official enemy of the American people.

At the same time, however, they never gave up hope of restoring the Cold War to America. It had proven to be too lucrative a racket to simply let it go. If they could combine their “war on communism” racket with their “war on terrorism” racket, they could virtually guarantee that the national-security state governmental structure would remain a permanent and perpetual part of the U.S. government.

That’s why they used their old Cold War dinosaur NATO to begin moving eastward toward Russia, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact in the process. It wasn’t exactly consistent with the peaceful and friendly world that people had in mind at the end of the Cold War.

Moreover, once the U.S. national-security state became mired in forever wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. officials could see that China and Russia were prospering, especially given that they weren’t mired in such wars. They could also see that China and Russia were gaining popularity and influence around the world, while there was ever-growing animosity toward the U.S. and its forever deadly and destructive propensity toward war and aggression.

That’s when the U.S. government decided that it was time to “degrade” both China and Russia and initiate the continuation of the old Cold War racket. A vicious trade war and a brutal system of economic sanctions were launched against China, with the aim of diminishing the economic prosperity of that nation. Moreover, the old Cold War dinosaur NATO was used to provoke Russia into invading Ukraine, which provided U.S. national-security state officials with the opportunity to use Ukraine as a proxy or agent to give Russia its own “Afghanistan,” thereby “degrading” Russia through the loss of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers and ever-increasing war expenditures.

Thus, what began with lots of hope and optimism at the end of Cold War I ended up with Russia and China being restored to the top tier of America’s official enemies as part of Cold War II.

According to a recent article in Politico, however, the U.S. government is now shifting its attention to Latin America, using its decades-old, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual drug war as its excuse. That shift in official enemies is clearly reflected by the new U.S. obsessiveness with Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The irony is that when Cold War I ended, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were so panicky over having lost Russia as their official enemy, they were suggesting that they could help fight the drug war as their new mission. And so here they are — with their new official enemies — drugs and drug lords in Latin America.

Don’t think for a minute, however, that they are giving up on Russia and China as official enemies. They are just hedging their bets by adding more official enemies to keep the American people agitated and afraid. In that way, Americans will continue to look on the U.S. national-security state to keep them “safe” and “secure” from all those scary official enemies.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Fear-Mongering Rackets of the U.S. National-Security State appeared first on LewRockwell.

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.”—Thomas Paine

They said it was for safety.
They said it was for order.
They said it was for the good of the nation.

They always say it’s for something good… until it isn’t.

Nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, we are still living with the consequences of fear-driven government power grabs. What began as “temporary” measures for our security have hardened into a permanent architecture of control.

The bipartisan police-state architecture that began with 9/11 has been passed from president to president and party to party, each recycling the same justifications—safety, security, patriotism—to expand its powers at the expense of the citizenry.

So they locked down the country “for our safety.”
They expanded surveillance “for our security.”
They rounded up anyone who challenged the narrative “for the common good.”
They erased names, ideas, and histories “to prevent offense.”
They forced schools to teach only what was politically correct “for the children.”
They censored speech “for our protection.”
They targeted dissenters “to preserve peace.”
They militarized the streets and called it “law and order.”

These very abuses—once denounced when carried out by the Left—are now cheered, defended, and excused when carried out by the Right.

People who once spoke passionately about truth, freedom, and faith have now fallen silent in the face of injustice, or worse, convinced themselves that nothing is wrong. The very voices that should be warning against tyranny are instead excusing it or looking away.

This is the danger of double standards in politics: every tyranny is rationalized in the moment by its chorus of defenders.

But history teaches that what goes around comes around. If you justify it now, you’ll have no defense when the tables turn.

And yet, time and again, the lies we tell ourselves make it possible. The cult of personality. The blind loyalty to party. The belief that “our side” can’t be the villain.

It never ceases to amaze how far people will go to excuse the actions of their favorite tyrant, even when those actions are the very things they once swore to oppose.

The pattern of justifying tyranny is as old as power itself. Every abuse comes wrapped in the same excuse: we had to do it.

After 9/11, Americans were told the Patriot Act and mass surveillance were “necessary to prevent terrorism.” The result was a sprawling security state that tracks every phone call, every online search, every purchase. The justification was security. The cost was freedom.

Under Obama, drone warfare and the prosecution of whistleblowers were defended as “keeping America safe.” The president even claimed the power to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad without trial. The result was an unaccountable government acting as judge, jury and executioner. The justification was safety. The cost was due process.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns and mandates were imposed in the name of “public health,” laying the groundwork for a Nanny State empowered to micromanage every aspect of our lives—where we go, what we buy, who we see. The result was government claiming control over every aspect of daily life. The justification was saving lives. The cost was the right to govern our bodies.

Under Trump, the script is familiar.

National Guard deployments in American cities are justified as “restoring order.” Sweeping surveillance is framed as “protecting communities.” Crackdowns on dissent are defended as “stopping criminals.” Mental health round-ups of the homeless are justified as “helping the vulnerable.” Militarized patrols on city streets are justified as “cleaning up the streets.” Turning ICE into a roving army of lawless thugs is justified as “protecting citizenship.” Censorship and efforts to sanitize American history are now being lauded by the same voices that railed against “cancel culture.”

That same logic has taken a deadly turn abroad. At Trump’s direction, the U.S. carried out a series of preemptive military strikes this year—against Iran’s nuclear sites, against the Houthis in Yemen, and most recently against what the administration claimed was a drug-trafficking boat off the coast of Venezuela. The White House has justified these deadly attacks—carried out without congressional approval or constitutional authorization—as part of the president’s unilateral war-making authority.

This, too, is part of the bipartisan police-state architecture built after 9/11, when presidents claimed open-ended authority to wage preemptive war without meaningful congressional oversight.

What began with Afghanistan and Iraq has metastasized into a global battlefield where any president can launch attacks—on Iran, on Yemen, on Venezuela—without accountability.

As always, the justification is order, safety, and patriotism. The cost is truth, justice and freedom.

Every time Trump expands his powers, the chorus is the same: It wouldn’t be necessary if Democrats had done their job. If you don’t break the law, you have nothing to fear. If you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry?

These are the oldest excuses for tyranny—and they never change. Only the partisanship does.

What makes Trump and those who came before him especially dangerous is not merely their willingness to wield power but the eagerness of their enablers to excuse and defend it at every turn.

History shows that bullies and strongmen can only rise when mobs rally to their side. A tyrant’s greatest weapon is not his fist, but the crowd that cheers him on, intimidates his critics, and convinces itself that might makes right.

The machinery of authoritarianism always needs a chorus of defenders, and today that chorus is louder, more organized, and more dismissive of constitutional limits than ever before.

We have been building to this moment for a long time. Even so, why do people accept tyranny so easily?

First, the cult of personality. When people invest blind faith in a leader, they will excuse anything he does. If he says surveillance is necessary, they believe it. If he says dissenters are enemies, they cheer their punishment. It is the psychology of the mob, cloaked in the loyalty of the true believer.

Second, fear as a political weapon. Every despot knows that frightened people will tolerate almost anything. Fear of terrorism. Fear of crime. Fear of disease. Fear of immigrants. Fear of collapse. Fear makes people beg for the chains that bind them.

Third, the “our side” fallacy. People imagine tyranny is only tyranny when the other side does it. When their side does it, they call it leadership. They call it patriotism. They call it protection. But the abuse doesn’t change when the party label does. Wrong is wrong.

Every new regime that seizes power promises it will use extraordinary authority only for good. And every regime—without exception—uses it to entrench itself at the expense of liberty.

Every generation tells itself the same lies to excuse the same abuses.

Consider the whiplash of partisan double standards:

• Conservatives who blasted the Obama administration for NSA spying now cheer Trump’s Palantir partnership and AI-driven surveillance that tracks Americans’ digital footprints.
• Democrats who embraced Biden’s use of emergency orders to advance their agenda have been quick to denounce Trump for ruling by executive order.
• Those who bristled at COVID mandates under Democrats now applaud Trump’s use of government force to impose his own version of “public safety.”
• Both sides flip-flop on free speech. Conservatives denounced censorship on college campuses but defend banning “dangerous” books and surveilling dissidents, while liberals oppose Trump’s attempt to whitewash history yet defend platforms censoring speech they deem “harmful” or “hateful.”

The double standard is breathtaking.

Tyranny doesn’t change depending on who carries it out. Yet partisans convince themselves it does. They say: It’s different this time. It’s necessary. It’s for us.

In truth, the only difference is who holds the whip.

The Constitution was designed to restrain exactly this impulse. It does not say: “These rights apply only when the other party is in power.” It does not say: “The executive may rule by decree if he is popular.”

James Madison warned that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. That is why the Constitution separates powers, guarantees due process, and protects speech and assembly—especially in times of crisis.

Every time one party tramples these limits, the other eventually inherits those same powers and uses them in turn. The Patriot Act, passed under Bush, was wielded aggressively under Obama, Trump, and Biden. The executive orders one president signs become the precedents for the next.

“What you excuse today,” history warns us, “will be used against you tomorrow.”

The descent into tyranny always begins with justifications.

The Roman Republic collapsed into empire because senators claimed Caesar needed extraordinary powers to restore order. The republic never recovered.

In 1930s Germany, emergency decrees were defended as temporary measures to stabilize society. They became the permanent architecture of dictatorship.

In post-9/11 America, warrantless surveillance and secret courts were sold as temporary protections. Nearly a quarter-century later, they remain fixtures of government power.

Tyranny is never announced as tyranny. It is always justified as safety, morality, and order. It is always explained away as temporary. And it is always defended by people who believe they are on the winning side.

And so here we are.

A president issues executive orders that erode the Bill of Rights. His supporters applaud. Another president expands surveillance or censorship. His supporters applaud.

Both sides denounce the abuses of their opponents yet sanction the same abuses when carried out by their own.

This is how liberty dies—not with a sudden coup, but with partisan politics valued more than principled freedom.

The police state thrives on this selective outrage. It does not matter which party is in power. The machinery of control grows. The Constitution withers. And the people are left squabbling over whose tyrant is better.

There is only one antidote: principle.

You cannot defend freedom by defending tyranny when your side is in power. You cannot preserve liberty by cheering for its destruction. You cannot expect constitutional limits to shield you tomorrow if you discard them today.

The warnings span centuries. The Founders foresaw the danger: James Madison cautioned against the “gradual and silent encroachments” of government. Thomas Jefferson warned that the natural tendency of power is to grow.

Justice Louis Brandeis later confirmed it from the vantage point of the modern state: “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Those warnings went unheeded after 9/11, and we have been paying the price ever since. The bipartisan police-state architecture built in those years has only grown stronger, repurposed by each new administration.

Unless we find the courage to dismantle it, today’s justifications will become tomorrow’s permanent chains.

The lesson is clear: if you want liberty, you must defend it consistently—even when it restrains your own party, your own leader, your own side. Especially then.

What you excuse today will be used against you tomorrow.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it does not matter whether the abuse comes draped in red or blue. It does not matter whether it is cheered by the Right or justified by the Left.

Tyranny, once excused, becomes entrenched.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post How Tyranny Becomes Entrenched: 9/11 and the Police State’s Endless Power Grabs appeared first on LewRockwell.

The second toughest job in the Trump administration isn’t vice president or secretary of defense or secretary of state. It’s not even attorney general, though that’s close. It’s secretary of Health and Human Services. That’s Robert Kennedy Jr.’s domain. It’s tough because Donald Trump has charged RFK Jr. with pursuing sea-change agendas in health care and nutrition. Kennedy is threatening mighty powerful interests in both arenas.

A thousand current and former HHS employees signed a letter calling for Kennedy’s “demission.” In plain English, they want Kennedy to resign, but he won’t — and he shouldn’t. RFK Jr. has Trump’s backing. Then on September 4, Kennedy appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, where Democrats and a GOP senator piled on. A conspiracist might suggest that the letter and attacks at the hearing were coordinated.

ABC News reported on September 3:

In the letter, HHS employees said Kennedy continues “to endanger the nation’s health” with examples such as the ousting of newly-installed CDC director Susan Monarez, followed by the resignations of four top CDC leaders.

Monarez clashed with Kennedy over vaccine policy. When Monarez learned that Kennedy planned to dump her, she ran to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). Cassidy is a longtime Trump antagonist. He backed off opposing Trump when Trump’s term began. Odd that he would do so, considering he voted to impeach the president for “incitement of insurrection” in February 2021. A man of principle, huh?

Cassidy is a physician. He’s up for re-election next year, which surely explains his slacking off his anti-Trump fervor. He chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He also has a seat on the Finance Committee.

Where there’s a senator up for re-election — who holds a committee chairmanship — oodles of campaign cash flows in.

Cassidy is regarded as one of BIO’s “strategic voices and allies” in Congress. BIO is short for “Biotechnology Innovation Organization.” It’s a trade group. It’s a behind-the-scenes organizer to oust the secretary. Its members include heavy hitters “Pfizer, Merck, Novavax, Vaxcyte, and hundreds of biotech firms that profit from regulatory insulation,” per the Public Health Policy Journal.

The Bio-Vaccine Policy Steering Committee (VPSC) is comprised of BIO member company employees. Members are charged with working reps and senators and their staffers. “Work,” so-called, involves handing out campaign checks, dispensing favors, and applying pressure. A memo leaked last April suggests that the committee is spearheading the get RFK Jr. intrigue.

Cassidy appears to be Big Pharma’s Senate point man in taking down Kennedy. On September 4, in the Finance Committee hearing at which Kennedy was testifying, Cassidy used his time to push a scare tactic. Per the New York Post, via MSN:

“I would say, effectively, we’re denying people vaccines,” Cassidy said after reading the messages from conservative radio host Erick Erickson and a friend of the Louisiana Republican, who is a doctor.

Cassidy is trying to undercut Kennedy from the Right. Citing Erickson, who’s another longtime Trump opponent, isn’t exactly the smartest way to win friends and influence people, not among MAGA legions anyway.

Open Secrets reports that from 2019-24, Cassidy received in excess of $3 million from health-related groups and individuals, clearly his largest contributions category. Pharmaceuticals were fourth on Open Secrets Top 20 list of contributions to Cassidy, with over $700,000.

As Public Health Policy Journal mentioned, Big Pharma wants “regulatory  insulation,” though not for any noble purpose. Pharmaceuticals want to dodge liability, which they received with the COVID vaccines — immunity that was extended through 2029, thanks to whoever was calling the shots in the Biden presidency’s dying days.

“Stopping the spread” might not have been a Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel punchline, but it was a joke thanks to the COVID vaccines’ spectacular failures to perform as advertised. Anyone ever hear of “spike proteins?”

And Big Pharma doesn’t want anyone messing with the childhood immunization schedule. Whether or not there’s a causal link among any of a growing number of childhood vaccines and autism should be open to debate. The scientific consensus is that links haven’t been found. Perhaps autism and vaccines aren’t related, but a slew of childhood vaccines invite closer scrutiny. Autism has shot up at alarming rates in recent years. That’s just attributable to better detection?

Kennedy’s mantra is that he wants “evidence-based” outcomes to determine vaccine efficacy and safety. Science pursued honestly. That’s not pharmaceutical industry housed or underwritten research with all the dubious motives. Real science is never settled.

Kennedy has been crossing swords with Big Pharma for years. Since being sworn in as HHS chief, he’s acted with dispatch to implement change, much to the consternation of big drug company big dogs. For them, tens of billions of dollars in revenues hang in the balance. That’s not just vaccine revenues. Drug pricing is consequential, too.

A 2024 Rand report confirms that pharmaceutical manufacturers charge more for prescription drugs here than overseas. Manufacturers are paid less overseas because they must negotiate pricing with national health bureaucracies. Lower drug prices in the E.U., for example, are made up by charging U.S. consumers exorbitantly. Manufacturers say that higher U.S. prices compensate for R&D costs. In other words, U.S. consumers are being forced to subsidize drug costs across the globe.

The president signed an executive order last May aimed at bringing domestic and overseas pricing into parity. This would result in significantly lower costs to American consumers. RFK Jr. is leading this effort. Yet another reason why pharmaceuticals want him out.

Stopping the “freeloading” — negotiated cost savings below fair market value — by other nations takes a process. That will take time.

Read the Whole Article

The post RFK Jr. Under Fire appeared first on LewRockwell.