Aggregatore di feed

Presidents, like corporate CEOs and everyone else, have a limited span of control.  They can’t know everything or focus on everything.  Most presidential decisions are just acceptances of subordinate’s decisions. I know it.  I have been there.  I have seen it, both the President of the United States and the CEOs and boards of corporations are dependent on information that comes from below. And often in the case of government the information from below is from outside.

We are now witnessing this in the Trump regime. Real ID is a George W. Bush/Cheney regime measure from the fake “war on terror” that was used by Washington to remove Arab governments opposed to Greater Israel.  Until Trump, no president wanted the flack of imposing it on “free” American citizens, thus revealing to them how unfree they are.  But the police state crowd see Trump’s concern with illegals as an opportunity to finally get their old handiwork from the “war on terror” Implemented.  And Trump has obliged. 

We are also witnessing the ruling establishment’s success in removing Trump’s people in the hopes of replacing them with one of theirs.  Having learned nothing from failing to stand by General Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser for ten minutes in Trump’s first term, Trump has repeated his mistake.  He kicked his national security advisor upstairs to be US Ambassador to the UN.  Why?  Because someone mistakenly included the Jewish editor of the leftwing magazine, The Atlantic, in on a meeting about bombing Yemen.  

Clearly, the invitee list was a staff responsibility.  The real problem is that Atlantic editor Goldberg did not announce at the meeting that he doubted he was supposed to be present in a national security discussion.  Instead he kept silent, took notes, and published an article.  I do think that his dishonest behavior displaying a total lack of integrity is indictable.  Instead of kicking his national security advisor upstairs, Trump should have had AG Bondi arrest and prosecute Goldberg for revealing national security secrets. But Trump would be too afraid to treat an Israeli-protected person that way. So Trump sacrificed his national security advisor.

Trump’s failure signals weakness or inattention, and now they are after his Defense Secretary. Same kind of charge. Hegseth let some confidential information out via some communication service to the delight of the Israel Lobby, which is using the mistake to have Hegseth removed. 

People are confused about this, because Hegseth is a Zionist, a full-time supporter of Israel. What got Hegseth in trouble is that he listened to knowledgable Pentagon personnel who explained to him that a US war with Iran for Israel was fraught with danger. He was advised, correctly, that once the US ignited a war Washington had no ability to control it.  The consequence could be the destruction of Washington’s bases in the Middle East and loss of every Navy aircraft carrier in the vicinity.  Hegseth backed off, Israel hit the roof, and Hegseth had to fire the advisers who told him the truth.

According to the liberal/left, the Democrats, and the media, Trump is tyrannical strength itself, imposing dictatorship on America, but neither Trump nor his administration have the strength to stand up to Israel.

What Trump is going to do is to make Israel great, not America.

All over the Western world it is already the case in many countries, such as Great Britain and Germany that criticism of Israel or of Jews is a criminal offense, and it is becoming the same in every Western country, eventually even in Russia. In America the Trump regime is deporting students who protest Israel’s American-supported genocide of the Palestinians.  Long ago Israeli propagandists convinced Americans that every Palestinian, even 3-year old children, was a terrorist who wore bomb vests in order to kill Israelis.  All the while Israel killed Palestinians, 3-year olds included, by the bomb load.

Even in the Red State of Texas, if you protest Israel’s genocide of Palestine, you are ineligible to have a state contract.

America is totally owned by Israel.  So is Trump.  So how can America be “made great again”?

The post Trump Is Destroying America, but He Is Making Israel Great appeared first on LewRockwell.

I remember reading an October 2019 issue of Forbes about how Italy was already insolvent and would never get out of its debt trap.

A debt trap occurs when economic growth and population demographics—not enough young people to take care of retired people—become grossly insufficient to finance a society’s growing debt (private and public).

At the time I wondered how international banking institutions would deal with Italy’s pending debt crisis. Then along came COVID-19, which seemed to justify a fresh round of massive money creation.

Though not as crass as Italy, the U.S. was also, at the beginning of 2020, apparently giving up on the real economy growing sufficiently to balance increasing U.S. government debt financing of America’s standard of living.

Debt is a rational instrument when it is used to increase productivity—NOT when it used to create money out of thin air and disbursed to legions of unproductive people and activities. Debt is also unproductive when it is primarily used for inflating assets such as large homes and the price-to-earnings ratio of stocks.

At the beginning of 2020, it was the clear the Federal Reserve would eventually have to raise interest rates to slow down inflation, which would raise borrowing costs to an untenable level, which would put an end to the debt-financed party that had raged since 2009.

What could possibly justify a fresh round of money-creation out of thin air?

Along came COVID-19, and on March 27, 2020, the U.S. government passed the CARES Act—an instrument for bailing out the entire economy reminiscent of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for bailing out Wall Street, only the amount of money created ($2.2 trillion) for the latter crisis was a much larger sum, equivalent to 10% of U.S. GDP.

At the time I wondered if the danger of COVID-19 to ALL of society, including young people, was being grossly exaggerated to justify this insanely extravagant money creation. About a year later I had a conversation with Ed Dowd in which he persuasively argued that this was indeed the case.

At the end of 2021, I had a conversation with New York state attorney named Beth Parlato. Beth had, during the pandemic, devoted her legal practice to suing hospitals to allow dying patients to take Ivermectin and other off-label drugs in an attempt to avoid being put to death on a ventilator.

At the end of our conversation, I asked her if she was still getting many calls from patients’ families who needed her help.

“No,” she replied. “The phone has fallen fairly silent. I think maybe the war is over.” In that instant, I had an eery thought that another “war” would soon arrive to take the pandemic’s place.

The situation in Ukraine had been heating up that fall, and it occurred to me that the Biden administration was not doing anything to avert it from turning into a full blown crisis. My perception was confirmed when the baleful Vice President Kamala Harris was sent to address the Munich Security Conference in February 2022.

Her bizarre and contradictory speech about Ukraine and NATO struck me as yet another provocation of Russia.

Yesterday I listened to an interview with a financial analyst and former hedge fund manager named Alex Krainer about the European Union’s untenable financial condition.

Apparently because the people who run the E.U. and Germany have lost their minds, they have severely damaged Germany’s economy by taking various measures against it (which Krainer elucidates).

The stunning irrationality of British and E.U. administrators is symbolically expressed in their recent talk about using aerosols to dim the sun after these same people spent billions in erecting gigantic, ugly, and inefficient solar panels.

All of this raises a provocative question — namely, is war with Russia now the EU’s only hope for avoiding financial collapse?

Krainer mentions the parallel of Alberta, Canada’s oil reserves being used as collateral for more debt issuance during the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Have the lunatics in Washington and Brussels fantasized about using Ukrainian and Russian mineral assets to collateralize yet more debt creation?

Krainer’s recollection of the Russian situation in the 1990s—when Boris Yeltin’s administration sold Russian mineral assets for pennies on the dollar—does indeed seem relevant.

Could it be that Vladimir Putin’s biggest sin—in the eyes of the West—was putting an end to the looting party that raged under Yeltsin? It wouldn’t surprise me if this is at least partly the case.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Pandemic & War Needed for Financial Reset? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since their decisive losses across the board in the 2024 elections, the Democratic Party has been searching for a way forward and a way to fix its growing unpopularity.

The party has been dogged by continued negative polling figures, with an ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll released last month showing 69% of people believe the Democratic Party is out of touch with most people’s concerns.

An NBC News Stay Tuned Poll released last month showed that when asked which party fights for people like you, 38% said neither party, while 24% said the Republican Party and only 23% said the Democratic Party.

While the party looks for answers and a leader to guide them to victory in the 2026 and 2028 elections, here are some of the reasons Democrats believe their party has lost its popularity.

Not progressive enough

Hard-left members of the Democratic Party have insisted the party’s attempted appeals to centrists during the 2024 campaign were unwise and that they should embrace progressive messages going forward.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have gone on a nationwide “Fight Oligarchy” tour directed against President Donald Trump and Republicans, with stops in Republican areas along with Democratic strongholds. The tour, led by two of the most well-known progressives in Congress, has been criticized by some Democrats like Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI). Sanders has pushed back on those critiques.

“Geez, we had 36,000 people out in Los Angeles, 34,000 people in Colorado, we had 30,000 people in Folsom, California, which is kind of a rural area. I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Ms. Slotkin thinks they are. I think they understand very well that the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%,” Sanders said on NBC News’s Meet the Press last month.

“If we don’t address that issue, the American people will continue to turn their backs on democracy because they’re looking around them saying, ‘Does anybody understand what I am going through?’ And unfortunately, right now to a large degree neither party does,” he said.

Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and has run for the party’s presidential nomination twice, also took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for saying the party was unified as the progressive and establishment wings of the party clash over its direction.

“United around what? Are we united around guaranteeing healthcare to all people? … Are we united in tackling a corrupt campaign finance system?” he questioned. “How do you deal with politics in America without understanding that billionaires play an enormously destructive role in both political parties?” Sanders said in an interview on CNN last week.

Bad messaging

Another criticism Sanders had in the CNN interview was the Democrats’ lack of clear messaging.

“You need an agenda,” Sanders said in the interview. “[What] the Democrats need to do right now is to have the courage to take on the very powerful special interests who, to a large degree, control the political process and the legislative process in the United States.”

A lack of clear messaging has been a constant item Democrats have pointed to when asked about the party’s unpopularity. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has been vocal about the party needing a clear message and policies, rather than focusing on candidates and personality.

“I’m not worried about [whether] we will find a great candidate,” he said. “But what do we stand for? What are we about? What are we going to fight for?” Newsom told NBC News.

“Who are we? And if we’re a bunch of dangling verbs and policy statements — I make this mistake often, too. I answer a question with 10 policy responses, as opposed to what do [I] stand for,” he added.

When asked about if she would consider a 2028 presidential run last week, former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo also pointed out that the party must figure out its direction and its message to be able to compete in the next presidential election.

“How will we overcome this impression that we’re elitist, we’re out of touch, we don’t have our sense on the culture?” Raimondo said. “There’s so much to do. I don’t know how many cycles it’s gonna take. There’s a reason there were a dozen years between Carter and Clinton. And I don’t know where we are in that cycle.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Are Democrats Blaming for Their Unpopularity? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Now that the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is behind us, it is worth not only assessing his papacy but also the papacy itself. While conservative Catholics criticized Francis’ doctrinal ambiguity, his watered-down moral teaching, and his support for compromised prelates, it is only fair to ask ourselves what his motivations were.

I think they can be summed up in his rejection of the mozzetta before his first appearance that evening of March 13, 2013. In rejecting the traditional red shoulder cape, he reportedly said to Msgr. Marini, “You put it on. The carnival is over.” This, however, is likely an urban legend. Another report has Francis simply saying, “I prefer not to.” Either way, the decision was symbolic.

Francis was signaling a shift away from what he considered an overly grandiose papacy. From his first appearance, saying “good evening” and asking for the people’s blessing, Francis aimed to shift away from a focus on the pope to a focus on the people. Coming from the social struggles of South America, Francis wanted a “poor Church for the poor.”

So, he set about displaying his vision for the Church: He eschewed papal trappings, rejecting ornate vestments and the apartment in the Apostolic Palace for simpler attire and the Casa Santa Marta guesthouse. He referred to himself as the “Bishop of Rome” rather than grander titles, signaling a return to service over splendor. He intended for his leadership style to prioritize dialogue and synodality, encouraging bishops and laypeople to share responsibility for the Church’s mission. He embraced non-Catholic Christians and members of other religions, chatted with atheists, and insisted that the Church was for everyone.

History will judge whether he succeeded in his aims. His critics soon lamented the ambiguity and watered-down Catholicism that invariably accompany attempts at accommodation. His pastoral flexibility undermined the clarity of Catholic moral standards while his ecumenical and interreligious outreach blurred the lines of doctrinal clarity.

All of these elements—both laudable and lamentable—are part of Francis’ legacy, but I doubt whether the Franciscan shift will be more than a blip in the venerable history of the papacy. There are signs that the Catholic Church, and the world in general, has had quite enough of the dialogue and openness that is too often a mask for relativism. There is a hunger for clarity, stability, and the beauty, truth, and goodness that can only be found in traditional Catholicism.

Perhaps instead of pastoral openness, flexibility, synodality, and easygoing ambiguity, Pope Francis’ more lasting legacy will be the fact that he helped Catholics to reassess the papacy itself. In so doing, he helped them regain a fresh understanding of the core of the Faith, what it really means to be a Catholic, and what a pope’s job really is.

The uncomfortable truth is that too many Catholics have a bloated understanding of and admiration for the person and role of the pope. In an age of global celebrity, the pope is right up there with the monarch of England as one of the most famous authority figures on the world stage. And for too many Catholics, the pope is the Catholic Faith. Like the crass Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited, in their minds the pope really is an absolute and infallible monarch who cannot err even in the weather forecast. Pope Francis helped to correct that misapprehension. For that, I, for one, am grateful.

Ultramontanism Revisited

Someone quizzed me on social media some time ago, “Is ultramontanism a heresy like Montanism?” I answered, “Montanism is a heresy. Ultramontanism is a mistake.”

Ultramontanism is that 19th-century movement within Catholicism that emphasized the supreme authority of the pope over national churches and secular governments. It emerged as a response to liberalism and secular modernism. It championed centralized papal authority, culminating in the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), which defined papal infallibility; but, over time, a kind of broader ultramontanism became the default setting. One of the contributing factors is that through two world wars the popes provided strong, unified moral leadership—leadership that transcended the political and cultural chaos of the first half of the 20th century.

This centralization strengthened the Church’s unity but also created an image of the pope as an almost superhuman figure. So, by the second half of the 20th century, the stage was set for the larger-than-life papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Real Legacy of Pope Francis appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s vain and futile to suppose that the disordered minds of Western Civ’s entrenched Wokester Jacobins might ever be subject to polite persuasion about anything they believe. They believe only in the power of pushing their fellow citizens around, and so, alas, the only persuasion that might conceivably work to stop their infantile assaults on liberty, truth, and decency is to push back harder until they suffer and break.

This is something that most parents with young children instinctively understand. You don’t negotiate with two-year-olds. You tell them how things are and what sort of behavior is required of them, as plainly and simply as possible. Mr. Trump, having been the father of many two-year-olds over time, appears to get this. It has been apparent for years that Mr. Trump’s symbolic role as a father figure is the most deeply resented feature of his role in US politics.

It also appears that many men in this country likewise get this, perhaps because nature conditions them early on to understand that some day they might have to play the role of father, meaning they will have to push back hard against emotional disorder, hysteria, illogic, and untruth, and violence.

Hence, you might see the peril of living in a land with so many fatherless households. This lamentable state of things defines the Democratic Party, where raging, inchoate, resentment-driven Jacobinism dwells, a party now with no leader, a household with no father, no one to regulate its frenzied, power-seeking behavior. This also tells you how the Democratic Party has become the party run by women, and by particular types of women — women who have traded the management of children and households for bureaucratic careerism, women too lacking in feminine appeal to attract mates, women attempting to become the men missing in their lives — and men wishing to become women, or pretending to be women.

And so you see how these disorders play out in the ongoing melodrama of men in women’s sports, a proposition so obviously insane that no healthy society has ever abided it for a moment until the American Jacobins ran with it as a cardinal political irritant to vex their opponents (and really for no other reason). The state of Maine’s governor, Janet Mills, clashed openly with Mr. Trump over his executive order to desist from allowing biological men in women’s sports. The matter is currently making its way through the courts.

This week, a “trans” athlete named Soren Stark-Chessa, beat the field of females in a Maine track-meet by a country mile in the 800-meter and 1600-meter runs. No one, except the political leadership of Maine, was fooled about the fairness of this, of course. Fairness is not the point. Intransigent defiance of reality was the point. It is always the point for Jacobin politicians.

What is most obviously insane in matters like this, is that the female governor is so eager to punish and humiliate her younger fellow females in order to merely press a political point — that she is the boss of Maine, and nobody can tell her what to do, even if she deranges the cultures of schooling and sports. This illustrates, by the way, a principal difference in the way men’s and women’s brains work. Men typically understand boundaries, where things begin and end. It is a necessary cognitive device for regulating behavior in the household and for acting in the face of danger when required.

Sports is just a microcosm of our politics. The whole gestalt of Woke-Jacobin politics is driven by the wish to dissolve boundaries. That is, it is driven by female minds, and what the Woke-Jacobins might call female-adjacent minds. That is why the open border fiasco was another point-of-principle for the Democratic Party — and why “Joe Biden” the phantom president (actually the shadowy figures behind him) pretended that nothing could be done about it.

Mr. Trump demonstrated that was a lie in a New York minute. The damage from four years of a wide-open border is immense, much worse than men running in girls’ races. The motive for it is also obvious: to jam as many illegal aliens as possible into the country so as 1) to disorder the next census count in swing states to keep congressional districts safe, and 2) to install a base of new “voters” — qualified to vote or not — who will be eternally grateful to the Democratic Party for letting them flood into the country and gifting them with housing, social services, transportation, free meals, and walking-around money.

And now, a Woke-Jacobin judiciary, assisted by an infrastructure of Lawfare ninjas, led by the outlaw Norm Eisen, and financed by George Soros, and what remains of Soros-adjacent NGOs, is using the courts to keep all those illegally-admitted aliens in place here at all costs. So, you see, they are attempting to dissolve a boundary crucial to the Republic’s survival: who is a citizen and who is not a citizen, and what are the privileges entailed? The objective is to keep this dispute alive in the courts long enough to affect the 2026 midterm elections in the hopes of winning Congress back.

You can also see how this will oblige Mr. Trump to marshal the most aggressive legal force possible to crush this seditious legal insurrection. He has executive powers and perquisites in reserve that he has not used yet, or even revealed. He will defeat these monsters in the end just as he is methodically disassembling their scaffold of psychopathic ideology and their pipelines of funding. It will really be something to see.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post There Will Be Boundaries appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Intercept

The post NYU to Law Students: Don’t Protest or Don’t Take Final Exams appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

The post German political class gleefully planning the wider persecution of Alternative für Deutschland and its supporters, because Hitler appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Escape From Alcatraz appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Hi Lew, Why we need nullification: Lew Rockwell

Great article on nullification. California pays $81.1 billion more to the federal government than the state gets back in funds from the federal government. The $81.1 billion is just about equal to California’s current budget deficit. If the California legislature in Sacramento nullified federal taxes (pigs would fly), the state’s budget deficit would go away.

Tim

PS: It does irritate me when citizens in the other states give us Californians a hard time. We support the country with $81.1 billion a year of our tax money to the federal government. We are the suckers. The rest of the country benefits from our lousy representatives in Congress and Sacramento.

The post State Nullification appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Thanks, David Martin.

Waltz Is An Israeli Spy–What Does That Make Trump?

The post Mike Waltz a Spy for Israel? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Mark Kaplan. 

See here.

The post Murray Rothbard may end up saving humanity appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

The Guardian

The post Trump administration to cut thousands of jobs from CIA and other spy agencies appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

AlJazeera

The post Nearly 290,000 Gaza children on ‘the brink of death’ amid Israeli blockade appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The New York Times

The post Six Deadly Minutes: How Israeli Soldiers Killed 15 Rescue Workers in Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Catholic News Agency

The post Washington governor signs abuse bill requiring priests to break seal of confession appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, W. T. White.

The post Deputy Barney Fife 2025 appeared first on LewRockwell.

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 è 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 è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/chi-controlla-lo-stato-amministrativo)

Il 20 marzo 2025 il Presidente Trump ha ordinato quanto segue: “Il Segretario dell'Istruzione dovrà, nella misura massima appropriata e consentita dalla legge, adottare tutte le misure necessarie per facilitare la chiusura del Dipartimento dell'Istruzione”.

È un linguaggio interessante: “Adottare tutte le misure necessarie per facilitare la chiusura” non equivale a chiuderlo. E ciò che è “permesso dalla legge” è esattamente ciò che è in discussione.

Dovrebbe sembrare un'abolizione e i media l'hanno riportata come tale, ma non lo è. Non è colpa di Trump. Il presunto dittatore ha le mani legate in tanti modi, persino riguardo alle agenzie che presumibilmente controlla, le cui azioni in ultima analisi deve essere lui ad assumersene la responsabilità.

Il Dipartimento dell'Istruzione è un'agenzia esecutiva, creata dal Congresso nel 1979. Trump la vuole chiusa per sempre. Così come i suoi elettori. Può farlo? No, ma può privare l'ente del personale e disperderne le funzioni? Nessuno lo sa con certezza. Chi deciderà? Presumibilmente la Corte Suprema, alla fine.

Il modo in cui ciò viene deciso – se il presidente sia effettivamente al comando o solo una figura simbolica come il re di Svezia – non riguarda solo questa singola agenzia, ma centinaia di altre. Infatti il destino della libertà e del funzionamento delle repubbliche costituzionali potrebbe dipendere dalla risposta.

Tutte le questioni politiche scottanti di oggi vertono su chi o cosa sia a capo dello Stato amministrativo. Nessuno conosce la risposta, e questo per una buona ragione: il funzionamento principale dello stato moderno ricade su una bestia che non esiste nella Costituzione.

L'opinione pubblica non ha mai nutrito grande amore per le burocrazie. In linea con la preoccupazione di Max Weber, esse hanno rinchiuso la società in un'impenetrabile “gabbia di ferro”, fatta di razionalismo asettico, editti inumani, corruzione corporativa e un'incessante costruzione di imperi, non frenata né da restrizioni di bilancio né da plebisciti.

La piena consapevolezza odierna dell'autorità e dell'ubiquità dello Stato amministrativo è piuttosto nuova. Il termine stesso è un'espressione lunga e non si avvicina minimamente a descrivere l'ampiezza e la profondità del problema, comprese le sue radici e le sue filiali commerciali. La nuova consapevolezza è che né il popolo né i suoi rappresentanti eletti sono realmente responsabili del sistema in cui viviamo, il che tradisce l'intera promessa politica dell'Illuminismo.

Questa nascente consapevolezza è probabilmente in ritardo di 100 anni. Il meccanismo di quello che è comunemente noto come “Stato profondo” – ritengo che ci siano strati profondi, intermedi e superficiali – è cresciuto negli Stati Uniti fin dalla nascita della pubblica amministrazione nel 1883 e si è saldamente radicato nel corso di due guerre mondiali e innumerevoli crisi in patria e all'estero.

L'edificio di coercizione e controllo è indescrivibilmente enorme. Nessuno riesce a stabilire con precisione quante agenzie ci siano o quante persone vi lavorino, tanto meno quante istituzioni e individui lavorino a contratto per loro, direttamente o indirettamente. E questa è solo la facciata pubblica; il ramo sotterraneo è molto più sfuggente.

La rivolta contro tutti loro è arrivata sulla scia della crisi sanitaria, quando tutti erano circondati da ogni lato da forze esterne al nostro controllo e di cui i politici sapevano ben poco. Poi quelle stesse forze istituzionali sono state coinvolte nel rovesciare il governo di un politico molto popolare, a cui avevano cercato di impedire di ottenere un secondo mandato.

La combinazione di questa serie di oltraggi – quella che Jefferson nella Dichiarazione d'indipendenza definì “una lunga serie di abusi e usurpazioni, che perseguivano invariabilmente lo stesso obiettivo” – ha portato a un'ondata di consapevolezza e si è tradotta in azione politica.

Un segno distintivo del secondo mandato di Trump è stato uno sforzo concertato per prendere il controllo e poi limitare il potere amministrativo dello Stato profondo, più di qualsiasi altro esecutivo a memoria d'uomo. A ogni passo di questi sforzi, si è incontrato qualche ostacolo, anche molti da tutte le parti.

Ci sono almeno 100 ricorsi legali in corso nei tribunali. I giudici distrettuali stanno criticando la capacità di Trump di licenziare dipendenti, ridistribuire i finanziamenti, limitare le responsabilità e modificare il loro modo di operare.

Persino il primo risultato del DOGE – la chiusura della USAID – è stato bloccato da un giudice nel tentativo di ribaltarlo. Un giudice ha persino osato dire all'amministrazione Trump chi può e chi non può essere assunto presso la USAID.

Non passa giorno senza che il New York Times non si cimenti in una qualche sdolcinata difesa dei servi oppressi della classe dirigente finanziata con i soldi dei contribuenti. In questa visione del mondo, le agenzie governative hanno sempre ragione, mentre qualsiasi persona eletta o nominata che cerchi di frenarle o licenziarle attacca l'interesse pubblico.

Dopotutto i media tradizionali e lo Stato amministrativo hanno collaborato per almeno un secolo per mettere insieme quella che convenzionalmente veniva chiamata “la notizia”. Dove sarebbero altrimenti il NYT o l'intera stampa tradizionale?

Tanto feroce è stata la resistenza ai primi successi e alle riforme spesso superficiali di MAGA/MAHA/DOGE che i vigilanti hanno compiuto atti di terrorismo contro le Tesla e i loro proprietari. Nemmeno gli astronauti di ritorno dallo spazio hanno riscattato Elon Musk dall'ira della classe dirigente. Odiare lui e le sue aziende è la “nuova tendenza” per i minion, in una lunga lista iniziata con mascherine, iniezioni, sostegno all'Ucraina e diritti chirurgici per la disforia di genere.

Ciò che è veramente in gioco, più di qualsiasi questione nella vita americana (e questo vale per gli stati di tutto il mondo) – molto più di qualsiasi battaglia ideologica su sinistra e destra, rosso e blu, razza e classe – è lo status, il potere e la sicurezza dello Stato amministrativo stesso e di tutte le sue opere.

Affermiamo di sostenere la democrazia, eppure imperi di comando e controllo sono sorti sotto i nostri occhi. Le vittime hanno un solo meccanismo a disposizione per reagire: il voto. Può funzionare? Non lo sappiamo ancora. Questa questione sarà probabilmente decisa dalla Corte suprema.

Tutto ciò è imbarazzante. È impossibile aggirare questo organigramma del governo statunitense. Tutte le agenzie, tranne una manciata, rientrano nella categoria del potere esecutivo. L'Articolo 2, Sezione 1, recita: “Il potere esecutivo è conferito a un Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America”.

Il Presidente controlla l'intero potere esecutivo? Si potrebbe pensare di sì. È impossibile capire come potrebbe essere altrimenti. Il capo dell'esecutivo è... il capo dell'esecutivo. È ritenuto responsabile di ciò che queste agenzie fanno. E se la responsabilità si ferma davvero alla scrivania dello Studio Ovale, il Presidente deve avere un minimo di controllo che vada oltre la capacità di etichettare una marionetta per ottenere il parcheggio migliore presso l'agenzia.

Qual è l'alternativa alla supervisione e alla gestione presidenziale delle agenzie elencate in questo ramo del governo? Si gestiscono da sole? Questa affermazione non significa nulla nella pratica.

Per un'agenzia governativa essere considerata “indipendente” significa codipendenza dalle industrie regolamentate, sovvenzionate, penalizzate o altrimenti influenzate dalle sue attività. L'HUD si occupa di sviluppo edilizio, la FDA di prodotti farmaceutici, il DOA di agricoltura, il DOL di sindacati, il DOE di petrolio e turbine, il DOD di carri armati e bombe, la FAA di compagnie aeree, e così via.

Questo è ciò che invece “indipendenza” significa nella pratica: totale acquiescenza a cartelli industriali, gruppi commerciali e sistemi nascosti di tangenti, ricatti e corruzione, mentre i più deboli convivono con i risultati. Questo è quanto abbiamo imparato e non possiamo disimparare.

Questo è esattamente il problema che reclama una soluzione. La soluzione delle elezioni sembra ragionevole solo se le persone che abbiamo eletto hanno effettivamente l'autorità su ciò che cercano di riformare.

Ci sono critiche all'idea del controllo esecutivo delle agenzie esecutive, che in realtà non è altro che il sistema istituito dai Padri Fondatori.

In primo luogo, concedere più potere al presidente solleva il timore che si comporti come un dittatore, un timore legittimo. I sostenitori di Trump non saranno contenti quando il precedente verrà citato per invertire le sue priorità politiche e le agenzie governative si rivolteranno contro gli elettori degli stati repubblicani per vendetta.

Questo problema si risolve smantellando il potere delle agenzie stesse, che, curiosamente, è ciò che gli ordini esecutivi di Trump hanno cercato di ottenere e che tribunali e media hanno cercato di fermare.

In secondo luogo, c'è da preoccuparsi del ritorno dello “spoil system”, il sistema presumibilmente corrotto con cui il presidente distribuisce favori agli amici sotto forma di emolumenti, una pratica che l'istituzione del civil service avrebbe dovuto terminare.

In realtà, il nuovo sistema di inizio XX secolo non ha risolto nulla, ma ha solo aggiunto un ulteriore livello, una classe dirigente permanente che partecipa a un nuovo tipo di spoil system che operava fino a poco tempo fa sotto il manto della scienza e dell'efficienza.

Onestamente, possiamo davvero paragonare i piccoli furti di Tammany Hall alle depredazioni globali della USAID?

In terzo luogo, si dice che il controllo presidenziale sulle agenzie minacci di erodere i sistemi di controllo e bilanciamento. La risposta ovvia è l'organigramma qui sopra. Ciò è accaduto molto tempo fa, quando il Congresso ha creato e finanziato un'agenzia dopo l'altra, dall'amministrazione Wilson a quella Biden, tutte sotto il controllo esecutivo.

Il Congresso forse voleva che lo Stato amministrativo fosse un quarto potere sotto traccia e senza responsabilità, ma nulla nei documenti fondativi mirava a creare o immaginava una cosa del genere.

Se temete di essere dominati e distrutti da una bestia vorace, l'approccio migliore non è adottarne una, nutrirla fino all'età adulta, addestrarla ad attaccare e mangiare le persone, e poi scatenarla.

Gli anni del Covid ci hanno insegnato a temere il potere delle agenzie governative e di coloro che le controllano non solo a livello nazionale ma globale. La domanda ora è duplice: cosa si può fare al riguardo e come arrivare da qui a lì?

L’ordine esecutivo di Trump sul Dipartimento dell’Istruzione illustra il punto. La sua amministrazione è così incerta su ciò che può controllare, persino agenzie che sono interamente esecutive ed elencate chiaramente sotto la voce “agenzie esecutive”, che deve schivare e costruire barriere pratiche e legali, persino nelle sue presunte dichiarazioni esecutive, solo per sollecitare quelle che potrebbero essere considerate riforme minori.

Chiunque sia responsabile di un tale sistema, non è il popolo.

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

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

Click Here:

John Leake.

The post Col. Wilkerson Describes CIA as Agent of World Chaos appeared first on LewRockwell.

What can we do if Congress passes a bad law? For example, Congress mandates that billions of dollars be spent on aid programs to the Ukraine, the Middle East, and other troubled areas. Of course, we can protest or refuse to pay part of our taxes. But if you try that, the IRS will come after you. In this week’s column, I’m going to talk about a remedy for such bad laws. States have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws, so they do not apply within that state. If the Alabama legislature, for example, nullified foreign aid, the people of Alabama couldn’t be taxed for this purpose.

What is the evidence that a state can nullify an unconstitutional law? Let’s look at an actual nullification, the Kentucky Resolution of 1799, written by the most libertarian of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson: “RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact.”

You might object that the Supreme Court, not the states, has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. This objection is wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the sole say on this matter. This objection is wrong as the great Tom DiLorenzo, the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explains: “Thomas Jefferson was alarmed during his day of the threat of judicial tyranny. He feared that it could turn the Constitution into ‘a thing of wax’ that could be ‘twisted into any form’ (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819). Unlike congressmen and presidents, Jefferson noted, federal judges are ‘more dangerous [to liberty] as they are in office for life’ (Letter to a Mr. Jarvis, Sept. 1820). The federal judiciary, said Jefferson, was ‘the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution . . .’ (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820). Jefferson reminded anyone who inquired that the Constitution does not give the judiciary the sole right to interpret the Constitution. The executive and congressional branches, ‘in their own spheres,’ have equal rights, he said. As president, Jefferson freed everyone imprisoned by the Adams administration’s Sedition Act which made free political speech illegal. ‘I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition Law,” he said, “because I considered . . . that law to be a nullity.’ The ‘supreme’ court ‘Judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because the power was placed in their hands . . . . But the executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it’ (The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 154). ‘The judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government’ (Letter to A. Coray, Oct. 31, 1823). Experience has shown, however, that ‘they were to become the most dangerous,’ especially because impeachment was so scarce. Yes, government lawyers with lifetime tenure did usurp powers not given to them by the Constitution when they began pretending that they somehow were given a monopoly of constitutional interpretation, but this idea was strongly opposed for generations by Americans in every state. The Jeffersonian position on judicial tyranny prevailed, in other words. In addition to the congress and the executive branch having the right and power to make constitutional interpretations, Jefferson said that ‘I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves,’ organized in political communities at the state and local levels (The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 154).”

James Jackson Kilpatrick published a great book on this topic The Sovereign States, back in the 1950s. In a review of the book written in 1957, the renowned Southern historian C. Vann Woodward, acknowledged that Kilpatrick had a strong case: “Mr. Kilpatrick has no difficulty in mustering great numbers of instances in which states have imposed a check or a veto upon Federal encroachments. These ‘interpositions’ range from mild remonstrance to stern nullification. It is also a simple matter for him to demonstrate that ‘States’ rights is not a doctrine peculiar to the South’ and to show that every region and just about every state in the Union has at one time or another challenged or vetoed Federal authority. He calls the roll of ‘fourteen respected and honored Northern States engaged in this prolonged and generally successful interposition of their sovereign powers’ against fugitive slave laws, and adds the names of twenty-two Northern states who took action against the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. His favorite argument is tu quoque: ‘This is what you said then, gentlemen,’ or ‘This is Massachusetts speaking,’ or Wisconsin or Ohio. It is true that Mr. Kilpatrick derives most of his comfort from the period before the Civil War. More than two-thirds of his book is devoted to that period and half of that to the 1790’s, when the great Virginia champions of state sovereignty were in full voice. But he will not agree with Chief Justice Chase that ‘the victory of the North killed State sovereignty’ nor concede that Lee surrendered the Tenth Amendment as well as his army at Appomattox. Thirty-five years ago Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger published an article on ‘The State Rights Fetish’ in which he demonstrated that every political party in our history has appealed to the doctrine when out of power and renounced it upon gaining power, and that states and regions have left the same record of inconsistency. He concluded that ‘The state rights doctrine has never had any real vitality independent of underlying conditions of vast social, economic or political significance.’ Of course this is true, but it is not really very helpful. The point is the doctrine demonstrably does have vitality when the ‘underlying conditions’ are right.”

We need only one step more in our argument. We may think that foreign aid programs are bad, but are they unconstitutional? Of course they are. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to spend money in this way. Let’s do everything we can to encourage nullification!

The post Why We Need Nullification appeared first on LewRockwell.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have no idea why I still pay the slightest attention to politics. I derive absolutely no enjoyment from it. Changes that are absolutely essential never come. The changes that do occur just make things worse. And we continue to be “represented” by carnival barkers and grifters with capped teeth.

Behind these shameless frontmen/frontwomen/fronttheythems are an illusory group we still can’t really identify. Jews? Freemasons? The Vatican? I think it’s something like the Illuminati, but of course I have no real knowledge. I haven’t been invited to a single Bilderberg meeting, or all male funfest at Bohemian Grove. But as Truman’s Secretary of Defense James Forrestal told Joe McCarthy, before someone pushed him out of a window at Bethesda Naval Hospital, if there wasn’t a giant conspiracy, once in a while they’d make a mistake in our favor. The historical record shows that they have never made a mistake in our favor, except possibly the founding of the Republic, or the election of JFK. As William Henry Harrison said, before he died after barely a month as president, “all the measures of the government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.” That’s a pretty profound quote.

So maybe it isn’t surprising that Harrison, colorfully known as Tippicanoe, stood too long in the rain giving his inaugural address. He was old, and it was raining, or maybe it was too cold. So what else could he do but die in office? That quote I unearthed is probably unknown to 99.9 percent of Americans. But then, practically anything of real political or historical significance is unknown to 99.9 percent of Americans. We are a dumbed down lot, and almost all are historically illiterate. So here comes a Thought Criminal like me, trying to dispense real history- hidden history- to the public. That’s never going to make you rich, but it does provide a sense of satisfaction. The few seemingly honest political figures always seem to get screwed. Murdered, like Huey Long and the Kennedys. Slandered, like everyone from William Jennings Bryan to Cynthia McKinney. They will allow a Thomas Massie, just for their entertainment.

The People, at least the 70 million or so MAGA voters, are under the impression that they have “won” something with Trump back in office. I heard Alex Jones brag about all the “winning” that’s been going on. I must have missed that. The DOGE disclosures were great. But there has yet to be a single person held accountable for the 800 zillion or so in fraud that Elon Musk claims has been discovered. And I don’t see any benefits coming from the 800 gazillion or so that Musk claims has been saved. Trump has variously said that everyone making under $150,000 should pay no taxes, that tips, overtime and Social Security shouldn’t be taxed, and that the income tax should be eliminated. I just had to pay my taxes again last month. Trump even said he might abolish the IRS. Trump, if you haven’t noticed, says that he “might” do a lot of things. And then, of course, there’s that $ 5,000 taxpayer refund from DOGE.

The status of all these Trump promises is difficult to ascertain. That’s the magic of Trumpenstein. You just say different things that often are in diametrical opposition to each other, and no one calls you out on it. The mainstream demons don’t want to remind him of his suggestions which might actually make things better, and the MAGA people are simply stuck in the 4D chess, “two more weeks” mode. Big arrests are coming! Kash Patel means business! There were stories all over the alt media in recent days about how DOGE discovered that Clinton sycophant and probable cannibal John Podesta had set up a $375 billion EPA slush fund under Biden. I don’t know, but that sounds like it’s some kind of crime. Let me know when Kash Patel, or Pam Bondi, prosecutes him. Podesta’s bizarre emails were tied to the Pizzagate scandal, which hasn’t been “debunked.” Recently, by the way, the guy who shot up Comet Pizza was killed by police. Just another mistake that wasn’t made in our favor.

These stories flare up for a few days, and then disappear into the memory hole. Already, the JFK hearings have been forgotten. Now, former Rep. Curt Weldon, who never displayed any kind of independence when he was in Congress, has suddenly become a vocal 9/11 Truther. Ron Johnson is supposedly interested. I’m sure our “representatives” will get to the bottom of it. And with the recent “suicide” of Virginia Giuffre, the lovely Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s interest in the Epstein files has been rekindled. She took Pam Bondi to task again, because Pam Bondi doesn’t appear to be doing anything with all the juicy files she has had “on her desk” for at least a few months. It’s probably only me, but Luna looks even cuter when she’s angry. At any rate, the Epstein list is MIA, like all those American POWs we left behind in Korea and Vietnam. No one did anything about that, either.

As I drive around my county, which I’m told is one of the richest in the country, I see lots of evidence of things not being done. Perpetual construction that never results in any improvements, but does back traffic up with pointless lane closures. Third World- style overgrown grass in common areas. Buildings which have been empty for a long time, large enough to hold countless homeless citizens and save them from shitting on our streets. And ancient power grids, which result in power outages from normal rainfall and brisk winds. Keep in mind, the lines in our neighborhood are all underground. Yet when they were all above ground, subject to all that rain, snow, ice, and wind, we only occasionally lost power for a few hours during thunderstorms. It’s a technological advancement thing, you wouldn’t understand. Just like you never saw infections in hospitals when everyone was smoking cigarettes. But I digress.

One of the funniest episodes of South Park satirized the world of pro wrestling. They spoofed how the “action” now in most matches comes from the wrestlers “dissing” each other in the ring. Grabbing the microphone and unleashing another snappy zinger, as the crowd goes wild. That’s how our WWE politics works under Trumpenstein. He’s kind of the commissioner- the Vince McMahon- of our political world now. And he even appointed McMahon’s estranged wife Linda to head the Department of Education. I guess being married to a wrestling guru qualifies you for that. But then, Trump has vowed to abolish the Department of Education, so who cares? He could have nominated ‘Lil Wayne, one of the many rappers he pardoned, for that matter. Has the Department of Education been abolished? Who knows? Trying to find out anything that really happened under Trump is almost impossible.

Both sides in our laughable two party system have a reason to lie about everything Trumpenstein says or does. Mass deportations? Yes, he is breaking up families! Whole communities are disappearing! Who will nanny our kids in Spanish only? While the MAGA faithful shout, he’s cleaning house, just like he said! Promises made, promises kept! I still don’t understand the saga of the alleged MS-13 gang member who was sent to the mega-prison in El Salvador. Something about symbols on his fingers. I just can’t get that worked up about it, even if he was MS-13. I’m waiting for the millions that need to be deported to be deported. And not for taxpayers to pay El Salvador to house them there. Now Trumpenstein is reviving his old, ridiculous “touchback’ amnesty, which involves them self-deporting, and then being brought back in legally. What? Exactly what benefit do we get from that? I clearly don’t understand “winning.”

What about Elon Musk? And DOGE? Is he still there? Is DOGE still auditing anything? If so, what? What happened to the Pentagon audit that Trump approved? For that matter, what happened to the guided tour of Fort Knox? Lots of promises. How many were kept? Has Trump placed an actual, tangible tariff on any country? We hear bluster, constantly shifting figures, but what really was done? Has this crazy stock market roller coaster ride been the result of threats, rather than policy? As can’t be repeated enough, where Trump is involved, everything is unclear. This is your official “opposition” to all the tyranny and corruption, ladies and gentlemen. Instituting tariffs before rebuilding factories. Vacillating between pleas for peace and warmongering. “Mass deporting” fewer illegals than Biden. Name calling and buffoonery. Trump governs like the WWE Hall of Famer he is.

Read the Whole Article

The post Nothing Really Happens in WWE Politics appeared first on LewRockwell.