Lew Rockwell Institute

Comments open on YouTube

The post Tucker and MTG on the 5 Pillars of MAGA and the Snakes in Washington Trying to Tear Them Down appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Texas secretary of state announced Monday that her office found nearly 3,000 people on voter rolls throughout the Lone Star state who may be in the country illegally.

Secretary of State (SOS) Jane Nelson’s office said the discovery wouldn’t have been possible without access to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (CIS) SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database:

After running the entire Texas voter list with more than 18 million voters through the SAVE database, the SOS has identified 2,724 potential noncitizens who are registered to vote in Texas.

Her office has passed on its findings to individual counties so they can carry out their own investigations. After that, anyone confirmed to be an enrolled voter who is here illegally “will be referred to the Office of the Attorney General.” Thirty-three voters have already been referred to the AG.

Texas has completed citizenship verifications of the entire state voter list using the SAVE database, thanks to the federal government’s recent decision to grant states free and direct access to this data set.

Learn more: https://t.co/d6CmR0j53t pic.twitter.com/UhZEJnxd5S

— Texas Secretary of State (@TXsecofstate) October 20, 2025

Using the SAVE Program

Nelson said Texas was one of the first states to partner with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and use the SAVE database. The SAVE program is a search tool that taps into information from several different government databases to verify immigration status.

A county breakdown shows that Bexar, Dallas, and Harris counties had the highest number of potentially illegal voters. Bexar is home to San Antonio, Dallas to Dallas, and Harris to Houston, all densely populated regions.

Some social media commenters have downplayed the find, saying that 2,700 out of 18 million voters has no significant effect on election outcomes. Others have noted that discoveries like this are usually indicative of a larger problem. The find is also a reminder that Democrats who keep saying that illegals can’t vote are wrong.

Texas has been the target of an electoral-conversion campaign much the same way California was in the 80s. Turning Texas blue would yield perpetual power to Democrats.

Other States Cleaning Up

Texas isn’t the only state that’s making an attempt to clean voter rolls.

In July, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced that the Peach State would carry out a multi-phase voter-roll audit to get rid of the people who are inactive or have moved. He expected nearly half a million names to be purged.

Georgia was the site of major alleged voter fraud in 2020, when the traditionally red state supposedly voted for Joe Biden. President Donald Trump has consistently maintained that he erroneously lost the state, a view many there hold. He has railed against state leadership, Raffensperger included, for not doing enough to get to the bottom of what really happened. And Georgia’s GOP leadership is still suspect in regard to true election integrity, in the eyes of some election reformers.

After he was reelected, Trump took steps to address the systemic election vulnerabilities. In March, he signed an executive order written to keep foreigners from voting in U.S. elections. The president’s vision for U.S. elections is encouraging:

We’re going to fix our elections so that our elections are going to be honorable and honest and people leave and they know their vote is counted. We are going to have free and fair elections. And ideally, we go to paper ballots, same-day voting, proof of citizenship, very big, and voter ID, very simple.

These are fundamental steps that need to be implemented. And no matter what, the states need to remain in control of elections. Our parent company, The John Birch Society, endorses these very remedies in its Restore Election Integrity action project.

Changes Critically Needed

There may be more voting-related changes coming. Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that raises the question of whether states should draw districts with race in mind. The case has national implications. True the Vote summarizes the case this way:

Activists on the Left argue that the Voting Rights Act requires race-conscious districts to ensure minority representation. Meanwhile, those on the Right contend that such mandates violate the Constitution, warning that “separate but equal” solutions cannot deliver genuine equality.

The idea that any policies or actions should be determined by race is contrary to the law of the land. Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga made this exact argument, saying the current practice “requires striking enough members of the majority race to sufficiently diminish their voting strength, and it requires drawing in enough members of a minority race to sufficiently augment their voting strength.”

Election integrity was a hot topic during Joe Biden’s presidency. And for some who dove into the battle head first, they are still paying the price. Tina Peters, the former county clerk and recorder of Colorado’s Mesa County, has been in prison since October 2024. MyPillow founder Mike Lindell is awaiting judgment after a Minnesota judge ruled that he defamed election-technology company Smartmatic. He could lose what he has left of his fortune. And even now, Conrad Reynolds, a supporter of paper-ballot elections, is being prosecuted in Arkansas for allegedly violating the “anti-loitering” statute while carrying out exit polling.

The power to choose its leaders is one of the most fundamental elements of a free society. Americans must not become complacent because they’re happy their candidate won. The vulnerable system that likely resulted in the stolen 2020 election is largely still in place. This latest discovery in Texas is proof of that. The system must be dismantled, and a sensible, simple system with transparency and safeguards must be put in its place.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Texas Finds Thousands of Potential Illegals on Voter Rolls appeared first on LewRockwell.

King he may not be, but he is acting  like one on the high seas.

Donald Trump’s attack on seven small boats in the Caribbean, killing at least  27 people who were not interrogated or tried and who may or may not have been carrying drugs—when you blow up and sink a boat it is a little difficult to know exactly—has no support in law of any kind. Yesterday he compounded his malfeasance with the destruction of another boat in the Pacific similarly said to be carrying drugs to harm innocent Americans.

It isn’t that he’s pushing the envelope of legality—he’s ignoring it altogether.

In justification, with an attitude that says he doesn’t really have to, Trump has said that the boats were committing “hostile acts against the citizens and interests” of the United States because they had cargoes of drugs.  The boats were not stopped and searched so it is difficult to prove that they had drugs, even harder to prove they were intended to go to the U.S. and not Europe or elsewhere.  And to declare that the sailing of those boats in international waters were committing  harmful acts somehow equivalent to “armed conflict” and therefore justified America acting in “self-defense,” though no actual arms were ever evident—well, that is a stretching of the truth beyond anything that the Truth-Stretcher-in-Chief has ever come up with before.

It is difficult to know where any check on Trump’s actions can come from—certainly not Congress, which long since gave up being in charge of declaring war, nor the judiciary, nor worldwide bodies like the United Nations or the International Court that this administration disdains.  And when Trump uses all this to declare war on Venezuela and sends in the 10,00 troops he has assembled in the region, it looks like Americans will go bluntly and dumbly into war without significant protest.

Some peace president.

There is at least one honorable man in all this. Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of the U.S. Southern Command and the who should be in charge of such an American offensive, has stepped down.  He has made no public statement, but that very act should stand as a strong rebuke to his nominal superiors.

The post King of the Seas appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Nobel Peace Prize is officially dead. It was good news that the Norwegian Nobel committee did not award the warmongering US president, Donald Trump with the Nobel Peace Prize, but they still managed to hammer the last nail in their coffin by awarding one of the main right-wing opposition leaders in Venezuela, Maria Corina Machado, a long-time far-right “political activist” who for years has asked every US president since 1999 to lead a coup against the late Hugo Chavez and the Nicolas Maduro-led governments. 

There is an agenda behind his highly controversial Nobel Peace Prize win as Venezuela’s Telesur news agency explains why the decision was made to normalize the idea of the US government to wage a “freedom war” against Venezuela:

A firestorm of international criticism has erupted, creating a significant Nobel Peace Prize controversy following the award to Venezuelan political figure María Corina Machado. The Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity issued a powerful statement from Caracas, condemning the decision as a “cynical escalation” within a U.S. “war operation” against Venezuela.

The declaration, signed by prominent progressive cultural and activist figures, describes the prize as a “premeditated maneuver” within a hegemonic discourse. It aims to normalize a narrative of invasion disguised as a “freedom war” in the collective imagination, the statement alleges

So how can the world ignore a newly crowned “peace” activist who wants nothing more than democracy and freedom from an “evil dictator” who is destroying her country, at least that’s what the regime in Washington, DC and the radical right-wing opposition in Venezuela are thinking. According to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Machado has received the prize for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights” and for the “struggle for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy,” so they decided to become a propaganda mouthpiece for the US government in hopes of removing the Maduro government, therefore, by making this horrible choice, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has managed to become the laughing stock of the world.

The Road to War? 

Washington’s push to start a new war in Latin America is not about spreading “freedom or democracy” or whatever else they claim, it’s about oil and Wall Street controlling Venezuela’s economy. The Venezuelan people believe that they are sovereign nation and that its up to them, not Washington or anyone else to decide who will lead their nation. A report on a recent national survey in Venezuela shows that the people believe in their nation’s sovereignty:

A recent national survey by Dataviva reveals that the Venezuelan people are united in their defense of their national sovereignty. The poll, conducted between September 1 and 15, also shows a notable increase in affinity toward Venezuela’s constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro, attributed to his handling of recent US aggression.

The pollster’s study reveals that nearly nine out of ten citizens (89%) believe that Venezuela is a sovereign country that cannot be threatened by any foreign power. Only 11% disagreed with this statement

Now the Trump regime came up with a new excuse to launch a war by accusing Venezuela of smuggling illegal drugs such as “fentanyl” into the US, but didn’t they blame China and then Mexico for shipping in the deadly drug? Venezuela was never mentioned, in fact, according to the US government-based Congressional Research Service (CRS), it was supposedly “China and Mexico” who was smuggling illegal drugs into the US market:

Since approximately 2019, Mexico has reportedly replaced the People’s Republic of China (PRC, or China) as the main source of U.S.-bound illicit fentanyl. As a major production and transit country for other U.S.-destined illicit drugs, Mexico has long been a key collaborator in U.S. drug control policy. With Mexican criminal groups becoming the primary producers of illicit fentanyl, U.S. counternarcotics policy shifted to focus mainly on addressing synthetic opioid production, the trafficking and diversion of precursor chemicals, and dismantling organized criminal groups engaged in such activities. U.S. policy continues to emphasize law enforcement cooperation to target key organized crime figures in Mexico and to combat crimes such as arms trafficking and money laundering, which often facilitate the trafficking of synthetic opioids

In Trump’s comical UN speech, he said that Venezuela was importing “fentanyl”:

For this reason, we’ve recently begun using the supreme power of the United States military to destroy Venezuelan terrorists and trafficking networks led by Nicolás Maduro. To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence. That’s what we’re doing. We have no choice. We can’t let it happen. They’re destroying, I believe we lost 300,000 people last year to drugs, 300,000, fentanyl and other drugs. Each boat that we sink carries drugs that would kill more than 25,000 Americans. We will not let that happen

Clearly, it’s about the oil. Since 2023, it is estimated that Venezuela has more than 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.  Executives from Big Oil conglomerates have been licking their lips for a chance to get their hands on Venezuela’s oil since the late Hugo Chavez became the president.  If the US starts this war, it’s not about fighting for freedom or stopping the flow of drugs, it’s all about who will control all of that oil.

Why the US Military Will Face Another Vietnam in Their “Backyard”

On October 8th, The New York Times reported that more than 10,000 US troops are in the colonial territory of Puerto Rico, some troops are also on naval battleships and on a submarine in the Caribbean Sea awaiting Trump’s orders:

The Gulf Arab nation Qatar is trying to act as a mediator in the conflict between the United States and Venezuela, even as President Trump continues building up military forces in the Caribbean and striking civilian boats, according to three people with knowledge of Qatar’s diplomacy.

Qatar’s efforts have been encouraged by the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolás Maduro, but they have not been embraced by the Trump administration, which appears more focused on military options than on diplomacy.

The Pentagon has deployed 10,000 U.S. troops to the region, most of them to bases in Puerto Rico, a senior U.S. military official said. Troops are also on eight surface warships and a submarine in the region

However, if the US government and the pentagon believe that they can defeat the Venezuelan military and the civilian militia, but they might have to look back at the history of the Vietnam war. The US military had engaged the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army who used unconventional tactics such as Guerrilla warfare that involved hit-and-run tactics, the extensive use of underground tunnels and other traps set up by the Vietnamese resistance made it a difficult task for the US military to achieve any form of victory.

Venezuela will develop a form of resistance to a US invasion because they can use the same tactics as the Viet Cong. Keep in mind that Venezuela does have a smaller military force with only 123,000 active members with another 220,000 paramilitary forces, and we must add the civilian militia that can exceed 8 million people ready to defend their homeland.

However, Venezuela’s military does not have the same capabilities that the US military has since Washington spends most of its taxpayer’s money on the Military-Industrial Complex, so its no surprise that the US is stronger, at least on paper. But that was the same argument before and during the Vietnam war and most recently, the war in Afghanistan. Vietnam and Afghanistan had less advanced military, weapons and capabilities which meant that they were at a disadvantage militarily speaking, yet they still managed to defeat the US military. Can the same thing happen to today’s US military if they decided to invade Venezuela?  The answer is yes.

The Consequences of a US Invasion of Venezuela

Not only would the Venezuelan people be willing to fight, so will the rest of Latin America.  Venezuela would be a rallying point for all Latin American revolutionaries whether in Central or South America and in the Caribbean, a new call to remove all US military assets in the region will take center stage. Latin American governments under Washington’s control will also have serious problems with their own citizens, therefore, mass protests would erupt leading to violent clashes between governments and their people. The situation in Latin America would become a powder keg of anti-US sentiments.

Russia, China, Cuba and Nicaragua would support Venezuela, and some of these governments would even send weapons and possibly military personnel as advisors. Then there’s always the possibility that if the US were to attack Venezuela, many revolutionaries, anti-imperialists and others all over Latin America would be ready to mobilize and fight the US empire.

Colombia’s president also said they will back Venezuela at all costs. On August 20th, Colombian President Gustavo Petro warned Trump that any incursion into Venezuelan territory would be a regional disaster for US invading forces,

“The president warned that an invasion of Venezuela could cause a civil war similar to the one that has destroyed Syria since 2011. The civil war also led to spillover conflict in neighboring countries like Iraq and Lebanon.”  Petro said that “The gringos are in trouble if they think invading Venezuela will solve their problem. They’re putting Venezuela in the same situation as Syria, only with the added problem that they’re dragging Colombia into the same mess.”

It has been reported that Trump has suspended aid to Colombia claiming that Petro “is an illegal drug leader,” Trump further criticized the Colombian President by saying that

“Petro, a low rated and very unpopular leader, with a fresh mouth toward America, better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”

Trump’s aggression is not new; it started with all previous US presidents since the day Hugo Chavez was elected to office in 1999 and changed the dynamics of Venezuela’s economy. Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution managed to take control of Venezuela’s oil industry and other natural resources, therefore, the US government and its Big Oil executives became hostile and wanted regime change, but they were unsuccessful with a failed coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 and Maduro in 2020, so it was just a matter of time before they would start taking about starting a new war to “take-out” the Maduro government.

The “War on Drugs” is not about drugs; it’s about the oil.  If the US government and their self-proclaimed “Peace President” decides to start another war, it will be an endless war, but this time in their so-called “backyard.”

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post US War on Venezuela? Big Oil, a ‘Nobel Peace Prize Winner’ and the Bolivarian Resistance appeared first on LewRockwell.

Now that last weekend’s “No King” mass protests came and went with 2,700 alleged rallies held across America on Saturday, to publicly airing their strong dissident disapproval toward what protest organizers call President Donald Trump’s “authoritarian agenda.” According to CNN, nearly 7 million protesters took to the streets in both small town communities and all the largest cities with over 100,000 demonstrators in New York City alone. Apparently outside of a few isolated incidents, the massive countrywide protests remained relatively peaceful. With Halloween a few days away, with a desire to preserve unity and calm, a number of the protestors dressed in costumes or in yellow. Common were hand held signs and placards opposing Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), his authoritarianism and billionaires supporting Israel. Many Americans at the protests expressed objection to Trump’s overt attempts to expand his executive “kingly” powers as clear intent to dangerously undermine America’s democratic principles. His polarization of the American populace came under attack along with loss of free speech and increasing level of censorship.

President Donald Trump’s dictatorial tendencies during his first nine months back in the White House are clearly seen by a growing number of Americans within all political parties as a serious threat to our nation. On more than one occasion, Trump keeps hinting at a third term in office as a would-be lifelong dictator, in clear violation of the 22nd Amendment. Moreover, at 79 he is already American history’s oldest elected president and now showing signs of both ill physical and mental health decline.

Essentially, Trump has also declared a state of de facto martial law emergency in America. Though the Posse Comitatus Law of 1878 expressly prohibits US military from policing duties in domestic civil affairs, by August Trump released his ambitious plan to deploy 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 states in support of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of his major crackdown on illegal immigration and urban crime.

The designated states where US soldiers will be conducting armed patrols on our civilian streets are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. Though Trump often cites violent chaos and crime plaguing Blue State cities like DC, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago as justification for his massive boots on the ground, note that a number of these 19 states are Republicans controlled in rural, low crime states like Idaho, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Many Americans view his militant police state agenda a transparent ploy for unprecedented US military troops stationed on domestic soil as a psyops prepping Americans for extreme chaos to come under undeclared martial law emergency amidst a most divided nation since the American Civil War. He was installed by his Luciferian masters as the battering ram to take down America with multiple World War III warfronts that includes civil war at home.

In record time Trump has shown America his true colors as a dictator. Barely a month into his second term presidency, a PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) poll taken between February 28 and March 20 found that 52% of the 5,025 Americans polled agreed with the following statement:

[Trump is a] dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy

Since then, now over 7 months later, Trump continues criminal complicity arming and unconditionally supporting Israel’s most bloody, visible genocide ever, Trump’s failed promise to end the Ukraine war within 24-hours, and now he’s ready to start a new illegal war in Venezuela. Plus, his disastrous tariff policy collapsing our national economy, his constant flip flopping, his thuggish threats and ultimatums have humanity currently teetering on the edge of nuclear annihilation.

So, nine months into his debacle of a presidency, that 52% US majority calling him a dictator must be closer to 92% convinced he’s a reckless dictator and danger to the entire world. Deranged Trump is a fully compromised, owned and controlled Zionist puppet for Israel, having been pedo-blackmailed for raping children per Mossad’s Epstein-Maxwell operation. And now Trump’s about to pardon fellow pedophile Mossad operative Ghislaine Maxwell just 2 years in to her 20-year prison sentence. Trump is caught between a rock and a hard place, knowing he’s not going to heaven following Rothschild’s depopulation orders, ultimately killing millions if not billions of people on this planet.

Additionally, with the deceased, highest profile Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre’s tell-all book release this week, Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, it’s now come out that former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak is the likely culprit who not only is alleged to have raped Virginia, but also it appears the former general as Israel’s most decorated soldier in history also mercilessly beat Giuffre. In Virginia’s words:

He repeatedly choked me until I lost consciousness and took pleasure in seeing me in fear for my life. Horrifically, the Prime Minister laughed when he hurt me and got more aroused when I begged him to stop. I emerged from the cabana bleeding from my mouth, vagina, and anus. For days, it hurt to breathe and to swallow.

Seven years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction as a registered child sex offender, Barak partnered with  the pedo who invested $1 million in Barak’s Carbyne, an emergency 9-1-1 tech startup (coincidentally Barak was also Israel’s Prime Minister right up to 9/11) specializing in invasive global surveillance utilizing Peter Thiel’s Palantir Technologies. Of course, this is the same Palantir that provides Israel’s precision targeting on its decapitation strikes in Gaza genocide but also in Lebanon, Iran, Qatar, Syria and Yemen. Of course, under a multibillion-dollar contract with Trump’s fascist techno-government, Palantir is also now busily engaging in thought crime data-processing analysis on every US citizen who speaks against Israel’s genocide racing toward the ultimate digital control grid gulag worldwide. It’s one very small world when it comes to genocidal psychopaths plotting human genocide once finished exterminating all the Palestinians.

Since the October 10th ceasefire, Hamas has counted 46 more dead Palestinians and 132 injured with IDF opening deadly fire on civilians, wiping out families and mostly children. Meanwhile, even though the US confirms that Hamas is honoring the ceasefire unlike the Jewish State, on Monday October 20th Trump vows he will “eradicate” Hamas if they violate this latest pause. In his own twisted, hypocritical words:

We made a deal with Hamas that they’re going to be very good, they’re going to behave. And if they’re not, we’re going to go and we’re going to eradicate them. If we have to, they’ll be eradicated.

So as predicted, evil Israel sinks even lower measuring up to its evil fork-tongued name. Yet Trump still continues rewarding evil Israel instead of punishing evil by sending more of our tax dollars and weapons so the pariah can kill more innocents in cold blood. American taxpayers are complicit in this genocidal blood sacrifice slaughter.

With Trump continually saying he will not get to heaven, probably his only true statement, leave it to his sycophantic Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an Oval Office press briefing actually uttered these words to Trump:

You didn’t believe you were gonna get to heaven… You are doing God’s WORK here.

King Narcissist Trump demands only ass-kissers surround him in his regime. What prompted RFK Jr’s cringeworthy flattery was more Trump-Big Pharma dealmaking to lower the cost of fertility drugs because the US fertility rate is so low that it’s half of what is needed just to keep the species going. The pathetic King Trump administration only appears more erratic, rudderless, reckless and desperate. As there’s never a dull moment, stay tuned for more of the King [who’s not going to heaven’s] Chronicles.

This article was originally published on JamesHFetzer.org.

The post King Trump Chronicles appeared first on LewRockwell.

I was raised Catholic—the kind of Catholic who knew the smell of incense before the sound of morning cartoons. My father was (and still is) a farmer, my mother a care nurse tending to the elderly in their final days. We weren’t poor, but we were acquainted with struggle. So when Pope Leo recently declared that “love for the poor—whatever the form their poverty may take—is the evangelical hallmark of a Church faithful to the heart of God,” I felt something between irritation and déjà vu. It’s not that I disagree with loving the poor. It’s that many Catholics seem to have mistaken poverty for holiness itself.

It’s an old Catholic habit, this romanticizing of suffering. Somewhere between St. Francis stripping naked in the square and the endless talk of “blessed are the meek,” the Church began confusing destitution with decency, as if the less you own, the more your soul shines. It’s a comforting fantasy, especially for those sitting in marble halls. But equating poverty with purity is as false as equating wealth with wickedness. The poor can be cruel, the rich can be kind, and goodness cannot be measured by one’s bank balance or battered boots.

The truth is, the Bible never glorifies poverty; it simply refuses to lie about it. Scripture speaks of the poor often, not as paragons of virtue but as people to be helped, fed, and treated with respect. Christ dined with fishermen and tax collectors alike—not to canonize deprivation but to shatter the hierarchy that measured worth by wealth. The command was clear: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and lift the fallen—not idolize their condition. Poverty was never meant to be a stage for holiness, but rather, a challenge for justice.

What Pope Leo calls an “evangelical hallmark” has become a badge of humility for those who rarely live it. The modern Church doesn’t love the poor as much as she loves being seen loving them. Somewhere between the sermon and the snapshot, poverty becomes a prop.

It’s a dangerous delusion because it infantilizes the very people it claims to uplift. Treating the poor as sacred objects rather than self-determining people robs them of agency. It’s pity masquerading as faith. My father used to say, “Work is the prayer God answers fastest,” and he was right. Real compassion isn’t tossing coins into the collection plate and calling it charity; it’s creating conditions where people don’t need your coins at all.

But the Church doesn’t like that kind of talk. She prefers symbols to systems. She prefers the image of a barefoot priest over the idea of an educated laborer. When the pope praises “love for the poor,” what he rarely mentions is the love for competence, for responsibility, for the dignity of work.

There’s a reason Catholic art is filled with weeping Madonnas and bleeding saints. The Church has long treated suffering as currency, as if pain itself buys salvation. This is a mistake. Misery isn’t a sacrament but a condition—often man-made, sometimes preventable, and always undeserving of worship. The Gospels tell us to feed the hungry, not to glorify hunger.

To his credit, Pope Leo speaks often about “different forms” of poverty—not just material but emotional, spiritual, and social. Yet this only dilutes the meaning further. By broadening the word to include everyone, he drains it of weight. If everyone is poor in some way, then no one is. It’s linguistic inflation. It’s compassion without clarity.

And yet, I write this not as a cynic but as a Catholic who still believes in redemption, both personal and institutional. My mother, after 10-hour shifts lifting bodies and spirits, embodied Christ far more than any sermon I’ve heard from Rome. Her faith was, and still is, simple and without show. She never confused poverty with purity because she saw both up close, sometimes in the same person.

The poor aren’t moral mascots. They’re people navigating life with whatever scraps of self-respect they can find. Some succeed. Some fail, just like the rest of us. To elevate poverty to sainthood is to patronize the very souls Christ treated as equals.

Still, I remain proud of my Faith. Catholicism gave me a vocabulary of discipline, sacrifice, and genuine awe. But awe without awareness becomes sentimentality, and that’s where the Church too often lives today. If love for the poor is to mean anything, it must involve helping them stop being poor—not through pity, not through pageantry, but through opportunity, through the structure of education and the restoration of self-reliance.

Pope Leo may believe poverty is a mirror reflecting the heart of God. I think it’s a mirror reflecting our own failures—political, human, and moral. The world doesn’t need more saints of sorrow; she needs fewer spectators to it.

That’s not heresy but honesty. And if there’s one thing Catholicism should have learned after two millennia, it’s that truth, however uncomfortable, is still the closest thing we have to grace.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Poverty Isn’t a Path to Heaven appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post It’s Trump’s War Now – President Flip-Flops (Again); Sanctions Russian Oil appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Steve Watson

The post Trump On Course To “Shatter” Deportation Record: Report appeared first on LewRockwell.

Regarding his boat bombings, Trump said: “Every boat that we knock out we save 25,000 American lives so every time you see a boat and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough’…It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people.”

The post Trump’s Lies Get Bigger appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Jesse Trentadue.

The post The first in a series of podcasts by Eric Hunley that focus on the Oklahoma City Bombing and the murder of Kenneth Michael Trentadue. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Vicki Marzullo.

RT News

The post Does this sound like America first? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

JonFleetwood.com

The post NIAID Director Holds Patent for Bird Flu Pandemic Vaccine—as His Agency Creates Frankenstein Bird Flu Viruses in the Lab appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Martin:

Who could stand to be anywhere near such a monstrosity as that?  It might as well be a giant middle-finger directed at white people, grievance culture encapsulated.  Another alternative statue might be that of a shoulder with a big chip on it.  All the while immigrants from Africa are doing everything they can to get into such an oppressive place.

The post Stigmatization Invitation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Martin:

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry reading this, but I did get a chuckle out of the notion of Putin and Xi playing good cop-bad cop with Trump.

The post Renewed Trump Dementia Concerns appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his article “Is the Constitution Broken beyond Repair?” David Gordon draws attention to a phenomenon that is often overlooked, namely, the great rejoicing among some constitutional lawyers over the fact that “to establish the new Constitution, Lincoln overthrew the first one… he replaced the old, immoral Constitution with a new one based on equality.” This is indeed one reason why some of Lincoln’s admirers still celebrate the burning of the South by the Union Army—the devastation and destruction of the South symbolizes for them the brave new world of equality and social justice forged by a righteous army through fire and steel.

Most people, if they understood what was really being celebrated here, would be bewildered. Although Abraham Lincoln and the Union Generals Ulysses Grant and William Sherman are generally admired for saving the Union by those who do not consider the consent of states to be necessary, they may not necessarily think the war was commendable in itself or worthy of celebration; they merely consider that war was necessary for Lincoln to advance his righteous cause. They would view the claim that Lincoln rejected the constraints set by the Constitution as some sort of critique, at the very least—while we can and do debate matters of constitutional interpretation, surely we all accept the premise that a president should not actually overthrow the Constitution? Shouldn’t any president at least try to pretend to uphold the Constitution, even as he brazenly drives a coach and horses through it? Even if he is an unashamed hypocrite who believes double standards always apply to his conduct, he should at least make a show of believing that he sees his actions as constitutional, and should by no means concede to complaints that he is subverting the law.

But, rather surprisingly, some Lincolnite constitutionalists do not see matters that way. They believe that deliberately subverting the Constitution is actually very good if it is done with good intentions—namely, intentions of which progressives approve. As they see it, the new Constitution created by Lincoln’s war is more egalitarian and just than the old one written by slave owners. They believe the overthrow of the old Constitution ought to be welcomed by everyone who upholds “the idea of America”—the “idea” being, of course, progressivism. Nor is this desire to destroy the Constitution new. In the 19th century, the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison described the Constitution as an “agreement with hell”:

Garrison then produced a copy of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law and put a match to it. Amid cries of “Amen” the hated document burned to a cinder… As Martin Luther had burned copies of canon law and the papal bull excommunicating him from the Catholic Church for heresy, Garrison consigned each to the flames. Holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he branded it as “the source and parent of all the other atrocities–‘a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.’” As the nation’s founding document burned to ashes, he cried out: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

The abolition of slavery in 1865 only fanned the flames of this revolutionary fever. The new rallying cry was that steps must be taken to ensure that slavery “by a different name” would never return, and Reconstruction amendments were accordingly forced through. Tennessee, which was the only state in the South to “willingly” ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, only did so after threats of force.

In Tennessee, opponents of the Amendment absented themselves from the House in order to prevent a quorum. This did not stop the supporters of the Amendment, who forcibly seized two absent members and held them in a committee room. The House ignored a court order to release the two and overruled the Speaker, who ruled there was no quorum present.

To many people this might seem, at the very least, mildly embarrassing but nevertheless understandable in the tumultuous aftermath of war. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and the use of force is not part of that process, so at the very least these irregularities ought to be condemned. But for progressives, overthrowing the old Constitution by any means necessary is praiseworthy, because the Fourteenth Amendment brought equality and justice! Let justice be done by any means necessary! In his foreword to Raoul Berger’s Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Forrest McDonald observes that activist courts enthusiastically endorsed the Reconstruction amendments without any qualms. He explains that “advocates of judicial activism began to assert that neither the words of the Constitution nor the intentions of the framers are any longer relevant.” After all, the framers were “racist” so nobody should care what their original intentions were.

After 1865, the progressive amendment of the Constitution continued inexorably under the civil rights regime. When Christopher Caldwell wrote his critique of the Civil Rights Act usurping the Constitution, one reviewer summarized Caldwell’s analysis under the title “The Law that Ate the Constitution.” Now, many readers would assume that “the law that ate the Constitution” is a provocative title denoting an unwelcome development, and that the whole point of Caldwell’s analysis would surely have been to warn us that the Constitution was under threat. Even those committed to “the idea” of civil rights, who may never be persuaded that civil rights pose a threat to the constitution—the judges just need to be a bit more careful to avoid subverting the Constitution, right?—might nevertheless appreciate Caldwell’s attempt to warn us of a potential threat to which we may wish to be alert. But, astonishingly, some law professors view it not as a threat but as cause for celebration—if Caldwell is right that the civil rights law is now the de facto Constitution and has displaced the racist de jure Constitution, they would take that not as a warning but as a wonderful outcome that merits celebration.

Progressives favor the centralization of constitutional authority in the federal courts, and therefore, as they see it, if the courts indeed willfully distorted constitutional history to achieve that goal, so be it. After all, judges are distorting the Constitution for a good cause—in the service of equality, fairness, and justice. Raoul Berger, writing about the role of the Fourteenth Amendment as a platform for the “continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation,” notes how the progressive Warren Supreme Court was hailed as “keeper of the national conscience.” Therefore, when conservatives like Thomas Sowell warned about “the quiet repeal of the American Revolution,” progressives saw that not as cause for alarm but as evidence that they are winning. As they see it, activist courts are to be commended for deliberately replacing the American Revolution with a racially-enlightened social revolution. Far from denying that they have subverted the Constitution, they are supremely proud of themselves for having done so. They have convinced themselves that the new de facto Constitution better reflects “American values.”

The point here is not simply that there are different schools of statutory interpretation, by reference to which some constitutionalists uphold a “purposive” or “living tree” approach which tries to give meaning to what they see as the underlying goals and values of the Constitution. Most progressives who champion purposive interpretation do not claim that the old de jure Constitution should be altogether destroyed and replaced with a de facto new Constitution that is morally superior—most would at least attempt to offer some sort of argument that their inventions are a matter of reinterpretation and redefinition of the words actually written in the original Constitution.

The progressives who praise themselves for displacing the Constitution altogether make a very different argument. They do not claim to be engaged in creative reinterpretation, but to be abolishing the de jure Constitution altogether in order to replace it with a more worthy compact rooted in their civil rights revolution.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post How Progressives Broke the Constitution and Praised Themselves for It appeared first on LewRockwell.

Starmer wanted punk band Bob Vylan prosecuted for chanting ‘Death to the IDF!’ Four months on, he’s bullying the police to let Israeli football thugs into the UK to chant ‘Death to the Arabs!’

June 2025: Keir Starmer’s government urge police to investigate the punk band Bob Vylan for inciting racial hatred and public order offences after chanting “Death, death to the IDF!” at the Glastonbury music festival.

At that time, the IDF, Israel’s military, is known to be responsible for killing and maiming more than 200,000 Palestinians in Gaza, with many thousands more dead under Gaza’s rubble. The United Nations; every major human rights organisation, including Israeli ones; and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have all agreed that Israel and its military are committing genocide in Gaza.

Lisa Nandy, Britain’s sports and culture secretary, calls the chant against the IDF – and the BBC’s inadvertent broadcasting of it – “appalling and unacceptable”. Keir Starmer terms the chant “appalling hate speech”. They agree that Bob Vylan and another band, Kneecap, should have never been given “a platform” by either Glastonbury or the BBC. There is widespread agreement in the media and Westminster that the chant is evidence of antisemitism.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, revokes a visa for Bob Vylan to perform in the United States – a move that the Starmer government does nothing to protest.

October 2025: West Midlands police announce that they are barring Tel Aviv Maccabi fans from attending a match in Birmingham against Aston Villa next month because of fears of violence. Tel Aviv’s supporters are notorious for their racist and violent behaviour, both inside Israel and abroad.

Nearly a year ago, there were ugly riots in Amsterdam’s streets provoked by the Tel Aviv fans – many of whom have served or are serving in the IDF – after their team lost against local side Ajax. Inside the stadium and later on the streets, the Tel Aviv fans could be heard chanting ”Death to the Arabs” and “There are no more schools in Gaza because we killed all the kids!”.

Despite the Tel Aviv fans instigating the Amsterdam violence, much of it caught on video, Dutch and British politicians and media initially went out of their way to portray the Tel Aviv fans as the victims – until, confronted with the evidence, that narrative collapsed. For example, David Lammy, then Britain’s foreign secretary, lost no time writing on X: “I utterly condemn these abhorrent acts of violence and stand with Israeli and Jewish people across the world.”

It was precisely these “violent clashes and hate crime offences” in Amsterdam that lead West Midlands police to decide its officers will not be able to safely police the Europa League match in Birmingham, scheduled for November 6. They term it “high risk”.

But once again, Starmer and his ministers seek to revive the early, confected Amsterdam narrative, this time suggesting that it is the the Tel Aviv football hooligans that are in danger from Aston Villa fans, that any resentment from Aston Villa fans towards Tel Aviv fans is driven solely by antisemitism rather than by the Tel Aviv fans’ long record of genocidal chants and racist violence, and that the police decision to bar the Tel Aviv hooligans is capitulation to “antisemitism”.

Starmer himself wants the police decision overruled. Ed Miliband, his energy secretary, says: “We cannot have a situation where any area is a no-go area for people of a particular religion or from a particular country.”

But as happened with the official Amsterdam narrative, Starmer’s utterly implausible narrative regarding the Aston Villa game collapses almost immediately. On Sunday, Israeli football authorities are forced to call off a derby between Maccabi and another Tel Aviv team after both sets of fans riot.

Conclusions:

1. British police should not be dealing with the matter of the Aston Villa game. It should never have been thrown into their lap. Tel Aviv Maccabi would not be playing in the UK, or anywhere else in Europe, if Israeli sports team were banned from all international competitions, as they should have been long ago. Russia has been banned. So why are Israel teams still competing? Israel’s genocide in Gaza is far more egregious than anything done by Moscow in Ukraine. The Tel Aviv fans wouldn’t be coming to the UK if their team wasn’t playing.

2. If Starmer and his ministers were so sure that a British punk band needed prosecuting for chanting “Death to the IDF!”, why are they so keen to overturn a police decision and invite foreign fans to the UK when it is widely understood both that those fans will bring their brand of genocidal rhetoric to British streets (“Death to the Arabs!”) and that they are certain to intimidate and use violence against Muslim and Arab communities in Birmingham? Why does the Starmer government think it so important to give special privileges to foreigners to platform their racial hatred, while seeking to remove any platform from British citizens, such as Bob Vylan, they accuse of spreading hate.

Remember this too. Bob Vylan used violent rhetoric against a racist and violent foreign army – a rhetoric neither the band nor its fans were in any kind of position to act on. The IDF is one of the strongest armies in the world; Bob Vylan’s fans pose no threat to it. The chant is better understood as chiefly symbolic: a punkish variation of “Down, down with the IDF!”

The Tel Aviv fans, however, are not just invoking violent, symbolic rhetoric. They are in a position to actually implement that violence in very practical ways – and not just in one setting, but two.

Some of these fans, either currently serving in the Israeli military or as reserve soldiers, have actually helped destroy almost every school in Gaza, and have been actively butchering Palestinian children – at least 20,000 children, the number that have been identified so far before the rubble is cleared.

But it goes further. These fans can, in fact, act out their violent chants and impulses in Birmingham by attacking anyone who looks Muslim or Arab. They can carry out their threats on Britain’s streets. It was obviously this assessment that led the West Midlands police to conclude that the fans should not allowed to attend the match. Why would Starmer wish to overturn a decision to avert a real danger of violence from foreign fans directed at British citizens? Why is the supposed right of foreign fans to attend a football match being placed above the safety of the British public? Why are the supposed sensitivities of a group of hooligans more important than good race relations in Britain?

3. Once again, Starmer’s government is misrepresenting events – in this case, a decision by the police – as “antisemitic”. In the British political and media establishment’s view, is there anyone left in British society – apart, that is, from the political and media establishment – that isn’t “antisemitic”?

The government’s logic on antisemtism is clearly back to front. Violent, racist Israeli football fans do not represent Jews. They don’t even represent all Israelis. Conversely, an aversion to hosting violent, racist football fans is not antisemitism. It is a public order matter. Meanwhile, imagining that violent foreign football fans who chant “Death to the Arabs!” need protecting because they also happen to be Jewish, as Starmer is doing, is antisemitic and Islamophobic in equal measure.

In fact, it is racism of the ugliest kind – racism that clothes itself in the guise of anti-racism. By weaponising antisemitism in this utterly cynical way, Starmer discredits the real anti-racists and breathes life into the racist’s claim that Jews have special, alchemical powers that can invert the world, making “up” look like “down”, “black” look like “white”. It feeds the very worldview that led to pogroms against Jews across much of Europe and culminated in the Holocaust. Starmer knows this.

4. Politicians have long put pressure on football authorities to “stamp out racism” in the game. Yet, here is the Starmer government trying to normalise genocidally racist rhetoric in Britain by inviting it into a Birmingham stadium. If Tel Aviv fans are given a privileged platform to vent their “Death to the Arabs!” chants in the UK, why not accord the same privilege to racist fans from British clubs?

And if the police are forced to climb down on a decision against Tel Aviv Maccabi, what sort of precedent – practical and rhetorical, if not immediately legal – will this set for other violent actors?

5. Starmer is weaponising antisemitism in this way for purely political reasons, entirely unrelated to the safety of British Jews. This is not new from him, nor is he alone. The British establishment has been using “antisemitism” as a tool to wield against every and any threat to its continuing entrenchment of power.

Over the past five years, Starmer has used weaponised antisemitism against his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, an exceptionally rare case of a democratic socialist getting within scent of power, to oust him from the Labour party.

Once Corbyn was gone, Starmer used weaponised antisemitism against the left of the party to purge its members – one of the reasons his party has plumbed new lows in polling.

Starmer has used weaponised antisemitism against student movements that tried to highlight and end their universities’ culpability in financing and arming Israel’s genocide.

Starmer used weaponised antisemitism to outlaw Palestine Action, which targets factories in Britain sending weapons to Israel for use in the Gaza genocide and was piling additional pressure on his government to end arms sales to Israel.

Starmer is using weaponised antisemitism against ordinary, peaceful citizens who have held a placard supporting Palestine Action’s work.

And now, driven into a logical and ethical cul-de-sac through his relentless campaign of mischaracterising anti-racism as antisemitism, Starmer is implicitly accusing the police of antisemitism. Why? Because they are trying to protect British communities from the overspill of genocidal violence issuing from Israel.

This article was originally published on JonathanCook.net.

The post A Tale of Two Chants: Why Starmer Now Casts Even the British Police as Antisemitic appeared first on LewRockwell.

Is this scenario guaranteed? No, of course not. But that doesn’t mean it’s excluded from the realm of possibility.

We all know the end-game when currencies are inflated as an expedient measure to stave off insolvency: devaluation eventually has consequences as the debauched currency is eventually replaced, a process that wipes out everyone holding or using the devalued currency.

It’s natural to assume this is a linear process and therefore predictable, as that’s what it looks like when looking back at the broad sweep of history. But the process isn’t inherently linear; it’s non-linear as the dynamics around “money” and “risk” are emergent, meaning that the sum of the parts have qualities of their own that are not predictable.

Which brings us to the question: could the much-maligned, guaranteed-it’s-going-to-zero US dollar USD) stage a rip-your-face-off rally that wipes out those shorting the USD by generating a mad rush for scarce–yes, scarce–USD?

The Federal Reserve measures the supply of US dollars via M2: basically cash in various accounts. As you can see on the chart below, M2 Money Supply is about $22 trillion after a $6 trillion rocket-boost in the Covid stimulus phase.

That may sound like a lot, but consider the global bucket of financial assets is worth $480 trillion. Global Asset Monitor: Public (sovereign bonds, etc.) $232.4 trillion, Private (stocks, RE) $246.8 trillion: $479.2 trillion total.

So M2 Money Supply is 4.6% of global financial assets. US dollars in circulation, i.e. Federal Reserve notes/Greenbacks, is around $2.4 trillion.

The US dollars held in time deposit accounts in banks outside the US are called Eurodollars. I am not an expert on the eurodollar market, but it appears to have experienced a decline in volume since 2016. As this article from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains, changes in banking regulations led to selected deposits on the books of US banks replacing the majority of eurodollars volume.

Who Is Borrowing and Lending in the Eurodollar and Selected Deposit Markets?
“Selected deposits are unsecured U.S. dollar deposits that also tend to have an overnight maturity, similar to Eurodollars. However, unlike Eurodollars, but like fed funds, selected deposits are booked at bank offices in the U.S.”

The conventional view is that eurodollars are advantageous because they are not regulated by US agencies or the Federal Reserve and so much of the activity is opaque, qualifying as “shadow banking.” Eurodollar Secrets: The Hidden Engine of Global Finance (tradingview.com)

“The Eurodollar system is one of the greatest financial innovations–and enigmas–of modern capitalism. Born from geopolitical necessity, it evolved into a vast offshore network that creates and circulates U.S. dollars beyond U.S. borders.

Its power lies in its invisibility: it influences global liquidity, shapes monetary policy, and fuels international trade, all without direct oversight.

However, with great power comes great risk. The Eurodollar market’s opacity and lack of regulation mean it can amplify crises when liquidity dries up.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Could a Rip-Your-Face-Off Rally in the Dollar Trigger a Global Financial Crisis? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Have you ever noticed how whenever you see someone promoting hatred toward Muslims, nine times out of ten it will be someone who supports Israel? There’s a reason for that.

Zionists promote Islamophobia because convincing westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to love Israel.

Support for Israel is a hard sell. On paper it’s just a shitty, evil country full of shitty, evil people, and has no redeeming qualities as a state. Nobody can explain how it’s an important ally in a way that makes sense; all the problems they claim it helps solve are problems Israel itself creates with the help of western backing. Unless you’re a devout Jewish Zionist or Christian Zionist there’s nothing about the modern state of Israel you’d naturally be inclined to support.

That’s why you’ll see high-profile Israeli social media accounts fearmongering about the growing Muslim populations in Europe, for example. You wouldn’t think it would be any of Israel’s concern if there are a lot of Muslims in Belgium or whatever, but it is in Israel’s political interests to keep westerners fearful and disdainful toward members of the Islamic faith.

We’re seeing more and more of this as Israel increasingly alienates western centrists and progressives, relying more and more heavily on support from the western right. As the narrative that a poor persecuted religious minority needs to have its own homeland loses traction with its intended audience, we’re seeing it increasingly replaced with the narrative that them there Muslims need killin’, yeehaw.

Israel makes everything gross. It makes the world more violent, more sociopathic, and more hateful. The entire state is sustained by nonstop violence and hatred. It’s a malignant tumor on the flesh of our species.

__________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Zionists Push Islamophobia Because It’s Easier Than Getting People To Like Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Trump administration has slashed federal spending for democracy promotion efforts around the globe. That rollback of U.S. meddling is perhaps the most positive foreign-policy reform of the Trump presidency.

Since 1946, the U.S. government has intervened in more than a hundred foreign elections to assist its preferred candidate or party. Democracy is so important that the U.S. government refuses to stand idly by when foreign voters go astray. Rather than delivering political salvation, U.S. interventions abroad more often produce “no-fault carnage” (no one in Washington is ever held liable).

In 1983, Congress created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). In 1984, Congressman Hank Brown (R-CO) provided a single sentence that should have nullified NED’s right to exist: “It is a contradiction to try to promote free elections by interfering in them.” In a 1985 piece for the Oakland Tribune, I hailed NED as “one of the newest, most prestigious boondoggles on the Potomac.” But there were plenty of scoffers early on: “NED has been called many things — an International Political Action Committee, the Taxpayer Funding of Foreign Elections Program, and a slush fund for political hacks who like to travel to warm climates in cold weather. In less than two years, NED has lived up to all these epithets.” My op-ed concluded, “The sooner NED is abolished, the cleaner our foreign policy will be.”

But that is a paltry argument compared to “jobs for the boys” —or perpetual government subsidies for Washington hustlers.

Guatemala 

U.S. democracy promotion efforts in Latin America have resembled a fairy tale or a bad LSD trip. In the 1980s, the Agency for International Development bankrolled a program “to motivate the people of Guatemala to participate in the electoral process.” The written materials for the program assured everyone that “All Guatemalans are Equal and Free.” The program distributed a pamphlet entitled, “How the State and Government Is Organized to Protect Our Lives and Work for the Development and the Good of All.” The Carnegie Institute’s Thomas Carothers noted that the titles the program used were “seemingly drawn from a Chinese reeducation campaign of the 1960s.” Uplifting fare on democracy was a hard sell because the Guatemalan government had just completed a genocidal crackdown that killed hundreds of thousands of Mayan Indians and suspected leftists.

Haiti 

No nation has received more prodemocracy interventions from the U.S. government during the past century than Haiti. In the early 1990s, Haiti’s elected ruler, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, became increasingly despotic, encouraging his supporters to kill opponents and critics by hanging burning automobile tires around their necks. The C.I.A. provided money and encouragement to a clique of Haitian generals who toppled Aristide in August 1991. Regardless of the C.I.A.’s role, the United States and the United Nations responded to the coup by slapping embargoes on Haiti, worsening the island’s economic misery and spurring thousands of Haitians to flee to Florida in leaky boats. In September 1994, President Clinton invaded Haiti, sending 20,000 troops in Operation Uphold Democracy to restore Aristide to power. Clinton hailed the efforts of American soldiers: “The work you’re doing is helping the Haitian people win their fight for freedom and democracy…. It’s proving to the world that the United States will stand up for democracy in our hemisphere.” Aristide became increasingly brutal and intolerant, though he managed to win reelection. In February 2004, an array of U.S. government-subsidized democracy promotion organizations helped spur another coup that left 100 people dead and toppled Aristide. Prior to the coup, Brian Dean Curran, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti, warned Washington that the federally subsidized International Republican Institute’s actions “risked us being accused of attempting to destabilize the government.”

Ukraine 

In 2004, the United States pulled out all the stops to help its favored candidate win a “free and fair” election in the Ukraine. In the two years prior to the election, the United States spent over $65 million “to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite exit polls indicating he won a disputed runoff election,” according to the Associated Press. Rep. Ron Paul complained that “much of that money was targeted to assist” Viktor Yushchenko. Yet with boundless hypocrisy, President George W. Bush had proclaimed that “any [Ukrainian] election … ought to be free from any foreign influence.” The United States intervened again to rig Ukrainian politics in 2014. The U.S. meddling helped sow the seeds of the Russia-Ukraine war that commenced in 2022.

Afghanistan

In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the United States would “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” While Bush’s invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his war on terror.

In 2009, President Barack Obama traveled to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he announced plans to send more troops to Afghanistan to save Afghan democracy. Shortly after Obama’s West Point speech, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, sent in troops to bring democracy to a village named Marja in southern Afghanistan.

Shortly before the assault began, McChrystal announced: “We’ve got a government in a box, ready to roll in.” In the same way that the U.S. government plopped Hamid Karzai into Afghanistan in 2002 as its “democratic” leader, the U.S. military brought in Afghan emigre Abdul Zahir to serve as Marja’s new governor. The Washington Post noted that Zahir was touted as “a respected elder from the Alozai tribe, a landowner who lived in Marja in his youth…. U.S. Marines and civilian advisers in Marja have given him money and protection in an attempt to persuade a wary population to follow him.” Zahir’s accession hit a bump after it leaked out that he had spent four years in prison for attempting to murder his stepson while living in Germany. The Washington Post noted: “U.S. officials in Afghanistan said Zahir’s criminal conviction did not undermine their confidence in his ability to govern.” Zahir never received popular support and was murdered at a local meeting the following year.

Libya 

President Obama was supposed to redeem the honor of U.S. foreign policy. In 2011, Obama portrayed the U.S. bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans “now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya.” But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria’s civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges.

Egypt

But the Obama team, like prior administrations, did not permit its democratic pretensions to impede business as usual. After Egyptian protestors toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, Obama pledged to assist that nation “pursue a credible transition to a democracy.” But the U.S. government disapproved of that nation’s first elected leader, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After the Egyptian military deposed Morsi in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry bizarrely praised Egypt’s generals for “restoring democracy.” Similarly, many Ethiopians were horrified when Obama visited their country in 2015 and praised its regime as “democratically elected” — despite a sham election and its brutal suppression of journalists, bloggers, and other critics.

American zealotry for spreading democracy fails to recognize how democracy in many places has become simply another form of oppression.

Philippines 

In some nations, election victories legitimize destroying voters en masse. This is exemplified by the Philippines, where the government killed 7,000 suspected drug users and dealers, including several mayors. After President Rodrigo Duterte publicly declared in 2017 that he would be “happy to slaughter” three million drug users, Trump phoned him and, according to a leaked transcript, said, “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you’re doing] on the drug problem.”

Many so-called democracies nowadays are simply elective despotisms. Elections abroad are often herd counts to determine who gets to fleece the herd. Many democracies have become kleptocracies where governing is indistinguishable from looting.

Democracy versus freedom

Selecting leaders by ballots instead of bullets does little to prevent oppression. Economist Friedrich Hayek observed in 1960, “Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” The lessons of the domino-like collapse of democracies in the 1920s and 1930s were largely forgotten by the 1990s. Even the current round of democratic demolitions has failed to awaken people to the folly of trusting elections to safeguard their rights and freedom.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the great difficulty in framing a government is to “first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Democracy has been wildly oversold in the past century as the cure for Madison’s second dilemma. Politicians are far easier to elect than to control. Fostering the illusion of consent makes it easier for rulers to shackle their victims. As Sen. John Taylor warned in 1821, “Self-government is flattered to destroy self-government.”

In many nations, sham rights complement sham elections. Constitutions are “mere scraps of paper” that rulers shred at their convenience. Who determines whether citizens enjoy the rights they are promised? The same politicians who profit from violating them. The Rwanda constitution, for instance, declares, “Freedom of the press and freedom of information are recognized and guaranteed by the State.” And government agents were still free to kill anyone who criticizes President Paul Kagamea, who has ruled Rwanda with an iron fist since 2000.

Nations are increasingly descending into “rights-free democracy” — which is simply despotism with a facade of popular approval. A bogus election is worse than no election at all, as far as leashing politicians. The state gains legitimacy while reformers lose hope.

At this point, ballots are bolstering more tyrants than they are toppling. In much of the world, elections have become sops that rulers throw to their victims. What is the point of referendums that merely provide a one-day faux intermission on oppression? While Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt epitomize the bastardization of balloting, many nations with venerable democracies also serve up election charades to citizens.

Around the world, people are recognizing that rotating political scoundrels in high offices achieves little or nothing. Unfortunately, falling support for democracy does not necessarily signal a decline in political gullibility. While many citizens have become wary of campaign promises, they remain easy prey for other demagoguery.

Once the U.S. government began trumpeting the spread of democracy, it was inevitable that “democracy” would be defined down to gin up more applause lines for presidential speeches. Unfortunately, because most Americans are ill-informed on foreign affairs, presidents can pirouette as saviors even for brazen foreign hoaxes. Invoking democracy provides a Teflon coating for almost any intervention abroad by the U.S. government.

It remains to be seen whether President Trump will fulfill his promises to end U.S. democracy promotion shams. But bribery and bombing are poor ways to export freedom. U.S. endorsements of spurious foreign elections should make Americans think twice about trusting official verdicts on our own elections. What if our politicians decide to give the American people “government in a box,” Marja-style? Or have they done that already?

This article was originally published in the October 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.

The post Will Trump End Sham Democracy Promotions? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Great Depression of 1929 stands as one of the most significant economic crises in modern history, casting a long shadow over the global financial landscape. Sparked by a catastrophic stock market crash in October, this era of intense economic turmoil led to widespread unemployment, poverty, and social unrest. In the United States, millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings, forcing families to confront an uncertain and often dire future. This article delves into the factors that precipitated the Great Depression, its profound impact on American society, the government responses that shaped economic policy, and the global ramifications of this devastating crisis. By understanding these aspects, we can glean valuable lessons that inform current economic practices and prepare us for future economic challenges.

The Causes of the Great Depression

The Great Depression did not arise in a vacuum; it was the result of a confluence of several factors that had been brewing throughout the 1920s. To fully understand the causes of the Great Depression, it is essential to look at the economic environment of the 1920s, commonly referred to as the “Roaring Twenties.” This period was marked by significant economic growth, technological advances, and an unprecedented rise in consumer culture. However, this prosperity was built on shaky foundations, and cracks were starting to appear.

One of the primary catalysts for the Great Depression was the rampant speculation in the stock market. During the late 1920s, an increasing number of Americans began investing in stocks, often borrowing money to purchase shares in hopes of quick profit. This speculative bubble was characterized by inflated stock prices that did not reflect the actual value of the companies. The euphoria surrounding stock investments created an unsustainable market driven by the belief that prices would continue to rise indefinitely. Unfortunately, this led to an inevitable collapse when the bubble burst in October 1929, resulting in a dramatic stock market crash that sent shockwaves throughout the economy.

Bank failures also played a crucial role in deepening the economic crisis. With the collapse of the stock market, many banks faced immense financial pressure as their clients rushed to withdraw their savings, fearing for their financial security. The banking system, which had become over-leveraged during the boom years, was unable to withstand the sudden surge of withdrawals. By 1933, approximately 9,000 banks had failed, wiping out billions in savings and further destabilizing the economy. The loss of confidence in the banking system exacerbated the financial crisis, leaving consumers with little access to credit and diminishing their ability to spend, which in turn led to decreased production and even more layoffs.

International trade issues also contributed to the economic downturn. In an attempt to protect American industries, the U.S. government enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, which raised tariffs on hundreds of imported goods. Although the intention was to bolster the domestic economy, the result was a significant decrease in international trade. Other nations retaliated by imposing tariffs on American goods, leading to a cascading effect of reduced trade volumes and increased economic isolationism. The combination of these protective measures further deepened the global economic crisis, proving counterproductive to the very goals they sought to achieve.

Additionally, economic disparities and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few created an unstable economic environment. While the upper echelons of society reaped the benefits of the booming economy, a significant portion of the population struggled to make ends meet. This disparity in wealth led to reduced consumer spending, which is a vital component for economic growth. Without a robust consumer base, businesses struggled to maintain production levels, leading to layoffs and further economic contraction.

In summary, the causes of the Great Depression were multifaceted and interconnected. The speculative practices of the stock market, bank failures, international trade barriers, and growing economic inequality all played significant roles in leading the world into one of its darkest economic periods. By examining these causes, we can draw lessons not only about financial prudence but also about the importance of a balanced economic system that supports all citizens, rather than a select few.

The Impact of the Great Depression on Society

The ramifications of the Great Depression extended far beyond economic collapse; they reshaped the social fabric of the United States. As unemployment soared, many families faced dire financial straits. By 1933, unemployment rates had skyrocketed to approximately 25%, leaving millions of Americans without jobs and many more struggling to survive on meager means. This widespread financial despair led to significant social challenges, including increased rates of homelessness, malnutrition, and mental health issues.

The plight of the unemployed was visible in cities and towns across the nation. Shantytowns, often referred to as “Hoovervilles” after President Herbert Hoover, sprang up as displaced families sought shelter in makeshift huts. These communities became symbols of the suffering and hardship endured during this era. Families often found themselves living in extreme poverty, with many children going hungry or forced to drop out of school to support their families. The loss of a stable home environment had long-lasting effects on the health and education of these children, many of whom would experience generational poverty as a result.

Furthermore, the Great Depression had a profound effect on the American psyche. The sense of insecurity and hopelessness permeated society, as people grappled with the loss of their dreams and aspirations. The stress of financial instability contributed to a rise in mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. Families were torn apart by financial difficulties, with some individuals resorting to desperate measures, including theft or begging. The collective trauma experienced during this period would leave scars that echoed throughout psychological studies and societal dynamics in subsequent decades.

Social movements also began to emerge in response to the crises created by the Great Depression. Workers organized strikes and protests, demanding fair wages and better working conditions. Labor unions became more prominent as workers sought to protect their rights in an increasingly volatile job market. For many, invoking the power of collective bargaining became a means of survival. This surge in labor activism ultimately contributed to significant changes in labor laws and workers’ rights in the years that followed.

The Great Depression also prompted shifts in public attitudes toward government intervention in the economy. Prior to this period, many believed in a laissez-faire approach, where the government primarily took a hands-off stance regarding economic affairs. However, the scale of the crisis led many to advocate for a more active role for the government in providing support for those in need. This shift in public opinion laid the groundwork for future social safety nets and government programs that aimed to assist those facing economic hardship.

In conclusion, the impact of the Great Depression on society was profound and multifaceted. The economic collapse not only led to widespread unemployment and poverty but also altered the way individuals viewed work, government, and their place within society. The lessons learned during this tumultuous time continue to resonate today, emphasizing the importance of social safety nets, economic equality, and the resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity.

The Government response to Great Depression and how policies changed

In the wake of the Great Depression, the U.S. government faced intense pressure to respond to the profound economic crisis that had gripped the nation. Under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took office in March 1933, the government implemented a series of sweeping reforms and policies collectively known as the New Deal. These initiatives aimed to provide immediate relief to the unemployed, to stimulate economic recovery, and to implement lasting reforms to prevent future economic collapses.

One of the cornerstone programs of the New Deal was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), established in 1933. This program aimed to provide jobs for young men while simultaneously addressing environmental conservation efforts. Participants in the CCC worked on projects ranging from reforestation to building parks and trails, enabling them to support their families while also contributing to national recovery efforts. By the time the program came to an end, millions of young men had benefited from the CCC, gaining work experience and developing skills that would serve them for a lifetime.

Another critical aspect of the New Deal was the creation of the Public Works Administration (PWA), which aimed to stimulate the economy by investing in large-scale public works projects. The PWA funded the construction of infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and bridges, creating jobs for thousands and laying the groundwork for future economic growth. These projects not only provided immediate employment but also contributed to long-term improvements in public services and infrastructure.

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) was also established to provide financial assistance to states for direct relief programs. This initiative allowed states to distribute funds to those most in need, ensuring that the most vulnerable populations received support in a timely manner. FERA marked a significant shift in government policy toward direct intervention in alleviating poverty and provided a model for future entitlement programs.

In addition to these relief programs, the New Deal included regulatory reforms aimed at stabilizing the financial system. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated commercial banking from investment banking, creating a barrier to limit risky financial practices that had contributed to the economic collapse. The establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought to regulate the stock market and protect investors from fraudulent practices, restoring public confidence in the financial system.

Furthermore, the New Deal brought about reforms in labor rights with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) in 1935. This legislation guaranteed the rights of workers to organize, join unions, and engage in collective bargaining. This marked a significant shift in labor relations, as it provided a legal framework for workers to negotiate better wages and working conditions. The act resulted in a surge of union membership and empowered workers in their fight for labor rights.

The New Deal also included social welfare programs, such as the Social Security Act of 1935, which established a social safety net for the elderly, unemployed, and disabled. By providing financial support to vulnerable populations, the Social Security Act marked a significant transformation in the government’s role in economic security, providing a foundation for the modern welfare state.

While the New Deal faced criticism from various quarters, including conservative politicians and those who argued it expanded government power too far, the overall response to the Great Depression reflected a paradigm shift in how the government perceived its role in the economy. The efforts initiated under the New Deal laid the foundation for a more interventionist government and contributed to the eventual recovery from the Great Depression.

In conclusion, the government’s response to the Great Depression through the New Deal was multifaceted and transformative. Through a series of innovative programs and policies, the government sought to address the immediate needs of a struggling population while implementing reforms to safeguard against future economic crises. The legacy of the New Deal continues to shape discussions around economic policy and the role of government intervention, highlighting the importance of adaptable responses in times of crisis.

Raed the Whole Article

The post Lessons from the Economic Catastrophe of 1929 appeared first on LewRockwell.