Lew Rockwell Institute

David Martin wrote:

Latin American lawlessness and economic lunacy comes north.

I first encountered the squatter phenomenon living in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in the mid-1980s.  It was all over the island, and no one seemed to be able to do anything about it.  I don’t know if anything has changed, but the most outstanding example of it at the time was on Rt. 187, the Atlantic Ocean waterfront road that runs behind San Juan International Airport all the way to a ferry crossing at a river mouth that takes you to the small town of Loiza Aldea.  I used to go on weekend bike rides on the road because it was virtually free of traffic.  The government, I was told, owned the land, and only a few squatters’ houses were beside it here and there.  The value of that waterfront property so near to Puerto Rico’s population center is hard to overestimate, but the concept of opportunity costs (income foregone) seemed to be totally foreign to the island’s leadership.  A couple of prime examples of that phenomenon is that the old city airstrip in the heart of the port of San Juan had been taken over by some routine government administration buildings that could have been located anywhere in the city, such as the office for drivers license renewal, and a long stretch of waterfront property heading into San Juan from the international airport had been chosen as the site for a very large public housing project.

As a footnote on the story, an elementary school classmate of my oldest son, lived with his parents, a Cuban exile insurance executive and his younger German second wife, a few steps away from their appropriately named private school, San Juan School by the Sea, where English was the medium of instruction.  The parents and son lived rent free in a house that the government owned, but had lost track of.  The school and the house and much of the neighborhood were later destroyed by Hurricane Hugo, and the international trio moved to South Carolina.

The post Squatters Have Taken Over Lots in L.A. Fire Zones, and the Owners Can’t Remove Them appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Vicki Marzullo.

Zero Hedge.

The post Bessent: Get rid of Fed appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

“Living on the petrodollar.”

Tangible gold has to be better backing for a currency than the political arrangement du jour.

The post Trump’s War on BRICS BACKFIRES as Putin & China SMASH US Dollar w/ Ben Norton appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Obama, Brennan, And The Deep State Coup appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer . 

The post Tim Dillon Emergency Podcast w/ Alex Jones: The Epstein Cover-Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Krall.   

The post 9/11 Pilot Whistleblower: Why These Hijackers Couldn’t Have Flown the Planes appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer

The Independent

The post Alan Dershowitz: Ghislaine Maxwell knows ‘everything’ and should get immunity to testify before Congress appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Tim McGraw.

Charles Burris

The post Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, Has Proof that Obama Authorized Killing of Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

The odious Rahm Emanuel, who reportedly wants to run for president, has “broken” with the Lunatic Left and has announced that he doesn’t believe that a man can become a woman (and vice versa).  The Dr. Mengeles of the “sex change surgery” industry must be very, very concerned.

The post News Flash: This Just In appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Zero Hedge

The post “Plan On It!” Martin Armstrong Sees ‘100% Chance Of Nuclear War’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer . 

Gateway Pundit

The post Texts and Emails Indicate Hillary Clinton Campaign Directly Coordinated with Obama White House to Launch Trump-Russia Hoax appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

CovertAction Magazine

The post COINTELPRO Operations Helped Create Today’s Dystopian Political Environment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Fred Simmons:

On July 13, 2025, the day before Donald Trump’s address on Russia’s war in Ukraine, US senator Lindsey Graham made an ambitious statement that in the coming days the world will see a record-breaking supply of weapons to Ukraine and 500% tariffs for all states that help Russia. The decisions voiced by Graham were deemed to be already taken by Washington, that is why Trump’s statement that he gives 50 days to Moscow to agree to a ceasefire or face tariffs at about 100% surprised and even disappointed the world community. Despite senator Graham supported the US President’s decisions, he didn’t miss a chance to lay it on thick again, hinting that Moscow will experience the same consequences as Tehran did on June 21, 2025, unless it complies with the US demands.

It seems that acting this way Graham is trying hard to undermine Donald Trump’s authority as he realizes that he voices much tougher measures than the President is ready to take now. Despite senator Graham publicly demonstrates his loyalty to Trump, his actions evidence the opposite. He seems to play his own game promoting his interests and views on supporting Ukraine and providing military and financial assistance to it.

At the same time Graham’s visits to Kyiv as well as his regular meetings with Ukrainian politicians pose the question of corruption element in his actions. In the days of the Biden administration, the senator’s name more than once made headlines as he was suspected of taking part in corruption schemes of Kyiv and Washington. No secret the administration of the previous US President sent aid to Ukraine significantly smaller than it had been stated. Some part of finances ended up in the pockets of the American officials, who turned a blind eye to the fact that the full volume of funding never reached the front-line units after the Ukrainian establishment got an access to it.

Moreover, Graham directly participated in discussing the amounts of money to be allocated to Kyiv. And at some point, the funds simply disappeared and Ukraine saw none of them. Surprisingly, no light has been shed on this situation, despite billions of dollars were at stake. It has been forgotten as if it never happened.

In general, the policy of senator Graham undermines not only Trump’s authority but also the status of the Republicans and can affect the outcome of the US Senate elections in 2026.

The post The Game of Senator Graham appeared first on LewRockwell.

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 

@BarronTNews_

Fan account

BREAKING: DNI Tulsi Gabbard Confirms Former President Obama Authorized Assassination Attempt on Trump

By Jonathan Gregory Washington, D.C. — July 21, 2025

In what may become the most explosive revelation in U.S. political history, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that declassified intelligence files directly implicate former President Barack Obama in authorizing a covert assassination attempt on then President-elect Donald Trump. The files, set to be publicly released, detail a sprawling, top-secret program initiated in the final 30 days of Obama’s presidency, with the explicit goal of preventing Trump from ever taking office. “Operation Silence was not just surveillance. It was an organized, multi-agency plot to eliminate the President-elect,” Gabbard said during an emergency intelligence briefing. “The documents outline everything, from recruitment of black ops teams, to manipulation of communications, to the final phase; physical removal.” According to sources close to the investigation, a failed attempt on Trump’s ’s life was thwarted only days before the inauguration, thanks to an anonymous whistleblower inside the National Security Command Center.

Redacted transcripts reveal that Obama, under the pretense of national security, convened an off the books task force of senior intelligence officials and military advisors at Camp David in late December. One document, marked Eyes Only 44, reads: “The threat Trump poses to institutional stability cannot be overstated. Removal, if necessary, is justified.” While Obama has not commented publicly, legal teams are reportedly mobilizing behind the scenes. As the files prepare to go public, the country teeters on the edge of political reckoning, and the question now isn’t whether there was a plot, but how far it went, and who else was involved.

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump on X: “BREAKING: DNI Tulsi Gabbard Confirms Former President Obama Authorized Assassination Attempt on Trump By Jonathan Gregory Washington, D.C. — July 21, 2025 In what may become the most explosive revelation in U.S. political history, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi https://t.co/tPQTW6YpG6” / X

The post BREAKING: DNI Tulsi Gabbard Confirms Former President Obama Authorized Assassination Attempt on Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

The reader should be advised that this work is Seminal and advocates changes in actual structure and function of government to comply with Constitution and Economic Reality. Many details are excluded for brevity.

We must, to the extent possible, separate Communist Cities from the people who actually work to support their families. Failure to do so will result in Civil War.

Our Constitution and the people who work demand that the Federal Establishment AKA Government  stop all payments to states for all reasons not enumerated in the  US Constitution. The Federal Establishment would then return a large proportion of income taxes collected in a state to that state. States would then assume their Constitutional responsibility for state functions that have been unlawfully usurped by the Federal Establishment.

Most importantly, the states would then assume financial responsibility for their Communist cities and Illegal Invaders. This would greatly reduce the probability of a Civil War between working MAGA people and able- bodied non-working Communists and their illegal Invaders in Communist Cities, which are also Sanctuary Cities. We know that Communism fails when it runs out of other people’s money, and we want to expedite that failure before we have a Civil War between productive workers and parasitic Communists.

Now let’s look at some estimated Income figures to put things into perspective. The Federal Government’s income is roughly $5 Trillion but it spends $7.5 Trillion. Simply stated, it borrows 50% more than its tax revenue from the States. In other words, there is no way that any state pays their share of federal expenses, not by a long shot. I hope that if we end much of the waste, fraud, and abuse by transferring most functions to the states where it belongs, then we will have all the money needed by the states. Remember that my numbers leave out a lot of details and are reasonable estimates at best, but the figures are so gross that it makes little difference in the theory proposed.

If the Federal Government also wants to end its deficits, it will have to obey the Constitution and eliminate all unconstitutional expenses such as Foreign Aid, Wars for Profit, Troops stationed overseas, etc. As an Economist, I can say that if they don’t do this, we are looking at Dystopia, regardless of Trump’s well-intentioned programs..

The previous statements are based on the foundational principles set forth in our Constitution, and returns it to the proper legal relationship between the States and the Federal Establishment AKA Government. The wrongful Income Tax caused the problem, now let it righteously prevent a Civil War.

My prediction of a Civil War between MAGA people and Communists/Illegal Invaders is very realistic and has already started in several major Communist cities.

The FBI should arrest those who are financing the insurrectionists to commit Treason. If the FBI fails, disband it and replace with Militia of the Several States, as specified in Constitution. Their failure constitutes Treason in itself!

In fact, our Declaration of Independence cites similar reasons for our war for independence. Consider this:  we have a great Constitution, but it is ignored by a majority of elected officials, Judges, and Bureaucrats of the Administrative State. A majority of these government employees are bribed to benefit those who pay the bribes. Officials are seldom prosecuted for their crimes against the People, including Treason. I maintain that a majority of the Government is in fact a Criminal Enterprise, with no legal authority from the Constitution.

We must institute the Broken Windows Theory of Law Enforcement for government employees, stipulating that to prevent major crimes you must strictly enforce laws against minor crime. We will never have our freedoms and a Constitutional Republic until we effectively prosecute government employees for their crimes. In other words, we need effective and honest Federal Law Enforcement and we damn sure never had Failure of the corrupt FBI to prosecute Government employees for theft and Treason is the single-most-important reason for our problems.

May God Bless You and our Republic

Please send your comments to

[email protected]

The post How to Constitutionally Separate Communist Cities Without Civil War. appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Economist surely ranks as the world’s most influential newsweekly, and the cover story of its latest issue must have greatly surprised many longtime readers of that staunchly neoliberal publication. The headline was “Scrap the Asylum System” and the inside pages fleshed out this emphatic statement in a leader backed by a long article.

For decades, the Economist has been known for its strong support of immigration and immigrants, asylum-seeking refugees certainly included, and an apparent ideological reversal of such magnitude naturally caught my eye.

Although many different elements may have gone into this surprising shift, I suspect that the strident anti-immigration policies and rhetoric of President Donald Trump were probably the decisive factor.

Over the last couple of months, Trump’s immigration-control measures have been unprecedented in their harshness, sending masked federal officers to snatch suspected illegal immigrants off the streets of our major cities, then deploying thousands of national guardsmen and marines to Los Angeles to intimidate and suppress the resulting public protests. Judges, mayors and other elected officials from around the country have sometimes been arrested and dragged away for allegedly interfering with such immigration operations.

California is America’s largest state with a population of some 40 million, perhaps half of them from an immigrant background, and our senior U.S. Senator is Alex Padilla, a respected moderate Democrat from the Los Angeles area. Last month Sen. Padilla attempted to ask Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem a probing question about immigration policies at her LA press conference, only to be manhandled, handcuffed, and thrown to the ground by members of her security detail, an incident that absolutely astonished me. I’d never previously heard of any similar physical attack upon so high-ranking an elected official in modern American history. This seemed more like the sort of behavior we’d expect to see in a despotic Third World dictatorship.

Video Link

• Open Borders, American Elites, and the Minimum Wage
  Views change about massive immigration once both sides of the issue are heard
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 11, 2013 • 1,700 Words

The political elites of both major parties continued to completely ignore these widespread popular sentiments. Therefore they were totally shocked a couple of years later when Donald Trump suddenly made immigration his signature issue and used it to easily crush all his Republican establishment opponents in the primary and seize the GOP nomination for himself. Decades of very heavy immigration had dramatically changed the racial demographics of our country, thereby greatly unsettling large portions of the white majority, while the reigning Democratic Party establishment ferociously vilified anyone who dared question the economic logic of their lunatic Open Borders dogma. This opened the door to Trump’s populist, racially-charged insurgent candidacy.

A few weeks before Trump’s upset November 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton, I’d published an article emphasizing all of these important points:

In the year 1915 America was over 85% white, and a half-century later in 1965, that same 85% ratio still nearly applied. But partly due to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act of that year, America’s demographics changed very rapidly over the following five decades. By 2015 there had been a 700% increase in the total number of Hispanics and Asians and the black population was nearly 100% larger, while the number of (non-Hispanic) whites had grown less than 25%, with much of even that small increase due to the huge influx of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and other non-European Caucasians officially classified by our U.S. Census as “white.” As a consequence of these sharply divergent demographic trends, American whites have fallen to little more than 60% of the total, and are now projected to become a minority within just another generation or two, already reduced to representing barely half of all children under the age of 10.

Demographic changes so enormous and rapid on a continental scale are probably unprecedented in all human history, and our political establishment was remarkably blind for having failed to anticipate the possible popular reaction. Over the last twelve months, Donald Trump, a socially liberal New Yorker, has utilized the immigration issue to seize the GOP presidential nomination against the vehement opposition of nearly the entire Republican establishment, conservative and moderate alike, and at times his campaign has enjoyed a lead in the national polls, placing him within possible reach of the White House. Instead of wondering how a candidate came to take advantage of that particular issue, perhaps we should instead ask ourselves why it hadn’t happened sooner.

The answer is that for various pragmatic and ideological reasons the ruling elites of both our major parties have largely either ignored or publicly welcomed the demographic changes transforming the nation they jointly control. Continuous heavy immigration has long been seen as an unabashed positive both by open borders libertarians of the economically-focused Right and also by open borders multiculturalists of the socially-focused Left, and these ideological positions permeate the community of policy experts, staffers, donors, and media pundits who constitute our political ecosphere.

Earlier this year, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an elderly individual with unabashed socialistic views, was interviewed by Vox‘s Ezra Klein, and explained that “of course” heavy foreign immigration—let alone “open borders”—represented the economic dream of extreme free market libertarians such as the Koch brothers, since that policy would obviously drive down the wages of workers and greatly advantage Capital at the expense of Labor. These notions scandalized his neoliberal interlocutor, and the following day another Vox colleague joined in the attack, harshly denouncing the candidate’s views as “ugly” and “wrongheaded,” while instead pointing to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as the proper font of progressive economic doctrine. Faced with such sharp attacks by young and influential Democratic pundits less than half his age, Sanders soon retreated from his simple statement of fact, and henceforth avoided raising the immigration issue during the remainder of his campaign.

Only a brash, self-funded billionaire contemptuous of establishment wisdom would challenge this bipartisan immigration consensus among our political elites, and only a prominent celebrity could launch his campaign with sufficient visibility to achieve a media breakthrough. This seemed an unlikely combination of traits to find in one individual, but the unlikely occurred, and our national politics has been upended.

There had already been strong previous indications of this smoldering political volcano among voters, though these signs were repeatedly ignored or discounted by the DC Republican apparatchiks who spent their time attending each others’ receptions and fundraisers. During the 2014 election cycle, immigration was a key issue behind the stunning defeat of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who lost to an unknown primary challenger whom he outspent 40-to-1, constituting one of the greatest upsets in Congressional history. Prior to that, anti-immigration Tea Party insurgents had ended the long careers of incumbent Republican senators Bob Bennett of Utah in 2010 and Richard Lugar of Indiana in 2012.

• A “Grand Bargain” on Immigration Reform?
  An alliance of pro-immigrant Democrats and anti-immigration Republicans could finally fix our broken system
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • October 3, 2016 • 4,700 Words

The symbolic centerpiece of Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign had been his promise to build a wall to block the influx of illegal immigrants. Once in office, he did no such thing, and just a couple of months after the 2018 midterm elections, I published a January 2019 article pointing out that even the underlying premise of his proposal made absolutely no sense, probably reflecting Trump’s own ignorance of the issue along with the equal ignorance of his agitated right-wing supporters.

Read the Whole Article

The post ICE Raids, Asylum Policies, and Other Immigration Controversies appeared first on LewRockwell.

One of my major questions throughout life has been whether the bad things that happen around us are a result of a secretive group of bad actors (e.g., an organized conspiracy) or are simply a naturally emergent phenomenon that would occur regardless of which group was in power behind the scenes. The reason this is fundamentally a difficult question to answer is that in most cases, a compelling argument can be made for each, so ultimately, the interpretation you choose comes down to your own biases. In my own case, I still am not sure which is at play.

For instance, I frequently see policies be enacted in a coordinated fashion that lead to a clear outcome, and then watch as the years play out, that every institution works in unison to ensure that outcome comes to pass, and as such, when I see the opening moves, I tend to assume the ultimate outcome will follow (which, for example, is why I knew there would be vaccine mandates at the start of 2021).

Note: as it’s a bit of a tangent, I included a recent fairly impactful example of one of these coordinated campaigns at the end of the article.

Conversely, I often ask people directly connected to the government who is actually making the decisions that affect all of us, and one of the most informed people I know simply shared:

You can always point a finger at a specific agency or person, but the reality is that as the government gets bigger and bigger, more and more fiefdoms will emerge within it, and those groups will fight for their own interests at the expense of everyone else.

Note: many Federal agencies depend on obtaining congressional funding and, therefore, will engage in stunts to ensure that funding is allocated to them. For example, the CDC will routinely hype up inconsequential “pandemics” each year, as this nationwide drama allows them to obtain more funding.

The CDC’s Longstanding Corruption

Everyone has specific government agencies they dislike. One of mine has been the CDC because the CDC always promotes and protects vaccines (regardless of how egregious the vaccine is), criticizes integrative medical therapies, and promotes disease management strategies that are not very effective (e.g., masking for COVID).

It hence should not come as a surprise that the CDC has a longstanding history of corruption, did a variety of unscrupulous things to promote the COVID vaccines and in the present moment, has been the most resistant agency to the MAHA policies RFK Jr. has been working to enact (which in addition to being shown through news reports has been shared with me by people directly connected to the H.H.S.).

The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with bio-pharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.—Marcia Angell MD, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

In turn, if you browse their website, you will frequently encounter this CME disclaimer:

“CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”

One of the primary ways the CDC legally takes bribes is due to a 1983 law where Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Following this, in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, allowing the CDC to obtain additional funding for its work. Two years later, it was incorporated to “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

Note: other Federal agencies, including the CIA and the NIH, have similar foundations (that are not subject to legal oversight such as Freedom of Information Act requests with many foundation directors later getting lucrative pharmaceutical employment).

Not surprisingly, the CDC Foundation has been accused of egregious conduct since its inception and has received nearly 1 billion dollars from corporate “donors” (criticisms include a scathing editorial in one of the world’s top medical journals). Some of the best examples of this corruption are documented in a 2019 letter to the CDC from a group of non-profit watchdog organizations. To quote part of it:

In 2011, Type Investigations reported that Exponent Inc, a firm that performs research for the pesticide industry, gave $60,000 to the CDC Foundation for a study to prove the safety of two pesticides. “We have a professional money-laundering facility at the Centers for Disease Control Foundation….They accept projects from anyone on the outside,” said James O’Callaghan, a researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Between 2010 and 2015, Coca-Cola contributed more than $1 million to the CDC Foundation. It also received significant benefits from the CDC, including collaborative meetings and advice from a top CDC staffer on how to lobby the World Health Organization to curtail its efforts to reduce consumption of added sugars.

The BMJ also reported on contributions from Roche to the CDC Foundation in support of the CDC’s Take 3 flu campaign, which encourages people to “take antiviral medicine if a doctor prescribes it.” Roche manufactures Tamiflu, an antiviral medication for the flu [for reference, Roche was able to convince governments around the world to stockpile hundreds of millions of dollars of Tamiflu while refusing to release any of their clinical data—and it was eventually concluded that the benefits of the drug are negligible, while significant harms result from the medication].

These “donations” in turn often shape the “impartial” guidelines we are expected to follow:

“In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26 million to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection.”

Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers. A report by the Office of the Inspector General found that CDC’s external advisors played an influential role in decision-making for the federal government and that there was a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program with 97% of disclosure forms filed by advisors found to be incomplete, and 13% of advisors who participated in meetings not filing any disclosure at all.

Note: key funders of the CDC foundation (detailed here) include Act Blue (a key Democratic political advocacy group), key vaccine organizations such as GAVI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the major vaccine manufacturers (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and J&J), and tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and PayPal.

Recognizing these concerning trends, employees of the CDC in 2016 anonymously complained to their leadership regarding the agency’s corruption:

It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.

Recently, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) has been implicated in a “cover up” of inaccurate screening data for the Wise Woman (WW) Program. There was a coordinated effort by that Center to “bury” the fact that screening numbers for the WW program were misrepresented in documents sent to Congress; screening numbers for 2014 and 2015 did not meet expectations despite a multi­million dollar investment; and definitions were changed and data “cooked” to make the results look better than they were. Data were clearly manipulated in irregular ways. An “internal review” that involved staff across CDC occurred and its findings were essentially suppressed so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems.

Finally, most of the scientists at CDC operate with the utmost integrity and ethics. However, this “climate of disregard” puts many of us in difficult positions. We are often directed to do things we know are not right. For example, Congress has made it very clear that domestic funding for NCCDPHP (and other CIOs) should be used for domestic work and that the bulk of NCCDPHP funding should be allocated to program (not research).

Why in FY17 is NCCDPHP diverting money away from program priorities that directly benefit the public to support an expensive [global health] research that may not yield anything that benefits the [American] public?

Finally, the CDC’s dealings with corporate interests had drawn scrutiny and concern from Congress:

In February 2019, Congresswomen Chellie Pingree and Rosa DeLauro wrote the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services calling for an investigation of CDC’s interactions with Coca-Cola. They noted that the evidence shows “a troubling pattern of the company using access to high-level CDC officials to shape debates over public health policy directly involving the nutritional value of its products.” The congresswomen requested that the Inspector General “determine whether there is a broader pattern of inappropriate industry influence at the agency, and make recommendations to address this issue.”

Unfortunately, due to the politicization surrounding COVID, all of this was swept under the rug, the requested 2019 investigation was never conducted, and the (fairly recent) story was largely forgotten.

Ideology or Corruption?

Much in the same way, I always wonder to what degree events are “natural” vs. “orchestrated.” I also often wonder to what degree conduct I find reprehensible is due to corruption or simply ideological fixation, once again finding it’s ultimately hard to say, as such a strong case can be made for each conclusion.

For example, in the case of vaccines, while clear financial conflicts of interest can be shown in certain cases (e.g., what I showed above with the CDC), I find the zealous adherence to all vaccines being “safe and effective” tends to be ideological in nature, as believing in vaccines has been instilled as a core belief of anyone affiliated with “science” or “medicine.”

Initially this can be quite subtle, but in time, that ideological bias quickly adds up. This is because (as mentioned before) most things aren’t clear cut, so depending on what one is biased to notice, one can rapidly be left with a world view where all “the evidence” supports their position, even if a great deal of it does not.
Note: one of the major problems in human society is that human beings typically cannot be fully aware of all the information they are exposed to (as there is an overwhelming amount of it). As a result, they typically will filter their perception of reality to concentrate on the things that give “value” to them, which typically are what conforms to their existing biases. Because of this, people will often become absolutely certain their interpretation of reality is correct, even if many (with different biases from them) have diametrically opposed interpretations of reality.

In the case of vaccines, this is a critical concept to understand as evaluating the actual risks and benefits of a routine vaccine requires you to assess:

• What percent of the unvaccinated population is likely to get the infection.
• What percent of those infected will have a moderate or severe illness.
• How effectively the vaccine prevents those vaccinated from catching the illness or developing moderate or severe complications from it.
• How long the vaccine’s effectiveness lasts.
• How long does it take the infection to become resistant to the vaccine (making it useless).
• What are the consequences of the vaccine triggering a mutation in the infection.
• How likely the vaccine is to cause an acute moderate or acute severe reaction.
• How likely the vaccine is to cause a chronic moderate or chronic severe reaction.
• Who is at risk of having a more severe reaction to the vaccine?

Each of these is quite a task to figure out, and as a result most of the relevant points for each of the above simply are not taken into account when deciding upon a vaccine recommendation. Rather, a few points (typically highlighted by a pharmaceutical marketing division) are focused on, and the interpretation of the vaccine’s risks and benefits are seen through that lens (e.g., “cervical cancer is deadly” and “the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer), while pieces of evidence which challenge the predetermined conclusion (e.g., evidence of vaccine harm) are dismissed and filtered away.

As a result, many vaccines are on the market where their risks clearly and unambiguously outweigh their benefits, while in parallel, vaccines are viewed as a homogenous entity despite some (e.g., the HPV and COVID vaccines) being much more dangerous and unnecessary than many others.

Note: as many people have requested, I have provided a concise summary of the risks and benefits of each childhood vaccine here.

Read the Whole Article

The post Where Does the CDC’s Pervasive Dishonesty Come From? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Malnutrition-related deaths in Gaza are beginning to climb, with the health ministry reporting 18 in a single 24-hour period. Doctors report that people are “collapsing” in the street, and Gaza journalist Nahed Hajjaj is warning the world not to be surprised if the remaining reporters in the enclave are soon silenced by starvation.

Unless something drastically changes, things can be expected to get much worse very rapidly.

Meanwhile Israeli forces are setting new records with their massacres of starving civilians seeking aid, with 85 killed in a single day on Sunday.

If this isn’t evil, then nothing is evil. If Israel isn’t evil, then nothing is.

So what’s the plan here? Do we just sit and watch Israel starve Gaza to death with the support of our own governments?

And then what? We just go along with our lives, knowing that that happened? That this is what we are as a society? That our civilization is comfortable allowing something like that to happen? And that our rulers could do the same thing to another inconvenient population at any time?

We’re just meant to be cool with that? And go on living like it’s normal?

I’m genuinely curious. How exactly is everyone planning to go about living their lives after that point? How does that work, exactly?

I’m asking because I don’t know. I mean, I know what my own government and its allies should do, but I don’t know what we as ordinary members of the public are supposed to do.

You’ll see western pundits and politicians asking “How do we get a ceasefire in Gaza?” or “How do we end hunger in Gaza?” as though it’s some kind of ineffable mystery, which is kind of like a man strangling a child to death while saying “The child is being strangled, but HOW do we stop the child strangulation from occurring?”

It’s not some mystery how to get a ceasefire in Gaza; the empire is the fire. It simply needs to cease firing. Israel’s holocaust in Gaza is made possible only by the support of its western backers, primarily the United States. Numerous Israeli military insiders have acknowledged that none of this would be possible without US support. If the United States and its western allies ceased backing Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, a ceasefire would have to occur.

Likewise, it is not a mystery how to get food into Gaza. You just drive the food on in and give it to people. They’ve got roads and gates right there. The only reason people in Gaza are starving is because western governments (including my own Australia) conspired to pretend to believe that UNRWA is a terrorist organization to justify cutting off critical aid, while doing nothing to pressure Israel into allowing aid to flow freely.

And now Israel and the US empire are monopolizing the delivery of “aid” through the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, whose facilities now see civilians massacred every day for the crime of attempting to obtain food.

UNRWA has enough food for the entire population of #Gaza for over three months stockpiled in warehouses–including this one in Al Arish, Egypt–awaiting entry.

The supplies are available. The systems are in place.

Open the gates, lift the siege, allow UNRWA to do its work and… pic.twitter.com/3e1bVbFnGv

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) July 19, 2025

The organizations, funding and delivery systems to feed Gaza are all 100 percent fully available (at no cost to Israel, by the way). They’re just not being allowed to provide aid because the goal is to remove all Palestinians from Gaza via death or displacement. The people of Gaza are starving because the west is helping Israel starve Gaza. It really is that simple.

This isn’t some kind of unfortunate famine caused by a drought or natural disaster. It is a deliberately manufactured starvation campaign, implemented with genocidal intent.

To paraphrase Utah Phillips, Gaza isn’t starving, it is being starved. And the people who are starving it have names and addresses.

___________________

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 mailing list, 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 Gaza Isn’t Starving, It Is Being Starved appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Washington Post is giving me a déjà vu feeling about the JFK assassination. After publishing an extraordinary article detailing how recently revealed records of the CIA disclose that it has been lying continuously about the George Joannides matter for more than 60 years, the Post has now followed up with an editorial emphasizing how important it is for government institutions to begin telling the truth so that we can renew our trust in government. Otherwise, the Post suggests, people will continue to have paranoid delusions that give rise to conspiracy theories.

What?

It has just been revealed that the CIA has lied about a critically important aspect of the Kennedy assassination. Oh well, ho hum. We all know that the CIA lies. Golly, if only the CIA would start telling the truth. Then we no longer would have all these silly conspiracy theories.

Why the seemingly blasé attitude toward the CIA’s lies regarding Joannides? My hunch is that it’s because long ago the Post subscribed to the lone-nut theory of the assassination — a theory to which it has obviously remained wedded regardless of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of guilt on the part of the national-security establishment, including the evidence establishing the fraudulent autopsy that the military conducted on JFK’s body on the very evening of the assassination. As the Post writes in its editorial, “When Oswald killed Kennedy…”

That’s got to explain the lack of interest in following up on why the CIA has lied about Joannides for so long. In other words, the Post could have written an editorial calling on the CIA to come clean — to explain why it has lied about Joannides for so long. Okay, sure, the CIA officials who began the lying in 1963 are all dead. But somehow the instruction to continue the lying about Joannides was transmitted from CIA generation to CIA generation. How did that happen? Why did it happen? Who are the people in the CIA today who received that instruction? What was told to them?

The Post could be leading the way in demanding answers from the CIA. Rather than simply exhorting the CIA to tell the truth in the future, it could be calling on Congresswoman Luna to subpoena CIA officials to explain under oath the reasons for the lies surrounding Joannides. Isn’t that the moral and ethical duty of the press?

My opinion is that the basic problem is that by steadfastly hewing to the official lone-nut theory of the assassination, the Post, as well as much of the other mainstream press, simply cannot bring itself to think the unthinkable — that the lone-nut theory of the assassination is simply wrong — that the assassination was, in fact, a regime-change operation orchestrated and carried about by the U.S. national-security establishment. After all, what the Post cannot deny is that the 60 years of CIA’s lies about Joannides is a puzzle piece that fits perfectly within the overall mosaic of a national-security state regime-change operation.

The reason that the CIA’s attitude seems like déjà vu all over again for me is that we saw this same phenomenon take place back in the 1990s. On November 8, 1998, the Post published a story about how the Assassination Records Review Board had determined that there had been two brain exams as part of the JFK autopsy. You can read the story here.

What was that significant? Well, one reason is that the military pathologists claimed that there was only one brain exam, which meant that they were doing exactly what those CIA officials have been doing. They were intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately lying! Another reason is that the second brain exam necessarily Iinvolved a brain that belonged to someone other than Kennedy. Isn’t that something worth investigating? The Post article states “The central contention of the report is that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy’s brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained when he was shot in Dallas and brought to Parkland Hospital there on Nov. 22, 1963…. ‘I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the Archives are not of President Kennedy’s brain,’ [Douglas] Horne, a former naval officer, said in an interview.”

Now, wouldn’t you think that that would be enough for a mainstream paper to send an investigative reporter to get to the bottom of all this? After all, an allegation that the military is lying about something that is quite important — the fraudulent autopsy of a president — is a fairly serious accusation. Isn’t that worth checking out? Isn’t that the job of an independent press?

Apparently not because the Post, as far as I know, did not launch any investigation into the matters that it itself detailed in that 1998 article, just as it is showing no proclivity toward doing insofar as the Joannides lies are concerned. After publishing that article in 1998, they apparently just dropped the matter, just as they are apparently now ready to drop the Joannides matter.

Moreover, don’t forget: Someone had slipped a provision into the JFK Records Act that prohibited the Assassination Records Review Board in from reinvestigating any aspect of the assassination. Surely, the Post knew that. So, given that the ARRB was prohibited from getting to the bottom of the two brain exams and the rest of the fraudulent autopsy, shouldn’t that have motivated the mainstream press, which was not operating under such a prohibition, to undertake such an investigation. Obviously not.

When the Post talks about the distrust of government among the American people, it conveniently avoids another critically important point — that the American people have an equal distrust in the mainstream press. I wonder why.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Déjà Vu on JFK at the Washington Post appeared first on LewRockwell.

How wise is it to blast out threats of nuclear war almost non-stop? The financial investment advisory guru, Martin Armstrong, has just issued another such warning to the world: 100% Chance of Nuclear War – Martin Armstrong | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog, by Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com.

Six weeks ago, legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong was signaling a big turn toward war. Now, Armstrong says,

“The chances of war with a nuclear exchange is at 100%. . .. Plan on it, this is coming.”

The continuous yelling “Wolf” is obnoxious in many ways, because it has the intention to bring fear to the people, to make them morally weak, as they are afraid. The long-term effect is that people do not believe the warning anymore, even if and when it could become true.

Which it will not.

In the case of Armstrong, who introduces his reputation by pretending having predicted every major (financial) crisis in the past, it may have to do with attracting investors into the war industry or any associated high-yielding investments.

In any case, I dare say, scaring people without any solid evidence, i.e., “The chances of war with a nuclear exchange is at 100%. . .. Plan on it, this is coming,” is outright criminal.

Fear achieves making people submissive, obedient, as they are afraid of authorities, of the unknown their beloved authorities may bring and so they give in against their own interests. In the case of yelling “nuclear war is coming,” people suddenly turn to NATO for fake security, as they believe war will bring them Peace.

Armstrong is part of the “controlled opposition”, though not much opposition is seen, just aberrant warnings. He may get his instructions from the Deep State – or some military industrial monster. Who knows, maybe NATO.

See this for Armstrong’s full article and “100% nuclear warning.”

NATO is the world’s largest and most dangerous war and killing machine. Wars and conflicts initiated or participated in by NATO have caused at least 30 to 35 million deaths since its creation in 1949.

People are so scared that they lose reason and act not only against their own interests, but against the interests of the world at large.

This phenomenon of senselessness and mindlessness has been well-studied and softly propagated by Tavistock, the world’s foremost social and mind engineering institute based in the UK, and illustrated in George Orwell’s book “1984”, where logic was turned upside down, literally into War is Peace and Peace is War.

When recently President Trump bombed Iran, he said something to the effect, he hopes his bombing of Iran will lead to lasting Peace. And surely, more than a handful people believed him.

Worse, NATO, sort of abandoned by the US, is becoming a European “force de frappe” where every country is investing their resources, stretching to huge debt, into armament, into the war industry and mostly the US weapons manufacturers because they are not (yet) very important in Europe.

The head of NATO, who has been put in his position by Washington and the World Economic Forum (WEF), will make sure that the US, inventor and creator of NATO (in April 1949, in Washington DC), also benefits from the European fear and war machine.

All means are good to create fear and submissiveness. It is one of the first steps towards full enslavement and tyranny. Armstrong and his ilk are just one “civilian” branch. More important are all those European heads of government, implanted, literally with fake elections, all trained by the WEF’s Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL), and the chief backers of the WEF.

They include US and international financial institutions, such as BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet – and others, lesser-known financial interests – all eventually leading to the City of London, an independent enclave within London, where most if not all, of the financial and economic manipulations originate.

And guess who controls the City of London? Yes, you are right. Those people who are not to be mentioned, lest you are ready to be prosecuted for discriminatory remarks.

The current Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, former Dutch Prime Minister, is one of them, a WEF YGL. He makes sure that the 30 European NATO members (the other two are the US and Canada) – most of them also European Union members, follow the trend of War is Peace and Peace is War – as a doctrine that after one or two generations can hardly be erased from the minds of the populace at large.

The US has a 1.3 trillion dollar budget foreseen just to renew and build up their nuclear arsenal by 2035. The EU wants a trillion euros military budget by 2030, literally to go to war with Russia. This is openly said by Madame Ursula Von der Leyen, unelected President of the European Commission (EC).

All this is made public to scare you.

Or does anyone really believe that European leaders are so stupid to plan a nuclear war that may wipe them out as well?

As Fidel Castro already said (see this) and many before and after him, including President Putin, a nuclear war is unpredictable and has no winners.

What leader in his most submissive mode wants really to wipe out himself, his children, grandchildren, and his loved ones? This sounds like a camouflaged suicide pact. And frankly the world is not quite there yet.

So, People and Humanity of this world, stay away from this war propaganda. Think for yourself. Think in the first place Peace, always Peace and Harmony. War has no place in such a scenario, in a world of peaceful cohabitation.

You may be amazed to know about the hidden, invisible power of your mind, how it can shape the future, a future that we, The People, choose on our own and step away from what an unnamed elite pretends to choose for the good of Us. Our spirituality is the most powerful means towards harmonious cohabitation we have.

Use it. Open your eyes and ears and act for your and humanity’s interests of Peace and harmonious and prosperous togetherness.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Screaming – Nuclear War Is Coming! ‘All This Is Made Up to Scare You’ appeared first on LewRockwell.