“In the Name of Every Man Who Hurt You, Forgive Me”
Click Here:
The post “In the Name of Every Man Who Hurt You, Forgive Me” appeared first on LewRockwell.
“Resignations from the Scientific Advisory Board . . .”
Writes John Leo Keenan:
Interesting post. Disrespectful to sign such a letter with just initials. Thankfully, you clarified who they were. I went back to that to know.
Hard to comment, but just his letter (or bill proposed in the Argentinean Congress), published by Mises.org, and sent by Dr. Huerta de Soto (called basically an idiot by HHH on that occasion), could be enough to justify even a “bust” in any Ludwig von Mises Institute. That he then proceeded to balance that budget, achieving a small surplus, drastically reducing the large inflation, looks Misesian indeed. He did it also while crediting the Austrian school of economics for his insights. Yet those insights are not enough, as Dr. Huerta de Soto well said in some context (which I think was that of his electoral triumph). It’s really his personal merit too. When we “talk Milei” as it were, it’s now about a major top-worldwide expert in defeating inflation (or hyperinflation for the U.S.). He could earn a lot of money as an economics advisor, being someone who “knows more than just theory.”
If it were the “Rothbard Institute,” it is also difficult to reject an award for him. Milei has made clear in Argentina that he is a classical liberal only in the midterm, that his long-term goal is to get rid of the State… Politically, that’s very daring of him. Just the fact that he gets up there without hiding his beliefs is extraordinary enough, and to double down on his libertarianism while in power could be a reason for another bust too.
The “on the other hand” part of the letter forgets the victory against inflation (typical), recognized now by all in Argentina.
“It is not enough that he pursue liberal goals with his policies. Rather, the political means must be objectively suitable for actually achieving those goals.”
“…whatever successes his policies may have had so far have been largely achieved through the usual means of inflationary government financing, i.e. by inflating the money supply and government debt.” (He could conclude, rather, that the victory over inflation backs up Milei’s theory that the high inflation was due to chronic budget deficits.)
The pros and the cons – as given – seem incompatible, not separate enough from each other:
“After his election, he immediately set about dismantling the state and, in many respects, he has pursued this policy more resolutely, more extensively and more successfully than any of his Argentine predecessors.” (Than most politicians anywhere.)
Of course, their point that it should only go to scholars is something different:
“In our view, a ‘Memorial Prize in honour of Ludwig von Mises’ could be awarded to scientists or politicians who have rendered outstanding services to the development, dissemination or application of Mises’ ideas.”
Milei also wrote libertarian books (I haven’t read). Huerta de Soto calls him his “student.” It’s assumable that he would like such a prize for Milei. He called him his professor, named him in his inaugural speech and later. Contrary to most predictions, his first year in power was successful.
The following is the conclusion of the linked news article from yesterday:
“From a mercantile standpoint, Argentina now runs a tighter fiscal policy, a more stable currency path, and a sharply lower inflation rate.
Investors see a country with falling poverty, improving fiscal accounts, and leadership willing to implement structural changes despite resistance. The October elections will determine whether Milei can sustain political momentum as social costs of adjustment remain high.”
The post “Resignations from the Scientific Advisory Board . . .” appeared first on LewRockwell.
Israel’s Man Inside the CIA Betrayed the US, New Files Show
Veteran CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton secretly oversaw a top-level spy ring involving Jewish émigrés and Israeli operatives without “any clearances” from Congress or Langley itself, according to recently declassified documents published as part of the Trump administration’s pledge to disclose all available information on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The files provide a fresh and often disturbing look at a spy described by historian Jefferson Morley as “a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel,” detailing Angleton’s role in transforming the Mossad into a fearsome agency with global reach, while assisting Israel’s theft of US nuclear material and protecting Zionist terrorists.
Angleton established the Jewish emigre spying network in the aftermath of WWII, with the apparent goal of infiltrating the Soviet Union. But as the files show, the spymaster considered his “most important” task to be maintaining the supply of Jewish immigrants flowing from the Soviet Union towards the burgeoning Israeli state.
According to Angelton, his Jewish assets were responsible for 22,000 reports on the USSR, generating several intelligence masterstrokes. Chief among them was the publication of Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Kruschev’s famous 1956 secret speech denouncing Stalin, which the spymaster boasted “practically created revolutions in Hungary and Poland.” Elsewhere, Angleton bragged that his arrangement with Israel had produced “500 Polish intelligence officers who were Jewish” who “knew more about Polish intelligence than the Poles.”
Other passages appear to show Angleton taking credit for securing the “release” of several Zionist terrorists affiliated with the Irgun militia before they could be convicted for bombing the British embassy in Rome. Though the group had been captured by Italian authorities, the newly-disclosed files indicate the terror cell was freed on the orders of the CIA.
The information was originally divulged in 1975 to senators serving on the Church Committee, which probed widespread abuses by US intelligence in the decades prior. Congress was particularly interested in claims by New York Times foreign correspondent Tad Szulc, who testified under oath that Angleton had personally informed him that the US provided technical information on nuclear devices to Israel in the late 1950s. The new documents show that Angleton was deceptive under questioning, and evaded questions on Israel’s nuclear espionage efforts on the record.
Additional unsealed FBI documents, which refer to Israel’s Mossad as Angleton’s “primary source” of information, confirm that the CIA’s head of counterintelligence relied heavily on Tel Aviv to solidify his position within the Agency – and also add to the growing body of evidence that Angleton may not have been operating with US interests in mind throughout his 21-year tenure.
Other newly declassified files from the FBI have shown that Angleton maintained a wildly lopsided relationship with the Bureau, which saw federal agents deferring to the CIA counterintelligence chief after they caught him surveilling the correspondence of huge numbers of Americans. The files show Angleton openly admitting he would have been fired if Langley caught wind of his leaks to the Bureau.
A side-by-side analysis of the now-unredacted Church Committee files compared with their previously-released versions from 2018 demonstrates that even after 70 years, Washington felt compelled to conceal details of its real relationship with Israel’s founders. Over a dozen references to “Israel,” “Tel Aviv,” or descriptions of figures as “Jewish,” which were scrubbed from the 2018 release, can now be viewed on the National Archives site.
The documents reveal that Angleton repeatedly lied to multiple Congressional bodies, including the Church Committee, which investigated CIA abuses, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which probed the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Angleton was similarly evasive when interrogated over Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and about CIA knowledge or complicity in the scheme.
Those documents also reveal that Angleton’s CIA counterintelligence staff ordered Lee Harvey Oswald’s removal from federal watchlists six weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, despite his classification as a high security risk. The surveillance of Oswald was personally overseen by a member of Angleton’s intelligence network of Jewish emigres, Reuben Efron, a CIA spy from Lithuania. Angleton had placed Efron in charge of an Agency program called HT/Lingual which intercepted and read correspondences between Oswald and his family.
Numerous historians have questioned why the CIA counterintelligence chief insisted for decades on personally overseeing what he described as the “Israeli account.” Though several off-the-record interactions remain impossible to parse, the documents show that when grilled about his “unusually close” connections to the Israeli Mossad, Angleton acknowledged forming an “arrangement” in which, “in most simplistic terms, [the Israelis] were informed that we would not work with them against the Arabs, [but] that we would work with them on Soviet bloc Intelligence and communism.”
Freeing Zionist terrorists
One of the earliest instances of Angleton’s cooperation with Zionist elements came as Zionist militants embarked on a terrorist campaign to pressure the British colonial authorities to leave Mandate Palestine.
In October 1946, three months after they bombed the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, members of the right-wing Irgun militia planted explosives in the British embassy in Rome in a failed bid to assassinate the UK’s ambassador to Italy.
According to Angleton, after the Irgun “blew up the British embassy in Rome” in 1946, the CIA intervened to ensure they escaped Italy without prosecution.
click to enlarge
“We had the members of the group, and then we had the dilemma again as to whether we turned them over to the British authorities,” noted Angleton, who had served as counterintelligence chief for the Italian branch of the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s predecessor. “And we were in a position to make the decision one way or the other. And eventually we came down on the side of releasing them.”
A secret deal with the Mossad
As Washington sought to manage the political ruptures caused by the creation of Israel, and monitor the wave of Soviet migrants pouring into the self-proclaimed Jewish state, Angleton framed his takeover of “the Israeli account” as a convenient way for US intelligence to kill two birds with one stone.
“The other side of the Israeli problem was that you had thousands coming from the Soviet Union and you had the Soviets making use of the immigration for the purpose of sending illegal agents into the West and breaking down all the travel control, identifications and so on. And so there was both a security problem and a political problem.”
To manage these “problems,” the US and Israelis brokered a deal involving the secret exchange of “papers and signals, communications intelligence, [and] the other products of intelligence action,” Angleton stated. The spy chief claimed the only records of the 1951 arrangement held by the US side would be in the possession of the Agency, and admitted US Congress had been left in the dark, telling senators, “I don’t think there were any clearances obtained from the Hill.”
Asked by one legislator how it was “possible for succeeding directors of the intelligence agency to understand what the agreements were between” US and Israeli intelligence, Angleton responded: “Very simple. They saw the production to begin with. And they met with directors or the head of Israeli intelligence. And they met with Ambassadors and prime ministers. And they were very much involved.”
Grooming Zionist spies “outside the structure” of the CIAAngleton was especially protective of what he called “the fiduciary relationship” with Tel Aviv, assembling a close-knit clique of Jewish Americans with dubious loyalties to manage it as World War Two drew to a close. “I started from the south side with two Jewish men who worked with me during the war,” he explained. Having “sent them over as ordinary people under cover” to get their bearings in newly-formed Israel, Angleton “brought over six others and put them through some months of training, outside of the structure” of the CIA.
“To break down the fiduciary relationship – which is after all a personal business – all the men I have had, were men who stayed in it and came back to headquarters and went back to Tel Aviv, they went to the National Security Council, and went back to Tel Aviv, et cetera.”
“It was probably the most economical operation that has ever been devised in the U.S. Government,” Angleton crowed. “I don’t think there was [sic] more than 10 people that were hired in the same process.”
Having trained these spies “outside of the structure” of the CIA, it’s unclear how Angleton ensured they remained faithful to US national security objectives, or whether he ever intended to.
Enabling Israeli theft of US nuclear material, spying on America
Angleton’s role in enabling Israel’s wanton theft of nuclear material from an American facility is one of the more shocking episodes in the US-Israeli relationship. The scene of the crime was the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, a uranium processing facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania owned by a Zionist financier named David Lowenthal. In 1965, Zalman Shapiro, a fellow Zionist hired by Lowenthal to run the plant, illegally diverted hundreds of kilograms of nuclear fissile material to Israel. Posing as a scientist, the notorious Mossad spy Rafi Eitan visited NUMEC three years later to continue the heist.
As Jefferson Morley documented in his biography of Angleton, “The Ghost,” the late CIA counterintelligence chief made sure the CIA looked the other way as Israel constructed its first nuclear weapon out of the stolen fissile material. According to Morley, “Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than U.S. non-proliferation policy.”
A 1977 investigation by the US Government Accountability Office found that the CIA withheld information about the NUMEC nuclear theft from the FBI and Department of Energy, and “found that certain key individuals had not been contacted by the FBI almost 2 years into the FBI’s current investigation.”
The latest batch of Church Committee files add new detail about Angleton’s compromising of US national security to benefit Israel, and his attempts to cover up his betrayal.
During his testimony before the Committee, Angleton was pressed about media reports alleging that he and his counterintelligence unit provided Israel with technical support for constructing nuclear weapons. He strenuously denied the charges, insisting the CIA had never played any role in providing Tel Aviv with nuclear materials. However, when questioned about whether “Israeli intelligence efforts” were ever conducted in the US “aimed at acquiring… nuclear technology,” Angleton equivocated.
First, he blustered, “there have been many efforts by many countries to acquire technical knowledge in this country, and that doesn’t exclude the Israelis.” Asked if CIA counterintelligence had “certain knowledge” of Israeli agents “trying to acquire nuclear secrets in the US,” Angleton pleaded, “Do I have to respond to that?”
The Committee then went “off record” at the senators’ request, making Angleton’s responses impossible to scrutinize.
In a secret 1975 memorandum to the FBI, the ousted CIA counterintelligence chief disclosed that he had “avoided any direct answers” during his Senate testimony on Israel’s spies carrying out “intelligence collection” to gather “nuclear information” in the United States.
Just days later, a Bureau report on “Israeli intelligence collection capabilities” revealed Angleton entertained “frequent personal liaison contacts” with Mossad representatives at Israel’s Washington DC embassy between February 1969 and October 1972. This “special relationship” involved “the exchange of extremely sensitive information.”
Further, the 1975 FBI memo on Angleton disclosed the Israeli embassy’s establishment of a “technical intelligence network” seven years earlier which was directed by an Israel scientist who worked on Tel Aviv’s nuclear program. This may explain why Angleton was so cagey under Senate questioning.
“Israeli matters” trigger Angleton’s downfallThe Church Committee files show Angleton bristled at then-CIA Director William Colby’s efforts to apply a modicum of transparency to the Agency’s activities, especially as they related to Israel. The spymaster warned that if the USSR ever caught wind of Langley’s use of the self-proclaimed Jewish state as a de facto halfway house for communist turncoats, they would almost certainly end their policy of encouraging Eastern European Jews to migrate to Israel:
“This idea of opening the doors and letting the light in, and breaking down compartmentation, and breaking down the need to know, would inevitably put in jeopardy the immigration, if the Soviets should learn the extent of the activities,” Angleton stated.
Colby fired Angleton in 1974 after the New York Times revealed that he devised an illegal program of domestic spying targeting antiwar American dissidents. In his testimony, Angleton framed their clash as an interpersonal conflict, describing Colby as “not my cup of tea professionally or in any other way.”
Yet Angleton also acknowledged to Senate that a “dispute in connection with these Israeli matters” between himself and Colby contributed to his departure from the Agency. Was this a reference to the former spook’s involvement in Israeli theft of US nuclear secrets, enabling Israel to acquire the bomb?
Whatever the case, it was clear why Angleton would be remembered more fondly in Israel than inside the country he ostensibly served.
On December 4, 1987, the director of Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet intelligence services gathered in secret on a hillside in Jerusalem to plant a tree in honor of Angleton. They were joined there by five former Israeli spy chiefs and three former military intelligence officers.
Despite attempts to keep the ceremony under wraps, two local reporters managed to evade the cordon to record the ceremony for the former CIA counter-intelligence director, who had died seven months prior. Together, the Israeli spooks laid a memorial stone that read, “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.”
This article was originally published on The Grayzone.
The post Israel’s Man Inside the CIA Betrayed the US, New Files Show appeared first on LewRockwell.
Land of the Deadliest Sins
Christianity has always emphasized the severity of the Seven Deadly Sins. The Catholic Church defined them as pride, greed, envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Looking around at America 2.0, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Deadly Sinning comes as naturally to us as betrayal or dishonesty, which apparently don’t qualify.
Pride can be seen in the scrunched up duckfaces of every young girl, as she posts selfie after selfie, like all her fellow narcissist friends. It can be seen in the face of the bully, after he’s sucker punched someone. You know, as in the Knockout Game. You’ll find it on the glowing faces of executives who’ve outsourced or eliminated thousands of jobs, as they announce how much larger the tax free bonuses will be at Christmas. You’ll hear it in the excessively loud laughter of the practical joker, after he’s humiliated someone. But now we have a Pride Month. And it’s devoted to something no decent person should ever be proud of. Gay Pride gave way to LGBTQ Pride. It’s more inclusive. So the mother who pushes her son to become a “girl,” and the newly emasculated lad himself, become extraordinarily proud. But there is no pride in say, being a faithful husband or wife for a half century. Or just being a good Samaritan.
There are some things to be justifiably proud of. Any parent’s face should be flushed with pride as they hold their newborn baby. Or watch them accomplish great things on the sports fields, or cheer them as they graduate from high school or college. Tear up as they walk down the aisle, and dance at their wedding. Genuine heroes should be proud. A firefighter who saves a child from a burning building. A soldier whose valor earns him a Purple Heart, even though the cause he was fighting for was senseless. Inventors who make all our lives better. Nikola Tesla had a right to be proud. The artist who creates a timeless work. But there’s a huge difference between any of that, and Pride Month, for instance. To paraphrase the late Norm MacDonald, that’s not an achievement. Or to revel in your obesity, for instance. The Fat Acceptance movement has created vain monsters out of those who shouldn’t be shamed as they often were in the past, but certainly shouldn’t be celebrated for an inability to control themselves.
Greed. Despite the enduring popularity of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, there are too many who have spirits only slightly less selfish than Ebeneezer Scrooge. We would not have the world’s most shameful disparity of wealth, and I could never have written a book exposing it, without the systemic greed that powers corporate America. Every family has a story of a miserly parent, or sibling, or adult child, that won’t help out a loved one, despite having riches to spare. I have found that, generally speaking, the more money one has, the less generous one is. I’ve heard a few old geezers explain, “How do you think I got rich?” No one gets rich pinching pennies, as Survival of the Richest shows. The same people who like to say, “You can’t take it with you,” very often act as if they do intend to take it with them. Or, conversely, spend it all before those they supposedly love the most in the world can inherit it. You’ll see photos of elderly parents taking lavish vacations, captioned, “spending my kids’ inheritance!”
Envy. Now, I’m as guilty of this as anyone else. I envy those conspiracy celebrities that inexplicably have millions of followers. We all have envied something our neighbor, or a family member, has. A bigger house. A newer car. We might envy someone’s good looks, or the fact he has a trophy wife. Or the great accomplishments of his children. The fact he has a cushy job with wonderful flexibility and outstanding pay. When you have a society where over 70 percent of you live paycheck to paycheck, and have less than $1000 in savings, that’s going to happen. How could it not? I think this is the one Deadly Sin that is the most explainable. I’m not sure that our younger people have any more envy than we had back in the misty days of America 1.0. But they probably have a more burning desire to be famous for fame’s sake. A social media “influencer.” A few people have accused me of being that. I think that’s ridiculous. If I thought I was one, I might very well be struck with a sudden burst of the Deadly sin of pride.
Wrath. This is a tough one. If we mean simple anger, we’re all guilty. All doomed to burn in the flames of Hell. Who doesn’t get angry from time to time? I would define wrath more as an anger with repercussions; wielding authority over those with less power. The Old Testament depicts a wrathful God. We all know that great power usually doesn’t come with great responsibility, despite what Spiderman’s Uncle Ben said. And wrath often interferes with the possibility of forgiveness. It’s not just scorned women who have such wrath. It’s very hard for most people to apologize. Or forgive. Mainly because they have pride. You could call it vanity or conceit. They’re part of the same family. Now I think some wrath is justified. For instance, you could fairly say that my writing is full of wrath, directed towards our politicians, business leaders, celebrities, etc. Basically anyone with real power. Call it Deadly Criticism.
Gluttony. One trip to a large public event will reveal this particular Deadly Sin in all its glory. The overpriced corn dogs, cotton candy, and beer stuffed into ever chubbier faces. The average woman today weighs 170 pounds. That was the average weight of a man in 1960. And the average man has a size forty waist. Even as a pathfinding obese child, I never got beyond a size thirty eight. When the Sheeple of America 2.0 aren’t chanting, “USA! USA!” they’re chanting, “Super size it!” The filmmaker who produced the great documentary Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock, died at only fifty three in 2024, of what they called “aggressive” cancer. Others would call it turbo cancer. Spurlock publicly chided McDonald’s for not giving employees the whole day off to get their vaccine. Ironically, Spurlock survived (barely) a month of nothing but McDonald’s, but was done in by the COVID psyop. When Victoria’s Secret starts glamorizing overweight models, you know that gluttony is being institutionally celebrated.
Lust. Perhaps the most prevalent Deadly Sin of all. I’m guilty of it all too often. They created an entire world of Deadly lust in online pornography. Sex has been used to sell virtually every product for well over a half century. They use sex with advertising because they know it activates the lust in so many potential consumers. At least for me, it’s the hardest Deadly Sin to resist. If you’re at the beach, or a swimming pool, and an attractive female in a bikini walks by, your head is going to turn robotically. That might not be lust exactly, but it is surely interest. Is interest a Deadly Sin? Half of all marriages end in divorce. In every case, it was because of someone’s lust. Few people leave their spouse for the nunnery or priesthood. Maybe the Muslims have the right idea. Does covering every inch of a woman’s body, and even her face, curtail the innate male lust? I’m just keeping it real, because we males are a lusting bunch.
Finally, we have sloth. I don’t think very many people were guilty of this Deadly Sin back in America 1.0. But now? Males and females, and all the assorted gender fluids, are comfortable in wearing pajamas in public. With all that massive weight gain, you’re going to need a lot of stretchable sweat pants. You wouldn’t want to pop a button while super sizing. And XXXL tee shirts. I don’t think they had anything bigger than an XL when I was young. XL is now pretty much the standard. You don’t have to dress like Ward and June Cleaver did around the house. But we used to at least try to be what they called “presentable” in public. Very few are presentable in public now. Look at all the “People of Walmart” photos. I don’t even know where they buy that kind of outlandish clothing. We’ve gone way beyond casual. Way beyond the untucked world I argued for in my radical youth. We are firmly in sloth land now.
I don’t mean to sound like a blue nose. I know I’m a hopeless sinner but I have faith the Lord will forgive me for my imperfections. I know I could never hurt anyone, let alone commit murder. I would never rape even the loveliest girl in the skimpiest thong. Sexual emergencies only apply to nonwhite migrants. I try to hold my envy in check, by remembering the blessings I have, and how many people might envy me. I don’t really display much pride. I could brag about having had ten books published. Perhaps if I’d sold as many books as a Stephen King, then I might have a swelled head about it. I might even look down my nose at the peasants who bought them. But having pride over being a heterosexual? I.E., normal? Pride at not undergoing a gender transition? Pride over my skin color? What am I, Aretha Franklin? You can be happy with yourself without spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Greed should be the easiest Deadly Sin to avoid. I know, you’re thinking- that’ easy for you to say, Mr. Share the Wealth. Huey Long is your hero. If you have the financial wherewithal to help a loved one in need, but don’t, then you’re greedy. Period. We all watch or read the story of Scrooge, and get the point. It makes us feel a special warmth at Christmas. And yet, does the message of the story really cause anyone to change? Demonstrating that the most wealthy are indeed the greediest, Warren Buffet is said to have refused to help his daughter pay for a kitchen remodeling, or help out with his granddaughter’s college tuition. He probably kicks puppies, too. Bill Gates, like many rich and famous entertainers and athletes, is a crummy tipper. Greed is the lifeblood of our corrupt and monstrously unfair economy. Our disparity of wealth is a Deadly Sin in itself. How many bankruptcies, suicides, and divorces, could be avoided with just the figurative pocket change of a One Percenter?
Anger, or wrath, can be a good thing, if channeled at the proper target. For instance, it would hardly be sinful for the masses who are suffering under the tyranny of our criminal overlords to be angry at them. I mean, how are we not angry at them? What exactly do they have to do in order to arouse our anger? I see their sinful wrath in every foreclosure, every repossession, and every unfair job termination. Sometimes, we should be angry. It’s cathartic. My good friend John Barbour, still vigorous at ninety two, told me, “Donald, there are two reasons why I have lived so long. One, is my anger. The other is my laughter.” A sadistic ruler turns his wrath upon the common riff-raff, just like an immature child steps on an anthill. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the great English populist Lord Acton reminds us. We have every reason to fear the wrath of the elite.
The post Land of the Deadliest Sins appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Ron Paul Institute’s “Blueprint for Peace” Conference
Not too far from where the principal military industrial complex power players work and live, hundreds of liberty-lovers congregated in the suburbs of Washington DC at the ninth annual Ron Paul Peace and Prosperity Institute (RPI) conference. RPI brings together voices of differing ideologies to achieve its core mission. In its own orderly, diplomatic manner, the event was a raging against the war machine and a reminder that there is opposition to the trillions spent on military budgets in pursuit of a global empire, an empire that is nonetheless destined to collapse. Yet the event also signaled a fostering of hope. When asked who was attending a Ron Paul conference for the first time, about one third of the several hundred in the audience raised their hands and many were young adults.
From the podium, institute executive director and conference organizer Daniel McAdams recalled that as his plane began its descent toward Dulles Airport, he flew over the Pentagon and the mansions in McLean where defense contractors and government workers reside, their salaries paid for by profitable U.S. overseas military interventionism and wars. “These people made money…to rob us,” he said. “And they are stealing our children’s future.” With defiance and expectation, he thanked the audience for their presence, acknowledging the next generation of the Ron Paul revolution: the 14 students who had participated in the scholars seminar the previous day.
Among the courageous and principled thought leaders and independent journalists speaking truth to power, a highpoint was the panel comprised of Col. Douglas Macgregor, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and his wife Anya Parampil. They were questioned by Judge Andrew Napolitano, whose “Judging Freedom” podcast livestreamed the discussion. You can watch the panel exchange preceded by Sachs’ speech here:
“No one has been more right than Ron Paul,” observed Macgregor, whose authentic heroism on the battlefield, brilliance as a military strategist, gravitas and physical presence qualify him as the man who should be the US president. Macgregor predicted an economic collapse has to happen before the wars end. “When the fake money collapses, we will focus internally.” The war machine sends Americans to die and they are of no value to those who start the wars. “The globalist class live around here and are enjoying life,” he said. “They have no accountability. They approve PowerPoint slides and attack defenseless people. The media doesn’t report on the vulture capitalists and fake news is the business model. Palantir, a CIA startup, is developing a digital prison for us all. The vets living in Pennsylvania and Ohio falsely believed they were fighting for US national security. We are governed by people who ride in golf carts,” he said. “The ruling class preach virtue and practice vice. The people who run DC have no business being there. We have a government of the corrupt by the conniving, crooked and connected. Trump’s MAGA base is eroding, and the diehards are going down with the Titanic. They got into the same car and changed lanes but the destination is the same.” Macgregor compared our situation in the US with 18th century France leading up to the revolution when wars were waged, leadership eroded and society began to rot from within. Macgregor’s blueprint for peace: Break up the financial cartels, make banks serve communities, restore sound money, restructure the national debt, defend the nuclear family, respect other cultures, be fearless, and build alternative structures. “The future is not written. They are counting on your apathy. Destiny rests on the shoulders of a few.”
Professor Sachs said all current “artificially prolonged” major military conflicts the U.S. is involved with can be easily resolved. JFK was killed by the CIA because he was for peace and he was the last truly independent US president, he stated. “Of course, the Mossad spies on and blackmails presidents,” he said. Presidents are either all afraid of the Mossad or they don’t know the true power controlling the presidency. “These people are crazy,” Sachs said of neocons like Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland who promote war at any cost. He called Netanyahu a “vile, misguided criminal” and decried the starving and shooting of Palestinians at food depots. The U.S. government is supporting “maniacs and murderers,” he said. “We are trapped.” The think tanks are bought and Americans are subjected to endless paid propaganda. The “zealots in Israel” and powerful Israeli lobby in America keep the US from joining the 192 nation state votes at the UN in favor of a Palestinian state. “We are now preparing for a war with China,” he warned, “the worst idea ever.”
Chris Rossini, co-host with Dr. Paul of the Liberty Report’s Friday editions, said Blumenthal and Parampil risked their lives by visiting Iran two months before the US bombing. What the couple witnessed was very different from what is “reported” by mainstream media. They said Christians and Jews are allowed to practice their faith, the churches and synagogues are full, and the Iranian leadership is anti-Zionist. Blumenthal denounced the Mossad’s assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and Palestinian journalists.
Dutch politician Thierry Baudet, the founder of the political party Forum for Democracy who was elected to the House of Representatives in the Netherlands, said he was the only European politician who opposed the Covid mandates: “This was the hill I was prepared to die on.” He denounced the “Russia-phobic paranoia” of his political colleagues and said the Israeli lobby is very powerful in Europe. The mainstream media and government conspire to oppose dissident voices, he said. While “change goes slower than we want it to,” he admitted, he believes the new generation is beginning to see through the lies.
Natali Morris, who hosts Redacted News on Rumble, YouTube and X with her husband Clayton Morris, asked why Fox News and CNN fight about the culture wars but not the real wars that kill children, women and men. “There is no daylight between them,” she said. “They share identical support for Israel” but have small audiences. The couple live in Portugal where the police patrol the beaches and mortgages have quadrupled. “How do they have these monsters in power?” she asked. “Europe must decide if it wants freedom. But there is still time to fight in America,” asserted the mother of three. “We must think about the future we want to leave our children.”
Before mathematical statistician and essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb spoke, I told him I did some research on him and concluded he was a genius. He responded by laughing. I was right. He told the audience the warmongers no longer have skin in the game compared to the days when there was a risk they could actually die. Taleb then explained seven economic points he had compiled. McAdams posted on X the speech was “one of the most incredible things I have ever heard. I could not believe how great it was. I kept texting my son who also loves Taleb about each thing he was saying in real time. Taleb challenged everyone and he did it with a smile. Many people had no idea what the hell he was talking about as they told me afterward. He blew everything out of the water. They weren’t absurd sound bites. They were reality bites. This is what made it legendary! Video coming!” So, if you want to know what Taleb was talking about, ask McAdams or his Space X engineer son. As for me, I’ll watch the video to see if I have more success in comprehending Taleb’s message.
This was the first time Dr. Paul did not appear in person at his own conference. As he explained during his live on camera appearance, his absence was due to serious family concerns and admitted it was disheartening to let his supporters down. He projected the same energy and enthusiasm he always has had and, at 90 years young, it is apparent he is still teaching, studying and learning. He said the battle is good vs. evil, the truth seekers vs. the nihilists. The world is waking up and starting to prepare for the collapse of the economy. “We have God-given individual rights and the government ought to butt out,” he said. “We need to return to the Constitution.” Dr. Paul remains optimistic because the message of liberty is an idea whose time has come and one that even armies cannot stop and, he said, everyone has a role to play.
It is a testament to the enduring ideals of liberty Dr. Paul has communicated throughout his life, the drawing power of the speakers, and the elation attendees feel by interacting with each other in person, an experience that has no substitute, that the conference stood on its own even without the physical presence of Dr. Paul. I treasure the times I have spoken with Dr. Paul and felt great joy as I have sensed the enthusiasm that emanates from him. And I understand I am in the presence of the greatest living American, the man ordained by destiny to be, as Judge Napolitano has called him, the Thomas Jefferson of our time. I will always believe that what makes Dr. Paul an important historical figure was not only that he spoke truth to power but that he entered the political arena and led the Ron Paul Revolution, a political movement that continues today.
While the conference was entitled, “Blueprint for Peace,” a detailed plan was not presented, so here is my takeaway summary based on the speakers’ content and side conversations with attendees: The younger generation will not tolerate the subordination of US foreign policy to Israel or any other foreign power. As Dr. Paul and Col. Macgregor pointed out, the wars will not end until the inevitable financial collapse forces them to end. The wars will then be unaffordable and, by necessity, America will be forced to turn inward to tend to its own problems. When this will occur is unknown but do all you can to prepare. Keep the faith. Be fearless. Pray. Act in faith. Have children, start a business, speak out, write, tell the truth, do whatever you can. And support the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Afterward, I drove home on roads that were wet from an earlier rainfall. In the distance ahead of me I saw a beautiful rainbow curved across the clear blue sky.
The post The Ron Paul Institute’s “Blueprint for Peace” Conference appeared first on LewRockwell.
Hospital System Will Pay $1 Million to Employees It Punished for Refusing COVID Shots
The Trump administration is delivering justice for employees who were forced out of their job for declining the abortion-tainted COVID shot – including a recent $1 million settlement.
Mercyhealth agreed to the settlement after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated the healthcare organization, which operates clinics and hospitals in Wisconsin and Illinois, for “denying [employees] a religious accommodation and either terminating their employment or subjecting them to a wage deduction.”
“The EEOC also found reasonable cause to believe that Mercyhealth discriminated against a class of similarly situated employees across all its facilities from September 2021 to May 2022 by denying them an opportunity to request a religious accommodation, opting instead either to terminate their employment or withhold money from their pay,” the commission announced.
The pay withholding was essentially a $60 monthly tax on individuals who chose to decline the COVID-19 jab for religious reason. The shots are derived from aborted fetal cell tissue lines, which raised serious ethical concerns for many Christians. The hospital system called the tax a “vaccine incentive charge.”
The EEOC notes that the hospital’s practices appeared to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits discrimination based on religion.”
“Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion,” the EEOC stated.
Mercyhealth will “provide back pay and compensatory damages to the aggrieved individuals.”
It also agreed to further training on religious accommodation requests and monitoring by the EEOC.
Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas explained the importance of the settlement further in a statement.
“At the start of my tenure as Acting Chair of the EEOC, I committed to focusing our agency’s resources to address the very real problem of religious discrimination, and this resolution is just the beginning,” Lucas stated
“This is an example of what our agency can accomplish when we work with employers to ensure that the doors of our workplaces are equally open to religious employees,” she stated. “I am proud of the monetary relief that we have obtained here, and I am equally proud that these employees—who remained committed to their religious beliefs and practice at great personal cost—will receive job offers.”
“Mercyhealth respects the religious beliefs and practices of its employees,” Vice President of Clinical Operations Kara Sankey stated on behalf of the health organization.
Liberty Counsel, which represented Mercyhealth employees who objected to the vaccine policy, said the settlement is good but took too long.
“During the COVID mandates, Liberty Counsel assisted many Mercyhealth employees whose religious accommodations had been denied. While these health care workers are getting much deserved relief, the relief is very late as it has been nearly four years since their unconstitutional treatment,” the religious liberty group wrote on its website.
Chairman Mat Staver provided further analysis.
“This hospital system did not live up to its name and instead was merciless to its faithful and dedicated workers,” he said. “This class-wide settlement is rightly deserved for these health care employees who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the experimental COVID shot.”
Employees, Staver said, “should never have to choose between their faith and their job.”
Trump admin continues fight for religious libertyThe Trump administration has continued to pursue other cases of discrimination against individuals who decided not to take the COVID jab for religious or other reasons.
As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trump administration sued the Mayo Clinic for allegedly coercing a security guard into taking the COVID shot.
The lawsuit, filed on July 30, accuses the Minnesota-based clinic of violating the civil rights of security guard Cody Schultz by rejecting his religious exemption request from a COVID shot mandate in 2021. Schultz, a member of the Assemblies of God church, said taking the shot conflicted with his religious beliefs.
He eventually took the jab after exhausting his options to get exempted – including offering to wear a mask and submit to regular testing. He also had already contracted COVID, meaning he likely had the antibodies.
In addition to religious liberty concerns, the COVID shots have also come under scrutiny for being dangerous. In June, the Food and Drug Administration announced a new warning for mRNA COVID shots due to the risk of young men developing serious heart problems.
This article was originally published on LifeSite News.
The post Hospital System Will Pay $1 Million to Employees It Punished for Refusing COVID Shots appeared first on LewRockwell.
Previous History Indicates that War Is Our Future
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” — George Santayana
Our time is much like Europe during 1912-1914 and 1938-1939. War is brewing, and unlike the earlier periods today the countries likely to be involved, with the exception of Russia, China, and Iran, are not trying to avoid it. Between 1912-1914 the French President Poincare, Russian Foreign Minister Izvolski, later Russian ambassador to France, and Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov were deeply involved in a conspiracy to cause a war between Russia and France (with British approval and involvement) on one side and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other.
Poincaire’s goal was to recover Alsace-Lorraine for France. The Tsar’s ministers wanted Constantinople in order to control the straits that are the entrance from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Harry Elmer Barnes tells the story based on the notes the conspirators wrote to one another over the years the conspiracy was prepared and put into operation.
For telling the truth, Barnes, a top of the line American historian, lost his position at Columbia University. The official narrative was that Germany caused the war, a claim for which there is zero evidence. But assigning historical blame to Germany kept attention off the French-Russian conspiracy. As Barnes own fate proved, it did not pay for a historian to tell the truth. The road to professional success was to create a narrative that justified the winners. And the “winners” were actually winners because the Germans were deceived, having foolishly trusted US President Wilson’s “Fourteen points.”
The German emperor, a cousin of the British king and Russian Tsar, did everything he could to avoid war, and Germany was the last to mobilize.
The country responsible for war is never the last to mobilize.
Both the Germans, the British, and possibly the Tsar were disadvantaged by being unaware of the French-Russian conspiracy for war. The assassination of the Austrian Archduke and Austria’s punitive response to Serbia, was turned by propaganda into the cause for war. Most likely, the assassination was a part of the French-Russian war plot. Regardless, a dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia ended up causing a war that killed millions of people in the major European powers and enabled Lenin to overthrow the Russian government. France got Alsace-Lorraine, and Russia got a revolution. Austria-Hungary was destroyed along with the German monarchy. The result was the Versailles Treaty that ensured World War II. The flower of the British leadership class was destroyed along with British financial strength. Turkey remained in control of Constantinople.
Barnes, like David Irving, bases his history on official documents, whereas most historians create a career for themselves by justifying the winners and aligning with the rising political, social, and economic forces.
Izvolski arranged for Russian gold to be poured into bribes of French newspapers to silence war opponents, to make a case for war, and to bring Poincare into the French presidency. Russia also bribed leading Serbian politicians to engage in intrigues against Austria-Hungary.
We are watching the same thing today, only we don’t know it. The media don’t tell us. They too are bribed.
When we look at the American Witkoff and the nominal Russian Dmitriev, what is their real role? Could they be bribe makers whose job it is to produce outcomes that make their principles appear successful? One can hear the patriotic American’s disbelief: “Our country, never!”
But we know of the Clinton’s collection of bribes that have enriched their family. We know of the Hunter-Joe Biden collection of bribes and payoffs. Was the letter Trump’s wife had delivered to Putin about the alleged Ukrainian children the product of an Israeli bribe to get the focus off of Israel’s extermination of Palestinian children?
As the realities of what is really underway are not exposed to the light of day, the populations in the US and Europe really have no idea what is going on. Commentators, depending on who is paying them, either spread optimistic hopes or allege Trump is selling out Ukraine. The reality is different.
The reality is that the world is headed into war because of (1) the US foreign policy imperative of American hegemony, and (2) the apparent problem the Russians have of putting themselves in the hands of their hopes instead of acknowledging reality. When a country’s foreign policy doctrine requires the prevention of the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on its unilateralism, and there are rising countries, there can be no peace.
In 1939 the British government gave a guarantee to Poland similar to the NATO guarantee the West wants to give Ukraine. The immediate consequence was World War II.
The post Previous History Indicates that War Is Our Future appeared first on LewRockwell.
Another Federal War on Free Speech
“If it is known that authorities have power to coerce, few people will wait for actual coercion,” economist Friedrich Hayek wrote in the 1956 foreword to his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s insight could be the Rosetta Stone for understanding the Trump administration’s zealotry for assailing freedom of speech.
On March 25, six masked federal agents seized a Turkish graduate student on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. Rumeysa Ozturk, who was wearing a hijab, was a Fulbright scholar working on a doctorate at Tufts University. Ozturk didn’t know what was happening when she was first grabbed and later said she thought she might be killed.
She was abducted and vanished into the maw of the federal detention system. She was put in leg shackles and had a chain placed around her waist. She was frog marched out like a terrorist kingpin.
A federal judge speedily ordered the Trump administration not to remove Ozturk from New England. But Trump administration officials ignored that court order and hustled Ozturk from Massachusetts to federal detention facilities in Louisiana.
Criticizing Israel
Almost a year before she was seized on the streets near Boston, Ozturk had coauthored an op-ed piece for the Tufts student newspaper criticizing the university’s refusal to divest from Israel despite “credible accusations of … indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.”
That was all it took to nullify the formal student visa that the U.S. government had previously approved for Ozturk. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson justified seizing the 30-year-old graduate student: “DHS and ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated.” Ozturk never mentioned Hamas in her op-ed. Ozturk has not been linked to any campus protests at Tufts or elsewhere. She simply cowrote an opinion piece. As the New York Post noted shortly after her arrest, DHS “alleged that Ozturk was a supporter of Hamas but has yet to provide any evidence to that effect.”
The video of the arrest spurred tidal waves of online celebrations by groups who wanted to forcibly silence all campus protests. When Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked about the case while traveling in Guyana, he justified revoking Ozturk’s visa: “If you apply for a visa … and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds but because you want to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos — we’re not giving you that visa.” Rubio added: “It’s crazy — stupid, even — for any country to let people in who say, ‘I’m going to your universities to riot, take over libraries, and harass people.’ We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree — not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses.”
Rubio promised: “Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas.” Is criticizing a foreign government now considered proof of lunacy in the White House? Does the Trump administration consider op-eds to be a weapon of mass destruction? Or did the secretary of state somehow become an omniscient expert on derangement?
A state kidnapping
On March 27, more than 30 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanding information on the case in which the video “looked like a kidnapping.”
On March 28, federal judge Denise Casper blocked the Trump administration from deporting Ozturk and ordered the administration to respond to Ozturk’s legal challenge (now aided by the ACLU) to her detention.
Ozturk was moved from state to state — including Vermont — so the Trump administration could avoid a habeas petition in federal court challenging her detention. In a subsequent congressional hearing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared that “habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right.” Actually, habeas corpus expresses an individual’s right to be brought before a judge and formally charged — or be released. The Constitution recognized the right of habeas corpus even before the Bill of Rights was added to the original document. But perhaps Noem and other Trump policymakers decided to go Lincolnesque.
Ozturk has asthma and had several asthmatic attacks in lockup. At the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, she slept with 23 other people in a cell meant for 14. “None of us are able to sleep through the night. They come into the cell often and walk around triggering the fluorescent lights. They shout in the cell to wake up those who work in the kitchen around 3:30 am each day,” she said.
Ozturk stated that a federal officer told her: “We are not monsters. We do what the government tells us.” So, of course, federal officials are blameless for any rights that they violate. The “we are not monsters” line has been around the track a few times. Historically, it didn’t do well in 1946 as a defense at Nuremberg.
The First Amendment
Trump administration officials talked as if alleged protesting was sufficient to banish any foreigner they targeted. But the First Amendment doesn’t specify that it only applies to people that the White House approves. Former ICE Chief of Staff Deborah Fleischaker slammed the targeting of Ozturk as “a First Amendment violation. ICE had a policy in place that said that First Amendment activity was not to be the basis of enforcement action. That’s not why you enforce.”
On April 13, the Washington Post detonated the Trump case against Ozturk by publishing extracts from a confidential State Department memo. Prior to Ozturk being seized outside of Boston, senior DHS official Andre Watson sent a memo to the State Department stating that “OZTURK engaged in anti-Israel activism…. Specifically, [Ozturk] coauthored an Op-ed article” that “called for Tufts to ‘disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.’” But the State Department found that no federal agency had turned up any evidence that Ozturk “engaged in antisemitic activity or made public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization.” Despite Rubio’s vilification of Ozturk, the feds didn’t have squat on her. But the State Department covertly nullified her visa anyhow, paving the way for the DHS ambush outside Boston.
The court hearing
At an April 14 federal court hearing, a Trump Justice Department lawyer declared that the federal judge had no jurisdiction over the case. Federal judge William Sessions III responded: “If the government then says, ‘oh, no, she can’t be released because we have a detention order in immigration, which is inviolate, and she’s not going to be released,’ then we’re in a constitutional crisis.” The Trump administration lawyer speedily denied wanting any constitutional crisis.
DHS wanted Ozturk expelled from the United States under a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that entitles the Secretary of State to deport any foreigner if there are reasonable grounds to believe their presence has “adverse policy consequence for the United States.” But there was no such evidence for Ozturk, so the Trump administration instead used a legal authority under which the secretary of state can deport anyone on his own decree — no evidence required.
On May 9, Sessions ordered that Ozturk be immediately released. Sessions declared, “There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the Op-Ed.” Sessions also declared: “Her continued detention cannot stand,” stating that keeping her locked up “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” Sessions said that Ozturk raised “a very substantial First Amendment claim” as well as a “substantial claim” that her due-process rights were violated. As the “LawDork” blog summarized the judge’s comment from the bench during the court hearing, “Addressing the question of [Ozturk’s] ‘dangerousness’ and ‘risk of flight,’ Sessions noted that he was not going to be deferring to an immigration judge, who, he pointed out ‘are executive branch employees,’ subject to executive branch oversight. Instead, he found, ‘There is absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence or advocated violence.’”
Mahsa Khanbabai, Ozturk’s attorney, declared, “When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?” Jessie Rossman, another attorney for Ozturk, commented, “For 45 days, Rümeysa has been detained in Louisiana — over 1,300 miles from her friends, her community, and her lawyers. During that time, she has suffered regular and escalating asthma attacks. And at the same time, the government has failed to produce any justification for her detention.”
But this farce isn’t over yet. As Politico noted, “Sessions’ order, while expressing severe doubts about the constitutionality of Ozturk’s detention and deportation, only applies to her immediate confinement. Efforts by the Trump administration to deport Ozturk will continue in immigration court.”
The danger to Americans
It would be the height of folly for Americans to presume they face no peril from entitling the feds to seize boundless power to punish students’ speech. Ozturk’s name was provided to the Trump administration by Betar, an organization that the Washington Post characterized as a “militant Zionist group.” U.S. citizens are at risk as well. A spokesman for Betar declared: “We provided hundreds of names to the Trump administration of visa holders and naturalized Middle Easterners and foreigners” who have criticized Israeli policies. Last February, the Anti-Defamation League condemned Betar as an extremist organization. The Trump administration canceled the visas of more than 1,500 foreign students, many of whom were accused of having joined protests in the prior year and a half. Some of those cancellations were later revoked after a surge of bad publicity.
Any precedent for blanket censorship will propagate like a COVID virus. Many conservatives and libertarians may shrug off Ozturk’s degradation because they have no interest in criticizing the policies of foreign governments. But the Ozturk case hinged on collective guilt — on assuming that anyone who advocates a position is culpable for any crimes committed by any other advocate with the same view.
Ozturk’s persecution could be a linchpin in the Trump administration efforts to silence all protests that rile up his donors. Trump, discussing the protests over Gaza, promised wealthy supporters at a May 2024 fundraiser: “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.” In April 2025, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard University cease enrolling any foreign students who Trump appointees label “hostile to the American values.” Or at least “American values” as defined by the current White House. On May 22, the Trump administration formally banned Harvard from admitting any foreign students — the ultimate solution to vexatious foreigners who caterwaul about atrocities.
American history demonstrates that persecution that starts with foreigners often snowballs into targeting American citizens. Three months after the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft proclaimed in congressional testimony: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” In other words, critics were traitors — regardless of how many civil liberties Ashcroft actually destroyed. And the definition of pernicious speech continually expanded. In 2004, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, stumping for President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, told audiences: “Political criticism is our enemy’s best friend.”
To subvert freedom of speech after 9/11, it wasn’t necessary for the feds to formally nullify the First Amendment. One of the nation’s most prominent pundits, Michael Kinsley, admitted in 2002 that he had been listening to his “inner Ashcroft”: “As a writer and editor, I have been censoring myself and others quite a bit since September 11.” Kinsley conceded that sometimes it was “simple cowardice” that sparked the censorship. I also experienced plenty of such cowardice from editors after 9/11 and long beyond.
From Trump to Nixon
Has the Trump administration gone “Full Nixon” barely two months after the inauguration? In 1973, Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston lamented in congressional testimony the tendency of the FBI “to move from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.”
The Nixon administration’s systemic paranoia led it to launch preemptive attacks on its suspected opposition, from secretly searching psychiatrists’ offices to bugging the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972 did not save him from the exposure of the cover-up of White House crimes.
Does the Trump administration feel entitled to kidnap anyone who espouses an idea it disapproves of — or only those of foreigners? What will be the next opinion to sanctify in-broad-daylight federal kidnappings? Are federal policymakers trying to frighten everybody into submission and silence?
This article was originally published in the August 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.
The post Another Federal War on Free Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.
Macron Once Again Proposes EU Direct Participation in Ukraine
Despite recent joint efforts by Russia and the US to reach a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict, European countries continue to insist on maintaining a destabilizing stance, boycotting the diplomatic process. Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron resumed his campaign to send European troops to Ukraine on a possible “peacekeeping mission,” which in practice makes any fruitful dialogue to de-escalate the war impossible.
Macron stated during an interview with journalists after the summit between Vladimir Zelensky and Donald Trump in Washington that EU member states should participate in a future joint peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, in case the negotiations succeed in reaching a ceasefire agreement or definitive peace. According to him, it is necessary for Ukraine’s allies to be involved in peacekeeping operations to prevent any violations by Russia.
“We will need to help Ukraine with boots on the ground (…) We will need peacekeeping operations which allies of Ukraine are willing to supply,” he said.
More than that, he reinforced the idea that Ukraine needs to be “strengthened,” emphasizing the ability of Western European countries to expand Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. He advocated sending more military assistances to the partner country, completely ignoring Russia’s goals of neutrality and demilitarization in Ukraine.
If Europe continues to send reinforcements to strengthen the Kiev regime, Russia will have no security guarantees, and no peace will be possible. Macron, like every other European leader, certainly knows this, but deliberately ignores this reality because he is not truly interested in ending the war, but rather in pursuing irrational and warmongering plans against Moscow.
This isn’t the first time Macron has endorsed the idea of Europe putting “boots on the ground” in Ukraine. He has been the leading voice for direct EU or even NATO participation in the war, disguising his pro-war plans with a proposed “peacekeeping mission.” More recently, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer joined the French president in this plan, but both failed to gain support from other European leaders to form a joint action plan to send troops to Ukraine.
Obviously, the Russian government completely rejects any plan involving the participation of Western troops in Ukraine. Moscow considers it unacceptable that soldiers from countries hostile to Russia be deployed on “peacekeeping missions.” For Russia, troops from NATO countries would not only be seen as legitimate targets but also as a serious threat, which is why this measure could escalate the conflict to even more worrying levels of violence.
The US recognizes Russia’s interest in avoiding the direct involvement of NATO members in the war, which is why Washington has refused to participate in European plans. Even during the extremely bellicose and anti-Russian Joe Biden administration, the US refused to participate in Macron’s irresponsible initiatives.
Now, however, the split in the Collective West generated by the divergence of interests between Trump and the EU is leading the Europeans to act more “independently” regarding Ukraine. Initially, these independent actions are limited to sending arms and money to the Kiev regime, but unfortunately, it is still impossible to rule out Macron sending troops to the country in the near future.
Some analysts believe that Macron’s desperation to send soldiers to Ukraine is due to an attempt to “legalize” and “explain” the massive deaths of French mercenaries on the battlefield. There are so many French casualties that the families of the mercenaries are already demanding answers from the government.
By sending troops to Ukraine, and knowing in advance that the Russians would consider them legitimate and priority targets, the French government could include the names of previously killed mercenaries in the casualty list, thus attempting to “clean up” the situation, legalizing the deaths, and guaranteeing the families their legitimate rights to pensions and assistance.
However, not all European countries are willing to participate in Macron’s warmongering venture to rehabilitate the names of dead mercenaries. Germany, Poland, Spain, Romania, and Croatia have already ruled out any idea of committing their troops to a hypothetical “peacekeeping mission.”
Furthermore, there are European countries that directly oppose any form of intervention in Ukraine, whether with troops or simply by sending weapons, such as Hungary and Slovakia. If Macron succeeds in carrying out his plan, he will have to do so outside the collective sphere of the EU, which makes the situation even more dangerous for France itself and its potential supporters.
The best thing Macron can do is simply abandon the interventionist rhetoric and let the interested parties reach an agreement, if possible. Proposing the involvement of Western troops is just a way to prematurely thwart any diplomatic dialogue.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
The post Macron Once Again Proposes EU Direct Participation in Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.
Loudoun County Schools Suspend Boys Who Didn’t Want Girl in Locker Room
Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is suspending two high-school boys after a “transgender” student secretly videorecorded them in the boys’ locker room questioning why she was there.
WJLA reported Monday:
LCPS’s Title IX Office launched an investigation based on that video and the male-identifying student’s complaint. That office has now determined the two boys are responsible for sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination, according to attorney, Josh Hetzler, who represents the families.
Hetzler said they were notified by LCPS Friday evening.
The punishment includes ten days of suspension and a no-contact order with the complainant, including not being able to be in any of the same classes. The boys are also required to meet with school administrators to determine a corrective action plan, according to Hetzler.
Title Deeds
The transgender student first began using the boys’ locker room during physical-education classes at Stone Bridge High School around September 2023. She was able to get away with this thanks to LCPS’ Policy 8040, which requires students to “be allowed to use the facility that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity.”
The girl filed her first Title IX complaint against one of the two boys in October 2024 on the basis that he had told a friend he was uncomfortable having a girl in the locker room. LCPS took the accusation seriously enough to question the boy about it, although no further action was taken.
The other now-suspended boy discussed the locker-room situation with his P.E. teacher. The teacher allegedly told him that he was stuck with it because of district policy — and that he should keep quiet about it.
In March, the girl surreptitiously took video in the boys’ locker room and used it as evidence for another Title IX complaint, this time against three boys. As The New American reported, the girl “accused the boys — two Christians and a Muslim — of making disparaging comments about her, threatening her with violence, and ‘misgendering’ her.”
Her punishment for violating school policy by taking the video? In-school suspension.
The boys’ punishment for saying things that, not long ago, would have been considered uncontroversial even in Loudoun County? A Title IX investigation culminating in 10 days’ at-home suspension and other humiliations.
Perturbed Parents
In June, after investigating the matter, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said his office had uncovered “a disturbing misuse of authority by” LCPS in opening a Title IX investigation into the boys. According to his report:
The single available video recording captures only a statement about needing a separate locker room due to the presence of a biological female. Most notably, the video does not record any disparaging remarks, profanity, or any threat against [the female student]. My Office is unaware of any corroborating witnesses who would substantiate [the female student’s] claims.
Nevertheless, LCPS proceeded with its investigation and ultimately disciplined two of the three accused students. (The third was acquitted.)
Those students’ parents, naturally, are livid over this turn of events.
“I would say the first reaction was some anger, because we’re just really concerned with all this stuff,” Seth Wolfe, father of one of the boys, told WJLA. “[We’re] saddened by the decision-making process and how that went.”
“[We’re] absolutely floored that they came back and branded my son responsible for sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination with no solid evidence whatsoever,” Renae Smith, another parent, told WJLA. “It’s wrong, and it should terrify every single parent.”
Smith moved her family to North Dakota, so her son will not actually be punished by LCPS, but the findings of the investigation will go on his permanent academic record.
That is also a concern for Wolfe. Both boys will be juniors this year and applying to colleges, which are unlikely to desire students with Title IX convictions on their records.
The parents also believe LCPS is using their boys to send a message to other students about disagreeing with the district’s gender policies. “I think this has gone a little too far and that they are trying to make an example of our students,” Wolfe told WTTG.
Forfeiting Federal Funding
LCPS isn’t commenting on the situation. But the Richmond-based Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC), which is representing the families, had plenty to say.
“The Founding Freedoms Law Center is working with our clients on next steps, but we are not going to let these boys go down without a fight, we’re going to stand with them all the way till they are innocent,” FFLC President Victoria Cobb told WJLA.
“LCPS, once again, shows that it is willing to harm students in the name of woke ideology,” she said. “These boys in particular are being made examples of what happens when someone crosses school indoctrination.”
Miyares referred the Title IX matter to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Neither agency has acted on the referral yet.
However, reported WJLA, the Education Department has told LCPS and four other northern-Virginia school districts that they will lose federal funding if they do not change their pro-transgender bathroom and locker-room policies, which the department contends violate Title IX. As of Friday, all five districts remained intransigent, and the Education Department told WJLA it had started the process of slashing their funding.
The schools, the department said, “will have to defend their embrace of radical gender ideology over ensuring the safety of their students.”
This article was originally published on The New American.
The post Loudoun County Schools Suspend Boys Who Didn’t Want Girl in Locker Room appeared first on LewRockwell.
Ukraine’s Future – A ‘Steppe Corridor’ – A Neutral, Transit-oriented State
While Russia is confidently prosecuting the war in Ukraine towards its inevitable end.
Meanwhile the ‘West’ is still negotiating with itself about the conditions under which it will have to capitulate.
Discussions continue about ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine even as the only serious ones are those that Russia is willing to give.
The confused arguments about ‘guarantees’ are reflected in the reports of them. Consider this nonsense:
A security guarantee could encompass a wide range of issues. In return for Russia ending its invasion, a security pact could include a pledge of U.S. air support for any European-led operations should Russian troops resume their assault.
If Russia ends the war NATO like ‘security guarantees’ are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?
How is that supposed to compute? Russia started this war to prevent a further extension of NATO into Ukraine. Why should it end the fighting if, in consequence, Ukraine would end up as a quasi-member of that pact?
All the ‘security guarantees’ talk is just obfuscation of the attempt by some European leaders to prolong the war by further dragging the U.S. into it:
Days before the [sanctions] deadline expired, Putin invited Witkoff to Moscow and offered a proposal, seen by the White House as sufficient grounds to set up last week’s Alaska summit meeting. There, Putin succeeded in convincing Trump that an immediate ceasefire to allow for complex peace negotiations was not required, allowing Russia to continue its attacks on Ukraine, without the risk of new U.S. sanctions.
The move alarmed European leaders, who raced to Washington on Monday to back up Zelensky during a meeting at the White House. After the meeting, they appeared satisfied by Trump’s openness to security guarantees. If Putin does not accept the terms, that could make the Kremlin the obstacle to Trump’s peace deal, insulating Ukraine from having to choose between untenable concessions of territory and inviting Trump’s ire.
Russia is not going to allow any of this:
[O]n Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov struck a blow at another major part of Trump’s peace effort, downplaying expectations for a swift bilateral meeting with the Ukrainian president, and further blocking the prospects for any deal on security guarantees for Ukraine. He said Russia would only agree to the measures if it had an effective veto over future efforts to defend Kyiv.
Russia will simply stick to its plan:
Russia’s conditions to end its war would essentially subvert Ukraine’s sovereignty, neuter its military and seize territory in eastern Ukraine that it has not captured in battle. Moscow wants to also permanently bar Ukraine from NATO and other international groupings and prevent it from hosting foreign troops — terms that would force Ukraine into a close, unwanted economic and political partnership with Russia.
A close economic and political partnership with Russia, unwanted or not, is indeed the most likely future for whatever is by then left of Ukraine.
Some Ukrainians, like the former presidential advisor Alexander Arestovich, do understand that:
The key task for Ukraine today in all these Alaskan tales is to preserve political independence in the long term.
…
Ukraine has only one way to preserve it: acknowledging the shared symbolic capital with Russia and Belarus, adopting a neutral status, and building good-neighborly relations with Russia and Belarus while maintaining political independence and the unique role of a “crossroads of worlds”- between Russia and Europe.
Economically, the most promising role is that of a “steppe corridor” – between Russia, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the EU.
In short, this is about a fundamental shift in project orientation – from a narrow, nationalist one to a broad, transit-oriented one.
In a sense, this could be called a “Great Return” – to Ukraine’s natural historical and cultural role.
By way of analogy – modern Kazakhstan.
…
In conclusion, the fundamental challenge for Ukraine lies not in tactical maneuvers but in recognizing the strategic perspective: the necessity of reimagining its role as a neutral, transit-oriented state in order to preserve independence in the emerging geopolitical order.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
The post Ukraine’s Future – A ‘Steppe Corridor’ – A Neutral, Transit-oriented State appeared first on LewRockwell.
Even After the Headmaster’s Humiliation, Europe Insists that Peace Is War
The Empire of Chaos is at war, hybrid and otherwise, not only against BRICS, but against Eurasia integration.
It took just one pic to imprint on posterity the utter humiliation of the EUrotrash political elites in Year 2025: the Coalition of the Twats, in the Oval Office, lining up like a bunch of frightened schoolkids, severely reprimanded by His Master’s Voice – the Headmaster cum Circus Ringmaster.
That was also neatly described as Trump breaks Europe over his knee.
Of course, President Putin had already predicted it, over six months before the fact:
“I assure you, Trump, with his character and persistence, will restore order quite quickly. And all of them, you’ll see, soon all of them will stand at the master’s feet and gently wag their tails.”
The White House humiliation sealed the deal, and reconfirmed an obsession: for the EUrotrash “leadership”, at all levels when it comes to relations with Russia, Peace is War.
Brandishing their warped logic, they cannot possibly understand that if Ukraine is instrumentalized – actually since before Maidan in 2014 – to harass and destabilize Russia in its western borders, Russia will forcefully counter-attack.
That’s at the heart of the Russian concept of “underlying causes” of the Ukraine tragedy, which must be thoroughly addressed if there is any real shot at Trumpian or not Trumpian “peace”.
In the Big Picture, that translates as the Empire of Chaos and Russia sitting down to set up a new “indivisibility of security” arrangement – just like Moscow proposed in December 2021: then, it was met by a non-response response.
EUrotrash Inc.’s new delirium is to attribute to itself the design of the future borders between a re-weaponized Europe and a Russia that will inevitably inflict on it a massive strategic defeat.
It’s a very long shot to imagine that Trump is capable, by himself, of imposing a new strategic reality on the warmongering yet penniless Coalition of the Twats. Whatever happens to rump Ukraine, Trump, based on his own twist and turn vociferations, actually wants Europe to “contain” Russia from now on, using an arsenal of ridiculous expensive American weapons.
So what changes is the character of this particular chapter of the Forever Wars: it will be fought by the Coalition of the Twats, and not by Americans.
In the short term, that also unveils the only strategy available for the EUrotrash/Kiev combo: outlast Trump until the 2026 mid-terms, destroy the remainder of his presidency, and be secure with the return of the mega-Russophobe gang in 2028.
Which Dead Hand will prevail?
And old school Deep State hand, who had privileged access to all Cold War era honchos, sums up the pitfalls ahead for Russia:
“Russia is taking too long to neutralize Ukraine, allowing time for NATO to reignite diversions. While the snail offensive in Ukraine does save lives, NATO seeks to weaken Russia’s strategic position in the Balkans and elsewhere that can cost far more lives in the future. If the Slavs in the Balkans are crushed that can strategically weaken Russia’s overall position, and that is far more costly than a major lightning offensive a la Stalin in Russian Ukraine. Russia must finish this war now and turn to its southern problems in the Balkans and the intrigues in Baku.”
Trump of course is oblivious to these Big Picture niceties. At best he admits, to Fox News, that “Ukraine will not regain Crimea” and “Ukraine will not join NATO.” But he does not seem to mind that “France, Germany and the UK want to deploy troops in Ukraine” as part of the new kabuki: “security guarantees”. That is an inter-galactic red line for Moscow.
In parallel, it’s wishful thinking to believe that Putin is now finally ready to negotiate “peace”. This is not about peace; it’s always about coming up with incontrovertible facts on the battle field, because Moscow knows this war will only be won in the battle field.
Russian forces have reached the final Ukraine defensive line in Donbass: Slavyansk-Kramatorsk. And is fast encircling key strongholds near Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka. Talk about a strategic/psychological turning point. From there, the – steppe – sky is the limit.
Compound it with the combined hacking of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – which revealed that Kiev’s losses, in terms of dead and missing, amount to a staggering 1.7 million.
All of the above means that we are fast approaching the fateful moment when the victor dictates the full terms of the enemy’s capitulation. No need to march to Bankova in Kiev and plant the Russian flag.
To indulge in a tawdry Trump-spun “peace” agreement carries an overlapping amount of serious strategic defeats for Russia. For example: leaving Odessa and Kharkov to MI6 and Brit machinations. At the same time Moscow needs to start paying much closer attention to its underbelly in the South Caucasus front, where the mellifluous Turkish drive is to establish a pan-Turanic belt/corridor.
The Empire of Chaos is at war, hybrid and otherwise, not only against BRICS, but against Eurasia integration. Some of its implications will certainly be discussed in the upcoming SCO summit in Tianjin, on August 31/September 1st. Putin, Xi, Modi, Pezeshkian will all be at the table.
And that should impress on all players the imperative of BRICS and SCO, sooner rather than later, representing Eurasia, getting their act increasingly together, turbo-charging not only their economic but also geostrategic cooperation. There’s only one way to go: negotiate with the increasingly out of control Empire of Chaos as a group. Putin and Xi already now it. Lula and Modi are starting to get the picture.
Meanwhile, the temptation is irresistible to frame Putin as granting Trump a magnanimous exit: to get out of the imperial strategic defeat in Ukraine while saving face.
The problem is the massive Peace is War front will never accept it. And that goes way beyond EUrotrash Inc., including Atlanticist old money, key players in international finance, and the walking dead but not really dead neo-cons.
Russia, China, BRICS/SCO need to be on red alert 24/7. The Peace is War front is already in the process of converting themselves into the NBT front: nuclear threats, bioweapons and terror attacks. Russia may have the Dead Hand – which will exterminate any attacker. The NBT front at best has the scrawny dead hand of a dead man walking.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The post Even After the Headmaster’s Humiliation, Europe Insists that Peace Is War appeared first on LewRockwell.
‘We Are Still All Counterfeiters Now’
Intellectuals and politicians often try to verbally summarize or justify conventional thinking in pithy ways. Milton Friedman (in 1965) and Richard Nixon (in 1971) both said different versions of the phrase “we are all Keynesians now.” . . . . Friedman and Nixon were describing the thoughts behind the implementation of Great Society redistribution programs and an inflationary monetary policy designed to offset the cost of those programs. — We Are All Keynesians Now, Brian Wesbury, Robert Stein of First Trust Advisors, 4/4/22
If there is one central myth supporting the folly that passes for monetary policy and by extension fiscal policy, it would have to be the unchallenged assumption that money should be defined and controlled by government.
Given the role of money in the economy – that it is it serves as a trade intermediary, one-half of virtually every transaction – nothing has been more destructive than the government’s commandeering money from the market.
Money was once the most marketable commodity, wrote Ludwig von Mises in 1912, albeit a special commodity. Since the Nixon Shock of 1971 making money a pure fiat, the absence of any commodity connection means that for government money is never an object. Sounds like a drunk’s fantasy. But there’s a downside: Fiat money increases amount to an exchange of nothing for something, a slick form of theft. Thus, unlike gold mining and coin minting, increases in the fiat money supply “set economic impoverishment in motion.”
But if a monetary system “works” why not let it be? Whatever our current problems might be we’ve survived without a commodity standard for a long time. What’s wrong with the government or its agent, the central bank, defining money and regulating its supply and distribution?
First, the money is not theirs – it doesn’t belong to the government or the central bank. Banks legitimately get their funds from depositors or investors. Anything they create on their own through fractional-reserve lending is fraudulent, because they’re guaranteeing the same dollar to both a borrower and a depositor.
Property rights violations notwithstanding, government and the Fed are trying to make a counterfeiting racket support a prosperous economy. The Fed’s money created “out of thin air” does not represent goods or services produced. The subsequent increase in the supply of money puts downward pressure on the purchasing power of the dollar, so that holders of previously existing money are in effect paying for the counterfeiter’s purchases. As Richard Cantillon explained in his famous essay (c. 1730), newly created money enters the economy unevenly, benefiting some groups at the expense of others.
Murray Rothbard discusses the counterfeiting process in What has government done to our money?:
Counterfeiting is evidently but another name for inflation — both creating new “money” that is not standard gold or silver, and both functioning similarly. And now we see why governments are inherently inflationary: because inflation is a powerful and subtle means for government acquisition of the public’s resources, a painless and all the more dangerous form of taxation. (Emphasis added)
And according to Keynes, not “one man in a million” is able to detect the theft — which apparently includes economists who believe “inflationary monetary policy . . . offsets the cost of those [Great Society] programs.”
As Keynes wrote during a brief period of clarity:
Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Kings of old could debase their coins and pass them off as the real thing but it was a slow, tedious process that didn’t yield much revenue. Not only that, people grew wise to it and found ways to tell a cheat from a genuine article, giving rise to Gresham’s Law. And they saw it as a cheat, not as a way of increasing GDP, or making the price of exports more competitive, or stabilizing the price level.
Paper money changed all that.
Today, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer not because of “capitalism,” but because of a government-supported monetary system that enriches designated counterfeiters and their beneficiaries at the expense of other dollar holders.
Milton Friedman, in my view, penned the most important statement ever on monetary policy:
If a domestic money consists of a commodity, a pure gold standard or cowrie bead standard, the principles of monetary policy are very simple. There aren’t any. The commodity money takes care of itself.
Free markets tend to simply things. Given that monetary policy today consists of varying degrees of counterfeiting, involving arcane meetings held in billion-dollar buildings, we need to get government out of the way and let the free market take care of itself. And in so doing, take care of us as well.
Final Word
According to Mises there are two aspects to the sound-money principle:
It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.
In my lifetime the greatest defender of sound money is Ron Paul — Keynes’s one man in a million — who in his 2009 book End the Fed explains how the Federal Reserve and its co-conspirator are the enemy of our future:
Bad economic policy can destroy a civilization—no policy is more dangerous than bad monetary policy. . . .
We need to take away the government’s money power. The banking industry needs its welfare check ended. The dollar’s soundness depends on its being untied from the machine that can make an infinite number of copies of dollars and reduce their value to zero.
The Fed and its powerful allies survive on the ignorance of the public. Let’s not go down with that ship.
The post ‘We Are Still All Counterfeiters Now’ appeared first on LewRockwell.
RFK Jr, Health Care Fraud
Jerome Barber wrote:
Peggy Hall lays out the bait and switch.
Never trust ANY of them…
See here.
The post RFK Jr, Health Care Fraud appeared first on LewRockwell.
Globalists Are Rebranding Their “Woke Capitalism” Agenda After Crushing Setbacks
Thanks, John Frahm.
The post Globalists Are Rebranding Their “Woke Capitalism” Agenda After Crushing Setbacks appeared first on LewRockwell.
A Top Ukrainian Journalist is Forced Out of Ukraine by Zelensky Regime
Click Here:
The post A Top Ukrainian Journalist is Forced Out of Ukraine by Zelensky Regime appeared first on LewRockwell.
Tommy Tuberville Blasts NFL, Vikings Over Male Cheerleaders
Writes Transportphenomena:
From Ragnar and Rollo the Conquerers to randy and his little pom-poms.
The post Tommy Tuberville Blasts NFL, Vikings Over Male Cheerleaders appeared first on LewRockwell.
California’s Hwy 395 in the Remote NE Corner of the State
Thanks, Tim McGraw.
Ghost of the Niles Hotel
Now that is a picture frame.
The post California’s Hwy 395 in the Remote NE Corner of the State appeared first on LewRockwell.
Commenti recenti
7 settimane 3 giorni fa
12 settimane 22 ore fa
15 settimane 1 giorno fa
24 settimane 5 giorni fa
26 settimane 2 giorni fa
27 settimane 21 ore fa
31 settimane 1 giorno fa
34 settimane 1 giorno fa
36 settimane 1 giorno fa
37 settimane 6 giorni fa