Lew Rockwell Institute

Following Hurricane Helene, many private helicopter pilots launched their own search and rescue missions. One would think government officials would welcome the help of these volunteers, but instead they harassed them and even threatened to arrest them!

For example, one private helicopter pilot rescued an individual stranded by Helene. Unfortunately, he was threatened with arrest if he flew his helicopter back into the impacted area to save someone left behind on the earlier flight.

In a video shared by comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore, Jonathan Howard, a member of the Florida State Guard and volunteer for the nonprofit group Aerial Recovery, discussed how the government took credit for the rescue of an 11-day-old baby even though the rescue was done totally by volunteers. Mr. Howard stated that when he goes on a search and rescue mission he sees around forty other private helicopters and just two military helicopters.

One reason the federal government is unable to provide adequate aid to those impacted by Helene (and now Milton) is the government is sending military aid worth billions of dollars to Ukraine and Israel. In fact, over 700 members of the Tennessee National Guard are deploying to the Middle East as people in the state deal with damage from Hurricane Helene!

When questioned on Fox News about Helene’s impact, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham made an impassioned plea …. for more aid to Israel. Senator Graham is far from the only member of Congress to put the needs of foreign countries and the military-industrial complex ahead of Americans.

Congress will likely consider a multi-billion-dollar disaster relief bill in the post-election “lame duck” session. Conservative Republicans will (properly) demand the spending be offset by cuts in other spending. The problem is most of these “fiscal conservatives” will vote to increase the national debt to fund the military-industrial-complex.

When I served in Congress, I voted against federal disaster aid even when the disaster impacted my district. Inevitably my office would receive complaints from outraged constituents. After a few months of jumping through the federal government’s bureaucratic hoops in seeking to recover from the disaster, many constituents would call my office to say that they now agree that they would be better off if the government would stop trying to “help” the victims of natural disasters.

One of the helicopter pilots who voluntarily flew into the areas impacted by Helene was Curves fitness chain founder Gary Heavin. Mr. Heavin, in addition to being a successful businessman, is a passionate advocate for liberty who serves on the advisory board of my Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is not surprising that someone who believes in liberty would be willing to help those in need rather than rely on the government to provide assistance.

Contrary to the lies spread by authoritarians, libertarianism does not require selfishness. Libertarians welcome voluntary action to help those in need. Libertarians object to government assistance because it is based on force. Authoritarianism leads to poverty, war, chaos in the streets, and a lack of compassion for the less fortunate. Liberty leads to prosperity, peace, and a flourishing of private charities.

The post Hurricane Response Proves Volunteerism Is Better Than Authoritarianism appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the U.S., 66% of adults are estimated to have at least one prescription, and the average person has nine filled annually. As an awake physician, one of the most depressing aspects of my work is seeing patients, especially the elderly, weighed down by numerous prescriptions that frequently do more harm than good.

For example, as I showed here, statins provide a negligible benefit (e.g., at best, taking them for five years extends one’s lifespan by 3-4 days) but create significant side effects such as severe muscle pain and cognitive impairment for 20% of users.

This tragic situation is best demonstrated by a 2007 study which showed that simply discontinuing the least necessary prescriptions resulted in a 23% reduction in the death rate and an 18.2% decrease in hospital referrals. Sadly, since the trend in medicine is always to have people on more drugs, data like this has had no effect on the practice of the overprescription of medications.

Over the years, I’ve asked dozens of holistic doctors which widely prescribed drugs they consider to be the most unnecessary and dangerous, and in addition to statins, three frequently make their list:
•NSAID painkillers (discussed further here).
•SSRI antidepressants (discussed further here).
•Stomach acid blocking PPIs (the focus of this article).

Acid Reflux

Your stomach contains acid that it uses to digest food (primarily by turning on powerful enzymes that digest protein). When the stomach is digesting food, the acid should stay inside the stomach, but sometimes, it leaks back up into the esophagus (your throat) because the muscle that seals the top of the stomach (the LES) fails to fully seal. Since stomach acid is irritating, it frequently creates an unpleasant condition known as heartburn when it refluxes into areas like the throat that are not resistant to its acidity.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a very common condition, estimated to affect 20% of adults (ranging between 18.1% to 27.8% of adults in the USA), is slightly more common in women, and those numbers have been gradually increasing globally.

In addition to overt acid reflux, another condition is silent reflux (laryngopharyngeal reflux), where minor reflux occurs without causing overt heartburn. It is often the root cause of a variety of other symptoms, such as:

•Allergies
•Asthma and reactive airway diseases
•Burning in the mouth or on the tongue
•Chronic sore throat
•Ear pressure and ear infections
•Frequently feeling like you need to clear your throat (and sometimes cough)
•Post-nasal drip
•Sensation of a painless lump in the throat
•Sinus issues

While most medical conditions are overemphasized to sell more prescriptions, silent reflux is not, and it is quite rare for me to meet an otolaryngologist (ENT) who recognizes this is the root cause of their patients’ symptoms. Fortunately, silent reflux is highly responsive to lifestyle changes (e.g., not eating at night), and those measures frequently produce profound improvements for patients.

Why Stomach Acid Is Essential for Your Health

Subtle distortions frequently occur in science, creating a false conception of reality that conveniently allows a profitable industry to exist. For example, stomach acid is largely viewed as unnecessary and thus frequently possible to justify eliminating with acid suppressing medications. In reality, it has numerous vital functions:

Protein Digestion: Amino acids, the building blocks of the body, are obtained from protein. Without sufficient acid, proteins can’t be properly digested, leading to significant nutritional deficiencies, impaired energy levels, mood or cognitive function, and food sensitivities from undigested foreign proteins entering the bloodstream.

Sterilizing the Stomach: Acid is a barrier to harmful microbes, preventing them from entering and infecting the digestive tract. Those with low stomach acid are thus at higher risk for severe foodborne illnesses and hospital-acquired infections.

For example, one study found that ventilated patients who received an acid blocking medication (which was not as powerful as the newer PPIs) were twice as likely to develop pneumonia and 60 percent more likely to die from hospital acquired pneumonia. Similarly, a Clostridium difficile infection is the leading cause of hospital-associated infectious diarrhea. It has a considerable impact on the length of a hospital stay and its costs—those on PPIs were found to be twice as likely to develop this condition. Furthermore, one large review of septic patients found those on PPIs were 4.3% more likely to die than those not on PPIs.
Note: the largest review that has been done so far of PPIs and COVID-19 found PPIs increased a COVID patient’s risk of dying by 77%.

Many of the issues with acid suppression are best illustrated by how they alter the normal bacterial flora of the gut. For example, to quote the manufacturer of one PPI:

Like other agents that elevate intragastric pH, omeprazole [Prilosec] administered for 14 days in healthy subjects significantly increased the intragastric concentrations of viable bacteria. The pattern of the bacterial species was unchanged from that commonly found in saliva. All changes were resolved within three days of stopping treatment.

Nutrient Absorption: Many (myself included) believe one of the primary causes of all the chronic illnesses we see today are widespread deficiencies of vital nutrients. Much of this deficiency comes from:
•Industrial agriculture (which nutritionally depletes the soil)
•Chelating herbicides such as Roundup (which sequester essential minerals like manganese)
•Food processing (which removes many vital nutrients from food)
•Impaired absorption of the nutrients that remain.

Note: manganese deficiency is a root cause of many debilitating conditions, such as hyper-mobile connective tissue disorders (which make individuals much more sensitive to environmental toxins—for example, patients with ligamentous laxity are much more vulnerable to vaccine injuries). Fortunately, with appropriate manganese supplementation,& these conditions often significantly improve.

Poor stomach acid levels hinder the absorption of critical minerals and vitamins. Beyond making individual amino acids available, certain vitamins (e.g., B12) depend upon stomach acid for absorption, and many minerals bound to plants (e.g., iron) will only separate and become absorbable in an acidic environment.

Note: this is a key reason why stomach acid deficiency is particularly problematic for vegetarians.

Digestive Signaling: Acid stimulates the release of hormones (e.g., secretin and cholecystokinin) and enzymes necessary for digestion. These signals ensure that the pancreas releases the right enzymes to continue breaking down food and that the digestive system functions efficiently. Impaired acid levels can disrupt this process, leading to issues like indigestion and floating stools.

Why would Nature expend so much metabolic energy to provide each one of us at birth (and until at least age forty) with an ample supply of stomach acid and pepsin if it weren’t really necessary for digestion?” — Jonathan Wright MD

Read the Whole Article

The post The Great Acid Reflux Scam appeared first on LewRockwell.

(This article first appeared as an exclusive to RPI subscribers. Subscribe for free updates here.)

Biden Administration mismanagement – or worse – from day one of the latest Israeli multi-front war in the Middle East has led us to where we are today, at the brink of an all-out regional war with some 40,000 US troops and multiple US military bases in the region with targets on their back.

Biden’s blank check to Israel after the attacks of October 7, 2023, to launch multiple wars against its neighbors and carry out the mass murder of Palestinian civilians in Gaza has drawn the US right into the middle of a bubbling cauldron of WWIII. And rather than take a sober look at actual US national security interests, Biden and his neocon incompetents are busy adding fuel to the fire hanging on to the pipe dream that they could do what they failed to do so many times before: remake the Middle East in their neocon image.

According to an article in Politico this past week, while Biden Administration officials publicly urged restraint and a reduction in violence, they privately were working with the Israeli government to encourage a widening of Israel’s military operations to include its northern neighbor, Lebanon. Two top Biden Administration officials, Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk, urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to shift Israel’s military focus from the already-flattened Gaza northward to Lebanon.

As Politico reports:

Behind the scenes, Hochstein, McGurk and other top U.S. national security officials are describing Israel’s Lebanon operations as a history-defining moment — one that will reshape the Middle East for the better for years to come.

Where have we heard this kind of “let’s do war to re-shape the Middle East” argument before? As Wikileaks reminds us, appearing before the US Congress in 2002 and urging the US to attack Iraq, Netanyahu himself promised that “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

Yeah, Bibi. How’d that work out for us?

So why is it that 22 years later senior US officials are echoing Netanyahu’s bogus 2002 lies to draw the US into another “history-defining” catastrophe in the Middle East? For Hochstein it might be that he is not the unbiased “honest broker” we need to keep us out of unnecessary war. After all, as the New York Times reminds us, Hochstein was born in Israel, had/has Israeli citizenship, and even served in the Israeli Defense Forces!

Now he is serving as President Biden’s top advisor for the Middle East – a position where it is critical to bring no personal biases to the table.

This should not automatically disqualify him from the position, of course, but just as with concerns over Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken’s Ukrainian background, neocons pushing for war in the “old country” from which they should have left old allegiances behind should raise a few eyebrows.

McGurk is similarly compromised, as he is another Victoria Nuland/Zelig-like character who has spent his career weaseling into Republican and Democratic Administrations as an “expert,” while his actual expertise comprises solely his adherence to the neocon ideology of all war all the time. He was on board for Bush’s “remaking of the Middle East” to Obama’s fake “Arab Spring to remake the Middle East” to Trump’s “trash the Iran deal to remake the Middle East.”

The guy is a loser who has been wrong his whole career, with a trail of failures that would sink a normal person. But like the Energizer Bunny he just keeps on ticking and ticking toward yet another disaster.

As Politico goes on to note, the Hochstein/McGurk plan to urge Israeli attacks on Lebanon was not widely accepted among actual experts in the Administration:

The decision to focus on Hezbollah sparked division within the U.S. government, drawing opposition from people inside the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence community who believed Israel’s move against the Iran-backed militia could drag American forces into yet another Middle East conflict.

Of course there is built into the Politico article the assumption that Hochstein and McGurk were at all concerned about “dragging American forces” into Israel’s regional war. In fact, their intent was the opposite. They no doubt yearned to draw the US government into Israel’s regional war.

Which brings us to where we are today, with the Biden Administration committing more US weapons systems and more US military personnel to serve on the ground in Israel in its war against Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran. All at once. How’s that for neocon ambition?

As Pentagon Press Secretary Patrick Ryder announced today:

At the direction of the President, @SecDef authorized the deployment of a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery and associated crew of U.S. military personnel to Israel to help bolster Israel’s air defenses. Full statement:https://t.co/iP8QhG7pTZ

— Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder (@PentagonPresSec) October 13, 2024

With today’s news that Lebanon successfully counter-attacked Israel – hitting an Israeli military base and taking out dozens of IDF soldiers – it appears certain that President Biden and his neocon-dominated foreign policy team are setting up US military members to be killed in Israel to manufacture consent for a full-on US war against all of Israel’s enemies in the region.

They want American soldiers killed in Israel because they know the enormous propaganda value, particularly among a US population that is increasingly against US involvement in Israel’s wars and in favor of ending them instead.

With Kamala tanking in the eyes of a voting public increasingly unappetized by wilted word salads, an old-fashioned war might be just what the Biden brigades are cooking up to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

With their track record of failure, it is time for those of us who are sane to be very, very worried.

This is going to get really bad really fast if we cannot get the attention of a slumbering – or worse – Congress.

This originally appeared on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Do they Want American Troops to Die? appeared first on LewRockwell.

You think the bankers are up to no good? No band of scoundrels has brought more chaos and grief to the life of this republic than the claque that gathers darkly under the banner of “Lawfare.” Its public face is Lawfaremedia.org, run by Benjamin Wittes a Brookings senior fellow, but that gang functions only to lend a false-front of decorum to the operations of its Democratic Party activist lawyer-army led by Field Marshal Marc Elias, architect of the ballot fraud that has caused Americans to lose faith in their elections.

Marc Elias was the original expeditor of the RussiaGate hoax in 2016 from his perch at Perkins Coie, then Hillary Clinton’s campaign law firm, which laundered payments to Christopher Steele, front-man for Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS political PR shop, which concocted the fraudulent “dossier,” and set in motion a train of DC intel blob legal shenanigans aimed at defenestrating Donald Trump from the White House — the Mueller Investigation, impeachment, etc.

While all that was going on through the Trump term, and with the Covid-19 Op providing cover, Mr. Elias engineered the 2020 changes in many states’ election laws and bylaws to permit large-scale mail-in voting, organized ballot-harvesting activities, and the use of drop-boxes for receiving bundled votes. He and his George Soros-financed staff lawyers sued states that attempted to require voter-identification, and provided legal protection for Mark Zuckerberg’s $419-million-dollar assault on election precinct staffing in swing states. When the 2020 election concluded suspiciously, Mr. Elias and his gang joined lawsuits in every case where the balloting was contested and got more than sixty of them dismissed on the basis of “standing,” without the merits of the cases being heard. This is Lawfare.

This time around, 2024, Mr. Elias has done everything possible to ensure that millions of illegal aliens stuffed into swing states will have their putative identities attached to harvested mail-in ballots from addresses such as Walmart parking lots and storage units, and has filed lawsuits wherever a state threatens to require proof of citizenship for voting. He has also filed sixty peremptory lawsuits to obstruct attempts to audit any election count after November 5 — as if it is an affront to democracy to even ask questions about official misconduct.

A parallel Lawfare scam underway is the Democratic Party-sponsored 65 Project that seeks to disbar Trump-adjacent lawyers who attempt to challenge any voting irregularities in this year’s election. It’s mission statement reads:

The 65 Project is a bipartisan effort to protect democracy from these once-and-future abuses by holding accountable Big Lie Lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results, and by working with bar associations to deter future abuses by establishing clear standards for conduct that punish lies about the conduct or results of elections.

Notice the term “Big Lie” to foreclose any inquiry at all into election fraud. That half the people in this country accept such an Orwellian con tells you the vital role played by the perversion of language in the Democratic Party’s war against the citizens of this land. Exactly who is to say, in advance of the event, that any objection to a vote count is fraudulent and malicious? Answer: the people who have maliciously committed fraud. The Democrats have been grooming the public for years with that phrase, the Big Lie, in exactly the same way that pedos groom innocent pubescents who accept the authority of any grown-up, no matter what debauchery they are subjected to.

It’s a tragic turn of fate for our country that the law, and language with it, have been turned into weapons for national suicide. The net result is a nation that can’t think straight anymore and cannot construct any coherent set of rules to live by. So we find ourselves in a society where stealing is no longer a crime, where border-jumping has been downgraded to a clerical error (“undocumented”), where little children are allowed to decide whether they are male or female, where speech that disagrees with the authorities agenda is “misinformation” subject to censorship and prosecution, where candidates for the highest office get selected “democratically” without any votes cast, and where you can be run-over and ruined financially in court by the bottomless legal resources of the Deep State for just speaking your mind.

Now I will tell you something that deeply troubles me and might trouble you. Forgive me if I throw the Overton Window wide open here. Readers may know that I am an American Jew. We have entered a new era of antisemitism. Many might say it is due to the conduct of Israel warring against its enemies. I would say it is as much due to the adoption of Jihad politics by the Marxist-Woke campaign as an instrument to promote political and social chaos in America. Lawfare is essentially jihad waged via the courts against our own disintegrating common culture and national interests.

The lineup of the leading Lawfare attorneys are Jews: Marc Elias, Norm Eisen, Benjamin Wittes, Andrew Weissmann, Michael Bromwich, Michael Sussmann, Lawrence Tribe, Daniel Goldman, Paul Rosenzweig, the exceptionally profligate serial liar Rep. Adam Schiff, and many others. I can’t say I understand exactly what motivates them to engage these antics. (Possibly to defend their Deep State clients against many previous crimes committed since 2016, especially within the FBI and DOJ.) But it’s a really bad look on top of being a nefarious agenda. They are disgracing the rest of us American Jews and putting us in danger. Shame on them. They must be defeated, and their defeat must come within the arena of the very law they work so hard to pervert.

Reprinted with permission from JamesHowardKunstler.com.

The post Lawfare Is Jihad Against Our Country appeared first on LewRockwell.

Playing nice’ won’t change its paradigm. Failure does.

With the assassination of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah and a number of the Hizbullah senior leadership in Beirut – expressly without prior warning being given to the Pentagon – Netanyahu fired the start gun on an implicit Israeli widening of war to – using Israel’s term – the ‘octopus’ tentacles’: Hizbullah in Lebanon; Ansarullah in Yemen; the Syrian government and the Iraqi Hash’ad A-Shaabi forces.

Well, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh and part of Hizbullah’s leadership cadre (including a senior Iranian general), Iran – demonised as the ‘octopus head’ – entered the conflict with a volley of missiles that targeted airfields, military bases and the Mossad HQ – but intentionally caused no deaths.

Israel thus made the U.S. (and most of Europe) partners or accomplices to a war now definitively cast as neo-imperialism versus the whole of the non-West. Palestinians – the global icons of the aspiration for national liberation – were to be annihilated from historic Palestine.

Further, the bombing in Beirut, and Iran’s riposte to it, now ranges Israel backed and materially supported by the U.S. vs Iran, backed and materially supported by Russia. Israel, the military correspondent of Yedioth Ahronoth warns, ‘must go crazy and strike Iran – because striking Iran “will end the current war”’.

Plainly, it marks the end to ‘playing nice’ – of incrementally escalating, one calculated step after another – as if playing chess with an opponent who calculates similarly. Both now threaten to take a hammer to the chess board. ‘Chess is over’.

It seems that Moscow too, understands that ‘chess’ simply cannot be played when the opponent is no ‘adult’, but a reckless sociopath ready to sweep away the board – to gamble all on an ephemeral ‘great victory’ move.

Looked at dispassionately, either the Israelis are inviting their own demise by over-extending across seven fronts. Or their hope lies with invoking the threat of their demise as the means to bring in the United States. As with Zelensky in Ukraine, there is ‘no hope’ unless the U.S. adds its fire-power decisively – both Netanyahu and Zelensky assume.

So, in West Asia the U.S. is now supporting, no less, than a war against humanity per se, and against the world. This clearly cannot be in America’s self-interest. Do its power-broker Panjandrums realise the possible consequences for it to stand against the World in an act of gross immorality? Netanyahu is betting his house – and now the West’s – on the outcome of his roulette table ‘bet’.

Is there a sense amongst the Panjandrums that the U.S. is betting on the wrong horse? Whilst it seems there are some contrarians placed at a high level in the U.S. military who do have reservations – as in every ‘war game’ the U.S. loses in the Near East – their voices are few. The wider political class clamours for revenge on Iran.

The dilemma of why there are so few opposing voices in Washington has been addressed and explained by Professor Michael Hudson. Hudson explains that matters are not so simple; that context is missing. Professor Hudson’s reply is paraphrased below from two long commentaries (here and here):

“Everything that’s happened today was planned out just 50 years ago, back in 1974 and 1973. “I worked at the Hudson Institute for about five years, 1972 to ‘76. I sat in on meetings with Uzi Arad, who became Netanyahu’s chief military advisor after heading Mossad. I worked very closely with Uzi there … I want to describe how the whole strategy that led to the United States today, not wanting peace, but wanting Israel to take over the whole Near East, took shape gradually.

“On one occasion, I brought my mentor, Terrence McCarthy, to the Hudson Institute, to talk about the Islamic worldview, and every two sentences, Uzi would interrupt: “No, no, we’ve got to kill them all”. And other people, members of the Institute, were also just talking continually about killing Arabs”.

The strategy of using Israel as the regional battering ram to achieve U.S. (imperial) objectives was worked out essentially in the 1960s by Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Jackson was nicknamed ‘the Senator from Boeing’ for his support for the military-industrial complex. And the military-industrial complex backed him to become chair of the Democratic National Committee. He was too twice an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 1972 and 1976 Presidential elections.

Well, he was backed by Herman Kahn too, who became the key strategist for U.S. hegemony in the Hudson Institute.

Initially, Israel didn’t really play a role in the U.S. plan; Jackson (of Norwegian descent) simply hated communism, he hated the Russians, and had a lot of support within the Democratic Party. But when all of this strategy was being put together, Herman Khan’s great achievement was to convince the U.S. Empire builders that the key to achieving their control in the Middle East was to rely on Israel as its foreign legion.

And that arms-length arrangement enabled the U.S. to play the role, Hudson says, of the ‘good cop’, whilst designating Israel to play its role as ruthless proxy. And that’s why the State Department turned over management of U.S. diplomacy to Zionists – to separate and distinguish Israeli behaviour from the claimed probity of U.S. imperialism.

Herman Khan described the virtue of Jackson for Zionists to Professor Hudson as precisely that he was not Jewish, a defender of the military complex and a strong opponent of the arms control system that was underway. Jackson fought against arms control – “we’ve got to have war”. And he proceeded to stuff the State Department and other U.S. agencies with neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Douglas Fife, among others), who, from the beginning, planned for a permanent worldwide war. The takeover of government policy was led by Jackson’s former senate aides.

Herman’s analysis was systems analysis: Firstly, define the overall aim and then work backwards.“Well, you can see what the Israeli policy is today. First of all, you isolate the Palestinians [into] strategic hamlets. That’s what Gaza had already been turned into for the last 15 years”.

“The aim all along has been to kill them. Or first of all, to make life so unpleasant for them that they’ll emigrate. That’s the easy way. Why would anyone want to stay in Gaza when what’s happening to them is what’s happening today? You’re going to leave. But if they don’t leave, you’re going to have to kill them, ideally by bombing because that minimizes the domestic casualties”, Hudson notes.

“And nobody seems to have noticed that what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank now – is all based on the “strategic hamlets” idea from the Vietnam war: the fact that you could just divide all of Vietnam into little parts, having guards at all the transition points from one part to another. Everything that Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere throughout Israel was pioneered in Vietnam”.

If you analysed these neo-cons, Hudson relates,

“they had a virtual religion. I met many at the Hudson Institute; some of them, or their fathers, were Trotskyists. And they picked up Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution. That is, an unfolding revolution – whereas Trotsky said began in Soviet Russia was going to spread around the world: The neo-cons adapted this and said, “No, the permanent Revolution is the American Empire – it’s going to expand, and expand and nothing can stop us – to the entire world”.

The Scoop Jackson neo-cons were brought in – from the beginning – to do exactly what they’re doing today. To empower Israel as America’s proxy, to conquer the oil-producing countries, and make them part of greater Israel.

“And the aim of the United States was always oil. That meant the United States had to secure the Near East and there were two proxy armies to do it. And these two armies fought together as allies, down to today. On the one hand, the al-Qaeda jihadis, on the other hand, their managers, the Israelis, hand in hand”.

“[W]hat we’re seeing is, as I said, a charade that somehow what Israel is doing is “all Netanyahu’s fault, all the fault of the Right-wing there” – and yet from the very beginning they were promoted, supported with huge amounts of money, all of the bombs they needed, all the armaments they needed, all the funding they needed … All of that was given to them precisely to do exactly what they’re doing today”.

“No, there can’t be a two-state solution because Netanyahu said, “We hate the Gazans, we hate the Palestinians, we hate the Arabs – there cannot be a two-state solution and here’s my map,” before the United Nations, “here’s Israel: there’s no one who’s not Jewish in Israel – we’re a Jewish state” – he comes right out and says it”.

Hudson then gets to the bottom of it all. He points us to the fundamental game-changer: Why it is difficult for the U.S. to change its approach – the Vietnam War had shown that any attempted conscription by western democracies was not viable. Lyndon Johnson in 1968 had to withdraw from running for election precisely because everywhere he would go, there would be non-stop stop-the-war demonstrations.

The ‘bedrock’ which Hudson underlines, is the understanding that western democracies no longer can field a domestic army through conscription. ‘And what that means is that today’s tactics are limited to bombing, but not occupying countries.Thus, Israel – whose forces are limited – can drop bombs on Gaza and Hezbollah, and try to knock out things, but neither the Israeli army, nor any other army, would really be able to invade and try to take over a country, or even south Lebanon – in the way that armies did in World War II – so the U.S. drew the lesson. It turned to proxies’.

“So what is left for the United States? Well, I think there’s only one form of non-atomic war that democracies can afford, and that’s terrorism [i.e positively seeking huge collateral deaths]. And I think you should look at Ukraine and Israel as the terrorist alternative to atomic war”, Hudson suggests.

The bottom line, he notes, is what then does this imply with Israel continuing to insist on engaging the U.S. in its regional war? The U.S. is not going to send troops. It can’t do that. The ruling cadre have tried terrorism and the result of terrorism is to align the rest of the world against the West, appalled by the wanton killing and by the breaking of all of the rules of war.

Hudson concludes, “I don’t see Congress being reasonable. I think that the State Department and the National Security Agency and the Democratic Party leadership, with its basis in the military-industrial complex, is absolutely committed”.

The latter might say “Well, who wants to live in a world where we can’t control? Who wants to live in a world where other countries are independent, where they have their own policy? Who wants to live in a world where we can’t siphon off their economic surplus for us? If we can’t take everything and dominate the world, well, who wants to live in that kind of a world?”

That’s the mentality with which we’re dealing; ‘Playing nice’ won’t change that paradigm. Failure does.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Israel Does What It Does; It Was Always Planned This Way appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post How Ukrainian Society Fights Reality appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is some speculation in Washington about a so-called October Surprise being engineered by either party or their supporters to change the outcome of the upcoming election. The original October Surprise took place in 1980, when Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager William Casey conspired with several senior CIA officers in Europe to convince the Iranian government to delay the release of the American Embassy hostages until after the November election against Jimmy Carter. Casey believed that any earlier release of the hostages would give a boost to the Carter campaign, demonstrating that the Democratic Party’s policy of how to deal with Iran was working. The Iranian government was approached secretly using CIA resources and complied with the request, believing that it would result in a less hostile relationship with the new administration. In the event, Reagan defeated Carter and some believed that the continuation of the hostage crisis had made the administration look feckless and hurt the incumbent just enough to change the outcome of the election. Since that time “October Surprise” has become shorthand for playing a political dirty trick shortly before the election to directly impact negatively on a candidate’s credibility or ability to respond to problems.

Another recent version of the Surprise is to spread lies about a candidate’s personal history or regarding his or her acceptance of support from enemies like Russia or China, such as the Clinton campaign attempted to do in 2016. And as a variation on that since the United States became enamored of wars and rumors of war, it involves acceptance of getting engaged in a couple of little wars to demonstrate national resolve and willingness to directly confront America’s enemies to compare one candidate with the other. This also involves considerable creativity and the exercising of one’s imagination as America’s national security has not actually been threatened or challenged by anyone since the Cuban missile crisis of 1963, though the current contretemps with Russia over Ukraine does indeed threaten going nuclear.

Certainly, it is not beyond one’s understanding of just how America’s two top political parties have become so cynical and desperate to win at any cost that wholesale distortion of reality might be considered fair game. Or if it is a foreign player interested in the outcome of the election, staging some kind of provocation or even a false flag operation that would result in a dramatic foreign policy development that could influence voters is possible. If this interference takes place shortly before an actual election with little chance that there will be any way to rebut what is being claimed, it might be referred to as an October Surprise.

I have been thinking of the possibility of an October Surprise in the current context, in which the US is heavily engaged in two undeclared wars which have become controversial among voters, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, the candidates don’t speak much about why we are engaged at all in conflicts that could have been resolved in various ways very early on and there is a certain similarity in how Democrats and Republicans respond to the fighting: both tend to support both Ukraine and Israel with only minor objections to some details in what is taking place. Both parties regard cooperating with Volodymyr Zelensky and Benjamin Netanyahu as unshakable rock-solid foreign relationships, or at least that is what they say in public.

I believe that in reality the Ukraine war is something that the US and NATO are looking for a way out of, but Israel is another story and might well be working up a trap for both US parties that might be considered equivalent to an October Surprise. Apparently I am not the only one thinking that way, including Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut who told CNN’s Erin Burnett that “I certainly worry that Prime Minister Netanyahu is watching the American election as he makes decisions about his military campaigns in the north and in Gaza.” Let us accept that Israel has the most powerful foreign policy lobby in the United States and its associated billionaires also represent the majority of political donations going to both parties. It and its Lobby also interfere in American politics and policies more than any other country, and its power is such that many have come around to the view that on key issues Israel is in control of the politicians in Washington. As evidence of that, witness the outrageous bowing and cheering that war criminal Netanyahu received in Washington from the US Congress even though a majority of Americans want to stop arming Israel and protecting it in places like the UN. Compare a groveling Congress with the disdain and walk-out Netanyahu received from the UN membership when he spoke more recently, where he denounced the UN as a “a swamp of antisemitic bile,” if you want to learn what the rest of the world thinks about the Jewish state and its leader.

And Netanyahu himself has made no secret of his desire to have Donald Trump win the presidency next month as he correctly perceives that Trump would give him anything he wants whenever he wants it, just as he did in 2016-2020, when he endorsed Israel as a Jewish state plausibly including the West Bank and Gaza that could deal with its Palestinian minority as it sees fit. Biden/Harris have also supported Israel enthusiastically with only minor reservations, but the Democratic Party has a small but highly visible and growing anti-war element that is in part behind demonstrations taking place all over the US against the genocide in Gaza. Trump, on the contrary, also has several times voiced his willingness to attack and destroy Iran, including his reaction to Iran’s recent retaliatory Israel strike as “The President Should Blow That Country To Smithereens,” which the Democrats, fearing a major regional escalation, have up until now backed away from, though they have pledged that they would stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if it should seek to do so. They haven’t explained how they would do that and Netanyahu is now threatening to attack what he refers to as Iranian nuclear sites while his government and Biden are also discussing hitting Iran’s oil facilities. There would be plenty of support from Republicans to do just that with the ultra-hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham saying that “These oil refineries need to be hit and hit hard because that is the source of cash for the regime to perpetrate their terror.”

Israel is at the same time increasing its pressure on Lebanon and as well on Syria, where it is bombing targets that it claims to be either “Iranian” or “terrorist-Hezbollah” in nature. Note that Israel, even when it is clearly the aggressor, is always able to define itself as a victim, something which the bought and paid for US government and western media also usually fall in line to do. Netanyahu will increase his attacks on Lebanon and on Gaza and will also respond to Iran’s recent missile attack on Israeli territory with an escalation. The idea will be to draw the United States into the conflict to do the real fighting to destroy Iran. Who would be better in that role than a president or president elect Donald Trump who over the past two weeks has been reacting to an evidence-free claim that the Iranian government has been plotting to assassinate him? Trump has also declared to a group of Jewish Republicans that his Republican Party to be the only US political party that is genuinely pro-Israel! How convenient!

So it will work out this way and be explained by Netanyahu as follow – poor perpetual victim Israel, plagued by an antisemitic United Nations, enemies everywhere, is currently under attack by overwhelming hostile forces and is fighting valiantly, only protected in its hour of need due to its great friend and ally the United States of America. But wait! In its hour of extreme peril, when it is being assailed by the Jew hating probably nuclear armed Iranian mullahs, America is having an election in which one of the two parties, the Democrats, itself has a faction that is awash with antisemitism and is seeking to destroy the state of Israel! Yahweh be thanked that the other party the Republicans is four-square solid in defense of both Israel and the Jewish people! The Americans will hopefully know how to vote!

And the Republican party will be helped in that effort to promote the legend of the antisemitic Democrats by both the Israel Lobby and the fire breathing Dispensationalists within its ranks who currently appear to make up the bulk of the GOP, led by the creepy Christian Zionist head case Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House. So let’s see how this plays out. I predict that the desirability of America being Israel’s bonded slave, due to God’s command concerning his Chosen, will at a certain level surface in the remaining campaign, driven by Israel deliberately provoking situations that will force the United States government to fully commit itself to the Jewish state’s “defense.” That will be spun to become a last-minute endorsement of Donald Trump and what he stands for in terms of his willingness to go about physically destroying all of Israel’s adversaries in the Middle East. I suspect it might prove to be enough confusion to tip the result in a close election. We will know in about a month!

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post Will Israel Pull Off an ‘October Surprise’ During the Next Month? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dear Lew,

We have several LRC readers signed up for the online retreat with Fr. McCarthy in November who heard about Fr. McCarthy’s work through your site. Thanks for everything you do!

In case you’ve never seen it, here’s the ABC special that covered the story of the McCarthy family and the miracle of Edith Stein: “It Takes a Miracle.”

Edith Stein was born on Oct. 12, 1891. She was a Jewish atheist and philosopher who eventually converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite nun. She died at Auchshwitz on August 9, 1942.

Father McCarthy’s daughter was born on August 8, 1984 (August 9 in Auschwitz time). He and his wife Mary named their little girl Benedicta after Edith Stein. (The name she had taken when she became a nun was St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.)

In 1987, Benedicta, just a toddler, swallowed 16 times the lethal dose of Tylenol. The McCarthy’s started a prayer tree to ask for the intercession of Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. Little Benedicta was cured. On October 11, 1998, the Catholic Church declared Edith Stein a saint! Fr. McCarthy con-celebrated the canonization Mass with John Paul II.

The post It Takes a Miracle appeared first on LewRockwell.

Like waves on the ocean, countries tend to go through economic cycles.

First, we have the micro cycles, which tend to rise and fall every few years, but may last a decade or more. Then we have the macro cycles, which tend to take hundreds of years.

In a macro cycle, a nation begins to thrive economically, when the people of that country adhere to a strong work ethic. They invest their money and toil into the economy, make a profit, then either save, purchase goods, reinvest, or a combination of the three.

When the great majority of the people do this, the country thrives economically. The greater the economic freedom (i.e., the less governmental oversight and regulation), the more the country thrives.

But this never lasts forever. The eternal fly in the ointment is that governments seek continually to increase their control over others.

First, they focus on the increased control of their own people through regulations, but invariably, they see the opportunity for broader control, through the domination of other nations. They then invade those nations.

Warfare is the costliest venture that nations enter into, and as such, it’s almost always a mistake. But the zeal to have greater power often brushes that fact aside, and leaders choose to invade other nations.

In almost every instance, they fail to underestimate the resistance from the invaded nation, and very quickly, the cost of the warfare doubles and redoubles, over and over again.

Invariably, the leaders then borrow money to keep the war going. Sometimes, they achieve victory in this manner, but more often than not, they fail. They find that the day comes when they must either sell off major assets to pay their debt, or face economic collapse.

Case in point: In 1800, Spain was the dominant empire of the world, having successfully colonized South and Central America and stripped them of a fortune in gold and silver over the course of three centuries – from 1500 to 1800.

But despite this, decades of war with other European powers left Spain broke. Charles III did what leaders always do – he borrowed heavily and debased the currency. He issued fiat currency in the form of paper pesos and used this currency to fund the Spanish colony of Louisiana.

This was meant to be a temporary measure, but as time dragged on, the peso steadily lost value, then became utterly worthless.

Charles, with no economic wiggle-room left, sent the ship El Cazador to the Louisiana colony to pay off debts. Unfortunately, El Cazador sank in 1784 in a storm, taking 450,000 pesos in silver coins down with her.

When Carlos IV became king of Spain, there were few good options. Rather than give up his throne, he offered to sell Louisiana to France’s Napoleon.

Napoleon took advantage of Spain’s national fire sale and bought Louisiana for a song.

But as stated above, countries tend to rise and fall in cycles. In 1803, Napoleon found himself in similar straights, as his own warfare/debt condition was also reaching a desperate level.

Napoleon offered Louisiana to US President Thomas Jefferson, and like Napoleon, Mister Jefferson was able to pick up the one million square miles of prime real estate for a song – about three cents an acre.

So, to re-cap, the last-straw event that cost Carlos IV his empire was a simple shipwreck. The final event was minor. What really condemned Spain was warfare and debt.

The last-straw event that cost Napoleon his empire was the Battle of Waterloo. The final event was not the largest of battles. What really condemned France was warfare and debt.

Mister Jefferson was a far wiser man. Since the founding of the United States, he had continually warned against both warfare and debt. Although he twice dealt with war with Britain, he avoided military adventures – the invasion of other countries.

Similarly, he borrowed, but always judiciously and only with the ability for repayment.

Under his leadership, the US thrived and the American people reaped the benefits.

But of course, that was many micro cycles ago. The US is now at the end of its macro cycle, which can be evidenced by its involvement in what has become continual warfare. The US now invades several other countries in each presidential cycle, ensuring that, if any war winds down, there are others still steaming ahead. In recent years, the US has invaded Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Somalia and has “assisted”, or invaded by proxy, in a host of other invasions.

In addition, threats have been issued to North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Venezuela and others that, “Military action is not off the table,” as regards future military adventures.

Along the way, warfare’s ugly twin – debt – has joined in. The US, once the world’s foremost creditor nation, is now both the world’s foremost aggressor nation and the world’s foremost debtor nation at the same time.

But the US has a problem that neither Spain nor France had in the nineteenth century. It has no colonies to peddle. The US certainly can’t offer up the Louisiana territory to other nations, to pay its unmanageable debt.

In one sense, the American people can rest easy that the US will not be selling off bits of real estate in a fire sale, when the notes come due. But unfortunately, that very fact means that the only other possible outcome – economic collapse – will occur.

At some point in the near future, America Inc. will almost certainly go bust.

But as always, the world will not come to an end. The assets and wealth of the world will simply change hands, as they have done since time immemorial.

The grand experiment that began in 1776 will come to an end, as all once-great nations do. The US will continue to exist, but as a shadow of its former self, in the manner of the failed empires before it.

When we look back, we may find that the final event that triggers collapse was in fact minor, but was the perennial “last straw.”

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post National Fire Sale appeared first on LewRockwell.

If the last twenty-five years have taught us anything, it’s that people who work in the government are absolutely abysmal at quantifying and managing the risks of their own ambitious schemes. Already in 2020, Dr. McCullough and I intuitively sensed that the COVID-19 mass vaccination program was a major gamble that would probably end up blowing up in the faces of the people who so aggressively pushed it.

To be sure, it would only eventually blow up in their faces if they allowed the truth of the matter to come out. For at least two years now, we have been in the cover-up phase of this criminal misadventure—not only in the United States, but also in the UK, Europe, and Australia.

C.J. Hopkins—an insanely persecuted American ex-pat author in Berlin—just mentioned on his Substack an extraordinary commentary in the Berliner Zeitung.

Please check out (below) my translation of this excellent essay.

Traffic light coalition cancels Corona investigation: Who would have thought?

Back in September, Lauterbach said, “Anyone who doesn’t review things seems like they have something to hide.” Is anyone surprised by the cancellation of this review? A commentary.

Ruth Schneeberger

“We need this review. I have called for it myself on several occasions,” said Karl Lauterbach less than a month ago in the ARD Report from Berlin. “If we don’t do it,” continued the SPD health minister, “then the impression will simply arise that we have something to hide. Therefore, such a review is necessary and should take place.”

Lauterbach would certainly have liked to have had a reappraisal carried out.

Lauterbach’s own coalition government has now denied him this wish. Some say to protect him.

Lauterbach himself has not exactly been at the forefront of the reappraisal process. In March, on the ZDF morning magazine, he rejected an inquiry commission because this type of reappraisal was “politically charged” and “right-wing groups” would turn the issue into an “ideological battle.”

Then came the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] protocols and the health minister changed his publicly stated opinion surprisingly quickly—not only with regard to their assessment, but also regarding purported “interference by foreign powers.”

At that point, he offered an assurance that he would have the protocols de-redacted as soon as possible—something that has not officially happened during his term of office to date. So now [we are told] he is in favor of a review of Corona policy.

However, the majority of his colleagues apparently do not want such a review. This week, the “traffic light” coalition agreed that there can be no political review of the pandemic in the current legislative period because they cannot agree on what form such a review would take.

This means that there will not be a review of the corona pandemic in this country before 2026, because there will be new elections in September 2025, and after that they will need to resuscitate the issue.

Review á la Citizens’ Council may therefore be discarded

Why is the government is refusing to review the situation?

The SPD’s justification is that the FDP refused to hold a Citizens’ Council. Well, what a surprise. Citizens’ Councils have recently produced such groundbreaking results. In other words, this political issue is simply too hot for the SPD. The actors who voted in favor of the compulsory vaccination are still in office.

Lately it’s become fashionable to reinterpret one’s own role in the pandemic, but in politics, this is more difficult to do than in other domains. Politicians’ votes from this period are public record unless they were secret votes. During the big debate in the Bundestag in April 2022 about compulsory vaccination, the voting behavior of the parties was recorded and is still circulating on the internet.

This is yet another reason why it is still vividly remembered that the SPD and the Greens voted almost unanimously in favor of compulsory vaccination, while everyone else almost entirely voted against. And so, is anyone really surprised that the SPD—which is already having a hard time—is calling off the political review of the pandemic?

There is so much to review—including the vaccination campaign

The voting behavior on compulsory vaccination is also such a popular meme because it shows the extent to which politicians were prepared to put the supposed common good above the possible well-being of the individual. Compulsory vaccination remains an intervention in the body over which the individual can no longer decide.

The fact that vaccination—contrary to all assurances at the time—can go horribly wrong is evidenced by countless vaccine victims, whose fate Karl Lauterbach now says he is touched by. Nevertheless, this does not really prompt him and his colleagues to take action.

To this day, we do not know exactly how many vaccine injured there are, and how they can be helped. We do know, however, that around 20 times more suspected cases were reported to the Paul Ehrlich Institute for corona vaccinations than for other vaccines.

We made it through the pandemic alright in Germany—everything is okay, right? Wrong. The bad consequences are merely poorly concealed. Trust in government, politics and institutions has been permanently damaged; some no longer even trust their own doctors.

The next pandemic is supposedly just around the corner?

A thorough review would also be very important because there are warnings everywhere about new pandemics that are certain to come, sooner or later. The World Health Summit in Berlin will be hotly discussing this prospect over the next three days.

It is ridiculous that the coalition would cancel the review under these circumstances, and the decision could potentially cost them their jobs. Their decision is also negligent.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

The post German Government Cancels Review of Pandemic Response appeared first on LewRockwell.

Christopher Columbus has become one of the most polarizing figures in American history. Our nation used to revere Columbus as one of America’s greatest heroes. Now, he’s one of the Republic’s greatest villains.

Leftist revolutionaries depict Columbus as a power-hungry maniac who wanted to enslave and annihilate the natives. Any honor of Columbus—whether it’s a statue or a holiday—must be torn down and replaced, according to the liberal revolutionaries.

In contrast, the Right depicts Columbus as a nationalist pioneer. The Right defends his legacy as that of a courageous pioneer whose actions led to the eventual formation of the United States of America. However, both sides miss a significant fact from Columbus’ life.

Columbus was not a genocidal villain or a nationalist explorer; he was a saintly man who wanted to win souls for Christ. Columbus should be revered as America’s saintly founder.

Columbus, indeed, was a man of Providence. From his landing in the Americas on the feast of Our Lady of Pillar on October 12, 1492, to the etymology of his name, Columbus’ life was guided by the hand of God. Christopher, which means Christ-bearer, and Columbus, which relates to the dove, the common symbol of the Holy Spirit, shows that his name reflected a great mission that God had bestowed on him.

Columbus did not fail to live up to his namesake. He sought to follow the command of the Great Commission and evangelize all the natives he encountered. Often, modern history books fail to discuss Columbus’ desire to evangelize, but this desire served as one of the primary factors for his mission.

An entry in his journal states,

I gave them many beautiful and pleasing things, which I had brought with me, for no return whatever, to win their affection, and that they might become Christians and inclined to love our King and Queen and Princes and all the people of Spain; and that they might be eager to search for and gather and give to us what they abound in and we greatly need. 

Columbus—like all Catholics at that time—understood that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and that baptism is essential for salvation. Columbus’ first instinct was not to murder the natives but to save their souls. The pagan natives were in desperate need of a massive reordering of their culture, and Columbus provided them with the path to salvation. While many Spaniards wanted to exploit the natives, Columbus chose to defend their rights and dignity.

Pope Leo XIII recognized this zeal, as he wrote in Quarto Abeunte Saeculo, “Columbus resolved to go before and prepare the ways for the Gospel, and, deeply absorbed in this idea, gave all his energies to it, attempting hardly anything without religion for his guide and piety for his companion.”

In a field full of prideful men and arrogance, Columbus remained the shining light for all men to imitate. Samuel Eliot Morison wrote in Admiral of the Ocean Sea that

Columbus was a Man with a Mission, and such men are apt to be unreasonable and disagreeable to those who cannot see the mission…He was Man alone with God against human stupidity and depravity, against greedy conquistadors, cowardly seamen, even against nature and the sea.

Read the Whole Article

The post Christopher Columbus: America’s Saintly Founder appeared first on LewRockwell.

Do you want to live in a society where you are required to have your face scanned wherever you go?  If not, you may want to speak up now while you still can.  As you will see below, the U.S. government is aggressively expanding the use of facial recognition technology for identification verification purposes.  For now, the use of facial recognition technology will be optional.  But as we have seen before, once a voluntary option is adopted by enough people our leaders have a way of making it mandatory.  Of course it isn’t just our government that is pushing facial recognition technology.  It is popping up throughout our society, and given enough time it would literally be everywhere.

Login.gov is billed as “a single sign-on solution for US government websites”, and now users of Login.gov will be given the option to use facial recognition technology to verify their identities…

An online hub for Americans to access benefits and services across the federal government is giving its users a new option to sign on.

The General Services Administration will begin offering facial recognition technology as an option for users of Login.gov, a one-stop for government-provided public services, to verify their identities.

GSA’s Technology Transformation Services announced Wednesday it will allow Login.gov users to verify their identity online through facial technology that meets standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) guidelines.

We are being told that this will help reduce identity theft and fraud, and I don’t know anyone that likes identity theft and fraud.

But do we really want to live in a dystopian world where our faces are constantly being scanned all the time?

I certainly don’t.

We are being told that this new facial recognition system will rely on “best-in-class facial matching algorithms”…

After months of testing and a delay in 2023, users will now be able to verify their identity using a ‘proven facial matching technology’ approved by the General Services Administration, which will follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and will rely on ‘best-in-class facial matching algorithms’

All of this sounds really creepy to me.

And this is certainly a way for the government to start getting all of our faces into a giant database.

Login.gov already has more than 100 million users, and lots of them will inevitably choose the “convenience” and “security” of facial recognition…

Federal agencies use Login.gov for people to verify their identities when logging in to access government benefits and services. The offering has over 100 million users already across over 50 federal and state agencies, and this news could affect how future users have to verify their identity to access information and benefits.

“Proving your identity is a critical step in receiving many government benefits and services, and we want to ensure we are making that as easy and secure as possible for members of the public, while protecting against identity theft and fraud,” said GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan in a statement.

For now, you will still be able to use other identification verification options.

But once most people start using facial recognition, those other options could easily be taken away.

Sadly, it isn’t just the government that we need to be concerned about.

AI programs such as ChatGPT have turned out to be quite adept at identifying faces…

Using “a crafted prompt designed to bypass the safeguard mechanisms of ChatGPT,” the researchers were able to test the program’s biometric capabilities – which they found to be significant.

“Our study reveals that ChatGPT recognizes facial identities and differentiates between two facial images with considerable accuracy,” says their summary. “Additionally, experimental results demonstrate remarkable performance in gender detection and reasonable accuracy for the age estimation tasks.”

Even more alarming is what a couple of Harvard students have been able to accomplish.

They integrated PimEyes facial recognition software into a pair of Meta’s smart glasses, and they were able to instantly pull up the personal information of strangers by scanning their faces…

Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses offer an iconic wearable packed with some smart features that allow users to engage in a hands-free experience. Two Harvard students have integrated smart glasses with a facial recognition system that helps automatically dox strangers and access their information in public.

According to 404media, the facial recognition system called I-XRAY can be used to retrieve information such as phone numbers, addresses, or even social security numbers of strangers. All the user needs to do is look at the person. While software capabilities have been making the rounds, it is the hardware running the software that has been the talk of the town, which is Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses.

Nguyen and Ardayfio created I-XRAY using Meta’s smart glasses along with PimEyes facial recognition software, which is currently the largest search engine. The entire system of fetching information on the individual is automatic, and the smart glasses start digging the data as soon as the face is in the frame.

If we stay on the current trajectory that we are on, it would likely only be a matter of time before this sort of technology is everywhere.

Can you imagine what criminals could do with this?

A predator would not even need to follow you home.  He could just scan your face without you even realizing it, and by scanning your face he could get your address, your phone number, and a whole host of other private details about your life.

A lot of people out there just don’t get it.

In a society without any privacy, the bad guys can always find you.

Of course in a society without any privacy, there would be no hiding from tyranny either.

When facial recognition technology is literally everywhere, there will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Every time your face is scanned, your location will be known.

Needless to say, most people already carry around phones that constantly monitor where they are anyway.

But as the Big Brother surveillance grid that is being constructed all around us becomes even more pervasive, it won’t be too long before there is literally no opting out.

I have been a very vocal advocate for privacy for over a decade, but during that time our privacy rights have been greatly eroded.

Now is the time to take a stand, because once our privacy rights are completely gone it will be nearly impossible to get them back.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post The U.S. Government Is Dramatically Expanding the Use of Facial Recognition Technology appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many people oppose the free market because it leads to inequality of wealth and income. It is unfair, they say, that some people have vastly more money than others. Some defenders of the free market respond that these inequalities, while undesirable in themselves, make the poor better off than they would be otherwise, and so should be accepted. Another argument made by defenders of the free market is that restricting inequality would interfere liberty, so that, although inequality is bad, we have to put up with it.

While it is true that inequality makes the poor better off and that restricting inequality interferes with liberty, these are not the best arguments that defenders of the free market should use. They accept that inequality is bad, but we should reject this assumption. There is nothing bad about inequality.

People are unequal in every dimension of their being, including weight, height, muscle build, intelligence, and so on. This just the way the world is. Why should we try to change it? People who attempt this have a grudge against the world. They are not satisfied with the way God created it.

And of course they can’t succeed. As the great Murray Rothbard points out, absolute equality is impossible. No two places on earth, for example, offer precisely the same view.

If we shouldn’t defend the free market by arguing that it decreases equality, what should we do? Fortunately, there are many better arguments available. I’m going to list a number of them, but if you want more details, you should read Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market and Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action.

One of the best of these arguments is that the free market makes possible mutually beneficial gains from trade. If I have something that you want and you have something I want, we can make an exchange, so we are both better off. But what if our exchange makes someone else worse off? This question is a version of the “externalities” or “market failure” argument. The claim is that some of our activities, including trade, impose costs on others. If so, this indicates a failure to define property rights. Once we do so, the so-called “problem” dissolves.

This obviously raises another question. How do people acquire property rights? The best answer is given by Rothbard, further developed and extended by the great Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Everybody owns himself and, given that the earth starts out unowned, he can “mix his labor” with the land and thus acquire it.

Before leaving externalities aside, we should note another important argument. People who talk about externalities want the government to correct them, but what reason is there to think that the government will change things so that the supposedly “correct” amount is produced? There is every reason to think that the government will make matters worse.

There is an assumption that we have been making so far that should now be dropped. This assumption is that in deciding what sort of economic system to adopt, we have a choice. We can pick the free market, socialism, or some intermediate system that is a mixture of the free market and socialism. For any developed economy, this is not so, as Mises proved in his famous article “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” (1920), expanded into his great book Socialism. Mises proved that without free market prices, economic calculation is impossible. Entrepreneurs cannot tell whether their investments are profitable. So, they are unable to use their resources efficiently. If they cannot do this, the economy will collapse into chaos.

Further, there is no third system intermediate between the free market and socialism. Interference with the market fails to achieve the ostensible goals of its supporters. Minimum wage laws create unemployment. Price controls lead to shortages. Faced with failure, the interventionists must either return to the free market or intervene again, in an effort to remedy the defects of the previous intervention. If this is continued, there will be no free market left. The result will be full-scale socialism, which has already been shown to be impossible.

How did the socialists and interventionists respond to Mises’s conclusive demonstration that their schemes cannot work? They denied the existence of economic laws that restricted what they could do. As Mises says in Human Action, “It is a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the debates concerning the essence, scope, and logical character of economics to dismiss them as the scholastic quibbling of pedantic professors. It is a widespread misconception that while pedants squandered useless talk about the most appropriate method of procedure, economics itself, indifferent to these idle disputes, went quietly on its way. In the Methodenstreit between the Austrian economists and the Prussian Historical School, the self-styled ‘intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern,’ and in the discussions between the school of John Bates Clark and American Institutionalism much more was at stake than the question of what kind of procedure was the most fruitful one. The real issue was the epistemological foundations of the science of human action and its logical legitimacy. Starting from an epistemological system to which praxeological thinking was strange and from a logic which acknowledged as scientific–besides logic and mathematics–only the empirical natural sciences and history, many authors tried to deny the value and usefulness of economic theory. Historicism aimed at replacing it by economic history; positivism recommended the substitution of an illusory social science which should adopt the logical structure and pattern of Newtonian mechanics. Both these schools agreed in a radical rejection of all the achievements of economic thought. It was impossible for the economists to keep silent in the face of all these attacks.”

Thus, it’s the free market or nothing. We are fortunate that the only economic system is on that benefits everybody through the chance of making mutually advantageous exchanges.

This point leads to another argument we can use to defend the free market. In the free market, it’s to my advantage that others do well, because they can offer more goods and services to exchange. This will promote peace between nations. Why go to war with people who are making you better off?

Given the abundance of excellent arguments in favor of the free market, there is no need to use argument that accept the enemy’s premise that equality is a good thing. Let’s do everything that we can to support the genuine arguments in favor of the free market, as best expounded by Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

The post Why Equality Is Bad appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since the job that was actually assigned to [the Fed] by Congressman Carter Glass back in 1913 is now vestigial and long gone, and the financial system has been flooded with massive liquidity for decades on end, it might well be time to declare victory and let the free market take care of jobs, growth, inflation and prosperity. — David Stockman

Let’s take a closer look at the job Congressman Carter Glass assigned to the government’s new central bank, the Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

The first thing to notice is it’s a creature of government, not the market, otherwise there would be no need to support the Fed with a legislative act, which gave it the status of a state-backed cartel.

It’s crucial to understand that the push for central banking was part of the Progressive Era feature of business partnering with government in its war against competition.  Mergers on the free market had failed for various reasons, including internal conflicts among members, challenges from new entrants in the market, and new competing markets altogether, such as the new motor vehicle industry that emerged in 1893 and by 1895 saw “thirty American manufacturers producing 2,500 motor vehicles.”  It became evident that large industries needed to partner with government to establish their cartels.  As historian Gabriel Kolko explains:

The net effect of federal legislation, and usually the intent, was to implement the economic-political goals of some group within an industry. The pervasive reality of the period is big business’ control of politics set in the context of the political regulation of the economy.

Big bankers’ goal in reform was a law that would authorize a central bank to create a more inflatable (“elastic”) currency and control uniform rates of inflation among member banks.  In this way banks would avoid currency drains and hoped to reduce the likelihood of those dreaded and embarrassing bank runs.

The six-week Panic of 1907, triggered by Knickerbocker Trust Company’s president, Charles T. Barney, inaugurated the movement for a radical revision of the US monetary system.  Barney had joined with two other speculators in a failed attempt to corner the market on copper, sparking a run on Knickerbocker.  The Trust sought aid from J. P. Morgan but based on its lack of solvency Morgan refused.  After losing $8 million in withdrawals Knickerbocker closed its doors but the fear was already spreading to national banks.  The New York Stock Exchange suffered a shocking rise in call money interest rates, and only Morgan’s ability to function as a central bank over a two-week period saved several trust companies and kept the NYSE open.

It was no surprise that the Panic hit the NYC trusts first.  By law, the trusts held “a low percentage of cash reserves relative to deposits, around 5 percent, compared with 25 percent for national banks. Because trust-company deposit accounts were demandable in cash, trusts were just as susceptible to runs on deposits as were banks.”

What was the economy like in the late 19th century?

The message we hear today is deflation is bad — but bad for whom?  From 1870-1912 the dollar had an average annual deflation rate of -0.71, producing a cumulative price change of -25.95%.  Dollar holders increased their wealth just by holding dollars, as it only took $0.74 in 1912 to buy what $1.00 would in 1870.  According to the St. Louis Fed, during the same period the economy increased total physical production by 550%, yielding one of the most prosperous economies in history.  But during the years preceding the anticipated crisis, 1900-1907, bank credit expansion produced a cumulative price increase of 11.90%.

Because the solution they sought required a federal charter, the bankers united with politicians, who they already knew socially, to agitate for a central bank.  The ultra-secret meeting at Jekyll Island in November of 1910 therefore consisted of six of the most influential bankers and politicians of the day, representing an estimated one-fourth of the world’s wealth.  Long denied as a groundless conspiracy theory the meeting was confirmed in 1935 by one of the attendees, Frank Vanderlip, President of National City Bank (Citibank) and a century later celebrated publicly by the Fed itself, “in a remarkable show of both contempt and hubris.”

Paul Warburg, a partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co who had an extensive background in European banking, was the chief architect of the plan that emerged from Jekyll, but for political reasons it bore the name of another attendee, Nelson W. Aldrich, a Republican Senator from Rhode Island and Chairman of the National Monetary Commission.

The initial plan, which with only non-essential changes became the Federal Reserve Act, consisted of a National Reserve Association located in Washington that would preside over fifteen major regions.  Private bankers from the regions would elect the forty-five board members in Washington, with each region electing no more than four members — thereby eliminating the possibility of Wall Street control.  The attendees’ challenge was to secure political backing for the plan while avoiding any suggestion that it was a scheme of Wall Street.

Playing the politicians

What followed from 1910 to the bill’s passage in 1913 was an exercise in mass psychology.  The Jekyll attendees promoted the plan among bankers and the public through articles and speeches.:

A special monetary conference of all business organizations, convened by the National Board of Trade in January, 1911, passed a resolution, written by Warburg, endorsing the Aldrich Plan. At the beginning of February twenty-two key bankers from twelve cities met in Atlantic City to consider the Aldrich Plan. Sessions were closed, and all the conference publicly declared at the end of three days’ discussion was that it endorsed the plan and would actively support it.  (Kolko)

On the political side, progressive Democrats were winning favor with the public, Republican President William Howard Taft and former president Theodore Roosevelt were fighting over reforms, with the progressive Roosevelt deciding to run against him as a third party candidate in the election of 1912.  The Republican split helped Democrat Woodrow Wilson win, with socialist Eugene Debs, the fourth candidate, gaining nearly a million popular votes.

With the Democrats running the show in Congress and the White House, the Aldrich Bill now faced a political firing squad, though in name only.  Who better to pick up the issue of banking reform than the Democratic Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Congressman Carter Glass of Virginia, who by his own admission had virtually no technical knowledge of banking?  To provide guidance and actually write the bill he hired a young economics professor from Washington and Lee University, H. Parker Willis.

In a House report of September 9, 1913, Glass and his committee announced their reasons for rejecting the Aldrich Bill:  It lacked adequate government control; it threw voting control into the larger banks; there was “extreme danger of inflation” in the bill; and it had “dangerous monopolistic aspects.”

All of it true, of course.

Then he presented his own bill, drafted by Willis, which in every important detail was the Aldrich Bill brought back from the dead.  Warburg, to assuage the cartel’s worries and establish himself as the real author of the bill, published a side-by-side comparison of the Aldrich and Glass proposals.  Not only were they in agreement on all essential provisions, but in some cases were identical in wording.

With many of the biggest names on Wall Street objecting to the Glass-Owen Bill (Robert D. Owen was the sponsor in the Senate) and having been previously exposed during the Pujo hearings as constituting a powerful “Money Trust,” the proposed legislation seemed like the perfect antidote to Wall Street influence in banking.  When President Wilson, himself a banking neophyte, signed Glass-Owen into law on December 23, 1913 it had the support of the majority of Congress.  Had government finally solved the problem of monetary inelasticity?  Perhaps the problem had been invented.

Returning to Mr. Stockman’s suggestion that it might be time for the Fed to “declare victory” and let the free market work, he wants nothing less than to save civilization.  But Fed inflation is too opaque a method of theft and too much loved by those who profit from it for our overlords to get rid of it.

The post How the Bankers Outfoxed the Politicians appeared first on LewRockwell.

It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s  180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by  CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election.

The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.

As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial.

Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.

With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.

If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others.  Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.

For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.

Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.

It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

The post Adversarial Process or Oppo Research? Judge Agrees To Release More Trump Material Before the Election appeared first on LewRockwell.

On September 27, my father’s birthday, a devastating storm- Hurricane Helene- cut a swath of destruction through six states, with the most damage occurring in western North Carolina. Many residents of western North Carolina didn’t even have flood insurance. With good reason. The area wasn’t considered a flood zone.

I’m sure almost everyone reading this has seen the heart wrenching videos, of residents reporting how they witnessed close family members being washed away. How they’d lost their homes. Lost everything. But most significantly, how they’d witnessed, or experienced themselves, FEMA, local law enforcement, and the National Guard, doing all they could to prevent rescue efforts. If this seems incomprehensible, it is. Untold numbers of average, good hearted Samaritans showed up, ready to help out their fellow citizens. And the “authorities” prevented them from doing that. One guy flew his own helicopter to rescue an elderly couple in the mountains. He left his co-pilot, who was his son, behind as he took the woman down first (he didn’t want to have too much weight in the craft). Law enforcement threatened to arrest him if he went back up and rescued her husband, and picked up his son. As Howard Cosell used to say, “Hard to believe!”

I have said that Americans seem to have no tipping point. After all, they have tolerated a corruption that the world has never seen before, for many decades. Without a whimper of protest. If a multitude of accounts, from those on the site of the disaster, all saying the same thing- that governmental authorities are impeding efforts, not facilitating them- don’t present a tipping point, what exactly would? If they promoted some ridiculous rapper calling himself King Herod, who was running for public office on a pledge to demand the first born of every family in America, would that be enough? If they ordered you to ask permission of the local police force before deciding to drink alcohol inside your own home, would that be enough? Is that really much worse than telling your White kindergartner that he/she should feel guilt about his/her “White Privilege?” Or stocking Gender Queer in the school library?

Everything about the tragic event in North Carolina seems planned. Coordinated. Contrived. Nothing about a tropical storm that turns that deadly that quickly seems natural. I’m no meteorologist, but I do know that hurricanes seem to cause the most devastation the closer to the ocean they are. This one wasn’t close to the ocean. There were mountains there that probably never thought they’d see a hurricane. And now Hurricane Milton is on the way. Once again, it will target areas where most of the population supports Trump. That’s odd for a random hurricane to be so politically biased. I live several states up the coast from Florida, but I’ll stay indoors because it’s likely that Milton won’t like “conspiracy theorists” very much, either. I’m getting really fatigued over all this “extreme” weather. It didn’t used to be so common. Kind of like autism. Maybe I’ll call it Chronic Weather Fear Porn Syndrome.

In his song Louisiana 1927, Randy Newman talked about how “they’re trying to wash us away.” Indeed, it does seem like the weather- and whoever it is that is controlling it now- has something against the common riffraff. I don’t recall a single instance of a hurricane or a tornado demolishing gated mansions anywhere. But they’ve hit plenty of trailer parks. Newman devoted an entire LP to the great Huey Long, Good Old Boys. Huey’s great-granddaughter didn’t even know about that until I told her. I hope she bought the album. Huey used the fact that the city leaders of New Orleans had blown up the levy during the flood, thereby causing many to lose businesses and homes, as a campaign issue. We would hear the same claim almost eighty years later during Hurricane Katrina, when some “wacko” Black residents claimed that the authorities had blown up the levies. Well, they’d done it before.

The “crazy” residents of New Orleans also claimed that the police were firing at them. And not because some of them were looting stores. In the 2010 Haiti earthquake, we heard more fantastic allegations. Did they use Nikola Tesla’s invention of an earthquake machine? Why couldn’t they have used his free energy discovery instead, I wonder? At any rate, the Clinton Foundation was deeply involved, and the conspiracy folks were all over that, connecting them to human trafficking there. Activist Monica Peterson later traveled to Haiti to investigate the trafficking claims, and wound up hanged in November, 2016. That happens to a lot of those associated with the Clintons. It’s a Body Count thing, you wouldn’t understand. Rumors were that Hillary also helped rig a Haitian election to help her brother’s company. Well, how hard can it be to rig an election in Haiti? Look at what they’re doing here.

We all remember those pictures of residents on top of their roofs in New Orleans, waving in vain for someone to rescue them. Dubya was rightfully criticized for taking two days to respond to the catastrophe. That was inexcusable enough, but the Biden/ Harris administration took a week. You have to come up with a new adjective to describe that. Inexplicable? Befuddling? Criminal? Evil? Biden, being the president, was pretty much invisible, as he usually is. It’s unknown if he even comprehends what happened. Countess Cackula was photographed in front of a laptop on I guess Air Force Two, with the earphones unplugged. Not clear what she was doing. She did appear, to advise the survivors to apply online for the generous $750 that FEMA was providing. If that doesn’t seem like much to you, you don’t understand Bidenomics. Cackula didn’t explain how they’d apply since the storm knocked out all power.

As Randy Newman noted, apparently thousands of these poor souls were literally “washed away” by this super storm that was almost certainly created through manipulation of the weather. Trump lost a lot of votes there, and these dead people will not be among the increasing number of the dearly departed who make their presence known at the polls. Dead voters seem to almost exclusively favor the Democrats. Never having been a dead voter, this is something I can’t pretend to understand. I mean no disrespect to those who lost their lives so senselessly here, or to the grieving loved ones they left behind. I have to try and find humor in these things. It’s the only way I can write about them. Initially, a paltry 500 troops were sent to the area, which was another tremendous slap in the face to the people there. Meanwhile, thousands of U.S. troops were sent to the Middle East at the same time.

If you had any doubts about how your government feels about you, how it values your life, their response to Hurricane Helene should tell you all you need to know. They don’t care about you. In fact, they hate you. You are the “worthless eaters” Henry Kissinger spoke so fondly of. And they’re all eugenicists, so this is natural. They want as many of you to die as possible. It’s just logistics to determine how best to do that. A deadly “warp speed” vaccine? Yes, that will cull the herd nicely. Strategically placed weather disasters? Sure, and if anyone questions them, just attribute it all to “Climate Change.” I never even heard of “hurricane season,” or “category 4 or 5” when I was young. Well, when you have a 24 hour Weather Channel, with lots of oldsters obsessed with the weather watching, you need some exciting weather. Mild and sunny doesn’t cut it any more. Sure, viewers may have heart attacks. That’s just collateral damage.

Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he visited Georgia- also impacted by Helene- within hours. It isn’t known if Trump bought McDonald’s for anyone there, as he did after the huge, and now completely forgotten environmental disaster in East Palestine, Ohio. Trump roundly criticized North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. Somebody gave Joe Biden an electroshock treatment, and he was revived long enough to declare that Trump was “lying” about the government’s failed response to the emergency. Biden claimed that it was “disinformation” to report that FEMA had spent a billion on migrants. But that’s what FEMA- not a “conspiracy theorist”- says on their own website. He claimed that FEMA wasn’t only giving $750, when there is video of Vice President Cackula bragging about it. So all those residents are lying, just like Trump. FEMA’s doing a great job. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

That was a theme in mainstream media coverage as well. That relief efforts were being hampered by “disinformation.” Coming, I guess, from all those actual residents. Or the private citizens who were trying to rescue people, and give them supplies, but were prevented from doing so by representatives of our beloved government. Maybe those residents were “fake news.” Crisis actors, if you will. All of our identical, “competing” news outlets are parroting the party line. One headline blared: “After the Deluge, the Lies: Misinformation and Hoaxes About Helene Cloud the Recovery.” No, I think what’s “clouding” (I guess the writer liked puns) the recovery is the government authorities stopping it from happening. CNN gasps about the White House’s “desperate scramble” to “swat down hurricane misinformation.” Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is snickering, “See, I told you we need to prosecute this stuff.”

Read the Whole Article

The post America 2.0- A Category 5 Disaster appeared first on LewRockwell.

Imagine a man rolling a bowling ball down the alley and knocking over some pins. There is nothing extraordinary about this imaging. Now imagine the pins at the end of the alley rolling the bowling ball back toward the bowler. Now this is an extraordinary image. This is also precisely what has occurred with Hurricane Milton. The storm system generated off the coast of Mexico and targeted Florida. Hurricane alley sent the storm back up the alley….

Weather manipulation has been around in some form since at least 1947. Lorenz, known for the Butterfly Effect, talked about weather manipulation in the 1960s. There are plenty patents and documents regarding weather manipulation.

Recently, Dane Wiggington of GeoEngineeringwatch.org appeared in this interview on retired colonel Douglas MacGregor’s podcast to discuss weather warfare and the targeting of Appalachia area of North Carolina with Hurricane Helene. Dane stated that he spoke with legislators in North Carolina and presented evidence of weather warfare to them:

“I have an hour conference call yesterday with the representatives and senators from the Carolinas, and we presented the data to them to answer their questions about how this manipulation occurs,” Wigington said.

“They realized this was not a natural event. They’re trying to digest the fact that their states were literally under assault from weather modification operations that are clearly connected to the DoD operations.”

“They’re in shock. Because when you realize you’re literally at war with those who control the federal government, how does one digest that?”

In this interview with Attorney Todd Callender, Todd reports that not only do the patents exists, there are also laws that codify weather manipulation. Callender predicted that weather warfare will continue, not only in the form of storms, but also fires and other manmade disasters masquerading as natural phenomenon. This appears part of the larger goal to exterminate most of the human race.

The mass murder in North Carolina and parts of Tennessee are summarized well in this article by Dr. Peter Breggin and his wife Ginger Breggin. Supplies have been blocked and confiscated rather than allowed to aid the people suffering from the devastation. Private individuals with helicopters and other vehicles have been threatened with arrest if they try and save people.

FEMA claims to lack money and resources, yet its widely reported that it subsidizes illegal aliens. In the 30 days prior to Hurricane Helene the federal government gave 8 billion to subsidize death in destruction in Ukraine, and another 8.7 billion to subsidize death and destruction in Israel and the Middle East. Literally, politicians are stealing from the people in Appalachia and giving their money to illegal aliens and to subsidize unnecessary wars that could lead to world war. Apparently, this twisted campaign of murder and destruction is partly driven by lithium deposits in Appalachia area of North Carolina that is desired by the DOD. The short-term effect on the elections should be an obvious agenda as well.

The use of weather warfare emboldens government, disempowers the individual, creates a permanent state of crises, and furthers the anti human narrative that climate change is unnatural and humans are a parasite on this planet.

Still, weather warfare may not be enough. A recent DoD directive reported on InfoWars.com expands domestic military authority to include lethal force:

“Defense Intelligence Components may provide personnel to assist a Federal department or agency, including a Federal law enforcement agency, or a State or local law enforcement agency when lives are in danger, in response to a request for such assistance, in accordance with the following approval authorities..

(a) Provision of personnel to support response efforts for civil disturbances, which may also require Presidential authorization.

(b) DoD response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive incidents.

(c) Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury. It also includes all support to civilian law enforcement officials in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated.

Pointing out the obvious, the federal government has claimed for as long as I remember that it would be unlawful to place the military on the border. Apparently, the federal government considers it lawful to use the military to kill American citizens on American soil.

Consider that the directive states that the use of force is being justified if lives are in danger and in response to biological incidents. Imagine during the height of COVID the use of lethal force by the military targeting the unvaccinated or those refusing to quarantine or wear a mask.

Read the Whole Article

The post Weather Warfare, Domestic Military Force, and Marburg appeared first on LewRockwell.

Was it the wrath of grapes, or just another New York Times fake news story? The full-page article was written by two mugs, a man and a woman, who even had the audacity to allow their byline to appear, surely a new low in mendacity of a nonstory. Needless to say it had to do with a black man, not surprisingly one accused of rape, abduction, violence—you name it, he’s done it against women. Step forward the Diddler, aka Puff Daddy, or Sean Combs.

The Times coverage of black artists, black athletes, black politicians, and even black criminals (in a very positive way, mind you) takes up most of its pages. Here’s the article’s opening line on Puff Daddy: “In the 2000s, few events held the cultural cachet of the White Party given by Sean Combs…” Cultural cachet? Where do these two morons writing such outrageous garbage come from? Deepest, yet undiscovered, Africa, or another planet altogether? Puff Daddy and culture are like comparing the Gulag archipelago to a wellness retreat in Palm Beach. Sean Combs was, is, and always will be a violent criminal whose parties were attended by lunch-bucket pilferers, assorted body snatchers, smiling wallet lifters, and bald-faced phonies, not to mention out-and-out gangsters and killers. Yet because of the color of his skin, the mendacious Times compares his parties to some 19th-century Vienna ball attended by nobles and aristocrats. Thankfully, for those who are dumb enough to read the Times, there were accompanying pictures that somehow contradicted the ass-licking tone of the piece: Mostly black people in white, the only one I recognized was that arch hustler and proven liar Al Sharpton, a man as far as I know not related to Prince Metternich or the Princes Schoenburg.

“The shameless gimmickry, smuttiness, and stupidity of such writing does not need any explaining; it’s pure Times.”

Never mind. Here’s Puff Daddy’s response to some rude comments about his parties: “It’s disappointing to see the media and social commentators twist these unique cultural moments into something they were not.” This sentence must have been heavily edited, because the one time I had the bad luck to hear this bum talking, I was anchored in St. Tropez and his ghastly rental gin palace dropped anchor next to me, and I could hear him using the f-word before, after, and in the middle of every word. He then goes on, always according to the mendacious Times, “that shaming celebrities who attended, taking videos and photos out of context, and trying to link these events to false allegations is simply untrue.” Good for you, Puffy, not a single f-bomb; my, how you’ve changed.

His lawyer has stated that although an imperfect person, Puffy is not a criminal. If his lawyer says so it must be true, and I must be mistaken. But I’m writing about the ghastly Times, not the rapist-cum-beater of women and crypto-homosexual. The bloodhounds are trying to sniff out who the A-list man in bed with Puff Daddy is, in noble pursuit of the truth. It makes one rather ashamed to be called a journalist, but such are the joys of modern American culture, and that goes for Britain also. (The Brits are even worse, pretending to be shocked, shocked at such goings-on.) That Puff Daddy had a broad reach is undeniable, but reaching for celebrities isn’t exactly the same as reaching for cultural cachet. The Hamptons, where most of the White Parties took place, are dotted with private clubs, beach clubs, tennis clubs, and gentlemen’s clubs. They are necessary in order to keep out hoi polloi, or down-and-dirty scoundrels like Puff Daddy. And I would bet my bottom dollar that not a single person belonging to any of the proper clubs in the Hamptons has ever set foot in one of Puffy’s orgies, cultural cachet or no cultural cachet.

In an era of insane disinformation, this description of Puff Daddy’s parties stands out for its mendacity and slavishness to celebrity. It’s like comparing a paintball-gun-splatter paint job to an El Greco. But leave it to the Times to euphemize a black gangster’s torture of women. Imagine if a Trump voter had been accused of similar horrors; the Sulzberger gang would have run out of newsprint with special editions.

And another thing: This unmentionable antiwhite and anti-right sheet accused Trump last Sunday of planning to seek revenge against his enemies in case he wins the presidency. What I find amusing is that the accusation fits exactly what the Biden administration has done to Trump by dragging him through court after court and trying to bankrupt him with fines. In other words, what the administration has already done to Donald Trump, the Times is predicting a newly elected Donald will do to his opponents. It is like listening to children arguing who did what to whom. And there are people who still take the Times seriously.

Read the Whole Article

The post Party Lines appeared first on LewRockwell.

This past Monday was the anniversary of the Hamas military assault against the occupation forces of Israel and the beginning of Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza—and now the West Bank and Lebanon.

As Scott Ritter said in an interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Monday, “The world will never be the same. What happened a year ago today has forever changed the world.”

Ritter is absolutely right. As Scott also said in that interview, “The world now sees Israel as the genocidal apartheid state that it has always been.”

I truly pray for Scott Ritter’s safety. Without a doubt, he is among the most courageously truthful spokesmen on the national stage today. There is no one in America with more knowledge of the military and geopolitical affairs of the Middle East—especially Israel—than Scott Ritter. But along with his vast knowledge and experience, he possesses lionlike courage to tell the truth about the Zionist state.

Remember that Ritter was once a solid supporter of Israel—as was I. Scott’s eyes were opened to the truth of Zionist Israel via different circumstances than mine, but only God can remove the scales of blindness from a man’s heart—especially the strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11) of Zionist Israel—so I rejoice in Scott’s clear vision of truth regarding the Zionist state by whatever means it came.

What Scott reported in his interview with The Judge is MUST-VIEWING. I urge readers to watch the complete interview. This column focuses on some of the salient parts of that interview.

Ritter:

This is about part of the global realignment. I mean, let’s be honest. The Israeli-American relationship is an unnatural relationship when it comes to the geopolitical balance. It’s at odds with the natural sense of balance that exists in the Middle East. Israel is…I was going to say an abomination, which it is, but it’s also a cancer. It’s a cancerous tumor attached to the Middle East that disrupts the natural functioning of everything, and it’s sustained by its relationship with America.

The world now sees Israel as the genocidal apartheid state that it has always been but has somehow fooled us all into believing it didn’t exist. And they see America as a nation that has totally lost touch with its founding principles: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

If that’s truly what America stands for—statements written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence—then why do we support a nation that commits genocide, that’s an apartheid state, that thinks it’s okay to kill women and children by the thousands as part of collective punishment in total disregard for international law?

The fact that the world is seeing Israel for what it is: a cancerous tumor that has to be excised. You can’t allow cancer to continue to survive in the human body; it must be excised. And this is what’s going to happen to Israel. It won’t be violent. I believe Israel will probably die from self-immolation. It’ll collapse from within.

Israel has become, Zionism has become, a notion that’s no longer compatible with civilized society. And you’re going to see people turning their back on Israel, and you’re going to start to see Israelis flee Israel. And at some point in time, when a sufficient number of Israelis have fled Israel, it’ll become demographically impossible to sustain, and that will be the end of Israel. That’s the future of Israel.

Israel has never been weaker and more unstable than it is today. And it’s solely because of the so-called leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu. When the history of the decline of Israel is written, Benjamin Netanyahu will be the man who destroyed Israel singularly. He’s the man who made it happen.

As I listen to Scott Ritter, it’s almost like he’s watching my sermons, though I doubt that he is. But as you read the last paragraph above, compare it to my three-message trilogy on one DVD entitled End-Time Israel, especially the last message in that trilogy entitled Jerusalem Was Ground To Powder Once: Could It Happen Again?

Ritter continues:

Israel can be wiped out tomorrow. Iran is prepared to fire 2,000 missiles against Israel in a span of time encompassing just a few hours. These missiles would destroy the entire infrastructure of Israel. I’m talking about every power plant, every water purification plant, anything that deals with modern civilized society will be eliminated, because it can’t be defended, and there’s nothing Israel has to fall back upon. They will literally be put back into the Stone Age. And that’s not using nuclear weapons. Three to five nuclear weapons takes Israel off the face of the earth. There will be no Israel. That’s the reality of Israel today. That’s the weakness that Benjamin Netanyahu has brought upon the Israeli State and the Israeli people.

Policy-wise we continue to labor under the pretense that we can influence the Israelis, even though we’ve been lied to by them over and over again. We know what Israel’s policies are. Nothing Israel is doing is taking us by surprise. But we like to believe that the United States can put pressure on Israel. So, I’m not going to say that our diplomacy was a facade. What I’m going to say is, it was dangerously naive and very deceptive of us, because diplomacy isn’t just about what we’re trying to get Israel to do; it’s what we led the Iranians and Hezbollah and Hamas to believe we could get Israel to do. And they bought into it.

Hassan Nasrallah agreed to a ceasefire right before he was murdered by the Israelis. This ceasefire was brokered by the gentleman you [Judge Napolitano] just mentioned, this dual citizen.

Ritter is speaking of Amos Hochstein, an official of the State Department who was born in Israel and fought for the IDF, but now has dual citizenship and holds the office of Deputy Assistant to the President.

Back to Scott:

So, today no one trusts the United States. We will never be trusted in the region again on issues of this nature because it is clear that we cannot control Israel. Israel will do whatever it wants to do. And, more importantly, we know what Israel is getting ready to do, and yet we’re pretending to the rest of the world that we can somehow contain this problem. We can’t. Israel is literally out of control.

Michael McFaul, former US Ambassador to Russia, was on a panel sometime, I believe, last year with John Mearsheimer. And Mearsheimer called him out and said, “That means you lied to the Ukrainians.” And he said, “Of course we lied. That’s what we do. Put on your big boy pants. This is what we do.” It’s not what we do, Mr. Ambassador. You can’t be an ambassador if you lie. Your job is to represent your nation, to tell the truth. You don’t have to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God all the time, but you don’t lie. But we have become a nation of liars. This is what we do. Tony Blinken is a liar. Jake Sullivan is a liar. Joe Biden is a liar. When the president of the United States, the commander in chief, is a liar, who can trust us? Who can trust us? Nobody!

Joe Biden, you lost face; you lost all credibility. Donald Trump, I’m warning you: Stop lying.

But American leaders lie. That’s what we do. The American public has come to accept it, and we’ve forgiven them for it. We keep voting them in.

Telling a lie when you’re the leader of the United States of America, either as the commander in chief or as a member of the cabinet, Tony Blinken as the Secretary of State, should be automatically disqualified for any future leadership position and should lead to the immediate nullification of you as a leader, because you’ve just disgraced not only the oath you took but you disgraced the people you represent.

After the “Christian” Mike Pompeo—the darling of the Religious Right—was CIA Director, in a public presentation he laughingly acknowledged how he violated his West Point honor code, which says that “a cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Pompeo cavalierly told his audience: “I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole.” And Christians in his audience gleefully laughed and applauded.

Time after time, we see evangelicals casting aside every Biblical/Christian principle of human decency given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles in God’s Holy Word in order to accommodate and facilitate the worst kind of human conduct—including murder and genocide—committed by Republican politicians. But then those same evangelicals become righteously indignant when Democrats commit the exact same crimes.

Back to the interview:

Napolitano: Last week Dr. Gilbert Doctorow started a small firestorm with you and others on the show when he argued that the United States uses Israel to kill Arabs rather than Israel using the United States to fund its expansion of its land area. Is there any argument to be made for Professor Doctorow’s argument that the United States is using Israel to kill Arabs?

Ritter: We’ve killed far more Arabs than Israel ever has. So, I disagree with him completely. This is what happens when you have businessmen turned academics speaking about issues of the military. The United States is fully capable of killing Arabs anytime, anyplace. We never hesitate to kill Arabs. We don’t need Israel to kill Arabs. What we need Israel to do is create a force of instability in the region. It’s easy to kill Arabs. We do it on a daily basis. We can starve them to death; we can blow them up with bombs. We’ve done it. We’ve killed millions of Arabs. Again, far more Arabs have died because of the United States than because of Israel. So, this is a totally incorrect analysis, because it’s predicated upon a factually incorrect notion that we need Israel to kill Arabs. We kill Arabs better than anybody in the world. We’ve proven that.

Napolitano: Why have we killed Arabs?

Ritter: Because we don’t care about them. They’re not people to us. Look at the terms we use. We call them ragheads. We call them sand you-know-what. We speak of them derisively. We disrespect their religion. We have no appreciation for their culture. We don’t view them as human beings, whether they live far away or even here at home. How many Americans actually have gone out to a mosque to meet the local imam and speak to his following? How many Americans have actually reached out to a Palestinian-American community or Syrian-American Community to say, “Hey, we’d like to get to know you more.” I have. I’ve been invited into their homes, to restaurants, to sit down and break bread with them. These are amazing people; these are human beings. And once you realize that, you realize how evil our policy is towards the Middle East, because we treat them like human animals, just like the Israelis do.

Madeleine Albright didn’t blink when she was told that the sanctions of the United States have killed 500,000—that’s a half a million—Iraqi children. And she said that that’s a price we’re willing to pay. That tells you everything you need to know about how the United States views Arabs. When we’re willing to tolerate the death by starvation and disease of a half a million Iraqi children to fulfill our policy objectives, it means we have no regard for Arab life.

Faithful readers have heard me relate my personal experiences with meeting and interacting with Palestinian Christians when I traveled and spoke throughout Palestine. But I’ll say it again here. These people were among the gentlest, kindest, most compassionate and Christ-like people I have ever met—anywhere.

Yet, America’s evangelical “Christians” condone, justify and cheer on the wanton mass murder of these wonderful people, including some of the sweetest and most tenderhearted women, children and elderly gentlemen on earth. And then those same evangelicals have the audacity to go to church on Sunday and talk about how much they love Jesus. It’s absolutely nauseating!

Napolitano: What do you think will stop the Israeli war and genocide regime?

Ritter: The collapse of Israel from within. That’s ultimately what’s going to do it. I mean there’s a chance if Israel does go forward with an attack against Iran, and I believe that they know how foolhardy that would be, because Iran’s not bluffing. Even an attack against non-critical infrastructure will generate an infrastructure-destroying response by Iran, which will destroy Israel, and that’ll be the end of it. Because people can’t live in Israel if there’s no electricity. They can’t live in Israel if there’s no running water. They moved to Israel to be comfortable, to have jobs, to live in the land of milk and honey. And this forever war, because that’s what Israel is going to be locked into now by defining the conditions of victory with Hamas and Hezbollah that cannot be met, Israel is doomed for a forever conflict. The 60,000 will never return to the North; the 20,000 will never return to the South. Israel will never be the same, and people will start fleeing Israel. And once they start fleeing Israel in sufficient numbers, the demographics dictate the end of Israel. And that’s the future of Israel.

Christians are commanded by our Lord to be busy preaching the Gospel, building and edifying the Body of Christ and being the salt of society—”bringing the nations to the obedience of faith.” (Matthew Henry, 1662 – 1714)

Rapture-watching Christian Zionists are busy all right: busy watching for the Rapture—especially watching Israel as the great sign of the Rapture. EXCEPT, they are blind to the thefts, murders, rapes, ethnic cleansings, terrorism and genocides committed by Israel. Of those matters, they see NOTHING!

Think about this: When King David (the man after God’s own heart) began plans to launch an unjust war of aggression in 2 Samuel 24, God killed 70,000 of David’s men in divine judgment, and had not David repented, God would have destroyed the entire nation, including Jerusalem.

If God would judge King David for his willingness to fight an unjust war, how dare Christian Zionists cheer when a pathological mass murderer like Benjamin Netanyahu commits acts of genocide and crimes against humanity in Palestine?

Ever since 1948, Prophetic Dispensationalists have been watching Israel for signs of the Rapture. Take Israel out of the equation, and they have no prophecy doctrines. NONE!

Right now, Rapturists are going WILD with all kinds of outlandish prophecy teachings.

But the reality is, the collapse of the Zionist State is inevitable—and perhaps imminent. The question is not “If?” but “When?”

People, wake up! Zionist Israel is NOT Biblical Israel. The land of Palestine does NOT belong to Netanyahu and his thuggish, murderous Zionists. There is NO everlasting kingdom for national Israel. There is NO promise of perpetuity for the Zionist state. There is NO promise of blessing for those who bless Zionist Israel. And there is NO pre-Second Coming rapture.

It is all a lie! A fraud! A devilish deception!

For one thousand years before 1948 (when Zionist Israel became a state), Christians, Muslims and Jews lived in peace side by side in the land of Palestine. After the Zionist state collapses, the Palestinian state that takes its place will prayerfully be a peaceful home for Christians, Muslims and Jews once again.

But what will happen to evangelicals after the collapse of Zionist Israel? Their entire faith system, which is totally dependent upon Israel-based prophecy doctrines, will be shattered.

Perhaps, in the sovereignty of Almighty God, the scales of blindness will then fall off the bewitched (Galatians 3:1) believers who are deceived by the false doctrines of Christian Zionism, and they will be able to see the glorious New Covenant of Jesus Christ once more.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post ‘The World Now Sees Israel as the Genocidal Apartheid State That It Has Always Been’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

U.S. President Joe Biden refuses to answer until after November 5th the question of whether the U.S. will officially be at war against Russia.

As I explained on September 27th, headlining “UPDATED: The U.S. Presidential election is now overwhelmingly about whether to go to WW3 for Ukraine. This dwarfs every other issue.”, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had announced on September 25th that any nation which would bomb anywhere “deep” in Russia (such as The Kremlin) or would allow Ukraine’s armed forces to use that nation’s weapons in order to do so, would immediately experience Russia’s retaliation for having done that. This report was a follow-on to my September 13th “Biden might decide today whether to initiate WW3 against Russia.”, which stated that Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer was to meet privately that day with Biden to request his permission to allow Ukraine to use in that way the missiles which Britain had supplied to Ukraine, and that the White House gave a clear indication that it was not going to say yes to Starmer’s request. On September 15th, I issued an “UPDATE #4” to that article, which indicated that Biden’s answer to Starmer had been to the effect of “not yet,” but that all of the UK’s top leadership were united in all Parties urging that he say yes as fast as possible.

I must confess that I took Biden’s response to mean that he didn’t want to quit the war in Ukraine before the voting on Election Day November 5th, but to do it instead after (when that announcement wouldn’t affect the election’s outcome). For example, on October 8th I optimistically headlined “NATO has begun its death-spiral.”

However, today on October 10th, Politico headlined “Ukraine allies meeting postponed after Biden pulls out over Hurricane Milton”, and reported:

A summit of allied countries aimed at coordinating more military support for Ukraine set for Saturday Oct. 12 has been postponed following the cancellation of U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Germany.

At the end of a three-day trip to Germany, Biden was due to chair a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a loose alliance of more than 50 countries known as the Ramstein Format, named for the air base in which it is usually held.

“The October 12, 2024 event is postponed,” the U.S.-managed Ramstein Air Base said in an emailed note on Wednesday. “Announcements about future Ukraine Defense Contact Group meetings will be forthcoming.”

In other words: he does want WW3, but not before November 6th. This is why he cancelled the October 12th meeting, which would have prematurely forced Biden’s hand. He wants to win this election, and then to go to war against Russia.

The October 12th meeting was supposed to announce further increases in the U.S. empire’s support for Ukraine against Russia. If Biden had until now been intending to attend that crucial meeting in order to have it agree to continue and to extend but not increase the existing support to Ukraine, which would avoid WW3, then he definitely would have attended, in order to have that outcome and thereby leave the domestic political situation unchanged and unaffected by that war. That scenario would have publicly committed the U.S. to keeping in place his present policy of adhering to “Putin’s red lines.” But now that Biden has shocked everyone by canceling the meeting altogether, the sign is far more ominous: that whenever this meeting WILL occur, Biden is going to say yes to the WW3 chorus — and that this is going to happen AFTER November 5th.

The general public might not be conscious of the fact, but nuclear weapons exist for a country so that if ever that country has a war that it will lose without using nukes, those weapons will be available to be used in order to avoid defeat. Ukraine’s Government right now wants the U.S. to back it up in that way so as to prevent what increasingly looks to be an inevitable defeat by Russia. Biden has repeatedly said publicly that Russia will lose this war; Ukraine will win it. The U.S. and its colonies have already spent over $400 billion so that it will. This is an existential war for both Ukraine as (since 2014) an American colony, and Russia as an independent country. It is not an existential war for America as an independent country. But it is for the U.S. as the largest-in-history empire; so that Biden is now making the decisions not only for his country but for his empire. This is what the concept of American global hegemony is all about. Biden’s duty as America’s President is to do what its Founders had authorized an American President to do. No “Emperor” in modern times has any right to exist as such, and therefore no ‘duty’ as an Emperor. If President Biden will use the powers of an American President in order to preserve and extend an American empire that America’s Founders never authorized to exist, then he will be a traitor.

PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.).

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.

The post Biden’s Plan Calls for WW3 To Start After Election Day appeared first on LewRockwell.