Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, John Frahm.

Crisis Magazine

The post The Council of Nicaea at 1,700 Years Old appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

EXCLUSIVE: Massive Scandal Unfolding in Colorado Proving Elections Are Rigged, and the Cover Up Is Real – Free Tina Peters NOW | Joe Hoft

81 Million Votes

The post Developing Proof of Massive Electronic Vote Rigging appeared first on LewRockwell.

Chris Sullivan wrote:

Old Ralph sounds pretty good for a 91 year-old man.

I’ve never liked him too much, but I like a lot of what he says here.

His comment about 300,000 (14:43) staffers/stooges/ medlers/lobbyists or whatever they are is very surprising. 

I wonder if he meant to say 30,000 which would still be a  large number.

The post Ralph Nader: Who Controls the Government? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Neocons Strangling Iran Talks, Putting A ‘Deal’ In Jeopardy appeared first on LewRockwell.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Daniel Lacalle

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-modello-keynesiano-cinese-sta)

Nell'ultimo decennio l'economia cinese ha ampliato il suo modello neo-keynesiano centralizzato, il quale non può sopravvivere senza un accordo commerciale. Il settore manifatturiero cinese ha seguito una strategia di stallo continuo che non può sussistere senza l'enorme surplus commerciale con gli Stati Uniti.

La  sovraccapacità del settore manifatturiero cinese non è un'eccezione, è la regola. La Cina produce il 30% dei beni manifatturieri mondiali, ma ne consuma meno del 18%, secondo CKGSB. Inoltre il tasso di utilizzo della capacità industriale cinese è sceso al 74,1% nel primo trimestre del 2025.

Il modello keynesiano di pianificazione centralizzata cinese mira a massimizzare l'occupazione e a mantenere una forte crescita economica, nonostante i vincoli finanziari e l'eccessivo indebitamento; pertanto è necessario vendere la produzione in eccesso per evitare un enorme problema di capitale circolante. Persino il governo cinese ha riconosciuto il problema in modo indiretto, evidenziando che la concorrenza di tipo “involutivo” è un obiettivo fondamentale per la politica economica del 2025 e che si stanno adottando misure per ridurre gli investimenti non necessari e controllare la crescita in alcuni settori. Tuttavia la sovraccapacità produttiva in Cina non è un caso; è stata creata per disegno politico, con le autorità locali e nazionali che cercano di aumentare il PIL a qualsiasi costo.

Il modello mira a mantenere la piena occupazione e la crescita economica anche con rendimenti economici inferiori al costo del capitale, e funziona quasi del tutto se la capacità produttiva in eccesso può essere venduta a livello globale, ricevendo valuta di riserva e mantenendo bassi i costi trasferendo il costo del capitale circolante ai consumatori globali e mantenendo basse le spese di produzione con controlli monetari e tassi di cambio fissi. Tuttavia la combinazione di debito crescente, valuta in costante indebolimento e crescente numero di fallimenti e problemi di capitale circolante sta conducendo questo modello al collasso, anche in assenza di una recessione ufficiale.

La Cina ha imparato che non può sopportare una guerra commerciale e non può sostituire i consumatori statunitensi, il mercato più ricco e più grande del mondo, con consumatori europei o latinoamericani. Di conseguenza ha bisogno di un accordo commerciale rapido prima che la catena di fallimenti che affligge l'economia cinese dal 2021 si trasformi in una vera e propria crisi finanziaria.

Ad aprile la Cina è entrata ufficialmente in deflazione per il terzo mese consecutivo. Secondo Allianz, si prevede che le insolvenze aziendali aumenteranno del 7% nel 2025 e del 10% nel 2026, nonostante il governo cinese stia implementando ulteriori misure di stimolo fiscale.

Le piccole e medie imprese, in particolare quelle esportatrici, stanno affrontando un crescente numero di fallimenti a causa del calo del flusso di cassa e dell'eliminazione delle esenzioni tariffarie statunitensi. La perdita di posti di lavoro è in aumento nelle regioni dipendenti dalle esportazioni e il tasso di disoccupazione urbano dovrebbe attestarsi in media al 5,7% nel 2025, al di sopra dell'obiettivo ufficiale, secondo la CNBC.

L'indice PMI manifatturiero ufficiale dell'NBS è sceso bruscamente a 49,0 il mese scorso, il calo più netto da dicembre 2023, riflettendo una discesa della produzione, dei nuovi ordini e dell'occupazione, in particolare gli ordini esteri in calo al livello più basso degli ultimi undici mesi.

Il crollo del settore immobiliare, che un tempo rappresentava fino al 30% del PIL, ha indebolito le banche, ridotto i risparmi delle famiglie e portato a un effetto ricchezza negativo, deprimendo ulteriormente i consumi e la domanda di credito.

I punti di forza economici della Cina sono ben noti, ma le debolezze sono troppo importanti per essere ignorate. La situazione ci ricorda che la pianificazione centrale non funziona mai. Tutte le debolezze della Cina derivano da anni di politiche governative volte a stimolare la crescita economica costruendo beni nella speranza che prima o poi si sarebbero venduti. Inoltre l'aumento dei fallimenti, il crollo del mercato immobiliare e il crescente debito delle amministrazioni locali mettono a dura prova il sistema finanziario, proprio mentre i prestiti in sofferenza della Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aumentano vertiginosamente. Diversi Paesi nella BRI sono inadempienti o hanno richiesto salvataggi da parte del FMI, tra cui Sri Lanka, Zambia, Ghana e Pakistan, mentre essa ha generato $385 miliardi di debiti non registrati.

Le linee di politica keynesiane portano sempre a un debito elevato e alla stagnazione. Tuttavia se combinate con un sistema di pianificazione centrale, un sistema finanziario chiuso e controlli sui capitali, esse creano un pericoloso mix di sovraccapacità produttiva, povertà e stagnazione economica. La Cina può iniziare ad affrontare il suo enorme problema di capitale circolante solo attraverso un accordo commerciale rapido e di successo con gli Stati Uniti. La Cina trarrà enormi benefici se aprirà la sua economia, eliminerà i controlli sui capitali e permetterà al settore privato di respirare. Un'implosione del problema della sovraccapacità produttiva nascosta ai media generalisti, compensata da una pianificazione centrale ancor più accentuata e da stimoli su stimoli, non farà altro che indebolire ulteriormente la Cina nel lungo periodo.

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

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

On May 17th, MSNBC, a Democratic Party propaganda-site, issued an “opinion” article that was loaded with links to its sources, including Republicans, and the article honestly represented what it reported, and its sources were entirely credible, so that that article actually constituted news, and not only this, but it is very important news for every American: Donald Trump’s proposed tax-legislation would, if passed into law, include front-end-loaded (short-term) tax-cuts for the poor, and back-end-loaded — indeed PERMANENT — tax-cuts for multimillionaires and billionaires, so as to pay for the increased spending that Trump wants for just two federal Departments — the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department (both of which Departments most other nations’ Governments classify as being for national security or the military and so are called “defense spending”) — and decreased spending on every other federal Department (including all services to the poor).

So: on the taxes side, Trump wants increases on the poor and decreases on the rich; and, on the spending side, he wants spending increases on the military, and spending decreases on everything else.

If you want to see the MSNBC News report, click here; and, if you want to see the analysis that I did on Trump’s proposed federal budget, click here.

A further indication of Trump’s priorities as to how he intends to spend U.S. taxpayers’ dollars was provided also on May 17th, at The Arab Weekly, headlining “US said to be developing ‘a plan’ to move one million Palestinians to Libya: In exchange for resettling the Palestinians, the administration would release to Libya billions of dollars of funds.” Some important background on why Palestinians refuse to relocate out of Palestine, is that any who do, will thereby lose their legal right of return because that territory will then be taken by Israel and resettled by Zionist Jews, so that the result would then be a total defeat of the Palestinians by Israel — all of their legal rights will have been lost. And whatever they might ‘gain’ would be at gunpoint — NOT as part of any authentic deal that they had participated in. (And, indeed, the recipients of those American taxpayers’ billions of dollars will have been NOT any Palestinians, but, instead, whatever Libyan ‘government’ would be agreeing to accept the Gazans.) And then, that would be a million Gazans whom Netanyahu won’t need to slaughter in order for Trump and his friends to be able to build their hotels and resorts on the Mediterranean Sea, at the sandy beaches which had formerly been the Gaza beachfront of Palestine.

According to the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), all proposed international agreements, or “treaties,” that the U.S. Government joins, have first been passed by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate. However, ever since 1974, that provision of the U.S. Constitution has routinely been violated. (It’s done on the theory that if the Executive and the Legislative branches both want to violate it, then the treaty will be simply relabeled a “congressional-executive agreement” — CEA) — which is negotiated between those two Branches and approved not by any two-thirds vote, but only by a 50% majority in both Houses, just like any regular law does that gets to a President’s desk for his/her signature. This verbal trick against the Founders’ intention when they wrote the Constitution, makes far easier for America’s billionaires to get the treaties that they want. The U.S. has had a traitorous Government like this ever since 1945, when the Declaration-of-War clause became no longer functional — and thus the military-industrial complex started to rule the U.S. Government — which also was achieved by means of a form of CEA.)

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Trump Proposes Tax-Increases on Poor to Fund Tax-Cuts on Rich appeared first on LewRockwell.

The new era marks the end to ‘old politics’: The Red vs Blue; Right vs Left labels lose relevance.

Even the need for transition – just to be clear – has only just begun to be recognised in the U.S.

For the European leadership however, and for the beneficiaries of financialisation who haughtily lament Trump’s ‘storm’ unwisely unleashed on the world, his base economic theses are ridiculed as bizarre notions completely divorced from economic ‘reality’.

That is completely untrue.

For, as Greek Economist Yanis Varoufakis points out, the reality of the western situation and the need for transition was clearly spelled out by Paul Volcker, former chair of the Federal Reserve, as long ago as 2005.

The harsh ‘fact’ of the liberal globalist economic paradigm was evident even then:

“What holds together the globalist system is a massive and growing flow of capital from abroad, running to more than $2 billion every working day – and growing. There is no sense of strain. As a nation we don’t consciously borrow or beg. We aren’t even offering attractive interest rates, nor do we have to offer our creditors protection against the risk of a declining dollar”.

“It’s all quite comfortable for us. We fill our shops and garages with goods from abroad, and the competition has been a powerful restraint on our internal prices. It’s surely helped keep interest rates exceptionally low despite our vanishing savings and rapid growth”.

“And it’s [been] comfortable for our trading partners too, and for those supplying the capital. Some, such as China [and Europe, particularly Germany], have depended heavily on our expanding domestic markets. And for the most part, the central banks of the emerging world have been willing to hold more and more dollars, which are, after all, the closest thing that world has to a truly international currency”.

“The difficulty is that this seemingly comfortable pattern can’t go on indefinitely”.

Precisely. And Trump is in the process of blowing up the world trading system so as to re-set it. Those western liberals, who today are gnashing teeth and lamenting the advent of ‘Trumpian economics’, are simply in denial that Trump has at least recognised the most important American reality – ie. that the pattern can’t go on indefinitely, and that debt-led consumerism is way past its sell-by date.

Recall that most participants in the western financial system have known nothing other than Volcker’s ‘comfortable world’ their entire life. No wonder they have difficulty thinking outside their sealed retort.

That does not mean, of course, that Trump’s solution to the problem will work. Possibly, Trump’s particular form of structural rebalancing could make matters actually worse.

Nonetheless, restructuring in some form clearly is inevitable. It comes down otherwise to a choice between bankruptcy slow, or fast and disorderly.

The dollar-led globalist system worked well initially – at least from the U.S. perspective. The U.S. exported its post-WW2 manufacturing over-capacity to a newly dollarized Europe, who consumed the surplus. And Europe too, enjoyed the benefit of having its macroeconomic environment (export-led models, guaranteed by the U.S. market).

The present crisis began however, when the paradigm inverted – when the U.S. entered on its era of unsustainable structural budget deficits, and when financialisation led Wall Street to build its inverted pyramid of derivative ‘assets’, resting upon a tiny pivot of real assets.

The raw fact of the structural imbalance crisis is bad enough. But the western geo-strategic crisis goes much deeper than just the structural contradiction of inward capital flows and a ‘strong’ dollar eating the heart out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. Because it is bound up, too, with the concomitant collapse of core ideologies underpinning liberal globalism.

It is because of this western deep devotion to ideology (as well as to the Volker ‘comfort’ provided by the system) that has triggered such a torrent of anger and outright derision towards Trump’s ‘rebalancing’ plans. Barely a western economist has a good word to say – and yet no plausible alternative framework is offered. Their passion directed at Trump simply underlines that western economic theory is bankrupt, too.

Which is to say that the deeper geo-strategic crisis in the West consists in both a collapse of archetypal ideology AND of a paralytic élite order.

For thirty years, Wall Street sold a fantasy (debt didn’t matter) … and that illusion just shattered.

Yes, some understand that the western economic paradigm of debt-led, hyper-financialised consumerism has run its course and that change is inevitable. But so heavily invested is the West in the ‘Anglo’ economic model that, for the most part, the economists stay paralysed in the spider’s web. There is no Alternative (TINA) is the watch phrase.

The ideological spine to the U.S. economic model lies firstly with Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, which was understood to mean that any government involvement in the management of the economy was an infringement of ‘liberty’ – and tantamount to socialism. And then secondly, following the Hayekian union with the Chicago School of Monetarism in the person of Milton Friedman who would pen the ‘American edition’ of The Road to Serfdom (which (ironically) came to be called Capitalism and Freedom), the archetype was set.

Economist Philip Pilkington writes that Hayek’s delusion that markets equal ‘freedom’ and were therefore consonant with the deeply embedded American Libertarian current “has become widespread to the point of all discourse being completely saturated”:

“In polite company, and in public, you can certainly be left-wing or right-wing, but you will always be, in some shape or form, neoliberal; otherwise you will simply be not allowed entry to discourse”.

“Each country may have its own peculiarities … but on broad principles they follow a similar pattern: debt-led neoliberalism is, first and foremost, a theory of how to re-engineer the state in order to guarantee the success of markets – and its most important participant: modern corporations”.

So here is the fundamental point: The crisis of liberal globalism is not just a matter of re-balancing a failing structure. Imbalance anyway is inevitable where all economies similarly pursue, all together, all at once, the export-led ‘open’ Anglo-model.

No, the bigger problem is that the archetypal myth of individuals (and oligarchs) pursuing their own separate and individual utility maximisation – thanks to the hidden hand of market magic – is such that in aggregate, their combined efforts will be to the benefit of the community as a whole (Adam Smith) has collapsed too.

Effectively, the ideology to which the West clings so tenaciously – that human motivation is utilitarian (and only utilitarian) is a delusion. As philosophers of science like Hans Albert have pointed out, the theory of utility-maximisation rules out real world mapping, a priori, thus rendering the theory untestable.

Paradoxically, Trump nonetheless, is of course the chief of all utilitarian maximisers! Is he then the prophet of a return to the era of swash-buckling American tycoons of the nineteenth century, or is he the adherent of a more fundamental re-think?

Put plainly, the West cannot transition to an alternate economic structure (such as a ‘closed’, internal-circulation model) precisely because it is so heavily invested ideologically in the philosophical underpinnings to the present one – that to question those roots seems tantamount to a betrayal of European values and of the foundational libertarian values of America (drawn from the French Revolution).

The reality is that today the western vision of its claimed Athenian ‘values’ is as discredited as its economic theory in the rest of the world, as well as amongst a significant slice of its angry and disaffected own populations!

So the bottom line is this: Do not look to the European élites for any coherent view on the emergent World Order. They are in collapse and are pre-occupied by trying to save themselves amidst the crumbling of the western sphere and the fear of retribution from their electorates.

This new era does however also mark the end to ‘old politics’: The Red vs Blue; Right vs Left labels lose relevance. New political identities and groupings are already being formed, even if their contours are not yet defined.

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

The post ‘Transition’ to a New World Order Is Beyond Most in the West appeared first on LewRockwell.

When President Donald Trump imposed his sweeping tariffs on April 2, he had two main objectives:

1. Reduce the trade deficits
2. Bring jobs and manufacturing back to the United States

These were the stated goals but, as we soon found out, the real aim was to weaken China by preventing them from selling goods to US consumers. The Trump administration also used the tariffs to isolate China by providing incentives to the nations that agreed to reduce their trade with Beijing. In short, the tariffs were the main weapon in a trade war on a peer competitor who has overtaken the US in nearly every area of industrial and technological production.

Fortunately, Trump’s plan failed, and he was forced to ease the tariffs without achieving any of his main objectives. The reason we say “fortunately” is because the tariffs policy never served the interests of the American people. Quite the contrary, Americans are hurt by unilateral policies that ignore the rules of international trade and needlessly disrupt supply chains. All that does is push prices higher, reduce employment and slow growth. Besides, manipulating tariffs with the intention of destroying a rival violates a number of widely accepted WTO rules that protect the interests of everyone.

In contrast to the US, China acted in a way that was consistent with their broader social philosophy which is rooted in their unique interpretation of socialism. They took the moral high ground, acted on principle, and refused to give in to Trump’s coercion. They only initiated countermeasures in response to Trump’s tariffs blitz that completely ignored the rules articulated in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which stipulates that countries cannot arbitrarily exceed “bound rates” or selectively target one country with 145% tariffs. (which is the equivalent of an embargo.) By acting alone, Trump basically showed his contempt for the international system and for any legal constraints on his own power. This is from the Global Times:

The multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core is the cornerstone of international trade and plays an important role in global economic governance. All parties should resolve differences and disputes through equal-footed dialogue under the framework of the WTO, jointly uphold multilateralism and free trade, and promote the stability and smooth functioning of global industrial and supply chains. Global Times

In other words, Trump’s loss was a victory for the system of international trade. But it was also a victory for China because China ‘stuck to its guns’ and refused to bow to Washington’s bullying. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

Xi Jinping’s decision to stand his ground against Donald Trump could hardly have gone any better for the Chinese leader.

After two days of high-stakes talks in Switzerland, trade negotiators from the world’s biggest economies announced Monday a massive de-escalation in tariffs. In a carefully coordinated joint statement, the US slashed duties on Chinese products to 30% from 145% for a 90-day period, while Beijing dropped its levy on most goods to 10%.

The dramatic reduction exceeded expectations in China, and sent the dollar and stocks soaring — providing some much-needed market relief for Trump, who is facing pressure as inflation looks set to speed up at home. Chinese equities also surged. The deal ended up meeting nearly all of Beijing’s core demands. The elevated “reciprocal” tariff for China, which Trump set at 34% on April 2, has been suspended — leaving America’s top rival with the same 10% rate that applies to the UK, a longtime ally….

“This is arguably the best outcome that China could have hoped for — the US backed down,” said Trey McArver, co-founder of research firm Trivium China. “Going forward, this will make the Chinese side confident that they have leverage over the US in any negotiations.” , Swiss Info

Repeat: This is the best outcome that China could have hoped for — the US backed down”

US policy towards China is not only deeply immoral; it’s also counterproductive. Anyone who followed recent events in the foreign press, understands that the United States hurt itself very badly by its bullyboy tactics. What people outside the United States saw was an aging and enfeebled prize fighter enter the ring with a ferocious young contender who knocked him out in the first Round. In less than 6 weeks, Trump removed the bulk of the tariffs leaving just 30% in order to save face with his backers. In exchange, he got nothing from China at all. Beijing made no concessions other than allowing Trump to increase the tariff on Chinese imports from 20 to 30%, which means that the blue-collar men and women—who are Trump’s most ardent supporters—will pay an additional 10% at their favorite department store. So, while Trump promises massive new tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, working people just saw their taxes hiked by a whopping 10%. Here’s more from the Guardian:

Donald Trump will inevitably claim Monday’s temporary truce in the US-China trade war as a victory, but financial markets seem to have read it for what it is – a capitulation….

In other words, the president has caved. He may have been swayed by market wobbles but it seems more plausible that dire warnings from retailers about empty shelves – backed up by data showing shipments into US ports collapsing – may have strengthened the hands of trade moderates in the administration.

Confronted with warnings of a shortage of toys, Trump told reporters that children should be happy with “two dolls instead of 30 dolls”, and they might “cost a couple bucks more” than usual. But it is difficult to imagine even this most bullish of presidents withstanding the attacks that would come his way if he began to be seen as responsible for Covid-style shortages of key goods in the world’s largest economy.

Instead, the White House seems to have opted for tactical retreat. The China-US conflict was always the hottest theatre of confrontation in Trump’s trade war, with a longer history and deeper public support than his quixotic attacks on Mexico and Canada.

If Trump is indeed ready to give in even with Beijing, it sends a signal that some of the other aggressive aspects of his trade policy may be negotiable. Trump might claim China tariff victory – but this is Capitulation Day, Guardian

As far as Trump’s stated goals, (to reduce the trade deficits and bring jobs and manufacturing back to the US) the president failed on both counts. But in respect to his unstated goals, (weakening and isolating China) he also failed. And the reason he failed is due to three things:

1. China was able to maintain global trade flows through diversification (They found other buyers for US-bound exports)
2. China responded to the need for fiscal stimulus and government intervention quickly (which maintained their growth targets)
3. China was able to inflict serious pain on the US by withholding its exports which left ports on the West Coast in deep distress.

What China achieved is as close to a complete victory as one could imagine. Even so, the equities markets skyrocketed shortly after a settlement was announced, which is why no one seems to care about Trump’s embarrassing miscue.

One of the oddities of the tariffs dust-up, was the fact that the Trump team never anticipated China’s retaliatory response. It’s actually amazing. The administration lives in such an information bubble that they thought China would cave in after their comical “Liberation Day” announcement. What were they thinking?

We know what Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent was thinking because he made a number of public statements that the US had an edge on China because ‘we were the deficit country.’ Here’s what he said in an interview on CNBC:

“We are the deficit country. They sell almost five times more goods to us than we sell to them. So, the onus will be on them to take off these tariffs. They’re unsustainable for them.” He cited estimates that China could lose 5-10 million jobs if tariffs persist, highlighting China’s economic vulnerability.

This is idiocy. This is like saying that the ragamuffin panhandler on the street-corner has the advantage over the flush businessman with millions in the bank. The US is $36 trillion in debt while China has a $3 trillion surplus! How does ‘being broke’ give us ‘the advantage’. We’re lucky that China still accepts our currency at all, and yet, our Treasury Secretary thinks that being destitute gives us the “upper hand”. A man like this should not be Treasury Secretary. He has shown repeatedly that he doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how the economy works or what policies will help to advance American interests. Here’s Grok on Bessent:

Bessent’s public statements reflect a strategic focus on the U.S.’s deficit position as a negotiating advantage, supported by China’s economic vulnerabilities and the eventual Geneva deal. However, China’s export shift to Southeast Asia, transshipment tactics, and domestic economic resilience suggest he underestimated Beijing’s ability to weather tariffs, limiting the U.S.’s edge. Both sides faced costs, but China’s adaptability meant the deficit advantage was less decisive than Bessent claimed. (Grok)

Bessent’s public statements reflect a strategic focus on the U.S.’s deficit position as a negotiating advantage, supported by China’s economic vulnerabilities and the eventual Geneva deal. However, China’s export shift to Southeast Asia, transshipment tactics, and domestic economic resilience suggest he underestimated Beijing’s ability to weather tariffs, limiting the U.S.’s edge. Both sides faced costs, but China’s adaptability meant the deficit advantage was less decisive than Bessent claimed. (Grok)

We should all be grateful that Trump gave up on his ‘tariffs strategy’ before it inflicted even more damage on the US economy. We can only hope that he will reflect on what has transpired in the last few weeks and seriously reconsider Washington’s self-defeating relations with China. The consensus view among western elites, media and the entire political class is that China’s rise represents a grave threat to America’s privileged position in the world order. It is this misguided assumption that shapes US policy on China and puts us all on course for a military confrontation. We must eradicate this destructive idea at its root and look for constructive ways that we can work with China on projects that help to improve security, increase prosperity and end war.

China is not our enemy, and they do not seek a confrontation with the United States. What China wants is what most ordinary Americans want; peace, security and “a human community with a shared future in an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world.” Those are the words of China’s Premier Xi Jinping. His sentiments may seem familiar to older readers who may recall the equally powerful words of President John F. Kennedy who said:

“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

You Tube—John F. Kennedy’s Commencement Address at American University, ‘A Strategy for Peace’

Video Link

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post Rethinking US-China Relations After the Tariffs Shipwreck appeared first on LewRockwell.

If the slithering denizens of Okefenokee-on-the-Potomac were nervous about their fates before Sunday — and I’d say they’ve been rather jumped-up since Nov. 4 — then Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday morning session with FBI top dawgs Patel and Bongino must have been a near-death experience for them. Something Roto-rooterish this way comes, officialdom must be thinking, if you can call utter hysteria “thinking.”

Washington is nervous because there have been zero leaks from the agency, a condition heretofore unknown in that haunted, pestiferous, reeking marsh. There’s plenty of the usual background noise, of course: the insectile hum, the croaking, trilling, buzzing, staccato peeps, chirps, and squeals of the squirming lesser creatures. . . the occasional roar of an ancient gator. . . the guttural cry of the night heron, the sharp yelp of some furry prey meeting its doom, the pulsating, primordial, chthonic cacophony of creatures suffering to mate in the frightful darkness. . . but that’s just the news media doing their thing.

We’ve remarked more than once here in recent weeks about the ominous silence emanating from the FBI leadership amidst all that other noise, and now you know: a mighty information dump is coming, bales of documents that Christopher Wray sat on for years will be publicly released un-redacted, spells will be broken, names will be named (with imputations of crimes committed), and abiding mysteries unraveled — like, what was the FBI actually doing around the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and much more.

Prepare for some disappointment. Alas, most non-capital federal crimes (acts short of treason and murder) have a five-year statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282), so the multitudinous felonious misdeeds of RussiaGate will go unpunished. Stzrok, McCabe, Rosenstein, Pientka, Ohr (and wife Nellie), Thibault, Baker, Atkinson, Halper, Horowitz, Lynch, Yates, et al., will skate off into the sunset, but not without lasting reputational damage. Mr. Obama’s presidential aura will surely lose a lot of its luster.

But there is plenty to keep the DOJ busy with more recent turpitudes carried out with the election of “Joe Biden,” including perhaps the 2020 election itself in the months before November, 2025, when the statute of limitations kicks in for that caper. Mainly, what looms is a reckoning over “Joe Biden’s” fake presidency and the momentous question as to who was really running the executive branch of the government, most particularly who was using the devious “auto-pen” to sign off on executive orders and perhaps even on legislation.

It is a wonder of modern times that this affront to the public trust somehow remains an abiding mystery. But it shows just how fake Jake Tapper’s new book is — Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Jake blames the whole fiasco on “the White House” without ever stating who in that building was actually acting in “JB’s” place as shadow president. Tapper, allegedly a reporter, apparently never bothered to ask. But neither did anyone else at CNN, the other TV news networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and every other outpost of OG journalism.

Nor does Jake conclude the obvious: that his entire profession sold out the country to act as the Democratic Party’s damage control agency — rather than its traditional duty to act as a powerful check on corrupt, runaway government. Which is to say that the news media Jake represents is at least as corrupt as the government itself.

It’s for certain now, anyway, that we are going to find out exactly who was behind the fabled auto-pen, and it will probably turn out to be a cabal composed of Chiefs-of-Staff, Ron Klain and Jeffrey Zients, Dr. Jill, NSA Jake Sullivan, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, Domestic Affairs advisor Susan Rice, and ultimately to some degree former President Obama, holed-up a few blocks away in his Kalorama mansion those four years of “Joe Biden’s” term in the oval office. Why wouldn’t Mr. Obama, now a private citizen, be called to some official forum, say a courtroom or a congressional committee, to answer questions about that? He’s not any sort of God with God-like privileges.

What we’re just beginning to see now is a furious divorce struggle between the OG news outfits and the Democratic Party, both fighting for their very lives. They are both already mortally wounded, even as they turn on each other, and liable to drop dead in the onslaught behind whatever Patel & Bongino fire at them in the weeks ahead. And even while all those RussiaGaters skate from out-of-date charges, plenty of other officials (and non-officials, like the lawfare ninjas, Eisen, Elias, and Weissmann) could go down for what went on since inauguration day, 2021.

Then there is Ed Martin, lately tossed aside as US attorney for the DC district, doing an adroit lateral arabesque into Main Justice as (simultaneously) the US Pardons Attorney, Director of the Weaponization Working Group, and Associate Deputy Attorney General. We are going to find out whether any of those preemptive pardons signed with the auto-pen in the last hours of “Joe Biden’s” presidency have legal credence. They include the pardons issued for the whole House J-6 investigation committee. House members are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed in connection with their official duties. That means you, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Jamie Raskin, and Bennie Thompson.

And so, also amidst all that deafening noise roaring across The Swamp, we get the sad news over the weekend that former president, now plain citizen Joe Biden, has got aggressive Stage 4 metastatic prostate cancer spreading into his very bones. Strange to relate, this is one of the very “turbo-cancers” said to be induced by the Covid-19 mRNA “vaccine” shots that “JB” exhorted Americans to take — and supposedly submitted to himself. What can you say, besides boo-hoo?

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post Swamp Fever appeared first on LewRockwell.

I feel one of the biggest issues in healthcare is that since everything is so rushed, there’s very little time for doctors to talk with their patients, and as a result, many of the most important parts of medicine get lost. Because of that, my goal was always to be able to reply to be able to correspond with everyone who reached out to me (e.g., through comments).

Since there are now over 220,000 readers here, it’s no longer feasible for me to do that and still have the time to write. Because of this, I decided the best solution was to have monthly open threads where people could ask whatever they wanted on any topic (e.g., any lingering questions from the previous months) and I would make a point to always reply to them.

Alongside these open threads, I like to highlight a topic that I believe is worth exploring, even if it doesn’t warrant a full article on its own. This month, I’m focusing on the often-overlooked wonders of coconuts as I often reflect on the small things I take for granted and how different life would be without them—and coconuts frequently make that list.

Note: one of the things that is extremely frustrating about nutritional guidelines is that they always tell you what you should not eat rather than what you should. One of the wonderful things about coconuts is how much easier having them be a dietary staple makes the rest of your diet.

Cooking Oils

As the years have gone by, there has been increasing awareness that seed oils (specifically their omega 6 fats) are not good for us, but unfortunately, even if we want to avoid them they are in almost every processed food (e.g., infant formula, due to outdated science from the 1960s is required to contain large amounts of seed oils). This touches upon a longstanding observation I’ve made—if something toxic is on the market place, in most cases, regardless of how much the public protests against its use, normally only way it ever gets phased out is if a less toxic substitute is found for it

Note: examples include antibiotics replacing highly dangerous antiserums, ultrasounds replacing routine prenatal x-rays,the introduction of catalytic converters making lead no longer work in gasoline or the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act forcing the development of the less toxic DTaP vaccine to replace DTwP).

As such, I’ve put a lot of thought into which oils could replace the high omega 6 oils we routinely use (e.g., soy oil). If we look at it from a standpoint of omega 6 content and omega 3 content, the following options exist:

While a case can be made for a few of these, as the chart shows, coconut oil is arguably the best option, particularly since it also has a high smoke point (which means coconut oil, particularly refined coconut oil, can be safely used for frying).
Note: another option for frying is to bypass needing a liquid with a boiling point above that of water entirely with an air fryer.

Likewise, coconut oil (when prepared correctly) can be used as a substitute for many of the common oils (e.g., canola or soybean) in around 50-60% of processed foods and I’ve found most of the time a coconut oil containing version of a common product (e.g., chocolate or potato chips) can be found that both tastes and feels much better than those made with standard processed oils.
Note: there are a variety of other issues with the commonly used oils to (e.g., by not being saturated they are often rancid and they frequently contain a significant number of harmful chemicals).

Lastly, there are many non-culinary uses for coconut oil. For example, people, particularly those sensitive to chemicals, often find coconut oil is an excellent lubricant, skin care or hair care product, and I’ve heard numerous stories over the years of Alzheimer’s significantly improving from the consumption of coconut oil derived MCTs (for which which has been corroberated by a clinical trial)..

Note: because there is a huge need to incentivize transitioning to healthier oils, RFK Jr. has been publicly promoting Steak and Shake’s decision to transition from using vegetable oils to beef tallow so that the market inertia for this shift can begin to form.

The Great Cholesterol Scam

Many (myself included) believe one of the most harmful nutritional myths is the notion that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease and must be avoided.

As best as I can tell, this myth originated with in the 1960s from the sugar industry paying for fabricated data that showed animal fats rather than sugar were responsible for the increase in heart disease we were seeing, after which point vegetable oil producers became invested in the mythology (since it allowed them to displace animal fats).

The medical community tried to get on the bandwagon as well, but could not for decades as no medication could reliably reduce cholesterol. However, once statins (which could reliably lower cholesterol), were discovered (with the first one hitting the market in 1987) one of the largest drug markets in history formed (now worth 25 billion dollars a year in America alone). This incentivized funding a lot of research that argued saturated fats and cholesterol were bad for you and thereby cemented this dogma throughout medicine.
Note: A strong case can be made the primary factors responsible for the decline in heart disease we saw were removing lead from gasoline and smoking reduction. However, much in the same way vaccinators took credit for modern sanitation reducing infectious disease, the cholesterol industry claimed credit for declining heart disease and now blames ongoing cases (which remain the leading cause of death) on too few people taking statins or blood pressure pills, rather than on the neglect of actual treatments for the conditions (much in the same way the persistence of COVID or the flu is always blamed on not enough people vaccinating).

All of this has been quite problematic for a few different reasons.

First, the premise behind it is wrong. Cholesterol does not clog arteries, rather it is the body’s way of repairing damage to the blood vessel lining.

Note: I believe the key reason this myth persists because it is easy to visualize (with disgust) arteries being clogged by thick fats in a manner equivalent to a drain pipe being clogged.

Second, the evidence used to argue cholesterol is bad for you is very weak (e.g., many studies show cholesterol does not cause heart disease), whereas multiple studies have shown lowering cholesterol or replacing saturated fats with vegetable oils greatly increases your risk of dying (e.g., many studies have found a roughly 25% increase in death).

Third, statins injure roughly 20% of users, with many experiencing severe side effects (which quickly adds up given that over a quarter of US adults take statins despite there being no evidence they extend life).
Note: the great statin scam and the forgotten ways to treat heart disease is discussed here, while a similar scam with blood pressure (and its forgotten treatments) is discussed here.

Fourth, this myth caused saturated fats to be replaced with vegetable oils (which cause many different chronic health issues).

Note: in the early 1980s, coconuts were consumed throughout Asia whereas processed vegetable oils (e.g., soy) were consumed in heavy quantities throughout India. At that time, one natural medicine pioneer (Bernard Jensen) widely promoted iridology, a diagnostic system where chronic health issues could be detected through changes in the eyes. He taught that a “scurf” ring being present around the iris correlated with fluid stagnation throughout the body (e.g., in the circulation) and retained toxicity and argued that vaccinations and overconsumption of bad oils caused this ring (and the congestion) to develop (and likewise the pioneer of zeta potential noticed vegatable oils would cause intravascular congestion)
. Because of this, we paid attention to the eyes of people in place and noticed the scurf rings were vastly more common in India compared to low seed oil parts of Asia. Finally, a strong case can be made that many of the problems vaccines cause result from them creating fluid stagnation (e.g., microclots) throughout the body.

Coconut Production

Because of the media blitz against saturated fats in the 1980s, the demand for coconut oil rapidly decreased, resulting in the price of it also collapsing and many farms that had been made to produce coconuts being abandoned (we remember coconut plantations in the Philippines being burned in 1986 due to this). As such, while the production of coconut oil has slowly increased over the decades, that increase was a tiny fraction of what was seen with the cheaper vegetable oils.

This is highly unfortunate as:

• Coconuts are relatively sustainable to produce (as they do not require many of the toxic pesticides and herbicides other mass produced crops need and their husks have a variety of uses rather than simply being a waste product).

• Many tropical areas of the USA used to be economically sustained by the (environmentally destructive) production of sugarcane stopped producing it due to declining prices and farming subsidies for sugar cane. Because of this, large portions of underutilized, vacant (or never developed) farmland exist in many tropical regions of the United States and its territories. Had coconut production been implemented, it would have offered a way to revive local economies and working class jobs (whereas the trend in areas like Hawaii has instead been to build luxury housing and increase the gap between the rich and poor). Likewise, large areas of Asia were deforested to produce palm oil and now that demand is significantly dropping for it (e.g., due to environmental concerns) there is a huge opportunity to increase global coconut oil production (as those areas are also highly suitable for coconut cultivation).

• The primary reason why highly unhealthy seed oils are used in everything is because the existing subsidy system makes them incredibly cheap to produce. In contrast, were healthy oils like coconut oils to be subsidized our processed food production would not have needed to only revolve around toxic seed oils.
Note: since coconut trees take 6-10 years to begin producing coconuts, this shift would require a longterm investment (e.g., intelligent farming subsidies) to facilitate it (or over a longer term increasing consumer awareness and demand for it).

Read the Whole Article

The post The Remarkable Secrets of Coconuts appeared first on LewRockwell.

One of the stranger headlines to emerge in the wake of Pope Francis’ death wondered about whether the next pope would reveal the Vatican’s UFO “secrets,” resurfacing the bombshell congressional hearing about UFOs last summer. Since Pope Leo’s election, it has been speculated that he will be the “disclosure pope” about the Vatican’s knowledge of UFOs. While even discussing such apparent clickbait runs some risk of carelessly playing into the hands of the conspiracy theorist, I believe it does raise questions worth considering.

What should faithful Catholics make of the whistleblower David Grusch’s claims under oath before Congress that the United States government has been engaged in an alien UFO crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program since the mid-20th century (allegedly, in collusion with the Vatican)? At root, this question raises a more basic question: How should the Christian think about the possibility of extraterrestrial life?

There are three broad possible attitudes toward claims of intelligent extraterrestrial life one can find among Christians: first, the deniers; second, the believers; and third, the cautiously skeptical. Let’s consider them in turn.

The denier argues that Grusch’s claims and others like them are hogwash because there’s no evidence from faith or reason that extraterrestrial intelligent life exists. Christians have the advantage of revelation to guide our thinking about the universe. And the Bible can be interpreted to believe that God privileged Earth with a unique design and place in the universe to be the home of His image-bearers. On this view, the creation narratives in Genesis and Job don’t report any non-terrestrial intelligent organisms precisely because there aren’t any.

While all orthodox Christians would affirm that the Incarnation is a metaphysical marvel with cosmic implications, the denier would contend that it underscores the unique place of humanity in the universe. The Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature at a specific point in space-time on the planet Earth, about two thousand years ago. The fact that God has not so interacted with the essential nature of any other material being on any other planet in the universe is telling.

Hence, through the lens of reason, the denier would suggest that Fermi’s Paradox—which asks: In such a vast universe that has existed for so long, “where is everybody?”—is solved by the answer: we are alone. The denier would chalk up so-called encounters with aliens and alien spacecraft as deriving from natural causation or perhaps demonic influence. For example, the famous Navy “tic tac” video might simply be a recording of a distant plane giving off an infrared glare. And, claimants to contact (i.e., “contactees”) are typically either hoaxers, delusional, or even victims of demonic deception perhaps through involvement in the occult (as Christian apologist Kenneth Samples argues).

The believer camp reads Sacred Scripture differently. While the Bible does not directly mention non-human bodily intelligences elsewhere in the galaxy, the believer emphasizes that the Bible does not deny their existence, either. The creation narratives are focused on man and Earth simply because revelation to man focuses on God’s dealings with man. Nothing more need be inferred. More than that, some believers find positive evidence in the Bible of alien visitation to earth, taking, for example, Ezekiel’s vision of wheels within wheels as a description of flying saucers (Ezekiel 1:15-16). And the believer contends that Jesus Himself can reasonably be read to signal that other life exists when He says, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold” (John 10:16).

Meanwhile, through the lens of reason, the believer tends to find at least some eyewitness testimony of UFO and/or alien encounters to be credible. In this view, the tic tac video and others must be nonhuman spacecraft because they show artificial objects moving in ways that are simply beyond human technology.

The believer leans on the sheer probability that, in the vastness of space, it is more likely than not that other intelligent life exists. A few hundred billion stars exist in the Milky Way Galaxy alone—and ours is just one of a couple trillion galaxies in the observable universe. The number of stars with orbiting planets is too great of a number for the human mind to comprehend: into the sextillions (1×1021). The heavens proclaim the glory of God—and is it really fitting that God would create all of that empty (Psalm 19:1)? The believer maintains that the Fermi Paradox can be solved if it turns out that advanced civilizations are relatively rare due to self-destruction, or cataclysm, or because interstellar travel is difficult, or because we aren’t capable of detecting their presence or communications.

The cautiously skeptical, in which I place myself, is somewhere between these camps.

By the light of faith, the dogmatic denier goes too far. God certainly could have created nonhuman intelligent life in the universe. The wonderful planet we live on is teeming with countless organisms—each with its own distinct form or kind. Each natural form has its archetype in God’s mind, like the maker has in mind the idea of the artifact that he seeks to build. But, while we can mentally consider the exemplary forms in God’s mind in themselves, in reality they are simply identical with God’s nature, which is infinite. This entails that everything that is real in some sense is imitative of and manifests the divine nature—and that the ways in which creatures could imitate God’s nature is potentially infinite.

While God could have created just one creature, Aquinas contends, this could not adequately represent God’s infinite goodness. Hence, the great plurality and diversity of created things is fitting. All of this is compatible in principle with the existence of nonhuman and nonangelic intelligences. And, while demonic influence could explain alleged alien encounters, it simply begs the question to assume that any phenomena unexplained by natural causes must be demons.

In short, as the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Vatican’s chief astronomer, has put it, there is no contradiction with the Catholic Faith if it turned out we had “extraterrestrial brothers.”

On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that by unaided reason many of the most frequently cited UFO encounters can be explained by natural or human causation. The United States Air Force’s Project Blue Book studied over 10,000 reported sightings and found no evidence of extraterrestrial origin or evidence of craft beyond the scientific technology of the day. Yet, it did find a lot of evidence of misidentification of natural phenomenon or other natural causes like hoaxing and delusion. To take one famous example, Kenneth Arnold’s sighting in 1947, whence the term “flying saucers” derived, may have simply been misidentified manmade aircraft, or pelicans, or meteors, or an optical illusion.

Read the Whole Article

The post Will Pope Leo XIV Reveal the Vatican’s Secret UFO Files? appeared first on LewRockwell.

On May 21, Jersey City will vote on Ordinances 25-056 and 25-057, proposals to ban the use of algorithmic pricing software—tools that help landlords analyze market conditions to price their units accurately. According to critics, this software allows landlords to “maximize profit,” which they think creates an uncompetitive market. That argument misunderstands how markets work. Supply and demand is not price manipulation—it is the mechanism of free exchange.

Algorithmic pricing tools are now a fixture of modern commerce. Anyone who’s bought or sold a car has likely consulted Carvana or Kelley Blue Book, which uses supply and demand trends to gauge fair value. No one calls that price-fixing. Rental pricing tools function the same way—evaluating demand, neighborhood data, seasonal shifts, and inventory to provide landlords with a snapshot of market rates.

Yes, rents rose across Jersey City in recent years, but the cause wasn’t software. Housing shortages, supply chain disruptions, and trillions in federal stimulus all overheated demand, raising prices. New Jersey’s pandemic-era eviction bans made matters worse, as many small landlords went months—or years—without being paid, unable to recoup losses. Once restrictions lifted, landlords adjusted prices in response.

Other factors that pushed prices up included outdated zoning laws and a permitting process that’s notoriously opaque and slow. In Jersey City, layers of regulation also often block the very housing projects that would bring rents down. If the council wants lower rents, the answer isn’t banning software—it’s building more housing.

The market is already self-correcting. According to CoreLogic, “Single-family annual rent growth slowed in November to the lowest rate in about 14 years.” In Jersey City, some rents are already down 12 percent year-over-year. If pricing software were artificially inflating rents, why are they dropping?

The answer is simple: the software doesn’t set prices—it reflects them. It shows what the market can bear at a given time, based on actual data. As demand or inflation cools, rents adjust downward. That’s the invisible hand at work.

Landlords—especially smaller, independent ones—use this technology to make informed decisions. Without it, only the biggest firms will have access to sophisticated analysis, leaving mom-and-pop property owners flying blind. Ironically, banning these tools could lead to less transparency and more arbitrary pricing.

In a free society, the role of government is not to dictate prices but to remove barriers to entry and allow markets to function. That means clearing the path for new construction, reforming zoning, and fixing the permitting process—not punishing innovation.

In addition, the proposed ordinance does not obey Article I, Section I—Rights and Privileges–of the New Jersey Constitution, which states, “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (emphasis added).  Elected officials therefore must not undermine landlords’ property rights with Ordinances 25-056 and 25-057.

Hopefully, the Jersey City council consults an economist—and a constitutional lawyer — before the May 21 vote. It’s their residents’ only hope for obtaining rational, data-driven housing and constitutional policies.

This article was originally published on JCityTimes.com and was reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Council Should Vote No on Ordinance Banning Rent Algorithms appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post The Theory of Banking appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week, Moody’s Ratings lowered the United States credit rating. Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings had already lowered the US rating. This new downgrade was driven by Congress’s failure to make any efforts to reduce the almost 37 trillion dollars national debt.

When Moody’s made its announcement, the House Budget Committee was scrambling to get the votes to pass legislation extending the 2017 tax cuts.

President Trump has dubbed this the “big beautiful bill.” The bill also has new tax cuts including repealing federal taxes on tips and overtime. The bill “offsets” the “lost” revenue from the cuts by making some cost saving reforms in domestic welfare programs, most notably Medicaid and food stamps. However, it increases spending in other areas, most notably military spending.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the “big beautiful bill” would increase the national debt by at least 3.3 trillion dollars over ten years. This number is likely to rise because several moderate Republicans are threatening to vote against the bill unless the Medicaid and food stamps “reforms” are limited or dropped.

Tax cuts are always worth supporting because they advance liberty and sound economics by ensuring the people have more and the government has less. However, tax cuts that are not combined with real spending cuts are delayed tax increases. This is because cutting taxes without cutting spending leads to more debt that leads to higher taxes. These tax increases are likely to come from the Federal Reserve’s monetization of debt, which weakens the dollar’s purchasing power. This “inflation tax” benefits political and financial elites while hurting most Americans.

The reason Republicans are finding it difficult to offset their tax plan in a way that is politically palatable is that they are following exactly the opposite of the politically smart path to cut spending. Instead of starting by cutting welfare for the poor, Republicans should have started by cutting welfare for the rich, particularly the military-industrial complex.

Last week, while visiting the Middle East, President Trump delivered an important speech refuting the neocon crusade that has dominated American foreign policy thinking since 9-11. Yet, President Trump is proposing to increase the military budget to one trillion dollars.

President Trump and congressional Republicans will never cut spending until they stop pretending they can pay down the national debt, cut taxes, and continue massive spending on militarism. Similarly, fiscal conservatives need to stop targeting single mothers on food stamps while increasing federal spending on foreign intervention.

The debt that caused Moody’s and other credit rating agencies to lower the US government’s credit rating is because of spending, not tax cuts. Congress should be giving the people more tax cuts and offsetting them with deep cuts in military spending. Cutting spending wasted on a futile pursuit of a global empire is not just a fiscal necessity. It is also the best thing Congress can do to promote peace and prosperity. Congress should then begin phasing out welfare programs in a manner that does not harm those currently reliant on the programs. Congress should also rein in the welfare-warfare state’s great enabler by auditing then ending the Federal Reserve. It should also repeal the 16th Amendment. These actions would free the people from 1913’s great mistakes — fiat money and income taxes.

The post Cutting Military Spending Would Make for a Big and Beautiful Bill appeared first on LewRockwell.

VATICAN CITY — In one of the first major appointments of his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV has replaced the controversial president of the John Paul II Institute, which was itself gutted by Pope Francis in 2019.

As announced by the Holy See Press Office today, Leo XIV has named Cardinal Baldassare Reina as the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Theological Institute “John Paul II” for the Sciences of Marriage and the Family.

As of October last year, Reina – created cardinal in December 2024 – is the vicar general of the Diocese of Rome, having been an auxiliary of the diocese for two years prior to that.

The 54-year-old cardinal’s appointment comes as the first major nomination made by the new Pope in the various offices of the Roman Curia, and is being welcomed by pro-life advocates. Though his public role has largely revolved around curial issues in the Diocese of Rome in recent years, his record on pro-life matters is believed to be more orthodox than that of the man he is replacing.

The Institute, more commonly known as the “John Paul II Institute” has been led by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia as Grand Chancellor since 2016.

In was in August of that year that Pope Francis named Paglia to lead the John Paul II Institute and also to serve as president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Both of these pontifical institutions were subject to drastic overhauls at the hands of Pope Francis and Paglia.

Paglia – who turned 80 a few weeks ago – enjoyed notable prominence during Francis’ pontificate, and was a key figure in implementing the changes to both pontifical institutes as ordered by Francis.

The gutting of the John Paul II institute began in earnest in 2019, with the dismissing of its president Monsignor Livio Melina and the immediate suspension of all professors.

Staff were subsequently selected who advocated for moral positions contrary to those previously defended by the Institute – such as defending homosexuality and contraception.

Melina commented shortly afterwards that “if the decisions taken by Archbishop Paglia are not revoked, then what they are saying is: ‘The interpretation of the magisterium of Pope Francis in continuity with the previous Magisterium is intolerable in the Church.’”

Veteran Catholic journalist Phil Lawler echoed such thoughts, writing that “the purge at the John Paul II Institute has eliminated the faculty members most closely associated with the thought of the Pope — and canonized saint — after whom the Institute is named.”

Subsequent presidents after Melina began advocating for the acceptance of blessings for homosexual couples and their reception of the sacraments.

Francis’ gutting of the John Paul II Institute faced considerable pushback from theologians and ethicists around the world, concerned about the direction the Vatican office was taking. Indeed the gutting of the Institute is still named today as one of the key controversies of the Francis papacy.

Similar scenes took place at the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV). The Academy has been described as being permeated by “heretical gnosticism” after it was overhauled by Francis beginning in 2016. The Pope released new statutes for the PAV in November 2016, in which members were no longer required to sign a declaration that they uphold the Church’s pro-life teachings, while also expanding the PAV’s mandate to include a focus on the environment.

Over the years Paglia himself has become increasingly controversial due to his comments on a number of issues relating to life and family.

At the time of his appointment to lead both institutions in 2016, Paglia was already known as an advocate for the divorced and “re-married” to receive Holy Communion.

Since then he has garnered even more controversy due to remarks in which he defended assisted suicide and advocated for contraception.

The archbishop attacked Catholics who held moral objections to abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections, and has further been embroiled in allegations of significant financial corruption – diverting charitable funds away from their intended purpose to renovate his Vatican apartment.

Most infamously, Paglia commissioned a homoerotic mural to be painted in his cathedral in which he also featured amongst the scene of naked figures.

The artist was a homosexual Argentinian, known for his speciality in depicting male bodies, and the image prompted widespread scandal in many corners of the globe.

Whilst Paglia has been removed from his position, the president of the John Paul II Institute – who is subject to the Grand Chancellor – remains in place. Since 2021, that office has been held by Monsignor Philippe Bordeyne, whose views on traditional Catholic morality and homosexual advocacy have also given many cause for concern.

Paglia remains as president of the PAV.

This article was originally published on LifeSite News.

The post Pope Leo XIV Removes Controversial Archbishop Paglia as Head of John Paul II Institute appeared first on LewRockwell.

Jerome Barber wrote:

Lew,

Patrick Woods describes the deception known as technpopulism.

See here.

The post Don’t Be Deceived appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

The post Biden’s cancer diagnosis is very strange, and a medical cover-up is the least of it appeared first on LewRockwell.

George Stevenson Giles wrote:

Wilson was a monster and the American doughboyz brought along with them the lethal influenza that killed some fifty million. It was called the Spanish Flu because Spain, who was not at war, first reported the outbreak. It circled the world in four waves before herd immunity took over. Sound familiar?

“There is just enough religion in the world for hate but not enough for love.” Robert Deniro as Lucifer in the movie Angelheart.

The post Wilson appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Jesse Trentadue.

OKC Facts

The post OKBOMB Investigation Used Classified “KH-11 KENNAN” Spy Satellite appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

The DEI hire of OPUS DEI .

See here.

The post Amy Comey Barrett appeared first on LewRockwell.