Aggregatore di feed

The post Terrific Viva Frei Interview: Live with Gad Saad! Tesla on Fire! Canada on TDS! And “Suicidal Empathy” Turns Violent? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Garner:

Lew,

Everyday is another opportunity to learn, and 12 years after Roger Stone published his book “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ” he is learning that Israel was a key player in the assassination of JFK. In a recent interview with Alex Jones, Stone said he was on page 20 of Michael Collins Piper’s 2004 book “Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination.” The landmark work implicates Israel in the November 22, 1963 coup d’etat.

Kennedy was also in conflict with the State of Israel.

Israel sought to develop nuclear weapons, but Kennedy opposed the idea.

After JFK’s assassination, President Lyndon Baines Johnson approved Israel’s pursuit of the nuclear bomb.

Another factor in all of this. pic.twitter.com/82ISNOqGuQ

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) March 18, 2025

 

The post Roger Stone: JFK’s Opposition to Nuclear Bombs for Israel Led to His Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

Is the entire American pension system going to be bankrupted? Ever heard of back floating rate loans? Private equity firms have taken out adjustable rate loans on which the interest goes up every 30-60 days. Successful companies are going bankrupt trying to pay off these loans. The banks are repackaging loans as CLOs sold to pension funds as great debt. This will touch every industry around us because the private equity firms own day care centers, vet clinics, emergency rooms, HVAC companies, pet stores, nursing homes, doctor’s offices, orthodonics, and builders. This was done intentionally using the carried interest loophole. People might riot if the banks got bailed out again like in 2008; this time most will go along with it because it is the pension funds of their grandparents and parents.

THE NEXT 2008 IS HAPPENING NOW

Party City. Joann’s. Forever 21. Big Lots. ALL COLLAPSING.

But this isn’t just “retail struggling.” This is financial arson.

Private equity rigged the system. They built a time bomb. And now? It’s detonating.

A MEGATHREAD: pic.twitter.com/rpKcxwxDxd

— Tiffany Cianci (@TheVinoMom) March 17, 2025

The post The Next 2008: Private Equity Bubble To Bankrupt Pension Funds appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Lifesite News

 

The post Mark Carney was an early supporter of government crackdown against the Freedom Convoy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.  

AlJazeera

 

The post Two-thirds of people Israel killed in Gaza strikes were women and children appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

 

The post Israel Doesn’t Care About the Captives. It Always Planned To Reboot the Genocide appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Mondoweiss

 

The post A child in Gaza watched his mother burn alive. Then he died too. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Aaron Day

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-liberazione-incompiuta-nella-guerra)

Le ultime due settimane sono state a dir poco surreali. Se avete seguito il mio viaggio negli ultimi due anni e mezzo, sapete che ho dedicato la mia intera vita a mettere in guardia contro l'imminente minaccia delle valute digitali delle banche centrali (CBDC) e la crescente repressione dello stato contro le criptovalute. Quando il presidente Trump ha preso tre misure che sono una risposta diretta a tutto ciò per cui ho combattuto (perdonare Ross Ulbricht, vietare qualsiasi ricerca su una CBDC statunitense e annullare l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden), il mio spirito era al settimo cielo.

Ma sentivo che non tutto era ancora compiuto.

All'inizio, quel senso di incompiutezza, l'ho attribuito al fatto di aver combattuto (e perso) così tante battaglie contro lo stato che lo shock mi aveva scombussolato, o forse era una sorta di stress post-traumatico. Ho vissuto momenti bui, divorzi, anni di guerra legale, e ho imparato che la ripresa spesso implica l'affrontare dure verità, perdonare le persone che ti hanno ferito e poi, cosa più dura di tutte, perdonare te stesso. Alla fine sostituisci la rabbia o la tristezza con l'accettazione e il dolore si attenua, facendoti diventare più saggio.

Tuttavia non è così semplice, o diretto, perché mentre la mossa di Trump di annullare l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 è stata un passo in avanti enorme, la brutale “guerra giudiziaria” scatenata da quell'ordine continua. Decine di aziende e individui nella comunità delle criptovalute stanno morendo dissanguati per le spese legali e le perdite aziendali, e alcuni affrontano persino condanne a pene detentive che ti cambiano la vita. È difficile festeggiare quando ci sono ancora tante persone intrappolate sotto lo stesso meccanismo contro cui stavamo tutti combattendo.

Credo che se le persone, e il presidente Trump, comprendessero veramente la devastazione causata da quella repressione, chiederebbero vera giustizia. Finché ciò non accadrà, non posso permettermi di festeggiare, non finché non verranno liberati coloro ancora intrappolati in una guerra che non avrebbe mai dovuto essere combattuta in primo luogo.

Contesto

Nel 2009 ho visto la mia seconda azienda, una fiorente impresa sanitaria, crollare sotto il peso di linee di politica federali come l'Obamacare, il Dodd-Frank Act e l'eccesso di potere del procuratore generale Eric Holder. Non ero finito nel mirino personalmente; ero solo un ingranaggio in quel meccanismo chiamato “danno collaterale” nell'implacabile espansione del governo federale. Per anni mi è stato detto, “Il pendolo oscilla sempre”, ma non l'ho mai visto tornare indietro. Invece il debito continuava a crescere, il dollaro continuava a perdere valore e le guerre infinite andavano avanti. La delusione più grande è arrivata dai repubblicani che non solo si rifiutarono di abrogare l'Obamacare, ma lo ampliarono tramite il Medicaid.

Disperato per un cambiamento, sono diventato un attivista politico. Ho gestito organizzazioni che reclutavano candidati libertari per le elezioni statali e federali e mi sono persino gettato nella mischia. Nel 2018, però, avevo perso ogni fiducia nella politica, che non sembrava mai rallentare la crescita del governo federale. Quindi ho rivolto lo sguardo a ciò che credevo potesse far pendere la bilancia a favore della libertà individuale: le criptovalute. Da quando ho sentito parlare per la prima volta di Bitcoin nel 2012, ho visto come il denaro decentralizzato potesse minare la tirannia delle banche centrali e alimentare la libertà economica in tutto il mondo. Più lo studiavo, più mi rendevo conto che questa tecnologia poteva eliminare inutili intermediari in tutto, dalle negoziazioni azionarie alle catene di fornitura ai titoli immobiliari.

Dopo l'arrivo del Covid è emerso qualcosa di ancora più oscuro: ho iniziato a notare uno sforzo statale concertato per colpire aziende e individui esattamente all'intersezione tra criptovalute e libertarismo. Molte di queste persone erano amici intimi dei miei tempi in cui presiedevo il Free State Project, o persone che partecipavano a eventi come il Liberty Forum e il Porcfest. Jeremy Kauffman ha creato LBRY (noto anche come Odysee), un'alternativa a YouTube resistente alla censura, solo per essere perseguitato dalla SEC per cinque anni, distruggendo di fatto la sua attività (anche se la tecnologia sopravvive ancora). Ian Freeman e i Crypto Six sono rimasti intrappolati in una vasta operazione governativa per aver gestito bancomat Bitcoin, cosa che ha coinvolto talpe e trappoloni da parte di più agenzie governative.

Allarmato, ho iniziato a scavare. Non sono cieco di fronte ai cattivi attori nel mondo delle criptovalute, ma queste erano persone che promuovevano piattaforme di libertà di parola e interazioni economiche pacifiche, non menti criminali. Alla fine ho scoperto l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden, firmato il 9 marzo 2022. Il suo duplice scopo era inequivocabile: accelerare l'adozione di una CBDC statunitense e lanciare un assalto governativo totale alle criptovalute. Con la brutale repressione in pieno svolgimento, e altri Paesi che correvano per introdurre le CBDC, sapevo che dovevo suonare l'allarme. Ho scritto un libro, The Final Countdown: Crypto, Gold, Silver, and the People’s Last Stand Against CBDC Tyranny, esponendo tutto. Ho anche partecipato alle primarie presidenziali repubblicane sperando di poter usare la piattaforma per informare il pubblico e gli altri candidati.

Ho incontrato per la prima volta Vivek Ramaswamy durante la campagna elettorale nel New Hampshire e gli ho consegnato una copia del mio libro. Con mio grande stupore, non solo l'ha letto, ma nei mesi successivi ne abbiamo approfondito il contenuto in più occasioni, in conversazioni approfondite. Poiché la mia unica missione nella corsa alla presidenza era quella di mettere in luce la minaccia incombente delle CBDC, e poiché Vivek sembrava “capirlo” meglio di chiunque altro, ho proposto di ritirarmi e di sostenerlo, a una condizione: avrebbe dovuto firmare il mio impegno anti-CBDC.

Dovete capire che il New Hampshire è speciale. Sede del Free State Project, vanta una comunità libertaria enorme e unita. In una precedente corsa presidenziale statale, avevo ottenuto quasi 18.000 voti. Il mio sostegno aveva un po' di peso in quella che si stava delineando come una primaria sul filo del rasoio, e di fondamentale importanza. Sebbene Vivek abbia concluso la sua campagna prima che potessimo finalizzare l'impegno e il sostegno, ha esortato Trump a denunciare le CBDC proprio prima del voto nel New Hampshire. Quella mossa sottolinea quanto fosse forte l'influenza del movimento libertario qui nel Granite State. Sono grato a Vivek per questo, poiché Trump ha esplicitamente riconosciuto a Vivek il merito di averlo informato su questa importante questione.

4 luglio 2023: con mia grande sorpresa Vivek aveva effettivamente letto il mio libro e ne avevamo discusso.

Trump ha annunciato di essere contrario alle CBDC nel New Hampshire poco prima delle primarie

Dopo che mi sono ritirato dalla corsa alle presidenziali, abbiamo intrapreso un tour nazionale (e alla fine globale) per mettere in guardia le persone sui pericoli incombenti delle CBDC e per dimostrare come prosperare utilizzando valute alternative come oro, argento e criptovalute basate sulla privacy (Zano, Monero, ecc.). Personalmente non ho più avuto un conto in banca dal 2019, un atto di resistenza individuale contro il crescente stato di sorveglianza. Per me il modo migliore per fermare la tecnocrazia è usare denaro privato, non controllato dallo stato.

Non possiamo permetterci di essere compiacenti. Ciò che potrebbe sembrare una vittoria potrebbe non essere altro che un gioco di prestigio semantico. Ecco perché voglio approfondire il vero impatto dell'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden, ora revocato, e di come abbia scatenato un'ondata di “giustizialismo” che sta ancora rovinando vite e perché cancellarlo non ha ancora fatto scomparire quelle ripercussioni.

Questa battaglia per la libertà finanziaria ha trovato un alleato inaspettato nel Presidente Trump, il quale comprende in prima persona la strumentalizzazione del potere governativo.

La guerra di Trump contro il controllo digitale dello Stato profondo

La guerra dello Stato Profondo contro la libertà finanziaria

Quando Donald Trump ha graziato Ross Ulbricht e revocato l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden, non è stata solo un'altra decisione politica, bensì personale. Trump sa in prima persona cosa significa essere presi di mira da agenzie federali trasformate in armi. Proprio come il Dipartimento di Giustizia, l'FBI e i procuratori statali lo hanno perseguitato senza sosta con incriminazioni e giustizialismo, queste stesse agenzie durante l'amministrazione di Biden hanno mosso guerra agli innovatori nel mondo delle criptovalute e ai sostenitori della libertà.

I parallelismi sono sorprendenti. Mentre Trump ha affrontato procedimenti giudiziari motivati ​​politicamente a New York, Georgia e DC, i pionieri delle criptovalute come Roger Ver affrontano accuse fiscali retroattive progettate per metterli a tacere. Mentre gli avvocati di Trump vengono perquisiti e le comunicazioni private sequestrate, la comunità delle criptovalute osserva i propri team legali affrontare intrusioni simili. È lo stesso copione, schierato contro diverse minacce al potere istituzionale.

La posizione di Trump contro la tirannia digitale

Trump ha capito che la repressione di Biden riversata sul mondo delle criptovalute non riguardava la protezione degli investitori, ma il controllo. Proprio come i nemici di Trump hanno cercato di metterlo a tacere tramite divieti sui social media e restrizioni bancarie, l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden mirava a eliminare la libertà finanziaria:

• Strumentalizzando la SEC contro progetti innovativi nel mondo delle criptovalute;

• Usando l'IRS per terrorizzare i sostenitori delle criptovalute

• Impiegando il Dipartimento di Giustizia per criminalizzare gli strumenti di privacy;

• Sfruttando la FDIC per operare un debanking nei confronti delle aziende di criptovalute.

Il bersaglio: l'innovazione americana

L'amministrazione Biden non ha solo attaccato le criptovalute, ma ha preso di mira anche il vantaggio competitivo dell'America. Mentre la Cina corre avanti con il suo yuan digitale, la repressione delle criptovalute di Biden ha paralizzato l'innovazione statunitense. Trump capisce che la leadership americana nell'era digitale richiede di abbracciare, non di schiacciare, le nuove tecnologie che migliorano la libertà.

La strada da seguire

Le azioni di Trump segnalano una rottura decisiva con l'agenda di controllo digitale dello Stato profondo:

• Perdonare Ross Ulbricht: significa aver riconosciuto la natura motivata politicamente delle azioni penali sulle criptovalute;

• Vietare le CBDC: significa aver riconosciuto la necessità di proteggere gli americani dalla sorveglianza sotto forma monetaria;

• Annullare l'Ordine esecutivo 14067: significa aver posto fine alla guerra all'innovazione delle criptovalute.

Ma la lotta non è finita. Decine di pionieri delle criptovalute devono ancora affrontare accuse motivate politicamente. Proprio come Trump combatte per prosciugare la palude, questi innovatori hanno bisogno di protezione dalle agenzie governative strumentalizzate.

Un invito all'azione

Trump può consolidare la sua eredità di paladino della libertà finanziaria:

• Ordinando la revisione immediata di tutti i casi avviati ai sensi dell'Ordine esecutivo 14067;

• Ordinando alle agenzie governative di abbandonare le azioni penali motivate politicamente;

• Istituendo normative chiare e pro-innovazione sulle criptovalute;

• Proteggendo i diritti alla privacy nella finanza digitale.

La posta in gioco non potrebbe essere più alta. Come ha detto Trump: “Non vogliono me, vogliono voi: e io mi frappongo nel mezzo”. Lo stesso vale per i pionieri delle criptovalute. Lo Stato profondo non sta solo attaccando loro, sta attaccando il diritto di ogni americano alla libertà finanziaria.

Per comprendere la portata completa di questo assalto alla libertà finanziaria, dobbiamo esaminare esattamente come l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden abbia scatenato un'ondata senza precedenti di conformità coordinata.

Ordine esecutivo 14067, Parte 1: Esplorazione di una CBDC

Avevo sentito voci sulle valute digitali delle banche centrali (CBDC) per anni, un dollaro digitale che un giorno avrebbe potuto alimentare il reddito di cittadinanza o essere legato ai punteggi di credito sociale. Ma non mi ero mai reso conto di quanto velocemente questi piani stessero avanzando in tutto il mondo. Nel 2020 circa 35 Paesi stavano studiando le CBDC (con la sola Cina che ne stava sperimentando una). Nel 2022 oltre 100 Paesi si erano uniti alla corsa. E oggi? Ben 134 nazioni, che rappresentano il 98% del PIL globale, hanno in corso iniziative CBDC. Quasi la metà è andata oltre la semplice ricerca e almeno 11 sono già state inaugurate.

Negli ultimi due anni mi sono immerso in questo argomento, scavando nei progetti globali e osservando attentamente cosa stesse succedendo negli Stati Uniti. È stato allora che ho scoperto che gli Stati Uniti avevano testato almeno tre progetti pilota CBDC dal 2019 e che il nostro dollaro era già altamente digitale, il che significa che poteva essere monitorato, programmato e censurato. Più scoprivo, più diventava ovvio: le CBDC sono la rampa di accesso alla tirannia digitale.

Non si tratta solo di Stati Uniti contro Cina, o Occidente contro BRICS. È una battaglia per il libero arbitrio. Stiamo affrontando un programma di lunga data per una moneta digitale globale unica (potenzialmente basata sul credito energetico), abbinata a un sistema di credito sociale che ricorda l'Agenda 2030 delle Nazioni Unite. Date agli stati il potere di tracciare, programmare e censurare il denaro e non passerà molto tempo prima che spuntino fuori i punteggi di credito sociale e ID digitali. Una volta che ciò accadrà, la libertà sarà un ricordo del passato.

Poi è arrivato l'Ordine esecutivo di Biden. All'improvviso tutto ha avuto senso:

Il vero obiettivo dietro l'Ordine esecutivo di Biden era quello di schiacciare qualsiasi progetto di ispirazione libertaria, quelli che minacciavano direttamente una valuta digitale completamente programmabile, tracciabile e censurabile. Dopotutto se le persone non hanno alternative, saranno costrette ad accettare la tirannia totale di una CBDC. Eliminate la concorrenza e potrete lanciare una valuta digitale senza alcuna resistenza.

Questo è esattamente il motivo per cui le persone e le organizzazioni incentrate sulla libertà sono finite nel mirino. Nessuno sceglierebbe volontariamente una valuta digitale controllata a livello federale se esistessero delle alternative, quindi la via più rapida per l'adozione di massa è garantire che tali alternative non vedano mai la luce del giorno.

 

Ordine esecutivo 14067, Parte 2: Un approccio statale a tutto tondo alla regolamentazione degli asset digitali

Non potrò mai sottolineare abbastanza quanto sia stato spietato l'assalto dell'amministrazione Biden all'industria delle criptovalute. Non si è trattato di un insieme sparso di azioni di coercizione, ma di un attacco coordinato, dall'alto verso il basso. Quando dico “tutto il governo”, intendo che quasi ogni branca federale si è schierata contro le criptovalute, tutto in una volta. Lasciate che vi mostri esattamente come si è svolto.

Biden ha trasformato il governo federale in un'arma per schiacciare l'industria delle criptovalute. Nell'immagine qui sopra, ho evidenziato solo sei delle agenzie coinvolte.

1. La Securities and Exchange Commission: da quando la SEC ha iniziato a prendere di mira le società di criptovalute nel 2013, ha avviato 173 azioni di coercizione contro aziende e individui. Il 63% di tali azioni è avvenuto solo nei due anni successivi all'ordine esecutivo di Biden. Mentre la SEC afferma che i suoi obiettivi primari sono proteggere gli investitori da frodi e manipolazioni di mercato, e promuovere mercati ordinati, le sue azioni legate alle criptovalute hanno spesso soffocato l'innovazione, in particolare tra i progetti orientati al libertarismo che sfidano la spinta per le valute digitali delle banche centrali (CBDC). Un problema importante è la tendenza della SEC a etichettare molti token come titoli illegali senza fornire un quadro chiaro affinché questi progetti diventino conformi. In realtà, una grande quota di questi token sono “utility token”, non “token di investimento”. Gli utility token funzionano più come i token arcade: li acquistate per accedere o utilizzare un prodotto o un servizio. Il loro valore deriva da quanto sono utili all'interno di una determinata piattaforma, pensate ai crediti su un sito Web o a una valuta di gioco in un videogioco. Per natura non sono progettati per generare profitti basati sugli sforzi di qualcun altro, che di solito è il segno distintivo di un titolo. I token di investimento, invece, vengono acquistati con l'aspettativa di guadagnare un profitto se l'impresa sottostante ha successo, in modo simile all'acquisto di azioni in una società o alla partecipazione ai suoi ricavi. In base alla legge tradizionale sui titoli, gli utility token non rientrerebbero normalmente nella competenza della SEC. Tuttavia essa ha ampliato le sue definizioni per includere molti di questi progetti nel suo ombrello di applicazione, prendendo di mira in particolare quelli con tecnologie mature e funzionali. Io sosterrei la legalizzazione totale dei token di investimento. Potrebbero rivoluzionare i mercati dei capitali offrendo ai piccoli investitori nuove vie per finanziare le startup e agli imprenditori nuovi modi per accedere al capitale. Tuttavia, dopo oltre due decenni di navigazione tra raccolta fondi, capitale di rischio e investment banking, sono convinto che la SEC sia più interessata a mantenere lo status quo che a salvaguardare veramente gli investitori. Questo, tuttavia, è un argomento per un altro giorno.


2. Il Dipartimento di Giustizia: esso si è concentrato sulle risorse digitali incentrate sulla privacy, perseguitando gli sviluppatori che le hanno create. Nell'agosto 2023 Roman Storm, co-fondatore di Tornado Cash, è stato arrestato per aver creato un software che “mescola” le transazioni per mantenerle private, trovandosi ad affrontare accuse di riciclaggio di denaro e “trasmissione di denaro senza licenza” che avrebbero potuto fargli “guadagnare” 45 anni di prigione. Poi, nell'aprile 2024, i fondatori di Samourai Wallet, Keonne Rodriguez e William Lonergan Hill, sono stati accusati allo stesso modo di trasmissione di denaro senza licenza per aver codificato un'app che protegge l'identità degli utenti, correndo il rischio di farsi 20 anni di prigione. Un altro sviluppatore di Tornado Cash, Alexey Pertsev, è stato arrestato nei Paesi Bassi nel 2022 per motivi simili, rischiando anche lui una condanna a 20 anni. Ciò che tutti questi sviluppatori hanno in comune è che hanno scritto software per la privacy, non servizi finanziari tradizionali. Eppure il Dipartimento di Giustizia sta trattando il codice informatico, destinato a proteggere l'anonimato degli utenti, come se fosse una vera e propria impresa criminale. Ciò espone un netto conflitto: la spinta per la privacy finanziaria nelle criptovalute si scontra con la spinta dello stato per la massima sorveglianza. E con le valute digitali delle banche centrali (CBDC) all'orizzonte, valute progettate per la completa trasparenza delle transazioni, la battaglia sul fatto che la privacy rimanga un diritto, o diventi un crimine, si sta solo intensificando.


3. L'IRS: dal 2022 ha intensificato la sua repressione delle criptovalute, introducendo nuove regole che obbligano i broker di asset digitali a presentare il modulo 1099-DA per le transazioni, in sostanza mettendo in luce ogni mossa che fate nell'ecosistema delle criptovalute. Il caso di Roger Ver è un ottimo esempio. Ver è accusato di aver evaso quasi $50 milioni in tasse, un'accusa grave e fasulla che esploreremo più in dettaglio in seguito. Prendendo di mira uno dei più influenti sostenitori del denaro peer-to-peer, l'IRS non mira solo ad abbattere un oppositore delle CBDC; sta anche creando un pericoloso precedente che potrebbe tornare indietro retroattivamente e in avanti indefinitamente, espandendo la presa dell'agenzia sugli utenti di criptovalute ovunque. Questa spinta è sostenuta da un'infusione di $80 miliardi nell'IRS, la quale ha assunto oltre 87.000 nuovi agenti, molti dei quali ora concentrati sulle criptovalute, lavorando in tandem con i principali exchange per tracciare le transazioni. Il risultato? Un sistema di controllo fiscale rafforzato e armato che dovrebbe far suonare campanelli d'allarme ovunque e per chiunque.


4. La FDIC: dal 2022 è stata al centro di una tempesta che molti chiamano Operation ChokePoint 2.0, uno sforzo dietro le quinte per impedire alle attività legate alle criptovalute di usufruire dei servizi bancari. Questa spinta includeva la chiusura forzata di Signature Bank e Silvergate Bank, due importanti istituzioni favorevoli alle criptovalute, che a loro volta hanno spianato la strada al sistema FedNow della Federal Reserve. La FDIC ha anche impedito a Custodia Bank di ottenere un conto master, marginalizzando un modello pro-crypto dal sistema bancario tradizionale. In una recente intervista al podcast di Joe Rogan, Marc Andreessen ha rivelato che gli amministratori delegati nel settore tecnologico che lavorano nel mondo delle criptovalute per anni sono stati silenziosamente esclusi dal sistema bancario. Tale epidemia non è limitata alle criptovalute; il presidente Trump ha di recente preso di mira Bank of America come bersaglio politico, dato che personaggi di alto profilo, come Melania Trump, Barron Trump, Joseph Mercola, Kayne West, Eric Prince e Catturd (da X) hanno tutti dovuto affrontare la chiusura dei loro conti. Questa ondata di misure di controllo è diventata un altro artefatto della posizione aggressiva dello stato, evidenziando un inquietante schema di strumentalizzazione delle istituzioni finanziarie contro minacce sia ideologiche che tecnologiche.


5. Il Dipartimento del Tesoro degli Stati Uniti: dal 2022 ha scatenato un livello di forza normativa sul settore delle criptovalute senza precedenti, culminando in un accordo da record da $4,3 miliardi con Binance per presunte violazioni antiriciclaggio e sanzioni. Questa sanzione senza precedenti, la più grande di sempre, ha inviato un messaggio forte e chiaro: le criptovalute sono un pericolo per il controllo finanziario tradizionale e lo stato era pronto a smantellarle. Prendendo di mira un peso massimo come Binance, il Dipartimento del Tesoro non ha solo punito un trasgressore delle regole; voleva spianare la strada alle CBDC. In un regime del genere, le nozioni di privacy, decentralizzazione e autonomia personale rischiano di essere spazzate via sotto la bandiera “sicurezza e regolamentazione”. In altre parole il Dipartimento del Tesoro aveva trasformato la sua autorità in un'arma per inaugurare un'era di sorveglianza finanziaria e controllo statale.


6. La Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC): dal 2022 ha aumentato la sua attenzione sullo spazio delle criptovalute, con circa il 60% delle sue azioni di controllo mirate alle criptovalute. Una parte significativa di queste azioni è stata rivolta alle piattaforme di finanza decentralizzata (DeFi). Per comprendere la DeFi, immaginate un mercato digitale gestito da programmi informatici auto-eseguibili, chiamati “smart contract”, i quali facilitano prestiti e scambi di asset senza il bisogno di una banca tradizionale o di un intermediario finanziario per supervisionare la transazione. Questo approccio è in netto contrasto con la finanza convenzionale, in cui grandi istituzioni o enti normativi fungono da gatekeeper, e pone una sfida direttamente all'idea delle valute digitali delle banche centrali (CBDC). Invece di avere un'autorità centrale che controlla la creazione e il flusso della valuta, la DeFi incentiva la creazione di asset finanziari peer-to-peer regolati da codice informatico. Per questo motivo la mossa della CFTC contro la DeFi, vista in casi come Ooki DAO, era progettatata a frenare questo settore in espansione applicando le regole finanziarie esistenti che presuppongono un'autorità centralizzata. Allo stesso tempo, limitando l'ascesa della DeFi, i regolatori volevano spianare la strada alle CBDC, che si affidano alla supervisione centralizzata per gestire la politica monetaria e monitorare l'attività finanziaria.

Il costo umano della repressione delle criptovalute da parte dell'amministrazione Biden

Dietro queste azioni ci sono persone reali le cui vite sono state distrutte dall'assalto coordinato del governo federale. Mentre la SEC ha decantato le statistiche di applicazione e il Dipartimento del Tesoro ha celebrato multe record, intere famiglie sono state distrutte, i risparmi di una vita vaporizzati e decenni di lavoro innovativo distrutti. Ogni caso di seguito non rappresenta solo una tragedia individuale, ma un avvertimento per chiunque osi sfidare il controllo statale sul denaro. Questi non sono solo fascicoli di casi, sono storie di americani che hanno rispettato la legge, cercato consulenza legale, creato attività legittime e si sono comunque ritrovati nel mirino dello stato.

1. Roger Ver: “Ho iniziato immediatamente a sensibilizzare sul caso di Roger nel momento in cui è stato arrestato in Spagna l'anno scorso. Perché? Perché in base al successo senza precedenti di Roger nella diffusione del denaro digitale peer-to-peer come alternativa alle banche centrali negli ultimi 15 anni, egli è il nemico numero 1 per coloro che spingono le CBDC e il principale obiettivo dell'Ordine esecutivo 14067”. Sebbene il caso di Roger Ver tecnicamente precedesse l'Ordine esecutivo 14067, la decisione finale di convocare una giuria popolare e incriminarlo non è stata presa prima del 2024, ma dopo che suddetta legge ha fornito il quadro per colpire in modo aggressivo coloro che promuovevano alternative al denaro controllato dallo stato. Non si è mai trattato di tasse; si trattava di eliminare uno dei sostenitori più efficaci del denaro digitale decentralizzato. Ver ha trascorso gli ultimi 15 anni a promuovere instancabilmente il denaro digitale peer-to-peer, investendo e promuovendo Bitcoin e in seguito Bitcoin Cash affinché si potesse creare un mondo in cui gli individui, non gli stati, controllassero i propri destini finanziari. I suoi sforzi non riguardavano solo l'innovazione nel mondo delle criptovalute; erano una sfida diretta a un sistema che si basa sul controllo per finanziare guerre, imporre la coercizione economica e mantenere il potere. Dall'adozione pionieristica di Bitcoin nel commercio al finanziamento di iniziative globali che hanno ampliato la libertà finanziaria, Ver è stato in prima linea in ogni importante sviluppo della finanza decentralizzata. È proprio a causa di questo impatto che è diventato il bersaglio principale dell'Ordine esecutivo 14067, uno strumento progettato per spianare la strada al lancio di una CBDC, schiacciando qualsiasi seria opposizione. Ma l'attacco a Ver è più di un semplice assalto alle criptovalute: il governo federale non lo ha solo accusato di reati fiscali; ha cancellato uno dei principi fondamentali della giustizia violando il privilegio tra avvocato e cliente. I pubblici ministeri hanno fatto irruzione nel team legale di Ver, sequestrato comunicazioni private e distorto i suoi meticolosi sforzi per conformarsi alle leggi fiscali. Questa mossa stabilisce un precedente terrificante: anche quando gli individui seguono alla lettera i consigli legali, possono comunque essere perseguiti se sono considerati una minaccia politica. Ancora più pericolosa è la capacità dell'IRS di riscrivere retroattivamente la cronologia finanziaria per scopi politici. Quando Ver è espatriato, Bitcoin era un asset non classificato senza chiare linee guida fiscali. Per garantire la conformità, assunse alcuni dei migliori avvocati fiscali, contabili ed ex-procuratori federali. Eppure, anni dopo, il governo federale ha reinterpretato arbitrariamente la politica fiscale, trasformando le sue azioni un tempo legittime in un crimine. Questa è un'azione penale selettiva nella sua forma più sfacciata, un avvertimento a qualsiasi innovatore o imprenditore che nessuna diligenza legale li proteggerà se si oppongono all'agenda dello stato. La sua incriminazione ai sensi delle politiche post-Ordine esecutivo 14067 segnala un pericoloso precedente: l'uso dell'IRS come arma politica per mettere a tacere il dissenso e criminalizzare coloro che sfidano lo status quo. Prendendo di mira Ver, il governo degli Stati Uniti ha inviato un messaggio agghiacciante: l'adozione di nuove tecnologie finanziarie al di fuori del controllo statale incontrerà gravi ritorsioni. Se questa azione penale regge, consoliderà un'era in cui la conformità non è più una questione di legge ma di favore politico e coloro che sfidano l'egemonia monetaria affronteranno l'annientamento legale. Questo caso non riguarda solo Roger Ver, riguarda il futuro della libertà finanziaria. Se sono riusciti a fare questo all'uomo che più ha sponsorizzato il denaro elettronico peer-to-peer, possono farlo a chiunque. Esiste un breve documentario che espone il calvario di Roger. Tracciando parallelismi con i destini di Julian Assange e John McAfee, presenta resoconti di prima mano, sconvolgenti eccessi e un duro avvertimento per chiunque tenga alla libertà finanziaria. Potete leggere il mio articolo più approfondito sul tema, Why Roger Ver Deserves a Presidential Pardon, e potete rimanere aggiornati sul caso firmando una petizione a sostegno di Roger su freerogernow.org.


2. Ian Freeman: l'uomo che ha introdotto Roger Ver a Bitcoin nel 2010, è stato arrestato il 16 marzo 2021, mesi prima che l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden fosse anche solo un luccichio negli occhi di Washington. Eppure, dopo la sua approvazione, le agenzie federali hanno raddoppiato i loro sforzi per farlo tacere, portando a una condanna a otto anni di carcere il 2 ottobre 2023. Mia moglie e io eravamo in tribunale quel giorno, e ciò a cui abbiamo assistito è stato un tentativo, politico, a tutto campo di abbattere una figura chiave sia nel mondo delle criptovalute che nel movimento per la libertà. Ian e il suo socio in affari, Mark Edge, sono co-conduttori di Free Talk Live, un programma radiofonico trasmesso a livello nazionale che è stato una delle voci più influenti nella promozione della libertà personale. Si stima che fino al 10% dei partecipanti al Free State Project abbiano scoperto per la prima volta la comunità libertaria del New Hampshire grazie a quel programma; infatti parlare direttamente con Ian e Mark ha avuto un ruolo importante nella mia decisione di trasferirmi nel Granite State. Chiaramente il governo federale non stava solo inseguendo l'ennesimo appassionato di criptovalute, stava prendendo di mira un intero movimento che ha innescato un cambiamento nel mondo reale. Il reportage investigativo di Jacob Hornberger espone come il Dipartimento di Giustizia abbia utilizzato un agente dell'IRS sotto copertura, che si spacciava per un concessionario di automobili, per attirare Ian in uno scenario di “spaccio di droga” inventato, uno schema che Ian alla fine ha rifiutato. Ma il Dipartimento di Giustizia ha comunque trasformato tutto in accuse penali. Al momento della sentenza i pubblici ministeri sono andati oltre, facendo sfilare davanti al giudice vittime di truffe sentimentali per insinuare che Ian le aveva ingannate, nonostante non ci fossero accuse o condanne del genere. Questa narrazione era così fuori dal mondo che l'ufficio di libertà vigilata inizialmente si è rifiutato di designare questi individui come “vittime” idonee al risarcimento. È ovvio che il suo caso non aveva niente a che fare con la giustizia; si trattava di mettere a tacere un sostenitore del denaro decentralizzato e della libertà. L'appello di Ian è fissato per il 5 febbraio 2025 presso la Corte d'appello di Boston. Se vi interessa resistere all'eccesso federale e difendere il diritto alla libertà finanziaria e personale, scoprite come sostenere il caso di Ian su www.freeiannow.org.


3. Joe Roets: Dragonchain, spesso definita “la blockchain americana”, aveva a capo Joe Roets, paladino della libertà individuale in un panorama finanziario che gravita verso la centralizzazione. Offrendo una blockchain completamente operativa e alimentata da un utility token (DRGN), anziché da una moneta speculativa, Dragonchain voleva offrire un'alternativa alle CBDC. Il suo approccio trasparente, l'attenzione alla privacy e l'architettura supportata da brevetti rappresentavano una sfida diretta al controllo centralizzato, portando molti a credere che la causa della SEC, che rivendicava offerte di titoli non registrati, fosse alimentata più dal desiderio di sopprimere una tecnologia concorrente che dalla protezione degli investitori. Poiché Dragonchain aveva prodotti e clienti reali prima di introdurre DRGN, funzionava più come uno strumento che come un meccanismo di raccolta fondi, sottolineando ulteriormente la sua legittimità. I sostenitori affermano che l'impegno di Dragonchain per la libertà personale e la decentralizzazione, attributi chiave che minacciano una CBDC, l'hanno reso un obiettivo primario ai sensi dell'Ordine esecutivo 14067. Se volete mostrare il vostro sostegno, prendete in considerazione la possibilità di firmare questa lettera aperta di supporto.


4. Steven Nerayoff: molto prima che l'Ordine esecutivo 14067 accendesse la miccia su quella che molti vedono come una spinta verso le CBDC, il governo federale stava già stringendo le sue maglie attorno ai sostenitori delle criptovalute e della libertà. Nella mia intervista dell'anno scorso con Steven Nerayoff ho condiviso il suo straziante resoconto di un raid dell'FBI nella sua casa, descrivendo in dettaglio una scena sconvolgente più adatta a un film thriller che a un arresto di routine. Nerayoff ha insistito sul fatto che il caso di estorsione risultante è stato fabbricato ad arte per costringerlo a incriminare altre persone come Roger Ver, Patrick Byrne, Bruce Fenton e Naomi Brockwell. In risposta Nerayoff ha intentato una causa da $9,6 miliardi contro il governo federale, con il famoso avvocato Alan Dershowitz tra coloro che lo rappresentano. Nerayoff sostiene che la sua ordalia è stata tutt'altro che un incidente isolato, suggerendo invece che riflette un'escalation sistemica di “giustizialismo” precedente all'Ordine esecutivo 14067, che il governo federale ha sfruttato per accelerare il controllo sugli asset digitali e spianare la strada alle CBDC, stritolando l'ethos di libertà che l'ecosistema delle criptovalute era stato progettato per proteggere.

Trump dovrebbe porre fine immediatamente alla guerra nei tribunali

Dal punto di vista di Roger, Ian, Joe, Steven e migliaia di altri che sono stati colpiti dall'applicazione dell'Ordine esecutivo, i suoi effetti sono ancora in vigore.

Apprezzo il fatto che Trump sia impegnato e abbia molte priorità; tuttavia lui, più di chiunque altro, può comprendere il prezzo che il giustizialismo ha sulla vita di una persona. Ha affermato che vuole che gli Stati Uniti siano leader mondiali sia nell'intelligenza artificiale che nelle criptovalute. Ha anche affermato che vuole rendere di nuovo grande l'America e inaugurare un'età dell'oro. Dopo aver concesso la grazia a Ross Ulbricht e aver annullato l'Ordine esecutivo 14067, so che dovrei dargli il beneficio del dubbio. Tuttavia non possiamo davvero essere leader nel mondo delle criptovalute se i pionieri, sui cui sforzi è stato costruito l'intero ecosistema, rimangono vittime del giustizialismo della precedente amministrazione Biden.

Presidente Trump, nello spirito delle sue coraggiose grazie per gli imputati del 6 gennaio, dovrebbe ordinare immediatamente ai suoi incaricati presso la SEC, la CFTC e il Dipartimento di giustizia di abbandonare tutte le azioni esecutive nell'Ordine esecutivo 14067 di Biden. Ciò include, ma non è limitato solo a loro, i casi contro Roger Ver (evasione fiscale), Ian Freeman (scambio di bitcoin senza licenza) e Joe Roets di Dragonchain (titoli non registrati). Queste azioni sono state intensificate sotto un Ordine esecutivo progettato per promuovere una CBDC, un programma che ha respinto, e per eliminare le criptovalute decentralizzate e incentrate sulla libertà.

Naturalmente se viene scoperta una vera attività criminale, sarà un giusto processo ad accertarlo. Fino ad allora, una presunzione di innocenza dovrebbe sostituire l'atmosfera di “colpevole fino a prova contraria” che ha preso piede sotto l'approccio ostile dell'amministrazione Biden. Intraprendere questo passo placherebbe la percezione che l'apparato giudiziario americano venga trasformato in un'arma per spianare la strada a una CBDC. Sarebbe anche in linea con la sua visione più ampia di un mercato fiorente, in cui innovazione e libertà personale, non l'eccesso di potere del governo federale, dettano il ritmo per il futuro finanziario americano.

Perché ancora non posso festeggiare

Mettetevi nei panni di Roger Ver per un momento. Ogni mattina si sveglia da solo in un Paese straniero in cui non parla la lingua. Non abbraccia i suoi genitori da oltre un decennio. Ogni due giorni deve dimostrare a un'aula di tribunale di non essere fuggito e, nel frattempo, il mondo si entusiasma per una nuova età dell'oro delle criptovalute costruita in parte sulle sue spalle. Vive nel terrore costante che la polizia possa irrompere, portarlo via e rispedirlo negli Stati Uniti, dove lo attende una condanna quasi certa all'ergastolo.

E perché? Ha pagato le tasse, assunto professionisti e messo tutti i puntini sulle “i”. Non si tratta di tasse; è un gioco di potere. Con la repressione dell'amministrazione Biden, Roger è diventato un simbolo, qualcuno che doveva essere neutralizzato affinché le CBDC potessero avanzare senza opposizione.

Quindi come possiamo celebrare una cosiddetta “vittoria” se persone come Roger, e tante altre, rimangono intrappolate in questo incubo giudiziario? La vera chiusura di questo capitolo buio arriverà solo quando potrà camminare libero e ogni caso motivato politicamente contro gli innovatori nel mondo delle criptovalute verrà finalmente abbandonato. Forse allora potrò credere che questa volta sarà davvero diverso. Forse allora decenni di promesse non mantenute, crescente potere statale e il senso strisciante di tradimento perpetuo, anche se brevemente, lasceranno il posto a qualcosa di meglio.

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

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

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

InfoWars

 

The post 14 Federal Government Magic Computers Make Money Out of Thin Air appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Revolver News

 

The post The world is noticing: There’s a legit COUP underway in the US led by federal judges… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

Posted on X:

JFK Files

– CIA orchestrated the entire assassination
– Links to Mossad & Israel
– Ties to Rothschild family? CIA was working from Rothschild’s Paris home
– CIA agent Gary Underhill was murdered after revealing that JFK assassination was a CIA operation
– JFK jr (son of JFK)… pic.twitter.com/YM3NVdBifE

— J Gautam (@JagrutBharatiya) March 19, 2025

The post Another View on the Newly Released JFK Assassination Files appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

AntiWar.com

 

The post American Surgeon in Gaza Describes His Experience When Israel Restarted Massive Bombing appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Freedom isn’t free” we have been told by the martially inclined. A good idea of what they meant was presented to the world before the saying ever caught on. 1972 was when the AP ran the Nick Ut photo  “Napalmed Girl”. It depicted 9-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down a rural Vietnamese road naked, molten and sobbing. Her village, where US ordnance had just detonated, incinerated in the background. The picture literalized “collateral damage” for anyone rationalizing in newsy abstractions.

In the years since the once-called “police action” in Viet Nam, another cliché started making the rounds: “we have to fight them over there, so we won’t have to over here.” Supposedly, American freedoms remain intact because the military, stealthily abetted by our cloaks and daggers, have been deployed oceans away for over a century. Going by this reasoning, your right to protest against Richard Nixon 50 years ago was paid for by skin off Kim Phuc’s back.

Ut’s photo arrived less than 3 decades after the end of WWII carnage. Mass atrocity and human suffering were things many people had gotten used to. Casualty figures in daily reports became as routine as sports statistics.

During the 80 years between the war and today much ink has been spilled on the role and responsibility of major media. Does any other kind of “non-fiction” narrative contain as many blind spots as when journalists cover journalism? In the 50’s and 60’s boys too young to vote or drink were conscripted to face enemy fire without any declaration of war. The upper ranks of the news corps of the time were known to consort regularly with policy makers in charge of such decisions. Downing heady liquids as they dined, news industry execs could be part of the planning. In general they’ve been spared much blame or credit for global fate post VJ Day.

By the end of the Johnson administration the wisdom of so-called “Wise Men” began to be called out. Students, not media, led the pack. Some of the informing classes came around, eventually. Others still hold that higher standards reigned in the Cronkite age. Is it true? Was it a journalistic era that writers and academics should recall nostalgically? Would reviving it make American news great again?

Functionally literate people are well aware of the litigious accomplishments of the NYT and WP on the question of “prior restraints.” Where those not quite as erudite are concerned, film-land hasn’t neglected the Pentagon Papers case either. What Daniel Ellsberg divulged was vital to public understanding of relations between Washington and Saigon. But official documents don’t necessarily tell the whole story?

 What are the chances, for example, that our initial forays into Viet Nam got rolling steam from a third martini poured for Joseph Alsop at Kay Graham’s house? Is it even a question? Coteries like the renowned Georgetown Set still have sway in American policy making. While there is little accounting in published letters for the impact of their influence. It’s considered “conspiratorial” to pry into discussions at secretive conclaves that news industry chieftains attend.

Ut’s iconic image continues to be worth millions of words. It was the South Vietnamese Air force that mistakenly dropped napalm on their own side in Trang Bang that day. But that’s hardly the point.  The US provided the ordnance and had been wantonly bombing all over Viet Nam and neighbors for years. There were many other Kim Phucs outstanding who never got the benefit of a camera. Whatever emotions that little girl evoked, the prerogatives of US leadership loom large in the background.

A lot of mainstream media ire has been devoted to giving too wide an audience to voices considered mendacious and unqualified. The remnants of the traditional scribing trade – and “tradecraft”  maybe the better word considering historic entanglements with secret agencies — from the pre-internet age have devoted little circumspection to their own foibles, failures and faults. Their relationships with movers and shakers in the most destructive years of US policy, have never been given a fair shake.

The Sunday, March 2nd NYT Opinion section features the anonymous editorial “Trump Loves Free Speech Only When It’s His.” It’s not hard to find statements, actions and policies of 47 that support this contention. Is it difficult to back up the very same accusations aimed at Biden and many of Trumps other opponents? Consider this sentence:

Officials in Washington have spent the past month stripping federal websites of any hint of undesirable words and thoughts, disciplining news organizations that refuse to parrot the president’s language and threatening to punish those who have voiced criticism of investigations and prosecutions.

While it’s unlikely Trump’s “Gulf of America” will catch on, Biden renamed over 600 pieces of US real estate. You can describe denying journalists’ access as “disciplining” but it still fails to rise to the level of violating the 1st amendment. Government pressure on electronic media, to limit the spread of viewpoints an administration opposes, comes much closer to crossing that line. If the AP sought Kissinger and Nixon’s permission to run Ut’s photo, what do you think would have happened? Content on federal websites and published material has always been in the clutches of political ins. The bill-of-rights exists to protect you from government employees – not government employees from government.

This administration, however, is mustering the arms of government to suppress speech it doesn’t like and compel words and ideas it prefers.”

Does siccing the FBI on parents at school board meetings count as “mustering the arms of government”? What about planting a predatory G-Man in the congregation of a Catholic Church? When it comes to livid linguistic movements suppressing “speech it doesn’t like and compel[ing] words and ideas it prefers,” is the Republican Party really the first transgressor the NYT editorial board could think of? They could call their mothers if they knew what to call them. Academic institutions crank out Democrats like the Fed prints currency. They have been demanding a speech revolution, and conformity to it, that no autocrat yet known would try impose, for years. By limiting the words people can choose from they hope to limit what can be thought. It is difficult to believe this hadn’t occurred to the editorial’s authors. And dismal to imagine they thought they could get away with ignoring it.

Trump and Musk’s attitudes on open dialogue leave much to be desired. The idea they started this war of words and other weapons, however, on words, strikes anyone following current events for the last 2 decades as surreal. That’s without going over major media’s selective treatment of content during the era. Both men’s resort to litigation over matters of speech is troubling. It doesn’t come close though, to the number of people who lost their jobs over speech trivialities in recent years and had to litigate to retain them. Meanwhile, people like Taylor Lorenz wail like banshees before the camera getting an unsolicited taste of their own literary medicine. There is a growing caste in the United States demanding unfettered speech for themselves and a muzzle on the masses. This is where we get to the NYT’s most problematic line referring to regime 47:

“It sees the press not as institution with an explicit constitutional privilege but as a barrier to overcome …”

In the age of modern communication, should the press be seen as an “institution”? Was it in 1791 when the first amendment was ratified? Does the NYT hold that the “explicit constitutional privilege” alluded to is one solely prescribed for entities like themselves and not all other citizens? The very people raging over concentrated fortunes and corporate power have long opposed wildcat competition in the news industry.

During litigation of Citizens United v. FEC, most journalists opposed the plaintiff. “Corporations are not people” we heard, and heard, and still hear. It didn’t bother speakers of those words that their own speech was not restricted from wide audiences at election time. It didn’t count, they said, because they were employed by large media corporations. The prevalence of this double standard across the blue world is nearly universal. What makes news industrialists more trustworthy than other kinds of entrepreneurs?

Just how does mega-media somehow evade the human frailty that rendered CU illegal under McCain-Feingold? One reason the law made no sense is that political content shows up in The Simpsons, Bill Nye Science Guy, Oprah and everything in between. Hillary the Movie made no bones about what it was up to, and you had to pay the cable company extra to see it. CNN was free and ubiquitous in every commercial airport the whole time. Nearing the end the NYT says:

The current administration may argue that these steps [bulleted above in the article] are simply payback for an American political left that can be rightly criticized for policing speech in recent years, from trying to shut or shout down conservative speakers to trying to enforce adherence to its own list of acceptable words and phrases like “pregnant people,” the “unhoused,” “ “incarcerated individuals” and “Latinx.”

But the Trump administration’s early and furious reaction to criticism and pungent speech isn’t just guilty of the same sins; it expands on them, worryingly, with the powers of the state. If the MAGA movement were really confident that the American public stood firmly behind the new intolerance, then why not welcome serious news reporting or even the jeers of critics and let the best ideas win?

What “serious news reporting” is could stand some elaboration, especially from this source. A report can easily be 100% factual without including 100% of pertinent facts. A good example of that is defense of continued concealment of the JFK assassination files. At least 3000 are still classified, but 99% are out there and that’s supposed to satisfy the ingrates. Meanwhile, the combined influence of the FBI, CIA and other spookdoms to stifle internet-wide discussion of the Hunter laptop is supposedly not due to “powers of the state.”

There’s no justification for Trumpian maneuvers to control language and dummy up critics, but has any reliable measuring stick been applied by the NYT proving admin 47 is a worse offender than 46? Biden was certainly sneakier.

How is Nick Ut’s Pulitzer winning photo relevant to all of this? The process that led America down the postwar path of coup d’etat, political meddling abroad, assassination attempts, riot incitement, nods at massacre, foreign invasions and other skullduggery included the participation and enabling powers of media moguls of the day and their minions. Any description of ante-internet news reporting as pristine, exacting, honest and honorable is pure propaganda. It was a duplicitous age of hidden agendas, corporate coercion, misdirection and covered up culpability. Men with little confidence in their constituents or consumers decided tomorrow’s headlines at lavish tables, usually with a snootful as they ruled on copy fit for the masses. “Napalmed Girl” was among the fruits reaped from what they sowed.

Numerous policy disasters have plagued the US and the world over recent generations. Is there any journalistic principle or philosophy that would have done better standing in the way of state engineered atrocities like coups in Tehran and Guatemala City, The CIA’s bungled Operation Valuable Fiend, Viet Nam, Iran Air Flight 655, 1983’s Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut or the second Gulf War? The institutionalized media of the US came up short covering these developments. They were often in on the processes that led to grisly results.

Meanwhile, a professoriate led by Tim Wu at Columbia, claims to advocate for free speech. That high-priest and acolytes assure the laity that the trouble is too much information, too much speech. Contradicting them on social media equals interrupting the sermon from the pews. Wu would solve the “problem” of a misled public by limiting the audience people he disagrees with can reach.

The unavoidable fact is that “institution”-alized informers had their chance. The lesson to learn from their abuses, highhandedness, informational blackouts and emotional proximity to their human subjects is that social media should be treated like any other common carrier. Allowing the public free and unfettered access choosing electronic sources of information is the best shot we have at bringing unruly ruling-classes to heel. A racket passing itself off as a professional caste proved incapable of watching power structures faithfully without being drawn into them.

Whatever Trump does, deplatforming, demonetizing and blackballing anyone from acquiring willing electronic subscribers is presently the most perilous threat to free speech. News providers that see themselves as institutions had exhausted their credibility by 1963. That was when Phil Graham made a scene and complained to a room full of publishers in Phoenix, Arizona about, among other things, the influence of the CIA on daily copy. He was dragged from the stage and hospitalized. The top brass of The Company had been meeting for drinks and dinner at Graham’s house for years by then. A few months later he shot himself.

The post Inflating the Cost of Free Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

“We will not stand idly by while this regime pulls the wool over the eyes of the American people,” proclaimed Sheria Smith, the president of American Federation of Government Employees unit representing more than a thousand federal Education Department employees fired by the Trump administration. The New York Times frets that the layoffs could devastate the agency that “tracks student achievement and enforces civil rights laws in schools.”

But ever since it was created by President Jimmy Carter, the Education Department has done far worse than “pull the wool” over Americans’ eyes. Federal mandates and bureaucratic meddling have helped mentally blight millions of children.

More than 150 years ago, abolitionist Frederick Douglass declared, “Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.” But federal education policymakers have prevented legions of kids from reaching that road to freedom.

No modern American president did more than Barack Obama to canonize bigoted standards in federal education policy. President Obama championed subsidies for public schools so that “the federal government can play a leading role in encouraging the… high standards we need.” But, as part of its convoluted plans to reduce the achievement gap, the Obama administration cajoled most states into setting lower academic goals for blacks and Hispanics. From 2009 onwards, the feds rubber-stamped official plans under which white and Asian students were expected to perform far better than black and Hispanic students. (I bashed the discriminatory policy in USA Today in 2014).

The feds bankrolled the District of Columbia’s plan to boost the percentage of white students who passed reading tests from 88 percent to 94 percent while the percentage of black students who passed rose from 41 percent to 71 percent. At DC’s Wilson High School, the goal was for 67 percent of black students and 95 percent of white students to pass math tests by 2017. Cynical Washingtonians joked that Wilson High had a two-track system, and its graduates went either to Yale or to jail.

The federal Education Department approved Tennessee’s plan to raise the passing rate for English III courses for white students from 45.6 percent to 65.4 percent between 2011 and 2018 while the passing rate for black students leaped from 17.6 percent to 47.6 percent. The feds approved Minnesota’s plan to achieve 82 percent proficiency in 11th grade math for white students, 66 percent for Hispanic students, and 62 percent for black students.

Alabama’s goals for the 2013-14 school year called for 91.5 percent of white third graders and 79 percent of black third graders to pass math. Tim Robinson, the father of two black school children, complained to the Tuscaloosa News: “I think having a low bar means they can just pass them on. I think it’s dumbing our race down and preparing our boys for prison.”

The Virginia NAACP denounced the new scoring regime. State Sen. Mamie Locke, the chair of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, protested: “We believe that education is the ‘great equalizer’ in our society…. The state’s new system of benchmarks for performance is antithetical to this goal.” Further south, the Florida PTA protested: “By setting ethnicity-based goals, the door is open for continued discrimination.”

In some states, the racial double scoring was simply bureaucratic finagling to keep federal cash flowing into state coffers. Elois Zeanah, President of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women, declared that there was,

…no way would these standards, which have racial overtones, be accepted if there had been an opportunity for public debate. Parents have no idea that their elected state education officials, and the state superintendent of education, are forcing different standards on their children based on their family income and race.

As historian Walter Russell Mead warned, “In practical terms, this is setting up a system in which some teachers will think they’ve succeeded as long as the black kids in a class reach a certain low level of proficiency.” University of Michigan education professor Carla O’Connor complained that the tests schools used measure only “basic-level skills and now we’re saying we don’t think certain populations of students can even meet those expectations.”

The Education Department required states to specify exactly how far each racial and ethnic group of students at each school would progress over the following years. The spreadsheet with Washington State’s formal plan for each school contained more than 47,000 separate lines. That was a level of education planning akin to the Soviet central planners who pretended to foretell the yields for every crop on every collective farm in the next Five-Year Plan. In the same way that collective farms submitted grossly exaggerated harvest data to Moscow, many schools were caught falsifying student results to fulfill federal mandates. States missed most of the goals but that didn’t matter because federal funding kept flowing.

If Lester Maddox—one of the most racist governors in the 1960s—had officially announced lower learning goals for blacks in Georgia’s schools, he would have been tarred by every editorial page north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Because Obama was usually portrayed with a halo, his racial profiling in the classroom was largely ignored. But the policies scorned the message of the 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court stressed that segregation could “generate a feeling of [black] inferiority…that may affect [children’s] hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” Maybe none of the Obama administration education policymakers read or remembered that 1954 decision?

Obama’s racial profiling dismally failed. Despite soaring government spending on schools, the racial achievement gap “is now 30 percent larger than it was 35 years ago,” according to Stanford University education professor Linda Darling-Hammond. But many Democrats and perhaps many laid-off Education Department bureaucrats still believe that a bigger federal iron fist can solve all problems.

Luckily, millions of parents and some states are done waiting for Uncle Sam to fix schools. “Mississippi went from being ranked the second-worst state in 2013 for fourth-grade reading to 21st in 2022,” the Associated Press reported. The “Mississippi Miracle” is based on a return to phonics—a reading method that succeeded for generations until progressive reformers replaced it with new-fangled methods that guaranteed full-employment for learning disability consultants. Mississippi fourth graders have higher reading scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress than do fourth graders in Minnesota—a liberal state long known for high education standards (and now best known for wacky Governor Tim Walz). Forty-seven percent of Mississippi fourth graders are black while only 13 percent of Minnesota fourth graders are black. But the method of teaching reading mattered more than the race of the students.

America can no longer afford a “no-fault” federal education policy. Torpedoing the Education Department is one of Trump’s most encouraging reforms.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared that the layoffs are only “the first step of eliminating bureaucratic bloat” as part of a “new era of accountability.” Expect endless caterwauling about how the mass firings at the Education Department will doom America’s future. But terminating that department is the best guarantee that the feds will not inflict more idiocy upon hapless kids across the land.

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

The post The Feds Have Been the Main Source of Racial Bigotry in Classrooms appeared first on LewRockwell.

A repugnant tactic of authoritarianism is categorizing people’s desire for or exercise of freedom as illness that government should suppress. An example of this was the deeming of dissidents in the Soviet Union as mentally ill to justify their detention and punishment.

In America, there has long been resistance against an effort to similarly have the United States government medicalize the exercise of gun rights as a means to circumvent the constitutional protection of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment. In the 1990s this resistance led to congressional imposition of a spending prohibition against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advocating or promoting gun control.

The effort to prevent the US government from using medicalization to crack down on gun rights appears to have had a success in the new Trump administration with the removal from the HHS website of a guns and public health advisory from the preceding Biden administration. Abené Clayton reported Monday at the Guardian:

The Trump administration has removed former surgeon general Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence as a public health issue from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ website. This move was made to comply with Donald Trump’s executive order to protect second amendment rights, a White House official told the Guardian.

The strange thing is that while the Trump administration appears to be taking action to cut off HHS threats to Second Amendment rights, HHS is helping lead Trump administration efforts to expand US government threats to First Amendment rights. Medicalization to restrict free speech, assembly, and petition is on the ascendancy at HHS as demonstrated by a March 3 announcement by HHS, the Department of Education (ED), and the General Services Administration (GSA) concerning the US government’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, created the month before, reviewing actions or inactions of Columbia University relative to “antisemitism” and potential penalties that may be imposed upon that university. This is all justified in the announcement by reference to a January 29 executive order of President Donald Trump that employs a peculiarly expanded definition of antisemitism incorporated into an executive order from Trump’s first term that includes positions against to the Israel government in addition to the commonly understood definition that concerns positions against an ethnicity or religion.

“Anti-Semitism – like racism – is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues,” declared HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the announcement. That is medicalization in a nutshell: Your “bad thoughts” are a plague the government must stop to protect public health.

Four days later — on March 7, HHS, ED, and GSA were back with a new announcement that, due to review by the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, about 400 million dollars in US grants to Columbia University had been canceled, with more grant cancelations expected to follow. Then, on March 13 the HHS, ED, and GSA followed up with a letter to Columbia University using the denial of funding as leverage to demand the university crack down on free speech, assembly and petition, as well as change, and even hand to US government control over, a variety of university policies and procedures.

Meanwhile, the US government is making an example of Mahmoud Khalil who was involved in protests challenging US foreign policy and related to Israel at Columbia University. The US government has arrested and detained him, and is seeking his deportation, because Khalil apparently did nothing more than exercise First Amendment protected rights.

These actions against Columbia University are not one-off. A February 28 press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ) listed ten universities — Columbia University plus George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California — as subject to visits from the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism because their campuses “have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023.” Expect the list to keep growing.

Leo Terrell, described in the February DOJ press release as “[l]eading Task Force member and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” made clear in an included quote that the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism means business. He stated:

The Task Force’s mandate is to bring the full force of the federal government to bear in our effort to eradicate Anti-Semitism, particularly in schools. These visits are just one of many steps this Administration is taking to deliver on that commitment.

It looks like we are witnessing the beginning of a major crackdown on First Amendment rights. The US government, however, will claim this development is nothing to worry about because the purpose is to make America healthy again.

This originally appeared on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Using Medicalization to Suppress the Exercise of First Amendment Rights appeared first on LewRockwell.

The primary purpose of the federal judiciary is to make sure that anything the federal government does is almost never, ever, ruled to be unconstitutional. This is Hamilton’s constitutional regime. A believer in unlimited government, Alexander Hamilton’s constitutional belief was that the constitution can and should be used as a rubber stamp on unlimited government — as long as the government is run by “well behaved” politicians like himself, he insisted. His political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, took the opposite view that the government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.”

Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The Constitution in Exile, that the federal government’s “supreme” court did not rule a single federal law to be unconstitutional from 1935 to 1997. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived that the federal government, through its judiciary, would be the sole arbiter of constitutionality Americans would then live under a tyranny. That judicial tyranny was cemented into place in April of 1865 with the destruction of the rights of nullification and secession and the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment – the real purposes of the “Civil War.”

The latest example of our bullying and tyrannical federal judiciary is Chief Justice John Roberts’ nasty rebuke of President Trump’s recommendation of impeaching a federal judge who issued one of those Stalinist-sounding federal judicial “decrees” saying that the president has no authority to deport illegal aliens who have committed such felonies as rape and murder, as he did with over 200 members of a notorious El Salvadoran criminal gang.

Americans – and American presidents – were not always bullied by black-robed totalitarians. They once understood that there are three branches of the federal government, not just the judicial branch, and that federal judges are not black-robed deities. President Andrew Jackson, who President Trump apparently reveres, is a good example of such a president. After Chief Justice John Marshall “ruled” in 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) that the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), a precursor of the Fed, was constitutional despite not being one of the delegate powers in Article 1, Section 8, and despite its being voted down during the constitutional convention, Jackson voiced his disagreement by vetoing the recharter of the BUS in 1832.

Paying “solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution,” Jackson said in his veto message, he had “come to the conclusion that it (the BUS) ought not to become a law . . .” The BUS, in his opinion, was incompatible with justice, sound policy, and “the Constitution of our country.” Its grants of “almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange” had increased the value of its stock (The BUS was 80 percent privately owned, 20 percent government owned) so much that a few hundred stockholders had become very wealthy by it, he said. As to Marshall’s opinion that the bank was constitutional, President Jackson simply said, “To this conclusion I cannot assent.”

He mocked Marshall’s theory that mere precedent – the existence of the BUS – established its constitutionality. A slavish follower and worshipper of Hamilton, Marshall here repeated Hamilton’s totalitarian-minded theory that whenever government does something that is unconstitutional, the fact that it did that thing magically makes it constitutional! No constitutional amendment is needed!

Stating the common understanding of all Americans outside of Marshall and his nationalist comrades in the legal profession, Jackson explained the truth about constitutional interpretation that “The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.” To that Jefferson would have added “the people of the free and independent states” as he called them in the Declaration of Independence. “The authority of the Supreme Court,” Jackson continued, “must not, therefore, be permitted to control” the other two branches.

When Jefferson debated Hamilton on the constitutionality of a national bank run by politicians Hamilton based his argument on the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the Constitution. Jefferson’s response was that the country already had banks, so a national bank run by politicians was not “necessary and proper” but only convenient for the political class.

Arrogant and totalitarian-minded federal judges, educated in America’s hopelessly left-wing, socialist law schools have issued dozens of dictatorial “rulings” that attempt to stop President Trump from following through on his campaign promises. He has every right to ignore them, as Andrew Jackson did, and so should governors of the free and independent states when these same black-robed tyrants seek to impose even more governmental tyranny and mayhem on their states.

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

The post Gangsters, Terrorists, and Deep State Judicial Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

“This is war.”—President Trump

President Trump’s declaration of war as a justification for using wartime powers to sidestep constitutional protections is indeed a war, but it is a war waged by the president against dissent, against due process, and against the very foundations of our constitutional republic.

This is what it means to weaponize the government.

When the government turns its power against its own people—through surveillance, retaliation, censorship, and intimidation—it ceases to serve the public and instead becomes a weapon of oppression.

According to the Political Dictionary:

“The term ‘weaponize’ refers to the strategic manipulation or transformation of information, institutions, or social issues into tools for gaining political advantage. This could involve exploiting existing laws, harnessing social media algorithms for disinformation campaigns, or turning otherwise neutral or benign elements of governance into divisive issues for the purpose of delegitimizing opponents or rallying a base.”

Time and again, leaders have stretched—or outright shattered—the limits of power, weaponizing government power through unjust laws, surveillance, or outright suppression.

Each power grab is a step toward the erosion of liberty.

John Adams used the Alien and Sedition Acts to prosecute journalists and political opponents.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, allowing the military to detain individuals without trail and suppressing Confederate sympathizers and political dissenters.

Under Woodrow Wilson, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to crack down on anti-war activists, socialists, and labor organizers, including Eugene V. Debs, who spoke out against World War I.

Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, based on suspicions of disloyalty, despite little to no evidence.

Richard Nixon harnessed the power of the FBI, CIA, and IRS, to harass, spy on and sabotage his political opponents and perceived enemies.

Spanning numerous presidential administrations, from FDR to Nixon, the FBI’s covert intelligence program COINTELPRO was used to infiltrate, discredit and disrupt civil rights leaders, anti-war activists, and other political dissidents.

In a bid to fight so-called disinformation, Biden pressured social media companies to censor and suppress individuals expressing views perceived as conspiratorial or extremist, especially as they related to COVID-19.

And then there’s Donald Trump, who is setting new records for how far he’s willing to go to retaliate against his perceived enemies and sidestep the rule of law.

Indeed, Ken Hughes, an investigative journalist who spent two decades listening to Richard Nixon’s Secret White House Tapes, has concluded that Nixon’s abuses of presidential power—which included weaponizing the government to “sabotage Vietnam peace talks to damage the Democrats’ 1968 presidential campaign, to time his withdrawal from Vietnam to help his 1972 reelection campaign, and to spring former Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa from prison in return for the union’s political support”—pale beside Trump’s abuses.

Trump, who once vowed to end government overreach and the weaponization of the federal government, now openly uses its full force against his critics, dismantling democratic norms, consolidating power in ways that defy the Constitution, and directing an all-out weaponization of the federal government against his perceived enemies, which translates to anyone who dares to oppose him.

If Trump were just a petty blowhard, that would be one thing.

Unfortunately, having populated his administration with individuals more loyal to him than to the Constitution, Trump is getting drunk on power.

The danger is not so much Trump as it is his enablers-to-abuse, the many minions within his administration and beyond who are eager to carry out unlawful orders, defy the courts, ignore Congress’ mandate, trample rights, and butcher the Constitution, all in the so-called name of putting America first.

If this keeps up, America, once looked upon as a bastion of freedom and economic opportunity, will be the last place anyone ever thinks of when they hear the words freedom, justice and equality.

Every action taken by the Trump administration in defiance of the rule of law—whether or not that action is motivated by a legitimate concern for national security—pushes us that much closer to the complete dismantling of our constitutional republic.

Don’t be so carried away by fear-inducing tales of rapists and foreign invaders and corruption that you let the government get away with murder… the painful execution of our rights.

That way lies tyranny.

You can see the pattern forming already.

When anti-war protesters are made to disappear—snatched up late at night by plain-clothes men who refuse to identify themselves and then transported thousands of miles away, to a private prison in a state more favorable to dubious detentions—we are wading deep into authoritarian territory.

When Venezuelan migrants are rounded up and deported out of the country, heads shaven and in chains, without any due process—without being identified, without being charged formally with a crime, without getting a chance to plead their innocence against those charges and, if found guilty, then convicted—we are wading deep into authoritarian territory.

When major law firms are barred from interacting with federal agencies or entering federal buildings—an outright attempt to chill First Amendment activity and hamstring businesses that challenge government overreach—we are wading deep into authoritarian territory.

When huge swaths of our nation’s history (including the Constitution and Bill of Rights) are being erased from websites, government buildings, archives, educational curriculum—in the so-called name of combatting discrimination—we are wading deep into authoritarian territory.

When Trump administration sycophants from the vice president on down are openly deriding and defying the courts while proclaiming the imperial supremacy of their exalted leader, we are wading deep into authoritarian territory.

When the president of the United States threatens other nations militarily, talks openly about seizing foreign lands, stirs up international tensions, and rattles the war drums, we are wading deep into authoritarian territory.

Trump, adept at twisting facts and spinning lies, is working hard to insist that these end-runs around the rule of law are for our safety.

Don’t believe him. Words are cheap.

More importantly, don’t trust him. Bind him down with the chains of the Constitution.

The only real protection we have against tyranny is the rule of law, provided that you have a populace and a system of government that holds the rule of law as inviolable.

That is our real power: the extent to which we hold fast to the Constitution and demand that the government and its agents do so, as well.

The moment that we relent in that commitment—the moment that we look the other way and let first a few encroachments slide, then ever more and more—is the moment that the Constitution loses its power to protect us against tyranny.

That is what is unfolding right now.

This is the devil’s bargain that we are being asked to enter into with Trump: empty promises and a one-way street to a dictatorship in exchange for our freedoms.

Watch out.

When any politician claims to be saving you money by imposing tariffs that ramp up inflation and cutting government programs aimed at educating the masses, feeding the hungry, and helping the poor, disabled and elderly, all the while spending taxpayer money on his own lavish lifestyle and self-serving government programs, you’d better beware. Your hard-earned dollars will be next in line to be seized, spent and squandered.

When any politician suggests that you relinquish your freedoms—of speech, assembly, due process, association, etc.—in exchange for promises of greater security, you’d better beware. Your freedoms will be next on the chopping block.

When any politician persuades you to look the other way while innocent individuals are rounded up alongside suspected criminals just because they look a certain way or talk a certain way or belong to a particular demographic, you’d better beware. Your right to due process will be next.

When any politician comes up with a vast array of reasons why he doesn’t need to obey court rulings—because they were issued verbally, because his power trumps that of the courts, because he doesn’t need to follow the law outside America’s borders—you’d better beware. This shifty reasoning for breaking the law could be used against you next.

There can be no doubt about the nature of what is taking place right now.

This is war.

President Trump’s justification for defying the courts and doing whatever he wants in pursuit of his political agenda (arresting protesters, carrying out mass arrests and deportations, muzzling critics, seizing funds, dismantling agencies, usurping congressional powers) is that “this is war.”

Here’s the thing, though: Trump may be using his war powers as commander-in-chief to bypass the Constitution at every turn, but the only war being waged is a war against the Constitution and the rule of law and the American people.

Congress, which has the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, has yet to do so. And still Trump is using the emergency wartime powers of the presidency to sidestep accountability and due process.

In ruling after ruling, the courts, which have the judicial power to rein in overreach and misconduct, are repeatedly declaring unconstitutional the Trump administration’s steady dismantling of the government and refusal to stay within the purview of his official powers. And still Trump is unilaterally hacking away at the very foundations of our system of government.

If the president refuses to be held accountable, if he insists that his power is supreme, if he abuses the power of his office to wreak havoc and revenge, if he reduces our republic to rubble and tramples over the Constitution and disregards the rule of law, he is aligning himself with every despot, dictator and tyrant to have walked the earth.

We’ve been here before. We know how this story ends.

It takes time and effort and a willingness on the part of “we the people” to look beyond our differences and stand united in opposition to oppression, but when we do that, freedom prevails in the end.

Next year will be the 250th anniversary of the birth of this country, when America’s founders declared their independence from King George’s tyranny. What’s just as important, however, is what came before that: the small steps of rebellion, resistance and outrage that said, “enough is enough.”

What we are now experiencing is a civil war, devised and instigated in part by the Deep State.

The objective: compliance and control.

The strategy: destabilize the economy, polarize the populace, escalate racial and political tensions, intensify the use of violence, and then, when all hell breaks loose, clamp down on the nation for the good of the people and the security of the nation.

The outcome for this particular conflict is already foregone: the Deep State wins.

The Deep State wins by ensuring that we are censored, silenced, muzzled, gagged, zoned out, caged in and shut down. It wins by monitoring our speech and activities for any sign of “extremist” activity. It wins by ensuring that we are estranged from each other and kept at a distance from those who are supposed to represent us. It wins by saddling us with taxation without representation and a government without the consent of the governed.

It wins by terminating the Constitution (or rewriting the Constitution).

So where does that leave us?

“We” may have contributed to our downfall through our inaction and gullibility, but we are also the only hope for a free future.

After all, the Constitution begins with those three beautiful words, “We the people.”

Those three words were intended as a reminder to future generations that there is no government without us: our sheer numbers, our muscle, our economy, our physical presence in this land.

When we forget that, when we allow the “Me” of a self-absorbed, narcissistic, politically polarizing culture to override our civic duties as citizens to collectively stand up to tyranny and make the government play by the rules of the Constitution, that is when tyranny rises and freedom falls

Remember, there is power in numbers.

Not the kinds of numbers that Trump likes to spout about landslide victories and electoral mandates, but the most powerful numbers of all: the sheer, overwhelming mass of humanity that is “we the people” of these United States of America.

If there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it rests with us.

Ultimately, that’s what the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is all about: it affirms that “we the people” have all the power, and what powers we do not explicitly give to the federal government or the states, we retain. We may appoint government representatives to act in our stead, but we never relinquish that power altogether.

That’s where Trump and his Deep State handlers get it wrong. Speaking through him and his administration, they claim that this dismantling of the federal government is a bid to return power to local communities and state governments, but it’s not their government to dismantle, nor is it their power to return.

We are the government, and we are the power, and it’s time “we the people” reminded the government and its henchmen of that important fact.

The power still lies with us.

We must resist every attempt to erode our freedoms, demand accountability, and uphold the Constitution—before it’s too late.

It’s time to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

Nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the Constitution.

Flood your representatives’ phone lines, inboxes and townhall meetings with your discontent.

Protest everything that tramples on the Constitution.

Stand up for your own rights, of course, but more importantly, stand up for the rights of those with whom you might disagree.

Defend freedom at all costs. Defend justice at all costs. Make no exceptions based on race, religion, creed, politics, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc.

Don’t play semantics. Don’t justify. Don’t politicize it.

If it carries even a whiff of tyranny, oppose it.

Demand that your representatives in government cut you a better deal, one that abides by the Constitution and doesn’t just attempt to sidestep it. That’s their job: make them do it.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, all freedoms hang together. They fall together, as well.

This originally appeared on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Beyond the Law: What It Means To Weaponize the Government appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s happening again. Europe is once again going totalitarian and this time there’s a decidedly familiar communist stench. The outcome was predictable for many of us in the alternative media and the situation is only going to get worse in the next few years, but what does this mean for the rest of the world? With the European elites casting off their humanist masks and going outright Orwellian, what kind of chaos can we expect to unfold?

First and foremost I want to point out a key piece of irony here – For decades in the US we heard the tiresome argument that our 2nd Amendment gun rights are meaningless because they are “unnecessary in maintaining our freedoms”. Anti-gun rights activists and politicians commonly used Europe as their sterling example:

“If gun rights are so important for freedom, then what about the Europeans? They have strict gun laws and they’re not losing their rights…”

As Americans who understand what it means to fight a rebellion against tyranny and win, our response to this claim has always been the same: “Just give it time…”

Of course, we were right and they were wrong. I’m sure a large number of people among the 95% of EU and UK citizens that are disarmed are probably wishing desperately for firearms right about now. The reasons why are numerous and horrifying.

The Downward Spiral Into 1984

In the EU and UK there has been a slow burn on censorship the past ten years which has recently exploded into a California Palisades level inferno of speech restrictions. Door to door enforcement has increased as the public speaks out against multicultural polities. The excuse is always the same – Native Europeans are not allowed to criticize third world integration because it “might hurt people’s feelings”.  Any opposition to mass immigration is labeled “hate speech”.

Movements for national identity and border security are regularly attacked in the media. In France and Germany globalist officials are attempting to make it impossible for conservative leaning political parties to participate in elections.

In Romania they have succeeded in disrupting the normal voting process, arresting populist candidate Calin Georgescu after he won the first round of presidential elections. EU controlled authorities have ruled that he will not be allowed to run again.  And for those that think he was blocked due to Russian interference, well, they just blocked the candidacy of another conservative candidate simply because she criticized the EU.  Romania is also tightening rules for online speech in an effort to silence public dissent.

In true dystopian fashion, the powers-that-be call this “protecting democracy”.

An even more disturbing trend is Europe’s rising war rhetoric against Russia, with UK and French officials threatening the deployment of troops to Ukraine. Ukraine is losing the war badly and globalists are hellbent on cutting an artery and fomenting a world war. They insist that Ukraine must get back all captured territory and be allowed eventual NATO membership. In other words, a Russian victory cannot be allowed even if it means global conflagration.

As I predicted in April of last year in my article ‘World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided’, the establishment is seeking to stage a domino effect in which greater Europe and the US are drawn into the Ukraine conflict. Even with a tentative peace deal being negotiated with the Russians right now, NATO members have promised to escalate tensions in Ukraine with boots on the ground and increase troop presence in Poland on the Russian border.

Because of this development European officials are actively and openly entertaining ideas of forced conscription and the propaganda is starting to spread. It’s important to note that the war rhetoric is gaining momentum in tandem with mass immigration programs and censorship enforcement. This is not a coincidence; this is a directed and coordinated conspiracy.

The establishment is going for broke in light of the growing public shift away from progressive (socialist) ideology. It’s clear that the elites are afraid of a large scale reformation: A return to nationalism, conservatism, meritocracy and moral fortitude. Western culture is valued again and people are acting to defend it. The movement will soon be impossible to stop and the time of the globalists is running out.

Because of online discourse and the alternative media, dominating the information space is no longer possible. So the elites are turning to physical force and imprisonment to silence their opponents.

For now Britain is the worst perpetrator with citizens receiving intimidation visits from police and suffering arrests for posting “offensive words” and memes. Some are even being arrested for flying their national flag in the sight of migrants. Movements in support of “populism” are demonized and painted as “racist” or “xenophobic”, but these accusations are meant to distract from the very real cultural replacement being perpetrated in greater Europe.

The Hidden Purpose Behind Cultural Replacement

Mass immigration and cultural replacement is a strategy the globalists have been trying in the US for decades and we’re very familiar with the process. That said, I would suggest that Europe’s invasion (which launched around 2014) is an even greater threat due to the religious zealotry of the migrants involved.

Armies of third world invaders, largely from Islamic nations, have flooded into the EU and UK and threaten to completely displace the native born population. Muslims view the west as a cultural and spiritual enemy that needs to be brought under their control. Fundamentalists (around 70% of Muslims globally) believe that the entire world must one day submit to Islam and Sharia Law. They revel in the invasion and see Europeans as cattle ripe for subjugation.

There’s no intent to assimilate, no hope for coexistence. That’s not the goal. The elites are well aware of this dynamic and they welcome it. But why?

Western civilization has been scheduled for demolition and the establishment is using elements of third-world alien cultures to do the grunt work of tearing that civilization down. I predicted the results of this program in my article ‘Britain Is Proof: Globalists Plan To Use Migrants As A Mercenary Army Against The West’, published in August of 2024.

In that article I noted:

“If western populations are unified in opposing the globalist ideology then the task of deconstruction becomes impossible for them. So, they simply destroy the west from within by introducing millions of people that will NEVER assimilate or unify…”

“…In other words, my argument was that migrants from the third-world are not merely being used as unwitting tools for cultural saturation of the west. They’re not being shipped in by the millions to simply live off the fruits of our labor and our ancestors’ labors. I believe they are being brought into the US, the UK and Europe as enforcers for the establishment.”

I went on to explain the greater purpose of western government using third-world mercenaries:

“Keir Starmer and other government officials have been meeting with Muslim groups to reassure them that the government is on their side. The migrants are now emboldened to do as they please while the Brits face the reality that if they fight back, the government will put them in prison. The migrants are now, in the most basic sense, a mercenary wing of the UK government…”

I would go even further and say that in the event of war with Russia native born citizens will be rounded up for conscription while most migrants are left behind to run the streets of London, Paris and Berlin. I believe the migrants are enforcers to keep any potentially defiant Europeans in line. Many empires and monarchs throughout history have used foreign mercenaries as muscle to prevent local rebellion. The politicians in the EU and UK are following a similar strategy.

What Happens Next?

If we track these patterns to their natural conclusion I think it’s clear that Europe is about to become a nexus for global change. They will either destroy the west with instability and authoritarianism or their tyranny will inspire a modern day crusade to save free civilization.  In either case, they’re about to create a mess.

First, I think there will definitely be forced conscription, but I suspect there will be a lot more opposition and protests against this policy than the elites understand. No one in the west wants to die for Ukraine. There is no unifying moral imperative to enter into a war with Russia. People will resist.

Second, there’s going to be a heightened focus on speech controls and arrests unless the populace presents a unified response. This counter-movement will have to be prepared for violence because there’s a good chance they will need to defend themselves.

Third, governments will try to use economic leverage to silence dissent and punish people who refuse to comply. It’s not a coincidence that the EU just announced that they will be introducing CBDC programs at the retail level by the end of 2025. They’re going to push for a cashless system because this will give them total control over people’s economic access.

Unless Trump pulls off some kind of diplomatic miracle the deployment of EU and UK troops to Ukraine is predetermined. Anything to spark a volatile escalation, possibly to lure the US back into the fray under security obligations. Again, the globalists want WWIII as a catalyst for a new world order.

Fifth, Ukraine will fall to Russia regardless. This is already happening but the media is trying to gloss over troop movements and geo-location data showing increasing territorial gains for Russia. They’re also refusing to acknowledge the steep decline in Ukrainian conscripts under the age of 40.  Without a Trump deal, Ukraine will implode.  Europe does not have the troops or the training to fight Russia in a near-peer attrition-based conflict.  Their involvement would only prolong the inevitable or trigger a nuclear exchange.

Sixth, there’s going to be severe diplomatic isolation between the US and Europe. It has already started with NATO potentially breaking apart and the response from our “allies” has been nothing but hostile. EU officials act as if they’re entitled to American money and protection, but the question they need to address is WHY?

The leadership of Europe is deeply socialist and they are utterly opposed to any conservative appeal to national and cultural identity. They hate borders, they hate western culture, they hate meritocracy, they hate individual liberty, they hate Christianity and they hate Americans in general. I don’t think we have much in common with them anymore and it doesn’t make sense to be allies with people who would happily tear down everything we believe in.

The US and EU alliance is dead. After their latest authoritarian actions it’s time to cut ties, or, remove the globalists in power and change the dynamic. From my observations there are millions of Europeans across the Atlantic hoping and praying right now that Americans intervene and remove these tyrants from their bureaucratic throne. While a breaking of ties is almost guaranteed, there is also a chance that a war between the US and the European oligarchy is brewing.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Europe Goes Full Totalitarian and Puts the Entire Western World at Risk appeared first on LewRockwell.

In Tehran, Iranians are anxiously wondering whether, once their economy is exhausted and they can no longer defend themselves, the Israelis and the United States will bomb them. Under these circumstances, should they or should they not negotiate with the enigmatic President Donald Trump?

On March 2, 2025, Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) voted no confidence in Economy and Finance Minister Abdolnaser Hemmati over his handling of the Western economic blockade and the resulting economic crisis. On the same day, his friend Mohammad Javad Zarif, former negotiator of the Joint Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (JCPOA) and current Vice President, resigned.

President Donald Trump revealed on March 7 that he had sent a letter to Iran. The international press had reported that it had been delivered the same day by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. However, Nournews revealed that Russia had refused to act as intermediary. According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei, it was ultimately delivered on March 12 by Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the President of the United Arab Emirates.

In any case, without waiting to hear about it, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, leader of the Revolution, declared: “What interest do we have in negotiating when we know that he will not respect his commitments? We sat at the same table and negotiated for several years, and once the agreement was completed, finalized and signed, he overturned the table and tore up the agreement.”

The liabilities of the JCPoA agreement

Indeed, in 2013, Iran negotiated a comprehensive agreement with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, the 5+1, in Geneva. They resulted in a temporary halt to Iran’s nuclear program and a partial lifting of unilateral Western coercive measures and Security Council economic sanctions. The 5+1 negotiations then broke off, while direct discussions between Iran and the United States continued behind the scenes. They finally resumed in 2015 in Lausanne. The public agreement was signed in Vienna, in much the same terms as the draft that had been drawn up two years earlier. It is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA).

The United States finally recognized the Islamic Republic’s right to develop its civilian nuclear program. In exchange, Iran agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that it was not concurrently developing a military program. To this end, it agreed to possess no more than 5,060 centrifuges, not enrich uranium above 3.67%, and limit its plutonium production.

France and the United Kingdom declared themselves satisfied, while the French negotiator, Sayan Laurent Fabius, acknowledged that, as the talks progressed, he had informed the Israeli Prime Minister, his friend Benjamin Netanyahu, without the knowledge of other diplomats.

Russia and China concluded from these discussions, confirmed by their own observations on the ground, that Iran had closed its military nuclear programme in 1988, in accordance with a fatwa from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and had never resumed it  [ 1 ] .

On April 30, 2018, Benjamin Netanyahu released 100,000 documents stolen by the Mossad from archives in Tehran relating to the AMAD project. He explained that, by resorting to the Muslim principle of taqiya, Iran had lied. Tehran had developed a military nuclear program from 1989 to 2003 under the direction of physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

A week later, on May 8, 2018, President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the agreement signed by the Obama administration in Vienna. The persisting unilateral coercive Western measures are being maintained and strengthened.

“Since then, Iran has lost $100 billion a year,” according to former President Hassan Rouhani. By this measure, the US withdrawal would have caused $650 billion in losses over the past six and a half years.

Subsequently, nuclear experts who studied the Iranian documents provided by Israel would all assure that it was not Iran that lied, but Israel. The only part of the AMAD project that could be linked to the manufacture of an atomic bomb is a shock wave generator that is used in the manufacture of a detonator for this type of bomb  [ 2 ] .

Iran, in turn, withdrew from the JCPoA and the secret agreements signed with the United States. Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% increased to 182 kg in the last quarter of 2024.

In 2020, Israel assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in Tehran.

Towards new negotiations

Asked by the Iranian press about possible contacts via Oman, Abbas Araghchi said: “Yes, this is not a strange method, and it has happened many times throughout history. Therefore, indirect negotiation is feasible… What is important is that the will to negotiate and reach a fair and just agreement arises under conditions of equality between states. The form of the negotiation is irrelevant.”

On March 12, the same day President Trump delivered his letter, France, Greece, Panama, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States convened a closed-door meeting of the Security Council to examine Iran’s continued failure to comply with the IAEA’s requests for information.

The following day, March 13, Mohammad Hassan-Nejad Pirkouhi, director general for International Peace and Security at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, summoned the ambassadors of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. He criticized them for an “irresponsible and provocative” convening of the Security Council by abusing UN mechanisms. He emphasized that while Iran is no longer complying with its commitment not to enrich uranium above 3.67%, it is still abiding by its JCPOA commitments to IAEA inspectors and fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The United Kingdom has indicated that it is prepared to reinstate UN sanctions by October 18 if Iran does not curb its uranium enrichment. These sanctions have, in fact, been suspended, not repealed.

Simultaneously, the United States took unilateral coercive measures against Mohsen Paknejad, Iran’s oil minister.

On March 14, Russian Sergei Ryabkov and Iranian Kazem Gharibabadi were received by their Chinese counterpart, Ma Zhaoxu, in Beijing. The latter stressed that “the parties concerned should commit to addressing the root causes of the current situation and abandoning sanctions, pressure, or threats of force.” At a press conference, Kazem Gharibabadi stated that “all negotiations and discussions will be focused exclusively on the nuclear issue and the lifting of sanctions.” The former JCPoA negotiator, for his part, told the BBC that “the negotiations should not include Iran’s missile program or its regional influence. Adding these topics would complicate the process and make it unmanageable.” Finally, Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, told the press that adding additional conditions to the negotiations would doom them to failure. Finally, Mao Ning, spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stressed that “in the current situation, we believe that all parties must maintain calm and restraint in order to avoid the escalation of the Iranian nuclear situation or moving towards confrontation and conflict.”

Meanwhile, G7 foreign ministers, meeting in La Malbaie, Canada, discussed arbitrary detentions in Iran and assassination attempts by Iranian intelligence abroad.

On March 15, former President Hassan Rouhani emphasized that the leader, Ali Khamenei, “does not have absolute opposition to negotiations.” He continued: “Didn’t we negotiate with the United States on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the nuclear deal? Even back then, when I was secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the leader himself wrote that negotiations must adhere to certain principles.”

However, on the same day, the Pentagon bombed Ansar Allah (called “Houthis” by Atlanticist propaganda) in Yemen, killing nine civilians. On his TruthSocial network, President Donald Trump posted this message: “To Iran: Support for Houthi terrorists must end IMMEDIATELY. Do NOT threaten the American people, their President, who has been given one of the most important presidential terms in history, or the world’s shipping lanes. If you do it, WITH the Houthis, America will hold you fully responsible and we will not be nice. ”  [ 3 ]

The stakes of the new negotiations

If new contacts take place (and it is likely that they have already begun), the pacification of US-Iranian relations would once again shake up the broader Middle East.

Currently, Iran has lost in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Tehran maintains its military influence only in Yemen. Economically, the country, subject to unilateral Western coercive measures, is on the brink of famine, like Iraq before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (2002) and Syria before the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad (2024). It would no longer withstand a ground invasion.

Since nature abhors a vacuum, Israel and Turkey are attempting to divide up the region’s ruins. The internal pacification of the Kurdish question in Turkey delegitimizes the position of Kurdish mercenaries from the pseudo-state formed in Syria (Rojava) and makes them available for a possible ground invasion of Iran on behalf of Israel.

Behind the scenes, the man behind Benjamin Netanyahu, Elliott Abrams  [ 4 ] , is doing everything he can to turn President Donald Trump against Tehran  [ 5 ] .

—

[ 1 ]  “  Who is afraid of Iranian civil nuclear power?  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , June 30, 2010.

[ 2 ]  ” Shock Wave Generator for Iran’sNuclear Weapons Program:More than a Feasibility Study “, David Albright and Olli Heinonen, Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) , May 7, 2019. (PDF – 4.3 MB).

[ 3 ]  “  Donald J. Trump  ,” Truth Social , March 15, 2025.

[ 4 ]  “  The Straussian coup in Israel  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , March 7, 2023.

[ 5 ]  “  Deals of the Century: Solving the Middle East  ”, The Vanderberg Coalition , January 2025. (PDF – 12.2 MB)

The post After Ukraine, Iran? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is the accepted explanation for the variety of life forms that populate the planet. Darwin made a case that natural selection ensured that beneficial traits that fostered the survival of organisms would be passed on to their offspring, and the science of genetics later explained exactly how those beneficial traits were passed on and how mutations could produce additional new beneficial traits that could also be passed on. Evolution in the broadest sense is “descent with modification,” and empirical observation seems to confirm this. Geological strata that bear no fossilized remains of animals alive today do bear fossilized remains of animals long gone extinct; the bone structures of a human hand, the wing of a bat, and the flipper of a whale bear remarkable similarities that seem to point to a common precursor. A field associated with evolutionary biology is origin of life research, sometimes referred to as the study of “chemical evolution.” Before an organism can begin to evolve, it has to first come into existence, and origin of life research seeks to explain how molecules could come together in such a way as to produce what would become a living organism.

As widely accepted as Neo-Darwinism is, however, it has its critics, and they raise valid points. Although Neo-Darwinism can explain how finches came to have different shapes of beaks, is it really capable of doing the heavy lifting required to explain how a single-celled organism could eventually evolve into a human being? Or is that simply an article of faith? And why after all this time hasn’t origin of life research been able to coax those stubborn molecules into becoming something that’s actually alive? An alternative to mindless evolution is the concept of “intelligent design,” and although many of its adherents are people of faith, they do not invoke divine revelation but rather dispassionately point out that some kind of intelligence, as opposed to blind chance, is a better explanation for the complexity of life. Dr. James Tour, a synthetic chemist at Rice University, is one of the foremost exponents of intelligent design, and he has posted numerous videos on the subject on YouTube.

Of course there’s going to be pushback from the other side, and the most staunch opposition to Tour’s videos comes from Dave Farina, a popular science content creator whose YouTube channel is called Professor Dave Explains. In this video titled “Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis,” Professor Dave attempts to downplay the astronomical probabilities of molecules randomly linking up to form the chemical building blocks necessary to sustain life. He uses an example of 10 people at a get-together who all have different birthdays. The probability of each person having a particular birthday is of course 1 in 365. But the probability of all 10 of those people having those particular birthdays is 1 in 36510 or 1 in 42 trillion trillion. Professor Dave blithely sums up: “The odds are unthinkable, and yet there they are, sitting in that room.”

I was truly astonished when I heard that. The reason those 10 people were all sitting in that particular room was that someone had planned the get-together and had invited those specific people to the get-together. So did someone plan to create something like an amino acid and then muster the appropriate molecules required for the synthesis?

The post Professor Dave’s Self-Own Explained appeared first on LewRockwell.