Aggregatore di feed

Click here:

Brian D. O’Leary

The post The Dying Republic appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donations to NPR and PBS stations have reportedly exploded since Congress cut federal funding. So, I guess that NPR and PBS can pay their own pay and survive on donations instead of government handouts. But, of course, there is still the issue of “public broadcasting” that conservatives miss the point about.

The post Pay Your Own Way appeared first on LewRockwell.

Wrestler Hulk Hogan has died.

The post Hulk Hogan R.I.P appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Paul Ronzheimer meets Tucker Carlson appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Bruce McLane. 

See here.

The post Atheists, Christinas, and the constitution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The post Kevin O’Leary: I would fire Colbert in four seconds appeared first on LewRockwell.

Robert Barnes’ most thorough explorations of the deep state and its sinister origins and the deviant psychosexual cultural milieu surrounding some of its acolytes and functionaries

This study of fascist men shows their terrifying fascination with sex, death, and authority ‘Male Fantasies’ examined the inner lives of German fascists and reached a horrifying conclusion

Here are the Red Nurses, White Nurses volumes to which Robert Barnes referred:

Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, Vol. 1: Women Floods Bodies History

Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, Vol. 2: Male Bodies: Psychoanalyzing the White Terror

And this related title: The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party

American War Machine : Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan, by Peter Dale Scott

(Above volume excellent on elite Wall Street/CFR background of early CIA leadership hierarchy)

The post Robert Barnes on the Deep Background of the Deep State Up to the JFK Assassination and Beyond appeared first on LewRockwell.

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/lose-lose-quando-il-mercato-costringe)

In base alla mia esperienza alle persone non piace sentirsi dire che ciò che pensavano fosse vero è sbagliato. In particolare non amano sentirsi dire che potrebbero non guadagnare quanto pensavano; o che non sono davvero così ricche come credevano di essere. I movimenti dei prezzi nel mercato azionario sono episodici e ciclici. Non sono mai completamente indipendenti dall'economia reale e qui sta la parte più importante: sono sempre soggetti a una regressione alla media, cioè tornano sempre dove dovrebbero essere. I prezzi del mercato azionario riguardano il futuro e forse il futuro sarà molto migliore di quanto ci aspettiamo, ma i prezzi non possono essere indipendenti dal mondo reale. E in questo momento c'è un enorme divario tra la realtà e il valore di mercato delle azioni.

L'unico modo per colmare questo divario è l'argomento di questo saggio. È ciò che ho definito la “Grande Perdita”. Non c'è tempo per scrivere un libro su come evitarla, ma alla fine non ce n'è bisogno: ve lo mostrerò.

Gran parte di ciò che pensate sugli investimenti e sul mercato azionario è sbagliato. Sapevate che il 58% delle azioni non ha generato profitti per gli investitori negli ultimi 100 anni? Gli studi dimostrano che l'investitore medio ottiene risultati peggiori rispetto alle medie di mercato e anche se conservasse le sue azioni per 100 anni, difficilmente guadagnerebbe un centesimo in valore reale. I mercati seguono schemi ciclici, alcuni di questi possono durare fino a 73 anni, da un massimo all'altro. Non potete permettervi di trovarvi dalla parte sbagliata, né potete permettervi di subire grosse perdite, soprattutto non a fine carriera. Mentre nel breve periodo può succedere di tutto, nel lungo periodo gli eventi di mercato seguono degli schemi. Un uomo, a 90 anni, può occasionalmente diventare padre; può apparire giovane e vincere partite di tennis. Eppure, tra qualche anno, sarà morto. È uno schema contro cui sarebbe poco saggio scommettere.

Nei mercati e nelle economie, così come in politica, esistono anche degli andamenti. La tabella qui sopra mostra che ci sono stati oltre 25 mercati ribassisti nella storia del mercato azionario statunitense. Quelli ciclici si verificano più spesso e durano meno; quelli “strutturali”, come quello in cui ci troviamo ora, durano più a lungo e colpiscono più duramente. L'andamento più importante nei mercati è quello che chiamo il Trend Primario, la corrente profonda che muove gli eventi, indipendentemente da ciò che le persone sanno, vogliono o pensano. Purtroppo, in mezzo a tutto il rumore dei continui movimenti di mercato, e a un vento impetuoso di notizie e opinioni, può essere difficile distinguere il Trend Primario. Bisogna ascoltare attentamente, isolarsi il più possibile dal rumore di fondo e ascoltare attentamente.

Esistono andamenti prevedibili: un albero cresce molto in alto, poi marcisce. Un Impero – anche il più potente di tutti i tempi – si espande e poi si restringe. Su, giù, su, giù... in tondo – gli schemi ciclici del mondo naturale, ad esempio i cicli del sole o di un motore a quattro tempi, sono regolari e, in una certa misura, prevedibili. Ma gli schemi di mercato sono diversi: sono soggetti alla “riflessività”. È un circolo vizioso in cui i prezzi influenzano le percezioni... che a loro volta influenzano i prezzi... che a loro volta influenzano le percezioni. I mercati non sono sempre efficienti o razionali, a volte “impazziscono” un po': ovvero, reagiscono a ciò che sta accadendo, a ciò che è già accaduto e a ciò che la gente pensa stia accadendo. Questo crea molta incertezza e volatilità. Ma è comprensibile...

Se i picchi di mercato fossero prevedibili come le eclissi solari, ad esempio, non si verificherebbero mai. Gli investitori anticiperebbero il momento culminante e si precipiterebbero a vendere temendo che i prezzi scendano prima di uscire. Invece gli investitori ipotizzano sempre, sempre incerti e sempre soggetti a influenze. Le azioni passano da valori molto bassi a valori molto alti in trend di lungo termine. Durante tutto il XX secolo ci sono stati solo tre di questi cicli a lungo termine, come vi mostrerò tra poco. Ma prima, un breve commento sul denaro.

Oggi, quello cartaceo, perde valore rapidamente. Se ragioniamo in termini di oro, ad esempio, all'inizio del 1915 i 30 titoli del Dow Jones Industrial (un buon indicatore per i titoli di qualità) valevano 2,65 once d'oro. Quel rapporto salì a oltre 18 quando il primo picco del secolo fu raggiunto nell'agosto del 1929. Poi iniziò la fase discendente, che si concluse all'inizio del 1933 con il Dow che valeva solo 1,92 once. Quello fu il primo ciclo “dal basso verso l'alto e poi verso il basso”. Il successivo iniziò nel 1933 e proseguì fino a un altro massimo per le azioni del Dow Jones durante la prima settimana del 1966. Il Dow Jones raggiunse il picco a 28 once d'oro. In seguito i prezzi scesero di nuovo e si stabilizzarono 14 anni dopo (nel gennaio 1980) a 1,29 once d'oro per il Dow Jones. Fu il secondo ciclo. Il terzo iniziò nel 1982, con il Dow Jones che raggiunse la ragguardevole quota di 42 once entro la fine del secolo. E oggi, a un quarto di secolo di distanza, il rapporto tra prezzi reali (in oro) e valore reale (le aziende nel Dow Jones che producono beni e servizi utili) è più forte che mai.

Nel 1915 si potevano acquistare 2,65 once d'oro al prezzo di 30 azioni del Dow. Quel rapporto seguiva l'andamento altalenante di cui ho parlato in precedenza: da un minimo inferiore a 2 a un massimo superiore a 40. Ma quando le azioni erano molto convenienti in termini di oro, tendevano a diventare meno convenienti in futuro. Se erano costose, accadeva il contrario. Oggi, dopo oltre un secolo di oscillazioni, il rapporto è a 11 circa. Solo pochi mesi fa era intorno a 15, più o meno lo stesso del settembre del 1929. Da allora a oggi gli investitori nel Dow hanno guadagnato solo dividendi e non un centesimo di plusvalenza. Il valore delle migliori industrie americane, rispetto al valore del denaro reale, non è andato da nessuna parte. Durante il boom degli anni '60 il Dow Jones valeva circa 1,2 volte il PIL, ovvero il 120%. Per mettere la cosa in prospettiva, la “media” (la media a lungo termine) del rapporto azioni/PIL è di circa l'82%. Se fosse superiore, le azioni sarebbero sopravvalutate. Ancora più in alto, una bolla. Se sapeste che il mercato azionario sale e scende, in lunghi cicli della durata di un decennio o più, e sapeste che nel tempo non potete aspettarvi di realizzare plusvalenze dalle vostre azioni, e che l'unico modo per progredire è fare trading comprando quando sono a buon mercato e vendendo quando diventano costose, non cerchereste di mettere in pratica questa intuizione?

Le statistiche di mercato ci mostrano che essere nel posto giusto al momento giusto è la chiave per ottenere grandi guadagni. In altre parole, “l'allocazione” è molto più importante della selezione dei titoli – o, per usare il gergo di Wall Street, il beta è più importante dell'alfa. La vera domanda è quanta parte del vostro patrimonio allocare in azioni in un dato momento. A questo proposito c'è il cosiddetto Dow/oro: se aveste investito $100 nelle azioni Dow a partire dal 1° gennaio 1913, oggi avreste $51.338, ovvero $4.897.400 con i dividendi reinvestiti. Se aveste seguito la strategia di trading Dow/oro – con solo cinque operazioni nell'ultimo secolo, escluso l'investimento iniziale – oggi avreste un conto del valore di $56 milioni.

LA GRANDE PERDITA

L'obiettivo sorprendente del sistema di trading Dow/oro non è fare soldi, invece è evitare la Grande Perdita. In questo momento il rischio è molto elevato. Se venite investiti da un'auto, o dal mercato, il risultato è lo stesso: siete fuori dai giochi. Subire una Grande Perdita è la cosa peggiore che vi possa capitare, perché non potete più sperare in alcun guadagno. È importante rendersi conto che, così come è difficile identificare il Trend Primario, è ancora più difficile individuare gli investimenti che saranno i grandi vincitori. Anche se siete uno dei migliori investitori del Paese, a volte si vince, a volte si perde. In generale se siete in sintonia con il Trend Primario potete sperare in una crescita, ma solo se siete ancora in gioco, solo se avete evitato la Grande Perdita. Ecco perché evitarla deve essere la priorità numero uno. Tutta la mia strategia si basa sul rimanere in Modalità Massima Sicurezza per evitarla.

Perché?

Va bene perdere soldi quando si è giovani, fa parte del processo di apprendimento. Ma se lavorate tutta la vita per accumulare un gruzzolo, non potete permettervi di perdere tutto. A quel punto avrete 50 o 60 anni. Non avrete tempo di recuperare. Si evitano le Grandi Perdite rispettando la disciplina del trading Dow Jones/oro. Gli investimenti salgono e scendono. Quando salgono nessuno ha un'idea precisa di dove andranno in seguito, ma ora comportano il rischio di una grossa perdita. Più sono costosi, più possono perdere.

In breve, non cerco di prevedere la prossima mossa del mercato azionario, ma per l'investitore medio il suggerimento è quello di abbandonare gli investimenti quando il rischio di perdita è elevato. Poi, dopo la svendita delle azioni, il rischio si riduce e le si riacquista. Chiaramente si tratta di un percorso generico che per forza di cose non si può adattare a tutti gli investitori. Infatti esistono anche strategie “su misura” e, a tal proposito, l'allocazione degli asset – tra liquidità, azioni, obbligazioni, metalli preziosi e Bitcoin – può essere ripartita con una consulenza col sottoscritto prenotabile su Calendly.

LA REGOLA AUREA

Quando dico che le cose “valgono” di più significa che è possibile scambiarle con altre in quantità maggiore. Il denaro è un modo per tenere traccia delle transazioni e semplificarle. L'oro è diventato denaro perché funzionava sia come riserva di valore che come mezzo di scambio. Non ha altri scopi significativi (a parte l'ornamento). E nel tempo non cambia molto rispetto ad altri beni. Man mano che un'economia cresce, ci sono più beni disponibili per l'acquisto. Se l'offerta di moneta fosse fissa, i prezzi scenderebbero: ci sarebbe la stessa quantità di denaro, ma un grande volume di “roba” che si potrebbe acquistare.

Ma la quantità di oro tende a crescere alla stessa velocità dell'economia stessa. L'attività mineraria fa parte dell'economia, resa più facile dalla tecnologia, ma resa più difficile dall'esaurimento dei giacimenti facili e le nuove scoperte tendono a essere più lontane e più costose da sfruttare. Quindi l'equilibrio tra il denaro e le cose che acquista non cambia molto rapidamente. Ecco perché una riserva d'oro, risalente a centinaia di anni fa, ha ancora oggi, più o meno, lo stesso potere d'acquisto di quando è stata portata alla luce.

Anche il valore delle aziende produttive di una nazione (azioni) non cambia molto, non rispetto ai beni e ai servizi disponibili, o al denaro utilizzato per misurarli. Questo perché anche il loro valore deriva dall'economia reale. Le aziende valgono solo ciò che possono offrire agli azionisti in termini di profitto, ma nel complesso non possono generare più vendite e profitti di quanto l'economia consenta. L'economia potrebbe crescere a un tasso del tre percento. Il potere d'acquisto dei consumatori dovrebbe crescere con l'economia, né più né meno, il che significa che anche le vendite e i profitti a disposizione delle imprese nazionali crescono a quel ritmo, insieme alla quantità di oro (la massa monetaria).

L'importo totale del credito può essere aumentato facilmente, oro e Bitcoin ad esempio no. Il denaro “stampato” può far sembrare che le cose stiano “salendo”, può dare impulso alle vendite, al PIL e agli utili. Può distorcere l'intero quadro. I profitti sono particolarmente vulnerabili. In genere le imprese pagano i propri dipendenti, poi essi acquistano prodotti e servizi dalle aziende per cui lavorano. Quindi i profitti sono solitamente frenati dai costi del lavoro. Ma l'espansione del credito consente alle imprese di generare vendite senza costi del lavoro a compensarle. È come se il denaro arrivasse per magia, anziché dall'economia reale. E senza salari da pagare, i ricavi delle vendite diminuiscono in modo sproporzionato rispetto al risultato finale. Le azioni possono dare l'impressione che “stiano andando sulla luna”, ma solo in termini di “denaro fasullo”. In termini di denaro reale superano le 15 once d'oro/Dow solo periodicamente e temporaneamente. E poiché l'oro è sempre collegato all'economia reale e alla produzione reale, i legami tra oro, PIL e le aziende che lo producono possono essere allungati, ma mai infranti.

Ecco, quindi, le fondamenta di una qualsiasi strategia che voglia solo successivamente diversificare i propri obiettivi: quando i valori sono bassi, favorire le azioni; quando sono costosi (oltre 15 once d'oro/Dow) privilegiare l'oro. E cercare sempre da dove potrebbe derivare la Grande Perdita ed evitarla.

COSA ACCADRÀ ORA

Gli eccessi del passato devono essere corretti... o come minimo ri-assorbiti. E per farlo ci sarà bisogno di equity. Questo vale sia per i singoli individui che per il governo federale stesso. Infatti quando gli accordi di mercato diventano “lose-lose”, ovvero vicendevolmente svantaggiosi, tutti ci perdono. Alla fine della fiera il denaro fiat è un'arma a doppio taglio che intacca anche la ricchezza e il benessere di chi lo emette. È una corrosione che si diffonde dal basso verso l'alto, che danneggia più gli strati bassi della società per poi risalire la catena dei quintili di reddito, ma che infine non lascia superstiti. Il problema è che se ci si aspetta un cambiamento dall'alto, e si attende solo quello, allora bisognerà aspettare che i quintili di reddito più alti inizino a provare dolore economico. Negli Stati Uniti siamo esattamente in questa condizione adesso.

Circa $50.000 miliardi rischiano di svanire in uno schiocco di dita dalla presunta ricchezza delle famiglie americane. Le famiglie americane hanno aggiunto tale somma in “patrimonio netto” dopo i lockdown e la maggior parte di questa è in azioni e immobili. Tenete presente che non si è mai trattato di ricchezza “reale” in primo luogo: è stato il risultato del più “Grande Esperimento Finanziario della Storia”, ovvero una spesa pubblica sconsiderata e una stampa di denaro ancora più sconsiderata che hanno gonfiato bolle in azioni, vendite e utili aziendali, PIL, obbligazioni, immobili... quasi tutto.

Questa è una situazione che può essere solamente stabilizzata: una contrazione contenuta di tale ricchezza e un ampliamento dell'equity per attutire i contraccolpi. Ecco perché oro e Bitcoin stanno tornando alla ribalta sulla scena pubblica: rappresentano il volano attraverso il quale ampliare il lato degli attivi della nazione nel suo complesso. Perché se c'è un argomento che viene ripetutamente sorvolato è il lato degli attivi degli USA, con le tesi della “controinformazione” che si concentra solo ed esclusivamente sul lato dei passivi. In questo modo si finisce per essere utili idioti per chi diffonde in prima istanza questa consuetudine: la City di Londra.

Un giorno guarderemo indietro e commenteremo di come il GENIUS Act sarà stato l'anticamera dello smembramento del sistema bancario centrale così come lo conosciamo. Per quanto si possa essere d'accordo con lo slogan “End the FED”, non è così che questa storia può finire visto che i suoi (adesso) concorrenti, BCE e BOE, prenderebbero il sopravvento sull'economia statunitense. Ci vuole criterio in questa partita in modo da non diventare inconsapevolmente utili idioti al soldo della cricca di Davos. Ecco perché la chiarezza nella modalità d'ingaggio riguardo l'ecosistema crittovalute da parte delle imprese private e pubbliche negli Stati Uniti è fondamentale: si toglie quella cappa d'incertezza e rallentamento nell'adozione che ha caratterizzato l'amministrazione precedente. Ora ogni banca potrà emettere la propria stablecoin e così far tornare la FED a quello che era prima della riforma Roosevelt: un prestatore di ultima istanza per quelle banche, americane, in sofferenza. In un certo senso tornare addirittura al sistema di stanze di compensazione emerso prima del Federal Reserve Act. Il sistema monetario attuale a due livelli (banca commerciale e banca centrale) verrebbe contratto a un solo livello dove l'individuo si interfaccerebbe solo con la banca commerciale. Questa non dovrebbe più passare dalla banca centrale per la domanda di liquidità ed essa sarebbe coperta esclusivamente dai titoli del Tesoro americani, abolendo la SLR che serve solo per tenere a galla asset di nazioni bollite.

È così che "verrà terminata" la FED: un suo ritorno a quello che era prima del Banking Act di Roosevelt. Con il SOFR non c'è più bisogno di un tasso unificato, quindi i poteri della FED verranno smembrati tra le sue 12 controparti regionali e il Dipartimento del Tesoro. https://t.co/17I8sP9piT

A ciò si aggiungerebbe che i titoli del Tesoro americani sarebbero coperti da hard asset come oro e Bitcoin. Questo significa che c'è una profonda trasformazione in atto nell'economia statunitense, dove il compito di persone come Bessent è quello di rimuovere quel fattore a doppio livello che ha fatto sprofondare nel tempo l'economia statunitense. Infatti esso era paragonabile a un individuo che mangiava ogni sera al ristorante pagando con la carta di credito... senza avere un reddito però. A tal proposito una notizia passata un po' troppo velocemente secondo me, perché rappresenta un cambiamento epocale nell'ecosistema Bitcoin, è la possibilità di inserirlo come collaterale quando si accendono mutui per le case. Sta maturando sempre di più la sua economia del credito ed è l'anello che gli mancava affinché possa fare il vero salto di qualità. Si tratta ancora di un processo rudimentale e rozzo, ciononostante è un segnale inequivocabile di come sia stato smentito anche chi dubitava che Bitcoin potesse avere successo dato che non aveva un mercato del credito. Certo, saranno gli ETF a essere posti come garanzia, ma la recente notizia che essi possano essere rimborsati “in kind” aggiunge ulteriore fascino al tutto.

In questo modo si stabilizzano i prezzi delle case e le si collateralizza con hard asset. Non solo, ma viene a crearsi un circolo virtuoso dove i vari asset degli USA vengono puntellati da asset credibili come oro. Bitcoin e titoli di stato americani. Il tutto intermediato da Tether. L'obiettivo di ampliare l'equity della nazione sta venendo soddisfatto in modo egregio dall'amministrazione Trump. Ecco come si ridimensiona, nel concreto, il potere del sistema bancario centrale e si impedisce alla nazione di essere attaccata da player esteri ostili. E su questa scia non solo abbiamo visto l'Australia seguire l'esempio, ma addirittura l'apertura del mercato dei pensionamenti all'uso di Bitcoin. E quale mercato più di quest'ultimo ha bisogno di copertura a causa delle passività non finanziate che si porta dietro?

Finora Powell non ha abbassato i tassi perché lo spazio fiscale non era sufficiente da permettere un nuovo allentamento delle condizioni creditizie. Se riavvolgiamo il nastro all'anno scorso, se avesse tagliato in estate avrebbe favorito i democratici nella corsa alla Casa Bianca, invece tagliando a ridosso delle elezioni ha permesso che i risultati della sua decisione si manifestassero dopo il voto favorendo in questo modo Trump. Poi chiaramente ha messo in pausa ulteriori tagli in attesa di motivazioni concrete lato bilancio federale. Se l'inflazione è scesa, così come registrato dai numeri ufficiali, è stato solo grazie alle sue azioni. Adesso che la legge di bilancio è passata e la Rescission Bill fa il suo corso, ci sarà spazio per tagliare i tassi. O perlomeno finché il prezzo del petrolio e i futures sulla benzina rimarranno in un certo range, e l'indice dei prezzi al consumo rimanga contenuto. Non scordiamoci la pressione sull'eurodollaro. Quest'ultima sta rallentando i piani di rilancio dell'economia americana di Trump e Bessent? Sì. Conta davvero in ottica di investimenti esteri che affluiscono negli Stati Uniti? No.

Il tempo dei tagli alla spesa discrezionale sarebbe arrivato ed eccoci qui prontamente a commentare quanto sta accadendo in termini di Rescission Bill. Inutile dire che si tratta di un primo pacchetto, dato che l'ammontare iniziale è ancora insufficiente per definirli “tagli alla spesa”. È pur sempre un buon inizio. Non solo, ma i tagli maggiori stanno avvenendo a livello di licenziamenti di dipendenti pubblici, come si vede dal grafico qui sotto.

Guarda caso tutto il polverone alzato per la Big Beautiful Bill adesso si è posato alla prova dei fatti, alla prova di dover votare davvero per i tagli nel processo politico adeguato. Non credo che Paul e Massie abbiano fatto tutto quel baccano solo per i “principi”... ci sono le rielezioni l'anno prossimo e avere famiglia è pur sempre un aggancio per eventuali ricatti... Al di là di ciò la “motosierra” sta calando anche sul lato spese federali, man mano che il DOGE scopre nuove aree da tagliare.

Ora che Trump ha visto l'approvazione del bilancio, nonostante fino a ottobre debba inghiottire la parte approvata dall'amministrazione Biden, può dimenticarsi del Congresso per le cose importanti fino alle midterm dell'anno prossimo. A meno che il Congresso, con la formazione attuale, non voglia essere annoverato come costola dell'amministrazione Biden (che ha aumentato il debito pubblico nell'ordine degli $8.000 miliardi), dovrà votare a favore di ogni codifica in legge dei tagli scoperti dal DOGE. Con le rielezioni che pendono sulle teste dei senatori l'anno prossimo, sarebbe politicamente suicida. Comunque il connubio tra tagli alla spesa, dazi, tassi d'interesse alti è sostanzialmente uno: ridurre il flusso di dollari all'estero. E come ci ha dimostrato il DXY, per quanto si sia fantasticato di “de-dollarizzazione” non c'era niente di concreto. Da qui la “necessità” di alzare l'asticella del tetto del debito americano, perché a fini pratici nel futuro a breve termine la domanda di strumenti in dollari e strumenti denominati in dollari (es. titoli di stato americani) salirà. In questo modo si soddisfa tale domanda e al contempo si impedisce che il DXY schizzi troppo in alto da richiedere davvero alternative. Infatti con la contrazione dell'offerta di dollari offshore c'è stato un cambiamento nel modo in cui la domanda di dollari e strumenti denominati in dollari si manifesta sui mercati: non più con l'inganno e nell'ombra, ma alla luce del sole adesso.

In base a questo nuovo assetto le stablecoin diventeranno un assorbitore di emergenza di titoli di stato americani, le banche commerciali emetteranno le proprie valute digitali coprendole con titoli di stato americani, l'abolizione della SLR e delle varie parti del Dodd-Frank Act aprirà spazio di manovra alle banche commerciali, domanda/offerta di titoli di stato americani verrà intermediata esclusivamente dal Dipartimento del Tesoro e non più dalla FED, domanda/offerta di denaro verrà intermediata dalle 12 FED regionali e dalle stablecoin, la FED fungerà da finestra di sconto per prestiti di emergenza in caso di difficoltà, ci saranno due dollari (uno per le transazioni interne e l'altro per quelle esterne) e il SOFR fungerà da tasso di mercato determinato solo negli USA per coordinare la relativa attività commerciale.

Non dimentichiamoci, però, un dettaglio importante che vale sia per i singoli investitori, come d'apertura di questo saggio, che per il governo federale: la rivalutazione dell'oro. Attualmente sui bilanci della FED l'oro in suo possesso, circa 8.000 tonnellate, è valutato a $42 l'oncia. Ai prezzi spot attuali, però, sarebbero equivalenti a circa $900 miliardi. Un passo in avanti, certo, ma non una soluzione ai problemi di debito degli Stati Uniti. Oh, ma se invece suddetta rivalutazione arriverebbe, ad esempio, fino a $10.000 l'oncia? Non è un'ipotesi personale, ma una che è stata scritta nero su bianco sulla relazione di maggio della Federal Reserve.

Non dimentichiamoci inoltre che, se l'oro venisse rivalutato in questo modo, la nazione con più oro avrebbe la maggiore leva finanziaria in questo nuovo sistema. Inutile dire che in tal modo sarebbe più facile puntellare e far riassorbire gli squilibri finanziari. Senza contare che l'oro rappresenta ancora solo una piccola frazione del sistema finanziario globale. Gli ETF sull'oro fisico rappresentano appena l'1% di tutti gli ETF e quelli legati alle industrie dell'estrazione di oro rappresentano una quota ancora inferiore. E con Bitcoin lo spazio di manovra si amplierebbe ulteriormente. In aggiunta a tutto ciò, il governo federale ha anche in programma di investire ingenti somme nelle infrastrutture energetiche. Infatti la capacità totale prevista della rete elettrica dovrebbe aumentare di oltre 400 GWh nel 2025, rispetto ai 160 GWh dell'anno scorso. Quindi nonostante l'attuale clima di difficoltà economiche, vale la pena di prendere in considerazione anche commodity critiche in tale settore.

Forse l'amministrazione Trump rimetterà davvero le cose a posto per gli USA, o almeno inizierà il processo in tal direzione. Sarebbe fantastico se tutto ciò accadesse. Ma la risalita dagli accordi “lose-lose”, ovvero vicendevolmente svantaggiosi, comporta il passaggio dagli accordi “win-lose”, ovvero a somma zero, prima di poter ritornare a quelli “win-win”, ovvero vicendevolmente vantaggiosi. Questo significa, quindi, che il vostro piano d'investimento NON PUÒ dipendere da forze politiche al di fuori del vostro controllo. Il vantaggio competitivo in tale fase di transizione si coglie, non si eredita: https://calendly.com/fsimoncelli

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

International Man: Tucker Carlson recently claimed that it is widely known in Washington that Jeffrey Epstein operated on behalf of Israel’s intelligence service. What are your thoughts?

Doug Casey: Although I lived in DC for almost half my life, since my father’s side of the family has been there since the 1850s, I’m now out of touch with Mordor and its denizens. Therefore, I can’t retail any fresh scuttlebutt to you. The fact is that all any of us really know—or rather think we know—is what we hear, read, or see on the news. And most of that is propaganda, lies, half-truths, conjectures, psy-ops, or just plain stupidity.

That said, I’m inclined to believe the worst because of the type of people who are naturally drawn to Washington, DC. All political centers are similar—DC, Brussels, Tel Aviv, right down to the county seat of Dogpatch. A certain type of person is drawn to Hollywood, and a different type to Las Vegas, a different type to New York. DC attracts busybodies, do-gooders, ideologues, and power junkies, among others. They’re America’s criminal class. Frankly, DC makes my skin crawl. And the place has gotten much worse than it was when I lived there.

In any event, the so-called “intelligence community” is in its own world. I love the way they’re referred to as a “community,” as if it were a beneficial social group. The CIA and other praetorian agencies each have their own “campus” in and around DC, their denizens sequestered in their siloes, associating mainly with each other.

The world of Intel is necessarily one of secrecy, blackmail, bribery, honey traps, murder, and lies. It’s only logical to believe the very worst because of the kind of people that we’re dealing with.

I suspect the CIA has closer ties with Israel’s Mossad than most parts of America. They’re in the same business, they’re colleagues. They see the general public as the unwashed little people, pawns.

International Man: President Trump appears to be damaging his reputation and approval ratings due to the Epstein scandal, even resorting to insults directed at his own supporters. What do you make of this situation?

Doug Casey: It’s stupid to accuse your supporters of being stupid, as Trump has done. Americans, Trump lovers and haters alike, just want to know how “their” government and its employees are involved regarding the allegations against Epstein. Why were only Epstein and Ghislaine indicted? Who were the rich and famous men they were pimping for? Will the victims ever get justice? Did Epstein become a billionaire by shaking down his clients? Why is Ghislaine, who knows all, not being asked to testify?

And, of course: Who killed Epstein? Since they say it was a suicide, I’m tempted to accuse Hillary. Just kidding…

Trump promised his would be an open administration numerous times during his campaign. As did his minions—like Bongino, Patel, and Bondi. Now they’re all backtracking.

Perhaps enough Trump associates are involved that he’s afraid to have them exposed. Or perhaps he’s being intimidated or blackmailed: “If you allow me to be exposed, I’ll expose you for what I know.”

This isn’t just another sleazy sex scandal. Americans have accepted their presidents as horny hound dogs since the days of JFK. Even the credible rumors about Obama frequenting sauna clubs and acting as a rent-a-boy were disregarded. But maybe this is a thread that pulls apart the whole corrupt fabric.

International Man: Epstein was known for owning unusual works of art, reportedly including a painting of Bill Clinton in Monica Lewinsky’s purple dress (link). What’s your take?

Doug Casey: I’d like to know the circumstances under which that painting was put together, why it was hung in Epstein’s NY house, and why Clinton didn’t kibosh it all.

It’s further evidence that the people who run in these circles are degraded and perverted. It’s as if they’re reenacting the world of the Roman Empire, where anything went among the so-called elite as it gradually disintegrated. Or perhaps the world of Louis XVI, bankrupted by wars, taxes, inflation, and corruption. It was so dissipated that the French Revolution was inevitable. Fortunately, for today’s elite, the American peasants are zonked by Prozac, fentanyl, and cannabis. They’re gutless. And don’t have pitchforks and torches.

So maybe we won’t have a revolution as the Epstein Affair unfolds. After all, even Mao Zedong, possibly the greatest criminal in world history in terms of death and suffering, wasn’t overthrown. In fact, the Chinese seem to love him. Even Pol Pot skated, even though he killed perhaps a quarter of his countrymen.

It’s hard to predict what might happen if the Epstein Affair boils over. Maybe nothing, as supine as Americans are. As for myself, I’m ambivalent. On the one hand, a revolution would be so unpleasant and inconvenient that I’d like to see it all swept under the rug.

On the other hand, my righteous streak says fiat justitia ruat caelum—let justice be done though the heavens fall. On the third paw, as my friend Lobo Tigre would say, it doesn’t matter what we want. We’re just little people.

The point I’m trying to make is that only the worst people are in politics. With very few exceptions, like Ron Paul, even if they have good intentions going in, if they stay in, they’ll be co-opted and corrupted. Widespread bribery, blackmail, and worse among the elite is the real meaning of the Epstein Affair.

International Man: What do you think will happen next in the Epstein scandal? Do you believe Trump will be able to make it go away?

Doug Casey: Top people are unquestionably involved in this scandal. They’re so arrogant and entitled that they weren’t worried. My bet is that when he was campaigning and saying that all would be revealed, bullshitting as usual, Trump didn’t realize how deep it went. This is not 5D chess. This is what happens when you hang out with slimy people, and the truth is revealed. Let’s hope the revelations Tulsi Gabbard made a few days ago get traction. Trump is about to discover that the coverup is worse than the crime.

International Man: Do you believe the Epstein scandal is delegitimizing the US government? If so, where do you see this trend heading?

Doug Casey: I certainly hope it winds up delegitimizing the US government, which has become a predator on America. Unfortunately, however, the average American conflates the government with America itself. As an anarchocapitalist, I’d like to see Epsteingate delegitimize the idea of the State itself.

But that’s a ridiculous and idle dream. It’s not going to happen, because the nature of government, for all of recorded history, has been all about scandals.

And worse: pogroms, wars, persecutions, and every type of horrendous criminality.

I think Trump is running a risk of being impeached. And it may work this time, because the Republicans—depending on a number of factors—may lose bigly in the elections late next year.

I’ve asked myself why all the horrible things that governments have done throughout history haven’t discredited the institution. Could the fact that we now have an interconnected electronic world make a difference?

I think the answer is no. Humans are pack animals, and we live in a hierarchy. The hoi polloi love to chatter about their betters, the so-called elite. And the elite, within the security of their inner circles, love to decry how stupid and naïve the little people are.

I don’t know what the upshot of the scandal will be, but it has the potential to be big, especially in combination with the numerous other landmines that Trump may stumble on, and time bombs that are waiting to go off.

It seems to me that now’s a good time for a Plan B. And not a particularly good time to be long government bonds, or even the stock market.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post How the Epstein Scandal Is Shaking the Foundations of Power appeared first on LewRockwell.

Playing any role in a Sino-US war over Taiwan, even a logistical one, could provoke Chinese retaliation.

The Financial Times reported that US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby recently asked Australian and Japanese defense officials how their countries would respond to a war over Taiwan. He also asked them to boost defense spending after NATO just agreed to do so during its latest summit. Colby lent credence to this report by tweeting that he’s “focused on implementing the President’s America First, common sense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength.”

This sequence shows that Trump 2.0 is serious about “Pivoting (back) to (East) Asia” in order to more robustly contain China. This requires freezing the Ukrainian Conflict and assembling a de facto Asian NATO, however, both of which are uncertain. As regards the first, Trump is being drawn into “mission creep”, while the latter is challenged by Australia’s and Japan’s reluctance to step up. To elaborate, they seemingly expected the US to do all the “heavy lifting”, just like NATO expected till recently as well.

That would explain why they didn’t have a clear answer to Colby’s inquiry about how their countries would respond to a war over Taiwan. Simply put, they likely never planned to do anything at all, thus exposing the shallowness of the de facto Asian NATO that the US has sought to assemble in recent years via the AUKUS+ format. This refers to the AUKUS trilateral of Australia, the UK, and the US alongside what can be described as the honorary members of Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Australia and Japan are correspondingly envisaged as this informal bloc’s Southeast and Northeast Asian anchors, yet they’re evidently unwilling to fulfill the military roles that their US senior partner expects. What it apparently had in mind was them at the very least playing supportive logistical roles in the scenario of a Sino-US war but their representatives reportedly didn’t even suggest as much to Colby. This in turn reveals that they fear retaliation from China even if they don’t participate in combat.

Japan’s population and resultant economic density make it extremely vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes while unconventional warfare could be waged against Australia through sabotage and the like. Moreover, China is their top trade partner, which opens up additional avenues for retaliation. At the same time, however, neither of them wants China to seize control of Taiwan’s TSMC (if it even survives a speculative conflict) and obtain a monopoly over the global semiconductor industry.

The US doesn’t want that either, but the problem is that the two envisaged anchors of its de facto Asian NATO aren’t willing to boost defense spending nor seemingly assist America in a war over Taiwan. That’s unacceptable from Trump 2.0’s perspective so tariff and other forms of pressure could be applied for coercing Australia and Japan into at least spending more on their armed forces. The endgame, however, is for them to agree to play some sort of role (whether logistical or ideally combative) in that scenario.

Seeing as how the US won’t relent on its “Pivot (back) to (East) Asia”, it’ll likely coerce the aforesaid concessions from Australia and Japan one way or another. The same goes for the other members of AUKUS+, namely South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan, albeit with perhaps a little less defense spending from the last two. All in all, “The US Is Rounding Up Allies Ahead Of A Possible War With China” as was assessed in May 2023, but it’s anyone’s guess whether it actually plans to spark a major conflict.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Australia & Japan Are Seemingly Having Second Thoughts About The De Facto Asian NATO appeared first on LewRockwell.

I know there is a lot of interest in the Jeffrey Epstein story and the new revelations from Tulsi Gabbard about Barack Obama and his team’s efforts to fan the flames of Russiagate. I have been all over the Russiagate matter since 2017. Here is the link to a piece I published on December 18, 2018 with the nifty title, The Trump Coup Is a Threat to Our Republic. I am glad the information is finally coming out, but I knew this seven years ago. What took them so long? While Tulsi’s revelations are legit, I think she is releasing this information now to distract attention away from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Trump is getting killed in the polls — reportedly he is down 40% points on this issue.

For now, I want to focus on the war in Ukraine, i.e., the Special Military Operation (SMO), and clarify Russia’s motivation and objective for ending that conflict. We keep hearing the phrase, root causes. Russia wants the West to address the root causes. Ok, what are those? I think it is pretty simple — read the draft treaty that Vladimir Putin presented to Joe Biden in December 2021 and then you will understand. To spare you reading the entire document (I have linked to it in the next paragraph) I am going to summarize the key points.

The draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” that Russia presented to Biden in December 2021, outlined a series of far-reaching security demands, reflecting Russia’s intent to reshape the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Here are the key points from the published text:

1. No Further NATO Expansion
   • The US would commit to preventing further enlargement of NATO, specifically barring Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from joining the alliance.
   • This also included a ban on NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
2. No Deployment of US Forces or Weapons in Certain Countries
   • The treaty would forbid the US from deploying military forces or weaponry in countries that joined NATO after May 1997 (such as Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others).
   • NATO infrastructure would have to be rolled back to pre-1997 locations.
3. Ban on Intermediate-Range Missiles
   • Both Russia and the US would be prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in areas of their own territory where such missiles could strike the other’s territory.
4. Limit Military Maneuvers and Activities
   • Limits on heavy bombers and surface warship deployments: Both sides would restrict the operation of heavy bombers and warships in areas from which they could strike targets on the other’s territory. (Note: In September 2020, Trump’s DOD authorized a B-52 to fly along the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea.)
5. Nuclear Weapons Restrictions
   • All nuclear weapons would be confined to each country’s own national territory. Neither side could deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. (Note: US just sent a batch of nukes to England.)
   • Withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe and elimination of existing infrastructure for their deployment abroad.
6. Mutual Security Pledge
   • Each side would agree not to take any security measures that could undermine the core security interests of the other party.
7. Establishment of Consultation Mechanisms
   • Proposals included the renewal or strengthening of direct consultation mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council and the establishment of a crisis hotline.
8. Indivisibility of Security Principle
   • Included a reaffirmation that the security of one state cannot come at the expense of the security of another, formalizing Russia’s interpretation of the “indivisible security” concept.

Instead of engaging the Russians in negotiations on these matters, Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, essentially told Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov, that Russia could take the treaty and shove it up its own ass. So much for diplomacy. Had the US agreed to discuss the draft treaty with the Russians, the SMO would not have been launched in February 2022. But that is the critical point… The US had no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement with Russia. For example, the CIA, using DOD cover, had already invested tens of millions of dollars in bio labs scattered throughout Ukraine. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, it recovered documents that identified a network of 30 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine that were conducting research on dangerous pathogens as part of a bioweapons program. Ukraine was nothing more than a pawn in a Western game of strategic chess, with the ultimate goal of wrecking Russia and taking control of its natural resources. The West was not ready to quit that game.

Until NATO’s threat to Russia is taken off the table, the Russia’s war with the West will continue… It represents an existential threat to the Russian people. The talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine do nothing to address or resolve the root causes.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post NATO Expansion — The Root Cause of the War in Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thousands took to the streets across Ukraine Tuesday evening in protest of a move by President Volodymyr Zelensky that would further consolidate his power.

Zelensky approved amendments that put control of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (Sap) in the hands of the general prosecutor, who happens to be appointed by the president. Ukrainians see this as a path to more power in the hands of a few and less power for the people. Protests broke out in the capital, Kyiv, as well as in Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa, over the matter, according to reports.

BREAKING: Mass protests have erupted in Kyiv, Ukraine against President Volodymyr Zelensky.

This is the first known major protest against the Ukrainian leader.

Thousands of people have turned out in the streets of Kyiv to protest moves by Zelensky’s government to block… pic.twitter.com/lmyGobPgu5

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 22, 2025

“Nothing Is Transparent”

One of the protesters, 18-year-old Vladyslava Kirstyuk, told U.K.-based news outlet Independent, “I know what it means for one person to have all the power, when nothing is transparent and everything is working against you. I don’t want it to be the same for us here.”

A member of Parliament who voted against the measure, Oleksiy Goncharenko, said this was Zelensky’s will. He expressed the belief that it would result in “the end of the independence of anti-corruption bodies inside Ukraine.”

Zelensky said the anti-corruption bodies would still carry out their tasks “but without any Russian influence.” Russian influence is the official reason for this recent development, as it has been for crackdowns on many other institutions and people since 2022. According to the BBC, before the law was passed, Ukraine Security Service arrested suspected Russian spies within Nabu. After the protests, on Wednesday, Zelensky met with anti-corruption and security officials and vowed to create a “joint plan” to fight corruption within a couple of weeks, reportedly.

EU Leaders Worried

Ukraine created the anti-corruption agencies about 10 years ago at the behest of Western powers as part of an effort to fight endemic graft, which is a fact of life in Ukraine. The agencies were a “precondition” for stronger ties with the West. But now European Union leaders are worried that unchecked corruption will once again run rampant. European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier told the BBC:

The European Union is concerned about Ukraine’s recent actions with regard to its anti-corruption institutions. The EU provides significant financial assistance to Ukraine, conditional on progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance.

Marta Kos, the European commissioner for enlargement, said, “The dismantling of key safeguards protecting Nabu’s independence is a serious step back.”

A major theme among those who are publicly criticizing the Zelensky government over this matter is the concern that Ukraine will revert “back” to its days of wild corruption, which lies on the faulty assumption that the former Soviet Union federation at some point broke with endemic corruption.

History of Corruption

Even after it was no longer part of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had long been considered among the most corrupt countries in Europe. The Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index from 2019 shows that Ukraine and Russia had nearly identical corruption scores, lower than every other country in the region at the time. Ukraine’s score was 30, while Russia’s was 28 (the lower the more corrupt). Bribery in the nation’s economic system was the main feature of grift.

According to the index, Ukrainian corruption supposedly took a hit after 2019. By 2023, Ukraine had worked its way up into the mid-30s, still equal to or slightly lower than every bordering nation but Russia and Turkey. But last year, it dropped by a point to 35. Only Russia and Belarus had lower scores.

Ukraine has never climbed out of the 30s, which, according to the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, is extremely corrupt. But a quick review of some of the Ukrainian government totalitarian-like policies since 2022 makes a compelling case that bribery is just one of many issues plaguing Ukrainians. The evidence suggests Ukraine is not only systematically corrupt but fundamentally tyrannical.

Marital Law

Since its war with Russia began, the Zelensky government has implemented series of policies that would be deemed autocratic by any reasonably objective measure.

Not long after Russia invaded, Zelensky declared martial law and signed a decree that combined Ukraine’s media outlets into one platform called “United News.” The decree “suspended” private media companies. The justification for this was to have a “unified information policy,” which is dictator-speak for establishing government control over media and turning all major avenues of information into state-controlled propaganda.

The Zelensky government justified this classic autocratic move as a measure to counter Russian disinformation.

Another victim of Zelensky’s martial-law decree was a dissenting political parties. Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council banned 11 political parties. The largest of these was the Opposition Platform – For Life, the second-largest party after Zelensky’s Servant of the People party. It held 44 seats in the 450-seat Ukrainian Parliament. Years later, in 2024, Ukraine also banned the Nash Krai party, which had won 1,694 seats in regional administration. According to reports, “the activities of the political party Nash Krai were banned; the property, funds, and other assets of the party, its regional, city, district organizations, primary cells, and other structural units were transferred to the state.”

The justification? Countering Russian influence.

Read the Whole Article

The post Anti-Zelensky Protests Erupt Across Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.

On July 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced a major push to begin reforming the U.S. organ procurement and transplantation system. This announcement was prompted by a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) investigation that uncovered multiple examples of patients who were not dead when they were taken for organ procurement.

The HRSA investigation revealed that out of 351 cases studied, 103 (29.3 percent) were found to have problems. They discovered 73 patients (21 percent) who were authorized for organ procurement despite having neurological signs incompatible with organ donation. And disturbingly, at least 28 patients (8 percent) may not have been deceased when doctors began surgery to remove their organs.

The independent HRSA investigation began after the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) claimed to find no major concerns in their review of the 2021 TJ Hoover case. TJ Hoover, a supposedly “brain dead” man, began thrashing and crying as he was being wheeled to the operating room to donate his organs. His family was told that this was just “reflexes.” Whistleblowers claimed that even after two doctors refused to remove Hoover’s organs, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates ordered their staff to find another doctor to perform the surgery. Thankfully, surgery was called off, and Hoover went on to recover and even dance at his sister’s wedding.

On July 20, 2025, the New York Times published an article reporting multiple cases of donors who were not dead when they were scheduled for organ procurement. This article focused on the problems of “donation after circulatory death” (DCD). In DCD, patients are not “brain dead” but either are not expected to survive or have decided that their quality of life is unacceptable. Their deaths are planned to occur at a specific place and time so that they can become organ donors.

The patient is made “do not resuscitate” (DNR), ventilators and infusions are withdrawn, and doctors wait until the patient’s heart stops. Then, depending on the transplant center, a two-five minute “no touch” period is observed, following which (if the heart doesn’t restart on its own) organ procurement immediately begins. However, it is well documented that people are routinely resuscitated after just two-five minutes of pulselessness – and if you could possibly be resuscitated, you were never dead.

But because DCD donors have been made DNR, they will not be resuscitated. In 2007, Dr. Ari Joffe published a report of a dozen patients whose hearts started beating again spontaneously after as many as 10 minutes of cardiac arrest, with some of them making a full recovery. This shows that people cannot be known to be dead until at least ten minutes after their cardiac arrest. But doctors are currently moving more quickly because waiting ten minutes makes it too late to successfully harvest most of the organs. The current two-five minute “no touch” period is much too short and essentially guarantees that more people will be waking up under the knife. Other countries recognize these dangers, and DCD is banned in Finland, Germany, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Lithuania, and Turkey.

One of the cases described in the New York Times article was that of DCD donor Misty Hawkins. After a choking accident, Hawkins suffered a brain injury and was comatose on a ventilator. She was not brain dead, but doctors told her parents that she would never wake up. Her mother did not want Misty to suffer, and because she wanted something good to come out of this tragedy, she consented to making her daughter a DCD organ donor.

Misty was taken to the operating room, where a doctor took her off the ventilator and gave her drugs for comfort. Her heart stopped 103 minutes later. After a five-minute waiting period, surgery began. But when surgeons sawed through her breastbone, they discovered that Misty’s heart was beating and that she was gasping for breath. Organ retrieval was called off, and 12 minutes later, Misty was declared dead a second time. It is unclear whether she received any anesthesia. At the time, her parents were only told that Misty had been unable to donate her organs. It was not until they were contacted by the New York Times over a year later that they learned the rest of the story.

Yesterday morning, I sent a formal complaint to the OPTN, HRSA, and the investigating U.S. House committee that was signed by over 300 doctors, nurses, lawyers, philosophers, PhDs, and citizens.

I am very encouraged that so many are finally taking these deeply problematic practices seriously. But going forward, this is going to be a difficult moral, medical, and legal knot to untangle. As our country seeks solutions, these are the key goals I have identified:

1. The public needs full transparency about how death is declared prior to organ and tissue procurement, for without transparency there is no true consent.
2. We need an opt-out exemption to a brain death diagnosis nationwide. There are eight states with medical freedom laws that allow healthcare providers to opt out of participating in a brain death case, but the only state where patients have this right is New Jersey. And New Jersey’s law only provides for a religious exemption: people should be able to opt out for any reason.
3. Hospitals must mandate that doctors obtain informed consent before embarking on a brain death diagnosis, including the dangerous apnea test that can make a brain injury worse and has risks of hypotension, pneumothorax, and cardiac arrest.

It is also encouraging that many doctors are now taking a closer look at organ procurement and are interested in making changes. Living donation, in which both the donor and the recipient remain alive after the procedure, is completely ethical and can provide every organ except the heart. And a fully implantable artificial heart is currently in clinical trials. I am hoping that greater transparency will actually lead to more life-saving transplants, not less. After all, “brain death” accounts for <1% of reported deaths nationwide, whereas the number of living donors is potentially vast.

Hopefully we can provide justice for the families who have been hurt by the current unethical system without jeopardizing ethical forms of organ transplantation.

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post Trump HHS Finds Patients Are Being Taken for Organ Retrieval While Still Alive appeared first on LewRockwell.

From what I can tell, there are four possible reasons for President Trump’s refusal to order that the Jeffrey Epstein files be released to the public:

1. That Trump’s name is possibly included in those files. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Attorney General Pam Bondi has informed Trump that his name appears in the files.

2. That wealthy, powerful, politically connected people who engaged in sexual relations with underaged girls, along with Epstein, are supposedly using their influence to persuade Trump not to release the files that incriminate those people.

3. A possible reluctance on the part of the Justice Department to let convicted Epstein assistant Ghislaine Maxwell see the files, given the possibility that her criminal conviction could be overturned, which could require a retrial.

4. The deep state — i.e., the national-security state — is possibly prohibiting Trump from disclosing the Epstein files because of possible Epstein connections to the deep state.

In my opinion, the first three possible reasons are meritless. In my opinion, the only explanation that makes any reasonable sense is #4.

1. What difference does it make if Trump’s name is included in the files? If there is nothing indicating that Trump engaged in any criminal conduct, why should he care that people see his name in the files, especially since people already have learned from Bondi that his name is in the files. Moreover, everyone knows that Trump and Epstein were friends a long time ago and that their friendship ended a long time ago. Trump has steadfastly maintained that he never engaged in any criminal conduct with Epstein. Taking him at his word, there is no reasonable possibility that the files contain any evidence pointing to the contrary. Thus, this doesn’t come across as a reasonable reason as to why Trump is refusing to order a full disclosure of the Epstein records.

2. Trump knows that he is paying an enormous political price for his decision not to release the Epstein files. Why would he pay that price just to protect some well-heeled, prominent, influential, powerful people? What can they do to Trump? They bear responsibility for their actions. Moreover, given the fact that he can’t run for president again, Trump doesn’t need to be concerned about losing some possible donors. While Trump might be tempted to show loyalty to longtime, big supporters, it is virtually certain that he would never sacrifice a tremendous amount of political capital to protect people who had criminally engaged in sexual relations with minors. That just wouldn’t make any sense.

3. Maxwell was convicted in federal court of Epstein-related crimes and is now serving a 20-year prison sentence. A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her conviction. Her request for a full-court (en banc) hearing before the appellate court was denied. She has asked the Supreme Court to hear her appeal. But the chances that the Court will do so are slim. Even if it did, the odds are that her conviction would be upheld. But even she were to receive a new trial, it wouldn’t make that much of a difference if she were to see the Epstein files before the new trial. After all, the prosecutors are required to give her any exculpatory evidence anyway. It defies credulity that Trump would be paying this enormous political price out of concern that Maxwell could benefit in a retrial from viewing the Epstein files.

4. The deep state. In my opinion, this is the most likely reason why Trump is refraining is from disclosing the Epstein files. The U.S. attorney in Florida who handled the Epstein case in 2008, Alex Acosta, was reported as saying that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and to “leave it alone.” If Epstein did, in fact, belong to intelligence, it was almost certain that the “intelligence” was the Israeli Mossad or the CIA or both. Even if it was only the Mossad, the CIA would do whatever the Mossad asked, given the extremely close relationship between the U.S. government and the Israel government.

If this is true, then there is no reasonable possibility whatsoever that the Epstein files will ever see the light of day. The deep state would never permit people to see that it was involved with Epstein.

When one examines the plea bargain that Epstein was given in 2008, it is actually shocks the conscience of any reasonable person. The feds had him dead to rights. They easily could have secured convictions based on his sexual relationship with numerous under-aged girls. They could have easily sent him away to prison for the rest of his life.

Instead, they gave him a plea deal that has to rank among the most shocking in the history of U.S. criminal jurisprudence. The deal enabled him to plead guilty to state officials, not federal officials. He received a 13-month jail sentence, which he was permitted to serve in a county jail, not a state prison. And get this: Every day, he was permitted to freely leave the jail in the morning and return at night to sleep there. He was also given immunity from prosecution for all the crimes with which he did not plead guilty. The entire deal was done secretly and quickly so that the victims would not have time to object to it.

That plea deal is the very definition of a super “sweetheart” deal. And it is my opinion that the only entity that could ensure that type of super sweetheart deal for such heinous crimes and for such an unattractive defendant was the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

As longtime readers of my work know, I have long maintained that it is the national-security branch of the government that is actually in charge of the federal government. The other three branches — executive, legislative, and judicial — are permitted to have the veneer of power, but it’s only a veneer — an appearance. The real power lies in the national-security branch.

In my opinion, it is the omnipotent power of the national-security establishment that is now manifesting itself in all its glory to the American people. If there is anything good that can come out of the Epstein scandal, it is that the scandal might cause the American people to begin processing that reality.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Deep State and the Epstein Scandal appeared first on LewRockwell.

Would you be willing to pay extra for options such as power windows, door locks, cruise control, AC and an automatic transmission? Of course, you already do. Because you have no choice – assuming you choose to buy a new vehicle.

Before about 25 years ago, it was not uncommon for these features to be optional in modestly priced vehicles. Now they are standard equipment in all vehicles and for just that reason there is no longer such a thing as a modesty priced vehicle. There isn’t one available with a starting price under $20,000 and if you want a new truck, the starting price for a mid-sized one is well over $30,000.

This latter is particularly interesting because before about 25 years ago, trucks were less expensive than cars. They came standard with just the absolutely necessaries – i.e., an engine, transmission, brakes and tires. The rest was available, if you wanted to pay extra and could afford to do so. Some did, others didn’t. The wonderful thing was you could choose to pay for what you needed but were not (effectively) forced to pay for everything else.

Fast-forward to the present. You can’t choose not to pay extra for such things as power windows, locks, cruise control, AC and (with a very small handful of lingering exceptions) an automatic transmission. Even the Corvette is now automatic-only, as is true of nine-point-nine out of ten performance cars.

Well, what happened?

Attitudes changed. Not everyone’s, of course. But enough to change things, as is always the case when it comes to change (for good and bad). The change that happened was that a sufficiency of Americans got comfortable with living beyond their means and this has had the unfortunate effect of dragging the rest of us along for the ride. The 3-4 year new car loan that cost about $300 per month went to 5-6 years and more than $600 per month (in some cases, a lot more than $600 per month). This happened because it became possible. In the past, loans were shorter because most people – enough people to make it the norm – were not able to pay more than “x” dollars per month for a car. That is of course still true today but it is also true that it is deceptive because it is not the same thing. Doubling the payment period from 3-4 to 5-6 (or longer) in order to keep the monthly payment manageable is a way of hiding the cost of the thing that is financed. It is a way of deluding the debtor into believing that he is more affluent than he is by making it possible for him to play the owner of things he doesn’t actually own.

The person who owns his vehicle has an asset. The person who is making payments has a liability. But the person who proudly peacocks around in a $50,000 vehicle (this is the average price paid for a new vehicle as of now) seems more affluent than the person who drives his modest, but paid-for old vehicle. And seems appears to be more important to many Americans than being.

What happened to make this happen was a confluence of pernicious synergies, including of course the endless payment plan (just about) that has become the new normal. The car industry has been complicit; several of the major labels have their own financing divisions and they make more money there than they do in the showroom. There is more profit to be had selling a mark a car that is loaded than one that is stripped. As a personal example, a college buddy of mine bought a brand-new F-150 pickup in 1989, shortly after we got out of college. He didn’t have much money and so couldn’t afford to spend it. All he wanted was a basic truck he could use to start his roofing business. So he bought a base work truck, which back then meant a manual transmission, manual roll-up windows, manual door locks, manual 4WD and no AC. The upside was the truck cost him less than $10,000 back then – which works out to about $25,000 in today’s increasingly worthless money.

But it bought him a full-size truck with 4WD.

The least expensive 2WD iteration of the 2025 Ford F-150 stickers for $37,450. Part of the reason for the $12k-plus bump is that the ’25 comes standard with an automatic, AC, LED headlights, keyless entry, a digital instrument panel, cruise control and – of course – power windows. All nice to have – if you happen to have the additional $12k-plus it costs to buy the ’25.

Most don’t. Certainly not over the course of 3-4 years. So they finance it for several more years. This is great for the vehicle manufacturers on several levels, the obvious one being they make more money per vehicle sold and then more (again) on the financing. They subtler way they make more money is by standardizing what used to be optional features. It costs less, for instance, to make AC and power windows standard in every vehicle than to make some with and others without. It is also a great way to upsell everyone without them even realizing they have been upsold since all that’s available is already loaded. In the past, the salesman had to sell the buyer on options such as AC and power windows. Now it’s a given he’ll buy them.

Rather, that he will finance them.

Thus, here we are. Everything is loaded, even what are now styled entry level cars. Economy cars no longer exist – and that’s why nothing’s affordable anymore. The base price of ’25 VW ID Buzz I reviewed recently is $60k. The old Microbus of the ’70s cost about a third of that when it was new. It didn’t have all the luxuries the ID Buzz has because when the Microbus was new, most people knew they couldn’t afford luxuries. Now they think they can.

Or did.

Which brings up an interesting aspect of this; i.e., the lag time built into things. Americans – a sufficiency of them – got used to living beyond their means and have been able to do so for quite a long time. But that time appears to be coming to an end, if it hasn’t already.

You can almost hear the music waning and people beginning to realize it’s time to grab a chair before they’re left without a place to sit.

This article was originally published on Eric Peters Autos.

The post Is it That We Want What We Can’t Afford? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The U.S. supplies 69% of the weapons, Germany supplies 30%, for Israel’s extermination of the Gazans, but on July 21st, America’s AP headlined “UK, Canada and 26 other countries say the war in Gaza ‘must end now’”, and reported that, “Twenty-eight countries including Britain, Japan and a host of European nations issued a joint statement Monday saying the war in Gaza ‘must end now’ — the latest sign of allies’ sharpening language as Israel’s isolation deepens.” America’s AP did not headline “Israel-allied countries support but also condemn the genocide against Gazans” — which would have been the full basic truth — they instead reported only that these countries (which the AP didn’t even completely list) were, in this “joint statement” (to which the AP provided no link, so that the actual document — which they were allegedly reporting about, was instead being actually hidden by the AP — censored-out by them) was “saying the war in Gaza ‘must end now’” INSTEAD OF that Israel and America and Germany must cease their perpetrating this genocide. The AP was saying that “the war in Gaza ‘must end now’” — as-if this ‘war’ ISN’T instead an extermination of Gazans, but just a war between Gazans and Israel, which latter Government is actually leading this Israel-U.S.-German-perpetrated genocide to get rid of Gazans. Israel is leading this extermination-campaign, just as Germany had led the one against Jews; and, just as Germany’s Government had participating foreign Governments helping them, so too does Israel’s.

During the German-led Holocaust by Christians (and 94% of Germans during the time of the Holocaust were Christians — and almost all of Europe were) against Jews, the Christian-majority countries on the side of the Allies rejected Jewish refugees but verbally condemned the genocide against Jews. Now they are doing the same thing when Israel, America, and Germany, perpetrate their genocide against Palestinians, and their ethnic cleansing of the West Bank Palestinians.

Back on 9 January 2024, Jonathan Cook had headlined “The West Will Stand in the Dock Alongside Israel at the Genocide Court”, but on 20 July 2025 the political scientist Karim Bettache headlined “Time to Admit It — This Is a Global Genocide Against the Palestinians: The true horror of Gaza lies not only in Israeli crimes, but in how the entire world has united in enabling and legitimizing genocide.” He wrote:

The machinery of this genocide operates through countless channels.

Turkey, despite Erdogan’s theatrical denunciations, continues to pump oil through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, feeding Israel’s war machine. China, proclaimed leader of the Global South, remains Israel’s largest Asian trading partner and third largest globally, providing the economic lifeline that sustains the siege. In March this year, China’s ambassador to Israel, Xiao Junzheng, stated that “The war is not the theme of Israel-China bilateral relations.” Indeed, China has been careful to call the genocide either a ‘war’ or ‘humanitarian crisis’, systematically avoiding any reference to genocide. India, once a beacon of non-alignment and itself brutally colonized by European powers, now supplies military technology and maintains robust defense cooperation with the occupying power. Most shamefully, Indian nationals have joined Israeli forces as foreign fighters, participating in the very crimes that their own ancestors suffered under colonial rule.

The Western imperial core performs its expected role with ruthless efficiency. The United States provides shiploads of military aid while wielding its UN Security Council veto to shield Israel from accountability. Germany, forever haunted by its genocidal past, now enables a new genocide through weapons sales and diplomatic protection. France supplies military equipment while President Macron speaks of Israel’s “right to defend itself” against children and civilians. Britain provides intelligence sharing and military components while maintaining its historic role as the architect of Palestinian dispossession.

Even nations that position themselves as neutral reveal their complicity. Ireland, which claims solidarity with Palestinian struggle, allows its airspace and Shannon Airport to serve as a transit hub for American weapons shipments destined for Israel. The Netherlands, seat of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, simultaneously provides critical weapons components and NATO cover for the very crimes its courts are meant to adjudicate. Switzerland, eternal neutral, reveals the hollowness of its proclaimed neutrality by purchasing Israeli drones bombing Gaza while cutting UNRWA funding during the genocide—transforming the supposed guardian of international law into an active participant in Palestinian extermination. …

Brazil under Lula offers symbolic criticism while maintaining trade relations with Israel and simultaneously keeping socialist, anti-imperialist Venezuela out of BRICS. South Africa, birthplace of the anti-apartheid struggle, brings cases against Israel to international courts while continuing economic partnerships with the occupying power. Russia, proclaimed leader of the emerging multi-polar order, maintains military cooperation with Israel and praises it effusively, even as it positions itself as America’s great rival while Israel actively supports Ukraine’s war against Russia.

The Curse of Gaza will Haunt the Whole World

What we are witnessing is the complete collapse of the anti-colonial movement that once offered hope to the world’s oppressed. …

There is no communist pushback as there once was when the Soviet Union, despite its own contradictions, provided material support to liberation movements worldwide. There is no robust Third World solidarity of the kind that once isolated apartheid South Africa and supported Vietnamese resistance.

The promised “multi-polar world” reveals itself as merely a reshuffling of imperial hierarchies rather than their abolition.

Instead, we have a world where supposed enemies collaborate in genocide while performing antagonism for domestic consumption. Where nations that claim to champion human rights enable the systematic extermination of an entire people. Where the international legal order – the UN, the ICJ, the ICC – proves utterly impotent in the face of coordinated imperial will. …

The Palestinians have become the sacrificial offering on the altar of this global consensus. …

Every government that enables this slaughter – whether through direct military support, economic assistance, diplomatic cover, trade, or simple silence – is declaring its allegiance to a world order that views certain peoples as expendable. …

That explains the AP’s distortion and cover-up, and the deceitful document itself:

Joint statement by:

foreign ministers of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK

EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management
We, the signatories listed below, come together with a simple, urgent message: the war in Gaza must end now.

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity. We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food. It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The hostages cruelly held captive by Hamas since 7 October 2023 continue to suffer terribly. We condemn their continued detention and call for their immediate and unconditional release. A negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing them home and ending the agony of their families.

We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively.

We call on all parties to protect civilians and uphold the obligations of international humanitarian law. Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a “humanitarian city” are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.

We strongly oppose any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The E1 settlement plan announced by Israel’s Civil Administration, if implemented, would divide a Palestinian state in two, marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution. Meanwhile, settlement building across the West Bank including East Jerusalem has accelerated while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. This must stop.

We urge the parties and the international community to unite in a common effort to bring this terrible conflict to an end, through an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. Further bloodshed serves no purpose.  We reaffirm our complete support to the efforts of the US, Qatar and Egypt to achieve this.

We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.

This statement has been signed by:

The Foreign Ministers of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK

The EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management

Notice, there, that the alleged 28 signers did NOT include Brazil, China, Germany, Iran, Russia, South Africa, Venezuela, and many other countries, and that whereas Greece was listed at the opening as having been a signer, it was omitted from that same list at the end, and that even in the listing at the document’s start, the number of signers was 26, not the AP-alleged 28. Furthermore: among the signers were Australia, Canada, Iceland, and New Zealand; so, the AP’s “Twenty-eight countries including Britain, Japan and a host of European nations” was likewise false in its allegation that the unmentioned signers were merely “a host of European nations.” Europe had nothing to do with it — hypocrisy did, and hypocrisy extends outside Europe (especially in Turkey).

Furthermore, the document contains numerous euphemisms, such as “The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous.” What is actually happening is that as the extermination edges toward completion, food is being blocked from entering Gaza except by U.S.-Government-funded ‘charities’ that coordinate with Israel’s Government so as to use this food “aid” as a lure — like baiting a fish-hook — in order to get Gazans to congregate at those sites so that Israel’s snipers and bombs can then more effcieiently eliminate Gazans, by the dozens, instead of merely one-by-one. For example, here’s a 6 July 2025 report even from America’s own National Public Radio, “Knives, bullets and thieves: the quest for food in Gaza”:

Anas Baba/NPR

I have lost a third of my body weight after nearly 21 months of war in Gaza.

Months of an Israeli ban on food entering Gaza, and the current strict controls on food distribution, have fueled widespread hunger. Gaza health officials have reported scores of children who died of malnutrition [euphemism for “starvation”].

People are pale and weak. They walk on the street supporting themselves by grabbing onto walls and fences, or they walk together in groups to support each other. Women and children faint in the street.

People, some carrying aid parcels, walk along the Salah al-Din road near the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, used by food-seeking Palestinians to reach an aid distribution point set up by the privately run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation [front for the U.S. and Israeli Governments].

The coordination between the American and Israeli Governments is total. This is a joint Israeli-American genocide, and, as such, even the U.S. Government’s ‘enemies’ (nations that the U.S. Government strives yet to conquer) stay away from getting in the way of it. Even Iran isn’t getting in the way of it. The U.S. regime now terrorizes the whole world.

As regards Jonathan Cook’s optimistic “The West Will Stand in the Dock Alongside Israel at the Genocide Court”, the U.S. and Israel have always (ever since 25 July 1945) been above international law, and might be even more so after this is all over. If that turns out to be the case, then will the U.N. itself survive with any respect by the global public? And if not, what then?

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Hypocrisy on Steroids, About the Gaza Genocide appeared first on LewRockwell.

The United States has focused on the Middle East since World War II, seeking its oil, gas, and other mineral resources and coveting control of its strategic waterways. The old colonial powers and the superpowers of the Cold War era most often backed dictatorial regimes there, because they were easier to control than democracies, and this country also supported the Israeli settler colony as a bulwark of Western interests. President George W. Bush was the first president to depart (at least rhetorically) from America’s romance with regional authoritarians, pledging to “democratize” the Middle East, though he left office with little to show for it. Now, you have to wonder whether, in some strange sense, the shoe is on the other foot and the pathological U.S. support for dictatorships there is now spreading across the Atlantic Ocean, just as the trade winds blow Saharan sand and dust toward the American Southwest.

Democratic Backsliding

Here’s something that should sound familiar in the United States today: Qais Saied of Tunisia, elected president in 2019, campaigned against homosexuality and — yes! — African immigrants. In 2021, he lawlessly dismissed his prime minister and parliament and went on to rewrite the country’s constitution so that he could appoint yes-men to its Supreme Court. Then he began jailing his political opponents. In four short years, Saied undid all the political progress Tunisia had made in the previous decade, creating a dictatorship arguably worse than that of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was overthrown in January 2011 in the first of several major Arab Spring youth revolts.

Worse yet — and this should sound familiar, too — Tunisia seemed to sleepwalk into authoritarianism. Trade unionists hoped the president would reject the neoliberalism of the International Monetary Fund, while civil society organizations hoped he would curb the Interior Ministry’s past repressiveness. No such luck. Europe declined to punish the newly developing dictatorship by cutting off aid, instead rewarding Saied with an economic deal in return for his willingness to crack down on African emigration. Of course, such democratic backsliding has been a feature of the Middle East for decades, since local civil society remains weak, pro-regime billionaires have proliferated, and Western governments have seldom reacted negatively to (and all too often rewarded) any move toward dictatorship.

Now, you might say that the shoe is on the other foot. What Saied did to Tunisia might as well have been a blueprint for Donald Trump. Although he hasn’t yet actually tried to rewrite the constitution, the MAGA leader has been the beneficiary of a decades-long $250 million dark-money plot, led by obscure Federalist Society apparatchik Leonard Leo, to reshape the Supreme Court. The result: a set of justices who are distinctly inclined to let Trump do his damnedest — even expel undocumented residents of the United States to gulags in third-world countries with no court process. Meanwhile, labor union members have too often placed faith in Trump’s pledges to bring back industry by using tariffs to reduce competition. And the centrists of the Democratic Party are the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights, too paralyzed to react effectively as he transforms this country into an ever more autocratic state. They also seem all too inclined to let our democracy slip away, while placing their hopes in a 2026 congressional blue wave that, even if it happens, may be too late to stop Trump from creating his version of a one-party state.

Raw Milk and Vitamin A

Consider it typical of our times that Field Marshall Abdelfattah al-Sisi’s 2013 coup against the only freely elected Egyptian government since the country’s monarchy was toppled in 1952 had no significant adverse consequences in Washington. In 2014, a leading officer in the Egyptian army, which receives $1.3 billion a year in American aid, made quixotic health claims. Major General Ibrahim Abdel-Atti announced that he had personally “defeated AIDS with the grace of my God at the rate of 100%. And I defeated hepatitis C.”  In the process, he confused the foundational nucleic acids DNA and RNA, provoking one Egyptian comedian to suggest that the country’s medical schools should never again accept anyone from Abdel-Atti’s village. However, the North Korean-like pall that has blanketed freedom of speech in Egypt was precisely what permitted such bizarre official behavior, since there was little way for the public to respond to even his most absurd claims.

Yet, imagine this: Abdel-Atti appears almost sane and sober in comparison with the antics of U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has discouraged vaccinations even as a measles outbreak has begun to run wild (and prove fatal in a few cases) 25 years after the U.S. officially eliminated the disease. Kennedy’s proposed treatment for measles?  Raw milk and vitamin A. Sadly, overdoses of the latter have caused liver disease in some children.

Kennedy is also working hard to gut the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The damage he’s doing in the Trump era to America’s vital and effective vaccination infrastructure could unleash serial plagues upon the public. And it’s not likely to get better any time soon, given the irrational demagogue now in the White House, just as Egyptians suffer under megalomaniacal generals.

A Kafala System

And here’s another Middle Eastern peculiarity inherited from Western colonialism that will sound all too familiar in Donald Trump’s America: the large numbers of non-citizens and stateless people who suffer from a lack of basic civil and human rights. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, imperial Great Britain made treaties with small sheikhdoms along the coast of the Persian Gulf to ensure the security of its shipping and check rivals like the Ottoman Empire. When the British finally withdrew completely from the Gulf in 1972, they left behind postage-stamp countries with vast oil and gas wealth, which did not have a sufficient native-born population to work the rigs or staff the energy companies. The British Empire had often brought into its colonies, like Kuwait and Bahrain, subjects from British India.

After decolonization, such workers from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were coded as foreigners in the Arab Gulf. They began laboring under a “guarantor” (kafala) system in which a local entrepreneur would take responsibility for migrant laborers who often surrendered their passports to him for as long as they were in the country. The guarantor would then take a cut of their wages or business profits. No matter how long such migrants lived in those countries, they and their children almost never became eligible for citizenship, and they could have their visas revoked at any time. Others now have trouble even getting in. Typically, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in January announced a ban on visas (for Afghans, Libyans, Yemenis, Somalians, Lebanese, Bangladeshi, Cameroonians, Sudanis, and Ugandans). And that should sound familiar, since the Trump regime has already implemented a visa ban on 19 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. In short, the policies toward immigrant labor in the two regions seem to be converging.

Countries like the United Arab Emirates have a little more than a million citizens and 10 million mostly South Asian guest workers, some of whom have lived there all their lives or are even second or third generation residents. Such migrant workers, however, have no right to form unions or strike. Any encounter with law enforcement, even a fender-bender, can result in their expulsion. New York University Professor Andrew Ross was typically banned from the country simply for researching labor conditions. British academic Matthew Hedges was imprisoned on false espionage charges in 2018, tortured, and threatened with deportation to a UAE black site in Yemen before ultimately being released. New York University has a branch in Abu Dhabi, where the students and faculty have had run-ins with the government of President Mohammed Bin Zayed, which surged in the past two years because the country does not permit social media posts criticizing Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.

And it’s not only migrant laborers in the Middle East who can be denied citizenship despite long residence. Indigenous people, too, sometimes become non-citizens (just as Native Americans were denied U.S. citizenship until 1924). The Arab nationalists of Syria denaturalized some 100,000 Kurdish Syrians in Hasakah Province in 1962 and, over time, that figure grew to several hundred thousand. The Middle East is a patchwork of citizenship hierarchies, where the line can be drawn capriciously by nationalists, fundamentalists, or monarchs.

It does not take much familiarity with Donald Trump’s policies in the past six months to see the ways in which his administration seemingly yearns for similar levels of citizenship and limited residency to be imposed in this country. He has even threatened to deport naturalized American citizens like (can you believe it?) Elon Musk or Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, for their criticisms of him. If his fondest wishes were fulfilled, he might even prefer his country to be more like Israel when it came to anyone he didn’t like living there.

Expelled for Gandhism

An analogy could also be made between the “foreign” migrant workers in the Gulf, who have no local citizenship or rights, and the Palestinians under Israeli rule in the West Bank or Gaza. Like the Syrian Kurds of Hasakah, they have been made stateless in their own country. They lack a national government and the rights and passport it would give them. Palestinians in Area C, the 60% of the West Bank that is directly ruled by the Israeli military, see rights like unionizing or striking routinely curbed. Like Gulf workers, Palestinians are subject to expulsion at the whim of the Israeli military. And keep in mind that, when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, some 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from it or, if working abroad, forbidden to return home.

Some of those trapped by the decades-long occupation have also been subject to arbitrary removal. The Israeli authorities illegally expelled Palestinian pacifist Mubarak Awad from his homeland in 1988 for advocating Gandhi-style nonviolent noncooperation. Tens of thousands of West Bank Palestinians have been forced from their homes in the past two years, as entire refugee camps have been razed, the Israeli military has destroyed homes, and Israeli squatters on Palestinian land have enacted pogroms.& Since the Hamas assault on Israel in October 2023, at least 100,000 Gazans have been forced out of Palestine entirely by Israeli commanders, who have ordered that some 90% of the housing stock there be damaged or destroyed.

Inside the Jewish ethnostate of Israel, the 21% of the population who are of Palestinian heritage are distinctly second-class citizens. Human Rights Organizations like Adalah have identified 65 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian-Israelis. In 2018, the Israeli parliament declared that national sovereignty is invested solely in the country’s Jews. Since October 2023, Palestinian-Israelis have been under strict surveillance and have to be careful about their Internet postings. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that they can be stripped of their citizenship and expelled for breach of loyalty to the Israeli state.

SEVIS Hits

Like the rulers of some Gulf states, Trump and his crew want to treat all noncitizens on visas in the U.S. — and even some naturalized citizens — arbitrarily. Since he returned to power in January, thousands of visas have been revoked for even minor contact with law enforcement, just as happens to hapless migrants in the UAE. Trump officials ran the data in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) against police reports and zeroed in on 6,400 of them, terminating their SEVIS entries without notice. That was, of course, in contravention of government regulations. Most of the hits involved cases where charges had been dropped or were minor. Affected students filed more than 60 lawsuits and consistently prevailed in court, forcing ICE to restore the SEVIS records, at least for now.

In addition, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to revoke the visas of students who had been active in protests against the Israeli genocide in Gaza (in precisely the same way and on the same grounds as the Emirati government does). Among such high-profile cases, the State Department targeted figures like Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil, who had permanent resident status in the country but was arrested anyway and sent to a Louisiana prison. Tufts graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, who had written a mild opinion piece for her student newspaper criticizing her school’s response to events in Gaza, was similarly seized. Apparently, the plan was to avoid letting them appear before a judge and instead summarily deport them, but the courts insisted they be given hearings, upholding the apparently imperiled principle of habeas corpus. Chapters of the American Association of University Professors, along with the Middle East Studies Association, have sued on First Amendment grounds to overturn Rubio’s policy of declaring speech to be a national security emergency, permitting the deportation of visa and green card holders.

In 1945, the case of Bridges v. Wixon established that not just citizens but all people residing in the United States enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights. As the Cold War heated up in the 1950s, however, the court did allow a few deportations of non-citizens due to their membership in the Communist Party (as in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy in 1952). Eighty years later, in a distinctly new world, Rubio and his colleagues wish to reverse Bridges and make the U.S. a giant version of the United Arab Emirates, functionally an absolute (Trumpian) monarchy. Instead of emulating the best of Middle Eastern values such as generosity to guests and love of learning, Trump and crew seem to admire only Western-imposed authoritarianism.

Ironically, in the second Trump era, America’s billionaires and corporate elites have decided that this country should be ruled with some of the same techniques that they and their Middle Eastern proxies have long used abroad. Instead of America democratizing the Middle East, it’s increasingly clear that Trump and crew have decided to Middle-Easternize the United States.

Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.

The post We’re All Palestinians Now appeared first on LewRockwell.

On July 17th, an Israeli strike on Gaza’s only Catholic parish killed three—including two elderly women—and left many wounded, including the pastor. The next day, Babylon Bee Editor Joel Berry had this to say about the victims: There are “only about 200 professed Catholics still living in Gaza and they all support Hamas.” They “aid and support the terror regime,” he added.

On July 16th, one day before the attack on the church, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee stated this in response to Irish lawmakers trying to hold radical Israeli extremists accountable for nearly destroying a church in the only remaining all-Christian village in the Holy Land: “Did the Irish fall into a vat of Guinness?…Sober up Ireland!”

These aren’t just flippant remarks. They are theological signals, cultural relics, and dangerous political weapons. What unites them is a Protestant-inflected security: mock the Catholic, disclaim the non-white Christian, demonize the immigrant—all while draping the rhetoric in Christian respectability.

Berry’s remarks don’t just amount to a geopolitical argument but a theological one. He claimed “true Christian faith still exists in Gaza, but it’s all underground. Anyone allowed by Hamas to practice openly is allowed to do so only because they aid and support the terror regime.”

In other words, he divided Gaza’s Christians into two categories: the visible, sacramental Church—painted as collaborators with terror—and the “true” underground believers, invisible and therefore morally acceptable.

This isn’t satire. It’s an erasure. Berry’s words echo centuries-old Protestant suspicion toward Catholicism and Orthodoxy—faith too public; too ritualistic; too embodied in visible, sacramental witness and liturgy to be “real.”

For Berry, the Christians sheltering in Gaza’s church, caring for neighbors and praying in a bombed-out sanctuary, don’t count as disciples. They’re not martyrs; they’re moral liabilities to the tame, civic religion that blends in with (rather than standing as a sign of contradiction to) the princes of this world.

But they are not erased. In the smoldering rubble of St. Porphyrius Orthodox Church and beneath the shell-shattered roof of Holy Family Catholic Church, ancient hymns still rise. The Eucharist is still celebrated. That is the scandal Berry cannot abide: the visibility of a Church that endures not underground but under fire.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee reached back into 19th-century nativist archives to belittle Irish Catholics. By asking if Ireland had “fallen into a vat of Guinness” and telling them to “sober up,” Huckabee resurrected the “drunken Irish” trope that once animated Know‑Nothing anti-Catholic cartoons and fueled waves of discrimination.

The Ancient Order of Hibernians condemned Huckabee’s remarks, calling them a revival of “19th-century anti-Irish caricatures.” Yet the ambassador’s comment passed largely unchallenged in American media—because anti-Catholicism still enjoys a cultural hall pass here.

Embedded in Huckabee’s quip is the same Protestant suspicion of Catholicism as in Berry’s post: Catholics are an unserious, simplistic, primitive tribe. Our public faith is at best irrelevant, but it is treacherous when it takes real public action—in which cases we ought to expect a condescending rebuke from our cultural betters.

This rhetorical pattern isn’t confined to Gaza or Ireland. Once, Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants were widely seen as existential threats to American Protestant identity. Today, that role is also assigned not only to the Catholic and Orthodox victims of Israeli violence in the Holy Land and Gaza but to Catholic immigrants from Latin America and Africa.

The language is remarkably unchanged: these Catholics, you will hear, are emotional. Superstitious. Un-American.

And immigrants are painted with the same brush as Gaza’s Catholics—complicit in uncivilized chaos, tolerable only if invisible.

Catholics must not make the mistake of viewing remarks like Huckabee’s and Berry’s as haphazard, unrelated expressions of ignorance. They are reasserting an old theological hierarchy. For civilization to flourish, they believe, whiteness and Protestantism must remain on top, while ancient Catholicism must remain under suspicion.

Racism sparks backlash. Anti-Semitism rightly draws condemnation. But anti-Catholicism? Huckabee jokes, Berry dismisses, few care. This prejudice is so culturally acceptable that it flies under the radar—even among Christians.

This latent bigotry corrodes the universality of the Church. When we allow it, we side with power not the Cross.

It is true: the underground Church in Iran is growing explosively. Their faith is courageous and inspiring. But the visible, embodied faith of Gaza’s Christians is no less heroic.

Priests celebrating the Eucharist amid falling bombs. Nuns sheltering Muslim neighbors. Lay Catholics forming human shields for the elderly. This is Christian witness in its most raw and public form. To erase them because they refuse to go underground is to redefine martyrdom into invisibility—into conformity with the world.

Catholicism claims universality. Her sacraments are for all: Irish, Palestinian, Iranian, and, in a word, “the foreigner.”

G.K. Chesterton reminds us: “If there is anything more absurd than Liberalism it is conservatism. If it is true that the earth belongs to the living, it belongs to the dead whom they have taken into their keeping.”

The Church remembers the dead. It defends the living. And it refuses to bow to tribal gods of race, nation, or political expediency.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Guinness, Gaza, and the Gospel: When Ethno-Nationalism Masquerades as Faith appeared first on LewRockwell.

DNI Gabbard stated on Wednesday that she was referring former President Barack Obama for criminal charges to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Key elements of her statement are as follows.

• We have referred and will continue to refer all these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this. The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact.
• The Obama administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false, promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.
• In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people, working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.
• President Obama, former Director of the CIA John Brennan, and others fabricated the Russia Hoax, suppressed intelligence showing Putin was preparing for a Clinton victory, manufactured findings from shoddy sources, disobeyed IC standards, and knowingly lied to the American people.
• CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, DNI Clapper and others included the Steele Dossier in the 2017 ICA, thereby overruling senior Intel officials who warned them it was fabricated and should not be used.
• Obama ordered the Intelligence Community to create an Intelligence Community Assessment they knew was false, promoting a contrived narrative, with the intent of undermining the legitimacy and power of a duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump.

I have been following this story closely since 2017, and I find Gabbard’s conclusions to be consistent with my overwhelming impression from the outset that the Trump-Russia Collusion narrative was a treasonous intrigue against President Trump and the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Justice Department should perform a thorough criminal investigation of President Obama and the other key players in this conspiracy. If DNI Gabbard’s interpretation of the evidence is proven to be correct in matters of fact and law, the conspirators should be swiftly prosecuted.

NOT theatrical Congressional hearings with grandstanding Representatives and Senators, but a criminal prosecution appears to be warranted.

For more information about this story, see DNI Gabbard’s post on X.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse – Focal Points.

The post DNI Gabbard Refers Obama for Criminal Charges appeared first on LewRockwell.

How many atrocities can the federal government get away with? Americans are still vexed by the answers that Congress failed to deliver in 1995. Thirty summers ago, Washington was fixated by a Capitol Hill showdown over the greatest federal abuse of power of the decade.

Unfortunately, trusting congressional hearings to discover the truth is like trusting a roomful of monkeys with typewriters to write great novels—it might happen, but only in an eternity. As comedian Milton Berle quipped long ago, “You can send a man to Congress but you can’t make him think.”

On February 28, 1993, scores of federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents launched an attack on the home of the Branch Davidians. The ATF’s lead investigator had previously rejected an offer to peacefully search the Davidians’ home for firearms violations. Four ATF agents and six Davidians were killed in the fracas that day.

The FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team took over the scene and 59 days later, FBI tanks collapsed much of the Davidians’ ramshackle dwelling while heavily gassing the women, children, and men inside the building and nearby shelter. A fire erupted and 76 corpses were dug out of the rubble. The Clinton administration had begun a cover-up long before the final assault. (Check out Scott Horton’s superb thirtieth anniversary podcast series on Waco as well as plenty of zesty articles on this website.)

On the evening of the Waco fire, Attorney General Janet Reno went on Nightline and announced, “I made the decision. I’m accountable. The buck stops with me.” Reno then asserted that the fiery end was all somebody else’s fault: “I don’t think anybody has ever dealt with a David Koresh, who would purposely set people afire in that number.” Nightline host Ted Koppel asked Reno why the feds used “tanks to ram the compound down.” Reno replied, “I think that what we were trying to do was to give everybody an opportunity to come out in the most unobtrusive way possible, not with a frontal assault.” Because she had a lofty federal job title, nobody called out her “unobtrusive” 54-ton tank BS.

Snap polls just after the Waco fire showed that the American people overwhelmingly supported the FBI assault. A few days after the fire, the opening of a congressional appropriations committee hearing had to be delayed so senators could have their pictures taken with Attorney General Reno, who became a national hero for her “the buck stops with me” pretense.

Reno received a different reception from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) when she testified at a House hearing. Reno cried when Conyers berated her for authorizing the final assault. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh, reflecting the conservative idolization of law enforcement, slammed Conyers for being disrespectful to Reno and accused him of grandstanding. Perhaps the most honest statement of congressional sentiment came from Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Brooks declared that the Davidians were “horrible people. Despicable people. Burning to death was too good for them.”

In November 1994, Republicans captured control of Congress. On the second anniversary of the final FBI assault at Waco, a truck bomb killed more than 170 people at a federal office building in Oklahoma City. When news of that atrocity hit, a top New York op-ed editor told his colleagues, “These are Jim Bovard’s friends!” Waco had become a rallying cry for folks who distrusted Washington, creating new pressure to expose federal wrongdoing. In a May 1995 Wall Street Journal piece headlined, “Waco Must Get a Hearing,” I warned, “The ghosts of Waco will continue to haunt the U.S. government until the truth is told about what the government did and why.” I also hammered the Waco coverup in the The New Republic, Washington Times, and other publications.

After two House committees scheduled joint hearings for July, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) denounced holding any hearings: “It’s pandering to a paranoid fringe in America that wants to believe that Waco was a conspiracy.” Treasury Undersecretary Ron Noble warned that extremists might view the hearings “and decide to blow up some other building.” After the main hearings began, President Bill Clinton condemned them as part of a Republican “war on police,” and declared that “there is no moral equivalence between the disgusting acts which took place inside that compound in Waco and the efforts law enforcement officers made to protect the lives of innocent people.” The Treasury Department mass-faxed a letter from Secretary Robert Rubin warning journalists that federal action at Waco “cannot be understood properly outside the context of Oklahoma City.” An alleged truck bomber invoking Waco in 1995 miraculously vindicated the feds killing American citizens in 1993.

The hearings exposed how vast amounts of the key documentation and videotapes vanished in the maw of federal agencies. The ATF claimed it never had a formal, written raid plan prior to launching the largest military-style attack in the agency’s history. Apparently no ATF agents made written statements after a raid in which four ATF agents died. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) observed, “It’s very unusual that nobody connected with this debacle made a written statement. I think that classifies as a unique event in the history of law enforcement.” The Treasury Department quickly recognized that ATF agents’ statements could blight or destroy any federal court case against surviving Davidians; agency bosses were paranoid of creating exculpatory evidence that would expose ATF outrages.

Congressional Democrats rushed to dehumanize the government’s victims. The toxic gas that may have killed dozens of children on April 19 was a volatile issue for the hearing. Though CS gas previously killed dozens of children in the Gaza Strip, Democrats portrayed it as innocuous as a Flintstone vitamin. Benjamin Garrett, executive director the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, observed that the CS gas “would have panicked the children. Their eyes would have involuntarily shut. Their skin would have been burning. They would have been gasping for air and coughing wildly. Eventually, they would have been overcome with vomiting in a final hell.” Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM) declared that “no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death…I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.”

The confidential FBI report that Janet Reno received before approving the attack stated that the impact of the CS gas on “infants and children cannot be ignored because gas masks are not available for infants and younger children.” When Reno testified on the final day, Committee Chairman Rep. John Mica (R–FL) presented her with a gas mask to illustrate that it could not have fit children. Reno casually tossed the mask on the floor and announced that “it’s not very helpful, in terms of trying to understand what happened there, to just show gas masks. We’ve got to show the people what went into the process.” Mica told me that even if the children didn’t die directly from the CS gas, “we sure as hell tortured them for six hours before they died.” (See my 2023 photo of the vault where women and children were gassed.)

The gaudy grandeur of the House Judiciary Committee hearing room could not disguise a vast moral and mental wasteland. Most of the committee members were absent for most of the hearings. The rules seemed crafted to deter disclosing facts that would embarrass officialdom. Each congressman received only five minutes to question witnesses per round of questioning (which could last hours). Witnesses knew that the more they blathered, the less they’d need to disclose. Many Republicans groveled before the FBI officials they were supposed to be cross-examining—as if the G-men could give absolution to any politician who doubted their holy status. The typical congressman’s idea of oversight of law enforcement is to assure that he is included in photo opportunities after federal busts in his home district. “How are you so great and how can we help you?” is the usual response when the FBI director testifies on Capitol Hill, as Guardian columnist Trevor Timm noted.

The five-minute rule exemplified the pro forma pursuit of truth in Washington. Hearing co-chairman Bill McCullom (R-FL) repeatedly cut off Republican members following vital lines of questioning, rescuing one fabricating federal agent after another. At the end of the hearings, Schumer—who did everything except call for the public hanging of  the surviving Davidians—praised McCullom for his bipartisan spirit, and McCullom beamed like a cocker spaniel.

A few Republican congressmen doggedly pushed federal officials for the hard facts. But near the end of the hearings, one Republican staffer complained to me that the Republican “members were real pansies this morning” in their questioning of federal witnesses. Many Republican congressmen lacked the courage to challenge any federal agent. Few members of Congress could ask intelligent follow-ups because all they knew was the specific question or two aides had printed on a piece of paper for them to recite. Jason Whiting, press spokesman for Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), observed, “We didn’t really want to use any of the questions the committee prepared. Not only were the questions soft, but they weren’t well planned. There were stacks and stacks of [confidential] documents that went untouched.”

At one point during the hearings, I went to the committee’s Republican staff room to get a copy of an earlier statement from a Republican member. Sitting at the entrance desk was a twenty-something blond haired dude with a cowlick. He was swiveling in his chair and looking slightly bored yet immensely proud of his title—“legislative assistant.”

The Clinton administration had delayed turning over Waco-related records to Republicans until the week before the hearings began. Dozens of legal-type boxes were stacked on desks and on the floor.

I asked whether this was the documentation from the FBI and other agencies. The young guy nodded, glanced over his shoulder at the boxes, and lamented, “We don’t know what to do with them.”

“Have you thought about reading them?” I replied.

The staffer shrugged, sighed, and wondered how soon I would cease darkening their doorway.

Republican congressmen were shooting blanks while here was an ammo cache that could have blown half the witnesses through the roof. Unfortunately, reading is the only unnatural act on Capitol Hill. I salivated just looking at those boxes but knew I’d never be permitted to delve into this treasure trove. (The average House member spent less than twelve minutes a day reading on the job, according to an earlier congressional survey.)

I usually avoided sitting at the hearing room tables reserved for the press. Some reporters saw the hearings as an outbreak by right-wing Know-Nothings—a new McCarthyite inquisition, with Janet Reno and the FBI as victims. Some “Step ‘n Fetch It” journalists were willing to pick up and print anything that a Clinton administration official scattered at their feet.

But there were some hardline exceptions to the prevailing docility. I had lunch a time or two with Jim Pate, a reporter from North Carolina who was working as a consultant for ABC News. Pate would be summoned to testify at the Timothy McVeigh trial because McVeigh had several Soldier of Fortune magazines with Pate’s Waco articles in his car when he was arrested. I bantered several times with Mike McNulty, a gun rights zealot who was later the co-producer (along with Dan Gifford and William Gazecki) of the movie Waco: Rules of Engagement, which won an Emmy and was an Oscar finalist for best documentary.

After ten days of hearings, most of the congressmen finally recognized that the ATF and FBI were different federal agencies. But that was the limit of the learning curve for some of those politicians. The grand finale of the Waco Follies was the August 1 testimony of Janet Reno.

Republicans squandered hours trying to get Reno to admit that the FBI’s final assault was approved by the White House. The New York Times reported that Republicans “seemed to lose their focus gradually as they unsuccessfully tried to force Ms. Reno to acknowledge that she had erred.” But most Republicans did not have any focus to lose. Reno dodged key questions and used enough complete sentences to awe the Washington press corps.

Rep. Shadegg challenged Reno as to why tanks had repeatedly smashed into the compound during the final assault. Reno responded by claiming that the tanks’ entry into the building (via demolishing the walls and 25% of the compound) had merely been an “inadvertent crushing of a back support.” Shadegg burst out laughing and noted that FBI tanks had “inadvertently” smashed into the compound eight different times. The FBI plan for the tank assault specifically called for the destruction of the building—regardless of whether occupants exited. Reno’s claim that the tanks’ destruction of much of the building was “inadvertent” was either feeble perjury or gross stupidity, though it was often difficult to tell the difference with Clinton administration appointees.

Rep. Bill Zeliff (R-NH) pushed Reno on the use of 54-ton tanks to smash into a building that she knew was occupied by women and children. Zeliff asked, “When military weapons are turned on American people, who makes that decision?”

Reno replied that she didn’t consider the tanks as a military vehicle—instead, they were “like a good rent-a-car.” Her comment reflected the Clinton administration’s view that Waco was a routine law enforcement effort, except for the number of toe tags needed afterwards.

I showcased Reno’s rent-a-tank line in a Wall Street Journal piece the following day that detailed how the hearings shattered the government’s credibility on Waco. My article concluded:

“The evidence of a coverup and gross federal misconduct is far stronger in the Waco hearings than in the Whitewater investigation. The Republican leadership in Congress should seize upon the recent revelations to demand a special counsel to be appointed to investigate possible federal crimes and coverups regarding Waco.”

My article may have been the only piece in the national media that skewered Reno’s bizarre exoneration of the military assault on American citizens.   

The Clinton administration correctly predicted that House Republicans would not have the courage to have a second round of hearings to deal with questions raised or information withheld in the July hearings. White House officials ridiculed GOP congressmen as “Branch Republicans” due to their supposed failure to find a smoking gun.

In July 1996, the House Republicans released their official findings from their investigation of Waco. According to Republican congressional leaders, a key lesson of Waco was that the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team should be expanded. Congress had already sharply increased the FBI budget.

At a sparsely-attended press conference in the House press gallery, I asked whether federal agencies had “fully opened their doors” to congressional investigators. Rep. Zeliff, the co-chairman of the committee, replied, “Not totally… We couldn’t get any information from the Department of Defense… We didn’t get all the information we were looking for” from other agencies, either. I was stunned by the Winnie the Pooh “oh bother” response to the Pentagon’s Waco stonewall. Congress controlled the Pentagon’s budget and a simple rider could have been added to an appropriations bill compelling disclosure of any Waco-related Pentagon evidence.

The Clinton administration swayed the media to portray Waco as a battle of good versus evil—with the feds as the saviors, naturally. The Clinton team pulled off that con thanks to the failure of congressional investigators to timely find and reveal evidence that would have utterly obliterated all federal credibility. Respectable opinion—at least in Washington—lapsed to pretending no Waco debacle had occurred. The Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia created a special award to honor the nation’s first female attorney general: the Janet Reno Torchbearer Award. The first recipient, in 1997, was Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; the award was presented by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Shortly after the hearings ended, former federal lawyer David Hardy began hounding ATF with Freedom of Information Act requests. In 1999, Hardy received documents revealing that nine days before the February 28, 1993 raid, ATF agents invited David Koresh to go target shooting. They had a fine time, with Koresh providing the ammo and the ATF agents allowing Koresh to fire their guns. Koresh strongly suspected the guys were undercover feds but went shooting with them anyhow. One ATF participant wrote a memo to headquarters on the shooting party and noted that “Mr. Koresh stated that he believed that every person had the right to own firearms and protect their homes.” With such crazy ideas, the feds had no choice but to destroy Koresh. If Americans had learned during the hearings that the ATF had scorned an ideal opportunity to easily arrest Koresh, ATF credibility never would have recovered.

In 1999, film maker and private investigator Mike McNulty discovered shell casings in a Texas Ranger evidence locker that proved the FBI had fired pyrotechnic grenades at the Davidians prior to the fatal fire. That discovery nuked the Clinton administration’s perpetual denials that the FBI had any role in starting the conflagration. The FBI was caught in a massive cover-up; Newsweek reported that “as many as 100 FBI agents and officials may have known about” the military-style pyrotechnic explosive devices used by the FBI at Waco.

Republican congressmen momentarily pretended to be indignant about the fresh revelations of FBI perfidy. But, a few weeks later, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) declared that Republicans were suffering from “Waco fatigue…There’s a feeling that the political risk may be higher than the political gain of pursuing this subject at this time.” The only “fatigue” most congressmen experienced was the nuisance of responding to constituents who believed that their representative should give a damn. The Republican leadership decided that the “risk” of pursuing more Waco disclosures outweighed the political profits—without even knowing what new investigations might discover. Besides, they were too busy with their Bill Clinton panty chases to pay attention to how American citizens were being oppressed by Washington.

I thought Waco should have been the most important education lesson of the 1990s for our nation. But the real lesson was: Truth delayed is truth defused. Congressional failures on Waco vivify the folly of expecting checks and balances in Washington to protect the Constitution.

Waco exemplified the Capitol Hill version of “Attention Deficit Democracy”—congressmen clueless and careless about the atrocities they bankrolled. That near-total default foreshadowed similar congressional pratfalls on the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and the bombing of Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, et.al. “Oversight” is a polite term for rote congressional procedures designed to avoid discovering embarrassing information. A senior House Republican admitted in 2004, “Our party controls the levers of government. We’re not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to cause heartburn.”

During the Joe Biden administration, congressional oversight became completely depraved. The Select Committee to investigate the January 6 [2021] Attack on the U.S. Capitol was so skewed that those members of Congress chose to destroy “evidence” they had gathered during their kangaroo court effort to vilify anyone who protested at the Capitol. The January 6 Committee was the first congressional oversight effort that required a presidential pardon to absolve everyone involved—including the committee members, all the staffers, and all the Capitol Police and DC police who testified.

The failure of congressional oversight exemplifies why “Leviathan Democracy” is a fatal contradiction in terms. Once the government becomes so vast, elected representatives become increasingly inept or unwilling to pull in the reins. Members of Congress rise to the top by championing the worst abuses that federal agencies inflict. Congressmen are proud to receive the Agency Seal Medal from the Central Intelligence Agency as a reward for covering up CIA crimes. In 2017, Georgetown University Professor P.G. Eddington, a former CIA official, lamented “the House Intelligence Committee’s slow degeneration from overseer to cheerleader of surveillance” over the previous quarter century.

Only a vast rollback in political control over American life could allow Congress to fulfill its duty to protect citizens against the executive branch. But few members of Congress have the courage or comprehension to even attempt that constitutional rescue mission. A more likely outcome is Congress imitating how the Roman Senate elevated Roman emperors. Congress can simply designate U.S. presidents as living gods—thus ending the need for any limits or controls on government power.

This article was originally published on The Libertarian Institute.

The post Waco and the Death of Congressional Oversight appeared first on LewRockwell.