Aggregatore di feed

You just landed after a quick business trip. You have been on the red eye into Atlanta, tired but eager for a hot shower and your own bed. The Uber hums along I-285, headlights slicing through the night, when suddenly everything changes.

The dashboard lights flicker and die. The engine coughs and goes silent. The Uber rolls to a stop, and you realize every other vehicle around you has gone dark too. Traffic lights are out. The city that never sleeps is hushed in an unsettling way. You notice the rustle of leaves, the soft whistle of the wind between the buildings, and the distant, confused chatter of thousands of people.

This is the calm before the storm. EMP survival just became your reality.

You know what happened, an electromagnetic pulse just hit. Within the hour, confusion will turn to chaos. No phones. No power. No cars. Just millions of people trapped in a city that has suddenly gone silent. The question is: what do you do next?

Why EMP Attacks Are the Ultimate Urban Nightmare

The silence of a dead city feels heavier with each step. You catch the glow of headlights abandoned mid-lane, doors left hanging open, horns locked in a final frozen cry. It’s in this kind of darkness that fear multiplies. But your bag is more than fabric on your shoulders, it’s a contract you wrote with yourself long before tonight. Every zipper you pull is a promise that you’ll make it home.[/caption]

Your Insurance Policy in the Dark

When panic closes in, your Get Home Bag is more than sharp steel. It’s an insurance policy against the unknown.

Your get home bag is your lifeline. Here is what belongs in it:

Navigation and Communication

• Compass and backup compass

• Paper maps of your area

• Radio for emergency broadcasts (protected in a emp proof bag)

• Whistle and signal mirror

Water and Food

• Portable water filter and tablets

• Metal single wall container for boiling

• High calorie lightweight food for 72 hours

• Collapsible water containers

Shelter and Fire

• Lightweight tarp or emergency bivvy

• Fifty feet of paracord

• Fire kit with multiple ignition methods

• Rain gear or poncho

• Emergency blanket

Security and Tools

• Fixed blade knife, folder and or multitool

• Discreet defensive tools like a tactical pen

• First aid kit

• Cash in small bills

• firearm if possible

Read the Whole Article

The post How To Survive When the Grid Goes Down- World Power Grid Blackout? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Confirmed by Israeli media. “Not Fake News”. Bibi has been giving money to Hamas

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (Times of Israel October 8, 2023, emphasis added)

According to Netanyahu:

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Let us be clear. These deceitful money payments are NOT in support of Hamas as a Palestinian political entity involved in the Resistance Movement.  Quite the opposite.

What is at stake is an insidious intelligence op, in support of so-called “intelligence assets” within Hamas.

What is at stake is a carefully planned False Flag Agenda which from the outset on October 7, 2023, upholds Hamas as the alleged “Aggressor” against the people of Israel.

What is the truth, what is the lie?.  The Netanyahu government and its Ministry of Intelligence from the very outset have “blood on their hands”. They are responsible for Israeli deaths resulting from the False Flag agenda.

What is the relationship between Mossad and Hamas?  There is a long history.

Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Resistance Movement), was founded in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin. It was supported at the outset by Israeli intelligence as a means to weaken the Palestinian Authority:

“Thanks to Mossad, (Israel’s “Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks”), Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat’s Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation.

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)”. (L’Humanité, translated from French)

“How Israel helped to Spawn Hamas”. WSJ

“Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. WSJ January 24, 2009, emphasis added)

The Historic Statement of  Rep. Ron Paul 

“You know Hamas, if you look at the history, you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat… (Rep. Ron Paul, 2011)

What this statement entails is that Hamas is and remains “an intelligence asset”, namely “an “asset” to Israel as well as US intelligence.

Video: Ron Paul. Israel Created Hamas

Newsmax reported on Ron Paul’s comments in 2011 when he ran for president:

The Texas congressman advanced the argument that Israel actually created Hamas, as well as blamed the CIA for radicalizing Muslims and the United States for supplying weapons and money that “kill Palestinians.”

Israel “aided Hamas directly — the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),” said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. (Newsmax)

Israel’s support for Hamas “was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,” said a former senior CIA official. (See Global Research)

Concluding Remarks

The ongoing October 7, 2023 False Flag agenda is part of a longstanding historical process to destroy Palestine.

Flash Back to 2001:

A major False Flag operation was contemplated by Tel Aviv in 2001, predicated on the doctrine of “Justified Vengeance”. The strategic Blueprint was entitled:

“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”

It was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8, 2001.

Israeli Victims. Bloodshed As a Justification

“The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.

The subject was extensively discussed both by Israel’s military echelon and its political one, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation” (Yediot Aharonot, Nov. 25, 2001)).

According to the late Prof. Tanya Reinhart

“Israel’s moves to destroy the PA, thus, cannot be viewed as a spontaneous ‘act of retaliation’.  It is a calculated plan, long in the making.

The execution requires, first, weakening the resistance of the Palestinians, which Israel has been doing systematically since October 2000, “through killing, bombarding of infrastructure, imprisoning people in their hometowns, and bringing them close to starvation.”

All this, while waiting for the international conditions to ‘ripen’ for the more ‘advanced’ steps of the plan.” (Tanya Rheinart)

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Bibi Has Been Giving Money to Hamas. An Insidious Intelligence Operation appeared first on LewRockwell.

As a Patriot Writer & Veteran I must defend the Constitution by telling the truth knowing it could be fatal, but at 91, I have much less to lose than a young Soldier defending this country. The  Soldier, President  Trump and I, all swore to defend our Constitution  knowing it could be fatal.

We are at war and our Enemy is the Zionist Jewish Lobby, Media and Deep State, they are Venal Bloodsuckers , I call them the Evil Ones. For a more accurate description of the Evil Ones I refer to them as the Parasitic Super Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC). Those in government who violate their oaths of office to steal from and yes  kill The People are but minions of the PSRRC.

The Evil Ones (PSRRC) own or control the most effective media for propaganda in the world. Anyone who questions their actions is labeled an anti-Semite, fired, Assassinated, Blacklisted or otherwise scorned.

When the Evil ones kill someone it is difficult to know if it was a professional assassin or one of their millions of ignorant and brainwashed Communist supporters .

President Trump is far from perfect but he is uniquely  qualified to be president, the right man at the right time with support of the people..

The major problem with Trump is that he refuses to take actions that are absolutely required to save our Republic and The People. Of course if he does what must be done the Evil Ones (PSRRC) would lose control of the country and lose Trillions. We know from experience what happens to people who stand in their way, think Kennedy Brothers, Charlie Kirk and almost Trump twice. There are of course countless other victims of Communist mob violence instigated by propaganda.

It would be human nature for Trump to have serious reservations about defying the Evil Ones (PSRRC) after they tried to kill him, twice.

Students of history will tell you that the Evil Ones have been having their way with Europe for Centuries  and now Europe is destroyed.

To save this country at a minimum Trump must start by terminating  all Foreign Aid and returning all troops on foreign soil to America to confront and deport illegal invaders. In fact our military is so outnumbered by illegal invaders that we may have to resort to the draft.

America can’t be invaded, it can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction or from within. America therefore has no legitimate interest in any foreign country, none. What other countries do is none of our concern. It is of concern to the Evil Ones because this is how they get most of their Blood Money , from death and destruction in Wars for Profit without a Declaration of War. We lost every one of these wars for the last 80 years along with 105,000 military dead and the treasure to maintain the American Dream on one income..

It is past time that we put an end to what is a crime against humanity and a curse on Americans for the millions of dead, entire countries devastated and impoverishment of the world by the Evil Ones, in our name.

It is absolutely impossible to save this country  Economically  unless you comply with the Constitution and return the relationship of the states and federal  government to what it was under the Constitution. I refer to the Roll Reversal caused by the Income Tax that allowed Federal Government to Usurp state functions jn violation of Enumerated Powers in Constitution.

The last major change required is to terminate the Federal Reserve bank and Fiat Currency, replacing with gold and silver money which would mostly end inflation and all kinds of scams on the people. They can’t print gold.

I would be remiss as a writer if I did not advise readers of two rare Cataclysmic Events that will have major, major effects on our country. The first is the assassination of Charlie Kirk  and the resulting Tribute of Unbelievable Magnitude. The second is the October 2,2025 podcast by Tucker Carlson with Jeffery Sachs. To know the power of these events you must experience them first hand. Only a Civil War could have a more dramatic effect on our country.

May God Bless The People and our Constitutional Republic.

The post Is Trump Petrified of Jewish Lobby & Deep State Allowing Them To Destroy America ? appeared first on LewRockwell.

This article is adapted from DiLorenzo’s lecture at the Our Enemy, the Bureaucracy Mises Circle in Phoenix on Saturday, April 26.

Economists have been studying and writing about government bureaucracy for quite a long time. Ludwig von Mises became the first “modern” economist to write a book on the subject with his 1944 Bureaucracy. The public choice school of economics, founded by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, among others, has produced a huge literature on the economics of bureaucracy, much of which is complementary to Mises’s pathbreaking work.

This literature has produced many easy-to-understand insights about the essence of governmental bureaucratic behavior. For one thing, it is vastly different from decision-making in the marketplace. In the market people voluntarily “vote” with their dollars to express their preferences. There is a market feedback mechanism whereby if one pleases his customers he prospers, if one displeases his customers he fails. In government, by contrast, we are basically told: You need this, this, this, this, and this, and if you do not pay for it, we will make you live like a dog in a cage for several years. That’s called being sentenced to prison for tax evasion. There is nothing voluntary about it.

As for the evaluation of government “services,” there never is any real evaluation based on the behavior of citizens; government bureaucrats and politicians tell us how wonderful their “services” are and then demonize us publicly if we dissent. Government today is so gargantuan that no human mind could possibly comprehend a smidgen of 1% of what government actually does. Consequently, most citizens are “rationally ignorant” of all but a few things their government is involved in.

Government bureaucracies use tax dollars to employ a large army of “intellectuals” and court historians to praise bigger and bigger government while castigating the free market and the civil society as “failures.” Anthony Fauci alone reportedly dispensed some $7 billion annually in research grants so that he could publicly boast, “I am science.” And that is just a single bureaucrat!

A government bureaucrat’s status and pay depend crucially on how many subordinates he or she has, which gives every ambitious bureaucrat an incentive to hire far more people than necessary to achieve any conceivable task. The first question posed to any bureaucrat seeking a higher-level job is, “How many people work under you?” Thus, bureaucratic bloat is rule no. 1 for every rule-following bureaucrat.

Speaking of rules, they are another hallmark of government bureaucracy. Since there are not profits (or losses) in an accounting sense in government, “success” as a bureaucratic “manager” is measured not by the bottom line but by how closely bureaucrats follow the rules dictated by their higher-ups. Breaking the rules can stymie or ruin a bureaucrat’s chances of promotion, so rules are rarely challenged or changed, oftentimes not for years or decades, no matter how foolish or dangerous they are. This is another stark difference from the marketplace, where stupid rules that harm the bottom line must be jettisoned—or else.

Another law of bureaucracy is that in government, failure is success. If welfare spending fails to reduce poverty, the welfare bureaucracy is given an even bigger budget. The reason bureaucrats give for their failures is always that the taxpayers are too selfish and stingy. When increased school spending correlates with declining test scores, the school bureaucracy gets more taxpayer dollars, not less—just the opposite of what happens in competitive markets. And on it goes.

Governments at all levels play the “Washington Monument syndrome” game. In 1969 when the National Park Service failed to get its budgetary wish list from Congress, the head of the Park Service closed down the Washington Monument, the most popular tourist attraction in Washington, DC. People from every state complained to their congressional representatives that their vacations to DC were ruined, forcing Congress to submit to the Park Service’s budget request. Since then, governments at all levels play the same game— always threatening to eliminate school buses, police departments, ambulances, garbage collection—whatever can succeed in bringing the voters or appropriation committee members to their senses and increasing taxes and spending.

Murray Rothbard greatly admired the writings of John C. Calhoun, especially his classic Disquisition on Government. In that 1851 book Calhoun articulated what is known as libertarian class theory. It’s not the Marxist class theory of conflict between the capitalist and worker classes. The real conflict in any democracy, said Calhoun, was between taxpayers and “tax consumers,” the former paying more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, whereas the latter receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. At the top of the list of tax consumers are government bureaucrats. Then there are all the beneficiaries of the welfare-warfare state administered by the welfare and military bureaucracies, followed by hundreds of other governmental programs.

Calhoun predicted that when it came to enforcing constitutional limitations on government, the tax consumers would easily overwhelm the taxpayers with an avalanche of arguments as to why governmental powers should be more or less unlimited. That is why he favored a system where people organized in political communities at the state and local levels have some kind of nullification or veto power over what they perceive as unconstitutional spending. A written constitution would never be sufficient, Calhoun argued, and history proved him right a long time ago.

Murray Rothbard and the “Civil Service” Scam

In his 1995 essay “Bureaucracy and the Civil Service in the United States,” Murray Rothbard wrote that “no system has been more savagely derided by . . . Establishment do-gooders than . . . ‘the spoils system.’” He referred to the old system whereby when a newly elected president was from a different party than the incumbent, most or all of the incumbent’s political appointees would be fired and replaced by people from the new president’s party. This “spoils system” prevailed until the early 1880s when it was replaced by legislation that created the civil service system, where the best and brightest supposedly enter the government bureaucracy after taking entrance exams and are then given de facto lifetime tenure.

Rothbard—“Mr. Libertarian,” as Forbes magazine once dubbed him—also wrote that “no measure of government has been more destructive of liberty and minimal government than civil service reform.” Think about that one. The man who wrote a monumental history of the founding era, a history of money and banking in the United States, and hundreds of other articles, books, and monographs about the economics, politics, and philosophy of statism said that civil service reform was more destructive of liberty than anything else government in America has ever done.

So-called civil service reform created a never-ending expansion of the government bureaucracy, Rothbard explained, along with hundreds of thousands of rules, regulations, and central planning dictates, which are bureaucracy’s lifeblood. Here’s how that happened: Assume there are say, 10,000 federal bureaucrats. A different party ascends to the White House and can no longer fire the bureaucracy and hire its own supporters. To counter the influence of the existing bureaucracy, it will want to hire more than 10,000 of its own bureaucrats, more than doubling the size of the bureaucracy. Then the next time that party is deposed, the opposition party will do the same, perhaps tripling or quadrupling the size of the bureaucracy from the original 10,000. And on and on, ad infinitum.

As dubious as the spoils system might sound, it was actually in keeping with the original American idea of officeholders and bureaucrats “serving” in government for a few years and then returning to civil society to live under the laws and rules that they promulgated while in government. Civil service “reform” essentially created lifetime tenure for bureaucrats, for it became almost impossible to fire them. The head of a government agency who wants to get rid of an employee will surely be sued by a government employees’ union that will make his life miserable for months or years of internal litigation. It is far easier to bribe the unwanted employee with a promotion and pay raise in a different agency at a different location, which is what is done quite frequently.

Gone are the good ole days such as when President Andrew Jackson, one of Rothbard’s more highly regarded political figures, condemned the idea of a property right in a government job and fired 41% of the entire federal bureaucracy. Or when President John Tyler one-upped Jackson and fired 50% of the bureaucracy. This is but one reason why in his 2009 book Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty Ivan Eland rated Tyler as the best president in all of American history according to his criteria of how good a job presidents did in protecting rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Yankee Problem

Rothbard wrote of how the civil service reformers of the late nineteenth century were almost exclusively from New England and New York, were relatively highly educated, and were “shaped by the cultural and religious values of their neo- Puritan Yankee culture.” They wanted “good men” in government jobs, with the “good men” being themselves, wrote Rothbard. These were men who believed in “the inherent right of their sort to rule” over lesser citizens and believed in democracy, but only if guided by people like themselves.

Rothbard’s reference to the Yankee culture of the civil service reformers is almost identical to Clyde Wilson’s description of this particular cult in his 2016 book The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma: “By Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio. Lots of them have always been good folks. . . . I am using the term historically to designate that peculiar group of people descended from New Englanders, who can easily be recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around. . . . Hillary Rodham Clinton . . . is a museum-quality specimen of a Yankee—self righteous, ruthless, and selfaggrandizing. . . . The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat fit with the Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later immigrants.” These are the people who believe that they should instruct you on virtually every aspect of your life with their bureaucratic edicts, demands, threats, and punishments.

The political crusade for civil service reform began in the early 1870s during the Grant administration. When President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881 the Republican Party used his death to make political hay, just as they had done with Lincoln’s assassination. The “civil service reformers” among them falsely blamed the assassination on “a disappointed officeseeker” who was refused a government job. Rothbard commented on this by saying, “The idea that murder by an office-seeker can only be combated by abolishing offices to be sought, [a.k.a. civil service reform] is even sillier than the comparable argument that the way to eliminate assault or murder is to outlaw guns.”

The big lie about the Garfield assassination worked. President Chester Arthur signed the Pendleton Act on January 16, 1883, as a desperate act to cement in place Republican bureaucrats who would oppose the popular Grover Cleveland, who was elected president in 1884. Thus the deep state was created.

The end result of this, Rothbard wrote, was that “the ideals of ‘merit’ and a technocratic elite” were employed in the service of “big government, protectionism, inflationary bank credit, and imperialism and foreign war.” All achieved by our enemies, the bureaucracy.

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

The post Public Enemies: Government Bureaucrats as Societal Parasites appeared first on LewRockwell.

I’ve been spending far too much time in hospitals, nursing homes, and rehab places this year. Not as a patient, but visiting loved ones. These facilities are all, every one of them, a national disgrace. If anything should be condemned, they should be. They are indistinguishable from one another in their cold, sterile neglect of human beings.

The lack of uniqueness in these places mirrors our crony capitalist system in general. They don’t compete with each other, trying to provide better service and care. They understand, as does everyone running any decent sized business in America 2.0, that John D. Rockefeller set the template for them all with his “competition is a sin” credo. At the rehab center I’ve been visiting several times a week, 99 percent of the staff is nonwhite. This includes the few doctors that ever appear. Most of them come from Africa. They are almost all surly, with accents one struggles to understand. One of them attempted to argue with me when I said I was pleasantly surprised that my loved one seemed better that day. They balk at bringing water to a patient. They don’t answer the buzzer every patient has. It’s literally criminal the way these once vibrant people are treated. The attractive White nurses at the hospital where I once worked were Florence Nightingales in comparison, and they were subpar themselves.

I am now sixty nine years old. I’m aware that some of those stuck in these godforsaken places are younger than me. I shiver at the prospect of ever being a patient, and not merely a visitor. I look into their wrinkled faces, as I pass them in the hallways. Some of them gesture, and try to say something, which I usually can’t understand. There are always loud cries of “help me” emanating from the rooms. To be fair, I heard those same cries nearly fifty years ago as a young hospital worker. I learned to ignore them, as the nurses invariably did. I wonder about those faces, and the white hairs that sit atop them. The eyes which still glisten, and seem to want to convey something that their mouths can’t. I wonder how many of them were extroverts like me. What did they do for a living? Some of them, undoubtedly, held positions of importance. All of them must have once walked through facilities like this themselves, and perhaps felt the same sympathy I do for those trapped there.

In many ways, these places are like prisons, and the patients are for all intents and purposes incarcerated. There may be no bars on their cells, but most of them couldn’t walk out to escape anyhow. How many of us picture our final years being like this? All alone, surrounded by often incompetent and usually uncaring strangers. “Caregivers” who don’t care. That seems like a brutal way to wind up our painfully short lifespan. My loved ones can count on me, and a few others, to come and see them. But there are so many cases, especially in the horrific nursing homes, where elderly people are relegated to staring out of the window at a world they no longer are a part of, with the full realization that their children or grandchildren aren’t coming. Some patients receive no visitors. Ever. Their families have forgotten them, naively secure in their fleeting youth. Or they don’t have any family. No children to not visit them enough.

It’s not like those of us who are “seasoned citizens,” as Rush Limbaugh used to say, have it that much better. Yes, we’re free. If we’re fortunate, we can still live in the house we bought decades ago, and considered our dream home. I’m holding out, still mowing my not unsubstantial lawn, but the probably illegal immigrant lawn crews are watching keenly, ready to take over. When I do anything now, I hesitate. I consider how old I am. I was hanging some lights today, and had to climb up on a bench. No problem, but I did think about it. You’re sixty nine- what if you fall? Be careful! If I’m lucky enough to ever have grandkids, will I shoot baskets with them? Play catch with them? Or will I hesitate? Pete Maravich dropped dead on a basketball court, and he was in his forties. That kind of fear takes the fun out of things. I’ve had a few minor falls in the past couple of years, and it sure takes a lot longer to fully recover.

My neighborhood is full of oldsters. Most of them even older than me. I see them taking walks, or standing outside on their lawns, aimlessly examining their landscaping. The ones who are still vigorous sometimes resemble pent-up animals. One old guy actually paces across the sidewalk in front of his house. I can sense his frustration. Too old for the workforce. Probably too old for sex. I don’t think he has any grandchildren, either. I should make an effort to engage him in conversation. He looks like he could be receptive to conspiracy talk. His wife was attractive enough to turn heads when we first moved into the neighborhood in 1998. She’s now just a thin, elderly woman. I know that’s life, but it’s still sad. She pitters around the yard, and probably thinks about her lost looks. I sometimes imagine the kind of conversations they have behind closed doors. I don’t picture them as being upbeat.

I don’t feel like I belong in this oldster’s brigade. I’m collecting Social Security, and will have to turn to Medicare once my wife retires, probably next year. Social Security certainly helps, but I know that our corrupt leaders want to eliminate it. It really irks them that they have to pay back the money they withheld from every worker’s paycheck. They probably celebrate every time some poor sucker dies before they have a chance to start collecting. I seem to be the only American that thinks Medicare is a really bad deal. Pay into it your entire working life, then pay a monthly fee that goes up every year, and still only get eighty percent of your medical bills covered. So you have to get “supplemental” coverage, in order to pay for all the inevitable maladies that come with old age. I don’t know why no one else is complaining. We should have no monthly fee, and 100% coverage. But then again, I am an extreme populist.

They say that Methuselah lived to be nearly a thousand years old. Apparently, other oldsters regularly lived for hundreds of years back then, circa 2000 B.C. They don’t explain how that could be possible. Certainly, there was no cutting edge technology, no modern medical advances we hear so much about, back in those prehistoric times. An early version of fact checkers has assured us that somehow months were mistranslated as years back then, so that Methuselah actually lived to be an America 2.0- appropriate seventy eight. I don’t know, but they lie about everything. Some “Biblical literalists” attribute his extreme longevity to a much better diet. Too bad we can’t all know the joys of this much better diet, and live for nearly a millennium. Think of all you could accomplish. You could be a great failure, and a great success, many times over. See the world multiple times and enjoy countless different careers.

I wonder if Methuselah lost any physical or mental capacity during all those centuries. Could he still run at 800? Have sex at 900? Did he start having aches and pains at middle age, which for him would have been maybe 475 years old? If he became like any other oldster, he must have really had to watch his step. Any fall can be the end for someone in their 80s, so how could a 500 year old survive one? The closest we have to a Methuselah today are those Russians in the hills somewhere, whom it is rumored can live to be 150 or so. They supposedly eat a lot of yogurt. As for ‘Murricans, our life expectancy continues to decrease, despite all the medical marvels so many television commercials remind us of. St. Jude’s doesn’t charge any money, which is great, but childhood cancer rates are skyrocketing. So exactly how is our “healthcare” system succeeding, when over 70% of the population is chronically ill? We may not ever be Methuselahs, but we should live longer. The average person mistakenly thinks we do.

Read the Whole Article

The post Keeping the Elderly Sheep in Line appeared first on LewRockwell.

Among the arguments of those who seem to be pushing for expanded war with the Russian Federation, one of the strangest is that Russia is a weak, third-world country and a “paper tiger.”  Those who make this argument point to the protracted three-year conflict in Ukraine and scoff at the Russians’ inability to subjugate a much weaker adversary.  These same voices usually ignore America’s ten-year war in Iraq and twenty-year war in Afghanistan, even though both wars cost Americans much and accomplished far fewer strategic objectives than Americans were promised.

Russia has chosen to execute a war of attrition that wears down Ukrainians’ will to fight.  At the same time, it has refrained from unleashing destruction on the scale of Dresden or Hiroshima that might trigger a wider U.S.-NATO response.  Three and a half years into the war, the Ukrainian people are desperate for the conflict to end.  So far, the war has been primarily limited to the territories of Russia and Ukraine.  From Russia’s point of view, Putin is threading the needle.

What is particularly discordant about calling Russia a “paper tiger” is that so many of the people who make this assertion simultaneously warn that Russia is preparing to conquer all of Europe.  In one breath, Senator Lindsey Graham, special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, or former secretary of State Hillary Clinton describes Russia as a backward country whose nuclear capabilities pose little threat to the United States.  In the next breath, these same voices argue that Russia intends to reconstruct the Soviet Union and envassal the nations of Europe.  Online commenters mock the Russian bear as having no real teeth but then insist that France and Germany will soon see Russian tanks in the streets.

It is true that Russia has a smaller population than the United States or the combined countries of the European Union.  With a hundred and fifty million citizens, though, it is still one of the largest nations — by population — in the world.  By landmass, Russia controls nearly twice as much territory as the second largest country, Canada.  For centuries, Japan, China, France, the Turkish Empire, and the United Kingdom have attempted to take parts of Russia for their own, yet Russia has endured.  Even after a century of suicidal communism and post–Cold War chaos, the Russian people share a common identity that is as strong as anywhere else in the world.  Russia is a nation of people who actually define themselves by their ability to endure hardship.  While “woke” Westerners cry about pronouns and celebrate victimhood, most Russians are preparing for prolonged war.

Those who belittle Russia as no real threat to the superior military of the United States often dismiss its nuclear arsenal.  With as many warheads as the U.S. and the capability to deploy them by air, land, and sea, Russia remains a deadly foe, regardless of its relatively low per capita GDP.  Russia’s new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile can reportedly deliver six warheads (each containing six submunitions) at speeds exceeding Mach 10.  Although Western analysts have a range of views regarding the Oreshnik’s effectiveness, it is a hypersonic weapon potentially capable of reaching all of Europe without interception.

Those who do not fear the fallout of a U.S.-Russia war seem to think Russia would be foolish to use nuclear weapons because doing so would guarantee its annihilation.  For those who think this way, I would pose this question: If American sovereignty were one day threatened, would we refrain from using nuclear weapons?

Such a scenario might seem unrealistic right now, but our world is rapidly reshaping into a multipolar one.  India (our ally/competitor) and China (our adversary/enemy) are home to three billion citizens.  Should those two countries put aside their historic differences and ally against the United States in the coming decades, the size of our military forces might be small by comparison.

Although the U.S.-controlled financial system has given America the wealth to exert power across the globe, there may come a day when that same system crashes and we find ourselves in economic straits.  Whereas China and India have grown their industrial and manufacturing sectors over the last three decades, the U.S. has offshored its most critical industries.  We are now reliant upon those who will one day challenge American hegemony.

It is not so difficult to imagine a time when America’s lethal military infrastructure remains the only deterrent keeping predators at bay.  If America were ever pushed into a corner and its existence were at stake, would we hesitate to use the worst weapons in our arsenal to beat back those who threaten us?  And if we would use them under duress, why would we expect any less from the Russian Federation?

There is an idea that has long been discussed in the august lecture halls of the West’s diplomatic houses.  It concerns a desire to break Russia into a dozen separate nations.  Using the same “divide and rule” tactics and strategies that have been employed since ancient times, the West would like nothing more than to foment public rebellion inside Russia.  Pulling such a mission off would be the magnum opus among the West’s numerous information warfare-driven “color revolutions” this century.  Dissolving Russia into a dozen states would allow the United States and the European Union to play them off each other, exploit their natural resources, and keep them geopolitically weak.  Every few years, some retired head of state or diplomatic heavyweight has one too many glasses of wine and acknowledges that a post-Putin world provides the ideal opportunity to carve up all of Russia.

What would we do if our enemies were so bold as to begin carving up the lands of the United States?  I suspect that many of us would fight to the death.  We should expect the Russian people — who view themselves as part of a historic civilization — to do the same.

I have become less optimistic that war with Russia can be prevented — primarily because U.S., European, and Russian officials all appear to be confirming that things will get worse.  Speaking from a summit in Copenhagen days ago, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán warned that “the E.U. has decided to go to war” against Russia.  Elaborating, Orbán described the situation as “serious” and said that “outright pro-war proposals” are being quickly advanced.

Meanwhile, Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen accuses Russia of using drones, sabotage, and hybrid warfare to divide Europe and describes Russia as Europe’s “primary enemy.”  European politicians are hyperventilating so much about phantom Russian drones that Munich’s airport even shut down because some people saw mysterious lights in the sky.  European leaders are shoveling paranoia and hysteria to the public on an industrial scale (while “green”-energy regulations kill the rest of their industries).

Speaking at the Valdai International Discussion Club last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin said Europe’s “ruling elites … continue to whip up hysteria” and stated soberly that “all NATO countries are fighting us, and they’re no longer hiding it.”  He mocked the idea that Russia had any intention of attacking NATO but assured listeners that Russia is prepared for a larger war.

Similarly, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov recently observed, “NATO and the European Union … have already declared a real war on my country and are directly participating in it.”

Finally, Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin — a man whom some call “Putin’s brain” — recently penned an essay in which he concluded that “we cannot avoid a big world war,” that “monstrous trials await mankind,” and that what’s happening “now will seem like child’s play compared to what is ahead.”

Europe wants war.  Russia is ready for war.  War it will be.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Armchair Generals and Diplomatic Gasbags Seek War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gilbert Doctorow is a thoughtful and well-informed commentator on the challenges with which the West confronts Putin.  In his most recent postings, he asks and answers the questions, “What do the Russians think of Putin?  Does his war of attrition strategy today enjoy support?  Or do Russians want to end the War as quickly as possible by a decapitation strike on Kiev?” 

Judging by the discussion on controlled Russian state television, Doctorow concludes that the thinking class, the top echelons of power, sees another major Western escalation on its way with the provision of long range nuclear capable missiles to Ukraine along with $140 billion euros in stolen Russian assets.  This will prolong the conflict for several years while Europe builds up its war fighting capability.  The alternative of an Oreshnik strike on Kiev that would end Ukraine’s fighting ability looks to be the better choice. In short, the conflict has gone on too long. Time to bring it to an end. But can Putin bite the bullet and end the conflict with a victory?

Having watched Putin’s address to the Valdai Discussion Club, Doctorow concludes by choosing to ignore the new and increasing threats the West is presenting to Russia and relying instead on good relations with Trump, Putin has brought himself a big problem of his own making.

Doctorow goes on to say:

“I have over the past year spoken very critically of Paul Craig Roberts for his repeated denunciations of Putin as the man leading us to WWIII by his constantly turning the other cheek and allowing Russia’s red lines to be crossed.  Now, regrettably, I admit that PCR was right.  Yesterday at the Valdai Club Putin lost my respect and I think I am not the only one who understood that he is showing cowardice. The biggest loudmouth Russophobe on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham must be sipping champagne right now.

“After all, the whole sense of the Oreshniks is that they can get the job done without opening the Pandora’s box of tactical nukes.  And yet Putin has just pulled up his own red lines with respect to American long-range missiles being supplied to Kiev.   A year ago, his policy line was that the supplier of the missiles and the provider of all the target input necessary to operate the rockets (USA) would be considered a cobelligerent, inviting a Russian missile strike in response.   And what did we hear yesterday? That these missiles do not change the situation on the battlefield.   That is a barefaced lie.

“The do or die moment for Russia is fast approaching.   And with Putin in charge, it looks like ‘die.’

“I say this as an outsider. After all, it is for the Russians to decide who governs them and they need no coaching from us.   But I – and you – are bystanders whose survivability on this planet depends on Russia’s leader making the right decisions. His apparent belief yesterday that ingratiating himself with Donald Trump is more important than publicly and forthrightly defending Russia’s red lines against what Trump and Merz and Starmer and Macron and Ursula von der Leyen are plotting puts us on a direct path to WWIII.”

Reading Doctorow’s comments on Putin’s Valdai speech, I get the impression that Putin and Lavrov have chosen to evade reality rather than to confront it.  I am unsure I would do any better when the reality is nuclear war.  But it doesn’t have to be nuclear war.  Putin has had the soft voice but not the big stick.  Consequently, the Kremlin seems irresolute and vulnerable.  Here are Doctorow’s comments.  Read them and make up your own mind.

“Good Americans, bad Europeans:  Putin’s latest policy position in a nutshell

“Yesterday I commented on President Putin’s speech to the Valdai Discussion Club gathering in Sochi, saying that it ignored the new and very serious threats that the USA and Europe are presenting to Russia and only repeated the now stale litany of Putin remarks on how the confrontation with the USA and NATO developed from the 1990s to today and how the new world order is unfolding with the support of the Global South.

“Actually, the speech was worse than I described.

“It was crystal clear from the speech and from his answers in the Q&A that Vladimir Putin is desperately seeking to keep Trump on his side for the sake of normalization of relations, whatever it takes.  By doing so, one might reason, Russia will tame the Europeans who have to back down in the face of a US-Russian fait accompli.

“It is only in this light that I can explain Putin’s very strange decision to publicly support the Trump 20-point ‘peace plan’ for Gaza that still awaits Hamas approval. True, he adds the condition that Israel must recognize the two-state solution. But that condition gets lost in the bigger fact that yesterday Putin  spoke approvingly of Trump’s naming Tony Blair to join the planned colonial style Peace Board that Trump himself will head to govern Gaza and Palestine until a suitable self-governing force emerges from some reformed Palestinian Administration.  Tony Blair, the unindicted war criminal who encouraged and enabled the murderous, illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. This same Tony Blair was described by Putin yesterday as a very experienced statesman in whose residence he had spent a day or more at the start of the new millennium, had shared coffee while both were still in their pajamas.

“I believe that Putin is ignoring the obvious fact that Donald Trump has only contempt for those who try to ingratiate themselves with him. In this regard, Putin’s remarks yesterday have done Russia far more harm than good.

“Meanwhile, on the sidelines, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has compounded the damage to Russia’s standing by his latest interviews dealing with the question of U.S. supplied Tomahawks to Kiev. One such interview may be watched in English.

Doctorow explains, as I have, that Putin has created a picture of Russia as endlessly tolerant of provocations.  Doctorow thinks that Putin’s failure to stand up for Russia could result in his replacement.  Putin failed to defend any of his declared red lines and now has ceased to declare them. This fact has encouraged escalation. Putin’s efforts to reassure the West convinced the West of Russia’s lack of resolution. Putin mistakenly thought that the West would respond positively to good will.

People all over the world hoped that Putin would stand up against Washington’s hegemony as the Soviet leaders did.  The world is tired of being bullied by America’s Zionist Neoconservatives.  Hegemony has made America a looter rather than a producer.  Looting does not produce an economy that benefits the citizens, only the powerful. The distribution of income and wealth in the US is worse than anything imaginable in my youthful years. The American people are not benefitting from hegemony.  

Washington’s hegemony, mainly in service to Israel, aided and abetted by Putin, is driving the world to destruction.

The post War Is Creeping Up on Us appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Patrick Foy:

I came to the conclusion that the world had gone mad decades ago. What else is new? I guess it is only now becoming apparent to the average observer. 

BTW, President “America First” Trump has turned over TikTok to Billionare Israel First influencers. In the meantime, Israel continues its campaign of genocide in Gaza and on the West Bank, as Europe and America stand by and watch. Everything will become clear, as Netanyahu predicted years ago. How clearer could it get that the U.S. of A. has been hijacked? It was your country.

South China Morning Post

The post Here’s Proof that the World has gone Mad appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on Rumble

The post Has America Reached the Point of No Return? appeared first on LewRockwell.

This week, I saw this headline:

Washington, DC, Superlawyer Bob Barnett Dead at 79 | CNN Politics

Mr. Barnett advised many Washington insiders including the Clintons, Obamas, Bushes, Cheneys and other household-name politicians on both sides of the aisle/swamp. Some people consider this impressive. But representing those who’ve climbed to the top of the political heap doesn’t mean you understand biology, the economy and society such that you can sensibly assess how to react to a respiratory virus.

—

I corresponded with Mr. Barnett sixteen months ago. I didn’t know then of his famous clients. I only knew that, in addition to practicing law in some way or other, he was a book agent.

Mark Oshinskie

Sun, May 12, 2024, 10:00 PM

Dear Mr. Barnett,

I’ve written, painted the cover art for, and self-published the attached book. In the first week, without trying very hard, I’ve sold the entire first run that I had printed. I’ll have another run printed this week. I’m confident I could sell tens of thousands of additional copies if I had more marketing knowledge/resources.

I’ve been writing on this topic since mid-March 2020 and have thousands of Substack followers and subscribers. Some have told me I’m the best writer on that platform. People say that my anecdotal approach is unique and that, instead of using more stats and graphs, my story/essays are crisp, compelling and relatable.

While many want to memory-hole the Scamdemic, millions of people in other nations–many in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand read my posts– still strongly feel, as I do, that those who effected the lockdown, mask, testing and injection crusades were deeply dishonest and have done permanent harm, and that a reckoning is deserved and needed. Thus, I’m certain that many readers would embrace this unique and still very timely book.

The process of procuring an agent is opaque to an ex-litigator like me. If you wish to see a Word version of the 246-page text, I’ll send you one.

Thanks for considering this project.

Sincerely,

Mark Oshinskie

Barnett, Robert

Sun, May 12, 2024, 10:04 PM

Hi, Mark. I could not disagree more with your premises. The steps you criticize saved tens of thousands, if not millions, of lives. Sorry.

Mark Oshinskie

Sun, May 12, 2024, 10:17 PM

Bob,

You’ve bought a massive scam.

And you haven’t read either the 2/22 Hopkins study or the recent CDC study, each of which concluded that the NPIs were completely ineffective. The shots clearly failed to stop infection and spread. Stay tuned for more vaxx injuries.

You’ve also disregarded the irreparable harm done to billions of people worldwide by the Covid theater.

Unmasked, uninjected, never sick and always vital,

Mark

Barnett, Robert

Sun, May 12, 2024, 10:41 PM

Mark, you are, with respect, so naïve. I hope you get vaccinated and don’t get sick. All the best.

Mark Oshinskie

Wed, May 15, 2024, 6:11 AM

LOL, Bob.

I know much more about biology and health than you do. I’m also younger and in better physical condition than you are. The shots could do nothing but hurt me.

This is true for the vast majority of the population. All of the vaxxers I know have gotten sick multiple times. I, and other non-injectors I know, have been fine.

Be well,

Mark

—

On October 1, 2025 I say:

Rest in peace, Bob. You seemed like a nice enough guy, though excessively self-assured. You were plainly incorrect about the lockdowns, masks, tests and shots. As did the political celebrities you advised, perhaps you thought that repeating a false notion often enough would convince many people it was true. Maybe you fell for the Covid lies because you surrounded yourself with people who repeated these.

Since March, 2020, I’ve been disappointed that you and many lawyers I know from decades of legal practice smugly but wrongly supported the Covid response based on hearsay and other forms of evidence that either wouldn’t have been admissible at trial or withstood basic cross-examination. Very few lawyers scrutinized the purported viral proofs, which were never authenticated and lacked basic indicia of veracity.

Chinese guys keeling over on streets? Morgue trucks? “Spiking” cases and deaths? Locking down healthy people for the first time in history? Closing schools? Voting by mail though you can stand on Walmart lines? Please explain. From the beginning, the torrent of images and slogans reeked of phoniness and propaganda.

None of the “mitigation” measures you praised were logically or biologically sound. As did most attorneys during Coronamania, you forgot your legal training and the basic, dialectical prnicples and process that should guide any search for the truth. I wonder if you ever considered arguments against the Covid interventions or discussed these measures with anyone who saw these as senseless and destructive.

The secular sacramental shots you lauded may have hastened your seemingly unexpected death from “an undisclosed illness.” Regardless, the injections didn’t significantly extend your life or the lives of those who took them. Perhaps, as a DC insider, you would never have seen, heard nor admitted this.

But to those who were paying just a little attention, the shots and the Covid response, generally, demonstrated that Washington’s officials and power brokers either lacked basic science knowledge and good judgment or were pulling a massive scam. Hopefully, you were simply gullible and vulnerable to peer pressure and didn’t lie opportunistically about The Virus, as many officials did.

The politicians whose books you promoted were said to have sold many copies. I’ve heard that, to gain bestseller status, political books’ sales figures are inflated via various forms of chicanery, such as donors buying thousands of copies. Similarly, hospitals got big CARES Act subsidies for attributing, to Covid, deaths from other causes, especially old age. In both contexts, and many others, one can understand the otherwise inexplicable by following the money.

Ostensible literary and political popularity are often inversely correlated with truthfulness. The well-known officials you represented, and other exalted politicians and bureaucrats, repeatedly spoke falsehoods during Coronamania. In contrast, little-known, unbiased dissidents stated the truth regarding the reaction to a badly overhyped virus. Some of the dissidents were highly-credentialed. Others were, as I was, simply unaffiliated critical thinkers who knew a Scam when we saw one.

Those who might have learned the most from reading my book(s) and Medium and Substack posts, and the writings of others who also criticized the Covid panic, instead internalized and parroted politicians’ and “experts’” bogus doomsday narrative. The newspapers sure didn’t publish dissidents’ perspectives.

Millions who irrationally feared a respiratory virus obeyed their government’s absurd mandates and took the Covid shots no longer inhabit this Earth. I knew at least a dozen of them. Most were over 80.

Age-based risk stratification was always the core Covid reality: as people get older, they’re more likely to die. The costs of attempting to prevent inevitable deaths among the elderly never justified limiting the lives of the healthy under 80.

The viral response wasn’t about public health. If you took the shots, Bob, you may have been an insider who, as in a movie plot twist, unwittingly got ensnared in and victimized by a worldwide web of deception managed by people you trusted.

But then again, you were nearly 80 and, according to the obituary, “stocky.” That was the median age and body-type of those said to have died of Covid. Not coincidentally, the average American dies at that age.

In any event, the famous and either unwise or sinister men and women who implemented or, as you did, supported lockdowns, closures, the CARES Act giveaways, masks, tests and shots, caused billions of healthy, younger people, worldwide, to suffer deeply and irretrievably. Though you’ve left this earthly realm, the Covid measures opportunistically imposed by faux wise men like your clients and confidently endorsed by you have left one Hell of a permanent mess.

Sincerely,

Mark

This article was originally published on Dispatches from a Scamdemic.

The post The Unwise Man appeared first on LewRockwell.

The title of this column is the same as the title of a video analysis of the murder of Charlie Kirk on the Macintosh Team YouTube channel. Here is a transcription of that video along with my comments.

Everybody wants to know: Did Israel kill Charlie Kirk?

“No, no, no, don’t be ridiculous. A lone gunman did it.”

Always a lone gunman.

“A young man, unstable, angry, looking for attention. His own father turned him in; case closed.”

That’s the script. That’s the headline. That’s the truth we’re all supposed to swallow. Neat, tidy, packaged, ready to go.

But here’s the problem: Neat and tidy almost never means true. Every time the story is wrapped up this quickly, you should start sniffing for smoke.

And sure enough, the moment Kirk’s body was cold, the whispers began: “Israel. Could Israel have had a hand in this?”

“Absurd,” they said. “Insane,” they said. “Stupid.”

Netanyahu himself had to go on live television to shout it down. And if you saw that interview, you know exactly what I’m talking about. He wasn’t calm. He wasn’t confident. He was flustered, defensive, repeating himself like a man who knows the rumor cuts too close to the bone.

And here’s the kicker: On paper, it makes no sense.

Charlie Kirk was Israel’s guy. He spent years worshiping at their altar. He told students, “Palestinians don’t exist.” He smeared critics as radicals, spread their propaganda, flew on their trips, cashed their donors’ checks. He said Israel was America’s best friend over and over. He was loyal.

But loyalty in this game doesn’t mean forever. Loyalty means obedience. And the second you step out of line, you’re not a loyal ally anymore. You’re a liability.

And Charlie Kirk—America’s loudest campus Zionist—made the fatal mistake of asking questions. Epstein? Mossad? October 7th? Gaza? He started inviting Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly on stage. He started letting Dave Smith call Gaza what it really is: the slaughter of a captive people. And that was it. The alarms went off. Donors flipped. Zionist bloggers.

And now watch what happens: The media points left; the right points back. Social media collapses into chaos. Everyone’s screaming at everyone else: “Deep State. MAGA. Antifa. CIA.” No one agrees. No one unites. No one looks at the one country that always benefits from division: Israel.

Because while Americans lose their minds over Charlie Kirk, Israel is still in Gaza, still bombing, still starving children, still bulldozing homes. Business as usual.

That’s the genius of it. They don’t even have to deny it convincingly. Netanyahu just shrugs and says, “Stupid. Absurd.” And that’s enough. Because the real trick isn’t to prove innocence. It’s to stir the pot so no one cares. And boy, did it work.

So, let’s ask the old Latin question: Cui bono? Who benefits? Not the shooter. Not his father. Not America. The people who benefit are the same people who always benefit. The same people who suddenly don’t have to worry about 3,500 campus chapters shifting against them. The same people who saw Kirk’s hesitation as a threat. Because if Charlie Kirk, their golden boy, could doubt, then every conservative student in America could doubt too. That’s the nightmare scenario.

And what happened right after his death? Shapiro stepped up, ready with his new tour. Donors stopped complaining. Turning Point USA suddenly had new handlers. The machine didn’t miss a beat. The blood wasn’t even dry before the replacement program was rolling.

But hey, remember: It was a lone gunman. Always a lone gunman.

Isn’t it amazing how the lone gunman always seems to clear the field for the most powerful people alive? Kennedy, King, Malcolm, now Kirk. Just random nobodies with perfect timing, doing the dirty work history demands. “Nothing suspicious here.”

And while Americans rage at each other, left versus right, MAGA versus woke, CIA versus Deep State, Israel carries on like nothing happened. Bombing hospitals, cutting off water, starving [people].

So, “No, Israel didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. Don’t say that. Don’t even think it. It’s absurd. It’s insane. It’s stupid. Just a coincidence that he broke ranks and then got silenced. Just a coincidence that his enemies are smiling now. Just a coincidence that while America tears itself apart over conspiracy theories, Israel keeps winning in Gaza.”

That’s the beauty of it. You don’t have to believe they pulled the trigger. You just have to look at who’s still standing, still bombing, still collecting checks, while the rest of us drown in outrage.

And when you do, the picture gets very clear, very fast.

Well said, Macintosh Team!

I love the line: “No one looks at the one country that always benefits from division: Israel.”

Israel is a pariah state that only exists to destroy every Gentile nation it can via sowing division and chaos within those countries. Every goy killed by another goy is a goy that Zionist Jews don’t need to spend money killing.

And that’s exactly what Netanyahu’s puppet, Donald Trump, is trying to do to the United States. He is using the Zionist playbook and declaring American citizens “the enemy from within.”

Just this week, President Trump called all the U.S. military flag officers together to a personal meeting at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. An unprecedented event. President Trump told the generals and admirals of our nation’s military:

We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military… it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.
[Emphasis added]

Americans fighting Americans; Americans killing Americans; the American government setting the U.S. military against the American people. Who could possibly win by all of that? ISRAEL!

Will we ever be able to prove that Charlie Kirk was killed by an Israeli assassin? Of course not. Do I believe Charlie Kirk was killed by an Israeli assassin? You bet I do! That is, by a team of Israeli assassins.

I believe what I said in my Charlie Kirk Assassination Update address to Liberty Fellowship:

1. The official FBI narrative is impossible to believe. I am absolutely convinced that the killing could not have happened the way they said it happened.
2. I am absolutely convinced that the 22-year-old kid did not shoot Charlie Kirk.
3. I am absolutely convinced that Kirk was not shot with a .30-06 caliber rifle.
4. I am absolutely convinced that Charlie Kirk’s killing was a professional assassination.

And when it comes to professional assassinations, the State of Israel is the uncontested world leader. It is purely natural that millions of Americans believe in their gut that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. More than anyone else, Israel had motive, means and opportunity.

By eliminating Kirk, Israel eliminated the man they believed was their biggest traitor—and biggest threat.

Charlie had rebuffed Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer of over $100 million to toe the Israeli line and stop casting doubt on Israel’s behavior, stop inviting Israel truth-tellers such as Tucker Carlson to his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) events. He had rebuffed Zionist billionaire Bill Ackman’s threats, browbeating and intimidation to get back in line.

One day after the Ackman threat-fest, a shaken but defiant Charlie Kirk went on Megyn Kelly’s show to announce to the world how Zionists were threatening him over his criticisms of Israel. It was obvious that Charlie was going to double down on his sincere questions and doubts regarding Israel’s murderous conduct. That spells motive.

What about means and opportunity? No one had more of each than the State of Israel.

Israel is a world-class killing machine. It has assassins all over the world—including in the United States. It has the money, technology, transportation networks, munitions and political connections necessary to successfully plan, implement and escape detection of an assassination with ease.

Max Blumenthall reports that White House insiders who know Donald Trump say that Trump himself is very frightened of what Netanyahu would do to him if he does not toe the Israeli line.

It is self-evident that Israel would be the prime suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Just take a look at the assassinations that Israel has carried out over the past couple of years.

Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Gaza’s political office and chief negotiator, was assassinated by an Israeli strike in Tehran. He was there on a diplomatic mission in pursuit of a peace agreement. He was reportedly killed by a missile that hit him directly in a state guesthouse where he was staying. July 31, 2024

Of course, Israel has assassinated hundreds of journalists, physicians, medical personnel, clergymen, civic leaders, aid workers and tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, a large number of them—small children and pregnant mothers included—by trained, expert snipers in Gaza. Even people in the flotilla of aid ships attempting to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza have been assassinated. Israel tried to assassinate Swedish activist Greta Thunberg but failed.

The Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, was attacked by Israel, killing many diplomats and negotiators. April 2024

Ali Shamkhani — Israel’s large-scale military attack on Iran targeted and killed this Iranian official who was the chief negotiator leading a committee on nuclear talks with the United States. The peace talks with the United States were arranged by President Donald Trump. June 13, 2025

Gazan negotiators were the target of an Israeli assassination in a residential area in the Qatari capital, Doha. Negotiators were there at the behest of President Donald Trump to discuss Trump’s ceasefire proposal. The negotiators survived the attack, but six others, including a Qatari security officer, were killed. September 9, 2025

Israel has also assassinated a host of civilian diplomats, leaders and ordinary citizens in Lebanon and Syria. And don’t forget the massive pager attacks that killed and wounded thousands of innocent people—mostly women and children—in Lebanon, Syria, London and other places.

Was it an act of respect or a graphic warning when Benjamin Netanyahu gave Donald Trump a golden pager during his visit to the White House? Was it a word of accomplishment or a word of warning when Netanyahu told the 250 Israel-supporting U.S. State legislators who were being wined and dined (and indoctrinated) in Israel, “Do you have cell phones? Do you have cell phones here? You’re holding a piece of Israel right there.”

Israel has been a violent aggressor/terror state since the day it was created in 1948. And today its violent aggression and terrorist activity have risen to the stratosphere of the most evil, violent regimes of human history.

Only Charlie Kirk and his brand of young evangelical Trump conservatives remained blind to the truth about Israel. Most of the others under the age of 35 are now ardent opponents of the Zionist state. That doesn’t bode well for Israel’s future. And then to learn that the scales were coming off the eyes of Charlie, and if he followed in the footsteps of his good friend Candace Owens, well, Israel was not going to let that happen.

Speaking of Candace, she is challenging the leaders of TPUSA who are attempting to downplay Charlie’s rejection of the Israel narrative and even attempting to denigrate Candace’s testimony of how determined Charlie was to break with Israel.

On a podcast this week, Candace said:

I’m gonna challenge Turning Point USA executives to issue a very clean statement saying that I am lying if this is not true.

About 48 hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi, that he had no choice but to abandon the pro-Israel cause outright. Okay? Charlie was done. He said it explicitly, that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors.

Can you guys answer? Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself?

And then did he, just 48 hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our onstage reunion could happen?

It’s a yes or a no.

Explicitly, I want to hear from Turning Point USA that I’m lying about that.

Yeah. I’m putting the fire here right at the feet of Turning Point, because I am disgusted. I am genuinely disgusted. I am looking around and wondering whether Charlie’s entire life was The Truman Show.

None of you guys are behaving in the way that you should be behaving. Okay? There is no way you are letting these lies fly unless, as I am hearing, unless it is true that there was a big, big, big payday that was on the line. And if Charlie radically stated that he was done with Israel, if Charlie said he had no choice but to abandon the pro-Israel cause because of, and I quote, Jewish donors, the behavior of Jewish donors, if he said that, yes or no, well then, I don’t know, maybe, maybe some people didn’t want to take that risk that he was gonna what? Become Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson at Turning Point USA with so much presence across college campuses? Maybe they didn’t want to take the chance.

You see, I’m just one person. So, it’s easy to just try to cancel my life and lie on me every second of every day. But Turning Point USA I think got a little bit bigger than Charlie, and I’m no longer gonna allow this lie and this narrative.

So, answer the questions, yes or no.

And I’m going to again challenge you to lie. And if you do lie, I’m going to expose the lies, and I’m going to start dropping videos actually. So, that’s where I’m at. Enough of games, enough with trying to allow Israel to wrangle a narrative that you know is not true.

Candace is emphatically clear: “Charlie was done. He said it explicitly, that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors.”

I admire and applaud Candace’s convictions and courage to call out the wanna-be leaders of TPUSA. She has more courage than a thousand evangelical pastors put together.

I can’t prove I’m right, and you can’t prove I’m wrong. But along with millions of your fellow Americans, you feel it in your gut: Israel did it.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post ‘Israel Did It; Prove Me Wrong’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2025, please remember to DONATE TODAY!

1. The Vagus Nerve Healing Bible: Master Your Nervous System in Just 10 Minutes a Day
   
2. Holistic Dental Care: The Complete Guide to Healthy Teeth and Gums 
3. Mucusless Diet Healing System: Scientific Method of Eating Your Way to Health 
4. Somatic Exercises for Nervous System Regulation
5. DMSO Healing Guide: Discover Dosages, Recipes, and Essential Precautions for Using Dimethyl Sulfoxide to Treat Pain, Inflammation etc.
6. Our American Israel: The Story of an Entangled Alliance
7. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism 
8. Dirty Genes: A Revolutionary Approach to Health and Wellness Through Nutritional Genetics and Personalized Plans for a Happier, Healthier You 
9. Treat Your Own Knee
   
10. National Geographic Ultimate Visual History of the World: The Story of Humankind From Prehistory to Modern Times
    
11. The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It’s Destructive, and How to Respond
12. A Genocide Foretold: Reporting on Survival and Resistance in Occupied Palestine
    
13. READ 3x FASTER: Speed Reading Techniques to Learn Faster and Read More
    
14. Treat Your Own Hip
15. Word Workout: Building a Muscular Vocabulary in 10 Easy Steps
16. An Avocado a Day: More than 70 Recipes for Enjoying Nature’s Most Delicious Superfood 
17. The Hands-On Home: A Seasonal Guide to Cooking, Preserving & Natural Homekeeping
18. Anti-Inflammatory Eating Made Easy: 75 Recipes with Meal Plans for Beginners 
    
19. The Big Book of Herbal Medicine: 300 Natural Remedies for Health and Wellness
    
20. Sourdough on the Rise: How to Confidently Make Whole Grain Sourdough Breads at Home 

The post Top 20 Books That LRC Fans Are Reading This Week appeared first on LewRockwell.

It would be an interesting exercise if one might view and consider in retrospect the week that began with the United Nations General Assembly speech in New York on September 23rd that included the “Your countries are going to hell” performance by President Donald Trump followed on the 26th by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu experiencing the boycotting UN Delegate walk-out before moving on to Netanyahu subsequently at the White House revising the Trump plan for Gaza. The week concluded with the meeting by Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at Quantico with America’s flag officers. One might, without any particular bias against either Trump or Netanyahu, well come to the conclusion that those days constitute the absolute worst that the United States government now has to offer the American people and to the world in general.

The absolute low points during the week have to be Trump’s pathetic pleading for “his” Nobel Peace Prize in light of the fact that he and Hegseth also were setting the stage for regime change by military intervention initiatives in both Venezuela and Iran, while also increasing tension with Russia and allowing war criminal murderer Netanyahu to have a free hand with the Palestinians. Media reports note the impending supply of new US missiles to NATO states confronting Russia and the movement of US aerial refueling tankers from the US bases toward the Middle East, similar to the preparations made to attack Iran in June. So is this all about new wars?

On Monday, regarding the release of “his” ceasefire proposal for Gaza, Trump enthused that “This is a big, big day, a beautiful day, potentially one of the great days ever in civilization.” He added that the deal would resolve millennia-old problems and bring “eternal peace.” He later qualified the enthusiasm by characteristically blaming the Arabs if the plan should not succeed, declaring that “If Hamas rejects the deal, Bibi you will have our full backing to do what you have to do” to “finish it” in Gaza. He added that “Hamas is either going to be doing it or not – and if it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end.”

It should surprise no one that Netanyahu was privately allowed a final edit on the draft of the Trump 20-point Gaza plan/proposal that several Arab states had agreed to support in its first 21-point draft version. The “significant” changes were made on Sunday after a meeting between Chief US Negotiator Steve Witkoff and his colleague Jared Kushner together with Netanyahu’s chief negotiator Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer. The text inter alia had already conceded to Israel a “security” corridor around Gaza, not unlike confining the “Gazans in a concentration camp” situation that prevailed prior to October 7th, as well as other modifications, permitting a free hand to continue the slaughter no matter how things turn out.

The principal changes demanded by Netanyahu were related to two of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations: the actual disarmament of Hamas and the pace and substance of the Israeli Army’s physical withdrawal from Gaza. The issue of a future Palestinian state was ignored. The new proposal links the actual Israel withdrawal from territory to the “demilitarization” of Gaza and the ability of an international armed peacekeeping/policing force to take over the land, which will be a highly subjective process on both counts. Israel, in the edited text now being promoted by Trump, “will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the US.”

The original text stated only that the IDF “will progressively hand over the Gaza territory that [it] occup[ies].” The revised proposal will instead allow Israel to occupy the “security” perimeter zone surrounding and even intruding into the Strip until Gaza is “properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.” That will be highly subjective and can be used to prolong the process or even subvert it.

Netanyahu has made clear that there will be no Palestinian state alongside Israel. In fact he sees the steps leading to denial of any Palestinian political entity as a long distance race rather than a sprint, particularly when he is speaking Hebrew to an Israeli audience, saying in a televised statement on Sunday night that “Now the whole world, including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas to accept the terms that we created together with Trump, to bring back all the hostages — the living and the dead — while the IDF stays in the Strip.”

Hamas has in fact clearly stated its willingness to release all the remaining Israeli captives in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, even though it realizes that it would then have no leverage over the Netanyahu government. It has also indicated that it will not disarm until there is the creation of an actual Palestinian state or a Palestinian occupation force that could replace it. Hamas is also fully aware that the extermination orders for all Palestinians are still in place. On October 1st Israel ordered all remaining Palestinians to leave Gaza City, stating that anyone who remained would be considered a “terrorist,” therefore approved to be killed, including civilians. Defense Minister Israel Katz said: “Those who remain in Gaza will be (considered) terrorists and terror supporters.”

Hamas has, in fact, asked for clarification of the revised twenty points proposal in light of Israel having made some changes and it might still agree to the new text, though many observers doubt that it will do so. Hamas has demanded that “a distinction be made between retaining offensive and defensive weapons, as the latter is guaranteed by international law” and also insist on “a complete cessation of the war and that Israeli forces not return to the Strip.” Hamas also wants a clear timetable for the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza and insists that the committee that would run the Strip be Palestinian, not international.

Both Israel and Washington will in any case be prepared to trot out the usual lies about Palestinians and “terrorism” to justify anything Israel does and whatever that is it will be fully funded, armed and given political cover by Trump. Interestingly, if Trump and Netanyahu had been sincere about their plans to disengage from Gaza, Israel might have thrown a bit of encouragement into the process by suspending its bombing, shelling and shooting of Palestinians for a day or so while the proposal was being considered by Hamas. Hundreds of Gazans, mostly women and children, have been murdered by Israel since the ceasefire plan was first floated, with hundreds more dying of starvation. It is hardly a good sign particularly if one considers that Israel has broken every ceasefire and peace agreement that it has seemingly entered into over the past year in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria while also killing many more Palestinians on the West Bank. The US, often a guarantor of the arrangements, has never held Israel accountable for it actions. The Jewish state has also imprisoned under remarkably brutal conditions more than 10,000 Palestinians without any charges against them, all of which makes it difficult to be optimistic about the chances for peace.

And speaking of peace plans, what should one think about a ceasefire plan that is supervised and guaranteed by the likes of Trump as “Chairman” of the so-called “New Gaza Board of Peace” with Sir Tony Blair as his associate to help “oversee the Gaza transition.” They will no doubt be ably assisted by the Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has never turned down an opportunity to promote the devastation of Gaza and reconstruction and resettlement of its land by non-Palestinians to permit the building of the Trump Riviera Resort.

The appearances of Trump and Netanyahu at the UN Opening was wrapped around the expected ceasefire proposal to some extent but it also featured the tone-deaf Trump’s speech focused on himself and his achievements while Netanyahu lied aggressive before an almost completely empty hall after nearly all the delegates had walked out on him.

Trump’s fealty to Israel aside, the trip to Quantico to address America’s flag officers might have been even more bizarre than the performance at the UN and its aftermath. Trump, a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, fancies himself to be a tough guy with his constant waving of his little fist and threatening imprisonment for anyone who crosses his path and offends him in any way. He is notable for his general belligerency when dealing with critics and his own subordinates, as well as his disparagement of the military that he has inherited as “woke” and lacking the “will to win” which has led to the relabeling of the Defense Department as the War Department and his demand for a revival of “warrior ethos” with a belief in inflicting “maximum lethality” brought about by the fierceness of the troops and their leaders. These changes are being proposed even though America has pre-Trump not been threatened by any foreign power and all the wars going on currently are being engaged in by the US without any genuine national security interests being at stake. While Trump was leaving the White House on his way to the helicopter to speak at Quantico he quipped that if the Generals and Admirals did not like his message, he would “fire them right on the spot”!

Secretary of War Hegseth added to the atmosphere, if one chooses to call it that, by demanding “to ensure peace we must prepare for war” while complaining that too many senior officers were fat and out of shape. He called for steps to make them engage in physical training to become fit and able to lead their troops in battle. Trump’s tirade, which followed, also produced a lot of frowning among the 800 stony faced and silent flag officers, most of whom were wondering why they were there. For those who were aware of the US Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act, the White House’s willingness to deploy soldiers to America’s cities as something like a training exercise to bring the city and state administrators into line while also teaching the armed troops to do whatever is needed to restore order is so far over the top that it defies one’s imagination even to recall it. The president elaborated how “defending the homeland” was the military’s “most important priority” and told the flag officers in the room that they might be tasked with aiding in “federal interventions” in Democratic-led cities such as Chicago and New York City. He described how “They’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war, too. It’s a war from within. I told [Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth], we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military — National Guard, but our military, because we’re going into Chicago very soon. That’s a big city with an incompetent governor.”

But that is what one gets when voting into office a profoundly ignorant man who is full of himself and his presumed glory and who is inclined to repeat the last thing whispered in his ear by his equally ill-informed advisers. The end result may well become, unfortunately, goodbye America!

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post Another Week from Hell Thanks to the White House and Friends appeared first on LewRockwell.

Leaders of European countries with limited military ability are openly declaring their preparation for war with Russia.  The Baltic states, Poland, Netherlands, France, Germany, and the UK speak if they look forward to a war that would utterly destroy them.  It is a mystery as Russia poses no threat to them and wants nothing from them but a mutual security agreement.  

I believe Putin himself has responsibility for this state of affairs.  Putin’s efforts to restrain the conflict in Ukraine have been misunderstood.  Putin is perceived as irresolute and the Russian military as incapable.  Trump calls Russia a paper tiger and speaks of Ukraine with sufficient European help transitioning from the defense to the offense and invading Russia.

This extremely dangerous way of thinking is the reason I have often said that Putin’s never-ending, ever-widening war was a strategic blunder, a blunder that Putin continues to make.

With European politicians declaring their preparation for war, is Putin paying attention, or will he again be Putin-the-Unready as he was in South Ossetia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014, in 2022 when Russia was forced to intervene in Donbas, and when the Russian strategic bomber force was attacked on June 1, 2025?

Putin’s restraint and Lavrov’s pleading for negotiations have convinced the West that Russia is an easy target.  This mistaken conviction is fomenting a major war.  

Russians do not seem to understand the situation.  This morning on RT political analyst Nadezhda Romanenko attributes the Western war talk to “Western anxieties and domestic political calculations.”  It would be more realistic to attribute the war talk to setting up Russia as an aggressor that must be deterred.  The Russians simply cannot comprehend that they are targeted as an obstacle to Western hegemony.   Everywhere in the West  the image that is maintained is Russian aggression.  Wikipedia, for example, describes the 2008 Russian war with Georgia as Russian aggression, the 2022 intervention in Donbas as a Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Estonia and Poland recently made claims of Russian entry into their air space.  Every possible sign of Russian aggression is created.  The West is uninterested in Putin’s reassurances.  Why is Russia unable to understand this?

The post Putin-the-Unready? appeared first on LewRockwell.

A key theme I’ve tried to highlight in this publication is that the same medical catastrophes keep repeating (because those responsible are never held accountable), so by understanding what happened in the past, you can see and understand what is happening now and what will likely happen in the future.

For example, because vaccines are “risky but necessary,” the medical profession and government, again and again, concluded that they needed to tell the public all vaccines were “safe and effective” as the potential injuries a mass vaccination campaign would cause were outweighed by “necessary” benefit the vaccines could offer. As such, examples can be found again and again of severe injuries being systematically covered up for the “greater good” (e.g., the earliest documented example I know of this happened in 1874 with the smallpox vaccine) and health authorities concocting the same set of excuses we’ve seen since smallpox as to why those vaccines failed to prevent the diseases they were supposed to.

Since the risks outweigh the benefits for most vaccines (detailed here), a mass vaccination paradigm can only be sustained by censoring all evidence of harm, and then using that absence of evidence as proof the vaccines are safe. As such, over the decades, we’ve seen more and more be done to conceal those harms.

For example, as I showed here, for almost a century, severe neurological injuries following vaccination were routinely reported in the medical literature. Now however, vaccine injuries are censored, and it is virtually impossible to get anything critical of vaccines published in a “reputable” academic journal.

Likewise, despite the “science” saying vaccines are safe, it’s nearly impossible to get ahold of any raw dataset which could objectively answer that question—which Steve Kirsch awoke the public to throughout COVID-19 by publicizing the endless stonewalling he ran into during his relentless quest to get that data.

Note: VAERS, a publicly available injury database the public could submit to, was originally created as part of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to address an unwillingness by both doctors and vaccine makers to ever report injuries (and hence claim the absence of them was evidence they didn’t happen). Once the act was enacted, the media, government, and medical industry has done all they could to sabotage and disparage it (as they never wanted an open reporting system).

Oddly enough, one of the few datasets we got access to on the dangers of the COVID vaccines originated from South Korea, where electronic medical records from the national health insurance service (totaling roughly half of Seoul’s population) were analyzed, which revealed a large increase in many common disorders.

Following this, another study was published, which revealed the COVID vaccines caused a 68% increase in depression, a 44% increase in anxiety and dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, and a 93.4% increase in sleep disorders.

I mention this, both because it’s unconscionable no one else was ever given access to databases which could have shown these serious issues, and because recently, I learned through Sonia Elijah that they completed a study everyone who’s seen a rapid cancer following COVID vaccination has waited years for. Assessing the link between COVID vaccines and cancer, it found six were significantly elevated in vaccine recipients one year after receiving the vaccine:

Thyroid (+35.1%), Stomach (+33.5%), Colorectal (+28.3%), Lung (+53.3%), Breast (+19.7%), Prostate (+68.7%).

Additionally, they found many cancers were increased by boosting:

Pancreas (+125%) Stomach (+23%) Brain (+24%) Esophagus (+21%) Liver (+17%) Bile Ducts (+55%) Bladder (+21%) Cervical (+27%), Prostate (+26%), Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (+201%)
Note: the increase in Pancreas and Stomach cancer was statistically significant.

If you take a step back, and consider how many people received the vaccines, the social costs of cancer spikes like these are staggering and the decision to withhold data like this from the public to “avoid creating vaccine hesitancy” was one of the greatest crimes of the COVID catastrophe.

Mass Media Censorship

Actions like this were only possible due to the corporate media suppressing all dissent against the vaccines—even when large numbers of Americans felt the mandatory vaccines were severely injuring or killing their recipients and the press hence had a foundational duty to cover.

In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, [Biden’s] HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

Note: the amount spent per network is unknown, but likely totaled a billion.

Because of this, many people in the media wanted to speak out against the vaccines, but effectively could not, and to my knowledge, other than a few Fox hosts lightly criticizing them, only two did. One, a recently hired reporter at a local station, on live television announced Fox was muzzling stories the public wanted to hear (and was promptly fired) after which she provided secret recordings to Project Veritas corroborating this censorship.

The other was Tucker Carlson, who was able to leverage both being the most popular news host in America and having a show which did not rely upon pharmaceutical funding to speak out against the vaccines without being fired. Nonetheless, this was still a huge risk for him and eventually, after airing this remarkable 4-19-23 segment (which took a lot of courage), at immense cost to Fox News, was immediately fired.

After leaving Fox News, Tucker began speaking openly about how much pharmaceutical money prevented stories highlighting their dangers from ever being aired. Likewise, other former news hosts have corroborated his accounts. For example:

When I was on Fox News and we talked about the possibility of vaccine injuries … They would RUN out to the set to tell you to shut that down.—Megyn Kelley

Likewise, Sharyl Attkisson (an acclaimed CBS investigative journalist) has extensively chronicled (e.g., in her 2020 book and even more so in her 2025 book) how in the early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry, feeling the pressure from negative coverage of disastrous vaccination programs was creating for them, lobbied to prevent future negative coverage. Once this happened, it became impossible for her to air well produced segments which were critical of any vaccine initiative, and likewise, that in the post-2000s, stories on vaccine risks “disappeared” due to advertiser pressure.

However, things were not always this way. Rather, major networks used to air numerous scathing stories about vaccine disasters—and in many cases, the dangers they covered were so explicit by current journalistic standards that I frequently find sharing those (previously inconceivable) segments with people on the fence about vaccination opens their minds to the entire mess.

Let’s now review some of the forgotten vaccine disasters and the evolving censorship emerging alongside them.

Mass Censorship

The Vietnam War was considered by many to be the event that broke the public’s trust in the Federal Government.

Note: many believe the specific event which turned the American public against the Vietnam War was the My Lai massacre—an event where American soldiers decided to commit war crimes against Vietnamese civilians until a different group of American soldiers on their own volition decided to stop the massacre. I went back and forth on explicitly detailing it in this article, as I believe it’s critical to understand what war brings out in people, but I eventually decided it was too graphic for many of the readers.

This loss of trust in the government of course alarmed the government, and led to the Pentagon conducting a coordinated campaign to prevent this from happening again, which was accomplished by:

•Ending the draft and switching to an all volunteer army.

•Ensuring the public was only fed a sanitized picture of what happened in each future war (e.g., with embedded journalists providing government approved footage and the mass media being strongly discouraged from providing any footage which exposed the horrors of each war).

Note: Major Colin Powell was one of the Pentagon officers who led the effort to cover up the Mai Lai Massacre. He then rose through the ranks, eventually becoming George Bush’s Secretary of Defense and infamously lied to the UN about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—a lie that killed hundreds of thousands of people and cost the US trillions of dollars. Powell’s case is one of many which illustrates how much the government rewards those who cover up its atrocities.

It is hard to even begin to describe how much work was put into hiding the horrors of war from the public, and sadly it was remarkably effective, transforming war from something much of the American public vehemently opposed to an abstract idea they were largely apathetic towards.
Note: the best documentary I have seen explaining how military propaganda transformed as the decades went by is “Why We Fight.”

The sanitizing of war, in turn, has many parallels to the evolving medical censorship we’ve faced. For example, the same public relations firm that created a heart-wrenching but entirely made-up testimony to drag the US into the Gulf War, has a long history of working with the pharmaceutical industry and was contracted to both promote the COVID narrative and eliminate vaccine hesitancy.1,2,3

Read the Whole Article

The post Vaccine Amnesia: Why Did the Media Stop Covering Vaccine Disasters? appeared first on LewRockwell.

America is thoroughly divided. It has been divided and polarized for many years. Anyone who thinks they can stop it or fix it is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks that conflict is avoidable is delusional. Anyone who thinks the division is “artificial” or a “false left/right paradigm” is naive. It is very real, tangible and undeniable.

Many would argue that the core problem is the globalist cabal, influencing the population from the shadows, stoking violence from useful idiots and controlling every aspect of civil unrest. While these social engineers very much exist and they do try to play both sides of the chess board, they are only able to influence conflicts to a point.

They didn’t create the conditions that make the conflict possible. Those conditions are inherent and eternal. The globalists merely exploit the divisions that already exist. Leftists WANT the power to destroy conservatives. They want control and they want to see blood. It’s the thing that subconsciously drives every political decision they make.

Globalism as an ideology or a conspiracy has no power without the divergent and psychopathic subset present in every single society on Earth. Around 5% of any given population has narcissistic, sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies.

Around 23% of the US population reports dealing with at least one mental illness and is likely to be taking some form of medication. Many of these people would still be considered “functional” in daily life, but not necessarily capable of controlling their emotions or avoiding reactionary behavior.

Then you have around 25% of the US population with an IQ of 89 or less (well below average). This element of the public is deficient in critical thinking skills and they are more easily manipulated.

These are just the intrinsic problems.

When it comes to environmental factors, there’s the less obvious but always present element of academia that is “so smart they are dumb”. People who are educated but also heavily indoctrinated with an ideology that feeds their insecurities and their biases. Many of these activists are people with mental and emotional deficiencies trying to fill a void in their lives. They have no original ideas and they will rabidly and arrogantly defend the beliefs that they have been programmed with.

Easily corruptible Americans exist across the political spectrum, left, right and center. However, today you are more likely to find most of them on the extreme left.

A number of studies link far-left ideology with psychopathy and narcissism, and the majority of incidences involving legitimate politically motivated violence are committed by leftists (I outlined in my last article how data from left-wing NGOs like the ADL is rigged to make it appear that conservatives are “more violent” when we are not).

It’s important to understand one vital thing; the key to grasping the root of the leftist problem: Leftist ideology, socialism, Marxism, communism, globalism, wokeness, etc. attracts mentally unhinged people.

It sometimes creates them, but mostly it gives dangerous and unstable people a home, a club, a place to feel as if they are the majority and that they are on the right side of history.

These stunted aberrations already exist everywhere, but in a healthy system they are usually isolated from each other and from normal society. In an unhealthy system without morals, responsibilities or self restraint, they thrive. The woke movement is a metastic mechanism; a relentless magnet that pulls in the ugliest elements of society and weaponizes them to attack the whole body.

This is how every communist revolution starts – By gathering the dregs of a population together and telling them they are “the victims”. It then turns that mob loose for the sole purpose of burning down a target nation.

Maybe 20 years ago the “false left/right paradigm” was an apt description of our nation’s quandary. Today the term does not apply. The leftists and the globalists have become one body, one entity. They are the same enemy, working hand-in-hand. You cannot defeat the leftists without defeating the globalists, and you cannot defeat the globalists without defeating the militant leftists (and by the way, Neo-Cons are also leftists).

I would make one distinction here: There are people who consider themselves tied to the liberal left but they are actually centrists. They might be misled or uneducated on the facts, they might let their emotions rule their thinking, but they are not necessarily friends of the globalists. Some of them hate globalism as much as conservatives do, but they wrongly believe that globalism is a product of free market capitalism and conservatism.

Globalism is fundamentally socialist, not capitalist. It is built first on corporations which only exist because of artificial government charter and government protection. The central bank bailouts, for example, protected numerous corporations from the financial consequences of their mismanagement. The idea of “too big to fail” is a socialist policy, not a capitalist one.

Central banks are a primary plank of the Communist Manifesto, not free market ideology. Furthermore, globalism forces nations into interdependency instead of advocating for self sufficiency and redundancy. In other words, it’s about top-down control and removing choice from free markets. The political left proudly promotes this kind of system. They despise public choice.

This is why the leftists and globalists are perfect allies.

Globalists at the World Economic Forum (the Davos crowd) have been pushing the “Great Reset” for the past decade. This reset is decidedly leftist in its goals. They want a “sharing economy” in which private property is abolished. Citizens would be required to borrow everything they have from the government, from apartments to cars to dinner plates. As the WEF says, you would “own nothing and be happy”.

It is a purely communist concept and fully supported by the political left.

Then there’s the climate change agenda which demands carbon taxation, the dismantling of industry, the government regulation of the public diet and food supply, as well as population control (based on the lie of man-made global warming). Again, these are draconian restrictions that leftists cheer for.

How about open borders and the end of nationalism? Leftists and globalists agree here, too. Both groups are ready to go to war in order to force western populations to accept mass immigration from the third world. Entropic immigration is a tool for ending western civilization, and leftists joyfully expedite that collapse.

In terms of philosophy, progressive ideology and globalist theory intertwine into a symbiotic beast called “moral relativism”. Every element of the woke movement is based in selfish aggrandizement. All of its ideas require a morally relative framework that values hedonism over self restraint. In their minds, one cannot be free until one abandons all responsibility and conscience.

It’s a confusing juxtaposition: They believe they are not free until they are allowed to entertain their darkest fetishes. At the same time, they want to micromanage the behaviors of everyone else.

You will never see conservatives trying to defend this kind of thinking. You see leftists defending it all the time. In my view, two recent events make our irreconcilable differences abundantly clear: The pandemic response and the shooting of Charlie Kirk.

During the pandemic we witnessed a clear fracture between conservatives and leftists in how we view freedom. Most leftists applauded the lockdowns, the mandates and the vaccine requirements. It wasn’t that they were afraid of Covid: They reveled in the vicarious power.

They became animals frothing at the mouth for more. They demanded that conservatives be fined, imprisoned, forced to comply with the mandates. Many even wanted our children taken away.

After Charlie Kirk’s assassination by a gay leftist (who confessed to his parents that he committed the attack after they recognized him in suspect photos), millions of other leftists danced, sang and cheered for the murder. They called for more blood, more death. They were in ecstasy.

This was a defining moment for me, and I think it was a defining moment for our nation. The mask was completely torn away. Now we know, without a shadow of a doubt, the woke left is a purely evil movement. Not misguided. Not misunderstood. Not well meaning but stupid. They are evil.

We need to accept the reality that we can no longer treat these people as if they are our fellow countrymen. As President John Adams once stated:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Our nation was not made for leftists. That is to say, we are at war with a moral relativist enemy that wants to see us erased from history. The fact that this enemy lives next door to us is incidental. I’m willing to fight for our constitutional rights, but not the rights of people that want to see the constitution burned.

Few if any of the Founding Fathers would have tolerated the woke left in their lifetime. They would have kicked them out of the country without regret.

The most peaceful solution to our problem would be nothing less than a shared agreement of national divorce. The political left and the globalists must be separated from the rest of us, cast to their own degenerate communist enclave. A place where they can sink or swim based on their insane dystopian theories on society (much like North Korea).

They could give up on their ideology, embrace moral objectivity, meritocracy and national identity; but we all know that’s not going to happen.

The final choice, and the most likely, is that we go to war. In which case, leftists would not last long and the globalists would escape overseas.

Mark my words, the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the numerous attacks by leftist activists are just the beginning. I predicted this outcome right after Donald Trump’s election win and I warned that, like all communist uprisings, the violence will continue to escalate. The assassinations will pile up unless something is done.

At bottom, everything the political left champions falls perfectly in line with the globalist vision for the future. They are not separate, they are the same organism. When you see an Antifa thug, an NGO activist or a transgender militant, what you are looking at is a willing appendage of globalism, not a “patriot” trying to be heard.

This is why I can no longer tolerate the impotent calls among some conservatives and libertarians for “unity”. Nor the calls for “forgiveness” and “reconciliation”.  Our most fundamental beliefs are mutually exclusive. It’s a childish notion to think you can coexist with the devil in the same house when his only desire is to see your destruction.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Leftists and Globalists Have Merged Into the Same Horrific Entity appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dear friends, I must ask a question. What have you done for America lately? In fact, what have you done for America today?

In the continued light of the increasingly suspicious-looking death of Charlie Kirk, this is an especially good question to be asking. For there are many destructive forces working overtime to see to it that this land we live in becomes a far less free and far less prosperous land.

While Charlie Kirk may not have been perfect, he dedicated a great deal of his life to promoting liberty in this land, and encouraged many to do the same.

When I ask, “What have you done for America lately?” I am not asking about what you have done for the federal government or for your state government. I am, instead, talking about what you have done for the idea that solidified itself some four hundred years ago on these shores, the idea that life can be different than in stultified Europe and that men can live free. It is an idea that, over time, grew refined in some eras and grew more dull in other eras.

The FBI Is Beginning To Admit The Role They Played On January 6

We now have a leaked, 50-page FBI document that tells us that some 274 plain-clothes FBI agents showed up at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, with more than 300 agents total present. Its accuracy is confirmed by FBI Director Kash Patel, though his verification of the document creates more questions than answers, since former FBI Director Christopher Wray neglected to mention these details to Congress.

Suddenly, four years later, we are hearing for the first time from the FBI that 274 plain clothes FBI agents were present, but it was only for “crowd control” we are assured by Mr. Patel.

Additional Factors

Alongside the “Crowd Control Theory,” Mr. Patel has already been the star in classic tales of nonsense such as “The Charlie Kirk Lone Gunman Theory,” by which a young man who looks like Lee Harvey Oswald, Jr. complete with a bolt action rifle, does what is physically and chronologically impossible by bending space and time.

Mr. Patel is also known for classics such as the “Epstein DID Kill Himself Theory” and the “Epstein Had No Additional Accomplices Theory, So Let’s All Just Close The Case And Stop Talking About It.” Mr. Patel’s willingness to state the inaccurate on key cases of national importance has already impacted his pursuit for a more trusted FBI.

He is rapidly becoming the poster-child of MAGA inaction, evidence-free “trust me” style statements, and Republican unwillingness to do the unpleasant work of enforcing existing laws for the well-being of the American people.

To add to the preposterousness of the Crowd Control Theory, do not forget the lie of omission contained within spook-speak that an “agent” is different than an “asset,” and that no FBI Director is ever required to point that out to you. While we are starting to learn about agents that day, we have no idea from official sources how many assets were present.

For years, people who were on the ground on January 6, 2021 have insisted that government and Antifa provocateurs were present. Congressman Clay Higgins gave Tucker Carlson more than a year ago, a ballpark estimate close to the size of the leaked Patel estimate. The evidence is increasingly coming together that people within the federal government staged a riot on January 6, 2021, to cover up a stolen election. The time is much later than any of us realize and the government at all levels is far more complicit than many politically involved people will acknowledge.

America Is An Idea

Yes, America is an idea. And America is a culture that grew up around that idea. War will not stop America. Division will not stop America. Disagreement will not stop America. And not every person who pays taxes to the federal state is what I would call an American. America is bigger than a piece of land. America is a concept, an opportunity, and a culture, a culture that some choose to opt out of with their choices on how they exist.

But then there are others.

And in some periods of American history, those who called themselves patriots were enemies of that of freedom, but bootlickers of the state. While at other times, they were right there as well-aligned with those concepts as can be.

American culture exists where you sacrifice to encourage that liberty in your presence.

Something Very Good About The People Who Showed Up On January 6

On January 6, 2021, hundreds of thousands of heroes, perhaps even upwards of one million, gathered together in Washington DC to do exactly what people should do when they learn an election has been stolen.

The sad thing is not that more did not gather — what a defeatist way to see the world; afterall, the apathetic exist in all eras, so why focus your attention there. Nor is the sad thing that, so many opposed them — also what a sad way to see the world; for both the misinformed and those who oppose freedom, also, exist in every era.

The place to focus on a day like January 6, 2021: that America was strong enough in the year 2021, even after so much brainwashing and gaslighting took place in 2020, that some one million people would take time off work, off school, away from their duties, and pay their own way to Washington DC, some even spending the night or even several nights there, with additional days spent in travel, because they sincerely believed that the 2020 election had been improperly conducted, even stolen, and that their elected representatives needed to peacefully hear from them.

A million people showing up for that speaks volumes about the health of the idea known as America.

What a sad testament it would be if no one cared enough to show up in such a situation. But that is not the scenario we are in. America is very much alive and well. However, the government of this land has grown anathema to the concepts that make America what it is. In fact, the taxes paid in the United States are almost entirely weaponized against the people who most exemplify the culture and the concept that is America.

The “Get Trump” Movement Is About “Putting America In Its Place”

There was a two-year Mueller Investigation in which FORTY full-time FBI agents were handed to Robert Mueller to do anything he wanted with them as long as he followed his mandate to “get Trump.”

Donald Trump has positive and negative dimensions. We can go back and forth all day about that. Regardless, he was the rightfully elected leader of this country in 2016, and to work not in favor of him as a government employee, but to do anything possible to delegitimize his presidency was to work against the people who elected him.

What a very important side-note to, therefore, add here. All of these efforts to “get Trump” were not efforts to neutralize a single individual: Donald Trump. He was not, actually, the problem. All the people who supported him and who he helped empower were the problem, with the former especially being a problem.

Donald Trump has been part of a movement of torch-bearers who have helped awaken a land of sleeping lions.

The effort to “get Trump” was about “getting the American people,” about neutralizing the American people, about neutralizing you, and me, and ostensibly your wife, and my wife, and our kids, and brothers and sisters, and neighbors, and families, and all these people who civilly voted for a peaceful transfer of power to Donald Trump.

Those Who Make Violent Revolution Inevitable

These attempts to neutralize Trump are quite dangerous.  As President Kennedy said in March 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

It isn’t about Trump. Those of us who love Trump, tend to love him because he enables America. Those of us who love Trump, love him because he lifts the boot off the neck of the increasingly lifeless body that is America.

It’s Not About Trump, So Just Get Past That Mental Blockade Already

Is Trump perfect? That is not my standard. I know enough Bible to know that perfection is not expected of us. Regardless, it isn’t about Trump.

That political focus is a distraction — it is about the people energized by a Trump presidency. You are the enemy. There are even people who do not vote who are energized (in a good way) by the Trump presidency, or never-Trumpers, too, as well as moderates, and some radical leftists even. Some of these people may be well-intentioned and there are likely many more like them to follow. It’s not about Trump. It’s not about politics. It’s not about right and left. It is so much more important than that.

America is an idea. And it is a culture that has formed around that idea.

And there are many people, some of them quite powerful, who want to choke the life out of that idea and out of that culture. Because they believe that if they can do that, they can do the same to the rest of the world so much more easily, though there are a plethora of motivations beyond that common and sinister one.

America Changed Forever

On September 10, 2025, America forever changed. Charlie Kirk was shot that day. A man who gave everything for his country was shot that day, but also a man who gave everything for his Savior was shot that day.

We owe it to that man, to our progeny, to our forebearers, and to the idea and culture that is America to get to the bottom of what happened to Charlie Kirk. We owe it to those same people to live much like Charlie Kirk — not to just give occasionally for America and for faith, not to just tithe our time and tithe our resources for America and faith, but to give everything we have for those two important causes, causes that I might even say are one and the same.

Our Founding Documents, Our American Culture

The Mayflower Compact is one of our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is also. To a lesser degree, but still important, the US Constitution is, especially with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, which were not added for some four years after the US Constitution was ratified by the first state. These are founding documents alongside essays, such as the collection known as “The Federalist Papers” and also the collection known as “The Anti-Federalist Papers.” Those are our founding documents, and so are many other letters written between founding fathers part of our founding documents, and the most important of those founding documents is the Bible.

I am not demanding every American be a Bible thumper, or Bible reader, or even a Bible believer. I am not saying that, at all. I am saying, that if you want to get back to the basics of what America is, you are not going to get there without the Bible. You cannot take those other founding documents and the concepts contained therein out of the context of the most important American founding document, the one that all other founding documents must be read through — The Holy Bible.

It ain’t a Judeo-Christian culture, either. It’s a Christian culture. That isn’t pointed out with the goal of offending anyone. That is pointed out with the goal of achieving laser focused clarity on where America needs to return to if it wants to return to basics, if it wants to return to first principles.

And with that, I must ask, “What have you done for America lately?”

You don’t owe me an answer. But please give yourself an answer.

And don’t judge yourself alongside some of the bums you know in life. Because if you do, you will be a bum-quality of American.

Judge yourself against someone like Charlie Kirk.

The post January 6 Is the Day the US Government Staged a Riot To Cover Up a Fraudulent Election appeared first on LewRockwell.

Well, here’s hoping that the TACO man (Trump Always Chickens Out) finally grows a pair, steps up to the plate and is willing to ride this shutdown to a new record beyond the 35 days it took him to capitulate in January 2019. After all, these are desperate times fiscally—so anything that might wake-up the somnolent public to the budgetary disaster that is careening down the pike is worth some serious bumps and grinds on the national stage.

Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Washington has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime when it comes to managing the nation’s fiscal affairs. The chart below shows the Federal deficit on a rolling 12-month basis and the scandal of it literally screams out.

First, on the eve of the pandemic and lockdown collapse in February 2020, the Federal government was still running a $1 trillion or 4.9% of GDP deficit at a point in the business cycle fully 128 months after the Great Recession bottomed in Q2 2009. By all historic standards—even by Keynesian counter-cyclical fiscal doctrine—-the Federal budget was supposed to be in near balance by then because the fiscal equation had already benefited mightily from the longest continuous economic expansion in American history.

Secondly, a traditional reason for fiscal consolidation during the post-recession recovery period was to position the government to weather any adverse economic or international storms which might come down the pike in the future. And, of course, the mother of all calamities incepted within months when the real GDP plunged at a staggering 33% annualized rate in Q2 2020 in response to the pandemic and the sweeping Washington-ordered lockdowns of the US economy.

At that point, the normal cyclical contraction of revenues and surge of safety net spending threw the Federal budget into deep deficit in its own right. But that was drastically compounded by a never before imagined Covid relief spending bacchanalia over 2020-2021 that piled $6 trillion of added spending on top of the regular budget.

Accordingly, the 12-month rolling deficit reached $4.05 trillion in April 2021, which figure computed to an unheard of 17.3% of GDP. That should have been a big enough shock to scare the living bejesus out of every politicians inside the beltway, sentient or otherwise.

Alas, it didn’t. When the US economy re-opened thereafter, and notwithstanding unprecedented monetary stimulus, the Washington pols sat on their hands, even as Sleepy Joe Biden piled on even more spending for pork barrel infrastructure, Green New Deal waste and corporate welfare for the likes of Intel. Consequently, the Federal deficit remained stuck in the $2 trillion range.

So here we are five years on from the pandemic recession bottom and with a so-called Republican government in control of the House, Senate and White House. And yet the 12 month rolling deficit just clocked in at 6.3% of GDP, representing a level of wanton fiscal profligacy like never before.

Nevertheless, the above chart is only a warm-up. The real disaster coming down the pike is owing to the fact that three months ago the Trumpified GOP enacted the MOABB (mother of all budget busters) aka the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or OBBBA. It will result in a cool $155 trillion being added to the public debt by mid-century.

The OBBBA, in fact, turned the Federal budget into a Fiscal Doomsday machine that is literally unstoppable by means of ordinary legislative decorum. So you need a budgetary crash landing like the one hopefully triggered today at 12:01 AM to have any hope of arresting the current plunge into fiscal calamity.

As it happened, the OBBBA as written would have resulted in a Federal fiscal posture that would add $117 trillion to the public debt by 2054, which figure would rise to +$133 trillion when you price out OBBBA without the accounting gimmicks. Still, how anyone thinks that quintupling the publicly-held debt from today’s $30 trillion to $163 trillion over the next three decades, is a plausible route to the Golden Age of Prosperity is pretty hard to figure.

Even then, the truth is surely far worse. Just remove one brick from the edifice of CBO’s Rosy Scenario economic forecast—perpetually low interest rates—-and the fiscal dragons truly come surging from the Federal budget’s vasty deep. That is, if you assume the weighted average UST yields will clock in at4.25% rather than 3.5% over the next three decades, the added debt with the permanent extension of the OBBBA would amount to $155 trillion.

That’s right. Faced with a veritable Fiscal Doomsday Machine as embodied in the current CBO baseline, the Trumpified GOP has essentially embraced a budgetary path to a $185 trillion public debt by mid-century, representing a crushing 218% of GDP.

To be sure, neither wing of Washington’s UniParty is putting anything on the table that will slow the rising dotted red line in the graph above by even a whisker. The so-called “clean CR” championed by the GOP Congressional leadership, for instance, amounts to a ratification of all the unhinged discretionary spending increases enacted during the pandemic under the Trump 1.0 COVID-relief spending bacchanalia plus all of Sleepy Joe’s additional pork that was layered on top thereafter.

So what we have is this: Total appropriated spending (discretionary) in the GOP’s ballyhooed “Clean CR” will be up by +29% from the already pork-ridden budget of Trump 1.0 in FY 2019, and higher by+33% on the nondefense side of the ledger. And this is the plan of the so-called good guys!

Discretionary Appropriations, FY 2019 to FY 2025

Still, the GOP’s proposed spend-a-thon isn’t the half of it. The Dems are refusing to embrace the CR unless that GOP agrees to cancel the modest Medicaid savings contained in the OBBBA and extend yet again the costly ObamaCare “enhanced” subsidies which were layered on during the pandemic spending madness.

So as shown in the table below, capitulating to the Dems’ demands would generate $1.3 to $1.5 trillion of additional red ink over the next decade on top of the mountainous debt already baked into the fiscal cake.

10-Year Cost Of Senate Dems’ Health Care Spending Demands

Needless to say, the Medicaid cuts contained in the OBBBA were eminently plausible. They included $700 billion of 10-year savings owing to a requirement that able bodied Medicaid recipients need to “work” 80 hours per month—albeit “work” was defined so broadly as to include just ambling around looking for a job or taking any kind of job training, whether in lawn bowling or tiddly winks. Of course, we’d say hell yes to tossing off the Medicaid rolls any and all non-disabled adults who can’t manage to “work” 20 hours per week in this manner.

The OBBBA also required that the states stop enlarging the scam by which they purportedly “tax” medical providers. That’s because, in turn, the state Medicaid programs then slip the same loot back to doctors, hospitals and other providers in the form of higher reimbursement payments compliments of Uncle Sam.

That’s right. At the present time states raise upwards of $45 billion per year from so-called “provider taxes”, which providers, in turn, get the $45 billion back as reimbursements for their “cost” of service. While there have been various Federal efforts to block such scams, the current 6% cap on provider taxes as a share of patient revenues tells you all you need to know. State fiscal authorities have been on a path toward round-tripping their entire share of Medicaid costs to Washington, but the modest tightening of the cap (to 3.5% of provider revenues) contained in the OBBBA is apparently more than the Senate Dems can live with.

Then there is the ObamaCare topper subsidies and coverages that were signed into law during the pandemic. These included lifting the original 400% of the poverty line cap on ObamaCare subsidy eligibility, meaning an added layer of free stuff regardless of income. The “enhanced” ObamaCare features also included Federal subsidies for ObamaCare health insurance after premium costs reach 8.5% of income, down from nearly 10% under prior law.

These enhancements to the original ObamaCare subsidies were way over the top by any stretch of the imagination, but were justified at the time by the so-called pandemic emergency. Accordingly, the were made subject to an early sunset clause (December 2025) that has now come due.

But holy moly. Just a smidgen of historical perspective reveals how the Trumpified GOP has utterly abandoned the party’s assigned role as the sentinel of fiscal rectitude in the process of democratic governance in America.

Thus, back in the day we thought the Medicaid rolls were already bloated at 20 million recipients, representing about 8.8% of the US population in 1980. So the Reagan budget proposed to modestly rollback the Federal matching payment ratio, which would have cut baseline Medicaid spending of $21 billion per year by 7.5%. These cuts were then passed in watered-down form but subsequent history shows that they were not nearly up to the task.

By the eve of the sweeping ObamaCare expansion, therefore, the Medicaid rolls as of 2008 had already increased to 50 million, representing 16.4% of the US population. Of course, with the Obama expansion the Medicaid rolls were off to the races, reaching 70.2 million and 21.7% of the US population by 2016.

Needless to say, Donald Trump’s noisy 2016 campaign pledge to repeal ObamaCare never got off the ground in the UniParty politics of Washington. In fact, rather than repeal ObamaCare the Donald signed—and bragged about—the massive expansion of Medicaid embedded in the $2 trillion CARES act of March 2020. By the time the dust had settled on Donald Trump’s sweeping expansion of free stuff during the final year of his first term, the Medicaid rolls hit 90 million and 27% of the US population by 2022!

Since then, there had been a slight reduction t0 8o million recipients, as some of the pandemic era coverages expired. Yet what we had prior to the modest OBBBA reforms was a vastly bloated Medicaid safety net that had expanded way beyond its original contours. That is, after being focused for several decades narrowly on the dependent poor population receiving family assistance or SSI for the blind, disabled and elderly poor, Medicaid had been expanded since 2009 to cover fully 24% of the entire US population. That’s nearly 3X the coverage rate that most GOP legislators had been willing to rollback in 1981.

As a result, just since the turn of the century constant dollar Medicaid spending has soared from $358 billion (2024$) to $914 billion or by 2.6 X. But as the table also makes clear, the major cause of that spending explosion has been the doubling of the recipient rolls from 40 million to 80 million, even as constant dollar spending per recipient has risen by +28% per the last column below.

Total Federal/State Medicaid Spending and Recipients, 2000–2024

In short, if the TACO man again capitulates to the Dems after a few weeks of shutdown in order to keep the government open and his ratings from sagging further, it will mark a very important turning point. It will literally mean that any serious attention to the nation’s soaring public debt is likely over and done—at least through 2028; and after that point the debt/bond yield/interest expense doom loop may be too powerful for any democratic government to stop.

After all, notwithstanding the modest OBBBA cuts the Medicaid safety net is still standing mighty tall. While CBO estimated it would marginally reduce the current 80 million Medicaid roll by 11 million or so, the program would still cover 21% of the entire US population. That’s nearly 2.5X more than the 1980 level and 50% more than the pre-ObamaCare coverage ratio.

Turning to the larger picture, it is plainly evident that the UniParty has been crab-walking the nation into socialized medicine through the backdoor. And now by attempting to restore the pandemic era add-on to ObamaCare and repeal the OBBBA Medicaid cuts the Congressional Dems are attempting to ratify exactly that.

As shown in the tables below, enrollment in Federal medical insurance programs stood 49.5 million and 21.0% of the population in 1980, when Ronald Reagan came to town vowing to shrink the Welfare State, including the encroachments of socialized medical care. Alas, the Gipper and his heirs and assigns on the GOP side of the aisle whiffed, allowing the UniParty to push expansions that have now taken Federal medical insurance coverage to 165 million or damn near 50% of the US population

Enrollment In Government Medical Insurance Programs, 1980 to 2024

Needless to say, supplying 165 million American with medical care doesn’t come cheap. Back in the day when the Reagan Revolution put its sights on shrinking the Welfare State, total government spending for medical insurance programs amounted to $57.1 billion and just 2.0% of GDP.

By the time the Donald got to the Oval Office the first time he inherited a medical insurance spending tab from Obama and all the other UniParty expansions that had gone before which stood at $1.214 trillion and 6.5% of GDP. By 2020, however, the very un-Reaganite Trump Administration had presided over the rise of government medical insurance outlays to $1.501 trillion or 24% more than big spender Obama.

Needless to say, the $1.926 trillion level in place in 2024 wasn’t nearly enough for the Congressional Dems, and, actually the RINOs and UniParty Republicans who are waiting in the wings to capitulate to the Dem health care demands after a few weeks of performative whining about “runaway” spending and deficits.

That’s right. As a practical matter we are already beyond $2 trillion per year of spending for socialized medical care, and the only thing that can even modestly restrain that fiscal tidal wave is the hoped for resolve of the TACO man. And, yes, “hope” is not usually an efficacious strategy.

Government Spending For Medical Insurance, 1980 to 2024

In short, 45 years on from the abortive Reagan assault on the Welfare State, the GOP as a functioning majority has given up the fiscal ghost. Indeed, if you can’t rollback the runaway growth of socialized health care, in fact, it’s all over except the shouting.

Indeed, the GOP’s ability to slow the tide of fiscal red ink by even a tad now depends entirely on whether the Donald has the gumption to force Senator Chuckles Shumer and his legions of big spenders to blink.

It’s actually “Casey at the bat”. If Trump fails the test it will be all over except the shouting because the GOP has already mostly surrendered in the battle against the Welfare State. Here is the current 10-year baseline cost of the major Welfare State programs, and what the GOP was willing to cut at the time of OBBBA’s enactment: Namely, small nicks from Medicaid and Food Stamps, which amount to just 2% of baseline spending for these programs.

All the rest—Social Security, Medicare, ObamaCare, SSI, family assistance and school lunches and veterans benefits—have been given a hall pass by the Donald and the GOP leadership.

2026-2035 Baseline Spending for Major Welfare State Programs and Proposed GOP Cuts:

• Social Security: $21.3 trillion.
• Medicare:$16.4 trillion.
• Medicaid/ObamaCare: $10.1 trillion.
• Food Stamps: $1.1 trillion.
• Supplemental Security Income(SSI): $0.8 trillion.
• School lunches and family assistance: $0.8 trillion.
• Veterans comp and pensions: $3.2 trillion.
• Total Major Welfare State Programs: $53.7 trillion.
• GOP Medicaid cut: ($0.8 trillion).
• GOP Food Stamps cut: ($0.3 trillion).
• Total GOP Welfare cuts: ($1.1 trillion).
• GOP Welfare Cuts As % of 10-Year Baseline:-2.1%.

So these GOP two percenters are surely dreaming somewhere off in fiscal la la land. When in addition to the above Welfare State budget you further set aside $9.2 trillion for defense and $9.0 trillion for interest expense over the next decade you have $72 billion of baseline spending out of the $88 trillion 10-year total (FY 2026 to 2035) or 81% . That is to say, three months ago the GOP struggled to consolidate its ranks to pass just $1.1 trillion of cuts in a small corner of the Welfare State.

Yet even these minimal “cuts”, which amounted to exactly 1.25% of total baseline spending, are about to get shit-canned in the name of keeping the government open. Well, unless the Donald decides that the current blood sport battle with Shumer and the Dems will be good for his ratings—something that only time will tell.

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The post TACO Man at Bat appeared first on LewRockwell.

Freedom needs no justification. It is an end unto itself. You are deficient in American solidarity if you don’t stand up for non-violent protest and all speech ~ilana 

Let us be clear about what freedom of speech à la America truly means:

The words people speak, chant, write and tweet; the beliefs they are known to hold, the flags they fly or burn, the symbolic, non-violent ceremonies and rituals they enact, the insignia, paraphernalia; the goose-stepping, Hitler salutes they muck around with—provided no physical aggression is involved (violence against animals included), all this counts as protected speech, licit in natural law.

So long as oddities and idiosyncrasies, whether performed alone or in groups, thoughts harbored privately or shared in public—so long as no violence accompanies such speech or behavior; so long as your mitts stop at the next man’s face (or at the next mutt’s fury face, Kristi Noem): SPEECH. It’s all speech. It should be free, unfettered and as wild and as wanton as can be.

At their worst, expressions of ostensible antisemitism, Naziism, racisms or other antipathies amount to thought crimes, nothing more, if expressed as a belief system severally or collectively, rather than in palpably violent actions.  Whether your thoughts are spoken, chanted, written or preached; be they impolite or impolitic: they are, at worst, no more than thought crimes.

Thought crimes are nobody’s business in a free society. Thought crimes ought to be ferociously protected by a free people. By logical extension, any accusations of antisemitism, Naziism or other antipathies and racisms, are especially suspect when emitted as a meme from American institutionalized power structures.

One such obscenely wealthy and worthless power structure is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or Defamation League—a more apt moniker once suggested by Elon Musk, before he joined the ADL in severely censoring some speech on the X platform. The ADL is a meddlesome shakedown operation, in the mold of the Southern Poverty Law Center (“Smear Artists for the Total State,” wrote Tom DiLorenzo). It has taken it upon itself to decide who lives and who dies socially and financially on the basis of the unfortunate individual’s ideas, spoken and written.

In the American tradition, thoughts and words spoken or written that are politically impolite—again, racism; Naziism, antisemitism—retain protected status as speech beyond the adjudication of law-makers, bureaucrats, mediacrats, educrats and technocrats.

Sniffing out racists or anti-Semites is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting, libertarian-minded Americans, or any American, for that matter. Like creedal libertarians, Americans don’t, or should not, prosecute thought crimes or persecute thought “criminals.”

Ours should be The Skokie Standard of free speech and thinking (which I articulated in August 2022). What is The Skokie Standard of free speech? In 1978, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took a stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The Skokie Standard of free speech is one that champions unpopular expression, and vigorously defends all marginalized speakers and thinkers, rather than purveying and protecting state and corporate ideology du jour.

Let me repeat what the Skokie Standard of free speech stands for here: However which way they are grouped, the words people individually or collectively speak, chant, write and tweet; the beliefs they are known to hold, the flags they fly or stomp, the symbolic, non-violent ceremonies, rituals and protests they perform; the insignia, paraphernalia, the goose-stepping, Hitler salutes they dick around with—provided no physical aggression is involved, all that counts as protected speech.

Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, RIP, got it. On May 2, 2024, Kirk wrote the following: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi doesn’t get it. No wonder even Glenn Greenwald, once a practicing constitutional attorney—and a man of manners and decorum—regularly appends “dumb” and “lacking any grasp of constitutional law” to any mention of Bondi, who said this after Kirk’s murder:

The Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech… There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — [for that] in our society,” Bondi told a podcaster likewise cerebrally compromised.

If you thought the nation’s chief law enforcement officer had blurted out on an impulse such promises of unconstitutional hate-speech prosecutions; I’m sorry to say that Bondi only doubled down. In scant regard for the letter and spirit of American constitutional law, she advised employers, on September 15, of their “obligation to get rid of people who are saying horrible things.”

While “The First Amendment doesn’t stop private employers from choosing to fire people for speech; it can be illegal for the government to use its power to pressure a private company into firing a staff member.” In America, not even do celebrations of Kirk’s assassination count as threats of violence or incitement to violence. In fact, “government retribution for speech,” lambasted U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, “is directly forbidden by the First Amendment.”

For our libertarian purposes, moreover, speech should never be defended by deploying a contents-driven defense, such as that a book, an utterance or their author must be spared on account that the person is good and his words are not racist and are against bigotry.

The Argument from Freedom means arguing process, not content. Racism, (alleged) antisemitism or Naziism in targeted literature or in protests should always and everywhere be a peripheral issue. Or, preferably, no issue at all.

The Argument from Freedom means arguing not over the contents of publications like Mein Kampf or the merit of protests for Palestine, but for their publication and practice irrespective of their contents. Which is why I say freedom’s argument is an argument from process, not content.

Freedom makes the case for an unfettered free market in ideas, good and bad. Freedom argues for politically impolite books to be published and read freely. It demands that all offensive literature be available to the free men and women who inhabit the free society. And not because of history; so that we don’t forget it or repeat it. Rather, freedom needs no justification. It is an end unto itself. You are deficient in American solidarity if you don’t stand up for non-violent protest and all speech.

Liberty is a simple thing. It’s the unassailable right to shout, flail your arms, and verbally provoke people in power, unmolested. Tyranny is when those small things can get you assaulted, incarcerated, injured, deported, even killed.

Ultimately banning books or proscribing speech and speakers as the kangaroo courts of Britain, Europe and Canada do legally, assumes a lack of choice and agency among ostensibly “free” human beings. It’s also predicated on the acceptance of a higher authority which decides for the rest of us which cultural products are fit for our consumption.

I thus put it to you, dear reader, left and right, that speech restrictions stateside in the form of the Antisemitism Awareness Act mirror the worst of British and western Europe’s anti-speech tribunals. Tabled by a Republican and a Democrat, S. 4127, which mercifully is still in committee, would embed state agitprop throughout American education. For posterity. Aside being in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Antisemitism Awareness Act would utterly enervate discourse in our country and criminalize vast tracts of speech as well as proscribe actions that are licit in constitutional and natural law.

Left, Right and libertarian; we can and must, then, join in unapologetically rejecting the very idea of policing, purging, persecuting or prosecuting people for holding and expressing politically unpopular ideas in action or in speech.

The post Free Speech After Charlie Kirk: an American Lesson for Pam Bondi, Donlad Trump & Netanyahu appeared first on LewRockwell.

It all begins with the brain.

Humans are smarter than other primates because we have bigger heads and bigger brains.  Having big heads means that human babies must be born while the head size is small enough to pass through the birth canal of the mother without rupture, and the resultant baby is consequently small and totally incapable of surviving without constant and complete outside care and protection.   That in turn means that both parents, and often grandparents, must tend to the child night and day for at least the first few years and often longer.  That in turn means a pair-bonding unit together long enough to tend to the child’s needs, and thus the creation of the family, a social feature that no other creature has evolved to the extent we have, not even chimpanzees, our closest relatives among primates.

The family, then, is the social unit that makes us the most successful mammal ever created.  To it we owe our primacy in stable, coherent communities and in larger units such as tribes and nations.

Why then are we allowing it to collapse?

Throughout the civilized world human populations are decreasing. The replacement rate for almost all developed societies is inadequate. The world birth rate has decreased dramatically from 37.8 per 1,000 women to 32.6 in 1970 and then 17.5 in 2020, 17.3 in 2025.  In America the birth rate has declined from 24.8 in1950 to 18.4 in 1970 and 10.9 in 2020 and 10.7 in 2025.  Most people do not want families, or any but small families.  Add to this the decline in people who are even getting married, which has declined worldwide for the last 50 years and is down to under 5 marriages per 1000 people in developed countries; in the U.S. from 8.2 per thousand in 2000 to 6.8 in 2010 and 6.1 in 2023, the lowest ever recorded.

The family, in short, is disappearing.

It might not be necessary to name a culprit, but one glaring party stands out: the state.  It has always been in the interest of the state to diminish any other sources of power in society so as to strengthen its own.  The parish, the guild, the prince or margrave, these have all been relegated to minor roles as central authority has increased, and the welfare/warfare state of the 21st century is the apex of this enlargement. The family, too, has become less influential in daily affairs as politicians and bureaucrats intrude, and what the extended family, local church, and father’s union used to provide in times of need is now the province of the state.

In the U.S. there are now 95 government programs giving subsidies in food, health, housing, and other benefits to poorer households, amounting to the equivalent of some $135,000 a year for a family of four in 2023, so that the father’s role as central provider is entirely displaced and indeed the father comes to have to particular role in the family’s well-being at all.

With all that it is no surprise that since the War on Poverty began in 1965 with the state’s takeover of family earnings, the percentage of households in the labor force has dropped by half, from 70 to 36 per cent, meaning that the parents of at least a fifth of the nation don’t even have to get out of bed.

Obviously without fathers children can easily drift to crime, and the correlation between fatherless boys and illegality is nearly absolute. But the effect on many other aspects of society is also palpable and deplorable, and there is no sign that this is going to change with a Trumpian anti-crime government in charge.

I’ve said for some time that Western civilization is collapsing. The dolorous status of the family nowadays, that most basic unit in primate superiority, is proof of its immediacy.

The post Is the Family Collapsing? appeared first on LewRockwell.