Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:39:26 GMT Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:39:26 GMT 'Shut Up, Man!' Dissecting The Trump-Biden Circus Daniel McAdams
]]> Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:39:26 GMT
Ron Paul Remains Unstoppable Jeff Deist

When Dr. Ron Paul suffered a health scare during his live Liberty Report show last Friday, I was perhaps less worried than most of his friends, family, and fans. His remarkable vitality, vigor, and energy are well known to those around him, along with his penchant for exercise, clean living, and light eating. Having known him thirty years, I simply had no recollection of him ever being sick or out of commission. This is a man who had never missed a day of work or an event, at least in my memory. In my mind he was simply always there, a fixed feature of life. So my immediate reaction was to think he would be fine.

As it turns out, he is fine. Even unstoppable.

In Dr. Paul's congressional office during the early 2000s, his mostly Generation X staff joked about how Ron would bury us someday despite being several decades older. Now that we're in our fifties, the joke hits a bit closer to home! But we were all familiar with his relentless nature. His pace was legendary: waking early, printing articles to read, gathering newspapers, putting together his busy schedule for the day, and preparing for votes.

It was always tough to keep up with him, literally, legging around Capitol Hill to hearings, media hits, or finalizing details for one of his infamous "special order" speeches at the end of the congressional day. Ron bid for our office in the Cannon House building primarily for its proximity to the Capitol building itself, so he'd spend the least amount of time "commuting." When he needed knee replacements there was no question about doing both the same day, over the congressional Christmas break. Always true to form, he was up and about almost immediately and eschewed even over-the-counter pain medication.

He was always moving, and absolutely hated to wait. His years as a busy obstetrician, with babies arriving at all hours of the night in far-flung rural Texas hospitals, certainly served him well when it came to the less serious job of Congress—with its late night votes and sudden schedule changes. Unlike medicine, however, the work of Congress is defined by motion rather than action. And unlike many of his colleagues, when the votes ended Ron headed back to his nondescript condo in Alexandria. There were no DC steakhouse dinners with lobbyists, no Capitol Hill bars and nightlife, and certainly none of the fleshy graft which ensnared so many pols over the years.

Dr. Paul's energy spills over into his life at home, where he is always busy walking, biking, swimming, tending to his prized tomatoes, and hosting a steady stream of family and guests. His "retirement" from Congress at the end of 2012 finds him producing five live Liberty Report episodes with his cohost, Daniel McAdams, every week, along with writing, public speaking, and media appearances. But he is much happier without the dreadful weekly slog back and forth to Bush Intercontinental Airport on the far side of Houston, along with the infuriating kabuki theater known as TSA. His family life is no doubt much improved.

Speaking of family, Ron and his wife, Carol (née Wells), stand atop a pyramid of children (five, with three MDs), nineteen grandchildren, and ten (for now) great-grandchildren. The Pauls have been married sixty-three years; their children have been married 167 years combined! Family, more than anything he has done in medicine or politics, will be Dr. Paul's lasting legacy.

But there were a lot of nights and weekends away from that family over the years, starting all the way back in the 1970s. So a bit of history is in order. Today happens to be the birthday of Ludwig von Mises, who played a brief but important role in the Ron Paul story. Nixon cut off gold convertibility by foreign central banks in 1971, and the alarmed young obstetrician began reading everything he could on money and inflation—including Mises. A year later, Dr. Paul managed to get away from his busy medical practice for a day to hear the great man speak at the nearby University of Houston. That talk, titled "Why Socialism Always Fails" (listen here!), made a deep impression on Ron. He knew he had to do something.

That "something" took form in his decision to run for Congress in 1974. And in a very real sense Dr. Paul is the only Misesian ever to serve in Congress. 

His first stint in the US House only deepened his concerns about the monetary system, and in 1984 he took the gambit of giving up his seat to run against Phil Gramm for US Senate. Gramm prevailed, but Ron returned home to his medical practice determined to remain active. He became involved in the precious metals community, began building contacts, and ultimately became the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988. 

Those involved with that presidential campaign, including Lew Rockwell and the late Kent Snyder, can tell you it was no luxurious affair. With no internet, mobile phones, email, or social media, campaign events were hit or miss. Local newsletters and bulletin boards were the only source of information, and media appearances were distinctly "earned" in those days. Often a supporter in a beat-up car was the only campaign contact in any city, after long flights on cheap Southwest. Small groups of twenty or thirty people would meet at someone's home or a local diner, hear Ron speak, and pass the hat for travel funds. It was a shoestring of a campaign, and hardly energizing or optimistic. But Ron persevered, knowing his efforts would bear fruit someday.1

So the "famous" Ron Paul of 2012—who spoke to five thousand students at Berkeley, raised $30 million, and appeared in CNN debates—first spent years away from his family and his medical practice. 

He return to the House of Representative in the 1990s was both helped and hindered by his identification as a libertarian. His extensive contacts and earlier time in Congress gave him a fundraising base and name recognition, but also earned him the ire of the GOP. Upon informing Republican leaders of his intention to run for Congress again, and suggesting he could win the south Texas seat from a sitting Democrat, the party swung into action against him. His by then well-known antiwar and anti-Fed views alarmed them, and his departure from the party in 1988 angered them. So Newt Gingrich, the powerful speaker of the House, convinced that Democrat (Greg Laughlin) to switch parties by promising him a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Dr. Paul thus found himself in a primary race against the sitting Congressman he intended to face in the general election. But Ron knew the district, and campaigned effectively against the outsiders trying to dictate who would hold the seat—especially Newt Gingrich, who blundered by flying to Texas for a Laughlin event. Meanwhile, then governor George W. Bush and his chief of staff Karl Rove were working behind the scenes to help Laughlin as well, but to no avail. When Ron won the primary, they called him over to the statehouse in Austin to offer both their surprise and their congratulations.

His Democratic opponent in the general election, a trial lawyer named Charles "Lefty" Morris, attempted to paint Ron's position on the drug war as irresponsible and crazy. But Ron's campaign responded with an ad showing the mild-mannered doctor in his medical coat, the down-to-earth trusted physician who had delivered thousands of babies across the congressional district. His personal reputation for sobriety, as a family man deeply involved in his community, blunted the political hits—which is of course an important lesson in itself.

But even winning the general election in 1996 did not endear the GOP to Dr. Paul. Congressional leaders took the almost unprecedented step of disregarding his earlier time in Congress for purposes of seniority. Undaunted, Ron requested and received a seat on the Banking committee, considered a boring backwater. Little did they know that the Enron scandal and the Arthur Andersen collapse a few years later would make the newly christened "Financial Services" Committee one of the most sought after. (Why? Remember the Sarbanes-Oxley bill regulating public companies, and all the lobbying surrounding it? Imagine the postcongressional career riches!) And little did they know that the Greenspan-Bernanke economy would implode about a decade later, making monetary policy a hot issue and presenting Dr Paul with numerous chances to grill both men at committee hearings. 

Ultimately, he was awarded his delayed but rightful chairmanship of an important monetary policy subcommittee in 2010. Not surprisingly, Ron immediately turned the opportunity into a teachable moment—inviting Austrian economists as witnesses and luncheon speakers, and creating a truly intellectual atmosphere for interested members and staffers who had started to question the status quo.

It was a brief but glorious time, where Mises finally had a voice in Congress. 

Dr. Paul's other committee, Foreign Affairs, dovetailed perfectly with his warnings about monetary policy. Ron was able to make the connection between central banking and war finance, and also press Congress for a full-fledged declaration of war before invading Iraq in 2003. Here he built the foundation for a crossover antiwar coalition, and gave his most impassioned arguments against war, the ultimate form of expansionary state power. It was here he opposed American quagmires in the Middle East, setting the stage for his 2008 and 2012 campaigns. And it was in the Foreign Affairs Committee that he cemented his reputation as the greatest peace advocate in Congress for decades.

Despite his troubles with congressional leaders, Dr. Paul had many personal friends in Congress. He was well-liked and respected by most. His great friend, the late Walter Jones, stands out as someone who took Ron's antiwar message to heart. Jones's district contained the huge Army base Ft. Bragg, and in part due to Ron's influence, he came out strongly against the war in Iraq. He attended many military funerals and comforted many spouses, in some part thanks to the humility he saw in Ron. The great Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee also was a close friend, talking to Ron about reading articles by "Jus-tin Ray-mon-duh" in his distinct Southern drawl. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, chair of the Financial Services Committee during the crash of '07, told the entire House Republican caucus that "Ron Paul was right" in his predictions of housing and equity bubbles. Barney Franks of Massachusetts was always cordial and ready to collaborate, as was the great peace advocate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

The outpouring of love and affection shown to Dr. Paul last week after his incident shows the degree to which his revolution lives on. Ideas matter, but they are worthless without good people to advance and personify them. Dr. Paul is loved because he is genuine, a quality in short supply today. A quality which cannot be bought, borrowed, summoned, or faked. It's a quality our dangerously politicized country needs, in spades.

Ron Paul seems unstoppable, but of course that is true of no mortal. He gave us, and continues to give us, a genuine alternative vision for a nonpolitical world.

But who will take his place?


1. Perversely, some libertarians of various stripes would turn on Dr. Paul later in his career. The Libertarian Party itself is today hostile to the Ron Paul revolution; its members seek to drive his influence and memory from party ranks. During Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, DC-based Reason magazine published a bizarre article based on a smear job from a discredited neoconservative hostile to Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy views. This article attempted to portray the doctor as "racist" based on decades-old newletters which contained untoward statements about blacks in Los Angeles following the Rodney King riots—despite members of Reason's staff knowing Paul personally as anything but a racist. Other DC organizations like the Cato Institute also pursued this puzzling line of inquiry.

Reprinted with permission from]]> Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:48:30 GMT
Face Mask are the Mob's Dumbo’s Feather Jeff Harris

I remember watching Walt Disney’s film Dumbo’s Feather as a kid. Released in 1941 the story is about a cute baby elephant born with huge ears and forced to perform as a Circus clown. Dumbo is befriended by a mouse who confidently proclaims Dumbo can use his big ears to fly if he will only hold a magic feather in his trunk.

Leaping off the high-dive platform with his magic feather Dumbo indeed flies! But he soon discovers the feather isn’t magic at all because he could fly without it.

So what does this have to do with the mobs obedient wearing of face mask to ward off the “deadly” Covid virus? You know, that deadly virus that is so incredibly virulent that according to the CDC 99.8% of those exposed to it survive?  

It’s true, I’m not a psychiatrist, I don’t even play one on TV. I’m throwing this out there as a kind of thought experiment for your consideration. The mask mandates have been in force for about six months. Instead of giving ostensibly “free” people the option of choosing to wear face mask of their own volition (as in Sweden) the politicians totally ignored citizen’s rights and ordered lockdowns, social distancing, sheltering in place, and the public humiliation of worthless face masks.

Now you don’t have to be a psychiatrist to simply observe the behavior of the masses. At least in my neck of the woods virtually everyone in public places is obediently wearing a face mask. We were initially told this was to “flatten the curve” and would only be necessary for a few weeks.

But somehow, those few weeks have been extended and extended by power mad governors and mayors into six long months. Interestingly the CDC, WHO and other “experts” proclaimed people shouldn’t wear face masks early on, but then bizarrely changed their minds all of a sudden?

Back to Dumbo

So what does this have to do with Dumbo’s Feather? Well think about it. Human beings are a superstitious lot and made more so when the mainstream media pumps 24/7 fear porn about an invisible “deadly virus” that is all around us! “Millions will die if they don’t obey the expert’s guidance!”

It stands to reason that for many people who’ve obediently worn their face masks and haven’t gotten sick, they could easily assume the mask is their “magic feather” that’s protecting them and saving their very lives! “See, I’ve been wearing my mask and haven’t gotten sick; it must work!”

Just like a lucky rabbit’s foot, or a four leaf clover tucked in one’s pocket, I suspect face masks have become a psychological crutch for the masses. This is psychological terrorism by government criminals! Human’s forced to endure extended traumatic experiences are much easier to manage as was discovered by government scientist back in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Omnipresent, debilitating fear is the primary tool governments use to control the masses. The mask is a highly valuable tool in the fear arsenal as it’s a ubiquitous, visual reminder that death lurks all around us! “Don’t take any chances, wear your mask, obey the rules, do what you’re told and everything will be OK.”

That’s the message. After all, these government folks are only interested in what’s best for us, right? Well no, they do NOT have our best interests at heart, only their power, control and the wealth they can wring out of us.

H. L. Mencken, the witty American Journalist hit the nail on the head over half a century ago:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

I suspect that even if by some miracle the “authorities” suddenly announced Covid was contained and we could return to normal life, millions would willingly continue wearing their mask. When humans have been deeply traumatized by fear of an untimely death they don’t get over it quickly.

The scars are deep and for many will never heal. How ironic that the mask is not only a visual cue to remain fearful but also a beacon of hope for those who equate it with their avoiding illness to date; their magic Dumbo’s Feather.

In a free country one gets to choose for themselves if they want to wear a mask, stay home, stop working, quit attending church or take baths in bleach water for that matter! So is the USA a free country; I think not! I will not comply!]]> Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:38:19 GMT
So Much for Income Tax Privacy Jacob G. Hornberger

How many times have we been told that the information we send to the Internal Revenue Service in our federal income tax returns is guaranteed to be kept confidential?

So much for that myth, as President Trump can now attest. The New York Times somehow secured a copy of Trump’s income tax returns and is excitedly telling the world what they contain.

One thing is for sure: If the president of the United States can’t keep his income tax returns private, no one else can either.

From the very start of Trump’s quest for the presidency, the mainstream press has been obsessed with getting its hands on his tax returns. And from the very start, Trump refused to disclose them, which he has every right to do.

Trump took the position that his tax returns were none of anyone’s business. And he was right. HIs tax returns fell within his right of personal privacy. If people chose not to vote for him because of his refusal to disclose his tax returns, so be it. That would be their right. But that possibility didn’t abrogate Trump’s right of privacy.

Obviously, Trump’s position did not prevent him from winning the presidency. HIs tax returns were just not that important to millions of people who voted for him.

The New York Times’ decision to disclose Trump’s income tax returns reminds us of what a horrific disaster the adoption of the federal income tax was. Just think: For more than 125 years, Americans lived without a federal income tax. Everyone was free to keep everything he earned and decide for himself what to do with it.

During that time, the editorial board and reporters for the New York Times and other mainstream papers were not having conniption fits over the refusal of presidential candidates to reveal their income tax returns because, well, there were no income tax returns, given that there was no federal income tax.

One of the big reasons the Framers favored indirect taxes over direct taxes was that indirect taxes didn’t have the enormous intrusiveness into privacy that comes with direct taxes. If the Framers had proposed a federal income tax in the Constitution, there is no possibility that our American ancestors would have approved the Constitution and the federal government. Don’t forget, after all, that under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, the federal government had not been given the power to tax at all.

The Times and other mainstream papers are making a big deal out of Trump’s use of tax deductions and other tax-avoidance provisions of the massively thick IRS Code to avoid paying taxes. They are implying that he’s unpatriotic for not helping fund the welfare-warfare state that the income tax funds.

That’s ridiculous. It might be hypocritical given Trump’s ardent support for the welfare-welfare state but it’s certainly not unpatriotic to employ every tax avoidance provision in the book. After all, I’ll bet that the members of the Times’ editorial board and its big team of reporters and columnists do the same thing. They are just upset that they don’t do it as well as Trump.

I must say that I do find it ironic that while the mainstream press is celebrating the disclosure of Trump’s private tax returns, it is also failing to come to the defense of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, the men who disclosed the truth about the U.S. national security state to the world. In today’s topsy turvy world, it’s considered okay to violate the privacy of American citizens by publicly disclosing their income tax returns to the world. At the same time, it’s considered a grave crime to disclose the truth about the dark and sordid activities of the national security state that the income tax funds.

The best thing the American people could ever do is restore America’s founding principle of an income-tax free society and to repeal the dark and sordid welfare-welfare things that it funds.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:23:18 GMT
What We WON'T Hear In Tonight's Debate Daniel McAdams
]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:45:13 GMT
Wisconsin Student Newspaper Fires Columnist After Writing Column Opposing The Defunding Of Police Jonathan Turley

We have been discussing a crackdown on some campuses against conservative columnists and newspapers, including the firing of a conservative student columnist at Syracuse, the public condemnation of a student columnist at Georgetown, and a campaign against one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country at Dartmouth. Now, The Badger Herald, a student newspaper at the University of Wisconsin Madison, has dismissed columnist Tripp Grebe after he wrote a column opposing the defunding of police departments. What was equally disturbing was how the rationale for this raw act of viewpoint intolerance tracked the rationale used by the New York Times in a controversy over the column by Sen. Tom Cotton on the George Floyd protests.

The College Fix republished the column by Grebe, which is a well-written article that begins with a strong statement against police brutality and the need for society to address the underlying issues:
The recent murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police, and the riots and protests that have followed, have forged an essential discussion on police brutality that has been long in the making. In the past, many of us have responded to publicized incidents of police brutality by giving officers the benefit of the doubt because we believe that the other side of the story will justify their actions. We must now reckon that the “other side of the story” does not always absolve police officers’ of wrongdoing. For the first time, many of us now stare directly into the eyes of police brutality’s harsh existence, the same existence that Black people have known to be true their entire lives.

The reignition of the Black Lives Matter movement was undoubtedly justifiable, expected, and necessary in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. As the movement gains steam, it forces us to have difficult conversations and continue to stare into the eyes of police brutality’s existence.
However, Grebe disagrees (as do most Americans) with the “defund the police” movement. Indeed, recently Minneapolis City Council members have started to qualify their controversial pledge to defund the police due to a rise in crime and citizen unease.The column suggests other ways to reform the police while supporting officers. He views the move to defund as illogical: “If we’re expecting police officers to be better, why would we be taking money away from them? When schools are failing, we don’t ‘Defund Schools,’ we give them more money and implement new plans to ensure their success.”

Clearly people of good faith can disagree on these points. However, this is precisely the type of dialogue that is missing in today’s environment, including in our discussion of racism.

After he filed his column, Herald’s opinion editor Samiha Bhushan contacted Grebe via email in late August and said that, while the piece was “well written,” it was “too much of a hot take.” The email, posted on the conservative site YAF, said that the editors were worried it could “alienate” incoming freshmen and, “[a]dditionally, we just posted an editorial board supporting BLM and another article publicly endorsing two candidates who want to defund the police. As a result, your article would cause a lot of backlash that we cannot afford right now.”

There was a time when editors would be ashamed to even suggest pulling a piece in fear of the “backlash” or response of critics. Student newspapers have long been bastions of free speech. In the 1960s, they challenged conservative views on faculties and in society. Now however they openly acknowledge the need to adhere to a more liberal viewpoint.

The Badger Herald was actually created to offer an alternative conservative perspective on the campus with financial support from William F. Buckley

Later the editors changed their rationale to refusing to publish and said that the column was not “accurately and relevantly sourced.”Grebe’s article contained roughly 20 different sources from news outlets such as CBS News, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the National Economic Bureau. I cannot see the basis for such an objection to this opinion piece, particularly given other pieces previously published by the newspaper. For example, columnist Samiha Bhushan wrote an article from the opposing viewpoint which was published and rightly so. There did not appear to be a problem with sourcing her conclusions about the total lack of accountability by police. Both pieces are valuable viewpoints.

Badger Herald Editor in Chief Harrison Freuk insisted that the real reason is “inaccurate/irrelevant information” without explaining what was inaccurate or irrelevant. The newspaper also fired Grebe as a columnist. He cited Grebe’s conduct after his column was pulled and made direct reference to the fact that the newspaper had been contacted by the university after a complaint to a conservative student group.

Notably, the newspaper recently published a piece by student Ken Wang entitled “How Wisconsin can begin to reform its law enforcement.” It is also well-written and insightful. It argues that it may be time to defund police:
Another important option to explore is defunding the police. Defunding the police would not mean we wouldn’t have police at all. It means reallocating funds from the police department to healthcare, education, social welfare and other community resources.

When asked what defunding the police would look like, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, said “it looks like a suburb … affluent white communities already live in a world where they choose to fund youth, health, housing … more than they fund the police.”
That is a valid assertion. It is no more “sourced” than Grebe’s column. It also explores other means of changing police practices and conduct. Again, it offers an interesting perspective like Grebe’s column . . . but Grebe’s perspective was never published.

The belated sourcing rationale appears ripped from the pages of the New York Times. When Sen. Tom Cotton published an opinion column calling for the use of national guard troops to quell rioting in Washington, he cited a long history in the deployment of such troops by Democratic and Republican presidents. The column was factually correct. However, journalists denounced the column and the protest ultimately led to the removal of the editor as well as a cringing apology of the Times. Notably, the newspaper claimed the same unexplained inaccuracies or errors in the column. It never bothered to respond to some of us who noted that, while we disagreed with Cotton on the policy, the column contained a fair accounting of the history of the use of the underlying law.

New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was one of the journalists who pushed the New York Times to denounce its own publication and promise to curtail columns in the future. In so doing, she railed against those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. Hannah-Jones however later tweeted out an utterly absurd anti-police conspiracy that lacked any factual support. She suggested that the destruction by protesters was actually the work of the police. That type of ridiculous claim (later deleted) by Hannah-Jones did not lead to a call for her resignation or any statement of condemnation from the newspaper or her colleagues.

The student editors of the Badger Herald appear to have learned well from the New York Times. They censored a conservative columnist by claiming undefined inaccuracies and sourcing issues. They are well suited for the new media as professors denounce the very concept of objectivity and call for reporters to pursue open advocacy in their coverage.

The Grebe and Bhushan columns offered precisely the type of opposing views that schools should welcome on a campus. They represent the diversity of thought that is essential to the intellectual mission of higher education. Yet, only one of those columns was published and the other columnist was fired. This does not bode well for the profession. I have been a columnist and an academic for decades and I have never seen the level of raw bias and intolerance on our campuses and in our newsrooms. We are living in the age of orthodoxy and the threat to free speech and the free press seems to grow exponentially by the day.

Reprinted with permission from]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:05:00 GMT
CDC Comes Clean: New Fatality Rate Is A Shocker! Daniel McAdams
]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:52:50 GMT
Will a Military Coup Undo the November Elections, Donald Trump and the Republic Itself? Matthew Ehret

On March 20, I published an article called Why Assume There will be a 2020 Election? where I laid out the existential threat of a new Wall Street military Coup which would not only render elections obsolete, but would impose a new fascist hell onto America and the world.

In that article I discussed the importance of General Smedley Butler’s strategic decision to expose the Wall Street plot to overthrow the newly elected president Franklin Roosevelt who was in the midst of waging a war on both Wall Street, the City of London and the chaos these financiers engineered during the great depression. Butler’s congressional testimony put the spotlight on these shadow creatures and gave FDR the breathing space and public supported needed to wage war on America’s deep state while pushing a bold healing of the nation under the New Deal.

That article was followed by a sequel on April 3 entitled Standing on the Precipice of Martial Law which featured the story of John F Kennedy’s battles with the London-directed Deep State and Military Industrial Complex in depth and also how JFK worked closely with the film maker John Frankenheimer to expose these intrigues to the American people by turning the book 7 Days in May into a film (unfortunately released only after other means were found to depose of the president). That article also dealt with the various PNAC-affiliated “planning scenarios” run over a year before September 11, 2001 which established the groundwork for a new type of Coup d’état within America with Cheney’s Continuity of Government protocols, the vast expansion of biowarfare infrastructure under the Bio-Shield Act, regime change wars abroad and police state measures within America itself.

The Trump Factor

After years of ongoing deep state penetration of the USA since JFK’s murder, a surprising nationalist dark horse president found himself in the Oval Office in the form of Donald Trump and just two months away from the 2020 elections, the threat of a new Military Coup organized by international financiers is as high as ever.

In his Labor Day press conference, Trump, who has distinguished himself as the first president since Eisenhower to call out the “military industrial complex” threw down the gauntlet saying:

“Biden … sent our youth off to fight in these crazy endless wars. It’s one of the reasons the military— I’m not saying the military is in love with me; the soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars…. And I said, ‘That’s good. Let’s bring our soldiers back home. Some people don’t like to come home. Some people like to continue to spend money.’ One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, and that’s what it was.”

This statement should be taken both as a rallying call for patriots to use what is possibly their last chance to save the collapsing republic and avoiding world war three.

On September 5, Colonel Richard Black (Former State Senator and Judge Advocate) delivered a presentation at a Schiller Institute seminar where the colonel warned of the interconnected pattern of statements by former high ranking military officials either openly calling for a military coup (Lt. Colonels Paul Yingling and John Nagl on August 11) or celebrating the anarchist mobs threatening to tear the republic apart. To the latter group, Col. Black named former Defense Secretary James Mattis, Colin Powell, and Col. John Allen who have all questioned the authority of the President and touted their belief that Trump would not leave the White House willingly in January 2021. The actual source for those concerns didn’t come from any actual evidence obtained from reality however, but in fact arose out of “November chaos scenario war games” advanced by Soros/Clinton/Neocon-affiliated think tanks like the Transition Integrity Project which ran Event 201-like “fictional” scenario “war games”.

In one of the June TIP scenarios, Trump wins the popular November vote by a landslide, but due to the slow influx of mail-in ballots, it is soon revealed that Biden is the winner, whereby Trump supposedly locks the doors of the White House refusing to leave. In the TIP “game”, Biden was played by none other than John Podesta. These scenarios were again replayed more recently by a DNC-connected outfit named Hawkfish funded by Michael Bloomberg which was covered on Axios running a more detailed version of this computer model called “Red Mirage”.

Warning of a military coup, Col. Black stated “The coordinated release of scathing remarks by senior officials coupled with publication of a letter advocating a military coup suggests a deep sickness within the Pentagon and within our constitutional structure.”

As RT reported, between 2008-2018, 380 high ranking pentagon officials have been hired by defense contractors including 25 generals, 9 admirals, 43 Lieutenant Generals and 23 Vice Admirals… which provides just one sampling of the potential for treachery prevalent within the sick constitutional structure.

Other Soros-affiliated operations have sprung forth on multiple fronts to ensure maximum instability leading up to the elections. Beyond the obvious anarchy operations within the streets of America itself, a Canadian-based Soros-funded anarchist group called the Adbusters/Blackspot Collective which claims credit for coordinating Occupy Wall Street in 2010 has unleashed a 60-day “Lay Siege to the White House” offensive beginning on September 17. The British-Canadian pedigree of this act represents a long-standing tradition of anti-US operations stretching back to the Aaron Burr plot of “northern secession” with Canada in 1804, the Montreal-directed assassinations of Abraham Lincoln AND John Kennedy to name but a few.

As Whitney Webb pointed out in her excellent assessment of this operation: “other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post), Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).”

As Webb lays out in her article and as I documented in my April 2020 ‘Standing on the Precipice of Martial Law’, the new “Continuity of Government” protocols created in February to deal with the inevitable breakdown of America’s governing mechanisms under COVID pandemonium are very much still in effect. A parallel chain of command under jarhead war hawk General Terrance O’Shaughnessy (head of both NORTHCOM and NORAD) has been established and members of that parallel government await the moment to come forth in bunkers 650 meters under a mountain in Cheyenne, Colorado to “wait out the COVID-19 crisis”.

Traitors tied to the Military Industrial Complex, and other NATO-phile unipolarist ideologues among the military are undoubtedly itching for action, and unless extraordinarily creative and speedy maneuvers can be accomplished by Trump and his trusted allies (who number few and far between) in tandem with his potential allies among the Multipolar Alliance, then all hope for the republic, and global war avoidance more broadly may be lost.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:34:31 GMT
Emancipation From Lockdown in Florida Jeffrey A. Tucker undefined

Governor Ron DeSantis has proven it: it is actually possible for a politician to wise up and do the right thing. In a sweeping order announced September 25, the governor has opened up the entire economy. He has even limited the ability of local governments to impose more restrictions and collect fines for mask violations. 

Inevitably, the announcement was decried by the lockdowners, even though, as the governor pointed out:

- Covid+ hospitalizations have declined by 77% since the July peak. 

- Covid+ ICU hospitalizations have declined 72% since the July peak. 

- ED visits for Covid-like illness have declined by nearly 80% since the July peak.

- Daily hospital admissions for Covid have declined by 81% since the July peak. 

- The percentage of positive diagnostic test results for new cases was reported at 4.32%. 

- 24% of hospital beds are empty; so are 23% of ICU beds.

Most impressively, the governor did this despite a trend in deaths that does not look particularly great. For this he is being blasted but it misses the point entirely. His actions were particularly brave, bold, and wise precisely because he didn’t wait for some magic turning point in the data to permit Floridians to exercise the rights and freedoms. 


DeSantis came to the realization – as everyone should – that these freedom-crushing measures were not actually addressing the medical problem. The best hope for prevailing in a viral pandemic is the normal functioning of society so that the disease can be treated therapeutically rather than coercively. 

That statement strikes me as incredibly obvious. But for politicians who imposed lockdowns, it’s a hard realization. They fear that opening up will just make them look stupid for having locked down in the first place. Many politicians around the country are keeping restrictions in place – despite no shred of evidence that they are saving lives – simply to save face. It’s become an exercise in ego management at this point. 

The frustration in the governor’s voice was apparent in his press conference announcing the dramatic change. He spoke about how it was supposed to be two weeks to flatten the curve. Then it became 30 days. He didn’t specifically apologize for going along with all the gibberish back in the day but it did cast some serious doubt on whether any of this had ever been necessary.

He was later interviewed on the torrent of criticism. You can see that he has mastered the medical facts here, very much under the influence of some serious people who are calling for an immediate opening and a much wiser policy. 

And here is the text of the executive order. 

Very crucially, what made the difference here were three (at least) important academics: Michael Levitt of Stanford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford. They along with Sunetra Gupta (and Scott Atlas) have been intellectual leaders against the lockdown mania. The governor held an event in which these epidemiologists testified about the virus and the cruelty of lockdowns. 

Keep in mind that these intellectuals could easily have sat on the sidelines. They have tenure. They have prestige. They are comfortable. But watching the tremendous confusion sewn by bad policy, disease panic, and confused experts such as Anthony Fauci caused them to go public with their own expertise. Their efforts broke the opinion monopoly and caused some much-needed rethinking. 

In other words, what they did required moral courage. And they have all paid a high price for doing so. In this highly politicized environment they have been accused (like Scott Atlas) of doing the bidding of the Trump administration, which is utterly ridiculous. Most serious scientists are apolitical or lean left. And this speaks to the true tragedy of our times: we imposed a political solution on a medical problem and ended up creating a tremendous mess. Now trying to unravel that fake solution and pursue rational approaches is itself bound up in a political thicket. 

In any case, today is a day for celebration. Under the influence of some courageous and brilliant intellectuals with a conscience, Florida has joined South Dakota and Indiana in the land of the living. Governor DeSantis has shown that it can be done, and that not all is lost.

Reprinted with permission from the American Institute for Economics Research.

]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:10:45 GMT
Question 'The Science'? Go To Gulag! Ron Paul

In the Soviet Union it was forbidden to dispute the wisdom of the “party line.” That’s because Marxian communism was viewed as the scientifically inevitable progression of mankind. For Marx and Lenin, the “science was settled.” Therefore anyone speaking out against “the science” of the Soviet system must be acting with malice; must actually want destruction; must want people to die.

Anyone voicing opposition to the “settled science” of Marxism-Leninism soon found their voice silenced. Oftentimes permanently.

Ironically, just 30 years after the “science” of Marxism-Leninism imploded for all the world to see, we are witnessing a resurgence here in the US of the idea that to question “the science” is not to seek truth or refine understanding of what appears to be conflicting evidence. No, it is to actually wish harm on one’s fellow Americans.

And while we who question “the science” are not being physically carried off to the gulags for disputing the wisdom of our “betters” in the CDC or the World Health Organization, for example, we are finding that the outcome is the same. We are being silenced and accused of malicious intent. The Soviet Communists called dissidents like us “wreckers.”

Last week on my daily news broadcast, the Ron Paul Liberty Report, we reported on two whistleblowers from inside the CDC and Big Pharma who raised serious and legitimate questions about the prevailing coronavirus narrative. The former Chief Science Officer for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, has stated that from his experience he believes that nearly 90 percent of the current tests for Covid produce false positives. That means that this massive expansion in “cases,” used to justify continued attacks on our civil liberties, is simply phony.

As Dr. Yeadon said in a recent interview about the Orwellian UK coronavirus lockdown, “we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting...all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?”

Is Dr. Yeadon correct in claiming that based on his scientific observation there is no “second wave”? We don’t know. But we do know that his claims that the massive increase in “cases” in Europe used to justify new lockdowns are not in any way being matched with a similar increase in deaths. The EU’s own charts prove this. Deaths remain a flat line near zero while “cases” skyrocket to match the massive increase in testing.

Yet when we reported on Dr. Yeadon’s findings on the Liberty Report last week we found that for the first time ever, our program was removed by YouTube.

YouTube, owned by Google, which is firmly embedded into the deep state, was vague in explaining just where we violated their “community standards” by simply reporting on qualified scientists who happen to disagree with the mainstream coronavirus narrative.

But they did offer this shocking explanation in an email sent to us at the Ron Paul Liberty Report: “YouTube does not allow content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of the World Health Organization.”


It’s not the science that is settled. What appears to be “settled is the impulse to silence anyone who asks “why”?]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2020 12:50:49 GMT
Yes, YouTube Has Censored the Ron Paul Liberty Report. You Won't Believe Why! Daniel McAdams

As many of you have already heard, YouTube (owned by Google, with deep roots in the deep state), inexplicably removed our Ron Paul Liberty Report from 23 September, titled "Covid Whistleblowers Expose Narrative As 'Total Fraud,'" and officially delivered a "warning" to the Ron Paul Liberty Report You Tube channel. They claimed in the notice that the program, which you can watch for yourself here, violated their "community guidelines" regarding "spam, deceptive practices, and scams."

We are in danger of having our entire channel removed if we continue in these prohibited activities, they warned.  Please watch the program for yourself and attempt to identify where any of these three violations took place.

Dr. Paul sent an appeal asking for specific clarification as to what in the program violated their "community standards." This seems important, because if they could point to something that was said or something in the title or thumbnail photo that violated their "guidelines," it wouldn't be that difficult to avoid such phrases or words or even photos in the future. Yes, it might be annoying and unfair, but knowing specifically what was the violation or violations would logically benefit both parties, as YouTube was clear in their "warning" that they did "not want to lose" us.

Imagine if a police officer pulled you over and began writing a ticket and when you requested the reason for the ticket they refused to tell you. Or perhaps they arrested you with no clearly articulated reason. Neither did the judge nor jury utter a peep when they ruled on the case and passed sentence.

This is how YouTube responded to a request for the "habeas corpus" of our "crime":


As Ron Paul Institute Senior Fellow (and attorney) Adam Dick wrote me after I showed him the result of the appeal, "What 'understanding'? Violation determined and appeal denied; that is all the info to understand. The process seems designed to prevent understanding anything other than that power is being exercised."

Yes. Power is being exercised and we do not have to tell you why.

Digging a bit deeper into the actual reason they decided to pull the episode of the Liberty Report (which as most of you know is hours in the making and represents years in preparation), turns up this bizarre email YouTube sent to the Ron Paul Liberty Report's gmail address:


So finally we are getting more of an explanation of where we might have gone wrong. YouTube simply does not allow any criticism of the World Health Organization - a United Nations bureaucratic body that has absolutely no idea what to do about the Covid health problem. One week you must wear masks, the next week you don't need them, etc. But don't dare criticize them or you will have your metaphorical larynx ripped from your body.

As we have pointed out on the Liberty Report several times - probably contributing to our being targeted - the World Health Organization is not even led by a doctor, but by a violent Ethiopian communist politician.

If you dare criticize a violent Ethiopian communist, you will be banned from YouTube. It seems that simple.

So, as another violent communist once wrote, what is to be done?

We are still looking at our options. For now we have opened a backup account on BitChute so that if a future YouTube broadcast is pulled we can offer it up to you without so much delay.

Ultimately we believe the noose will tighten on any "dissident" voices such as Dr. Paul's. It seems bizarre in what so many love to claim is the "freest country on earth," one that must spend billions "freeing" others overseas, that anyone challenging the prevailing mainstream media/US government narrative on Covid - or foreign policy or anything else - must be silenced. Once there was the gulag for dissidents, these days it's "big tech" companies that do hundreds of billions of dollars in business with US intelligence and the US government who do the bidding of their paymasters. But hey, they're "private" companies so don't you dare complain as you are herded into your ideological boxcar!

We are looking at other options to deliver the Ron Paul Liberty Report to our viewers - who on YouTube are a hair away from passing the quarter million subscriber mark - but many of these options are not cheap. As you all know, we operate on a shoestring and we stretch every penny from the generous contributions of our supporters.

But we are going to need your help if we are going to keep the peace and prosperity message of the Ron Paul Liberty Report alive. We are directly challenging multi-billion dollar media empires and their narratives - they are not at all happy about it.

This is your program, and if you want it to continue - one of the last voices challenging the dominant and crushing narrative coming from the mainstream media on the Left AND Right - we will need your support. 

Please consider a tax-deductible contribution to the Ron Paul Institute, which is the producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report. Every donation is gratefully appreciated, but we're going to need some big bucks to fight this freight train we see bearing down on us. Once they have obliterated us, they will be coming for you. Please help. By the way, we LOVE Bitcoin and you can make a Bitcoin donation at the above link. 

Dr. Paul famously says, no army can stop an idea whose time has come. Even in these seemingly dark days, the time has come for our peace and prosperity message. Please do what you can to help us. We need you and we appreciate you.]]> Sat, 26 Sep 2020 13:43:03 GMT
Why Are So Many American Voters Politically Homeless? With RPI's Daniel McAdams RPI Staff
]]> Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:31:35 GMT
Harvard Survey: Only Seven Percent Of Incoming Students Identify As Conservative Jonathan Turley

We have been discussing the rising intolerance for conservative, libertarian, and Republican students and faculty on campuses across the country. Faculties rarely hire conservative or libertarian professors; journals rarely publish studies from conservative authors. As the number of conservative faculty members diminish or disappear on faculties, schools appear to be carrying out the same bias in student admissions. The Harvard Crimson has finished its annual survey of the incoming class of students and found that the already small population of conservative and Republican students has been cut by roughly half.

The Crimson survey covered over 76 percent of the Harvard College Class of 2024 and found that the class contained 72.4 percent who self-identify as either “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Only 7.4 percent self-identify as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.” Likewise, 88.9 percent view President Donald Trump as strongly or somewhat unfavorable with 80.7 percent falling in the “strongly unfavorable” category. Only 4.7 percent view Trump “somewhat” or “strongly” favorably.

Note that over 40 percent of this country view Trump favorably and the vast majority view themselves as holding either conservative or moderate views. Gallup polling shows 37 percent of Americans identify as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and 24 percent as liberal. That is 72 percent conservative or moderate. Harvard admitted 7 percent. It is demonstrably absurd to argue that this virtual absence of conservative students is somehow the result of accident and not design.

For years, faculty members pretended that there was not an ideological bias in faculty selection as the number of conservative and libertarian faculty members dropped to near zero on many faculties. Less than ten percent of faculty in all schools identify as conservative and Democrats outnumber Republicans by over ten times on faculties. In some schools this ratio approaches 30 to 1.

Liberal faculties routinely dismiss candidates who advance opposing views as intellectually unsound or simply not as intellectually “promising” as more liberal candidates. The bias is evident on every level. Faculty members tend to exclude conservatives from presentations, publications, and citations. The result is an echo chamber in academia that feeds upon itself.

Now we are seeing the same downward trend in admissions where conservative or libertarian students are being relegated to lower-ranked schools. This bias has also become evident, not surprisingly, in classrooms. A Yale poll found that 70 percent percent of students said that they experienced political bias and the same poll said that the students believe only one percent of their faculty were conservative. A poll at Pomona found nine out of ten students said that “the campus climate prevents them from saying something others might find offensive.” Nearly two-thirds of faculty members felt the same. Seventy-five percent of conservative and moderate students strongly agree that the school climate hinders their free expression.

The impact of this bias is devastating for higher education. Faculty members are using their majority on faculties to exclude potential colleagues with opposing views, the very type of bias once used against not just liberals but minorities seeking entry to faculties. The result is that we are creating a bifurcated educational system where conservatives can only gain entry to top schools by hiding their political views or espousing liberal positions. I was shocked when one of my kids (who is a moderate) was invited for an interview by one of the top colleges in the country. After sitting down, the interviewer proceeded immediately into a diatribe against Trump and to self-identify as a liberal advocate. He felt that the interviewer wanted him to echo those views.

As shown in the Harvard survey, “diversity” at many schools now runs along a spectrum from extreme to mainstream liberal views with a statistically inconsequential number of conservatives and libertarians. This has been a uniform trend for many years in both the selection of faculty and of students. It is a mockery to pretend that this is the result of anything other than systematic bias in academia.

Reprinted with permission from]]> Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:00:08 GMT
Can You Boost Your Immune System? With Dr. Joseph Mercola Daniel McAdams
]]> Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:55:25 GMT
Covid Whistleblowers Expose Narrative As 'Total Fraud' Daniel McAdams
]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:52:25 GMT
Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the US Supreme Court Will Not Save Us John W. Whitehead

The US Supreme Court will not save us.

It doesn’t matter which party gets to pick the replacement to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the US Supreme Court. The battle that is gearing up right now is yet more distraction and spin to keep us oblivious to the steady encroachment on our rights by the architects of the American Police State.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Although the courts were established to serve as Courts of Justice, what we have been saddled with, instead, are Courts of Order. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the US Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the US Constitution.

When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?

It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, which leaves “we the people” hanging by a thread.

Rarely do the justices of the US Supreme Court venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of “security”; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the lives and rights enshrined in the Constitution. By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; and police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.

You think you’ve got rights? Think again.

All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.

This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.

In fact, our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.

In the police state being erected around us, the police can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse.

Remember, it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. That same Court gave police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.

Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state, where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, in a police state such as ours, these instances of abuse are not condemned by the government. Rather, they are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

In this way, the justices of the United States Supreme Court—through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency—have become the architects of the American police state.

So where does that leave us?

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People,, neither the president, nor the legislatures, nor the courts will save us from the police state that holds us in its clutches.

So we can waste our strength over the next few weeks and months raging over the makeup of the Supreme Court or we can stand united against the tyrant in our midst.

After all, the president, the legislatures, and the courts are all on the government’s payroll.

They are the police state.

Reprinted with permission from the Rutherford Institute.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:53:44 GMT
The Inconvenience of Freedom Jeff Harris

Let’s face it, Americans love convenience! Big box stores like Home Depot, Walmart and Target have ridden the convenience train to untold wealth. Amazon has tapped into the love of convenience by enabling us to “shop” from our couches. No more pesky hunting for the credit card and having to type in all that info. Just one click and you’re done!

And yes I’ll admit I enjoy convenience too. But too much convenience can be a trap if we’re not careful. The American Revolutionary War was fought to throw off the shackles of tyranny in a quest for freedom and liberty. It was not very inconvenient for the American Colonist to leave their homes, farms, businesses and loved ones to fight what many believed was a hopeless cause against the most powerful military in the world at that time.

And yet they were willing to gamble their lives, leave their families for long months even years, and suffer deprivation, exposure to the elements, hunger and misery for what? A chance, slim though it might be for FREEDOM!

Freedom to live life as they saw fit. Freedom to worship when and how they chose. Freedom to gather with whomever they chose. Freedom to travel wherever they chose. Freedom to speak their minds without fear of retribution. Freedom to trade and do business wherever and with whomever they chose. And most importantly, freedom to be left alone to pursue life, liberty and happiness as they saw fit.

Our Freedom hangs in the Balance

Yet today virtually all of the freedoms our forefathers fought, bled, and many died for are in grave jeopardy. So the question is do you value your freedom and liberty enough to be inconvenienced? I ask because when I go in a Walmart or the grocery store or Home Depot virtually everyone is wearing a mask, except me.

I’ve spoken with any number of people who’ve said basically the same thing, “I don’t necessarily believe the mask makes much difference but I just don’t want to be hassled, so I wear it.” In other words what they’re really saying is their right to live as free men or women isn’t worth being inconvenienced or heaven forbid, marked as a trouble maker.

Refusing to wear a mask is inconvenient for a variety of reasons but I think it’s critical to push back against the Covid tyranny as best we can. No sane, rational person seeks needless confrontation at every business they try to enter. But you have to ask yourself what price you’re willing to pay to retain some semblance of freedom and liberty?

Is it worth the bother of invoking your rights to a mask exemption that virtually every mask mandate offers? Virtually every state mask rule has a mask exemption for health reasons. And you don’t need a doctor’s note to use this exemption.

All you have to do is say, “I can’t wear a mask safely due to a medical condition.” Personally, wearing a mask makes me feel like I can’t breathe comfortably which is a legitimate medical condition. I have no illusions that a few people who invoke their mask exemption is going to magically make the Covid scam go away. But if we don’t push back, if we meekly surrender our rights to the tyrants, they will only demand more control over our private lives.

They will never be satisfied until they have total control over the public. Trying to wait it out and hope it all goes away is a fool’s game. As long as people meekly submit to tyranny they will only get more of it. Bullies only respect a punch in the nose. Taking your stand to invoke your right to a mask exemption is a very small, but not insignificant step toward retaining freedom and liberty.

Yes, it’s inconvenient, awkward and sometimes heated. But is your freedom and that of your children and grandchildren worth a little inconvenience? I will not comply!]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:40:44 GMT
Texas GOP To Gov. Abbott: 'Don't Mess With Texas!' Daniel McAdams
]]> Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:10:42 GMT
Military Generals Are Just Another Group of Self-Interested Technocrats Ryan McMaken

The United States has always had a love affair with certain generals. George Washington, of course, was immensely popular, and thirteen US presidents were generals before they were president.

But prior to the Second World War, generals as a group were not revered or treated with any particular veneration or respect. In fact, in the nineteenth century, full-time US military officers were often treated with suspicion and contempt. While state militia officers were regarded as indispensable night watchmen who preserved order, the full-time government employees who served in the federal military were often derided as lazy and otherwise unemployable.

But now those days are long gone. In recent decades, active generals and retired generals have grown into a group of politically influential technocrats who can be regularly seen on evening news programs and are habitually feted and promoted as incorruptible patriots. They are fawned over by media organizations while being paid enormous pensions. Moreover, upon retirement they are able to turn their former government employment into lucrative positions on corporate boards and throughout the private sector.

The immense deference and trust placed in the opinions and alleged expertise of these men is far beyond what is warranted. Like all technocrats—whether we're talking Supreme Court justices or public health bureaucrats—the generals have their own interests and their own agendas. This was recently highlighted by the president's new public feud with some generals. At a Labor Day press conference Trump averred: “The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t, because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.” It's always difficult to guess Trump's motivations and earnestness when he makes statements such as this, but the statement itself isn't wrong. The generals—retired and not— are often deeply enmeshed with weapons manufacturers and tech firms that rely on Pentagon spending.

The Generals' Unimpressive Record

It's difficult to see why the nation's generals enjoy such a stellar reputation. The US military establishment has lost every major military endeavor since 1945 and has been shown to be fiscally inept at a level that could only be described as criminal indifference. The Pentagon has repeatedly failed audits and has “misplaced” trillions of taxpayer dollars.

Yet in spite of this impressive record of failure and incompetence, generals continue to be held up by pundits and media organizations as the men who somehow care more about America than anyone else. Moreover, as is typical for technocrats, the generals are used by the establishment to provide intellectual and ideological cover to those who wish to forever expand US military adventurism and intervention. The alleged expertise of the generals—although apparently insufficient to actually win any wars—is said to offer us great insight into how American foreign policy ought to be conducted today.

The Generals Are Hardly Objective, Unbiased Observers

Needless to say, this view of the generals veers far from the reality. Moreover, the generals may now be morally and ideologically compromised by their deep ties to weapons manufacturers and the corporate boards on which many generals serve.

In a blistering article published at the American Conservative last week, Hunter Derensis explains how the image of American generals as selfless public servants is long past its expiration date:
Perhaps Trump learned the hard way that the generals of the forever wars don’t measure up to the twentieth-century soldiers he adulated growing up.

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

Contrast that to the bloated, top-heavy military establishment of today, where an unprecedented forty-one four-star generals oversee only 1.3 million men[-] and women-at-arms. These men, selected and groomed because of their safe habits, spend years patting themselves on the back for managing wars-not-won, awaiting the day they can cash in. According to an analysis by The Boston Globe, in the mid-1990s nearly 50% of three- and four-star generals went on to work as consultants or executives for the arms industry. In 2006, at the height of the Iraq War, that number swelled to over 80% of retirees.

The examples are as endless as America’s foreign occupations: former Director of Naval Intelligence Jack Dorsett joined the board of Northrop-Grumman; he was later followed by former Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh; meanwhile, former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright went to Raytheon; former Chairs of the Joint Chiefs—the highest ranking position in the military—William J. Crowe, John Shalikashvili, Richard Myers, and Joseph Dunford went on to work for General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin, respectively.
Just as former presidents are able to turn their fame into multimillion dollar fortunes (as the Obamas and Clintons have done) generals are able to engage in very similar activities. Derensis continues:
General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, in between his forced retirement from the Marine Corps and appointment as Secretary of Defense, joined the board of General Dynamics where he was paid over a million dollars in salary and benefits. Returning to public life, Mattis then spent two years cajoling President Trump into keeping the US military engaged in places as disparate as Afghanistan, Syria, and Africa. “Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” Mattis told his commander-in-chief. Left unsaid was that a strategic withdrawal would also lead to a precipitous decline in Mattis’ future stock options, which he regained after he rejoined General Dynamics following his December 2018 resignation.
None of this proves generals are all amoral cynics, of course. It is quite possible to want a safe and prosperous America while also being an opportunist who’s always on the lookout for new ways to turn one’s life of living off the sweat of the taxpayer into some additional easy cash.

But what this all shows us is that it’s time to start viewing the generals for what they are: lifelong bureaucrats who upon retirement are more than happy to use their easy and vaunted experience in government as a means to fame, adulation, and easy money. After all, in the modern world, generals don’t become generals through courage on the battlefield, or even through any particularly insightful thinking or expertise. It’s not 1944, and these guys aren’t exactly George S. Patton.

Today’s generals are politicos, bureaucrats, and Washington insiders whose primary skill set lies in gaining influence in the halls of Congress and on cable TV shows. It’s very easy and rewarding work. If you can get it.

Reprinted with permission from]]> Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:31:08 GMT
CDC's Forked Tongue: Flip-Flops (Again) On Covid Testing Daniel McAdams


]]> Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:42:35 GMT