Monday, May 2, 2016

Fructose is linked to a number of health conditions...

Same fructose used in sodas found to damage brain cells... makes you stupid and promotes Alzheimer's

by: Isabelle Z.

We already know that sugar is bad for our health in general, but a remarkable study shows that its destruction even extends to our brains. That's right: The food you eat could actually be making you stupid.

According to research from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), fructose can damage your brain cells and spur a number of diseases, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, and diabetes.

In the study, researchers fed rats water spiked with fructose for a period of six weeks. This amount is roughly equal to a liter of soft drinks per day for humans. After that period, the rats were placed in a maze along with other rats who had only been given water to drink.

The rats who had been drinking fructose took double the amount of time it took the water-fed rats to complete the maze, even though both groups had received the same level of training. This implies that those who drank fructose were suffering from some sort of memory impairment.

Fructose is linked to a number of health conditions

Fructose can be found in cane sugar as well as in high-fructose corn syrup. While fructose does occur naturally in fruit, fruits also contain very important antioxidants that make them worth consuming. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans consume around 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup, and 47 pounds of cane sugar per year on average. This is pretty alarming when you consider the fact that studies have linked fructose consumption to fatty liver, obesity and diabetes.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that fructose failed to trigger brain activity in the regions associated with satiety and feelings of fullness; it's almost as though fructose "tricks" the brain into seeking out food and increasing food intake.

Of course, high-fructose corn syrup is not the only unhealthy ingredient in foods. The truth is that grocery stores are full of dangerous foods, from canned goods that contain BPA, to food sprayed with toxic pesticides like cancer-causing glyphosate. There are so many dangers that Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, was inspired to write a book about it after analyzing a number of foods in his cutting-edge lab. The result of this effort is Food Forensics, which is set to be released this summer.

DHA has the power to reverse the harmful effects of fructose on the brain

Perhaps even more interestingly, the UCLA study also showed that the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) seemed to reverse the damage caused by fructose. A third group of rats who had been given an omega 3-rich flaxseed oil extract in addition to fructose water, were able to get through the maze almost as fast as those that had only been given water.

Senior author of the study Xia Yang said: "DHA changes not just one or two genes; it seems to push the entire gene pattern back to normal, which is remarkable."

DHA is also believed to help prevent age-related dementia. You can find DHA in fish – salmon is an especially good source. It can also be found in nuts and some vegetables.

UCLA Neurosurgery Professor Fernando Gomez-Pinilla said: "Eating a high-fructose diet over the long term alters your brain's ability to learn and remember information. But adding omega-3 fatty acids to your meals can help minimize the damage."

It's no secret that certain foods have the power to heal, and this is something that the people behind the Natural Medicine, Healing and Wellness Summit are well aware of. In the summit, they show people how they can reverse disease and feel younger in general.

While food can do some serious damage to our bodies, it also has the power to bring about tremendous healing. Processed foods can cause irreversible harm, but natural, organic, whole foods can dramatically improve your health.

Learn more:

Urine for some interesting facts...

What Your Urine Color and Urine Odor Say About Your Health

By Dr. Victor Marchione

While we don’t tend to talk about our pee too often – even to our physicians – it’s actually part of an incredible system to which we owe much of our health. Our kidneys work round the clock to filter water-soluble wastes, toxins, bacteria, yeast, excess protein, and sugars out of our blood, that would otherwise build up in our system and make us ill. And not only does our urinary tract work as an effective filtration and disposal system, but it also functions as an early warning detection system, flagging certain signs and symptoms of potentially serious health problems that may otherwise go unnoticed.

The next time you head to the loo, here’s what to look for:

What your urine color says about your health

Urine is made up mostly of water, as well as uric acid, minerals, enzymes, waste materials, and substances such as urochrome, which gives urine its usual straw-yellow color. Here is your color reference list:Pink or red: From beets, blackberries, and iron supplements, the color change usually is temporary and harmless. It sometimes occurs after strenuous exercise, but it can also flag other, more serious conditions, such as hematuria (blood in the urine). A 2012 analysis published in the Southern Medical Journal lists off several possible causes, such as kidney stones, urinary tract infections, enlargement of the prostate gland, anemia, certain inherited conditions, or bladder cancer. If you notice pink- or red-hued urine, then contact your doctor immediately. Your doctor can perform a simple test to determine whether it’s actually due to blood in your urine and where to go from there.

Brown: From rhubarb and fava beans. This is also a common alert for the presence of a urinary tract infection, especially if you experience a burning sensation when you go. With normal urination, you shouldn’t feel any discomfort. Brown could also indicate a buildup of bilirubin in the blood, possibly indicating a liver problem, a blocked bile duct, a gallstone, hemolytic anemia, or a tumor.

Orange: From carrots and B vitamins. Darker orange could signal severe dehydration. This could easily be remedied by drinking more fluids, but if ignored it could eventually lead to serious complications such as cramping, chronic fatigue, brain swelling, seizures, or low blood volume.

Green or blue: From asparagus and some antidepressant medications. In more unusual cases, this could mean a urinary tract infection.

Dark yellow or amber: You may be severely dehydrated. Drink more fluids. If ignored, this could eventually lead to serious complications such as cramping, chronic fatigue, brain swelling, seizures, or low blood volume.

Transparent: Clear urine is a sign of being too hydrated.

Pale straw to amber or honey: This coloring reveals you are well hydrated, but if it gets darker you may need to fill up on some H2O.

White or milky: White or milky urine could indicate an excess of certain minerals or proteins in your urine. Consult with your doctor if your urine appears white or milky.

What your urine odor says about your health

Back in the day, doctors used to routinely smell a patient’s urine – and sometimes, even taste it – to help them diagnose particular conditions and illnesses. While this practice has largely been abandoned in modern-day medicine (you won’t hear me complaining here), an unusual smell emanating from the toilet bowl can be an important warning sign of something that isn’t quite right.The smell of your urine is related to the volume and concentration of certain chemicals that are excreted by your kidneys. Here’s what to note:

● No detectable odor: Normal. Urine doesn’t have a very detectable odor but, as with urine color, particular foods, supplements, and medications could cause your pee to be more pungent than usual.

● Slight odor: Asparagus, garlic, and meals high in animal-based foods, such as meat and eggs, are often to blame for odorous urine. Dehydration can also cause urine to be more concentrated, so it will have a stronger smell.

● Strong or foul odor: If your urine persists to have an unusually strong or foul smell, it could indicate a urinary tract infection, a kidney infection, bladder inflammation or infection, a metabolic disorder, a liver problem, or a sexually transmitted disease.

● Sweet, fruity, or yeasty odor: Could flag a case of diabetes or a rare genetic disease called Maple Syrup Urine Disease.

How often you need to go

On average, most people urinate about four to eight times a day. However, realistically, how often you go to the bathroom largely depends on how much fluid you drink, what you tend to eat, how much caffeine and alcohol you’ve had, how active you are, and what your daily lifestyle is like.Unfortunately, some people’s busy jobs and schedules lead them to “hold it in” for longer than others.

● Four to eight times a day: Normal range.

● More than eight times a day: The need to urinate more frequently often accompanies natural aging. Diuretic medications and some blood pressure medications can also cause you to go more often.

● Stronger sense of “urgency” or not experiencing a sense of completion after you’ve gone: Could be a symptom of several different health problems – urinary tract infection, pregnancy, prostate problems, type 1 or type 2 diabetes, an overactive bladder, interstitial cystitis (an inflamed bladder), or even a stroke or neurological disease.

Cloudy, foamy, or particulate urine

Normally, urine is clear or mostly translucent. If it’s completely clear and colorless, than it probably means you’ve been drinking a lot of water (it’s important to drink a lot of water every day, but drinking excessive amounts isn’t healthy either). Outside the norm, here’s what to watch for:

● Cloudy: If you occasionally notice that your urine is cloudy and are experiencing no other symptoms, it may simply indicate that you are mildly dehydrated and need to drink more. Cloudy urine could also be symptomatic of a urinary tract infection. In women, it could be due to vaginal discharge, vaginitis, or pregnancy. More serious potential causes include kidney issues, metabolic problems, pituitary problems, or a condition called chyluria, which is when chyle leaks into the urine due to a blocked lymph channel.

● Foamy: This is sometimes the result of an extremely fast stream of urine hitting the toilet bowl – nothing to be concerned about if this happens on occasion. But if you start to notice foamy urine more consistently, then it may be a sign of proteinuria, a condition characterized by a high concentration of protein in the urine and that usually indicates a kidney condition. It could also flag diabetes, an infection, or high blood pressure.

● Visible particles: This can be a sign of kidney problems, as well as the presence of bladder stones, kidney disease, a urinary tract infection, or other serious conditions.

Maintain and care for your urinary tract system

Most of us have been conditioned to wrinkle up our noses when it comes to urine, or to just flush it down without a second thought. But in order to notice the unusual warning signs that your pee may be trying to give you, you have to first familiarize yourself with its usual qualities – and this involves shamelessly looking down into the toilet bowl now and again, and noting what your pee looks like and smells like. It also involves paying attention to your daily bathroom habits and making sure that you are taking care of your urinary tract system.

Staying adequately hydrated is not the only key for maintaining a healthy urinary system, but it is also vital for healthy digestion and elimination, for keeping blood pressure and body temperature normal, for cushioning your joints and, essentially, for the proper functioning of every single organ and system in your body. And while most of us are familiar with the ‘eight glasses of fluid a day’ rule, the truth is that our actual fluid needs vary from individual to individual, depending on your weight, size, activity level, caffeine, alcohol, salt and sugar intake, medications you may be on, as well as the weather and climate you live in.

Drinking eight tall glasses of water a day could work as an easy guide to ensure you are drinking, but be sure to drink more on hot days, after you exercise, and when you are consuming caffeine, alcohol, or a lot of sugary or salty foods. Or drink when you are thirsty, and let your urine be your guide – if it’s darker than straw yellow, then try drinking purer, fresh water, noting how your urine color changes as your water intake changes.


"To understand the arguments of labor union economist in favor of the minimum wage, follow the money."

Labor Unions and the Minimum Wage: "We Got Ours -- Screw You."

By Gary North

Fred Reed wrote a gem of a rhetorical essay, “Capitalism and the Minimum Wage: ‘I Got Mine, Screw You.'” I was so impressed that I stole it, almost word for word, changing only “capitalism” to “trade unionism.”

Reed is a master of rhetoric. When his logic is sound, he is devastating — a model.

The problem comes in this case from his focus on producers: capitalists. This is mercantilist. The free market focuses on consumers. Why? Because they own the most marketable commodity: money. This point was made by Carl Menger in his final essay on economics in 1892. Ludwig von Mises wrote The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) in terms of this principle.

Producers compete with producers to gain consumers’ money. Consumers want lower prices. Capitalists cut costs so they can offer lower prices.

Customers drive the process. They are self-centered. They ask “What’s in it for me?” They ask: “What have you done for me lately?”

The ruthlessness of producers is driven by the ruthlessness of consumers.

When it comes to ruthlessness, I can do no better than to quote Pogo Possum: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

So, read Reed’s essay. The read mine. Same rhetoric, different analysis.

He asks us to follow the money. This is correct. But we must follow it all the way back to its source: consumers.

He began with producers: capitalists. I begin with producers: labor unions. They both want deliverance from consumers. They both invoke the state. “Help! Consumers are ruthless!” My advice: trust neither group. Instead, start with consumers. They have the money.

To understand the arguments of labor union economist in favor of the minimum wage, follow the money. In all the thickets of pious reasoning about the merits of trade unionism and economic justice, and of collective bargaining, and of allowing this marvelous mechanism to work its magic, and of what Walter Reuther said, the key is the dollar. The rest is fraud. Carefully ignored is the question that will be crucial in coming decades: What to do about an ever-increasing number of union members for whom there is no work.

There is of course much hypocrisy in the theoretical edifice. For example, unions argue that the minimum wage constitutes a morally necessary interference by the government in the conduct of business–meanwhile sending armies of lobbyists to Washington to make the government ignore laws against union cartels. In fact, unions have no objection to federal refusal to enforce the law. They just want it to be laissez-faire such that it puts more money in their pockets. Nothing more. Ever.

In like fashion they say that they want to protect the worker’s freedom to associate–yes, his freedom, such is the union’s benevolence, the worker’s freedom of association–to keep non-union members from selling their labor at a mutually agreed price. Curiously, in practice, this means the union’s freedom to push wages as close to business bankruptcy as it can get away with. This miraculous congruence of high principle with high wages for union members is among the wonders of the universe.

In every case, without exception, the labor union official’s high principles will lead to more in his pocket. He will be for a minimum wage because he says, it encourages inner city young blacks to stay in school and earn a diploma. You can just tell he is deeply concerned about young blacks. He probably wakes up in the middle of the night, worrying about them. He doesn’t, however, let any of them in the union. Purely incidentally, having a minimum wage saves him . . . competition from scabs. And if he were truly concerned about young blacks, might he not express this concern by letting them into the union, so they can earn a living wage after graduation?


The quest for above-market wages has perhaps caused less misery than war–itself a most profitable business, war–but it is neck and neck. Union leaders used goon squads to keep businesses from hiring anyone who offered to work at a market wage, with disastrous results continuing to this day. Labor union leaders discourage legal immigration from the Latin lands so as to limit market-wage labor. They call for tariffs and quotas against imports that make it possible for poor people to have cheap goods. And now they warn against technologies to produce cheap goods . . . robots.

These will drudge away day and night, making no demands, never unionizing, needing no retirement or medical benefits. Actually, though, union leaders oppose robots because they care about freedom of association and want to help young blacks.

A cynic might see this as intellectual scaffolding for left wing social Darwinism -- called Progressivism -- and accountability to society--see, it's all due to the love of social justice, and the union official is only a bystander. But no. It is about freedom, and justice, and all.

Among the fantastic trappings of--"social justice" sounds nicer than "closed shop," doesn't it?--is that it rewards political mobilization and determination, which if pursued will lead to prosperity. This is both believed and beloved by many who believe it in part because for them it performed as described. The intelligent, healthy, ambitious and--a major advantage--unscrupulous can usually get ahead. And so, talking with others like themselves, they ask, "If I can do it, why can't they?" The underlying notion is that the poor are poor because they are unrepresented and lack mobilization. Some fit the description. Lots don't.

Here we come to Commentator's Disease, epidemic among talking heads and columnists.

A woman of my acquaintance once said, "In Washington, you assume that everybody outside the District is in the 10th percentile and needs bureaucratic representation. We high-IQ people are here to help them" Decompressed from the apothegmatic, it is true. Cognitive stratification is very real, though seldom noticed and never mentioned. The city attracts the highly bright. They hang out together. They date. They marry. They don't know anybody who is not like them. The same holds in many places, and on the web, but Washington is where policy comes from.

By and large they are neither arrogant nor snobs. Since they are all in the same bracket, snobbery would be difficult. They include a great many journalists. It is fun to speak of the press as imbeciles, but, apart perhaps from babble-blonde anchors chosen for their looks, they are not. The duller probably clock an IQ of 120. Even at dismal publications like Army Times and Federal Computer Week, with both of which I was once familiar, you find very smart people.

What has this to do with the minimum wage? A fair amount. People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously--important word: "unconsciously"--that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort, but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can't learn much of anything. Not won't. Can't. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.

Few of the very bright have have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don't really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.

Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination . . .

It ain't so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn't when there aren't. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.

As the stock market reaches new highs and the nation's wealth is distributed at the same percentage as it was in 1897 when Vilfredo Pareto first reported on the 20/80 curve of wealth ownership, we hear that a rising tide floats all boats. This is fine if you have a boat. Maybe it only looks as though capitalists flourish while the middle class sinks and the welfare rolls grow and kids have to live at home and they will have no retirement. Well, some boats leak, I guess -- just as they did in 1897, when the rich had a lower standard of living than someone on welfare has today -- no cell phone, no electricity, no TV, no radio, and no free emergency care at a local hospital.

When the theorists of trade unionism imagine that our dim-witted young lady should be paid as much as a high school graduate with ambition, they do not worry that her labor isn't worth enough to feed her. Some who say this simply do not understand what her life is going to be if she is paid what her labor is worth. Others, with the lack of empathy that characterizes conservatives, don't care. If you look at the godawful conditions of their employees in the sweatshops of, say, Bangladesh, you will see that not caring is common. Let them eat cake.

The question arises: What does the country do with the large and growing number of people whose labor is worth nothing? Or, perhaps more accurately, whose labor isn't needed at above-market, union-mandated wages? We see this in the cities today. An illiterate kid in Detroit has no value at all in the market for labor. Assuming that he wants to work, a questionable assumption, what then? Endlessly expanding welfare? What about the literate, averagely intelligent kid for whom there are no jobs at union-secured, National Labor Relations Board-mandated wages? If people working in McDonald's can barely live on their wages, and strike, or the state institutes a higher minimum wage, McDonald's will automate their jobs, is automating their jobs, and conservatives will exult--the unionized bastards got what they asked for.

This is trade unionism in its perfection.


"The establishment adores Hamilton (and hates Jefferson) because Hamilton was a consummate statist and imperialist."

The Establishment’s Love Affair With Hamilton

By Thomas DiLorenzo

When former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke got wind of the fact that the U.S. Treasury Department was considering replacing Alexander Hamilton on the ten-dollar bill he threw a fit of protest. Writing on his Brookings Institution blog, Bernanke said that he was “appalled” that “the greatest of the founding fathers” (and the founding father of central banking) would be mistreated in this way.

The New York Times immediately weighed in, apparently outraged that such a famous New Yorker would ever be demoted in such a way. The neocons were especially incensed over the proposal. After all, David Brooks of the New York Times has claimed that Hamilton single-handedly “created” American capitalism all by himself with help from no one, not even God Himself.

Pat Buchanan, who once said to me that “Hamilton is my hero,” must have lost a lot of sleep over it as well. Around the same time, New Yorkers began flocking to a new Broadway musical named “Hamilton” that repeats the old statist tale about how allegedly wonderful the statist/imperialist Hamilton was compared to the strict constructionist, “that government is best which governs least,” Thomas Jefferson.

The establishment adores Hamilton (and hates Jefferson) because Hamilton was a consummate statist and imperialist. He persistently denounced his nemesis Jefferson for his “excessive concern for liberty.” When President Jefferson announced in his first inaugural address that his foreign policy would be “honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” and that “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . .”, Hamilton denounced it as “the symptom of a pygmy mind.” Hamilton wanted a more centrally-planned and government-subsidized and supervised economy, and was itching to start a war with France in the name of what he called “imperial glory.”

When the constitutional convention quickly discarded Hamilton’s proposal of a permanent president (i.e., a king) who would appoint all the state governors who would have veto power over all state legislation, effectively destroying any semblance of federalism, Hamilton loudly denounced the Constitution as “a frail and worthless fabric.”

Hamilton’s objective was “to build the foundations of a new empire,” wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter. Just like the British empire, against which the American Revolution had just been fought. Hamilton “had perhaps the highest respect for the government of any important American political thinker who ever lived,” wrote Rossiter. No wonder the government establishment has always been “in love” with Hamilton.

Hamilton was the founding father of constitutional subversion, having literally invented the “implied powers of the constitution” scam during his debate with Jefferson over the constitutionality of a national bank. (He was for it; Jefferson opposed it). Of course, once it is conceded that there might be “implied” as opposed to explicit, delegated powers of the federal government, you are on the road to unlimited government, which is the road that Hamilton favored. “With the aid of the doctrine of implied powers,” Clinton Rossiter boasted, Hamilton “converted the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 into foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate.” The “living constitution” was born. No wonder the establishment loves Hamilton.

With such lawyerly subterfuge, Hamilton hoped to “affix a certain certificate of constitutionality to every last tax,” said Rossiter. “Hamilton took a large view of the power of Congress to tax because he took a large view of the power to spend.”

His view of the Constitution was the exact opposite of Jefferson’s. With Jefferson, the government should be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.” To Hamilton, the Constitution could and should be used as a rubber stamp on anything the federal government ever proposed to do. This, in fact, is the kind of Constitution that Americans have slaved under now for several generations.

Hamilton harbored the bloody impulse to literally murder tax dissenters and anyone who challenged the “authority” of the federal government, as was proven by his behavior during the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion. This impulse would eventually become the defining characteristic of the federal government during the Lincoln regime, with Lincoln being the political son of Alexander Hamilton.

When Pennsylvania farmers began fermenting grain into whiskey and protested Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s new whiskey tax as discriminatory, Hamilton persuaded George Washington to ask governors along the eastern seaboard to conscript 15,000 men to march into Western Pennsylvania to quell the protest. They captured several dozen leaders of the tax protest movement and marched them across the state barefoot in the winter and put them on “trial” in Philadelphia, with Hamilton posing as the “judge.” Hamilton wanted to hang all of them to teach all other taxpayers a lesson, but George Washington introduced a dose of sanity to the whole affair by pardoning all of them, to Hamilton’s everlasting dismay. No wonder the establishment loves and adores Hamilton.

Hamilton was the political water boy for the crony capitalist one-percenters of his day. All of his efforts to create a bank run by politicians out of the nation’s capital (the First Bank of the United States) had one main purpose: to provide cheap credit for his big business political patrons in New York and Philadelphia, and to subsidize the banking industry itself, at the expense of the general public.

Hamilton was a protectionist who repeated all the silly slogans of the British mercantilists. He wanted to bring the rotten, corrupt, British system of “mercantilism,” against which the Revolution had been fought, to America, run by Americans like himself and his New York political cronies. He mocked the free-trade views of his British contemporary, Adam Smith, the French physiocrats, and almost all other economic scholars of his day as he advocated ripping off the common man for the benefit, once again, of his big business political patrons who wanted to be protected from international competition. (As John C. Calhoun once said, what the public is “protected” from with protectionism is low prices for goods).

As though that weren’t enough pandering for the benefit of the founding one percenters, Hamilton also championed direct corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer subsidies for all kinds of businesses and industries in his famous Report on Manufactures. It was called the “infant industry argument” for corporate welfare, but of course, because America was a young country, ALL industries could be labeled “infant” industries! He just did not believe that commerce could succeed without his guiding hand.

Hamilton championed the biggest corporate welfare subsidies for the road- and canal-building corporations even though thousands of miles of roads had been built by private companies with private capital by the early 1800s. Just in case tax revenues weren’t enough to cover all these blatantly unconstitutional expenditures that appear nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Hamilton waxed eloquently about how the public debt could be “a public blessing.”

Hamilton’s argument for the “blessing” of a large public debt was quite Machiavellian. His theory was that because the wealthier people of the country would be the owners of the debt (i.e., government bonds), they would form a formidable lobbying power for higher taxes and bigger and more centralized government to assure that their bonds would always be paid off. As William Graham Sumner wrote in his biography of Hamilton, he wanted a large national debt because of “its tendency to strengthen our . . . government by increasing the number of ligaments between the government and interests of individuals.” Rich and politically-influential individuals, that is. And as Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers, wrote in the introduction to one edition of the publication:

With devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system . . . . Hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.

Is there any wonder why the “establishment” of “senators, congressmen, and richer constituents throughout the nation” today are so worshipful of Hamilton and so relieved that his mug shot remains on the ten-dollar bill?


Friday, April 29, 2016

Myth-Busters: Trump's Foreign Policy Blunders...

"Americans, for their part, ended up with the Cold War against their old WWII partner, along with a totalitarian-like structure known as the national security establishment or military-industrial complex, which, as president Eisenhower would later point out, posed a grave risk to the freedom of the American people and their democratic processes. That’s the part of the government, of course, that now runs the U.S. death machine, which has brought untold death and destruction to people in the Middle East and Afghanistan as well as other parts of the world."

Trump and America First

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Whatever else might be said of Donald Trump, no one can deny that he has the most remarkable ability to make the GOP and mainstream establishment go ballistic. The most recent example is his use of the term “America First” in a foreign policy speech that he delivered right in the center of U.S. Empire, Washington, D.C.

Once again, he has caused the Washington establishment and mainstream pundits and commentaries to scream like banshees.


Because Trump’s use of “America First” focuses people’s attention on what known as the America First Committee, a nationwide organization that opposed U.S. intervention into World War II.

Given the horrific consequences of U.S. interventionism, it’s not surprising that the interventionists would get upset if any indirectly questions their interventionist shibboleth, World War II. It’s that war that interventionists inevitably revert to when anyone points out the massive death and destruction that the U.S. interventionist death machine has produced in the Middle East and Afghanistan, including the rise of ISIS, partnerships with crooked, corrupt dictatorial regimes, torture, crooked and corrupt regimes, and the enormous refugee crisis.

It’s also the war they raise whenever someone points to the horrific consequences of other interventions, such as the one in Iran that destroyed the country’s experiment in democracy. Or Chile, where U.S. interventionism did the same thing in that country. Or Guatemala, where it did the same thing there. Or Korea, where tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers were forced to die in an unconstitutional intervention into another country’s civil war. Or Vietnam, where tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers died for nothing.

But the idea is that Americans are supposed to ignore all the horrific consequences of interventionism because of World War II, which, they say, proved the success of interventionism. And anyone who questions that notion is considered a heretic within the religion of interventionism, one who must be shut down immediately, even if that includes charges of anti-Semitism or other such smears.

In practically every mainstream piece criticizing the America First Committee, the author will inevitably suggest that the America First Committee was composed of anti-Semites. The implication is that anyone who was a member hated Jews and loved the Nazis.


There were 800,000 Americans, many of them extremely prominent, in the America First Committee. Members or supporters included future President Gerald Ford, future Peace Corps Director Sergeant Shriver, future Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, future President John F. Kennedy, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Corporation, Gen. Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, and Robert R. McCormick of the Chicago Tribune.

Gee, I didn’t know all those people hated Jews and loved Nazi Germany. Did you?

The truth is that the America First Committee was organized to oppose entry into another European war. The operative word is “another.” You see, this is that interventionists never mention when they smear the America First Committee — that it was formed as a direct result of the horrific consequences of the previous big intervention known as World War I and to make sure that that never happened again.

In other words, America First wasn’t formed to criticize Jews or extol Nazi Germany. It was formed to prevent a repeat of World War I, a war that Americans realized had sacrificed American lives and American values for nothing.

Don’t forget: Prior to World War I, Germany had never attacked or invaded the United States. It was the U.S. government, under the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson, who had decided to reject America’s heritage of non-involvement in foreign wars by intervening in a conflict that was no business of the U.S. government.

His goal? To make this the final war—the war that would bring an end to all future wars. The interventionists were going to show how their philosophy of violent intervention could remake the world — could make the world “safe for democracy.”

In the process, they conscripted American men to serve in their grand crusade, many of whom were killed and maimed.They also destroyed civil liberties by jailing Americans who dared question the war or the draft.

And at the end of it all? Nothing but death, destruction, and ruination, along with a peace treaty whose terms would soon give rise to Hitler and the Nazis.

That’s why the America First Committee was formed — to make sure that the interventionists would never again foist their philosophy of interventionism onto America.

And there is something important to note here: The America First Committee represented the views of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Were there members of the America First Committee who were anti-Semitic? Were there members who liked Nazi Germany?

Well, duh! In an organization that opposed another disastrous foreign intervention against Germany, of course there would be some people of that mindset. But to suggest that the organization was formed to be a gigantic enterprise against Jews and in favor of Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

And let’s not forget something else of import here: Anti-Semitism was a prevalent mindset, not only in Nazi Germany but also right here in the good old USA, and one need look any further than interventionist icon President Franklin Roosevelt and his State Department for confirmation.

After all, who was it that turned down Hitler’s offer to let Germany Jews exit the country? It was FDR himself, using the excuse of immigration quotas. If he had instead said yes, there never would have been a Holocaust.

Who was it who turned away a German ship containing Jewish refugees, knowing full well that they would almost certainly have to be returned to Nazi Germany? You guessed it: U.S. officials themselves. Just Google “Voyage of the Damned.”

And hey, some of the members of the America First Committee weren’t the only ones who thought Hitler was great. So did Winston Churchill. Prior to World War II, he declare that if England ever found herself in desperate straits, he hoped that the country would find its own Adolf Hitler.

And why not — after all, Hitler was employing the same statist economic policies that Roosevelt was employing in America as part of his New Deal socialist-fascist program to get the country out of the Great Depression. In fact, that’s what caused Hitler to praise Roosevelt!

And while we are on the subject of FDR, let’s also not forget how he deceived the American people into making them believe that he was a non-interventionist too. That was during his 1940 presidential campaign for a third term in office, when he told Americans that he would never send their boys to die in another foreign war.

But as everyone now acknowledges, he was lying. In fact, he was determined to manipulate things to circumvent the overwhelming will of the American people.

Under the Constitution, FDR was required to seek a congressional declaration of war before he could intervene into World War II. That was the law. That’s the way things work in a representative democracy.

Not for Roosevelt, who had already shown dangerous signs of dictatorial tendency in his first two terms. (Google “FDR” and “court-packing scheme.”). He knew that given the overwhelming sentiment against another intervention, Congress would never vote for a declaration of war.

So, Roosevelt decided that his only hope was to provoke Germany or Japan into “firing the first shot” so that he could say, “We’ve been attacked! We’ve been attacked! We have no choice now but to go to war.”

It was the oldest political trick in the book. It didn’t work with Germany — it refused to take Roosevelt’s bait. But it worked with the Japanese, especially when they began feeling the effects of FDR’s embargo on oil, which their military machine desperately needed.

Interventionists now admit that Roosevelt lied and deceived the American people into the war. What’s fascinating is that they don’t see anything wrong with what he did. And while mourning the loss of soldiers at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippines, they have nothing but praise for the man who intentionally sacrificed those men so that he could circumvent the will of the American people against getting involved in another world war.

When the America First Committee dissolved a few days after the Pearl Harbor attack, FDR must have been so pleased over how he had outsmarted his non-interventionists opponents. You can just imagine the smile on his face.

England had declared war on Germany with the aim of freeing Poland and Eastern Europe from dictatorship. At the end of the war, Nazi Germany lay defeated, but England and the U.S. surrendered Poland and Eastern Europe to the control of their wartime partner and ally, the Soviet Union, which was headed by a brutal communist regime.

Meanwhile, China, which FDR wanted to free from Japanese tyranny, ended up with a brutal communist regime, which still holds power today.

And Americans, for their part, ended up with the Cold War against their old WWII partner, along with a totalitarian-like structure known as the national security establishment or military-industrial complex, which, as president Eisenhower would later point out, posed a grave risk to the freedom of the American people and their democratic processes. That’s the part of the government, of course, that now runs the U.S. death machine, which has brought untold death and destruction to people in the Middle East and Afghanistan as well as other parts of the world.

With victories like that in World War II, who needs defeats?

Donald Trump, needless to say is an interventionist himself, but he is providing a valuable service in causing people to focus on the final redoubt of interventionists — World War II, the war that interventionists actually call “the good war.”


"Once we were vaccinated against diseases like measles, mumps and rubella, they said, we were never again at risk of getting those diseases. Well, it turns out – again – that the vaccine Nazis were wrong."

Forty people contract mumps at Harvard ... all were vaccinated ... mumps vaccines based on scientific fraud

by: J. D. Heyes

It wasn't supposed to happen this way – at least, that's what the vaccine Nazis have always told us in justifying forced ingestion of poisonous, infectious substances into our bodies.

Once we were vaccinated against diseases like measles, mumps and rubella, they said, we were never again at risk of getting those diseases. Well, it turns out – again – that the vaccine Nazis were wrong.

Officials at Harvard University have sent out an urgent appeal to students, asking them to take better precautions against infecting each other with mumps, after at least 40 cases have been confirmed since the beginning of the year.

That's 40 cases of confirmed mumps in students who were vaccinated, by the way.

School officials began warning the student body in February, after the disease had been confirmed in two students. The warning letter even discussed the fallacy of permanent immunity from a mumps vaccine:

[T]hose who have been vaccinated for mumps—though much less likely to contract the virus—can still be infected.

Only one way to become permanently immune

By the way, the letter – from Paul J. Barreira, MD, Director: Harvard University Health Services and the Henry K. Oliver Professor of Hygiene – also noted another medical truth: That self-immunization is much more effective than a vaccine.

Individuals who have previously had mumps are considered immune to the virus.

Much has changed since that initial outbreak. By March, school and local health officials reported that mumps had spread to 16 students, despite the fact that all of them "were fully immunized against the mumps prior to contracting the disease."

Now, at least 40 people are sick with mumps, and that's got the school's chief health official worried.

"I'm actually more concerned now than I was during any time of the outbreak," Barreira toldThe Harvard Crimson. "I'm desperate to get students to take seriously that they shouldn't be infecting one another."

In fact, the disease is spreading so rapidly that it may even affect the university's May 26 commencement, Barreira added.

"If there's a spike this week, that means those students expose others, so now we're looking at a potential serious interruption to commencement for students," he told the student newspaper. "Students will get infected and then go into isolation."

Mumps is a viral infection that affects the salivary glands, and while it is generally considered rare, it certainly is becoming more common on the campus of an Ivy League school filled with young adults from well-to-do families. If mumps can strike and flourish there, it can strike and flourish anywhere.

Series of outbreaks

There have been additional outbreaks at other college campuses. Between 2011 and 2013, there were outbreaks on campuses in California, Virginia and Maryland, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

There were even larger outbreaks from 2009 to 2010, the CDC noted:

-- One multi-year outbreak involved about 3,000 people and mostly affected high school-aged students who were part of a close-knit religious community in New York City and attended schools in which they had very close contact. The outbreak started when an infected student in this religious community returned from the United Kingdom where a large mumps outbreak was occurring.

-- The second outbreak involved about 500 people, mostly school-aged children, in the U.S. Territory of Guam.

But the most serious recent outbreak occurred in 2006, the CDC noted:

In 2006, the United States experienced a multi-state mumps outbreak involving more than 6,500 reported cases. This resurgence predominantly affected college-aged students living in the Midwest, with outbreaks occurring on many different Midwestern college campuses.

Remember all that faked data?

In reporting on the mumps outbreak in 2010, Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, noted that the CDC has been less than forthright about the success rates for mumps vaccines.

"The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called 'scientific' evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary," he wrote.

That claim was borne out a few years later, when he reported that two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 – a complaint which has just now been unsealed – accused vaccine manufacturer Merck of knowingly falsifying its mumps vaccine test data, spiking blood samples with animal antibodies, selling a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripping off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was "95% effective."

Learn more:

"As these Founders taught us, when states and individuals take action, they are extremely effective as a roadblock to increasing federal power."

The Founders’ word: Void

by Michael Boldin

When it comes to limits of federal power under the Constitution, the view of many Founding Fathers fits under the same theme. That is, federal acts outside of the Constitution are null and void.

During the ratification debates, Oliver Ellsworth, the Supreme Court’s third chief justice, put it this way: “If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void.”

In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”

And in 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

See the pattern?

I won’t get into a laundry list of everything that should qualify as “void” today under the Founders’ Constitution, but here are a few to set the stage: ACA, ATF, DEA, EPA, GCA, NFA, NSA, TSA.

What to do?

It’s my opinion that no one in their right mind should expect the federal government to limit itself. This also includes the federal courts, a branch of the federal government. And, as I noted in my July 2013 article, “voting the bums out” hasn’t been a good strategy either.

In other words, if you have a problem with the federal government, you need something outside the federal government to stop it. That would be the states and the people.

First, let me be clear. This isn’t my idea. I didn’t dream it up one night. It comes from some of the most prominent Founding Fathers.

While James Madison wrote the most specific and complete set of instructions on how to stop the federal government without relying on the federal government to limit itself, he was far from the only Founder to talk about states and individuals as a check on federal power.

Even Hamilton agreed. In Federalist #28 he wrote that state governments would offer security against “invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

A little-known Founding Father from Massachusetts also made the case, just like Madison and Hamilton did, that the states were the strongest check on federal power, should they work together to oppose it.

In the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, Theophilus Parsons said that the state legislatures were, “superior to all the parchment checks that can be invented.” And when they’re organized in opposition against federal acts, he said that “none but madmen would attempt a usurpation.”

Like Madison, who in Federalist #46 recommended that states and individuals employ “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union,” Parsons advised the same.

He continued, “But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance.”

Taking action

The common thread from Madison to Parsons and even to Hamilton is that states and individuals are an essential part of the checks-and-balances system of the Constitution. They are a counteracting force, especially when two or more branches of the federal government work against us.

As these Founders taught us, when states and individuals take action, they are extremely effective as a roadblock to increasing federal power.

Whether it’s blocking federal gun control, rejecting mass surveillance, ending asset forfeiture or even bringing down the Federal Reserve, the focus should be on individuals and states, not on federal courts and federal elections.

This is just what Thomas Jefferson advised as well. In response to powers “which have not been delegated,” he told us that nullification is the “rightful remedy.”


Anyone surprised???

SURPRISE! Campus Noose Drawing Was Created By Black Students. NO CHARGES FILED For ‘Hate Crime’

By Eric Owens

Two black students at Salisbury University drew a stick figure hanging from a noose on a whiteboard in the taxpayer-funded school’s library, police say. The image also featured the word “Nigger!” (with the exclamation point) and the hashtag #WhitePower

The hoax incident caused great calamity on the 8,657-student campus in Salisbury, Md. The Salisbury University Police Department initiated a hate-crime investigation. However, upon learning that the unidentified students are black, authorities chose to file no charges, reports The Daily Times, a local newspaper.

The racist image appeared on a Blackwell Library on April 10, around the time of the school’s eighth annual “Stop Hatin’” week, which centers on diversity and acceptance...

Read the rest here:

Thursday, April 28, 2016

"The values that are being relentlessly pounded into the heads of our young people are directly opposed to the values that this nation was founded upon, and it is these young people that will determine the path that this country ultimately takes."

The Future Of America? – More Than Half Of All U.S. Adults Under Age 30 Now Reject Capitalism

Michael Snyder

A shocking new survey has found that support for capitalism is dying in America. In fact, more than half of all adults in the United States under the age of 30 say that they do not support capitalism at this point. You might be tempted to dismiss them as “foolish young people”, but the truth is that they are the future of America. As older generations die off, they will eventually become the leaders of this country. And of course our nation has not resembled anything close to a capitalist society for quite some time now. In a recent article, I listed 97 different taxes that Americans pay each year, and some Americans actually end up returning more than half of what they earn to the government by the time it is all said and done. So at best it could be said that we are running some sort of hybrid system that isn’t as far down the road toward full-blown socialism as most European nations are. But without a doubt we are moving in that direction, and our young people are going to be cheering every step of the way.

When I first heard of this new survey from Harvard University, I was absolutely stunned. The following is from what the Washington Post had to say about it…

The Harvard University survey, which polled young adults between ages 18 and 29, found that 51 percent of respondents do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent said they support it.

It isn’t clear that the young people in the poll would prefer some alternative system, though. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism. The survey had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.

Could it be possible that young adults were confused by the wording of the survey?

Well, other polls have come up with similar results…

The university’s results echo recent findings from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who surveyed 1,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 26 and found that 58% of respondents believed socialism to be the “more compassionate” political system when compared to capitalism. And when participants were asked to sum up the root of America’s problem in one word, 29% said “greed.”

This trend among our young people is very real, and you can see it in their support of Bernie Sanders. For millions upon millions of young adults in America today, Hillary Clinton is not nearly liberal enough for them. So they have flocked to Sanders, and if they had been the only ones voting in this election season, he would have won the Democratic nomination by a landslide.

Sadly, most of our young people don’t seem to understand how socialism slowly but surely destroys a nation. If you want to see the end result of socialism, just look at the economic collapse that is going on in Venezuela right now. The following comes from a Bloomberg article entitled “Venezuela Doesn’t Have Enough Money to Pay for Its Money“…

Venezuela’s epic shortages are nothing new at this point. No diapers or car parts or aspirin — it’s all been well documented. But now the country is at risk of running out of money itself.

In a tale that highlights the chaos of unbridled inflation, Venezuela is scrambling to print new bills fast enough to keep up with the torrid pace of price increases. Most of the cash, like nearly everything else in the oil-exporting country, is imported. And with hard currency reserves sinking to critically low levels, the central bank is doling out payments so slowly to foreign providers that they are foregoing further business.

Venezuela, in other words, is now so broke that it may not have enough money to pay for its money.

We are losing an entire generation of young people. These days, there is quite a lot of talk about how we need to get America back to the principles that it was founded upon, but the cold, hard reality of the matter is that most of our young people are running in the opposite direction as fast as they can.

And Americans under the age of 30 are not just becoming more liberal when it comes to economics. Surveys have found that they are more than twice as likely to support gay rights and less than half as likely to regularly attend church as the oldest Americans are.

So why is this happening?

Well, the truth is that our colleges and universities have become indoctrination centers for the progressive movement. I know, because I spent eight years at public universities in this country. The quality of the education that our young people are receiving is abysmal, but the values that are being imparted to them will last a lifetime.

And of course the same things could be said about our system of education all the way down to the kindergarten level. There are still some good people in the system, but overall it is overwhelmingly dominated by the progressives.

Meanwhile, the major entertainment providers in the United States are also promoting the same values. In a recent article entitled “Depressing Survey Results Show How Extremely Stupid America Has Become“, I discussed a Nielsen report which detailed how much time the average American spends consuming media on various electronic devices each day…

Watching live television: 4 hours, 32 minutes

Watching time-shifted television: 30 minutes

Listening to the radio: 2 hours, 44 minutes

Using a smartphone: 1 hour, 33 minutes

Using Internet on a computer: 1 hour, 6 minutes

Overall, the average American spends about 10 hours a day consuming one form of entertainment or another.

When you allow that much “programming” into your mind, it is inevitable that it is going to shape your values, and our young people are more “plugged in” than any of the rest of us.

So yes, I believe that it is exceedingly clear why we should be deeply concerned about the future of America. The values that are being relentlessly pounded into the heads of our young people are directly opposed to the values that this nation was founded upon, and it is these young people that will determine the path that this country ultimately takes.



Why the Screwed-Up Society?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

According to the New York Times, “Suicide in the United States has surged to the highest levels in nearly 30 years … with increases in every age group except older adults…. The overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.”

According to a 2015 report by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Illicit drug use in the United States has been increasing. In 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older — 9.4 percent of the population — had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002.”

Of course, everyone is familiar with the mass murders that periodically take place in the United States.

Why all the dysfunctionality? Is that what we would expect from a “free” society?

Nope, but in my humble opinion — and mind you, I’m no psychologist—the notion that America is a free society is a big part of the problem.

Ever since the advent of the welfare-warfare state way of life in the 20th century, Americans convinced themselves — or permitted themselves to be convinced — that as long as they continued believing that America was still a “free enterprise” country, then everything would be fine. The idea has been that people can make their own reality and as long as people believe it, no harm would come of it.

But any psychologist will tell you that living a life that is based on falsehoods and delusions is inevitably going to have adverse consequences, maybe even psychosis.

Consider the fact that all those people who committed suicide, or who on drugs, or who initiated those killing sprees were under the control of the government for some 12 years, either directly in public schools or indirectly with government-approved educational supervision. During that entire time, state officials undoubtedly told them that suicide was bad, drug use was bad, and murder was bad.

So, how come all those people took their own lives, are destroying their lives with drugs, or going out and murdering people? Why didn’t all that control and indoctrination for 12 years work?

Everyone will no doubt call for doubling down in the public schools — telling teachers and administrators to reemphasize that students should just say no to suicide, drugs, and murder.

Unfortunately, no one — except libertarians — will question whether it’s the public schooling system itself that is screwing up people in the head, with its system of conformity and deference to authority.

Ever since the U.S. death machine began killing people in the Middle East, starting in the early 1990s, Americans have felt that so long as the killing is taking place “over there” — so long as photographs of the hundreds of thousands of dead people, including children and wedding parties — were kept out of the mainstream press — all that killing, destruction, and mayhem would have no adverse effect on Americans. Life could just go on as normal, with people going to their PTA meetings, sports events, work, vacations, and church.

I have never thought that was possible. As I have long maintained, when a government is killing people abroad on a constant basis, day after day, month after month, year after year, and decade after decade, it’s ultimately going to have an emotional, psychological, and spiritual impact on the citizenry living under the government that is doing the killing.

Some people speculate that some of those people who have committed suicide did so for economic reasons, such as losing their job and unable to get another one. But of course, most everyone blames the economic woes on America’s “free enterprise system,” as if a welfare-state, managed-economy, militarily-dominated way of life is “free enterprise.” No one, except us libertarians, points out that economic morass and spiritual depression always comes with socialism and economic interventionism. Just ask anyone who lived in the Soviet Union or who lives in Cuba.

It’s just one massive life of the lie. Since Americans have been inculcated since the first grade (in those government schools) with the notion that they live in a free-enterprise society, it never occurs to them to question whether that belief is consistent with reality. When a libertarian tells them that Cuba, a socialist country, also has Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, income taxation, drug laws, immigration controls, trade restrictions, subsidies, a central bank, an enormous military and intelligence force, and the like, they don’t want to hear it … or they think to themselves, “Wow, Cuba is going free enterprise, just like us.”

Delusions, myths, a life of the lie, a governmental death machine that is killing in the name of “enduring freedom” — how can it all not end up in psychosis and disorder? Why would it surprise anyone that a young person especially would look around and say to himself, “If this is the best there is — if this really is freedom — then I’m checking out”? “Freedom”—or what he has been taught is freedom — just doesn’t look very attractive to him.

Personally, I’m not surprised at the suicides, drug use, and mass murders. I’d be surprised if such things didn’t happen under America’s welfare-warfare state way of life. But then again, I’m a libertarian. I know that a welfare-warfare state is about as far from freedom and free enterprise that one can get.


It's all part of the plan, folks...

Climate Regulations Cost You

William O'Keefe

This year’s Earth Day celebrations, dating from 1972, followed a predictable script: they predicted environmental catastrophe unless developed countries change their profligate life styles and plunder of resources. As icing on the Earth Day cake, President Obama signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, which aims to keep the world below two degrees Celsius of warming.

In 1972, the major environmental concerns were air and water pollution and the apocalypse that would take place by the end of the 20th century from the exhaustion of the earth’s natural resources. The predictions of dread, whether they be the exhaustion of food supplies, the depletion of oil resources, a growing cancer epidemic, or deadly urban air pollution have all proven false. Since 1998, the ultimate threat to mankind has been sold as the threat of climate change.

Although these predictions were political contrivances, the cost to society in addressing them as if they were real has continued to grow and weakened our economic resiliency. Economic growth is stalled at 2 percent, productivity has declined to less than 1 percent, over $2 trillion in potential investment is held offshore, and labor participation is at 1970s levels.

The Code of Regulations, a proxy for the burdens imposed on industry, has grown from about 23,000 pages in 1960 to over 175,000 pages in 2014. And, it keeps growing, now measuring over 24 feet high. The effect of this complexity of regulation falls disproportionately on younger firms, which according to economists John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper, are the engines of new job creation.

A new study published by the Mercatus Center estimates that the regulatory burden in the United States represents $4 trillion in lost GDP. This exceeds total federal government spending in 2015. According to the study, if regulatory costs were a country, they would represent the world’s fourth largest economy, bigger than Germany, France, or the United Kingdom...

Read the rest here:

And everything else for that matter...

We Need Separation of Bathroom and State

By Roy Cordato

The saga of the so-called Charlotte bathroom ordinance — and the state of North Carolina’s response to it — has taken on a life of its own. At the national level leftists are accusing North Carolina of bigotry while, in the name of tolerance, a growing list of performers and businesses are boycotting the state. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it.

In late February the Charlotte, North Carolina, the city council passed an “antidiscrimination” law, scheduled to go into effect on April 1. It was aimed at protecting what, in the view of the city council, are the rights of those in the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. The centerpiece of this law was a provision that prohibits businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from the segregating usage of those facilities by gender, biologically defined. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. (Note, no proof was required.)

Much of the criticism of the Charlotte bill was centered around two issues: the religious freedom of business owners and the privacy rights of people, particularly women, using a public bathroom and shower facilities. Most of the vocal opposition to the ordinance came from religious organizations and advocacy groups that focused on traditional values. As argued by John Rustin, President of the Family Policy Council:

Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners and others either to conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business.

Private Property, Not Religion, Is the Key

While religious liberty is an important concern, the issue is much broader. This ordinance was an assault on the rights of private property owners and economic freedom, regardless of one’s religious beliefs.

The primary targets of the Charlotte ordinance were privately owned businesses that offer bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, etc., for their customer’s convenience. The decision of how to structure access to these facilities may, for some, be based on their religious beliefs but for many others, it is a secular business decision. Their goal is customer satisfaction driven by the desire to make a profit and earn a living. The property that they use is privately owned, the investments that they make come from private funds, and those who reap the rewards or suffer the losses are private entrepreneurs. The bathrooms in their establishments are part of the product that they provide.

In a free society based on property rights and free markets, as all free societies must be, a privately owned business would have the right to decide whether or not it wants separate bathrooms strictly for men and women biologically defined, bathrooms for men and women subjectively or psychologically defined, completely gender neutral bathrooms with no labels on the doors, or no bathrooms at all.

Businesses Seek to Please Their Customers

Their goal is to provide the products and services that most of their customers want in an environment that those customers feel comfortable in. This environment may indeed be different for different establishments depending on the desires and cultural makeup of their clients. This Charlotte ordinance told businesses that they are not allowed to adjust their decisions regarding their bathroom, locker room, or shower facilities in order to accommodate customer preferences. In this sense, the now overturned Charlotte ordinance was a gross violation of property rights and economic freedom and on libertarian grounds needed to be overturned.

So what was the state of North Carolina’s response to all this? In fact, it was to restore freedom and property rights and to guarantee those rights across the state. The law in North Carolina that so many progressives are up in arms about does not prohibit businesses from having bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc., that allow use by people of all genders defined biologically, psychologically, or whatever. In a “myths vs facts” explanatory statement put out by the governor of North Carolina this was made quite clear:

Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with …?

Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. …The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.

In other words, the state of North Carolina codified a basic libertarian principle: the separation of bathroom and state.

The only place where bathrooms, showers, etc., must conform with biological sex is in government-owned facilities — courtrooms, city halls, schools, etc., where this separation is not possible. So yes, in North Carolina 12-year old boys, defined by what body parts they are sporting, may not use the girls’ locker room and showers after gym class at the local public middle school. Of course, private middle schools are free to do what they want. If not believing that this is unjust discrimination makes me a bigot, then so be it.

So where does this approach leave the issue of religious freedom? For the most part, and particularly in cases like this, religious freedom is nothing more than the right to use your own property in a way that comports with your religious beliefs. This applies not only to the issue of who gets to use what bathrooms but also to the Little Sisters of the Poor and Obama’s contraceptive mandate, and most of the other religious freedom cases that are of concern to traditional values advocates. If property rights and economic freedom are the values that are upheld, then religious freedom will take care of itself.


"If the government does not obtain a search warrant and listens to phone conversations or reads emails or text messages nevertheless and attempts to use what it heard or read to acquire other evidence or directly in the prosecution of a defendant, that is unlawful."

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Would all of our lives be safer if the government could break down all the doors it wishes, listen to all the conversations it could find and read whatever emails and text messages it could acquire? Perhaps. But who would want to live in such a society?

To prevent that from happening here, the Framers ratified the Fourth Amendment, which is the linchpin of privacy and was famously called by Justice Louis Brandeis “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” He wrote those words in his dissent in the first wiretapping case to reach the Supreme Court, Olmstead v. the United States, in 1928.

Roy Olmstead had been convicted for bootlegging on the basis of words he used in overheard telephone conversations. Because he had used a phone at his place of work that the government had tapped without breaking and entering his workplace, the high court ruled — despite the fact that the government had not obtained a warrant — that he had no right to privacy. Brandeis dissented.

Over time, the Brandeis dissent became the law. The Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of all in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” was interpreted to cover telephone conversations and eventually emails and text messages. So today, if the government wants information contained in those communications, it needs to obtain a search warrant, which the Fourth Amendment states can only be given by a judge — and only upon a showing of probable cause of evidence of a crime contained in the communications it seeks.

If the government does not obtain a search warrant and listens to phone conversations or reads emails or text messages nevertheless and attempts to use what it heard or read to acquire other evidence or directly in the prosecution of a defendant, that is unlawful. That type of information is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Evidence procured that is the fruit of the poisonous tree has been inadmissible in federal criminal prosecutions in the United States for the past 100 years and in state criminal prosecutions for the past 50 years.

Until now.

Now comes the super-secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, reaffirmed by Congress last year under the so-called USA Freedom Act. Beware the names of federal statutes, as they often produce results that are the opposite of what their names imply; and this is one of them.

Congress has unconstitutionally authorized the FISA court to issue search warrants on the basis of governmental need — a standard that is no standard at all because the government can always claim that it needs what it wants. The FISA court does not require a showing of probable cause for its warrants, because it accepts the myth that the government is listening to or reading words by foreign people for foreign intelligence purposes only, not for prosecutorial purposes.

Never mind that Congress cannot change the plain meaning of the Constitution. Never mind that the Fourth Amendment protects all people in the United States, American or foreign, from all parts of the government for all purposes, not just criminal prosecutions.

Yet the FISA court still grants general warrants — look where you wish and seize what you find — exposing our innermost thoughts to the prying eyes of the intelligence community in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment.

Enter the USA Freedom Act. One of its selling points to Congress was that it would permit the FISA court to appoint a lawyer to challenge hypothetically some of its behavior. The court recently made such an appointment, and the lawyer appointed challenged the policy of the National Security Agency, the federal government’s domestic spying agency, of sharing data it acquires via the unconstitutional FISA warrants with the FBI. She argued that the data sharing goes far beyond the stated purpose of the FISA warrants, which is to gather foreign intelligence data from foreign people, not evidence of domestic crimes of anyone whose emails might be swept up by those warrants.

The challenge revealed publicly what many of us have condemned for years: The NSA actually makes its repository of raw data from emails and text messages available for the FBI to scour at will, without the FBI’s obtaining a warrant issued by a judge pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.

In an opinion issued in November but kept secret until last week, the FISA court rejected the hypothetical challenge of its own appointee and ruled that the NSA could continue to share what it wants with the FBI.

There are several problems with this ruling. The first is the hypothetical nature of the challenge. Federal courts do not exist in a vacuum. They do not render advisory opinions. They can only hear real cases and real controversies involving real plaintiffs and real defendants, not hypothetical ones as was the case here.

The whole apparatus of hypothetical challenge and a hypothetical ruling is constitutionally meaningless. It was the moral and legal equivalent of a law school moot court oral argument. Yet federal and soon state law enforcement will interpret it as giving cover to the NSA/FBI practice of data sharing, which is clearly unconstitutional because it is the use of fruit from a poisonous tree.

FISA and the USA Freedom Act were enacted under the premise — the pretense — that the data collected under them would be used for foreign intelligence purposes only so that attacks could be thwarted and methods could be discovered. Yet the use by the FBI of extraconstitutionally obtained intelligence data for ordinary criminal prosecutions defies the stated purposes of the statutes and contradicts the Fourth Amendment.

If this is keeping us safe, who or what will safeguard our freedoms? Who will keep us safe from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution yet defy it?


Wednesday, April 27, 2016

England Bans Its Own Flag to Avoid Offending Muslims...

Got fluoride???

The Fluoride Wars: Loving Cancer, Loving Lower IQ

Jon Rappoport

It’s no surprise that the US government would look the other way when lower IQ and cancer are business as usual.

One of the major agencies that would look the other way is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

—But suppose scientists within the EPA spoke out, revolted, and issued official rebukes to their own Agency’s position on fluorides?

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Contradiction. “We at the EPA know fluorides are wonderful and safe and beautiful. Of course, our own scientists disagree. Strongly. But don’t worry, we’re ignoring them. And we’re keeping their statements out of the press. Our position on fluorides is administrative. It has nothing to do with science. Anyway, we support cancer and plummeting IQ. They’re wonderful.”

Case in point, going back 17 years. Buckle up. Here is what the EPA Union of scientists had to say about fluoridation:

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”—written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”

“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.

So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.

Quite clear.

The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for at least 17 years.

In 2013, the EPA denied a petition from Dr. Hirzy calling for the removal of fluorides from water supplies. In a pinch, I guess the Agency can find scientists hanging around bus stations and bars and crack houses and get them to say what they want them to say and stamp it official.

—Scientists who’ve been guzzling fluoridated water themselves and thus have microscopic IQs.


The Triggering: Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

It all used to be so simple...

Where to Go to the Bathroom: An Opinion

Michael S. Rozeff

It all used to be so simple. If you are a man, you go to the men’s room. Woman? Go to the women’s room. I recommend keeping it simple. How? First, don’t go by “gender identity”. “Gender identity is defined as a personal conception of oneself as male or female (or rarely, both or neither).” Personal conception is burdensome for outsiders to detect and determine. It is subjective. It can be faked by those who wish to take sexual advantage. For these 3 reasons, it’s asking for trouble to have rules that allow persons to use whatever restroom facilities they want to use based upon their personal conceptions of themselves. The costs of such rules will be way too high. These will come in the form of disputes, court cases, penalties, enforcement costs, unhappiness of some or many, explosions of violence, anger, and penalties.

The alternative is to go by the person’s actual bodily sexual functions and makeup. This is an easily determined objective criterion in most cases. If you have male organs, you go to the men’s room. If you’ve become a man (woman) physically after being a woman (man), you go to the men’s (women’s) room. If you are homosexual, you go to the room consistent with your physical makeup, not your sexual preference, which, like gender identity opens up troubling and costly difficulties if it’s used as a criterion. If you are bisexual, you go to the restroom consistent with your sex organs. Transgender people, in my view, go to the bathroom consistent with their sex organs, not their gender identities or sexual preferences.

This is not a libertarian issue until aggression and punishments come to be used to change social customs and enforce patterns of behavior that deviate from what’s generally accepted, which is separate restrooms based on sex; and the latter means sex organs, in my view, not gender identity or sex preference.

Restrooms are provided to the public by many business and other establishments that are private but which government regulates as semi-public. It’s a big mistake if government (or a business) decides to regulate who can go to which restroom based upon subjective criteria like gender identity and sexual preferences. There is no odious or insufferable or hurtful discrimination if people are asked to go to a bathroom according to their sex organs. The reasons for this discrimination are social. We separate the sexes to allow privacy, to hold down sexual predation, to hold down sexual arousal, to prevent sexual confusion, and because certain functions are unique to each sex. There may be other subtle reasons that have led to this customary distinction and practice; so that it would be imprudent to alter it for the sake of grievances that a minority of the population feels or imagines. Bathroom discrimination is not like skin color discrimination, and it’s a mistake to equate the two.


Social Justtice Warriors are insane...

UMass Amherst Students Throw Temper Tantrum at Conservative Event on Campus

Robert Wenzel

Protesters shouted obscenities in an effort to silence Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopulous, and Steven Crowder, who were invited to speak on the campus of UMass Amherst.

Campus Refrom reports one of the protesters took it upon herself to pass out literature expressing her concern for the “triggering” event, claiming the speakers “all demonstrate either that you don’t give a shit about people’s trauma and pain and think it’s funny to thrust people into states of panic and distress OR that you fundamentally do not understand what a trigger is, what it means to be triggered, and what a trigger warning is meant to prevent.”

The insane lefties fear discussion and debate.


A matter of time...

World War III Has Begun

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Third World War is currently being fought. How long before it moves into its hot stage?

Washington is currently conducting economic and propaganda warfare against four members of the five block group of countries known as BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Brazil and South Africa are being destabilized with fabricated political scandals. Both countries are rife with Washington-financed politicians and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Washington concocts a scandal, sends its political agents into action demanding action against the government and its NGOs into the streets in protests.

Washington tried this against China with the orchestrated Hong Kong “student protest.” Washington hoped that the protest would spread into China, but the scheme failed. Washington tried this against Russia with the orchestrated protests against Putin’s reelection and failed again.

To destabilize Russia, Washington needs a firmer hold inside Russia. In order to gain a firmer hold, Washington worked with the New York mega-banks and the Saudis to drive down the oil price from over $100 per barrel to $30. This has put pressure on Russian finances and the rubla. In response to Russia’s budgetary needs, Washington’s allies inside Russia are pushing President Putin to privatize important Russian economic sectors in order to raise foreign capital to cover the budget deficit and support the ruble. If Putin gives in, important Russian assets will move from Russian control to Washington’s control.

In my opinion, those who are pushing privatization are either traitors or completely stupid. Whichever it is, they are a danger to Russia’s independence.

Eric Draitser provides some details of Washington’s assault on Russia:

of Washington’s attack on South Africa:

and of Washington’s attack on Brazil:

For my column on Washington’s attack on Latin American independence, see here.

As I have often pointed out, the neoconservatives have been driven insane by their arrogance and hubris. In their pursuit of American hegemony over the world, they have cast aside all caution in their determination to destabilize Russia and China.

By implementing neoliberal economic policies urged on them by their economists trained in the Western neoliberal tradition, the Russian and Chinese governments are setting themselves up for Washington. By swallowing the “globalism” line, using the US dollar, participating in the Western payments system, opening themselves to destabilization by foreign capital inflows and outflows, hosting American banks, and permitting foreign ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments have made themselves ripe for destabilization.

If Russia and China do not disengage from the Western system and exile their neoliberal economists, they will have to go to war in order to defend their sovereignty.


"If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives. When I was a rebellious teenager, my mother frequently told me, “As long as you’re living in my house and I’m paying the bills, you’re going to do as I say.” That kind of thinking is OK for children, but not for emancipated adults."

A Superior Vision

By Walter E. Williams

Last month, I celebrated the beginning of my 81st year of life. For nearly half that time, I have been writing a nationally syndicated column on many topics generating reader responses that go from supportive to quite ugly. So I thought a column making my vision, values and views explicit might settle some of the controversy.

My initial premise, when looking at all human issues, is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are your private property. If you agree with that premise, then certain human actions are moral and others immoral. The reason murder is immoral is that it violates private property. Similarly, rape and theft are immoral, for them, too, violate private property. Most Americans will agree that murder and rape violate people’s property rights and are hence immoral. But there may not be so much agreement about theft. Let’s look at it.

Theft is when a person’s property is taken from him — through stealth, force, intimidation, threats or coercion — and given to another to whom it does not belong. If a person took your property — even to help another person who is in need — it would be called theft. Suppose three people agreed to that taking. Would it be deemed theft? What if 100,000 or several hundred million people agreed to do so? Would that be deemed theft? Another way to ask these questions is: Does a consensus establish morality?

Self-ownership can offer solutions to many seemingly moral/ethical dilemmas. One is the sale of human organs. There is a severe shortage of organs for transplantation. Most people in need of an organdie or become very ill while they await an organ donation. Many more organs would become available if there were a market for them. Through the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, Congress has made organ sales illegal. Congress clearly has the power to prevent organ sales, but does it have a right? The answer to that question comes by asking: Who owns your organs? One test of ownership is whether you have the right to sell something. In the case of organs, if it is Congress that owns our organs, then we have no right to sell them. That would be stealing from Congress.

People have the right to take chances with their own lives. People do not have a right to take chances with the lives of others. That is why laws that mandate that cars have brakes are consistent with liberty and seat belt laws are not. You might say, “Aha, Williams, we’ve got you there because if you don’t wear a seatbelt and you have an accident and turn into a vegetable, society is burdened with taking care of you!” That’s not a problem of liberty. It’s a problem of socialism. Nobody should be forced to take care of me for any reason. If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives. When I was a rebellious teenager, my mother frequently told me, “As long as you’re living in my house and I’m paying the bills, you’re going to do as I say.” That kind of thinking is OK for children, but not for emancipated adults.

I have only touched the surface of ideas of self-ownership. The immorality associated with violation of the principle of self-ownership lies at the root of problems that could lead to our doom as a great nation. In fiscal 2015, total government spending — federal, state and local — was about $6.41 trillion. That’s about 36 percent of our gross domestic product. The federal government spent $3.69 trillion. At least two-thirds of that spending can be described as the government’s taking the property of one American and giving it to another. That’s our moral tragedy: We’ve become a nation of people endeavoring to live at the expense of others — in a word, a nation of thieves.