Saturday, April 25, 2015

Cartoon of the day...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Real Time with Bill Maher...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discusses his book, "Thimerosal - Let the Science Speak" as well as the documentary film, "Trace Amounts". Both available now exploring the dangerous relationship between Mercury and vaccines.

Poster of the day...

Got Silver???

Why Is JP Morgan Accumulating The Biggest Stockpile Of Physical Silver In History?
By Michael Snyder

Why in the world has JP Morgan accumulated more than 55 million ounces of physical silver? Since early 2012, JP Morgan’s stockpile has grown from less than 5 million ounces of physical silver to more than 55 million ounces of physical silver. Clearly, someone over at JP Morgan is convinced that physical silver is a great investment. But in recent times, the price of silver has actually fallen quite a bit. As I write this, it is sitting at the ridiculously low price of $15.66 an ounce. So up to this point, JP Morgan’s investment in silver has definitely not paid off. But it will pay off in a big way if we will soon be entering a time of great financial turmoil.

During a time of crisis, investors tend to flood into physical gold and silver. And as I mentioned just recently, JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon recently stated that “there will be another crisis” in a letter to shareholders…

Some things never change — there will be another crisis, and its impact will be felt by the financial market.

The trigger to the next crisis will not be the same as the trigger to the last one – but there will be another crisis. Triggering events could be geopolitical (the 1973 Middle East crisis), a recession where the Fed rapidly increases interest rates (the 1980-1982 recession), a commodities price collapse (oil in the late 1980s), the commercial real estate crisis (in the early 1990s), the Asian crisis (in 1997), so-called “bubbles” (the 2000 Internet bubble and the 2008 mortgage/housing bubble), etc. While the past crises had different roots (you could spend a lot of time arguing the degree to which geopolitical, economic or purely financial factors caused each crisis), they generally had a strong effect across the financial markets

And Dimon is apparently putting his money where his mouth is.

If Dimon believes that another great crisis is coming, then it would make logical sense to stockpile huge amounts of precious metals. And in particular, silver is a tremendous bargain for a variety of reasons. Personally, I like gold, but I absolutely love silver – especially at the price it is at right now.

Over the past few years, JP Morgan has been voraciously buying up physical silver. Nobody has ever seen anything quite like this ever before. In fact, JP Morgan has added more than 8 million ounces of physical silver during the past couple of weeks alone…


According to a detailed report from The Wealth Watchman JP Morgan Chase has been amassing a huge stockpile of physical silver, presumably in anticipation of a major liquidity event.

They’re baaaaack. Yes, “old faithful” is back at it again!

Of course, they never really left silver, and have been rigging it non-stop in the futures market, but for awhile there, there were at least no admissions of newly-stacked silver being made in their Comex warehousing facilities.

Yet, after a 16 month period of “dormancy” within their Comex warehouse vaults, these guys have returned with a vengeance.

In fact, our old buddies at JP Morgan Chase, not only see value in silver here, but they’re currently standing for delivery in their own house account in such strong numbers, that it commands our attention. Let me show you what I mean.

Here’s a breakdown of the Comex’s most recent silver deliveries to JP Morgan:

April 7th: 1,110,000 ounces

April 8th: 1,280,000 ounces

April 9th: 893,037 ounces

April 10th: 1,200,224 ounces

April 14th: 1,073,000 ounces

April 15th: 1,191,275 ounces

April 16th: 1,183,777.295 ounces

Read the rest here:

Libya Migrant Crisis: Whose Fault?

Mass murder...

Mass Murder is in Our DNA

By Eric Margolis

It’s good and right that we commemorate the mass killing in the Ottoman Empire during World War I of between 500,000 and 1.5 million Armenians.

Many nations now call the slaughter of 1915-1916 a “genocide.” This week the 100th anniversary of the notorious event was observed. Pope Francis and the European parliament called on Turkey to recognize the killings as genocide.

Turkey, successor to the Ottoman Empire, admits many Armenians were killed in WWI, but rejects the label of “genocide,” saying their deaths occurred in the confusion of war, not by design. The United States, a very close ally of Turkey, avoids the “g” word. Interestingly, Israel does too, perhaps not wanting to detract from the genocide Jews suffered in WWII.

Armenians insist the Ottoman authorities were determined to eradicate the ancient Armenian people. Turks claim that Armenian guerilla bands known as “dashnaks” acted as a fifth column for their bitter foe, Russia, which was attacking the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Large numbers of Armenian civilians were herded from their homes in eastern Turkey, across the mountains, and into the wastes of northern Syria.

The greatest loss of life occurred on these “death marches,” a fact that Turkey accepts. What is rarely stated by either side is that Kurdish tribesmen inflicted a significant number of deaths, pillage, and rape on the helpless Armenian deportees.

Modern Turkey is determined to avoid being branded with the shame of genocide because it tends to demote the bearer to a second-rate nation forever begging forgiveness, like eternally cringing Germany.

But what really galls the Turks is being singled out as genocidal mass killers when so many other similar perpetrators are ignored.

Begin with Spain, which wiped out its Muslim population then inflicted mass murder on West Indian native islanders, then in its Latin American colonies. No one even remembers the Arawak Indians, for example, wiped out by the Spaniards, British, and French.

In the United States, the mass killing and ethnic cleansing of its native people is a horrific crime rarely talked about today. Here, the historic record is loud and clear, unlike that of the chaotic Ottoman Empire. White-men’s diseases finished off what bullets and starvation failed to accomplish.

Why don’t we commemorate Stalin’s ghastly solution to independent-minded Ukrainians? During 1932-33, the Soviet secret police murdered by bullets and famine six million or more Ukrainians – the Holdomor.

Not long after, Roosevelt and Churchill allied themselves to the author of this historic crime, Stalin, who killed four times more people than Adolf Hitler. His crimes against Jews and other peoples are widely recognized and commemorated. No one today in the West commemorates Stalin’s murder of many millions of Soviet citizens.

Nor is the plight of East Europe’s ethnic Germans recalled. Between 1945-1948, 12 million were expelled at gunpoint from their ancestral homes, 500,000-600,000 being killed in the process. The majority came from former German territory annexed by Poland, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia.

Largely unknown was the genocide of the Soviet Union’s Muslims. Some four millions were murdered or starved to death under Stalin’s orders. Stalin, a Georgian or Ossetian, hated Muslims with the same ferocity that Hitler hated Jews – but he was a US-British ally.

Mao Zedong’s crazy “Great Leap Forward” during 1958-1960 caused the deaths of at least 30 million Chinese peasants, mostly by starvation. The Great Leap was not a carefully planned genocide, as with the Germans and Soviets, but the result of totalitarian dementia and Marxist folly, but the victims were just as dead.

Next, the “Mfakane.” During the 1820’s, the Zulu moved south into what is today South Africa, slaughtering 1-2 million local tribesmen. It’s worth noting that the Dutch-Flemish Boer inhabitants of the Cape were there long before the Zulu, who dominate today’s South Africa. Belgium’s mass murders in its Congo colony are branded genocide by some historians.

A million or more Cambodians were slaughtered by the demented, Maoist Khmer Rouge. The details of the murder of up to one million communists in Indonesia during a 1965-1966 US-backed coup remain obscure.

History is filled with forgotten genocides – all part of our inhumane tribal culture. So blame the Turks, but don’t forget all the other mass killers.


Friday, April 24, 2015

Defending capitalism...

Defending the Ethical Enterpriser in an Anti-Business Climate
by Richard M. Ebeling

In spite of the great advances in reducing poverty and increasing the freedom and dignity of hundreds of millions of people around the world, the political and cultural climate virtually everywhere around the world is one of anti-business and anti-capitalism.

Yet, it is wherever the forces of free market capitalism have been set freest, along with a modicum of acceptance and even respect for business enterprise, that the most dramatic strides have been made in abolishing the worst and most squalid material conditions of mankind.

Businessmen Deliver the Goods, But are Morally Condemned

Profitable mass production has come from satisfying the needs, wants, and desires of the mass of humanity. If in past times the mass of people bond to the land were compelled to serve the wants of the few who through conquest and plunder lived as the lords of the manor, under free market capitalism those who take on the role of entrepreneur and enterpriser have no source of personal wealth other than their successful catering to the wants of the many – the large consuming general public.

One would have thought that an economic system that generates a situation in which the creative, industrious and innovative members of society would have incentives to apply their talents and abilities to improve the conditions of others, rather than to use their superior qualities to rob what they neighbors have produced, would be hailed as one of the greatest institutional arrangements ever come across by man.

Instead, the more that the creative and the industrious succeed in this peaceful and productive way, the more they are condemned and accused of some form of economic “crime against humanity” due to the profits they earn in improving the circumstances of all the others in society.

In such an environment, those who pursue leadership positions in business, who demonstrate entrepreneurial excellence in designing, directing and marketing better products, new products, and less expensive products, find themselves the targets of condemnation, ridicule, and even hatred from the ranks of those whose lives are made better due to their enterprising actions.

The intellectuals, the news pundits, and self-appointed “critics” of the existing human condition are always pointing the finger at the businessman as the source and cause of all of man’s miseries, frustrations, disappointments and dissatisfactions.

The intellectual and social elites among them dream dreams of “better worlds,” if only they were in charge of mankind’s social arrangements. Businessmen are, in their eyes, the “stumbling block” to societal reconstruction because the institutions of private property and private accumulation of wealth stand in the way of their having full access to using the material and other means of the earth to implement their conceptions of “utopia,” if only they were in charge of the desired social engineering projects.

Businessmen Fear Bad Publicity If They Defend Themselves

Rarely do members of the business community speak up in defense of their position and place in society. There are several reasons for this. First, it is considered “bad for business.” Taking political stances on public policy issues can place private enterprises in the crosshairs of the media and ideological interest groups who will proceed to vilify them. You don’t maintain or improve your “bottom line” by alienating your customers by publically defending people or positions with which the majority of opinion-makers may disagree or condemn.

And if public policy positions are explicitly or implicitly endorsed or advocated by businessmen, it’s considered better and safer to do so in ways that demonstrate your “social awareness” on those issues. This boils down to taking sides with the fashionable fads and fashions that the media and the “beautiful people” in the celebrity world have adopted as “consciousness raising” good causes.

Arouse the ire of these groups and financial ruin and governmental regulatory attention may come your way. Going along to get along is considered the path of least resistance in the business world no less than in other aspects of everyday social life.

Businessmen Lack Knowledge to Morally Defend Themselves

Second, those in the business world are no different than most of the rest of us, in that they have been educated and acculturated in the same social environment as everyone else. They have gone to the same public or private schools; they read or listen to the same mass media news outlets; they watch the same movies and are influenced by the same political, economic, social and cultural ideas and attitudes as all others in society.

In other words, they may work in business, they may be entrepreneurs and enterprisers who startup, guide and manage businesses, but they live in the same social milieu as us all and they, too, have absorbed and accepted many of the same prejudices and biases about “capitalism” as the rest.

As a consequence, they may pursue profits and entrepreneurial excellence, but if challenged or questioned about the justification or morality of how and what they do, they might say, “Well, that’s how business operates, that’s how I make a living.” However, few such individuals can articulate and demonstrate the “rightness” and goodness of their role as businessman in the division of labor.

Guilt, uncomfortableness, and embarrassment are likely to surround any attempted defense of their place in the economic system. “Well, of course, we need environmental regulations to prevent destruction of the planet.” “Certainly, its government’s role to reduce ‘excessive’ inequality.” “Its only ‘fair’ that the government gives a ‘helping hand’ to those who cannot make it in the ‘system’.”

The Sanction of the Victim

Long ago the individualist philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, referred to this type of stance and response by businessmen to such criticisms and attacks on them as, “The sanction of the victim.”

The victim whose only “crime” is working honestly and creatively, and whose actions help generate the wealth, ease and comfort that modern market society offers to the vast majority of its members is expected to apologize and ask forgiveness for the very qualities that centrally assist in the improvement in the circumstances of mankind.

The problem is, precisely, that many in the business community do not know how to defend their own actions and their outcomes because they accept the indictment made against capitalism, due to the fact that they have never been offered an alternative moral justification of how and what they do. They presume that the way they have chosen to earn a living inescapably is a “mortal sin” from which they cannot be saved other than to stop being who and what they are.

Few businessmen can articulate how and why it is a lack of defined and securely enforced property rights that cause virtually all of the negative spillover effects of pollution and wastage of scarce resources. Or why it is an equality of individual rights before the law that is essential for freedom and justice in society, not government attempts at politically manipulated equalities of income and social outcomes. And why it is that both humane and moral forms of benevolence to assist those who may be less fortunate can only come through voluntarism and competitive incentives among charitable organizations to use funds freely given in wise and effective ways.

Some Businessmen Turn to the State for Plunder and Privilege

There is a third reason for the failure of some businessmen to defend the market system and principles that underlay any successful ethics of entrepreneurship and enterprise. They often not only do not understand such an ethics of economic liberty. They do not believe in them. That is, there is a significant segment of the business community – frequently though certainly not exclusively in “big business” – that implicitly has the view that the state is to be used as a tool for plunder and privilege.

There are certainly some, who like common crooks and thieves, simply see the political process as the avenue to more greatly assure wealth and success. Just as one criminal when asked why he robbed banks replied that that is where the money is, there are those in private enterprise who run to the government to get what they want because that’s from where the privileges and plunder can come at taxpayers’ and others’ expense.

They are the entrepreneurial immoralists, since they may well know or understand that their economic gain through the political process is based on using government to pick other peoples’ pockets.

There are others whom I would suggest might be labeled the entrepreneurial amoralists because they have always lived under a political system in which it is taken for granted that one of the ways to obtain larger revenues and increased market share is using the tools of special interest lobbying to get government to act in ways favorable to your firm or industry. In other words, they don’t really see the difference between money made through voluntary exchange and government compulsory transfer.

A good number of years ago, I was invited to deliver a series of keynote addresses at several annual state-level Farm Bureau conventions. I found that when speaking to those who were, say, over 55 or 60 years of age, many of them felt uncomfortable about government agricultural subsidy programs and said that, in principle, if it were possible to get government out of the farming business they would be for it.

On the other hand, those in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, often could not understand why I was even asking about government’s role in farming. They had no living memory of a time when government was not paying farmers subsidies for various crops or even paying them to not grow anything at all.

For this younger group, making sales to consumers on the market was the same as being paid by the government. They frequently gave the impression of seeing no difference between a free market transaction and government redistribution of wealth. The latter was not seen or considered as “plunder.” They were not consciously immoral in taking a government handout; they just did not think it was a moral issue at all, anymore than deciding whether to have coffee in the morning instead of a cup of tea.

Intervention Draws Businessmen into Political Corruption

Finally, there are those who may be called the ethically pragmatic private enterprisers. They might think government should not be in the business of interfering with business, and they might dislike having to distract themselves and their investable funds into lobbying government. But they do so as a “defensive” strategy, since in the winner-take-all of governmental manipulation, if they don’t fend off the politicking of other special interest groups more “offensively” trying to use the state for their benefit, their own market position and financial viability might be undermined or destroyed.

As a result, far too many in the world of business are sucked into the maelstrom of governmental interventionist intrigue, corruption, and abuse. Like Odysseus in ancient Greek literature, some businessmen may try to tie themselves to the mast of market morality to not be tempted by the Siren’s call to political immorality, but too few understand know enough to try and fewer still are able to successfully resist being drawn into and drowned in the government’s sea of corruption.

Businessmen will not be able to escape from these traps and temptations on their own. Their primary attention and focus, if they are to be successful enterprisers and entrepreneurs, will be in pursuing their specialize market purposes in the context of the ideas and institutions in which they live and operate their businesses.

Defenders of Freedom in the Battle of Ideas

Changing the climate of opinion and the social and political surroundings in which businesses function falls upon free market-oriented economists and liberty-oriented philosophers and opinion-makers, I would suggest. First, in the division of labor that is part of their job. They are the handlers of ideas and ideologies. They are the ones who step back and ask young and old to think about the social system as a whole.

What is the nature of man and the natural and social circumstances in which he lives, works, and survives? Why is there no escaping from self-interested conduct, and therefore what are the outcomes from alternative institutional settings in which individuals attempt to better their personal situations? Why is it that voluntary market exchange under secure property rights not only delivers the goods, but also can be reasoned to foster and create a moral and good society with its abolition of force and violence from human relationships within a legal order based on individual rights?

Why is it, then, that the businessman who earns his living in such a free and ethical system is not a villain and a destroyer but a central partner in the shared human endeavor for the creation of a peaceful, prosperous, and polite society?

Ending Anti-Business Attitudes Requires Educating for Liberty

Both the general public and the community of business enterprisers need to be taught such things. Without it, the public conception of the always potential “dirtiness” of business will not be defeated as part of the drive to undermine and counter-act the collectivists’ portrayal of “capitalism” as the enemy of mankind.

Without this change in the climate of opinion, businessmen, themselves, will never have the understanding and through it the courage and motive to defend themselves and the honest rewards they earn from competitive, free market success.

Equally important, those in the business community who I suggested labeling the immoral or amoral private enterprises, who for either “offensive” or “defensive” reasons turn to the State for the political booty of government privilege and plunder, must be criticized and, indeed, shamed into rethinking their own conduct and behavior in the current interventionist welfare state.

How can the wider society be made to rethink their suspicions concerning the businessman’s motives, actions and outcomes, when too many of those who free marketers and classical liberals wish to defend commit many of the unethical acts of which the critics of capitalism accuse them?

Defending the Modern-Day “Smugglers” Who Serve the Market

At the same time, there are shackled and harassed businessmen who do attempt to operate outside of the spider’s web of regulations, controls and restrictions by trying to find ways to get around the interventionist state to earn their livings by better serving the consuming public. The economist and classical liberal opinion molders need to show the benefits and ethics of these acts as well.

The friends of free trade and competitive enterprise in the nineteenth century unhesitatingly defended smuggling – the “black market” – as the market’s method to get around socially harmful government controls that benefit some but harm many others.

The British free market liberal economist, Nassau Senior, for example, argued in the 1820s: “The smuggler is a radical and judicious reformer. The smuggler is essential to the well being of the whole nation. All external commerce depends on him.”

And the French economist, Jerome-Adolph Blanqui, in the 1840s, explained:

“It is in the nature of bad institutions never to be respected, and to give birth to protests that end in bringing about reform; smuggling was to the [mercantilist system of government controls] the constant and the most expressive of these protests . . .

“It is as exact in its deliveries as the most scrupulous merchant; it braves the seasons and defies the best-guarded lines of customhouses, to such a degree that assurance companies, which protect it, count upon fewer losses than any other.

“Smuggling is, in fact, the only means that remains to the various industries to procure for themselves the prohibited products whose use is indispensable for them . . .

“While savants discuss and commerce entreats, contrabandage acts and decides on the frontier; it presents itself with the irresistible power of actual facts, and freedom of trade has never won a victory for which smuggling has not prepared the way.”

Many Americans think of “black markets” as primarily concerned with the production, selling and buying of “sinful” or “immoral” goods and services: narcotics, sex transactions, gambling, etc.

Throughout large stretches of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, however, black markets are those arenas of trade in which many of the everyday items of daily life are bought and sold; everything from food and toilet paper, to clothes, shoes, and household items.

Government regulations, controls, restrictions, and prohibitions are so extensive and pervasive, that doing business honestly and openly is either impossible because it runs up against the monopoly friends of those in political power or the bribes, graft and corruption is so costly that it makes business survivability a tenuous and uncertain enterprise if attempted completely above board in the formal and legal market.

Businesses would not be opened and sustained, jobs would not created generating incomes for those who might otherwise starve or be forced into a real life of crime, and the mundane needs of the ordinary consumer in these societies would not be fulfilled, if not for a profit-motivated, risk-taking, entrepreneurial drive of multitudes of ordinary people who take on the mantle of illegal enterpriser and businessman.

The Free Enterprise Businessman as “Hero”

I recently talked to such an illegal entrepreneur who lives and works in Venezuela. Describing the financial difficulties and personal dangers he faces in his role of black marketeer in the manufacture and marketing of one of those ordinary consumer products of every life, I asked he why he did not just leave.

Given his business skills, why did he not move to even some other nearby Latin American country where, at least, he would not face the degree of danger from bribe-hungry government bureaucrats and violence-threatening agents of socialist Venezuela’s murderous secret police?

He said that as a Venezuelan and an advocate of liberty, he believed it was his duty to stay in his own country to do whatever he could to oppose the collectivist regime under which he and his fellow countrymen were living, working, and dying.

But equally, he said that he employed about a dozen women in his underground enterprise, who are the sole financial support for their respective families. If he were to give up, shut down his business, and leave the country, he had no idea how these families would make ends meet. He could not abandon those who loyally and hard-workingly did everything they could to help him stay in business and make a marketable product from which they all earned their means of livelihood.

Free market economists and classical liberals should hail these instances not only as examples of businessmen serving as “radical and judicious reformers” attempting to better serve the needs of the public in the face of economic protectionism for the anti-competitive and anti-market interests of some in society. But as heroes of liberty, integrity and benevolent loyalty to those whose incomes are dependent upon his success and ingenuity as an entrepreneur under hazardous and even life-threatening circumstances.

It should be praised as examples of what the market could have in store if all trade, commerce and industry were freed from the dead hand of government control. The businessman would be shown to be the heroic free enterpriser, innovator and champion of fulfilled freedom of choice for all in society.

Businessmen, themselves, would be educated to see how they should earn their living – through market-based production and not political-manipulated plunder – that would demonstrate the morality of all that they do, and would help provide the internal moral compasses to think twice before they give into the temptations of government largess.

This is the ethical avenue for defending ethical enterprisers in an anti-business world.


Where's Al Gore on this one???

Pacific Ocean compared to a 'war zone' as sea life ecosystem collapses; radioactive waste continues to pour into the ocean

by: David Gutierrez

From San Diego to San Francisco, hundreds of sea lions have been washing ashore - dead and dying.

"You could equate it to a war zone," said Keith Matassa of the Pacific Marine Mammal Center, noting that the center gets "hundreds of rescue calls a day."

In just the first three months of 2015, already more than 1,800 sea lions have washed up on California beaches - 1,100 in March alone. Most of them are starving juveniles, often riddled with parasites or sick from pneumonia. They have even turned up in people's backyards, apparently desperately seeking food or some kind of assistance.

"There are so many calls, we just can't respond to them all," said Justin Viezbicke of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "The reality is, we just can't get to these animals."

Prey have vanished

This is the third year in the last five to see abnormally large numbers of strandings. It remains unclear what effect the dying pups will have on the sea lion population over the long term, particularly if the trend keeps up.

Researchers are unsure what has caused the disaster, but they believe it stems from low fish populations along the coastal islands that sea lions use to breed and to care for their young until they are weaned. Because food is so scarce, mother sea lions are spending more time away from the islands hunting. This causes their starving pups - too young to swim far or dive deep enough to hunt for themselves - to flood the coast in search of food.

"They come ashore because if they didn't, they would drown," said Shawn Johnson, the director of veterinary science at the Marine Mammal Center. "They're just bones and skin. They're really on the brink of death."

The NOAA and other experts have blamed the lack of prey on warming ocean waters, which has forced the cold-water fish that sea lions prey on farther from the shore. These experts worry that rising global temperatures could have devastating consequences for a species that evolved to use the Channel Islands as one of its only breeding grounds.

"The environment is changing too rapidly," said Sharon Melin of the National Marine Fisheries Service. "Their life history is so much slower that it's not keeping up."

Fukushima partly to blame?

According to Matassa, however, there is no consensus yet on the cause for the disaster.

"That's what we're trying to figure out is why?" he said. "What's going on? Where are the fish? Where did they go? Was there a little mini El Nino? Did something happen with the currents that the fish decided to go deeper or further out? They're not closing the book on any theory."

According to ENE News, some fishermen are skeptical of the warming water theory, saying that other El Nino years actually had warmer water than this year. These fishermen told reporters that they suspect pollution or habitat destruction may be the cause of the sea lions' plight.

Could radiation from the Fukushima disaster be one cause? In 2011, multiple reactors at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant exploded, sending a massive radioactive plume spewing into the air and sea. This plume has been steadily moving east across the Pacific Ocean ever since, and is predicted to hit the coast of North America by 2017.

Since then, radioactive material has continued to flow from Fukushima into the Pacific, both accidentally and by design. Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has deliberately ejected radioactive water into the ocean to keep it from building up onsite. In addition, the company reports that at least two trillion becquerels worth of material flowed unintentionally into the ocean between August 2013 and May 2014. This occurred at 10 times the release rate permitted prior to the disaster.

Learn more:

"Among the throngs who have turned “Earth” Day into “Global Warming Is Real Because We Say It Is” Day are more than a few activists who believe laws should be made to not only ensure that Global Warming Is Real Because They Say It Is, but punish people who don’t believe in it."

Another year, another Earth Day

by Ben Crystal

For those of you who were pressing your carbon footprint into Mother Earth’s jugular, Earth Day has come and gone. Fret not, dear friends. While you were busy being busy, the global warmists swarmed out of their dorm rooms, activist meetings and parents’ basements to shout to the rafters about the impending doom that haunts humanity. And when I say “shout,” I mean “roar like a crowd at a medieval public stoning.”

While Earth Day is nominally a day of celebration of all things earthy, it has devolved into the same shrieking hatefest that replays every time more than a few liberals occupy the same real estate. This year’s event featured pretty much the standard menu. Demands were made, speeches were given, warnings were levied, press conferences were held and enough non-recyclable garbage was piled up to shove the Styrofoam industry into the black for the rest of the year. There were concerts and cultural events attended by celebrities who were so moved by the plight of Mother Earth that they gathered their posses, ventured out of their Malibu compounds, landed their private jets and rolled up in their limos to lend their voices to the caterwauling. President Obama was so distraught that he flew 2,000 miles round-trip in a 747, burning nearly 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, to declare: “[C]limate change can no longer be denied. … And action can no longer be delayed.”

Say what you want about the American left, they are nearly as hysterical about “climate change” as they are about making sure no one derails the “climate change” express. What these guys lack in conclusive evidence, they more than make up for in sheer volume. Granted, a theory that is less than 50 years old and has already undergone multiple name changes to patch over five decades of being woefully wrong isn’t likely to gain much ground on merit. Perhaps that’s why the global warmists need to stage rock concerts and press conferences. Presumably, they’re hoping to make enough racket to drown out the considerable, and considerably growing, science that threatens their beloved theory.

They certainly can’t rest on their academic laurels. Even without counting the multiple scandals in which leading warmist researchers have been caught doing to their data what reputed Earth Day founder Ira Einhorn did to his girlfriend, these guys have a worse track record than an apocalyptic cult. After five decades of unbelievably dire prognostications, global warming remains farther from validation than I am from the guest list at the White House. The world didn’t cool off radically, relegating icebound cities to Dennis Quaid movies. The crops didn’t fail on a global scale, leading billions of people to not starve to death. The atmosphere’s balance of oxygen to nitrogen didn’t tilt, touching off a worldwide respiration epidemic. The icecaps stubbornly refused to melt, inspiring the seas to refuse to rise in solidarity. Legions of class-5 hurricanes failed to conduct endless bombardments of North American coasts, producing a boon for citrus farmers, insurance brokers and Disney World.

In fact, even a cursory examination of the so-called “science” behind the global warming industry reveals that global warmists are almost as reliable as one of those late-night TV psychics. “Call me now!”

That the climate is changing is a matter of scientific fact. However, the cause thereof is anything but. The big secret of the global warming industry is that it literally cannot prove anything more than an anecdotal relationship between human activity and weather patterns. The warmists are fond of pointing out that “97 percent” of scientists agree that “climate change” is real. While that figure is dubious in and of itself, it leaves out the rather important fact that the research used to “prove” that number has been conclusively proven to be as seriously flawed as the hackneyed theory it was constructed to defend.

Planet Earth has undergone radical climatological changes on a globally catastrophic scale on no fewer than five occasions over the course of 4.4 billion years. Of those five incidents, not one of those mass extinction events was tied to the exhaust from your SUV. Even if humanity were engaged in a conscious effort to murder Mother Earth, our results suggest we should have hired a specialist. We’re terrible at it. Despite what the warmists would call our best efforts, humanity has barely dented the biosphere.

In the five extinction-level events that have scarred the planet, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent to 75 percent of species shuffled off to the natural history museums. Outside some weird cultural affinities for powdered rhinoceros appendages or what have you, we actually make coordinated, multinational efforts to protect species deemed “at risk.” I can promise you the meteor that packed in T-Rex and his gang made no effort to gauge the environmental effects of whacking the Gulf of Mexico at 45,000 mph.

Unfortunately for those of us too informed to spend a perfectly good Wednesday bloviating about whatever they’re calling global warming this week, the warmists do not exist in a vacuum. Because “climate change” replaces science with politics, it also replaces scientists with politicians. And politicians replace the pursuit of knowledge with the pursuit of power.

Among the throngs who have turned “Earth” Day into “Global Warming Is Real Because We Say It Is” Day are more than a few activists who believe laws should be made to not only ensure that Global Warming Is Real Because They Say It Is, but punish people who don’t believe in it. Obama even considers warming the single greatest threat to humanity’s survival — even though the number of people killed by a political ploy masquerading as science is significantly lower than, say, the number killed by the beneficiaries of Eric Holder’s arms trafficking program.

Lust for power plus dishonesty plus willful ignorance almost always means trouble for the rest of us. And the warmists are as flush in all three categories as Al Gore is in cash ever since he sold Global Warming TV to Big Huge Oil. If there’s one thing Obama’s disastrous occupation of the White House has taught us, it’s that there is no lie the Democrats won’t tell, no crime they won’t commit, no pseudoscientific claptrap they won’t push as gospel in order to expand their control over your life.

According to more than a few of the warmists’ high priests, dissenters — currently known to warmists as “climate deniers,” a moniker that makes as much sense as the rest of their “science” — shouldn’t just be shouted down; they should be made to suffer — or worse. If you forget the actual science that has forced global warming to undergo more name changes than Prince, remember that next Earth Day. The warmists are willing to kill you to save the Earth from an imaginary threat: “Happy Earth Day, Climate Denier. Hope you die.”


Drone Strike: A Targeted Assassination...

"Will FBI agents who lie, cheat, break the law and testify falsely be brought to justice? Will their superiors who condone this be made to answer? Does the FBI work for us, or do we work for it?"

Another “Hairy” FBI Tale

By William L. Anderson

Like so many other “official” social and governmental institutions that were birthed during the Progressive Era a century ago, the Federal Bureau of Investigation – better known as the FBI – has been held up as a model of governmental professionalism. The G-Men, as they were called, were to be the cream of the crop of professional and “scientific” lawmen, incorruptible, diligent, and generally correct about everything.

Progressives believed that all of American life needed to fall under central governmental control, and law enforcement should be no exception. Journalists touted the “professional” lawmen of the FBI, contrasting them with the ignorant, slovenly, pot-bellied officers of local and county police forces. Radio programs, television shows, and cinema portrayed FBI agents as the very epitome of disinterested professionalism, always being right and always “getting their man.”

At the heart of FBI professionalism was its crime lab, located in Quantico, Virginia. Founded in 1932, the FBI lab was touted as providing the very latest in forensic science, and since science was at the heart of the American religious faith known as Progressivism, the lab was deemed to be the Holy of Holies of police “forensic” investigations.

Agents from the lab – looking proper and professional – testified at thousands of trials, convincing jurors that their nearly-perfect “science” pointed to defendants in the dock as the guilty parties. Especially authoritative to jurors was the FBI “hair analysis” in which agents claimed to be able to identify a single strand of hair as ironclad proof that the defendant was at the scene, even if there was no other evidence that could point to guilt. At least 32 defendants were found guilty of murder and sentence to death, with many of the men executed.

This past week, the FBI finally was forced to admit that the vaunted “hair analysis” was bogus, another episode of the “junk science” that Progressives have foisted on us for decades. When combined with the scandals coming from state crimes labs and the FBI crime lab scandal of the 1990s, what we know now – beyond any doubt – is that much of the so-called scientific analysis upon which prosecutors have depended to bolster their criminal cases in state and federal courts has been worse than worthless, since it often was used to convict innocent defendants and place some of them in death chambers.

The false testimony is not limited to forensics. We now know that much of what passes for “scientific” arson investigation also is bogus and in 2004, the State of Texas executed Todd Willingham, supposedly for setting the fire that killed his three young daughters, then-Gov. Rick Perry calling Willingham a “monster” before giving final approval to his execution. Subsequent investigations have demonstrated beyond a doubt that the original investigation was terribly flawed and Willingham almost certainly was innocent of the crime for which he was put to death. The State of Texas, not surprisingly, continues to insist that its agents did nothing wrong and that Willingham was guilty because the courts said so:

(Then) Gov. Rick Perry, who would have to approve a pardon based on any favorable recommendation from the board, approved the state’s first posthumous pardon in March 2010 — of Timothy Cole, who spent more than 13 years in prison — and died there — for a 1985 Lubbock rape it was later proven he didn’t commit.

Perry’s press secretary, Catherine Frazier, said the governor hasn’t changed his position: that courts upheld Willingham’s arson-murder conviction and the death sentence. She noted that Perry cannot grant a pardon without a favorable recommendation from the parole board.

“Todd Willingham was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for murdering his three daughters, year-old twins and a 2-year-old,” Frazier said, echoing what Perry has said in the past.

Of course, the State of Texas did not depend solely upon false forensic “evidence.” Prosecutors also relied upon the testimony of the ubiquitous “jailhouse snitch” who testified that Willingham fully confessed while rooming with him in the same cell. The Washington Post reports:

Since Willingham was executed in 2004, officials have continued to defend the account of the informer, Johnny E. Webb, even as a series of scientific experts have discredited the forensic evidence that Willingham might have deliberately set the house fire in which his toddlers were killed.

But now new evidence has revived questions about Willingham’s guilt: In taped interviews, Webb, who has previously both recanted and affirmed his testimony, gives his first detailed account of how he lied on the witness stand in return for efforts by the former prosecutor, John H. Jackson, to reduce Webb’s prison sentence for robbery and to arrange thousands of dollars in support from a wealthy Corsicana rancher. Newly uncovered letters and court files show that Jackson worked diligently to intercede for Webb after his testimony and to coordinate with the rancher, Charles S. Pearce Jr., to keep the mercurial informer in line.

Not surprisingly, Texas officials claimed that Webb did not receive preferential treatment, which was another government lie, as the Post account points out:

Along with Webb’s account, the letters and documents expose a determined, years-long effort by the prosecutor to alter Webb’s conviction, speed his parole, get him clemency and move him from a tough state prison back to his hometown jail. Had such favorable treatment been revealed prior to his execution, Willingham might have had grounds to seek a new trial.

So, Texas officials to this day continue to lie about the Willingham case and continue to cover up that which has been exposed. In the end, the government’s strategy has been simply to ignore the obvious, make statements that everyone knows is false, and continue on its merry way because government officials are immune from the reaches of the law. In fact, Gov. Perry, before he left office at the end of his term, even intervened in the investigation, stacking the Texas Forensic Science Commission with people that actively kept the commission from further looking into the Willingham case

So it is with the latest “hair analysis” scandal from the FBI. On one hand, prosecutors will insist that not one of their convictions based upon this analysis was flawed and that the courts should at very least pretend that jurors did not hear false testimony that helped to convince them that the defendant was guilty.

On the other hand, we will hear lots and lots of calls for “reform,” and “reform” is a favorite term for Progressives. Indeed, our history books are full of statements calling Progressives “reformers,” and Progressives forever are calling for new “reforms” to deal with the problems that the old “reforms” have caused.

The problem is not the lack of “reforms” or even the lack of zeal to “fix” the problems. The problem is the mentality of Progressives and the tenets of their religion of State Worship. Progressives continue to insist that we should be governed by disinterested “experts” who, because of their infinite wisdom and because they work for the federal government, know what is best for everyone else.

Yes, science – and especially DNA analysis – can be very helpful in analyzing some criminal cases, and especially cases involving rape or other kinds of assault. (As we saw in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, Progressives also are quick to dismiss even the most authoritative DNA-based evidence when it does not fit their political agendas.) Unfortunately, much of the so-called science that has been used to convict innocent defendants is not science at all, but rather a form of convincingly-presented fiction, and American jurors, steeped in Progressivist propaganda for all of their lives, almost always swallow lies and half-truths more easily than they accept the truth.

As I see it, no meaningful “reform” is possible in the current intellectual and emotional climate of Progressivist thought. Progressives want us to believe that there can and should be no limits on the power of a few to govern the many, yet even the best science is beset with major limitations. The very heart of scientific inquiry – a methodological viewpoint that came about long before Progressives took over the United States – is skepticism.

So-called crime labs, however, do not operate on skepticism, but rather upon a set of beliefs that government employees in white lab coats will declare with authority that which may not be possible to know, and that jurors should send people to prison on the basis of what those people in the white lab coats tell them, and especially if those white-coated people are FBI agents.

In a recent article, Judge Andrew Napolitano asked simple-but-searing questions:

Will FBI agents who lie, cheat, break the law and testify falsely be brought to justice? Will their superiors who condone this be made to answer? Does the FBI work for us, or do we work for it?

We know the answers already: the FBI will announce it has introduced “reforms” to its system, and then claim 100 percent “success” in implementing those new “reforms.” And then the FBI and other police and prosecutorial agencies will go back to doing what they always have done: lie, lie, and lie some more.


Thursday, April 23, 2015

"The genuinely free society is one in which the government lacks the power to assassinate."

Freedom and the Omnipotent Power to Assassinate
by Jacob G. Hornberger

As a kid growing up, did you ever think you’d live under a government that had the omnipotent power to assassinate you and every other American citizen? If you heard about some communist regime or other totalitarian government wielding the omnipotent power to assassinate its own citizens, you wouldn’t be surprised. But I’ll bet that the vast majority of Americans never thought they would end up living under a governmental structure that had that sort of power over the citizenry.

That’s certainly not the type of governmental structure that the Framers brought into existence with the Constitution. The federal governmental structure that the Constitution brought into existence was one whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution itself. The power to assassinate people, Americans or foreigners, was not among those enumerated powers.

The American people were skeptical and distrustful about the powers of the new government. They had had experience with a government that engaged in brutal actions against its own citizens. They were concerned about the same sort of thing happening again. That’s why they insisted that the Constitution be amended immediately after its approval. Among the amendments were the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, which prohibited the federal government from killing people, Americans or foreigners, without according them long-established procedural rights and guarantees, such as trial by jury, due process of law, and right to counsel.

And then came the 9/11 attacks. President Bush simply issued a decree stating that he and his national-security establishment—i.e., the military and the CIA—now automatically wielded the omnipotent power to assassinate both Americans and foreigners.

Ironically, when Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, recently sought extraordinary, emergency powers in response to President Obama’s decree that Venezuela now posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security,” he asked the Venezuela legislature to grant him such powers. Ironically, Adolph Hitler did the same thing after the terrorist attack on the Reichstag. He went to the German legislature to make his case for giving him extraordinary powers to wage the war on terrorism.

Not Bush. He said that since America now had its own war on terrorism, he didn’t need congressional approval for assuming and exercising the power to assassinate. He simply announced that he now had such power over the American people and others around the world. Of course, he exercised such omnipotent power through his military forces and his CIA forces.

Bush’s omnipotent power to assassinate Americans and foreigners was passed to President Obama. It will be also passed to Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or whoever is elected president in 2016.

The federal judiciary has made it clear that it has absolutely no intention of interfering with the national-security state’s power to assassinate people. The Supreme Court calls the “political question doctrine,” a doctrine that, needless to say, is not found in the Constitution and is simply a way to avoid interfering with the operations of the most powerful branch of the federal government — the national-security branch.

The members of Congress certainly aren’t going to interfere with the president’s power to assassinate Americans. The Pentagon could threaten to cancel military projects in their district. And taking on the CIA is something that the members of Congress have absolutely no interest in doing.

One might say: “But Jacob, the government isn’t assassinating multitudes of Americans or rounding them up, putting them into concentration camps, and torturing them. They’re only doing such things to a very small number of Americans. And they’re doing it as part of national-security operations to keep us safe. The rest of us are still living in a free society because while they wield the power to assassinate us, they’re not exercising the power except on a tiny few.”

Suppose that after 9/11, Americans immediately amended the Constitution to nullify the First Amendment. Immediately after the nullification became effective, the government enacted a law that said that anyone who criticized the government would receive the death penalty. For the past decade, however, only a handful of people have been executed for criticizing the government. Millions more have continued to criticize the government without being rounded up and executed.

Would you feel that you lived in a free society under that type of law? Would you say, “Jacob, of course we’re free because the government isn’t enforcing the sedition law except on just a handful of critics”?

Simply because the government wasn’t exercising its power to punish all the critics wouldn’t mean that that’s a free society. Everyone would have to factor into his decision-making the fact that the government wields the power to execute people for criticizing the government and that it could begin exercising its powers in a widespread manner on a moment’s notice.

Thus, as our American ancestors understood so clearly, the genuinely free society is not one in which the government wields the power to execute people for criticizing the government but exercises such power wisely and judiciously. The genuinely free society is one in which the government lacks the power to punish people for criticizing the government.

That’s why the Constitution failed to grant the federal government the power to kill or otherwise do bad things to people for criticizing the government. It’s also why our ancestors made certain that the First Amendment was enacted — to make sure that federal officials got the point.

The same principles apply to the government’s post-9/11 power to assassinate Americans. No matter how wisely and judiciously such power might be exercised, the mere wielding of such power is what totalitarian regimes do, not governments in free societies. The genuinely free society is one in which the government lacks the power to assassinate. That’s why the Constitution fails to delegate to the federal government the power to assassinate people, even in matters relating to “national security.” It’s also why our ancestors made certain that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments were enacted — to make certain that federal officials got the point.


The Wolfowitz Doctrine...

Extremism of the Wolfowitz Doctrine Governs U.S. Foreign Policy

By Michael S. Rozeff

Of the various possible explanations of U.S. foreign policy, the most powerful hypothesis is that the Wolfowitz Doctrine in its original undiluted form is the guiding light of U.S. policy. No other competing explanations can rationalize as well as it can the wide range and locations of U.S. government actions, their shifts, their indifference to human life, and their apparent contradictions.

The single most important feature of this doctrine is that it casts the U.S. in a worldwide activist role whose aim is “to deter or defeat attack from whatever source”. And it proposes to accomplish this by precluding “any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests…”

This doctrine is conditioned by two world wars and a cold war. It says “never again”. It looks for a worldwide peace and order made in Washington and backed up by American power. It says that no powerful aggressor or potential aggressor like Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union shall be allowed by the U.S. again to rise and threaten world war or even the world order.

It is one thing to propose utopian goals. It is quite another thing to devise a means for accomplishing them. Attempting a pax Americana in practice is turning into endless warfare without reducing threats. The U.S. government itself has become the largest threat to world peace and regional stability. The U.S. government is producing countervailing forces and weakening America. If no Germany or Japan has arisen again, at least yet, it is not because the U.S. government’s policies have prevented such an occurrence. It is simply because the world’s consciousness has moved on from the ashes of two world wars and the dark tensions of a cold war.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine is extreme. It assumes that the U.S. government has the will, the insight, the wisdom, the moral fiber and the capabilities of recognizing and dealing with threats. It assumes that those on the receiving end of American restrictions, bombs, sanctions, deals, payoffs, loans, wars, institutions and ideas will either accept them or be made to accept them. It assumes away the interests of other nations that diverge from those of the U.S. It assumes that the U.S. government is right for these tasks and can do them right, this despite the fact that the U.S. military has shown itself unable to deal with insurgencies, to mention just one irksome limitation of American power. It’s extreme in its worldwide scope. It turns out that there is no region that cannot be defined as critical to U.S. interests. It also turns out that there is no threat that is to small to be defined as a threat that could grow into a larger threat. Under the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the U.S. looks for enemies, even when they are not either visible or being gestated.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine is activist. It gives the foreign policy establishment in and out of government an open-ended assignment. State and Defense revel in it. It gives the think tanks, the defense establishment, the defense companies, the mercenaries and the intelligence bureaus open-ended possibilities for mischief.

The worst thing about the Wolfowitz Doctrine is that it sounds good. It sounds like a good thing. It sounds like a good thing to do. Presidents and cabinet officers can sign on to it and feel as if they are doing good and right things. How can it not be good to remove “bad guys” who are threats? How can it not be good to defend some foreign nation’s borders from rebels or insurgents? The Vietnam War shows that it can be very bad to attempt to hold a border. Iraq shows that it can be very bad to remove a bad guy and destroy a government. Many, many bad things can happen as a result of attempting to do what seem to be good things to those attempting to implement the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

In practice, as operations in the Middle East show, nothing is as simple as the Wolfowitz Doctrine makes it sound. What’s on paper or in some dreamer’s or planner’s head is not what happens in reality.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine is what has guided U.S. action everywhere, even in the War on Terror. All it took was for Washington to think of terrorism as a massive threat, and 9/11 saw to that. Then it became a simple if crude and unthinking application of the Doctrine to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq. Sanctions on Iran and undermining Iraq easily fell within its scope. So did Libya. Bombing Yugoslavia clearly could be rationalized by this Doctrine. Europe, in this thinking, must somehow be kept pure and free from battles and internal dissensions and struggles, even if it takes a war or two to stop such battles. On paper, there can be no struggles any longer because they are threats to “stability”. The planners become blind to the fact that attempts to enforce stability strictly produce pressures that build up, long-lived insurgencies and new instabilities and grievances.

The motive behind the Wolfowitz Doctrine is pure and noble: peace. The problem is that peace isn’t produced by a superpower enforcing it. The Doctrine lacks a foundation in reality. What happens is that impure motives invariably mix with the pure motive. Americans in government like to win. They like to be number 1. They look upon those nations who are less materially wealthy as inferior. Americans in government are impatient, arrogant and crude in their dealings with others. They are prone to make threats and employ sanctions. They think in military terms. Many impurities come to be mixed with the idea of a noble selfless superpower enforcing peace that the Wolfowitz Doctrine presumes.

The U.S. claims defense of the world order is its motive, but how can that be separated from what has to appear as an attempt to dominate? The Wolfowitz Doctrine requires dominance for its implementation. This is an internal contradiction that cannot be erased. A world policemen cannot operate without being a dominant force.

Other explanations of U.S. behavior don’t measure up as well, and I am not alone in having tried them on for size at one time or another. The other explanations include pathological leaders, evil leaders, ignorant leaders, an ignorant public, imperialism, defending the dollar, pro-Zionism and pro-Israel, and controlling oil supply. Each of these may play some role from time to time. Some of them are mixed in with applying the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Some of them are implausible, not being able to explain the full range of events.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine seems like common sense, which is why it finds support among Americans and American leaders. Yet hidden within its counsels are grave defects, and these are being exposed as the Doctrine is implemented. Activism or interventionism, if you will, is a keystone to the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Look what it has gotten us. This is because the Doctrine makes idealistic and heroic assumptions that fly in the face of realities of how the world works. This Doctrine makes mountains out of molehills. It has done this with terrorism, blowing it way, way out of proportion. This produced more terrorists or Muslim jihadists. It has done this with foreign strongmen and dictators, making them out to be huge and enormous threats that we and their peoples could not handle without war. Nonsense! Removing them has resulted in massive instability. The Wolfowitz Doctrine has made a big deal out of protecting oil supplies and allying with Saudi Arabia. This completely blew up the problem of oil security way out of proportion. The U.S. produced 6 billion barrels of oil in World War 2 without a hitch. It currently sits on 30 billion barrels of reserves, excluding the government’s cache. There is no conceivable major threat to U.S. security on the scope of a world war coming from anywhere on the entire planet. There is no reason on earth why the U.S. has to be frightened of oil supplies having to travel in narrow waters near Iran and Saudi Arabia. These government-held ideas are wild exaggerations, approaching paranoia. They show only that the government is incapable of implementing the Wolfowitz Doctrine without severe prejudice or going off the deep end.

Many aspects of U.S. foreign policy look mad and irrational. This is because they are attempting to take the Wolfowitz Doctrine to extremes under which it falls apart. It is one thing to face up to a clear and present danger or an enemy whose intentions endanger our security. It is very different to attempt to create a world in which no such dangers ever can arise because the U.S. is going to stamp them out when they are no more than glints in a potential enemy’s eyes or when they involve arbitrary assessments of some revolution somewhere, some hostilities somewhere, some terrorist act somewhere, some dictator somewhere, some massacre somewhere, some infringement of gay or women’s rights somewhere, some religious fanaticism somewhere, some emission of carbon somewhere, some nasty language somewhere or some border infringement somewhere. And all of this falls or can fall under the blanket of the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Good riddance to the Wolfowitz Doctrine.


The Drug War and the Prison-Industrial Complex...

Do you think you own yourself and have the right to control your own childeren???

The State Owns You and Your Children

Butler Shaffer

Contrary to popular belief, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not end slavery: it nationalized the practice. Only the state can now own people. This can be seen in all kinds of governmental practices. From the power to tax a person’s earnings, to the compulsory schooling of children, to military or jury duty conscription, to what you may/may not put into your body, to whether you may commit suicide, and numerous other political controls over what you mistakenly consider to be “your” person, the state insists upon the same control over you that a cattle rancher has over his livestock, and for the same reasons. Lest you think that government officials have any doubts about this, consider the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, in the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case Lochner v. New York, a case that struck down a state statute limiting the number of hours employees could work in a bakery. Work for more than the maximum hours allowed by the statute could, Harlan stated, “endanger the health and shorten the lives of the workmen, thereby diminishing their physical and mental capacity to serve the state and to provide for those dependent upon them” (emphasis added).

This same logic is now driving efforts, in various states, to compel parents to vaccinate their children, a purpose designed not to protect children, but “to serve” the profit ambitions of the corporate-state’s Big-Pharma subsidiaries. Randolph Bourne’s phrase “war is the health of the state” is now transformed into health being part of the battleground for the state’s endless war against us all.


Assassination films...

Rushes to Judgment: The Top 10 Assassination Movies

By Ed Rampell

April 15 is the 150th anniversary of Pres. Abraham Lincoln’s death. The cinema is full of assassination and conspiracy-themed plots. Don’t forget, the Great Emancipator was shot by actor John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865 at Ford’s Theatre while watching the play Our American Cousin. One hundred years ago D.W. Griffith directed what may be the first major Hollywood motion picture to depict a political assassination scene: 1915’s The Birth of a Nation (the film used as a recruiting tool for the KKK), with future director Raoul Walsh playing Booth.

The Lincoln slaying was part of a political plot by sympathizers of the just defeated Confederacy. But the 1963 shooting of Pres. Kennedy in broad daylight in Dallas is arguably the greatest unsolved murder in American history. Conventional thinkers, hacks and propagandists may seek to perpetuate lone gunman, magic bullet and other cover-ups about assassinations – but the big screen knows better! Behind-the-scenes conspiracies shrouded in mystery and carried out by government elites, rogue agents, mobsters, secret societies and special interests, which are probed by intrepid investigative reporters, crusading district attorneys and patriotic “truthers,” make for far more exciting sagas to entertain audiences.

Political violence is as American as apple pie. To observe the sesquicentennial of Lincoln’s liquidation, here are the Top 10 assassination/conspiracy films of all time, from A to Z. Who knows what evil conspires in the hearts of men? The movies know!!

All the President’s Men

After the mysterious break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward (Robert Redford, who also produced) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) fearlessly follow the money. The trail leads to a cabal at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, including the White House “Plumbers Unit” with James McCord (Richard Herd) and the team led by Donald Segretti (Robert Walden), who systematically undermine America’s electoral system. Guided by the enigmatic “Deep Throat” (Hal Holbrook), Woodward and Bernstein’s dogged determination and shoe leather crack the case, leading to the 1974 resignation of Pres. Richard Nixon in Alan Pakula’s tautly paced 1976 classic of intrigue in the highest corridors of power.

Executive Action

Ten years after Pres. Kennedy’s killing the trailer for Executive Action proclaimed the movie to be “possibly the most controversial motion picture of our time.” Indeed, Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan lead a group of conspirators in this covert action feature that boldly contradicts the Warren Commission’s finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The 1973 movie raises the spine-tingling specter of two “Oswalds,” anti-Castro Cubans and ex-CIA agents as part of a shadowy conspiracy to whack the liberal-leaning chief executive.

Executive Action is also noteworthy for its left-leaning pedigree: It was co-written by former Communist Party member Dalton Trumbo (portrayed by Bryan Cranston in an upcoming feature), who’d been one of the blacklisted Hollywood Ten, and co-produced by Dan Bessie, whose father, Spanish Civil War veteran Alvah Bessie, had also been a member of the Ten. The co-writers included attorney Mark Lane, an original independent investigator of the Kennedy assassination, and progressive playwright Donald Freed. It was produced by Edward Lewis, who was also a producer for 1960’s Spartacus and Costa-Gavras films, including 1982’s Missing. Blacklisted actor Will Geer (1954’s Salt of the Earth) co-starred as one of Executive‘srightwing co-conspirators. According to Freed, seed money was provided by antiwar activists for the low budget movie shot for $175,000, which – despite the fact that TV networks refused to advertise it – eventually earned millions.


Oliver Stone is also on the trail of Kennedy’s assassins in this 1991 masterpiece, which received eight Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture and Director, winning in the cinematography and editing categories, as well as scoring the Best Director Golden Globe. JFK is probably the finest Hollywood assassination/conspiracy movie ever made. At the peak of his powers Stone skillfully demolishes the Warren Commission Report piece by piece, constructing an alternative history wherein Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner plays the New Orleans DA, who in a bit of canny casting portrays Earl Warren!) leads an all-star cast on an epic quest to find out who killed Camelot’s king. And, most importantly, as Donald Sutherland’s inside man Col. Fletcher Prouty ponders in this exhaustively well-researched film, why? Stone was subjected to an unprecedented character assassination campaign for his audacious artistry, although JFK triggered passage of 1992’s Assassination Materials Disclosure Act.

Julius Caesar

Shakespeare’s tragedy dramatizes the iconic assassination conspiracy that toppled Rome’s would-be despot in Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s 1953 black and white epic released at the height of the HUAC/McCarthy era. James Mason as Brutus and John Gielgud as Cassius lead the mutinous band of disillusioned conspirators, who plot to rescue the Roman republic on that fateful Ides of March, when they cut Caesar (Louis Calhern) down at the Senate. During his funeral oration Marlon Brando’s Mark Antony craftily reads Caesar’s will on a scroll only he can see, purportedly bequeathing his wealth to Rome’s masses, as Antony seeks to win the allegiance of the plebeians against the coup plotters. The scene recalls Sen. Joe McCarthy’s reference to a legendary list of Communists inside the U.S. government that only he could “read” (or fabulate). The Manchurian Candidate

John Frankenheimer’s motion picture prophecy – a lurid, star-studded 1962 Cold War thriller about brainwashing, communism, conspiracy and presidential politics – was withdrawn from distribution after Kennedy was rubbed out. Frank Sinatra (a real-life JFK supporter who portrayed a would-be assassin of Pres. Eisenhower in the 1954 movie Suddenly) plays Major Bennett Marco, who has recurring nightmares and served with Staff Sgt. Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) in Korea, where they were both POWs. Angela Lansbury depicts Raymond’s scheming, coldblooded mother Eleanor Shaw Iselin, wife of fanatical rightwing Sen. John Iselin (James Gregory). Khigh Dhiegh plays the Asian communist Dr. Yen Lo, who ominously says: “His brain has not only been washed, as they say, it’s been dry-cleaned.” The Manchurian Candidate was remade in 2004 with Denzel Washington.

The Parallax View

Activist/actor Warren Beatty plays Joseph Frady, a journalist who goes through the looking glass in this action-packed 1974 movie directed by Alan Pakula about the assassination atop Seattle’s Space Needle of U.S. Sen. Charles Carroll, a presidential candidate. Paula Prentiss plays television newscaster Lee Carter, who’s terrified that she, like six other eyewitnesses, will be disappeared. A Warren Commission-like congressional tribunal whitewashes an “investigation” into the senator’s murder. Frady stumbles upon the multinational Parallax Corporation, which pulls strings behind the scenes and trains prospective assassins in the black op arts. At another senatorial rally Frady ends up being “a patsy,” like Lee Harvey Oswald claimed he was shortly before being gunned down by Jack Ruby.

Rush to Judgment

This 1966 documentary was directed by the radical filmmaker Emile de Antonio and written by the unstoppable Mark Lane. A crudely made low-budget nonfiction film, it is as artless as Stone’s JFK is an aesthetic tour de force. Nevertheless, shot only a few years after the JFK hit, Rush to Judgment is often chilling as Lane, a lawyer, presents much of the doc as a brief for the defense – presumably for Lee Harvey Oswald, who was no longer around to defend himself. The crew travels to Dealey Plaza and interviews on-camera numerous eyewitnesses who describe in vivid detail the shooting of Pres. Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

Witness after witness describes at least some shots being fired from behind a wooden fence, on the infamous grassy knoll, where they also report seeing “puffs of smoke.” De Antonio cleverly cuts to text from the Warren Commission’s 889-page final report to contradict what the filmmakers clearly believe are the tome’s bogus findings. Another early JFK truther, newsman Penn Jones, asserts: “The only way to believe the Warren report is not to read it.” As in Parallax, many witnesses die mysterious deaths or are threatened. Jones expresses a wish for a computer to calculate the odds of these strange demises from occurring. After viewing this unforgettable film the odds are against any open-minded viewer believing that some lone nut carried out the crime of the century with a bolt action rifle from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Seven Days in May

Executive Action producer Edward Lewis also produced John Frankenheimer’s hard hitting 1964 movie about a military plot to overthrow the U.S. government. According to Executive Action‘s co-writer Donald Freed: “In 1963 Pres. Kennedy let it be known to friends in the film industry that [a film adaptation of Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey II’s 1962 novel] Seven Days in May should be made… Kennedy went to Hyannis Port so Frankenheimer could film extreme rightwing demonstrations at the White House, where the president couldn’t be during filming with actors. In the story Pres. Jordan Lyman [Fredric March] arranges a disarmament summit with the Soviet Union. This is what JFK was moving towards, with his [“Strategy of Peace”] speech in the summer of 1963 at American University in Washington,” a clarion call for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and defusing the Cold War. When the dovish Pres. Lyman makes similar moves in Seven Days in May the hawkish, Curtis LeMay-like Gen. James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster) plots a coup d’├ętat, which the more liberal-minded Col. Jiggs Casey (Kirk Douglas) opposes. Twilight Zone‘s Rod Serling wrote the screenplay.


Costa-Gavras’ fast paced 1969 masterpiece Z was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar and won for Best Foreign Film and Best Editing. With Z the French-Greek director took the tried and true film noir form, filling it with politics. Inspired by a true story, Z is essentially about the death of a peace candidate (Yves Montand) while he’s campaigning to become the leader of Greece. When a prosecutor (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and journalist (Jacques Perrin) investigate the mysterious death, they prove that the politician was actually assassinated by a high-level military conspiracy. Upon being exposed, the Greek colonels stage a coup and impose a military junta in democracy’s ancient homeland. Costa-Gavras’ classic eventually helped lead to the repressive regime’s isolation and demise.

The Zapruder Film

Dallas businessman Abraham Zapruder was a home-movie enthusiast who was filming the fateful presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza with his Bell & Howell camera on a concrete pedestal on Elm Street on Nov. 22, 1963, when shots rang out. The 26-second, 486 frames of silent 8mm color celluloid is the Ur text for conspiracy movies and the ultimate assassination footage. In it, JFK rides in his limousine and appears to be caught in a crossfire, hit by bullets being fired from different positions. While Oswald is supposed to be behind Kennedy, the president seems to be hit by a final shot fired from in front of him – perhaps from the fabled grassy knoll – as his skull explodes in frame 313. As Kevin Costner playing Garrison repeats in JFK: “Back and to the left” – not from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

The Zapruder Film arguably makes “conspiracy theorists” of us all, asking: “Who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes – or the Warren Commission and its ‘magic bullet’ flight of fancy?”


Environmentalists will kill you...

FLASHBACK 1977: Earth Day Co-Founder Composts Dead Girlfriend

By Michael Bastasch

Here’s an inconvenient truth about the self-described founder of a Earth Day: He murdered and composted his girlfriend.

Environmental activist and self-proclaimed Earth Day co-founder Ira Einhorn had a dark side. NBC News reported in 2011 that Einhorn was found guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend and stuffing her “composted” body inside a trunk.

After five years of being together, Helen Maddux broke up with Einhorn. Enraged, he threatened to throw Maddux’s belongings onto the street if she didn’t come by to get them. She went to Einhorn’s apartment to retrieve them on Sept. 9, 1977 but was never seen again.

Several weeks later, Einhorn told police that she went missing after going out to the neighborhood co-op to buy tofu and sprouts. However, 18 months later authorities searched his apartment after neighbors complained that a “reddish-brown, foul-smelling liquid was leaking from the ceiling directly below Einhorn’s bedroom closet,” reports NBC News.

In the closet, police found Maddux’s “beaten and partially mummified body stuffed into a trunk that had also been packed with Styrofoam, air fresheners and newspapers,” according to NBC News.

Einhorn jumped bail and spent 23 years evading authorities and hiding out all over Europe. Finally, he was caught and extradited to the U.S. from France, where he was put on trial and convicted of murder. He is currently serving a life sentence...


"Do not worry about conspiracies that are confined to the free market. Worry about conspiracies that rely on government coercion to achieve their agendas."

Conspiracy Theories and Keynesian Economies
Gary North

Remnant Review

One of the distinguishing marks of a formally trained historian is his rejection of what is known as the conspiracy view of history. Academia generally discourages such views.

There is a reason for this: the Progressive movement. The early "scientific" historians were Progressives. Progressivism rested on four key assumptions regarding institutions. First, the messianic redemptive power of tax-funded education. This was said to be neutral education intellectually, yet also moral. Second, universal suffrage. The democracy was seen as redemptive. Third, the need for political legislation to redistribute concentrated wealth. Fourth, the need for professional bureaucrats to administer the various political programs of wealth redistribution -- no political patronage, no political spoils. This was to be enforced by Civil Service laws.

A conspiracy view of history denies the authority of all four. Public education does not stop rich men from manipulating the masses. Second, universal suffrage is helpless to root out the powers behind the thrones. Third, the super-rich manipulate the politicians, who in turn create tax code loopholes. Fourth, bureaucrats are impotent. This means that the pillars of Progressivism have failed to root out the power of wealth. It means that Progressivism's program of social redemption has failed. Worse, it has served as a convenient cover for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and power. It means that Progressivism is a false religion. Academic historians fight conspiracy views of history. They understand that conspiracy views of history, if widely accepted, would lead to the political rejection of the Progressives' agenda. It would undermine the legitimacy of Progressivism.

The most dangerous version of the conspiracy view of history is Murray Rothbard's. He argued that the Progressives were dupes from day one. They were pawns in the chessboard of the power-seekers who sought state power in the name of democracy, only to use this power to keep rivals out of their markets. The far Left argues this way, too. So, Rothbard used New Left historian Gabriel Kolko's book, The Triumph of Conservatism (1963), to support his case against the Progressives' push to establish federal regulation of big business. The result of this political agenda was the opposite of the rhetoric: the entrenchment of big business. Kolko and Rothbard showed that the Progressives' agenda was funded from the beginning by big business.


Historians who are not simply antiquarians tend to favor a view of history that is collectivist. They are themselves the products of collectivism. Most of them were trained in tax-funded universities. A handful of others were trained in expensive accredited universities -- accredited by the existing cartel of university scholars. This system of screening works well. So, they prefer to explain historical causation in terms of impersonal social forces that are independent of the decisions of key individuals. There is a general hostility to studying history as if it were the result of great leaders. This was not true in 1850. It is today.

This is the traditional problem known as the one and the many. There are individuals; there are also collectives.

Consider the Protestant Reformation. How should we explain it? There was a leader, Martin Luther. There was a pocketbook issue: the sale of indulgences. There was a media system: profit-seeking printers. There was a political structure: independent German principalities. Soon, there was a separate ecclesiastical structure: Protestant churches. Martin Luther would not have been successful if there had not been printing presses and political protection. He would have wound up as John Hus did a century earlier. He had leverage through independent, profit-seeking printers and an independent local political leader. But without Luther, there would not have been a Reformation in northern Europe in his era. Historians who favor collectivism would argue that some other Luther-like figure would have shown up. He would have launched the Reformation. There is no way to prove this.

I think we need to study great men and great social forces. So, I recommend this investigative approach:

1. Follow the organization.
2. Follow the leaders.
3. Follow the confession.
4. Follow the money.
5. Follow the media.

Great leaders would not be great leaders if they did not get leverage through ideas, organizations, money, and communications systems. In other words, great leaders need leverage, and there are numerous institutional ways to gain leverage. A leader is like a lever. He needs a fulcrum to move anything.

At the same time, we do not find great social movements that are not represented and motivated by great leaders. A movement has to have some kind of visible representation. Somebody has to embody the principles of the movement. People give allegiance to individuals, not to invisible social forces. Movements that do not have people who give allegiance to particular leaders will not have visible impact.

History would be different if key people had not become influential. If you took George Washington out of the history of North America, North America would look very different from what it looks like today. The same is true of key American Presidents, such as Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt. Take away the leverage of warfare, and most Presidents would be forgotten. In fact, most Presidents are forgotten. It is the wartime Presidents who get most of the footnotes and the best-selling biographies. The Presidents who have been the great defenders of freedom in the history of this country have been Presidents who avoided war. But who wants to read a biography of Martin Van Buren or John Tyler or Grover Cleveland? Not many people.

Historians look at the past, and they look for turning points. They have a phrase to describe these: watersheds. Watershed Presidents are war Presidents. These are Presidents who changed the direction in which the country was moving.


Now we get to the issue of conspiracies. The most influential conspirator of modern times was Vladimir Lenin. Take Lenin out of the 20th century, and the 20th century would have been significantly different. There would have been no Hitler, no Stalin, and no Mao. There is no question that Lenin was a conspirator. He was a master of conspiracy. He built the Bolshevik movement on conspiracy. He was public in terms of what he wrote, but he was a master conspirator.

Conspiracy theories argue that key men, who operated behind the scenes for at least most of their careers, have changed the direction of history. Conspiracy history is opposed by most academically trained historians. Conspiracy historians find their careers blocked very early. This is especially true of people who associate major political leaders with conspiratorial activities behind the scenes. The most obvious case in American history is Franklin Roosevelt's maneuverings to get the Japanese to attack the United States fleet in 1941. Anybody who argues that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack United States naval forces in late November or early December 1941 is regarded as a revisionist historian, and he will never gain significant influence within the history profession.

The conservative movement has always had a kind of subterranean literary tradition tied to conspiracy theories. There are various forms of these. They may identify secret societies. They may identify clandestine groups that have put up the money. But whatever the nature of the chain of command, it was concealed from the public, and it often operated in terms very different from the public rhetoric of specific political leaders who were in fact part of the conspiracy.

Conservatives pick different leaders as the representatives of conspiracy movements, but there is a tendency to accept conspiracy theories inside the non-political side of the conservative movement. The John Birch Society is the obvious case. You can even date when it switched. Robert Welch switched after the 1964 presidential election. He turned the Birch Society into a very different organization. Prior to 1964, it had been explicitly anti-Communist. After 1964, it became specifically anti-Federal Reserve, anti-banker, and anti-Council on Foreign Relations. It was for this reason that Hans Sennholz resigned as a regular writer for American Opinion. He was clearly an opponent of central banking. He was not an opponent of bankers in general; he was an opponent of fractional reserve banking. But the anti-conspirators tend to be anti-bankers in general, not distinguishing between commercial banking at a local level in central banking at a national level. A classic example of this is Ellen Brown. The Greenback movement has always been anti-banking in general.

Murray Rothbard was certainly a great proponent of the conspiracy view of history. But Rothbard understood a fundamental point: conspiracies gain their leverage through political power. They have almost no leverage in a competitive economy. This was also the view of R. J. Rushdoony. When we talk about conspiracy views of history, we are always talking about clandestine organizations that seek control through political power. Conspiracies that do not seek control through political power are simply special interest groups. There is a big difference between conspiracies and special interest groups. This has to do with the means of gaining of power, and then the maintenance of power over the long run. The representatives of a conspiracy have a hidden agenda. There is a public defense of a program to gain power, but the public defense is a sham. That is the essence of conspiracy. There is a separation between public rhetoric and clandestine plans to achieve power for very different purposes than those expressed in public rhetoric.

When a businessman says he is only trying to make money, we usually believe him. When he says he is attempting to make money in order to benefit the public, we should ask this question: "Is he asking the government to intervene on his behalf?" If he is not, then he may be telling the truth. He may think that there is a connection between serving the public and profit. Certainly, that was the view of Ludwig von Mises. It was also the view of the founders of Austrian School economics. There is consistency between seeking your own good and seeking the public good in a free market society. That was the position that Adam Smith articulated in 1776. But Smith did not trust businessmen who get together as part of some incipient cartel. He did not trust businessmen who want to gain any kind of support for the civil government. That was also the view of Mises, Rothbard, and Austrian economists generally.

If we take seriously Mises' 1920 essay on economic calculation and socialism, and if we take seriously Hayek's 1945 article on the use of knowledge in society, then we must conclude that there are two kinds of economic knowledge. One form is the knowledge that committees possess. The other is the kind of knowledge that individuals possess in the general marketplace. The second kind of knowledge is the socially crucial form of knowledge, according to Mises and Hayek. It is decentralized knowledge. It is knowledge of specific conditions in specific locations in specific periods of time. The free market enables decision-makers to take advantage of this decentralized knowledge. Knowledge is coordinated through the price system. Government intervention into the operation of the price system blocks accurate knowledge from being put into effect for the purpose of serving consumers. Both Mises and Hayek believed that centralized knowledge possessed by committees is inferior to decentralized knowledge organized by way of the free market. Both of them believed that ultimately, decentralized knowledge that is coordinated by the profit and loss system is the significant form of knowledge in society. This knowledge is what makes social cooperation possible.

Mises did not write about conspiracies. He did write about special interest groups trying to gain power through government action. Rothbard was a conspiracy theorist, but he always looked for conspiracies behind special interests that were seeking government support of some kind. He did not trust any of the rhetoric of public service with respect to civil government. But he did trust it with respect to the competitive marketplace. He did not discuss conspiracies within the setting of free market competition. That was because he believed, following Mises and Hayek, that decentralized knowledge through the free market must serve the public. If it does not, it will produce losses. In other words, the competitive processes associated with the profit-and-loss system are sufficient to keep conspiracies in check. They can gain power only through serving the demands of customers. There is no threat from conspiracies within the framework of the competitive market order.

Conservatives who get involved in conspiracy theories of history tend not to understand this distinction in two types of knowledge. That is one of the great problems of the conservative movement. Some people see conspiracies all around them. With respect to the quest for political power, this suspicion is often warranted. But when it is applied to the market process, it completely misses the point. The process of decentralization that is coordinated through the profit-and-loss system favors economic progress and economic liberty.

There are conservatives who see conspiracies under every bed. They think that by exposing some nefarious person who is trying to make money for himself is sufficient to justify some kind of operational boycott of that individual and whatever he has created. They do not look to see whether that individual is pursuing his nefarious schemes by way of market competition or by political competition. If he is seeking to extend his agenda by means of market competition, and he gets rich doing this, why should any conservative care? As long as the schemer is not calling for people with badges and guns to defend his market share, then critics should focus on the actual operations of whatever institution the individual has created. In short, follow the money. If the money goes back to support from the civil government, then you have a good reason for looking for the kinds of facts that would point to a conspiracy. But if the money goes back to a profit-seeking company or corporation, and the government has not been called in to defend this institutional arrangement, then the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Does the individual exercise private power over an organization that is providing public benefits? If so, so what?


Mankind has advanced to the degree that the social division of labor is advanced. The free market is the great institutional arrangement for the extension of the social division of labor. It does this by voluntary actions. There is no compulsion involved.

The greater the degree of the social division of labor, the more accurate is the knowledge available to participants. Knowledge is decentralized. This was Mises' point, and this was Hayek's point.

Do not worry about conspiracies that are confined to the free market. Worry about conspiracies that rely on government coercion to achieve their agendas.