This is what the fraudulant global warming scam is all about...

Oregon to test mileage-based tax
by Sam Rolley

Amid recent calls for lawmakers to increase the federal gas tax or come up with an alternative transportation revenue scheme to offset tax losses created by increased passenger vehicle fuel efficiency, Oregon lawmakers are preparing to launch a pilot project to examine how a state mileage tax would work.

The Oregon program will allow 5,000 motorists to volunteer to either keep a travel diary or install an odometer tracker or a GPS on their vehicles to enable government officials to keep tabs on their travel habits.

“GPS will be the most hassle-free option,” Michelle Godfrey, an official involved with the implementation of the program, told The Oregonian. “But it’s also the option that people tend to dislike the most.”

Oregon motorists currently pay around between 48 cents and 52 cents per gallon on fuel — broken down, that’s 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax, a 30 cent per gallon state tax and local taxes ranging from 1 cent to 5 cents per gallon.

The Oregon Department of Transportation program will deal with the state tax, sending drivers in the pilot program a monthly bill and/or a rebate check to offset the 30 cent per gallon state tax.

It’s fitting that Oregon is at the forefront of testing new gas tax options, as it was the first state to introduce a state fuel tax all the way back in 1919.

Link:
http://personalliberty.com/oregon-test-mileage-based-tax/

"If you or a family member takes pharmaceuticals, this information will be invaluable in the event of a viral pandemic."

Pharmaceuticals rob your body of nutrients, making you immunosuppressed and vulnerable to viral pandemics
by: Ethan A. Huff

With all the talk lately about Ebola and its potential to hop continents and spark a global pandemic, it is important to keep in mind that Ebola doesn't kill just anyone -- it is particularly virulent in those who are immunosuppressed, which is why it is crucial for you and your family to take steps now to strengthen your immunity and avoid falling victim to this latest engineered crisis.

In Episode 7 of the Pandemic Preparedness course at BioDefense.com, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, discusses practical ways to avoid suppressing your immune system and start building up your cellular defenses to withstand pandemic infections like Ebola. Pharmaceutical drugs, which the vast majority of Americans take every single day, are one of the biggest suppressors of natural immunity that leave people prone to infection.

In her latest book, Drug Muggers, pharmacist Suzy Cohen deals with this issue in great detail, highlighting which drugs tend to rob your body of which nutrients and how to prevent this from occurring. If you or a family member takes pharmaceuticals, this information will be invaluable in the event of a viral pandemic.

"Prescription and OTC (over-the-counter) drugs that cause side effects do so most often (if not always) via the drug mugging effect," explained Cohen during an interview with Life Extension. "People have symptoms that are so insidious and because they develop them months to years later, they don't often make the connection to the medication they are taking."

How to avoid losing vital nutrients if you take pharmaceutical drugs

As an example, Cohen described the side effects in women who take hormone pills for menopause. These drugs typically contain estrogen, which robs the body of nutrients like zinc, magnesium and B vitamins, all of which are necessary for testosterone production. These same drugs can also lead to depression, bone loss and other conditions associated with nutrient deficiency.

According to Cohen, the following medications are among the most common "drug muggers" that require additional supplementation to avoid deficiencies (this information is taken from Life Extension):

Blood pressure medications -- Trace minerals
Statin medications for cholesterol -- 100 mg CoQ10 (Ubiquinol) twice daily and 2,000-5,000 IU Vitamin D once daily
Diabetes medications -- 1,000 mcg Methylcobalamin (Vitamin B12) once daily and 100 mg CoQ10 twice daily
Hormones -- Vitamins B6, B12, folic acid, magnesium, selenium, and zinc
Thyroid medications -- Selenium, zinc, and iron (take four hours after medication)
Aspirin -- 500 mg Vitamin C per day
Acid blockers / antacids -- All nutrients are "mugged." Take Hawaiian Spirulina, as well as trace minerals, B-complex, probiotics, and 250 mg extra magnesium daily


"The most fundamental supplement that I recommend for anyone taking any medication (prescription or over-the-counter) is a good probiotic," said Cohen. "Then, you take the supplement you need after that, based on the medication you're taking."

"If you want to know MY personal nutrient security system, which is the one that I recommend for everyone, that I feel is safe and covers pretty much all medications, I would recommend three basic supplements: probiotics, B-complex, and trace minerals (alternate Hawaiian Spirulina which restores all three at once)."

As far as other ways to avoid suppressing your immune system, Adams recommends avoiding all processed "junk" foods, eating plenty of fresh, organic produce and avoiding genetically modified organisms (GMOs). When possible and the seasons permit, also spend time outdoors doing physical activity in the natural sunlight, which will help produce natural vitamin D in your body.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047447_pharmaceutical_drugs_immunosuppression_viral_pandemic.html#ixzz3HkqOTqYK

These people are anti-human life...

Study: Global One-child Policy Not Enough for “Sustainability”
Written by Alex Newman

A team of environmental “scientists” published a new study in a U.S. government-linked journal claiming that even a planetary Communist Chinese-style one-child policy would not be enough to stop alleged “overpopulation” from ravishing the Earth and making humanity “unsustainable.” In fact, according to the Australian researchers, even combined with massive reductions in population via another world war, a global one-child policy would still not be enough to save the planet and the environment from the supposed scourge of mankind. To deal with their reputed “crisis,” the authors propose encouraging — read brainwashing or perhaps even coercing — women to have fewer children while rationing resources for those humans fortunate enough to escape their population-control regime. But even that will not be enough, according to the paper.

Fortunately for the people of the world, the fringe population-control movement lurking behind the study has been making similarly outlandish claims since the Malthusian crackpots of the late 1700s — only to be proven embarrassingly wrong every time. Indeed, the editor of the latest paper on overpopulation, Paul Ehrlich, is perhaps one of the most widely ridiculed contemporary “scientists” on Earth. Thanks to funding from billionaire overpopulation zealots and the U.S. taxpayer, Ehrlich remains on the scene — despite being wrong about virtually everything throughout his career as an advocate of draconian population controls to stave off an imagined overpopulation crisis. He has previously stated that the “optimum number of people” is 1.5 billion to 2 billion. Yet, like every other population-control advocate, he has so far refused to lead by example.

“The planet’s large, growing, and overconsuming [sic] human population, especially the increasing affluent component, is rapidly eroding many of the Earth’s natural ecosystems,” claims the new paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the United States of America. “However, society’s only real policy lever to reduce the human population humanely is to encourage lower per capita fertility.” By lower per capita fertility, the authors mean that each woman should have fewer children. While that may be the only “humane” policy lever, the authors reveal clearly that their “humane” option will not be nearly enough to suit their taste for fewer humans allegedly messing up the “ecosystem” and consuming the elite’s resources.

The paper, entitled “Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems,” also examines various scenarios and potential “interventions” surrounding human population numbers — including mass deaths and drastically decreasing birth rates. Its conclusion, essentially: No matter what population controllers do to slash the population, there will still be too many people to save the planet, so global economic controls are also needed. “Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100,” explains a summary of the paper, with the implicit assumption that 5-10 billion is too many. “Because of this demographic momentum, there are no easy ways to change the broad trends of human population size this century.”

In the abstract for the paper, the authors make similar claims, arguing that the growing population of people “is rapidly eroding Earth’s life-support system.” As such, they claim, there are “more frequent calls” to address the issue by advocating even steeper declines in the number of new people allowed to exist. “Assuming a continuation of current trends in mortality reduction, even a rapid transition to a worldwide one-child policy leads to a population similar to today’s by 2100,” reads the abstract, adding that even a “mass mortality event” killing 2 billion people over five years would still leave 8.5 billion mouths to feed by the end of the century. Especially troubling to the researchers are “human pressures” on the “future ecosystems” of Africa and South Asia. In other words, they believe there are too many Africans and South Asians in particular.

“Humanity’s large demographic momentum means that there are no easy policy levers to change the size of the human population substantially over coming decades, short of extreme and rapid reductions in female fertility; it will take centuries, and the long-term target remains unclear,” the authors claim, operating under the wild assumption that fewer humans is good and more humans is bad. “However, some reduction could be achieved by midcentury and lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed. More immediate results for sustainability would emerge from policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources.” Hiding behind opaque language, the authors are proposing “policies” — also known as government coercion — to reduce the population, as well as the living standards and consumption levels of those who remain.

The new “study,” published online on October 27, comes as population-control zealots in the Obama administration and at the United Nations have been increasingly coming out of the woodwork. This month, for example, Obama’s new “Ebola Czar,” a lobbyist and attorney, came under fire for a 2008 interview in which he claimed “growing population,” especially in Africa, was the “top leadership challenge” facing the world — not tyranny, genocide, poverty, disease, infant mortality, but the number of people. Obama’s “Science Czar,” John Holdren, has previously proposed forced abortions, sterilization via the water supply, and what he called a “planetary regime” with a “global police force” to control resources and enforce the regime’s population edicts. Like other overpopulation crackpots, however, he has been wrong about virtually everything.

The UN, meanwhile, which recently unveiled a new plot to further slash the number of Africans, just came out with another report advocating global abortion on demand and more population-control measures to promote what it calls “sustainability.” Essentially, the notion of “sustainable development” involves centralizing power over humanity, the environment, and the economy at the global level — all under the guise of ensuring that humanity fits into vague notions of being “sustainable.” Of course, the global outfit has long been at the forefront of the establishment effort to reduce the human population. In recent years, the UN’s population-control agency, known as UNFPA, was even exposed unlawfully using U.S. taxpayer funds to help the Communist Chinese regime enforce its savage one-child policy through forced abortions and sterilization.

The latest call to reduce the population, like the previous ones, is based on multiple false assumptions and premises. One of the 800-pound gorillas behind the new paper reveals a fundamental lack of economic understanding. For instance, if a given nonrenewable resource were indeed becoming scarce, the laws of supply and demand would automatically push the price up. That would lead to increased reliance on substitutes as consumers reduced the quantity they demand. If no good substitutes exist, higher and higher prices for the dwindling resource would drive investment toward discovering one or recovering previously used resources by recycling or other means. When “peak oil” theorists argue that oil will run out, for example, they rarely, if ever, consider the well-documented market forces that would be at work, assuming governments stay out of the way. Perhaps “environmental scientists” and “ecologists” ought to be required to complete Economics 101 prior to obtaining their degrees.

The editor of the paper, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich of The Population Bomb infamy, has been making his kooky forecasts for decades. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed in 1971, back when he and other population-control fanatics such as Obama’s forced-abortions “science” czar were hyping the “global cooling” fraud. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” On the first UN Earth Day in 1970, meanwhile, Ehrlich claimed that “in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.

The authors of the PNAS study, professors Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide in Australia, are merely continuing to promote the decades-old, totally discredited and anti-biblical notion that the myth of “overpopulation” represents a threat to “Mother Earth.” Despite no global warming in 18 years, record levels of sea ice, and the failure of every single UN “climate” model, both are also deeply involved in promoting climate hysteria — another favorite tool of would-be population controllers. In reality, though, countless experts have warned that the real crisis facing humanity is that there are not enough births. With the rapidly aging population, mankind may well face a major population problem, but it will be the exact opposite of what Ehrlich and his comrades imagine.

The truth is that after a little more growth in the coming decades, human numbers are set to drastically decline based only on current trends. Right now, the entire population of the world could fit in Texas, with each family having its own home and a yard. The world also produces more than enough food to sustain mankind — the primary reason for the hunger that remains is tyranny and oppressive government, not a lack of resources. Even though population pseudo-scientists and neo-Malthusian crackpots are becoming increasingly discredited with the failure of their hysterical predictions, they still maintain a great deal of power in governments and international organizations around the globe. Considering their horrifying past proposals and embarrassing track records, however, they ought to be laughed out of their taxpayer-funded jobs.

Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19413-study-global-one-child-policy-not-enough-for-sustainability

They are not going to give up the fraud...

Fed-Backed Study: How to Brainwash Public into Fearing “Climate Change” Like Ebola

$84K study seeks ways to make public fear “climate change and overpopulation”

Kit Daniels

The National Science Foundation is funding a study to determine how to brainwash the public into fearing “climate change and overpopulation” as if they were Ebola.

The NSF awarded an $84,000 grant to researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo yesterday to figure out how to make the public fear “climate change and overpopulation” as much as Ebola by analyzing how the public became concerned about a potential large-scale Ebola outbreak in the U.S.

“In addition to the issue-specific value of knowing more about risk perceptions related to the Ebola outbreak, findings from this project will inform the design of communication messages related to risk issues that are often perceived to be psychologically distant by the American public, such as climate change and overpopulation,” the study’s abstract states. “The specific mechanisms through which the study variables influence risk communication behaviors will also inform communication campaigns aimed at encouraging greater public engagement with risk information.”

“In doing so, the proposed research will integrate theory from social psychology and risk communication to explore the utility of psychological distance in informing public communication about emerging public health risks.”

The proponents of “climate change,” many of whom with positions of power within the government, have been facing growing public backlash as more and more evidence disputes “global warming,” so now they are simply trying to brainwash the public into accepting “climate change.”

They want the public to fear “climate change” so they can bilk taxpayers out of not only their money but also their rights.

But more scientists are openly exposing this scam.

“The polar ice is increasing, not melting away,” the co-founder of the Weather Channel, meteorologist Jason Taylor, said in an open letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Polar Bears are increasing in number.”

“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).”

“I have studied this topic seriously for years,” he added. “It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”

Two other scientists, Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition and Bob Carter of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, said there’s essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing “catastrophic climate change.”

“Yes, the ‘executive summary’ of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm – but the summary is written by the politicians,” they wrote. “The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.”

“And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed ‘consensus’ model.”

Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks similarly explained that carbon dioxide has been blamed for a variety of non-existent conditions.

“CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring … and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring,” he said.

The fear of “overpopulation” is also largely blown out of proportion to fit a political agenda much like “global warming,” but it too has little scientific evidence.

“… The fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called ‘the replacement rate of fertility,’” the Economist reported. “Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fed-backed-study-how-to-brainwash-public-into-fearing-climate-change-like-ebola.html

Great ideas...

Separate Economy and the State
by Jacob G. Hornberger

For centuries, governments established, controlled, regulated, and subsidized religious activity. Then some people began asking a revolutionary question: Why not separate religious activity and the state in such a way that the state would be barred from involving itself in any religious activity whatsoever?

The question shook the world. Having been born and raised under systems in which the government played a heavy role in religious activity, many people simply couldn’t imagine life any other way. The idea of separating church and state was initially considered ridiculous.

Gradually, however, the idea gained sway and ultimately gripped the hearts and minds of the American people. That’s why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from involving itself in religious affairs.

For centuries, governments have also managed, controlled, regulated, and subsidized economic activity. So here’s another revolutionary question: Why not separate economy and the state the way our ancestors separated church and state?

Here is the constitutional amendment I propose: “No law shall be enacted respecting the regulation of commerce or abridging the free exercise thereof.” It could be called the freedom-of-commerce amendment or the economic-liberty amendment.

That would mean that whenever the federal government passed a law regulating economic activity, the aggrieved party could go into either state court or federal court and have it declared unconstitutional under the economic-liberty amendment of the Constitution.

No longer would people have to concern themselves with an endless slew of economic regulations coming out of Congress, any more than they concern themselves today about that happening with religious regulations. Everyone would know that regulation of economic activity would be as unconstitutional as regulation of religious activity.

Isn’t that what America’s heritage of “free enterprise” is supposed to be all about? The term “free enterprise” doesn’t mean “less-regulated enterprise.” It means enterprise that is free of government regulation.

What would the separation of economy and state mean as a practical matter? It would mean that people would be free to engage in any economic enterprise without licenses, permits, restrictions, or other government controls. It would mean that the federal government would lack the power to manage, regulate, control, or subsidize economic activity. It would mean that people would be free to engage in mutually beneficial economic transactions without anyone in the world without governmental interference.

In fact, here are two more proposed constitutional amendments to consider:

The federal income tax is hereby abolished, along with the Internal Revenue Service.
No program or law shall be enacted respecting the establishment or regulation of welfare or charity or infringing the free exercise thereof.

Those two amendments would ensure that as people freely engage in economic enterprise under the economic-liberty amendment, they would be free to keep the fruits of their earnings and decide for themselves what to do with it. No more mandated charity in any form.

Aren’t economic liberty, free enterprise, free markets, private property, and private charity what genuine freedom is all about? Indeed, isn’t that what economic prosperity is all about — the ability of people to improve their economic status in life through trade and capital accumulation?

Modern-day Americans are, of course, free to continue the economic system under which they have been born and raised — a system of government-managed and government-controlled economic activity, income taxation, and mandated charity. That is what people have done for centuries with respect to both economic activity and religious activity.

But there is another option. Rather than accept what has gone on for centuries, modern-day Americans can lift their vision to a higher level, just as our ancestors did with respect to religion. They have the opportunity to separate economy and the state, just as our ancestors separated religion and the state.

What better way to lead the world out of the statist economic morass in which it has been mired for centuries?

Link:
http://fff.org/2014/10/31/separate-economy-state/

"The “distraction effect” of Ebola can, of course, divert attention away from many events, stories, and other operations, including: NSA spying, Benghazi, Fast&Furious, the US government alliance with the Sinaloa drug cartel, ISIS, etc. The “war against the epidemic” is quite similar to the “war against terrorism,” and involves the same loss of privacy and freedom. And, naturally, the media benefit, because they have a big scary story to cover—their hits and sales improve, their advertisers are happy."

The Ebola covert op: 30 answers to “who benefits?”
by Jon Rappoport


“In any major covert op, there are always multiple objectives and levels of opportunity, and they are not wasted. The interesting thing is, 99.99% of the players who benefit don’t even realize the whole thing is a planned op.” (The Magician Awakes, Jon Rappoport)

This is not a complete list of benefits from the Ebola op. However, it does cover a significant amount of territory.

In no particular order:

Distraction: the continuing US war in the Middle East moves to the back pages.

Vaccine and drug sales for pharmaceutical companies expand.

The public is further conditioned to accept all vaccines, follow all medical orders, buy phony epidemics as real, fear germs, fear “unpredictable outbreaks.”

Fear=easier to control.

The public is conditioned to living, cradle-to-grave, under the power of the medical cartel and doctors’ orders.

Mega-corporations and financiers gain more control over the rich resources of West Africa.

The US government establishes a military outpost in West Africa, the purpose of which is to enhance and expand its operations on the African continent. Its main economic competitor in Africa is China.

The CDC and the World Health Organization enhance their influence, justify their budgets, try to appear as the protectors of humanity.

Ebola researchers grab new grant monies, seek promotions, enhanced status, awards.

The diagnostic-testing industry cashes in.

The use of irrelevant, useless, and unreliable diagnostic tests for Ebola sets the stage for future situations in which thousands or even millions of false positive tests invent, out of thin air, so-called epidemics in which viruses actually play no role at all. Just like now.

Irrelevant or non-existent viruses function as cover stories to conceal actual and inconvenient causes of illness, such as industrial pollution, ag pesticides, GMO food, fracking chemicals, radiation, etc.

The medical cartel and its government allies move a step closer to being able to mandate all vaccines for the population, with no exemptions permitted.

The overall toxifying and weakening of populations, through vaccines and drugs, thus moves forward. Weakened=easier to control.

Selective quarantines further establishes unconstitutional government control over the people. A phony epidemic can trigger the wide declaration of martial law.

Under the aegis of “tracking carriers of the virus,” the Surveillance State expands.

Combining the epidemic op with open borders, the government and medical authorities can assert there are now vast numbers of unvaccinated people in the US (immigrants)—and they must be protected, through “herd immunity,” by vaccinating everyone in the US with every conceivable vaccine.

Under the cover of “a global pandemic,” toxic modern medicine can expand its reach into every corner of the globe as a “necessary platform for treating ‘infected populations’.”

The DOD and DHS expand their operations, because “every pandemic is a threat to national security.”

The Globalist view of one world under one controlling management system is enhanced—“every epidemic threatens all of us, we’re all in this together, we need, among other innovations, one coordinated medical system for the whole planet.”

Travel to and from any point in the world can be cut off arbitrarily—more top-down control.

Through declaring “infected zones,” economic attacks can be leveled by isolating and quarantining those zones. Loss of business, loss of money—the IMF and World Bank step in and make draconian deals for loans, in exchange for surrender to mega-corporate control of those territories.

In the wake of “fear of the epidemic,” all national health insurance programs on the planet, including Obamacare, can assert more power over the people—“we’re here to protect you from illness and death, so accept all diagnoses and treatments; no opting out, no resistance…”

Further attacks can be launched at traditional and natural solutions to illness—“how dare people try to treat Ebola with anything except (unproven and toxic) drugs and vaccines.”

Further propaganda covertly characterizes “deepest darkest Africa” as the place where terrible things come from.

“The killer virus” functions as a cover story, concealing the centuries-long campaign to weaken and decimate the populations of Africa through starvation, wars, contaminated water supplies, overcrowding, theft of fertile farm land and other natural resources, toxic vaccine campaigns.

Multiple government agencies (DHS, DOD, CDC, SEC, NIH, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.) coordinate plans and exercises to “combat a pandemic situation.” These joint plans further collect overall power to control the movements and actions of the population.

Of course, at any given moment, vaccines (which are already a toxic soup of chemicals and germs) can be covertly seeded with other toxic elements, including those which cause sterility and infertility.

Up the road, we will see increased efforts to deliver vaccines and drugs embedded in food products, and sprayed from the air.

The Matrix Revealed

The “distraction effect” of Ebola can, of course, divert attention away from many events, stories, and other operations, including: NSA spying, Benghazi, Fast&Furious, the US government alliance with the Sinaloa drug cartel, ISIS, etc.

The “war against the epidemic” is quite similar to the “war against terrorism,” and involves the same loss of privacy and freedom.

And, naturally, the media benefit, because they have a big scary story to cover—their hits and sales improve, their advertisers are happy.

What I call the Reality Manufacturing Company is deeply satisfied; they just invented, out of whole cloth, a new front of fake reality, and untold numbers of people bought it, rather than imagining and inventing their own reality. The day when THAT most profound of all revolutions occurs is shoved further into the future.

This “who benefits” list explains, in part, why I’ve been writing extensively about the phony epidemic called Ebola.

Link:
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/the-ebola-covert-op-30-answers-to-who-benefits/

A history lesson...

A Lesson from 19th-Century Americans
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Ever since I founded The Future of Freedom Foundation 25 years ago, people have periodically said to me things like: “Jacob, FFF’s uncompromising approach to libertarianism sounds good but it just isn’t practical. Ideals are fine but since they are impossible to achieve, it’s a waste of time to be advocating them. Better to spend your time advocating what is possible and what people will accept, which means accepting and reforming our welfare-warfare state way of life.”

But that criticism ignores an important point: Many of the uncompromising principles of libertarianism that we advocate here at FFF were actually adopted by our American ancestors in the 19th century. They proved that it is entirely possible to have a society in which there was no welfare-warfare state.

Let me first make something clear: I am not suggesting that 19th-century America was a pure libertarian paradise. We all know that it wasn’t. There was vast corporatism — i.e., partnerships between big business and the federal government. There were tariffs — very high ones. There were land grants to the railroads. There were government-built canals. There was a concocted war to steal the entire northern half of Mexico. There was the Sherman Antitrust Act. There were economic regulations at the state and local level. Women were denied the right to vote. Indeed, there was slavery for over half the century.

That 19th-century America wasn’t a pure libertarian society is not the point, however. The point is that 19th-century Americans lived without most of the statist programs that we associate with the modern-day welfare-warfare state. Our American ancestors proved that a society can survive and prosper without the welfare-warfare programs that we here at FFF advocate dismantling, not reforming.

Consider what constitutes the greatest part of the welfare-warfare state: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, farm subsidies, education grants, foreign aid, drug laws, immigration controls, public (i.e., government) schooling, income taxation, IRS, economic regulations, Federal Reserve, FDIC, fiat money, CIA, DEA, NSA, gun control, secret surveillance, military industrial complex, overseas military bases, torture, foreign interventionism, and a vast standing army.

As longtime supporters of FFF know, we have long advocated dismantling these programs rather than “reforming” them or “reining them in.”

Critics have suggested that such a goal is “pie in the sky” — that no society could or would ever do such a thing.

Really? But the fact is that our American ancestors did do it! They lived in a society that had none of those things! And for more than 100 years!

Click on this link. It is an A-Z index of federal departments and agencies today. Without studying them carefully, I’d bet that at least 99 percent of them did not exist in 19th-century America. Our American ancestors proved that having a society without such departments and agencies is possible. How can an idea be “pie in the sky” when it’s already been proven to work?

Sometimes people say to me that the abolition of all these welfare-warfare state programs, departments, and agencies would be equivalent to anarchy. But doesn’t anarchy mean the absence of government? The federal government existed continuously throughout the 19th century, proving that a society can live without all those welfare-warfare state programs, departments, and agencies and still maintain a government whose powers are few and extremely limited.

The problem is that modern-day Americans have become so accustomed to and so dependent on the welfare-warfare state apparatus that was attached onto our original governmental structure (without a constitutional amendment, I might add) that the thought of living without it seems to them to be anarchy. Actually, it would simply be a limited-government republic.

One of the most fascinating aspects of these two, opposite ways of life involves the concept of freedom.

19th-century Americans believed that they were free and modern-day Americans believe they are free.

Obviously they can’t both be right given that our 19th-century ancestors lived in a society without a welfare-warfare state and modern-day Americans live in a society with a gigantic welfare-warfare state.

The truth is that it was our ancestors who were free and today’s Americans who are not free.

The reason modern-day Americans think they’re free is that they have been indoctrinated into believing that Americans have always lived under the same type of system — i.e., a welfare-warfare state — and that living under a welfare-warfare state constitutes freedom. The plight of modern-day Americans can be summed up with the words of Johann von Goethe: None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

What Americans should do today is achieve what our American ancestors achieved by dismantling the welfare-warfare state apparatus under which we live and then go beyond what they accomplished by ending the corporatism, the grants, the regulations, and other compromises of liberty that existed in 19th-century America.

Americans have the opportunity to lead the world out of the statist morass in which it is mired. Freedom, free markets, and a limited-government republic are our heritage. We should be embracing pure libertarian principles rather than spending our time figuring out ways to reform or refine the welfare-warfare state way life that has proven to be so destructive to our liberty and our prosperity.

Link:
http://fff.org/2014/10/30/lesson-19th-century-americans/

Amen, brother...

The Myth of the “Good School District”

By Brian Wilson

On ZeroHedge recently, the discussion focused on “things the middle class can’t afford anymore”. In the Comment Section –where one can learn a lot of scary stuff about the views, priorities and prejudices of their fellow travelers – one pseudonym posted:

“Vacations don’t define middle class. Plenty of workaholics in upper class. But the opportunity to get ahead in life through talent and hardwork [sic] is something middle class can’t afford anymore.

1) Education to get ahead in life or stay in middle class

2) Housing in good school district to have their children get ahead in life over trust fund kids

Non sequitors aside, there appeared the recurring meme about housing “in good school district.” Having heard/read that line or some paraphrase for the past few eons, it gave me pause to ask: Just what constitutes “a good school district”? Nice, modern up-to-date buildings with solid infrastructure? All the latest hi-tech computers and programs? Chem and Bio labs Johns Hopkins would die for? The “best” teachers? The most National Honor Society members? Winning Varsity teams from Football to Chess to Full Contact Origami?

Funny how “good school district” discussions rarely (if ever) focus on what sort of and how much socialist mis- and dis-information curricula is being crammed between the ears of the TWSU (Those Who Show Up).

Is there a Government Training Camp (i.e. “public school system”) that actually teaches Objective Analysis? Logical Thinking? Individual Responsibility? What constitutes Freedom? Liberty? How about an American History course that would make Tom Woods proud (even if it might have a deleterious financial impact on Prof. Woods’ “Liberty Classroom”)? Economics? Where is the GTC/pss that even teaches how to SPELL e-c-o-n-o-m-i-c-s? And if there is one (or more), does the teacher actually mention Von Mises? Hayek? Friedman? Are they assigned to read “Free to Choose”, “Road to Serfdom” or Krugman columns? Anything in there about “organized labor”? How many times is “Murray Rothbard” mentioned?

One final question: Common Core? Corp? Corpse?

Which curriculum qualifies for “good school district” status? If such a Fantasy Land exists, please advise ASAP — someone’s property values could escalate handsomely! No rush. Just follow Diogenes. The “good school district” is the first right past the Honest Man.

As a product of both Local Public School and Jacket-and-Tie-All-Boy-New-England Prep-School, I can testify unequivocally to the superior quality of instruction and content I took from the latter. Despite the issue with “car availability on Saturday night”, I will be forever grateful for the enormous economic sacrifices my parents made to provide that that 5 Star academic experience. Having made similar sacrifices for my own children and seeing their accomplishments in the medical and legal professions, I would encourage all who can to whatever possible to secure that “good school district” by removing your children ASAP from the Government Training Camps, hustle them into private, parochial or home schooling as expediently as time and sacrifice will permit before any more of their formative brain cells get zapped, their individuality castrated and their minds turned into government cheese.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/brian-wilson/the-good-school-district/

"Fear and paranoia have become hallmarks of the modern American experience, impacting how we as a nation view the world around us, how we as citizens view each other, and most of all how our government views us."

Zombies Are Us: The Walking Dead in the American Police State

By John W. Whitehead

Fear is a primitive impulse, brainless as hunger, and because the aim of horror fiction is the production of the deepest kinds of fears, the genre tends to reinforce some remarkably uncivilized ideas about self-protection. In the current crop of zombie stories, the prevailing value for the beleaguered survivors is a sort of siege mentality, a vigilance so constant and unremitting that it’s indistinguishable from the purest paranoia.— Terrence Rafferty, New York Times

Fear and paranoia have become hallmarks of the modern American experience, impacting how we as a nation view the world around us, how we as citizens view each other, and most of all how our government views us.

Nowhere is this epidemic of fear and paranoia more aptly mirrored than in the culture’s fascination with zombies, exacerbated by the hit television series The Walking Dead, in which a small group of Americans attempt to survive in a zombie-ridden, post-apocalyptic world where they’re not only fighting off flesh-eating ghouls but cannibalistic humans.

Zombies have experienced such a surge in popularity in recent years that you don’t have to look very far anymore to find them lurking around every corner: wreaking havoc in movie blockbusters such as World War Z, running for their lives in 5K charity races, battling corsets in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and even putting government agents through their paces in mock military drills arranged by the Dept. of Defense (DOD) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

We’ve been so hounded in recent years with dire warnings about terrorist attacks, Ebola pandemics, economic collapse, environmental disasters, and militarized police, it’s no wonder millions of Americans have turned to zombie fiction as a means of escapism and a way to “envision how we and our own would thrive if everything went to hell and we lost all our societal supports.” As Time magazine reporter James Poniewozik phrases it, the “apocalyptic drama lets us face the end of the world once a week and live.”

Writing for the New York Times, Terrence Rafferty notes:

In the case of zombie fiction, you have to wonder whether our 21st-century fascination with these hungry hordes has something to do with a general anxiety, particularly in the West, about the planet’s dwindling resources: a sense that there are too many people out there, with too many urgent needs, and that eventually these encroaching masses, dimly understood but somehow ominous in their collective appetites, will simply consume us. At this awful, pinched moment of history we look into the future and see a tsunami of want bearing down on us, darkening the sky. The zombie is clearly the right monster for this glum mood, but it’s a little disturbing to think that these nonhuman creatures, with their slack, gaping maws, might be serving as metaphors for actual people—undocumented immigrants, say, or the entire populations of developing nations—whose only offense, in most cases, is that their mouths and bellies demand to be filled.

Here’s the curious thing: while zombies may be the personification of our darkest fears, they embody the government’s paranoia about the citizenry as potential threats that need to be monitored, tracked, surveilled, sequestered, deterred, vanquished and rendered impotent. Why else would the government feel the need to monitor our communications, track our movements, criminalize our every action, treat us like suspects, and strip us of any means of defense while equipping its own personnel with an amazing arsenal of weapons?

For years now, the government has been carrying out military training drills with zombies as the enemy. In 2011, the DOD created a 31-page instruction manual for how to protect America from a terrorist attack carried out by zombie forces. In 2012, the CDC released a guide for surviving a zombie plague. That was followed by training drills for members of the military, police officers and first responders. As journalist Andrea Peyser reports:

Coinciding with Halloween 2012, a five-day national conference was put on by the HALO Corp. in San Diego for more than 1,000 first responders, military personnel and law enforcement types. It included workshops produced by a Hollywood-[amazon asin=&template=*lrc ad (right)]affiliated firm in…overcoming a zombie invasion. Actors were made up to look like flesh-chomping monsters. The Department of Homeland Security even paid the $1,000 entry fees for an unknown number of participants…

“Zombie disaster” drills were held in October 2012 and ’13 at California’s Sutter Roseville Medical Center. The exercises allowed medical center staff “to test response to a deadly infectious disease, a mass-casualty event, terrorism event and security procedures”…

[In October 2014], REI outdoor-gear stores in Soho and around the country are to hold free classes in zombie preparedness, which the stores have been providing for about three years.

The zombie exercises appear to be kitschy and fun—government agents running around trying to put down a zombie rebellion—but what if the zombies in the exercises are us, the citizenry, viewed by those in power as mindless, voracious, zombie hordes?

Consider this: the government started playing around with the idea of using zombies as stand-ins for enemy combatants in its training drills right around the time the Army War College issued its 2008 report, warning that an economic crisis in the U.S. could lead to massive civil unrest that would require the military to intervene and restore order.

That same year, it was revealed that the government had amassed more than 8 million names of Americans considered a threat to national security, to be used “by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law.” The program’s name, Main Core, refers to the fact that it contains “copies of the ‘main core’ or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community.”

Also in 2008, the Pentagon launched the Minerva Initiative, a $75 million military-driven research project focused on studying social behavior in order to determine how best to cope with mass civil disobedience or uprisings. The Minerva Initiative has funded projects such as “Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?” which “conflates peaceful activists with ‘supporters of political violence’ who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on ‘armed militancy’ themselves.”

In 2009, the Dept. of Homeland Security issued its reports on Rightwing and Leftwing Extremism, in which the terms “extremist” and “terrorist” were used interchangeably to describe citizens who were disgruntled or anti-government. Meanwhile, a government campaign was underway to spy on Americans’ mail, email and cell phone communications. Recent reports indicate that the U.S. Postal Service has handled more than 150,000 requests by federal and state law enforcement agencies to monitor Americans’ mail, in addition to photographing every piece of mail sent through the postal system.

Noticing a pattern yet? “We the people” or, more appropriately, “we the zombies” are the enemy.

So when presented with the Defense Department’s battle plan for defeating an army of the walking dead, you might find yourself giggling over the fact that a taxpayer-funded government bureaucrat actually took the time to research and write about vegetarian zombies, evil magic zombies, chicken zombies, space zombies, bio-engineered weaponized zombies, radiation zombies, symbiant-induced zombies, and pathogenic zombies.

However, I would suggest that you take at face value the DOD’s strategy, outlined in “CONOP 8888,” recognizing that in an age of extreme government paranoia, what you’re really perusing is a training manual for the government in how to put down a citizen uprising or at least an uprising of individuals “infected” with dangerous ideas about freedom. Military strategists seized upon the zombie ruse as a way to avoid upsetting the public should the “fictional training scenario” be mistaken for a real plan. Of course, the tactics and difficulties involved are all too real, beginning with martial law.

As the DOD training manual states: “zombies [read: “activists”] are horribly dangerous to all human life and zombie infections have the potential to seriously undermine national security and economic activities that sustain our way of life. Therefore having a population that is not composed of zombies or at risk from their malign influence is vital to U.S. and Allied national interests.”

So how does the military plan to put down a zombie (a.k.a. disgruntled citizen) uprising?

The strategy manual outlines five phases necessary for a counter-offensive: shape, deter, seize initiative, dominate, stabilize and restore civil authority. Here are a few details:

Phase 0 (Shape): Conduct general zombie awareness training. Monitor increased threats (i.e., surveillance). Carry out military drills. Synchronize contingency plans between federal and state agencies. Anticipate and prepare for a breakdown in law and order.

Phase 1 (Deter): Recognize that zombies cannot be deterred or reasoned with. Carry out training drills to discourage other countries from developing or deploying attack zombies and publicly reinforce the government’s ability to combat a zombie threat. Initiate intelligence sharing between federal and state agencies. Assist the Dept. of Homeland Security in identifying or discouraging immigrants from areas where zombie-related diseases originate.

Phase 2 (Seize initiative): Recall all military personal to their duty stations. Fortify all military outposts. Deploy air and ground forces for at least 35 days. Carry out confidence-building measures with nuclear-armed peers such as Russia and China to ensure they do not misinterpret the government’s zombie countermeasures as preparations for war. Establish quarantine zones. Distribute explosion-resistant protective equipment. Place the military on red alert. Begin limited scale military operations to combat zombie threats. Carry out combat operations against zombie populations within the United States that were “previously” U.S. citizens.

Phase 3 (Dominate): Lock down all military bases for 30 days. Shelter all essential government personnel for at least 40 days. Equip all government agents with military protective gear. Issue orders for military to kill all non-human life on sight. Initiate bomber and missile strikes against targeted sources of zombie infection, including the infrastructure. Burn all zombie corpses. Deploy military to lock down the beaches and waterways.

Phase 4 (Stabilize): Send out recon teams to check for remaining threats and survey the status of basic services (water, power, sewage infrastructure, air, and lines of communication). Execute a counter-zombie ISR plan to ID holdout pockets of zombie resistance. Use all military resources to target any remaining regions of zombie holdouts and influence. Continue all actions from the Dominate phase.

Phase 5 (Restore civil authority): Deploy military personnel to assist any surviving civil authorities in disaster zones. Reconstitute combat capabilities at various military bases. Prepare to redeploy military forces to attack surviving zombie holdouts. Restore basic services in disaster areas.

Notice the similarities? Surveillance. Military drills. Awareness training. Militarized police forces. Martial law. What’s amazing is that the government is not being covert about any of this. As I point out in my book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all out in the open, for all to see, read and learn from.

If there is any lesson to be learned, it is simply this: whether the threat to national security comes in the form of actual terrorists, imaginary zombies or disgruntled American citizens infected with dangerous ideas about freedom, the government’s response to such threats remains the same: detect, deter and annihilate.

It’s time to wake up, America, before you end up with a bullet to the head—the only proven means of killing a zombie.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/john-w-whitehead/zombies-r-us/

The QE scam has ended...what next???

Good Riddance To QE—-It Was Just Plain Financial Fraud

By David Stockman

QE has finally come to an end, but public comprehension of the immense fraud it embodied has not even started. In round terms, this official counterfeiting spree amounted to $3.5 trillion— reflecting the difference between the Fed’s approximate $900 billion balance sheet when its “extraordinary policies” incepted at the time of the Lehman crisis and its $4.4 trillion of footings today. That’s a lot of something for nothing. It’s a grotesque amount of fraud.

The scam embedded in this monumental balance sheet expansion involved nothing so arcane as the circuitous manner by which new central bank reserves supplied to the banking system impact the private credit creation process. As is now evident, new credits issued by the Fed can result in the expansion of private credit to the extent that the money multiplier is operating or simply generate excess reserves which cycle back to the New York Fed if, as in the present instance, it is not.

But the fact that the new reserves generated during QE have cycled back to the Fed does not mitigate the fraud. The latter consists of the very act of buying these trillions of treasuries and GSE securities in the first place with fiat credits manufactured by the central bank. When the Fed does QE, its open market desk buys treasury notes and, in exchange, it simply deposits in dealer bank accounts new credits made out of thin air. As it happened, about $3.5 trillion of such fiat credits were conjured from nothing during the last 72 months.

All of these bonds had permitted Washington to command the use of real economic resources. That is, to consume goods and services it obtained directly in the form of payrolls, contractor services, military tanks and ammo etc; and, indirectly, in the form of the basket of goods and services typically acquired by recipients of government transfer payments. Stated differently, the goods and services purchased via monetizing $3.5 trillion of government debt embodied a prior act of production and supply. But the central bank exchanged them for an act of nothing.

Contrast this monetization process with honest funding of government debt in the private market. In the latter event, the public treasury taps savings from producers and income earners and re-allocates it to government purchases rather than private investments. This has the inherent effect of pushing up interest rates and, on the margin, squeezing out private investment. It is a zero sum game in which savings retained from existing production are reallocated.

To be sure, the economic effect is invariably lower investment, productivity and growth down the line, but the process is at least honest. When the public debt is financed from savings, government purchase of goods and services are funded with the fruits of prior production. There is no exchange of something for nothing; there is no financial fraud.

And it is the fraudulent finance of public deficits which is the real evil of QE because the ill effects go far beyond the standard saw that there is nothing wrong with central bank monetization of the public debt unless is causes visible inflation of consumer prices. In fact, however, it does cause enormous inflation, but of financial asset values, not the CPI.

Despite the spurious implication to the contrary, central banks have not repealed the law of supply and demand in the financial markets. Accordingly, their massive purchases of the public debt create an artificial bid and, therefore, false price. Moreover, government debt functions as the “risk free” benchmark for pricing all other fixed income assets such as home mortgages, corporate debt and junk bonds; and also numerous classes of real assets which are typically heavily leveraged such as commercial real estate and leased aircraft.

In short, massive monetization of the public debt results in the systematic repression of the “cap rate” on which the entire financial system functions. And when the cap rate gets artificially pushed down to sub-economic levels the result is systematic over-valuation of all financial assets, and the excessive accumulation of debt to finance non-value added financial engineering schemes such as stock buybacks and the overwhelming share of M&A transactions.

Needless to say, the false prices which result from massive monetization do not stay within the canyons of Wall Street or even the corporate business sector. In effect, they ride the Amtrak to Washington where they also deceive politicians about the true cost of carrying the public debt. At the present time, the weighted average cost of the $13 trillion in publicly held federal debt is at least 200 basis points below a market clearing economic level—–meaning that debt service costs are understated by upwards of $300 billion annually.

At the end of the day, the fraud of massive monetization makes the rich richer because it drastically inflates the value of financial assets—–roughly 80% of which is held by the top 5% of households; and it makes the state more bloated and profligate because its enables the politicians to spend without imposing the pain of taxation or the crowding out effects which result from honest borrowing out of society’s savings pool.

In the more wholesome times before 1914, the Federal government didn’t borrow at all. During the half-century between the battle of Gettysburg and the eve of World War I, the public debt did not rise in nominal terms, and amounted to just $1.5 billion or 4% of GDP at the time of the Fed’s creation. Even then, the Fed was established as only a “bankers bank” which could not own a dime of public debt, but instead existed for the narrow mission of liquefying the banking market by means of discounting solid commercial paper on receivables and inventory for ready cash.

The modern form of monetization arose in the service of financing war bonds, not managing the business cycle, levitating the GDP or boosting the labor market toward the artifice of “full employment”. These latter purposes reflect a century of “mission creep” and the triumph of the statist assumption that governments can actually tame the business cycle and elevate the trend rate of economic growth.

But history refutes that conceit. In the early post-war period, central bank interventions mainly caused short term bouts of unsustainable credit growth and an inflationary spiral which eventually had to be cured by monetary stringency and recession. In the process of repetition over several decades culminating in the 2008 crisis, the household and business leverage ratios were steadily ratcheted upwards until the reached peak sustainable debt.

Now the credit channel of monetary policy transmission is broken and done. The Fed’s most recent massive monetization and “stimulus” has therefore simply inflated financial asset values—-meaning that the Fed has become a serial bubble machine.

There is a better way, and it contrasts sharply with the systematic fraud of QE. That alternative is called the free market, and at the heart of the latter is interest rates which are “discovered” by the market, not pegged and administered by the central bank. Stated differently, the free market requires that all debt and other forms of investment be funded out of society’s pool of honest savings—-that is, income that is retained out of production already made.

Under that regime there is no fraudulent bid for public debt and other existing assets based on something for nothing. Markets clear where they will, and interest rates are the mechanism by which the supply of honest savings and the demand for investment capital, including working capital, are balanced out.

Needless to say, free market interest rates are the bane of Wall Street speculators and Washington spenders alike. They can spike to sudden and dramatic heights when demand for funds to finance government deficits or financial speculation out-run the voluntary pool of savings generated by society. So doing, they bring financial bubbles and fiscal profligacy up short.

In stopping QE after a massive spree of monetization, the Fed is actually taking a tiny step toward liberating the interest rate and re-establishing honest finance. But don’t bother to inform our monetary politburo. As soon as the current massive financial bubble begins to burst, it will doubtless invent some new excuse to resume central bank balance sheet expansion and therefore fraudulent finance.

But this time may be different. Perhaps even the central banks have reached the limits of credibility—- that is, their own equivalent of peak debt.

“I think QE is quite effective,” Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, describing the approach as an option for dealing with an adverse shock to the economy.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/david-stockman/good-riddance-to-qe/

Something is rotten in Ebolaland...

The Ebola Story Doesn’t Smell Right

By Paul Craig Roberts

The federal government has announced that thousands of additional US soldiers are being sent to Liberia. General Gary Volesky said the troops would “stamp out” ebola.The official story is that combat troops are being sent to build treatment structures for those infected with ebola.

Why combat troops? Why not send a construction outfit such as an engineer battalion if it has to be military? Why not do what the government usually does and contract with a construction company to build the treatment units? “Additional thousands of troops” results in a very large inexperienced construction crew for 17 treatment units. It doesn’t make sense.

Stories that don’t make sense and that are not explained naturally arouse suspicions, such as: Are US soldiers being used to test ebola vaccines and cures, or more darkly are they being used to bring more ebola back to the US?

I understand why people ask these questions. The fact that they will receive no investigative answer will deepen suspicions.

Uninformed and gullible Americans will respond: “The US government would never use its own soldiers and its own citizens as guinea pigs.” Before making a fool of yourself, take a moment to recall the many experiments the US government has conducted on American soldiers and citizens. For example, search online for “unethical human experimentation in the United States” or “human radiation experiments,” and you will find that federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and Atomic Energy Commission have: exposed US soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation; irradiated the testicles of males and tested for birth defects (high rate resulted); irradiated the heads of children; fed radioactive material to mentally disabled children.

The Obama regime’s opposition to quarantine for those arriving from West Africa is also a mystery. The US Army has announced that the Army intends to quarantine every US soldier returning from deployment in Liberia. The Army sensibly says that an abundance of caution is required in order to minimize the risk of transferring the ebola outbreak to the US. However, the White House has not endorsed the Army’s decision, and the White House has expressed opposition to the quarantines ordered by the governors of New York and New Jersey.

Apparently pressure from the White House and threats of law suits from those subject to quarantine have caused the two states to loosen their quarantines. A nurse returning from treating ebola patients in West Africa has been cleared by New Jersey for discharge after being symptom-free for 24 hours instead of the 21-days it takes for the disease to produce symptoms. The nurse threatened a lawsuit, and the false issue of “discrimination against health care workers” has arisen. How is it discrimination to quarantine those with the greatest exposure to ebola?

Once symptoms appear, an infected person is dangerous to others until the person is quarantined. As the CDC now has been forced to admit, after stupidly denying the obvious fact, the current ebola strain can spread by air. All it takes is a sneeze or a cough or a contaminated surface.

In other words, it can spread like flu. Previous denials of this fact helped to create the suspicion that the new ebola strain is a weaponized biowarfare strain created by US government labs in West Africa. As University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle has revealed, Washington placed its biowarfare laboratories in African countries that did not sign the convention banning such experimentation.

Washington’s deviousness in evading the convention that the US government signed has produced another suspicion: Did the new ebola strain escape, perhaps via some lab mishap that infected lab workers, or was the strain deliberately released in order to test if it works? See here and here.

The only intelligent and responsible policy is to stop all commercial flights to and from ebola areas. Health worker volunteers should be transported by military aircraft and should be required to undergo the necessary quarantine before being transported back to the US.

Why does the White House oppose the only responsible and intelligent policy? Why is Congress silent on the issue?

The resistance to a sane policy fosters the suspicions that the government or some conspiracy group intends to use ebola to declare martial law and herd the population or undesirable parts of it, into the FEMA camps that Halliburton was paid to construct (without the public ever being told the reason for the camps).

It is certainly strange that a government involved in long-term wars in the Middle East, the purpose of which is unclear to the public, and in fomenting conflict with both Russia and China, two countries armed with nuclear weapons, would so recklessly create more suspicions among the public of its motives, intentions, and competence.

Democracy requires that the public trust the government. Yet Washington does everything possible to destroy this trust and to present a picture of dysfunctional government with hidden and undeclared agendas.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/paul-craig-roberts/the-ebola-story/

"And now we learn that the U.S. government was actively recruiting at least 1,000 Nazis to work for the U.S. government, some of them top-level officials who had actively participated in the Holocaust, and then concealed and protected them from discovery and prosecution."

Partnering with Communists and Nazis
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The depths of moral depravity into which the U.S. national-security establishment has plunged our nation were disclosed in the New York Times this week. In an excerpt from a book that was released yesterday titled “The Nazis Next Door: How America Became a Safe Haven for Hitler’s Men,” author Eric Lichtblau revealed that the FBI and the CIA hired at least 1,000 Nazis in the decades following World War II — and, not surprisingly, kept it secret from the American people.

In 1980, the FBI protected its Nazi partners by refusing to cooperate in the investigation of Nazis living in the United States. Even worse, in 1994 the CIA pressured prosecutors into dropping charges against a Nazi officer who was accused of murdering 60,000 Jews in Lithuania.

The rationale for partnering with Nazis? U.S. officials claimed that partnering with Nazis was necessary to wage a “cold war” against the Soviet communists.

Let’s put things into context.

First we are told that it was necessary for the United States to enter into World War II to wage war against the Nazi regime. We are also told that it was necessary for the U.S. government to partner with the Soviet communists in the war against Nazism.

Then, as the war ends, we learn that the U.S. government now has to go to war against its former partner, the Soviet communists. And now we learn that it was supposedly necessary to partner with and protect Nazis in this new “cold war” against the U.S. government’s former partner, the Soviet communists.

Why was it necessary to wage a cold war against the Soviet communists (after partnering with them)? Because, U.S. officials maintained, the Soviet communists were refusing to relinquish control over Eastern Europe in order to prevent another invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.

How did the Soviet Union gain control over Eastern Europe? That’s because of President Franklin Roosevelt. At the Tehran Conference in 1943 and later at the Yalta Conference in 1945, FDR agreed to give the Soviet communists (the U.S. government’s WWII partner) control of Eastern Europe.

Why didn’t U.S. officials instead consider a negotiated peace with the Nazi regime before Soviet troops had reached Eastern Europe, one that would oust the Nazis from power and keep Eastern Europe free of communist control?

Because, they said, the Nazis were so evil that they didn’t even want to talk to them. They also didn’t want to double-cross their communist partners by entering into a separate peace with Germany.

And now we learn that the U.S. government was actively recruiting at least 1,000 Nazis to work for the U.S. government, some of them top-level officials who had actively participated in the Holocaust, and then concealed and protected them from discovery and prosecution.

This revelation might provide some new insights into MKULTRA, the top-secret operation of the U.S. national-security establishment to conduct medical experiments on unsuspecting Americans in the 1950s and 1960s in the name of fighting the “cold war.” Is it possible that some of those Nazis provided valuable consultative services in those medical experiments? After all, who were better experts at non-consensual medical experiments on human beings than Nazis?

Of course, we will never know for sure one way or the other. That’s because the CIA ordered the destruction of all records relating to MKULTRA immediately after Congress discovered its existence.

In fact, I can’t help but wonder whether some of those Nazis might have been used in the infamous Tuskegee experiment, where the U.S. government conducted syphilis experiments on African American men from 1932-1972. Again, who better to assist with those experiments than Nazi officials, especially given that they shared the same racial prejudices as U.S. officials?

This is the dark road that the CIA and the military-industrial complex have led our nation down — the road to evil and moral debauchery. It was never necessary to partner with communists, and it was never necessary to partner with Nazis. God doesn’t place people or nations into positions of having to partner with evil, ever.

For those who would like to think that this sort of thing is something in the distant past, think again. Consider this article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, which details how the U.S. government is today partnering with the communist regime in Vietnam to provide it with U.S. weaponry.

Yes, you read that right: After sending more than 58,000 American men to the deaths in the Vietnam War supposedly to save the United States from the evils of communism, apparently communism isn’t so bad anymore because here the U.S. national-security establishment is back at it again — partnering with communists.

In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex to our way of life. Then, 30 days after the John Kennedy assassination, former President Truman pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed that the CIA had become a sinister organization, one that had gone far beyond its original intended mandate of simply acquiring information.

I can’t help but wonder whether Eisenhower and Truman knew about the national-security state’s secret partnership with more than 1,000 Nazis when they said those things about the national-security state apparatus that was grafted onto the federal government after World War II and without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment.

I also can’t help but wonder when Americans are finally going to say “Enough is enough!” and demand a restoration of a constitutional republic to our land by dismantling the national-security apparatus that Eisenhower and Truman warned us about—the apparatus that sees nothing wrong with having the U.S. government partner with communists and Nazis.

Link:
http://fff.org/2014/10/29/partnering-communists-nazis/

" Considering globalist proposals to tax and regulate the Web, the alarms should be sounding loud and clear. To preserve and advance freedom, the United States should withdraw from all of the UN outfits seeking to control the Internet, along with the UN itself."

Chinese Communist to Lead UN Agency Seeking to Control Internet

Alex Newman

Already under fire for seeking to usurp new powers to control the Internet, the United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is facing intense criticism after appointing a Chinese Communist to lead the controversial UN agency starting next year. Even more alarming, perhaps, is that the new ITU boss claims censorship is in the eye of the beholder. On October 23, at an ITU summit in Busan, South Korea, member governments and dictatorships overwhelmingly selected Houlin Zhao (shown) of mainland China — where the dictatorship operates among the most Orwellian censorship regimes on Earth, currently working on overdrive to spin and conceal the uprising in Hong Kong — to serve as the UN outfit’s secretary general. Zhao joins a growing roster of Chinese Communist operatives in charge of powerful UN agencies.

Considering the largely totalitarian-minded member regimes within the UN and its telecommunications agency, which has openly sought to seize control over the World Wide Web, analysts said the fact that a Communist Chinese figure will lead it was hardly surprising. However, the decision is likely to have an unintended side effect: It will now become much more difficult for the ITU and its member regimes to advance their plot for global regulation of the Internet by the UN. Already, Western governments have resisted ITU calls for planetary controls over the Web. With Zhao’s appointment — heavily influenced by behind-the-scenes scheming from Beijing, as Communist Chinese propaganda outlets readily admitted — such a plot becomes even more controversial. It may even kill the globalist dream of UN Internet controls entirely.

Zhao, currently the UN agency’s deputy boss, certainly did not help matters with his answers to questions about Internet censorship after securing his new post. “We [at the ITU] don’t have a common interpretation of what censorship means,” the soon-to-be-installed secretary general was quoted by the Korean Yonhap news agency as saying. “A country can ask people not to watch pornography, and some consider this as also kind of censorship. We have not got a common definition.” When asked about the Communist Chinese dictatorship’s massive censorship regime targeting dissent, dissidents, and ideas it disagrees with, Zhao was evasive. “Some kind of censorship may not be strange to other countries,” he responded.

It may well be true that “some kind of censorship” would not be “strange” to other countries. After all, there are plenty of governments within the UN’s ITU that censor the Internet and ruthlessly punish those who dissent — including the one Zhao serves. From the communist regimes ruling Cuba and China to the Islamist dictatorships ruling over Iran and Saudi Arabia, widely divergent repressive autocrats around the world have found common cause in pushing for global censorship and control of the Web by the dictator-dominated UN. The ITU, for now at least, appears to be the chosen vehicle, as The New American magazine has been documenting for years. Leading the charge for global Internet controls, unsurprisingly, are the most autocratic regimes on Earth and the very UN agencies that would be doing the regulating.

In a bizarre twist reminiscent of Beijing’s Ministry of Propaganda deceptions, Zhao claimed that “everybody supports this concept of freedom of speech.” Well, everybody except the overwhelming majority of the world’s governments — those who call the shots at the controversial UN agency. “We will try to touch some kind of areas of this,” Zhao continued in his interview with the Yonhap News Agency. “But this is deeply related to the so-called context issues.” When asked about his own communist government’s censorship of the Internet, the new would-be global Internet overlord said it was a “matter of interpretation.”

Right now, the Communist Chinese censors are working overtime to disparage the uprising in Hong Kong against communist tyranny while hiding it, as much as possible, from the mainland Chinese population. However, the censorship regime operated by Beijing — sometimes described as the “Great Firewall of China” — is infamous for concealing the truth on everything from the Tiananmen Square massacre to Mao Tse-tung's barbaric mass-murdering extermination campaigns and everything in between. By contrast, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear and not open to any interpretation: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. So, it is true that there is no “common interpretation” of censorship at ITU, but it is also true that such an outfit is entirely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and with human liberty.

“The ITU is a special agency for technology and infrastructure,” Zhao continued, offering a troubling preview of the potential for espionage and mischief by the Communist Chinese regime’s gargantuan spying apparatus. “Freedom of speech is discussed on other platforms. We are not trying to take the issue to overlap (with other agencies).” Contrary to Zhao’s claims, as The New American has reported extensively, crushing freedom of speech online has indeed been discussed on numerous occasions at the ITU’s summits. In late 2012, for instance, the UN’s legions of would-be Internet controllers held an ITU conference in Dubai. Its machinations were so controversial that even the rabidly pro-UN Obama administration walked out.

Among other ITU proposals that stirred up a firestorm: Internet “reforms” that would stifle free speech, regulate social media, force Internet users to pay UN “fees” for services such as Skype and e-mail, and much more. Perhaps the most troubling scheme would have handed the UN outfit and its member regimes the power to demand the shutdown of content they do not approve of — a so-called Internet “Kill Switch.” The proposals also included calls for a global Internet surveillance regime that would allow national governments and autocrats to restrict or even block information online if it might “interfere” with the “internal affairs” of a UN member regime. Anonymity on the Internet has also been in the crosshairs since before the more recent ITU summits.

For now, none of those schemes has come to fruition. But if Zhao and ITU members get their way, with the Obama administration having unilaterally relinquished U.S. control over a key component of the Web’s architecture, a global Internet regulator will eventually become a reality. That has been made abundantly clear at various international gatherings in recent years — from the NETMundial Internet summit hosted by “former” communist terrorist and current Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to the Internet Governance Forum recently hosted by the journalist-persecuting government of Turkey and presided over by Chinese Communist Wu Hongbo, the under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Even members of the U.S. establishment have been pushing for an “internationalized” Internet that would give totalitarian governments more say in how the Web operates.

“As the newly elected secretary-general, I would like to assure you that I will do my best to fulfill ITU's mission, and through our close cooperation, to make ITU in delivering services to the global telecommunication and information society at the level of excellence,” Zhao told 2,000 participants — primarily bureaucrats and operatives for member governments — at the Busan summit for the ITU. As part of his acceptance speech, Zhao also thanked “all Chinese friends who have worked hard to promote my candidature over the last two years.” Of course, with the regime in China supporting his candidacy, there should be little doubt that Zhao is an enthusiastic supporter of its brutal and oppressive policies.

At the ITU summit in South Korea (holding it north of the border may have been a bit too suspicious), delegates from more than 180 governments and dictatorships debated how and whether the UN agency could usurp new powers to censor and regulate the World Wide Web. Formally dubbed the ITU's 19th Plenipotentiary Conference, the Wall Street Journal reported that the “main argument” underway involves how far the agency’s “mandate” to control “information and communication technology” could be extended into the virtual world without major changes to existing agreements. Led by the Kremlin, various unsavory regimes around the world infamous for restricting speech rights and the freedom of the press have sought to advance the notion that the UN agency has authority to create global rules for the Internet. Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's delegate openly called for Internet rules to be "developed under the auspices of U.N. institutions.”

Of course, the current leader of ITU has also raised suspicion. Among other concerns, critics have highlighted the fact that Hamadoun Touré of Mali, the two-term secretary general whose term expires this year, was educated in the Soviet Union, earning his degree from the Moscow Technical University of Communication and Informatics. Meanwhile, the rulers of Communist China and other oppressed nations continue making major inroads at various UN agencies. At the World Health Organization, for example, mainland Chinese operative Margaret Chan is currently in charge, with the brutal communist regime in Cuba recently selected to lead WHO’s decision-making body. Separately, Communist Chinese operative Li Yong was recently selected to lead the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).

Even if the UN and its agencies were not founded and led by such a suspicious cast of characters, giving governments — and especially international bureaucracies — the power to control the Internet would be a recipe for unmitigated disaster. Considering globalist proposals to tax and regulate the Web, the alarms should be sounding loud and clear. To preserve and advance freedom, the United States should withdraw from all of the UN outfits seeking to control the Internet, along with the UN itself. That would help ensure that, at least for Americans, the God-given rights to free speech and freedom of the press remain intact, regardless of the technology used. The alternative to Internet freedom looks a lot like Communist China — and so, protecting the online world from dictators and the UN "dictators club" must be a top priority for those who cherish life, liberty, and property.

Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/19386-chinese-communist-to-lead-un-agency-seeking-to-control-internet

Is your retirement money safe from government theft???

Why the Feds Won't Confiscate Your Retirement Plan... But They Will Do This

By Mark Nestmann

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had close to 30 consultations with Nestmann Group clients. And one of their top concerns is that Barack Obama or some future US president will find a way to confiscate the money in their IRAs or 401(k) plans.

It’s not going to happen. Now, I know that’s not what you’re reading from some of my colleagues covering the wealth preservation and asset protection beat.

What’s more, if I’m wrong and the government does confiscate retirement plans or requires them to make mandatory investments (e.g., in long-term government bonds, etc.), the solution some of my colleagues have suggested won’t protect the assets in your plan.

It’s All About Politics

More than 11 million Americans have IRAs. The average balance, according to a recent study by Fidelity Investments, is about $89,000. That amounts to about $1 trillion in money parked away for retirement.

Even more popular than IRAs are 401(k) plans. About 52 million Americans have them, with an average balance of around $86,000. That amounts to about $4.4 trillion.

Could President Obama sign an executive order tomorrow demanding that every dollar in these plans be sent to the US Treasury to pay down the US government’s $18 trillion debt?

Yes, he could. There are all kinds of laws and precedents he could invoke to justify an outright confiscation.

But it’s extremely unlikely that he will. The 63 million Americans with assets in these plans obviously would be outraged by an outright confiscation of their assets. And there’s absolutely no doubt they’d make their displeasure known in the streets and the halls of Congress. Simply put, if Obama or any other president tried this gambit, he’d be impeached in a matter of days or weeks.

What Will Happen

That’s not to say that Congress and the president wouldn’t like to confiscate your retirement funds. They’d do it in a heartbeat if they could find a way to do so without enraging 63 million voters.

What they’re doing now, though, is changing the rules for larger retirement plans. Last month, the US Government Accountability Office published a statistical breakdown of IRA balances. More than 99% of Americans have balances of less than $1 million in their IRAs. But about 9,000 Americans have IRAs of $5 million or larger. And 314 Americans have IRAs larger than $25 million. That last number includes the enormous $102 million IRA that presidential candidate Mitt Romney has amassed.

These larger plans are definitely in the government’s crosshairs. And since we’re now dealing with the “rich,” no real political obstacles to changing the rules exist. Or, as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) puts it, “The IRA was never intended to be a tax shelter for millionaires.”

One idea is to restrict contributions to tax-advantaged retirement accounts. For instance, in 2013, President Obama suggested ending tax-deductible contributions to IRAs and 401(k)-style plans once their combined account balances exceeded $3.2 million.

Other ideas are to restrict using IRAs to buy non-public classes of stock or partnership interests that could balloon in value once inside the account. These are two of the techniques Mitt Romney used to supersize his IRA. There’s even some sentiment in Congress to impose a one-time tax on assets already in retirement plans over a certain size.

Why the Confiscation Solution You’ve Read About Won’t Work

To deal with the possibility of confiscation, some advisors promote a concept called a “checkbook IRA.” This is an arrangement in which the IRA forms a legal entity (such as an LLC) and then invests through that entity, without having each transaction reviewed by a custodian. That entity owns accounts and other property in its own name, not the IRA’s name. You literally have “checkbook control” over your plan.

In the event of nationalization or forced repatriation, your IRA custodian may not be able to comply with the order to turn over assets in your plan if the only asset is the LLC. The government could always try to seize the assets in the LLC itself or foreclose against the IRA’s membership interest in it. But if the LLC were formed outside the US, it would be virtually impossible for it to do so.

Is that a great way to checkmate the IRS or what?

Not quite. The problem is that if your IRA failed to comply with the nationalization or repatriation order, it would no longer comply with then-current US law. This would result in a deemed distribution of the entire plan, leading to significant federal and state tax liabilities, possible early distribution penalties if you’re under 59 1/2, plus any penalties that might apply for noncompliance with the order. You could wind up owing a tax bill of 50% or more of the assets in the IRA.

Now, I’m not telling you not to have a checkbook IRA. It can be an incredibly flexible instrument for making investments that your IRA custodian simply might not want to deal with – such as offshore investments. Just keep in mind that this won’t shield you from the legal consequences of noncompliance with a future confiscation order (which, again, I think is highly unlikely, especially for IRAs or 401(k) plans under $1 million).

One More Thing Not to Forget…

There’s also something that the people who push checkbook IRAs almost always forget to mention, except in the fine print: what the IRS calls “prohibited transactions.”

A prohibited transaction terminates the IRA and ends all tax deferral and asset protection for the funds inside it. Once again, you have a deemed distribution and a big tax bill. A 401(k) plan – but not an IRA – can often recover from a prohibited transaction by undoing it and paying a small penalty.

Most prohibited transactions boil down to some type of self-dealing with your plan. And the risk of such a mistake skyrockets with checkbook IRAs, since no custodian needs to approve the transaction.

The chances of getting caught in a prohibited transaction are increasing as well. Impending changes to IRS reporting forms for IRAs will require LLCs, such as those used in checkbook IRAs, to be specifically identified. This could lead to increased scrutiny of checkbook IRAs in general.

The bottom line is this:

Don’t worry about Congress or Obama confiscating your IRA or 401(k), especially if you have less than $1 million in it

If you have (or are considering) a checkbook IRA, get professional advice from an attorney who specializes in pension and retirement issues before you make anything other than the most “vanilla” investments.

One more point: It’s perfectly legal to target offshore investments in your IRA or 401(k). You can purchase real estate, precious metals, securities, and almost anything else in your plan and have the assets held outside the US.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/mark-nestmann/will-the-feds-loot-your-retirement-account/

The Crushing Case Against Antitrust...

Time fears his message...

Time Mag to Ron Paul: Stop Telling The Truth!
Daniel McAdams

Time Magazine is angry with Ron Paul. How dare he point out that the media has been over-reacting to the Ebola outbreak? How dare he mention that Canada’s 13 years of bombing Muslim countries has irritated plenty of people on the receiving end of those bombs? How dare he tell the truth about US history: that if the colonies were told they could never leave it is unlikely there would ever have been a United States?

Ron Paul is a “professional provocateur,” screeches Time’s Denver Nicks.

The author of Time’s hit (and miss) piece is outraged that anyone would dare to suggest, as Dr. Paul did in a recent column, that constant US meddling in African affairs has been anything but selfless beneficence. “Dubious-at-best,” sniffed Nicks to Ron Paul’s statement that “the people of Liberia and other countries would be better off if the US government left them alone.” After all, who could possibly object to US-sponsored coups, US bombs, US meddling, US asset-stripping, US social engineering projects in Africa?

Dubious? Has he asked the people of Libya how they feel about US meddling? In fact, Americans are increasingly coming to agree with Ron Paul that we all would be better off if the US government left all of us alone.

That is what really terrifies Denver Nicks and his bosses at Time (and the other mainstream media). The fact that they no longer dictate the limits of debate in the United States. The fact that more and more people are attracted to Ron Paul’s message that only peace and liberty can lead to prosperity.

Not long ago Time Magazine was the newsweekly of the Republican establishment (and of course the CIA). But these are hard times for regime mouthpieces, as the Internet has provided a platform for non-”approved” analysis and opinion that is eagerly consumed by the public. As soon as people had a choice, they abandoned the US wannabe Pravda publications like Time and New York Times and Washington Post and Newsweek as fast as they could.

What drives Time Magazine and the guardians of accepted opinion absolutely bonkers, though, is that Ron Paul has his own Institute for Peace and Prosperity that is amplifying his message and making a real impact on the foreign policy and civil liberties debate.

It was an honor that Nicks listed the Ron Paul Institute at the top of his list of the Ron Paul entities that infuriate him and his paymasters.

Ron Paul should not be allowed to have his own Institute! That is only for establishment entities who preach the importance of armed American exceptionalism overseas and a police state at home!

Why doesn’t Ron Paul just go away! Time Magazine’s Denver Nicks closes his tirade by admitting defeat. “[I]t’s clear that in coming months, he’ll keep sounding off on other subjects.”

You bet it is, Denver.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/time-mag-to-ron-paul-stop-telling-the-truth/

"A person would have to be insane to send his son or daughter to Loyola University-New Orleans. Or a communist."

The Lying, Libelous, Leninist Louts at Loyola University-New Orleans
Thomas DiLorenzo

LewRockwell.com readers may be aware of how Professor Walter Block was libeled by the New York Times several months ago by a “reporter” who totally and completely fabricated the notion that Walter once wrote that “slavery was not so bad.” He has never said or written any such thing, of course.

Unfortunately for Professor Block, his employer, Loyola University-New Orleans, has been captured by a gang of totalitarian-minded socialists who are sworn enemies of free speech in particular, and of freedom in general, as are all socialists of any variety. They sugarcoat their evil, totalitarian beliefs with pleasant-sounding euphemisms like “social justice,” implying that anyone who disagrees with them favors social injustice. They even sell sweatshirts in the university bookstore proudly proclaiming that they are “Social Justice University.” In The Mirage of Social Justice, F.A. Hayek explained in great detail what a devious diversion this perversion of the English language was. “Social justice” has always been a dishonest euphemism for socialism, wrote the Nobel laureate.

The lying Leninist louts at Loyola University New Orleans showed their true colors, however, when instead of simply asking Dr. Block if he ever actually wrote such a stupid and offensive thing, they publicly denounced him for something he never said or wrote. The university president, one “Father” Kevin Wildes, a religious fraud of the first order, started the libel of Walter Block with an ignorant letter to the school newspaper. Then eighteen radical left-wing faculty members piled on, without any of them ever contacting their “colleague,” Professor Block, to hear his side of the story.

What this proves is that the cultural Marxists who have taken over institutions like Loyola University New Orleans really are totalitarians of the worst sort. Had they lived in the Soviet Union they would have been the first to call for the firing squad for deviationists like Professor Block. They demonstrated that they have not interest at all in hearing whether or not the outrageous libel against Walter Block by the New York Times is true. They know that Walter Block is a prolific author and outspoken advocate of a free society, which of course is pure poison to all totalitarian socialists, no matter how they may disguise themselves with priest’s collars and silly-sounding euphemisms like “social justice.” THIS is why they have done what they have done.

The school newspaper published dozens, if not hundreds, of defenses of Walter Block from students from people all over the world, along with condemnations of these shameless totalitarian idiots. All of that has been deleted from the online archives of the paper, however, and some naïve and ignorant students have even accosted Professor Block on campus and threatened to “get him.” This of course is what the Loyola University-New Orleans wants to happen. Shame on all the other Loyola University-New Orleans who did not support decency and academic freedom at their institution and sided with Kevin Wildes instead, out of nothing but careerist motivations. Like most university faculty, they are small-minded, petty, bureaucratic weasels. I hope and pray that Walter finds a super-aggressive, S.O.B. of a lawyer who will sue Kevin Wildes, Loyola University-New Orleans, the Jesuit order, and the eighteen libelous faculty members into bankruptcy while pocketing millions for himself–and for Walter.

A person would have to be insane to send his son or daughter to Loyola University-New Orleans. Or a communist.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/