The GOP really is so schizophrenic as to be worthless.

Francis also adds that “the dignity and rights of migrants trump any national security concerns.”  Great.  Now he can tear down all his walls around the Vatican and empty out the Vatican coffers to feed and house the “newcomers” and members of ISIS.  Lead by example, Francis!  Don’t be like those hypocrites in Martha’s Vineyard.

It was Alexander Hamilton who invented the notion of “implied powers” of the Constitution which has morphed into the deceitful notion of “a living constitution” (aka whatever the politicians of the day say it is).  The constitutional amendment process be damned.

Hamilton, an inveterate statist, central planner, protectionist, central bank worshipper, and corporate welfare advocate, also proposed the following:  If the federal government does something that is unconstitutional, the fact that the government did it makes it constitutional.  Like waging wars without constitutionally mandated congressional declarations of war for example.

Now comes the issue of Brandon’s “preemptive” pardons of his son and all the rest of the Biden crime family.  Where this idea of “preemptive” pardons come from is Gerald Ford’s first time ever preemptive pardon of Nixon, who had not been charged with any crime.  There you go: another example of the Hamiltonian Constitution which has no basis in legality and is only in place because politicians who despise all constitutional limits on their powers like it and think they can get away with it.

I have no credit card debt and no car payment and my credit score is in the 800s.  I got a letter from Macy’s telling me that my old Macy’s credit card that I haven’t used in years will have its interest rate increased from 22% to 30%.  This is Macy’s response to Amazon.

The Brandon/Obama/Dubya/Clinton Clown Show did not clap once or stand up like everyone else in the room did when President Trump announced that he intended to restore freedom of speech in America during his second inaugural address.  I loved how he kept his back turned to all four stooges for the entire speech.  (The only time senile old Brandon smiled was when Carrie Underwood entered the room and stood inches in front of him to sing God Bless America).

. . . of the fact that an American president would have to issue an executive order that from henceforth a man will be defined as a man and a woman will be defined as a woman as President Trump is about to do today?

One year prior to his assassination, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his powerful antiwar speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” decrying the United States’ genocidal war on the people of Vietnam.  King eloquently linked the state-sanctioned oppression of blacks with the suffering that the Vietnamese were enduring in the face of a genocidal onslaught at the hands of the US national-security state. The mainstream media denounced King for speaking out against the war when they should have praised him for speaking truth to power.

MLK declared, “As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.”

Thankfully, the Vietnamese people heroically resisted the genocidal onslaught and defeated the US national-security state and its puppet South Vietnamese regime.  We should appreciate King’s courage to speak out against the crimes committed by the US national-security state when it would have been easier for him to have stayed silent.

The real Robert E. Lee, not the one the Marxist historians and their Straussian neocon ideological comrades defame.

This presentation is particularly important to watch and review before what will happen tomorrow in Washington, DC on Monday with the inauguration of the populist President Donald Trump, champion of the anti-elitist MAGA movement. Trump achieved an unprecedented, presidential mandate with his monumental victories in both the popular and Electoral College voting.

The presentation is a summary statement on how traditionally the elites have viewed the non-elites throughout American history.

The great disparity in America lies between the professional managerial elites in government, academia, media, and business versus the middle/working classes in their fundamental attitudes, values, lifestyle choices and associations, and how they see themselves and the world about them.

Since the beginning of the Progressive Era (1900-1920) the dominant ideology or world view of the professional managerial class of court intellectuals, opinion leaders and editorial directors of the elite mainstream legacy regime media, bureaucratic functionaries and staff of the administrative state, the federal judiciary, members of Congress, and those persons who comprise the top echelon of the military industrial/security complex and the deep state, has been a synthesis of what has been described as corporate liberalism or proponents of the welfare-warfare state.

The Progressive Era saw the birth of the cult of efficiency, with the new administrative state’s apolitical credentialed experts gingerly guiding public-policy instead of the archaic rule of political bosses and their ethnic urban political machines. Or, at least that was what was supposed to happen according to Progressives such as Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, Robert LaFollette, Jane Addams, Richard Ely, Lincoln Steffens, Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson.

Their Progressive progeny such as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton still employ demeaning, mean-spirited vituperative terminology in this class war against their non-elite opponents – “garbage,” “deplorables,” or as Obama summarized it:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The insightful attorney and political analyst Robert Barnes in a celebrated “daily brief” at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com brilliantly encapsulated this reality of elite rule in America.

“Charles Murray’s Coming Apart was like a sequel to the brilliant book The Big Sort. Lived experience now varies as widely and wildly as ever: working class Americans see, feel, and remember a very different narrative of life than the professional-managerial upper middle class who govern us. Who is this class? Those with certifications or licensures, college or more degrees, in a job that manages others. They dominate those with a post-college degree especially. They claim the right to govern others due to those degrees and certifications and licenses, as the credentialed class claims credibility from those credentials.

“Consider what is typical or atypical of this professional managerial class. Most spent their lives amongst other upper middle-class professionals. Quite literally. Their neighborhoods were professional class dominated neighborhoods. No risk of a Mr. Rogers’ or Mr. Robinson’s neighbor. Their schools were professional class dominated institutions. Their churches or organizations are professional class dominated. Their cultural outings are usually professional class dominated. Their parents and siblings and cousins were professional class dominant. They often never lived in a small town. They often never employed in a working-class occupation involving physical labor. They often never served in the grunt units of the military. They know few firemen, cops, or frontline workers. They never experienced poverty or dramatic loss of status. They don’t own guns, smoke or dip tobacco, or even ever walked on a factory floor or construction site. Evangelicals are freaks to them. Swamp people means neither DC nor the excellent reality series; it’s those folks who live in the scary backwoods.

“They see their status as deserved, as they define deserts by professional class standards: approval from teachers in school, and approval from authority figures in life, measured by grades, degrees, credentials, licenses, and public acclaim from approved authority figures. Their over-achieving, teacher-pet mindset surrounded themselves often with like-minded individuals, often not even knowing the kids for whom school was not a match.

“Now, add to that surrounding themselves with other professional class sources of information: medical “experts” approved by the state, judges in courts of law, professional politicians in representative government, professionalized credentialed journalists in big institutional media, and teachers of themselves and their children. Of the professional class, by the professional class, for the professional class. Then add to that censorship of dissident opinions, deplatforming dissidents, taking away their licenses, removing their credentials, defaming their reputation, and picking friends by political alliance and allegiance.

“Middle America ain’t like these folks. For many in the professional class, all of the following is absent: Pickup trucks, cheap beer, old school action films, proud patriotism, all kinds of fishing and hunting, chain restaurants, the local Kiwanis or Awanas more than art galleries and lefty parades, riding the dog, dream vacations to Dollyworld or Branson still await, folks smoke (and not just weed), work that might require a uniform, friends and family in protective services at the grunt level of police, fire, medical, or military.

“In other words, we are governed by an insular elite acculturated and educated to intellectually incestuous intersectionalism at the moral and practical effect of disastrous public policy. Any platform of change must do all it can to reallocate political capital from the professional managerial class to the people as broadly as achievable. Populism provides part of that answer to any problem: reallocate power to the people whenever and wherever you can.”

For over a quarter of a century I taught in what was once an affluent suburban high school. In May 2020 I retired from this position. Because of major demographic changes in student clientele the institution has transformed into a inner city school. This transformation has also resulted in substantial changes in attitudes and perceptions of the students.

Most students today have very little knowledge or interest to historical events that happened before they were born. Their willfully ignorant attitudes on contemporary events are emotional responses, not ones based on real world historical knowledge. Sloganeering for free health care, free college, halting climate change and saving the planet, just sound “fair’ and “equitable.” Fairness and equality are the primary values they see stressed in the greater culture and media. Someone who does not share these mandated “politically correct” values is unfair, mean, and a “racist.” They have virtually no knowledge of how over time Americans attitudes towards social and political equality have dramatically changed. All they know is that in the past everyone supported slavery and racism. They can’t tell either chronologically or by other ways of historical evidence when this occurred or why and how it changed. To them 1865 (when the Civil War ended) and 1965 (when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts had become law) are not separate but blend into one amorphous thing called ancient history, of which they have no interest, and do not see how these past events affect their lives today. They are trapped in the perpetual present, not caring about the past or future.

It is five decades since Edward Banfield’s highly controversial The Unheavenly City was published, and the sequel, The Unheavenly City Revisited, four years later.

I have been championing this volume for over 50 years since first encountering it. Murray Rothbard loved this book and devoted a substantial portion of his For a New Liberty, to a detailed examination of it.

Banfield had many brilliant observations on race, crime, and other hot topics in his book.

However it was his innovative redefinition of the concept of social class that is most memorable, and which has drawn the most controversy.

Banfield carefully defined class membership, not in terms of income status, such as government statistical poverty levels, but in terms of orientation toward the future, or time preference.

The more pronounced one’s “future orientation” was, the higher one’s social class.

Multicultural critics of this idea now claim it is “cultural racism” to value or promote “future time orientation.”

Known to economists and other social scientists as “low time-preference,” this is what is called setting goals or encouraging purposeful “middle class values” such as punctuality, thrift, foresight, deferred self-gratification of needs or wants, and self-discipline as opposed to “underclass values” or “high time preference” behaviors such as improvidence, hedonism, purposelessness, immediate self-gratification of needs or wants, and capricious spontaneity or irresponsibility.

The Unheavenly City continues to define the real class struggle in America.

In an extremely perceptive essay, Riots—Not Fun or Profit for the Rest of Us, Lew Rockwell draws upon and cites this seminal work and cogently relates it to the current series of destructive riots sweeping across America in its major metropolitan urban areas and densely concentrated cities.

Here is the actual text from Banfield’s book which still remains the most precise explanation for the riots, crime and turmoil America is undergoing in its major cities today.

The Germ Hypothesis has been one of the most successful DECEPTIONS ever pulled off throughout the world.

At it’s core is the Perversion of Science.

In this Part ONE of a two-part series by Drs Sam Bailey she presents in video form an essay requested by Vera Sharov concerning the perversion of science and provides an excellent overview of how the “pandemic” was staged.

(In many ways this presentation is a great summary of her and her husband, Dr Mark Bailey’s, latest book, The Final Pandemic which I also highly recommend.)

Vera Sharov, of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, is a Holocaust survivor and tireless champion of protecting the rights of human research subjects in clinical trials – and removing fear from the world.

She is preparing a companion book to her documentary, “Never Again is Now Global” which will have over 20 authors contributing chapters, of which this essay by the Bailey’s will be one.

Please watch Sam’s Part One video, HERE (19 minute).

To learn more about Vera Sharov, her mission and watch her excellent documentary, “Never Again is Now Global” , please go HERE.

Highly Recommended! 

As we now know the Perversion of Science was recently used to create tyranny around the world.

However, there’s now a World Wide Movement with many contributing to Never Let This Happen Again!

A major force in this movement is Vera Sharov of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, who’s a Holocaust survivor and tireless champion of protecting the rights of human research subjects in clinical trials – and removing fear from the world.

Vera created the excellent documentary, “Never Again is Now Global” which I urge everyone to watch and share.

Vera is currently creating a companion book to her documentary and asked the Bailey’s to contribute a chapter.

This is Part Two by Dr Sam Bailey of that chapter in video form.

Part One can be viewed here. The full chapter by the Bailey’s can now be Downloaded for Free, HERE. 

How did this DECEPTION come to be and WHY has the Viral Model BELIEF SYSTEM been so persistent in our world?

To address that I’ll end with a quote from Vera Sharov:

Vera is one of a growing number of committed activists who are changing this worn out model of FEAR by educating people and removing the perversion of science so that we may never be deceived again.

To justify the State of Israel’s current indiscriminate killing of women and children in Gaza, the Israeli regime’s supporters generally put forward a one-line explanation: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” This simple-minded incantation is deployed as if it is the final word. It is meant to communicate this idea: “some people from Gaza killed some Israeli citizens in October 2023. Therefore, the Israeli state can morally and legally kill any person in Gaza indiscriminately.”

Women and children are being starved as a result of Israel’s bombing campaign? It doesn’t matter because “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Many of the people targeted had nothing to do with the October 2023 attack? It doesn’t matter because “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

In modern warfare, where modern weaponry means entire cities are leveled and whole populations can be wiped off the map, this sort of thinking is despicable. Tel Aviv is hardly alone in this sort of thinking, however. Those who fund the Israeli carpet bombing—the American state—has a long history of behaving this way. In Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, Americans routinely targeted noncombatants relying on lazy claims that amount to little more than saying that Japanese children deserved to be firebombed because they were born Japanese. Did those children have anything to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor? It doesn’t matter because “America has a right to defend itself.”

As the historian Ralph Raico points out in his lecture “The World at War,”Americans had not yet become so morally depraved before the Second World War. Referring to American glee over the firebombing of Tokyo, which Robert McNamara says may have killed 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, Raico says:

I can’t imagine anyone in America in 1914 who would have greeted with joy the destruction of a Japanese city and the death of a hundred thousand people. You ask anybody in America. You ask Theodore Roosevelt himself! That old sissy probably would faint. You ask anybody, “Would you will the total annihilation of a Japanese city?” “What are you talking about? Are you crazy? What do you mean annihilation of a city? What are we, Tamerlane? What are we, Genghis Khan?”

In the twenty-first century, however, it doesn’t matter how many cities we obliterate because we have apparently moved beyond the idea of morality in war. There are no limits because “Israel/America has a right to defend itself.”

In the past, however, more civilized Europeans attempted in a variety of ways to restrain states during wars. Ideologically and philosophically, one of the more influential ideals for conduct in warfare has been so-called Just War Theory. One notable aspect of Just War Theory is that it limits which conflicts can be considered morally defensible while also limiting the behavior of states while fighting a “just war.” Many of the details behind Just War Theory vary over time, but International Relations scholar Vincent Ferrara summarizes it this way:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see the next point). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

It is also notable that many advocates of Just War Theory state that all of these conditions must be met for a war to be just. That is, once “our side” violates even one of these conditions, “our side” has given up its moral legitimacy as a belligerent.

Does Anyone Actually Care about Just War Theory?

Looking over this rather extensive list, many will say to themselves: “wow that’s a long list. In fact, it’s much too long, and if we stuck to that list virtually no war would be considered a just war.”

That, of course, is the idea. Just War Theory strongly suggests that nearly modern wars are conducted in a way that is morally indefensible.

Does anyone actually care about Just War Theory, though? In an era when one’s morality is more dictated by nationalism and political ideology, rather than by one’s religious convictions, we find that not even Christians seem to take this seriously.

In spite of the fact that, historically speaking, Just War Theory was central to Christian political thinking, many modern Christians are likely to regard it as good “in theory” but not really worth the risk if it means “our side” is less likely to win.

On Radio Rothbard this week, Eric Sammons, the editor-in-chief of the longstanding Catholic magazine Crisis, joins me to discuss the state of foreign-policy thinking among Catholics. Sammons explains how, even though Just War Theory continues to be explicitly endorsed by the Catholic hierarchy, the Catholic rank and file either doesn’t know about it, or doesn’t care.

As Sammons explains, Catholics have become beholden to modern political ideologies that are quite in conflict with the historical and traditional political ideals of their own church.

Even the old Catholic Left, which had been so reliably antiwar during the mid-twentieth century, as largely disappeared as the American Left doubled down on supporting whatever new war Obama, Biden, and Clinton foisted upon the American people, and on Washington’s foreign victims.

As Sammons notes, however, there is reason for hope. Among conservative Catholics there is a rising skepticism of the regime’s prowar narratives and a decided lack of enthusiasm about the state’s ongoing calls for ever more support for American intervention across the globe. Many younger Christians appear to be less gullible that their parents and grandparents who simply deferred to supporting whatever the American state said was the next great military crusade.

Listen to the podcast:

RPI’s Daniel McAdams and Chris Rossini separate the news from the propaganda in this discussion of the REAL news of the week.

Warmongering neocon clown David Brooks writes in the War Street Journal that Hegseth’s hearing in Congress over his nomination as defense secretary “made me sick to my stomach.”

Let’s do the compassionate thing and send Brooks some barf bags and Dramamine at his War Street Journal address.

Deion Sanders, head coach of the University of Colorado football team, says his son Shedeur, the quarterback for the team, and Travis Hunter, this year’s Heisman Trophy winner, never once stepped foot in a University of Colorado classroom during their time there.  They did everything online.  Both will be top NFL draft choices, maybe even top five, in the spring.  This probably saved these two young men from years of incessant left-wing communistic propagandizing and indoctrination that all other University of Colorado students are subjected to.

The totalitarian Demo-Bolshevik party politicians have been grilling Trump’s appointees like Pam Bondi, his attorney general nominee, about whether she will “go after” what they call “Trump’s political opponents.”  Her answers should have been “Yes, if they have broken the law.”  Which of course they all have with their disgraceful Third World dictator-style of “lawfare.”  What they are really saying is that “Since we are Demo-Bolsheviks, we are by definition morally superior to everyone else and should therefore be exempt from all criminal activity if it allows us to remain in power forever. With us, the ends justify the means after all.”

“Karl Marx spent his entire life avoiding work, sponging off his friends and family, burdening the lives of everyone he came into contact with, all because Marx wanted to overthrow the current regime (a subconscious rebellion against his parents) and install himself in the seat of ultimate power (as a way to avoid work). He didn’t care about the “workers”, his children, his wife, his parents, nor anybody else. All he cared about was himself, and today’s video will show you exactly what happened and why.

“Article mentioned in the video regarding the Industrial Revolution https://mises.org/mises-daily/popular…

“Clarification for 32:04. Some Hermeticists call the Christian God the ‘demiurgos’ (the Artisan), while others call the true immaterial God the ‘demiurgos’… you know, just to confuse us. Well, for the purposes of this video, the name isn’t important. What matters is that, as a Hermeticist, Marx is looking to overcome the ‘material’ God and get to the true ‘immaterial’ God. So if in doubt, just ignore where I said “and they call him the Demiurgos”.

Another superb, first-class analysis by the gentleman many consider one of the most penetrating, in-depth, and scholarly Internet historians.

“Rudolf Jung was an early National Socialist who wrote the first book on the movement (six years before Mein Kampf). He not only reveals the origins of the National Socialist movement, but he also shapes Hitler’s views and spells out their views and what they were trying to achieve. Jung wanted to be known as the ‘Karl Marx’ of National Socialism. In this video, we’ll take a look at Rudolf Jung’s life and book and see what we can learn from this.”

This is a fascinating and illuminating presentation on the early roots of the National Socialist movement and the seminal impactful influence of Rudolf Jung upon Hitler. After over 100 years, we are only now beginning to fully grasp the malignant origins this of deadly ideology, in order to understand its consequential impact in the Second World War, the later aspect of the Thirty Years War of the Twentieth Century.

I speak of course of Netanyahoo and his American “allies,” not Putin.

Please watch (at least) the first 53 seconds of this interview, HERE.

For more information on how to Ground yourself indoors during these winter months please go to Earthing.com

To do a deeper dive on the research please go to EarthingInstitute.net

There, go to the Menu, BASICS and then the submenu, GETTING STARTED.

Highly Recommended

Trump wants to create an External Revenue Service to collect his increased tariffs. I thought he was going to cut agencies, not add new ones? Importers will be harassed by the ERS to no end to make sure every penny is collected. An External Revenue Service to collect tariffs? Sounds like something Lincoln would do.

Watching just a bit of the Hegseth hearings before the Senate AF Committee, it is clear that many on that committee understand exactly what is at stake.  Hegseth will be a US secretary of defense offense who will obey Donald Trump, won’t be bought by the same old companies, but can probably be contained by other means. His assigned mission in the Pentagon will be to disrupt, delay and deny — and Senators were sweating their real concern about a potential disruption of the district kickbacks and reduction of state defense investments, their nervousness thinly disguised by statements about doing right by the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

Both Hegseth and the members of the Committee seem unfamiliar with various parts of the Constitution, and come across as unprepared.  It’s probably a match made in heaven. Curiously, Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin made a lot of sense.  Of course, he’s a plumber and a rancher, both careers Americans have far more need of than “US Senator.”  Another point of light:  Hegseth’s written statement included a sly, if sophomoric, callback to the days of Rumsfeld, asserting “I know what I don’t know.” This is on its face silly — but it reminds us that the Senate easily confirmed secretaries of defense in our lifetimes that have been far more dangerous and anti-American than Hegseth will ever be.

I doubt Hegseth, or any other secretary of defense that this Senate can confirm, will be much of a disruptor.  It is the job of Congress to cut spending, to hold the executive branch accountable, and end the illegal wars, the odd overseas assassination, and genocides that nearly all of them support to some degree.  Most of them have no intention of doing their job. If this hearing is any guide, we can confirm only that the US Senate and House will do what they always do — give the Pentagon more money than even that rapacious cesspool of waste and fraud asks for, and mandate inappropriate, unneeded, and unsupportable defense programs that have little or nothing to so with actually protecting our country, or American interests.

As many of you know Dr Sam Bailey along with her husband, Dr Mark Bailey, gave up their medical licenses because they refused to stay within the corrupt system that required doctors to quietly follow orders to Jab, Mask and Censure – Or Else.

Well… The “Or Else” is still after Sam.

In this video, HERE, she updates you on this heinous $$$ shakedown and how she and Mark are standing up for Medical and Health Freedom.

This is an important video (19 min) and I urge you to please share it widely with everyone you care about.

Stopping Medical Corruption – and entrenched, committed ignorance – is essential for all of us as we learn how to take better care of ourselves and our loved ones.

Please watch and Share.