LRC Blog

Trump Voices the ULTIMATE BETRAYAL of an American First Foreign Policy

The Legacy of Carroll Quigley

The Professor and the President

“As a teenager I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And as a student at Georgetown, I heard the call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley, who said America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two great ideas: first, that tomorrow can be better than today, and second, that each of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.”

When Bill Clinton spoke these stirring words to millions of Americans during his 1992 acceptance address before the Democratic National Convention upon receiving his party’s nomination for President of the United States, the vast multitude of his television audience paused for a micro-second to reflect: Who is Carroll Quigley and why did he have such a dramatic effect on this young man before us who may become our country’s leader?

Carroll Quigley was a legendary professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, and a former instructor at Princeton and Harvard.

He was a lecturer at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the Brookings Institution, the U. S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department, and the Naval College.

Quigley was a closely connected elite “insider” to the American Establishment, with impeccable credentials and trappings of respectability.

But Carroll Quigley’s most notable achievement was the authorship of one of the most important books of the 20th Century: Tragedy and Hope – A History of the World in Our Time.

No one can truly be cognizant of the intricate evolution of networks of power and influence which have played a crucial role in determining who and what we are as a civilization without being familiar with the contents of this 1,348-page tome.

It is the “Ur-text” of Establishment Studies, earning Quigley the epithet of “the professor who knew too much” in a Washington Post article published shortly after his 1977 death.

In Tragedy and Hope, as well as the posthumous The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, Quigley traces this network, in both its overt and covert manifestations, back to British racial imperialist and financial magnate Cecil Rhodes and his secret wills, outlining the clandestine master plan through seven decades of intrigue, spanning two world wars, to the assassination of John Kennedy.

Through an elaborate structure of banks, foundations, trusts, public-policy research groups, and publishing concerns (in addition to the prestigious scholarship program at Oxford), the initiates of what are described as the Round Table groups (and its offshoots such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations) came to dominate the political and financial affairs of the world.

For the ambitious young man from Hope, Arkansas, his mentor’s visionary observations would provide the blueprint of how the world really worked as he made his ascendancy via Oxford through the elite corridors of power to the Oval Office.

The Conservatives Discover Carroll Quigley

Published in 1966, Tragedy and Hope lay virtually unnoticed by academic reviewers and the mainstream media establishment. Then Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, the noted conservative author of the 1961 national best-seller, The Naked Communist, discovered Quigley, and the serious implications of what Quigley had revealed. In 1970, Skousen published The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope.

This was soon followed by None Dare Call It Conspiracy. This slim volume by Gary Allen (and Larry Abraham) provided the massive paradigm shift of grassroots, populist conservatives from mere anti-Communism to a much larger anti-elitist world-view.

Millions of copies of these books came into print, and the conservative movement changed forever.

Copies of Tragedy and Hope began disappearing from library shelves. A pirate edition was printed. Quigley came to believe that his publisher Macmillan had suppressed his book. Dr. Gary North, the esteemed writer well known to readers of LewRockwell.com, has an interesting discussion of these curious facts in the chapter, “Maverick ‘Insider’ Historians,” in his book, Conspiracy: A Biblical View, available on-line.

However some persons believe Carroll Quigley was simply amplifying earlier research in conservative authors Emanuel Josephson’s Rockefeller ‘Internationalist’: The Man Who Misrules The World, and Dan Smoot’s The Invisible Government, or that of the radical sociologist C. Wright Mill’s The Power Elite, which had outlined these same elite networks of power.

I disagree with that narrow assessment. Although there is much to disagree with in interpretation in Quigley’s book, the originality and titanic scope of the work cannot be doubted or disparaged.

In a book much praised by Murray Rothbard, author Carl Oglesby’s The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies From Dallas To Watergate, has a fascinating discussion of Quigley within a wider framework of American power politics and subterranean intrigue.

And in a volume hailed by Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens, before he morphed from Trotskyist man of letters to Neocon mouthpiece, had some insightful musings along the line of Quigley in his Blood, Class, and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies.

In the Preface to his book, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, Quigley noted:

“I have been told that the story I relate here would be better left untold, since it would provide ammunition for the enemies of what I admire. I do not share this view. The last thing I should wish is that anything I write could be used by the Anglophobes and isolationists of the Chicago Tribune. But I feel that the truth has a right to be told, and once told, can be an injury to no men of good will. Only by a knowledge of the errors of the past is it possible to correct the tactics of the future.”

Although his book was written in 1949 it was not published until after his death in 1981. Ironically Quigley was correct concerning the contents of his expose’. As Murray N. Rothbard pointed out in his semi-autobiographical masterwork, The Betrayal of the American Right, the Midwestern voice of Old Right non-interventionism, Colonel Robert McCormick’s Chicago Tribune, published a contemporaneous series of hard-hitting muckraking articles in 1951 attacking what Rothbard described as “the Wall Street-Anglophile Establishment”: “Rhodes’ Goal: Return U.S. to British Empire,” “Rhodes Ideals Slant State Department Policies,” “Rhodes’ Wards Hawk Global Scheme in U.S.,” “Rhodes Grads Influential in Eastern Press — Aid British, Global Propaganda,” “Even Congress Not Immune to Rhodes’ Ideas,” and “OWI Propaganda Linked to Rhodes Men.”

And now President Donald Trump has publicly stated, on the record, his desire to fulfill the long-term, century old insidious goal of the globalist Anglo-American Elite Establishment, to become members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The US joining the Commonwealth of Nations is the ULTIMATE BETRAYAL of an American First foreign policy.

The oldest goal of the Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table (the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House) in London and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York composing the Anglo-American Establishment in the UK and the USA is for the American government to join the Commonwealth of Nations. This was the birth of the “Special Relationship” of the modern New World Order globalist concept.

Donald Trump Suggests US Could Join British CommonwealthDonald Trump agrees to make US part of Commonwealth because he ‘loves King Charles’

President Donald Trump has suggested that he might accept an offer from King Charles to join the British Commonwealth. It comes after he said he ‘loves’ the monarch

In The Old Days Life Was So Much Simpler

The “Special Relationship” (book list)

The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, by Carrol Quigley

Tragedy and Hope: A History of Our World in Our Time, by Carrol Quigley

UNION NOW / UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN (2 Vols) by Clarence K. Streit

Union Now, by Clarence K. Streit

The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda, by Michael Rectenwald (Author), Lew Rockwell (Foreword)

 

12:34 am on March 22, 2025

America’s Untold Stories: JFK Files: What 70,000 Docs Reveal — Plus Roberts vs. Trump, and Alien Enemies Act Showdown

Powerful background discussion of the crucial context of the “Oswald in Mexico City” story as essential to the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK assassination. David Atlee Phillips (“Maurice Bishop”) was the CIA’s chief of operations for the Western Hemisphere in Mexico City.

6:17 pm on March 21, 2025

The “Legacy” of J. Edgar Hoover and the Systemic Corruption of the Federal Bureau of Investigation – The Case for Abolition

With the initial, unprecedented, landmark investigations and damning revelations of massive systemic and all-pervasive criminality, culpability, and corruption within the various federal departments and administrative agencies uncovered since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term in office in January, it is important to once again review and fully comprehend the factual record below.

Famed attorney Robert Barnes recently provided an exceptional in-depth retrospective history of FBI deep state corruption, politicalization, and weaponization from its inception to the present. This is an outstanding, must-see presentation before the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

End the FBI, by Ryan McMaken

And lastly an Establishment apologia or defense of the conventional narrative on Hoover and the FBI from an implanted deep state adjunct. Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and editor of IRD’s foreign policy and national security journal, Providence: A Journal of Christianity & American Foreign Policy. He worked eight years for the Central Intelligence Agency and is a graduate of Georgetown University. In 1994 he joined IRD to found its United Methodist project (UMAction) and became IRD President in 2009.

8:50 am on March 21, 2025

Terrific Viva Frei Interview: Live with Gad Saad! Tesla on Fire! Canada on TDS! And “Suicidal Empathy” Turns Violent?

10:21 pm on March 20, 2025

Federal Judge Seeks To Defang DOGE

1:03 pm on March 19, 2025

Rebel Capitalist Interviews: Legal Expert Robert Barnes Reacts to Trump Challenging Biden’s Pardons

Robert Barnes in one of his best and most insightful interviews. Comprehensive and authoritative in tracing and outlining the systemic sources and backgrounds of these corrupt nefarious actors over time. He remains the brilliant attorney/political analyst who shines the disinfecting light of illumination and clarity upon understanding the tragic, chaotic world in which we live.

That is why key observers across the political spectrum recognize that Barnes is not only a master litigator and top-notch attorney but one of the most in depth, articulate, well read and street-smart experienced political analysts in the nation. Whether it involves the institutionalized criminal machine cartels of the Democrats and Republicans or the deep state, he is a true polymath reminiscent of Murray N. Rothbard in his power elite analysis of Realpolitik.

2:57 am on March 19, 2025

America’s Untold Stories – 80,000 JFK Files Released, Trump Strips Hunter’s Security, & Space Crew Returning

Tuesday Newsday is packed with bombshells! Trump is declassifying 80,000 JFK assassination files—but what will they reveal? Meanwhile, MS-13’s Most Wanted is captured, and Trump is pushing mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act despite judicial pushback.

Also in this episode:

Hunter & Ashley Biden stripped of Secret Service protection—but Marco Polo tracks Hunter to South Africa, surrounded by government agents

Minnesota Republicans propose labeling ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ as a mental illness

Astronauts Butch Wilmore & Suni Williams finally return to Earth after 9 months stranded in space

Semisonic tells the White House to stop using ‘Closing Time’—‘You missed the point’

Mark Groubert & Eric Hunley break it all down—join America’s Untold Stories for the real story behind the headlines!

Like, share & subscribe!

1:25 pm on March 18, 2025

From Yemen To Iran To Gaza To Russia – Is Trump Losing The Plot?

12:37 pm on March 18, 2025

The One Agency that Trump Won’t Cut

Trump has been issuing executive orders left and right and targeting many federal agencies. However, there is one agency that Trump has not announced any cuts: the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA. As much as I am opposed to practically every agency of the federal government, getting rid of the DEA should be high on the list of anyone who treasures individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, and private property.

7:11 pm on March 17, 2025

Barnes and Baris Episode 89: What Are the Odds? What is Wrong with the California Republican Party? Plus, the Need for Reforming the Judicial Branch is Becoming More Evident

5:10 pm on March 17, 2025

Pardon Me? Trump Blasts Biden’s ‘Auto-Signed’ Get Out Of Jail Free Cards

1:06 pm on March 17, 2025

Man Of The House – With Special Guest Rep.Thomas Massie!

12:39 pm on March 14, 2025

How is it Possible that I’m Still Alive?

This month marks the fifth anniversary of America’s dissent into Soviet-style totalitarian tyranny under the phony baloney guise of “fighting the COVID pandemic.”  In light of the fact that I never took any of the shots and only ever wore a mask in order to be allowed into the grocery store (until Governor DeSantis dropped that idiotic policy in September of 2020) I am amazed that I am still alive.

9:41 am on March 14, 2025

The Western-Backed Murder Of Syria, With Guest Kevork Almassian

12:37 pm on March 13, 2025

Eloquent Op-Ed in Armed Forces Press by Colonel John Rosenberger on Ending NATO

NATO: Time To Turn Out The Lights

As President Trump and President Putin negotiate a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine in the weeks ahead, the outcome now is indisputable. We, the U.S. and NATO, lost our proxy war in Ukraine, a war that will go down in history as one of our worst foreign policy disasters, even worse than our ignominious withdrawal from our 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are dead, and even more are wounded and maimed. We fought to the last Ukrainian soldier, with no skin in the game. Sorrow blankets the land. Ukraine’s infrastructure has been decimated. Russia is substantially stronger economically and militarily, with stronger ties to Iran, North Korea, and China. Sanctions had little if any effect. The economies of Western Europe lie stagnant or contracting, the paucity of their military forces, capabilities, and industries starkly exposed. Political upheaval is in the air across Europe. $183 billion of our U.S. taxpayer money proved a foolish investment, enriching the corrupt Zelensky regime and the U.S. defense industry, and served no purpose other than protracting the war.

Lest we forget, it was all borrowed money increasing annual deficits and the U.S. debt, which now exceeds $36 trillion. Not surprisingly, the war’s political and military pundits are growing silent. The years of utter propaganda and untruthful narrative espoused by U.S. and NATO political elites and think tanks to justify and sustain the war appears for what it was. NATO’s viability and utility have been further diminished, having proved useless for deterring Russia for over a decade, much less demonstrating that its combat equipment and methods of training enable an army to defeat Russian forces on the battlefield. Calls for dissolving NATO and creating a new security arrangement for Europe become louder each passing day. An unbiased, objective look at NATO’s performance as a military organization since 1989 strongly supports the need.

For those who believe NATO is the most effective military alliance in history, I offer a more pragmatic, realistic view based on cold, hard facts. Since the Soviet Union collapsed some 35 years ago, new reasons were forged by the political elites of member nations to justify and sustain NATO’s existence. NATO morphed into an organization far removed from the purpose it was originally formed to achieve and did achieve. Yet, the treaty has never been changed. For example, from March to June 1999, NATO launched an offensive air campaign attacking the armed forces of Serbia over a period of 78 days until Serbia agreed to withdraw from Kosovo and end its conflict with Kosovo Albanians. Politicians of NATO nations, without the direct authorization of the United Nations Security Council, justified this war ostensibly to end and prevent egregious human rights abusesArticle 5 of the treaty was not invoked. It was ignored. Not a single NATO country was attacked by Serbia. Nor has peace been restored. For the past 25 years, some 4,500 NATO soldiers have remained in Kosovo to preserve an unstable peace at immense cost and expense with no end in sight.

Next, consider the war in Afghanistan. NATO assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in August 2003. This military operation marked the first deployment of NATO forces outside Europe and North America. By 2006, NATO forces were engaged in intensive combat to defeat Taliban insurgents across the entire nation. All 30 nations of NATO contributed forces to this effort. ISAF continued operations until December 2014, when the U.S. withdrew most of its forces. For these 11 years under NATO command, soldiers suffered under fifteen commanding generals, continual mission turbulence, and conflicting rules of engagement. Many commanders served six months or less. The rest, a little over a year. The Taliban was not destroyed. Just the opposite. On the heels of the U.S.’s humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, followed by the unexpected and rapid collapse of the Afghan National Security Force, Taliban forces stormed across the nation and retook control of Afghanistan. 3,606 NATO soldiers were killed during operations from 2001-2021, and thousands more were grievously wounded: 68% of the casualties were from the U.S, 12% by the United Kingdom, 4.5% by Canada, and the remainder from other NATO nations. The cost was almost $1 trillion, the majority paid by U.S. taxpayers on borrowed money, and it achieved nothing.

Add to this the fact that NATO was unable to deter Russia from invading and seizing Crimea and large portions of eastern Ukraine in 2014. President Putin sensed NATO’s political, economic, and military weakness and rightly judged that NATO would not intervene and engage in direct conflict with Russia. Eight years later, in February 2022, NATO failed to deter Russia from extending its invasion into Ukraine and securing even larger areas of territory in the eastern oblasts of Ukraine and Crimea. Having failed to deter Russia, NATO, led by the Biden administration, without invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, decided to go to war against Russia in support of President Zelensky’s uncompromising political objective—recover all territory lost to Russia. Without any viable military strategy—demanded by Congress and ignored for two years—or a political objective to achieve other than “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”, NATO limited its support to providing combat equipment, ammunition, and military supplies, but placing restrictions on all long-range missile systems that could strike deep into Russia for fear of provoking Russia into using nuclear weapons. NATO provided just enough to sustain the war, but not to win it. NATO nations knew full well their populations would never support the employment of NATO air and ground forces in direct combat against Russia. Instead, NATO decided to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier, with no skin in the game, hence the proxy war that it was.

Let’s review the bidding. Based on its performance as a military organization since its founding mission was achieved in 1989, it’s evident that NATO, under U.S. leadership, is anything but the most effective military alliance in history. Granted, it may serve a political purpose, but it has proved inept at the conduct of war and devoid of political and military strategies that brought lasting peace to any conflict it touched. Moreover, the idea that NATO could cobble together one or more army corps, blending forces from 32 nations, speaking as many different languages, all equipped and highly trained to prevail against Russia under the conditions of the Russia-Ukrainian battlefield the past three years, is laughable.

There is no reason the American taxpayer should continue to support a security alliance that no longer serves the purpose for which it was formed in April 1949 nor serves as a deterrent. It’s time for European nations to shoulder the burden of their own security and seek different means. No doubt the trans-Atlantic political elites and globalists will be apoplectic, let them. The people of the European nations deserve a security arrangement and military capability far better than NATO has provided. It’s time to turn out the lights.


Colonel (Ret) John D. Rosenberger served 29 years in the U.S. Army as a combined arms warrior and lifelong student of military history and strategy. Among his military assignments, he directed the SACEUR’s training program for NATO CJTF HQs and commanded the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the vaunted OPFOR at the National Training Center. He has written and published extensively on issues related to battlefield leadership, the art of battle command, military readiness, and Joint combined arms training. He recently published op-eds highlighting critical shortfalls in military capabilities in the Pacific. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of JANUS Research Group, Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense.

12:32 pm on March 13, 2025

My Recovered Amazon Listmania! Book Lists

Here are more recovered/restored Amazon Listmania! book lists created before they discontinued this service. I had 120 lists before they were purged. Hundreds of hours of labor were involved in preparing these lists for Amazon patrons and readers. Amazon data indicated that several hundreds of thousands of persons world-wide had accessed and viewed my lists. Emails to me confirm this. Unfortunately, Amazon has removed my comments on each volume. I’ve also included a few intriguing relevant lists others had posted. Save/earmark these lists for future reference. Enjoy!

Click upon the shown book on each list and also on the empty book spaces to be taken to the appropriate Amazon descriptive link.

Murray N. Rothbard — Liberty’s Greatest Scholar

Government Is The Enemy Of Civilization

How The U.S. Government Created Americas Drug Problem

Publik Skoolz Hiztury

The Great Depression and the New Deal
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/WRA3R4587PAU/the-great-depression-and-the-new-deal/

Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal

Critical Views of FDR’s New Deal
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3G6JM97W9IH1H/fdrs-new-deal-critical-views/

Theological Canon of the Welfare-Warfare State
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1YR6KNKXQUTR8/theological-canon-of-the-welfare-warfare-state/

Power Brokers, Fixers, and Elite Insiders
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3R15C6XC3B7QI/power-brokers-fixers-and-elite-insiders/

Establishment Studies

Getting to Know the Power Elite

The Italian Sociologists and Theory of the Elites.

The New Political History: Ethnoreligious and Ethnocultural
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R8L20UY34S9PS/the-new-political-history-ethnoreligious-and-ethnocultural/

Court Historians – Servile Scribes of State Power
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R3DT7I2Y5M4C7Q/court-historians-servile-scribes-of-state-power/

History and Liberty

Philosophy of Liberty (Part 1)

Speaking Truth To Power

America: Redeemer Nation or Hubristic Empire

Perpetual War

Death by Government

Politically Incorrect Guides
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R30Q20HSBM24U8/politically-incorrect-guides/

Old school libertarianism

The Essential Paleo Bookshelf
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R2JRQG7UBB9KUJ/the-essential-paleo-bookshelf/

Paleolibertarian Books

A Paleolibertarian Education

Old Right Classics and Revisionist History

Ron Paul: The Champion of the Constitution
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R1MORJTYFX9BC3/ron-paul-the-champion-of-the-constitution/

Ron Paul’s Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R1J1EQ2H6J02CB/ron-pauls-reading-list-for-a-free-and-prosperous-america/

Ron Paul’s Reading List – Part II
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/RQO7LF175SQGS/ron-pauls-reading-list-part-ii/

A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America Part 1
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R1IQ4RNQHCTWDU/a-reading-list-for-a-free-and-prosperous-america-part-1/

My Favorite Libertarian and Paleo-Libertarian Books
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2OH6Y1NEIERW0/my-favorite-libertarian-and-paleo-libertarian-books/

My favorite libertarian books

libertarian favorites

Libertarian books for Christians
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1UVRSMAIRKLB1/libertarian-books-for-christians/

Books That Promote Liberty
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R6TRKVA3S6E81/books-that-promote-liberty/

One Libertarians Education

Reference List: Libertarianism

Libertarian Readings

Libertarianism: Anarcho-capitalism & Minarchism

Libertarian Theory – A Comprehensive Guide

Our Enemy the State

Practical Anarchy

Anarcho-Capitalism

BlogBookList1

Prometheus Award Hall of Fame

Cerebus the aardvark

Recommended Books on the Free Market
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2K903OLDPUV45/recommended-books-on-the-free-market/

Our Libertarian American Revolution
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/16GUZ7S87IK4Y/our-libertarian-american-revolution/

Constitutional Controversies and Debates

Thomas Jefferson books

Old Republican Opponents of Federal Tyranny

Getting to know Jefferson Davis

Look Away Dixie Land

American Civil War

Classics in the Anglo-American Republican Tradition

The British Political Tradition

Lord Acton: Historian of Liberty

Belloc, Rothbard and the Protestant Reformation

The Reformation

The Enlightenment

THE MAN WHO LOVED KNOWLEDGE:THE ENCYCLOPEDIST DENIS DIDEROT

Liberty Classics (Before the 20th Century)

“The Special Relationship”
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3BMYEUARYHXQJ/the-special-relationship/

O.S.S. and the “Special Relationship”
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1913KFB0YPUVE/oss-and-the-special-relationship/

The OSS and the fathers of the CIA.

So You Want to Know about the Round Table?

Dissident Histories of US Foreign Policy
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/9FIXFBYAQKA6/dissident-histories-of-us-foreign-policy/

Isolationism: The Unknown Ideal
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1IC102ACY3N3H/isolationism-the-unknown-ideal/

The Cold War: Soviet Communism’s Murderous Legacy
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3N0W0ARDH5ZHT/the-cold-war-soviet-communisms-murderous-legacy/

The creators and executors of Cold War foreign policy
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/26ZM7RRF1ISAO/the-creators-and-executors-of-cold-war-foriegn-policy/

The end of the Cold War and confronting its legacies
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R1HRYKWOBMAI7P/the-end-of-the-cold-war-and-confronting-its-legacies/

Before you join the CIA Read –

A Critical Account of Socialism – Theory and History
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1THKC4K23USQ4/a-critical-account-of-socialism-theory-and-history/

A Critical Account of the State – Theory and History

Libertys Heroes and Heroines

Utopia in Blood – Red Delusions and Nightmare Reality
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/20ITHH2X135QS/utopia-in-blood-red-delusions-and-nightmare-reality/

Red Genocide

The Murdering State

Communism in North America

Hollywood Commies

The life and writings of George Orwell

Post-WWII Conservative History

Magic History
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1AYXMYISUU36D/magic-history/

History of Elite Magic: Early Modern: Primary Sources

Gnosticism and Esoteric Christianity
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2CLVYVAX20RJH/gnosticism-and-esoteric-christianity/

Gnostic Texts and the Nag Hammadi Library
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1E69CPTYVDO5B/gnostic-texts-and-the-nag-hammadi-library/

Gnostic Gospels and the Other Bible
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/RVLFGO1Y760L/gnostic-gospels-and-the-other-bible/

Explore Gnosticism

A Gnostic Primer

Utopian Nightmares and Gnostic Political Religions
https://listmania.org/list/id/1E8UKBWSGZB5P/utopian-nightmares-and-gnostic-political-religions/

Hermetica
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R253EN9KOIYJEC/hermetica/

Templars

Templars and Freemasonry

Esoterica

The Gnostic Jung

History of Apocalypticism

The apocalypse and the millennium.

The Western Mind

Decline of the West

Dem Bones Dem Bones Dem Dry Bones

Chaos and Cosmology

Questioning

Lex Rex: Rule of Law

Philosophy of law for law students

Reading US constitutional law

Freedom From Religion

Curmudgeons 101

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test: the 60s by the books

The Films of Sergio Leone

historiography / philosophy of history
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1AAGALDEZIPR0/historiography-philosophy-of-history/

Catholicism and Civilization

And The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It

Roman Catholicism

Traditional Catholic Reading

Liberty Catholicism and Capitalism

Books and Film of Special Interest for Catholics

Equality – The Evil Lie

Delivering Uppercuts to Egalitarianism

Iconoclasts, Curmudgeons & Social Heritics

A Thomas Sowell library

The Culture War

Media Culture Wars

The Elite Is Neat – The Masses Are Asses

Pundits, Observers and Assorted Gadflies

Myers-Briggs Types & Temperaments

Real American History

Jim Keiths Books

Must Read Political Books

Castles

Robert D. Kaplan-Journalist and Foreign Relations Expert
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/18JN2KEO1T54V/robert-d-kaplan-journalist-and-foreign-relations-expert/

The Katyn Massacre the Gulag (Gulags) and Communist Genocide
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/RRDUTKEW4HTFD/the-katyn-massacre-the-gulag-gulags-and-communist-genocide/

Poland: Invaded by totalitarians and betrayed by the Allies
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2YJFVLD12EV29/poland-invaded-by-totalitarians-and-betrayed-by-the-allies/

Best books about the WWII Eastern Front
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1O0J3XG9BQO3I/best-books-about-the-eastern-front/

Soviet Politics VII: Perestroika
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R2ACLZEPBM0T5G/soviet-politics-vii-perestroika/

The Spanish Civil War
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R3TQ2WB6HK4VHQ/the-spanish-civil-war/

The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40 & the Continuation War
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R311N4VELL7VD5/the-russo-finnish-war-of-1939-40-the-continuation-war/

Nazism: Ideas Have Consequences
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3K8A4UAW2R4B0/nazism-ideas-have-consequences/

National Socialism – a different perspective
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1BW89Z7J70T8M/national-socialism-a-different-perspective/

The A-to-Z of Nazi Germany
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1SZ9MC2OEWZAM/the-a-to-z-of-nazi-germany/

Esoteric Aryanism and Nazi Occultism
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2QPMV1UEDUQQM/esoteric-aryanism-and-nazi-occultism/

Third Reich Must Reads

The Shoah

An Overview of the First World War
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3GW9ZJDDIUR6V/an-ovesrview-of-the-first-world-war/

Pearl Harbor: Day of Infamy

The USS Liberty – Controversy, Cover-Up or Conspiracy?

US War on Terrorism

Hitler Is Winning: 21st Century Proxy Wars
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R3ETQVYRU8DN5U/hitler-is-winning-21st-century-proxy-wars/

Military Studies 1–Insurgency and Counterinsurgency
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1MF2EWJJCCWOE/military-studies-1-insurgency-and-counterinsurgency/

The Definitive JFK/RFK List

J.F.K: Contra-Camelot

Robert F. Kennedy the President who should have been.

JFK and the Kennedys

Richard Milhous Nixon

George W. Bush

George Bush (and his business partners)

Bush Dynasty

Bushwacked America: Exposing Lies Corruption and Treason
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3652VNCID3Z1K/bushwacked-america-exposing-lies-corruption-and-treason/

Bill Clinton

Trump: The Complete Collection

The Reality of War

Dissecting Leftism
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/35NPZRLXRZVGW/dissecting-leftism-no-2/

My Favorite Libertarian and Paleo-Libertarian Books
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2OH6Y1NEIERW0/my-favorite-libertarian-and-paleo-libertarian-books/

Libertarian books for Christians
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1UVRSMAIRKLB1/libertarian-books-for-christians/

Recommended Books on the Free Market
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/2K903OLDPUV45/recommended-books-on-the-free-market/

The American Revolution
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R1JB6WKSRDJJX1/the-american-revolution/

Essentials in Political Philosophy
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/NHUC7GZS6TJW/essentials-in-political-philosophy/

History/Politics – All the Best that’s Been Thought and Said
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/NEMYNXZ17B5Q/historypolitics-all-the-best-thats-been-thought-and-said/

A Reading Assignment For Conservative Americans
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R8KDU9BNSGTYJ/a-reading-assignment-for-conservative-americans/

Angie Debo Collection

Robert Anton Wilson favorites
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R3SZRH90PNLGNX/robert-anton-wilson-favorites/

Books – Robert Anton Wilson

Robert Anton Wilson

a discordian reading primer (evolve your mind damn it!)
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1ID2U768MPAZZ/a-discordian-reading-primer-evolve-your-mind-damn-it/

Variations on a Meme

Douglas Adams and the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Literary Vomit

Great Works of Psychedelic Philosophy & Literature
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/1YGLOOR70G83A/great-works-of-psychedelic-philosophy-literature/

Pre-Code Hollywood

noir fiction

American Noir: The Essential Library

Film Noir History & Theory

James Ellroy

Gore Vidal: Our American Cicero
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R3DNMOFS33DQQR/gore-vidal-our-american-cicero/

Last Partisan of the Old Republic: The Essential Gore Vidal
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/331PNJ7HPR1OX/last-partisan-of-the-old-republic-the-essential-gore-vidal/

Robert V. Remini-The eminent Jacksonian Historian
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/YWYC6YMP4OWS/robert-v-remini-the-eminent-jacksonian-historian/

The Golden Age of Sci-Fi Movies (1950s)
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3C1LIYKP0D7UK/the-golden-age-of-sci-fi-movies-1950s/

Understand the Lincoln Assassination
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R322TUSNFST7B/understand-the-lincoln-assassination/

VINCE PALAMARA IN JFK & SECRET SERVICE BOOKS
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R159E1MYPECO9B/vince-palamara-in-jfk-secret-service-books/

Counter Reformation
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/373TLMIBJV344/counter-reformation/

Compromised Campus: Scientism and Statism
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R2QOBOYZL1I939/compromised-campus-scientism-and-statism/

Southern Conservatism
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/3T4KA28WCEO7K/southern-conservatism/

the Americanist Library
https://www.listmania.org/list/id/R1G2FWF1ZWT33/the-americanist-library/

2:06 am on March 13, 2025

Flip-Flop! Trump Restores Weapons And Intelligence To Ukraine!

12:43 pm on March 12, 2025

US Foreign Policy in a Nutshell

If you take the Russian “invasion” of the Ukraine in a vacuum, then it becomes easy to come to the conclusion that Putin’s overall goal is to restore the Russian Empire via territorial ambitions.

However, a student of history doesn’t look at these events in a vacuum.

Jeffrey Sachs talks about the Wolfowitz Doctrine and US Unipolar New World Order policy and its ramifications to the EU Parliament last month.  He validates everything I had guessed had happened from what I had pieced together on my own.

Be a student of history and listen to him.

1:22 pm on March 11, 2025

Massie Criticized (Again) For Opposing Reckless Spending

Here we go again. Congressman Massie refuses to support reckless government spending and increased debt. President Trump comes out to criticize Massie and says he should be primaried. Many will remember that we’ve been down this road before with the trillions in Covid spending (and subsequent inflation). Massie vehemently opposed the Covid spending, was criticized by President Trump, and was primaried. Massie was right and won the primary election. It’s not a good look for President Trump to do this again.

12:40 pm on March 11, 2025

Will Speaker Johnson Kill DOGE?

12:25 pm on March 10, 2025

$1.1 Trillion in “Improper” Medicaid Payments

There’s an article on Breitbart with a paywall that announces the DOGE has uncovered $1.1 trillion in “improper” Medicaid payments over the past ten years.  As Bill Clinton would say, it all depends on what the meaning of improper is.  A former colleague of mine at Loyola University Maryland once participated in a discussion of Medicaid fraud in Maryland.  He told me that the poverty pimps in attendance — the left-wing political activists employed by the myriad “nonprofit” organizations that help administer Medicaid — publicly made the argument that Medicaid fraud is a good  and needed thing because, in their opinion, the taxpayers are too stingy.  The federal government administers very little of the welfare state.  It has created and funded hundreds of these “nonprofits” to do the work for them, and they see their jobs as protecting and expanding Medicaid fraud, not policing it.  So that $1.1 trillion that DOGE has discovered is probably an underestimate.

10:38 am on March 10, 2025

America’s Untold Stories: Trump Threatens Russia & Ukraine, Hunter’s Broke & Garrett Ziegler Joins

America’s Untold Stories – Free-form Friday brings Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley back with special guest Garrett Ziegler of Marco Polo, who exposes new bombshells from the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and lawsuit. As Hunter claims he’s flat broke and blames LA wildfires, Trump delivers a stark warning to Russia and Ukraine: “Get to the table right now — or face massive sanctions.”

Also in this episode: Trump pushes for a new nuclear deal with Iran, cancels $400M in Columbia University grants over antisemitism, and makes 13-year-old DJ Daniel’s dream come true at his address to Congress. Plus, Gavin Newsom splits from California liberals by condemning transgender athletes in women’s sports, and CNN hands pro-Trump pundit Scott Jennings a big raise.

Catch every twist, every clash, and every insider scoop only on America’s Untold Stories with Mark & Eric. Buckle up — Free-form Friday never disappoints!

4:50 pm on March 7, 2025

Who Is ‘Taking’ The Panama Canal? Trump Flip-Flops (Again) On Russia…and More!

In today’s Liberty Report, Chris Rossini and Daniel McAdams chew on the latest news that you may have missed. Russia, tariffs, Panama Canal, Syria revolt. Tune in!

12:37 pm on March 7, 2025

Who Is ‘Taking’ The Panama Canal? Trump Flip-Flops (Again) On Russia…and More!

12:31 pm on March 7, 2025

Curt Weldon’s Initiative to Investigate 9/11

Former Congressman Curt Weldon is leading an initiative to call for a new independent presidential commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks that would focus on the suspicious destruction of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11.   In Congress, Weldon revealed that prior to 9/11, Operation Able Danger identified alleged lead hijacker Mohamed Atta 13 different times.   Able Danger also identified “a problem” in Yemen two weeks before the USS Cole attack in 2000.  The operation also identified two al-Qaeda cells involved in 9/11 and a Brooklyn cell linked to the Blind Sheikh.  Conveniently for the United States government, 2.5 terabytes of information on Able Danger were destroyed in 2000.

Weldon’s current initiative includes architects, engineers, firefighters, lawyers, and activists who have compiled compelling evidence that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.  For example, seismic activity was recorded at World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 just before the impact of the planes.  Also, NASA thermal images confirmed long-lasting extreme temperatures of above 1400° Fahrenheit at Ground Zero months after the attacks.

There are more anomalies about 9/11 that go beyond the destruction of the World Trade Center.  For example, the United States government refused for years to launch an independent investigation into 9/11 and finally agreed to the formation of the 9/11 Commission after the relentless advocacy of the victims’ families.  Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail” and refused to objectively investigate 9/11 to protect the United States government and its allies such as Saudi Arabia.  Furthermore, the intelligence community and the Bush administration deliberately obstructed the 9/11 Commission to conceal the truth about 9/11 from the public.

It is well-past time to acknowledge that we were lied to about 9/11 and to demand the truth.  I hope that Weldon’s initiative to investigate the destruction of the World Trade Center will lead to a comprehensive examination of all aspects of 9/11.

 

 

 

10:15 am on March 7, 2025

Good News for the Kennedy Center

I just read that Whoopi Goldberg is boycotting performing at the Kennedy Center in protest of Trump winning the presidential election.  Another win for genuine entertainment and another DEI loser slowly disappears from our sight.

It gets better.  That stupid Broadway play “Hamilton” has also canceled its Kennedy Center performance in a hissy fit over Americans not having elected a brain dead California communist as their president.

10:04 am on March 7, 2025

Trump Just Doesn’t Get It on Drugs

Trump blames other countries like Canada, Mexico, and China for the drug problem in the U.S. and thinks the solution is to raise taxes on Americans by raising tariffs. The terrible truth, as recently stated by Jacob Hornberger, is simply this: “American consumers want drugs and are willing to pay for them. To meet that enormous demand, other people sell them the drugs they want to buy.”

3:36 pm on March 6, 2025

The Deep State Strikes Back!

12:39 pm on March 6, 2025

Trump Is Lying About the Panama Canal

Trump Is Lying About the Panama Canal

-China never owned or controlled the Panama Canal, a Hong Kong firm owned and operated the Balboa and Cristobal ports via Panama Ports Company.

-The US is not “reclaiming” anything, BlackRock is buying an 80% stake in the ports; the Hong Kong firm will make a 5 billion dollar profit from the sale and US citizens will not benefit at all.

-The Panama Canal will continue to be operated by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), an autonomous Panamanian government agency.


Based on the information provided in the X posts, the associated trends, and the related web results, your analysis is largely accurate and aligns with the statements made by Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino and the broader context. Let’s break it down step by step to clarify Trump’s claim, China’s involvement, BlackRock’s role, and the U.S.’s position:

1. Trump’s Claim: “We’re Reclaiming the Panama Canal”

In his address to Congress on March 4, 2025 (as quoted in Thread 1, Post 1897135115785945233 by

@MarioNawfal

), President Donald Trump stated, “My administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal… The Panama Canal was built by Americans, for Americans—not for others.”

He also mentioned in earlier statements (e.g., January 2025, as noted in web result 3, The Washington Post) that “China is operating the Panama Canal… we’re taking it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.”

Panama’s President Mulino, in the target post (Thread 0, Post 1897277981648969826 by

@MarioNawfal

), directly refuted this, stating, “Once again, President Trump is lying. The Panama Canal is not in the process of being restored, and this is certainly not the task that was even discussed… The Canal is Panamanian and will continue to be Panamanian!”

Conclusion: Trump’s claim that the U.S. is “reclaiming” the Panama Canal is factually incorrect in the context of current events. The Panama Canal has been under Panamanian sovereignty since the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, with full control transferred to Panama in 1999. The U.S. is not “taking back” the canal, nor is there any legal or operational basis for such a claim in this instance.

2. China’s Involvement: Did China Own or Control the Panama Canal?

Trump’s assertion that “China is operating the Panama Canal” is also misleading. The Panama Canal itself is managed and operated by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), an autonomous Panamanian government agency (as stated in web results 2, 3, and 7, Reuters and The Washington Post).

However, China (or Chinese entities) has been involved indirectly through commercial operations near the canal. Specifically:

CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong-based company (publicly listed but subject to some Chinese oversight, as noted in web result 2, Reuters), owned and operated the Balboa and Cristobal ports via Panama Ports Company until the recent sale.

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, and U.S. officials, including Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have expressed concerns about Chinese influence or potential security risks due to CK Hutchison’s presence (web results 2, 3, and 7).

China has not owned or controlled the canal itself, but U.S. policymakers have worried that Chinese-operated ports could pose a strategic or intelligence risk, especially in the event of a conflict (web result 3, The Washington Post).

Conclusion: China never owned or controlled the Panama Canal. The canal remains under Panamanian sovereignty. CK Hutchison’s operation of the ports near the canal was a commercial activity, not a direct control of the canal, and its connection to China is indirect (via Hong Kong’s status). Trump’s framing exaggerates China’s role, which Panama and experts (e.g., web result 3) have clarified as a misrepresentation.

3. BlackRock’s Role: Buying from CK Hutchison, Not the U.S. Taking Over

BlackRock, a U.S.-based investment firm, led a consortium (including Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment) to acquire an 80% stake in Hutchison Ports, including the Balboa and Cristobal ports, from CK Hutchison for $22.8 billion (web results 1, 2, and 3, WSJ, Reuters, and The Washington Post).

This transaction shifts control of the ports from a Hong Kong-based company to U.S.-led investors, aligning with Trump’s expressed concerns about Chinese influence (trend post by

@CollinRugg

, trend 1).

However, this deal does not involve the U.S. government “taking back” the canal or its operations. It is a private-sector investment by BlackRock and its partners, not a governmental or national reclamation (as emphasized by Mulino in the target post and web result 3).

Conclusion: BlackRock is purchasing the ports from CK Hutchison, not the U.S. government taking back the Panama Canal. The U.S. is not directly profiting from this transaction, as it is a private business deal, not a governmental acquisition or nationalization.

4. U.S. Profit and Involvement

The U.S. government is not profiting from BlackRock’s acquisition, as the deal is a private transaction between BlackRock’s consortium and CK Hutchison.

Trump’s statements may reflect a broader policy goal of countering perceived Chinese influence in strategic regions like the Panama Canal, but there is no evidence in the provided data that the U.S. is taking ownership, control, or financial gain from the canal itself (web result 3, The Washington Post, and Mulino’s statement in the target post).

Some U.S. officials, like Secretary Rubio, have pressured Panama to address Chinese presence (web result 7, Reuters), but this is diplomatic pressure, not an action to reclaim the canal.

Conclusion: The U.S. is not profiting from or taking control of the Panama Canal. BlackRock’s purchase is a private investment, and any U.S. involvement is limited to diplomatic or strategic concerns, not direct ownership or profit.

Overall Assessment: Is Trump Lying?

Yes, in the literal sense: Trump’s claim that the U.S. is “reclaiming the Panama Canal” from China is factually inaccurate. The canal is and remains under Panamanian sovereignty, and China does not own or operate it. CK Hutchison’s port operations were a commercial activity, not canal control, and BlackRock’s acquisition is a private deal, not a U.S. governmental action.

Contextual Nuance: Trump’s statements may reflect political rhetoric or strategic concerns about Chinese influence in the region (via Hong Kong firms or potential security risks at the ports). However, these concerns do not align with the reality of Panama’s sovereignty or the nature of BlackRock’s transaction.

Final Summary:

Trump is incorrect when he says the U.S. is “taking back the Panama Canal” from China. China never owned or controlled the canal; it was Panamanian, and CK Hutchison’s port operations were a separate commercial entity based in Hong Kong.

BlackRock’s $22.8 billion purchase from CK Hutchison shifts port control to U.S.-led investors, but this is not the U.S. government taking over or profiting—it’s a private transaction.

Panama’s President Mulino’s rebuttal is accurate: the canal is Panamanian, and Trump’s claims misrepresent the situation.

Viewpoint: The Panama Canal Caper, by Murray N. Rothbard

Ronald Reagan has been making a great deal of hay in the primaries with a demagogic and jingoistic campaign on behalf of maintaining the alleged sovereignty of the United States over the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone. The Ford Administration reply that the treaty with Panama retained ultimate sovereignty in the hands of Panama is correct but only scratches the surface of the problem. One neglected point is that the Canal Zone is an egregious example of socialism in action, since the U.S. government owns not only the Canal but the entire Zone territory, and every Zonian resident is a U.S. government employee. How can an alleged opponent of Big Government devote so much energy to a persistent defense of an enclave of U.S. socialism?

A second neglected point—neglected by Americans, of course, not the Panamanians—is how the United States came to exercise total occupation and control of a slice of Latin America that is clearly not part of the United States. The answer is a naked imperialist power grab, in which our first openly imperialist President, Theodore Roosevelt, engineered a phony “revolution” in northern Colombia, a coup directed by officials of the American-built Panama Railroad Co., and then quickly defended by U.S. troops against attempts of the Colombians to land troops to put down the coup.

The U.S.-organized coup was justified by Roosevelt as a protection of American tax-payers against the desire of the Colombian government to “hold up” the United States for an extra $10 million for the right to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama in northern Colombia. The actual facts, however, were very different. The United States had agreed to pay $40 million to the virtually bankrupt French-owned Panama Canal Co., for the right to build a canal, and what the Colombian government wanted was not an extra $10 million from the U.S., but $10 million to come out of the agreed-upon $40 million. In other words, President Roosevelt organized the power-grab, engineered a coup in Colombia, and quickly recognized the “rebels,” not to save American taxpayers any money, but to save $10 million for the French Panama Canal Co.

Why was the U.S. government so tender to a bankrupt French canal company? The answer is that the company’s stock had all been quietly purchased in advance by a syndicate of powerful Wall Street financiers, close to Roosevelt, including J.P. Morgan and Co., George W. Perkins, Morgan partner, Herbert Saterlee (a Morgan son-in-law), H.H. Rogers and James Stillman, close to the Rockefellers, Paul M. Warburg and Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb, Nelson P. Cromwell, a founder of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, and Douglas Robinson, brother-in-law of Teddy Roosevelt. The syndicate purchased the shares at two-thirds of par, and, after the coup, were able to sell their shares to the U.S. government, now in charge of the prospective canal, for 130 percent of par, thus doubling their investment.

After purchasing the shares, the syndicate hired William Nelson Cromwell, of the Cromwell family, for $830,000 to lobby for an American takeover of the canal. It was Cromwell who literally sat in an office of the White House and who wrote the orders for Roosevelt by which the President engineered the imperialist grab of the isthmus of Panama. Later, after the coup was accomplished, Cromwell, as fiscal agent. of the syndicate, invested $6 million of their ill-gotten gains in New York City real estate mortgages through the real-estate firm of Roosevelt’s brother-in-law, Douglas Robinson.

When these ugly facts were brought to light several years later by the New York World and the Indianapolis News, President Roosevelt attempted to bring indictments against these newspapers for “criminal libel” against himself. Fortunately, in a notable victory for freedom of the press against attempted suppression, the Supreme Court quashed the indictments. (The full story of the Panama Canal caper can be found in a book by one of the New York World journalists, the highly conservative Earl Harding, in The Untold Story of Panama, New York: Athene Press, 1959.)

Thus, the Panama Canal case demonstrates, with shining clarity, how behind the typical nationalist demagogy and vainglory of every imperialist power grab, there lurks the use of the State apparatus to gain special privileges and subsidies for powerful financial interests.

The Treaty That Wall Street Wrote. By Murray N. Rothbard

This article originally appeared on Dec. 5, 1977, in Inquiry, vol. 1, no. 2: pp. 9–14. It has been reprinted in Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1995).

The Panama Canal question has already established itself as the hottest political issue for the coming year. Ronald Reagan, who almost rode to the Republican nomination last year on a promise to keep the canal, is back again, leading the powerful forces opposing the new Carter treaties with the government of Panama. Alert to the polls that show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to giving up the canal, the Republican National Committee and most Republicans across the country have gleefully seized upon this issue, thus going flatly against the counsel of former President Ford, who vigorously supports the treaty.

In the liberal and “moderate” press, the contending forces are lined up in an all-too-familiar morality play. Opposed to the treaty are reactionaries and jingoists, emotionally and irrationally devoted to the mystique of American “sovereignty” in a foreign land; in its favor are sensible and moderate internationalists, people who believe in friendly cooperation between the United States and Third-World nations and who wish to jettison the last remnants of a nave and outdated American imperialism left over from the innocent if clumsy swaggering of Theodore Roosevelt. What could be a more clear-cut moral lineup: for the treaty, all the good guys, from Carter to Ford to the New York Times and the Washington Post; against, all the certified Bad Guys from Reagan to the American Conservative Union to the John Birch Society?

But you can’t always tell all about the game from a list of the players – and there is more to be said than the standard account in the Establishment media. The Reaganite bluster about sovereignty can easily be dismissed; there are, however, more important questions about the new Panama treaty: Does it really abandon US imperial domination of the canal and the Canal Zone? Does the treaty really turn this area of Panama back to the Panamanians? If we consider the treaty in the light of these questions rather than in relation to jingoist notions, we will come up with a very different view of the big political issue of the year.

Particularly revealing are the statements of high American officials and other advocates in assuring the American public of the fallacy of right-wing fears about the treaty. Thus, Henry Kissinger announced his “strong view” that the treaty “is in the national interest of the United States.” Kissinger went on to explain that “the new treaty marks an improvement over the present situation in that it assures continuing, efficient, nondiscriminatory, and secure access to the Panama Canal with the support of the countries of the Western Hemisphere instead of against their opposition and eventually their harassment.”[1] In short, it is better to stay in more subtly and induce Panama and the rest of the world to support our dominion than to stay in nakedly and face the hostility of the Panamanians and most other nations.

In his public statement announcing the agreement on the basic elements of the Panama treaty, President Carter stressed that he and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed that the pact will be “important to our long-term national interests.” Specifically, the United States will formally continue in charge of the canal until the year 2000: “We will have operating control and the right to protect and defend the Panama Canal with our military forces until the end of the century.” But even after that “we will have the right to assure the maintenance of the permanent neutrality of the canal as we may determine necessary. Our warships are guaranteed the permanent right to expeditious passage without regard to propulsion or cargo.”[2]

Or, as the Carter administration’s summary of the Panama agreement put it, “The U.S. will have the permanent right to defend the neutrality of the canal from any threat, for an indefinite period.” President Carter himself has stated flatly, “If it is attacked by any means, I will defend it.” He has assured the public that “if we ever have to go into Panama, there will be no legal question under these treaties.”[3] In short, there are no limits in this treaty on the actions that the United States will be able to take, even after the year 2000, to preserve what it deems to be the “neutrality” of the canal.[4]

Thus, in exchange for the mystique of sovereignty and formal national ownership, the United States has acquired the agreement of the Panamanian government in its perpetual ultimate control of the canal. Or, as Ellsworth Bunker, one of the two American negotiators of the treaty – the other was Sol Linowitz – admonished the critics, “It is not ownership but use that is important.” He could have added the fact that the ability to use and control property is precisely the function of ownership.[5]

When the new treaty was announced, Bunker and Linowitz spelled out one of its major advantages to US dominion. As the August 13 New York Times phrased it, Bunker and Linowitz “said they thought that continued operation of the canal was threatened more by possible Panamanian sabotage or disorders that might follow a failure to carry out the agreement than by external threats that they asserted the United States would be free to curb.”

But particularly fascinating is the argument on behalf of the Panama treaty by the most sophisticated of American conservative organs, National Review. National Review begins its editorial by assuaging the hurt to the “national pride” of conservatives, and assuring their conservative followers that it understands their “soul-searing” pain. Then, NR proceeds to instruct its constituency in the realities of today’s world. “Conservatives are realists, and here is a test of realism.” Specifically, and echoing Kissinger, Linowitz, and Bunker, NR points out that “our own military men support the treaty on the ground that the canal can be better defended with the treaty than without it.” First of all, under the new treaty Panama agrees that the United States may continue to use its air and sea forces to defend the Panama Canal against an external attack. NR then turns to the “most realistic kind” of military threat to US rule over the canal, namely “guerrilla warfare, and defense against that is very difficult under any circumstances.” And then NR adds the clincher: “One thing is sure – it could be done far better together with Panama than without it; or worse, against it.” In short, the Panamanian government would now be ranged against such guerrilla warfare rather than overtly or covertly supporting it.

Addressing a common fear of the treaty critics, NR supposes that Panama violates the treaty. In that case, the magazine concludes, “we will still be in a position to act if and when necessary. And what is most important, we would almost surely be in a stronger position to act at some later time in response to an actual threat or violation of the treaty than we would be now in defense of our own refusal to ratify.”[6] In other words, far better for the United States to exercise its power in defense of a treaty – and therefore in command of wide international support – than in isolation after refusing to ratify.

In a similar vein, Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, told a White House meeting of prominent Georgians and Floridians that “if he were in the Kremlin and he could think of anything that … might alienate countries against the United States even further, it would be defeat of these treaties.”[7]

A common conservative charge is that the treaty will hand over the canal to a “Communist” Torrijos regime in Panama. Far from being a “Communist,” however, General Torrijos is in hot water in his own country, especially among the anti-imperialist critics on the Left.[8]

Panamanian newspapers were highly reluctant to reveal to their readers the details of the agreement with the United States. The New York Times reported that “rather than expressing joy at the culmination of the long negotiations, most Panamanians appeared today to be uncertain and confused. ” Addressing a meeting of the Panamanian Student Federation, that country’s chief negotiator of the agreement, Dr. Romulo Escobar Bethancourt, admitted that many aspects of the treaty were “bad” and even “ugly”; in defense, Escobar demagogically posed the only alternative to the treaty as a “confrontation” with the United States and the “massacre of the best of our youth.”

The Panama government announced its intention to hold an early national plebiscite to decide on ratification of the treaty, but it is clear that the plebiscite, which endorsed the treaty by two to one, was held in the midst of a propaganda campaign branding any criticism of the treaty as “treason against our fatherland.” More important, it was held while many of the leading opponents of the treaty were languishing in exile. For, over the past three years, the Torrijos regime has systematically deported its most outspoken critics, including likely opponents of the new treaty, to Miami, Mexico, and Venezuela.[9]

Indeed, one of the major unsuccessful demands of the Panamanian Left was that Torrijos keep his promise to declare a general amnesty for political prisoners, and that he allow all the exiles to return to Panama and challenge the treaty. In the light of this situation, it must be considered a joke in questionable taste for Dr. Escobar to condemn the Panamanian exiles in Miami for urging US senators to vote against the treaty. Obviously, a simple way for Panama to put a stop to this activity would be to allow the exiles to return to their Panamanian homeland.

Moreover, a full and fair debate over the plebiscite was precluded by the Torrijos regime’s iron control of the media. Every one of the newspapers and television stations is owned or controlled by the government, and the radio stations are also effectively ruled by the regime.

Press censorship and restrictions on public assembly were officially lifted during the 40 days prior to the plebiscite, but Torrijos refused to grant any additional time for public debate. As Marlise Simons reported in the Washington Post of October l3, “Officials say that Panamanians know enough about the treaties and only troublemakers want more time.”

Mounting criticism of the treaty has come from conservative as well as leftist critics of the Torrijos regime. The conservative Movement of Independent Lawyers of Panama has denounced the treaty for approving the “first American intervention in our country of the twenty-first century.” The MILP went on to assert that “the ordinary Panamanian will easily understand that … there will be a new version – perhaps slightly less grotesque than before – of the hated American perpetuity on the canal issue.” Both the Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties also came out against the treaties, “pointing out that in 1926 and again in 1947, Panama had rejected drafts attempting to legalize the U.S. military bases [there].”[10] And Panama’s Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist League made the significant statement that the present would be a particularly auspicious time to confront American imperialism: “Today we have the eyes of the world on us, today we have international support, today imperialism has been weakened by Watergate and Vietnam.”[11]

On September 6, the Panamanian Left made known its displeasure with the treaty; 1,500 students demonstrated in Panama City against the “dirty treaty” and its provisions for maintaining American military bases and perpetual rights of American intervention. The protest was stamped out by Torrijos’s National Guard, which injured dozens of demonstrators and arrested over 30 students.

If the Panama treaties merely provide a sophisticated fig leaf for continued American domination of the canal, why then did the Torrijos regime sign the accord in the face of the domestic troubles that would predictably ensue? One answer to this question might be that venerable motive, money – a vital aspect of the treaty is US agreement to sugarcoat the pill by multiplying manyfold the annual revenues going into the coffers of the Panamanian treasury. Currently, the US government pays $2.3 million a year to Panama for use of the canal. The treaty proposes to increase this amount by giving Panama $0.30 per ton out of the current canal toll of $1.29 per ton. With corrections for inflation, this share is expected to amount to a revenue of $40 to $50 million per year. In addition, operational revenues will be paid for such services as ship repair and dockage; this is expected to amount to $20 million per year.

But this is far from all. The United States also pledges to undertake a five-year program of supplying financial goodies to Panama: $200 million of Export-Import Bank credits; $75 million in Agency International Development housing credits; and $20 million in loan guarantees from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This amounts to a five-year boodle of nearly $300 million, which, added to $70 million per annum, makes a handsome subsidy package, and is perhaps worth the risk of a few student demonstrations.

Apparently, the Carter administration feels that it can sell this package to the American public with the argument that none of this money will come directly out of taxes. The annual sum will initially come out of the toll revenues of the US government-owned Panama Canal Company, and later out of the budget of the new, frankly governmental American agency that is scheduled to replace the Panama Canal Company in running the canal. The five-year plan, too, consists of loans and loan guarantees. While all this is ultimately guaranteed by the US taxpayer, the subsidy package, being long-run and indirect, might be slipped by the American taxpayer without causing an outcry.

Focusing on the money enables us to ponder the seemingly curious phenomenon that American big business, unlike our conservative ideologues, is overwhelmingly in favor of the Panama treaty. The advocates include such influential business leaders as Irving S. Shapiro of DuPont, head of the Business Roundtable and such groups as the National Association of Manufacturers. One general reason for this support is that these sophisticated business groups understand and welcome the treaty as a more subtle and acceptable form of American imperialism. A more specific reason is the effect the treaty will have for those firms with trade and investment in Latin America. Rejection of the treaty might mean anti-American unrest throughout the region and might have a “destabilizing” effect on American investments there. Private US investment in Latin America is estimated at $24 billion, while total two-way US trade there amounted to $34 billion in 1976. As John M. Goshko reported in the August 22 Washington Post:

These economic factors could produce some startling surprises about where different interest groups line up in the battle.

There is the strong likelihood that the normally conservative, Republican-leaning business establishment will be solidly on the side of a Democratic president. …

Where the business community is concerned, Carter administration strategists contend, the case for supporting the treaties seems ironclad. In fact, the administration privately is counting on big business to provide some potentially crucial help in getting the treaties past the hurdle of Senate ratification.

Already, Henry R. Geyelin, president of the Council of the Americas, a nonprofit business association comprising every major US firm doing business in Latin America, has testified on behalf of such a treaty before the House Panama Canal Subcommittee.

But explanations in terms of groups or classes are never as rewarding as the concrete unveiling of specific monetary interests. Thus, there needs to be further investigation of which US business or financial groups might be benefiting specifically from the hundreds of millions of dollars that the US government will be pouring into Panama. One clear group of beneficiaries is the American exporters who will receive orders from the $300 million package. US foreign aid is a clever mechanism by which American taxpayers and the US government subsidize American export firms: the dollars are extracted from the taxpayer and are then funneled by the US government to the foreign recipients, who in turn spend the dollars on American exporters. In this case the process is clear: the Panama treaty explicitly applies “Buy American” provisions to the aid, making sure that the American exporters receive the dollars as rapidly as possible.

But there is another use that the Panamanian government will have for the US aid, one that may prove to be a more intimate lead to the underlying reason for concluding this treaty. Panama is heavily in debt to US banks, and the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars will certainly ease its burden in paying the interest and principal on the debt; it may even save Panama from bankruptcy – and the American banks from severe embarrassment. We must therefore contemplate the possibility that the nub of the Panama treaty is a covert bailout operation by which the American taxpayer is being gulled into subsidizing, and even salvaging, a handful of US banks.

This suggestion does not seem very outrageous if we consider the history of how the United States got involved with the Panama Canal in the first place. It’s not just, as Senator Hayakawa (R-CA) said, that “we stole it [the canal] fair and square.” Or that President Theodore Roosevelt engineered a phony “revolution” in 1903, by which employees of the American-owned railroad declared the Panama section of Colombia independent and American ships prevented Colombia from putting down the rebellion. The similarity with the present theme comes from the hidden motive behind Teddy Roosevelt’s flamboyant actions.

In order to build the canal, the United States felt that it had to purchase the right to do so from the bankrupt French-owned company that had failed in its attempt to dig the canal. Teddy Roosevelt explained that he acted out of indignation at the Colombian government’s insisting on a $10-million “holdup” of American taxpayers for the right to build a canal in Panama. Actually, the US government was perfectly willing to pay $40 million to the French Panama Canal Company. The $10 million to Colombia would have come, not from the taxpayers, but out of the $40 million cut going to the French company.

Why, then, did Teddy Roosevelt swing the big stick and foment a phony revolution in Colombia, in order to save $10 million for the coffers of a bankrupt French-owned company? The answer, which came out years later, is that the “French” company was French no longer; its shares had been secretly bought up shortly before by a syndicate of Wall Street bankers, headed by J.P. Morgan and Company. The syndicate hired the eminent Wall Street lawyer, William Nelson Cromwell, to get the American money, and it was Cromwell, sitting in the White House itself, who wrote TR’s dispatches and orders and engineered the entire operation. After the syndicate got the $40 million, they were able to sell their shares to the US government for twice what they had paid.

Moreover, one of the syndicate members was none other than Teddy Roosevelt’s brother-in-law, Douglas E. Robinson. Not only did Robinson benefit as a syndicate member, but most of the $40 million from the US taxpayers was funneled by Cromwell into the New York real estate firm of the same Douglas Robinson.

And so we should not be surprised to discover that US government action in Panama today is for the purpose of subsidizing the Wall Street bankers. Judging from the facts available to us, the current treaty may well be a rerun of the original bailout.

Commercial banks refuse to make public the details of specific loans like those to Panama, and the Panamanian government is not exactly generous with such information either. However, some broad information is available. When General Torrijos seized power in the 1968 coup, Panama’s national debt abroad was $167 million; its estimated total current debt is more than $3.5 billion. More pertinently, the total debt of the Panama government to US banks is reported by the Library of Congress at $1.7 billion. In a memorandum to the president of Panama, the Department of Planning stated that no less than 39 percent of Panama’s budget is being used to service its foreign debt, which amounts to $42 million per year and includes $25 million in interest and $17 million in amortizing principal.

Leading the parade of American banks involved in Panama are the First National City Bank and the Chase Manhattan Bank, the flagship bank for the far-flung Rockefeller financial interests. Both of these banks serve as fiscal agents for the government of Panama. In one advertisement for a $115 million loan to Panama, for example, the First National City Bank is listed as the agent for the loan. Other participating banks included the Bank of America, Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, the First National Bank of Boston, the First National Bank of Chicago, the Republic National Bank of Dallas, and the Marine Midland Bank.

We might well ask, why did the New York banks pour all these loans into Torrijos’s Panama? It seems clear that the money was a quid pro quo for Torrijos’s decision – on the advice of leading New York banks – to reorganize Panama’s banking laws in July 1970. This reorganization provided a favorable haven, free of taxes and onerous regulations, for foreign banks in Panama, much as Panama has long provided a flag of convenience for world shipping. Since the 1970 legal change, total banking assets in Panama have expanded enormously from a few banks with a few million dollars to 73 banks with total assets of $8.6 billion conducting transactions throughout the world. Prominent among the US banks expanding rapidly in Panama since the 1970 legislation are the First National City Bank, the Bank of America, Chase Manhattan, and the Marine Midland Bank.

It was a deal that benefited the US banks and the Torrijos regime, which could thereby expand its wealth as well as its political power in Panama. But now the US taxpayer is being subtly asked to pick up the tab.

If a handful of large US banks will be the major beneficiaries of the Panama Canal treaty, have they also had any role in lobbying for or negotiating the treaty itself? Or will their gains be merely a lucky windfall from decisions made by the US government for very different reasons? Let us see. While the treaty was being negotiated, then-Senator Gale McGee (D-WY), one of the leading protreaty people in Congress, held a meeting at the State Department at the end of October 1975 to organize a protreaty lobby. In attendance were lobbyists for the Chase Manhattan Bank, the Bank of America, such large corporations as Gulf Oil and Rockwell International, as well as representatives of the Council of the Americas. A campaign kitty was raised at that meeting, estimates of the size ranging from $100,000 to $500,000. Subsequent meetings brought in lobbyists for other large banks and corporations, including Pan American World Airways. Plans were made at these meetings to pressure the US Chamber of Commerce into supporting the future treaty.[12]

The influence of the bankers and the corporations, however, has been even more direct. When Carter took office he appointed the dynamic and highly influential Sol Linowitz, former ambassador to the Organization of American States and long an advocate of a new treaty, to join the octogenarian Ellsworth Bunker on the Panama Canal negotiating team. Bunker himself is a former director of Bankers Trust, and his brother, Arthur Hugh Bunker, is a longtime director of Lehman Brothers.

Linowitz’s connections are more numerous and impressive. He is a member of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, which is dominated as well as chaired by David Rockefeller, who is also chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Moreover, Linowitz is a member of the exclusive and now-famous Trilateral Commission, which was founded and is dominated by David Rockefeller and which includes so many foreign-policy and economic-affairs leaders of the Carter administration – from Carter himself to Vice President Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, and National Security Adviser Brzezinski. In addition, Linowitz is a trustee and former chairman of the policy committee of the Center for Inter-American Relations, an organization founded and chaired by David Rockefeller, whose directors interlock heavily with the Council for Foreign Relations. Linowitz was also a member of Nelson Rockefeller’s personal vehicle for his abortive presidential run, the National Committee on Critical Choices for Americans. As a member of the board of directors of Time, Inc., Linowitz also wields a degree of influence on the media.

Even more pertinently, upon his appointment as negotiator of the canal treaties, Sol Linowitz was a member of the board and the executive committee of Marine Midland Bank and of Pan Am. He was also a large stockholder in Marine Midland. The Marine Midland connection is clear and direct; for, as Congressman George Hansen (R-ID) has disclosed, the government of Panama owes Marine Midland Bank nearly $8 million. Furthermore, it was only after Hansen and Senator James McClure (R-ID) filed suit on April 20 for a temporary restraining order against Linowitz as canal negotiator that Linowitz finally resigned his positions with Marine Midland.

The suit sought the restraining order on the ground of conflict of interest on the part of Linowitz, at least until this presidential appointment should be confirmed by the Senate. Linowitz, however, insisted on keeping his high positions at Pan Am while negotiating and arguing on behalf of the canal treaty. Pan Am’s connection, while intriguing, does not seem as direct as Marine Midland’s. Pan Am has for decades been within the Rockefeller financial ambit, as is indicated by James S. Rockefeller’s presence on the airline’s board of directors. Other directors are Frank Stanton of CBS and Donald Kendall of Pepsico, both of whom are directors at Atlantic Richfield Company, whose president Robert O. Anderson is a member of the board of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Until he became secretary of state, Cyrus Vance was also a director of Pan Am. While too much should not be made of a list of corporate interconnections, the above establishes a clear pattern of Linowitz-Rockefeller commonality of interest and action.

We have already seen that Pan Am participated in the McGee-organized corporate lobbying in favor of a Panama treaty. What does Pan Am have to gain from Torrijos? One obvious benefit is the protection of the company’s landing rights in Panama. It just might be important that Panama serves as Pan Am’s headquarters for Latin America.

One of the most important influences in the drive toward a treaty was the new Washington-based Commission on US-Latin American Relations. The commission was organized in 1974 by the Center for Inter-American Relations and was largely financed by Ford Foundation and Rockefeller funds. Its chairman until recently was Sol Linowitz, with Dr. Robert A. Pastor serving as the staff director. Other members of the Linowitz Commission included such influential Trilateral Commission members as W. Michael Blumenthal, who is now secretary of the treasury; Samuel P. Huntington, now an aide to the National Security Council; Peter Peterson, chairman of Lehman Brothers; and Elliot Richardson.

In December 1976, Pastor wrote a report for the Linowitz Commission, urging a new treaty and substantial funds for Panama; the Council on Foreign Relations promptly held a special colloquium on the subject and endorsed the Linowitz Report. The next month, Brzezinski, national security adviser to Carter, appointed a special assistant on the Panama question, who turned out to be none other than Dr. Robert Pastor.

Without delay, Pastor drew up a National Security Council memorandum recommending a new Panama Canal treaty. The paper was approved by Brzezinski, and then, after being checked out with longtime Nelson Rockefeller foreign-policy aide Henry Kissinger, endorsed by Carter. As the culmination of the Linowitz-Rockefeller drive, Linowitz then got himself appointed negotiator for the new Panama treaty.

There are several ironies that emerge from a careful look at the Panama Canal treaty fight – especially the picture of this country’s liberals and progressives battling to pour money into the coffers of a handful of Wall Street banks in the name of a treaty they mistakenly believe represents a withdrawal of US power abroad. It doesn’t, and those who automatically oppose anything the right wing favors need to do some hard rethinking of their reflexive support for the new Panama Canal treaties.

Notes

[1] New York Times, August 18, 1977.

[2] New York Times, August 13, 1977.

[3] Los Angeles Times, October 23, 1977.

[4] For a confirming view, see the report on the broadcast by Sol Linowitz over the Voice of America, in Harry B. Ellis, “Carter Still Presses for Canal Treaty,” Christian Science Monitor, August 31, 1977.

[5] Actually, it is unclear that even our existing status in Panama is one of sovereignty and ownership over the Canal Zone. The 1903 treaty with Panama merely grants to the United States “in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone. ” The Supreme Court of the Canal Zone on May 6, 1907, in the case of Canal Zone v. Coulson, ruled, quite in the spirit of the treaty, that “the United States is not owner in fee of the Canal Zone; it has only the use and occupation as long as it complies with the terms of the treaty.” It is true, however, that the US Supreme Court chose to disregard such limits in the same year, asserting that “the title of the United States to the Canal Zone is not imperfect.’” (Wilson v. Shaw)

[6] “The Proposed Treaty: Preliminary Thoughts,” National Review, September 2, 1977.

[7] Don Irwin, “Rusk Sees Chance of War in Panama,” Los Angeles Times, August 31, 1977.

[8] The other major charge by the Right is that Torrijos is a “dictator.” This is true enough, but the charge comes with peculiar ill grace from a movement that has expressed its devoted admiration for every dictatorial and fascist regime in the world, from South Africa to Chile, South Korea, and the Philippines.

[9] New York Times, August 11.

[10] Washington Post, October 13.

[11] New York Times, August 11.

[12] See Russell W. Howe and Sarah H. Trott, The Power Peddlers, Doubleday, p.123.

The Untold Story of Panama, New York: Athene Press, 1959 by Earl Harding

(I have an autographed hard back copy of this rare seminal book)

12:34 pm on March 6, 2025

33 Counties In Illinois Have Voted to Leave the State

VIDEO: Activists in Illinois and Indiana are talking about changing the state borders so separatist Illinois counties can join Indiana. As you’d expect, many politicians hate the idea.

11:27 am on March 6, 2025

Political Theatre

LRC Blog

LRC Podcasts