Page 3

They didn’t turn their backs because he’s incompetent, but because he held this job!

Well done, New York University! Another class of marxists graduated!

Fast track call for “humanitarian crisis” from New York Administration could affect YOUR home town

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said during an interview on “Face the Nation” Sunday that illegal immigrants surging across the border should be sent to every city “throughout the entire country,” while calling for an investigation into the false story of homeless veterans being booted in order to house migrants.

Adams’ calling for sharing the pain of illegal immigration throughout the nation is ostensibly what Democrats planned all along as they seek to change the demographic across the country.

“We have 108,000 cities, villages, towns. If everyone takes a small portion of that, and if it’s coordinated at the border, to ensure that those who are coming here to this country in a lawful manner is actually moved throughout the entire country, it is not a burden on one city,” Adams asserted.

Kathleen Hochul, the 57th governor of New York calls for federal action to support “asylum seekers” with work authorization to fast track authorization.

As we approach X-date, can the Speaker and whoever is running the White House reach agreement?

The country’s X-date — when the government is projected to run out of money to pay its debts — could come as early as June 1, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, while Goldman Sachs and Moody’s Analytics estimate that the ceiling could be hit around June 8.

President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy will meet face to face today after a weekend of on again, off again negotiations over raising the nation’s debt ceiling and mere days before the government could reach a “hard deadline” and run out of cash to pay its bills. (The House controls government spending – not the White House)

Apparently, even a short default could mean nearly a million Americans losing their jobs, and the country sliding into a mild recession, according to Moody’s Analytics. A breach would also hit Americans in their wallets: A Joint Economic Committee analysis previously found that failure to lift the debt ceiling could cost workers $20,000 in retirement savings.

But the hard fact is that we’re heavily in debt because our spending is out of control. If $35 million could go to Ukraine this week, the crisis is not perceived as real by the Administration. McCarthy must force hard decisions from the White House and Congress. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen reiterated her warning that the government will run out of money to pay its bill as early as June 1, though stocks have seemingly shrugged off risks and ended last week in the green.

In the five days to Friday, the S&P 500 gained 1.65%, the Nasdaq was up 3.04%, and the Dow moved 0.38% higher.

But JPMorgan warned in a Monday note that equities could see a violent re-pricing similar to 2011, when the S&P 500 sold off 17% amid the last debt-ceiling standoff.

“Our base case,” the firm’s strategists wrote, “remains that the debt ceiling ultimately does get lifted/suspended though the journey to that end could be at the eleventh hour and drive significantly higher market instability than appreciated by the market currently.”

Need it explained? Great explanation here:

America needs strong men! The Marxist Left’s War on Masculinity

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

Sen. Josh Hawley believes that masculine, strong, virtuous men are needed more than ever in today’s society. That’s part of the reason that the Missouri Republican wrote his new book, “Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs,” the senator said in an interview with The Daily Signal. 

“The masculine virtues are the virtues of a husband and a father, of a warrior and a builder, of a priest and a king,” Hawley explained, citing the chapters included in his book. “I really wrote the book for my boys. I’ve got two little boys at home, who are 10 and 8. I say ‘little’; I mean, they’re getting older now, but they’re 10 and 8. And I’ve got a baby girl.” 

The premise is simple, the senator said: “America needs strong men. It needs good men, and we should call men to be those things.” 

Corporate media, the entertainment industry, and leftist ideologues are all pushing the same message to young men, Hawley said—namely, that if you are a man, you are “toxic.”

“To be a man is to somehow, in and of itself, to contribute to the systemic injustice of America, so-called,” he said. “And I think this message is relentlessly driven at men today.” 

The Missouri lawmaker pointed to research showing that little schoolboys’ play is interrupted many times more frequently than that of little girls, noting that young boys are “way overprescribed” medicinally. 

“You see this drive to sort of eradicate boyishness from boys,” he said. 

“It’s part of this overarching philosophy that, again, there’s something wrong with being a man,” Hawley emphasized, adding:

And I worry about that for my own kids. And I want the message that they hear and that all men hear in this country, but especially young men, to be: Listen, it’s good to be a man. We need you to be a strong man. We need you to take responsibility. We need you to be a provider and a protector. We need you to live sacrificially. 

By doing those things, you can change the destiny of your life, you can change the destiny of your family, and you can change the destiny of this nation. And that’s what we need.

Targeting masculinity is part of the Left’s ideology, Hawley said. 

“It’s really their Marxism, to be honest with you,” he explained. “It’s this cultural Marxism that really gained ground on the Left in the 1960s, and now has come to basically control the Democrat Party.” 

“This Marxism, it does not like the biblical influence in our culture, does not like the biblical influence in our history,” Hawley added. “And it does not like the categories of gender; man and woman. Anything that’s permanent, anything that has some connection to eternity, it wants to overturn.” 

This is evidenced in the current “war on women,” Hawley said. 

“These are the same people who say biological men should be in women’s sports, that biological men should be in girls’ locker rooms … . So, at the same time that they are saying to men, ‘You’re toxic,’ they’re saying to women, ‘You don’t exist.’ It’s part of the same ideology.” 

Pressed about the effect that video games and pornography play in the current state of American men, Hawley joked that one of the few things that the modern Left approves of, for men, is to “sit in front of screens.” 

“Listen, you need to turn off the screen,” Hawley says. 

“The porn epidemic in this country has led to men delaying marriage, delaying family formation, delaying commitment,” he noted, adding:

Those are all bad things for the country. And that’s not good. I mean, let’s just be honest, we need men to take on commitments, to work more, and to get married, and have kids. And I think we shouldn’t be shy about saying that. 

Hawley supports a national requirement for age verification for all social media. The senator suggested requiring such an age threshold for those under 16 years old, pointing to the severe negative effects of social media on young people. 

“I think if you did that, that would be a tremendous help. I say this as a parent.” 

“Let’s do it across the board,” he said. “Let’s start there.” 

Hawley wants to give victims of the porn industry the ability to sue if they have had their images used in pornography—“either through deep fakes, or if they were filmed without their consent, or they were lied to about what kind of film it was going to be, whatever, fill in the blank. Let those people sue to hold these companies accountable.” 

“I can tell you what these companies fear, and I’m not just talking the porn companies, but all of these social media companies, all these media companies. What they really fear is being held accountable in court,” he emphasized. “They do not want that. So, I think, let’s open it up. Let’s let people get into court and sue for the harms that they are suffering because of these platforms. And I think you’d see a lot of changes in behavior.”

Which is dumber: This Green policy or the people who fall for them?

Plastic waste sent for recycling in the UK is being dumped and burned after being shipped to other countries by Dutch middlemen, green charities fear.

The Government intends to ban plastic waste exports to poorer countriesoutside of the OECD, but more than 80 green groups have written to Thérèse Coffey, the environment secretary, warning that only a total ban will be enough to stop this.

The letter, coordinated by Greenpeace UK and the Environmental Investigation Agency, points out that only 9 per cent of UK plastic waste exports are currently sent to non-OECD countries.

They said the Netherlands may have become a “proxy” country for UK household plastic recycling to reach poorer countries, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, since a ban was first announced. Telegraph

Trump Consolidates Lead as Governor Expected to Officially Announce

New polling from Real Clear Politics shows former President Trump leading Florida Governor Ron DeSantis by a full 37 percentage points ahead of rumors that DeSantis will officially announce his campaign for president next week.  

Trump has rapidly gained against DeSantis among GOP primary voters in the past two months, going from 43% of the vote in March of this year to 56% of the vote today. Meanwhile DeSantis has been slipping in polls, even though he has yet to officially announce his candidacy. 

The most recent Real Clear Politics poll shows Trump securing 56% of the vote to DeSantis’ 19.9% and Mike Pence earning 5.9% of the vote. 

News of Trump’s indictment in March for alleged hush money payments and the recent jury verdict finding him at fault for defamation and abuse have only increased his polling numbers, as Trump denies all wrongdoing. Polls show many voters view the legal issues as a political move to keep Trump from returning to office. 

DeSantis is expected to officially announce his presidential bid next week, and it is possible in doing so he’ll enjoy a bump in the polls, particularly in his home state of Florida. However, what modest support there was for DeSantis in Florida appears to have dwindled over the past few months. 

Three weeks ago, a Florida poll from Victory Insights showed Trump with a 15-percentage point lead over DeSantis (47% to 32%), a complete reversal from last November when Trump trailed DeSantis by 10 percentage points in the sunshine state. 

This comes on top of polling showing Trump is gaining ground with most groups within the Republican party, and leads DeSantis by wide margins with young people, minorities, independents and lower-income voters.     

YouGov polling conducted in late March compared to polling conducted April 15-18th shows Trump has gained 9 percentage points with voters under thirty since news of his indictment broke. He has also gained 7 points with lower-income voters and 6 points with Independents. 

Even urban voters and moderates incrementally inched toward the former President, supporting him by 4 percentage points higher than they did close to two months ago. Trump has also gained incrementally with minorities, adding two points apiece with Black and Hispanic voters over the past month.  

YouGov polls also show over half of GOP primary voters aged 18-29 have a favorable view of Trump (51%) compared to only 43% for DeSantis. Among voters aged 30-44, Trump is favored by 49% while DeSantis has the support of 36%. For voters aged 45-64, Trump leads DeSantis by 7 percentage points. However, voters over 65 prefer DeSantis by 5 percentage points. 

Two-thirds of young GOP primary voters also support Trump becoming the GOP nominee, according to an April YouGov poll. Among those who lean right and are under 30, 66% want Trump to become the GOP nominee in 2024, compared to 51-56% of older age groups. 

What is more, the average of two April polls by CNN/SSRS and Quinnipiac University showed Trump leads DeSantis by approximately 29 percentage points (55% to 26%) with voters of color and 22 points among voters earning less than $50,000.  

YouGov polling in April also showed Americans trust Trump more to handle core issues going into the next election, including the economy, inflation, immigration, and foreign policy. DeSantis is viewed as better at handling the coronavirus pandemic, but that is receding as an issue for most voters.  

While the GOP primaries are still months away and DeSantis could arguably consolidate more support, Trump is the frontrunner with most GOP voters, only edged out by DeSantis among voters over 65 and wealthier GOP voters.  

The Democratic primaries on the other hand, are looking to be far messier, with alt-left candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson doubling their support in recent polls as they look to challenge President Biden. 

Manzanita Miller is an associate analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation. 

To view online:

Video: Karine Jean-Pierre Leaps Off Stage When Put on the Spot on Durham Report!

Karine Jean-Pierre could not handle a tough question from a reporter regarding the John Durham report and the FBI spying on the Donald Trump campaign in 2016. She flees just like Joe Biden!

House: Whistleblower reveals FBI ‘rotted at its core’

The House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on May 18 released a detailed report on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) showing repeated retaliation against FBI whistleblowers who uncovered abuses in the course of investigations into Jan. 6, 2021 protesters, traditional Catholics and parents opposing critical race theory and transgender ideology being taught at public schools at school board meetings, with one agent testifying that the Bureau had become “rotted at its core.”

In his opening statement on the May 18 hearing, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), stated, “Politics is driving the agenda in federal agencies… [I]t’s not just presidential campaigns today, it’s the American people. They’re the target. You know, you’re not politically correct, you’re not in line with what they think should be the political position, the proper position, you’re the target. Parents attending a school board meeting pro-lifers praying at a clinic or Catholics simply attending Mass, you could be a target.”

Jordan added, “And maybe what’s just as frightening is if you’re one of those good employees in our government who come forward to talk about the targeting, you then become a target. You face retaliation. If you’re one of those and I think there are thousands and thousands of good employees working across our country in the FBI and other agencies, but if you’re one of those good employees driven by your commitment to the Constitution and your conscience, and you come forward, they’re going to come after you.”

Jordan outlined the retaliation against whistleblowers: “If you come forward and tell us about the radical traditional Catholic memo, or you if come forward and tell us about this idea they’re going to create some snitch line to report on parents going to school board meetings, you do that, they will try to crush you. They will retaliate against you, they’re coming after you. But these guys today, they were brave enough, they took their oath seriously, they believe in the Constitution the Bill of Rights and the rule of law and they came forward, and I want to thank them for doing it, but because they did, man, oh man, they face retaliation.”

The report outlined several examples of unconstitutional targeting of American citizens, including Jan. 6, 2021 protesters who were not violent at the U.S. Capitol, parents who speak up at school board meetings and Catholics attending church, all in violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights, to free speech, the freedom of religion and the freedom against unreasonable surveillance.

On the Jan. 6 protesters, the report found, “The FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) pressured a field office in Boston, Massachusetts, to open investigations on 138 individuals who traveled to Washington, D.C., to exercise their First Amendment rights on January 6, 2021, with no specific indication that these people were involved in any way in criminal activity. The only basis for investigating these people was that they shared buses to Washington with two individuals who entered restricted areas of the Capitol that day. Rather than limiting the investigation to just the two people who entered restricted areas, the WFO instructed the Boston Field Office to open investigations on all 140 individuals who attended the political rally.”

The report continued, outlining what happened when “the Boston Field Office asked the WFO for more evidence, including video from the Capitol, to properly predicate the investigations,” stating, “The WFO provided pictures of the two individuals inside the Capitol; however, the WFO refused to provide video evidence from the Capitol out of fear it would disclose undercover officers or confidential human sources inside the Capitol.”

In addition, Bank of America was pressured to turn over data on gun purchases to target Jan. 6 protesters who were gun owners. And, to create an illusion of domestic terrorism, there is pressure inside the Bureau to reclassify cases as “violent extremism”: “FBI leadership pressured agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism (DVE), and even manufactured DVE cases where they may not otherwise exist, while manipulating its case categorization system to create the perception that DVE is organically rising around the country.”

The report also found that a number of cases were being pressured to be turned into “violent extremism” cases: “whistleblower testimony has also uncovered that the agency is engaging in the practice of ordering its agents to classify, and in a number of cases, reclassify, particular investigations as involving ‘domestic violent extremism’ in efforts to merely support political talking points that the number of such cases is ‘on the rise.’”

As for targeting parents at school boards, the FBI appears to be treating these as domestic terrorism cases: “The FBI then began to open investigations with the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag across the nation and established case files on dozens of parents with information that included their political views and the application of this ‘threat tag’ simply because they exercised their fundamental constitutional right to speak.” 

This resulted in criminal, counterterrorism and even weapons of mass destruction investigations: “The FBI also provided that 17 of the 25 cases ‘were assigned to the [FBI’s] Criminal Investigative Division; six were assigned to the Counterterrorism Division; and the remaining two were assigned to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate…’ In other words, the FBI’s disclosure confirmed whistleblower allegations that the FBI had misused criminal and counterterrorism resources against parents attending school board meetings.”

On targeting, Catholics, here, Jordan was referring to a Jan. 23 memorandum from the FBI entitled, “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities.”

The memo highlighted what it said was a “radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology”: FBI Richmond assesses the increasingly observed interest of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) in the radical-traditionalist Catholic (RTC) ideology almost certainly presents opportunities for threat mitigation through the exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development. FBI Richmond makes this assessment with high confidence based on FBI investigations, local law enforcement agency reporting, and liaison reporting, with varying degrees of corroboration and access.”

It alleged that violent extremists could connect with RTC “adherents” “both virtually via social media and in-person at places of worship.” The Bureau defines RTC as “the rejection of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) as a valid church council; disdain for most of the popes elected since Vatican II, particularly Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II; and frequent adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, and white supremacist ideology.”

And then if FBI employees come forward to blow the whistle on these and other abuses of power, they are targeted, with whistleblowers saying that FBI leadership in Washington, D.C. is “rotted at its core” and maintains a “systemic culture of unaccountability.” 

Take Special Agent Garret O’Boyle, who was indefinitely suspending for bring forward a cash bonus system for agents “who get a monetary bonus at the end of the year if they meet metrics”: “Special Agent O’Boyle made protected disclosures to his Supervisory Special Agent about potentially illegal activity, and the FBI transferred him to a new unit that required him to move his family across-country. When O’Boyle arrived for his first day, the FBI placed him on unpaid, indefinite suspension, effectively rendering his “family homeless” and leaving them without any personal effects—including his young children’s clothing—because these items were in FBI storage.”

Or Special Agent Stephen Friend, who because he questioned the narrative of “domestic violent extremism” being wrongly applied to American exercising their First Amendment rights, was also suspended: ”the FBI suspended his security clearance after making protected disclosures. This suspension rendered Friend unable to fulfill his duties as a special agent—thus, the FBI suspended him indefinitely. While on suspension, the FBI refused to allow Friend to obtain outside employment, leaving his family without income.”

Friend testified the Bureau is attempting to create a misleading narrative of a “rise” of domestic extremism: “The manipulative casefile practice creates false and misleading crime statistics. Instead of hundreds of investigations stemming from a single, black swan incident at the Capitol, FBI and DOJ officials point to significant increases in domestic violent extremism and terrorism around the United States.”

And Staff Operations Specialist Marcus Allen, who was suspended for conducting open-source intelligence gathering on Jan. 6 protesters that was critical of the Bureau’s handling of the cases, including the potential of “Federal involvement with the activities on January 6th”: “I sent [the emails] just for awareness because the[y] . . . indicated potential problems with the investigation as far as informants were concerned, and our organization’s potential forthrightness about the utilization of informants there on that day. That might have some impact on our cases and the subjects that we’re looking up, and just a general awareness overall for the investigation as a whole, that there might have been some kind of potential Federal involvement with the activities on January 6th, and I thought it was important enough that it like warranted our attention, you know.”

Allen also testified that there was dissent among agents being tasked with targeting parents at school boards after the Joint Task Force on Terrorism created a “EDUOFFICIALS” threat tag for those cases: “they had ire with the threat tag and comments of the nature of, “What are we doing, going after parents now?” You know, almost like a ridiculousness, you know?”

Allen similarly testified that there was pressure to reclassify cases as domestic terrorism, but couldn’t recall if he had learned it at work or heard it second-hand: “I learned at some point that FBI agents were being directed to reclassify 170—I think it was 176 cases, so that would be domestic cooperation with police—to reclassify any of those into some type of domestic terrorism case…”

Allen revealed that the Bureau was opening individual case files on groups of individuals suspected of domestic terrorism in order to exaggerate the number of terrorism cases in its crime statistics: “Where in my case, John Doe one, two, three, and four all had their own separate case because then the FBI can—from my perspective—the FBI can come back to Congress and say, look at all the domestic terrorism we’ve investigated. Where, really, I was working one case. But the FBI can then say, well, he actually had four, and so we need you to give us more money because look at how big of a threat all this domestic terrorism is.”

And on and on it goes. We’ve already seen examples where the Justice Department and FBI were weaponized to go after the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2017 on the false belief that former President Donald Trump and his campaign were Russian agents, thanks to the work of Special Counsel John Durham and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. And now we know that it applies on down the line to target conservatives and Republicans because of their political and religious beliefs, so that President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland can make speeches about “violent extremism” with padded statistics.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

To view online:

Gotta wonder what happens in that empty head?

So, our United States President thinks that “White Supremacy” is the biggest threat to our country.

Never mind:

Expansionist China and the Chinese Communist Party

Or the Russia-Ukraine war that threatens to spill over into the rest of Europe and could even become nuclear.

Or a tanking economy at home.

Or out-of-control inflation.

Or the crime wave in our big (Democrat-run) cities with murder, theft, rape — all immediately forgiven by woke prosecutors.

Or a tidal wave of illegal aliens flooding our southern border.

Or massive overspending bankrupting cities and even states.

Nope.  None of these.

Our President thinks White Supremacy is the biggest threat to our nation.

I, for one, don’t know any White Supremacists.  And I’m pretty old.  If they are such a threat, you’d think I might have met one or two along the way.

But for the President, he’s really short on issues so he makes them up.

McCarthy throws commonsense at national problem!

“[I]t’s not a revenue problem, it’s a spending problem.”

That was House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) speaking to reporters on May 17 following a meeting with President Joe Biden and Congressional leaders in both parties, attempting to reach an agreement on increasing the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling and budget spending levels, outlining the unsustainable trajectory of federal spending despite near-record-setting revenue levels.

“We have now borrowed more than a trillion dollars this year; that’s the fastest we’ve ever accumulated that much debt that quickly. How much is too much? When are you going to look at for the American public that we’re spending more than we’ve ever spent in history but on an average in more than 50 years? We’re much higher than we ever [have been]. At the same time we’re bringing more money into government than at any time in history,” McCarthy explained.

In addition, McCarthy noted the nation had “added six trillion dollars that created inflation.” And while he unsurprisingly blamed Democrats for the additional spending in 2021 as the severity of the Covid pandemic was waning, there was also plenty of spending in 2020 under former President Donald Trump, too, when the budget deficit hit an all-time high of $3.1 trillion as revenues stalled and spending ballooned amid the economic lockdowns. 

It’s fair to say we got here on a bipartisan basis, and to navigate it will ultimately, barring either party gaining supermajorities in upcoming elections to overcome a Senate filibuster, also have to be done on a bipartisan basis. 

But on the overall point, McCarthy is right. Since 1929, as a percentage of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measured by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, federal spending outlays are the highest they’ve been since World War II, when all of the nation’s resources were being marshalled in the war effort to defeat the Axis Powers and liberate Europe and Asia.

In 2022, at $6.27 trillion of spending, according to President Joe Biden’s White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that is 24.6 percent of the $25.46 trillion economy. The only years it was higher was from 1943 to 1945, when it reached a high of 40.7 percent in 1944, and in 2020 and 2021 for Covid, when it reached 31.1 percent and 29.2 percent, respectively.

And while spending is down from its 2021 peak of $6.8 trillion to its current $6.27 trillion level, we are still spending much more as a percentage of the economy than we were prior to Covid. In 2019, spending was just $3.4 trillion, that was only 20.8 percent of the then $21.3 trillion economy.

As for revenue, 2022 was a record year, collecting nearly $4.9 trillion, an all-time high. And at 19.2 percent of the economy, that is the fourth all-time greatest tax collection in modern American history. The only years greater were 1944, 1945 and 2000, when revenues reached 19.5 percent, 19.8 percent and 19.76 percent, respectively.

Yet, despite record tax collections—which OMB projects will slow down dramatically in 2023 along with the economy, which slowed down to 1.1 percent annualized growth in the first quarter of 2023 — the budget deficit was still $1.37 trillion. In the meantime, spending will keep increasing, to $6.37 trillion 2023 and $6.88 trillion in 2024, as the budget deficit again increases to $1.55 trillion and $1.73 trillion, respectively, over the next two years alone.

Since, Covid, the spending has proven to be inflationary, causing more than $6 trillion to be printed. During Covid in 2020 and 2021, the Federal Reserve set interest rates to near-zero, Congress spent and borrowed more than $5 trillion and the M2 money supply dramatically: it went from $15.3 trillion at the end of 2019 to the peak of $22.05 trillion, a 44 percent increase.

At the same time, the global economy was locking down, slowing down production and the government was paying people to stay home, literally too much money chasing too few goods, a perfect recipe for inflation, which peaked at 9.1 percent in June 2022 and is now down to 4.9 percent over the past 12 months, according to the latest data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The rapid expansion is now being offset by Federal Reserve monetary tightening, which has brought the Federal Funds Rate up to 5 percent to 5.25 percent, the rate at which banks lend to one another. The higher rates charged on banks lead to money destruction, and so the M2 money supply has actually begun to decrease from $22.05 trillion in April 2022 to its current level of $20.9 trillion, about a 5.2 percent decline, although the decrease is modest in comparison to the initial expansion.

Thanks to the record government spending, publicly traded debt will increase by $1.66 trillion in 2023 and $1.87 trillion in 2024 to $27.8 trillion, and when the Social Security, Medicare and other trust funds are added to the mix, the total debt will rise $34.8 trillion in 2024.

Unfortunately, the too much money aspect of the equation will continue mounting over the next decade as the total debt rises to $50.7 trillion by 2033, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Who’s going to lend us another $19.3 trillion in addition to refinancing the $31.4 trillion of debt we already have?

Why, U.S. financial institutions, retirement funds, hedge funds, mutual funds and so forth, of course, will be forced to continue accumulating U.S. treasuries, whose share of the publicly traded debt has risen from about 17 percent in 2008, or $1.7 trillion, to a massive $11.9 trillion, or 38 percent today — the largest single holder of the debt.

And as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, which hold $6.7 trillion, become exhausted over the next decade or so, more and more of that debt will be falling upon the public to accumulate. Foreign central banks and financial institutions, which hold $7.4 trillion, cannot keep up with it. And when the Fed tries to keep up with it, as during Covid, the result is inflation. The central bank now holds $5.2 trillion.

That leaves U.S. banks and investors via their fiduciaries (which are banks) to continue accumulating what is turning out to be something of a major risk to their solvency when interest rates don’t behave.

Barring massive economic growth, the amount of money printing we will have to engage in to keep the banks liquid enough to continue buying treasuries could once again place inflationary pressure on the economy, leading to not only higher consumer costs but also higher government costs than presently anticipated. 

McCarthy says he has a stopgap solution while Congress considers the longer-term budget picture, spending caps under the House-passed debt ceiling increase, the Limit, Save, Grow Act, stating, “I think it’s fair to say I’m in agreement with Limit, Save, Grow. That we can raise the debt ceiling if we limit what we’re going to spend in the future, you put caps so we have adult supervision. I mean, how much is too much?”

H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would increase the national debt ceiling and cut $4.8 trillion in deficits through 2033: $3.2 trillion from the discretionary spending caps, $460 billion from ending President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, $569.5 billion from repealing the green energy subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation, $120.1 billion from implementing work requirements for food stamps and other welfare programs, $29.5 billion from budget rescissions from Covid and other spending, $3.4 billion from energy leasing and permitting provisions and $547 billion as a result of less interest payments owed thanks to cutting spending.

But even still, the debt would still be about $45 trillion by 2033, as Social Security, Medicare and interest payments owed on the debt continue mounting, while the share of workers to retirees will continue to shrink thanks to less-than-replacement fertility levels since the 2008 and 2009 recession. Fewer people means fewer workers and ultimately taxpayers, creating stress on the social insurance programs. 

You can thank birth control, not an item under consideration in the budget talks (maybe it should be) but highly relevant all the same: as more women go to college and enter to the workforce, combined with unfavorable economic circumstances including the rising cost of living and raising children, they defer both marriage and child rearing. Since the 1960s when birth control first became widely adopted in the U.S., the amount of babies per woman decreased below the replacement level of two in the 1970s, stabilized above two from 1989 to 2009, and then crashed after the financial crisis. Fiscally this has created a death spiral from which there appears no escape.

Fertility in the U.S. hit an all-time low of 1.64 babies per woman in 2020 and 1.66 babies per woman in 2021, according to the World Bank. To paraphrase McCarthy, how little is too little?

Immigration is often seen as a stopgap, but with fertility declining globally, too, it likely is not a long-term solution to the demographic decline we are experiencing. 

So, yes, Speaker McCarthy, we do have a spending problem, but we also have a not enough Americans problem. The truth is, if we kept having children at the same rate as we had prior to the 1960s, the budget might very well be balanced today, and the debt would be much smaller. But with the debt ceiling looming, that is a discussion that will almost certainly be left for another day. 

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation. 

To view online:

Cable Providers Are Rapidly Losing Customers. So Why Are Their Profits Up?

Consumers are dropping cable TV in favor of more affordable online streaming services, but cable has a lifeline.

Charter Spectrum, one of the country’s largest cable TV service providers, shed 800,000 television subscribers in the last three years. Despite this loss, the firm increased revenues by 6 percent, mainly by increasing its television and internet subscription rates.

This reality is a sign of a new trend. As entertainment consumers drop cable TV in favor of more affordable online streaming services, they also need to up their internet connection speed. And which companies provide broadband? That’s right, large cable TV providers like Spectrum, AT&T, and Comcast. So in the end, cable firms both win and lose customers because of streaming, forcing them to adapt to stay afloat.  

Still, many have long argued that streaming could put an end to cable TV as we know it. Because of this digital revolution, large providers are finding a way out by staying in the internet service business. But providing high-speed connections isn’t cheap, and not because providing broadband is a costly operation but because the government stands in the way.

When an Internet Service Provider (ISP) wants to expand its network to reach more customers, it must negotiate with the city and other local government bodies for access to publicly owned spaces so they can set up their wires and either get them tucked underground or attached to poles, which are owned by public utility companies.

According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the “right of way” fees local governments charge often double the cost of network construction and sometimes add years to the process, keeping smaller competitors from entering the market.

In other words, barriers to entry imposed by governmental bodies may just be the saviors of big cable—after all, if providing internet is their top-earning game, then keeping smaller competitors at bay will allow them to keep increasing their rates despite the drop in cable consumption.

Competition in any sector leads to innovation, and innovation makes certain technologies obsolete over time. And as “video killed the radio star,” as the song goes, streaming killed video—or at least made it less likely to survive.  

In any case, smart entrepreneurs can still tap into niche markets and respond to customers’ needs by cutting unrelated costs, thus helping them survive — and even thrive—in an otherwise shaky environment. That’s the case of Family Video, a profitable chain of video rental stores that continues to do business in the Midwest, and successfully so.

Perhaps cable TV will also die in a sense, with more and more companies venturing into the streaming business—such as Apple. With so many options at the reach of a click, customers are sure to flee to digital, turning their backs on cable completely. But for that to happen, consumers will need to rely on internet providers. Thanks to how difficult it is for smaller entrepreneurs to compete with large broadband providers, cable TV providers might very well survive in the end, as the demand for the very technology that made streaming a possibility will continue to grow.

Perhaps if the government got out of the way and allowed for smaller companies to enter the picture at a larger scale, big corporations would no longer hold such a large share of the market. And cable TV, in the end, would either find its own niche, just like surviving video rental stores did, or be allowed to die a dignifying death.

Chloe Anagnos
Chloe Anagnos

Chloe Anagnos is a professional writer, digital strategist, and marketer. Although a millennial, she’s never accepted a participation trophy.

This article was originally published on Read the original article.

The Worst in American History?

This week, special counsel John Durham released a 316-page report detailing the origins of Operation Crossfire Hurricane—the FBI’s investigation into supposed connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. 

The report is an astounding expose of corruption and collusion—not between former President Donald Trump and Russia, but between the Hillary Clinton campaign, friendlies at the FBI, and top officials at the Obama administration. 

As it turns out, Crossfire Hurricane was initiated based on sheer conjecture. That conjecture was trafficked by Clinton’s 2016 campaign. And that conjecture served as the basis for a four-yearlong witch hunt into a bevy of allegations that ultimately came to nothing.

The story began, Durham reports, in late July 2016, when Australia provided information to the U.S. Embassy in London surrounding conversations between Australian diplomats and low-level Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, in which Papadopoulos had allegedly suggested that the “Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist” in the process of releasing information about Clinton. 

This information alone was utilized as the predicate for launching the full-blown Trump-Russia investigation within three days after receipt of the flimsy information. 

Top FBI officials greenlit the investigation, including Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of counterintelligence and devoted Trump-hater. The investigation, Durham notes, was launched “before any dialogue with Australia or the Intelligence Community, and prior to any critical analysis of the information itself.”

What could have prompted this eagerness? The FBI, as Durham acknowledges, was already in possession of the so-called Steele Dossier, a compendium of lies and innuendo created by Fusion GPS at the behest of the Clinton campaign. The FBI had also been approached by a second source working with Fusion GPS in July 2016. 

There appears to have been a push for an investigation prompted by the desires of the Clinton campaign and the perceived necessity of stopping Trump. The FBI’s Assistant Legal Attache in London knew the Papadopoulos information was thin but told the Office of the Inspector General that FBI management was “pushing the matter so hard that ‘there was no stopping the train,’” making it his job to “grease the skids.”

Meanwhile, in July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies found out about Russian intelligence suggesting that Clinton had approved a campaign plan to gin up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. 

On Aug. 3, CIA Director John Brennan “met with the President, Vice President and other senior Administration officials, including but not limited to the Attorney General (who participated remotely) and the FBI Director” and briefed them on the so-called Clinton Plan.

Nobody decided to put a hold on the Trump-Russia investigation, despite the relevant fact that all involved now knew of allegations that the entire situation had been drummed up by the Clinton campaign.

And so, in short, we now know that top officials at the White House and the FBI were aware of Clinton’s plan to disseminate information falsely claiming Trump-Russia collusion; the FBI knew full well that the intelligence it had making such accusations was flimsy at best; they all went ahead anyway. For the rest of the election cycle and much of Trump’s presidency, the Democrats, media, and intelligence community continued to parrot the Trump-Russia collusion lie.

This collusion is significantly worse than Watergate. It involves the former secretary of state and Democratic candidate for president laundering false intelligence information to the FBI; and the FBI, overseen by the candidate’s political allies in the Obama administration, using that information as the predicate to open a full-scale investigation knowing full well that the Clinton campaign could well be behind the allegations in the first place.

This is patently insane. It destroys any semblance of legitimacy in the FBI. It implicates former President Barack Obama, President Joe Biden, James Clapper, Brennan, and a bevy of other high officials in weaponization of the government to stop Trump. 

The Russia hoax was much more than a hoax, it turns out. It was a nefarious plan, enacted at the highest levels of government, to corrupt an election and undermine a presidency.

Reproduced with permission. Original here. Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor emeritus of The Daily Wire. A graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, he is a New York Times bestselling author whose latest book is “The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent.”

Elon Crushes CNBC With Truth on Free Speech

We all suspect that corporations and the media control the narrative in America. Here we have a billionaire prepared to risk it all for free speech. And that pause!

The ‘Loneliness Epidemic’ That Is Hurting All of Us

When the Surgeon General of the United States this month issued an official “Advisory” on  Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation, I was inclined to dismiss the paper as just another example of the federal government spending taxpayer money on an issue over which it has no reasonable jurisdiction. 

While the Loneliness “alarm” published by Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy is in fact another taxpayer-funded project over which there is no reasonable basis in the Constitution giving Uncle Sam legitimate jurisdiction, the nation’s “Top Doc” is actually onto something here, even if he fails to consider one of its primary causes.

Humans are fundamentally “social animals,” and for millennia social relationships have provided the context in which cultures develop and thrive (or not). Social discourse is the medium in which advances are made, in everything from the sciences to philosophy and from medicine to government structure. Failure to engage socially on both individual and collective levels can be, and demonstrably are, factors contributing to stagnation at the micro and macro level.

The very form of government and social structure embodied in our Constitution is framed as a “social compact.” Without social interaction, interpersonal discourse, and mutual understanding, the relationships between the citizenry and government, and the checks and balances incorporated into our constitutional republic, will no longer provide the essential ingredients for us to remain free.

There are, as Dr. Murthy describes in his Advisory, other very real benefits to social interactions.

The Surgeon General notes that isolation from fellow humans has been shown to diminish an individual’s mental and physical health, even leading to increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and dementia. The good doctor goes a bit far in declaring that loneliness can contribute to a person’s mortality to the same extent as “smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day” – a claim that led to headlines, but which lacks sourcing that clearly provides evidence for the conclusion. However, his thesis that socially active people generally are more likely to enjoy healthy lives than those who live apart from others, is well-made.

Additionally, Dr. Murthy correctly identifies that among the loneliness epidemic’s primary causes is the pervasive influence and easy availability of alternatives to inter-human interaction – namely, social media and other forms of non-personal communication. As illustrated graphically in the Advisory, over the past nearly 20 years, individuals’ “social engagement with friends” and with “others” have dropped dramatically, even as evidence of “social isolation” has increased significantly.

While the two-year long COVID pandemic increased both individual and social loneliness, the trends noted by the Surgeon General long predate the onset of COVID and the socially disastrous government responses to it (a valid topic for a far more lengthy “advisory”).

Dr. Murthy does not limit himself to identifying the problem and causes of loneliness and social isolation. In his Advisory and in subsequent interviews, he offers a number of ways to begin what will be at best a long road to recovery. Among these are recommendations to “scale back on social media” (an understatement), to actually “listen” and pay “attention” to other people (in my view, a completely lost art in today’s hyper-partisan political arena), and to “serve others” by civic volunteerism.

Kudos to Dr. Murthy for emphasizing the importance and benefits of such activities.

One factor that exacerbates the isolation and loneliness pervasive in contemporary America, but not discussed by the Surgeon General, is the divisiveness that results directly from the fact that in today’s society, great emphasis is placed on driving people and groups apart based on all manner of real or perceived factors.

It actually makes it harder for individuals to interact positively with each other when they are bombarded with signals if not demands that people must be differentiated and categorized according to artificially designated barriers such as race, gender, or political preferences. 

Dr. Murthy’s Advisory did not touch on this major cause of social disruption, and perhaps it was beyond the scope of his effort; but if we are to take his warning to heart and actually endeavor to solve the problem he identifies, it is imperative that we openly and actively resist the ongoing drive for social tribalism and ostracism. 

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Original here. The ‘Loneliness Epidemic’ That Is Hurting Americans and America

Ron Paul Wrecks ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws

Gun control advocates continue to claim that only restrictions on gun ownership will keep people safe from mass shooters and other criminals. However, good people with guns can stop bad people with guns. And bad people will still have guns despite gun control laws. Further weakening the argument that restricting private firearms ownership will reduce violent crimes is the fact that states with “constitutional carry” — where individuals are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without seeking permission from the government — have lower homicide rates than states with more restrictive gun laws.

One policy that is popular among gun control supporters and some who normally support the Second Amendment but want to “do something” about gun violence is red flag laws. These laws allow law enforcement to confiscate an individual’s guns based on a report that the individual poses a threat to public safety. Red flag laws allow governments to restrict the exercise of a constitutionally protected right without due process.

Another weakness in the argument that more restrictive gun laws will reduce violence is that many of the cities and states with the highest incidence of violent crime have restrictive gun laws. Gun control supporters try to explain this by blaming individuals who bring guns from states with more permissive gun laws into states with more restrictive gun laws. The guns can, though, at the same time be coming from states with less violent crime into states with more violent crime. But, if guns were the problem, then violent crime would be higher in states with permissive gun laws than in states with more legal restrictions related to firearms.

The gun control debate ignores the root causes of rising violence, which is a symptom of the decline of traditional morality that respected every individual’s inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. This traditional morality has been replaced with a nihilistic philosophy that denies moral law and natural rights. Instead, it justifies doing whatever one feels is necessary to achieve one’s goals.

This disregard for a higher moral law finds expression in a foreign policy that then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously supported while defending US sanctions that starved Iraqi children. The US is viewed as the world’s “indispensable nation,” and whatever it does is automatically considered right, regardless of the human suffering caused by the US government’s overseas interventions.

We also see this expression of disregard for a higher moral law in support for abortion that is based on the idea that preborn do not have the right to life. Whether the baby lives or dies is called a matter of “choice.”

Should we be surprised a society produces mass shooters and other psychopaths when government, schools, media, entertainment, and even some churches promote nihilism that devalues human life?

While government can undermine morality, it cannot promote virtue. Any attempt to use government power to “make people good” will inevitably result in tyranny. It will also lead to a less virtuous population. Instead, those seeking to replace the nihilism with a philosophy that recognizes that all humans are born with inalienable rights should work to restore limited constitutional government that does not attempt to provide for the people’s material or spiritual needs.

Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Original here.

Our turn! Fact-Checking White House Claim That Illegal Immigration Drops With End of Title 42

President Joe Biden and administration officials say that fewer illegal immigrants have crossed the southern border into the U.S. since the end of Title 42

Title 42, a public health measure allowing quick removal of illegal aliens, was lifted late Thursday night with the official end of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

However, border and immigration experts contend that the Biden administration is pushing a “shell game” and “smoke and mirrors.”

Asked over the weekend about the results of Title 42’s end, Biden told reporterswhile on a bike ride: “Much better than you all expected.” 

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told CNN on Sunday: “The numbers we have experienced in the past two days are markedly down over what they were prior to the end of Title 42.” Mayorkas said there were 6,300 encounters with illegal aliens at the border Friday and 4,200 Saturday.

In a conference call Monday with reporters, Blas Nuñez-Neto, chief operating officer at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, backed up Mayorkas’ claim. 

“Over the last three days, we have seen approximately a 50% decrease in encounters compared to the days leading up to the end of Title 42,” Nuñez-Neto told reporters. “It is still early, though, and we are mindful that smugglers will continue to look for ways to take advantage of the change in border policies.”

For one, border experts note the Biden administration’s adoption of a “lawful pathways” policy, which includes a Customs and Border Protection mobile app allowing illegal immigrants to schedule an appointment at a port of entry to enter the U.S. without documentation. 

Not being counted

So, these immigrants without documentation are entering the United States in what amounts to a mass parole system, and are not being counted as “encounters” at the border. 

“The Biden administration is hiding migration encounters,” 

Art Arthur, former general counsel for U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement), told The Daily Signal. “Mayorkas uses the term ‘border encounters,’ but we are surging with entries at the ports of entry with mass parole.”

Arthur, also a former federal immigration judge, is now a resident fellow for law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. 

“I was at the border in El Paso last week. They were erecting massive tents [for illegal aliens],” Arthur said of the Texas border town. “Whether you jump the line or enter through a port of entry, if you don’t have documents, you are still in the U.S. illegally. It’s smoke and mirrors.” 

To the extent that actual unlawful border crossings into the U.S. declined, Arthur said, it’s due to more than 1,500 Texas state law enforcement officers being there to stop them, by order of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican. 

“That pushed people down and around El Paso and the Rio Grande. If there is any hero in this story, it is Gov. Abbott and the [state] troopers he sent to the border,” Arthur said.  

What Mayorkas calls “lawful pathways” is still illegal, noted Lora Ries, former acting deputy chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security and former counsel for the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration and claims subcommittee.

“This is what Secretary Mayorkas is calling a ‘lawful pathway,’ but it is not lawful because, first, he’s violating the parole statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Ries, now director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, said. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

“Parole is supposed to be on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons. That’s not the case here,” she said of Mayorkas. “He is paroling in tens of thousands of inadmissible aliens each month.” 

The point of shifting illegal migration to ports of entry is to present lower numbers to the American public, Ries said, calling it “a shell game” and “a gimmick.” 

“The administration doesn’t want you looking at the rapid increase of inadmissible aliens at the ports, which the administration has instructed aliens to do,” she said, adding: 

They are following the administration’s instructions. They are making this application and they are getting paroled in through the ports. But the administration only talks about numbers dropping at the border. They are not mentioning, nor do they want you looking at, the rapid rise in numbers of [inadmissible aliens].

Lora Ries

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. Original here. Reproduced with permission.

The Mainstream Strategy to Screw Kennedy is Exactly What they Did to Trump – Will it Work?

With headlines like, “His name is Kennedy, His campaign is pure Trump” and “R.F.K and DeSantis Embolden Anti-Vaccine Movement” from the likes of the Washington Post and Time magazine respectively, it is clear what the playbook to discredit Kennedy and other alt-left challengers of President Biden will be: label and discredit.   

This is a familiar strategy on the left because it was utilized to its fullest extent two presidential election cycles ago, when then-candidate Trump entered the political arena to an avalanche of name calling and vitriol from the establishment political class on both sides. 

Much like Trump, Kennedy is already being appended with an array of loaded political labels, the sole purpose of which are to make it crystal clear to the political elite that Kennedy is, ‘not one of us.’ 

The political dynasty and environmental lawyer is rarely referred to as anything other than an “anti-vaccine activist”, despite also being vocally anti-war and highly critical of crony corporatism and environmental neglect. 

When Kennedy announced his run for office, he did not mention vaccines, but has been clear in interviews that if asked, he’ll share his views. He has also stated that vaccines are not the central focus of his campaign, but the establishment is attempting to ‘other’ Kennedy on the vaccine issue to dissuade voters who might agree with him on other issues.

Eight years ago, when Trump announced his run for President of the United States under the Republican Party banner, he was similarly ‘othered’ and attacked from both sides of the aisle and from the mainstream media. Trump was labeled ‘a populist, ‘a racist’, ‘just a TV celebrity’, and ‘not a real Republican’ despite espousing a set of political principles that held at least some appeal to a broad swathe of the American people as evidenced by his success in the Republican primaries and later in the general election. 

The American public simply did not care which label the mainstream pinned onto Trump, largely because they agreed with his America First philosophy, as upsetting as that may still be to some inside the beltway who never understood Trump’s appeal.

The way the mainstream is treating Kennedy now is a near-replica of the way they treated Trump. Rather than addressing the core of the issue: that Americans are mistrustful of big government corporatism and nation-building, particularly in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic and Ukraine war, the corporate-left are labeling Kennedy an ‘other’ and hoping that is enough to discredit him. 

The reason this is the strategy, is that much like with Hillary Clinton in 2016, the political establishment are aware that any argument for their candidate falls flat. The only alternative is to label and discredit the opponent. Biden may not be as ill-liked as an individual as Clinton was, but Americans are largely in agreement that he is unfit to continue serving as president. 

Biden’s approval rating now hovers in the low 40’s, a place occupied by former presidents who lost their reelection bids, and he has lost support by double-digits with women, young people, and independents. Unsurprisingly, Kennedy does well in polls with all these groups

Around 70% of Democrats say they want someone other than Joe Biden to become the party nominee in 2024, and these numbers are even higher with young people and independents. 

Not only are Biden’s numbers down across the board, but Americans are increasingly seeking a president who will keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts and reject a neoconservative nation-building agenda abroad. 

Public support for continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons dropped 12 percentage points from 60% in May 2022 to under half (48%) in March 2023, and just 37% of Americans now believe the U.S. should continue sending funds to Ukraine, down from a lukewarm 44% in May 2022. What is more, almost three-quarters of Americans say the U.S. should have either a minor role (49%) or no role at all (24%) in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, while just 26% say the U.S. should have a major role.

In the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Americans had a particularly bleak view of the 20-year war, with a full 77% of Americans saying the U.S. and other Western allies did not win the war, and just 6% saying the U.S. won.   

Americans are war-weary, and want to turn their attention back to domestic issues – namely healthcare, the economy, and restoring personal and economic freedoms that were suspended during the covid-19 pandemic.  

Kennedy’s rise in popularity is no surprise, considering the vast majority of Democrats want to see someone other than Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket next election, and considering most Americans are weary of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and the unholy alliance between political and corporate power. 

Americans care more about electing a president and administration capable of shepherding the country back to economic prosperity, ejecting the United States from our engagement in foreign disputes, and restoring the freedoms that were largely suspended during the covid-19 pandemic than they do about political labels. Call it populism, but most Americans don’t care.

Rather than address Kennedy on the issues, the Democratic Party has stated there will be no primary debates between Biden and Kennedy or other challengers, and are attempting to discredit alternative candidates by ‘othering’ them.

There is a very good chance the establishment will fail to quell the public uprising against Biden if they continue use the same ‘label and discredit’ playbook they used against Trump in 2015. ‘He’s just an inexperienced celebrity’, ‘he’s not a real Republican’, and ‘he’s a populist’ – all fell utterly flat when flung against Trump, because frankly, no one cared.  

Manzanita Miller is an associate analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

To view online:

Get your hands off our kids, Clinton! (the other one)

While speaking at the Brainstorm Health conference last month, Chelsea Clinton made the New World Order claim that vaccine hesitancy and outright rejection have been an “unfortunate” side effect of the coronavirus pandemic.  She went on to push a partnership with the World Health Organization and the Gates Foundation to address what they see as a problem of declining vaccination rates amongst children.

“I think we are less prepared today than we were, arguably, in January 2020—partially because of the lack of trust and confidence in not only our scientists, but in science itself, and certainly in public health professionals. We all deserve to hopefully not be as unprepared as I worry we are at the moment.”

Chelsea Clinton

Globalists like Gideon Lichfield at MIT told us exactly what the plan was in March of 2020.  In an article tiled  ‘We’re Not Going Back To Normal’, he suggests that mandates and vaccine passport restrictions should last for many years to come, if not forever. He wrote:

“Ultimately, however, I predict that we’ll restore the ability to socialize safely by developing more sophisticated ways to identify who is a disease risk and who isn’t, and discriminating—legally—against those who are.

…One can imagine a world in which, to get on a flight, perhaps you’ll have to be signed up to a service that tracks your movements via your phone. The airline wouldn’t be able to see where you’d gone, but it would get an alert if you’d been close to known infected people or disease hot spots. There’d be similar requirements at the entrance to large venues, government buildings, or public transport hubs. There would be temperature scanners everywhere, and your workplace might demand you wear a monitor that tracks your temperature or other vital signs. Where nightclubs ask for proof of age, in future they might ask for proof of immunity—an identity card or some kind of digital verification via your phone, showing you’ve already recovered from or been vaccinated against the latest virus strains.”

And, as World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab announced:

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”

These are the primary factors contributing to widespread resistance to mandates, in addition to the general skepticism surrounding vaccines with limited testing and the absence of long-term safety data. Many Americans harbor deep mistrust towards figures like the Clintons and their influential associates, and their reservations are not unfounded. The perception is that these individuals prioritize amassing power over genuine concerns for public health.

Ironically, their actions have inadvertently led to the emergence of a vigilant and informed population who now scrutinize their every move. We will not let them flam-flam us with “the science” again.

New Bill to Eliminate This Double Tax on Seniors

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) announces reintroduction of the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 3206. This bill assists middle-class seniors by eliminating the unjust double tax on Social Security benefits.

As the Congressional Research Service reports, “Before 1984, Social Security benefits were exempt from the federal income tax. Congress then enacted legislation to tax a portion of those benefits, with the share gradually increasing as a person’s income rose above a specified income threshold.”

Although seniors have already paid tax on their Social Security contributions via the payroll tax, they are still required to list these benefits as taxable income on their tax returns,” said Rep. Massie. “This is simply a way for Congress to obtain more revenue for the federal government at the expense of seniors who have already paid into Social Security. My bill would exempt Social Security retirement benefits from taxation and boost the retirement income of millions of older Americans.

The cost of living for seniors is rising and this will bring immediate tax relief for West Virginians,” said Representative Alex X. Mooney (R-WV). “Seniors worked hard to earn their Social Security benefits and have already been taxed on their contributions to Social Security. The federal tax on Social Security is a double-tax and its repeal is the right thing to do for our seniors.”

Representative Daniel Webster (R-FL) said, “For decades, seniors have paid into Social Security with their tax dollars. Now, when many seniors are on a fixed income and struggling financially, they are being double-taxed because of income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This is wrong and I’m pleased to once again co-sponsor this legislation to repeal this tax.”

Bob Carlstrom, President of the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, released the following statement in support of Massie’s legislation:

“Every year, millions of seniors become eligible for either Social Security or tier I railroad retirement benefits. After working for decades, paying taxes on their hard-earned income to fund these federal programs, some seniors are forced to pay income tax on the benefits they receive from the federal government. Taxing benefits which were created from already taxed funds is nonsensical and curtails retirement benefits seniors have been promised. Seniors deserve to reap the full benefits of their hard work from career-long contributions to Social Security and the Railroad Retirement Plan.

The Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate the inclusion of tier I railroad retirement benefits and Social Security benefits in an individual’s gross income. As this legislation takes effect, seniors will notice their tax liability is significantly reduced and will no longer deal with the ‘double tax’ on their federally earned benefits.” 

Where are the Democrats?

The Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act was originally introduced in 2003 by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). Rep. Massie has introduced this bill each Congress since taking office in 2012. Original cosponsors include Representatives Don Bacon (R-NE), Aaron Bean (R-FL), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Eric Burlison (R-MO), Ben Cline (R-VA), Michael Cloud (E-TX), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Bob Good (R-VA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Mark Green (R-TN), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Alex Mooney (R-WV), Andy Ogles (R-TN), Scott Perry (R-PA), Bill Posey (R-FL), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), and Daniel Webster (R-FL).

The text of H.R. 3206 is available at this embedded link

You can track other co-sponsors here. Make sure your representative is onboard!

DoJ turning a blind eye on Hunter’s laptop and Deep State Collusion

In a major development in the House ongoing probe of the deep state’s October 2020 effort to suppress revelations from Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell,” a former senior CIA official has testified that he organized an influential letter from former intel officials to help Joe Biden “win the election” — and was inspired to do so by a call from current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was then a top Biden campaign official. Zero Hedge

Mike Morell, who was at the time a former deputy director of the CIA, says he also coordinated with the Biden campaign on strategy for the letter’s release. Word of his revelations comes via a press release (below) jointly issued by the chairmen of the House judiciary and intelligence committees late Thursday, first reported by the New York Post.  

Between the revelation that the ‘Hunter laptop letter hoax‘ signed by 51 current and former intelligence officials was created at the behest of Antony Blinken during the 2020 US election, the obvious implications of CCP leverage over the Biden family, and information presented by an IRS whistleblower regarding the Hunter Biden probethings may get interesting according to Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN). MSN

Burchett, R-Tenn., confirmed GOP officials still could not “track down” the key witness as of Monday morning, telling FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo that the federal agencies such as the FBI and DOJ have “turned a blind eye” to both the missing informant and the Biden family’s alleged corruption.

“The telling thing about this is that our Federal Bureau of Investigation and our Justice Department have basically just turned a blind eye to all of this and now it’s come down to the point where speaker McCarthy has to have a one-on-one meeting with Director Wray over the way that they’ve handled this and bungled this thing from the start,” the Oversight Committee member and Foreign Affairs Committee member said on “Mornings with Maria.”

Gun Groups Sue DOJ for age discrimination

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, challenging the Department of Justice’s de facto waiting periods for NICS background checks on adults who are not yet 21.  

This new policy is a result of the Cornyn-Murphy gun control package passed last summer, which now imposes unconstitutional waiting periods on young adults. A NICS background check for these individuals now requires a review of juvenile justice records, state mental health records, and those from local law enforcement where the buyer resides. This review is in addition to those records already held by the FBI NICS System, and because those state and local agencies are not equipped or prepared to provide this information in a timely manner, young gun buyers are simply forced to wait with no recourse, which is a clear violation of their Second Amendment rights. 

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:    

“GOA repeatedly warned legislators and the public how this would grossly violate young Americans’ Constitutional rights, and yet Texas Senator John Cornyn compromised away those rights anyway. Now we see young adults frequently and routinely being denied their right to purchase a firearm in a timely manner, and this right delayed is unjustly a right denied. Compromise is no way to legislate when dealing with people’s God-given rights.” 

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the Board for GOF, added:  

“We have worked hard since this gun control bill passed to document and compile many of the compelling cases where people were ridiculously delayed in purchasing a firearm, in some cases for weeks! This only goes to show how ineffective the background check system really is, and instead of proposing real solutions to ensure that We the People can protect ourselves from dangerous criminals, compromise Cornyn and a handful of anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the anti-gun legislator in chief, Chris Murphy, to double down on an ineffective policy to further infringe on our rights.” 

This lawsuit was first covered by Fox News, read more here

This had happened two days earlier.

“US Prohibition Against 18-to-20-Year-Olds Buying Handguns Tossed”

  • Right to purchase guns protected by Second Amendment
  • Young adults are ‘the people’ under the amendment

The US government’s prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds buying handguns violates the Second Amendment and “cannot stand,” a federal judge in Virginia ruled.

The right to purchase a handgun falls under right to “keep and bear arms,” and young adults are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, Judge Robert E. Payne of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond said Wednesday.

Restricting the right of 18-to-20-year-olds to buy handguns, via an interlocking collection of federal law and regulations, isn’t supported by the nation’s history and tradition, Payne said. Bloomberg Law

Best Hummus Ever

Super delicious hummus from Chef Billy Parisi. We’d never tried it this way before and it’s delicious! Maybe roasting the garlic in olive oil on the hob first made the difference?

Ingredients for this recipe: 

• 4 ½ cups of cooked dried chickpeas or 4 1/2 cups canned – see notes 

• ½ cup tahini 

• juice of 1 lemon 

• 1/3 cup roasted garlic 

• ¼ cup roasted garlic olive oil – see notes on how to make 

• sea salt and cayenne pepper to taste 

Serves: 12 

Prep Time: 5 minutes

Cook Time: 10 minutes 

1. Add the chickpeas to a food processor and pulse on high speed until it forms a thick paste 

2. Next, add in the tahini, lemon juice, garlic and salt and process over low heat for 2-4 minutes while drizzling in the roasted garlic olive oil until very smooth. 

3. Serve with on a plate with a drizzle of olive oil, cayenne and optional chopped parsley. 

Chef Notes: • Submerge some dried chickpeas in cold water and let them sit overnight. I like for the water to cover the chickpeas by at least 4 inches. Drain the chickpeas and transfer to a pot and add in cold water until it is covering the garbanzo beans by about 2 inches. Also add in 1 teaspoon of baking soda. Bring them to a boil over high heat and then simmer for 30-40 minutes over low heat or until tender. Drain the cooked garbanzo beans and transfer to a pot or bowl and cover them with cold water. 

• Place your hands into the pot or bowl and move the chickpeas around, irritating them so that the outside shell falls off. Scoop up the shells using a hands trainer and remove. While this step is not necessary will make your hummus so much creamier and delicious. Drain the chickpeas and set aside. if you are using canned chickpeas, all you need to do is drain them and they are ready to use. 

• Make-Ahead: You can make this recipe up to 2 days ahead of time, simple keep cool and covered before serving. 

• How to Store: Keep covered and in the refrigerator for 6-7 days. This will not freeze well. 

• You can absolutely skip the soaking and cooking of the dried chickpeas for canned and drained garbanzo beans. 

• Substitute the olive oil in the recipe for some water if you prefer. 

• To make roasted garlic, cook 1 ½ cups of garlic cloves in 2 cups of extra virgin olive oil over low heat for 30-40 minutes or until soft and very browned. 

• You may need to adjust the flavor with more tahini, lemon juice or salt.

The Origin of SARS Might Surprise You

This is interesting because following SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) and the pharmaceutical industry has many parallels with the most recent infectious disease to hit us.

You can see where this is headed, right?

I get shut down on email sends if I mention the name of the reason for the recent shutdown of the planet. But I try to share information I come across through embedded videos. This is long – but it contains a TON of information. And poses the interesting question: Why was the cure patented before the disease had been discovered?

Remember how they called these people scum?

Got a pension? Investment heads-up: Is The Next Commodity Super-Cycle About to Hit?

According to the Bank of Canada: Commodity super-cycles are extended periods during which commodity prices are well above their long-run trend. In recent years, commodity prices have reached a 50-year low relative to overall equity markets (S&P 500). 

Historically, lows in the ratio of commodities to equities have corresponded with the beginning of new commodity supercycles.

As Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti shows in the infographic below, using data from Incrementum AG and Crescat Capital LLC, the relationship between commodities and U.S. equities has varied greatly over the last five decades.

Recently, commodity prices reached a 50 year low relative to overall equity markets. In the past, when this ratio reached such levels, commodity super-cycles began. While no two super-cycles look the same, they all have three indicators in common: a surge in supply, a surge in demand, and a surge in price.

The relationship, however, is not always straightforward and can be affected by various other factors, such as global economic growth, supply and demand, inflation, and other market events.

With the most recent commodity supercycle peaking in 2011, could the next big one be right around the corner?

View more here:

Author of debunked 2016 Hillary Clinton’s Big Lie is currently US National Security Advisor.

Special Counsel John Durham released a 306-page report  on May 15th detailing how Democrat operatives packaged and sold a lie to the all-too-believing Obama administration FBI that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

For more than six years now, corrupt corporate media and Democrats have rallied around that allegation as evidence that Trump shouldn’t hold office. But Durham’s latest report, much like previous investigations into the Russian collusion hoax, once again found that there was no evidence of collusion from the beginning

“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” Durham wrote in the opening pages of his bombshell report concluding three years of investigation. Federalist who have been superb on reporting this.

This is deliberate and corrupt

Jacob “Jake” Jeremiah Sullivan (born November 28, 1976) is an American political advisor who currently serves as the United States national security advisor to President Joe Biden. He was previously director of policy to President Barack Obama, national security advisor to then Vice President Biden and deputy chief of staff to Secretary Hillary Clinton at the U.S. Department of State. Sullivan also served as senior advisor to the U.S. federal government at the Iran nuclear negotiations and senior policy advisor to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, as well as visiting professor at Yale Law School.

On November 23, 2020, President-elect Biden announced that Sullivan would be appointed as national security advisor. He took office January 20, 2021.

Here he is a few days out from the 2016 election:

As a result, this is how it was reported in 2016:

The Trump Organisation has a secret server registered to Trump Tower that has been covertly communicating with a Russian bank, a media report said, in the latest allegation of questionable links between Donald Trump and Russia just a week ahead of the presidential polls.A report in the Slate said a server registered to the Trump Organisation was found to have been in contact with the Alfa Bank, the largest private commercial bank in Russia.Activity on the server indicated “a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organisation and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank”, it said.

Tavern Talk

The FBI says it began its investigation into Trump after Australian officials informed investigators on July 28, 2016 that George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made an offhand comment about Russia and the 2016 election in a tavern conversation. But, Durham says Australian diplomats told FBI officials that Papadopoulos “never stated that he had any direct contact with the Russians nor did he provide any explicit information about an offer of assistance,” but that didn’t matter to the FBI which officially began targeting Trump on July 31, 2016, three days after it received the report from Down Under.

Go here for the full skinny.

They’re getting riled up

Who Will Win the “Legacy Chip War”? Let’s hope it’s not China.

The computer chip shortage that took place at the end of 2020 made everyone realize that the most cutting-edge, or advanced, computer chips are no longer made in the United States. This is a problem because it means the country relies on others for these important parts. What’s interesting is that this shortage was mostly about a lack of “legacy chips”.

These are the types of chips that American companies still make, but not enough to meet the demand from manufacturers in the U.S. This lack of chips hurt not just traditional industries like car-making, but also any devices that use a range of chip technologies to do things like control displays, play sound, run engines and other key tasks. Without these parts, there were major disruptions in the U.S. economy, which made people take a closer look at the importance of these “legacy” chips.

So, what are these “legacy” chips? They’re a type of computer chip made using well-known but still improving methods. These chips are usually larger in size. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 refers to legacy devices as those made with 28-nanometer (nm) technology or larger. The exact definition of other types of chips is still being worked out. The term “cutting-edge” chip also doesn’t have a clear definition yet, but is probably for those made using techniques at or below 5 nm. There’s some uncertainty about where chips made with advanced 10 nm and 7 nm techniques fit in. However, what’s considered “legacy” or “cutting-edge” changes over time, as technology continues to advance at a rate predicted by Moore’s Law.

Legacy chips are everywhere. They’re used in everything from cars and planes to household appliances, broadband, consumer electronics, factory systems, military equipment, and medical devices. They play a key role in U.S. manufacturing, so any disruption in their supply has a big impact on manufacturing and the wider economy.

Even though they’re called “legacy”, these chips aren’t old or outdated. They’re continually updated to meet new needs and are used in lots of different ways. For example, some are made with silicon carbide, a material that’s expected to be important for reducing carbon emissions. Legacy chips are likely to remain important for new industries and technologies for a long time to come.

Thinking of legacy chips as separate from cutting-edge chips based on their size might limit our understanding of their importance. The term “legacy” comes from a time when the military was a big driver of chip development. Recent actions to limit China’s ability to make advanced chips – forcing them to focus on mainstream chips – might be missing a big risk.

If the U.S. wants to protect its economy from the effects of China’s industrial policy, it can’t simply think of chips as “advanced” or “less advanced” based on their size. Instead, decision-makers need to think more carefully about the importance of special legacy chips and how to support their production and ongoing development.

The shortage of these computer chips has messed up the operations of U.S. car makers and other manufacturers. For example, companies that make medical devices had trouble because they couldn’t get enough of the older-style chips they needed to power their machines. The lack of chips forced companies to scramble and buy electronic parts on the spot market, which made it hard for patients to get certain important devices.

The chip shortage also hit companies that make electronic consumer products. In 2021, Apple had to cut back on its plans to make iPhones and other devices because there weren’t enough chips. With the iPhone 13 Pro Max, which is a really complex device with over 2,000 parts, the problem wasn’t a lack of the most advanced chips. Instead, the production was held up because of a lack of really cheap parts like power management chips made by Texas Instruments, transceivers from Nexperia, and connectivity devices from Broadcom. What’s important to remember is that these kinds of chips are used not just in iPhones or smartphones or even just consumer electronics, but in computers, data centers, home appliances, and cars that are connected to the internet.

A big reason for the chip shortage is that not enough money has been invested into making more of these older-style chips. The reason for this is pretty simple: the returns, or profits, are much lower when you invest in making these chips. Right now, only about one-sixth of all investment in semiconductors goes towards making these older-style chips. Despite this risk, several big chip makers like Infineon, Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, and NXP Semiconductors are now looking to invest more into making these higher-node chips.

An unintended consequence of U.S. export controls on advanced chip technology to China may be a wave of state-backed investment leading to overproduction and, potentially, Chinese dominance of global legacy chip production.


Another big risk for U.S. companies thinking about investing in older-style chips is China. The Chinese government recently said it’s going to put $143 billion into its chip industry. In 2021 and 2022, China is expected to have spent $12.3 billion and $15.3 billion respectively on developing its semiconductor industry, which would make up 15% of the worldwide total. If China can get the necessary manufacturing equipment, it’s expected to almost double its ability to produce these computer chips over the next 10 years, which would make up about 19% of the world’s total production.

Because of restrictions from the West on sharing advanced chip technologies with China, most of China’s new investments will probably be in making older devices (those that are 28 nm and above). One unexpected result of the U.S. limiting China’s access to advanced chip technology might be a huge wave of investment from the Chinese government, leading to overproduction and possibly, China taking over global production of these older-style chips.

U.S. experts are already pointing out the risk of China potentially dominating in this way.

Who Is Better at Raising Your Child, You or the State?

The Belgian politician Connor Rousseau and his social-democratic Vooruit party want to require parents to send their children to day care and kindergarten. There are still politicians who think of the children. And the logic is conclusive: the first six years of life are decisive for the future life of the child. That cannot be left to the parents. The state must take its responsibility and release money. A few billion is enough to get the job done. By MATTIAS DESMET  

No one knows where that money will come from. But if necessary, some additional printing can be done. That is actually a way to make the population pay more taxes without them realizing it. Citizens nowadays pay barely 53 percent taxes. A little more loyalty to the state is welcome. Moreover, it is for their own good, and that of their descendants. Citizens do not realize enough how important it is that their children are brought up well. Just as they do not realize that they cannot actually do that themselves and that the state must do it for them.

And if inflation leads to the collapse of the financial system, then a solution is already at hand: the introduction of the CBDC – the digital currency of the central banks. This will be linked to the digital passport and a social credit system. In this way, the state will educate not only the child, but the parents as well, according to a system of punishment and reward that Pavlov tested on dogs.

Granted, Pavlov concluded that his system of rewards and punishment really only works if you know the character of the individual dog. Every dog ultimately reacts in its own way to rewards and punishment. We can ask ourselves whether the state will also take the individual character of the child-puppies in daycare into account in its state education. That chance is small. Connor Rousseau believes that every child should receive equal opportunities and thus an equal education. Whether the child actually benefits from it or not is beside the point.

The state has to guarantee the quality of education and will therefore also have to monitor and evaluate it. Just as the state cannot trust the weighty job of parenting to parents, it cannot trust the job of childcare to childcare providers. They will therefore have to be subjected to strict protocols, as befits a good bureaucracy. And those protocols will be designed by experts who have scientifically determined which conditioning techniques lead to the best adapted little New Citizen.

During the coronavirus crisis, those experts – not the same, of course, because there are experts for every part of your private life – also took control of your health and that of your children. Just as you don’t know how to raise your child now, you didn’t know then how to take care of your own health and that of your offspring.

We were all urged to get ourselves and our children vaccinated, especially so that grandma and grandpa would not get infected. Here and there, rare critical scientists suggested that a vaccine could not prevent infections, partly because coronaviruses mutate quickly. People didn’t listen to such nonsense–these scientists were thrown off Twitter and robbed of their jobs.

And those who refused to get vaccinated were treated as second-class citizens. They were no longer allowed to go to a restaurant or a theater. In some countries they were banned from taking public transport. French President Macron believed that their lives should be made into a living hell. Totalitarian leaders are so convinced that their logic is the only correct one—one that will ultimately lead to Paradise—that all basic tenets of humanity get thrown overboard in pursuit of that logic.

Unfortunately, the totalitarian logic, as it has throughout history, failed. The Great Guardian of American public health, Anthony Fauci, now says pretty much the same thing as those critical voices – that the virus is mutating too quickly to develop a vaccine that protects against infection on a long-term basis. Experts refer to this as the progressive nature of science. Apparently science progresses very quickly these days. Almost as fast as Pfizer’s share price during that same year.

Chances are, childrearing expertise is a work in progress, as well. When parents notice that their little New Citizen, through his state upbringing, is not as happy and perfect as protocol had promised, their only consolation will be that by willingly giving their child to the state they have contributed to the advancement of Science.

The problem with this kind of “science” is that it fails to recognize that education and health are both phenomena that deal primarily with individuality – a person’s unique characteristics as a subject. The literature on placebo and nocebo effects should in itself be enough to dispel any doubt: the subjective appreciation of a treatment determines its therapeutic effects. In the same way, the core of a good upbringing focuses on the individuality of the child. The educator must see the child in his singularity—he must love the child for his uniqueness. Without that love, education becomes indoctrination.

A protocol-based education inevitably fails. Although the Great Parenting Experts will probably explain their failure in a different way. It will still be the parents’ fault, after all. And the Great State Education should actually start even earlier, preferably in Huxley’s bottling room.

And if your love for your child should give you the courage to call the state to account, you will find that you actually have nowhere to go. Hannah Arendt noted about bureaucracies 50 years ago: “In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” (Hannah Arendt, On Violence).

Just to say: I would be careful with the idea of an Ideal State Education. If the state has to protect children from their parents, parents have to protect their children from the state.

Republished from the author’s Substack


  • Mattias DesmetMattias Desmet is a professor of psychology at Ghent University and author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism. He articulated the theory of mass formation during the COVID-19 pandemic. READ MORE