lewrockwell--2020-09-23--Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the US Supreme Court Will Not Save Us

The U.S. Supreme Court will not save us .
It doesn ’ t matter which party gets to pick the replacement to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ’ s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court .
The battle that is gearing up right now is yet more distraction and spin to keep us oblivious to the steady encroachment on our rights by the architects of the American Police State .
Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice .
Battlefield America : T ... John W. Whitehead Best Price : $ 10.95 Buy New $ 18.80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Courts of Justice , what we have been saddled with , instead , are Courts of Order .
This is true at all levels of the judiciary , but especially so in the highest court of the land , the U.S. Supreme Court , which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution .
As a result , the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe , poke , pinch , taser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance , all with the general blessing of the courts .
Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail .
When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government ’ s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people , what does our current Supreme Court usually do ?
It ducks .
Prevaricates .
Remains silent .
Speaks to the narrowest possible concern .
More often than not , it gives the government and its corporate sponsors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves “ we the people ” hanging by a thread .
Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court— preoccupied with their personal politics , cocooned in a world of privilege , partial to those with power , money and influence , and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket ( the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year ) —venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones .
Every so often , the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state .
The Second American Re ... John W. Whitehead Best Price : $ 2.43 Buy New $ 14.95 In recent years , for example , the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits ; police officers can stop cars based only on “ anonymous ” tips ; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions , as long as they ’ re done in the name of “ security ” ; citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they assert it ; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “ search warrants on leashes , ” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside ; police can forcibly take your DNA , whether or not you ’ ve been convicted of a crime ; police can stop , search , question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike ; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches , no matter the “ offense ” ; police can break into homes without a warrant , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and it ’ s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name .
The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear , allowing lower court judgments to stand , are almost as critical as the ones they rule on .
Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the lives and rights enshrined in the Constitution .
By remaining silent , the Court has affirmed that : legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police ; the military can arrest and detain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to random lockdowns and mass searches at school ; and police officers who don ’ t know their actions violate the law aren ’ t guilty of breaking the law .
You think you ’ ve got rights ?
Think again .
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution , the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly , due process , privacy , bodily integrity , the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant , or search and detain us without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will .
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state .
In fact , our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government ’ s ongoing power grabs .
In the police state being erected around us , the police can probe , poke , pinch , taser , search , seize , strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance , all with the general blessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts , only it ’ s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it ( and us ) from government abuse .
A Government of Wolves ... John W. Whitehead Best Price : $ 2.06 Buy New $ 10.42 Remember , it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops .
That same Court gave police the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents , and break down people ’ s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong .
Make no mistake about it : this is what constitutes “ law and order ” in the American police state .
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state , where police officers , no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace , are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled , under control , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens .
Whether it ’ s police officers breaking through people ’ s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road , in a police state such as ours , these instances of abuse are not condemned by the government .
Rather , they are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand , no matter how unjust , no matter how in opposition to the Constitution .
Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo , the police state will keep winning and “ we the people ” will keep losing .
By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this past term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct , the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state , ‘ we the people ’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a threat , what constitutes resistance , and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘ serve and protect.
” This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power .
Rise of the Warrior Co ... Radley Balko Best Price : $ 3.56 Buy New $ 10.95 Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated , convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity , which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits , but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose .
How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time ?
A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades , including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court , reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , protecting the ruling class , and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution .
Indeed , as Reuters reports , qualified immunity “ has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.
” Worse , as Reuters concluded , “ the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.
” For those in need of a reminder of all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made us sitting ducks at the mercy of the American police state , let me offer the following .
As a result of court rulings in recent years , police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches .
Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion .
Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters .
Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back .
Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person .
Police officers can use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lawsuits .
Police can stop , arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause .
Police officers can stop cars based on “ anonymous ” tips or for “ suspicious ” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully .
Police can forcibly take your DNA , whether or not you ’ ve been convicted of a crime .
Police can use the “ fear for my life ” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals .
Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity , but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing .
Police can subject Americans to strip searches , no matter the “ offense.
” Police can break into homes without a warrant , even if it ’ s the wrong home .
Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment .
Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous .
Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a SWAT raid , even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it .
Police can suffocate someone , deliberately or inadvertently , in the process of subduing them .
To sum it up , we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat .
In this way , the justices of the United States Supreme Court—through their deference to police power , preference for security over freedom , and evisceration of our most basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expediency—have become the architects of the American police state .
So where does that leave us ?
For those deluded enough to believe that they ’ re living the American dream—where the government represents the people , where the people are equal in the eyes of the law , where the courts are arbiters of justice , where the police are keepers of the peace , and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it ’ s time to wake up .
We no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law , or justice .
Liberty has fallen to legalism .
Freedom has fallen to fascism .
Justice has become jaded , jaundiced and just plain unjust .
And for too many , the American dream of freedom and opportunity has turned into a living nightmare .
Given the turbulence of our age , with its police overreach , military training drills on American soil , domestic surveillance , SWAT team raids , asset forfeiture , wrongful convictions , profit-driven prisons , and corporate corruption , the need for a guardian of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been greater .
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People , , neither the president , nor the legislatures , nor the courts will save us from the police state that holds us in its clutches .
So we can waste our strength over the next few weeks and months raging over the makeup of the Supreme Court or we can stand united against the tyrant in our midst .
After all , the president , the legislatures , and the courts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are the police state .
The Best of John W. Whitehead

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas
The U.S. Supreme Court will not save us.
It doesn’t matter which party gets to pick the replacement to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The battle that is gearing up right now is yet more distraction and spin to keep us oblivious to the steady encroachment on our rights by the architects of the American Police State.
Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. Battlefield America: T... John W. Whitehead Best Price: $10.95 Buy New $18.80 (as of 10:15 UTC - Details)
Although the courts were established to serve as Courts of Justice, what we have been saddled with, instead, are Courts of Order. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.
When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?
It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.
More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, which leaves “we the people” hanging by a thread.
Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court— preoccupied with their personal politics, cocooned in a world of privilege, partial to those with power, money and influence, and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year)—venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.
Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state. The Second American Re... John W. Whitehead Best Price: $2.43 Buy New $14.95 (as of 09:05 UTC - Details)
In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of “security”; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.
The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the lives and rights enshrined in the Constitution. By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; and police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.
You think you’ve got rights? Think again.
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.
In fact, our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.
In the police state being erected around us, the police can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse. A Government of Wolves... John W. Whitehead Best Price: $2.06 Buy New $10.42 (as of 01:25 UTC - Details)
Remember, it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. That same Court gave police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.
Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state, where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, in a police state such as ours, these instances of abuse are not condemned by the government. Rather, they are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
The system is rigged.
Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “people’s court”—has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo, the police state will keep winning and “we the people” will keep losing.
By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this past term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”
This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power. Rise of the Warrior Co... Radley Balko Best Price: $3.56 Buy New $10.95 (as of 05:55 UTC - Details)
Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.
How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time?
It’s a setup for failure.
A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”
Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”
For those in need of a reminder of all the ways in which the Supreme Court has made us sitting ducks at the mercy of the American police state, let me offer the following.
As a result of court rulings in recent years, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing.
Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them.
To sum it up, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat. In this way, the justices of the United States Supreme Court—through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency—have become the architects of the American police state.
So where does that leave us?
For those deluded enough to believe that they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.
We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice.
Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism.
Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.
And for too many, the American dream of freedom and opportunity has turned into a living nightmare.
Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People,, neither the president, nor the legislatures, nor the courts will save us from the police state that holds us in its clutches.
So we can waste our strength over the next few weeks and months raging over the makeup of the Supreme Court or we can stand united against the tyrant in our midst.
After all, the president, the legislatures, and the courts are all on the government’s payroll.
They are the police state.
The Best of John W. Whitehead


lewrockwell--2020-09-23--The Last Best Chance To Capture the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are on the cusp of making history .
With Trump having named two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , they have an opening to elevate a third justice to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , thereby securing the constitutionalism of the court for a generation .
Trump and McConnell need only persuade 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans to vote to confirm the nominee Trump says he will send up at week ’ s end , following the days of mourning for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , have said that they will not vote to confirm a justice nominated this close to a presidential election .
One Vote Away : How a S ... Cruz , Ted Buy New $ 26.09 Yet , if Trump appoints a qualified female jurist , as he has pledged to do , and she passes muster in the Judiciary Committee , would four GOP senators really collude with Chuck Schumer ’ s Democratic Caucus to kill that Republican nominee and risk having President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate vote to reject a Republican nominee , in which Republican senators cast the decisive votes , would demoralize and divide the party on election eve and betray a cause for which some have fought for 50 years .
It is hard to conceive of a greater act of political treason .
Many Republican presidents made strides toward recapturing the court after the radical rampage of the Earl Warren era .
None achieved it .
Three of Richard Nixon ’ s four picks went south on Roe v. Wade , and Justice Harry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford ’ s lone nominee , Justice John Paul Stevens , went left as soon as he went up .
While Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia , his other choices , Sandra Day O ’ Connor and Anthony Kennedy , became “ swing votes.
” George H. W. Bush picked David Souter and Clarence Thomas , with the latter ’ s constitutionalism canceled out by the former ’ s liberalism .
But today , the hour of Trump ’ s triumph may be at hand , and the stark panic on the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside McConnell ’ s home in Kentucky .
Former Attorney General Eric Holder threatens that if Republicans confirm a justice this year , a Democratic Senate will cancel out its victory by “ packing ” the courts .
Rep. Joe Kennedy III says that if McConnell prevails in 2020 , “ We pack the court in 2021.
” Radicals are threatening to take to the streets and burn the country down if a Trump nominee is elevated .
Let them try .
When FDR , after his landslide reelection , sought to pack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices in 1937 , the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost him 72 House seats in 1938 .
Republican senators have to bite the bullet on this one and vote on whomever Trump nominates before this session of Congress ends .
And , in this battle , there is no room for conscientious objectors .
Even “ Never Trumpers ” and Republicans for Biden have to take a stand .
For if they play a role in killing Trump ’ s nominee , and Biden wins in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court over to leftist Democrats who will fill both the Ginsburg seat and that of Justice Stephen Breyer , 82 , and hold the court for years .
Consider the issues that the new nominee will decide .
Amy Coney Barrett : Sup ... Hoehn , Frederick Buy New $ 0.99 The cause of right to life .
Affirmative action .
Religious freedom .
Immigration .
Gun rights .
All could be lost if the opportunity to fill the Ginsburg seat is forfeited by Republican defectors .
The 50-year struggle to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Are there Republicans who would really walk away from this last , best chance to secure the court , simply because the process offends their sense of proper procedure ?
This may be a hard vote for Murkowski , Collins and a few other Republicans .
But to vote down a qualified conservative nominee , on the eve of a presidential election , would amount to a crippling blow to their party and to their reputations within that party .
It is said there is not time enough to get the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s choice of John Paul Stevens went through in 19 days .
Only 49 days lapsed between the nomination of Ginsburg and her confirmation .
Of the nominees to the Supreme Court , those who have been brutalized worst in the last 50 years were all Republican appointees : Clement Haynsworth in 1970 , Robert Bork in 1987 , Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
No Democratic nominee has been savaged like these four federal court judges .
And for Biden to condone a relentless partisan attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be risking the women ’ s vote in 2020 .
Assume that Amy Coney Barrett , Catholic jurist and mother of seven , is nominated .
Would fellow Catholic Joe Biden demand that his Democratic colleagues reject Barrett because she might be a vote against Roe v. Wade , which Joe now enthusiastically champions ?
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan
President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are on the cusp of making history.
With Trump having named two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they have an opening to elevate a third justice to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, thereby securing the constitutionalism of the court for a generation.
Trump and McConnell need only persuade 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans to vote to confirm the nominee Trump says he will send up at week’s end, following the days of mourning for Ginsburg.
Two Republican senators, however, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said that they will not vote to confirm a justice nominated this close to a presidential election. One Vote Away: How a S... Cruz, Ted Buy New $26.09 (as of 05:17 UTC - Details)
Yet, if Trump appoints a qualified female jurist, as he has pledged to do, and she passes muster in the Judiciary Committee, would four GOP senators really collude with Chuck Schumer’s Democratic Caucus to kill that Republican nominee and risk having President Joe Biden fill the seat?
A Senate vote to reject a Republican nominee, in which Republican senators cast the decisive votes, would demoralize and divide the party on election eve and betray a cause for which some have fought for 50 years. It is hard to conceive of a greater act of political treason.
Many Republican presidents made strides toward recapturing the court after the radical rampage of the Earl Warren era. None achieved it. Three of Richard Nixon’s four picks went south on Roe v. Wade, and Justice Harry Blackmun authored the abominable decision.
Gerald Ford’s lone nominee, Justice John Paul Stevens, went left as soon as he went up. While Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia, his other choices, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, became “swing votes.” George H. W. Bush picked David Souter and Clarence Thomas, with the latter’s constitutionalism canceled out by the former’s liberalism.
But today, the hour of Trump’s triumph may be at hand, and the stark panic on the left testifies to it.
Mobs are forming outside McConnell’s home in Kentucky. Former Attorney General Eric Holder threatens that if Republicans confirm a justice this year, a Democratic Senate will cancel out its victory by “packing” the courts. Rep. Joe Kennedy III says that if McConnell prevails in 2020, “We pack the court in 2021.” Radicals are threatening to take to the streets and burn the country down if a Trump nominee is elevated.
Let them try.
When FDR, after his landslide reelection, sought to pack the court by increasing the number of justices in 1937, the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost him 72 House seats in 1938.
Republican senators have to bite the bullet on this one and vote on whomever Trump nominates before this session of Congress ends.
And, in this battle, there is no room for conscientious objectors.
Even “Never Trumpers” and Republicans for Biden have to take a stand. For if they play a role in killing Trump’s nominee, and Biden wins in November, they will have helped to turn the Supreme Court over to leftist Democrats who will fill both the Ginsburg seat and that of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, and hold the court for years.
Consider the issues that the new nominee will decide. Amy Coney Barrett: Sup... Hoehn, Frederick Buy New $0.99 (as of 05:17 UTC - Details)
The cause of right to life. Affirmative action. Religious freedom. Immigration. Gun rights. All could be lost if the opportunity to fill the Ginsburg seat is forfeited by Republican defectors. The 50-year struggle to recapture the Supreme Court would be over.
Are there Republicans who would really walk away from this last, best chance to secure the court, simply because the process offends their sense of proper procedure?
This may be a hard vote for Murkowski, Collins and a few other Republicans. But to vote down a qualified conservative nominee, on the eve of a presidential election, would amount to a crippling blow to their party and to their reputations within that party.
It is said there is not time enough to get the vote done responsibly.
Nonsense. Gerald Ford’s choice of John Paul Stevens went through in 19 days. Only 49 days lapsed between the nomination of Ginsburg and her confirmation.
Of the nominees to the Supreme Court, those who have been brutalized worst in the last 50 years were all Republican appointees: Clement Haynsworth in 1970, Robert Bork in 1987, Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
No Democratic nominee has been savaged like these four federal court judges. And for Biden to condone a relentless partisan attack on a qualified female judge would seem to be risking the women’s vote in 2020.
Assume that Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic jurist and mother of seven, is nominated. Would fellow Catholic Joe Biden demand that his Democratic colleagues reject Barrett because she might be a vote against Roe v. Wade, which Joe now enthusiastically champions?
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan


lewrockwell--2020-09-23--Why the State Exists

Why the State Exists

Why does the State exist ?
Traditionally , the answer given to this question was that the State is a way to organize common defense .
In other words , it is the best way for a group of individuals to join together to provide protection for each other .
Now , today nobody pretends to actually believe this is the case , that this is why the State exists .
Modern statists tell us the State exists to do us good , to “ help ” everyone , to make things fair .
This view has become widespread because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounding reasonable , completely falls apart when applied to society in reality .
Why ?
Because while this original justification could be true of the original founders of such a state , that does not mean the agreement was accepted by later generations .
Why should future generations be bound to an agreement they were not a party to ?
The answer of course is that they should not be .
Thus , since we know the State does not actually exist for common defense ( and that this is a mere façade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State truly exists , or what the real motives are behind those who advocate for the State .
Morality : Restoring th ... Sacks , Jonathan Best Price : $ 23.53 Buy New $ 23.05 The simple answer is this : the State exists as an excuse for those who want to do things they know they can not morally or legally do on their own , which includes both enriching themselves and “ helping ” others through the use of force and theft .
It is , as Bastiat would say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , an individual can not rob a rich person legally if he decides to give that stolen money to a poor man .
But all of a sudden this becomes moral when a collection of people do so ?
Statists claim that the State can do these things because it represents “ us ” , or “ society ” , and that “ society ” has certain rights .
This , of course , is not only nonsensical , but absolutely immoral .
For what is “ society , ” but just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain more rights when they gang up against a certain individual ?
Or do we all have equal rights ?
Christians believe God created us in His image and gave us all the same natural rights , not that some are naturally deserving of greater rights than others .
How can a Christian argue that God commands an individual not to commit an evil act ( such as forcibly taking another ’ s property ) , but at the same time say “ society ” can commit that very act ?
Does an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead carried out by several people ?
Not only is there nothing in Scripture that supports such a theory , there is simply nothing logical or rational about it .
Thus , “ society ” can not have rights .
And if society does not have rights , then anything it does ( to the extent “ society ” does anything ) is wrong if it violates God ’ s moral commands for individuals .
In conclusion , the State exists in order to plunder those who do not control it .
Christians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very nature of the State and that it does not comport with the Biblical view of morality .
The Best of Derek Dobalian

Why does the State exist? Traditionally, the answer given to this question was that the State is a way to organize common defense. In other words, it is the best way for a group of individuals to join together to provide protection for each other. Now, today nobody pretends to actually believe this is the case, that this is why the State exists. Modern statists tell us the State exists to do us good, to “help” everyone, to make things fair. This view has become widespread because the original common defense justification, while sounding reasonable, completely falls apart when applied to society in reality. Why? Because while this original justification could be true of the original founders of such a state, that does not mean the agreement was accepted by later generations. Why should future generations be bound to an agreement they were not a party to? The answer of course is that they should not be. Thus, since we know the State does not actually exist for common defense (and that this is a mere façade), we must ask why the State truly exists, or what the real motives are behind those who advocate for the State.
Morality: Restoring th... Sacks, Jonathan Best Price: $23.53 Buy New $23.05 (as of 05:18 UTC - Details) The simple answer is this: the State exists as an excuse for those who want to do things they know they cannot morally or legally do on their own, which includes both enriching themselves and “helping” others through the use of force and theft. It is, as Bastiat would say, a way to legally plunder. For example, an individual cannot rob a rich person legally if he decides to give that stolen money to a poor man. But all of a sudden this becomes moral when a collection of people do so? Statists claim that the State can do these things because it represents “us”, or “society”, and that “society” has certain rights. This, of course, is not only nonsensical, but absolutely immoral. For what is “society,” but just a collection of people? Do people gain more rights when they gang up against a certain individual? Or do we all have equal rights? Christians believe God created us in His image and gave us all the same natural rights, not that some are naturally deserving of greater rights than others. How can a Christian argue that God commands an individual not to commit an evil act (such as forcibly taking another’s property), but at the same time say “society” can commit that very act? Does an evil act become moral if it is instead carried out by several people? Not only is there nothing in Scripture that supports such a theory, there is simply nothing logical or rational about it. Thus, “society” cannot have rights. And if society does not have rights, then anything it does (to the extent “society” does anything) is wrong if it violates God’s moral commands for individuals.
In conclusion, the State exists in order to plunder those who do not control it. Christians ought to acknowledge that this is the very nature of the State and that it does not comport with the Biblical view of morality.
The Best of Derek Dobalian


lewrockwell--2020-09-23--Willmoore Kendall on Mill and Free Speech

Willmoore Kendall was an editor of William F. Buckley ’ s National Review and played a leading role in Buckley ’ s effort to replace the noninterventionism of the Old Right with the global crusades of the Cold War .
Like Buckley , he had a CIA connection .
He was notorious for his fiery temperament , and he proved such a handful that Yale University bought out his tenure contract to get rid of him .
He admired Jean-Jacques Rousseau , and in response to critics who claim that Rousseau ’ s general will suppresses freedom of opinion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
Instead , this was one of the things he liked about Rousseau .
He had a powerful intellect and is well worth reading , but he had more than a few bees in his bonnet .
In a memo to the Volker Fund reprinted in my edited collection Strictly Confidential , Murray Rothbard skewered Kendall with characteristic brilliance .
Murray said : “ Kendall , on the contrary , is , as I have said , the pattern of the Lynch mob—he is an ur-democrat , a Jacobin impatient of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He hates bureaucracy , but not as we do , because it is tyrannical ; he hates it because it has usurped control from the popular masses.
” Strictly Confidential : ... Murray N. Rothbard , Mu ... Best Price : $ 5.89 Buy New $ 10.50 In today ’ s article , I ’ d like to look at some of the arguments in one of Kendall ’ s most important articles “ The ‘ Open Society ’ and Its Fallacies , ” which appeared in the December 1960 issue of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title is a play on Karl ’ s Popper ’ s The Open Society and Its Enemies , one of the article ’ s targets . )
Kendall is horrified at John Stuart Mill ’ s defense of free speech in On Liberty .
As readers of Rothbard ’ s History of Economic Thought will know , Mill had many failings , but he did get some things right , and most of Kendall ’ s arguments are weak .
Mill defends , for societies that have reached a stage of civilization prevalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fullest possible freedom of thought and speech .
To Kendall , this is an absurd view .
It implies that freedom of thought and speech is the only valuable social good .
But isn ’ t it obvious that it is only one of several competing goods ?
Kendall says that for Mill , freedom of speech “ is not one of several competing goods society is to foster , one that on occasion might reasonably be sacrificed , in part at least , to the preservation of other goods ; i.e.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the name of which it can be limited.
” This argument rests on two false assumptions .
One is that competing social goods are always fungible , so that a sufficient amount of one good will always outweigh another even if the other good usually ranks higher .
In other words , Kendall is claiming without argument that if there is more than one social good , there can ’ t be one that always comes out on top .
But why not ?
The Basic Symbols of t ... Carey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buy New $ 15.71 The other false assumption is deeper , and it enables us to reply to an answer to the first objection .
The answer is this : Isn ’ t it obvious that Kendall is right ?
Free speech is a good , true enough , but aren ’ t there other goods that are higher , such as religion and the family ?
But this answer also fails .
It presupposes that if you never interfere with free speech , it must be because you rank it higher than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not so .
You can take the rule against interference as a case of what Robert Nozick calls “ side constraints.
” These are like rules in a game , not moves within it .
An example may make this clearer .
Suppose that you are playing chess .
The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent ’ s king .
One way to do that would be to knock some of the pieces off the board and arrange the rest so that the opponent ’ s king can not escape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you would not be playing chess .
You are required to follow certain constraints in order to count as playing chess at all .
To this , there is another obvious objection .
If you aren ’ t playing a game , why should you care about side constraints at all ?
The answer is that that respecting the status of others as ends in themselves requires that we do not treat them in certain ways .
People aren ’ t means to the maximization of good states of affairs .
Kendall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article .
He says , Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville Best Price : $ 6.99 Buy New $ 11.95 Mill denies the existence—that is to say at any particular place and moment—not only of a public truth , but of any truth whatever unless it be the truth of the denial itself….Reduced to its simplest terms , the argument of the Essay runs as follows : wherever and whenever men disagree about a teaching , a doctrine , an opinion , an idea , we have no way of knowing which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or group ) who moves to silence a teaching on the ground that it is incorrect attributes to himself a kind of knowledge ( Mill says an “ infallibility ” ) that no one is ever entitled to claim short of ( if then ) the very case where it is sure not to arise—that is , where there is unanimity , and so no temptation to silence to begin with .
But Mill need not , and does not , assume that we have no way of knowing the truth .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have good grounds for claiming something to be true , we benefit from listening to objections .
Likewise mistaken is yet another argument that Kendall gives against Mill .
Kendall thinks that although , on his interpretation , Mill is skeptical of all claims to truth , he must at the same time claim that his own view of the absolute value of free speech is true .
Kendall calls this an example of “ the Achilles heel of all skepticisms.
” ) But Mill can consistently say that even though his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ought to be free to challenge it .
What led me to write today ’ s article was a post I saw on Facebook that referred to Murray ’ s Volker Fund memo on Kendall .
The post suggested that Murray was afraid to confront Kendall with his criticisms because he knew that Kendall would have destroyed him in an argument .
Fat chance of that .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of David Gordon

Willmoore Kendall was an editor of William F. Buckley’s National Review and played a leading role in Buckley’s effort to replace the noninterventionism of the Old Right with the global crusades of the Cold War. Like Buckley, he had a CIA connection. He was notorious for his fiery temperament, and he proved such a handful that Yale University bought out his tenure contract to get rid of him. He admired Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and in response to critics who claim that Rousseau’s general will suppresses freedom of opinion, he did not respond that it didn’t. Instead, this was one of the things he liked about Rousseau. He had a powerful intellect and is well worth reading, but he had more than a few bees in his bonnet.
In a memo to the Volker Fund reprinted in my edited collection Strictly Confidential, Murray Rothbard skewered Kendall with characteristic brilliance. Murray said: “Kendall, on the contrary, is, as I have said, the pattern of the Lynch mob—he is an ur-democrat, a Jacobin impatient of any restrains on his beloved community. He hates bureaucracy, but not as we do, because it is tyrannical; he hates it because it has usurped control from the popular masses.”
Strictly Confidential:... Murray Rothbard Best Price: $5.07 Buy New $12.00 (as of 04:37 UTC - Details) In today’s article, I’d like to look at some of the arguments in one of Kendall’s most important articles “The ‘Open Society’ and Its Fallacies,” which appeared in the December 1960 issue of the American Political Science Review. (The title is a play on Karl’s Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, one of the article’s targets.)
Kendall is horrified at John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech in On Liberty. As readers of Rothbard’s History of Economic Thought will know, Mill had many failings, but he did get some things right, and most of Kendall’s arguments are weak. Mill defends, for societies that have reached a stage of civilization prevalent in Europe when he wrote, the fullest possible freedom of thought and speech. To Kendall, this is an absurd view. It implies that freedom of thought and speech is the only valuable social good. But isn’t it obvious that it is only one of several competing goods? Kendall says that for Mill, freedom of speech “is not one of several competing goods society is to foster, one that on occasion might reasonably be sacrificed, in part at least, to the preservation of other goods; i.e., he refuses to recognize any competing goods in the name of which it can be limited.”
This argument rests on two false assumptions. One is that competing social goods are always fungible, so that a sufficient amount of one good will always outweigh another even if the other good usually ranks higher. In other words, Kendall is claiming without argument that if there is more than one social good, there can’t be one that always comes out on top. But why not? The Basic Symbols of t... Carey, George W. Best Price: $11.82 Buy New $15.71 (as of 05:19 UTC - Details)
The other false assumption is deeper, and it enables us to reply to an answer to the first objection. The answer is this: Isn’t it obvious that Kendall is right? Free speech is a good, true enough, but aren’t there other goods that are higher, such as religion and the family? But this answer also fails. It presupposes that if you never interfere with free speech, it must be because you rank it higher than any other good. But this is not so. You can take the rule against interference as a case of what Robert Nozick calls “side constraints.” These are like rules in a game, not moves within it. An example may make this clearer. Suppose that you are playing chess. The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent’s king. One way to do that would be to knock some of the pieces off the board and arrange the rest so that the opponent’s king cannot escape mate. But if you did that, you would not be playing chess. You are required to follow certain constraints in order to count as playing chess at all. To this, there is another obvious objection. If you aren’t playing a game, why should you care about side constraints at all? The answer is that that respecting the status of others as ends in themselves requires that we do not treat them in certain ways. People aren’t means to the maximization of good states of affairs.
Kendall advances an even worse argument later in the article. He says, Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville Best Price: $6.99 Buy New $11.95 (as of 10:15 UTC - Details)
Mill denies the existence—that is to say at any particular place and moment—not only of a public truth, but of any truth whatever unless it be the truth of the denial itself….Reduced to its simplest terms, the argument of the Essay runs as follows: wherever and whenever men disagree about a teaching, a doctrine, an opinion, an idea, we have no way of knowing which party is correct; the man (or group) who moves to silence a teaching on the ground that it is incorrect attributes to himself a kind of knowledge (Mill says an “infallibility”) that no one is ever entitled to claim short of (if then) the very case where it is sure not to arise—that is, where there is unanimity, and so no temptation to silence to begin with.
But Mill need not, and does not, assume that we have no way of knowing the truth. He only has to claim that even if we have good grounds for claiming something to be true, we benefit from listening to objections. Likewise mistaken is yet another argument that Kendall gives against Mill. Kendall thinks that although, on his interpretation, Mill is skeptical of all claims to truth, he must at the same time claim that his own view of the absolute value of free speech is true. Kendall calls this an example of “the Achilles heel of all skepticisms.”) But Mill can consistently say that even though his own view of truth is correct, people ought to be free to challenge it.
What led me to write today’s article was a post I saw on Facebook that referred to Murray’s Volker Fund memo on Kendall. The post suggested that Murray was afraid to confront Kendall with his criticisms because he knew that Kendall would have destroyed him in an argument. Fat chance of that.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of David Gordon


lewrockwell--2020-09-23--Thirty Pieces of Silver

Thirty Pieces of Silver

“ Do you mean to tell me , Katie Scarlett O ’ Hara , that Tara , that land , doesn ’ t mean anything to you ?
Why , land is the only thing in the world worth workin ’ for , worth fightin ’ for , worth dyin ’ for , because it ’ s the only thing that lasts.
” Once there was a common theme among our ancestors , and it was a simple one : land is the most valuable thing a man can possess , aside from a good relationship with the Creator himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I have found that having land helps both these other ideals , and for good reason .
The Ozarks : Land and L ... Rafferty , Milton D. Best Price : $ 18.97 Buy New $ 25.99 Land in the Arkansas Ozarks was , like many places in the South , hard fought and hard to improve , though this task was second nature to many of our founding stock here , being immigrants largely from Appalachia , my own people included .
In the Boston Mountains they found a place that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their ancestors , and , God willing , familiar to their descendants .
This was the place I was raised , with my family being here since the 1850s , when my 5th Great Grandfather and his sons took possessions of small holdings in the northwest corner of the still wild and wooly state of Arkansas .
They soon developed small improved tracts in which they could feed their growing families .
Though it was a hard life , it was extremely rewarding in the fact that they could live as men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of our ancestors .
In the words of Edward Abbey : ‘ Neither to serve nor to rule.
’ I grew up literally across the creek from where my 4th Great Grandfather ’ s house still stands to this day .
Land , even before I knew the concept well , was instrumental in shaping who I am and who my people were .
For generations in Newton County , my ancestors and their neighbors shared the same bond that strongly bonded Appalachia .
They became tight knit communities with their neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This true essence of community became synonymous with life in the Ozarks ; small bands of people who looked out for each other and were extremely wary , if not downright hostile , to outsiders .
These were people who were in tune with nature and the way of the land .
And they knew the true key to independent living was one thing : land ownership .
This being the rule , a man often expanded his own holdings by buying out , or bartering for more land , amongst his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same ) .
Though money was scarce in these communities , they enjoyed a strength that no industrial center could claim ; the ability to produce nearly everything essential from the wilderness and improved lands that they owned .
A History of the Ozark ... Blevins , Brooks Best Price : $ 15.72 Buy New $ 16.83 When the 20th century dawned , it began to take a toll on the Ozarks , as the ‘ love of money ’ had began to question many of the old ways .
Stewards of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now they became fewer and further in between .
Massive logging operations and mining expeditions took so much from our home .
My own family took part in these excursions , as there was rarely any other way to make a living .
But this article is not a condemnation of their role .
I understand that it became impossible to live without money .
This subject itself would make another article , but I digress .
But what part this plays became apparent when the Depression hit the Ozarks .
My native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and West , primarily , seeking employment and an easier life for their families .
Thus , left behind were thousands and thousands of acres of vacated farmland , leaving neighbors to buy for it or care for it .
For decades , land in the Ozarks was near worthless .
I knew one man who became wealthy due to his father buying huge tracts of clear cut timber for literal pennies on the acre !
But , like all things , time would begin to change this thing .
Luckily , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founding stock held on and made a heroic struggle to keep their homes , just as their ancestors had before them .

“Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O’Hara, that Tara, that land, doesn’t mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin’ for, worth fightin’ for, worth dyin’ for, because it’s the only thing that lasts.”
Once there was a common theme among our ancestors, and it was a simple one: land is the most valuable thing a man can possess, aside from a good relationship with the Creator himself, and a healthy family. However, I have found that having land helps both these other ideals, and for good reason.
The Ozarks: Land and L... Rafferty, Milton D. Best Price: $18.97 Buy New $25.99 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details) Land in the Arkansas Ozarks was, like many places in the South, hard fought and hard to improve, though this task was second nature to many of our founding stock here, being immigrants largely from Appalachia, my own people included. In the Boston Mountains they found a place that was familiar, as it was familiar to their ancestors, and, God willing, familiar to their descendants. This was the place I was raised, with my family being here since the 1850s, when my 5th Great Grandfather and his sons took possessions of small holdings in the northwest corner of the still wild and wooly state of Arkansas. They soon developed small improved tracts in which they could feed their growing families. Though it was a hard life, it was extremely rewarding in the fact that they could live as men should, in the estimation of so many of our ancestors. In the words of Edward Abbey: ‘Neither to serve nor to rule.’
I grew up literally across the creek from where my 4th Great Grandfather’s house still stands to this day. Land, even before I knew the concept well, was instrumental in shaping who I am and who my people were. For generations in Newton County, my ancestors and their neighbors shared the same bond that strongly bonded Appalachia. They became tight knit communities with their neighbors, many times intermarrying and becoming kin. This true essence of community became synonymous with life in the Ozarks; small bands of people who looked out for each other and were extremely wary, if not downright hostile, to outsiders. These were people who were in tune with nature and the way of the land. And they knew the true key to independent living was one thing: land ownership.
This being the rule, a man often expanded his own holdings by buying out, or bartering for more land, amongst his kin and neighbors (often one and the same). Though money was scarce in these communities, they enjoyed a strength that no industrial center could claim; the ability to produce nearly everything essential from the wilderness and improved lands that they owned. A History of the Ozark... Blevins, Brooks Best Price: $15.72 Buy New $16.83 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details)
When the 20th century dawned, it began to take a toll on the Ozarks, as the ‘love of money’ had began to question many of the old ways. Stewards of the land were once the rule; now they became fewer and further in between. Massive logging operations and mining expeditions took so much from our home. My own family took part in these excursions, as there was rarely any other way to make a living. But this article is not a condemnation of their role. I understand that it became impossible to live without money. This subject itself would make another article, but I digress. But what part this plays became apparent when the Depression hit the Ozarks.
My native land hemorrhaged people; they fled North and West, primarily, seeking employment and an easier life for their families. Thus, left behind were thousands and thousands of acres of vacated farmland, leaving neighbors to buy for it or care for it. For decades, land in the Ozarks was near worthless. I knew one man who became wealthy due to his father buying huge tracts of clear cut timber for literal pennies on the acre! But, like all things, time would begin to change this thing. Luckily, in my home, many of the local founding stock held on and made a heroic struggle to keep their homes, just as their ancestors had before them.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-09-23--The March Through the Institutions Has Set the Stage for a Color Revolution

The March Through the Institutions Has Set the Stage for a Color Revolution The public schools , and probably also the private ones , are teaching your children self-loathing and loathing of you , their parents .
The goal of critical race theory and associated activism , now being taught to five-year olds , is to motivate white children to despise their systemic racist parents and be good Antifa members .
Vote Democrat and bring on more such social justice .
See this .
The Tyranny of Good In ... Paul Craig Roberts , La ... Best Price : $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is occurring in the federal government .
President Trump ordered a halt to the Obama-regime-initiated anti-white propaganda forced down the throats of white federal employees , but the State Department , Environmental Protection Agency ( which no longer protects the environment ) , and the Veterans Administration openly defy President Trump ’ s order .
Anti-white propagandists , not President Trump , control the federal government .
See this .
While the military/security complex focused the white population on “ foreign enemies , ” domestic enemies seized control of American institutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

The March Through the Institutions Has Set the Stage for a Color Revolution
The public schools, and probably also the private ones, are teaching your children self-loathing and loathing of you, their parents. The goal of critical race theory and associated activism, now being taught to five-year olds, is to motivate white children to despise their systemic racist parents and be good Antifa members. Vote Democrat and bring on more such social justice. See this.
The Tyranny of Good In... Paul Craig Roberts, La... Best Price: $6.96 Buy New $8.95 (as of 07:10 UTC - Details) The same thing is occurring in the federal government. President Trump ordered a halt to the Obama-regime-initiated anti-white propaganda forced down the throats of white federal employees, but the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency (which no longer protects the environment), and the Veterans Administration openly defy President Trump’s order. Anti-white propagandists, not President Trump, control the federal government. See this.
While the military/security complex focused the white population on “foreign enemies,” domestic enemies seized control of American institutions. No people can survive such total insouciance.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-09-23--How CDC/WHO Will Fake the Effects of the Covid Vaccine To Make It Look Like a Success

Making a vaccine look like it ’ s a champion isn ’ t difficult for public health agencies .
There are a number of strategies .
Of course , these fraudulent strategies would be serious crimes .
But when has that stopped the CDC or the World Health Organization ?
In no particular order—- ONE : Rework the definition of a “ COVID case.
” Presently , the CDC absurdly allows doctors to diagnose a person with COVID who has a cough , or chills and fever , and lives in an area where cases are being claimed .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , once the vaccine is approved .
Demand testing for a diagnosis .
State that cough alone is not enough .
Chills and fever must also be present .
Require fever to be above 100 .
Fauci : The Bernie Mado ... Ortleb , Charles Buy New $ 5.99 These and other changes would automatically shrink the number of cases .
The drop in numbers would be attributed to the vaccine .
This “ definitional shrinking ” was , in fact , deployed in the 1950s , after the introduction of the polio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way the PCR diagnostic test is done .
The practice of amplifying the original test sample from the patient occurs in cycles , or jumps .
The greater the number of cycles , the more likely the test will result in a COVID diagnosis .
Therefore , order a reduced number of cycles for all testing labs .
THREE : Quietly restrict the present hospital practice of arbitrarily writing “ COVID ” on patient case and death files .
FOUR : Cook up and publish false studies showing more and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Attribute this to the vaccine .
FIVE : Another type of false study— “ the transmission of the virus from person to person is slowing , thanks to the vaccine.
” SIX : Pump up the success of issuing Immunity certificates after vaccination .
“ People are feeling safer now .
More businesses are reopening… ” SEVEN : Using the compliant press , simply issue bald declarations that the vaccine is a success .
EIGHT : Hide the many instances of injury and death from the vaccine .
When necessary , claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warn that the wonderful vaccine-derived immunity is not permanent , and frequent booster shots are necessary .
TEN : Rework the definition of “ vaccine-acquired immunity.
” Even a very weak antibody response from the shot would qualify as “ protective immunity.
” A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO ... Holmes , Dr Joel S Buy New $ 9.95 ELEVEN : Huge numbers of people with ordinary flu-like illness , pneumonia , and other traditional lung infections are being called “ COVID.
” Change this practice .
Go back to calling many of these people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” etc .
COVID case numbers will drop .
Claim the drop is the effect of the vaccine .
TWELVE : Presently , millions of so-called COVID cases have “ co-morbidities.
” These are prior serious health conditions which are , in fact , the true causes of illnesses and death .
Of course , this is denied .
But after the vaccine is introduced… scale back the practice of counting all these ill and deceased co-morbid patients as “ COVID.
” Case and death numbers will drop .
Claim the vaccine is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine is introduced , slow down testing for a brief period .
This will automatically reduce the rate of new cases .
Attribute the decline to the vaccine .
Committing these crimes are a walk in the park for public health agencies .
And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

Making a vaccine look like it’s a champion isn’t difficult for public health agencies. There are a number of strategies.
Of course, these fraudulent strategies would be serious crimes. But when has that stopped the CDC or the World Health Organization?
In no particular order—-
ONE: Rework the definition of a “COVID case.” Presently, the CDC absurdly allows doctors to diagnose a person with COVID who has a cough, or chills and fever, and lives in an area where cases are being claimed. No test necessary.
So change this practice, once the vaccine is approved. Demand testing for a diagnosis. State that cough alone is not enough. Chills and fever must also be present. Require fever to be above 100. Fauci: The Bernie Mado... Ortleb, Charles Buy New $5.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details)
These and other changes would automatically shrink the number of cases. The drop in numbers would be attributed to the vaccine.
This “definitional shrinking” was, in fact, deployed in the 1950s, after the introduction of the polio vaccine.
TWO: Order a change in the way the PCR diagnostic test is done. The practice of amplifying the original test sample from the patient occurs in cycles, or jumps. The greater the number of cycles, the more likely the test will result in a COVID diagnosis. Therefore, order a reduced number of cycles for all testing labs.
Outcome? Fewer COVID diagnoses. Fewer case numbers. “The vaccine is working.”
THREE: Quietly restrict the present hospital practice of arbitrarily writing “COVID” on patient case and death files.
FOUR: Cook up and publish false studies showing more and more people are developing immunity to the virus. Attribute this to the vaccine.
FIVE: Another type of false study—“the transmission of the virus from person to person is slowing, thanks to the vaccine.”
SIX: Pump up the success of issuing Immunity certificates after vaccination. “People are feeling safer now. More businesses are reopening…”
SEVEN: Using the compliant press, simply issue bald declarations that the vaccine is a success.
EIGHT: Hide the many instances of injury and death from the vaccine. When necessary, claim COVID was the cause.
NINE: Warn that the wonderful vaccine-derived immunity is not permanent, and frequent booster shots are necessary.
TEN: Rework the definition of “vaccine-acquired immunity.” Even a very weak antibody response from the shot would qualify as “protective immunity.” A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO... Holmes, Dr Joel S Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
ELEVEN: Huge numbers of people with ordinary flu-like illness, pneumonia, and other traditional lung infections are being called “COVID.” Change this practice. Go back to calling many of these people “flu,” “pneumonia,” etc. COVID case numbers will drop. Claim the drop is the effect of the vaccine.
TWELVE: Presently, millions of so-called COVID cases have “co-morbidities.” These are prior serious health conditions which are, in fact, the true causes of illnesses and death. Of course, this is denied. But after the vaccine is introduced… scale back the practice of counting all these ill and deceased co-morbid patients as “COVID.” Case and death numbers will drop. Claim the vaccine is the reason.
THIRTEEN: After the vaccine is introduced, slow down testing for a brief period. This will automatically reduce the rate of new cases. Attribute the decline to the vaccine.
Committing these crimes are a walk in the park for public health agencies.
And appointing official mouthpieces to carry lies to the public is as easy as training little Faucis to sit up and bark.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


Little Black Book

GSTAAD—I ’ m not usually nonplussed , but this is very strange : The memoirs of Barbara Black , the wife of my good friend Lord Black , simply do not make sense where certain people she writes about are concerned , persons whom I happen to know well .
The list is not long , and I ’ ll start with David Graham , her third and extremely rich husband , who was the biggest bore I have ever met , and believe you me , I ’ ve met a few in my long life .
With kindness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what a terrific bore he was , and also the cheapest man I ’ ve ever come across .
( He ’ d be dead before the credits in a cowboy film , being so slow on the draw . )
He was such a rube that one time in Saint-Tropez I finally told him , “ Never , but never speak to me again , I beg you .
Please fuck off.
” He looked askance but was too much of a bore to at least insult me back .
Okay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes how TV Babs snubbed her after the fall , but what did she expect from someone like that ?
Barbara Walters is so superficial she ’ s considered only moderately intelligent even in Palm Beach .
Exactly twenty years ago , in Montreal for the Mulroney-Lapham wedding , I was in deep you-know-what .
My mistress had left me for a man who looked exactly like a pig , and my darling Alexandra also was hinting that she ’ d had enough of my philandering .
In a deep funk but in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had a chat with Barbara Black and my then proprietor Conrad , who said he was sure everything would be all right once I turned on the charm .
“ You have to choose , ” said Barbara , “ other women or your wife.
” “ But I want both , ” I said when we were interrupted by the wife .
In order to change the subject Lady Black volunteered that she and Conrad were leaving with Barbara Walters for a long week to Russia .
“ Poor you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wound .
She had sat next to La Walters a couple of weeks prior , and the TV star had theatrically shown concern for Turkey , addressing the famous Turk Ahmet Ertegun .
“ The troubles in Yugoslavia worry me—they might spill over the border to Turkey , ” said the moron .
“ There ’ s always Bulgaria in between , ” said the wife .
Mercedes Bass : Born Mercedes Tavakoli in Iran , I knew her during the late ’ 60s in Geneva .
Not exactly a beauty , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York and then met Texas oil zillionaire Sid Bass .
The gentle Texan Bass paid dearly to divorce his wife to marry the Iranian , leading me to write that “ It was the first time ever that a man paid 250 million dollars for a used Mercedes.
” The glossies in New York picked it up and called it the quip of the year , but it did not go over well with Mercedes , although Sid later told me that he found it very funny .
Needless to say , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I didn ’ t mind at all as we ran in different circles .
In her memoir our Barbara describes how Mercedes snubbed Lady Black after Conrad ’ s trial , which I must say is as predictable as Meghan complaining about racism .
What bothers me is how a woman like Barbara Black , whose brainpower is 100 times that of Mercedes Bass , can be surprised and , worse , hurt by it .
Mercedes Bass has since been divorced , and at a Bagel dinner party last year made complimentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall for them , nor was I rude .
When I got busted on July 23 , 1984 , and was sent to prison , I did not lose a single friend .
Not one .
It says a lot about Lady Black ’ s friends but also about her .
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos

GSTAAD—I’m not usually nonplussed, but this is very strange: The memoirs of Barbara Black, the wife of my good friend Lord Black, simply do not make sense where certain people she writes about are concerned, persons whom I happen to know well. The list is not long, and I’ll start with David Graham, her third and extremely rich husband, who was the biggest bore I have ever met, and believe you me, I’ve met a few in my long life. With kindness in mind, she fails to mention what a terrific bore he was, and also the cheapest man I’ve ever come across. (He’d be dead before the credits in a cowboy film, being so slow on the draw.) He was such a rube that one time in Saint-Tropez I finally told him, “Never, but never speak to me again, I beg you. Please fuck off.” He looked askance but was too much of a bore to at least insult me back. Nothing to Declare: A ... Taki Best Price: $7.50 Buy New $11.94 (as of 04:31 UTC - Details)
Okay, next: Barbara Walters. Lady Black writes how TV Babs snubbed her after the fall, but what did she expect from someone like that? Barbara Walters is so superficial she’s considered only moderately intelligent even in Palm Beach. Exactly twenty years ago, in Montreal for the Mulroney-Lapham wedding, I was in deep you-know-what. My mistress had left me for a man who looked exactly like a pig, and my darling Alexandra also was hinting that she’d had enough of my philandering. In a deep funk but in a brilliant setting and dinner jacket, I had a chat with Barbara Black and my then proprietor Conrad, who said he was sure everything would be all right once I turned on the charm. “You have to choose,” said Barbara, “other women or your wife.” “But I want both,” I said when we were interrupted by the wife. In order to change the subject Lady Black volunteered that she and Conrad were leaving with Barbara Walters for a long week to Russia. “Poor you,” stammered Alexandra, without wanting to wound. She had sat next to La Walters a couple of weeks prior, and the TV star had theatrically shown concern for Turkey, addressing the famous Turk Ahmet Ertegun. “The troubles in Yugoslavia worry me—they might spill over the border to Turkey,” said the moron. “There’s always Bulgaria in between,” said the wife.
Remembered Past: John ... John Lukacs Best Price: $2.65 Buy New $2.99 (as of 10:10 UTC - Details) Mercedes Bass: Born Mercedes Tavakoli in Iran, I knew her during the late ’60s in Geneva. Not exactly a beauty, she married a nice WASPy drunk in New York and then met Texas oil zillionaire Sid Bass. The gentle Texan Bass paid dearly to divorce his wife to marry the Iranian, leading me to write that “It was the first time ever that a man paid 250 million dollars for a used Mercedes.” The glossies in New York picked it up and called it the quip of the year, but it did not go over well with Mercedes, although Sid later told me that he found it very funny. Needless to say, she began a war against me, one I didn’t mind at all as we ran in different circles. In her memoir our Barbara describes how Mercedes snubbed Lady Black after Conrad’s trial, which I must say is as predictable as Meghan complaining about racism. What bothers me is how a woman like Barbara Black, whose brainpower is 100 times that of Mercedes Bass, can be surprised and, worse, hurt by it. Mercedes Bass has since been divorced, and at a Bagel dinner party last year made complimentary remarks to me. I did not fall for them, nor was I rude. When I got busted on July 23, 1984, and was sent to prison, I did not lose a single friend. Not one. It says a lot about Lady Black’s friends but also about her.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos