lewrockwell--2020-02-21--Roger Stone’s Conviction is the Last Hope To Save RussiaGate

The Trial of Roger Stone has reached its finale .
After closely examining Stone ’ s case , one thing becomes clear : it should never have gotten this far .
Stone , long-time political operative and former Trump adviser , is due to be sentenced today in federal court in Washington DC , for charges including lying to Congress , witness tampering and obstruction .
To the untrained eye it might seem like just another Beltway scandal , featuring one of Washington ’ s finest , a self-proclaimed Dirty Trickster and rancorous political operative .
Beyond the Machiavellian intrigue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could carry some very profound implications .
If convicted , his verdict will be hoisted by the American establishment to further validate the RussiaGate narrative , in particular the idea that Russia had passed hacked emails on to WikiLeaks at the height of the 2016 US presidential election .
It ’ s important to note that Stone ’ s case shares the very same fundamental prosecutorial assumptions which underpin Julian Assange ’ s US case , namely , that Assange and WikiLeaks are hostile foreign actors , and not members of the Fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mirrors , each piece of the official myth reinforces the other , but it is this perversion of legalese which has allowed both of these anathemas of due process to persist , and that ’ s why these show trials should be regarded as a low point in the history of American justice .
Stoneu2019s Rules : How ... Roger Stone Best Price : $ 2.32 Buy New $ 3.98 An additional twist to the story came last week when all four federal prosecutors working on the Stone case suddenly resigned in protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ ) intervened to reduce their sentence of seven to nine years for Stone .
Naturally , all of this triggered a partisan storm , with the usual hysterical reactions from every known outpost of the anti-Trump resistance .
Stone then seemed to catch a lucky break with the revelation that his jury ’ s foreperson was actually a Democratic Party activist with a pronounced anti-Trump bias , further invigorating calls from the White House and conservative media that it was a rigged show trial from day one .
Was it ever possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial ?
Throughout this entire ordeal , you ’ d be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of the White House who would jump to defend Roger Stone .
This is one reason why there ’ s been a noticeable lack of levity coming from the ranks of mainstream media and politics , as many regard him as an unsavory charlatan running subterfuge for then-candidate Trump .
For this reason , they would just as soon let him languish in Leavenworth .
Blinded by their disdain , they will have missed why his political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up pardoning his old friend , but it should never have to come to that .
Looking back at how this story unfolded , it ’ s clearer than ever how due process was corrupted at every juncture .
After four long years of vigorous media activity , inquiries , panels , investigations – Trump-Russia collusion turned out to be a hoax .
So , if this epic conspiracy and national security crisis never actually happened , then why is Roger Stone going to prison for supposedly trying to conceal it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ akin to convicting someone for trying to cover-up the existence of Sasquatch .
When you cut through all of the political rhetoric and media noise , it becomes clear that obsession to bring Stone down was for one primary reason : to buttress the official RussiaGate fiction which is still held together by a passionate hate for Trump .
To keep the illusion animated , America ’ s government-media complex have built a Maginot Line of around-the-clock propaganda and repetition of assertions , innuendoes and fake news , much of which has long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads and politicians still can ’ t let go of .
One of the key pillars for propping-up this ephemeral myth is the list of Trump associates who have been arrested and sentenced .
These include Trump campaign associates Paul Manafort , George Papadopoulos , Rick Gates , Michael Cohen , and Gen. Michael Flynn , who is yet to be sentenced .
RussiaGate punditry are practically foaming at the mouth to add Stone to this rogues ’ gallery .
They are quick to cite these convictions as proof that “ they must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise they wouldn ’ t be in jail.
” But none of these men were convicted of anything remotely related to the alleged Trump-Russia collusion , only for financial improprieties and process crimes derived from perjury traps set by inquisitors .
The same is true with Roger Stone .
Place anyone under oath talking continuously ( Donald Trump Jr testified for 30 hours to the Senate Intelligence Committee ) , and then question them later a second time , and you ’ ll eventually catch them making a false statement .
It sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Probe managed to secure most of their convictions .
Meanwhile , the DOJ has flatly refused to prosecute a number of high-profile government officials who were caught lying under oath multiple times , like former intelligence directors John Brennan and James Clapper , and former FBI heads James Comey and Andrew McCabe .
Unlike Roger Stone ’ s campaign bluster and trivial fibs , their lies actually had grave implications for the institutions they were tasked to run , as well as for the country .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last available scalp for the Mueller brigade .
His criminality was assumed under the guise of what is still an evidence-free theory that Russian GRU operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta and then gave those emails to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks .
This is one of the main process crimes that Stone was charged with – lying to the House Intelligence Committee about communicating with the Trump campaign about imminent WikiLeaks releases .
There are more than a few problems with the prosecution ’ s foundational premise here .
The Myth of Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2.00 Buy New $ 7.11 The first and most obvious point is that Julian Assange himself announced publicly on multiple occasions in the of summer 2016 , including on both UK and US national TV , that more leaks would be released .
Every journalist and political operative in the country was speculating and guessing about when the next WikiLeaks release was coming – including Roger Stone and his friend , American comedian and radio host who testified at the trial , Randy Credico , and Stone ’ s wingman in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy way to deflate this official conspiracy is to substitute WikiLeaks in this story with another media outlet like the New York Times , and then replace Julian Assange with another journalist like NYT editor Dean Baquet , and then plug-in Stone , Corsi and Credico – then there ’ s no scandal , no conspiracy , no Congressional hearings , and no basis for a criminal trial .
It would just be Roger being Roger , and the press doing what it normally does , with everyone trying to gain an edge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the document dumps were genuine and their content was most definitely in the public interest .
As American legal scholar Prof. Jonathan Turley noted in 2018 , “ Even if Stone received early word of the WikiLeaks release , it would not necessarily be a crime for Trump , his campaign , or Stone himself.
” Here is where Roger Stone ’ s case mirrors that of Julian Assange ’ s .
As with Stone ’ s case , Official Washington ’ s entire legal narrative for Assange is underpinned by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlet , and that Assange is not a journalist and publisher .
Both have been reframed for the purposes of enabling the 18 US indictments , as a ‘ hostile foreign intelligence service ’ and a criminal ‘ cyber terrorist ’ , respectively .
It ’ s not exactly clear why the Trump Administration decided to go further than its predecessor Obama in charging Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act .
The answer to that question might be that Eric Holder ’ s DOJ was not prepared to reframe WikiLeaks and Assange in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosenstein and current Attorney General William Barr have done .
Without this radical inversion of reality , the DOJ simply could not proceed with either case .
The prosecution ’ s foundational premise for Stone is further weakened by the fact that there was never any secret ‘ back channel ’ to WikiLeaks – not with Stone , Corsi , Credico , or UK associate Ted Malloch .
In fact , if you look at the supposedly damning Twitter DM messages between Stone and the official WikiLeaks account ( which were leaked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are actually exculpatory in nature , further proving that there was no relationship or exchange of information between them .
As for the charge of witness tampering and intimidation , arguably the most serious charge on Stone ’ s rap sheet , Randy Credico made it very clear in a recent letter he sent to Judge Amy Berman Jackson , that , “ I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog.
” His letter painted a telling image of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adolescent mind games , ” and “ shamelessly invents and promotes outlandish and invidious conspiracy tales.
” It ’ s like putting PT Barnum on trial for telling tall tales .
Unfortunately for Stone and his associates , they were in the wrong place at the wrong time in history , and reaped the whirlwind of a jaded DC establishment who have gambled and lost on what is perhaps the biggest political hoax in history .
Stone ’ s prosecution was purely political , and his charges were an erroneous basis for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ounce of shame left in Washington , the whole affair should be a national embarrassment .
It would be a gross miscarriage of justice if he were to serve even one day prison for his flitting cameo in this Beltway drama .
The statements , views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT .

The Trial of Roger Stone has reached its finale. After closely examining Stone’s case, one thing becomes clear: it should never have gotten this far.
Stone, long-time political operative and former Trump adviser, is due to be sentenced today in federal court in Washington DC, for charges including lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction.
To the untrained eye it might seem like just another Beltway scandal, featuring one of Washington’s finest, a self-proclaimed Dirty Trickster and rancorous political operative.
Beyond the Machiavellian intrigue though, this trial and its outcome could carry some very profound implications. If convicted, his verdict will be hoisted by the American establishment to further validate the RussiaGate narrative, in particular the idea that Russia had passed hacked emails on to WikiLeaks at the height of the 2016 US presidential election.
It’s important to note that Stone’s case shares the very same fundamental prosecutorial assumptions which underpin Julian Assange’s US case, namely, that Assange and WikiLeaks are hostile foreign actors, and not members of the Fourth Estate. In this political hall of mirrors, each piece of the official myth reinforces the other, but it is this perversion of legalese which has allowed both of these anathemas of due process to persist, and that’s why these show trials should be regarded as a low point in the history of American justice. Stoneu2019s Rules: How... Roger Stone Best Price: $2.32 Buy New $3.98 (as of 10:20 UTC - Details)
Jury of his peers
An additional twist to the story came last week when all four federal prosecutors working on the Stone case suddenly resigned in protest after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened to reduce their sentence of seven to nine years for Stone. Naturally, all of this triggered a partisan storm, with the usual hysterical reactions from every known outpost of the anti-Trump resistance.
Stone then seemed to catch a lucky break with the revelation that his jury’s foreperson was actually a Democratic Party activist with a pronounced anti-Trump bias, further invigorating calls from the White House and conservative media that it was a rigged show trial from day one.
Was it ever possible for Roger Stone to get a fair trial? Throughout this entire ordeal, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of the White House who would jump to defend Roger Stone. This is one reason why there’s been a noticeable lack of levity coming from the ranks of mainstream media and politics, as many regard him as an unsavory charlatan running subterfuge for then-candidate Trump. For this reason, they would just as soon let him languish in Leavenworth. Blinded by their disdain, they will have missed why his political crucifixion is so dangerous.
Trump may end up pardoning his old friend, but it should never have to come to that.
Looking back at how this story unfolded, it’s clearer than ever how due process was corrupted at every juncture.
The Collusion Illusion
After four long years of vigorous media activity, inquiries, panels, investigations – Trump-Russia collusion turned out to be a hoax. So, if this epic conspiracy and national security crisis never actually happened, then why is Roger Stone going to prison for supposedly trying to conceal it?
Put another way, it’s akin to convicting someone for trying to cover-up the existence of Sasquatch. When you cut through all of the political rhetoric and media noise, it becomes clear that obsession to bring Stone down was for one primary reason: to buttress the official RussiaGate fiction which is still held together by a passionate hate for Trump. To keep the illusion animated, America’s government-media complex have built a Maginot Line of around-the-clock propaganda and repetition of assertions, innuendoes and fake news, much of which has long been debunked, but which media talking heads and politicians still can’t let go of.
One of the key pillars for propping-up this ephemeral myth is the list of Trump associates who have been arrested and sentenced. These include Trump campaign associates Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, and Gen. Michael Flynn, who is yet to be sentenced.
This from IG report quotes the tip that FBI opened its Russia investigation on. Look how vague it is: Papadopolous “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia.” Got that? A suggestion about a suggestion was the basis for a 3-year investigation. pic.twitter.com/ftmzGDli4J — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) December 11, 2019
RussiaGate punditry are practically foaming at the mouth to add Stone to this rogues’ gallery. They are quick to cite these convictions as proof that “they must have been involved with the Russians, otherwise they wouldn’t be in jail.” But none of these men were convicted of anything remotely related to the alleged Trump-Russia collusion, only for financial improprieties and process crimes derived from perjury traps set by inquisitors. The same is true with Roger Stone. Place anyone under oath talking continuously (Donald Trump Jr testified for 30 hours to the Senate Intelligence Committee), and then question them later a second time, and you’ll eventually catch them making a false statement. It sounds Kafkaesque, but this is exactly how both Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Probe managed to secure most of their convictions.
Meanwhile, the DOJ has flatly refused to prosecute a number of high-profile government officials who were caught lying under oath multiple times, like former intelligence directors John Brennan and James Clapper, and former FBI heads James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Unlike Roger Stone’s campaign bluster and trivial fibs, their lies actually had grave implications for the institutions they were tasked to run, as well as for the country.
In the end, Roger Stone was the last available scalp for the Mueller brigade. His criminality was assumed under the guise of what is still an evidence-free theory that Russian GRU operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta and then gave those emails to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
This is one of the main process crimes that Stone was charged with – lying to the House Intelligence Committee about communicating with the Trump campaign about imminent WikiLeaks releases. There are more than a few problems with the prosecution’s foundational premise here. The Myth of Russian Co... Roger Stone Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $7.11 (as of 07:20 UTC - Details)
The first and most obvious point is that Julian Assange himself announced publicly on multiple occasions in the of summer 2016, including on both UK and US national TV, that more leaks would be released. Every journalist and political operative in the country was speculating and guessing about when the next WikiLeaks release was coming – including Roger Stone and his friend, American comedian and radio host who testified at the trial, Randy Credico, and Stone’s wingman in this story, author Jerome Corsi.
One easy way to deflate this official conspiracy is to substitute WikiLeaks in this story with another media outlet like the New York Times, and then replace Julian Assange with another journalist like NYT editor Dean Baquet, and then plug-in Stone, Corsi and Credico – then there’s no scandal, no conspiracy, no Congressional hearings, and no basis for a criminal trial. It would just be Roger being Roger, and the press doing what it normally does, with everyone trying to gain an edge during a heated general election. Moreover, the document dumps were genuine and their content was most definitely in the public interest.
As American legal scholar Prof. Jonathan Turley noted in 2018, “Even if Stone received early word of the WikiLeaks release, it would not necessarily be a crime for Trump, his campaign, or Stone himself.”
Reframing Reality
Here is where Roger Stone’s case mirrors that of Julian Assange’s. As with Stone’s case, Official Washington’s entire legal narrative for Assange is underpinned by the assertion that WikiLeaks is not a press outlet, and that Assange is not a journalist and publisher. Both have been reframed for the purposes of enabling the 18 US indictments, as a ‘hostile foreign intelligence service’ and a criminal ‘cyber terrorist’, respectively.
It’s not exactly clear why the Trump Administration decided to go further than its predecessor Obama in charging Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. The answer to that question might be that Eric Holder’s DOJ was not prepared to reframe WikiLeaks and Assange in the way that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and current Attorney General William Barr have done. Without this radical inversion of reality, the DOJ simply could not proceed with either case.
The prosecution’s foundational premise for Stone is further weakened by the fact that there was never any secret ‘back channel’ to WikiLeaks – not with Stone, Corsi, Credico, or UK associate Ted Malloch. In fact, if you look at the supposedly damning Twitter DM messages between Stone and the official WikiLeaks account (which were leaked to press by the House Intelligence Committee), they are actually exculpatory in nature, further proving that there was no relationship or exchange of information between them.
Two things I want to make clear: Julian Assange never reveals his sources; and, there was no back channel between Mr. Assange and ANYONE in 2016..let’s now focus on getting him out of the hateful fangs of injustice and into the loving arms of his family in Austrailia pic.twitter.com/gVv3llcGV3 — Randy Credico Live On The Fly (@CredicoRandy) November 16, 2019
As for the charge of witness tampering and intimidation, arguably the most serious charge on Stone’s rap sheet, Randy Credico made it very clear in a recent letter he sent to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, that, “I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or to my dog.” His letter painted a telling image of Stone as someone who “enjoys playing adolescent mind games,” and “shamelessly invents and promotes outlandish and invidious conspiracy tales.”
It’s like putting PT Barnum on trial for telling tall tales.
Unfortunately for Stone and his associates, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time in history, and reaped the whirlwind of a jaded DC establishment who have gambled and lost on what is perhaps the biggest political hoax in history.
Stone’s prosecution was purely political, and his charges were an erroneous basis for a criminal trial. If there was an ounce of shame left in Washington, the whole affair should be a national embarrassment. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice if he were to serve even one day prison for his flitting cameo in this Beltway drama.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


lewrockwell--2020-02-21--The Democrats’ Personalities Were Exposed in Nevada, and It Wasn’t Pretty

Wednesday night ’ s Democrat debate in Nevada allowed for a sharp focus on the candidates ’ personalities .
It wasn ’ t pretty .
They were the six unappealing dwarfs — Supercilious , Shrill , Angry , Confused , Smug…and that unpleasant nameless something that is Klobuchar .
This was Elizabeth Warren ’ s debate , for she aggressively dominated the available airtime .
As the debate progressed , the other candidates fell silent when she spoke out of instinctive deference .
With her hoarse voice and scolding manner , she was every mean old lady that children learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest threat to the “ old-timers , ” Warren stood out for landing the sharpest blows against him .
The debate had barely started when she said one candidate is a “ billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians and , no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump , I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Warren also got her claws in when Bloomberg was asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his workplace .
He tried to sidestep the question by saying he had hired a lot of women over the years and given them good jobs .
Warren checked him , saying , “ I hope you ’ ve heard what his defense was .
‘ I ’ ve been nice to some women . '
” Bloomberg ’ s response was the dreaded eye roll .
Additionally , Warren harshly interrogated Bloomberg about the unknown number of nondisclosure agreements ( NDAs ) into which he ’ s entered with women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instant pile-on , with Bloomberg ineffectually saying the women wanted these agreements and that he was standing by them .
The phrase “ deer in the headlights ” seems apt .
Bloomberg was generally out of his league in the jostle and thrust of a debate .
He ’ s used to the boardroom , a place in which everyone falls silent when he speaks .
He came across as condescending and disconnected , although he showed a modicum of common sense and hit hard on the fact that he was the only @ @ @ @ @ @

Wednesday night’s Democrat debate in Nevada allowed for a sharp focus on the candidates’ personalities. It wasn’t pretty. They were the six unappealing dwarfs — Supercilious, Shrill, Angry, Confused, Smug…and that unpleasant nameless something that is Klobuchar.
This was Elizabeth Warren’s debate, for she aggressively dominated the available airtime. As the debate progressed, the other candidates fell silent when she spoke out of instinctive deference. With her hoarse voice and scolding manner, she was every mean old lady that children learn to fear.
Given that Bloomberg was the biggest threat to the “old-timers,” Warren stood out for landing the sharpest blows against him. The debate had barely started when she said one candidate is a “billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians and, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump, I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.” Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
Warren also got her claws in when Bloomberg was asked about allegations that he had mistreated women in his workplace. He tried to sidestep the question by saying he had hired a lot of women over the years and given them good jobs. Warren checked him, saying, “I hope you’ve heard what his defense was. ‘I’ve been nice to some women.'” Bloomberg’s response was the dreaded eye roll.
Additionally, Warren harshly interrogated Bloomberg about the unknown number of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) into which he’s entered with women who complained about him. There was an instant pile-on, with Bloomberg ineffectually saying the women wanted these agreements and that he was standing by them. The phrase “deer in the headlights” seems apt.
Bloomberg was generally out of his league in the jostle and thrust of a debate. He’s used to the boardroom, a place in which everyone falls silent when he speaks. He came across as condescending and disconnected, although he showed a modicum of common sense and hit hard on the fact that he was the only person there with managerial experience.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-02-21--Was the Debate Beat Down Fatal for Mayor Mike?

Wednesday night in Las Vegas , Mayor Mike Bloomberg learned what it is like to be thrown up against a wall and frisked .
At the opening of the Democratic debate , his first , Mayor Mike was greeted by his nearest neighbor on stage , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , with this warm welcome : “ We ’ re running against … a billionaire who calls women ‘ fat broads ’ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians.
’ And , no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
” Bloomberg was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism for his stop-and-frisk policy , which the NYPD pursued during his three terms as mayor .
By Bloomberg ’ s own admission , stop and frisk singled out black men between 16 and 25 .
Undiscussed were the positive results of the policy .
The Death of the West : ... Patrick J. Buchanan Check Amazon for Pricing .
Gun homicides in New York fell to levels below those attained by his predecessor , Rudy Giuliani .
And if those most often frisked were black and Hispanic men , the lives saved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of people of color .
Yet , a question that remains after this debate was one that was puzzling even before the debate .
Why did he do it ?
Why did Bloomberg , who is not on the Nevada or South Carolina ballot , decide to join the debates before these contests ?
Today , the mayor ’ s campaign is probably buying tens of millions of dollars in ads to undo the damage done to him under the remorseless fire on his character , campaign and record from his rivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and predicted .
Why did he submit to this ?
Who counseled Bloomberg to climb into the ring ?
By investing $ 350 million in ads in primary states since November and crafting scheduled appearances while avoiding adversarial talk shows and candidate debates , Bloomberg had propelled himself from nowhere into the top tier of candidates in every state on Super Tuesday .
Why did he abandon a winning strategy to walk out , unprepared , onto a stage full of enraged and exasperated rivals who think he is buying and stealing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year ?
Why did he volunteer to enter a forum where he had to know his rivals would become a flash mob before he answered his first question ?
This was campaign malpractice of historic dimensions .
It is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars in new ads to undo the damage done to Bloomberg ’ s reputation among the millions of voters who got their first impression of the mayor from the debate .
Where does the race stand before Saturday ’ s caucuses in Nevada ?
Sen. Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart attack a few months back , his lines honed by a year ’ s repetition , was at the top of his game Wednesday night , fending off attacks and fighting back with a passion and ferocity that Bloomberg never exhibited .
With his popular vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire , five national polls showing him taking the lead from Joe Biden , and contributions pouring in from his huge army of small donors , Sanders is the favorite to win in Nevada and man to stop .
Churchill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Price : $ 9.48 Buy New $ 14.00 But after Super Tuesday , March 3 , he may be unstoppable .
A new Washington Post poll Wednesday shows Sanders with a huge lead among young voters and in a statistical tie with Joe Biden among African Americans .
And he is flush with cash .
March 4 could see Sanders with an almost insurmountable lead that could have him enter the Milwaukee convention with a majority of delegates or a plurality so huge as to make it politically impossible for his adversaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination away .
For who would be the beneficiary of such a robbery on the convention floor ?
The same Bloomberg his rivals described Wednesday night as a misogynist , sexist and racist .
Bloomberg ’ s campaign is sounding the alarm that Sanders could soon amass an insurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split , and is urging the other candidates to drop out .
Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Biden are being told that if they do not get out of the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they will get a socialist as their nominee , and the party will deserve the fate November will bring — a second term for Trump .
Bloomberg ’ s strategist Kevin Sheekey was pointedly warned by staffers on Thursday : “ If Biden , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday ( and beyond ) , they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from ( Bloomberg ) .
” As the other candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign is saying , they should step aside and clear the field for Mayor Mike .
This would call for a spirit of self-sacrifice and measure of esteem for the mayor not evident on that stage Wednesday night .
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan
Wednesday night in Las Vegas, Mayor Mike Bloomberg learned what it is like to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.
At the opening of the Democratic debate, his first, Mayor Mike was greeted by his nearest neighbor on stage, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with this warm welcome:
“We’re running against … a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
Bloomberg was not only charged with misogyny and sexism but racism for his stop-and-frisk policy, which the NYPD pursued during his three terms as mayor. By Bloomberg’s own admission, stop and frisk singled out black men between 16 and 25.
Undiscussed were the positive results of the policy.
Gun homicides in New York fell to levels below those attained by his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. And if those most often frisked were black and Hispanic men, the lives saved and the woundings prevented were also mostly those of people of color.
Yet, a question that remains after this debate was one that was puzzling even before the debate.
Why did he do it? Why did Bloomberg, who is not on the Nevada or South Carolina ballot, decide to join the debates before these contests?
Today, the mayor’s campaign is probably buying tens of millions of dollars in ads to undo the damage done to him under the remorseless fire on his character, campaign and record from his rivals Wednesday night.
These attacks were predictable and predicted. Why did he submit to this? Who counseled Bloomberg to climb into the ring?
By investing $350 million in ads in primary states since November and crafting scheduled appearances while avoiding adversarial talk shows and candidate debates, Bloomberg had propelled himself from nowhere into the top tier of candidates in every state on Super Tuesday.
Why did he abandon a winning strategy to walk out, unprepared, onto a stage full of enraged and exasperated rivals who think he is buying and stealing a nomination for which they have fought for a year?
Why did he volunteer to enter a forum where he had to know his rivals would become a flash mob before he answered his first question? This was campaign malpractice of historic dimensions.
It is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars in new ads to undo the damage done to Bloomberg’s reputation among the millions of voters who got their first impression of the mayor from the debate.
Where does the race stand before Saturday’s caucuses in Nevada?
Sen. Bernie Sanders, his energy restored after his heart attack a few months back, his lines honed by a year’s repetition, was at the top of his game Wednesday night, fending off attacks and fighting back with a passion and ferocity that Bloomberg never exhibited.
With his popular vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, five national polls showing him taking the lead from Joe Biden, and contributions pouring in from his huge army of small donors, Sanders is the favorite to win in Nevada and man to stop. Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $9.48 Buy New $14.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
But after Super Tuesday, March 3, he may be unstoppable.
A new Washington Post poll Wednesday shows Sanders with a huge lead among young voters and in a statistical tie with Joe Biden among African Americans. And he is flush with cash.
March 4 could see Sanders with an almost insurmountable lead that could have him enter the Milwaukee convention with a majority of delegates or a plurality so huge as to make it politically impossible for his adversaries to gang up on him and take the nomination away.
For who would be the beneficiary of such a robbery on the convention floor? The same Bloomberg his rivals described Wednesday night as a misogynist, sexist and racist.
Bloomberg’s campaign is sounding the alarm that Sanders could soon amass an insurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split, and is urging the other candidates to drop out.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Biden are being told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor, they will get a socialist as their nominee, and the party will deserve the fate November will bring — a second term for Trump.
Bloomberg’s strategist Kevin Sheekey was pointedly warned by staffers on Thursday:
“If Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday (and beyond), they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from (Bloomberg).”
As the other candidates cannot beat Sanders, Bloomberg’s campaign is saying, they should step aside and clear the field for Mayor Mike. This would call for a spirit of self-sacrifice and measure of esteem for the mayor not evident on that stage Wednesday night.
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan


lewrockwell--2020-02-21--Everything You Wanted To Know About Pete Buttigieg, But Were Afraid To Ask

Rhodes Scholar .
Afghan vet .
Mayor .
An impressive resume , to be sure , but to have made the fantastic leap from local politics to the doorstep of the Oval Office – at the age of just 38 – seems altogether impossible without some serious behind-the-scenes connections .
Let ’ s just cut right to the chase with a couple questions that the media has glaringly failed to consider about the top-polling Democratic presidential candidate .
First , the most obvious one .
How on earth does a young Midwestern mayor , regardless of his polished resume , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line , past hundreds of veteran politicians who have quietly nurtured presidential ambitions inside of the Beltway their entire lives ?
As The Economist emphatically stated this week , “ Mr Buttigieg is ridiculously young to be doing so well.
” Second , if the mayor of South Bend , Indiana ( pop .
101,166 ) is now in serious contention to challenge Donald Trump in November , what exactly does that say about the depth of the Democratic bench , loaded as it is with Senators , House members , Governors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience and acumen ?
While the Oval Office has seen its share of pretenders , and even actors , the great majority of those men who made it to the pinnacle of power have spent at least some time in high political office before contemplating a presidential run .
Incidentally , it is on this particular point , political experience , which could make a Trump-Buttigieg debate a very interesting spectacle .
Although Buttigieg has limited political experience , Trump had none before he entered the White House , although certainly proving his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Born on January 19 , 1982 , Buttigieg graduated valedictorian from St. Joseph High School in 2000 .
That same year he won a JFK ‘ Profiles in Courage ’ essay contest on the subject of none other than Bernie Sanders , the democratic socialist the incredibly rising mayor is competing against for the November nod .
“ Above all , I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of corruption , beyond redemption , ” Buttigieg wrote .
His trip to Washington D.C. to collect his prize included a meeting with members of the Kennedy clan , an honor that must have left a deep impression on the 18 year old .
Upon graduation from Harvard University , Buttigieg did a stint ( 2007-2010 ) at the Chicago office of McKinsey & Co , the discreet U.S. management consulting firm .
During his time there , the young upstart took a trip to perhaps the most unlikely destinations in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Africa that is struggling for international recognition to this day .
In other words , not a trip to Disneyland .
Just before embarking on his African adventure ( Summer of 2008 ) , Buttigieg was taken on as a fellow with the Truman National Security Project , a neoliberal think tank that has been described as “ a powerful and exclusive club for the best and brightest young progressives in the country.
” Among its esteemed alumni is none other than Madeleine Albright , chief architect of NATO ’ s obliteration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Truman Project , Rachel Kleinfeld , deserves some consideration .
Upon graduating from Oxford , Kleinfeld took up employment with Booz Allen Hamilton , the private contractor that carried out a long list of services for the military .
It has also been described as “ the world ’ s most profitable spy organization.
” The head of the company at the time was none other than James Woolsey , the neoconservative former CIA director who has advocated for a fiercely interventionist U.S. foreign policy , notably the 2003 invasion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to Buttigieg ’ s affiliation with the Truman Center , where he now sits on the advisory board , his Somalian ‘ vacation ’ managed to garner special attention in The New York Times , suggesting this was much more than your ordinary getaway .
“ Somaliland is pursuing investment and support from China and Gulf countries , ” Buttigieg wrote in the Times piece , co-authored by Nathaniel Myers , who also went along for the joyride .
“ Such support might be enough to ensure Somaliland ’ s survival and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out America ’ s chance to win the gratitude of a potentially valuable ally in a very troubled area.
” Possibly more than just incidentally , Myers , a Harvard buddy of Buttigieg , now serves as Senior Transition Advisor at USAID – Office of Transition Initiatives ( OTI ) , which works to destabilize governments deemed unfavorable to U.S. interests .
Just over a year later , in September 2009 , Buttigieg , and despite his participation in anti-war rallies while at Harvard , signed up for the U.S. Navy Reserve .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” writes Stars and Stripe magazine , he was sworn in as an ensign in naval intelligence without any prior preparation , which is not the traditional route for enlistees .
In 2014 , he was deployed to Afghanistan , which required Buttigieg to take a seven-month leave of absence from his mayoral duties in South Bend .
Here is where the political upstart ’ s career begins to look a little sketchy .
According to The Grayzone , Buttigieg “ spent his six months in Afghanistan in 2014 with a little-known unit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drug Enforcement Administration .
It was the Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell ( ATFC ) , according to his appointment papers.
” What exactly did Special Officer Pete Buttigieg do in this unit , which was founded by none other than the future CIA chief General David Patreaus , who at the time was the head of U.S. Central Command ?
Well , that ’ s hard to say because the job description that appears in his discharge papers is left conveniently blank .
This , and the fact that the ATFC has direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with regards to who or what was responsible for placing the mayor of South Bend , Indiana on the political fast lane .
But those sorts of connections alone can not explain Buttigieg ’ s meteoric rise in Washington , D.C. , especially when the young upstart spent the majority of his time in South Bend .
No , Pete Buttigieg would require boatloads of cash to earn such fame in such a short time .
And as it turns out , the money has been pouring into his coffers from some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to federal election data , forty billionaires and their spouses have donated to Pete Buttigieg ’ s presidential campaign , putting his campaign war chest at around $ 52 million , the most collected among all the Democratic candidates .
An analysis of the contributions shows that the majority of the billionaire donators came from the financial , media and technology sectors .
Of particular interest , however , is how much the tech titans of Silicon Valley have lavished the democratic frontrunner with attention as well as infusions of hard cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rex Reed , co-founder of Netflix , helped organize a fundraising dinner at a wine cellar in Palo Alto , California , which gave Buttigieg ’ s Democratic opponents a golden opportunity to expose his billionaire connections .
“ Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States , ” Elizabeth Warren told Buttigieg in a December debate .
Buttigieg responded that he was “ literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire , ” and that therefore Warren had failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just billionaires , however , who are cracking open their wallets for the Indiana native .
The list includes more than 200 foreign policy and intelligence officials , including Anthony Lake , national security adviser for President Clinton , former National Security Council spokesman Ned Price , and former deputy CIA director David Cohen , among many others .
Although such support from the foreign policy and intelligence community doesn ’ t prove cause and effect , it has helped spawn a number of online conspiracy theories that Buttigieg is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a deep state desperate to beat the swamp drainer Donald J. Trump .
Those ideas were brought to a boil during the Iowa caucus when the aptly named app Shadow , designed to perform the simple task of reporting the polling results in a timely and efficient manner , fizzled out just as Bernie Sanders had taken a commanding lead over Buttigieg .
Would it come as any surprise that Shadow Inc. has a very shadowy history ?
“ Shadow Inc. was picked in secret by the Iowa Democratic Party after its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on vetting vendors and security protocols for developing a phone app used to gather and tabulate the caucus results , ” AP reported .
“ Shadow Inc. was launched by ACRONYM , a nonprofit corporation founded in 2017 by Tara McGowan , a political strategist who runs companies aimed at promoting Democratic candidates and priorities.
” McGowan is married to none other than Michael Halle , a senior strategist for Pete Buttigieg ’ s presidential campaign , which records show has also paid Shadow Inc. $ 42,500 for the use of software .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ many ‘ conspiracy theorists ’ running around these days .
In any case , the glitch led to many days of debate as to who really won the Midwestern state , a debate that continues today .
Yet despite that state of mass confusion , Buttigieg didn ’ t miss an opportunity to seize victory from the claws of ( possible ) defeat , announcing just hours after the technological breakdown that he had been “ victorious ” in Iowa .
Meanwhile , Sanders ’ supporters saw it as yet another brazen move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialist .
So how does one explain the incredible string of political success for the young star of the Democratic Party ?
Is he really so politically talented and smart that there was no choice but to let him move to the front of the pack ?
That seems hard to believe since his speeches come off as hollow and scripted , a rhetorical trick that many politicians with far more experience have perfected .
And how about all those billionaires , former state officials and people from the national security apparatus who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A case of billionaire grassroots democracy in action , or just more good luck for the South Bend native ?
As it stands , Pete Buttigieg remains a great mystery , a proverbial dark horse on the U.S. political scene .
While there can be no question that he has a long future in American politics , it is too early to tell if that will be a good thing for the American people .
There is still a lot of unpacking to do on the life and times of the former mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

Rhodes Scholar. Afghan vet. Mayor. An impressive resume, to be sure, but to have made the fantastic leap from local politics to the doorstep of the Oval Office – at the age of just 38 – seems altogether impossible without some serious behind-the-scenes connections.
Let’s just cut right to the chase with a couple questions that the media has glaringly failed to consider about the top-polling Democratic presidential candidate. First, the most obvious one. How on earth does a young Midwestern mayor, regardless of his polished resume, jump to the front of the serving line, past hundreds of veteran politicians who have quietly nurtured presidential ambitions inside of the Beltway their entire lives?
As The Economist emphatically stated this week, “Mr Buttigieg is ridiculously young to be doing so well.”
Second, if the mayor of South Bend, Indiana (pop. 101,166) is now in serious contention to challenge Donald Trump in November, what exactly does that say about the depth of the Democratic bench, loaded as it is with Senators, House members, Governors and various state officials with far more political experience and acumen?
Today, LGBTQ+ youth in America aren’t just grappling with a crisis of belonging in their communities, many are left without a home or a place to sleep. I am so proud of @PeteButtigieg‘s agenda for housing justice and what it means for vulnerable youth. https://t.co/btn2zKDrXd — Chasten Buttigieg (@Chas10Buttigieg) February 17, 2020
While the Oval Office has seen its share of pretenders, and even actors, the great majority of those men who made it to the pinnacle of power have spent at least some time in high political office before contemplating a presidential run. Incidentally, it is on this particular point, political experience, which could make a Trump-Buttigieg debate a very interesting spectacle. Although Buttigieg has limited political experience, Trump had none before he entered the White House, although certainly proving his abilities once in office. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
For Pete’s sake!
Born on January 19, 1982, Buttigieg graduated valedictorian from St. Joseph High School in 2000. That same year he won a JFK ‘Profiles in Courage’ essay contest on the subject of none other than Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist the incredibly rising mayor is competing against for the November nod. “Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption,” Buttigieg wrote. His trip to Washington D.C. to collect his prize included a meeting with members of the Kennedy clan, an honor that must have left a deep impression on the 18 year old.
Upon graduation from Harvard University, Buttigieg did a stint (2007-2010) at the Chicago office of McKinsey & Co, the discreet U.S. management consulting firm. During his time there, the young upstart took a trip to perhaps the most unlikely destinations in the world, Somaliland, a self-proclaimed independent state in Africa that is struggling for international recognition to this day. In other words, not a trip to Disneyland.
Just before embarking on his African adventure (Summer of 2008), Buttigieg was taken on as a fellow with the Truman National Security Project, a neoliberal think tank that has been described as “a powerful and exclusive club for the best and brightest young progressives in the country.” Among its esteemed alumni is none other than Madeleine Albright, chief architect of NATO’s obliteration of Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, the founder of the Truman Project, Rachel Kleinfeld, deserves some consideration.
Upon graduating from Oxford, Kleinfeld took up employment with Booz Allen Hamilton, the private contractor that carried out a long list of services for the military. It has also been described as “the world’s most profitable spy organization.” The head of the company at the time was none other than James Woolsey, the neoconservative former CIA director who has advocated for a fiercely interventionist U.S. foreign policy, notably the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Back to Somaliland. In addition to Buttigieg’s affiliation with the Truman Center, where he now sits on the advisory board, his Somalian ‘vacation’ managed to garner special attention in The New York Times, suggesting this was much more than your ordinary getaway.
“Somaliland is pursuing investment and support from China and Gulf countries,” Buttigieg wrote in the Times piece, co-authored by Nathaniel Myers, who also went along for the joyride. “Such support might be enough to ensure Somaliland’s survival and eventual growth, but it will crowd out America’s chance to win the gratitude of a potentially valuable ally in a very troubled area.”
Possibly more than just incidentally, Myers, a Harvard buddy of Buttigieg, now serves as Senior Transition Advisor at USAID – Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), which works to destabilize governments deemed unfavorable to U.S. interests.
Just over a year later, in September 2009, Buttigieg, and despite his participation in anti-war rallies while at Harvard, signed up for the U.S. Navy Reserve. Due to his particular “pedigree,” writes Stars and Stripe magazine, he was sworn in as an ensign in naval intelligence without any prior preparation, which is not the traditional route for enlistees. In 2014, he was deployed to Afghanistan, which required Buttigieg to take a seven-month leave of absence from his mayoral duties in South Bend. Here is where the political upstart’s career begins to look a little sketchy.
This most disturbing thing about Pete 100% pic.twitter.com/1EhgcCyZgT — Heshmat Alavi’s Trenchcoat (@UrOrientalist) February 5, 2020
According to The Grayzone, Buttigieg “spent his six months in Afghanistan in 2014 with a little-known unit that operated under the watch of the Drug Enforcement Administration. It was the Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC), according to his appointment papers.”
What exactly did Special Officer Pete Buttigieg do in this unit, which was founded by none other than the future CIA chief General David Patreaus, who at the time was the head of U.S. Central Command? Well, that’s hard to say because the job description that appears in his discharge papers is left conveniently blank. This, and the fact that the ATFC has direct links to U.S. intelligence has fueled rumors with regards to who or what was responsible for placing the mayor of South Bend, Indiana on the political fast lane.
But those sorts of connections alone cannot explain Buttigieg’s meteoric rise in Washington, D.C., especially when the young upstart spent the majority of his time in South Bend. No, Pete Buttigieg would require boatloads of cash to earn such fame in such a short time. And as it turns out, the money has been pouring into his coffers from some of the wealthiest families in the country.
The spook’s choice: Coup plotters and CIA agents fill Mayor Pete’s list of national security endorsers@Cancel_Sam looks at Buttigieg’s new roster of endorsements from high-ranking spies, regime-change architects, and global financiershttps://t.co/RBQTnDKu7g — The Grayzone (@TheGrayzoneNews) December 30, 2019
Buttigieg attracts the bucks
According to federal election data, forty billionaires and their spouses have donated to Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, putting his campaign war chest at around $52 million, the most collected among all the Democratic candidates. An analysis of the contributions shows that the majority of the billionaire donators came from the financial, media and technology sectors.
In something that should surprise no one, Pete Buttigieg’s Monday fundraiser in San Francisco is sold out at the upper-most level ($2,800), which doesn’t happen too often. pic.twitter.com/6YFcbn2yfd — Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) December 13, 2019
Of particular interest, however, is how much the tech titans of Silicon Valley have lavished the democratic frontrunner with attention as well as infusions of hard cash. In December, for example, Rex Reed, co-founder of Netflix, helped organize a fundraising dinner at a wine cellar in Palo Alto, California, which gave Buttigieg’s Democratic opponents a golden opportunity to expose his billionaire connections.
“Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States,” Elizabeth Warren told Buttigieg in a December debate.
Buttigieg responded that he was “literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire,” and that therefore Warren had failed the “purity test.”
I find it “Ironic” that suddenly Wine Caves Are The Hot Topic On All News… #WineCaves The California winemakers who hosted a dinner at a “wine cave” for [D] Con Party presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg are defending the fundraising eventhttps://t.co/VjI26zj41a — Steven Lundgren (@love4thegameAK) December 22, 2019
It’s not just billionaires, however, who are cracking open their wallets for the Indiana native. The list includes more than 200 foreign policy and intelligence officials, including Anthony Lake, national security adviser for President Clinton, former National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, and former deputy CIA director David Cohen, among many others. Although such support from the foreign policy and intelligence community doesn’t prove cause and effect, it has helped spawn a number of online conspiracy theories that Buttigieg is something of a Manchurian candidate, propped up by a deep state desperate to beat the swamp drainer Donald J. Trump.
Those ideas were brought to a boil during the Iowa caucus when the aptly named app Shadow, designed to perform the simple task of reporting the polling results in a timely and efficient manner, fizzled out just as Bernie Sanders had taken a commanding lead over Buttigieg. Would it come as any surprise that Shadow Inc. has a very shadowy history?
“Shadow Inc. was picked in secret by the Iowa Democratic Party after its leaders consulted with the Democratic National Committee on vetting vendors and security protocols for developing a phone app used to gather and tabulate the caucus results,” AP reported. “Shadow Inc. was launched by ACRONYM, a nonprofit corporation founded in 2017 by Tara McGowan, a political strategist who runs companies aimed at promoting Democratic candidates and priorities.”
McGowan is married to none other than Michael Halle, a senior strategist for Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, which records show has also paid Shadow Inc. $42,500 for the use of software.
And people wonder why there are so many ‘conspiracy theorists’ running around these days.
In any case, the glitch led to many days of debate as to who really won the Midwestern state, a debate that continues today. Yet despite that state of mass confusion, Buttigieg didn’t miss an opportunity to seize victory from the claws of (possible) defeat, announcing just hours after the technological breakdown that he had been “victorious” in Iowa. Meanwhile, Sanders’ supporters saw it as yet another brazen move by the DNC to sideline the democratic socialist.
So how does one explain the incredible string of political success for the young star of the Democratic Party? Is he really so politically talented and smart that there was no choice but to let him move to the front of the pack? That seems hard to believe since his speeches come off as hollow and scripted, a rhetorical trick that many politicians with far more experience have perfected. And how about all those billionaires, former state officials and people from the national security apparatus who have come forward to support him? A case of billionaire grassroots democracy in action, or just more good luck for the South Bend native?
As it stands, Pete Buttigieg remains a great mystery, a proverbial dark horse on the U.S. political scene. While there can be no question that he has a long future in American politics, it is too early to tell if that will be a good thing for the American people. There is still a lot of unpacking to do on the life and times of the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-02-21--Omens, Portents, Karma, and the Mandate of Heaven

The question of legitimacy isn ’ t limited to China .
what makes humans unique among social mammals ?
Some say humor , I would nominate superstition : regardless of how hard we promote our rationality and logic , humanity continues to sense portents and omens in events and feel the intangible tug of karma : the consequences of past actions that we arrogantly thought we ’ d escaped forever .
Michael Snyder recently compiled a list of peculiarities that are raising eyebrows around the globe : One , sure , two , not that unusual , three , well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbances and we ’ re only six weeks into 2020 ?
10 ‘ Plagues ’ That Are Hitting Our Planet Simultaneously ( Zero Hedge ) As the saying has it , Nature Bats Last , and maybe arrogant , destructive humanity ’ s war on Nature is about to get its comeuppance .
Maybe overdosing hundreds of millions of chickens and pigs to knock down bacteria in overcrowded conditions has finally generated a karmic blowback via bird and swine viruses .
Will You Be Richer or ... Charles Hugh Smith Check Amazon for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society : maybe the disruption of the supply chain in China is a karmic response to offshoring production to fatten Corporate America ’ s profits at the expense of all else in America ’ s society and economy .
Then there ’ s the celestial right to rule , a.k.a .
The Mandate of Heaven , the concept rooted in Chinese culture that political leadership which fails the people invites divine retribution in the form of withdrawing the support of Heaven .
This withdrawal of support manifests in the tangible world as natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plagues , etc .
Though it ’ s not politically correct to discuss The Mandate of Heaven in any serious way , the reading of omens goes back in Chinese history to oracle bones , the process of heating bones until they crack and then interpreting the patterns as portents to the future .
The Best of Charles Hugh Smith

The question of legitimacy isn’t limited to China.
what makes humans unique among social mammals? Some say humor, I would nominate superstition: regardless of how hard we promote our rationality and logic, humanity continues to sense portents and omens in events and feel the intangible tug of karma: the consequences of past actions that we arrogantly thought we’d escaped forever.
Michael Snyder recently compiled a list of peculiarities that are raising eyebrows around the globe: One, sure, two, not that unusual, three, well things happen in threes, but ten disturbances and we’re only six weeks into 2020? 10 ‘Plagues’ That Are Hitting Our Planet Simultaneously (Zero Hedge)
As the saying has it, Nature Bats Last, and maybe arrogant, destructive humanity’s war on Nature is about to get its comeuppance. Maybe overdosing hundreds of millions of chickens and pigs to knock down bacteria in overcrowded conditions has finally generated a karmic blowback via bird and swine viruses. Will You Be Richer or ... Smith, Charles Hugh Buy New $6.95 (as of 10:20 UTC - Details)
As for karma in human society: maybe the disruption of the supply chain in China is a karmic response to offshoring production to fatten Corporate America’s profits at the expense of all else in America’s society and economy.
Then there’s the celestial right to rule, a.k.a. The Mandate of Heaven, the concept rooted in Chinese culture that political leadership which fails the people invites divine retribution in the form of withdrawing the support of Heaven. This withdrawal of support manifests in the tangible world as natural disasters: earthquakes, floods, droughts, plagues, etc.
Though it’s not politically correct to discuss The Mandate of Heaven in any serious way, the reading of omens goes back in Chinese history to oracle bones, the process of heating bones until they crack and then interpreting the patterns as portents to the future.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Charles Hugh Smith


lewrockwell--2020-02-21--New Wine, Old Wineskins

New Wine, Old Wineskins

The Natural Law : A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy , by Heinrich A. Rommen Rommen next looks at the Natural Law in the Age of Individualism and Reason .
When I came to this chapter , I thought “ What is this guy talking about ?
The Age of Reason killed the Natural Law.
” Well , it is a very worthwhile chapter .
Rommen identifies Samuel von Pufendorf , building on Hugo Grotius , as the beginning of the “ so-called age of natural law ” : I have written of Grotius before , comparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johannes Althusius .
But who is Pufendorf ?
An influential fellow .
Rommen attaches him to “ so-called , ” so you can imagine that Rommen is not favorably disposed toward him .
Deism was the theology of the age – no mystical influence of any transcendent Deity .
Reason , not faith , would provide true enlightenment .
From the time of Pufendorf , fun began to be poked at the “ fancies of the Scholastics.
” From here on , an anti-Aristotelian nominalism carried the day as the basis for philosophy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positively of the state .
To the extent he means government or governance , I am generally agreeable to this ( agreeable more to the latter , but you get my point ) .
If he means state as the term is known since the Renaissance , I don ’ t like it .
It isn ’ t clear his meaning , and I am free to ignore his admonishments on this point .
The foundational idea for this modern natural law was to consider man as coming from a state of nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1719 .
Thinkers of this age did not set out from the social nature of man ( to include marriage , family , community , and religion ) , yet this is , in fact , how man was formed – the world every man was born into .
Instead , everything was contract – including the social contract .
Absent the integration of this social reality , each new natural law thinker was free to introduce his own foundation from which to build his natural law framework : for Hobbes , selfishness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomasius , happiness – a “ praiseworthy , pleasant , carefree life.
” His father , a lecturer at Leipzig University , brought him under the influence of Grotius and Pufendorf .
Thomasius ( the son ) was a bit radical , lecturing in German instead of Latin , ridiculed the pedantic weaknesses of the learned , and defended mixed marriages of Lutherans and Calvinists .
“ He also published a volume on natural law which emphasized natural reason….
” For all of this , he was denounced from the pulpits .
Returning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ displayed little understanding or interest of the graduated social order in social life .
They would introduce the idea that natural law was in force before there was any social life .
This natural law would cover civil laws of contract , marriage , family life , inheritance , and property .
When put in these words , it sure seems a strange notion to me : why have a need for law – natural or otherwise – before social life ?
Robinson Crusoe needed no laws before Friday arrived .
Whether in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Hobbes ) , or reformist ( the enlightened despot ) , all built on this idea of a state of nature and the Stoic notion of the pre-political state of man .
Rousseau would build on his optimistic view of human nature , Hobbes on his pessimistic view , and Pufendorf and Thomasius lived in the shadow of enlightened despotism .
The latter were encouraged by the princes , because they would provide intellectual cover for the princes ’ function of governing as a duty .
This enlightened natural law , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used to break down the various intermediating institutions that stood in the way of a uniform administration of the state .
First on the list for many was the Church , or Christianity more broadly .
While the revolutionaries would crush it , those like Hobbes and the enlightened despots would work to subsume Christianity and independent ecclesiastical law under the omnipotent state .
There is some depth and background here for the work Robert Nisbet has done in his book , The Quest for Community ; I have covered this book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true with the work that is being done at Bastion Magazine .
The new wine of enlightened natural law has burst the old wineskin of – call it – metaphysical natural law .
We have suffered and continue to suffer under this calamity for more than a hundred years .
Many people are starting to notice that the old wine is certainly better .
This chapter of Rommen ’ s book continues with a more detailed examination of these new natural law thinkers , including Hobbes , Rousseau , Locke and others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ post .
The Best of Bionic Mosquito

The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy, by Heinrich A. Rommen
Rommen next looks at the Natural Law in the Age of Individualism and Reason. When I came to this chapter, I thought “What is this guy talking about? The Age of Reason killed the Natural Law.” Well, it is a very worthwhile chapter.
Rommen identifies Samuel von Pufendorf, building on Hugo Grotius, as the beginning of the “so-called age of natural law”:
The net result of the age was a disastrous setback, from the opening of the nineteenth century, for the natural-law idea among the modern philosophers and practitioners of law who were unacquainted with the older Christian tradition.
I have written of Grotius before, comparing his ideas unfavorably to the ideas of Johannes Althusius. But who is Pufendorf?
Freiherr Samuel von Pufendorf (8 January 1632 – 13 October 1694) was a German jurist, political philosopher, economist and historian. …Among his achievements are his commentaries and revisions of the natural law theories of Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius. Pufendorf was familiar to American political writers such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. His political concepts are part of the cultural background of the American Revolution.
The Natural Law: A Stu... Heinrich A. Rommen Best Price: $7.00 Buy New $8.00 (as of 01:18 UTC - Details) An influential fellow. Rommen attaches him to “so-called,” so you can imagine that Rommen is not favorably disposed toward him.
Deism was the theology of the age – no mystical influence of any transcendent Deity. Reason, not faith, would provide true enlightenment. From the time of Pufendorf, fun began to be poked at the “fancies of the Scholastics.” From here on, an anti-Aristotelian nominalism carried the day as the basis for philosophy.
The thesis of the autonomy of human reason, as well as the view that the existing law constituted unwarranted fetters, was closely bound up with the nascent socio-philosophical individualism of the age.
Fair warning: Rommen will write positively of the state. To the extent he means government or governance, I am generally agreeable to this (agreeable more to the latter, but you get my point). If he means state as the term is known since the Renaissance, I don’t like it. It isn’t clear his meaning, and I am free to ignore his admonishments on this point.
The foundational idea for this modern natural law was to consider man as coming from a state of nature – Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe of 1719. Thinkers of this age did not set out from the social nature of man (to include marriage, family, community, and religion), yet this is, in fact, how man was formed – the world every man was born into. Instead, everything was contract – including the social contract.
Absent the integration of this social reality, each new natural law thinker was free to introduce his own foundation from which to build his natural law framework: for Hobbes, selfishness; for Pufendorf, sociableness; for Thomasius, happiness – a “praiseworthy, pleasant, carefree life.”
Who is Thomasius?
Christian Thomasius (1 January 1655 – 23 September 1728) was a German jurist and philosopher.
His father, a lecturer at Leipzig University, brought him under the influence of Grotius and Pufendorf. Thomasius (the son) was a bit radical, lecturing in German instead of Latin, ridiculed the pedantic weaknesses of the learned, and defended mixed marriages of Lutherans and Calvinists. “He also published a volume on natural law which emphasized natural reason….” For all of this, he was denounced from the pulpits.
Though not a profound philosophical thinker, Thomasius prepared the way for great reforms in philosophy, as well as in law, literature, social life and theology. It was his mission to introduce a rational, common-sense point of view, and to bring the divine and human sciences to bear on the everyday world.
Returning to Rommen, thinkers such as these displayed little understanding or interest of the graduated social order in social life. They would introduce the idea that natural law was in force before there was any social life. This natural law would cover civil laws of contract, marriage, family life, inheritance, and property.
When put in these words, it sure seems a strange notion to me: why have a need for law – natural or otherwise – before social life? Robinson Crusoe needed no laws before Friday arrived.
Whether in revolutionary forms (Rousseau), conservative (Hobbes), or reformist (the enlightened despot), all built on this idea of a state of nature and the Stoic notion of the pre-political state of man. Rousseau would build on his optimistic view of human nature, Hobbes on his pessimistic view, and Pufendorf and Thomasius lived in the shadow of enlightened despotism.
The Enlightenment was first of all an affair of the ruling class, the nobility and the intellectuals of the age, clerics and men of science.
The latter were encouraged by the princes, because they would provide intellectual cover for the princes’ function of governing as a duty. This enlightened natural law, in the hands of enlightened despots, would be used to break down the various intermediating institutions that stood in the way of a uniform administration of the state.
First on the list for many was the Church, or Christianity more broadly. While the revolutionaries would crush it, those like Hobbes and the enlightened despots would work to subsume Christianity and independent ecclesiastical law under the omnipotent state.
There is some depth and background here for the work Robert Nisbet has done in his book, The Quest for Community; I have covered this book with several posts. It also rings true with the work that is being done at Bastion Magazine.
Conclusion
Luke 5: 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”
The new wine of enlightened natural law has burst the old wineskin of – call it – metaphysical natural law. We have suffered and continue to suffer under this calamity for more than a hundred years. Many people are starting to notice that the old wine is certainly better.
This chapter of Rommen’s book continues with a more detailed examination of these new natural law thinkers, including Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and others. I will cover these in a subsequent post.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
The Best of Bionic Mosquito


lewrockwell--2020-02-21--Intermittent Fasting Is Great, But Alternate-Day Fasting Is Having avBig Impact on My Body

Several years ago I remember coming across an old study from 2013 about caloric restriction , emphasizing how it extends life span and prevents as well as helps to reverse several age-related diseases in a variety of species .
This was very intriguing to me , especially given the fact that humans have been bombarded with the idea that we need to eat at least three meals a day , plus snacks in order to be healthy and fit .
Fast forward to today , and fasting has become quite popular , and this is thanks to a wealth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only caloric restriction , but fasting , has a number of health benefits .
Fasting has been shown to extend life , protect against neurodegenerative and age-related diseases , ‘ starve ’ certain cancer cells , reverse and manage type two diabetes , trigger new stem cell generation and help people lose weight .
If done for a long enough time , although we don ’ t quite know exactly how long , fasting also actives autophagy , the body ’ s self-cleaning system , which allows the cell to get rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down into smaller parts to be reused by the cell .
Fasting stimulates the production of ketone bodies in the blood , which have also been shown to have a number of benefits and is one of many mechanisms by which fasting benefits the body .
KetoFast : Rejuvenate Y ... Dr. Joseph Mercola Best Price : $ 7.13 Buy New $ 9.64 When you eat food , that food is converted into glycogen which your body then burns .
When you fast , your body uses up stored fat for energy after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process of the body switching from burning glucose to efficiently burning fat is something that seems to have been built into our biology , meaning we are designed to go short , or even prolonged periods of time without any food , and that this ‘ stress ’ on the body actually benefits us in many ways .
There is absolutely no evidence that , for the average person , fasting can be dangerous .
In fact , all evidence points to the opposite .
If you ’ re on prescription medication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then there are obviously exceptions .
But it ’ s quite clear that the human body was designed to go long periods of time without food , and that it ’ s completely natural .
If you want to learn more about the science of fasting , there is plenty of research out there .
Sifting through scholarly articles on the subject will yield many interesting results .
You can find a number of lectures on Youtube as well .
The main takeaway for me after studying fasting and its mechanisms for fifteen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extremely healthy and safe practice with a number of health benefits , and I wanted to share my current experience instead of simply diving deep into the science of it all .
I have found that the research directly correlates with my experience of fasting on a regular basis , and it ’ s something I ’ ve been doing for fifteen years .
I have done a lot of prolonged fasts in my life , weekly fasts , as well as many periods of intermittent fasting where I condense my eating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But only within the past few months have I tried alternate-day fasting , and so far it ’ s the fasting method that ’ s been the most successful for me .
Everybody is different , and at the end of the day you just have to find what works for you .
I ’ ve always put on weight quite easily , and have had no problem storing food .
Perhaps it ’ s genetics , my family has a strong and long history of type two diabetes , hinting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family can remain high , thus making it impossible to access my fat stores .
Obviously , fasting drops your insulin levels , allowing your body to access and burn its fat reserves which , again , has been shown to have a tremendous amounts of benefits .
Alternate-day fasting has given me something consistent to go with when it comes to maintaining and stabilizing my weight .
For me , intermittent fasting just wasn ’ t doing it , I found I could not eat what I enjoy without packing on extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I also did many prolonged fasts , which helped me drop my extra fat , but then I ’ d put it back on .
This was true for me even whilst eating a healthy , whole grain fully plant-based diet .
With alternate-day fasting , I do not gain weight , and my energy levels have increased to the point where I am now working out at the end of every fast .
I ’ ve never experienced so much energy an I ’ ve never felt so alert .
I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the period without food just wasn ’ t long enough for me , I feel , to really tap into the benefits of fasting .
So what does alternate-day fasting look like ?
It ’ s when you eat one day , and then fast the next .
Simple .
So , for example , what I do is I will eat on a Monday , and then have my last meal in the evening .
Then , I wait until Wednesday morning to eat again .
So , I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What recommended alternate-day fasting looks like is eating on Monday , and then not eating until 24 hours after , or Tuesday night .
Or , eating on Monday , and then restricting your calorie intake the next day to only 500 calories.
, and then repeat throughout the week .
I ’ ve been fasting for a quite a long time , so my body is quite fat adapted .
It ’ s not difficult for me to fast and when I do I do not feel hungry at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ‘ consuming ’ it ’ s stored energy .
I am at the point where alternate-day fasting for me usually means not eating for at least 40 hours and after a workout , and every now and then I will extend my fast to 72 or more hours and throw in a workout at the end those fasts as well .
The food I eat during my eating periods is , again , a whole foods plant-based diet .
Related CE Article going into more detail : What Working Out In A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Your Muscles That ’ s how I do it , and doing it this way I dropped nearly 20 pounds before eventually stabilizing my weight .
I usually do alternate-day fasting , but every now and then I will eat two days in a row here and there .
So I am not extremely strict on myself , but then again , my fasting periods are longer and I believe it ’ s easier for me simply because I am well adapted to the practice , and my body type and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time with it .
If you ’ re looking to shed some fat from your body , it ’ s something I recommend you try , it ’ s great because it forces you to enter into a fat period for a longer state than intermittent fasting , and allows you to utilize more of your fat reserves .
You can look at alternate-day fasting as an ‘ extreme ’ form of fasting , although there is nothing extreme about it and it ’ s completely safe .
If you ’ re someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommend you start off with intermittent fasting , as fasting alone for someone who has never practiced it can be quite difficult at first until your body gets used to it .
If you ’ re looking for some great resources on this topic beyond simply reading and searching for scholarly peer-reviewed publications on the subject via online journal databases ( there are lots ) , you can visit Dr. Jason Fung ’ s website blog here .
There are a lot of great informative articles on the subject there .
Another great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Professor of Nutrition at the University of Illinois , Chicago .
Her research focuses on the efficacy of intermittent fasting for weight loss , weight maintenance , and cardio-protection in obese adults .
Her work is funded by the NIH , American Heart Association , International Life Sciences Institute , and the University of Illinois .
She has published over 70 publications on this topic , and is also the author of a book for the general public , entitled the “ Every Other Day Diet ” .
Her “ book for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diet : The Diet That Lets You Eat All You Want ( Half the Time ) and Keep the Weight Off is a great place to start .

Several years ago I remember coming across an old study from 2013 about caloric restriction, emphasizing how it extends life span and prevents as well as helps to reverse several age-related diseases in a variety of species. This was very intriguing to me, especially given the fact that humans have been bombarded with the idea that we need to eat at least three meals a day, plus snacks in order to be healthy and fit. Fast forward to today, and fasting has become quite popular, and this is thanks to a wealth of research that’s emerged showing that not only caloric restriction, but fasting, has a number of health benefits.
Fasting has been shown to extend life, protect against neurodegenerative and age-related diseases, ‘starve’ certain cancer cells, reverse and manage type two diabetes, trigger new stem cell generation and help people lose weight. If done for a long enough time, although we don’t quite know exactly how long, fasting also actives autophagy, the body’s self-cleaning system, which allows the cell to get rid of old cell machinery, breaking them down into smaller parts to be reused by the cell. Fasting stimulates the production of ketone bodies in the blood, which have also been shown to have a number of benefits and is one of many mechanisms by which fasting benefits the body.
Fasting Is Beneficial
KetoFast: Rejuvenate Y... Mercola, Dr. Joseph Check Amazon for Pricing. When you eat food, that food is converted into glycogen which your body then burns. When you fast, your body uses up stored fat for energy after its glycogen reserves are depleted, and the process of the body switching from burning glucose to efficiently burning fat is something that seems to have been built into our biology, meaning we are designed to go short, or even prolonged periods of time without any food, and that this ‘stress’ on the body actually benefits us in many ways.
There is absolutely no evidence that, for the average person, fasting can be dangerous. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite. If you’re on prescription medication, or experience other medical problems, then there are obviously exceptions. But it’s quite clear that the human body was designed to go long periods of time without food, and that it’s completely natural.
If you want to learn more about the science of fasting, there is plenty of research out there. Sifting through scholarly articles on the subject will yield many interesting results. You can find a number of lectures on Youtube as well. The main takeaway for me after studying fasting and its mechanisms for fifteen years now is that it’s an extremely healthy and safe practice with a number of health benefits, and I wanted to share my current experience instead of simply diving deep into the science of it all.
My Alternate-Day Fasting Experience
I have found that the research directly correlates with my experience of fasting on a regular basis, and it’s something I’ve been doing for fifteen years. I have done a lot of prolonged fasts in my life, weekly fasts, as well as many periods of intermittent fasting where I condense my eating period to a time of 5-8 hours. But only within the past few months have I tried alternate-day fasting, and so far it’s the fasting method that’s been the most successful for me. Everybody is different, and at the end of the day you just have to find what works for you.
I’ve always put on weight quite easily, and have had no problem storing food. Perhaps it’s genetics, my family has a strong and long history of type two diabetes, hinting to the idea that insulin levels in my family can remain high, thus making it impossible to access my fat stores. Obviously, fasting drops your insulin levels, allowing your body to access and burn its fat reserves which, again, has been shown to have a tremendous amounts of benefits.
Alternate-day fasting has given me something consistent to go with when it comes to maintaining and stabilizing my weight. For me, intermittent fasting just wasn’t doing it, I found I could not eat what I enjoy without packing on extra fat and slowly increasing my weight. I also did many prolonged fasts, which helped me drop my extra fat, but then I’d put it back on. This was true for me even whilst eating a healthy, whole grain fully plant-based diet.
With alternate-day fasting, I do not gain weight, and my energy levels have increased to the point where I am now working out at the end of every fast. I’ve never experienced so much energy an I’ve never felt so alert. I had a glimpse of it with intermittent fasting, but the period without food just wasn’t long enough for me, I feel, to really tap into the benefits of fasting.
Simple Schedule
So what does alternate-day fasting look like? It’s when you eat one day, and then fast the next. Simple.
So, for example, what I do is I will eat on a Monday, and then have my last meal in the evening. Then, I wait until Wednesday morning to eat again. So, I am doing 36-40 hour fasts, quite often. What recommended alternate-day fasting looks like is eating on Monday, and then not eating until 24 hours after, or Tuesday night. Or, eating on Monday, and then restricting your calorie intake the next day to only 500 calories., and then repeat throughout the week.
I’ve been fasting for a quite a long time, so my body is quite fat adapted. It’s not difficult for me to fast and when I do I do not feel hungry at all, which means my body has adapted itself to ‘consuming’ it’s stored energy. I am at the point where alternate-day fasting for me usually means not eating for at least 40 hours and after a workout, and every now and then I will extend my fast to 72 or more hours and throw in a workout at the end those fasts as well. The food I eat during my eating periods is, again, a whole foods plant-based diet.
Related CE Article going into more detail: What Working Out In A Fasted State (Not Eating) Does To Your Muscles
Weight Loss
That’s how I do it, and doing it this way I dropped nearly 20 pounds before eventually stabilizing my weight. I usually do alternate-day fasting, but every now and then I will eat two days in a row here and there. So I am not extremely strict on myself, but then again, my fasting periods are longer and I believe it’s easier for me simply because I am well adapted to the practice, and my body type and perhaps my genetics helps me have an easier time with it.
If you’re looking to shed some fat from your body, it’s something I recommend you try, it’s great because it forces you to enter into a fat period for a longer state than intermittent fasting, and allows you to utilize more of your fat reserves.
You can look at alternate-day fasting as an ‘extreme’ form of fasting, although there is nothing extreme about it and it’s completely safe. If you’re someone who has never fasted before, I recommend you start off with intermittent fasting, as fasting alone for someone who has never practiced it can be quite difficult at first until your body gets used to it.
Resources
If you’re looking for some great resources on this topic beyond simply reading and searching for scholarly peer-reviewed publications on the subject via online journal databases (there are lots), you can visit Dr. Jason Fung’s website blog here. There are a lot of great informative articles on the subject there.
Another great resource is Krista Varady, PhD, a Professor of Nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Her research focuses on the efficacy of intermittent fasting for weight loss, weight maintenance, and cardio-protection in obese adults. Her work is funded by the NIH, American Heart Association, International Life Sciences Institute, and the University of Illinois. She has published over 70 publications on this topic, and is also the author of a book for the general public, entitled the “Every Other Day Diet”.
Her “book for the general public,” The Every-Other-Day Diet: The Diet That Lets You Eat All You Want (Half the Time) and Keep the Weight Off is a great place to start.
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.


lewrockwell--2020-02-22--The State and Heresy

The State and Heresy

Sobran ’ s : The Real News of the Month , March 2002 — In recent weeks I ’ ve been debating with people I usually agree with : conservative Christians .
Many of them feel I ’ ve gone too far in the direction of philosophical anarchism , in defiance of both Scripture and Catholic teaching .
One reader , a self-identified Catholic socialist , went so far as to call my views “ heresy.
” He cited particularly the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius XI .
His e-mail message was so intelligent , provocative , and yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length , and we have had a long , friendly exchange ever since .
We ’ re still arguing , and neither of us is backing down .
I ’ ve also been in touch with an old Protestant friend , now a minister , whom I haven ’ t seen since high school .
He too thinks Christian doctrine requires submission to government , and he argues his case with a power and sophistication I find especially impressive , considering the level of our old Scripture-banging arguments in our school days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 of St. Paul ’ s Epistle to the Romans , which begins : “ You must all obey the governing authorities .
Since all government comes from God , the civil authorities were appointed by God , and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against God ’ s decision , and such an act is bound to be punished .
Good behavior is not afraid of magistrates ; only criminals have anything to fear… .
The state is there to serve God for your benefit.
” This is from the Jerusalem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Version says that “ the powers that be are ordained of God.
” Joseph Sobran : The Nat ... Joseph Sobran Best Price : $ 25.00 Buy New $ 25.00 Many Christians quote this passage to support the view that we owe allegiance and obedience to the government .
But this interpretation , though obvious at first sight , soon raises difficulties for Christians .
After all , the Christian martyrs — including Paul himself — lived under pagan tyrants and chose to die rather than submit to worship the emperor .
Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s persecution .
Later Christian political thought was extremely varied and complex .
But St. Augustine took a dark view of earthly government , which , with slavery and war , he deemed a consequence of original sin .
St. Thomas Aquinas held that even unfallen man would need government ( as even good drivers need traffic laws ) , but he agreed with Augustine that a positive law that clashed with divine or natural law was unjust and void — a principle that might invalidate most statutes on the books .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ replaced by Christian states , which gave way to secularist states .
During all this time Christians have been forced to grapple with many questions : What is a state ?
How do we recognize its authority ?
What are its limits ?
Can we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate states ?
Is rebellion ever justified ?
Must the state defer to the Church ?
Must the Church obey the state ?
All these difficult questions have been further complicated by the experience of barbarian conquests , feudalism , monarchism , religious divisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism , nationalism , industrialism , mass democracy , dictatorship , Marxism , totalitarianism , the welfare state , and of course war , particularly total war .
Today almost nobody holds the position of Romans 13 in its full rigor , if that means a duty of unqualified submission to whatever regime happens to exist .
Nearly all Christians distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate regimes ; if rebellion is always a sin , how can we have a duty to obey the successful rebel when he assumes power ?
Must we obey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lenin who topples him the next ?
Does Paul mean to say : “ Thou shalt obey anyone who holds coercive power over thee ” ?
Or consider the United States .
Here , “ We the People ” are in theory the sovereign authority , and our ruling officers are mere servants .
The powers “ delegated ” to those servants are defined and limited by the Constitution .
Must we obey them , even when they usurp powers never entrusted to them ?
When they claim such powers , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebellion against “ us ” , and we have no duty to obey .
“ Masters , obey your servants ” ?
When there are so many kinds of states , some of them mutually incompatible , the only defining trait they share is the claim of a legal monopoly of coercion .
Paul doesn ’ t assert that brute power constitutes a right to command and compel .
He must mean something else .
But what ?
He says the civil authorities serve God , and Christians can obey the law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commandments .
Were these words meant to ward off suspicions that Christians were subversive and to encourage them to respect human law , at least insofar as it conformed to God ’ s law ?
If so , Paul ’ s words may carry an ironic meaning that would escape the Roman authorities .
By positing a just government — very unlike the rule of Nero — he may have been subtly implying that Christians are “ not ” morally bound to cooperate with tyranny .
If that ’ s what he meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a heretic after all !
This article was published originally in the March 2002 edition of Sobran ’ s : The Real News of the Month .
The Best of Joseph Sobran

Sobran’s: The Real News of the Month, March 2002 — In recent weeks I’ve been debating with people I usually agree with: conservative Christians. Many of them feel I’ve gone too far in the direction of philosophical anarchism, in defiance of both Scripture and Catholic teaching.
One reader, a self-identified Catholic socialist, went so far as to call my views “heresy.” He cited particularly the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius XI. His e-mail message was so intelligent, provocative, and yet charitable that I answered him at some length, and we have had a long, friendly exchange ever since. We’re still arguing, and neither of us is backing down.
I’ve also been in touch with an old Protestant friend, now a minister, whom I haven’t seen since high school. He too thinks Christian doctrine requires submission to government, and he argues his case with a power and sophistication I find especially impressive, considering the level of our old Scripture-banging arguments in our school days.
The key text for Christians is chapter 13 of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, which begins: “You must all obey the governing authorities. Since all government comes from God, the civil authorities were appointed by God, and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against God’s decision, and such an act is bound to be punished. Good behavior is not afraid of magistrates; only criminals have anything to fear…. The state is there to serve God for your benefit.” This is from the Jerusalem Bible; the more familiar King James Version says that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” Joseph Sobran: The Nat... Joseph Sobran Best Price: $25.00 Buy New $25.00 (as of 02:50 UTC - Details)
Many Christians quote this passage to support the view that we owe allegiance and obedience to the government. But this interpretation, though obvious at first sight, soon raises difficulties for Christians. After all, the Christian martyrs — including Paul himself — lived under pagan tyrants and chose to die rather than submit to worship the emperor. Paul is thought to have died during Nero’s persecution.
Later Christian political thought was extremely varied and complex. But St. Augustine took a dark view of earthly government, which, with slavery and war, he deemed a consequence of original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas held that even unfallen man would need government (as even good drivers need traffic laws), but he agreed with Augustine that a positive law that clashed with divine or natural law was unjust and void — a principle that might invalidate most statutes on the books.
Over two millennia, pagan states were replaced by Christian states, which gave way to secularist states. During all this time Christians have been forced to grapple with many questions: What is a state? How do we recognize its authority? What are its limits? Can we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate states? Is rebellion ever justified? Must the state defer to the Church? Must the Church obey the state? All these difficult questions have been further complicated by the experience of barbarian conquests, feudalism, monarchism, religious divisions, dynastic quarrels, republican constitutionalism, capitalism, nationalism, industrialism, mass democracy, dictatorship, Marxism, totalitarianism, the welfare state, and of course war, particularly total war.
Today almost nobody holds the position of Romans 13 in its full rigor, if that means a duty of unqualified submission to whatever regime happens to exist. Nearly all Christians distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate regimes; if rebellion is always a sin, how can we have a duty to obey the successful rebel when he assumes power? Must we obey the tsar one day, and the Lenin who topples him the next? Does Paul mean to say: “Thou shalt obey anyone who holds coercive power over thee”?
Or consider the United States. Here, “We the People” are in theory the sovereign authority, and our ruling officers are mere servants. The powers “delegated” to those servants are defined and limited by the Constitution. Must we obey them, even when they usurp powers never entrusted to them? When they claim such powers, it would seem that “they” are in rebellion against “us”, and we have no duty to obey. “Masters, obey your servants”?
When there are so many kinds of states, some of them mutually incompatible, the only defining trait they share is the claim of a legal monopoly of coercion. Paul doesn’t assert that brute power constitutes a right to command and compel. He must mean something else. But what?
He says the civil authorities serve God, and Christians can obey the law and be good citizens by simply keeping the Commandments. Were these words meant to ward off suspicions that Christians were subversive and to encourage them to respect human law, at least insofar as it conformed to God’s law?
If so, Paul’s words may carry an ironic meaning that would escape the Roman authorities. By positing a just government — very unlike the rule of Nero — he may have been subtly implying that Christians are “not” morally bound to cooperate with tyranny.
If that’s what he meant, maybe I’m not such a heretic after all!
###
This article was published originally in the March 2002 edition of Sobran’s: The Real News of the Month.
The Best of Joseph Sobran