Jeff Deist Interviewed

TOM WOODS : This is the Tom Woods Show , and today I welcome Jeff Deist .
Everybody wants to know the sheer nuts and bolts of how somebody becomes Ron Paul ’ s chief of staff .
I ’ ll tell a little story most people don ’ t know .
About ten years ago , Dr. Paul was approached about doing an autobiography ; he would have gotten a huge advance .
There was big demand for it !
But he just couldn ’ t believe people were interested in the details of his life .
His heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he decided to say no .
I know you ’ re kind of the same way , but doggone it , Jeff Deist , there are some details I want to wring out of you !
You start off as a lawyer in California and have a successful career in the financial world , and then , somehow , you ’ re Ron Paul ’ s chief of staff , and somewhere along the line , you become an Austro-libertarian .
This is not the normal career path for most people , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reading , who were your influences , who the heck were you ?
JEFF DEIST : My background is pretty straightforward , although very lucky .
I never went through a conservative or “ liberal ” phase .
That is attributable to my father and my older brother .
My dad had books like ( F. A. Hayek ’ s ) The Road to Serfdom in the house , which I read in high school .
My brother Steve subscribed to Reason magazine way back in the 1980s , so I had his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rand books came into my possession , which I still have today in dog-eared condition .
My mom was not so thrilled about my reading Atlas Shrugged due to Rand ’ s vocal atheism , worried it would rub off on me !
The Road to Serfdom : T ... F. A. Hayek , Bruce Cal ... Best Price : $ 3.06 Buy New $ 1.99 But my real love was literature , and I thought I would become an English professor .
TW : Oh my gosh , thank God we saved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
I particularly liked twentieth-century British satire—Evelyn Waugh , Graham Greene , Kingsley Amis .
My plan was to become a university professor and teach literature .
But at that point , in the early 1990s , I started to become aware of a PhD glut , especially in California .
I was in graduate school in San Diego at the time and started to rethink my path .
The idea of being a professor appealed to me , but I didn ’ t want to be poor or face dim job prospects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to go to law school , which dovetailed with my interests in writing , rhetoric , and libertarianism .
I thought I might defend people against the state .
Regardless of whether a person is factually guilty of the acts they are alleged to have committed , the state has no moral , ethical , or truly legal right to prosecute them .
And I ultimately chose tax law simply because I thought the taxpayer was always in the right .
There is no such thing as a just tax .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your taxes , because the state has no defensible right to demand your money in the first place .
Luckily for me , during the same period in the early 1990s , I had a good friend , Joe Becker .
Joe was a graduate student in the economics program at UNLV ( University of Nevada , Las Vegas ) because Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe taught there at the time .
He had enrolled at UNLV entirely to study under them .
So he invited me to drive up from San Diego @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murray Rothbard , his professor .
I drove up a few different times ; Rothbard ’ s courses were always at night .
He was very much a night owl , so he taught his graduate sessions and afterward they would all go to a little place way off the Las Vegas strip—I think it was on Maryland Parkway—a place called The Stake Out .
It was a downscale , video-poker burger joint for the locals , and I think it ’ s still there , actually .
Murray would come and talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would too .
I didn ’ t truly realize , the one or two times I met Rothbard , who and what he was .
I knew he was a libertarian economist , but I was new to the term “ Austrian economics.
” At that time I was still very much a generic libertarian ; ideas like legalizing pot and getting rid of taxpayer-funded stadiums were considered edgy .
We still find that level of libertarianism today , and for the most part libertarians who aren ’ t rooted in economics are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and knowledge to truly understand the state , and I was no different .
Thankfully , through my friend I learned more about Rothbard and the Austrian school , and started reading heavier , denser material .
In retrospect this was quite fortunate .
But Rothbard was not my first libertarian luminary ; in fact , I met Ron Paul a few years earlier , in 1988 .
I was an undergraduate student when he ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket .
Dr. Paul had a campaign stop at a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back then it was not so easy to know about libertarian events , but I think my local San Diego group had a bulletin about it .
The great activist Richard Rider was our leader , by the way .
So I went and saw Ron Paul , and made some friends that I would stay in contact with for years .
And I ’ ve known Dr. Paul since then .
But once I decided on law school , my intention was to be a lawyer and I never imagined doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell into mergers and acquisitions ( M & A ) , which is a very particular area of tax law—all the tax ramifications from buying and selling companies .
There are a lot of complex tax structuring , due diligence , and cross-border international elements , and the Fed helped turn private equity M & A from a cottage industry into a behemoth .
Starting in the 1990s with Alan Greenspan , and into the 2000s with Ben Bernanke , M & A activity went through the roof .
Right up until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course with the reinflation of the debt bubble since then , M & A has been very active and lucrative .
It was easy to have a job .
You got a lot of calls from recruiters .
But I kept my old contacts from the Ron Paul world , and eventually a friend convinced me to come work in Dr. Paul ’ s congressional office .
And when he left office in 2012 , I prepared to go back to the M & A world .
But having come to know Lew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mises Institute instead .
So that is the quick and dirty explanation of how I came to be sitting here , talking to you from Auburn today .
TW : I want to elaborate on your offhand remark that people who are not rooted in economics tend to be bad libertarians .
Some people in the audience here might think , That can ’ t be right .
Economics isn ’ t for everybody .
But there are very few exceptions to this rule , and I have a theory why .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their libertarianism or more interested in appearing chic than being really principled , almost none of them are rooted in economics .
In economics , we are looking at private property and the division of labor , and all these clear-cut things .
It ’ s fundamentally nonaggression and peace , and these things flow naturally from economics .
But some of the people sniping from the sidelines never talk about the Fed , for example .
It ’ s always the same three or four lifestyle issues that won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times .
It ’ s almost like they ’ re embarrassed to talk about the Fed because mainstream respectability is what these people crave .
I think there ’ s something to what you said .
JD : First of all , in a sense , economics is everything .
We ’ re talking about human action , so that encompasses things like family and relationships and charity .
Economics is not just your job and your finances and your bank account and your stocks .
It ’ s everything .
Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are choices and scarcity and trade-offs and incentives in everything we do ; all of these concepts suffuse our lives .
I think that unless you ’ re rooted in economics you tend to be malleable .
You tend to flail around conceptually .
Take our current situation with Iraq and Iran .
There is no fully rational distinction between foreign and domestic policy , for example .
The same sorts of choices are involved in each .
There is force or potential force involved in each , taxpayer funds involved in each—bureaucratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so forth .
So when we consider someone like Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard , for example , well , she sounds good on war .
She ’ s bad on issues like Medicare for All .
But Medicare for All just means war at home .
It requires aggression against domestic Americans .
And the same analysis applies to cultural or social issues across the board .
Libertarians who don ’ t have a firm grip on economics tend to be flighty and infirm in their understanding of many issues .
TW : What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul ’ s office , as compared to the office of Congressman Nobody down the hall ?
What can you share with us that people haven ’ t heard before ?
JD : With Ron Paul what you see is what you get .
Ron is not different behind the scenes .
Most members of Congress are laughably mediocre in terms of what they ’ ve done in their lives ; they ’ re mostly just self-important .
It ’ s unbelievable .
Even some of the staffers become self-important .
They say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where connections and status and hierarchy are so important .
Who is the ranking member of which committee , who is the third assistant majority whip—these sorts of trivial things matter very much .
It ’ s just endless .
Of course , Ron had no interest in any of that .
His career was medicine , obstetrics , and he ’ d never run for office or held office before he was first elected to Congress in the 1970s .
Most members of Congress started in local or state politics .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county for five years and then became a state rep.
It ’ s all to build name ID and prepare to run for Congress .
They are Tracy Flick types , for people who have seen the great ’ 90s movie Election .
Members of Congress are the Tracy Flicks of the world , and Ron is nothing like that .
He is just a genuinely nice , warm guy .
He is very salt of the earth , and so is his wife , Carol .
Lots of moments stick out from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , I didn ’ t work on his campaigns ; I worked in his congressional office , two very separate things .
But nonetheless , there was a CNN debate in the fall of 2011 held at Constitution Hall , which is owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution .
It ’ s a very nice venue in DC .
Ron was in town for congressional votes and attended this Republican primary debate .
Of course , Mitt Romney was riding high at this point as the frontrunner in the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host , and this was going to be a big debate .
I ’ m sure Romney arrived several days in advance and checked into some giant hotel suite with about twenty handlers .
I ’ m sure he sat there in front of a mirror , testing out different phrases and figuring out which necktie he was going to wear .
Real Dissent : A Libert ... Thomas E. Woods Jr. Best Price : $ 8.48 Buy New $ 7.93 Now contrast this with Ron : we ’ re still in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He says , “ Well , I ’ m going to run home to my condo and then we ’ ll come back over .
Why don ’ t you come with me ?
” Of course , Ron is wearing his same old suit and whatever tie ; he doesn ’ t worry about these sorts of things .
We go over to his condo in northern Virginia , which was very modest .
He had bought this condo in the ’ 70s during his first time in Congress , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hour or so before the debate starts , he is heating up some Campbell ’ s soup .
He wasn ’ t worried because he thought that whatever they asked him , he would have a straightforward answer .
He wasn ’ t going to shade his answers for a CNN audience any more than he would for a and hierarchy are so important .
Who is the ranking member of which committee , who is the third assistant majority whip—these sorts of trivial things matter very much .
It ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no interest in any of that .
His career was medicine , obstetrics , and he ’ d never run for office or held office before he was first elected to Congress in the 1970s .
Most members of Congress started in local or state politics .
They went to Tuesday-evening zoning meetings in their county for five years and then became a state rep.
It ’ s all to build name ID and prepare to run for Congress .
They are Tracy Flick types , for people who have seen the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress are the Tracy Flicks of the world , and Ron is nothing like that .
He is just a genuinely nice , warm guy .
He is very salt of the earth , and so is his wife , Carol .
Lots of moments stick out from his presidential campaign in 2012 .
Mind you , I didn ’ t work on his campaigns ; I worked in his congressional office , two very separate things .
But nonetheless , there was a CNN debate in the fall of 2011 held at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Daughters of the American Revolution .
It ’ s a very nice venue in DC .
Ron was in town for congressional votes and attended this Republican primary debate .
Of course , Mitt Romney was riding high at this point as the frontrunner in the primary .
Wolf Blitzer happened to be the host , and this was going to be a big debate .
I ’ m sure Romney arrived several days in advance and checked into some giant hotel suite with about twenty handlers .
I ’ m sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mirror , testing out different phrases and figuring out which necktie he was going to wear .
Now contrast this with Ron : we ’ re still in the office about four o ’ clock .
He says , “ Well , I ’ m going to run home to my condo and then we ’ ll come back over .
Why don ’ t you come with me ?
” Of course , Ron is wearing his same old suit and whatever tie ; he doesn ’ t worry about these sorts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his condo in northern Virginia , which was very modest .
He had bought this condo in the ’ 70s during his first time in Congress , and it just matched his unassuming demeanor .
An hour or so before the debate starts , he is heating up some Campbell ’ s soup .
He wasn ’ t worried because he thought that whatever they asked him , he would have a straightforward answer .
He wasn ’ t going to shade his answers for a CNN audience any more than he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking in front of a church group .
It just didn ’ t matter .
And for some reason I remember that night as an example of his lack of pretense .
People forget that he suffered professionally in a sense .
He had to give up being a medical doctor .
He ultimately sold the building he owned for his medical practice .
He certainly made less money as a member of Congress than he did in his practice .
And of course he was away from home most weeks , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him , and still does .
So even when he disagrees with Rand ( Paul ’ s son , Kentucky senator Rand Paul ) , the criticisms bother him a bit .
He is protective of his family .
He probably won ’ t read this , and I won ’ t embarrass him , but his eldest daughter Lori , had some cancer scares over the last few years and happily is in remission .
But her illness has been very tough for Ron and Carol , and drives home to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him .
The Pauls have five children , twenty-five grandchildren , ten great-grandchildren , and counting .
Three of his five children are medical doctors , and I remember his son Robert explaining how their father insisted they all graduate without college debt .
Ron ’ s story really is tremendous , and his family is his biggest legacy .
And along the way he managed to deliver four thousand babies , sometimes at three in the morning .
His is quite a remarkable life , and it ’ s probably too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on that idea of doing a biography .
Ron Paul ’ s life is an American story .
One more thing : people don ’ t understand his inadvertent skill as a politician .
His country doctor personality and plainspokenness served him very well politically .
It was hard for opponents to paint him as a radical , because he conducted his personal life as he did .
He stayed married to the same woman for decades , didn ’ t much drink and never smoked , and focused on family and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came up with the idea of a cookbook for supporters , and it wasn ’ t calculating at all , but rather something she simply wanted to do .
It became a great political tool .
Texans responded to the Pauls as natural people , even if DC didn ’ t .
He was , and is , disliked by the DC libertarians for precisely this , I think .
He ’ s a natural , nonjudgmental person , and it shines through .
What we can learn from Ron Paul is some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s important to be a kind and loyal person first .
This problem is rife through the libertarian world—all politics , really—these sleazy people who aren ’ t very accomplished or loyal .
Many things matter far more than whether someone has libertarian views .
Personal relationships are infinitely more important .
TW : Here ’ s what I want to know about your time in Ron Paul ’ s office .
Did anything ever make him truly angry , where he slammed down the phone or said “ son of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
JD : Not really .
I will say , he hates to wait .
He ’ s an impatient person .
He walks fast , he wants to get on to the next thing .
He really hated when someone was late for a call or an interview .
I think it comes from years of being a busy OB/GYN .
He was used to going from patient to patient and sometimes driving backcountry roads in south Texas in the middle of the night to deliver a baby at some small hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around .
He was a very busy doctor and is used to being busy .
This is not a man who slows down .
He is in absolutely remarkable shape , turning eighty-five this year .
In typical Ron Paul fashion , he had both knees replaced at the same time over a Christmas recess in the early 2000s .
Stairs used to give him a little trouble before the knee replacements .
But he ’ s in great shape now , still walking and biking vigorously .
Some people are just wired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type and high energy .
I ’ ve never seen him truly angry , but I ’ ve certainly seen him impatient .
TW : Was there anybody else in Congress you were able to work with somewhat cordially , so that it wasn ’ t entirely just enemy territory ?
JD : Sure .
Jimmy Duncan from Tennessee , now retired from Congress .
TW : Who , by the way , has been a guest on the Tom Woods Show a couple times .
JD : He represented Knoxville , Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His father held the seat before him .
Mr. Duncan is a great and thoughtful guy , very antiwar .
I remember him saying in his Southern drawl how he liked to read Antiwar.com and Justin Raimondo first thing every morning !
And this is a conservative red-state guy .
And the late Congressman Walter Jones was just an absolute sweetheart , a very kind and genuine guy .
He was in the Pat Buchanan protectionist mode , but ultimately came around to be a very strong noninterventionist with regard to foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina was Dr. Paul ’ s closest ally on the Hill , but he had lots of personal friends .
People in Congress generally liked him , because I think they didn ’ t see him as competition for their committee assignments or whatever it might be , because Ron didn ’ t care .
So , he had plenty of friends .
Lobbyists left Ron alone and leadership left Ron alone more than in most offices .
Most offices faced a lot of pressure to vote a certain way on amendments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome was uncertain .
But they knew Ron would vote a certain way regardless of pressure .
Meltdown : A Free-Marke ... Thomas E. Woods Best Price : $ 0.25 Buy New $ 20.00 So , for our office it was not an acrimonious or combative atmosphere .
It was just a stupid atmosphere .
Congress is not like House of Cards with Kevin Spacey .
People want to think it is .
It ’ s really just a bunch of self-important dullards .
I mean , there are smart people in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But they are mediocrities for the most part .
Let me say something controversial .
From the statist perspective there might be an argument for paying members of Congress $ 500,000 or $ 1 million so that you ’ d actually entice some accomplished or talented people .
People who could actually make that kind of money , or much more , in another career .
Don ’ t get me wrong .
I don ’ t want better and smarter people in Congress , and I don ’ t want government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find it curious that the congressional salary—I think it ’ s $ 175,000 these days—is far and away the highest pay that average members ever made .
They are not high-achieving people for the most part , and they certainly are not sacrificing more lucrative careers for the most part .
And of course , it ’ s gotten way worse since Ron Paul left at the end of 2012 , both in terms of partisanship and the rise of social media .
Today I see House and Senate staffers tweeting acrimonious things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is definitely a change .
Just five or ten years ago no staffer would have done that .
The first rule is never get your boss in trouble .
So the environment is even more political and poisoned today , with impeachment and celebrities like AOC ( Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ) , and the rancor surrounding Trump .
I know Dr. Paul is glad to be out of DC .
TW : As we wrap up for today , give me your elevator pitch for why Ron Paul mattered in politics , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get many bills passed .
JD : First , I ’ m sure we don ’ t need any more bills passed in this country .
Ron Paul saw politics as a platform , as a seat at the table of public opinion .
He saw Congress as an opportunity to educate people and hopefully inspire them .
Ron thought his job was to reach young people , not members of Congress .
It was never a majority game or a legislative game .
Political liberty may never carry 51 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 or 10 percent in any society can make sweeping changes and move things toward a tipping point .
It ’ s a long game , not a game of electoral success or instant gratification .
The state is a powerful thing—its allure and the arguments for it are powerful in a certain way .
We shouldn ’ t kid ourselves .
I do think the Ron Paul Revolution brought the argument for political liberty to the fore , and to a degree , we ’ ve lost ground in recent years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude .
He was a great recruiter .
But people don ’ t understand all the years he spent in the wilderness , being treated terribly by both parties and by the media .
Sure , in 2012 he could go to the UC Berkeley campus and speak to five thousand kids , and he could go to the BYU campus and give the same talk to five thousand kids there .
He had some great moments reaching people in 2008 and 2012 even though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success ( although let ’ s not forget that he won a majority of 2012 ’ s delegates in Iowa ) .
He was touched by the support he received ; it made him think the whole effort was worthwhile .
But there were decades before , beginning in the 1970s , when Ron was alone in the wilderness .
He was working to build connections in the sound money , Austrian economics , and libertarian communities .
He was flying cheap Southwest flights and staying in cheap motels , hoping the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when there was no email or cell phones .
He spent a lot of years speaking to small groups of ten or fifteen people , and he spent a lot of time away from home , before he ever became the Ron Paul we think of today .
Obviously I ’ m biased , but Dr. Paul put a lot of blood , sweat , and tears into this idea of liberty over the years—and I think that we owe him for that .
TW : Yes , simple gratitude is in such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ libertarian movement .
Simple gratitude .
I agree with your point : when all is said and done at the end of your life , were you a good person ?
That ’ s more important than whether you were a doctrinaire libertarian .
Thanks so much , Jeff .
The Best of Jeff Deist

TOM WOODS: This is the Tom Woods Show, and today I welcome Jeff Deist.
Everybody wants to know the sheer nuts and bolts of how somebody becomes Ron Paul’s chief of staff. I’ll tell a little story most people don’t know. About ten years ago, Dr. Paul was approached about doing an autobiography; he would have gotten a huge advance. There was big demand for it! But he just couldn’t believe people were interested in the details of his life. His heart wasn’t in it, so he decided to say no. I know you’re kind of the same way, but doggone it, Jeff Deist, there are some details I want to wring out of you!
You start off as a lawyer in California and have a successful career in the financial world, and then, somehow, you’re Ron Paul’s chief of staff, and somewhere along the line, you become an Austro-libertarian. This is not the normal career path for most people, so we are curious: what were you reading, who were your influences, who the heck were you?
JEFF DEIST: My background is pretty straightforward, although very lucky. I never went through a conservative or “liberal” phase. That is attributable to my father and my older brother. My dad had books like (F. A. Hayek’s) The Road to Serfdom in the house, which I read in high school. My brother Steve subscribed to Reason magazine way back in the 1980s, so I had his influence. Of course, some Ayn Rand books came into my possession, which I still have today in dog-eared condition. My mom was not so thrilled about my reading Atlas Shrugged due to Rand’s vocal atheism, worried it would rub off on me! The Road to Serfdom: T... F. A. Hayek, Bruce Cal... Best Price: $3.06 Buy New $1.99 (as of 03:40 UTC - Details)
But my real love was literature, and I thought I would become an English professor.
TW: Oh my gosh, thank God we saved you from that.
JD: Ha! I particularly liked twentieth-century British satire—Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, Kingsley Amis. My plan was to become a university professor and teach literature. But at that point, in the early 1990s, I started to become aware of a PhD glut, especially in California. I was in graduate school in San Diego at the time and started to rethink my path. The idea of being a professor appealed to me, but I didn’t want to be poor or face dim job prospects.
So, at that point I decided to go to law school, which dovetailed with my interests in writing, rhetoric, and libertarianism. I thought I might defend people against the state. Regardless of whether a person is factually guilty of the acts they are alleged to have committed, the state has no moral, ethical, or truly legal right to prosecute them. And I ultimately chose tax law simply because I thought the taxpayer was always in the right. There is no such thing as a just tax. There is no such thing as cheating on your taxes, because the state has no defensible right to demand your money in the first place.
Luckily for me, during the same period in the early 1990s, I had a good friend, Joe Becker. Joe was a graduate student in the economics program at UNLV (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) because Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe taught there at the time. He had enrolled at UNLV entirely to study under them. So he invited me to drive up from San Diego occasionally to sit in on classes with Murray Rothbard, his professor. I drove up a few different times; Rothbard’s courses were always at night. He was very much a night owl, so he taught his graduate sessions and afterward they would all go to a little place way off the Las Vegas strip—I think it was on Maryland Parkway—a place called The Stake Out. It was a downscale, video-poker burger joint for the locals, and I think it’s still there, actually. Murray would come and talk to his students socially, and Hoppe would too.
I didn’t truly realize, the one or two times I met Rothbard, who and what he was. I knew he was a libertarian economist, but I was new to the term “Austrian economics.” At that time I was still very much a generic libertarian; ideas like legalizing pot and getting rid of taxpayer-funded stadiums were considered edgy. We still find that level of libertarianism today, and for the most part libertarians who aren’t rooted in economics are bad libertarians! They lack the framework and knowledge to truly understand the state, and I was no different.
Thankfully, through my friend I learned more about Rothbard and the Austrian school, and started reading heavier, denser material. In retrospect this was quite fortunate.
But Rothbard was not my first libertarian luminary; in fact, I met Ron Paul a few years earlier, in 1988. I was an undergraduate student when he ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Dr. Paul had a campaign stop at a little Ramada Inn in Santa Ana, California. Back then it was not so easy to know about libertarian events, but I think my local San Diego group had a bulletin about it. The great activist Richard Rider was our leader, by the way. So I went and saw Ron Paul, and made some friends that I would stay in contact with for years. And I’ve known Dr. Paul since then.
But once I decided on law school, my intention was to be a lawyer and I never imagined doing anything else with my life. I fell into mergers and acquisitions (M&A), which is a very particular area of tax law—all the tax ramifications from buying and selling companies. There are a lot of complex tax structuring, due diligence, and cross-border international elements, and the Fed helped turn private equity M&A from a cottage industry into a behemoth. Starting in the 1990s with Alan Greenspan, and into the 2000s with Ben Bernanke, M&A activity went through the roof. Right up until the Crash of ’08, and of course with the reinflation of the debt bubble since then, M&A has been very active and lucrative. It was easy to have a job. You got a lot of calls from recruiters.
But I kept my old contacts from the Ron Paul world, and eventually a friend convinced me to come work in Dr. Paul’s congressional office. And when he left office in 2012, I prepared to go back to the M&A world. But having come to know Lew Rockwell I ended up coming to the Mises Institute instead. So that is the quick and dirty explanation of how I came to be sitting here, talking to you from Auburn today.
TW: I want to elaborate on your offhand remark that people who are not rooted in economics tend to be bad libertarians. Some people in the audience here might think, That can’t be right. Economics isn’t for everybody. But there are very few exceptions to this rule, and I have a theory why. When I think of people who are squishy in their libertarianism or more interested in appearing chic than being really principled, almost none of them are rooted in economics. In economics, we are looking at private property and the division of labor, and all these clear-cut things. It’s fundamentally nonaggression and peace, and these things flow naturally from economics. But some of the people sniping from the sidelines never talk about the Fed, for example. It’s always the same three or four lifestyle issues that won’t get them in trouble with the New York Times. It’s almost like they’re embarrassed to talk about the Fed because mainstream respectability is what these people crave. I think there’s something to what you said.
JD: First of all, in a sense, economics is everything. We’re talking about human action, so that encompasses things like family and relationships and charity. Economics is not just your job and your finances and your bank account and your stocks. It’s everything. Human action encompasses everything we do. There are choices and scarcity and trade-offs and incentives in everything we do; all of these concepts suffuse our lives. I think that unless you’re rooted in economics you tend to be malleable. You tend to flail around conceptually.
Take our current situation with Iraq and Iran. There is no fully rational distinction between foreign and domestic policy, for example. The same sorts of choices are involved in each. There is force or potential force involved in each, taxpayer funds involved in each—bureaucratic inefficiency, perverse political incentives, and so forth. So when we consider someone like Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, for example, well, she sounds good on war. She’s bad on issues like Medicare for All. But Medicare for All just means war at home. It requires aggression against domestic Americans. And the same analysis applies to cultural or social issues across the board. Libertarians who don’t have a firm grip on economics tend to be flighty and infirm in their understanding of many issues.
TW: What was it like to work in Ron Paul’s office, as compared to the office of Congressman Nobody down the hall? What can you share with us that people haven’t heard before?
JD: With Ron Paul what you see is what you get. Ron is not different behind the scenes. Most members of Congress are laughably mediocre in terms of what they’ve done in their lives; they’re mostly just self-important. It’s unbelievable. Even some of the staffers become self-important. They say DC is Hollywood for ugly people, where connections and status and hierarchy are so important. Who is the ranking member of which committee, who is the third assistant majority whip—these sorts of trivial things matter very much. It’s just endless.
Of course, Ron had no interest in any of that. His career was medicine, obstetrics, and he’d never run for office or held office before he was first elected to Congress in the 1970s. Most members of Congress started in local or state politics. They went to Tuesday-evening zoning meetings in their county for five years and then became a state rep. It’s all to build name ID and prepare to run for Congress. They are Tracy Flick types, for people who have seen the great ’90s movie Election. Members of Congress are the Tracy Flicks of the world, and Ron is nothing like that. He is just a genuinely nice, warm guy. He is very salt of the earth, and so is his wife, Carol.
Lots of moments stick out from his presidential campaign in 2012. Mind you, I didn’t work on his campaigns; I worked in his congressional office, two very separate things. But nonetheless, there was a CNN debate in the fall of 2011 held at Constitution Hall, which is owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution. It’s a very nice venue in DC. Ron was in town for congressional votes and attended this Republican primary debate. Of course, Mitt Romney was riding high at this point as the frontrunner in the primary. Wolf Blitzer happened to be the host, and this was going to be a big debate. I’m sure Romney arrived several days in advance and checked into some giant hotel suite with about twenty handlers. I’m sure he sat there in front of a mirror, testing out different phrases and figuring out which necktie he was going to wear. Real Dissent: A Libert... Thomas E. Woods Jr. Best Price: $8.48 Buy New $7.93 (as of 03:10 UTC - Details)
Now contrast this with Ron: we’re still in the office about four o’clock. He says, “Well, I’m going to run home to my condo and then we’ll come back over. Why don’t you come with me?” Of course, Ron is wearing his same old suit and whatever tie; he doesn’t worry about these sorts of things. We go over to his condo in northern Virginia, which was very modest. He had bought this condo in the ’70s during his first time in Congress, and it just matched his unassuming demeanor. An hour or so before the debate starts, he is heating up some Campbell’s soup. He wasn’t worried because he thought that whatever they asked him, he would have a straightforward answer. He wasn’t going to shade his answers for a CNN audience any more than he would for a and hierarchy are so important. Who is the ranking member of which committee, who is the third assistant majority whip—these sorts of trivial things matter very much. It’s just endless.
Of course, Ron had no interest in any of that. His career was medicine, obstetrics, and he’d never run for office or held office before he was first elected to Congress in the 1970s. Most members of Congress started in local or state politics. They went to Tuesday-evening zoning meetings in their county for five years and then became a state rep. It’s all to build name ID and prepare to run for Congress. They are Tracy Flick types, for people who have seen the great ’90s movie Election. Members of Congress are the Tracy Flicks of the world, and Ron is nothing like that. He is just a genuinely nice, warm guy. He is very salt of the earth, and so is his wife, Carol.
Lots of moments stick out from his presidential campaign in 2012. Mind you, I didn’t work on his campaigns; I worked in his congressional office, two very separate things. But nonetheless, there was a CNN debate in the fall of 2011 held at Constitution Hall, which is owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution. It’s a very nice venue in DC. Ron was in town for congressional votes and attended this Republican primary debate. Of course, Mitt Romney was riding high at this point as the frontrunner in the primary. Wolf Blitzer happened to be the host, and this was going to be a big debate. I’m sure Romney arrived several days in advance and checked into some giant hotel suite with about twenty handlers. I’m sure he sat there in front of a mirror, testing out different phrases and figuring out which necktie he was going to wear.
Now contrast this with Ron: we’re still in the office about four o’clock. He says, “Well, I’m going to run home to my condo and then we’ll come back over. Why don’t you come with me?” Of course, Ron is wearing his same old suit and whatever tie; he doesn’t worry about these sorts of things. We go over to his condo in northern Virginia, which was very modest. He had bought this condo in the ’70s during his first time in Congress, and it just matched his unassuming demeanor. An hour or so before the debate starts, he is heating up some Campbell’s soup. He wasn’t worried because he thought that whatever they asked him, he would have a straightforward answer. He wasn’t going to shade his answers for a CNN audience any more than he would for a constituent in his office or speaking in front of a church group. It just didn’t matter. And for some reason I remember that night as an example of his lack of pretense.
People forget that he suffered professionally in a sense. He had to give up being a medical doctor. He ultimately sold the building he owned for his medical practice. He certainly made less money as a member of Congress than he did in his practice. And of course he was away from home most weeks, which he disliked. Family meant so much to him, and still does. So even when he disagrees with Rand (Paul’s son, Kentucky senator Rand Paul), the criticisms bother him a bit. He is protective of his family.
He probably won’t read this, and I won’t embarrass him, but his eldest daughter Lori, had some cancer scares over the last few years and happily is in remission. But her illness has been very tough for Ron and Carol, and drives home to me how much family and loyalty mean to him. The Pauls have five children, twenty-five grandchildren, ten great-grandchildren, and counting. Three of his five children are medical doctors, and I remember his son Robert explaining how their father insisted they all graduate without college debt. Ron’s story really is tremendous, and his family is his biggest legacy.
And along the way he managed to deliver four thousand babies, sometimes at three in the morning. His is quite a remarkable life, and it’s probably too bad he didn’t take someone up on that idea of doing a biography. Ron Paul’s life is an American story.
One more thing: people don’t understand his inadvertent skill as a politician. His country doctor personality and plainspokenness served him very well politically. It was hard for opponents to paint him as a radical, because he conducted his personal life as he did. He stayed married to the same woman for decades, didn’t much drink and never smoked, and focused on family and bicycling and his tomato plants. Carol came up with the idea of a cookbook for supporters, and it wasn’t calculating at all, but rather something she simply wanted to do. It became a great political tool. Texans responded to the Pauls as natural people, even if DC didn’t. He was, and is, disliked by the DC libertarians for precisely this, I think. He’s a natural, nonjudgmental person, and it shines through.
What we can learn from Ron Paul is some things can’t be faked. It’s important to be a kind and loyal person first. This problem is rife through the libertarian world—all politics, really—these sleazy people who aren’t very accomplished or loyal. Many things matter far more than whether someone has libertarian views. Personal relationships are infinitely more important.
TW: Here’s what I want to know about your time in Ron Paul’s office. Did anything ever make him truly angry, where he slammed down the phone or said “son of a…” Did you ever see that?
JD: Not really. I will say, he hates to wait. He’s an impatient person. He walks fast, he wants to get on to the next thing. He really hated when someone was late for a call or an interview. I think it comes from years of being a busy OB/GYN. He was used to going from patient to patient and sometimes driving backcountry roads in south Texas in the middle of the night to deliver a baby at some small hospital. There weren’t many OBs around. He was a very busy doctor and is used to being busy. This is not a man who slows down. He is in absolutely remarkable shape, turning eighty-five this year. In typical Ron Paul fashion, he had both knees replaced at the same time over a Christmas recess in the early 2000s. Stairs used to give him a little trouble before the knee replacements. But he’s in great shape now, still walking and biking vigorously. Some people are just wired that way, with a thinner body type and high energy. I’ve never seen him truly angry, but I’ve certainly seen him impatient.
TW: Was there anybody else in Congress you were able to work with somewhat cordially, so that it wasn’t entirely just enemy territory?
JD: Sure. Jimmy Duncan from Tennessee, now retired from Congress.
TW: Who, by the way, has been a guest on the Tom Woods Show a couple times.
JD: He represented Knoxville, Tennessee, including the University of Tennessee. His father held the seat before him. Mr. Duncan is a great and thoughtful guy, very antiwar. I remember him saying in his Southern drawl how he liked to read Antiwar.com and Justin Raimondo first thing every morning! And this is a conservative red-state guy. And the late Congressman Walter Jones was just an absolute sweetheart, a very kind and genuine guy. He was in the Pat Buchanan protectionist mode, but ultimately came around to be a very strong noninterventionist with regard to foreign policy. I would say Mr. Jones from North Carolina was Dr. Paul’s closest ally on the Hill, but he had lots of personal friends. People in Congress generally liked him, because I think they didn’t see him as competition for their committee assignments or whatever it might be, because Ron didn’t care. So, he had plenty of friends. Lobbyists left Ron alone and leadership left Ron alone more than in most offices. Most offices faced a lot of pressure to vote a certain way on amendments or procedural matters or appropriations when the outcome was uncertain. But they knew Ron would vote a certain way regardless of pressure. Meltdown: A Free-Marke... Thomas E. Woods Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $20.00 (as of 02:20 UTC - Details)
So, for our office it was not an acrimonious or combative atmosphere. It was just a stupid atmosphere. Congress is not like House of Cards with Kevin Spacey. People want to think it is. It’s really just a bunch of self-important dullards. I mean, there are smart people in Congress, don’t get me wrong. But they are mediocrities for the most part.
Let me say something controversial. From the statist perspective there might be an argument for paying members of Congress $500,000 or $1 million so that you’d actually entice some accomplished or talented people. People who could actually make that kind of money, or much more, in another career. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want better and smarter people in Congress, and I don’t want government run like a business! I do find it curious that the congressional salary—I think it’s $175,000 these days—is far and away the highest pay that average members ever made. They are not high-achieving people for the most part, and they certainly are not sacrificing more lucrative careers for the most part.
And of course, it’s gotten way worse since Ron Paul left at the end of 2012, both in terms of partisanship and the rise of social media. Today I see House and Senate staffers tweeting acrimonious things about a representative or senator. And that is definitely a change. Just five or ten years ago no staffer would have done that. The first rule is never get your boss in trouble. So the environment is even more political and poisoned today, with impeachment and celebrities like AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), and the rancor surrounding Trump. I know Dr. Paul is glad to be out of DC.
TW: As we wrap up for today, give me your elevator pitch for why Ron Paul mattered in politics, even when his critics say he didn’t get many bills passed.
JD: First, I’m sure we don’t need any more bills passed in this country. Ron Paul saw politics as a platform, as a seat at the table of public opinion. He saw Congress as an opportunity to educate people and hopefully inspire them. Ron thought his job was to reach young people, not members of Congress. It was never a majority game or a legislative game. Political liberty may never carry 51 percent of the electorate. But a vanguard of 5 or 10 percent in any society can make sweeping changes and move things toward a tipping point. It’s a long game, not a game of electoral success or instant gratification. The state is a powerful thing—its allure and the arguments for it are powerful in a certain way. We shouldn’t kid ourselves.
I do think the Ron Paul Revolution brought the argument for political liberty to the fore, and to a degree, we’ve lost ground in recent years. For that reason alone, I think we owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. He was a great recruiter.
But people don’t understand all the years he spent in the wilderness, being treated terribly by both parties and by the media. Sure, in 2012 he could go to the UC Berkeley campus and speak to five thousand kids, and he could go to the BYU campus and give the same talk to five thousand kids there. He had some great moments reaching people in 2008 and 2012 even though it didn’t translate into direct electoral success (although let’s not forget that he won a majority of 2012’s delegates in Iowa). He was touched by the support he received; it made him think the whole effort was worthwhile. But there were decades before, beginning in the 1970s, when Ron was alone in the wilderness. He was working to build connections in the sound money, Austrian economics, and libertarian communities. He was flying cheap Southwest flights and staying in cheap motels, hoping the local contact would meet him at the airport when there was no email or cell phones. He spent a lot of years speaking to small groups of ten or fifteen people, and he spent a lot of time away from home, before he ever became the Ron Paul we think of today. Obviously I’m biased, but Dr. Paul put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into this idea of liberty over the years—and I think that we owe him for that.
TW: Yes, simple gratitude is in such short supply in so much of the libertarian movement. Simple gratitude. I agree with your point: when all is said and done at the end of your life, were you a good person? That’s more important than whether you were a doctrinaire libertarian. Thanks so much, Jeff.
The Best of Jeff Deist


lewrockwell--2020-01-25--They Killed King for the Same Reason They Killed Kennedy

Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn ’ t forget that the U.S. national-security establishment — specifically the Pentagon , CIA , and FBI — was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States .
This occurred during the Cold War , when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy to take over the United States and the rest of the world .
The conspiracy , they said , was centered in Moscow , Russia — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact , the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure after the end of World War II .
The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure , which was the nation ’ s founding governmental system , was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States .
To prevail over the communists in what was being called a “ Cold War , ” it would be necessary for the federal government , they said , to become a national-security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same type of sordid , dark-side , totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded and exercised .
JFK and the Unspeakabl ... James W. Douglass Best Price : $ 7.50 Buy New $ 12.00 The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant , primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination , especially in the nation ’ s public ( i.e.
, government ) schools , that the matter evolved into mass paranoia .
Millions of Americans became convinced that there were communists everywhere .
Americans were exhorted to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including their neighbors , and report any suspicious activity , much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists .
Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists .
Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal bureaucracies , even the Army , and Hollywood as well .
One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent of the Soviet government .
In the midst of all this national paranoia , the FBI , the Pentagon , and the CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent .
When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam , that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent .
After all , they maintained , wouldn ’ t any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war , not criticize or condemn it ?
Only a communist , they believed , would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam .
Moreover , when King began advocating for civil rights , especially in the South , that constituted additional evidence , as far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon were concerned , that he was , in fact , a communist agent , one whose mission was to foment civil strife in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America .
How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights for blacks in nation that purported to be free ?
And why not ?
Isn ’ t it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security ?
What bigger threat to national security than a person who is supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and also as a spearhead for an international communist conspiracy to take over the United States ?
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state .
As early as 1953 , the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and , equally important , in the art of concealing the CIA ’ s role in state-sponsored assassinations .
In 1954 , the CIA targeted the democratically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was reaching out to Russia in a spirt of peace , friendship , and mutual co-existence .
In 1960-61 , the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba , the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security .
In the early 1960s , the CIA , in partnership with the Mafia , the world ’ s premier criminal organization , conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro , the leader of Cuba , a country that never attacked or invaded the United States .
In 1973 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coup in Chile , where its counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the country , Salvador Allende , by firing missiles at his position in the national palace .
The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials weren ’ t the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security .
As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound book JFK and the Unspeakable : Why He Died and Why It Matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President John F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well .
Why did they target Kennedy ?
For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination — they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and , they believed , it was their job to eliminate threats to national security .
After the Cuban Missile Crisis , Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of “ defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the ... Douglas Horne Check Amazon for Pricing .
That ’ s when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace , friendship , and mutual coexistence .
Kennedy ’ s Peace Speech at American University on June 10 , 1963 , where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world , sealed President Kennedy ’ s fate .
That ’ s also what had sealed the fate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seal the fate of President Allende in Chile .
( See FFF ’ s bestselling book JFK ’ s War with the National Security Establishment : Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne , who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s .
Also see FFF ’ s bestselling book The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger and his recently published The Kennedy Autopsy 2.
” ) But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University , Kennedy delivered a major televised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights movement , the movement that King was leading .
What better proof of a threat to national security than that — reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and then , one day later , defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist takeover of the United States ?
The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government .
A free nation fights communism with freedom and limited government .
There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations , torture , invasions , occupations , wars of aggression , coups , alliances with dictatorial regimes , sanctions , embargoes , regime-change operations , and massive death , suffering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss of liberty and privacy here at home .
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation .
The Kennedy Autopsy Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing .
The Kennedy Autopsy 2 : ... Jacob Hornberger Check Amazon for Pricing .
The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger

Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. national-security establishment — specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI — was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States.
This occurred during the Cold War, when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy to take over the United States and the rest of the world. The conspiracy, they said, was centered in Moscow, Russia — yes, that Russia!
That was, in fact, the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure after the end of World War II. The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure, which was the nation’s founding governmental system, was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States. To prevail over the communists in what was being called a “Cold War,” it would be necessary for the federal government, they said, to become a national-security state so that it could wield the same type of sordid, dark-side, totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded and exercised. JFK and the Unspeakabl... Douglass, James W. Best Price: $6.42 Buy New $13.52 (as of 06:45 UTC - Details)
The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant, primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination, especially in the nation’s public (i.e., government) schools, that the matter evolved into mass paranoia. Millions of Americans became convinced that there were communists everywhere. Americans were exhorted to keep a careful watch on everyone else, including their neighbors, and report any suspicious activity, much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists.
Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists. Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal bureaucracies, even the Army, and Hollywood as well. One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent of the Soviet government.
In the midst of all this national paranoia, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the CIA became convinced that King was a communist agent. When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam, that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent. After all, they maintained, wouldn’t any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war, not criticize or condemn it? Only a communist, they believed, would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam.
Moreover, when King began advocating for civil rights, especially in the South, that constituted additional evidence, as far as the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon were concerned, that he was, in fact, a communist agent, one whose mission was to foment civil strife in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America. How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights for blacks in nation that purported to be free?
The website kingcenter.org points out:
After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict saying, “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband Martin Luther King Jr…. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal governments were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband.”
And why not? Isn’t it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security? What bigger threat to national security than a person who is supposedly serving as an agent for the communists and also as a spearhead for an international communist conspiracy to take over the United States?
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state. As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA’s role in state-sponsored assassinations.
In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security. In the early 1960s, the CIA , in partnership with the Mafia, the world’s premier criminal organization, conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, a country that never attacked or invaded the United States. In 1973, the U.S. national-security state orchestrated a coup in Chile, where its counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the country, Salvador Allende, by firing missiles at his position in the national palace.
The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials weren’t the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security. As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, the U.S. national-security establishment also targeted President John F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well.
Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination — they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of “defense” contractors and sub-contractors.
That’s when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy’s Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy’s fate. That’s also what had sealed the fate of President Arbenz in Guatemala and what would seal the fate of President Allende in Chile. (See FFF’s bestselling book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. Also see FFF’s bestselling book The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger and his recently published The Kennedy Autopsy 2.”)
But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.
What better proof of a threat to national security than that — reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist takeover of the United States?
The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian governmental structure known as a national-security state. A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government. A free nation fights communism with freedom and limited government.
There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression, coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction, not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.
The Kennedy Autopsy 2:... Hornberger, Jacob Buy New $2.99 (as of 11:13 UTC - Details)
The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger


lewrockwell--2020-01-25--Italy Slouches Towards New Elections

Italy Slouches Towards New Elections

Italy is always good political theater .
I remember years ago when I cared more about poetry than politics , a friend of mine saying , “ Tom , seriously , you ’ re missing out , Italian parliament is better than cable.
” And in the early days of reality TV he was probably right .
That grand tradition of Italian government being closer to performance art rather than public policy continues today .
I ’ m being somewhat facetious , certainly , since this game is deadly serious .
Italy is a lynch pin to the grand dreams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economic dominance , so what happens there politically is vitally important to the world .
And given that the annual convocation of those would-be world rulers is happening right now in Davos , it is only fitting that changes are occurring in Italy ’ s ever fluid political landscape .
Since the collapse of the populist government in August when Lega ’ s Matteo Salvini tried to force a new election that he would win in a walk , the situation in Rome has been tense , to say the least .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maio betrayed Salvini to stay in power by cutting a deal with the globalist Democrats ( PD ) .
But Di Maio betrayed far more than just his erstwhile coalition partner .
Because Five Star ’ s main reason for being was to oppose the further submission of Rome to Brussels and the European Union .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 He betrayed what was nominally the traditional left in Italy that PD had taken for granted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few decades .
In the same way the Democrats in the U.S. and Labour in the U.K. took the trade unionist vote for granted , thinking they would never jump to the ‘ conservatives , ’ PD left those folks behind in their pursuit of further EU integration .
Speaking for those folks and others was Five Star ’ s appeal .
It was the reason it polled as high as 35 % going into the March 2018 election .
It ’ s why President Sergio Mattarella dissolved parliament early that year to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls of both populist parties , Five Star and Lega .
When Di Maio betrayed Salvini to cut a deal with PD last year I said it wouldn ’ t last .
That Five Star ’ s polling numbers would continue to slide , Lega ’ s would firm and the coalition would slowly be taken over by the globalist forces within Italy ’ s political establishment , now that they had regained control .
Today Di Maio is no longer head of Five Star .
The party is in turmoil .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he ’ s sold out his country and his party .
His job is complete and when Salvini returns to power without him Five Star will sink into irrelevance .
It is flirting with the dreaded 16 % Chasm which , once breached is a sign the public has moved on .
This dimming of Five Star has had its price .
It ’ s lost nearly 20 MP ’ s over the course of its time in government .
The last three defections , to Salvini ’ s opposition group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Now the coalition is holding onto a slim 5 seat majority .
The opposition is getting restless .
And it is this weekend ’ s vote in the birthplace of Italian Communism , Emilia Romagna , that is pushing the current government to the brink of crisis .
With Di Maio openly accusing Salvini of bribing senators to leave Five Star , the drama is reaching levels of mendacity and self-delusion rarely seen outside of Washington D.C .
In October , Salvini ’ s center-right coalition got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stronghold of the left .
Five Star has zero presence in Emilia Romagna now , polling around 5 % .
If Salvini can pull off the win there it would say quite clearly that Italy is occupied territory and the pressure will mount on Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte to dissolve the government .
But Conte , previously caught on a hot mic promising German Chancellor Angela Merkel he ’ ll deliver Italy to Brussels , will cling to power for as long as he can .
The polling in Emilia Romagna says it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two campaigning groups .
The question comes down to the same things that turned the Brexit vote Leave ’ s way and the 2016 election Trump ’ s .
Will the middle class working people in Italy continue to vent their rage and frustration on tone-deaf elites or will they let old prejudices rule them.
?
If December ’ s British elections were any indication of the level of discontent in Europe , I wouldn ’ t want to be in Conte ’ s shoes in a couple of months .
Because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together at this point since the country and its banks are functional bankrupt are the fragile coalition in Rome and the ECB ’ s commitment to destroying risk assessment within the euro-zone .
This is why Italy ’ s political theater is no longer a side show but the main attraction for the implosion of Europe .
The Best of Thomas Luongo

Italy is always good political theater. I remember years ago when I cared more about poetry than politics, a friend of mine saying, “Tom, seriously, you’re missing out, Italian parliament is better than cable.” And in the early days of reality TV he was probably right.
That grand tradition of Italian government being closer to performance art rather than public policy continues today. I’m being somewhat facetious, certainly, since this game is deadly serious. Italy is a lynch pin to the grand dreams of The Davos Crowd for global social and economic dominance, so what happens there politically is vitally important to the world.
And given that the annual convocation of those would-be world rulers is happening right now in Davos, it is only fitting that changes are occurring in Italy’s ever fluid political landscape.
Since the collapse of the populist government in August when Lega’s Matteo Salvini tried to force a new election that he would win in a walk, the situation in Rome has been tense, to say the least.
Five Star’s leader Luigi Di Maio betrayed Salvini to stay in power by cutting a deal with the globalist Democrats (PD). But Di Maio betrayed far more than just his erstwhile coalition partner. Because Five Star’s main reason for being was to oppose the further submission of Rome to Brussels and the European Union. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
He betrayed what was nominally the traditional left in Italy that PD had taken for granted in their calculated shift international over the past few decades.
In the same way the Democrats in the U.S. and Labour in the U.K. took the trade unionist vote for granted, thinking they would never jump to the ‘conservatives,’ PD left those folks behind in their pursuit of further EU integration.
Speaking for those folks and others was Five Star’s appeal. It was the reason it polled as high as 35% going into the March 2018 election. It’s why President Sergio Mattarella dissolved parliament early that year to forestall an even bigger rise in the polls of both populist parties, Five Star and Lega.
When Di Maio betrayed Salvini to cut a deal with PD last year I said it wouldn’t last. That Five Star’s polling numbers would continue to slide, Lega’s would firm and the coalition would slowly be taken over by the globalist forces within Italy’s political establishment, now that they had regained control.
Today we’re staring at:
Moreover, I said:
Di Maio is now in the same position that another reformer turned toady was in after he betrayed his country in 2015, Greece’s Alexis Tsipras. To remind everyone, Tsipras is now out of a job and one of the most hated people in Greece. So complete was his sell out of the Greek people, he ushered back into power a center-right government in July.
Today Di Maio is no longer head of Five Star. The party is in turmoil. He’s staying on as Foreign Minister because he’s sold out his country and his party. His job is complete and when Salvini returns to power without him Five Star will sink into irrelevance.
It is flirting with the dreaded 16% Chasm which, once breached is a sign the public has moved on.
This dimming of Five Star has had its price. It’s lost nearly 20 MP’s over the course of its time in government. The last three defections, to Salvini’s opposition group, occurred in mid-December.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) Now the coalition is holding onto a slim 5 seat majority. The opposition is getting restless. And it is this weekend’s vote in the birthplace of Italian Communism, Emilia Romagna, that is pushing the current government to the brink of crisis.
With Di Maio openly accusing Salvini of bribing senators to leave Five Star, the drama is reaching levels of mendacity and self-delusion rarely seen outside of Washington D.C.
In October, Salvini’s center-right coalition got the win in Umbria, another former stronghold of the left. Five Star has zero presence in Emilia Romagna now, polling around 5%.
If Salvini can pull off the win there it would say quite clearly that Italy is occupied territory and the pressure will mount on Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte to dissolve the government.
But Conte, previously caught on a hot mic promising German Chancellor Angela Merkel he’ll deliver Italy to Brussels, will cling to power for as long as he can.
The polling in Emilia Romagna says it’s a dead heat between the two campaigning groups. The question comes down to the same things that turned the Brexit vote Leave’s way and the 2016 election Trump’s.
Will the middle class working people in Italy continue to vent their rage and frustration on tone-deaf elites or will they let old prejudices rule them.?
If December’s British elections were any indication of the level of discontent in Europe, I wouldn’t want to be in Conte’s shoes in a couple of months.
Because the only things holding the Italian bond markets together at this point since the country and its banks are functional bankrupt are the fragile coalition in Rome and the ECB’s commitment to destroying risk assessment within the euro-zone.
This is why Italy’s political theater is no longer a side show but the main attraction for the implosion of Europe.
Reprinted with permission from Gold Goats ‘n Guns.
The Best of Tom Luongo


lewrockwell--2020-01-25--Trump’s ‘No-Peace/Peace Plan’ for Palestine. Netanyahu/Gantz Invited to White House To Discuss “Deal

Trump’s ‘No-Peace/Peace Plan’ for Palestine. Netanyahu/Gantz Invited to White House To Discuss “Deal of the Century”

Leaked information shows Trump ’ s so-called deal of the century is a one-sided scam , favoring Israel at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights .
The so-called peace process is the greatest hoax in modern times , along with the US war OF terror worldwide , not on it .
Israeli/Palestinian no-peace/peace plans have been around since the 1970s — a near-half century of failure to reach accommodation proof positive of US/Israeli unwillingness to respect Palestinian rights .
If both countries wanted conflict resolution resolution with Palestinians , it would have happened long ago .
Former Israeli prime minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his predecessors wanted forever talks accomplishing nothing – giving Israel time to steal all valued Palestinian land .
His successors to the present day followed the same strategy .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Since Israel seized control of the West Bank , East Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967 , colonizing and developing the most valued Palestinian land for exclusive Jewish use became official state policy — explained by Yigal Allon ’ s regional scheme , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas Israel wants for exclusive Jewish development and use ; • annexing all valued parts of Judea and Sumaria ; • establishing settlements , military bases , free-fire zones , commercial locations , tourist sites , nature reserves , no-go areas , Jews-only roads , checkpoints , other barriers , and other exclusive Jewish areas — non-Jews excluded from them ; The above policies make peace , stability , equity and justice for Palestinians unattainable .
Achieving them defeats the US/Israeli agenda — dependent on endless regional conflicts and instability .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unveiled were dead on arrival , Trump ’ s let em eat cake deal of the century dead before arrival .
Partly introduced last June at a so-called “ Peace to Prosperity Workshop ” in Bahrain , the Trump regime ’ s dog and pony PR show was boycotted by Palestinians .
Deceptively billed as “ a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society , ” the economic plan has nothing to do with peace , equity and justice for long-suffering Palestinians — everything to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what ’ s known so far , subject to fine-tuning , Trump ’ s overall scheme ignores fundamental final status issues , especially real Palestinian self-determination free from Israeli occupation and control , Israeli land theft , air and water rights , other resources , the right of diaspora Palestinians to return to their homeland , and East Jerusalem as exclusive Palestinian capital .
The “ Let Em Eat Cake ” Deal of the Century : Trump ’ s “ No Peace Deal Peace Plan ” for Palestine and the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international city ) as Israel ’ s exclusive capital , moved the US embassy there , abandoned a legitimate two-state solution , recognized Israel ’ s unlawful Golan annexation , and no longer considers illegal settlements occupied territory .
Trump and hardliners surrounding him are no friends of Palestinians or ordinary people anywhere , not at home or abroad .
Information leaked last month about his no-peace/peace plan revealed it excludes 70 % or more of West Bank land controlled by Israel , including the Jordan Valley , closed military zones , exclusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no-go areas , and illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land .
Jerusalem is to remain undivided , the city “ shared between Israel and New Palestine ” — Israel maintaining exclusive control , the way it ’ s been for over half a century .
On July 30 , 1980 , the Knesset Jerusalem Law officially annexed the city as Israel ’ s exclusive capital — breaching Security Council Res .
465 ( March 1980 ) .
It declared actions taken by Israel “ to change the physical character , demographic composition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 , including Jerusalem , or any part thereof , have no legal validity… ” In July 2004 , the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) ruled that “ Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory , including East Jerusalem , are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development ( and ) have been established in breach of international law.
” Time and again , the US and Israel breach Security Council resolutions and other international laws .
Trump ’ s no-peace/peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli interests at the expense of regional peace , stability , and fundamental Palestinian rights .
According to Mike Pence on Thursday , Netanyahu and his chief political rival Benny Gantz will meet with Trump in the White House next week to discuss regional issues and what PA official Saeb Erekat called Trump ’ s “ deal of the next century , ” a conspiracy against Palestinian rights .
Reuters reported that the Trump regime will release his no-peace/peace plan ahead of the January 28 meeting with Netanyahu and Gantz .
DJT calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh reaffirmed the Palestinian demand for an independent state within June 1967 borders — free from Israeli occupation and control .
On Thursday , Israel ’ s Channel 12 , citing unnamed Netanyahu regime sources , said Trump ’ s plan includes exclusive Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem , illegal settlements , and the Jordan Valley adding : It supports the illusion of Palestinian self-determination , demanding a demilitarized Hamas , along with Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state , Jerusalem its capital .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called plan , the Trump regime will support Israeli annexation of illegal settlements unilaterally .
According to the Wafa PA news site , Rudeineh said the following : “ If the announcement of this deal , with these unacceptable formulas , is made , the ( PA ) leadership will announce a series of measures to preserve our legitimate rights , and we will call on Israel to assume its responsibilities as an occupying power , ” adding : Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 “ We warn ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cross the red lines.
” Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassim said “ any deal or project that does not contain our people ’ s full rights in our land and holy sites will not stand , ” adding : “ All the attempts to make this deal come to pass will be squashed by our people ’ s resistance and steadfastness.
” “ Our Palestinian people will determine its fate by way of its ongoing revolution , legitimate struggle and absolute belief in the justness of its cause.
” “ Reports about details and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purely speculative.
” If its provisions resemble what ’ s discussed above , it ’ ll clearly be rejected by the PA , Hamas , and the Palestinian street .
The Best of Stephen Lendman

Leaked information shows Trump’s so-called deal of the century is a one-sided scam, favoring Israel at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights.
The so-called peace process is the greatest hoax in modern times, along with the US war OF terror worldwide, not on it.
Israeli/Palestinian no-peace/peace plans have been around since the 1970s — a near-half century of failure to reach accommodation proof positive of US/Israeli unwillingness to respect Palestinian rights.
If both countries wanted conflict resolution resolution with Palestinians, it would have happened long ago.
Former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir explained why not. He and his predecessors wanted forever talks accomplishing nothing – giving Israel time to steal all valued Palestinian land.
His successors to the present day followed the same strategy. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
Since Israel seized control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967, colonizing and developing the most valued Palestinian land for exclusive Jewish use became official state policy — explained by Yigal Allon’s regional scheme, its elements including:
permanent militarized occupation;
maximum land for Jews with minimum Arabs;
dispossessing Palestinians from areas Israel wants for exclusive Jewish development and use;
annexing all valued parts of Judea and Sumaria;
controlling Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital;
establishing settlements, military bases, free-fire zones, commercial locations, tourist sites, nature reserves, no-go areas, Jews-only roads, checkpoints, other barriers, and other exclusive Jewish areas — non-Jews excluded from them;
stealing Palestinian resources; and
cracking down hard on resisters.
The above policies make peace, stability, equity and justice for Palestinians unattainable.
Achieving them defeats the US/Israeli agenda — dependent on endless regional conflicts and instability.
It’s why decades of peace plans when unveiled were dead on arrival, Trump’s let em eat cake deal of the century dead before arrival.
Partly introduced last June at a so-called “Peace to Prosperity Workshop” in Bahrain, the Trump regime’s dog and pony PR show was boycotted by Palestinians.
Deceptively billed as “a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society,” the economic plan has nothing to do with peace, equity and justice for long-suffering Palestinians — everything to do with one-sidedly serving US/Israeli interests.
Based on what’s known so far, subject to fine-tuning, Trump’s overall scheme ignores fundamental final status issues, especially real Palestinian self-determination free from Israeli occupation and control, Israeli land theft, air and water rights, other resources, the right of diaspora Palestinians to return to their homeland, and East Jerusalem as exclusive Palestinian capital.
The “Let Em Eat Cake” Deal of the Century: Trump’s “No Peace Deal Peace Plan” for Palestine and the Middle East
He illegally recognized Jerusalem (a UN-established international city) as Israel’s exclusive capital, moved the US embassy there, abandoned a legitimate two-state solution, recognized Israel’s unlawful Golan annexation, and no longer considers illegal settlements occupied territory.
Trump and hardliners surrounding him are no friends of Palestinians or ordinary people anywhere, not at home or abroad.
Information leaked last month about his no-peace/peace plan revealed it excludes 70% or more of West Bank land controlled by Israel, including the Jordan Valley, closed military zones, exclusive Jewish commercial areas, tourist sites, no-go areas, and illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land.
Jerusalem is to remain undivided, the city “shared between Israel and New Palestine” — Israel maintaining exclusive control, the way it’s been for over half a century.
On July 30, 1980, the Knesset Jerusalem Law officially annexed the city as Israel’s exclusive capital — breaching Security Council Res. 465 (March 1980).
It declared actions taken by Israel “to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development (and) have been established in breach of international law.”
Time and again, the US and Israel breach Security Council resolutions and other international laws.
Trump’s no-peace/peace plan is all about serving US and Israeli interests at the expense of regional peace, stability, and fundamental Palestinian rights.
According to Mike Pence on Thursday, Netanyahu and his chief political rival Benny Gantz will meet with Trump in the White House next week to discuss regional issues and what PA official Saeb Erekat called Trump’s “deal of the next century,” a conspiracy against Palestinian rights.
Reuters reported that the Trump regime will release his no-peace/peace plan ahead of the January 28 meeting with Netanyahu and Gantz.
DJT calling it “a great plan” defies reality. PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh reaffirmed the Palestinian demand for an independent state within June 1967 borders — free from Israeli occupation and control.
On Thursday, Israel’s Channel 12, citing unnamed Netanyahu regime sources, said Trump’s plan includes exclusive Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, illegal settlements, and the Jordan Valley adding:
It supports the illusion of Palestinian self-determination, demanding a demilitarized Hamas, along with Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Jerusalem its capital.
It also reportedly stipulates that if Palestinians reject the so-called plan, the Trump regime will support Israeli annexation of illegal settlements unilaterally.
According to the Wafa PA news site, Rudeineh said the following:
“If the announcement of this deal, with these unacceptable formulas, is made, the (PA) leadership will announce a series of measures to preserve our legitimate rights, and we will call on Israel to assume its responsibilities as an occupying power,” adding: Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
“We warn (the Netanyahu and Trump regimes) to not cross the red lines.”
Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassim said “any deal or project that does not contain our people’s full rights in our land and holy sites will not stand,” adding:
“All the attempts to make this deal come to pass will be squashed by our people’s resistance and steadfastness.”
“Our Palestinian people will determine its fate by way of its ongoing revolution, legitimate struggle and absolute belief in the justness of its cause.”
On Thursday, Trump tweeted:
“Reports about details and timing of our closely-held peace plan are purely speculative.”
If its provisions resemble what’s discussed above, it’ll clearly be rejected by the PA, Hamas, and the Palestinian street.
Reprinted with permission from GlobalResearch.ca.
The Best of Stephen Lendman


The Big Sleep

You have to wonder how many Democratic senators spend the long hours of impeachment fantasizing how to end the misery of listening to Rep. Adam Schiff deliver the party ’ s funeral oration .
Please God , hurl a lightning bolt at the podium… bring down a chunk of the fine old coffered ceiling where he stands and prates about a Russian invasion of Malibu… send a coral snake up the leg of his trousers… !
It was so bad that his California counterpart , Senator Diane Feinstein , just up-and-split late Wednesday .
Elizabeth Warren has been seen furiously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is failing to visit in her confinement .
Bernie Sanders imagines himself wielding thirty inches of re-bar upside Mr. Schiff ’ s skull , while Amy Klobuchar pops her third Xanax of the evening .
You have no idea what mental tribulation the House impeachment manager supreme is visiting on his colleagues .
The impeachment case against Mr. Trump might mercifully spell the end of the Master Narrative the Democrats have been confabulating since 2016 : that Donald Trump invited the wicked Vlad Putin to checkmate Hillary Clinton and thereby crushed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make Ukraine the 51st state… or something like that .
Because according to Mr. Schiff , there is no nation on this planet as dear to the interests of America than darling Ukraine , with its radioactive forests , decrepitating Soviet infrastructure , and dedication to liberty .
Living in the Long Eme ... James Howard Kunstler Buy New $ 24.95 Those who were only puzzling over Nancy Pelosi ’ s motives in bringing this case , and assigning it to the two sketchiest characters in her charge , Schiff & Nadler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer sound of mind .
What was she thinking ?
Did she really want to set up the voters to lose faith in the basic electoral process by preemptively delegitimizing the 2020 election ?
( “ Trump can only win if he cheats !
” ) Is she that desperate to flip the Senate to prevent anymore judicial appointments ?
Could be .
Or is the impeachment spectacle a different kind of set-up : to make the forthcoming raft of indictments against RussiaGate coupsters look like a mere act of revenge rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of perfidious sedition by some of the highest officials in the land ?
Anyway , after another day of this boresome torment , the Senate will get to hear Mr. Trump ’ s defense in a full-throated way — really for the first time since the whole nasty business began , and in a conspicuous venue where it can ’ t be ignored anymore .
If nothing else , it will probably be more interesting and certainly more dignified than the idiotic vaudeville put on by Schiff & Nadler .
Even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case out-of-hand for its utter lack of merit and the legal errors in its construction by two House committees , I doubt they will miss the opportunity to use the time allotted to lay out the story of what actually happened the past three years — a crime spree of government against itself .
The Fall of the Ancien ... james howard kunstler Buy New $ 7.00 The temptation to call witnesses must be anguishing , though , from a legal standpoint the Houses ’ s case deserves to be thrown out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment is not a frivolity .
But the nation would miss the chance for Mr. Schiff to have to explain exactly what happened around the “ whistleblower ” episode and , of course , there would be no more possible excuses for producing the “ whistleblower ” him-or-herself in the witness dock .
I think we would discover what an absolutely shady operation that was .
In the meantime , an interesting development flew in under the radar as the impeachment spectacle hogged the news : The Department of Justice yesterday declared two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invalid .
The warrants were signed by James Comey , Andrew McCabe , and Rod Rosenstein .
The move has deep repercussions in everything connected to the RussiaGate investigation , including especially the prosecutions mounted by Robert Mueller ’ s lawyers .
It implies what has already been demonstrated by other evidence : That the FBI and the DOJ knew by January of 2017 at the latest that all the information they used to start the case against the President was garbage , and yet they continued it anyway — including the appointment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The DOJ ’ s statement about the two FISA warrants doesn ’ t negate the possibility that the other two will also be declared invalid .
It ’ s time for the figures involved in all this to become very afraid .
The Best of James Howard Kunstler

You have to wonder how many Democratic senators spend the long hours of impeachment fantasizing how to end the misery of listening to Rep. Adam Schiff deliver the party’s funeral oration. Please God, hurl a lightning bolt at the podium… bring down a chunk of the fine old coffered ceiling where he stands and prates about a Russian invasion of Malibu… send a coral snake up the leg of his trousers…!
It was so bad that his California counterpart, Senator Diane Feinstein, just up-and-split late Wednesday. Elizabeth Warren has been seen furiously doodling maps of all the primary precincts she is failing to visit in her confinement. Bernie Sanders imagines himself wielding thirty inches of re-bar upside Mr. Schiff’s skull, while Amy Klobuchar pops her third Xanax of the evening. You have no idea what mental tribulation the House impeachment manager supreme is visiting on his colleagues.
The impeachment case against Mr. Trump might mercifully spell the end of the Master Narrative the Democrats have been confabulating since 2016: that Donald Trump invited the wicked Vlad Putin to checkmate Hillary Clinton and thereby crushed the hopes and dreams of those wishing to make Ukraine the 51st state… or something like that. Because according to Mr. Schiff, there is no nation on this planet as dear to the interests of America than darling Ukraine, with its radioactive forests, decrepitating Soviet infrastructure, and dedication to liberty. Living in the Long Eme... James Howard Kunstler Buy New $24.95 (as of 10:56 UTC - Details)
Those who were only puzzling over Nancy Pelosi’s motives in bringing this case, and assigning it to the two sketchiest characters in her charge, Schiff & Nadler, must finally be convinced that she is no longer sound of mind. What was she thinking? Did she really want to set up the voters to lose faith in the basic electoral process by preemptively delegitimizing the 2020 election? (“Trump can only win if he cheats!”) Is she that desperate to flip the Senate to prevent anymore judicial appointments? Could be. Or is the impeachment spectacle a different kind of set-up: to make the forthcoming raft of indictments against RussiaGate coupsters look like a mere act of revenge rather than long-delayed justice for a three-year campaign of perfidious sedition by some of the highest officials in the land?
Anyway, after another day of this boresome torment, the Senate will get to hear Mr. Trump’s defense in a full-throated way — really for the first time since the whole nasty business began, and in a conspicuous venue where it can’t be ignored anymore. If nothing else, it will probably be more interesting and certainly more dignified than the idiotic vaudeville put on by Schiff & Nadler. Even if the President’s managers move to dismiss the case out-of-hand for its utter lack of merit and the legal errors in its construction by two House committees, I doubt they will miss the opportunity to use the time allotted to lay out the story of what actually happened the past three years — a crime spree of government against itself. The Fall of the Ancien... james howard kunstler Buy New $7.00 (as of 06:00 UTC - Details)
The temptation to call witnesses must be anguishing, though, from a legal standpoint the Houses’s case deserves to be thrown out summarily just to reestablish the principle that impeachment is not a frivolity. But the nation would miss the chance for Mr. Schiff to have to explain exactly what happened around the “whistleblower” episode and, of course, there would be no more possible excuses for producing the “whistleblower” him-or-herself in the witness dock. I think we would discover what an absolutely shady operation that was.
In the meantime, an interesting development flew in under the radar as the impeachment spectacle hogged the news: The Department of Justice yesterday declared two of four FISA warrants against Carter Page invalid. The warrants were signed by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein. The move has deep repercussions in everything connected to the RussiaGate investigation, including especially the prosecutions mounted by Robert Mueller’s lawyers. It implies what has already been demonstrated by other evidence: That the FBI and the DOJ knew by January of 2017 at the latest that all the information they used to start the case against the President was garbage, and yet they continued it anyway — including the appointment of Mr. Mueller and his commission. The DOJ’s statement about the two FISA warrants doesn’t negate the possibility that the other two will also be declared invalid. It’s time for the figures involved in all this to become very afraid.
Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.
The Best of James Howard Kunstler