We have been deceived by public health authorities about Covid, partly from public authorities’ ignorance of the virus, its spread and treatment, but mainly on purpose.

One reason we were intentionally deceived by public health authorities, and continue to be deceived by them, is to create a market for a Covid vaccination. There are billions of dollars of profits in this, and Big Pharma wants them. The financial connections between public health authorities and Big Pharma means that WHO, NIH, and CDC also desire mass vaccinations. If there are not enough people scared out of their wits to voluntarily seek vaccination, the chances are vaccinations will be made mandatory or your ability to travel, and so forth, will be made dependent on being vaccinated.

Another intentional reason for our deception is the Covid threat justifies voting by mail from the safety of one’s home. Voting by mail means that no winner can be declared on election night. The mail-in votes will have to be counted as they come in. The delay in declaring an election winner allows time for more propaganda that Trump has (1) fraudently rigged his reelection or (2) has lost and won’t step down. As the presstitutes speak with one orchestrated voice, whether Trump wins or not will be buried in reports that he lost and refuses to step down or that he won by fraud.

Even if Trump survives the color revolution planned for him, he will be under attack as an illegitimate president just as he was during his first term when he was allegedly elected by “Russian interference.” This will suffice to prevent a renewal of his attack on the Globalist Establishment—listen to his first inaugural address—and again sideline his desire to serve peace by reducing the dangerous tensions with Russia, a policy that deprives the military/security complex of its valuable enemy.

As presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan learned, reducing tensions with Russia threatens the budget and power of the military/security complex that President Eisenhower warned Americans against. This complex has more power than the president of the United States. As no one would any longer believe another “lone assassin” explanation, Trump is being assassinated with false accusations and a color revolution. For awhile Trump used Twitter to refute the false accusations, but now the President of the United States is censored by Twitter.

When the color revolution strikes, Trump will not be able to communicate with the American people through print, TV, NPR, or social media. There will only be charges against Trump, and no answers from him.

The Democrats are claiming that as the Postmaster General is appointed by Trump, he will rig the mail-in votes by not delivering votes from blue states. Yet polls show that the vast majority of Democrats are voting by mail and that hardly any Republicans are. This is because the postal union is a public-sector union and belongs to the Democrats. The postal workers already have their instructions: deliver no votes from red areas. Obviously, no Democrats would vote by mail if they thought the Postmaster General had any control over mail delivery. The Republicans know that the postal union will not deliver their votes and are voting in person. ( Thousands of undelivered, unopened votes from 2018 have been found in a trash dump– https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/exclusive-california-man-finds-thousands-unopened-ballots-garbage-dumpster-workers-quickly-try-cover-photos/ ).

This should mean that on election night Trump will have a tremendous victory, but the delay to count the mail-in votes gives the Democrats the time needed to figure out how large the mail-in vote has to be to win or contest the election.

It is not only mail-in voting but also absentee ballots that don’t get delivered: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/wisconsin-authorities-investigate-absentee-ballots-found-ditch-fbi-probes-discarded-pro

A third reason for the intentional misrepresentation of the Covid threat is to build the growing police state on more intrusions into private life. The public health threat is used to mandate unconstitutional intrusions that close private businesses or force them to operate at 50 percent capacity, thus driving them into bankruptcy and destroying the lifework of people in the name of public health. The threat is also used to accustom the public to obey mandates to wear masks that provide zero protection. Although opposition to this harmful policy is rising in the US and is strong in Germany and the UK, the fear of Covid that has been indoctrinated has caused most populations to behave as lemmings. People are being trained to obey edicts that harm them.

Now, let’s look at the misrepresentation of the Covid Threat itself.

Many medical professionals have shown, with evidence, that the Covid threat has been greatly overstated. According to the CDC’s own data, of the alleged 200,000 Americans killed by Covid, only 9,000 actually were. The remainder had 2.6 co-morbidities that in fact killed them. The CDC reports that in only 6% of the reported Covid deaths was Covid the only cause. For 94% of the Covid deaths, there were on average 2.6 comorbidities or additional causes of death–https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR0LhME5kaVDj5hGFZ-G5ypGdMDaGlkPi0DF8aDKL_bUDi0hJsN_Fq5zPUQ#Comorbidities

Examples of comorbidities:

If you’d like to know how the US has reach 200,000 reported #sarscov2 deaths, the Milwaukee coroner’s office is a good place to start. It reports the (anonymized) death certificates of #Covid cases. Just a few of the most recent (sorry about the glare): pic.twitter.com/iUe4wQkO0B

— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) September 21, 2020

The CDC concludes that the initial fatality rates were overestimated. If you have the virus, the CDC reports the survival rate by age group. As I read the report, the percentages are all Covid deaths including those with an average of 2.6 comorbidities.

Age Group Probability of Survival

0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6%

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

In addition to existing morbidities, many who died from Covid died from the ventilators or from being denied HCQ treatment. HCQ, a safe and certain cure, was demonized by public health officials in alliance with Big Pharma and the presstitutes, because it is inexpensive and in the way of vaccine profits. If there is a cure, there is no need for a vaccine that some experts believe will be more dangerous than Covid itself. (Doctors in Florida claim to have found a second cure– https://bgr.com/2020/09/26/coronavirus-cure-icam-protocol-florida/ )

The Covid threat is being kept alive by the presstitutes and public health officials until a vaccine can be developed. The latest claim is that the return of the young to colleges has reignited the contagation and spreading it to the adult population in a second wave. This “threat” is an orchestrated hoax. According to the data, the 48,299 Covid-19 cases reported at 37 US universities are associated with only two hospitalizations and zero deaths– https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/scam-48299-covid-19-cases-37-us-universities-2-hospitalizations-zero-deaths-likely-killed-dog/

There is talk of returning to lockdowns and more stringent mask requirements. All of this is to keep people, especially the elderly, frightened and supportive of vaccination. Proper testing of the vaccine is suspended in an effort to rush it to market before Covid disappears ( https://www.rt.com/news/501523-western-pharma-vaccines-rush-hypocrisy/ ).

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer for Big Pharma giant Pfizer says that the pandemic is over and that the Covid test produces “false positives” and does not indicate infection with Covid. Dr. Yeadon said that we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, and a civil liberties policy on “what may well be completely fake data on this coronavirus.” According to Dr.Yeadon, a “second wave” and “any government case for lockdowns, given the well-known principles of epidemiology, will be entirely manufactured” ( https://hubpages.com/politics/Pfizer-Chief-Science-Officer-Second-Wave-Based-on-Fake-Data-of-False-Positives-for-New-Cases-Pandemic-is-Over ).

It is clear that the Covid threat was overestimated at great cost– https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/09/23/covid-19-threat-was-greatly-overestimated-at-huge-cost/ . The Belgian medical profession has demanded a halt to the Covid propaganda– https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/09/18/belgian-medical-profession-demands-a-halt-to-covid-pandemic-propaganda/

Of course Big Pharma and its shills such as Fauci, Redfield, and the presstitutes, will continue to keep the “Covid Crisis” alive as it is essential to Big Pharma’s vaccine profits, the Democrats’ color revolution against President Trump, and the training of populations to accept more government control over their lives.

In the wake of President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, pundits of all ideological stripes lament that the fight over the seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg is too political, that if only our leaders were statesmen, we’d go back to a halcyon age of norm‐​respecting good feelings.

Yet politics has always been part of the process. From the beginning of the republic, presidents have picked justices for reasons that include balancing regional interests, supporting policy priorities and providing representation to key constituencies.

Whether looking to candidates’ partisan labels or “real” politics, they’ve tried to find people in line with their own political thinking, and that of their party and supporters. Even in the earliest days, it was rare for someone to be on the Supreme Court short list of presidents from different parties.

Even in the earliest days, it was rare for someone to be on the Supreme Court short list of presidents from different parties.

Look at the judicial battles of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with the Midnight Judges Act — the original court‐​packing — as well as Jefferson’s failed attempts to appoint justices to counter the great Federalist John Marshall (whom Adams had appointed in the lame‐​duck session after losing his bid for reelection).

In the years that followed, when U.S. politics was defined by rivalries within the Democratic‐​Republican Party and its successors, ambitious lawyers knew that their careers depended on navigating the intra‐​party split. There has never been a golden age when “merit” as an objective measure of brainpower and legal acumen was the sole consideration.

When nominees have gotten to the Senate, they’ve faced another gauntlet, particularly when the president’s party didn’t have a majority. Historically, the Senate has confirmed fewer than 60% of Supreme Court nominees under divided government, as compared to just under 90% when the president’s party controlled the Senate. Timing matters too: Over 80% of nominees in the first three years of a presidential term have been confirmed, but barely more than half in the fourth (election) year. The difference there is again political: 17 of 19 pre‐​election nominees to vacancies arising during that election year have been confirmed under united government, versus just one of 10 when power was split.

Nearly half the presidents have had at least one unsuccessful nomination, starting with George Washington and running all the way through George W. Bush and Barack Obama. James Madison had a nominee rejected, while John Quincy Adams had one “postponed indefinitely.” Andrew Jackson was able to appoint Roger Taney only after a change in Senate composition, while poor John Tyler, a political orphan after the Whigs kicked him out of their party, had only one successful nomination in nine attempts.

Most 19th‐​century presidents had trouble filling seats before a run from 1894 until 1968 where only one nominee was rejected, John Parker under Herbert Hoover in 1930. Since Lyndon Johnson, all presidents who have gotten more than one nomination had one fail, except George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

In all, of 163 nominations formally sent to the Senate, only 126 were confirmed, which represents a success rate of 77%. Of those 126, one died before taking office and seven declined to serve, the last one in 1882 — an occurrence unlikely ever to happen again. Of the rest, 12 were rejected, 12 were withdrawn, 10 expired without the Senate’s taking any action (most recently Merrick Garland), and six were postponed or tabled. In other words, for various reasons, fewer than three‐​quarters of high court nominees have ended up serving.

Based on relative rates of successful nominations, the argument could be made that the nomination and confirmation process was more political during the nation’s first century than since. Both the presidency and the court were relatively weak then and the process was more of an insider’s game. As the judiciary took on a greater role, nominations attracted more public attention, and also more transparency. Interest groups began to matter — unions and the NAACP contributed to Parker’s 1930 rejection — as public relations became just as important as Senate relations. Politics came back into the process, but in a different way. The battle became one over ideology and public perception rather than satisfying intra‐​party or regional factions.

More recently, we’ve seen divergent theories of constitutional interpretation map onto partisan preferences at a time when the parties are more ideologically sorted than any time since at least the Civil War and the Supreme Court is more powerful than it’s ever been. So of course the battles over these precious judicial seats will be fraught.

It’s too bad, but voters are the ultimate judges, as it were, of the kinds of people they want to see in black robes and the kinds of judicial philosophies they want to empower.

ILYA SHAPIRO

Ilya Shapiro is director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and author of the new book “Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of Americas Highest Court,” from which this essay is adapted.

“The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning and exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose.” ~ Albert Jay Nock

“The State, rather, is a parasitic institution that lives off the wealth of its subjects, concealing its anti-social, predatory nature beneath a public-interest veneer.” ~ Llewellyn Rockwell

“The act of taxation constitutes aggressive interference with others as a means to compel them to relinquish their property to the State. This is institutionalized robbery. The State must acquire funds before it can provide services. Thus, the State’s act of providing “public services” on social contract grounds cannot be supported as it begins in naked robbery. Because all of the State’s services and functions are only made possible by first committing mass theft against its own “citizenry”, we can readily judge “social contract” justifications for the State to be invalid. No contract which involves robbery and the transfer of stolen property is just or legitimately enforceable, yet the “social contract” appears to be exactly that: a contract involving the transfer of expropriated goods.” –Christopher Rachel

“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract – the Constitution – made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole numbers that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”[22] –Lysander Spooner

The economic policy dominant in the Europe of the 17th and 18th centuries, and christened “mercantilism” by later writers, at bottom assumed that detailed intervention in economic affairs was a proper function of government. Government was to control, regulate, subsidize, and penalize commerce and production. What the content of these regulations should be depended on what groups managed to control the state apparatus. Such control is particularly rewarding when much is at stake, and a great deal is at stake when government is “strong” and interventionist. In contrast, when government powers are minimal, the question of who runs the state becomes relatively trivial. But when government is strong and the power struggle keen, groups in control of the state can and do constantly shift, coalesce, or fall out over the spoils. While the ouster of one tyrannical ruling group might mean the virtual end of tyranny, it often means simply its replacement by another ruling group employing other forms of despotism.

In the 17th century the regulating groups were, broadly, feudal landlords and privileged merchants, with a royal bureaucracy pursuing as a superfeudal overlord the interest of the Crown. An established church meant royal appointment and control of the churches as well. The peasantry and the urban laborers and artisans were never able to control the state apparatus, and were therefore at the bottom of the state-organized pyramid and exploited by the ruling groups. Other religious groups were, of course, separated from or opposed to the ruling state. And religious groups in control of the state, or sharing in that control, might well pursue not only strictly economic “interest” but also ideological or spiritual ones, as in the case of the Puritans’ imposing a compulsory code of behavior on all of society.

One of the most misleading practices of historians has been to lump together “merchants” (or “capitalists”) as if they constituted a homogeneous class having a homogeneous relation to state power. The merchants either were suffered to control or did not control the government at a particular time. In fact, there is no such common interest of merchants as a class. The state is in a position to grant special privileges, monopolies, and subsidies. It can only do so to particular merchants or groups of merchants, and therefore only at the expense of other merchants who are discriminated against. If X receives a special privilege, Y suffers from being excluded. And also suffering are those who would have been merchants were it not for the state’s network of privilege.

In fact, because of (a) the harmony of interests of different groups on the free market (for example, merchants and farmers) and (b) the lack of homogeneity among the interests of members of any one social class, it is fallacious to employ such terms as “class interests” or “class conflict” in discussing the market economy. It is only in relation to state action that the interests of different men become welded into “classes,” for state action must always privilege one or more groups and discriminate against others. The homogeneity emerges from the intervention of the government in society. Thus, under feudalism or other forms of “land monopoly” and arbitrary land allocation by the government, the feudal landlords, privileged by the state, become a “class’ (or “caste” or “estate”). And the peasants, homogeneously exploited by state privilege, also become a class. For the former thus constitute a “ruling class” and the latter the “ruled.”1 Even in the case of land privilege, of course, the extent of privilege will vary from one landed group to another. But merchants were not privileged as a class and therefore it is particularly misleading to apply a class analysis to them.

A particularly misleading form of class theory has often been adopted by American historians: inherent conflicts between the interests of homogeneous classes of “merchants” as against “farmers,” and of “merchant-creditors” versus “farmer-debtors.” And yet it should be evident that these disjunctions are extremely shaky. Anyone can go into debt and there is no reason to assume that farmers will be debtors more than merchants. Indeed, merchants with a generally larger scale of operations and a more rapid turnover are often heavy debtors. Moreover, the same merchant can shift rapidly from one point of time to another, from being a heavy net debtor to net creditor, and vice versa. It is impermissible to think in terms of fixed persisting debtor classes and creditor classes tied inextricably to certain economic occupations.

The merchants, or capitalists, being the peculiarly mobile and dynamic groups in society that can either flourish on the free market or try to obtain state privileges, are, then, particularly ill-suited to a homogeneous class analysis. Furthermore, on the free market no one is fixed in his occupation, and this particularly applies to entrepreneurs or merchants whose ranks can be increased or decreased very rapidly. These men are the very opposite of the sort of fixed status imposed on land by the system of feudalism.

Murray Rothbard

Did you know that the consumption of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is roughly equal to that of the average Dutch or French person, and higher than that of the average Brit, Swede, Dane, or Japanese person? Our poor people are richer than the middle class of most nations! But how do we keep it that way? 

Capitalism has allowed our nation to prosper. But it is always being pulled in different directions, usually to the left, as the government intervenes by increasing taxes, spending and regulations. America is being taken over by cronyism, which is based on connections rather than merit and thus is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism is cronyism on steroids. 

Ralph Benko, one of the last living Kemp Supply-Siders and a Reagan White House deputy general counsel, is alarmed by how the Republicans have fallen into merely paying lip service to capitalism. So last year he co-authored, to great critical acclaim, The Capitalist Manifesto. It pulled together the 10 most popular policies that have been proven to work. He goes into greater detail in The Ten Commandments of Capitalism, explaining why they are crucial and how they work.

Benko begins the book by explaining that the fundamental doctrine of communism is class warfare, which we are seeing take place in our country today, as the left pits the working class against the middle class and wealthy. Benko calls this “an imaginary hobgoblin.” 

The truth is, “cooperation is the source of mutual prosperity.” We saw it work in practice after the supply-side revolution of the 1980s. Benko emphasizes that it wasn’t a right-wing phenomenon, Democrats came together with Republicans. One end of the capitalist spectrum is ordoliberalism, “socially conscious free markets” supported by Democrats. The income tax rate was reduced by 30 percent for everyone, followed by reducing the top rate to 28 percent. These moves supercharged America’s growth. Capping the top rate at 28 percent is Benko’s First Commandment (today it’s at  37 percent).  

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, asks politicians to pledge not to raise taxes. During an appearance on 60 Minutes, host Steve Kroft badgered Norquist into admitting that he tries to get rid of anyone who breaks the pledge. Norquist responded in the affirmative, “To encourage them to go into another line of work, like shoplifting or bank robbing, where they have to do their own stealing.” 

Benko’s Second Commandment addresses an aspect of this, “There shall be no reduction or elimination of income tax deductions and credits unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” Getting rid of deductions and credits is nothing more than a sneaky way to raise taxes. 

Benko explains how it’s unfair that the government taxes the sale of investments because this doesn’t take into account inflation. The $1,000 you invested 20 years ago would have to increase to $1,500 now in order to break even selling it. Confiscating capital is right out of The Communist Manifesto. So his Third Commandment would index assets to inflation for the purpose of taxing capital gains. 

Benko puts forth a strong argument for returning to the gold standard in Commandment Six. Did you know that President Donald Trump, Steve Forbes, Alan Greenspan, Lewis E. Lehrman and Ron Paul all support it? There was an effort to return to the gold standard awhile back but it fizzled because of foolishness. “A cult-like dystopian subculture preached that the paper dollar standard would collapse, imminently.” 

The Bank of England published a white paper a few years ago which revealed that if we’d remained on the gold standard, “The average person’s real income would be nearly 50% higher, the increase in prices would be nearly 50% lower” and other economic benefits.

Reagan once said about Congress, “I made a speech a while ago comparing their spending habits to those of drunken sailors. And then a number of my staff members told me that that was unfair to drunken sailors because they at least were doing it with their own money.” Commandment Seven would limit spending by adopting a balanced budget amendment that requires a supermajority to suspend. 

The Eighth Commandment prohibits civil asset forfeiture. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Seizing people’s property before they’ve had a trial clearly violates this; it is perplexing that these laws have been allowed to remain on the books. Fortunately, there is a growing movement to eliminate them.  

The left pretends to sound patriotic by frequently declaring that America is a democracy (that characterization isn’t even accurate, we are a hybrid democratic republic). But the reality is, “It sneakily prefers to use the government institutions least responsive to the will of the people to advance its socialist agenda.” The left uses bureaucrats and judges to “cram its socialist policies down our throats.” The Ninth Commandment would require regulations affecting more than $100 million to be passed by Congress and signed by the president (the REINS Act). 

The final Commandment eliminates government controls over wages and prices, including telecommunication services, rent and setting a minimum wage. Benko provides several examples of how repealing these laws has resulted in lower prices and higher wages. Reagan decontrolled oil and gas prices, and there was no spike in gas prices. 

In recent years there has been a push for a “net neutrality” law, which would prohibit telecommunications companies from charging companies like Netflix, which use a significant bandwidth of data, more than a company merely delivering email. “The seductively framed ‘net neutrality’ would have taken us back toward dial-up rather than letting us vault ahead to the power to download a movie in less than 10 seconds rather than 7 minutes.”

In 1950, nearly half the world’s population lived under Marxist governments. Reagan changed all that, by starting the overthrow of those governments. But are we turning back? Benko warns against the current love fest with “democratic socialism” sweeping the youth, observing that the 2016 Democratic national platform leaned toward or adopted all six of the still-relevant 10 planks of The Communist Manifesto.

Fortunately, we have a resurgence of interest in capitalism as well with Make America Great Again. The Capitalist League, founded by Benko and William Collier, has already drawn 137,000 Facebook followers worldwide in just a few months. Capitalism is “the secret recipe for equitable prosperity.” Let’s hope Congress believes in these Ten Commandments.

Rachel Alexander

Democratic political leaders have given token statements denouncing violence and rioting in cities across America, but have failed to take meaningful action, former NFL running back Herschel Walker told Fox News Friday night.

“It’s not [a] peaceful [protest] when they say you have got to disperse,” Walker told host Jon Scott in response to reports of a third night of unrest in Louisville following a grand jury decision in the Breonna Taylor case. “It means you have got to go home, [but] they didn’t go home. They moved to another place.” [Source: Fox News online 9-26-20]

Of course. Leftism, fascism, Communism…they all rely on the use of FORCE. Communism is not voluntary. None of Joe Biden’s proposals to nationalize the economy, hand over your guns and submit to government lockdowns are voluntary. It makes total sense that his supporters practice force and coercion. They seek to make such full-scale coercion the law of the land. You think 2020 is bad for liberty, peace and prosperity? You haven’t seen ANYTHING yet. Not if they keep getting their way.

Michael J. Hurd

In granting official diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union in November 1933 Franklin Roosevelt was “unintentionally,” of course, returning to the traditions of American foreign policy.

From the early days of the Republic, throughout the 19th century and into the 20th — in the days, that is, of the doctrine of neutrality and nonintervention — the US government did not concern itself with the morality, or, often, rank immorality, of foreign states. That a regime was in effective control of a country was sufficient grounds for acknowledging it to be, in fact, the government of that country.

Woodrow Wilson broke with this tradition in 1913, when he refused to recognize the Mexican government of Victoriano Huerta, and again a few years later, in the case of Costa Rica. Now “moral standards,” as understood in Washington, DC — the new, self-anointed Vatican of international morality — would determine which foreign governments the United States deigned to have dealings with and which not.

When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, Wilson applied his self-concocted criterion, and refused recognition. Henry L. Stimson, Hoover’s secretary of state, applied the same doctrine when the Japanese occupied Manchuria, in northern China, and established a subservient regime in what they called Manchukuo. It was a method of signaling disapproval of Japanese expansionism, though there was no doubt that the Japanese soon came into effective control of the area, which had been more or less under the sway of competing warlords before.

In later years, Roosevelt would adopt the Stimson doctrine of nonrecognition and even make Stimson his secretary of war. But in 1933 all moral criteria were thrown overboard. The United States, the last holdout among the major powers, gave in, and Roosevelt began negotiations to welcome the model killer state of the century into the community of nations.

Recognizing Soviet Russia

To the Soviet negotiator, Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, FDR presented his two chief concerns. One had to do with the activities of the Comintern. This worldwide organization is often ignored or slighted in accounts of the interwar years, but the fact is that the history of the period from 1918 to the Second World War cannot be understood without a knowledge of its purpose and methods.

With his seizure of power in Russia, Lenin turned immediately to his real goal, world revolution. He invited members of all the old socialist parties to join a new grouping, the Communist International, or Comintern. Many did, and new parties were formed — the Communist Party of France (CPF), the Communist Party of China (CPC), the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), and so on, all under the control of the mother party in Moscow (CPSU).

The openly proclaimed aim of the Comintern was the overthrow of all “capitalist” governments and the establishment of a universal state under Red auspices. Hypocrisy was not one of Lenin’s many vices: the founding documents of the Comintern explicitly declared that the member parties and movements were to use whatever means — legal or illegal, peaceful or violent — that might be appropriate to their situations at any given time.

This was the stark specter facing the non-Communist nations in the decades before World War II: a power covering one-sixth of the earth’s surface had at its command a global movement that was fighting to wrest control of organized labor everywhere, fomenting revolutions in the colonial regions, vying for the allegiance of the western intelligentsia, and planting spies wherever it could — all with the goal of bringing the blessings of Bolshevism to the all of the world’s peoples.

The first commitment FDR asked of Litvinov was that the Comintern should cease subversion and agitation within the United States. This the Soviet minister readily agreed to. When, less than two years later, Washington complained that Russia was not living up to its agreement, Litvinov, in true Leninist fashion, denied that any such pledge had been given.

The second major point brought up in the negotiations involved freedom of religion in Soviet Russia. Ever the politician, Roosevelt was worried about Catholic hostility to the Red regime, a hostility based on the murder of thousands of priests, the wholesale destruction of churches, and the ongoing crusade to stamp out all religious faith.

In discussing the issue with Litvinov, FDR caused the foreign minister acute embarrassment. He brought up Litnivov’s parents, who, Franklin supposed, had been pious, observant Jews. They must have taught little Maxim to say his Hebrew prayers, the president averred, and deep down Litvinov could not be the atheist he, as a good Communist, claimed to be. Religion was very important to the American people, and many would oppose recognition unless the regime ceased its persecutions. “That’s all I ask, Max — to have Russia recognize freedom of religion.” It was Franklin at his most fatuous.

In the end, Roosevelt got Litvinov to concede that Americans in the Soviet Union would have religious freedom, which was never in doubt anyway, and palmed this off as a major Communist concession. FDR had won the public-relations contest once again. When Ukrainian-Americans tried to hold protest rallies in New York and Chicago, they were broken up by Communist goons.

Roosevelt’s strange bias toward the Stalinist regime continued to the end of his life. The massive documentation accumulating in the hands of the State Department on the real events in Russia was never made public, although it could have affected the great debate going on, in the United States and throughout the world, on the relative merits of communism and capitalism.

Nor did FDR’s State Department ever issue any complaints on Soviet crimes, not on the terror famine, not on the Gulag, not on the purge trials, not on the never-ending executions, including the Katyn massacre of Polish POWs. Yet before the United States entered the war, Secretary of State Cordell Hull frequently called the German envoy on the carpet for the Nazi persecution of the Jews.

The grotesque double standard in judging Communist and Nazi atrocities, which Joseph Sobran keeps pointing out and which continues to this day, originated with the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.

The Collectivist Wave

There was a peculiar affinity between Roosevelt’s New Deal and the European dictatorships that on occasion extended even to fascism and national socialism (the correct term, incidentally, for which “Nazism” is a nickname). Early on, FDR referred to Benito Mussolini as “the admirable Italian gentleman,” stating to his ambassador in Rome, “I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished” (though Franklin’s praise of the founder of fascism stopped far short of Winston Churchill’s gushing admiration of Il Duce at this time).

Mussolini, in turn, was flattered by what he saw as the New Deal’s aping of his own corporate state, in the NRA and other early measures. When Roosevelt “torpedoed” the London Economic Conference of June 1933, Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht smugly told the official Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter that the American leader had adopted the economic philosophy of Hitler and Mussolini. Even Hitler had kind words at first for Roosevelt’s “dynamic” leadership, stating that “I have sympathy with President Roosevelt because he marches straight to his objective over Congress, over lobbies, over stubborn bureaucracies.”

What linked the New Deal to the regimes in Italy and Germany, as well as in Soviet Russia, was their fellowship in the wave of collectivism that was sweeping the world. In an essay published in 1933, John Maynard Keynes observed this trend and expressed his sympathy with the “variety of politico-economic experiments” under way in the continental dictatorships as well as in the United States. All of them, he gloated, were turning their backs on the old, discredited laissez-faire and embracing national planning in one form or another.

It goes without saying that the New Deal was a much milder form of the collectivist plague. (Italian fascism, too, never remotely matched the brutality and oppression of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.) It is a matter of family resemblances. All of these systems tilted the balance sharply towards the state and away from society. In all of them, government gained power at the expense of the people, with the leaders seeking to impose a philosophy of life that subordinated the individual to the needs of the community — as defined by the state.

The inner affinities of the New Deal with the continental dictatorships is well illustrated by a program that was one of FDR’s favorites.

The Civilian Conservation Corps

One of the first measures passed during FDR’s first hundred days was the act establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Young men were enrolled as amateur forest rangers, marsh drainers, and the like, on projects designed to improve the countryside. The recruits were given room and board, clothing, and a dollar a day. More than two and half million of them passed through the camps of the Civilian Conservation Corps, until the program was abolished in 1942, when the men were needed for the draft.

In 1973, John A. Garraty published an important article on the CCC in the American Historical Review. Garraty was Gouverneur Morris Professor of American history at Columbia and later general editor of the American National Biography, a distinguished historian, and a pillar of the historical establishment. By no stretch of the imagination could he be considered one of the wretched band of Roosevelt haters.

Yet, while a warm admirer of FDR, Garraty was compelled to note the striking similarities between the CCC and parallel programs set up by the Nazis for German youth. Both were

essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth “off the city street corners,” Hitler as a way of keeping them from “rotting helplessly in the streets.” In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. … Furthermore, both were organized on semimilitary lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.

Garraty listed many other similarities between the New Deal and National Socialism. Like Roosevelt, Hitler prided himself on being a “pragmatist” in economic affairs, trying out one panacea after another. Through a multitude of new agencies and mountains of new regulations, both in Germany and America, owners and managers of enterprises found their freedom to make decisions sharply curtailed.”Both FDR and Hitler ‘tended to romanticize rural life and the virtues of an agricultural existence’ and harbored dreams of the rural resettlement of urban populations.”

The Nazis encouraged working-class mobility through vocational training, the democratizing youth camps, and a myriad of youth organizations. They usually favored workers as against employers in industrial disputes and, in another parallel to the New Deal, supported higher agricultural prices. Both FDR and Hitler “tended to romanticize rural life and the virtues of an agricultural existence” and harbored dreams of the rural resettlement of urban populations, which proved disappointing. Characteristically for the collectivist movements of the time, “enormous propaganda campaigns” were mounted in the United States, Germany, and Italy (as well, of course, as in Russia) to fire up enthusiasm for the government’s programs.

It is no wonder, then, as Professor Garraty writes, that “during the first years of the New Deal the German press praised him [Roosevelt] and the New Deal to the skies. … Early New Deal policies seemed to the Nazis essentially like their own and the role of Roosevelt not very different from the Führer’s.”

America under FDR did not, of course, follow Germany and Russia on that fateful road to the bitter end. The main reason for this lies, as scholars such as Seymour Martin Lipset and Aaron L. Friedberg have recently written, in our deeply rooted individualist and antistatist tradition, dating back to colonial and Revolutionary times and never extinguished. Try as he might, Franklin Roosevelt could bend the American system only so far.

This article is excerpted from “FDR — The Man, the Leader, the Legacy,” The Future of Freedom Foundation, 1998–2001.Author:

Ralph Raico

Ralph Raico (1936–2016) was professor emeritus in European history at Buffalo State College and a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. He was a specialist on the history of liberty, the liberal tradition in Europe, and the relationship between war and the rise of the state. He is the author of The Place of Religion in the Liberal Philosophy of Constant, Tocqueville, and Lord Acton.

In recent months, several national media outlets and public figures have begun pushing the idea that modern capitalism is built on the foundation of slavery. Last week, while linking to a New York Times article on the topic, Bernie Sanders claimed “America’s rise relied on treating Black people as literal property.” Meanwhile, arecent Vox headline proclaims “How slavery became the building block of the American economy.”

[RELATED: “The Left Argues Slavery Was an Economic Blessing. Here’s Why They Are Wrong.” by Robert Murphy]

Conveniently, this narrative is perfect for doing two things at once. It sets up capitalism as the moral heir of slavery. And at the same time, it pushes the idea that those who lead a relatively comfortable life under the capitalist system are benefiting from the toil of slaves from long ago. By this thinking, if every modern day business owner, entrepreneur, and middle-class property owner has benefited from capitalism, then that person — whether or not his ancestors were in any way connected to the slave economy — has also benefited from slavery. If the strategy succeeds, then modern day capitalists can be shown to be, in a sense, on the same moral plane as the slave masters of old. And, of course, capitalism is also shown to be morally repugnant.

Fortunately, the evidence doesn’t support the theory.The slave economy was never the engine of American economic growth, and capitalist systems never needed slavery to succeed.1

Reviving the Arguments of Slave Owners

Modern-day anti-capitalists aren’t the first to use this tactic. This version of history claiming everyone gets rich off slavery has a lot in common with the propaganda spun by slave owners in the antebellum South. The goal was to attack the idea that non-slaveholding northerners were morally superior to slave-owning southerners. The message was “we are all equally responsible for slavery.”2

One part of the strategy consisted of claiming that some northern abolitionists were hypocrites for participating in the slave trade as owners of shipping firms that served the slave economy.

As recounted by Matthew Karp in This Vast Southern Empire, pro-slavery politician — and US diplomat in Brazil — Henry A. Wise chronicled the hypocrisy of northern merchants who claimed to oppose slavery while making money off the slave trade in Brazil:

The Americans involved in the trade, Wise reported, “are all from North of Balt[imore ],” and northern abolitionists were deeply complicit in the cruel traffic. One notorious ship, which landed about six hundred slaves in Brazil, “was owned by a Quaker of Delaware who would not even eat slave sugar.” Another American vessel, Wise declared, “which has made several trips to the coast under the charter party of notorious slave traders here, is also the owner of an abolition newspaper in Bangor, Maine.

While this no doubt made some northern merchants look bad, these claims nonetheless failed to make the case that northern farmers, mine owners, and other capitalists in general were getting rich from slavery.

Far more useful in spreading the blame about slavery was the “King Cotton” argument which pushed the notion that most of the industrialized world depended on the cotton economy. Karp continues:

Slaveholders in the 1850s seldom passed up an opportunity to sketch the inexorable syllogism of King Cotton: the American South produced nearly all the world’s usable raw cotton; this cotton fueled the industrial development of the North Atlantic; therefore, the advanced economies of France, the northern United States, and Great Britain were ruled, in effect, by southern planters.

The conclusions southerners drew from this King Cotton model were no less grandiose than their premises. De Bow’s encyclopedia declared that cotton was “the most beneficent product that commerce has ever transported for the comfort of the human family.”

Without southern cotton, it was claimed, northern industry — assumed to be dependent on cotton for textiles — would suffer a crippling blow. Thus, the northern and European capitalists were thought to be at the mercy of the cotton producers, and to owe their success to the slave economy.

So widespread was this belief that southern political theorists believed the South ought to forget about diversifying its economy. George Fitzhugh, for example, insisted the South should focus on putting all its eggs in the cotton basket:

It matters little who makes our shoes. Indeed, the South will commit a fatal blunder if, in its haste to become nominally independent, it loses its present engines of power, and thereby ceases to be really independent. Cotton is king; and rice, sugar, Indian corn, wheat, and tobacco, are his chief ministers. … We should not jeopard this great lever of power in the haste to become, like Englishmen, shop-keepers, cobblers, and common carriers for the universe.3

Ultimately, so confident were many southerners that they could use the cotton economy to control the world, Sen. James Hammond of South Carolina concluded: “[Y]ou dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it.”

Needless to say, Hammond and the purveyors of the King Cotton theory were wrong about the extent of global political power generated by cotton.

It turned out that the world could survive without southern cotton, and — more importantly — the world did not need cotton produced specifically by slaves. Nor was it true that the world needed the “cheap labor” of slavery to produce goods and services economically. Northern immigrants disproved this even before the war.

The pretensions about the “necessity” of slave cotton became more abundantly clear after the war. Even in the wake of the Union army’s scorched earth campaign against the South, cotton production began to recover within only a few years of the war’s end. Cotton production, now using non-slave labor, had returned to peak levels by the 1870s. By the end of the nineteenth century, cotton production was more than double what it had been during the antebellum years.

Moreover, even during the slave-labor era, the northern economy was hardly doomed to failure without southern cotton. Textiles were not the only thing people needed to meet their basic needs. And slaves were not the only thing merchants could make money shipping. Northern states produced immense amounts of food stuffs. Northern merchants shipped growing amounts of crops, building materials, and other resources unconnected to the cotton economy.

Rather than be an engine of the world’s economy, it is more likely the slave economy held the southern economy back. According to Karl Smith at Bloomberg this week:

Just before independence, the per capita gross domestic product of the South, adjusted for inflation, was $3,100 per year — compared with just $1,832 in New England. Over the next 60 years Southern per capita GDP actually declined, to $2,521. British demand for cotton helped it to recover to $4,000 per person in 1860, but by then the comparable figure for New England was $5,337.

Slave labor was no match for canals, railroads, steel mills and shipyards. Slavery — and the parochial rent-seeking culture it promoted — inhibited the growth of capitalism in the South.

The fact that many industries in the US North and in Western Europe benefited from slave-produced southern cotton does not prove that these economies needed slave cotton to thrive or survive. The world’s industrial economies have gotten along just fine without it.

Nonetheless, certain leftists are now trying to revive the old antebellum theory that the capitalist economy is built on the backs of slaves. The slave drivers of old would no doubt agree. But the theory is just as wrong now as it was then.

• 1.See Karl Smith’s “How Slavery Hurt the US Economy” in Bloomberg“:

The concept of “History in the making” has been pushed to extremes when it comes to the extraordinary public service being performed by historian, former UK diplomat and human rights activist Craig Murray.

Murray – literally, and on a global level – is now positioned as our man in the public gallery, as he painstakingly documents in vivid detail what could be defined as the trial of the century as far as the practice of journalism is concerned: the kangaroo court judging Julian Assange in Old Bailey, London.

Let’s focus on three of Murray’s reports this week – with an emphasis on two intertwined themes: what the US is really prosecuting, and how Western corporate media is ignoring the court proceedings.

Here, Murray reports the exact moment when the mask of Empire fell, not with a bang, but a whimper:

“The gloves were off on Tuesday as the US Government explicitly argued that all journalists are liable to prosecution under the Espionage Act (1917) for publishing classified information.” (italics mine).

“All journalists” means every legitimate journalist, from every nationality, operating in any jurisdiction.

Interpreting the argument, Murray added, “the US government is now saying, completely explicitly, in court, those reporters could and should have gone to jail and that is how we will act in future. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the US are not in court to hear it and do not report it (italics mine), because of their active complicity in the “othering” of Julian Assange as something sub-human whose fate can be ignored. Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next?

Err, yes.”

The point is not that self-described paladins of “great liberal media” are stupid. They are not covering the charade in Old Bailey because they are cowards. They must keep their fabled “access” to the bowels of Empire – the kind of “access” that allowed Judith Miller to “sell” the illegal war on Iraq in countless front pages, and allows CIA asset and uber-opportunist Bob Woodward to write his “insider” books.

Nothing to see here

Previously, Murray had already detailed how “the mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online.”

Murray also detailed how “the six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker.”

So why is he “the man in the public gallery”? “I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public. If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimize attendance both physically and online.”

Unless people around the world are reading Murray’s reports – and very few others with much less detail – they will ignore immensely important aspects plus the overall appalling context of what’s really happening in the heart of London. The main fact, as far as journalism is concerned, is that Western corporate media is completely ignoring it.

Let’s check the UK coverage on Day 9, for instance.

There was no article in The Guardian – which cannot possibly cover the trial because the paper, for years, was deep into no holds barred smearing and total demonization of Julian Assange.

There was nothing on The Telegraph – very close to MI6 – and only a brief AP story on the Daily Mail.

There was a brief article in The Independent only because one of the witnesses, Eric Lewis, is one of the directors of the Independent Digital News and Media Ltd which publishes the paper.

For years, the process of degrading Julian Assange to sub-human level was based on repeating a bunch of lies so often they become truth. Now, the conspiracy of silence about the trial does wonders to expose the true face of Western liberal “values” and liberal “democracy”.

Daniel Ellsberg speaks

Murray provided absolutely essential context for what Daniel “Pentagon Papers” Ellsberg made it very clear in the witness stand.

The Afghan War logs published by WikiLeaks were quite similar to low-level reports Ellsberg himself had written about Vietnam. The geopolitical framework is the same: invasion and occupation, against the interests of the absolute majority of the invaded and occupied.

Murray, illustrating Ellsberg, writes that “the war logs had exposed a pattern of war crimes: torture, assassination and death squads. The one thing that had changed since Vietnam was that these things were now so normalized they were classified below Top Secret.”

This is a very important point. All the Pentagon Papers were in fact Top Secret. But crucially, the WikiLeaks papers were not Top Secret: in fact they were below Top Secret, not subject to restricted distribution. So they were not really sensitive – as the United States government now alleges.

On the by now legendary Collateral Murder video, Murray details Ellsberg’s argument: “Ellsberg stated that it definitely showed murder, including the deliberate machine gunning of a wounded and unarmed civilian. That it was murder was undoubted. The dubious word was “collateral”, which implies accidental. What was truly shocking about it was the Pentagon reaction that these war crimes were within the Rules of Engagement. Which permitted murder.”

The prosecution cannot explain why Julian Assange withheld no less than 15,000 files; how he took a lot of time to redact the ones that were published; and why both the Pentagon and the State Dept. refused to collaborate with WikiLeaks. Murray: “Ten years later, the US Government has still not been able to name one single individual who was actually harmed by the WikiLeaks releases.”

Prometheus Bound 2.0

President Trump has made two notorious references to WikiLeaks on the record: “I love WikiLeaks” and “I know nothing about WikiLeaks”. That may reveal nothing on how a hypothetical Trump 2.0 administration would act if Julian Assange was extradited to the US. What we do now is that the most powerful Deep State factions want him “neutralized”. Forever.

I felt compelled to portray Julian Assange’s plight as Prometheus Bound 2.0. In this poignant post-modern tragedy, the key subplot centers on a deadly blow to true journalism, in the sense of speaking truth to power.

Julian Assange continues to be treated as an extremely dangerous criminal, as his partner Stella Moris describes it in a tweet.

Craig Murray will arguably enter History as the central character in a very small chorus warning us all about the tragedy’s ramifications.

It’s also quite fitting that the tragedy is also a commentary on a previous era that featured, unlike Blake’s poem, a Marriage of Hell and Hell: GWOT and OCO (Global War on Terror, under George W. Bush, and Overseas Contingency Operations under Barack Obama).

Julian Assange is being condemned for revealing imperial war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet in the end all that post-9/11 sound and fury signified nothing.

It actually metastasized into the worst imperial nightmare: the emergence of a prime, compounded peer competitor, the Russia-China strategic partnership.

“Not here the darkness, in this twittering world” (T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton). An army of future Assanges awaits.

Pepe Escobar

“Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.”—Edmund Burke

 Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrat Party is becoming unhinged before our very eyes. Just when you thought the donkey party couldn’t get any more irrational, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death has unleashed a wave of Democrat derangement that confirms the belief of many patriotic Americans, that this party is immoral.

Because of Republicans daring to follow the Constitution in the selection of a new Supreme Court justice, Democrats have threatened to pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, weaken and/or remove the electoral college and burn down every institution that has sustained the country. Yes, they are now attempting to pivot away from those declarations, but to even make such extortions in a Constitutional republic is immoral.

What will be interesting to witness will be the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This mother of seven (two adopted) has already been attacked by Democrats for her Catholic faith when she was confirmed as an appellate justice. Will the Democrats go after this woman with the same pull-out-the-stops lies and slander witnessed during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, the Samuel Alito confirmation, or the Clarence Thomas confirmation? One would hope no, but given the Democrat history of immoral inquisition when it comes to Republican Supreme Court judicial nominees, the worst should be expected.

 Immorality means knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing wrong anyway. Democrats have gotten away with this because they, along with their allies in the media, have attempted to reshape morality so that what they do is good and the ends justify the means when it comes to combatting the evils of the “bad Orange Man” and the “racists” who voted for him.

Labeling Trump voters as racists is one aspect of the Democrat’s massive gaslight campaign. The term gaslight comes from the 1944 movie “Gaslight” starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer. The plot involved a husband manipulating his wife into believing that she is going insane.  Democrats are using this tactic to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of their targets causing them to question their perceptions, memories and judgement. Put simply, the Democrat Party in their gaslighting efforts are telling voters that what they are seeing and know to be wrong or right is not how they should perceive it. It’s sort of like saying, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

As previously mentioned, the media is a willing partner in this distortion. Remember the “peaceful protests” mantra mouthed in unison by the press while buildings burned behind them on live TV?  And don’t hold your breath waiting for the press to call out Democrats who accuse President Trump of lying and destroying democracy on a daily basis,  when it is, in fact,  Democrats who have done so through the Russia Collusion hoax, the impeachment fiasco, and their outright refusal accept a peaceful transfer of power after the 2016 election. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t bearing false witness also immoral?

Democrats/leftists are more invested in protecting their ideas than telling the truth. The problem is that except for Democrat run states and cities, no widespread consensus exists in this country for leftist ideas.  Why not?  Because Democrat panaceas are devoid of wisdom. Leftist ideas seem to have one unifying reality: they are costly with terrible consequences.  For example, you have only to look at California to see the failure of Green energy in 1) its inability to provide adequate power need; 2) the astronomical costs not only to build windmills and solar panels, but also of their disposal; and 3) the number of raptors such as eagles, hawks, falcons and owls killed by giant windmill turbines on a daily basis.

Republicans would be demonized nightly on prime time news if they had such policies, but because these are Democrat disasters not a word is mentioned by the gatekeepers in the media. For one thing, leftist screw-ups do not fit the narrative of “Democrats good, Republicans evil.”

The narrative is the supreme objective of today’s media because it protects and deflects from the leftist agenda. Truth is no longer the standard in journalism, but instead an obstacle to be drowned out by a media echo chamber that spews out a daily refrain that appears to be phoned, e-mailed or faxed to the producers and editors who set the news agenda for the day. With few exceptions, American national media has become a cesspool of immorality, eschewing truth for the sake of the narrative.

Nothing is off the table when it comes to protecting the narrative. Whether it is painting a teenager like Nick Sandmann as a smirking racist, parroting a made-up phrase like “Hands up, don’t shoot”, or not calling out Democrats for repeating disproven lies like Trump saying there are good people on the side of neo-Nazi skinheads, the immoral media is all in. Today’s media is the living embodiment of Pontius Pilate’s infamous query, “What is truth?”

 Liberty can only come from the foundation of truth present in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  In order for lies to be accepted as truth, there must be repression, oppression, and intimidation. Fear becomes the thread of this reality. Those who question the falsehoods presented as truth by our elite betters must be silenced through ridicule, character assassination and ruin. We are living this in today’s America.

Because leftism is built on a platform of lies, the rule of law must also become corrupted and turned against the people. Law becomes no longer a means to defend truth, but to strengthen the lie. Changing the rule of law from protector of the citizenry to harasser of the citizenry is the consequence of this.  The country is witnessing this example via the arbitrary edicts made by Democrat governors and mayors during the Wuhan virus lockdown.

A win by Joe Biden in November means that what has been visited upon blue states will take place on a national level and we will be under the rule of unhinged and vengeful Democrats. All of our cries against the immorality of Democrat rule will fall on deaf ears as rapacious leftists begin the steps to crush our liberty.

Dex Bahr is the author of the book,  No Christian Man is an Island. He is also a freelance writer and lecturer.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/democrats_have_become_the_party_of_immorality.html#ixzz6ZG3k1ssh
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook