Beware the Misinformation Police

They tell us that inflation is 7.9%, then I look around and see used cars up 42%, gas up 38%, utilities up 50%, hotels up 30%, milk up 18%, etc., and am wondering how they arrived at just 7.9%.”

— Lowkey Rey 2.0 @AtlRey on Twitter

*********************

“There is no such thing as ‘disinformation’ or ‘misinformation.’ There is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”

— Naomi Wolf

Ministry of Disinformation–in America !?

As everyone knows by now, Biden’s regime has created a ministry of “Disinformation.” It remains to be seen whether a court will ultimately strike it down, and whether that will even matter. As with lockdowns and vaccination mandates, the damage will already be done by the time any court comes to the rescue, if it does.

Biden, his family, his cronies and everyone else who works for him should immediately be arrested, tried and prosecuted — to say nothing of being removed from power — for even SUGGESTING such a thing as a bureau of Disinformation. And yet they have formed one, fully intending to implement horrors unprecedented in a society previously inhabited by mostly free people.

Think about the term “disinformation.” It implies: absence of facts; or counter to facts. They want us to believe that they’re ONLY outlawing falsehoods.

But in a free country, the government does not get to decide what is truth and what is falsehood. And it’s not facts that interest them. If the facts support the criminal proof behind Hunter Biden’s laptop, you’re still labeled a “disinformationist” if you even talk about it. The nasty, twisted woman Biden has put in charge of his Disinformation Ministry reportedly said that it’s “dangerous to democracy” to make fun of Kamala Harris — as if Kamala Harris didn’t do this to herself every time she opens her mouth. Even the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree with this.

But what’s true or untrue is not the point. The only point here is that you MAY NOT say things the government does not like you to say. If you do, then the Department of Homeland Security will be on your back. These people do not care about facts or truth. They only care about their OWN version of the truth coming out, and any facts counter to their version being suppressed.

Lots of people tell me every day, “Biden is bad, but this isn’t a dictatorship.” If a ministry of truth does not constitute a dictatorship, then what in the world does?

The American Revolution was triggered by far less. Bidenistas should be literally running for their lives right now. Instead, they continue to wreck our civilization, decimate our freedoms and laugh while doing it. What has gone wrong with the majority of the American people to let this happen?

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Joe Biden Meet President Calvin Coolidge

The differences between President Calvin Coolidge’s results and Joe Biden’s results are like night and day. Coolidge closely reflected our Founders’ insights in what he wrote and said, which we would truly profit from, given how far we have deviated from those ideas in modern America.  

Despite the blindingly obvious leftward political bias of the press, there is a growing chorus of dissatisfaction toward President Biden, reflected in historically poor approval ratings.

It seems that everything he touches turns to dross. From inflation not seen for decades to an unprecedented expansion of the welfare state, not to mention an eagerness to evade constitutional limits and coerce Americans everywhere he looks, based on what could only be termed “political” science (though I apologize to political scientists for any perceived slur), he has been a disaster. To pile on, he tells Americans that spending trillions more dollars costs nothing and claims credit for recent growth, which largely represents recovery from what we would never have been forced to endure if Hurricane Biden hadn’t blown through the economy.

As Doug Bandow recently noted, “Internationally, the President has done no better,” summarizing Biden’s performance as having “earned an indelible record for incompetence.”

Bandow is reminded of Jimmy Carter’s struggles, reflecting an administration that was “hopelessly naïve and incompetent, and in the end, desperate.” And while that is an analogy to what Biden’s performance is like, I find an analogy to what it is not like more powerful.

That inverse analogy is to Calvin Coolidge, who, despite mediocre evaluations from historians who like Presidents who produce dramatic change, rewriting history more to their liking (perhaps why the increasingly undeniable smell of failure has even turned some of them away from Biden), produced outstanding results for Americans without sacrificing our freedoms largely because he respected their rights and liberties to live their own lives and stayed within the confines laid out in the Constitution,

What did those results include? Under Coolidge, the top income tax rate of 65 percent was eventually cut to 20 percent. The stock market began its unprecedented “Roaring 20s” climb as it became clear through 1924 that Coolidge’s tax reduction bill would pass. In both his first and last year in office, federal receipts were $3.8 billion and expenditures were $3.1 billion In between, he cut the national debt from $22.3 billion to $16.9 billion. His policies took more than a million people off the income tax rolls, and 98 percent of Americans paid no income tax at the end of his term.

differences between President Calvin Coolidge’s results and Joe Biden’s results are like night and day. Coolidge closely reflected our Founders’ insights in what he wrote and said, which we would truly profit from, given how far we have deviated from those ideas in modern America.  

Despite the blindingly obvious leftward political bias of the press, there is a growing chorus of dissatisfaction toward President Biden, reflected in historically poor approval ratings.

It seems that everything he touches turns to dross. From inflation not seen for decades to an unprecedented expansion of the welfare state, not to mention an eagerness to evade constitutional limits and coerce Americans everywhere he looks, based on what could only be termed “political” science (though I apologize to political scientists for any perceived slur), he has been a disaster. To pile on, he tells Americans that spending trillions more dollars costs nothing and claims credit for recent growth, which largely represents recovery from what we would never have been forced to endure if Hurricane Biden hadn’t blown through the economy.

As Doug Bandow recently noted, “Internationally, the President has done no better,” summarizing Biden’s performance as having “earned an indelible record for incompetence.”

Bandow is reminded of Jimmy Carter’s struggles, reflecting an administration that was “hopelessly naïve and incompetent, and in the end, desperate.” And while that is an analogy to what Biden’s performance is like, I find an analogy to what it is not like more powerful.

That inverse analogy is to Calvin Coolidge, who, despite mediocre evaluations from historians who like Presidents who produce dramatic change, rewriting history more to their liking (perhaps why the increasingly undeniable smell of failure has even turned some of them away from Biden), produced outstanding results for Americans without sacrificing our freedoms largely because he respected their rights and liberties to live their own lives and stayed within the confines laid out in the Constitution,

What did those results include? Under Coolidge, the top income tax rate of 65 percent was eventually cut to 20 percent. The stock market began its unprecedented “Roaring 20s” climb as it became clear through 1924 that Coolidge’s tax reduction bill would pass. In both his first and last year in office, federal receipts were $3.8 billion and expenditures were $3.1 billion In between, he cut the national debt from $22.3 billion to $16.9 billion. His policies took more than a million people off the income tax rolls, and 98 percent of Americans paid no income tax at the end of his term.

As a result, America prospered under Coolidge. Real economic growth averaged 7 percent per year while he was in office, while inflation averaged only 0.4 percent. Investment, manufacturing output, and disposable income rose dramatically, and unemployment averaged 3.3 percent. That remarkable record explains why, after Coolidge outpolled his Democratic opponent by nearly 2 to 1 in 1924, he would have won in another landslide if he had run again in 1928. But unfortunately for America, he did not.

One might ask why there is such a gap between Coolidge’s success and his reputation. In large part, it is because he advocated individualism, as clearly spelled out in his speeches (which he composed himself, in sharp contrast to Biden, who can now barely deliver words written for him), and the newspaper column he wrote after leaving the Presidency. For example, his speech to mark the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is well worth people’s attention. While that seems appropriate for the only President born on the Fourth of July, it is so distant from the modern mindset that many now cannot understand why someone who, as Senator, Governor, Vice-President, and President, viewed government intervention in broad areas of life as a problem rather than a panacea.

Some people’s unduly negative evaluations of Coolidge also come from attributing the origins of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover, who had been his Secretary of Commerce. But they have not done so because of any evidence that his policies were responsible. Along with monetary policy blunders, the Great Depression was triggered by Hoover’s abandonment of Coolidge’s policies, in favor of disasters ranging from erecting monumental trade barriers to sharply raising tax rates. Coolidge made the chasm between the two men clear when he said of Hoover:

“That man has offered me unsolicited advice for six years, all of it bad.”

The differences between Coolidge’s results and Biden’s results are like night and day. But I believe “Silent Cal” is even more useful today in illustrating what the underlying approach the Biden administration has applied to Americans is the opposite of. Coolidge closely reflected our Founders’ insights in what he wrote and said, which we would truly profit from, given how far we have deviated from those ideas in modern America.

Consider just some of the wisdom that not so silent Cal has to offer us about our current circumctances.

Gary Galles

COVID: A Summary

Today in Florida the only places you need a mask are offices of medical conglomerates, such as Ascension (Sacred Heart), a hospital group that also has doctor’s offices where the MD is hired and not in private practice, and Quest Diagnostics where medical tests are performed. In bureaucratic organizations, once a rule is introduced the enforcement bureaucracy tends to retain it.

As the news narrative shifted overnight from the “Covid crisis” to the “Ukrainian crisis,” that is, from one deception to another, the “Russian threat” has replaced the “Covid threat” before people understand what was done to them.

Covid was a threat, not so much in itself as in the protocols enforced to combat it. Most of the people who died did so because they were denied effective treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin for the sole purpose of profit for pharmaceutical companies and profit for those, such as Tony Fauci, associated with them. The emergency use authorization of the untested mRNA “vaccines” could only happen because “medical authorities” declared that there were no known treatments or cures for Covid. To make this falsehood stick, scientists on Big Pharma’s payroll wrote “studies” published in prestigious medical journals by gullible or corrupt editors falsely characterizing the known cures as dangerous and ineffective. To be clear, people died from lack of treatment.

The mRNA “vaccines” are not vaccines in the normal meaning of the word. As evidence conclusively shows, the “vaccines” turn the vaccinated person’s immune system into a weapon against the person’s health, producing in many severe adverse reactions and deaths, and makes the vaccinated more susceptible to Covid. A large amount of evidence, much of it posted on this website and available in throughly documented form in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, indicates that the mRNA “vaccines” are more dangerous than Covid.

It is likely that the alleged “pandemic” was an orchestration. The falsehood that the virus originated in a bat to human transfer in a market in Wuhan China has been disproved. It is a manufactured virus. It is a fact revealed by NIH documents that Tony Fauci financed “gain-of-function” research first at the University of North Carolina and then at the Wuhan laboratory from which the virus allegedly escaped. There is circumstantial evidence that the research at Wuhan was financed as a cover-story for the intentional release of the virus for profit and control purposes. Simulations of the “pandemic” were conducted just prior to the appearance of the virus, and the protocols followed the procedures established by the simulation. This will never be investigated.

The only purposes served by the lockdowns and mask mandates, both ineffective in preventing Covid transmission, was to train and accustom populations to obey mandates that violate constitutionally protected civil liberty. The vaccine mandates are strictly medical crimes in violation of the Nuremberg Laws preventing coercive testing on human populations. There are legal efforts underway to hold those responsible for vaccine mandates accountable, but no government will indict itself or its own public health authorities.

In his book, Robert Kennedy describes the massive conflicts of interest between the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO and the pharmaceutical industry. In short, the so-called “public health agencies” are just shills for Big Pharma. The occasional fines are just window dressing to give the appearance of enforcement, but no pharmaceutical employee, whether executive or scientist, is ever indicted for inflicting death and injury. As Kennedy puts it: “By all accounts, Anthony Fauci has implemented a system of dysfunctional conflicts and a transactional culture that have made NIAID a seamless appendage of Big Pharma. There is simply no daylight between NIAID and the drugmakers. It’s impossible to say where Pharma ends and NIAID begins.”

Several decades ago the University of Chicago economist George Stigler pointed out that the problem with regulation is that the regulatory agencies are sooner or later captured by the regulated industry and become servants of the industries they were created to regulate. This has happened in the United States, and the purest example is the pharmaceutical industry.

Biden’s “Disinformation Governance Board” Brings the Orwellian Future into NOW

Biden/DemComs delivering the worst economy since 1929–maybe ever. Will they pay, or just triple down on their already illegitimate power?

*************

When tyrants feel unsafe and vulnerable, they create “disinformation boards”.

Imagine if President Trump had created a “Disinformation governance board” through the Department of Homeland Security. The Biden regime has done exactly that. If you think we’re still a free republic, you are delusional.

*************

Still think an election won by RINOs will save us? Think again. Operation Destroy America could not be any more on a track for success. Obama got his third term, and Biden is just the demented placeholder to sign the paperwork. By November, it won’t matter if there’s a “red wave.” And millions who will continue to vote DemCom no matter what actually WANT this. Seems like a good time to manufacture a nice little pandemic, to go with the emerging hyperinflation, escalating labor/supply/fuel shortages, and the end of economic growth.

If we HAD a second party, it would:

DEFUND schools;

DEFUND universities;

ARREST all COVID fascist mayors, governors, Presidents;

MASSIVELY cut taxes;

PRIVATIZE charity, SSI, Medicare;

Just for starters …

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Paradox of Capitalism

Why is capitalism not appreciated?

This is the theme of Peter Foster’s new book: “Why we bite the invisible hand: The psychology of anti-capitalism.” I haven’t read it, but I did read a review by Robert Fulford in National Post. Fulford writes: “Free enterprise has enriched millions of lives, but that’s a hard fact to grasp.” He goes on to state: “Capitalism depends on genius, luck, inspiration and an acquisitive spirit. It’s unsystematic, chaotic, erratic and (as its enemies love to point out) unfair. It’s good because it works, not because it’s flawless.”

Besides his first sentence about free enterprise, Fulford’s characterization of capitalism is inaccurate and therefore worth examining here. No wonder people don’t grasp capitalism’s benefits when intellectuals and journalists don’t understand capitalism and misrepresent it.

Let’s consider Fulford’s characterization: “Capitalism depends on genius, luck, inspiration and an acquisitive spirit.” Despite having recognized free enterprise as central to capitalism, he fails to recognize what freedom means: the protection of individual rights. Without freedom, there is no capitalism. Ayn Rand defined capitalism as “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”

In the mixed economy of today, individual rights are only partially recognized  by governments (and compromised, for example, by evoking eminent domain in the name of “public interest”), and public ownership of property is common. In other words, the principle of individual rights is not upheld.

While it is true that productive geniuses like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates would do even better under capitalism, capitalism does not depend on genius. It does depend on reason: adhering to facts and logical thinking. Those who most consistently apply reason achieve the most – provided they are free to think and act on their thinking.

Capitalism does not depend on luck, or chance. Capitalism is not a casino, but a social system where businesses freely produce and trade goods and services. Those who adhere to reality and identify and grasp market opportunities, will create the most wealth. “Luck” favors those who are alert and prepared.

Fulford is right in that inspiration and motivation to produce are required to be successful under capitalism. What “an acquisitive spirit” entails is not clear, but I argue that it is productiveness and the desire to create wealth that capitalism encourages and depends on. Acquisition of things can only follow production.

Fulford continues: “[Capitalism is] unsystematic, chaotic, erratic and (as its enemies love to point out) unfair.” I’m not sure what he means by calling capitalism “unsystematic.” Perhaps as an opposite to “centrally planned”? Capitalism—free markets with private ownership of property and protection of individual rights—is very systematic in that it is governed by the law of supply and demand and the price system. There are no shortages or oversupply in capitalism beyond the short term it takes the markets to adjust. As for chaotic and erratic, these terms better describe centrally planned economies, where shortages of some goods and oversupply of others are constant.

The alleged “unfairness” of capitalism is unfounded. Fairness, or justice, means getting what one deserves. Capitalism is a system of fairness: you get what you deserve—but you have to earn what you get. People are rewarded according to their productivity. Those who produce the most, gain the most. But contrary to its critics’ claims, capitalism benefits also the less productive because more overall wealth is created and invested, which translates into more opportunities for all.

Finally, Fulford claims that “[Capitalism is] good because it works, not because it’s flawless.” Certainly capitalism works. We have enough evidence to show that the freer the markets (in contrast to government-directed economies), the more wealth—and innovative products and services at lower costs—is created. Think of the 19th century America and Hong Kong today as examples.

But capitalism is also flawless in that it is the social system best suited for human survival. Imagine where we could be in terms of innovations in medicine, health care, information technology, and other fields, if we had capitalism instead of welfare state where government violates individual rights and interferes in the economy.

Instead of inventing unsubstantiated “flaws” of capitalism, Robert Fulford and others confused about capitalism should educate themselves about it, for example by reading Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism: The unknown ideal”, and Yaron Brook and Don Watkins’ “Free market revolution.” Benefits of capitalism are not hard to grasp, but as with all knowledge, understanding them requires effort.

It is worth it—if happiness and prosperity are your goals.

This is an edited version of the original post on 3 May 2014.

Photo by Yasir Eryilmaz on Unsplash

How to End Poverty: Stop Redistributing Wealth

Poverty cannot be reduced, in the long term, by “redistribution” of wealth. It can only be done by leaving people free to produce and keep the wealth they create.

The worldwide anti-inequality movement, led by the socialist economist Thomas Piketty,  would have us believe that differences in income and wealth cause disease and death. A recent study attributes 40,000 annual deaths in Canada to income inequality. Following Piketty, the study’s authors conclude that to prevent such deaths, the government must narrow the income gap by forcibly redistributing” wealth from the higher-income earners to those who earn less.

But is it true that differences in income cause disease and death? And is income equalization through wealth ”redistribution” going to prevent them?

Statistical studies show that people in lower-income groups have higher mortality rates, but such studies don’t, and cannot, show a causal connection between income inequality and mortality. Despite the inequality narrative, there is no evidence that someone else’s higher income will cause disease or death to those with lower incomes.

If not income inequality, what causes higher rates of disease.

And mortality among low-income earners? According to one physician, “in his [poor] inner-city neighborhood … the rates of diabetes, heart disease, STDs, infant and overall mortality rates [are] many times greater than in the rest of the city.” These diseases and the related deaths are due to the poor diet, exercise, and other lifestyle choices individuals make.

The income equalizers’ real argument is that income inequality is the source of poverty that forces low-income earners to make the poor choices that lead to disease and mortality. They claim that those with low incomes cannot afford healthy food or exercise or that they don’t have time to exercise or to educate themselves about proper nutrition. If only the government “redistributed” more wealth to them, the poor would make better lifestyle choices, get educated, and be healthier and live longer lives.

While it may narrow income inequality, forcible wealth “redistribution” does not reduce poverty or mortality; it perpetuates both.

Contrary to the inequality narrative, people are not poor because someone else is rich.  Wealth is not a fixed pie; it is created and expanded through productive effort. Poverty is caused by the lack of freedom to produce and to keep the fruits of production, and by people’s choices when they are free to choose.

Some choose to work harder than others, to get an education, to save and invest money, to start a business. This happens everywhere and in all income groups. Witness the thirst for education and entrepreneurship in the developing countries, where private schools flourish in the slums and micro-finance enables small businesses. Witness also the continual upward mobility from the lower to the https://amzn.to/3Kk1y3thigher income groups and reduction in poverty everywhere, particularly in the last 40 plus years.

Through their work, these productive workers create wealth that allows themselves and others they trade with (as customers, employees, suppliers, and employers) to prosper and thus improve their health and life span. As producers, they also contribute to the creation of products that improve health and lower mortality, such as foods, medicines, healthcare, and educational products and services.

Forcible wealth “redistribution” schemes do not reduce poverty nor prevent disease and death. They have the opposite effect: while narrowing the income and wealth gap temporarily, they make everyone poorer by taking the most wealth away from the most productive. Not only does this disincentivize the producers; it prevents the creation of wealth and innovative new products that good health and long life require.

We don’t need the failed socialist experiments from the Soviet Union to today’s Venezuela as proof. Even in the semi-free countries, accepting wealth “redistribution” in principle has led to ever-expanding government spending that has curtailed productivity and prosperity and is drowning governments – and us – in debt.

The argument that narrowing the income gap between the wealthy and the poor through “redistribution” will improve everyone’s health and mortality defies facts and logic. Health outcomes can be improved by reducing poverty. But poverty cannot be reduced, in the long term, by “redistribution” of wealth. It can only be done by leaving people free to produce and keep the wealth they create.

The wisdom of Benjamin Franklin still holds true:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Jaana Woiceshyn teaches business ethics and competitive strategy at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. How to Be Profitable and Moral” is her first solo-authored book. Visit her website at profitableandmoral.com. f

What’s so Bad About Being Alone

“Be alone that is the secret of invention.
Be alone that is when ideas are born.”
~— Nikola Tesla 

“Solitude is independence.”
~— Hermann Hesse 

“We must become alone, so utterly alone,
That we withdraw to our innermost self.
It is a way of bitter suffering. But then our
solitude is overcome, we are no longer alone, for we find that our innermost self is the spirit.”
~— Hermann Hesse 

“I think it is very healthy to spend some time
alone. You need to know how to be alone,
and not be defined by any other person.”
~— Oscar Wilde 

“Solitude was my only consolation, deep,
dark, death like solitude.”
~— Mary W. Shelly 

“I restore myself when I am alone.”
~— Marilyn Monroe 

“My alone feels so good. I’ll only have you
if you’re sweeter than my solitude.”
~— Warsan Shire 

“I never found a companion that was
so companionable as solitude.”
~— Henry David Thoreau 

“Solitude is for me a fount of healing,
which makes my life worth living. Talking is
often torment for me, and I need many days
of silence to recover from the futility of words.”
~— C. G. Jung