Needed: A New System

Hope springs eternal for statists. When President Trump was coming into office four years ago, conservatives were filled with hope and optimism that Trump would save America from its deep morass of crises and chaos.

Alas, it didn’t happen. American society is just as dysfunctional as it was when Trump became president.

Now, it’s the liberals’ turn. They too are now filled with hope and optimism that their man — Joe Biden — will save America from the crises and chaos that afflict our land.

It ain’t gonna happen, and the sooner the American people finally come to that realization, the sooner we will be able to get our nation back on the right track — toward liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

The problem is that you’ve got an inherently defective system — the welfare-warfare system under which we live. No one can make it work. No matter who is elected, the crises and the chaos will remain. Tampering with this defective system only makes the situation worse.

Healthcare crisis. Education crisis. Foreign policy crisis. Financial crisis. Monetary crisis. Immigration crisis. Trade crisis. They all will continue under Biden, no matter what he does.

Now would be a good time for Americans to engage in some serious soul-searching and self-examination. What kind of society do they want to live in? If they like the type of crisis-ridden and chaos-filled society in which we live, then they should keep the welfare-warfare state system. If they would prefer a free and normal society, then they should focus on changing systems, not presidents.

Here is the ideal system:

  1. No socialism. Dismantle all the welfare state part of the federal government by repealing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, and every other socialist program that takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul. No more mandatory charity. Leave charity entirely voluntary.
  2. No interventionism and regulation. No more governmental control, management, and regulation of economic activity.
  3. Establish a free-market monetary system. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and repeal legal-tender laws. Let the market determine what money will be used for transactions.
  4. Abolish the federal income tax and the IRS. Leave people free to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with it.
  5. End imperialism and foreign interventionism. Dismantle the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial complex, the empire of foreign and domestic military bases, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI. End all foreign interventionism and limit the U.S. government to defending the United States. End the national-security state and restore a limited-government republic. Retain just a basic military force.
  6. End all trade restrictions and immigration controls. Establish free trade and open immigration. Open the borders to the free movements of goods, services, and people.
  7. Repeal all drug laws.
  8. Separate healthcare and the state.
  9. Separate charity and the state.
  10. Separate economy and the state.
  11. Separate education and the state.

This is a system that works. It would bring an end to the crises and chaos that besiege our land. Our American ancestors proved it. This is the system that the American people should restore. This is the system that will bring liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony to our land.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Might Does Not Make Right

Might does not make right. Force does not bring persuasion. Deceit is not strength. Censorship will not obliterate facts. Manipulation is not intelligence. Fear does not constitute leadership. Lies do not trump objective reality. Bad survives only as a parasite on the good. Evil cannot triumph–not without the consent of the virtuous. And good people will NOT tolerate this forever.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Don’t Impeach Trump; Impeach the Deep State for Conspiring to Destroy the Constitution

All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”—George Orwell, 1984

Let’s be clear about one thing: the impeachment of Donald Trump is a waste of time and money.

Impeaching Trump will accomplish very little, and it will not in any way improve the plight of the average American. It will only reinforce the spectacle and farce that have come to be synonymous with politics today

While the nation allows itself to be distracted by yet more bread-and-circus politics, the American kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians and corporate thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of the people) continues to suck the American people into a parallel universe in which the Constitution is meaningless, the government is all-powerful, and the citizenry are powerless to defend themselves against government agents who steal, spy, lie, plunder, kill, abuse and generally inflict mayhem and sow madness on everyone and everything in their sphere.

So here’s what I propose: let’s impeach the Deep State and its cabal of government operatives from every point along the political spectrum (right, left and center) for conspiring to expand the federal government’s powers at the expense of the citizenry.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

Even now, we are being pushed and prodded towards a civil war, not because the American people are so divided but because that’s how corrupt governments control a populace (i.e., divide and conquer).

These are dangerous times.

These are indeed dangerous times but not because of violent crime, which remains at an all-time low, or because of terrorism, which is statistically rare, or because the borders are being invaded by foreign armies, which data reports from the Department of Homeland Security refute, or because a pandemic is spreading like a contagion, or even because raging mobs of so-called domestic terrorists are trying to overthrow elections.

No, the real danger that we face comes from none other than the U.S. government and the powers it has granted to its standing armies to rob, steal, cheat, harass, detain, brutalize, terrorize, torture and kill American citizens with immunity.

The danger “we the people” face comes from masked invaders on the government payroll who crash through our doors in the dark of night, shoot our dogs, and terrorize our families.

This danger comes from militarized henchmen on the government payroll who demand absolute obedience, instill abject fear, and shoot first and ask questions later.

This danger comes from greedy, power-hungry bureaucrats on the government payroll who have little to no understanding of their constitutional limits.

This danger comes from greedy politicians and corporations for whom profit trumps principle.

This danger comes from a surveillance state that grows more and more ominous.

Consider, if you will, all of the dastardly, devious, diabolical, dangerous, debilitating, deceitful, dehumanizing, demonic, depraved, dishonorable, disillusioning, discriminatory, dictatorial schemes inflicted on “we the people” by a bureaucratic, totalitarian regime that has long since ceased to be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What remains all-too-usual, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.

Americans are little more than pocketbooks to fund the police state. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities.

Americans are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We once operated under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty. Due in large part to rapid advances in technology and a heightened surveillance culture, the burden of proof has been shifted so that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty has been usurped by a new norm in which all citizens are suspects. This is exemplified by police practices of stopping and frisking people who are merely walking down the street and where there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Likewise, by subjecting Americans to full-body scans and license-plate readers without their knowledge or compliance and then storing the scans for later use, the government—in cahoots with the corporate state—has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, we are all potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other.

Americans no longer have a right to self-defense. In the wake of various shootings in recent years, “gun control” has become a resounding theme. Those advocating gun reform see the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applying only to government officials. As a result, even Americans who legally own firearms are being treated with suspicion and, in some cases, undue violence. In one case, a Texas man had his home subjected to a no-knock raid and was shot in his bed after police, attempting to deliver a routine search warrant, learned that he was in legal possession of a firearm. In another incident, a Florida man who was licensed to carry a concealed firearm found himself detained for two hours during a routine traffic stop in Maryland while the arresting officer searched his vehicle in vain for the man’s gun, which he had left at home.

Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, citizens were considered equals with law enforcement officials. Authorities were rarely permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And it was not uncommon for police officers to be held personally liable for trespass when they wrongfully invaded a citizen’s home. Unlike today, early Americans could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant—which the police had to allow citizens to read before arresting them. (Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons and tasers would be nothing short of suicidal.) As police forces across the country continue to be transformed into outposts of the military, with police agencies acquiring military-grade hardware in droves, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

Americans no longer have a right to bodily integrity. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, strip search us, and probe us intimately. It’s no longer unusual to hear accounts of men and women being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops. What remains to be seen is how the emerging hypervigilance over COVID-19 vaccines will impact that right to bodily integrity.

Americans no longer have a right to the expectation of privacy. Despite the staggering number of revelations about government spying on Americans’ phone calls, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, Google searches, emails, bookstore and grocery purchases, bank statements, commuter toll records, etc., little to nothing has been done to counteract these abuses. Instead, we are daily being accustomed to life in this electronic concentration camp.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the Supreme Court have become the architects of the American police state in which we now live, while the lower courts have appointed themselves courts of order, concerned primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal.

Americans no longer have a representative government. We have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age, let’s call it the age of authoritarianism. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

It is not overstating matters to say that Congress, which has done its best to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance, may well be the most self-serving, semi-corrupt institution in America.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism: a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests. We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism. Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many.

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a totalitarian state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom.

Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal.

From Clinton to Bush, Obama to Trump, and now Biden, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the powers-that-be want us to remain distracted, divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems.

Yet as George Orwell observed, “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

Ayn Rand: A Legacy of Reason and Freedom

Ayn Rand left a legacy in defense of reason and freedom that serves as a guidepost for the American spirit–especially pertinent today when America and what it stands for are under assault.

A version of this article was first published in 2005. Capitalism Magazine is republishing it again because its message still remains relevant today.

Born over 100 years ago in Holy Mother Russia and educated under the Soviets, Ayn Rand became the quintessential American writer and philosopher, upholding the supreme value of the individual’s life on earth. She herself led a “rags to riches” life, wrote best-selling novels that championed individualism, and developed a philosophy of reason that validates the American spirit of achievement and independence.

The story of Ayn Rand’s life is, in the words of the Oscar-nominated documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life: “a life more compelling than fiction.” Born February 2, 1905, she wrote her first fiction at age 8, when she also showed signs of being an intellectual crusader, vowing to refute a newspaper article claiming that school was the sole source of a child’s ideals. A year later she decided to become a writer: inspired by the hero of a children’s story, who embodied “intelligence directed to a practical purpose,” she had a “blinding picture” of people–not as they are but as they could be.

In high school and college, she discovered two figures whom she never ceased to admire: Victor Hugo, for “the grandeur, the heroic scale, the plot inventiveness” of his stories, and Aristotle, as “the arch-realist and the advocate of the validity of man’s mind.”

Escaping the tyranny and poverty of the U.S.S.R., she came to America in 1926, officially for a brief visit with relatives. A chance meeting with her favorite American director, Cecil B. DeMille, resulted in jobs as a movie extra and then a junior screenwriter. After periods of near-starvation, she sold her first play to Broadway and her first novel, We the Living, set in the Soviet tyranny she had escaped. With her first best-seller, The Fountainhead in 1943, she presented her ideal man, individualist architect Howard Roark. But it was, she said, “only an overture” to her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged in 1957, a mystery story about the role of the mind in man’s existence. With Atlas Shrugged her career as a fiction writer ended, but her career as a philosopher had just begun.

Her philosophy–Objectivism–upholds objective reality (as opposed to supernaturalism), reason as man’s only means of knowledge (as opposed to faith or skepticism), free will (as opposed to determinism–by biology or environment), and an ethics of rational self-interest (as opposed to the sacrifice of oneself to others or others to self). The only moral political system, she maintained, is laissez-faire capitalism (as opposed to the collectivism of socialism, fascism, or the welfare state), because it recognizes the inalienable right of an individual to act on the judgment of his own mind. Your life, she held, belongs to you and not to your country, God or your neighbors.

Ayn Rand understood that to defend the individual she must penetrate to the root: his need to use reason to survive. “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism,” she wrote in 1971, “but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” This radical view put her at odds with conservatives, whom she vilified for their attempts to base capitalism on faith and altruism. Advocating a government to protect the individual’s right to his property, she was not a liberal (or an anarchist). Advocating the indispensability of philosophy, she was not a libertarian.

Despite being outside the cultural mainstream, her novels became best-sellers and her books sell more today than ever before–half a million copies per year. There is a reason that Atlas Shrugged placed second in a Library of Congress survey about most influential books. There is a reason that her works are considered life-altering by so many readers. She had an exalted view of man and created inspiring fictional heroes.

A sui generis philosopher, who looked at the world anew, Ayn Rand has long puzzled the intellectual establishment. Academia has usually met her views with antagonism or avoidance, unable to fathom that she was an individualist but not a subjectivist, an absolutist but not a dogmatist. And they have thus ignored her original solutions to such seemingly intractable problems as how to ground values in facts. But even in academia, her ideas are finding more acceptance, e.g., university fellowships and a subgroup within the American Philosophical Association to study Objectivism.

Ayn Rand left a legacy in defense of reason and freedom that serves as a guidepost for the American spirit–especially pertinent today when America and what it stands for are under assault.

Michael Berliner, Capitalism Magazine

The Public School Monopoly Is Immoral

But when the polarization of American politics creates a divide where public school teachers have an overwhelming financial interest in one side of the debate, there is a third and decisive argument for school choice: namely, that public schools are increasingly inclined to slant what is taught with institutionally self-serving propaganda. So much so that school systems can no longer guarantee parents that their children are being educated in ways consistent with their family’s values and beliefs.

The enthusiasm of public school teachers and especially their unions for the liberal-progressive side of today’s ideological rift is not hard to understand. It was just over a half-century ago when President Lyndon B. Johnson proposed a new function for American public schools, insisting they should become the primary means for breaking the cycle of poverty and bettering poor children’s lives. “Education is the only valid passport from poverty,” he said, later signing what was to become the cornerstone of his War on Poverty, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), into law.

The good news for educators was a lot more money. In 31 states, according to Katharine B. Stevens, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, per-student spending more than doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars between 1972 and 2017, tripling in 14 others and the District of Columbia. Since President Johnson’s time, K-12 education has, in fact, become states’ single largest general-fund expenditure, with the nation’s total budget for elementary and secondary education now exceeding $700 billion annually.

The bad news about all this spending was that it was accompanied by an expectation for results, which has become a growing source of embarrassment for both teachers and administrators. With the exception of a relatively few affluent suburban school districts—which tens of thousands of American families have literally bankrupted themselves to buy into over the years—U.S. public schools have continued to rank at or near the bottom of academic comparisons with other countries. Indeed, results from the 2019 bi-annual National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) of U.S. fourth and eighth graders show that low-performing students have made none of the gains Johnson originally promised.

To give public educators their due, there did seem to be a sincere (if somewhat bizarre) effort to improve K-12 curricula early on. Back in the late 1960s and early ’70s, teachers experimented with a technique called “discovery learning,” which had children try to teach themselves. They later tried “open classrooms,” which literally removed the walls that had traditionally separated students from teachers and different age groups from each other.

the more obvious it became that real academic improvement meant opening K-12 education to outside competition—from charter schools, independent schools, private tutoring, home schools, and most recently online academies—the more teachers unions began to discover a cause even more important than higher reading and math scores: engineering social justice. It began perhaps innocently enough with a greater emphasis on bilingual instruction, softer disciplinary techniques, and multicultural awareness programs. But with time it became clear just how effectively a never-ending succession of progressive palliatives for racism and sexism—minimizing testing and grading, ending the grading of homework, making grade level advancement automatic, eliminating selective-admission public schools, and recognizing multiple valedictorians—could shield both teachers and administrators from any academic accountability.

As Williams College political science professor Darel E. Paul has suggested, antiracism and related woke policies even allowed failing professionals to pose as heroes, defying the “tyranny” of traditional academic standards to champion more equitable schooling outcomes. Progressivism not only gave public educators the appearance of shouldering “noble tasks,” but conveniently justified their ever-growing salaries and benefits to accomplish those tasks.

(In the wake of President Trump’s January 6 D.C. rally speech, one suburban Connecticut superintendent was apparently so taken with his progressive mission as to publicly attack every local parent who had ever re-tweeted a Trump remark, shouted “lock her up,” agreed that Biden was not up to the job, or countered BLM with “all lives matter.” Each one of them, he posted to his Facebook page, was “a co-conspirator who has sided with domestic terrorism.”)

Unfortunately, few human institutions are capable of simultaneously upholding two competing worldviews. The result is that what began as a progressive set of policies related to how children are educated has increasingly changed what children are taught. In other words, the progressive outlook once associated with adjuncts to learning—school assembly programs, extracurricular activities, teacher development seminars, and the kinds of grading policies already mentioned—has more and more become embedded in the subject matter itself.

And not just in the most obvious places, such as history and the social sciences, but in math and English as well. In Seattle, for example, the public schools have adopted an “anti-western” or “re-humanized” mathematics curriculum, which advances failing students on the grounds that they should not have to learn a subject intrinsically unfair to people of color.

When it comes to English, Wall Street Journal columnist Meghan Cox Gurdon has chronicled growing efforts around the country to ban everything from Homer to Shakespeare to F. Scott Fitzgerald. With what is left, she says, “The subtle complexities of literature are being reduced to the crude clanking of ‘intersectional’ power struggles.”

In January of last year, even the New York Times expressed concern at how widely different editions of the same public-school textbook could vary, depending on how liberal the state. “Classroom materials are not only shaded by politics,” wrote national correspondent Dana Goldstein, “but are also helping to shape a generation of future voters.”

Because public education is technically a state responsibility, some might argue for letting school boards deal with the growing problem of a progressively biased curriculum. But the fact that most people serving on local school boards typically do so because they have at least one child in the system means, as a practical matter, that educators have far more leverage over boards of education than boards have over teachers and administrators. Even those parents willing to challenge subject matter are usually no match for administrators “with advanced degrees [who] flash their credentials and have glib answers for every question,” laments Dr. Armand Fusco, a retired public school superintendent who has written extensively on the need for school board reform.

Indeed, the existence of easily manipulated school boards, combined with support from a vocal minority of left-leaning voters, has led to the creation of course content so clearly at odds with the larger community’s values as to be almost unbelievable. In the red state of Ohio, for example, the Department of Education started off the 2020 academic year by providing local social studies teachers with a resource it called its “Anti-Racist Allyship Starter Pack”—links to 200 op-eds, essays, and blog posts on such academically relevant topics as “In Defense of Looting,” “Capitalism is the Real Robbery,” and “The Case for Delegitimizing the Police.”

If by some miracle local boards did assert greater control over what is taught in their schools, they would still be in the morally dubious position of imposing a single perspective on a population more politically and culturally divided now than it has been since the Civil War. Having a greater say over the curriculum might be good news for those households comprising the majority view in each community, but what about the minority—left or right—who will continue being taxed to support a political and cultural agenda they abhor?

Are those families which remain at odds with the prevailing ideology to be dismissed as simply “out of luck?” As Michael McShane, director of national research for EdChoice, has observed, today’s public school district may still be a local organization, but the disagreements are now too deep for it ever to be a pluralistic one.

The traditional argument for giving public schools an exclusive call on government funding has been the desirability of instructing all of America’s children in the larger community’s shared civic values. But the strategic decision of professional educators to ideologically camouflage their academic shortcomings—combined with an unprecedented cultural divide—effectively means that in our time, fewer and fewer values are held in common.

For decades, the National Education Association (NEA) and other teachers unions fought school choice on the grounds that taxpayers’ dollars would inevitably end up funding religious schools; and public money, they said, should never support an ideology not universally shared. Ironically, that is an excellent argument for why today’s public schools should no longer keep their monopoly on government funding: every American parent has the right to protect his or her child from being propagandized by an alien ideology.

Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to 2009. He is author of the new book Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Books).

Proof That the US November Election Was Stolen Exists in Abundance

The official narrative that there was no election theft is likely the largest lie ever perpetrated on the world. The lie is so vast and so fragile that everyone who disagrees with the official narrative is suppressed, deplatformed, kicked off social media, ostracized, and fired from their job in order to protect the lie from examination and exposure. In Michigan the state attorney general is attempting to debar attorneys who represented cases of electoral theft. Massive effort was made—including an orchestrated “storming of the Capitol”—to insure that the evidence would not be presented and that the majority of the population would never encounter the evidence. The presstitutes from the first instance declared continuously with one voice “there was no vote fraud,” “baseless claims of vote fraud,” and the old standby “conspiracy theory.”

Obviously, if there was no fraud, there would have been no danger in examining “baseless claims.” Their baselessness could simply have been demonstrated. If the claims of electoral fraud are baseless, there was no need to split the country and to cause half of the voting population to distrust the public institutions that are supposed to uphold election integrity.

Even without hard evidence of a stolen election, it is obvious that Trump did not lose to Biden who inspired no enthusiasm and whose campaign events had to be halted due to non-attendance. How did Trump lose the election when on December 29, after two months of his heightened demonization following the November 2020 election, he won the annual Gallup survey as America’s most admired person, ending Obama’s 12-year run. According to the official vote count, Trump received 11 million more votes in 2020 than the number he won in 2016 and three times the black support. In 2020 Trump received 8 million more votes than Obama received in 2012 and Hillary received in 2016. It is not possible that this extraordinary performance is a losing one. And this is his official vote count, not his suppressed actual vote.

No sane person believes that such an uninspiring candidate as Biden garnered 81.2 million votes—15.3 million more popular votes than Obama in 2012 and Hillary in 2016. The Obama-Hillary popular vote of 65 to 66 million is the limit of the Democrat vote. Even Trump’s losing official vote count of 74 million is larger than any winning president in American history other than the fraudulent 2020 Biden vote count.

In other words, no voting machine or other material evidence is needed to see that the 2020 election was stolen.

Nevertheless, there is massive evidence. Giuliani collected a lot of it, and it was presented to members of state legislatures in swing states. I watched presentations of the evidence by highly skilled analysts and sworn witnesses. In previous postings on this website there are links to the presentations. As so much information has been deplatformed, the links might no longer work. But “MyPillow” CEO Mike Lindell has collected some of the experts who investigated the electoral fraud and has put together a two-hour video that provides some of the massive evidence, certainly enough to liberate you from the media indoctrination “there is no evidence.”

Mike Lindell’s presentation is here: https://michaeljlindell.com

I recommend that you watch the entire video. It will leave you wondering how such startling information could go unreported and be discarded in Orwell’s Memory Hole. If you won’t find the time for the entire video, then go to Dr. Shiva’s presentation at about the 49 minute spot and to the presentation that begins about 1:08 by Matt DePerno, the lead attorney in the open Antrim County, Michigan, court case where Trump’s large vote was reported as Biden’s and Biden’s small vote was reported as Trump’s. Then go to former Michigan state senator Partick Colbeck at 1:02, Melissa Carone at 1:04, and Russell Ramsland at about 23 minutes into the video.

I admire the partriotism and courage of Mike Lindell. By insisting on the truth, he is bringing all sorts of calumny upon himself, and many retailers are punishing him by dropping his company’s products. I am concerned that the corrupt American Establishment will bankrupt him with endless lawsuits and false criminal indictments. In the United States law is no longer a shield of the people. It is a weapon to be wielded against people as it was in Stalinist Russia.

Although I recommend the video, I think Mr. Lindell gets too involved in the presentations, interrupts the experts’ presentations with questions and points of his own and is too didactic. I also think that Mr. Lindell’s belief is optimistic that the evidence will get a hearing and serve to reunite the country. It is OK with me if Mr. Lindell is correct. Indeed, I hope he is. But the fact is that the election was stolen for a reason, and the Establishment is strong enough to protect the theft from the evidence and the truth.

As for the video itself, there seems to be two sets of contradictory evidence. One set deals with computer algorithms and software in voting machines (not only Dominion’s) that can weight the vote count, for example, counting a vote for one candidate more than one and the other candidate’s vote less than one. The machines can also be programmed to produce a large percentage of ballots that have to be adjudicated, that is assigned to a candidate by the discretion of election officials. Testimony is provided in the video showing how both of these ways were used against Trump.

The other set of evidence has to do with foreign intervention in the election. A couple of experts establish beyond all doubt that despite assurances by Dominion and the media that the machines can’t be connected to the Internet, they most certainly can and were. We are even shown the Dominion manual instructions on how to connect the machines to the Internet.

Once it is established that the machines can be connected to the Internet, foreign intervention becomes possible. The final part of the video presents what appears to be evidence of foreign intervention in the voting. According to the evidence presented, equipment in many countries was used to alter the actual votes, with over 60% of the foreign intrusions coming from China.

So we are left with a question: Who stole the election? The Democrats in the swing states using voting machines and mail-in ballots or China using the Internet to alter the vote count?

If China has its hooks into the Biden family, as the material on Hunter Biden’s laptop indicates, the Chinese government would have a strong interest in having a blackmailable president in the White House. But why was voting machine manipulation necessary if the vote count can be altered via the Internet?

Is the answer that both China and the Democrats were simultaneously stealing the election for Biden independently of one another or in cahoots? Or does foreign intrusion mean the use of foreign location or false foreign computer addresses to hide a local operation?

According to the foreign intrusion evidence, there was intrusion into the voting from other countries as well—Italy, Iran, Iraq, for example.

If our election was actually stolen for Biden by foreign intrusion, why are Democrat election officials, the US media, and Dominion defending foreigners who defeated American democracy?

What I make of the evidence of foreign intrusion is that American conservatives and patriots much prefer to blame foreigners than to point a finger at their own country. It is easier for patriots to say “the foreigners did it” than to say “Americans did it.” Moreover, the theft seems worse and becomes a national security issue if foreigners are to blame.

This comes through strongly in the video’s final words from a retired high-ranking US Air Force general who interprets the stolen election as the work of global socialists/communists who are subverting the United States. This was also the theme of Sidney Powell, which I thought derailed to some extent the Giuliani investigation.

An election stolen by foreign intrusion is inconsistent with the video evidence of Democrat election officials counting the same ballots over and over, pulling out from under tables boxes of ballots that had never been folded or mailed and running them through the machines. It is inconsistent with the hundreds of sworn affidavits of those who witnessed fraud with mail-in ballots. How did China bring all this about? How did China know the graveyards that were voted, the out-of-state people who voted in swing states, the illegal aliens who voted, and so on? Did China also program the voting machines to weight the vote count in Biden’s favor?

If China stole the vote and Democrats did not, why are the Democrats so determined to protect themselves by preventing any examination of the evidence? Why, for example, is the Michigan attorney general trying to debar attorneys who bring election challenges against Michigan election officials, including an attorney who has an open court case in Michigan? Who owns Bill Barr and the Department of Justice? China or the US Establishment?

The Democrats invented the accusation of foreign intervention in the 2016 election. Russia’s alleged intervention was the basis for three years of the Russiagate hoax. It doesn’t seen productive to rival or negate such powerful evidence as presented by Dr. Shiva and the other investigators with a Chinagate story.

Either Democrats used the voting machines to steal the election or China used the Internet to steal the election. The problem with Mr. Lindell’s video is that the video creates this contradiction and does not resolve it.

Or so it seems to me.

Paul Craig Roberts

The Absurd, Cruel Dishonesty of Preaching “Unity”

By “unity”, the occupying forces do not mean authentic togetherness. By “unity” they mean the absence of dissension and opposition. They have achieved the absence of meaningful opposition by rigging elections and imposing censorship on social media. But they will never eradicate dissension. If dissension has nowhere else to go, it will reside in the hearts, minds and souls of individual people–75 million, at last count. It will bubble and fester. No matter how grim things look, that will remain a fact. And it WILL come back to bite them. In Soviet Russia, it took decades. In Maoist China and Nazi Germany, it took a decade. In America of the 21st Century, it could take much less time. But when you suppress the individual rights and dignity of millions, you will, in some way or time, pay for it. That’s not a threat, nor even a promise. It’s just the way it is.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Ayn Rand on God

They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”

Study Finds School Choice Improves Students’ Happiness

At a time countless students face obstacles that could permanently stunt their learning growth, school choice provides one obvious solution to help mitigate a ‘lost generation.’

At a time countless students face obstacles that could permanently stunt their learning growth, school choice provides one obvious solution to help mitigate a ‘lost generation.’

Impact on Suicide Rates

The study, released in December and conducted by a Cato Institute scholar and Western Carolina University economist, used two different methods to examine the impact of school choice on mental health. First, the researchers used examined variations in teenage (i.e., 15-19) suicide rates based on states’ different charter school laws. Charter schools—which receive taxpayer funding but whose charters free them from many of the bureaucratic obstacles of traditional public schools—represent a common form of school choice, with 3.3 million students enrolled at 7,500 schools in 44 different states.

The analysis yielded “robust” results: “We consistently find declines in suicides following the adoption of charter schools,” equivalent to a 10 percent decrease in the suicide rate for 15-19 year olds. The researchers found some reduction in suicides among students attending private schools after receiving opportunity scholarships (also known as vouchers). However, the results in the scholarship group did not rise to the level of statistical significance—possibly because scholarship programs are less developed than charter programs, with more recent origins and fewer student participants.

The researchers also examined how school attendance impacts the self-reported mental health of former students in adulthood, using a decades-long study of students aged 12-18 in 1997. Students who attended private school in 1997 were between 1.9-2.9 percentage points less likely to have a mental health condition in their late 20s and early 30s, based on a survey conducted in 2013.

Why School Choice Improves Mental Health

In putting the first-of-its-kind study in context, the researchers offered some possible explanations for why school choice can improve mental health. For starters, private schools and charter academies often put more emphasis on character, thereby discouraging bullying behaviors. The authors also noted that, for students bullied in traditional public schools due to their love of a specific subject—say, performing arts or science—moving to a private school focused on that subject would place them among like-minded students, alleviating a source of stress.

The authors also note the most obvious explanation for why school choice could improve student mental health: Parents and families get to pick the school that works best for their children—placing them in the best environment to succeed. Private schools in particular also face competitive pressures, because parents who do not feel their child is receiving an education worth their tuition dollars will enroll their children elsewhere.

All told, these beneficial effects on student mental health more than offset any added stress from a more intense academic environment, or the beneficial effects of higher spending by public schools (most of which has gone towards administrative staff rather than teaching). As the analysts conclude: “School choice improves mental health….As public attention focuses on the mental health of adolescents in the United States, the results imply that increased school choice advances the public goal of improving mental health outcomes.”

Put Children First

The results of this study provide yet another data point for policymakers to bolster the case for expanding school choice. On the state level, lawmakers should work to expand opportunity scholarship programs in their 2021 legislative sessions. In Washington DC, Joe Biden should rethink his newfound hostility towards charter schools, and instead come up with a platform that puts students’ needs—and not those of government bureaucrats or teachers’ unions—first.

Events over the past 12 months have put into stark relief the stakes of the education debate in this country. America’s youth need a better future than the current COVID-defined present—and the failed status quo of the past. School choice can help them, and us, get there.

Christopher Jacobs, The Federalist

China’s Maoist Cultural Revolution A Lot Like America of 2020-21

Democrats are evil; but they’re also smart. They patiently took over American culture for several generations, starting with college campuses, then public schools and eventually mass media, entertainment, sports, corporations and, of course, state and local governments (especially all the major cities). The leftist radicalism on college campuses of the 1960s morphed into the political correctness of the 1990s and, eventually, the Obama-Biden takeover and consolidation of dictatorship culminating in the events of 2020-21.

We now know that even President Donald Trump was no match for an ENTIRE CULTURE overtaken by the statist, irrationally anti-individualistic and thoroughly anti-capitalist, anti-liberty and anti-individualist point-of-view. Cultural elites are a minority, and not even all Democrat-voters are rabid, Communist leftists. But their party is, and it was a movement and establishment that takes into account what many conservatives never considered: That culture disproportionately influences a society. The elites of a culture, including a corporate culture, are more powerful than even 75 million Americans who think and feel otherwise — if not for all time, certainly in the short-run.

Today’s Communist China is rooted in a Maoist “Cultural Revolution” that sounds awfully familiar when you consider the present state of America today.

If you still think “it can’t happen here”, then stop to consider … that it’s already happening. Look at what Mao Zedong imposed on a compliant China back in the 1960s and 1970s.

“The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a decade-long period of political and social chaos caused by Mao Zedong’s bid to use the Chinese masses to reassert his control over the Communist party.

Its bewildering complexity and almost unfathomable brutality was such that to this day historians struggle to make sense of everything that occurred during the period.

However, Mao’s decision to launch the “revolution” in May 1966 is now widely interpreted as an attempt to destroy his enemies by unleashing the people on the party and urging them to purify its ranks.

When the mass mobilisation kicked off party newspapers depicted it as an epochal struggle that would inject new life into the socialist cause. “Like the red sun rising in the east, the unprecedented Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is illuminating the land with its brilliant rays,” one editorial read.

In fact, the Cultural Revolution crippled the economy, ruined millions of lives and thrust China into 10 years of turmoil, bloodshed, hunger and stagnation.

Gangs of students and Red Guards attacked people wearing “bourgeois clothes” on the street, “imperialist” signs were torn down and intellectuals and party officials were murdered or driven to suicide.

After violence had run its bloody course, the country’s rulers conceded it had been a catastrophe that had brought nothing but “grave disorder, damage and retrogression”.

Party officials, teachers and intellectuals also found themselves in the cross-hairs: they were publicly humiliated, beaten and in some cases murdered or driven to suicide after vicious “struggle sessions”. Blood flowed as Mao ordered security forces not to interfere in the Red Guards’ work. Nearly 1,800 people lost their lives in Beijing in August and September 1966 alone. [Source: The Guardian]

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason