With the country crippled by record gas prices, President Biden has taken to yelling at oil companies for NOT drilling. But didn’t he promise to end drilling and fossil fuels? Also today: horrific cost of covid lockdowns revealed. And – “Inflation? Ha! We’re sending another $650 million for weapons to Ukraine!”
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Green Reversal? Biden Screams At Oil Companies For NOT Drilling!
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: fossil fuels, Oil Companies | Leave a Comment »
Avoiding School Shootings and the Boy Crisis | Dr. Warren Farrell & Jordan Peterson
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
It’s all about the family unit and father figure. See 34:00 for what schools teach about fathers.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Boy Crisis, Jordan Peterson, School Shootings, Warren Farrell | Leave a Comment »
Even When There Is Inflation, the Fed STILL Fights Falling Prices
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
Instead, the central scenario is surely that the Fed has flooded the system with so much money (only some of the excess removed during the period of hawkish turn and taking account of cumulative price rises) that the natural downward rhythm of prices will not show up in outward reality. Rather, the Fed will use the relief from symptoms of inflation in the consumer price data to double down on monetary inflation. This would show up at first in a new episode of asset inflation.
The more government helps…
https://mises.org/wire/even-when-there-inflation-fed-still-fights-falling-prices
Under any remotely sound money regime the aftermath of war and/or pandemic is highly likely to feature a sharp decline in the prices of goods and services on average. Even under unsound money regimes there are powerful forces operating towards lower prices once the war/pandemic recedes. Strong injections of monetary inflation, however, can overpower them.
The Fed and all the foreign central banks which follow its lead and/or doctrines are apparently of the intention that this time the decline in prices will not take place. Instead, they state the aim of their monetary policies, to be achieved within two years, as a decline of the inflation rate from present near-term highs to 2 percent.
In combatting the powerful “natural rhythm” of prices downwards in the aftermath of pandemic and war we should expect the Fed and foreign central banks to marshal a tremendous amount of monetary power. That will occur beyond an intermission where central banks are ostensibly trying to rein back the monetary inflation which has reached its peak virulence in 2021–22.
Precise measurement of monetary inflation, including its stages, is impossible under the present monetary regime where the supply and demand conditions for monetary base—and the attributes of base money—have been deeply corrupted. In thinking about the next monetary inflation injections, history provides considerable insight.
The aftermaths of supply shocks are full of inflation danger, even though recession intervenes and mitigates this for some time. Monetary inflation has accompanied all the great supply shocks and sometimes preceded them as in the present case of pandemic and war. Here monetary inflation stretches all the way back to 2012/13.
In the aftermath of World War I and the Spanish flu pandemic (1918–19), US consumer prices fell by around 20 percent (from mid-1920 to end-1921). The fall in prices stemmed both from deliberate monetary deflation (starting in late 1919 as the Benjamin Strong–dominated Fed sought to reverse the monetary inflation in the half-year following the armistice) and the easing of supply restraints (with huge gluts developing for many primary commodities).
After World War II there was an almost 5 percent decline in CPI from mid-1948 to the end of 1949, overlapping the recession of November1948 to October 1949. There was no sudden substantial monetary policy tightening during that time. But the around 30 percent rise of consumer prices during 1946–47 coupled with the constancy in outstanding supply of high-powered money stock meant this shrunk far in real terms. Accordingly, the overhang of excess money supply dwindled.
Towards the end of the Korean War (1950–53) and into its aftermath consumer prices were relatively flat (mid-1952–55), having risen by almost 12 percent between mid-1950 and the end of 1951. That was despite the McChesney Martin Fed following an inflationary monetary policy as evident first in asset inflation and later in an eruption of consumer price inflation (the second half of the 1950s). In effect the “natural rhythm” downward of prices as wartime constraints eased and a sustained leap in productivity growth got under way meant that monetary inflation did not produce at first the symptom of consumer price inflation.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Central Banks, Falling Prices, Fed, inflation | Leave a Comment »
So what’s the next big thing?
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
Then Project Veritas captured CNN’s Charlie Chester admitting: “Be prepared, it’s coming. Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN. We are going to hone in on it.”
One of the best decisions I made, years ago, was moving my Tom Woods Show Elite off Facebook, where we were increasingly harassed for stupid reasons, and shifting to a no-censorship platform instead.
I recently had a chance to talk to the founder of MeWe,
https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/nextcensor?e=fa1aba8cd8
Throughout the worst of the craziness since 2020, astute observers have warned that next will be a ramping up of “climate change” hysteria, complete with mandates and the kind of active suppression of dissident voices that we saw during Covid.
Then Project Veritas captured CNN’s Charlie Chester admitting: “Be prepared, it’s coming. Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN. We are going to hone in on it.”
Now just yesterday I reported to you about the real story behind the Disinformation Governance Board, which had a particular emphasis on Covid and the useless interventions they pushed on societies around the world.
But now we’re hearing, via reporting in the Wall Street Journal, that they’ll probably want to pressure the Big Tech platforms to make sure we peons can’t object to the equally useless interventions they want to make in the name of “climate change.”
First it was “fact checkers” adding notes to Facebook posts. Democratic senators then complained that opinion pieces weren’t being “fact checked,” so Facebook started doing that.
Now national climate adviser Gina McCarthy is complaining that you and I have been allowed to warn about the problems with so-called green energy.
She recalled the week-long Texas power outage last year. In her version of reality, “the first thing we read in the paper was” that the blackouts occurred “because of those wind turbines. That became the mantra.”
(She really thinks the conventional wisdom was that green energy was to blame, when in fact the media of course blamed fossil fuels and climate change.)
And then here it comes: “We need the tech companies to really jump in.” Pointing out the costs of green energy, she said, is “equally dangerous to [climate change] denial because we have to move fast.”
One of the best decisions I made, years ago, was moving my Tom Woods Show Elite off Facebook, where we were increasingly harassed for stupid reasons, and shifting to a no-censorship platform instead.
I recently had a chance to talk to the founder of MeWe, an excellent Facebook alternative, on the Tom Woods Show.
Since I made the shift, our community has continued to flourish, and nobody has had to worry that telling the truth will get them banned.
If you’re part of the real resistance (not the phony-baloney “resistance” of Alyssa Milano and Jimmy Kimmel), time to join your brethren:
http://www.SupportingListeners.com
Tom Woods
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Charlie Chester, MeWe, Project Veritas | Leave a Comment »
Dates That Helped Destroy America
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
APRIL 9, 1865
This is the date when General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Regardless of where one comes down on the subject of the War Between the States, one fact is undeniable: Abraham Lincoln seriously dismantled the Jeffersonian model of federalism in America.
Lincoln ignored the concept of ‘free & independent states’ when he declared war on a nation that seceded from the Union. The newly formed Confederate States of America had lawfully separated from the United States in accord with the Constitution of 1789. That mattered not to Lincoln, for he ordered an invasion and destruction of this new country under the guise of ‘preserving the union.’ It was not Lincoln’s job to preserve the union – that job belonged to the states.
Ever since Lincoln’s presidency, virtually every battle that free men have fought for the principles of limited government, State sovereignty, personal liberty, etc., has stemmed directly from Lincoln’s usurpation of power and subjugation and forced union of what used to be “Free and Independent States” (the Declaration of Independence). In fact, the philosophical battles being waged today regarding every encroachment upon liberty and State autonomy by our federal government have their roots in Lincoln’s autocracy.
July 9, 1868
This is the date when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. This amendment codified into law what Lincoln had forced at bayonet point from 1861-1865. Until then, people were deemed citizens of their respective states. The Constitution nowhere referred to people as “U.S. citizens.” It only recognized “the Citizens of each State.” Notice also that citizenship was only recognized among the “several States,” not among people living in non-State territories. Until the Fourteenth Amendment, people were “Citizens of each State.” (Article. IV. Section. 2. Paragraph. 1.) The Fourteenth Amendment created a whole new class of persons: “citizens of the United States.” This false notion of “one nation” overturned the Jeffersonian principle that America was a confederated republic, a voluntary union of states.
February 3, 1913
This is the date when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified and the personal income tax and IRS were instituted. This was a flagrant repudiation of freedom principles. What began as a temporary measure to support the War of Northern Aggression became a permanent income revenue stream for an unconstitutional–and ever-growing–central government, and the financial basis for future government spending.
April 8, 1913
This is the date when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. This amendment overturned the right of the State legislatures to elect their own senators and replaced it with a direct, popular vote. This was another serious blow against State sovereignty. The framers of the Constitution desired that the influence and power in Washington, D.C., be kept as close to the people and states as possible. For example, the number of representatives in the House of Representatives was to be decided by a limited number of voters. In the original Constitution, the ratio of “people of the several States” deciding their House member could not exceed “one for every thirty thousand.” (Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3.) And when it came to the US Senate, the framers recognized the authority of each State legislature to select its own senators, thereby keeping power and influence from aggregating in Washington, D.C.
The Seventeenth Amendment seriously damaged the influence and power of the states by forcing them to elect their U.S. senators by popular vote. Senators who answered to State legislators, each answering to a limited number of voters, were much more accountable to the “citizens of the several States” than those who are elected by a large number (most states now numbering into the millions) of people. For all intents and purposes, U.S. senators are more like “mini-presidents” than representatives of sovereign states. Senators today are less representatives of the people and more representatives of Washington D.C.
December 23, 1913
This is the date when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. This Act placed oversight of America’s financial matters into the hands of a cabal of private international bankers who have completely destroyed the constitutional principles of sound money and (for the most part) free enterprise. No longer would the marketplace (private consumption, thrift, growth, etc.) be the determinant of the U.S. economy and a currency backed by actual gold–which is what freedom is all about. But now a private, unaccountable, international banking cartel would have total power and authority to micromanage (for their own private, parochial purposes) America’s financial sector. Virtually every recession, depression, and downturn this country has ever had (including the Great Depression) was the direct result of the Fed’s manipulation of the financial markets. They’re doing it again today.
1913 was not a good year for the United States or for freedom.
June 26, 1945
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Is the Second Amendment Absolute?
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
The Second Amendment does not grant to any American the positive right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes a preexisting natural right. The Second Amendment is an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the federal government in its limited, enumerated powers to infringe upon them in the first place.
In a recent speech where he said that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban, raise the minimum purchase age for firearms, limit magazine capacities, and pass red flag gun laws, President Biden made the statement that “the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute.” This echoes what he had previously said after the mass shooting at a Texas elementary school: “The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed you couldn’t own a cannon, you couldn’t own certain kinds of weapons. There’s just always been limitations.”
This should have come as no surprise, since Biden said last year that “no amendment to the constitution is absolute.”
This flawed idea about the Second Amendment was repeated by an assortment of Democratic politicians, even as they denied that they were coming for Americans’ guns. Some progressives, echoing the late Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, have even called for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Is the Second Amendment absolute? Does it have any exceptions? Could the Second Amendment be repealed? What would happen if it were?
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t see how it could be any more absolute. The only exceptions have been invented by judges and legislators.
The Second Amendment does not grant to any American the positive right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes a preexisting natural right. The Second Amendment is an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the federal government in its limited, enumerated powers to infringe upon them in the first place.
This means that from a constitutional perspective, the federal government has no authority to ban or regulate handguns, shotguns, sawed-off shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, extended-capacity magazines, high caliber guns and ammunition, automatic weapons, bump stocks, or bazookas. And neither does the federal government have the constitutional authority to establish or mandate gun bans, gun-free zones, background checks, waiting periods, limits on gun purchases, licensing of gun dealers, gun-owner databases, gun licensing, trigger locks, rules for gun sales or transfers, gun registration, age restrictions, gun storage requirements, or concealed weapons laws.
This means that all federal gun laws are illegitimate and should be repealed, and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) should be abolished. There were no federal gun-control laws until the 1930s: the National Firearms Act in 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act in 1938. If there are to be gun-control laws, they must exist only on the state level.
Even so, there is more of a constitutional right to own a gun than to have an abortion. Yet, liberals and progressives deny the former and insist on the latter. Comedian turned political commentator Dean Obeidallah recently said on Twitter:
There is NO constitutional right to own a gun. That was literally made up by 5 GOP Justices in 2008 decision of DC v Heller. We need to make overturning Heller a cause like the right made overturning Roe v Wade.
Reminder: Between 1789 and 2008 NO federal court found 2nd Amendment created a PERSONAL constitutional right apart from being in a militia to own a gun. In 2008, five supreme court justices INVENTED that in DC v. Heller. We must OVERTURN Heller so we can pass gun safety laws!
It is true that the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller decision that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” but as every child learns in school, the judicial branch is not the legislative branch; it doesn’t make the law, it interprets the law.
But what if most Republicans in and out of Congress support most federal gun-control laws? This just means that they are enemies of the Constitution they claim to cherish.
But what if the Supreme Court has declared that existing federal gun laws are constitutional? This just means that they are ignorant of the Constitution they claim to judge all laws by.
But what if the Second Amendment only applied to the states’ ability to maintain militias? Then it wouldn’t affect Americans’ right to keep and bear arms at all. It would just be an amendment concerning state militias.
But what if the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia? It wouldn’t change the natural and moral right of all men to arm themselves. It would just be an amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia.
But what if the Second Amendment were repealed? That is certainly a possibility. The Twenty-first Amendment of 1933 repealed the Eighteenth Amendment of 1920 that instituted Prohibition. But because no authority has been granted to the national government by the Constitution to infringe upon gun rights or have anything to do with guns, if the Second Amendment didn’t exist, Americans would still have the natural right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment is absolute and therefore has no exceptions. And it is absolute in spite of the many attempts by politicians and judges—both Democrat and Republican—to infringe upon Americans’ natural right to keep and bear arms.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: natural right, Second Amendment | Leave a Comment »
‘Sarin Doesn’t Slice Throats’: The 2013 Ghouta Massacre Revisted
Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2022
Liwa al-Islam could not have carried out the massacre and successfully blamed it on the Syrian government, without the planning, propaganda, logistical, and military support they received from their various foreign intelligence sponsors in the process.
“Germ and chemical weapons may often be weak in their battlefield applications but they are always strong in their emotiveness. Accusations of association with them have for centuries, even millennia, been used by well-intentioned as well as unscrupulous people to vilify enemies and to calumniate rivals. Can onlookers protect themselves against the possibility of such assaults upon their common sense today?”- Julian Perry Robinson
On the morning of August 21, 2013, a flurry of videos appeared on social media alleging to show the aftermath of a mass chemical attack in Syria. The Obama administration quickly accused the Syrian government of launching a barrage of sarin filled rockets toward the Damascus suburbs of eastern and western Ghouta, thereby murdering 1,429 civilians, including 456 children.
Nine years later, the perception persists that this terrible crime was carried out by the Syrian government. However, with the passing of time, and as more details have surfaced, it has become clear that the Syrian government did not carry out the Ghouta chemical attack.
This was evident even in 2013 when the attack occurred, given the incentives faced by both sides in the conflict, and given the timing of the attack.
A year before, in August 2012, President Barack Obama had declared that any use of chemical weapons constituted a “red line” that, if crossed, would trigger U.S. military intervention against the Syrian government.
The Salafist militias comprising the opposition, broadly known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, therefore had every incentive to carry out a false flag chemical attack that could be blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. To topple the Syrian government, the Salafist insurgents both needed and wanted a western bombing campaign of the sort that had toppled the Libyan government in August 2011.
Syrian opposition leaders began demanding a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone over Syria starting as early as September 2011, shortly before Libyan President Moammar Qaddafi was murdered by Islamist militants fighting under the umbrella of NATO warplanes, and long before Obama announced his red line.
In contrast, it was in President Assad’s interest to prevent any use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army. Failure to do so would almost guarantee his government would be toppled, further plunging Syria into the type of chaos that had enveloped Libya, while leaving Assad to suffer Qaddafi’s gruesome fate.
It is no wonder that, despite accusing Assad of carrying out the Ghouta chemical attacks, neither American or British intelligence could provide a possible rationale at the time as to why Assad would do it, or what advantage he or the Syrian army would gain by it.
Many observers have also noted the timing of the alleged attack. If Assad ordered it, this means he carried out a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs just three days after UN chemical weapons inspectors had arrived in Syria’s capital, at Assad’s own invitation, to investigate allegations chemical weapons use by the opposition in the town of Khan al-Assal four months previous. It is highly improbable that Assad would have carried out a chemical attack and at the same time ensured that UN inspectors would be immediately present to investigate it.
Even more improbable is that Assad would carry out a chemical attack at a time when he was winning the war, and just as U.S. and NATO forces were preparing for a large-scale military intervention in Syria, the likes of which only a breach of Obama’s red line could trigger.
For example, in June 2013, Obama administration officials concluded that a more direct intervention, including providing weapons to the so-called rebels and possibly imposing a no-fly zone “was needed to stem the tide of Assad victories.” That same month, U.S. planners stationed F-16 warplanes and Patriot missile batteries in neighboring Jordan in preparation to impose a no-fly zone.
In July 2013, amidst calls from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), and others for imposing a no-fly zone, General Martin Dempsey laid out detailed options for military intervention in Syria to the White House. Also in July, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees approved White House and CIA plans to directly arm the Salafist militias comprising the FSA. Previously, U.S. planners had relied on Saudi, Qatari, and Turkish intelligence to do so.
On August 13, fully nine days before the alleged chemical attack in Ghouta, FSA commanders in Turkey had started “advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge.” The commanders had been told by U.S., Turkish, and Qatari intelligence officials that a U.S.-led intervention in Syria was imminent and were ordered to “prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government.” On August 17, four days before the Ghouta attack, CIA and Israeli operatives embedded with FSA fighters entered Syria from Jordan, reaching as far as Ghouta, in what the French newspaper La Figaro described as the beginning of the “anti-Assad operation.” On August 21, the day the Ghouta chemical attack occurred, U.S., Turkish, and Qatari intelligence distributed weapons “unprecedented in scope” to FSA commanders in preparation for the assault on Damascus.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Damascus, Ghouta Massacre, sarin | Leave a Comment »
Card Carrying Member Since 1988
Posted by M. C. on June 14, 2022
I was amazed how ridiculous the Dukakis/Bush was, then I saw an LP article in the American Rifleman magazine.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Libertarian | Leave a Comment »
Watch “Busted! Homeland Security Secretary Lied To Senate About Disinfo Board!” on YouTube
Posted by M. C. on June 14, 2022
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Disinfo Board, Homeland Security | Leave a Comment »
Watch “9 Shoe Trends We Hope Won’t Last (and Why)” on YouTube
Posted by M. C. on June 14, 2022
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Shoe Trends | Leave a Comment »
MCViewPoint 