Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

The Latest Eye-Opening Articles

Jesús Huerta de Soto: The State: the deadliest virus.

Daisy Luther: We live in a time when our “opinions qualify as crimes.”

Becky Akers: AP: All Propaganda, even to the orthography.

Zero Hedge: NPR busted for making up “right-wing extremists.”

Just the News: Video appears to expose Facebook bias: ‘If someone is wearing a MAGA Hat, I am going to delete them’

Jon Rappoport: Let’s fact-check Reuters: they say DNA vaccines don’t change your genetic makeup—true or false?

Jacob Hornberger: The “Greatest” Generation’s refusal to fight the “good war.”

Scott Sumner: Fewer laws, less police brutality.

James Bovard: Repealing useless and abusive laws better than defunding the police.

Wendy McElroy: Women: reject victimhood, embrace your individualism.

Laurence Vance: Government standards.

Greg Mitchell: New film explores U.S. suppression of key footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Walter Block: Try libertarians’ souls.

Matt Agorist: Cops Ordered to Turn Off Body Cams, Illegally Raid Journalist Who Embarrassed Them, And They Obeyed.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Warp speed COVID-19 vaccine makes Big Pharma crooks rich.

And F. William Engdahl: America’s own color revolution.

COVID Fascists Aiding and Abetting Marxist Lives Matter Against Civilized Culture

Now that I’m seeing more info on the classical music venues continuing to be canceled and for no good reason, it is becoming more clear to me how the “Black Lives Matter”/antifa vs. civilized life is closely linked to the COVID situation and associated fascism.

The fascists ordering businesses closed down and ruining the economy and causing unemployment and unproductivity are no different and no better than the communists and Marxists burning down businesses or looting from the ones still in existence.

The official organization “Black Lives Matter” itself and its little robot followers do not care about all black lives. Why don’t they scream about the black lives being murdered by other black people especially in the cities, such as Chicago? (Brainwashed loony-tunes call it “racist” to point that out, because they are not rational. But don’t tell them I said that.)

And then if someone says, “All lives matter,” they are also called “racists,” and in some cases fired from a job. That is how irrational and hypocritical these social movements are.

They do not believe in “inclusion,” that’s for sure.

If it’s about “police brutality,” then they should look into de-monopolizing community policing away from government control. Not the kind of criminal racket that thugs have set up in Seattle, but an unorganized system of freedom in which whoever wants to patrol neighborhoods can do so. Nobody is above the law. But when government has a monopoly on community policing and security, those government “officials” are above the law, because they ARE the law. Only obedient sheeple would promote that government monopoly system in an otherwise free society.

But this would mean that because everyone has a right to defend oneself from the wanton aggression and violence of others like rioters and looters and arsonists, the free society would not infringe on the right of the good people to keep and bear arms.

And it’s not even about “racism,” this hypocritical, irrational movement. It is not about “black lives.” It’s about power and control. The Marxist youngins are being brainwashed to believe that they are entitled to other people’s wealth and earnings, and that they have a “right” to take stuff from others. For whatever reason, whatever made-up reason.

Just listen to the brainwashed True Believers.

The brainwashed youngins believe that they are justified in committing acts of violence, looting, and burning down businesses. They believe they have a “right” to steal away the livelihoods of entrepreneurs who spent a lifetime building such livelihoods.

I guess you would have to be brainwashed to really believe that you have a “right” to steal from (i.e. enslave) some guy or gal who never harmed anyone, and in fact someone who employs young black people.

The rioters, marauders, looters, thugs, arsonists and barbarians in Minneapolis and other cities remind me of the criminal psychopaths of the U.S. military invading and bombing and destroying Iraq in the early 1990s, a good 10 years prior to 9/11. They are brainwashed, too, but with a slightly different ideology. The militarist sheeple psychos of the U.S. military are brainwashed to believe that the U.S. government rules the rest of the world and has a “right” to criminally invade and bomb other countries with impunity, steal their wealth and natural resources and murder millions of foreigners.

In 1991 the crazed criminals of the U.S. military intentionally bombed Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers and caused the Iraqi people to have to use untreated water which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Psychopath President George H.W. Bush started that war of aggression and imposed those sanctions and no-fly zones for no good reason.

The entitled American political class and all its obedient underlings and followers having the power to enslave the rest of the world, and enslave the workers and producers of their own society, is an ideology shared by both the U.S. militarists and America Firsters, and the communist-Marxist thug psychopaths who are burning down whole cities.

And regarding those communist-Marxist thug psychopaths, the cultural stuff goes with all this. Tearing down statues and burning down historic buildings is just as ISIS would do.

Centuries ago, much of the world was barbaric. The “Enlightenment” period developed.

The concepts of individual freedom, individual rights and individual dignity were becoming prominent. Those concepts included freedom of voluntary association, voluntary contracts and voluntary trade, the recognition of property rights, including the property right of the individual in one’s person and labor. The freedom of self-ownership.

While chattel slavery was ending peacefully all over the world, many people still really believe that the “Civil War” “ended slavery.” Well, “slavery” actually did continue 50 years later with the imposition of the income tax in Amerika. The government is the slave master, in which the obedient sheeple must do a certain amount of labor, involuntarily, to serve the master in Washington, state capitols and City Halls. And that’s basically what we have now.

The Marxist movement we have now, “Steal from the honest working folk, steal from the productive, i.e. enslave the productive,” is not that different from the political class all across Amerika. The Heritage Foundation, National Review, The New York Times, The DNC and the RNC are no different. Do those influential organizations ever call for the elimination of the income tax-theft and the IRS? Do they ever call for the most evil organized crime racket ever, the U.S. government, to be decentralized? Of course not. They thrive on tax-redistributionism just as the Soviet rulers thrived on living off the labor of the workers and producers.

In the ongoing scamdemic, the brain-dead government bureaucrat rulers such as governors and mayors have ordered businesses shut down to try to put a stop to whatever economic progress was happening (that Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation contributed to). Unemployment was way down including and especially among black people and other minorities and women. The Marxists and communists (a.k.a. “socialists”) would have none of that.

First, seeing that many more black people being employed and more able to provide for themselves went against the “Whitey is keeping black people locked out of the economy” narrative.

And second, the economy showing just how most of the population benefits from a more freed market was refuting the Marxists’ brainwashed beliefs in the “centrally-planned Almighty Government being the caretaker of the people” crapola. (Even though they can just look at Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and worse, the U.K., to see that communism “socialism” doesn’t actually work in practice, but brainwashed morons choose not to do that.)

I think the Marxism ideology that the modern “revolutionaries” seem to want to implement is not to do with State worship, because we already have State worship in Amerika. It’s to do with people wanting to have a system in place that allows them to get away with wanton aggression and violence against others. A criminal, violent society, in other words.

And the cultural artifacts being torn down now. With the COVID scamdemic we have music cancellations, especially classical music, which unfortunately is very “historical” and represents the human progress that was made especially since the “Enlightenment,” as well as being great music. Maybe that’s why the government schools have been dropping classical music references from their music programs, and might be another explanation why the symphony orchestras don’t seem to have that many black musicians. It’s not because the musical organizations are “exclusionary,” or racist. The schools prefer to encourage cRAP music along with rock music which isn’t nearly as inventive, intellectual, or emotionally wide-ranging as classical music.

Yes, “cRAP” music. It is crap, quite frankly. Nothing racist about that. The “Rap culture” (if I may call it that) includes a lot of utterances of the “N word,” which is encouraged by this nasty, thuggish, culture that promotes violence against innocents (like the Bushes and Clintons and their fellow psychopaths Obama and Trump, and all points between and their wars overseas and war on drugs, etc.). Yet, when a college professor reads Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail out loud in class, that includes the “N word” (that King wrote in the letter himself, HE is saying it, not the professor), that professor gets investigated by the university! This kind of irrational, hypocritical crap is going on ALL the time now!

But with the “Black Lives Matter”/antifa criminality, hypocrisy, Marxism and brainwashed loony-tunes taking down historical artifacts, the COVID fascists are causing various classical artistic organizations to be cancelling whole seasons. And whatever the venues can attempt to save, they are trying to implement “social distancing” measures, which in some venues is impossible. So, some of them or many of them will go bankrupt. And this might very well be on purpose. Without the New York Philharmonic and the Met, how will New York residents expose their children to great music that goes back centuries? And in every other city?

And with the COVID scamdemic as the excuse, those of us who are not bamboozled by the mainstream media, know that all this COVID fascism CRAP is for no good reason. The masks which are harmful to your health, the “social distancing” lunacy, hand sanitizer to ruin your skin,  the restaurants having to seat people 18 yards apart. It’s for NO GOOD REASON! And the “stay-in” orders by fascist governors and mayors have been causing more harm than good.

The best thing for our society is decentraliztion, getting rid of Washington, D.C. completely, at the very least. (And restoring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, of course.)

The Latest on the Ongoing Scamdemic

As I have already written here, the face masks have big problems, such as causing oxygen deprivation in your brain and hurting your immune system, so governors or mayors who are making the masks mandatory should be charged with endangerment. And if someone suffers some sort of seizure or accident because of being forced to cover one’s nose and mouth for no good reason, those bureaucrats and their “public health” officials should be sued financially for all medical costs and charged criminally.

And we know they don’t care about preventing COVID spreading. it is now known that asymptomatic “carriers” of COVID have little to no infectivity of others. There is no point to quarantining healthy people, there is no point to “social distancing,” there is no point to masks or imposing ANY of the restrictions on anyone and continuing them, on individuals telling them to stay home for no good reason, or on businesses, restaurants, sporting and concert venues, and all the rest.

And further, when the “public health” (sic) “experts” (sic) criticize lockdown protesters for not “social distancing” or wearing masks yet encourage “Black Lives Matter” protesters and look the other way regarding no social distancing or not wearing masks, then we know the fascists are full of sh*t.

Here are some more important recent articles on the scamdemic being forced on us by our criminal government rulers:

Patrick Wood: The miserable pseudo-science behind face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.

Just the News: Stanford prof: Median infection fatality rate of coronavirus for those under 70 is just 0.04%

Gateway Pundit: Coronavirus study continues to confirm overall mortality not much different than a bad seasonal flu.

Robert Wenzel: COVID roulette at an Apple store.

KDKA: Hot temperatures complicate face mask safety.

WKRG: Dangers of wearing masks in the heat and humidity.

Laurence Vance: Masks in a free society.

John Vibes: Study finds some governments already using contact tracing apps for mass surveillance.

Dr. Joseph Mercola asks, Is there really strong evidence for wearing masks?

And Jack Hellner: Another day, another bogus report from CDC seeking to entice the public to continue wearing masks.

End Government-Imposed Restrictions and Central Planning in Immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Donald Trump from dismantling the “DACA” program, or “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”, which exempts immigrant children from some immigration restrictions. It is not a legislative act, but an unconstitutional executive “memorandum” imposed by Premier Obama. So, it can’t be repealed via legislation, although the legal restrictions being waived could be, I supposed. Premier Trump wants to have another try at dismantling the program.

My view on all this, if you don’t already know, is to repeal every immigration restriction legislatively or by executive order, or just not enforce them, and dismantle ICE and the IRS (and DHS, TSA, FBI, ATF, and all the rest of those fascist agencies that are unbecoming of a free and civilized society).

One of my main points on the immigration issue is regarding this false belief or assumption that many people seem to have that there is some kind of common ownership of the territory as a whole. That is just a myth, an “old wives’ tale,” and not backed by any legal or constitutional basis. It is based on emotion and collectivist ideology, not morality or rationality.

So, there is no such common ownership of the territory because in our society we have something called private property.

In April of 2019 I posted a compilation of excerpts from my past posts dealing with the immigration issue, and I will repost most of that post now because the immigration problem will never be resolved in the U.S. as long as the control over such matters continues to be seized by the idiot moron central planners in Washington.

Here is that earlier post:

In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:

In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”

And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”

In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.

Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.

Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.

In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.

Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?

As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?

And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?

Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”

Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.

And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.

But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.

Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.

And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?

Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.

When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?

Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.

And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.

***

In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

***

And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:

Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.

For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”

But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.

Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”

I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.

Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?

Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.

For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”

And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?

So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?

It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.

In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.

Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”

Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.

This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.

And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”

“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?

So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

The end.

Current Civil War-Era Hysteria Reminds Me of Interview of Tom Woods by a Zombie

With all the hysteria now over historic artifacts such as from the Confederacy or statues or military bases named after “Confederate generals,” I was reminded of Tom Woods’s “Interview with a Zombie,” in which the “Zombie” represents the typical brainwashed “Social Justice Warrior” who has been told without any evidence that “America is a racist country,” that keeping historic artifacts or statues in place is “racist,” and especially that advocating “Nullification” (The title of Tom Woods’s book that was published at that time) is “racist.” This Interview with a Zombie was 10 years ago this month, apparently, and as we see today nothing has changed. The Zombie could very well be anyone from CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. So, I thought I would repost this video now.

Informative and Enlightening Articles

John Whitehead: This is not a revolution. It’s a blueprint for locking down the nation.

Greg Mitchell: The truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Vasko Kohlmayer: America is not a racist nation.

Laurence Vance: The Wisconsin model.

Dave DeCamp: The danger of sending in the troops: the killing of David McAtee.

Matt Agorist: Cops across U.S. hiding badges and covering IDs shielding themselves from accountability.

John Vibes: In one state hundreds of criminal cops agree to give up badges in exchange for not being criminally charged.

Jon Rappoport: Nurse at COVID epicenter hospital: “It’s murder.”

Wendy McElroy: Native American boys: forgotten victims.

Walter Williams: The true plight of black Americans.

Trevor Timm: Who’s attacking journalists at George Floyd protests? Overwhelmingly, it’s the police.

Adam Dick: Welcome to college, now wear your mask.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: The brave new world of Bill Gates and Big Telecom.

Richard Ebeling: Tragedies of our time: pandemic, planning and racial politics.

Jacob Hornberger: Economic nonsense in the New York Times.

Doug Casey: Rent strikes, the erosion of property rights and what comes next.

David Henderson: Health professionals show what matters. Hint: it’s not health.

Glenn Greenwald: The abrupt, radical reversal in how public health experts now speak about the coronavirus and mass gatherings.

Allan Stevo: Public health is another term for Marxism.

Jacob Sullum: The attorney general’s overblown fears about scrapping qualified immunity.

Kerry McDonald: Compulsory schooling laws aren’t progressive — they’re inhumane.

Becky Akers: The gospel according to Marx.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Which side committed treason in the “Civil War”?

John Daniel Davidson: The media are lying to you about everything, including the riots.

Bonnie Kristian: The war on terror comes home.

My Earlier 2012 Article Covering “Civil Unrest” Events Similar to Now

Because of the recent events, the race stuff and rioting and the economic collapse, I was reminded of an article I wrote that was on LewRockwell.com in 2012, asking, Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It To Happen? So I wanted to repost that here now because of some similarities from that period to what is going on now. There are maybe a few little things in there that I might not write now, but most of it is relevant, I believe. Any links that weren’t working I either replaced with Wayback Machine version, a different but similar page, or removed completely.

Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It To Happen?

September 18, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

There have been several different predictions and scenarios involving how inflation and austerity measures in the U.S. could bring about food shortages and other shortages, food riots, looting, violent protests, flash mobs, and martial law.

All these things can be prevented, of course, if more people could wake up to the fact that government central planning in money and economic matters is inherently flawed and doomed to failure, societal self-destruction and collapse.

Some people see the recent German court decision to approve German bailouts of irresponsible European governments as a new dictatorship for Germany and a boon for investors. And there are others who see this new scheme as the beginning of runaway hyperinflation in Europe that will spread to the U.S.

Following this decision by the high German court, the U.S. Federal Reserve has announced a new round of quantitative easing (QE3). Some people believe that QE3 will cause more economic instability, and further destruction of the dollar.

Eventually the austerity measures we have been seeing in Europe will reach the U.S.

Austerity measures will hit public employee benefits and pensions, and welfare and Medicare recipients (but not the bloated salaries, benefits and pensions of Congressmen and their beloved bureaucrats).

But it seems that the U.S. government has been pushing hard to get as many people dependent on government as possible. Food stamps spending has more than doubled since Barack Obama became President, although the number of Americans on food stamps almost doubled from 2001 to 2009 during the presidency of George W. Bush as well.

And the Obama Administration has gone so far as to push U.S. food stamps onto Mexicans! (And Mexicans can’t even vote for Obama this November – theoretically, that is.)

Also distressing is how private corporations profit from the government’s exploiting the population’s vulnerabilities that the government’s own interventions cause. One example is JP Morgan Chase’s shamefully profiting from the food stamps program.

Incidentally, employees of JP Morgan Chase donated over $800,000 to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and, so far over $155,000 to Obama’s 2012 effort. (There certainly has been no quid pro quo here, as former President George Bush the Elder might say.)

Now, regarding eventual shortages, austerity and civil unrest in America that would involve the unavailability of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) payments, in large part affecting food stamp recipients, one scenario I’ve seen details how rioting and turmoil could unfold, mainly beginning in the cities, but eventually flowing out into the suburbs. It is not a pretty picture.

One would think that the government bureaucrats who control these social programs could see ahead what would happen when withholding such benefits, especially with millions of people dependent on them for their daily sustenance. So, in the case of possible future EBT cards not functioning followed by rioting and violence, one has to wonder whether such an action by the government could be purposeful.

In the aforementioned scenario, the writer emphasizes urban minorities as the ones mainly perpetrating the flash mob rioting and violence. But, in 2010 34% of food stamp recipients were white, 22% black and 29% Hispanic, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

However, the flash mobs committing acts of violence in the cities in recent years do not seem to be associated with government austerity measures, food stamps, hunger, etc. In some instances, such violence has been racially motivated, black against white, as witnessed in this account, for example. Unfortunately, the mention of such a modern social phenomenon in the U.S. is politically incorrect, as many newscasters and newspapers reporting on those events censor the race of the perpetrators and that of victims, as author Thomas Sowell has noted. Race demagogues such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel have gained much fame and popularity from such “race-hustling.”

So are the Chicago-Washington community organizers and agitators trying to promote race riots? Obama and his “social justice” cohorts do not seem to have any comments on the violence committed by inner-city punks. The Holder Justice Department has refused to prosecute black against white voter intimidation cases. And Obama wants public schools to stop disciplining misbehaving black students. Hmmm.

And why have U.S. military recruiters allowed so many white supremacists to join the military?

It appears that the efforts of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and now the election of Barack Obama as President do not seem to have healed the friction among the races in America.

So there seem to be extremists on both sides, and the rest of us are caught in the middle.

But when there will be government austerity and EBT card non-functionality, the flash mob violence we have seen recently will probably be much worse, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But, racial conflicts aside, why have the Bush and Obama Administrations increased spending on food stamps so much? Social programs such as food stamps rob people of their incentive to provide for themselves, and they become serfs to bureaucrats.

It is as though these imbecilic bureaucrats are encouraging the masses to get dependent on these bureaucrats, and for devious purposes.

No, they wouldn’t do that. Not that there hasn’t been enough information about Obama and his immoral, unconstitutional acts as President to indicate any sort of deviousness, no.

With the moral hazard of government bureaucrats’ luring people into this kind of dependence and serfdom, QE3 will cause further economic instability, part of the inherent moral hazard of having a central bank and lack of freedom and competition in money and banking. Such Fed policies continually rob the people through inflation, particularly the lower and middle classes.

Added to those moral hazards of these professional bureaucrats are Congress’s raising the debt ceiling, Washington’s lack of prosecuting criminally irresponsible banksters, the 2008 extortion-like bankster bailout, and foreclosure fraudsters.

And Obama’s pushing through Congress the bill allowing for indefinite detention of Americans without charge or evidence, and his signing it into law, followed by his appealing the judge’s striking it down – there probably isn’t any deviousness behind that, and probably won’t be any targeting of political dissenters during future civil conflicts in America, no. (There certainly hasn’t been any of that, not in America, no.)

All these acts of government criminality could be leading America into a total breakdown of society.

So these people in Washington are either extremely clueless and don’t know what they’re doing, or they are doing these things intentionally, in which case they are just plain evil.

So, could the ruling elites be purposefully trying to cause so much massive dependence on government and such massive weakening of the financial and monetary systems, followed by a false-flag type economic collapse and sudden withholding of government benefits and unavailability of our own money in the bank, to intentionally bring about rioting and violence?

And, if Romney is elected in November, would he be any different from Obama?

And so, if these scenarios play out, and there is indeed massive civil unrest in America, we already know that various federal agencies and local and state police as well are preparing for it. The police state that J. Edgar Hoover, Oliver North, and Dick Cheney put in place is being fully embraced by Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, FBI and CIA, as well as many local police neanderthals all across America – it is as though they are drooling for some action, and for a chance for them to show the rest of the world just how tough they are.

Can you imagine people with the kind of extremely questionable character and level of dishonesty and untrustworthiness as Obama and Romney presiding over a situation of military martial law?

In addition to all this, the Obama Administration has allowed foreign troops onto U.S. soil. NATO troops were in training in Tampa just prior to the Republican Convention. They now have Russian soldiers training in the U.S., and some insiders believe that these foreign troops are joining with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security toward some sort of illicit action against Americans under the pretense of “peacekeeping” during a time of civil unrest in America.

In my opinion, having foreign troops coming into the U.S. for any reason is dangerous, and Sheriff Richard Mack agrees with me.

And now, because of inner-city gun-related crime rates, and recent isolated shootings and mass killings, the emotionalistic calls for gun control have been on the increase. This despite violent criminals who disobey laws against assault, rape and murder probably are not inclined to obey gun laws as well.

And, as John Lott has noted, would-be assaulters, rapists and murderers are less likely to commit their crimes when they know their prospective victims are armed.

But because of the emotionalism surrounding certain tragedies, even Republicans such as SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, radio host Michael Savage and TV host Bill O’Reilly have shown irrationality on the matter. How will Americans, in their cars stuck in busy intersections when flash mobs rampage and attack them, be able to defend themselves if they have been disarmed by the government? When looters and burglars break into their homes and businesses, how will disarmed homeowners and businesspeople protect themselves?

And you can say what you want about anti-UN “conspiracy theories” and so forth. But, mirroring a zany 1961 U.S. State Department call for complete civilian disarmament, the 2012 UN Arms Trade Treaty would require signing member nations to enact much stricter national gun ownership restrictions. That was up for a vote in July but has been postponed until probably later this year. Some analysts have interpreted Article 15 of the Treaty to allow for foreign troops in the U.S. to confiscate guns from Americans in their homes. Even having U.S. troops going around door to door to search for and confiscate firearms is itself illegal and unconstitutional, but foreign troops?

It should not be difficult to believe that not just local police but our own U.S. troops would go door to door to seize Americans’ means of self-defense, when we know that they have much experience in doing just that in Iraq, a country in which U.S. troops had no business or reason to be, violating private Iraqi civilians’ own right to bear arms and defend themselves.

As the people’s right to defend themselves against looters, rioters, rapists and killers, as well as against government tyranny, is being criminally whittled away by the degenerates in charge, those same degenerates are arming themselves up and preparing for something that could be interpreted as outright treason.

I have already expressed concern about martial law and explained that U.S. military and other federal armed goons and local police, who have all sworn to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, are obligated to disobey unlawful orders by commanding officers including the U.S. President.

Unlawful orders include those in which a soldier or an officer is ordered to violate a presumably innocent civilian’s rights to free speech, protest, dissent and criticize the government, right to bear arms and defend oneself against criminal assailants including government criminals, right to due process, and “right to be secure” in one’s person, home and effects. If the officer or soldier does not suspect a civilian of some actual crime, then that agent of government is obligated by law to leave the civilian alone, no matter who ordered otherwise. (The Oath Keepers have made a list of orders they will not obey.)

Further treasonous is the rulers’ inviting foreign troops in to aid in the rulers’ abuses.

And, given the criminality of monetary easing to enrich bankers while creating inflation that robs the poor, one might very well describe those actions as treasonous as well.

If only Americans had listened to the American Revolutionaries’ warnings about paper money and tyranny, wealth redistributionism, and their warnings against foreign entanglements.

COVID 2.0?

Are you getting sick of the COVID scamdemic as I am? David Stockman with an article on the recent “2nd wave” of coronavirus, with some comments regarding the windbag Scott Gottlieb, and the so-called “hot spots” of Texas and Arizona (and Florida). He gives a lot of actual facts and figures to counter the fear-mongering propaganda and says, “hot spot my eye!”. I think that the economic recovery and decreasing COVID were happening too soon and quickly for some people’s liking, and so the Trump-haters on Wall Street are again doing their thing just like in February and March and the medical fear-mongers are bringing their COVID propaganda back to try to get a “2nd wave” of lockdowns and stay-in orders.

Also, Shane Trejo at “Big League Politics” with an article on psychological researchers claiming that resisting and challenging the COVID hysteria and panic and fear-mongering is a sign of “mental illness.” I am not. Making. This. Up. (But I am not sure about all those who believe all the propaganda despite the uncovered lies and the cheating making up “COVID deaths” out of non-COVID deaths, and those sheeple nevertheless obediently compliant with all the diktats…)

And Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss the new coronavirus “2nd wave” and ask, Is the CDC lying again?

The WHO, COVID Infectivity, and the Orwellian Masks

I had just posted about the ongoing “scamdemic,” and linked to a study which showed that asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 infectivity of others was “weak.” And then later that day was in the news that the World Health Organization had just acknowledged that asymptomatic carriers of COVID infecting others was “very rare.”

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual…We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” said WHO epidemiologist Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove.

And then, what do you know, because the WHO’s admission contradicted the official narrative, they then began to backtrack on that, and the notoriously two-faced Dr. Anthony Fauci had to admonish the WHO’s truthful blunder, telling Good Morning America that the WHO “walked that back because there’s no evidence to indicate that’s the case,” and “we know from epidemiological studies they can transmit to someone who is uninfected even when they’re without symptoms. So to make a statement, to say that’s a rare event, was not correct…”

Huh? Dr. Kerkhove said that they’re doing “very detailed contact tracing,” and they’re following cases and contacts, and that they are NOT “finding secondary transmission”!

So really the WHO admitted that the whole house arrest/unlawful false imprisonment and lockdown/shutdown of the world economy were all totally unnecessary from the very beginning.

And yes, Dr. Fauci a.k.a. Dr. Fraudi is two-faced, saying that masks won’t help the general population to prevent infections and then saying that people must wear a mask, saying that most of the people who get the virus will have only mild or no symptoms and there’s no reason to panic and then saying everyone must stay in and we must have a worldwide shutdown. He’s really an entrenched swamp creature, quite frankly.

The reason the “public health” bureaucrats want to keep the whole thing going — the scam — including the tanked economy, is because they hate Trump and want to make sure the economy is still bad and he loses his reelection bid. That is how sick and psychopathic these government bureaucrats really are.

So this is criminal what the bureaucrats are doing to us now! Here in the Eastern Bloc (New York, New Jersey, New England states, etc.), these governors have started a painfully slow, excruciatingly gradual return to business and lifting of restrictions that they the almighty Rulers have unconstitutionally and illegally imposed on us, reopening in obsessively calculated and centrally-planned phases. That’s so more businesses can continue to go bankrupt and leave the Eastern Bloc like many already are.

And the whole reason to imprison people and close everything down was, “You might have the coronavirus and not know it and unwittingly give it to someone else, and that is why we have to keep you enslaved and imprisoned and jobless…” even though the same has always been the case with the flu and colds. “But people are dying of COVID!!” But people have been dying of the flu each season as well, hundreds of thousands worldwide and tens of thousands in the U.S. every season!

No, now that we know that even if you do have the virus and are asymptomatic, there is a weak chance that you would give it to someone else just by standing next to someone or talking to someone, and without a mask!

Now that we know that, what you do is immediately lift ALL restrictions and let people get back to normal life! If people don’t want to take any risks, then they can stay inside. But any continuation of these lockdowns and restrictions is criminal on the part of these government bureaucrats!

So there’s no reason to cancel events and concerts like the entire Tanglewood Boston Symphony season, graduations, entire school years, sporting events, the Boston Marathon, and all the rest.

So we’ve been hearing about increases in infections and hospitalizations, such as in Arizona, but the increase in infections is because testing is a lot more widespread so actual numbers of infections are being shown more. A large proportion of the population has been exposed to the virus. Most are still asymptomatic or might have mild symptoms. That has not changed.

And the hospitalizations. I have a feeling that those damn masks are making people sick! Are there people who are reusing the same mask over and over? That causes accumulated germs and bacteria that people are breathing more of it in. And then people get sick and they feel symptoms and, because many people are brainwashed, terrorized sheeple they panic and conclude, “OMG I have COVID, I’m going to DIE!!” (even though the fatality rate is .1%, meaning 99.9% of the people who have the virus won’t die from it). And so the panicked sheeple rush to the hospital to get put on ventilators that will then kill them.

More on the masks, first this article that I have linked to before by Dr. Russell Blaylock, with studies that show the masks can cause oxygen deprivation and its effects, which can also negatively affect the immune system.

Jon Rappoport had a recent post on the possible dangers of reusing reprocessed masks that were “decontaminated” using ethylene oxide, and also he quotes Dr. April Baller of the WHO as saying, “If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask…Masks should only be used by healthcare workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough.” And also, “caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

And now the World “Health” (sic) Organization is finally telling the truth about why they and all the bureaucrats who follow their “guidelines” want everyone to wear a mask: for social control reasons, and for “submission” signaling. They want the sheeple to make sure others know they are obedient slaves.

Target Liberty reports on the WHO which writes in its .pdf, “Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19,”

The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;…potential social and economic benefits…encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general.consider the feasibility of use, supply/access issues,social and psychological acceptance…

“Reduced stigmatization“… “Making people feel they can play a role”…”public acceptance” …”psychological acceptance”… In other words, it’s a psy-op. Acceptance of submission and of having a cover over your mouth to symbolize shutting you up, because TPTB don’t want to hear your questioning and challenging their crap! So shut up, sheeple! And do what you are told! That’s really what this mask crap is all about, not preventing the spread of infections. Why the hell would the same kooks who are into eugenics and population control care about spreading infection?

James Corbett on Bill Gates’s Population Control Fanaticism

James Corbett discusses Bill Gates’s fanatical obsession with population control.

On the YouTube page: “The takeover of public health that we have documented in How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and the remarkably brazen push to vaccinate everyone on the planet that we have documented in Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World was not, at base, about money. The unimaginable wealth that Gates has accrued is now being used to purchase something much more useful: control. Control not just of the global health bodies that can coordinate a worldwide vaccination program, or the governments that will mandate such an unprecedented campaign, but control over the global population itself.

The transcript of this video discussion is contained within this page.

(As an aside, you might also be interested in reading Jon Rappoport’s post on the dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines.)

Ron Paul: Fauci’s Back…With More Coronavirus Scare Stories!

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss the notorious Dr. Fauci. From the YouTube page: “Just when it seemed we might get a moment without Covid hysteria or riot hysteria, Dr. Fauci is back and telling us that this coronavirus is his ‘worst nightmare.’ But he assured attendees at a vaccine industry conference that there’s a lot of profit to be made when the vaccine comes out. Plus in today’s Liberty Report: A ‘Texas spike’ or just hype? WHO’s new mask guidelines are a farce. And…you might be a psychopath!”