Walter Block vs. David Stockman, on Biden vs. Trump

Two of the most important economic thinkers of our day, Walter Block and David Stockman disagree on whether it is better or not for a Trump election victory over Joe Biden.

The difference in their views became public when Stockman penned an essay titled With Due Respect: A Commentary On Walter Block’s Damn Nonsense About Libertarian Voters.

Dr. Block responded here at Target Liberty, Stockman vs. Block: Walter Block Responds on the Value of Trump to Libertarians.

This prompted Tom Woods to set up a debate between Stockman and Block. He published the debate on Thanksgiving Day, "Ep. 1785 Debate: David Stockman v. Walter Block on Libertarian Electoral Strategy":

;

I want to discuss what I see as the central difference between them that was not made clear during the debate.

Block makes the point that Trump would be better than Biden in the White House.

Stockman argues that Trump is terrible.

Block then pulls out the argument that one should vote for the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely clever move that could only be made by a mind that fully understands the role of choices in making decisions but it distorts the debate. 

Block emphasizes during the debate that economists understand that in the real world economic actors must make decisions between alternatives that exist. He tells the joke of the economist who is asked, "How is your wife?" The economist answers, "Compared to what?'

Thus Block emphasizes the nature of choice and seemingly blocks (pun not intended) Stockman perspective. Stockman's reply is of the "But Trump is terrible" version.

But what Stockman should have done is pointed out that Block was distorting the framework of the question. That the question really is, Do we really want one of two pretty bad guys now with Trump leading the Republican Party into the future or do we take a third option. Let Biden win now, as terrible as he is, so that Trump is kicked to the curbside and the opportunity would exist for a Taft-like Republican Party to develop.

This would completely knock out Block's choices argument and move it to whether there is any possibility of a Taft-like Republican Party in the future.

I hasten to add that Block originally said of Stockman's viewpoint:

 I fear...Stockman [has] adopted "the worse the better" argument. 

But that is not Stockman's argument. His argument is, if I am reading him correctly, that we are not going to get better until we get rid of Trump. That Trump is the problem. 

Stockman is looking more long-term than Block, and though it did not come up in the debate, Block did mention it in his rebuttal:

[H]is view, if I understand it correctly, pertains to the longer run: if Trump loses, then “the Republican Party can be purged of Trumpian right-wing statism” and we can go back to the “Taftian religion.”

This is the essence of the debate. If we look at it from merely a Trump-Biden perspective, maybe Biden would be worse but we really don't know because Trump is so erratic and all over the place. Stockman correctly lays the current mad lockdowns at the feet of Trump and the early lockdown steps taken by Trump.

I'm with Stockman in the sense that the sooner Trump is no longer the guiding influence of the Republican Party the better. We do need to find a Taft-style Republican to fill the void.

This does not mean I am against the populous outrage that Trump has launched. Indeed, I have written:

 This is no time for halfway free market talk, it is a time to deliver the entire free market message. This is our time. This is our opportunity.

Trumpism needs to be turned into libertarianism. Indeed, the term Trumpism should be co-opted by us to mean free markets and liberty.

It is just that Trump that needs to be shown the door, not a Trumpism that we promote as favoring free markets and liberty. If we move the debate beyond just Biden-Trump for the upcoming term, the answer is clear. Trump has to go and we must find a new voice that is much more principled in support of free markets and liberty. 

-RW

WOW, Senate Testimony: Academic Medicine Is Committing Fraud

 Listen to this, it is pretty incredible (2 minutes 6 seconds).

There were fraudulent papers, published by individuals interested in doing evil to the world with respect to hydroxychloroquine:

 

 Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH is board certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease. He has extensive training and expertise in lipidology and echocardiography. He holds additional certifications from the American Board of Clinical Lipidology and the National Board of Echocardiography. Dr. McCullough specializes in treating patients with complicated internal medicine problems that have affected important organs including the heart and kidneys. 

 He is on the medical staff at Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Jack and Jane Hamilton Heart and Vascular Hospital, and The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano. He is also on staff at Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute which promotes cardiovascular research and education.

 -RW

Psychiatrist: I have to remind myself that when I’m out in public, my assumption is that any person that I run into is insane

By Becky Akers

 America is on the verge of being “lost” because many of its citizens are suffering from a “delusional psychosis” and so fearful that they are turning on each other to enforce “nonsensical” coronavirus restrictions…

That analysis came from a “child and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in West Los Angeles[,] Dr. Mark McDonald,” last month “during the virtual Truth Over Fear Summit organized by Catholic broadcaster Patrick Coffin.”

He added, 

“We don’t need a police force. We don’t need a secret Stasi to go after the neighbor that isn’t wearing his mask on a park bench. We have families who are willing to do that”…

The “driving force of the coronavirus pandemic and the hysteria” around it is fear, McDonald said at the summit.

This fear has now “grown and become so entrenched that it has reached a state of what I would call delusional psychosis. A delusion is a fixed false belief that is contrary to reality …

“Fear has become a new virtue. Never before in the history of this country have we told people that fear is good,” or to “settle into” those fears and allow them “to control and constrain your life,” said McDonald, who spoke at the American Front Line Doctors White Coat Summits in July and October.

Moreover, Americans “who are either afraid, or who have been fed lies and misinformation for months now, have grown to not only feel afraid, but also to believe that what they are being told is true, which is primarily that all of us are at equal risk of catching a virus and dying from it,” McDonald said.

“This is demonstrably untrue. It is a lie, in fact. And we’ve known that it’s a lie for about six months, and yet people have come to believe it. …

“So the end result of this: what appears to me is a country which is using its own citizens as a de facto police force, very similar to communist China, that has a social point system in place where neighbor informs on neighbor, family informs on family,” he said.

“This has a terribly damaging effect on our society.”

But such a grand effect for Our Rulers.

We can all empathize with the doctor’s next remarks:

So widespread and so rooted is this delusional psychosis that “when I leave my home or leave my office every day, I have to prepare myself for the inevitable experience of what I would call the ‘outdoor insane asylum,’” McDonald said.

The experience “reminds me of my time that I spent in residency where I would go through a locked unit door, the door shut behind me, and I’d have to remind myself that anyone not wearing a badge behind that door is crazy,” added McDonald.

“Now I have to do the same when I’m out in public, because my assumption is that any person that I run into is insane.”

The above originally appeared at LRC.

RW note: Most of the country is suffering from dread risk fear.

How the Libertarian Party Can Gain Serious Attention and Influence

By Robert Wenzel

Well, it was another dismal performance for the Libertarian Party in this year's just passed election, especially at the presidential level.

The Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Jo Jorgenson, received approximately 1.8 million votes (roughly 1.2% of the vote).

It was a yawner. There aren't even many post-mortems in the media about the vote. No one cares.

This is a tragedy given the close elections these days between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. 

The races are close because internal polls of the major party campaigns have gotten very accurate in determining what candidates should say to voters and thus the vote will tend to be extremely close. 

These close races are a great opportunity for the Libertarian Party because often in key swing states the margin between the loser and the victor can be less than the number that will vote Libertarian. Walter Block's Libertarian Voting Rule, that in states with close races you vote for the major party candidate that is less evil and that in races that aren't close you cast a protest vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, can be applied with a powerful result if it expanded as a Libertarian Party policy.

In 2024, whoever the Libertarian Party candidate is, the candidate should announce to the country that libertarians should only cast protest votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in states where it is clear who the Republican or Democratic presidential winner will be.

The Libertarian nominee should also announce that in swing states, libertarians should not vote for him but for the lesser of the two evils. The Libertarian Party candidate should also invite on separate nights the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee for live television discussions with the Libertarian candidate on the topic as to which nominee will advance the most libertarian agenda.

Talk about focus on libertarian thinking!

The outcome of the Libertarian candidate announcing, after the discussions as to who he considers less evil between the two major-party nominees and who he recommends libertarians should vote for in swing states, could determine the winner! 

It would be difficult for the mainstream media to avoid coverage of libertarianism and if the questions are designed properly it would introduce to the general population what libertarianism is all about.

Given this would likely determine the outcome of the election, I would expect the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to act like Greyhound dogs chasing a mechanical rabbit to get the libertarian vote. It would be very interesting to see how they would approach their general interventionist pledges while still attempting to gain libertarian support.

Of course, there is the possibility that the D and R candidates would not participate in such discussions and in that case the Libertarian Party candidate would examine the public proposals of both candidates and still make a declaration of advice as to who libertarians should vote for in swing states. 

In a very important way, the Libertarian Party would potentially have significant influence over who ends up in the White House and at the same time introducing to the general public libertarian ideas--which should be the most important goal. 

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is the author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person, and most recently, Problems With Modern Monetary Theory: A Comment on Stephanie Kelton’s "The Deficit Myth".

Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.

Lawsuits Coming Against Corporations Requiring Masks

On the absolutely fascinating weekly legal discussion YouTube show, Viva Frei/Robert Barnes, tough as nails lawyer Robert Barnes mentioned he is going to be using the Americans With Disabilities Act in lawsuits to go up against retailers who demand that customers wear masks.

He didn't go into any greater detail but this could get interesting. He is very sharp and no doubt has thought out a strong case.

 From a libertarian perspective, this gets a bit complex. 

On the one hand, these are private firms and should be left alone to set policies as they desire. On the other hand, many act as agents of the government. If they are, indeed, agents of the state, I have no problem going after them using statist laws.

Also of note, Barnes predicted that if the government or corporations start to require COVID-19 vaccinations of the population, a massive black market in vaccination certificates will emerge overnight.

He says the government has no idea as to the opposition in the populous to forced COVID-19 vaccinations. (NOTE: This assumes  Bill Gates “Implantable Quantum Dot Microneedle Vaccination Delivery System” is not functional yet--but even here I trust the black market to possibly come up with something)

-RW

On Uncultured Swine

 The lady is at it again (4 minutes and 41 seconds).

 

 -RW

A Brilliant Letter From the Boys of Eton in Support of a Fired Teacher

The first 55 seconds of the below video sets the scene: 

Here is a letter from the Boys to the Provost and Fellows of Eton College asking for Will Knowland's reinstatement.

Dear Lord Waldegrave,

The dismissal of Mr Knowland raises a number of concerns for the boys. We perceive in his dismissal some very grave implications about the nature of freedom in this school, and the moral stature of those in charge.

So that you are able to factor these concerns into your judgement of Mr Knowland’s appeal on the 8th, they are particularised in this letter.

The common opinion of the boys is that Mr Knowland presented the ideas in his video with as much academic nuance and sensitivity as could ever be reasonably expected. He makes at least 41 academic citations. His video is arguably a model for how to convey a contentious argument impeccably. We struggle to identify where Mr Knowland’s video steps out of the realms of academic debate and into genuinely discriminatory private opinion. The boys have concluded from watching the video that the problem cannot lie in the way he sets out the ideas, but in the ideas themselves. This dangerous conclusion must not be confirmed by a judgement against Mr Knowland.

Second, the boys perceive a hypocrisy on the part of the school about its role in the protection of minorities. Mr Knowland is being dismissed for having a different view to the view of the majority. His view is not very uncommon or exceptional. It is simply different. Mr Knowland’s dismissal presents as a gross abuse of the duty of the school to protect the freedoms of the individual, especially where those freedoms run up against the norms held by the majority. We feel morally bound not to be bystanders in what appears to be an instance of institutional bullying.

Why has the school not extended the protection to Mr Knowland that we hope it would to any boy who voiced a similar idea, be it on religious or secular grounds?

Are the boys also bound by the same restrictions to expression? Should boys who express the same idea as Mr Knowland expect to be similarly dealt with? Is there a difference if this idea is voiced privately, or, as with Mr Knowland, in an academic context?

Third, in a meeting on the 24th of November, the Head Master explained the test that he applies to determine what kinds of ideas are illegal. For him, anything that can be deemed ‘hostile’ by any single member of one of the school’s designated minority groups will be censored. We think this test is too severe. Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas. A conflict of ideas necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion. The Head Master’s ‘hostility’ test excludes nearly all of what makes up a liberal education.

How can the school reasonably expect teachers to engage in the promotion of free thought inside and outside of the schoolroom when the consequence of overstepping some poorly-defined line of acceptability is to lose their livelihood and home? Is this not an abuse of power?

Fourth, in a previous meeting with Pop, the Head Master stated his view that female teachers would be in some way ‘compromised’ by having to discuss the video in class. This appeared to be the Head Master’s principal objection to the video. Does this not patronise female staff? The undersigned believe that women are no less equipped than a man to contend for or against the video’s arguments.

Fifth, the school now prides itself on being a more compassionate place. This is justified; any B Blocker’s experience will confirm that the school is more tolerant and understanding than when they first arrived, no doubt as a result of your efforts. However, the dismissal of Mr Knowland – at least on the facts available to the boys – points to a heartless and merciless spirit at the top of the school. Mr Knowland is loved by all who have encountered him. He is an obviously and thoroughly good man. We know he has many children, one of whom is disabled. We are struggling to reconcile the school’s opinion of itself as tolerant or compassionate with this instance of cruelty. Mr Knowland’s dismissal truly seems cruel.

There is a sense that, by dismissing Mr Knowland, the school is seeking to protect its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own. If this is true, it points to a complete lack of moral integrity and backbone.

Sixth, it is not really the concern of the boys to what extent the teachers can feel secure in the school, or be confident in the support of their Leadership Team. However, the dismissal of Mr Knowland sets a precedent that we would imagine the teachers are apprehending with some deal of mistrust and fear. Teachers have privately articulated to many boys their inability to speak up about this and other issues for fear of being dealt with in the same way as Mr Knowland. Is the school content that this is a healthy environment?

Seventh, in the meeting on the 24th of November, the Head Master admitted that Mr Knowland’s video was in fact “not the real problem”, and was not the ultimate reason for his dismissal. The Head Master said that Mr Knowland was dismissed for some action subsequent to the video which could not be disclosed to the boys. In the Head Master’s words: for “what happened after the video”. It has been made clear that this subsequent action was Mr Knowland’s refusal to take down the video from his private YouTube page. We urge the Provost and Fellows to recognise that the rightness or wrongness of Mr Knowland’s refusal to take down the video still consists in the rightness or wrongness of the video itself. If, as the Head Master accepts, the video is “not the real problem”, we struggle to understand where Mr Knowland has done wrong. In sum, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the video nor in the declining to remove it at the result of a capricious request.

Moreover, we believe the Head Master should not expect absolute obedience from his staff. They are not children. It is unsurprising that the Head Master has had to resort to punishment and threats to enforce such a style of government.

Those who have signed below do not necessarily support the ideas presented in Mr Knowland’s video. We all, however, support his freedom to express them.

We urge the Provost and Fellows to rule in favour of freedom of thought and expression. We hope that you will rule compassionately, and that you reinstate Mr Knowland.

Yours sincerely,

The undersigned

Knowland's dismissal will be appealed on the 8th of December by the Provost and Fellows.

 -RW

Recklessly Fueling Covid-19 Hysteria

 Here’s a Don Boudreaux letter to USA Today:

Editor:

Shame on you for running Mark Johnson’s wholly misleading report titled “The young die as well from COVID-19, even as many engage in denial” (Nov. 28).

No one denies that Covid kills some young people, but in context this number is tiny. Johnson’s own reported number of Covid deaths in America of people younger than 40 – 3,571 – is a mere 1.5 percent of all Covid deaths in this country, a reality that Johnson scandalously leaves unmentioned. Instead of writing about percentages or proportions (words that never appear in his essay) – instead of informing readers that more than 40 percent of all Covid deaths in the U.S. are of residents of nursing homes – instead of alerting readers to the fact that 97 percent of Covid deaths are of people 45 and older – Johnson sensationalizes the number of under-40 Covid deaths by observing that it “has now surpassed the total death toll from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

To see the irrelevance of this comparison, consider another: the number of Americans younger than 18 who are killed annually by injuries is nearly three-and-a-half times higher than is the number of Americans younger than 40 who’ve died of Covid – and, hence, multiple times higher than the number of 9/11 deaths. 9/11’s death toll is no watershed figure beyond which higher death tolls from other causes necessarily justify unprecedented concern and reaction.

By giving the false impression that Covid poses a grave danger to children and young adults, you recklessly fuel hysteria, out of which only can come ill-conceived policy responses.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

The above originally appeared at Cafe Hayek. 

Should You Punish Your Customers Before the Government Mandates You To Do So?

Earlier this month in a post titled, Ticketmaster Goes Covid-19 Evil, I reported that  "Ticketmaster has been working on a framework for post-pandemic fan safety that uses smartphones to verify fans' vaccination status or whether they've tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72 hour window"

A commenter added to the post:

I think the idea is that if Ticketmaster doesn't do stuff like this, the gov't won't allow them to have events (or make onerous rules such as each attendee must sit in his own self-isolated plastic bubble during the concert).

This may or may not have been Ticketmaster's goal but, if it was, it is an absolutely horrific idea.

It strikes me as particularly absurd to add draconian measures against customers to avoid draconian measures by government.

Who is to say what measures the government might demand? Why would you jump the gun to impose measures the government might not even demand?

The smart thing to do is to wait for the government to come to you with demands rather than impose them first. If they are this draconian, how is this preempting government?  

Ticketmaster should be thinking about serving its customers by coming up with creative workarounds against potential government mandates rather than imposing the harassment of customers itself before the government orders it to do so. Or the firm should hire top-notch lobbyists to get government to go easy on it or the industry, rather than surveilling its customers in Orwellian fashion.

-RW

VIDEO: Jordon Peterson Announces His New Book

In the video below, Jordon Peterson reads from the introduction to his new book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules For Life, and he sounds, in one section, quite Hayekian with regard to the limits of knowledge and the impossibility of central planning (10 minutes and 39 seconds).

Order here:

-RW

The Great Julia Hartley-Brewer Presses a UK Official on His Nonsense COVID-19 Testing Claims

 This is excellent.

Julia presses Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick on the claim that mass Covid testing is a "route out" of Tier 3: “Liverpool’s infection rate was going down a month before mass testing…Is there anything the government does that is based on evidence?”@JuliaHB1 | @RobertJenrick pic.twitter.com/X220Tc3XpC

— talkRADIO (@talkRADIO) November 27, 2020

Why don't we see more mainstream questioning like this either in the UK or the US?

Is mainstream media that filled with timid sheep and crony suck ups to the state?

-RW

Trump Removes Kissinger From Defense Policy Board

Henry Kissinger

 Well, it is about 4 years too late but Trump is cleaning house.

CNN is reporting that several high profile members of the Defense Policy Board were removed on Wednesday by the Trump administration.

Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two officials said.

The Defense Policy Board is an outside advisory group of former high profile national security officials who "provide the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, independent, informed advice and opinions concerning matters of defense policy in response to specific tasks from the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense," according to their website.

Reports also indicate that former Chief of Naval Operations, retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief operating officer at the Pentagon Rudy De Leon and former Bush deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch II were removed.

The Kissinger removal appears most interesting in that he appeared to be close to Trump and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

-RW

My Most Fulfilling Thanksgiving

 By David Burns

This year we hosted Thanksgiving. We didn't want to, but none of our friends or family would commit to it, so we stepped up and filled the void. So we invited friends and family and hosted a wonderful event.

Many great things stand out from today, like my joke that I was going to take our dinner picture and tweet it to Governor Northam's Twitter account, but I want to highlight two that meant a lot to me. 

First, because neither my wife nor I are very good cooks, we ordered all the food from a place here called Fresh Market. This is like a Whole Foods competitor that caters to the uber liberal crowd that loves their covid fantasy. Mask compliance at Fresh Market is probably 100% nearly every day. Today I walked in maskless (as I try to always do), smiled at everyone and wished several terrified people a Happy Thanksgiving.

The second highlight was everyone at dinner realizing simultaneously that we were eating a large meal together in front of big windows with all of our wonderful holiday joy in full view. No one in my neighborhood, which is also heavily liberal, had any guests over. I did not see one visiting car on the street or any lights on up and down the block. Maybe they all went out, but I doubt it.  We discussed closing the drapes, made jokes about the cops coming, but ultimately embraced our openness and left them open.

Our Thanksgiving hosting was a success and it brought families together for a wonderful night of love and peace.

God Bless and always remember to choose love over fear and panic. Love will always win.

Warm Holiday Regards,

David B.

Virginia Beach, VA

David Burns is a cyber security engineer living in Virginia Beach. He can be reached at dvdburns@gmail.com.

Quarantine May Negatively Affect Kids’ Immune Systems

 I often see parents in San Francisco with children who are wearing masks.

Talk about low information sheep.

I wish they all would read the following which appeared, in of all places, The New York Times.

The authors are Donna L. Farber,, a professor of immunology and surgery at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Thomas Connors who is an assistant professor of pediatrics there.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is unwittingly conducting what amounts to the largest immunological experiment in history on our own children. We have been keeping children inside, relentlessly sanitizing their living spaces and their hands and largely isolating them. In doing so, we have prevented large numbers of them from becoming infected or transmitting the virus. But in the course of social distancing to mitigate the spread, we may also be unintentionally inhibiting the proper development of children’s immune systems.

Most children are born with a functioning immune system with the capacity to respond to diverse types of foreign substances, called antigens, encountered through exposure to microorganisms, food and the environment. The eradication of harmful pathogens, establishment of protective immunity and proper immune regulation depends on the immune cells known as T lymphocytes. With each new infection, pathogen-specific T cells multiply and orchestrate the clearance of the infectious organism from the body, after which some persist as memory T cells with enhanced immune functions.

Over time, children develop increasing numbers and types of memory T cells, which remain throughout the body as a record of past exposures and stand ready to provide lifelong protection. For other antigen exposures that are not infectious or dangerous, a type of healthy stalemate can result, called immune tolerance. Immunological memory and tolerance learned during childhood serves as the basis for immunity and health throughout adulthood.

Memory T cells begin to form during the first years of life and accumulate during childhood. However, for memory T cells to become functionally mature, multiple exposures may be necessary, particularly for cells residing in tissues such as the lung and intestines, where we encounter numerous pathogens. These exposures typically and naturally occur during the everyday experiences of childhood — such as interactions with friends, teachers, trips to the playground, sports — all of which have been curtailed or shut down entirely during efforts to mitigate viral spread. As a result, we are altering the frequency, breadth and degree of exposures that are crucial for immune memory development.

While the immune system is influenced by multiple factors, including genetics and everyday exposures to family members and pets, the long term effects of removing the social system that brings children in contact with other people, places and things remains uncharted territory. However, there is now substantial evidence that antigen exposure during the formative period of childhood is important not only for protection but also for reducing the incidence of allergies, asthma and inflammatory diseases. A well-known theory, called the “hygiene hypothesis,” proposes that the increased incidence of allergies and other immune disorders involving inappropriate immune reactions across industrialized societies is a result of the move away from agrarian society toward a highly sanitized urban setting.

Failing to train our immune systems properly can have serious consequences. When laboratory mice raised in nearly sterile conditions were housed together in the same cage with pet mice raised in standard conditions, some of the laboratory mice succumbed to pathogens that the pet mice were able to fight off. Additional studies of the microbiome — the bacteria that normally inhabit our intestines and other sites — have shown that mice raised in germ-free conditions or in the presence of antibiotics had reduced and altered immune responses to many types of pathogens. These studies suggest that for establishing a healthy immune system, the more diverse and frequent the encounters with antigens, the better.

-RW

BREAKING: First Major Lawsuit Filed Relating to COVID-19 Lockdowns, Masks and Vaccines

 

This is great news out of Germany.

This is an important follow-up to my August 29, 2020 post, COMING: Class Action Suit Against Those Responsible For The Lockdowns.

The lawsuit referenced in the clip below is not a class action lawsuit but it is the first step in opening up the truth concerning the authoritarian measures taken by government officials over a virus, COVID-19, that is not a serious virus for more than 99% of the general population. 

-RW

(ht Mary Benjamin)

ANOTHER GOVERNMENT HYPOCRITE: Denver Mayor Flies to See Family for Thanksgiving — After Urging Public to Stay Home

Michael Hancock

Government is filled with power freak creeps who do not believe in their own statements to the public.

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock jetted off to Mississippi where his daughter lives to celebrate Thanksgiving with his wife and daughter— after urging his constituents to avoid traveling amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

That very morning, Hancock had tweeted, “Pass the potatoes, not COVID,” along with an advisory that urged people to stay home and hold virtual gatherings, NEWS 9 reports.

-RW

Have We Reached The East Berlin Emotional Depressed State in America?

Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institue, started a new post at LRC this way:

An unexpected emergency forced me into air travel recently and the experience has been extraordinarily jarring. I expected the masses to be slinking along with their faces covered, but what I saw was far worse. The spirit has been sucked out of people. Everyone with head down. There is no joy. No laughter. No hugs goodbye. No children squealing at the arrival of family and friends.

Just a feeling that some kind of sedative had been sprayed through the air ventilation system. This is not the California I was born and raised in. There is no California spirit, optimism left.

This resonated all too strongly with me.

I visited East Berlin a year before the Berlin Wall came down. The people Daniel describes reminded me of the East Berliners back then.

I wrote this 8 years ago:

Things have changed so dramatically in the last 6 to 12 months [in the United States] that I now believe you are being irresponsible, no matter who you are, if you do not have a bag packed and are ready to move at a moment's notice.

It is not as though there is some new country, or land where the breeze blows lightly 365 days a year, and where there is no government intrusion into your life, but things could get so bad in the United States that many places may start to look like happy alternatives.

The United States is a very rich country with only minor government harassment at this time. For the most part, we all have smartphones, internet connections, wear fashionable clothes and eat decent food. I now believe this situation could change at any time... 

I know what [the change] looks like. It is a dull, drab emotionally dead life. It is the soul in jail. I visited East Berlin a year before the wall came down. That's what East Berlin looked like. That's what America will look like if the enforcers circling us actually get real work to do.

You will not want to live in America if the enforcers get that kind of work.

I wrote this 10 years ago:

 I was in East Berlin the year before the Wall came down. I saw what constant monitoring and micro-management did to people. It is not pretty. The gray, the drab, the despair was everywhere. When you can only take orders and wait for approvals and are constantly watched, it saps the life out of you. America is going to be changing and the government is going to try and watch you and monitor your vitals, as if you were a lab rat, as it does the changing.

It is not going to be pretty.

What I warned about some 10 years ago has begun. The wall against freedom is going up in America. We have not yet come close to the despair and the sapping of life that has existed in East Berlin but it is beginning.

 -RW