Confederate Society
by Al Benson Jr.

After yesterday's post showing that had demonstrated that most of the money to finance Jillary's vote recount was coming from one source and not an outraged American public, I thought this little update might be appropriate.

According to an article in the Washington Times for 11/27/16, Wisconsin elections officials can see no proof of a hack. They said they: "...can't find evidence that any of its voting machines were hacked." And the article I took this from, asked the question "Do you have a plan B or are you going to let it go finally?"

I'll answer that one myself. If they don't yet have a plan B in the backroom you can bet the farm they are working on it as I write this. These are cultural Marxists we are talking about here and they never quit. They may fail with plans A, B, C, D, and E but not to worry. They will be back with plan F as soon as they tear it off the drawing board and they will keep trying until they find some round peg they can jam into a square hole hard enough that they will get at least some of what they want. I am reminded of how many times the cultural Marxists came back to Congress with their petitions for a holiday for their good buddy Martin Luther King Jr. Most people forget, but they came back every year for fourteen years until they finally got what they wanted and we've been stuck with that "holiday" and the opportunities for the leftist propaganda that goes with it ever since. I loathe what the cultural Marxists stand for. It is anti-Christian to the core, but you have to give them credit--they possess a tenacity that most Christians can only daydream about!

The Washington Times asked commission spokesman Reid Magney in Wisconsin if any evidence or indication of hacking had put in an appearance. He replied in an email "No evidence of hacking."

This was confirmed by yet another article from the same source listed above. I will quote: "CNN's New Day interviewed Jill Stein about her recount effort on Friday.  'Do you think this election was stolen' CNN's host John Berman asked Stein point-blank. Um, we don't know...And I think the forensic computer experts have raised serious questions. What we do know is that this was a hack-riddled election...Wait! It gets better. Remember that Hillary was found to alter polls? Well, Stein blamed her suspicions in part on the fake polls!  Those are Hillary's, Jill, not Trump's... And when Berman asked if she has evidence that a hack took place. No,. We do not have a smoking gun."

So after all this fuss and all the millions of dollars raised, most of it seemingly from one central source, we have to ask ourselves what the deuce is going on here? We're going to do all these vote recounts with no evidence of any wrongdoing--or it is now the plan to manufacture "evidence" as we go along? Will they find someone, somewhere down the line in this process that will be willing to "help" them out with revised vote totals or what?

And why did Ms. Stein end up doing something here that could not possibly benefit her or her party? Did someone make her an offer she couldn't (or didn't dare) to refuse? And was her doing this initially nothing more than a ploy to allow Hillary to get back into the game to "help her out?"

The great Christian statesman, Patrick Henry, when invited to take part in the Constitutional Convention back in 1787, refused to be a part of it. Mr. Henry said "I smell a rat." Mr. Henry was a wise man. I wonder how many "rats" he'd be able to smell in this current game were we fortunate enough to still have him around.   

Update: An article that appeared on at 8:19 this evening stated: "As reported earlier the election steal was put into motion when a group of 'experts'  reviewed the election results and reported that there appeared to be election fraud. However, a member of the group of 'experts' happens to be voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz. Bonifaz also happens to be connected with George Soros when he launched the National Voting Rights Institute in 1994. Bonifaz was the Institute's President. This is certainly shocking but no surprise. Hillary and Soros are in this for the steal."

So Bonifaz helped Soros back in 1994 and now he represents Jill Stein. My what an amazing coincidence!

Gateway Pundit also pointed out that Stein cannot file a direct request for a recount in Pennsylvania. She has to go through the courts to do this and she has to present evidence that shows voter fraud. Seeing that Trump won Pennsylvania by around 70,000 votes, Ms. Stein would have to be able to prove that fraud was "probable."  Of course knowing  Soros and the Clintons, that thorny little problem may already be in the process of being "worked on."

By Ekaterina Blinova 
Sputnik News

Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate who highlighted that the Clinton-backed earthquake recovery project in Haiti was an absolute disgrace, Dr. Dady Chery, a Haitian-born journalist, told Sputnik, adding that she believes that Haitian-Americans are not the only ones who voted for Trump to see the Clintons brought to justice.

Donald Trump won’t appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton, as he promised back in October, the US President-elect’s aide signaled Tuesday.

“I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content,” Kellyanne Conway, former Trump’s campaign manager, told MSNBC as quoted by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The question then arises, whether controversial episodes such as, for example, the Clintons’ role in the recovery project in Haiti back in 2010, will be simply swept under the rug.

After Wikileaks released Hillary Clinton’s personal emails it became clear that the US response to Haiti earthquake back in 2010 was hardly a “success story.”

“People were still in mourning, about three weeks after the devastating earthquake of January 12, 2010, when the US Ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Merten, wrote a situation paper for the State Department, and he cheerfully titled a section of it ‘The Gold Rush is on!’ Thanks to a Wikileaks cable from February 1, 2010, we know that the State Department was privately cheering Haiti’s misfortune while Secretary Hillary Clinton was publicly acting like she was heartbroken about Haiti,” Dr. Dady Chery, a Haitian-born journalist and News Junkie Post Co-Editor in Chief told Sputnik.

“The gold rush meant an avalanche of Haitian contracts to private businesses. It also meant many grants and contracts from USAID to politically connected contractors from the Washington DC area. Most of them were ‘Friends of Bill,’ or ‘FOBs,’ who had made donations to the Clinton Foundation, as we also learned from an ABC News investigation and Freedom of Information Act documents,” Chery continued.

The journalist recalled that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave out about $1.5 billion of grants and contracts for the Caribbean country in 2010 but only 35 percent of the sum was spent by 2012.

What is more embarrassing is that there were no financial reviews and virtually no accounting of the expenditures, the journalist stressed.

“Immediately after the earthquake, the Clintons also collected about $30 million for Haiti through the Clinton Foundation. From the foundation’s taxes, we know that only about 10 percent of funds were spent on charity, so only about $3 million were spent on Haiti, and it is unclear how. There were also about $54 million from the Bush-Clinton Fund, but most of that money was spent on mortgages, microfinance, and on refurbishing and building luxury hotels,” Chery told Sputnik.

However, that is half the story.

HRC and Haitian ‘Coup D’Etat’

The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), chaired by Bill Clinton, literally took over the reins of the Caribbean country in April 2010, after Haiti’s President, Rene Preval, was pressured into declaring a state of emergency.

“In what was essentially a coup, President Preval was stripped of his power and allowed only a symbolic veto,” Chery underscored.

“Right after the IHRC was formed, Haiti’s legislators organized massive nationwide protests that went on for months. Throughout Haiti, people called the state of emergency, a ‘coup d’etat d’urgence,'” she pointed out.

The only way the Clintons could sustain power over Haiti was to push Preval to organize presidential elections, Chery noted.

Citing an interview of Ricardo Seitenfus, then Special Representative of the OAS (Organization of the American States), the journalist highlighted that the elections were rigged and Clinton-backed Michel Martelly won the presidency.

“With Martelly in place, the Clintons did whatever they wanted. By July 2011, three months before the IHRC’s 18-month mandate was over, they had collected $3.2 billion and spent only $84 million doing only five out of 75 projects they had planned,” the Haitian journalist stressed.

“In a meeting on August 11, 2011, the Chair of the Senate Public Works Committee accused the IHRC of taking credit for projects that had been funded before it even existed. The IHRC was not renewed by Haiti’s parliament, but the Clintons kept right on raising money. By 2012, the IHRC had collected $5.9 billion out of a total of $9.5 billion of pledged donations,” she underscored.

Chery emphasized that Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate to mention Haiti as being a disgrace for Hillary Clinton.

“New emails revealed today by ABC News show that during the deadly earthquake in Haiti, which killed over 150,000 people, the Clintons couldn’t stop cashing in,” Trump’s campaign website said.

“In their biggest project, the Clintons used $400 million in aid and US taxpayer funds to build what amounted to a sweatshop,” the website read, referring to yet another controversial project kicked off by the Clintons in Haiti — the Caracol Industrial Park.

How can the US under Trump help Haiti to recover from the disaster caused by the Clinton’s policies against the Caribbean country?

Chery called attention to the fact that “Haiti needs justice and fairness from the US much more than it needs foreign aid.”

“Many aspects of Clinton’s dictatorship continue today. First, there is the fact that more than 96 percent of Haiti’s reconstruction funds have disappeared. If the Clintons are tried under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and found guilty, some of this money could be recovered, at the least by confiscating their properties,” the Haitian journalist suggested.

“Another Clinton policy that continues to damage Haiti is the sale of subsidized rice to the country, mostly from Arkansas,” she added, “This is bad for Haitian agriculture, which cannot compete against subsidized goods.”

But what it more important, Chery pointed out, “a Trump government could adopt and enforce a policy of noninterference in Haiti’s political affairs.”

Alas, the story of the Clintons’ involvement in Haiti is far from being over, the journalist remarked, assuming that Bill and Hillary Clinton may still use their UN connections to “keep their hooks” in the small Caribbean country.

“After all, they have a financial interest in Haiti’s gold mines through Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham,” she noted.

“I don’t think Haitian-Americans are the only ones who voted for Trump mainly because they wanted to see the Clintons brought to justice. There are many Americans who object to their government being peddled like a stolen watch on a street corner,” Chery concluded.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Reprinted from Sputnik News.


Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton called for innovative solutions for what ails America. For the former it was a new fence on our southern border that will supposedly be funded by Mexico; for the latter it was free (i.e., taxpayer subsidized) college tuition. Fresh ideas, they told us, could “make America great again” and render us “stronger together.”

Neither campaign stopped to consider that it was an innovation that led to our current woes, one that most Americans view as their country’s greatest contribution to political science: the U.S. Constitution.

Undoubtedly, blaming America’s “paramount law,” as Chief Justice John Marshall called the Constitution, seems like scandalous heresy. Americans are taught that their fledgling nation was going down the tubes until ratification of the Constitution in 1788 ensured that the United States of America would survive the failures of the Articles of Confederation. The standard narrative portrays the Federalists, the proponents of the new Constitution, as visionaries and paints the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification, as men of little faith with no concept of future American greatness.

What the conventional tale leaves out are Confederation’s significant accomplishments.

The primary goals of the Confederation were to defeat Great Britain and to preserve self-government in the thirteen states. The former was accomplished on October 19, 1781, when Lord Cornwallis surrendered his forces to George Washington at Yorktown, Virginia. The latter was enshrined in Article II of our first charter of union: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

The Patriots who fought for Independence pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor so that the states could govern their own affairs rather than suffer the rule of a distant central government. As historian Gordon Wood has observed, the question of where sovereignty resided “was at the heart of the Anglo-American argument that led to the Revolution.”

The much-maligned Articles of Confederation enabled the states to defeat a superpower and ensure the right of the people to make their own laws in state and local assemblies. With these victories the Articles must be considered a great American success story.

It is true that the Articles of Confederation were not perfect. Their most glaring defect was the lack of any provision of an independent revenue source for Congress. This problem came close to being remedied by a proposal to grant Congress the power to collect a tax on imported goods. The Articles’ unanimity requirement, however, permitted one recalcitrant state (Rhode Island in one effort and New York in another) to torpedo this idea.

Unfortunately, although the Philadelphia Convention was tasked with revising the Articles of Confederation, it abandoned the confederative model and many of the Articles’ pro-liberty provisions, including term limits for delegates to Congress; supermajority voting requirements to appropriate money, borrow money, and declare war; and formal recognition of the states as sovereign entities best suited to govern their internal affairs.

Many scholars would argue that the Constitution provides sundry essential protections but that the courts and national legislators undermined them with their erroneous interpretations. This argument is both appealing and plausible until one reads the Anti-Federalist writings dissecting the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists accurately predicted that Congress would interpret the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause in ways that allow it to legislate on subjects beyond its constitutional purview. They foresaw the Supreme Court becoming an unaccountable body that acts as a super-legislature rather than a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes. These prophets also recognized that the states would be rendered impotent and dependent on the national government for revenue and direction.

One might complain that it was foolish for the Anti-Federalists to throw rocks and predict failure rather than to offer concrete solutions. What is forgotten is that Anti-Federalists in various state ratifying conventions offered more than 200 substantive amendments for the national legislature to consider during its first meeting. To secure ratification, Federalists promised to review them and recommend changes to the constitutional structure. Congress did send a bill of rights to the states—at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists—but it ignored proposals to limit national power.

This misunderstood chapter in our national history teaches us that political innovation does not always make America great or stronger together. All too often it spoils a legacy that should be preserved. Rather than tuning in to the fallout from the presidential race, Americans would be better served by dusting off the Articles of Confederation and the Anti-Federalists’ writings. In them we can recover the fundamental principles of liberty and self-government.

By Doug Casey

Doug Casey's International Man  Reprinted from Lew

The Trump victoryl. is very good news for the US—relative to a win for Hillary, which would have been an unmitigated disaster. So I’m happy he won.

Will Trump winning mean a real change in direction for the US? Unlikely. Don’t mistake Trump for a libertarian. He has all kinds of stupid notions—torture as official policy, killing families of accused terrorists, and putting on import duties. He has no grasp of economics. He’s an authoritarian. His cabinet choices, so far, are all neocons and Deep State hangers-on. He’s likely to treat the US as if it were his 100% owned corporation.

On the bright side, he has real business experience—although of the kind that sees government as a partner. I doubt he’ll try, or be able if he does, to pull up any agencies by the roots. He’ll mainly be able to set the tone, as did Reagan. But, hey, something is better than nothing.

A brief word on the US political parties. I’ve said for years that the Demopublicans and the Republicrats are just two wings of the same party. One says it’s for social freedom (which is a lie), but is actively antagonistic to economic freedom. The other says it’s for economic freedom (which is a lie), but is actively antagonistic to social freedom. Both are controlled by members of the Deep State.

I still think that’s an accurate description of reality. But, in truth, it’s a little unfair to the Republicans. The creatures who control the Republican Party are one thing—and they were massively repudiated by the victory of Trump. Good riddance. But the people who gravitate towards the GOP are something else. To them, the GOP mostly represents a cultural club they belong to.

Rank and file Republicans don’t have any cohesive philosophy binding them together. They’re just sympathetic to “traditional” values. They like the picture postcard version of America. The 1950’s style Father Knows Best family. The world of American Graffiti. A house in the suburbs, or a small, neat farm. Thanksgiving dinners with relatives. The exchange of Christmas cards. Going to church on Sunday. The husband having a job that allows him to support the wife and kids. Chevrolets and Fords. A relatively small, non-predatory government. A friendly neighborhood cop. A basically decent and stable society, which doesn’t tolerate crime, or overly outlandish behavior, where social norms are understood and observed.

You get the picture. It’s a cultural thing, not an ideological or political construct. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a reality. It’s more and more just an ideal, about as dated as a Norman Rockwell painting on the defunct Saturday Evening Post.

Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion

The Democrats are quite different in outlook. They see themselves as hip and sophisticated, and see traditional values as “square”. They’re for globalism, not American nationalism. Forget the clean-cut Mouseketeers; the fat and loathsome Lena Dunham is the new role model. Political correctness rules. White men are automatically despised. Black is beautiful. Women are better than men. The very idea of America is in disrepute and held in contempt. Multiculturalism overrules home-grown values. Etc. Etc.

You’ll notice that there was very little discussion about policy in this election. It was almost all ad hominem attacks, mostly pushing emotional hot buttons, not intellectual points. It’s all about a culture clash. It’s a non-violent civil war. These two groups no longer have very much in common. And they don’t just disagree, they hate each other.

Is a real civil war possible? Unlikely. The electorate is too degraded to actually get off their couches to fight, apart from the fact few know how to use a gun anymore. Besides, 25% of the US is on antidepressants or other psychoactive drugs; they’re too passive to want radical change. Almost half the country is on some form of the dole; they fear to have their doggy dishes taken away. More than half the country is obese; fat people tend to avoid street fights. The median age in the US is 38; old people don’t usually get in fights. Anyway, everybody lives on their electronic devices, not the real world.

You’ll notice that voting for Trump and Hillary broke along cultural lines. The Republicans won the rural areas (which are dropping in population); the Democrats won the cities (which are growing). The Reps are white (and becoming no more than a plurality); the Dems have most of the so-called “people of color”, who used to be called “colored people” (and are becoming a majority). The Reps did better with males; the Dems better with females, who tend to see the world in softer and gentler shades. The Reps are favored by native-born Americans; the Dems are favored by immigrants, who often have very different values. The Reps represent the diminishing middle-class; the Dems represent the growing underclass. The Reps did better with older people, who are on their way out; the Dems did better with younger people, indoctrinated by academia and the media, who are on their way up.

None of this looks good for the future of traditional American culture. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote. That means, demographics being what they are, the Republicans are in more trouble next time. With current immigration and birth patterns, the constituency of the Democrats should gain about 2% every four-year election cycle in the future. Even more important, as we leave the eye of the storm that started in 2007, and go into the trailing edge of the economic hurricane, the Trump administration will be blamed. There will, therefore, be a radical reaction away from what it’s believed to represent in 2020.

It used to be the Reps and the Dems differentiated mostly on ideological grounds. Now it’s much more on cultural grounds. Allow me to identify the elephant in the room, and spell out the real nature of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic party is a cesspool filled with leftist social engineers, academics, busy-body pundits, the “elite”, cultural Marxists, race baiters, racial “minorities” who see race as their main identity, radical feminists and LBGT types, entitled underachievers, statists, the soft-headed, the envy-driven, the stupid, professional losers, haters of free markets, and people who simply hate the idea of America. I can’t imagine anyone of good will, or even common decency, being a member of today’s Democratic Party. It needs to be flushed. But it will only get stronger in the near future, for many reasons.

But it’s an honest party—they generally say what they believe, even if it’s repulsive to anyone who values things like liberty. Interestingly, there are no Dinos—unless they’re Stalinists or Maoists who think the others aren’t going far enough. The party has absolutely no redeeming values.

A real battle for the soul of the country is shaping up. But I fear it won’t be heroic, so much as sordid. The knaves versus the fools. The Dems are the evil party, but the Reps are just the stupid party.

Why? Trump and the Trumpers have no ideology except a vision of a vanished world. They’re understandably angry, but don’t know what to do about it. They have no real program, except to say the Dems have gone too far. No coherent philosophy, just a nebulous belief that the Democrats are wrong. They’re justifiably fed up with the Establishment that gave them non-entities like Dole, McCain, and Romney.

Why did Trump win? Two reasons.

First, “Cultural Americans” know that their culture is dying, and their standard of living is declining. They sensed—correctly—that this would be their “last hurrah”, their last real kick at the cat. Trump is likely the last white male president. Unless a rabid statist like Tim Kaine is elected in 2020, with promises of a new and more radical New Deal. Or ongoing wars tilt the odds towards a general, most of whom are still white males.

Second, don’t forget that Trump wasn’t the only protest candidate in the primaries. There was Bernie. His supporters know that Hillary and the Dem insiders stole it from him, and they’re still very unhappy. Many abstained from voting for Hillary because of the theft. A few probably voted for Trump out of spite. Or because they wanted to burn the house down. Nobody says this.

Perversely, they’ll get their wish. The Greater Depression will deepen under Trump, even if he makes the right moves. Which will play into the election of someone from the Democrat cesspool in 2020. So maybe the Trump victory isn’t such a good thing after all.

But let’s look at the bright side. All things considered, we’re in for some wonderful free (kind of) entertainment.

By Tho Bishop via Lew

One of the potential silver linings from the surprising victory for Donald Trump is the hope that a Republican White House will resurrect the left’s distrust of the Federal government. During the Obama administration, progressive activists have been noticeably less vocal on issues such as war, executive overreach, and civil liberty violations than they were when George W. Bush was in office. Encouragingly, we are already seeing signs of this with the idea of California secession buzzing on social media as demonstrators marched in Sacramento yesterday in support of the idea.

The group leading the charge, Yes California Independence Campaign, assembled long before Trump’s surprising victory. Its aim is to put a referendum on the 2019 ballot that, if passed, would make California an independent country.

CalExit has even managed to find financial support from some in Silicon Valley:

The movement has racked up some impressive backers already. Shervin Pishevar, an early investor in Uber and well-known angel investor, claimed on Twitter that he would bankroll a campaign to make California its own nation if Trump won.

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, he confirmed his mission.

“It’s the most patriotic thing I can do,” he told CNBC. “The country is at serious crossroads. … Calling it New California.”

He expressed a desire that California, the sixth largest economy in the world, in terms of GDP, might become a catalyst for a “national dialogue” as the country reaches a “tipping point.”

While this blossoming interest in California secession is likely more a short-term partisan reaction to the election results than a reflection of a true growing movement — any campaign aimed toward political decentralization should be celebrated. Secession has long been portrayed exclusively as a reactionary, fringe right-wing solution, and too-often absurdly linked with racism. Secession should be seen as non-ideological, and perceived as a practical solution for an increasingly diverse society.

In fact, as Jeff Deist noted last year during a Mises Circle event dedicated to the subject, secession would make it easier for the progressive left to achieve the sort of society they desire:

Now one might think progressives would champion the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights, because it would liberate them from the Neanderthal right wingers who stand in the way of their progressive utopia. Imagine California or Massachusetts having every progressive policy firmly in place, without any preemptive federal legislation or federal courts to get in their way, and without having to share federal tax revenues with the hated red states.

Imagine an experiment where residents of the San Francisco bay area were free to live under a political and social regime of their liking, while residents of Salt Lake City were free to do the same.

Surely both communities would be much happier with this commonsense arrangement than the current one, whereby both have to defer to Washington!

Considering the fundamental economic fallacies he spent most of his campaign advocating, it’s unlikely the Trump administration will end up advocating for the sort of policies America actually needs to become great again. But if the election of President Trump leads to more and more people questioning the value of democratic consensus, and causes more Americans to reassess the incredible powers that have been granted to the presidency, libertarians may be able to find a silver lining to this cycles election results.

Note: The views expressed on are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

By Nick Giambruno

Doug Casey's International Man

reposted from Lew

Nick Giambruno: The US presidential election is only days away. What are the country’s greatest problems right now?

Doug Casey: Domestically, I’d say the continual and accelerating loss of freedom, compounded by the prospect of what I suspect will be the biggest financial/economic crisis of modern times. What might that crisis be like? That’s unpredictable, although the odds are it will be unlike any others that are still fresh in people’s memories, simply because people tend to be most prepared for the things that have most recently scared them. The big problems usually come from an unexpected quarter, and/or at an unexpected time. Like the monetary crisis of 1998, that materialized in Thailand.

That said, the question remains of where to look. It could come from outside American borders, in the form of war. War is perhaps the worst thing that can happen, not only for the destruction it will cause in itself, but because it will immensely exacerbate America’s domestic problems. As Bourne famously said, “War is the health of the State.” Certainly, the US government is actively provoking other governments in a score of places around the world. The next war could be serious, not just a sports war, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.Speculator (High Groun...

Nick Giambruno: In 2000, the federal government’s debt was just over $5 trillion. Now, it’s about $20 trillion. It doesn’t matter who’s in power. The debt continues to grow exponentially. Unless the government makes radical cuts to welfare and the military—which won’t happen no matter who is elected—it will grow indefinitely.

If Americans are destined to be indebted serfs no matter who’s in power, do the elections even matter?

Doug Casey: If the economy goes off of the deep end over the next year—and I think it will—the US government is going to be running much bigger deficits. Spending is going to go up for welfare. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security—that’s already about two-thirds of the US government’s budget. Military spending is also going up. All that is going to go up, regardless of who wins the election on November 8.

We could easily see a trillion dollar deficit, perhaps much more. Now, where are they going to get all that money? The Chinese aren’t going to lend it to the US anymore. They’re basically going to finance the deficit by selling the debt to the Federal Reserve. And that means creating more currency units out of thin air.

But, on the other hand, the average guy—and for that matter, most businesses—aren’t borrowing money now. They’re too afraid. They don’t want to be in debt. The question is: As this comes to a real climax, are we going to have something resembling a runaway inflation in the dollar? Or are we going to have a massive credit collapse, which could be caused by defaults on bonds, house mortgages, student loans, or auto loans? I’m not sure which is going to happen. I mean, you buy a car now in the US, it costs you what a house did a couple generations ago. It all floats on a sea of debt. I’m just betting on financial chaos. That is the safe bet.

No matter which way this election goes, it’s going to be ugly.

Both candidates, Trump and Clinton, are disastrous. To me, it’s a sign of how degraded the US has become. About a year ago, they gave us a choice between Hillary, the wife of a previous president, pretty much playing the role of Argentina’s Evita, Juan Peron’s brassy wife. And Jeb Bush, the brother of one previous president and the son of another. The US has gone so far downhill that we can only choose which family dynasty we prefer to rule. If only a Kennedy, a Roosevelt, or a Rockefeller could be thrown into the mix as well… Maybe next time. Although I think we’re due for a general or two.

Elections are, quite frankly, meaningless. These two corrupt parties, the Republicrats, and the Demopublicans, run by political hacks and funded by interest groups, simply appoint the people that they want and then present the American people with the illusion of a choice. The people who run these parties have become increasingly bold and arrogant. They’re absolutely horrible creatures, the same types that used to thrive in the Soviet Union. Americans should be ashamed of themselves for treating them with any respect at all.

However, if forced to choose between the two candidates, I would definitely go for Trump, simply because he’s something of an outsider. The media, Hollywood, academia, and the Establishment hate him. And I believe he hates them. If elected, he will likely overturn a lot of apple carts in Washington and break a lot of rice bowls of people who live off the Deep State. That would be an excellent thing. It’s also possible he would retract most of Obama’s Executive Orders, and fire a bunch of supernumeraries. But he might replace them with a bunch of his own.

However, it’s clear Trump has all kinds of dangerous authoritarian tendencies—don’t forget his endorsement of torture and the killing of families of accused terrorists as a policy. He also has all kinds of really silly and destructive economic notions—he appears to think he can cut “deals” with foreign governments. That has nothing to do with the concept of free trade. He’s threatened punitive tariffs, something that would immensely aggravate The Greater Depression. Worse, since as a businessman he’s associated with the free market—unfortunately, and incorrectly—capitalism will wind up being blamed for this depression as well as a result.

Incidentally, I believe—as I have for over a year—that Trump is going to win. Why? It’s not just the immense enthusiasm of his supporters, as opposed to the lukewarm support that Hillary gets. It’s that Bernie Sanders was the other “protest” candidate in this election. His numerous and enthusiastic supporters believe—correctly—that Hillary and the Democratic machine stole the nomination from him. They’re genuinely pissed off. I believe only the most oblivious ones will vote for Hillary. A few might be mad enough to want to burn the house down by voting for Trump.

I haven’t heard anyone talking about the absence of the Bernie-istas. I don’t keep my finger on the pulse of the hoi polloi. But, if I’m right, it will result in a landslide for Trump.

Unfortunately, Trump is no libertarian—but neither is the dim-bulb candidate of the Libertarian Party. That said Trump is a lot better than Hillary—this is no time for a corrupt, hostile, elderly, debilitated, mildly demented Statist to become president. So, sure, I’d prefer Trump.

Am I going to vote for him? I don’t believe in being complicit in a criminal act, so I don’t vote.

Nick Giambruno: Please elaborate…

Doug Casey: There are at least five reasons not to vote:

  1. Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.
  2. Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in yet another government computer database.
  3. Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.
  4. Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, the reason why most people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.
  5. Your vote doesn’t count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That’s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.
Nick Giambruno: What about voting for the Libertarian Party?

Doug Casey: The Libertarian Party once had a claim to being the party of principle, back in the days when people like John Hospers, Harry Browne, and Ron Paul were their candidates. Then they for some reason put forward the empty suit Bob Barr, an ex-Congressman.

It appears that the Libertarian Party has been captured by the Republicans, which is surprisingly clever on the Republicans’ part. Now they have two parties that are registered in all 50 states. It’s kind of a backup system to the regular Republican Party. They’ll need a backup since the old GOP is a dead duck.

Regarding Gary Johnson, I don’t know what his philosophical beliefs, if any, are. I suspect neither, does he. The only thing we really know is that he wants to see pot legalized on a national scale. Well, bravo. I’m all for that, even though I’m not a toker. It’s a step in the right direction toward dismantling the insane War on Some Drugs. But does he have any other libertarian tendencies? He doesn’t seem to even have a grasp of the basic principles… although he seems better than the average politician. But that’s not saying much.

I’m especially concerned about his running mate, William Weld, who’s an actual neocon. He’s an overt statist, an active promoter of warfare, welfare, taxes and regulations. He has no libertarian tendencies at all that I’m aware of. He’s a pure Deep State guy.

One thing you’ve got to say about the Democratic Party is that, while their ideas are destructive and evil, at least they’re honest about them. Democrats make no bones about being the party of socialism, and they naturally attract the envy-driven, the class warriors, the politically correct, the cultural Marxists, the race baiters, the gender Nazis, and the like. The Democratic Party is beyond redemption. It needs to be flushed. It has zero redeeming value.

The Republicans attract a different group. Religious people. Cultural traditionalists. People who generally favor what they think is the free market. They tend to be much more nationalistic and pro-military than the Democrats. But, unlike the Dems, the Reps have no real philosophical foundation. They’re basically just non-Democrats…

The Democrats can be viewed as the evil party and the Republicans as the stupid party. But they’re really just two sides of the same coin, at least when it comes to their leadership—who are all Deep State members.

The Libertarians must now be viewed, at best, as the smart wing of the stupid party. It’s a sad testimony to the nature of politics…

The situation has actually gotten out of control, and the government is so big and so powerful at this point that it can’t be reversed. Even if Ron Paul were elected, it wouldn’t do any good.

The first thing that would happen is that he would be sat down with a bunch of generals and heads of Praetorian agencies, like the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, who would inform him—politely, but firmly—how things really work. If he didn’t play by their rules, his life would be at risk. And if for some reason he dodged those bullets, he would be impeached by Congress before he had the chance to actually change anything. And if for some reason that didn’t work, the average American would be out in the street rioting, because his doggy dish was going to be broken. Don’t forget, almost 50% of Americans are net recipients of government benefits.

I’m afraid that when the looming crisis blows up, the American people--Boobus Americanusas H. L. Mencken said—is going to clamor for somebody to kiss it all and make it better. We could very well wind up with some type of a military dictatorship.

Nick Giambruno: I agree, Doug. I also do not vote. And there are far more powerful ways to vote anyway.

You can vote with your money by swapping fiat currency stored in a fractional reserve banking system (like the US dollar) for physical gold and silver.

You can also vote with your feet by leaving the country.

Instead of voting for a politician, which only creates the illusion of making a difference, those two steps can actually make a positive change in your life.

What’s your take?

Doug Casey: I agree. The thing is that all of our ancestors—all of us who are Americans—came from foreign countries. Everybody came to America because they wanted to get away from being turned into slaves in their home countries. The problem is that the US government is going in the same direction as those governments that our ancestors ran away from. Now we have to go someplace else ourselves. We have to find a new America.

I’m very pleased that I can watch all this nonsense on a widescreen in a coffee shop in Argentina and not be very adversely affected by it. Argentina, incidentally, is now going the right way from many points of view.

It’s dangerous to stay rooted in one place when the natives get restless. Ask Russians in the 20’s, Germans in the 30’s, any European in the 40’s, Chinese in the 50’s, Cubans in the 60’s, Vietnamese in the 70’s, Rhodesians in the 80’s—or Venezuelans today. And that’s just an incomplete list off the top of my head. It’s especially risky if you have some assets during real economic upset, or ideas that aren’t mainstream when there’s real political turbulence.

Nick Giambruno: Most Americans are effectively stuck in the US. So, looking at these disturbing socio-political trends, what else could happen?

Doug Casey: It’s amazing, and disturbing, that most of the young people in the US support Bernie, an avowed socialist, whose ideas are, if anything, worse than Hillary’s. But it just shows how unhappy young people are with the status quo. Justifiably unhappy.

Bernie and Trump hit the same nerve—they sensed that we’re on the edge of a revolution in this country. We really are. The situation is not unlike that before the War Between the States, very unstable.

Both sides are extremely antagonistic. People either hate Trump or they hate Hillary. It doesn’t matter who wins; the other side is going to be very, very unhappy. And with tensions already running high in the country, and racial, cultural and social clashes in the background, it almost feels like a civil war is in the cards for the US.

Of course, it seemed like we could have had a civil war back in the late 60’s and early 70’s when there were not just a few, but thousands of bombings. Not just little riots, like in Ferguson and Baltimore, but conflagrations like in Watts, DC, and Detroit, where the National Guard was raking the ghetto with .50 cals.

But the country’s prosperity was still increasing in those days. Now we’re on the cusp of The Greater Depression. Things could get ugly.

Contrary to what most believe, the US hasn’t had a real civil war yet. The unpleasantness of 1861–65 was actually a war of secession. A civil war is one where two or more groups are vying for the control of the same government, as in Spain during the 30’s, between the fascists and the communists.

But this time in the US it could turn into a real civil war. I don’t know what form it would take, but a lot of things could be really tough going: economically, financially, politically, socially, militarily. Most important, there’s a cultural divide that’s arisen in the US.

I don’t think most people are even aware of what is going on. When you walk outside, the sun is shining. Children are still playing. You can go down to the Wal-Mart and buy cheap goods. Everything looks pretty good on the surface, despite the fact everyone’s credit card is maxed out. But I think it’s all a hologram that’s about to be exposed. So, hold on to your hat.

by Al Benson Jr.

Pat Buchanan had an interesting article on for October 12th in which he discussed the recent second presidential debate and the "moderators" (read that surrogate debaters for Hillary) failure to ask the right questions. Of course, if the truth were known, they were questions they would shy away from dealing with because they would draw attention to Hillary's One World Government mindset and that is the last thing they want to bring to the public's attention. Why is that, the naive might ask? Because they share Hillary's worldview in that area, that's why.

Pat made some cogent observations when he asked: "How could the moderators have ignored that other leak of last week, of Clinton's speech to Brazilian bankers where she confessed she 'dreams' of a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders." He continued: "If the quote is accurate, and Clinton has not denied it, then she was saying she dreams of a future when the United States ceases to exist as a separate, sovereign  and independent nation.  She envisions not just a North American Union evolving out of NAFTA but a merger of all the nations, North, South and Central America, with all borders erased and people moving freely from one place to another within a hemispheric super-state." This is yet one more story the major media and the bosses that control it have deemed that the average American does not need to be aware of. So just ignore it.

All the moderators really wanted to deal with for the evening was Trump and that eleven year old tape and all other subjects were supposed to pale into insignificance. And Hillary would have been quite content to remain there also. This was supposed to be the evening that Trump was destroyed and his presidential possibilities probably handed over to one of the Council on Foreign Relations political hacks that he defeated in the primaries. Trump's bringing out for the audience four of the women that William Jefferson Clinton was accused of raping, one of which he paid a huge settlement to in order to keep it out of court, sort of put a little damper on that. But Trump's destruction was something the Republican Establishment really looked forward to because they never wanted Trump in the beginning. What they had really planned on was for one of the CFR-controlled hacks that he beat out to, somehow, be reinstated as a possible candidate again, didn't make any difference which one because they were all prepared to play the One World Government game, with the possible exception of Rand Paul. Albeit the rhetoric would have been a little different from one to the other, but the results for America would have been the same with any or all of them. But, then, I still think the initial plan was for Hillary to trounce whichever one was chosen to be the "loyal opposition."

After all the planned fuss over Trump's old tape broke, a whole bunch of gutless wonders calling themselves Republicans jumped ship and loudly asserted that for moral reasons they could not support Trump any longer--all the way from the Speaker of the House to the august (and I use the word loosely) Senator from Arizona. One thing folks, especially in the South and West need to start realizing--the Republican Party is utterly corrupt. It has been, like the Democratic Party, thoroughly co-opted by the CFR/Trilateralist cabal and those that run it are high in the echelons of the One World Government crowd. Their vision for "Amerika" is the same as Hillary's vision, and no matter how much they prattle about being "the party of small government" it is all a sham. I trust most of them about as far as I trust Bill Clinton and his presidentially-minded spouse.

The Republican Establishment never wanted Trump and they were almost to the point of choking when they had to pretend they did. They would have jumped at any possible means of scuttling Trump's candidacy so they could support Hillary (covertly of course). All I can say is that if this is the "best" the Republicans can do, who even needs the Democrats? There is no real difference between the two parties except the labels put there to confuse a slow-minded electorate.

As for that eleven year old Trump tape, the man he said all this stuff to, and who egged him on to say it, was Billy Bush. That surname ring any bells? It should. George Bush 1 is Billy's uncle and George Bush 2 and Jeb Bush are his cousins. The Bush Dynasty long ago stated up front that there was no way they could support Trump. He didn't have "New World Order" credentials.

Do you begin to see the possibility of connecting just a few dots here?

Interesting that one of the Bush Clan just happened to get this tape leaked at this critical time. Coincidence, just pure coincidence, right??? I notice that Billy has now been suspended from NBC for his part in this. Is he on the way out because his job there was done or has he been thrown under the bus after it was done?

I've said this before but it bears repeating. If most folks knew the real history of the Republican Party they would realize that its foundations are anything but conservative. To learn about the true history of the Republican Party read two books, Lincoln's Marxists, by Donnie Kennedy and myself, andTo The Victor Go the Myths and Monuments by Arthur R. Thompson. These will give you a pretty good idea of the origins of the Republican Party. What goes on today is of the same caliber as what Lincoln and his friends did back in the 1860s. So please, stop looking at the Republican Party as our "national savior"--an office only Jesus Christ can fulfill.

The Republican Establishment will work to sell you out just as quick as Hillary will--because their loyalty to the New World Order is exactly the same as Hillary's