44-Year-Old Hoarder Left Behind Treasure Trove Worth Up to $5 Million After Passing Away

From Western Journal.com (Oct. 10, 2020):

Hoarders are notorious for calling themselves “collectors,” and claiming that their hoard is made up of valuable items. Many times, those items turn out to be trash — worse than worthless — but, every once in a while an antique or box of items will turn out to be worth something.

The only way to know if a group of items are a “collection” and not a landfill in progress is to call in the experts. And one man in England is incredibly glad he did.

The man’s brother was a 44-year-old bachelor computer programmer who died suddenly last year, according to Metro.

That man had spent over a decade filling up every part of his three-bedroom house in Nottingham floor to ceiling with stacked boxes, bags and packages, earning him the title “Britain’s Biggest Hoarder.”

When he ran out of space, he filled up 24 bins outside and rented two garages and a neighbor’s backyard. Eventually, he had to stay elsewhere because there was nowhere for him to live at his home.

When he passed and his brother was tasked with cleaning up the hoard, the brother very nearly just had it all thrown out — but decided to get it evaluated first. Enter Terry Woodcock of Unique Auctions in Lincoln. With decades in the business, Woodcock was astounded at what he found.

“This collection is beyond belief,” Woodcock said, according to Metro. “I met the man’s brother at the house and he was just as shocked as I was. He had no idea his brother lived like he did. His house and garage were literally crammed full of items.”

Apparently, the deceased bachelor had taken to ordering items online and was hoping to sell them one day to fund his retirement. Lots of vintage electronics, piles of rare comic books, old science kits, Beatles memorabilia and countless other collections were found stacked haphazardly in every space he owned.

According to Metro, it took eight men and three vans more than six weeks just to clear the house, let alone open packages and research the value of items.

But the estimate of what the items could be worth is absolutely staggering: between £500,000 ($650,000) and £4,000,000 ($5,200,000).  [read more]

Nice.

Top 10 takeaways from Anthony Fauci's hearing in front of Senate committee

From Just the News.com (July 29):

Former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, where he was grilled about his work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The former NIAID director refused to answer lawmaker questions throughout the hearing, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite having a presidential pardon that covered his work during the pandemic.

Despite Fauci's refusal to answer questions, the hearing was filled with major revelations and accusations.

Here are the top 10 major takeaways from the Senate hearing:

1. Fauci applied for government grants for himself/got government employees to do it for him

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley revealed during the hearing that Fauci allegedly used federal employees while he was NIAID director to apply for government grants on his behalf for his work during the pandemic.

"You got rich while people were dying," a heated Hawley said. "You were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars."

Hawley said he has evidence of the applications for cash prizes that Fauci received, including the Dan David award and the Smithsonian award.

"You actually wrote to people and said, 'Do you think maybe I'd qualify?' And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?"

Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment in response.

2. Ron Johnson alleges Fauci covered up evidence ivermectin works

Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson accused Fauci during the hearing of covering up alleged evidence that the controversial prescription drug medication ivermectin actually is effective against the coronavirus.

“You said there was no evidence," Johnson said. "There were all kinds of evidence. Loved ones had to go to hospitals, had to sue hospitals ... So I want to know, to what extent were you involved in sabotaging Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?”

Johnson highlighted studies that found there were 60-70% effectiveness rate against the virus. Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment again in response.

3. Moreno asks why Fauci hired a criminal defense attorney

Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno questioned why Fauci would hire a prominent criminal defense attorney if he had done nothing wrong when it came to the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the attorney was someone a client hires if they are in "deep s***."

"Let me tell you who David Schertler is for the audience," Moreno said. "He's a high-profile criminal attorney. He's represented some really great people like Senator Bob Menendez ... And there's an article here in the Washington Free Beacon that talks about why you would hire a guy like David Schertler. The comment is, 'if you're in deep s***, that's who you call.'"

4. Rand Paul confirms plans for Fauci contempt vote

Another top moment related to the hearing comes after Senate Homeland Security Chairman Rand Paul confirmed that he plans to hold a contempt vote against Fauci for pleading the Fifth in order to dodge answering the panel's questions.

"We believe... he didn't need to hide behind the 5th Amendment and that maybe the 5th Amendment doesn't attach when you have a pardon in place," he told reporters. "The question on contempt will be voted on and then there's the question of whether or not the Department of Justice will take that up."

5. Senators question legality of 5th amendment plea

Several senators also questioned whether Fauci could even plead the Fifth since he was pardoned by former President Joe Biden before he left office last year.

"You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment, because you've been pardoned, as you very well know," Hawley said. "As the Supreme Court has been clear for a century or more. Brown vs. Walker, 1896, 'when he has been pardoned he may not stand upon his privilege.'

"You know that. Your lawyers sitting behind you now, shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it. This isn't about the Constitution, this isn't about the law," he continued. "This is about contempt, contempt for this body and contempt for the American people." [read more]

The other takeaways:

1. Rick Scott tells Fauci how lockdowns hurt his own family
2. Hawley claims Fauci wanted to be 'Sun god of science'
3. Paul presses Fauci on alleged deletion of federal records
4. Fetterman regrets partisanship over lab leak theory
5. Fauci's lawyer booted from the hearing

More stories and a video on the hearing:

• Fauci Hearing and Diary Leave More Questions Than Answers
• Anthony Fauci, The ‘Covid Czar,’ Ticked Off The Wrong Moms
• Fauci gave off ‘signals of deception’ during Senate hearing, body language expert says
• Here's what the Fauci hearing is really about
• Fauci CAN'T Plead The Fifth If Congress Does THIS [video]

Why Progressives Love Government “Experts”

From FEE.org (June 9, 2022):

In twenty-first-century America, ordinary people are at the mercy of well-paid, unelected government experts who wield vast power. That is, we live in the age of the technocrats: people who claim to have special wisdom that entitles them to control, manipulate, and manage society’s institutions using the coercive power of the state.

We’re told these people are “nonpolitical” and will use their impressive scientific knowledge to plan the economy, public health, public safety, or whatever goal the regime has decided the technocrats will be tasked with bringing about.

These people include central bankers, Supreme Court justices, “public health” bureaucrats, and Pentagon generals. The narrative is that these people are not there to represent the public or bow to political pressure. They’re just there to do “the right thing” as dictated by economic theory, biological sciences, legal theory, or the study of military tactics.

We’re also told that in order to allow these people to act as the purely well-meaning apolitical geniuses they are, we must give them their independence and not question their methods or conclusions.

We were exposed to this routine yet again last week as President Joe Biden announced he will “respect the Fed’s independence” and allow the central bankers to set monetary policy without any bothersome interference from the representatives of the taxpayers who pay all the bills and who primarily pay the price when central bankers make things worse. (Biden, of course, didn’t mention that central bankers have been spectacularly wrong about the inflation threat in recent years, with inflation rates hitting forty-year highs, economic growth going negative, and consumer credit piling up as families struggle to cope with the cost of living.)

Conveniently, Biden’s deferral to the Fed allows him to blame it later when economic conditions get even worse. Nonetheless, his placing the economy in the hands of alleged experts will no doubt appear laudable to many. This is because the public has long been taught by public schools and media outlets that government experts should have the leeway to exercise vast power in the name of “fixing” whatever problems society faces.

The Expert Class as a Tool for State Building

The success of this idea represents a great victory for progressive ideology. Progressives have long been committed to creating a special expert class as a means of building state power. In the United States, for example, the cult of expertise really began to take hold in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it led directly to support for more government intervention in the private sector. As Maureen Flanagan notes in “Progressives and Progressivism in an Era of Reform,”

“Social science expertise gave political Progressives a theoretical foundation for cautious proposals to create a more activist state…. Professional social scientists composed a tight circle of men who created a space between academia and government from which to advocate for reform. They addressed each other, trained their students to follow their ideas, and rarely spoke to the larger public.”

These men founded new organizations—such as the American Economics Association—to promote this new class of experts and their plans for a more centrally planned society. Ultimately, the nature of the expert class was revolutionary. The new social scientists thought they knew better than the patricians, religious leaders, local representatives, and market actors who had long shaped local institutions. Instead,

Progressives were modernizers with a structural-instrumentalist agenda. They rejected reliance on older values and cultural norms to order society and sought to create a modern reordered society with political and economic institutions run by men qualified to apply fiscal expertise, businesslike efficiency, and modern scientific expertise to solve problems and save democracy. The emerging academic disciplines in the social sciences of economics, political economy and political science, and pragmatic education supplied the theoretical bases for this middle-class expert Progressivism.

The Progressive impulse for expertise-based rule was perhaps exemplified by the Progressive transportation planner Emory Johnson, who advocated for a strong federal executive branch that would be resistant to political pressure while relying on the supposedly “scientific” judgments of government planners and other bureaucrats. Johnson

explicitly took up the question of the role of expertise in the American state…. he maintained that success relied upon what he termed “executive functions.” He sought to empower the federal government’s executive branch as experts’ natural home.1

In the Progressive view, business leaders and machine politicians lacked a rational and broad view of the needs of society. In contrast, the government experts would approach society’s problems as scientists. Johnson felt this model already somewhat existed in the Department of War, where Johnson imagined the secretary of war was “quite free from political pressure and [relied] on the counsel of the engineers.” Johnson imagined that these science-minded bureaucrats could bring a “really economic and scientific application” of policy. [read more]

Why Do Some Countries Stay Poor?

From Peter Jacobsen on FEE.org (Aug. 23, 2023):

Accounting for "The Wealth of Nations."

This week for Ask an Economist, I have a question from a reader named Mark. He says,

“I’ve worked with immigrants that recently moved to the US, and workers still living in their native country and working for me remotely.

My experience is that they’re on average, much harder working and more skilled (even in technical fields) than my American colleagues. The foreigners work hard, making no excuses, grateful for the work, and take every opportunity to better themselves. Americans, on the other hand, demand much higher wages, complain about the work, and make little effort to improve themselves.

Since the people from many of these poor countries are better workers, why are their home countries so poor? Immigrants on average start more businesses and do better in the US than US born citizens. With all their skills and ambition, it seems their home countries ought to be significantly richer than the US cities, yet this isn’t the case. What’s the cause of these countries’ poverty?”

Mark asks perhaps the single-most important question in the history of economic thinking. Why do some countries grow rich while others stay poor?

A Long History of Answers

In 1776, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith published perhaps the most influential work in the history of political economy: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

This book, usually referred to as “The Wealth of Nations,” tries to answer the question Mark poses. Since then, wealthy countries have grown much wealthier, some poor countries have grown wealthier, but there are a substantial number of countries lagging behind.

Before we get into the right answer, we should spend some time talking about some popular wrong answers.

Economist Bill Easterly has done a great job chronicling some of these wrong answers in his book The Elusive Quest for Growth.

Easterly’s point in the book is simple. Throughout the late 20th century and into the 21st century, the United States and other countries have attempted to trigger economic growth in poor countries. These attempts have failed.

Easterly discusses three failed panaceas which experts believed would trigger development: investment, population control, and education. Before looking at each once, though, consider the unifying theme here. Developed countries tend to have higher levels of investment, lower birth rates, and more education. From this, experts have tried to infer that if these conditions are replicated in poorer countries, then development will follow.

This strategy has failed. It turns out these factors are more a consequence of growth than a cause. Let’s look at each failed panacea.

1. Investment

In the 1950s, experts began to believe that simply having machines and financial capital to take on big projects would make countries rich. This belief, ironically, was based on the (false) success of the Soviet Union. Soviet production numbers were going through the roof, and for decades economists believed they would overtake the US. Why?

The Soviet Union was industrializing through forced savings. By reallocating private resources to large industrial investments, it appeared the USSR was able to shock the economy into early industrialization. It turns out that this growth was illusory, as economist Murray Rothbard rightly predicted, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union fooled many economists in the 1950s, so the model of centrally planned growth via investment took off. The belief was that because poor countries were in such dire situations, citizens had no ability to save. Without saving there is no growth. A vicious cycle was preventing growth.

So developing countries could fix this by giving the required investment for countries to have sustained growth. This investment would increase incomes, which would increase savings, and spur on permanent natural growth. Easterly calls this the financing gap approach.

The approach failed, though. Models failed to live up to their predictions, and poor countries were not made rich via air-dropped investments. The reason for the failure is the same reason noted by Rothbard in his analysis of the Soviet economy. Production is a means to the ends of consumption. If your production is not linked meaningfully to the well-being of consumers via the knowledge of prices, profit, and loss, then it will not lead to any sustained growth.

Central planners attempted to create production for its own sake, leading to the misallocation of capital and natural resources. Investment alone is not enough—you must have the right investments.

2. Education

A natural next plan for development experts was education. If increasing production via physical capital was not enough, maybe increasing knowledge or human capital would do the trick. Easterly chronicles how education development policy dominated from the 1960s to the 1990s.

The results did not bear out on this either. Easterly chronicles how study after study finds little to no correlation between education and economic growth. One study shows that as the education explosion happened in poor countries, the growth rate of income in these countries actually fell. This is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if education theories were true. Another study found that for countries that grow 1% faster than average, education could only explain 0.06% of that in terms of growth in human capital.

Easterly points to several other types of studies which show a simple, consistent result: education does not create economic growth.

……

The Best Answer

So if all these answers are wrong, what is the right answer? Let’s go back to Adam Smith, and take a look at his famous conclusion. Why do countries become rich according to Smith?

“Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

Smith is arguing that the ultimate cause of growth in a country stems from its institutions. In other words, the rules that govern your daily economic activity are at the bottom of the different growth outcomes we face in our world.

Another way to frame this is that in order for a country’s economy to grow, the citizens need economic freedom or access to private property rights.

When people have private property, they can use, sell, or rent out their property. This leads to a few results. First, people have an incentive to maximize the value of their property. If you own a house, you want to keep it in good condition because letting it fall apart means you lose some money. Private ownership incentivizes responsibility.

Furthermore, when people are able to sell their goods, prices form for those goods. Prices reflect the value of a good or service relative to other things, and embody societal knowledge about the good. When an oil rig breaks down in the ocean, oil becomes more scarce. We don’t have to be told oil is more scarce to curb our consumption. The rising price causes us to curb consumption whether we know it or not.

Prices also allow firms to do accounting to determine their profit or loss. If a firm makes a profit off of a sale, this tells them consumers valued the final product more than the value of the inputs used to create it. This process of transforming less valuable inputs into more valuable outputs is at the center of economic growth. To paraphrase the economist Peter Boettke: without ownership of the various goods used in production, there can be no markets for them. Without markets for these goods, there are no prices. Without prices, there can be no economic calculation.

So institutions which are economically free are the cause of economic growth. The data bear this out. Economists James Gwartney and co-author Robert Lawson pioneered the Fraser Institute’s “Economic Freedom of the World Index.” The Index measures how free the economies of different countries are and uses that information to examine the connection between freedom and flourishing. What they find fits perfectly with the theory here. Economically free countries are richer and healthier than unfree countries.

Economist Peter Leeson also examines the evidence in a paper titled “Two Cheers for Capitalism?” His conclusion?

“According to a popular view that I call ‘two cheers for capitalism,’ capitalism’s effect on development is ambiguous and mixed. This paper empirically investigates that view. I find that it’s wrong. Citizens in countries that became more capitalist over the last quarter century became wealthier, healthier, more educated, and politically freer. Citizens in countries that became significantly less capitalist over this period endured stagnating income, shortening life spans, smaller gains in education, and increasingly oppressive political regimes. The data unequivocally evidence capitalism’s superiority for development. Full-force cheerleading for capitalism is well deserved and three cheers are in order instead of two.”

In The Elusive Quest for Growth, Easterly has one other insight that merits our attention on this question. Easterly points out how much of the United States government’s focus on development in the late 20th century was really an attempt to win allies against the Soviet Union.

This is extremely ironic, considering that the US government was essentially incorporating Soviet style central planning to attempt to bring about growth in these developing countries.

Instead, it would have been better to follow a US-style pursuit of economic growth. Institutions which enable economic growth are the true driver of wealth creation. Once you enable individuals to freely compete and cooperate, the power of human ingenuity does the rest. [read more]

Food for thought. Lessons the Left never gets--especially the "easy taxes" part.

Trump drops election integrity bombshells, urges passage of SAVE America Act

From Just the News.com (July 16):

On Thursday at the White House, President Donald Trump addressed the nation and presented new evidence detailing multiple security breaches in elections he said were concealed by a self-proclaimed "shadow government" and the Biden administration.

"Another official inside the FBI wrote that she was running 'a shadow government' to keep intelligence about China's election meddling from becoming known," he said, during a primetime address from the White House.

The Chinese hacked while the Democrats denied

According to Trump and subsequent documents to be released Thursday, in the spring and summer of 2020, the intelligence community (IC) began detecting the Chinese illegal acquisition of voter databases. At the time, the number of voter files was in the tens of millions.

The documents reportedly reveal that there was a concerted and conscientious effort by the IC not to tell the president (Trump at the time), Congress, or the American people.

Because nothing was done by former President Joe Biden's administration to stop the Chinese activities, the number of voter files hacked went from 10 to 20 million in 2020 to roughly 220 million by 2023.

China targets Trump to damage the election

Furthermore, evidence shows that China was activating certain interference methods to specifically target Trump, as the IC was telling Trump and the American people the opposite.

The IC report, declassified and released by former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines, concluded that China did not interfere, as it “considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election.”

Since the spring and summer of 2020, on at least five occasions, intelligence reports have revealed that U.S. election voting machines could be hacked by a foreign power because of specific vulnerabilities.

In the summer and fall of 2020, the IC watched a foreign adversary, Venezuela, move from theoretically hacking the machines to creating a practical plan that would accomplish it. The plan was apparently so good that a post-election hand-audit would not have been able to detect that the ballots had been changed.

The same vulnerabilities used to hack the machines and change ballots were recently tested by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which determined that those vulnerabilities still existed, according to that July report.

Roughly 278,000 non-citizens were found on voter rolls

To further investigate, DHS purchased 30 voter registration databases, which are available for purchase commercially, that Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice Harmeet Dhillon was unable to compel states to hand over.

DHS was unable to purchase those files from California, New York, New Jersey and a handful of other states. Through their investigation, they found that in mid-sized states, roughly 278,000 non-citizens are currently on voter roles. The non-citizens were identified through foreign social security numbers or foreign drivers' licenses.

Democrats fabricated ballots in Michigan to make quotas in 2020 elections

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has also interviewed numerous subjects who were canvassers hired by GBI Strategies. The Democratic National Committee is one of the largest funders of GBI Strategies, a Democrat-aligned voter registration and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) organization.

During the 2020 election, GBI reportedly received payments nearing $5 million from campaigns and committees. These canvassers, who were illegally paid per ballot, were allegedly instructed that if at the end of the day they had not met their quota of ballots signed and received, to sign ballots themselves.

According to the documents to be released, the Biden DOJ blocked the FBI from indicting anyone in these matters for four years following the 2020 election. Reportedly, the FBI and the Michigan State Police never investigated beyond Michigan and slow-walked any further probes.

Amanda Head is White House Correspondent for Just The News. You can follow her here. [source]

Of course, the Chi-Coms wanted Biden to win. Just like Putin wanted Hillary Clinton to win too. Both candidates are easy to manipulate. One other thing, Senate pass the SAVE America Act already.

Other articles on the speech:

• Trump’s Declassified Docs Detail Massive Michigan Voter Registration Fraud
• Thousands of non-citizens registered to vote in NJ due to software error, governor says
• Analysis: The Many Times Noncitizens Popped Up On Voter Rolls
• If the government was a company, it would’ve faced lawsuits for data breach of millions of voters
• Trump’s Speech Sends Beijing, And China-Watchers, Into A Frenzy
• After Birthplace Citizenship Ruling, China Won’t Need Hackers To Meddle In US Elections
• Intel Agency Assessed China Planned To ‘Encourage’ Violent BLM Riots To Hurt Trump In 2020

How Bad Were Recessions before the Fed? Not as Bad as They Are Now

From Mises.org (June 28, 2022):

With a recession looming over the average American, the group to blame is pretty obvious, this group being the central bankers at the Federal Reserve, who inflate the supply of currency in the system, that currency being the dollar. This is what inflation is, the expansion of the money supply either through the printing press or adding zeros to a computer screen. It has gotten so bad that in the last twenty-two months, 80 percent of all US dollars in existence have been printed, from $4 trillion in January 2020, to $20 trillion in October 2021.

This is always how recessions start: the expansion of easy money, the creation of bubbles, and heightened prices caused by the devaluation of the currency supply. But recessions occurred long before the Fed’s establishment in 1913.

Were these market failures, as many are taught to believe, or were they still the fault of a central bank or government policy? How bad were pre-Fed recessions? Did they rival the Great Depression or 2008?

The Continental Dollar

During the days of the American Revolution, the Continental Congress convened to figure out how to finance the Revolution. In June 1775, Congress issued six million paper currency notes known as continental dollars in order to pay for the new army and the supplies needed to fight a war. Those who supported the Revolution would jump in line to support this new fiat currency, as it was the patriotic thing to do.

By 1780, the amount of continentals in circulation had reached 241 million, and the continental had done its damage. The patriots who bought into the fiat dollar suffered the most, while people like David Hall, who by order of Congress was permitted to print out fiat bills, and the Loyalists, who kept their gold and silver specie were able to stay financially afloat.

The continental was turned back en masse, as it now held no value. Those who trusted the continental over gold were left with nothing. Certain Founding Fathers, after witnessing people’s livelihoods ruined by fiat paper money, decided to make provisions to make sure this mistake would not happen again.

Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution states:

No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

This section would be violated throughout US history, from the Civil War to 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt confiscated US citizens’ gold and prevented them from exchanging the dollar into gold.

It’s clear what caused the failure of the continental: Congress and printing presses. This, however, would not be the last economic problem that would face America, the next major downturn came in 1819.

The Recession of 1819

After the War of 1812, state-chartered banks and the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), which was established in 1816, expanded the money supply. Murray Rothbard’s book The Panic of 1819 notes how these state banks expanded the amount of banknotes from $46 million to $68 million in 1815. The problem was that banks printed more paper notes than there was gold specie to back them.

In fact, from 1817 to 1818, the SBUS expanded credit by 57 percent, outdoing the credit expansion in 1815–17, when it expanded credit by 25 percent. This credit expansion caused prices to rise in certain areas of the economy, such as agriculture and shipbuilding. All of these markets received the biggest loans that were granted by SBUS branches and state banks.

Eighteen eighteen spelled trouble for both the state banks and the SBUS: the money supply fell by 10 percent and there was a credit contraction of 41 percent. Foreigners and other citizens started to trade in their banknotes for specie, and many state banks refused to convert paper to gold as their gold reserves ran dry, as did the SBUS reserves.

Thomas Jefferson, who warned against central banking, gave his thoughts in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. Jefferson states:

And I sincerely believe with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; & that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

His suspicion was confirmed when in 1819 a recession ignited by the inflationary policy and agriculture and turnpike workers’ wages fell 60–80 percent.

Despite this bank failure, markets were allowed to handle the recession, or the readjustment period. Because of this, the economy bounced back quite quickly. At the start of the recession, gross domestic product per capita only fell 1.1 percent, but from the latter half of 1819 until 1824, GDP per capita grew 1.5 percent. This was before urbanization, so many still lived on farms. Even though wages fell, the recession was still nowhere as bad post-Fed recessions like the one in 1929.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 put a 55 percent tax on all foreign imports, this practically eliminated all exports. Agriculture suffered the most. Tens of thousands of farms were closed and sold for as low as $50. At the beginning of 1920, there were 28,885 banks, and by 1933, roughly fifteen thousand remained, the Federal Reserve Board of 1937 noted that two-thirds of these banks were in towns with less than twenty-five hundred people and that the majority failed.

Wages may have dropped in 1819, but the economy bounced back. It did not drag for sixteen years, nor did thousands of farms and banks fail. [read more]

Florida woman forced to forfeit lotto prize after USPS loses ticket

From Fox News.com (Sept. 30, 2020):

A Florida woman says she was forced to forfeit her lotto prize after the US Postal Service lost her winning ticket in the mail.

Sue Burgess, of Hernando County, said she was thrilled to discover earlier this summer that she snagged $1,000 in the state’s Second Chance Lottery game, news station WFLA.

“I was elated. It was like winning a million dollars to me,” Burgess told the outlet.

But at the time, she couldn’t claim her winnings at any of the local lottery offices since they were closed due to the pandemic.

She followed the state lottery’s instructions and went to the post office to send in her ticket via certified mail, the outlet reported.

Burgess said the ticket, however, never made it to the lottery office in the one-week time frame required to claim the prize.

Her tracking information last showed the ticket in transit on Aug. 12 at a Tallahassee post office, WFLA reported.

“They said, ‘We have not received this ticket.’ They said, ‘No ticket, no prize,’” said Burgess, whose prize money went to an alternate winner.

Burgess said she’s frustrated because she could’ve left her ticket in a dropbox at a local lottery office, but she believed that certified mail was the safer and more efficient option.

“That’s why you choose certified mail,” Burgess said. “With COVID, I understand the mail is a little bit slow. But for safety sake, certified mail usually has priority.”

Six weeks later, the winning ticket is still unaccounted for.

The USPS apologized to Burgess and said it’s working with the state lottery to help her cash out her prize.

“We apologize to this specific customer for any inconvenience they may have experienced,” the postal service said.

“In this specific instance, we are continuing to work with the lottery office to confirm receipt of the mailpiece.”

The Florida Lottery said it’s not responsible for mistakes made by the postal service, though it will make an exception for Burgess and pay out her prize if the package shows up postmarked by the original deadline, WFLA reported.

“Ms. Burgess’ situation is an unusual circumstance and, to our knowledge, no other winner has experienced a similar issue,” the lottery said.

“Because the Lottery did not receive Ms. Burgess’ ticket within the seven-day claim period, an alternate winner was selected and paid. However, if Ms. Burgess’ package arrives at Florida Lottery Headquarters with a date stamp prior to the original expiration date, our Claims Processing department will process and pay her claim.” [source]

That’s too bad. I hope the Lottery finally receives her ticket.

EXCLUSIVE: George Soros Gave $250K to British Group Working To Censor Conservative News Sites and ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’

From Free Beacon.com (Nov. 17, 2025):

The left-wing philanthropy funded by George Soros, Open Society Foundations (OSF), bankrolls a British nonprofit that works to censor conservative news websites and social media companies, including through a plot to "kill" Elon Musk’s X by pressuring advertisers and investors to boycott the company.

OSF gave $250,000 last year to the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) for "general support," according to the Soros charity’s grant database. The CCDH, under the guise of stopping "the spread of online hate and disinformation," has pressured social media companies’ investors and advertisers to censor supposed "disinformation" or other content it deems to be offensive.

The organization, founded by former Labour Party operative Imran Ahmed in 2018, has also pressured tech companies to pull advertisements from the conservative websites the Federalist and the Daily Wire over allegedly racist content.

The grant, which has not been reported, could resurrect a longstanding battle that Musk has waged with both the CCDH and Soros. Musk has accused Soros of "crimes against humanity" and funding groups involved in violent protests across the country this year. And he has called the CCDH a "criminal organization" and said he was "going after" the group’s donors over its efforts to harm X’s finances.

Last year, the CCDH quietly organized a campaign to "kill Musk’s Twitter" by pressuring advertisers to cut ties with the company, according to memos published by Racket News. The CCDH, which the watchdog group Capital Research Center calls a "UK-based censorship advocacy group," met with 16 congressional offices to discuss Musk’s lawsuit against the organization, and held "policy engagement" meetings with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.). The nonprofit also lobbied American policymakers toward the creation of an "independent digital regulator," according to Racket News.

While the CCDH has criticized most social media companies for failing to curtail extremism, the organization has been particularly hostile toward X since Musk purchased the site, formerly known as Twitter, in October 2022. Musk, who pledged to end censorship on the platform after purchasing the site, sued the CCDH in July 2023 over a report from the group that claimed hate speech had spiked on X since Musk’s takeover.

The revelation of the Soros grant helps answer longstanding questions about the CCDH’s funding. In 2023, Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) subpoenaed the CCDH for a list of its donors as part of an investigation of the firm’s alleged collusion to censor social media platforms.

The CCDH does not voluntarily disclose its donors. But some organizations have revealed contributions to the nonprofit. The Skoll Fund, the private philanthropy of former eBay president Jeff Skoll, gave $415,000 to the CCDH in 2023, according to tax filings. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation, a donor-advised fund that manages charitable contributions on behalf of anonymous donors, contributed $403,175 to the CCDH in 2023. The CCDH received $2.1 million in revenue in 2023, the year of its most recent tax filing.

The grant revelation comes as the Trump administration sets its sights on the Soros operation and the CCDH. President Donald Trump called over the summer for Soros and his son Alex, the chairman of OSF, to be investigated for allegedly funding violent riots across the country. The Soroses have denied the allegation. [read more]

The Spooky Dude drama continues...

More Soros stories:

• Soros-Funded PAC Aims to Turn Texas Blue
• Report: Soros Family Pours $103 Million Into Midterms

The Remaking of America

From AM Greatness.com (Aug. 7, 2023):

We are in the midst of one of the most radical revolutions in American history. It is as far-reaching and dangerous as the turbulent years of the 1850s and 1860s or the 1930s. Every aspect of American life and culture is under assault, including the very processes by which we govern ourselves, and the manner in which we live.

The Revolution began under the Obama administration that sought to divide Americans into oppressed and oppressors, and then substitute race for class victimization. It was empowered by the bicoastal wealth accrued from globalization, and honed during the COVID lockdown, quarantine-fed economic downturn, and the George Floyd riots and their aftermath. The Revolution was boosted by fanatic opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump. And the result is an America that is unrecognizable from what it was a mere decade ago.

Here are 10 upheavals that the Left has successfully wrought.

Free expression. In large swatches of American society—particularly the corporation, the media, the government, the public schools, and the university—it is suddenly dangerous to speak freely. At a DEI workshop, politely object that “whiteness” does not account for all the challenges of “marginalized peoples,” and you will become either ostracized, reprimanded, or perhaps fired.

Suggest to a class that man-made climate change and the state remedies for it, are still under debate—and your career and livelihood are endangered. In 2020, state that Covid lockdowns would do more eventual damage than the virus—and your career was through. Express doubt that there are more than two biological sexes, and if an athlete or high school principal you will be shunned or rendered professionally inert.

The government, in league with social media, censors the news. “Liberal” universities often first require McCarthy-era type “diversity” statements for one to be hired. Commissars review syllabi to spot incorrect or improper speech or insufficient DEI zeal.

The Left now seeks to modify the First Amendment, and its empowerment of “hate speech,” defined as most anything impeding the progressive project. The state and the universities properly issue word lists of approved vocabularies.

The old ACLU or Sen. Church Committee would now probably be deemed rightwing. The methodologies of Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover are the preferred models, once they were rebooted to the right cause.

The Weaponization of Justice. Administrations and their efforts to stock the justice department with supporters come and go. But in the last decade the Left has viewed the Department of Justice as a political extension of the party—whose unchecked power must properly be directed to hurt enemies and help friends. No wonder Eric Holder described himself as Obama’s “wingman” and became the first Attorney General to be held in contempt for ignoring a congressional subpoena.

Never in U.S. history have the Department of Justice and sympathetic state and local prosecutors indicted a leading opposition candidate and likely nominee of one of the two major parties, and at the beginning of a presidential campaign. Donald Trump is currently charged with nearly 100 felonies by at least two prosecutors. He likely eventually will be hit with more than- 500 indictments, from four prosecutors, every one of the latter with a long record of either leftwing associations or Democratic service.

The mass murderer Charles Manson faced less legal exposure. No one believes Trump would have been indicted on such counts—most of them involving allegations from years past—were he not running for President.

One count that Donald Trump is not charged with is bribery, or taking money while in office, a crime cited as impeachable in the Constitution and germane to the accusations that Joe Biden and his family raked in millions from foreign governments due to the improper use of his prior Vice Presidency. For what reason did Joe Biden lie that he never discussed his son’s business? Why did Hunter complain to his daughter that Joe demanded half of his own grifting income? Why would a Vice President serially call disreputable American grifters and foreign corrupt oligarchs? Can Joe’s lifestyle ever be reconciled with his reported income?

Given such asymmetry in the application of the laws, conservative or even apolitical Americans are apprehensive that any political prominence will draw the attention of government in effort to either indict or bankrupt them with legal expenses.

The last four FBI Directors have either admitted they lied under oath, or preposterously under oath claimed ignorance or amnesia about events directly under their control. Or they simply stonewalled subpoenas and testimonies about alleged FBI crimes.

The former CIA Director admitted to lying twice under oath. The FBI hired social media corporations to suppress election-cycle news deemed unhelpful to the Left. The agency, along with Democratic operatives, helped hatch the election-cycle conspiracy of the 2015-2016 Russian-Collusion hoax, and the 2020 Russian disinformation laptop hoax. The FBI played a central role in many of the 2024 indictments. In other words, the FBI along with the DOJ, has sought to warp three presidential elections in a row.

On the prompt of a Joe Biden campaign official (and now Secretary of State) and a former interim CIA director, 50 former intelligence officials lied to the electorate that an authentic but incriminating Biden computer was a likely Russian plant—a fact known to be lie but not disclosed as such by the FBI. [read more]

This is the blueprint how the Left is radically transforming America. Another great article by VDH.

US payrolls rise by 172,000 in May, topping expectations

From NY Post.com (June 5):

America’s labor market delivered another pleasant surprise in May as employers added far more jobs than expected, though the strong numbers could give the Federal Reserve another reason to hold off on cutting interest rates.

US employers added 172,000 jobs last month while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.3%, according to Labor Department data released Friday.

Employment remains a bright spot in the economy — with an average of 188,000 jobs gained each of the past three months — after a disappointing 2025. Last year, employers largely held off on growing their workforces amid uncertainties about US tariff policy and cuts to the federal government, experts said.

“Consumers are still spending, businesses are still hiring, and the job market remains one of the strongest pillars holding up the economy,” Sung Won Sohn, professor of finance and economics at Loyola Marymount University, told The Post.

May’s payroll gain easily topped economists’ expectations for roughly 80,000 new jobs and came after the government revised March and April hiring figures higher by a combined 93,000 jobs.

President Trump appeared to tie the numbers to his long-standing calls for interest rate cuts.

“With a great Jobs Report, like just announced, stocks should go up, not down. That’s the way it was for 200 years. Growth does not mean inflation! How else can a Country attain GREATNESS???” he wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

Stocks dropped, though, as investors took the strong jobs numbers to mean the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates high through the rest of the year.

The Dow closed down 695 points, or 1.4%. A tech selloff prompted the Nasdaq to decline 4.2% — ending its worst week in over a year — while the S&P 500 dropped 2.6%

The stronger-than-expected employment numbers suggest the labor market remains remarkably resilient despite concerns about slowing economic growth and uncertainty facing businesses.

With the World Cup coming to the US this summer, job gains were concentrated in leisure and hospitality. They added 70,000 positions in May. Local government added 55,000 jobs, while health care payrolls increased by 35,000.

The financial sector was one of the few weak spots, with 22,000 jobs shed.

Still, Sohn said the breadth of hiring in May was encouraging because job growth was not concentrated in a single industry.

“The key point is that job creation was not limited to one tiny corner of the economy,” he told The Post.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% in May and were up 3.4% from a year earlier, matching economists’ expectations.

The unemployment rate has now remained in a narrow range between 4.3% and 4.5% since July 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The report arrived days after separate Labor Department data showed job openings climbed to 7.62 million in April, the highest level since May 2024 and a sign that demand for workers remains intact even as hiring has slowed.

The increase in openings was driven overwhelmingly by professional and business services, a broad category that includes many white-collar jobs. Openings in the sector jumped by 668,000 positions in April, accounting for roughly 90% of the nationwide increase.

But the April surge in job openings has yet to translate into a major hiring boom.

While employers posted more jobs, Labor Department data showed employment in professional and business services was little changed in May, suggesting companies may be searching for talent while remaining cautious about expanding payrolls. [source]

More winning!

Trump signs $70B bill to fund Homeland Security Dept. through 2028

From Yahoo.com:

June 10 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump signed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement agencies through 2028 after months of battles to prevent it from happening.

"This morning I'm thrilled to sign the Secure America Act to immediately and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of my term, so we won't have to be talking about it anymore," the president said in the Oval Office.

The Senate passed the $70 billion funding package on Friday, and the House approved it on Tuesday.

Democrats fought the funding for months, refusing to agree to the bill unless there were reforms to the organization after two American citizens -- Renee Good and Alex Pretti -- were killed by federal agents in Minneapolis earlier this year. But the measure was passed via reconciliation, which only requires a majority vote instead of 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"We'll give the heroes of ICE and Border Patrol -- and that's what they are, they're heroes, what they have to go through to keep us safe -- the support and resources they need to defend our borders, protect our homeland and to keep America safe," the president added He also gave House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., credit for passing the bill with a slim majority in the House.

"Despite Democrat efforts to shut down ICE and Border Patrol, Republicans have now fully funded these agencies through President Trump's entire second term to the tune of nearly $70 billion," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a statement. "Thanks to President Trump, our border has gone from its weakest point to its most secure point in less than two years." [source]

Good. Now, if the Senate can get its act together and pass the SAVE bill so President Trump can sign that into law.

Islamic extremists disguised as military separated Christians from crowed, slit their throats: bishop

From Christian Post.com (Oct. 7, 2022):

Suspected Islamic extremists disguised in military uniform gathered a crowd of people in Mozambique’s Nampula province, then separated the Christians from the group and tied their hands before slitting their throats, a Catholic bishop said.

Bishop Alberto Vera Aréjula of Nacala told the Catholic group Aid to the Church in Need this week about the killings that occurred last month as was told to him by one of the Christian survivors who managed to flee.

The survivor told the bishop that the terrorists were dressed in military uniform and they gathered people saying they were there to save them.

“When they were all gathered, they started asking who is Muslim and who is Christian. Those who identified as Christian, they started tying their hands behind their back and they cut their throats,” the bishop was quoted as saying.

The bishop said the killings took place on the night of Sept. 6 and the following day, and that “11 people were murdered in total and they left a trail of destruction and a lot of fear.”

On Sept. 6, an 83-year-old Italian nun, Sister Maria de Coppi, was killed in Chipene city when gunmen stormed a Catholic mission compound and set fire to buildings, including the church and hospital, according to reports.

The attack lasted five hours as the militants ransacked and burned the Diocese of Nacala’s mission church, school, health center, dwellings, library and vehicles, Aid to the Church in Need reported earlier.

Aréjula said he knew the nun, “and she was the image of a mother, she was really helping everyone with simple love and humility.”

“Sister Maria de Coppi was a nurse who would help malnourished children in a little room where there was milk and flour, and they destroyed that room as well.

According to reports, the gunmen were likely running away from security forces from Mozambique, Rwanda and the Southern African Development Community.

At least 24 countries have sent troops to support the fight against insurgents in Mozambique, whose army has been accused of being corrupt and having 7,000 “ghost soldiers,” according to the BBC.

Islamic State-affiliated insurgents in northern Mozambique, a Christian-majority country, have internally displaced more than three-quarters of a million people, according to the United Nations.

In the coastal province of Cabo Delgado, Islamic extremists have been exploiting the crisis after a civil war started in 2017. The area is rich with gas, rubies, graphite, gold and other natural resources. Protesters demonstrated at the time against what they say is profits going to an elite in the ruling Frelimo Party, with few jobs for local residents.

“In 2017, jihadist insurgents began in the Cabo-Delgado province, winning over some locals due to the fact that they gave back resources to villagers from the government and killed no one,” the U.S.-based persecution watchdog International Christian Concern reported earlier. “This did not last, however, as IS started setting fire to Christian villages, and killing those who lived there.”

Cabo Delgado is a mostly Muslim region where at least 300 Christians have been killed for their faith, according to ICC. There have also been over 100 attacks on churches in the area.

In March 2021, the United States labeled Islamic State-Mozambique as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” ISIS-Mozambique is also known as Ansar al-Sunna and known locally as al-Shabaab. The group reportedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State as early as April 2018 and has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.

In November 2020, Islamic State-linked militants beheaded over 50 people, including women and children, and abducted others in weekend raids in the Miudumbe and Macomia districts of the Cabo Delgado province.

Last December, Human Rights Watch revealed that insurgents had enslaved more than 600 women and girls, many of which had been abused and sold as sex slaves for as low as $600. [source]

Pure intentional evil.

A ten-step program can close loopholes in the US legal system

A ten-step program can close loopholes in the US legal system, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and generate broader momentum for an international war on kleptocracy. While I [the author] offer these steps with the United States in mind, they invoke general principles that all liberal democracies should rally behind.

End anonymous shell companies. Federal law should require the real ownership of all US companies and trusts to be disclosed and listed in a register, which would be accessible at least to law enforcement agencies and ideally to the public (as is done in the United Kingdom). Deception by owners or agents to mask real ownership should meet with serious civil or criminal penalties. Moreover, the United States should encourage other states to adopt similar laws requiring full transparency in business ownership.

End anonymous real estate purchases. Washington should require all real estate purchases in the United States to reveal the true owner behind the purchase. Real estate agents, lawyers, and other professionals and firms involved in these transactions should have to undertake serious due diligence to verify the true identity of the purchaser, with biting penalties for negligence or deliberate noncompliance. And a new law should forbid any US government agency (especially those conducting sensitive work) from leasing office space from unknown owners or from any owner or business linked to an authoritarian or corrupt government.

Modernize and strengthen the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). We should close the loophole that enables many agents for foreign principals to simply register under less onerous reporting requirements as lobbyists. We need an integrated system for reporting all lobbying and public relations advocacy on behalf of foreign interests. This line of work has exploded in recent years, with an estimated one thousand US lobbyists working for foreign principals, but almost no one is ever prosecuted for noncompliance with the law. The US Justice Department has a staff of only eight people working to enforce FARA; the department needs more staff, more investigative powers, and more painful civil or criminal penalties for violations.

Strengthen prohibitions and monitoring of political contributions by foreign actors. Foreign political and campaign contributions are forbidden in the United States (except by permanent residents), but only comprehensively at the federal level, and some foreign contributions could be filtering in through donations made by lobbyists and agents for foreign actors. Foreign contributions to all candidates and political campaigns, at every level of government, should be prohibited in the United States, and all political contributions by foreign agents should be monitored by a well-staffed federal agency. Other democracies around the world should also ban foreign financial contributions to their political parties and campaigns.

Ban former US officials and members of Congress from lobbying for or representing foreign governments. Soon after entering the White House in January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order restricting the future lobbying activities of his political appointees and banning them for life from lobbying for foreign governments or political parties. This lifetime ban should be embedded in law and extended to retired members of Congress as well. And the Justice Department should maintain a list of foreign businesses, foundations, and organizations that, because of links to their authoritarian governments, are also off-limits for representation by former US officials. We may even want to go further: do we really want to allow some future retired American official or member of Congress to work for a company effectively controlled by the Kremlin or the Chinese Communist Party? [read more]

Source: Hoover Digest Summer 2021 No. 3. (2021) “Exposing the Kleptocrats.”  by Larry Diamond.

Good plan but Congress won’t implement it because they benefit from the kleptocracy.

The rest of the steps:

• Modernize the anti-money-laundering system.
• Increase the resources that the United States and other rule-of-law states devote to monitoring, investigating, and prosecuting grand corruption and money laundering.
• Strengthen cooperation among democracies in fighting kleptocracy and ending “golden visas.”
• Raise public awareness about kleptocracy in Russia and other offending states.
• Increase international support for investigative journalism, NGOs, and official institutions working to monitor and control corruption around the world.

Trump Set to Slash Grocery Costs With EPA Fix

From Newsmax.com (May 21):

President Donald Trump is set to roll back two Biden-era EPA refrigerant rules Thursday in a move the administration says will slash grocery costs and save businesses billions of dollars.

According to an administration official who spoke with USA Today, the changes target federal regulations on hydrofluorocarbons, refrigerants widely used in freezers, refrigerators and air-conditioning systems.

The Trump administration argues the Biden rules imposed costly mandates on supermarkets and other businesses without meaningful environmental benefits.

One action would extend compliance deadlines under the EPA’s 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, giving grocery stores and other companies more time to phase out hydrofluorocarbons used in refrigeration systems.

Hydrofluorocarbonsare considered powerful greenhouse gases, though they remain in the atmosphere for shorter periods than carbon dioxide.

The White House estimates the rollback will generate roughly $900 million in savings, including $800 million for grocery stores, by increasing the supply of approved refrigerants available to businesses and homeowners.

The EPA is also expected to revise the agency’s 2024 Emissions Reduction and Reclamation program by exempting refrigerated trucks and other road transport refrigeration units from new hydrofluorocarbon leak requirements. The administration projects that move alone will save another $1.5 billion.

Trump is expected to announce the changes during a Thursday morning Oval Office event attended by executives from Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Fareway Stores, and other grocery chains.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin blasted the Biden administration’s rules in a statement to USA Today, saying they burdened businesses with unnecessary costs.

"The Biden administration’s refrigerant rules didn’t protect human health or the environment and instead piled on costly, unattainable restrictions beyond what the law requires," Zeldin said.

"Our actions allow businesses to choose the refrigeration systems that work best for them, saving them billions of dollars. This will be felt directly by American families in lower grocery prices," he added.

The refrigerant rollback is the latest step in Trump’s aggressive deregulation agenda, which has targeted a wide range of Obama- and Biden-era environmental and climate policies.

The administration is also seeking to highlight efforts to reduce consumer costs as inflation continues to weigh on Americans ahead of the November midterm elections.

The Consumer Price Index rose 3.8% in April, the sharpest inflation increase in three years, driven largely by rising oil prices tied to the U.S. conflict with Iran.

Meanwhile, grocery prices climbed 2.9% compared with a year earlier and increased 0.7% from March to April. [source]

More stupid Biden regulations that needed to be undone. Another win!

The African Slave Trade Wouldn’t Have Been Possible without African Elites

From Mises.org (Aug. 26, 2022):

There is a revival in the study of the transatlantic slave trade. Several studies pinpoint the slave trade as the genesis of defects in African societies. Continuing in the intellectual tradition of Walter Rodney, these later works posit that the transatlantic slave trade underdeveloped Africa. However, there is no verdict on the transatlantic slave trade’s effects because scholars are still divided over its consequences.

But despite their differences, opposing camps in the literature adopt a lopsided stance by fixating on the implications of the slave trade instead of discussing Africans’ agency. Researchers tend to explore how the slave trade altered African societies rather than showing that European traders became embedded in Africa’s complex sociopolitical networks.

Africans were building empires and chiefdoms long before interactions with Europeans, so when Europeans arrived in Africa, they quickly recognized that their fortunes were linked to the benevolence of African elites. Without complying with local regulations, European traders could not engage in business. Frequently, it is taught that Europeans constructed forts in Africa, but it is rarely noted that such forts could not have been built absent the African elites’ permission.

In the Galinhas empire, the Vai adage “Sunda ma gara, ke a sunda-fa,” which means “A stranger has no power but his landlords,” describes foreign traders’ relationships with African rulers. Africans were unwilling to tolerate squatters, so Europeans had to pay for their quarters.

In West Africa, for example, the Akwamu collected rents from European forts and employed a customs officer to oversee trade flow. This excerpt from a report compiled by a Danish official captures the authority of African rulers: “The King of Akwamu charges customs duties here on all goods which pass along the river and to ensure that these are paid, he has employed an official to take care of his interest.”

Not only did Africans extract financial benefits by charging Europeans for building forts on African soil, but they also retained property rights to the land. In some cases, Africans invited Europeans to their trading centers. Renting space to Europeans became so lucrative that on the Gold Coast, African elites permitted one European group per trading town. Further, the intense rivalry between Europeans elevated Africans’ position and allowed them to benefit from lower prices and a wider array of goods.

The transatlantic slave trade was a harrowing event, but it was a business nonetheless and can be analyzed using economic tools. The trade’s victims were disproportionately African, but this should not conceal the fact that for many Africans, the slave trade was a legitimate venture connected to preexisting trading arrangements. In his new book, Slave Traders by Invitation: West Africa’s Slave Coast in the Precolonial Era, Finn Fuglestad avers that the slave trade was sustained by Africans who beckoned Europeans to trade.

Africans even formalized trading relations with Europeans by participating in treaties that governed the purchase of slaves. Moreover, according to the fifteenth-century reports of Portuguese official Diego Gomez, some monarchs were so inclined to their pursue economic interests that they demonstrated an “overwhelming willingness” to offer natives as slaves. Collaborating with Africans was crucial to the success of the slave trade and European trading centers like Liverpool.

According to David Richardson, Africans were instrumental in establishing the networking and institutional arrangements that enabled British slaving to thrive. “Without African agency and support, British slaving could not have reached the scale that it did,” he writes.

Other than downplaying African agency, historians usually argue that the transatlantic trade undermined African economies. But this assumption is a failure to understand economic utility. If imported items satisfied Africans’ demands, then we cannot argue that imports made them worse off.

Africans had the upper hand in trade negotiations and often determined the quality and prices of the products they obtained from Europeans. Before deciding to import copper, for instance, Daniel Cunha explains that Africans would check “the quality of copper by evaluating its material properties of redness, luminosity, and sound, which served to embed it into ritual and mythological systems.”

Due to African traders’ high standards, goods were in fact frequently rejected without even an explanation. Neither is there compelling evidence to indicate that imports impeded local production. Notwithstanding imports, the iron industry flourished in Cameroon and Bassar as late as the nineteenth century. Pieter Emmer in a classic article completely shatters the myth that the transatlantic slave trade had a substantial impact on African economies:

The value of the European imports into West Africa could not have been more than 5 percent of the value of Africa’s internal production and that is assuming that the Africans pro­duced no more than their subsistence…. In sum, there is no evi­dence to show that between 1500 and 1800 either quan­ti­tatively or qualitat­ively the Atlantic trade in goods could have made much of a differ­ence to the economy of West Africa.

Indeed, the brutality of the transatlantic slave trade evokes feelings of hostility; however, emotionalism should not deter us from studying the topic with an objective eye. For centuries, slavery was considered legitimate commerce; hence, Africans, like their peers, sanctioned it and were willing to participate in the sale of their people to advance economic and political agendas. Whitewashing Africa’s involvement in the transatlantic trade only succeeds in infantilizing black people. [source]

In other words, the powers-that-be sanctioned the slave trade—“trade” is the opportune word here because the slaves weren’t stolen—they were traded.

At least 5 whistleblowers come forward against Biden family

From Breitbart.com (May 15, 2023):

The whistleblowers are in addition to the multitude of witnesses that Republican members of Congress have interviewed behind closed doors.

The whistleblowers range from an IRS agent to an Obama administration stenographer, encompassing alleged corruption in Ukraine and Mexico, along with the FBI and DOJ.

1) Chuck Grassley: Whistleblowers Say FBI Has Evidence Joe Biden Involved in Family Business Schemes

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who testified before the House’s new Select Subcommittee on Political Weaponization in 2023, said whistleblower disclosures indicate the FBI has evidence that Joe Biden is aware of the family business schemes, a statement that directly contradicts the president.

Grassley said the whistleblower disclosures “make clear the FBI has within its possession very significant, impactful, and voluminous evidence with respect to potential criminal conduct by Hunter and James Biden.”

It is unclear why the FBI has not acted on the alleged evidence.

The FBI is in possession of Hunter Biden’s infamous “Laptop from Hell,” which has caused many to dub the Biden family the “Biden Crime Family.”

2) Former Hunter Biden Partner Tony Bobulinski Meeting with Senate Investigators to Turn Over Information

Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter, personally met with Joe and Hunter Biden in 2017 for an hour to discuss “the Bidens’ family business plans” for a Chinese energy deal. That deal appears to have never been finalized. The deal included ten percent “held by H for the big guy,” who Bobulinski said was Joe Biden.

“We discussed the Bidens’ history, the Bidens’ family business plans with the Chinese, with which he was plainly familiar at least at a high level,” Bobulinski told reporters in 2020 about the business meeting with Joe Biden.

Bobulinski has handed over intelligence about the deal to former FBI “point man” Timothy Thibault, who reportedly buried the information.

He also has conveyed emails, WhatsApp chats, agreements, documents, and other evidence to a Senate investigation committee.

3) Ex-White House Aide: FBI Ignored Joe Biden’s Role in Ukraine Business Dealings

Former Obama White House stenographer Mike McCormick alleged in 2023 that the FBI has ignored Joe Biden’s role in the family’s foreign influence-peddling “conspiracy” in Ukraine.

McCormick, who told the New York Post he has relevant information implicating Joe Biden in the family’s business affairs in Ukraine, submitted a tip to the FBI in February. McCormick said he never heard back from the FBI — the same law enforcement agency which allegedly “shut down” the investigation into Hunter’s abandoned “Laptop from Hell.”

According to McCormick, Biden’s former national security aide, Sullivan, told reporters on April 21, 2014, on Air Force Two as an anonymous “senior administration official” that the United States intended to help Ukraine’s natural gas industry.

Unknown to the public at the time, Hunter Biden was already a board member of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company. Hunter’s position on the board was not disclosed by the company until May 12, 2014, nearly a month after Sullivan’s statement to reporters.

4) IRS Whistleblower Says Biden Admin Interfering in Hunter Tax Fraud Probe

An IRS whistleblower alleged in 2023 that two Biden administration political appointees within the Justice Department are working to block charges against Hunter Biden for tax violations against recommendations.

In addition, the whistleblower alleges Weiss asked to be named as a special counsel in the probe to provide a degree of separation between the probe and Joe Biden. That request was apparently turned down.

According to the whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Lytle, his client wishes to speak with congressional investigators to corroborate his claims of political interference in the probe, which he has reported to the Justice Department’s top watchdog, according to a report.

5) Joe Biden Bribery Allegations Were Flagged to DOJ in 2018

Bribery allegations were brought to the Justice Department by a whistleblower in 2018 against President Joe Biden; but the allegations were ignored, a former federal prosecutor revealed last week. The second allegation of bribery against Joe Biden involves Hunter Biden’s board membership for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, the New York Post reported:

Bud Cummins, a former federal prosecutor, first reported the bribery allegations to then-New York US Attorney Geoff Berman on Oct. 4, 2018, in an email claiming he had evidence that Joe Biden had “exercised influence to protect” his son’s Ukrainian employer “in exchange for payments to Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, and Joe Biden.”

In the email obtained by John Solomon’s Just The News, Cummins said that Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko wanted to travel to the United States to meet Berman, and could produce two “John Doe” witnesses to corroborate his claims about the Bidens.

Despite Cummins claims, Berman did not respond. [source]

It's like Biden is a mob boss.

Treasury Sanctions Iran Shipping, Banking Networks

From Newsmax.com (May 19):

The Treasury Department announced new sanctions Tuesday targeting businesses, vessels, and financial networks accused of helping Iran move billions of dollars through oil sales, foreign currency exchanges and covert shipping operations despite existing U.S. sanctions.

The action targets more than 50 companies, individuals and vessels that Treasury said helped Iran access the international financial system and move money tied to oil, petrochemical and other commercial transactions.

"Iran's shadow banking system facilitates the illicit transfer of funding for terrorist purposes," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

"As Treasury systematically dismantles Tehran's shadow banking system and shadow fleet under Economic Fury, financial institutions must be alert to how the regime manipulates the international financial system to wreak havoc," he added.

Treasury said Iranian exchange houses and front companies use networks across multiple countries to process foreign currency transactions, move money for sanctioned Iranian banks and disguise the origin of Iranian oil and petrochemical exports.

Treasury accused some companies of managing cross-border money laundering operations, while others allegedly arranged payments tied to Iran’s petroleum, metals, manufacturing and automobile industries.

Treasury also targeted vessels accused of transporting Iranian oil, liquefied petroleum gas, petrochemicals and fuel products through shipping networks operating under multiple national flags.

The sanctions campaign aims to reduce revenue available to Iran’s government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"Treasury is aggressively advancing Economic Fury and has disrupted billions in projected oil revenue, taken actions that have led to the freezing of nearly half a billion dollars in regime-linked cryptocurrency, and cracked down on Tehran's shadow banking networks," the department said.

The Trump administration warned foreign companies and financial institutions that they could also face penalties if they help facilitate Iranian commerce or sanctions evasion.

The latest action follows other recent Treasury enforcement efforts tied to Iran sanctions.

One case announced Monday involved a settlement with a company tied to Indian billionaire Gautam Adani after Treasury accused it of arranging liquefied petroleum gas imports that allegedly originated in Iran.

Treasury said the imports were routed through a Dubai-based supplier claiming the gas came from Oman and Iraq, but investigators concluded warning signs should have alerted the company to the fuel’s Iranian origin.

The company agreed to pay $275 million and adopt additional compliance measures to settle potential sanctions violations. [source]

Good! It would be better if the IRGC's bank accounts were frozen, but a still pretty good tactics to put pressure on them.

By Compensating Slave Owners, Great Britain Negotiated a Peaceful End to Slavery

From Mises.org (Sept. 8, 2022):

The 2018 announcement that the British government completed the payment of a loan that was borrowed to compensate slave owners for the abolition of slavery continues to evoke a flurry of emotions. Many find it outrageous that the British government would contemplate compensating planters rather than the enslaved. Such responses are expected because people are using current moral standards to judge historical realities.

But an appreciation of the sociopolitical events surrounding the loan suggests that compensating planters was a feasible alternative at the time. English laws and customs placed a premium on protecting the rights of property owners, and slaves were considered property. The idea of owning people today seems abhorrent; however, this was not always the case. In British colonies, planters fiercely guarded their right to acquire slaves and appropriate their labor.

Questioning the right to own property provoked contention, even when the property was a human being. This was also the case in the context of indentureship in Barbados, where white indentured workers were perceived as property and could be inherited. British colonies in the West Indies valued autonomy and often resented Britain’s involvement in West Indian affairs.

As a result, when dealing with West Indian colonies, the British government had to tread carefully or face the wrath of the powerful British West India interest. The concerns of West Indian planters were voiced by proslavery parliamentarians in England, who were unwilling dissolve the plantation system without a fight. Politics is futile without compromise, so to abolish slavery, the British government had no option but to negotiate with proslavery forces who saw abolition as a violation of property rights.

Due to the primacy of property rights in England, proslavery lobbyists were able to galvanize the support of nonplanters by arguing that abolishing slavery without compensating property owners would more broadly erode protection for property rights. Their messages were carried by newspapers, journals, and pamphlets admonishing abolitionists for hesitating to compensate enslavers.

Contextualizing the case for compensation, Kathleen Mary Butler shows that the proslavery West India interest employed blackmail to guilt parliamentarians into granting compensation:

The interest argued that successive British governments had condoned and encouraged slave holding…. On several occasions, the Quarterly Review pointed out that various acts of Parliament had encouraged slave owners to spend vast sums of money to buy land and slaves. To deny them compensation, the Review believed constituted a “flagrant breach of faith.”

Jamaican planters weaponized the rhetoric of property rights with equal vigor to bolster the case for compensation. Radical journalist and reformer Augustin Hardin Beaumont, editor of the Jamaica Courant criticized slavery but still noted that enslavers deserved compensation because slavery was enabled by the British and hence it was only fair for British taxpayers to compensate West Indian planters. Throughout the West Indies, slave owners echoed the sentiment that abolishing slavery without compensation was unjust.

These views were so widespread that black slave owners were unwilling to part with slaves unless they received compensation. In 1831, free people of color in Saint Ann Parish, Jamaica, organized a meeting to flesh out the problems of abolition and its effect on property rights. The chairman of the meeting was the prosperous Benjamin Scott Moncrieff, a prominent official who possessed four hundred slaves, owned three estates, and served as an attorney for other properties.

Kathleen Mary Butler reveals that this community endorsed compensation as a tool to safeguard their property rights:

Those attending the meeting objected strongly to comments that Stephen Lushington, the British abolitionist, had allegedly made to the effect that in Jamaica the free people of color had authorized him to emancipate their slaves. The members categorically denied giving any such authorization and stressed their determination to defend their property and surrender it only “for the most full and ample compensation.”

In fact, their resolutions were published in Jamaican newspapers and sent to proslavery outlets in Britain. The historical accounts covered indicate that compensation was a creative strategy to placate enslavers who refused to cede authority to abolitionists. Absent compensation, abolition would have been delayed and blacks would have served remained in slavery for a longer time. Some feel that slaves deserved compensation, but bribing planters was the best tradeoff that the political climate could accommodate.

Yet despite the complexities of the decision, many think that the British owe blacks an apology. However, the truth is that the British atoned for their actions years ago. Britain in 1846 instituted the Aberdeen Act, which intercepted Brazilian ships suspected of trafficking Africans and prosecuted slave traders in British admiralty courts. Historians assert that maintaining the African Squadron alone came at the cost of $6.8 million and the lives of five thousand seamen and officers, who died primarily due to malaria, all in the name of suppressing the slave trade.

The cost of resourcing the African Squadron was also greater than the value of Britain’s trade with the continent. Suppressing the global slave trade incurred considerable expenses for the British, and few appreciate this bold political move that came at the expense of British taxpayers. Indeed, it is ironic that the British are instructed to atone for the slave trade when their counterparts in the Middle East and Africa were coerced into abolishing slavery due to Western directives. Compared to its peers, Britain was a moral superstar and should be lauded for taking a tough stance when others vacillated on the question of slavery. [source]

Those slaveowners were laying down a bunch of bull crap.