Beet L. Jooz

President Trump in a Monday night interview said that he would be "very happy" if Hillary Clinton ran against him again in the 2020 presidential election."Who's your dream person to run against in 2020?" Fox's Laur...

No telling who is joining the Soros-funded group approaching the border.

Gab.com, the website where the suspected Pittsburgh synagogue gunman posted anti-Semitic views, said on Monday it could be back online by this weekend after being asked by its domain provider, GoDaddy Inc, to move to another registrar.

DrudgeReport.com's Matt Drudge criticized Fox News Monday for a panel that "laughed and joked" while talking about terror in the context of the recent shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Authored by Lew Rockwell via The Mises Institute,

[Originally published August 02, 2003.]

For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.

The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League.

"Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide.… Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point."

The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies?

He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory:

"[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

Even as late as 1962, in a report written for President Kennedy, Paul Samuelson had implicit praise for Hitler:

"History reminds us that even in the worst days of the great depression there was never a shortage of experts to warn against all curative public actions.… Had this counsel prevailed here, as it did in the pre-Hitler Germany, the existence of our form of government could be at stake. No modern government will make that mistake again."

On one level, this is not surprising. Hitler instituted a New Deal for Germany, different from FDR and Mussolini only in the details. And it worked only on paper in the sense that the GDP figures from the era reflect a growth path. Unemployment stayed low because Hitler, though he intervened in labor markets, never attempted to boost wages beyond their market level. But underneath it all, grave distortions were taking place, just as they occur in any non-market economy. They may boost GDP in the short run (see how government spending boosted the US Q2 2003 growth rate from 0.7 to 2.4 percent), but they do not work in the long run.

"To write of Hitler without the context of the millions of innocents brutally murdered and the tens of millions who died fighting against him is an insult to all of their memories," wrote the ADL in protest of the analysis published by the Glenview State Bank. Indeed it is.

But being cavalier about the moral implications of economic policies is the stock-in-trade of the profession. When economists call for boosting "aggregate demand," they do not spell out what this really means. It means forcibly overriding the voluntary decisions of consumers and savers, violating their property rights and their freedom of association in order to realize the national government's economic ambitions. Even if such programs worked in some technical economic sense, they should be rejected on grounds that they are incompatible with liberty.

So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia.

And yet even in the United States today, protectionist policies are making a tragic comeback. Under the Bush administration alone, a huge range of products from lumber to microchips are being protected from low-priced foreign competition. These policies are being combined with attempts to stimulate supply and demand through large-scale military expenditure, foreign-policy adventurism, welfare, deficits, and the promotion of nationalist fervor. Such policies can create the illusion of growing prosperity, but the reality is that they divert scarce resources away from productive employment.

Perhaps the worst part of these policies is that they are inconceivable without a leviathan state, exactly as Keynes said. A government big enough and powerful enough to manipulate aggregate demand is big and powerful enough to violate people's civil liberties and attack their rights in every other way. Keynesian (or Hitlerian) policies unleash the sword of the state on the whole population. Central planning, even in its most petty variety, and freedom are incompatible.

Ever since 9/11 and the authoritarian, militarist response, the political left has warned that Bush [in 2018: Trump] is the new Hitler, while the right decries this kind of rhetoric as irresponsible hyperbole. The truth is that the left, in making these claims, is more correct than it knows. Hitler, like FDR, left his mark on Germany and the world by smashing the taboos against central planning and making big government a seemingly permanent feature of Western economies.

David Raub, the author of the article for Glenview, was being naïve in thinking he could look at the facts as the mainstream sees them and come up with what he thought would be a conventional answer. The ADL is right in this case: central planning should never be praised. We must always consider its historical context and inevitable political results.

‘Satan has deceived the whole world’

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a recent statement that the tweet he posted which cost him and his company $20 million each in SEC fines was "worth it."

Political change is sweeping the globe and investors appear to like what they see. 

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

In July 1996, flight TWA 800 exploded in mid-air, 12 minutes after taking off from JFK International Airport in New York. All 230 passengers on board were killed.

It would be four years before an investigation concluded the likely cause of the explosion was a short circuit in the plane’s fuel tank.

But at the time, President Clinton felt the overwhelming need to do something.

People suspected terrorism. So Clinton issued new airport security rules.

From then on, identification was required to board an airplane.

Before that, you just needed a ticket.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, airport security escalated.

The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) were born.

Screening procedures intensified. Agents could now feel you up and down. Then came naked body scanners and the Real ID requirement.

Real ID standards were part of the post-9/11 security hysteria. But they are just now coming into full effect.

The federal guidelines require states to issue IDs that meet certain federal standards, or else the ID cannot be used for flying.

One of these standards is that the photo on the ID has to work with facial recognition systems.

CBP (Customs and Border Protection) has now completed a pilot program for using biometric data for boarding flights exiting the country. Biometric data includes unique identity markers like fingerprints, iris scans, and facial recognition.

The DHS audited the pilot program, and found that it was a success. They caught 1,300 people who had overstayed their visas.

Wait, what? I thought this was supposed to be about national security?

But that’s not what you get from the propaganda piece on the CBP’s website.

One of their “success stories” involved a Polish couple leaving the country. They were using fake documents. But the biometric data revealed they were ordered deported and hadn’t left.

Now they were leaving. So the CBP let them leave. But first they warned them, with official documentation, that if they returned again they could face felony charges.

How is that a success story, worth the cost of tens of billions of dollars?

CBP makes it seem as if the entire purpose of this technology is to find foreigners who are entering (or living) in the country illegally.

Except that it isn’t just the foreigners that are being targeted.

The CBP, TSA, and DHS are building facial recognition databases for everyone– US citizens included.

These pilot programs scoop up whatever official pictures the US government has of you.

This includes passport photos, ID photos, and photos taken upon reentering the United States after international travel.

Delta Airlines has even started testing a new program that scans your face prior to boarding your flight and matches it against this government database.

(One of our members of team Sovereign Man recently suffered the indignity of this procedures at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.)

JetBlue has a similar program, and claims that “The customers are really delighted by it. . . they think it’s cool and they’re having fun.”

I’m not sure who these dairy cows are who think that it’s cool and fun for the government to have a giant database of biometric data.

Even if you could trust the government with this info, you absolutely cannot rely on them to keep it private. Or secure.

The Department of Homeland Security knows this well.

In 2014, over 25,000 DHS employees had their personal details stolen from a database managed by a contractor that performed background checks.

If you think hackers stealing your Social Security Number is bad, just imagine them gaining access to your biometric data.

But, hey, nobody cares.

Americans long ago gave up freedom for security.

Now they are delighted to give up even more freedom. Not even for security... for convenience. If they can shave a few minutes off of their boarding procedure, they’re “delighted,” regardless of the cost.

It’s really shocking when you think about it.

Explosions and terrorist attacks were all the excuse needed to deprive Americans of privacy while traveling.

Now Americans trade their most intimate personal details to save three minutes boarding a plane.

It wasn’t that long ago that you didn’t even need an ID to fly.

Right now Americans can still opt out of facial recognition. But it is only a matter of time until it isn’t optional.

And with Real ID deadlines coming to a close, there is no denying the federal government access to your biometric data.

They don’t have to ask, “Papers please.” They already know.

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

South Dakota executed a man who killed a correctional officer during a failed prison escape in 2011.

The caravan moving north toward our border is a serious threat to the sovereignty of the United States. It is a blatant challenge to the rule of law. For this reason, we sent our Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell and Judicial Watch Investigator Reporter Irene Garcia to Guatemala to uncover the truth about “caravan.”

Ecuador on Monday threw out the lawsuit WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange filed charging that Quito violated his "fundamental rights" and limited his access to the outside world while in asylum at its London embassy.

President Trump has demanded $341,559.50 in legal fees from Stormy Daniels after a federal judge threw out her defamation case against the president earlier this month, reports the Washington Examiner.

US District Judge James Otero dismissed the case against Trump after ruling that an April tweet calling a forensic sketch of a man Daniels claims threatened her was a "total con job." Otero said Trump's tweet constitutes "rhetorical hyperbole" covered by the First Amendment, and ordered Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford) to pay Trump's legal fees. 

"The court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.," Otero said in his October 15 ruling.

In a Monday court filing, Trump's attorneys demanded $341,559.50 from Daniels, claiming that she "filed this action, not because it had any merit, but instead for the ulterior purposes of raising her media profile, engaging in political attacks against the president by herself and her attorney, who has appeared on more than 150 national television news interviews attacking the President and now is exploring a run for the presidency himself in 2020."

Of note, Trump is seeking reimbursement for more than 500 hours of attorneys' fees, with hourly rates ranging from an average of $841.64 for high-profile attorney Charles Harder (who represented Hulk Hogan in his $140 million lawsuit against Gawker), to $756.49 an hour for Los Angeles attorney Ryan Stonerock, all the way down to $307.60 for Harder LLP attorney Ted Nguyen. 

Avenatti told the Examiner: "This is a number created out of whole cloth," adding "And it is nothing compared to what he will owe my client from the main NDA case."

Daniels filed a separate defamation lawsuit against President Trump in the spring for suggesting she lied. 

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in 2016 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, however she filed a lawsuit claiming that the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) was invalid since it lacked Trump's signature.

President Trump has denied the affair, while his attorneys argued in early October that the lawsuit should be dismissed since Trump was not going to enforce the NDA.

The lawsuit is moot because Trump has consented that the agreement, as she has claimed, was never formed because he didn’t sign it and he has agreed not to try to enforce it, Trump said in his court filing. The company created by Cohen to facilitate the non-disclosure agreement, which initially said Clifford faced more than $20 million in damages for talking, said in September that it wouldn’t sue to enforce the deal. -Yahoo

Read the Monday filing seeking attorney's fees below: 

A British academic charged with espionage in the United Arab Emirates has been temporarily released until his next hearing on Nov. 21, his wife said on Tuesday.

Globalists doing everything they can to prevent you from seeing this censored link, so spread it far and wide to get the word out!

(BREITBART) — Actor Jim Carrey dedicated his honorary award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) on Friday to Colin Kaepernick and Christine Blasey Ford, while also denouncing the United States for “kidnapping children.”

On accepting the Charlie Chaplin Award for Excellence In Comedy, Carrey joked said that he was “glad it didn’t come in the mail,” a reference to the multiple bomb threats leveled at senior Democratic Party politicians and other prominent left-wing figures this week. He then went on to deliver a blistering political speech that was met by several standing ovations.

“In America, the United Kingdom, and across the globe and we need to be clear, shamelessness is not, and will never be, a superpower,” Carrey declared. “It is the mark of a villain. Kidnapping children is not what great nations do. Almost half of America at this moment believes there is a sinister deep state diabolically plotting to what? Give them healthcare? What is the sinister plan here?”

If you are over 18 years old, you probably cannot imagine what’s coming next from Netflix.

Think pre-pubescent sexual erotica of all kinds.

One critic calls it “pure evil.” Another suggests “animated kiddie porn.” Another says he purpose of the show is to normalize pedophilia, groom children abuse for predators and break down any final remaining taboos that still might exist in American society.

Average age of child actors in the show? Eleven.

“Perhaps the most outrageous scenes highlighted so far involve the animated portrayal of young children’s genitals, over and over again,” wrote Alex Newman.

The show also dedicated an entire episode to tax-funded abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was thrilled.

Spokeswoman Dinah Stephens told TheWrap: “So I was grateful when I saw that the ‘Big Mouth’ episode included a range of services.”

“This is a show with adult humor, but because it’s a cartoon, they have tentatively slotted it for adolescent kids,” says Dr. Duke Pesta of Freedom Media Project. “It’s an attempt to provide the most crass, over-the-top, juvenile sexual kinds of information to little, little kids.”

(WARNING: Some of the content in this video clip is offensive and not appropriate for young viewers.)

The Supreme Court said it likely violated the First Amendment

Paypal severs ties with Gab but shooter also had accounts on Facebook, Instagram.

A Kentucky father has apologized for dressing his young son as Adolf Hitler for a Halloween event while posing as a Nazi soldier, saying his intent was to portray historical figures.Bryant Gol...

Check out these T-Shirts.
https://teespring.com/stores/im-not-norms-store

Check out my Don Rickles Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe-IpCdcY7Juh6XsJtfj9iw

Like the Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/imnotnorm18/
Follow me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/imnotnorm

The Titanic is making a comeback—as a luxury cruise liner sailing across the Atlantic Ocean in 2022.

‘These are anti-semitic tropes the president has been trafficking in, and it’s not a coincidence that these people pick up on this and think if you’re talking about this, let’s do something about this’