The Federal Open Market Committee held its last meeting and released its last statement for 2019.  The Federal Reserve will keep its target the same (for now) for the federal funds rate.

The federal funds target rate is still between 1.5% and 1.75%.  The rate paid on required and excess reserves will remain at 1.55%. So the banks are still getting some free money for keeping their reserves parked at the Fed.

In the FOMC Implementation Note, it states the following:

“In light of recent and expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s non-reserve liabilities, the Committee directs the Desk to continue purchasing Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of 2020 to maintain over time ample reserve balances at or above the level that prevailed in early September 2019.”

The phrase “at or above the level” could mean $10 trillion for all we know.  It is mostly non-specific.  This is really probably the bigger story than the federal funds rate that the financial media focuses on.  The Fed’s balance sheet is the more important thing.

Jerome Powell says not to call it quantitative easing (QE).  I guess we can just go back to calling it monetary inflation.

The adjusted monetary base has gone up over the last couple of months, but not in a major way.  A hundred billion dollars or so would be enormous to anyone else, even Jeff Bezos, but for the Fed’s balance sheet, it is a rather small percentage.  It is more than a rounding error, but it is not that big of a change when you compare it to the last 11 years.  It would have been a big change if you compare it to early 2008.

After the announcement, stocks rallied a little bit.  This is in spite of the fact that the Fed is not anticipating any rate hikes in 2020.  Of course, everybody knows that the Fed will intervene quickly if anything goes wrong.

Meanwhile, the Fed continues to pump money into the repo market to prevent short-term rates from spiking.  When you read a story that the Fed pumps in $70 billion or $100 billion in a day, this is not an increase in the balance sheet every day.  It is a significant story that the Fed is essentially forced to support this market, but we should not be fooled that this is equating to monetary inflation, or at least not yet.

Perhaps some investors were a bit relieved that the Fed is holding for now.  If the Fed kept cutting rates, it would mean that they see major problems ahead with the economy.  They probably do see that, but they are doing their best not to encourage panic in the market.

The Fed is seemingly in a sweet spot right now.  They have gotten away with a lot over the last 11 years without noticeable consequences.  Middle class America is struggling, and it is largely because of the Fed’s inflation that has misallocated resources and allowed the government to run up spending.  But most Americans don’t blame the Fed. If prices across the board rise significantly, then more people will look at the Fed.

This sweet spot isn’t going to last forever.  There will be a recession.  It doesn’t seem like it will happen now because this game has gone on for so long.  At some point, the spotlight will be back on the Fed.  Unfortunately, when things go bad, they will probably go full force towards zero (or negative) interest rates and more massive monetary inflation.

Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987, has died at the age of 92.

Volcker was nominated as Fed chair in the late 1970s by Jimmy Carter at a time when price inflation was roaring in the double digits.  It is by far the highest price inflation the U.S. has ever seen in our modern day.  Although it started while the war in Vietnam was still going on, the worst of it was during a relatively peaceful period.

It is probably no coincidence that the worst of the inflation happened not long after Nixon closed the last remnants of the international gold standard in 1971. The dollar was no longer redeemable in gold by foreign governments.  This meant that the Fed was free to create money out of thin air, or so they thought.

The problem is that the price inflation was due to the Fed running the printing press (or its digital equivalent).  The powers-that-be can blame high oil prices or corporate greed or whatever they want, but the price inflation will stop if you stop creating money out of thin air.

The tables were briefly turned on the establishment.  The roaring inflation of the 1970s put the U.S. dollar at major risk.  If the inflation continued, then it would eventually cease to be the world’s reserve currency.  The U.S. establishment would lose much of its power and the empire with it.  Even the Fed members would lose power to control things.  They would also be looking at pensions that aren’t worth much.

I have no idea how much, if any, say that Jimmy Carter had in bringing Volcker to the Fed. But I believe he was put there to do exactly what he did.  He allowed interest rates set by the Fed to rise, and he slammed on the monetary brakes.  The monetary inflation stopped, at least for a while, and the drop in price inflation followed.

This created back-to-back recessions in the early 1980s.  It helped get Reagan the presidency.  It deflated some asset bubbles, especially in gold and silver. The high yields on bonds finally started to come down.  If you invested in bonds in 1980 and held for a while, you did well.

This was probably the last time that the U.S. economy had a good cleansing.  Every recession since then has been met with more monetary inflation.  The corrections are not allowed to fully correct.  The resources that were misallocated instantly start to get misallocated again.  If anything set the stage for prosperity in the 1980s, it wasn’t deregulation or income tax cuts. The primary factor was the Fed allowing a correction to take place.

Paul Volcker, the Man

Some libertarians could argue that we would have been better off if the U.S. dollar had been destroyed.  There are certainly arguments to be made, as the U.S. empire would not be as possible if that had happened.

On net, I think the monetary tightening was positive.  No society wants to go through hyperinflation, which destroys the economy and the culture.  Does anyone think Venezuela is better off for having hyperinflation?

And hyperinflation is ultimately what Americans faced in the late 1970s if nothing was done about it. When I say “nothing”, I mean allowing the status quo of having the Fed creating new money like crazy.

Volcker was the right man at the right time.  I don’t know if he was told what to do by others, but he basically did the right thing.  Sure, I wish he had put the dollar back on a gold standard.  Better yet, I wish he had ended the Fed and allowed the market to decide on the form of money.  But aside from libertarian arguments, Volcker did the right thing when he stepped in as Fed chair.

Volcker was a slice of sanity during a time of mostly insanity.  Most Americans today can’t fathom getting a home mortgage with an interest rate over 10%.  Aside from health insurance premiums, education, and some real estate, it is hard to imagine prices going up over 10% per year.  This would be a doubling of prices in just over 7 years.

Paul Volcker was a tall man of 6 feet, 7 inches.  He smoked cigars and was a presence.  From what I have heard, he was a decent man.  Ron Paul has said favorable things about Volcker, at least from a personal standpoint.  He has said that Volcker was friendly and willing to talk.

It’s hard for me to praise a central banker too much.  Perhaps it is a matter of comparison.  Although Greenspan seemed favorable towards gold and liberty in the 1960s, I am a bigger fan of Volcker.  I consider Greenspan to be a sellout.  Or maybe he was a social climber as Ayn Rand said, and he just said whatever advanced him the most at the time.  Either way, Greenspan knew better, so I am not forgiving for his horrible time as Fed chair.

If we ever get another time that is like the 1970s, it will be interesting if someone like Volcker (the right person at the right time) will show up and be nominated.  I would rather that than end up like Venezuela.

Earlier this week, Trump made a comment that maybe he wouldn’t make a deal with China until after the election.  This sent stocks down quite a bit.

Aside from the fact that the tariffs are foolish and that his comments were politically foolish, there is a much larger problem here.  Why does one person get to dictate the tariffs that impact 325 million people (or well over a billion people if we count the Chinese)?

This could be said about many different things, although they all go back to political power.

Why do the Federal Reserve chairman and a handful of others on the FOMC get to dictate monetary policy for the entire country?  You know it is bad when the financial media is trying to parse every little word coming out of the mouth of the Fed chair.

Why do nine Supreme Court justices get to essentially make law for over 300 million people?

Why does the president have the power to start a war on his own command?

Of course, constitutionally speaking, these things aren’t really allowed.  But other than some procedural stuff, the Constitution is mostly ignored.  Congress has long abdicated its power to the presidency, especially when it comes to war-making power.  The Congress delegated the little power it had over monetary policy to a central bank in 1913, which now fully controls the money supply and can manipulate interest rates.

Both major parties will complain about the other, but rarely do you hear suggestions that the power should be eliminated.  Instead, they want to obtain the power.  This is the difference between a libertarian and anyone else. A true libertarian understands that you have to take away the power.

Cutting Budgets

As Harry Browne liked to say (quoting Michael Cloud), the problem isn’t the abuse of power; it’s the power to abuse.

The only solution is to remove this power.  That will only happen when a sizeable percentage of the population demands this.  People need to withdraw their consent.

Most people do consent to the system.  They will complain a lot about government and particular politicians, but they still endorse the system.

The Patriot Act, which the government relies on as an excuse for its surveillance powers, was recently extended.  It was hidden in a bill that went through Congress. There is little uproar except for libertarians and perhaps a tiny few on the far left.

It is interesting that Democrats cry all day long about what a horrible person Trump is and how he should be removed from office.  Yet, they fully endorse the things that give him more power.  Maybe the surveillance state isn’t the best example of that, since it was probably used against Trump and his campaign, but you get the point.  Why are you giving more power (including spending power) to someone you so despise?

There is only one solution to all of this.  It is to drastically reduce government power.  And the only way to do that is to cut budgets, preferably all the way in order to eliminate entire departments.

As long as budgets are passed to fund all of these alphabet agencies, then there will be major power available.  And as long as major power is available, bad people will seek out this power and abuse this power. This is why the worst tend to get on top.

Trump is bad on many things, but he is not the worst.  This is why the establishment hates him so much.  They will only tolerate the reliable criminals who will always support the military-industrial complex and the rest of big government.

There is a store named Five Below, where everything in the store is priced below five dollars. Except, that isn’t the case any longer.  They now have a section that is ten below.  This section has products priced between five and ten dollars.

I don’t know if this store will end up being the equivalent of Motel 6, which was originally named because you could stay there for 6 dollars per night.  Five Below is no longer five below.  It is really Ten Below.  Maybe it will be Twenty Below before we know it.

I have pointed out before that you will know price inflation has gotten bad when the dollar stores break the buck.  If the dollar stores that currently sell everything for one dollar or less have to go above a dollar for certain items, then you know the Fed has been effective (from its viewpoint).

To be clear, I don’t think Five Below went above the five-dollar threshold just because of price inflation.  I think the business model has been successful enough, and the company just wants to be able to expand the number of products it can sell.

I have been in a Five Below store before.  For the most part, I don’t like it that much because I don’t need or want most of the things in it.  Some of the products are priced about the same or even higher than what you would find at Walmart.  But I have seen some products that seem like a pretty good deal if you happened to be looking for certain things in particular.  Some items really are a bargain.

I tend to like dollar stores better.  Sometimes I need plastic utensils that I can throw away when I am eating away from my home.  I can buy a package of 16 spoons, 16 knives, and 16 forks, all for a dollar.  That’s 48 plastic utensils for a dollar (plus sales tax).  That is quite amazing. It is actually amazing that dollar stores are able to exist.

The Great Contradiction

This is part of the contradiction of the times we are living in.  You can shop in a store with thousands of products that are priced at one dollar or less.  Meanwhile, one night in the hospital will cost you and your insurance company several thousands of dollars, or maybe tens of thousands of dollars.

I am amazed at how inexpensive some things are.  At the same time, I am amazed at how incredibly expensive some other things are.

Unfortunately, it seems to be more needs than wants that are in the expensive category.  Medical care and insurance are extremely expensive.  Housing is mostly expensive.  Education can be very expensive, although higher education is not a need.  The expensive things tend to be in areas where there is a large presence of the government (i.e., the state).

Food is obviously a need, but it is not as insanely expensive as other needs like medical care.  Food prices have gone up, but somewhat more in line with average price inflation.  The government certainly has its hand in food production, but the price inflation is largely reflective of the central bank and its money creation.

Meanwhile, you have some new technologies, especially when it comes to electronics, where prices are actually going down.  In some cases, prices stay about the same, but you get much better quality. This is all in spite of a monetary system that favors inflation.  Imagine if the Fed wasn’t creating money out of thin air for the last decade or more.  We could have even lower prices for smartphones, tablets, and televisions.

I find the prices of big-ticket items are also high these days.  If you need a new roof or air conditioning unit for your house, you are going to pay a lot.  This is due to a combination of many factors, including central bank inflation, tariffs, regulations, and other taxes.  The government is extracting a lot of resources, and it makes our living standards lower than they should be.

As I’ve written about before, a roofer putting on a new roof isn’t making huge bucks.  Even the company owner may not be making massive profits.  It is all of the costs of the materials, the labor costs (other than salary), the insurance costs, the associated taxes, and regulation compliance costs.  It makes life expensive.

This will be the positive aspect of the next recession (correction).  It will hurt many people because asset prices will come down.  Some people will lose their job.  But for all American consumers, it should actually lower prices as long as the Fed doesn’t get too crazy too fast.

We need a correction just to make life more affordable again.  We need to keep the dollar stores as dollar stores.

In early 2008, as it was becoming apparent that Ron Paul would not be the Republican nominee for president, I was pointing out to people that the hardcore Ron Paul supporters should go to the Libertarian Party.

If just 10 percent of the hardcore Ron Paul supporters moved to the Libertarian Party, then the radical libertarians (i.e., the principled libertarians) could basically run the show and put up a good nominee.

Unfortunately, most Ron Paul supporters did not do this.  Some of them stayed in the Republican Party to try to move the party in a more liberty-oriented direction.  Some Ron Paul people went back to hiding under a rock.  A few even supported Obama because they were tired of the same old establishment candidates.  It was obvious to me that the candidate of “hope and change” would bring more of the same, but I can understand the sentiment when you are comparing him to John McCain and Hillary Clinton at the time.

I was a member of the Libertarian Party (LP) in 2008.  I had been registered Libertarian since 2002, and I had been active in my local chapter since 2003.

That was the year that we got Bob Barr as the nominee.  That was the slide downward for the party.  I am still a registered Libertarian, but I have not been active in the party for many years now.

In 2008, the LP could have nominated Mary Ruwart.  She is a principled libertarian.  She would have been a great messenger for the cause of liberty.  I think Ron Paul would have passed the torch on to her.

Bob Barr was not a principled libertarian.  I have not heard about him in a long time, but I assume this still stands true.  I am not saying he is a bad guy.  I just don’t think he was the right person to represent the party and the movement.

In 2008, there were probably a couple of million people who had supported Ron Paul, or at least were very sympathetic to his cause.  These people had nowhere good to turn.  Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party nominee that year. He was probably the closest option to Ron Paul in the general election.

I still wonder just how well Mary Ruwart would have done if she had been the nominee for the LP. I think Ron Paul would have endorsed her, and she would have picked up on his momentum at the time. Unfortunately, we will never know.

The last really good candidate the LP had was Harry Browne in 2000.  He was unapologetically libertarian.  He represented the party and the message well.  He was a great spokesman, and he converted people to libertarianism for life.  I should know, because he solidified my libertarian beliefs.

Michael Badnarik was the nominee in 2004.  He was a constitutionalist.  He was generally principled with his message, and he is a good guy. Unfortunately, I don’t think he was always the best salesman of libertarianism, but I do believe his heart was in the right place.  I would take Badnarik over anyone the party has nominated since then (Bob Barr and Gary Johnson twice).

Unfortunately, the party has also gone down a bad road in other ways.  There has always been infighting, so that isn’t so much the issue.  I think Nick Sarwark, who has been chairman of the LP since 2014, is representative of where the party has gone.  Sarwark seems to go out of his way to insult the good libertarians out there who are principled.  Sarwark is not a consistent defender of liberty, and I believe he has done tremendous damage.

If the CIA wanted to plant someone in the LP executive committee to do heavy damage to the cause of liberty within the Libertarian Party, I don’t think they could have done a better job than putting Sarwark in there to infiltrate it.  For the record, I don’t believe this is what happened, but it is sad that this is the case.

A Renewed Hope

In the last year, some well-known and more radical libertarians have joined the LP. Now they are encouraging others in their audience to do the same.

If that weren’t enough, now we have Operation Libertarian 2020.  (That is the name I am giving it at this time.)

There are three influential libertarians in particular who are encouraging people to join the party and nominate someone principled in 2020.  They are Tom Woods, Scott Horton, and Dave Smith.

I’m sure these same three would also be thrilled if someone can dethrone Nick Sarwark.  Many other people should feel the same if they saw Nick Sarwark’s appearance on Dave Smith’s show after their debate.

These three heavyweights of the libertarian movement are throwing their support behind Jacob Hornberger, who has officially announced that he is seeking the LP nomination in 2020.

I believe there are fewer than 15,000 active LP members.  There are far fewer who would become delegates and go to the national convention where the nominee is chosen.

These libertarian stars have more people in their audiences than there are LP members.  If just a fifth of their audience were to join the party, they could overtake it easily.  And really, the percentage is probably a lot smaller than that, because there are already radicals within the party.  That is why there is a Mises Caucus.

This is what I wanted to have happen in 2008.  Oh well, it’s only 12 years later.  I’ll take what I can get.

I think Hornberger is a solid candidate that principled libertarians can get behind.  He is not a self-described anarchist.  He is a constitutionalist.  I don’t know if he considers himself a minarchist, but he’s close enough.  He is quite similar to Ron Paul.

I will go more in depth on Hornberger as the time gets closer to the LP convention.

He appeared on Tom Woods’ show not too long ago. I think he is making one mistake and that is to make open immigration one of his signature issues.

The problem is that the issue of immigration is an issue of contention even between hardcore libertarians.  It is a hard issue because we are dealing with a massive state (the U.S. federal government). So while many libertarians believe in the concept of free movement (while respecting property rights), it is a tough issue when we have national borders and a massive welfare state.

It is one of the toughest issues for me personally.  I believe the right answer for now is to allow immigration with the conditions of no welfare and not having the right to vote, or at least not having the right to vote any time soon.  Many libertarians rightly fear having people come to the U.S. and helping to destroy the liberty that we have left.  It has nothing to do with stealing jobs.

I think it is ok for Hornberger to take the position he’s taking, but it should not be a signature issue.  This issue does not convert anyone to libertarianism.  It just may confuse them more.  He might as well make abortion a signature issue as well.

I hope Hornberger will reconsider his position on this.  He is very good in his criticisms of the warfare state and the infringements on our civil liberties.  I think he could also tie these things in with reducing government spending at home.  Ron Paul did this effectively in his presidential campaigns.

Aside from this one point, I think Hornberger will represent the liberty message well.  He will convert people.  He will give people a choice.  Gary Johnson and Bill Weld gave people a choice of not voting for Trump or Clinton, but that was about it.  They did not create many hardcore libertarians.  If they did, it was inadvertent.

I am excited to see what 2020 brings.  Maybe we will actually have a libertarian representing the Libertarian Party.  It’s long overdue, and it hasn’t happened since Ron Paul brought so many to the libertarian movement in 2007.

I wasn’t going to watch the debate until I found out that Tulsi Gabbard would be in it.  And for the most part, she didn’t disappoint.

But let’s start at the end.  Brian Williams, after the debate was over, declared how great the moderators were.  He said they should be named permanent-standing debate moderators.

Yes, like how Rachel Maddow opened the debate immediately with questions about Trump impeachment. She asked her second question with the premise of, “after the after the bombshell testimony…today.”

This is the woman who spent the last three years talking about the end of Trump because of Russia collusion.  For someone who spent so much time on one story, you would think she would have gotten more right than what she did.  Now she has moved on to the next scandal to obsess about.

Elizabeth Warren was asked at least three questions before some of the other candidates had even talked.  I guess she is an MSNBC favorite.

Of course, the biggest thing with the moderators, just like the establishment media in general, is the things they don’t ask.  They lightly asked Joe Biden about his son and Ukraine at the beginning. Biden just ignored that portion of the question, and the moderators didn’t seem interested in following up on that one.

There are never any questions ever about the Federal Reserve.  And this was with Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan) as one of the moderators.

MSNBC is as establishment left as they come.  The network isn’t far left because they generally support war and surveillance. They don’t have much problem with someone like Kamala Harris, just as they didn’t have a problem with Hillary Clinton.

The Losers

At this point, I don’t know who the Democrats really want to face Donald Trump.  On paper, they should be beating Trump.  But when you have to pick a particular candidate to face him, then he all of a sudden doesn’t look so easy to beat.

Joe Biden, the establishment favorite, is in big trouble.  He is 77 years old, and he sometimes acts like he’s 90.  He can’t help himself in sniffing the hair of young girls in public.  Right out of the gate at the debate, he was stumbling over his words.

At one point, Biden made a major gaffe, saying he had the support of the only African-American woman elected to the Senate.  This, he said, while Kamala Harris was up on stage with him.  He meant he got the support of the first African-American woman in the Senate.  I don’t really care that he said this.  It is kind of funny.  But in our day of political correctness, it is hard for him not to be criticized by the left.

The whole impeachment saga against Trump sank Biden anyway.  The MSNBC moderators can basically ignore it, but I can guarantee that Trump and the Republicans won’t ignore it in the general election if Biden is the nominee.  We will be seeing ads with Biden bragging about how he withheld money from Ukraine in order to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating the company employing his son.

Biden wasn’t the only loser.  Elizabeth Warren didn’t do terrible, but she hasn’t gotten any more likeable either.  She continues to talk about a wealth tax and her Medicare-for-all plan that would essentially be impossible to pay for.

Senator Pocahontas has sunk a little in the polls.  I was surprised to ever see her in the lead, even if briefly.  She comes across as nervous and fake.  Not everyone else will see her this way, but I don’t see where she picks up significant votes that Hillary didn’t get.  If there is a bad enough recession before November 2020, then anyone has a chance against Trump. But aside from that, I think Warren will have a tough time against Trump, and I think Democrats are starting to realize that.

Amy Klobuchar tried to be the moderate of the group.  She is one of the few Democrats who will actually point out that offering “free” stuff costs money.  She came across as very nervous though.  For that reason alone, she belongs in the loser category for this debate.

Kamala Harris is also on the loser side.  She got into another exchange with Tulsi Gabbard, but this doesn’t really benefit Harris.  Ever since her first debate, she just hasn’t been impressive at all.  She wasn’t horrible in this last debate (from a Democrat’s perspective), but I doubt she’ll get any significant traction.

There was one question about paid maternity leave.  Harris said she favors a mandatory 6-month paid maternity leave. During this same response, she said that we need to do something about the gender pay gap where women are paid 80 cents on the dollar.

Did anyone else across America see the total contradiction within just a few sentences of each other?  Unfortunately, probably not many did see the contradiction.

If an employer has to pay a woman for 6 months to do nothing every time she has a baby, then the employer is probably going to pay women (particularly of child-bearing age) less money than men.  This isn’t a sexist thing.  This is a “not-wanting-to-lose-money” thing.

The whole wage gap story is phony anyway.  If there were this big of a wage gap, why wouldn’t employers just hire women? Are there that many sexist employers out there who are just willing to pay 25% more to men for the same exact work?

The studies on a wage gap are phony because they aren’t comparing people who do the same exact work.  They don’t fully account for hours worked, flexibility, and other factors that go with a job. And to the extent that there is any wage gap, you can blame people like Kamala Harris for these stupid ideas that distort the marketplace and do not allow voluntary exchange.

The Winners

The two people that stood out to me in the debate were Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg.  These two had an exchange about foreign policy, but I think they were probably two of the most likeable candidates.  It was during their heated exchange that I saw Buttigieg a bit flustered, but that was the only time.

I don’t think Gabbard is going to win the nomination.  The establishment is too much against her.  My hope is that she gains more traction so that she can continue to be in the debates, and she can continue to be a thorn in the sides of the establishment candidates.

At this point, I actually think Mayor Pete (as people call him) has a good chance at the nomination. He may get it by default because he is the only one who is not old, is likeable, can put two sentences together, and is not hated by the establishment.  Maybe Yang could fit this category, but I don’t think the establishment is thrilled with him.

Buttigieg has been going up in the polls significantly.  People have been saying that he hasn’t been getting much support from the black community.  They aren’t sure if it is because he’s gay, or some other reason.  Bernie doesn’t get much support from the black community either.

Overall, this probably isn’t a big deal.  Most black people aren’t going to vote for Trump or any other Republican no matter what.  The only difference is whether they show up to vote or not.  The turnout will never be as high as it was for Obama in 2008. If it is Buttigieg against Trump, the black community will still support Buttigieg.

I actually don’t think it matters much that he is gay.  It becomes more of a party thing in the general election.  And the fact that he has not held high political office (he is mayor of a relatively small city) probably doesn’t hurt him. Trump never held a political office before 2017.

As for Gabbard, I was happy with her performance.  Her answers to questions on things like race and the environment were not that great, but they could have been a lot worse too.  I wish she would take every single question back to foreign policy.

Still, she had a couple of very good exchanges.  She battled Kamala Harris, who took the side of Hillary Clinton.  Harris criticized Gabbard for appearing on Fox News and meeting with Trump when he was elected.  She also criticized her for criticizing Obama.

Gabbard probably met with Trump because she was hoping to influence his foreign policy.  If only Trump had appointed Gabbard as Secretary of State, we would be in a much better place right now.

As for appearing on Fox News, it is the Trump effect of bringing parts of the political right towards a more peaceful foreign policy.  Tucker Carlson has Gabbard on his show, and he has become more sympathetic to a less interventionist foreign policy.

Gabbard is to trying to get exposure where she can.  She isn’t afraid to go on Fox News and answer sometimes-tough questions. Most of the other candidates dare not go on there because they might actually be asked something relatively hard.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have to make sure that the narrative is controlled, and they can only be asked questions by the members of the establishment.

As for Obama, I just wish Tulsi would go after Obama more.  She should criticize him for all of the wars he started, particularly in Libya and Syria.

Tulsi can still be frustrating for a libertarian, even when she is talking foreign policy.  She should be even less apologetic than she is.  When they accuse her of being an asset of Putin or an Assad apologist, she should call them out harder than she does.  She should say things like, “So if you had it your way, you would rather have thousands of people die in a war because you refuse to talk to anyone that you consider bad.”  She came close to saying something like this to Buttigieg, but it still could have been a little stronger.

She has time to prepare for these debates.  She needs to come prepared with a good, hard response to these types of smears. Still, I would give her overall performance a 7 out of 10.  I enjoyed watching her, and the debate would have been so boring without her.

The Neutral

There are some candidates where I don’t think they came out ahead or behind.  I would say Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders fit this category.

Steyer is going nowhere, and nothing changed for him.  Yang still has an outside shot, and he does come across as likeable and genuine. I just don’t know if he can overcome that establishment hurdle.  I think the establishment doesn’t like him because his bribery is too in your face.  Instead of offering healthcare programs and education, he is just offering cash every month.

Booker had an ok performance, but nothing that was attention grabbing.  I don’t expect him to move up after the debate in any significant way.

As for Bernie, I think he did ok during the debate.  It was typical Bernie.  He’s horrible on almost everything except foreign policy.  But he almost never talks about foreign policy except when asked.  Therefore, I don’t trust he would do what he says.

The only reason Bernie may have come out slightly ahead is because the other high-profile candidates did so bad.  I think Biden and Warren both did poorly.  Maybe Bernie gets a slight bump because of that.

But the guy is 78 years old, and he just had a heart attack.  He has a really loyal following, but I don’t know if it’s enough to win the nomination.  Things would have to work out just right for him, and the establishment still doesn’t want him in there.  They don’t fully trust him to keep the military-industrial complex up and running.

Conclusion

The race is still wide open.  There are five or six candidates that you still can’t count out.

I hope Tulsi stays in the race for a while.  I hope her poll numbers go up so that she can stay in the debates.  She is getting the Ron Paul treatment.

From a libertarian standpoint, she is obviously a lot more frustrating than Ron Paul.  She doesn’t get a lot right with domestic policy, but what should anyone expect?  She is a Democrat.  Compared to the others, even her domestic policies are better.

Ron Paul was more solid on foreign policy as well.  But Gabbard is easily the best in this election cycle.  She is continuing to criticize the regime-change wars. I think she should go after this issue even harder.  When she is asked about a domestic issue, she should turn it back to foreign policy.  If you really want money to help the American people, you aren’t going to get it by increasing taxes on the rich.  You can get it by ending these wars.

There is talk about a wealth tax, particularly from Elizabeth Warren.  Some don’t know that Donald Trump once proposed a one-time wealth tax of 14.25% on those with over $10 million in assets.  That was back in 1999.  Luckily, he has not advocated for such a thing in a long time.

Bill Gates was recently discussing a wealth tax.  Gates is something of a coward.  Maybe it is because the Clinton administration took on Microsoft back about 20 years ago.  Gates mostly toes the establishment line.  It isn’t much different when it comes to a wealth tax. He said he’s paid over $10 billion in taxes, and he would be fine if he had to pay $20 billion.

However, he did half-jokingly say, “When you say I should pay $100 billion, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over.”

Gates is supposedly currently worth about $106 billion.

Gates and Warren Buffett make it sound like they don’t mind paying high taxes.  Sometimes they will say that they should pay more. Yet, they never donate extra to the government.  They send a lot to charity and their pet causes, but that never includes funding the government beyond their minimum requirement to stay out of jail.

Now, here comes Bernie Sanders.  Sanders said the following on Twitter:

“Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion.  We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.  Bill would still be a multibillionaire.  Our message: the billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little.”

That is spoken like a true socialist.  There are a couple of major points that need to be addressed based on these comments from Bernie.

Taxing Stock Ownership

A large portion of the wealth that Bill Gates has is on paper.  He doesn’t have this money in the bank.  Gates has diversified some of his wealth (smartly) out of Microsoft and into other stocks, and presumably other asset classes.

Still, a large portion of Gates’ wealth is in stocks, and particularly in Microsoft.  He may be worth $106 billion, but that is just a reflection of what his stocks (mostly Microsoft) are currently worth.

And there is a bigger point here.  If Bernie Sanders were in charge (I’m sure he would feel quite comfortable ruling over others), he could tax Gates $100 billion and say that he would still have several billion left over.  But he doesn’t know that.

If you start selling a mass quantity of one particular stock, even when it is a big company like Microsoft, it is going to drive share prices down.  Gates may be able to sell millions of dollars worth of Microsoft at its current price per share.  Maybe he can sell a few billion dollars close to its current share price.  But at some point, you need buyers to match the seller.  The buyers willing to pay a higher price for Microsoft shares will get their shares early on.  As Gates sells his mass quantity of shares, the price will go down.  If it is publicly known that he has to liquidate most of his wealth, the price of Microsoft may even go down significantly just in anticipation of him selling.

In other words, once Gates sells most or all of his shares in Microsoft, he probably can’t redeem $100 billion worth unless he is able to spread it out over a long period of time. But that isn’t what Warren and Sanders are talking about.  You would get hit with your tax, and you would be expected to pay it.

So if Gates were hit with a $100 billion tax, it would probably bankrupt him completely.

Government Spending as a Cure

The other part of Bernie’s Twitter comment that is important to address is that he says we could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.

Bernie has said a lot of stupid and ignorant things before, but this has to be one of his best. Economics is not one of his strong suits.

Let’s forget the drinking water and concentrate on the claim of eliminating homelessness (although the same logic can be applied to safe drinking water).

There are currently over 500,000 homeless people in the United States for at least one night during a year.  The chronically homeless is obviously lower than this.

So let’s say there are 100,000 people currently homeless, and that is seemingly their permanent situation.  If you had $100 billion to spend on homelessness, that would be one million dollars per homeless person.  I suppose you could pull an Andrew Yang and just give the homeless people the money directly. Of course, this is never how government works.  It has to go through the bureaucracy.  There will be programs to help educate the homeless.  There will be housing programs for them.  You know how it goes.

But if you did just hand over the money in one shot, why should we assume this would end homelessness?  Maybe some people don’t want a home.  Maybe some people would spend all of the money quickly on drugs.

And what about all of the people who are currently on the verge of homelessness?  Wouldn’t it benefit them to become homeless in order to collect the next round of checks?  For a million dollars, I might consider becoming homeless if it was for a short time.

In other words, it wouldn’t be sustainable, and the incentives would all be backwards, as they typically are with government.  And many of the homeless people would end up right back where they started.

If you want to get anywhere close to getting rid of homelessness, then you have to dramatically scale back the size and scope of government.  In California, where the problem is the worst, the home prices are astronomical in some regions.  There are high taxes on almost everything, and the regulations are ridiculous.  It gets reflected in the price of products and the wages that don’t keep pace with the cost of living.

Beyond all of this, I would like to point something out to Bernie and his supporters.  The federal government is spending almost $4.5 trillion per year.  This does not include state and local government spending.

In case Bernie can’t do the math, the federal government is spending over $10 billion every single day.  It is spending $100 billion in just over a week.  So if Bernie can get the federal government to divert just over one week’s worth of spending, we can cure homelessness according to him.  Of course, he will have to be in charge to implement the program.

The government is already running an annual deficit of about $1 trillion.  Why not just take on another 10% of that and eradicate homelessness?  It is that simple, according to Bernie.

Of course, the U.S. government could just stop fighting one or two of the wars overseas and save the $100 billion easily, but Bernie hasn’t brought up that as a solution.  He doesn’t really focus on foreign policy much, even though hundreds of billions could easily be saved (along with all of the lives).  He is too busy focusing on getting the rich.

After Bernie takes all of Bill Gates’ wealth and eradicates homelessness and provides safe drinking water, what will be next?  If he can get all of the wealth from Buffett and Bezos, Bernie should be able to eradicate all poverty and cure cancer.  Of course, he would have to be in charge.

According to the socialists, that is the only reason socialism hasn’t worked in the past. The right people need to be in charge.

Roger Stone has been found guilty of seven counts, which include obstruction, witness tampering, and making false statements.  Here is an article from the establishment media on the story.

I have given my thoughts before on Roger Stone.  Many years ago, I believe I played a role in Stone dropping his bid for running for governor in Florida on the Libertarian Party ticket.

Stone is not a libertarian.  He has an element of him that is anti establishment, not all that different from Donald Trump.  Stone can certainly come across as a shady guy, which probably didn’t help his case in court.  Still, just because you come off as shady does not make you guilty of a crime.

Stone faces up to 50 years in prison.  That would be 20 years for obstruction and 5 years each for the other 6 counts. He probably won’t actually get that long, but if he is sentenced to 20 years, that could easily end up being the equivalent to a life sentence.  Stone is 67 years old.

Maybe Trump will end up pardoning Stone.  That is what he should do, but he would obviously take a lot of flak if he did do it.  Trump already hates the media, and the media hates him, so I don’t know why he would care. Maybe Trump will do it after the November 2020 election.  He wouldn’t have much to lose after that point, regardless of whether he wins or loses.

The biggest joke is that Stone supposedly lied to Congress.  I don’t think Congress should even have the power to force someone to testify under oath if they are not on trial.  It is typically a trap, or to trap someone else.  You can be James Clapper and clearly lie to Congress about a national surveillance program, but that lying is ok in the world of Washington DC.

You can also lie about Russian collusion in the election, but that is fine.  You can also lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that is acceptable.  You can make up unsubstantiated claims about chemical weapon attacks by Assad in Syria, but that is about spreading democracy.  You can secretly plan coups to overthrow foreign governments, but that is part of national security in Washington DC.

This is why I don’t take these things seriously.  I take them seriously in the sense that there are great injustices, but I don’t take seriously that Roger Stone necessarily committed any actual crimes. And if he did commit a crime, it also doesn’t necessarily mean it was something that should be regarded as a crime.

Trump took to Twitter and said the following:

“So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come.  Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself?  Didn’t they lie?…”

Trump hit the nail on the head with this one.  Trump may not be great for liberty in many ways, but he has his moments of shining against the establishment/ deep state.

This is why I am hopeful that maybe Trump will pardon Roger Stone.

The other charges are not quite as clear, but if you believe that the whole Russia collusion thing was a hoax, then most, if not all, of these charges should not exist.  If you are being framed and you obstruct a witness to try to prevent the framing, who is actually committing the crime?

Dumb Juries

We have a long way to go to achieve a free society.  Overall, I think it is good we have a jury system.  I would rather be judged by a jury than a government panel, at least in most cases.  Even if you get a decent and honest judge, they basically have to follow the law.  They don’t technically have to, but they probably won’t last long.  And the problem is that a lot of the laws are corrupt.

So I’m sure that members of this jury were convinced that Roger Stone lied to Congress. Therefore, they convicted him. But if you are on a jury, you don’t have to give your reasons for voting a certain way.  If you don’t think the law is just, you can vote “no” on convicting.  That is jury nullification.  You can just say that you don’t think he is guilty and leave it at that.

I have said before that we could have a generally free society if enough people believe strongly in the message of liberty and use their power on a jury.  If enough of the population comes to believe that there must be an identifiable victim or potential victim for there to be a crime, then juries will start to find people not guilty of victimless crimes. It only takes one person on a jury to hang it.

In other words, if 20% of the population were to believe in the general principles of liberty, this might be enough to completely change the whole system.  If someone is on trial for tax evasion, it just takes one person to vote not guilty (because it is a victimless crime).  If this happens over and over again, the laws eventually are nullified.

The same would go with prostitution cases and drug cases where there is no victim.  It would also stop people claiming to be victims who are suing over things that should not be a crime.  We could stop the violation of certain libertarian principles, such as freedom of association.  If I am on a jury, I will uphold the property rights of a business owner who is on trial for voluntarily not associating with someone else, regardless of the reason.  I don’t really care what the law says.  If it is an unjust or immoral law, then it should not be upheld.

If I had been on that jury, I would not have voted to convict Roger Stone, particularly for supposedly lying to Congress.  I don’t know all of the intricate details of the case, but I probably wouldn’t have convicted him of any of the counts.  Stone may have his shady tactics, but he should only be convicted of something where he intended harm on an innocent person.

I believe that the Stone conviction was all part of the Russia hoax.  I have no idea if he had any association with Wikileaks, but it is obvious to anyone paying close attention that the emails from the DNC came from a leaker.  They were not hacked by Roger Stone.  They were not hacked by the Russians.

Free Roger Stone!

In order to become financially wealthy, you have to attain money and/ or assets.  The only way to attain money and assets is by making money and not spending it all.  If you spend everything you make, then you can’t attain wealth.

There are people who have generous pensions.  They could claim to be wealthy.  As long as the entity providing the pension is solvent and keeps paying, then it is a legitimate form of wealth.  But a person obviously had to have worked (or at least been a time server at work) to get this pension.

If you see someone driving a Lamborghini, it doesn’t necessarily mean the person is wealthy. It is a possible marker of great wealth, but you really don’t know.  Maybe the Lamborghini is the only significant asset that the person owns. Worse, maybe the person has a big loan against the car.

Meanwhile, there are people that you see who are wealthy and you might never know it just by looking at them.  This was one of the key points in the book The Millionaire Next Door.

The problem that many people face is that they associate wealth with things.  This would be fine if it were the right things. The things that make people wealthy are income-generating assets, and to a lesser degree, appreciating assets.

If you see someone who is rich who is living in a big house and driving a fancy car, it is important to realize that it is not having these things that makes the person wealthy. He may be able to afford these things because he is wealthy.

If anything, the big house and fancy car are a drain on the finances.  You not only have the high price tag for these things, but you also have the maintenance costs that go with them.

Someone might think that in order to be rich just like that person, they need to buy a big house and a fancy car.  But unless the person has a really high income, it probably won’t be sustainable if it is possible at all.  And even if it is sustainable, then the person may end up with the car and house but little else to show.

This is really the typical American in a lot of ways.  They go to work, buy a lot of things, and are constantly stressed out. Every time there is a promotion or bonus, it is used to buy more stuff.  The stuff is typically in the form of a depreciating asset. It is rarely an income-generating asset.

You Get Rich By Collecting Interest, Not Paying It

This is a theme I have to return to once in a while.  It is so simple, yet it is not widely followed.  Some people seem to not even understand it, or they don’t want to understand it.

If you are going to become wealthy, you have to collect interest.  If you are paying interest, then you are most likely going to stay poor.

When I use the term “interest”, this can be any form of income from an asset.  It doesn’t have to be interest from a money market fund or a savings bond.  It could be dividends from stocks.  It could be rent collected from investment real estate.

If you are borrowing money for anything that does not enhance your income generation, then you are paying interest down a drain.  You are making someone else rich.  If you are continually paying interest for depreciating assets, then you will likely stay poor.

People who collect interest are getting ahead.  They are the ones who can become wealthy, or at least wealthier.

If you are borrowing money for a big house to live in, then this will not make you rich, unless you get lucky with a lot of appreciation over time.  Even then, you would have to sell the asset and keep some of the money in order to actually make anything.

On the other hand, if you borrow money to buy investment properties that give you a positive cash flow, then this is a possible road to wealth.  You are paying interest on your loans, but the money you are collecting from rent far exceeds this.  So, on net, you are collecting more than you are paying.  And once the mortgage is paid off on an investment property, then you will really be collecting.

This is why you should try to avoid almost all debt.  Even when it comes to real estate, you should try to limit the amount of debt you take on for a place to live.  It is a consumption item.  It is filling a need because you need shelter, but most people buy much more than a basic shelter.  Either way, it is still a consumption item.

If you eat out at a restaurant, this is consumption.  You have to eat to live, but it is still consumption.  You could have cheaper consumption by buying food at the grocery store and preparing it yourself.

Just keep this in mind in your daily life.  There is nothing wrong with spending money, even beyond the basics.  But it is a good idea to make intentional choices.

Take a look at the assets that you own.  Are they appreciating or depreciating?  Do they generate income, or do they cost you money to own? Or do they just sit there taking up space?

Look at your assets and liabilities.  Where are you paying interest to someone else?  Is it just a mortgage?  Do you have a car loan?  Do you have student loans or credit card debt?

Do you have anything that is generating cash flow for you?  Do you have a retirement account?  (These can lose money too.)  Do you have any investment real estate?  Do you have any royalty income or a side business that generates extra income?  Is there anything you can purchase that will generate money instead of costing you money to buy and maintain?

In order to get wealthy, you have to not spend all of your money on things that do not appreciate and do not generate income.  If you are continually just buying non-income generating stuff, you won’t get wealthy.  If you are borrowing money to buy this stuff, you certainly aren’t going to be wealthy.

If you want to be wealthy, then find ways to collect interest (i.e., income generation). If you are paying interest, then you are making someone else wealthy.

There are increasingly becoming two political worlds.  But sometimes one world can’t avoid the other.  There are cracks.  Let me explain further and give an example.

Project Veritas recently released a video of Amy Robach, an ABC news anchor, where she is venting her frustration that ABC did not air a story they had on Jeffrey Epstein from three years ago.  She is wearing a hot microphone, but she doesn’t know she is being recorded, and she certainly doesn’t know that her words would end up being released to the public.

Robach states that they had the Epstein story three years ago.  This shouldn’t be surprising, except maybe for the fact that ABC was actually investigating it at all.  I briefly mentioned back in 2016 that Clinton had taken repeated trips on Epstein’s private jet, and that was just from my own limited research.  It should have been a huge story then; yet it wasn’t.

Robach is visibly frustrated that ABC spiked the report.  The story was theirs to run with.  They had an alleged victim who was naming names.  She said they had other women backing it up. She said they had allegations against Prince Andrew, but that the Palace was threatening them in “a million different ways.”

They had implications against Alan Dershowitz.  She said, “we had Clinton”.  This is just what she said in this leaked video.  I am sure they had much more, but this is major news just based on the people she named.

It’s funny that ABC news was worried they wouldn’t get interviews with William and Kate if they aired this story.  I have to imagine it goes deeper than that.  Not only could they have aired the Epstein story, but then they could also air the fact that the Palace threatened them with it.  I certainly don’t speak for many people, but I would have a much better chance of watching ABC uncover a major scandal like this than watching some stupid and phony interview with William and Kate.

This Project Veritas video could ultimately take down the Palace.  The whole idea of a royal family is stupid anyway.  The Queen has little political power.  It is just the glamorization of a family that is living at taxpayer expense.  Maybe some of the British pride with the royal family will diminish with this. It certainly should.

Then we have Bill Clinton, who flew at least a couple dozen times on the so-called Lolita Express. But I’m sure Clinton was just talking business on Epstein’s private island.

Imagine if there were flight logs showing Trump was visiting Epstein’s private island.  Do you think the establishment media would be quiet about that?  Trump did know Epstein, but the media doesn’t even want to talk about that because the implications are so much larger for Clinton.

Here is a former president of the United States.  He is the husband of a woman who barely lost the last election, and there is even talk of her entering the race for 2020.  He is likely a pedophile.  At the very least, one if his best buddies was a pedophile.  Yet, the top dogs at ABC news didn’t think this story was newsworthy.

I assume they had the story before the 2016 general election.  This would obviously be a major reason for ABC spiking the story. No matter what, it shows that the corporate media is unquestionably part of the establishment.

The best ABC news can say now is that the story was uncorroborated.  But in the leaked video, Robach said there were pictures and other women to back up the allegations.

Plus, I would just like to point out that you don’t have to have 100% proof of anything to report it. If that were the case, there would be almost no journalism to speak of.  You report the facts.  The main fact in this case is that there was a woman (or women) making allegations against these famous people.

The establishment media certainly doesn’t care about corroborating facts when it comes to allegations against Russia or Trump.  Of course, even stories that aren’t political do not require 100% proof that something happened.  It is good journalism to make sure you aren’t throwing junk out there, but it doesn’t mean you can’t report something if it seems to be credible, even if you can’t 100% prove it.

You hear reports all the time saying that someone is under suspicion for a particular crime. The news report doesn’t say, “He did it.”  They phrase things a certain way.  They will not say, “The killer is under arrest.”  They will say, “The suspect is under arrest.”  That is factual reporting.

ABC could have legitimately run this story.  They should have run this story.  It is a scandal and cover-up that they didn’t run this story.

One thing that is important to point out regarding this leaked video is that Amy Robach is not at fault.  She is mad that the story didn’t run.  I actually feel a little bad for her that this came out.  I hope that all of the truth tellers of the world will back her up.

Sure, she could have leaked the story on her own and lost her job.  But it probably wouldn’t have been a story for very long. It is much more convincing that she was being open and honest, not knowing that she was being recorded.

This shows that some journalists actually do want to be journalists.  They may be mostly shills for the establishment, but they are not always intentionally acting on behalf of the establishment.  That is coming from the top.  Robach wanted the story to run.  She is mad that it didn’t.  The orders obviously came down from high up.

Two Political Worlds

I don’t watch the establishment media much.  It is hard to avoid, so I do get a sense of what is being reported. I’ll catch little snippets here and there.  I can also see what the news feed is saying on my smartphone.  It will show 4 headlines of news articles.  It is almost a certainty that at least one of them is an anti Trump story.  (I just checked my news feed for fun, and there is a headline going after Trump Jr.  This certainly counts as an anti Trump story.)

Anyway, I don’t know how much coverage this Project Veritas video got in the corporate media. My guess is that Fox News has covered it a bit.  I doubt that the other major networks have covered it much, if at all.  I did see it on DrudgeReport, but that is a site mostly visited by conservatives and libertarians.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to ask some random people if they have seen the video of Amy Robach, or at least if they have heard at all about it.  My guess is that a great percentage of people are not aware of it.

This is why we live in two political worlds.  If you just watch the establishment media, or even lightly pay attention to it, then you are not going to hear these types of stories.  I consider Fox News to be mostly establishment, but it is an exception with some of these stories.

Every headline should be screaming that Bill Clinton is likely a pedophile.  But it doesn’t even get mentioned.

Instead, we have to hear about Trump’s latest tweet, or how he may have withheld money from Ukraine to gain political favor.  Even here, does the establishment media play the video of Joe Biden bragging that he got a prosecutor in Ukraine fired (who was investigating his son’s employer) by threatening to withhold money?  The question answers itself.

There are two political worlds.  One world hears these stories from alternative media.  The other world does not.  It hardens the views of both sides.  When I see this leaked video, it just confirms that the corporate media is in bed with the establishment.  It confirms to me that they lie.  They really are fake news.  In this case, it is a lie by omission.

My only hope is that the two worlds sometimes collide.  The problem is that it is hard for people to admit that they have been duped.  And when you acknowledge and fully digest a video like this, you basically have to change your whole worldview if you were accepting the establishment media narrative before.

When you see this video, and if you actually accept what happened, then how could you really trust anything you hear again from ABC news?  I mean, if they can’t report that Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton are likely pedophiles, then why wouldn’t they be lying about anything that is convenient for them?  It would have been one of the biggest bombshell stories ever, but they chose not to report it.  Why bother listening to anything they have to say?

Mark Twain reportedly said that it’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

(Hey ABC news, notice how I used the word “reportedly”?)

This leaked video shows that anyone who takes the establishment media seriously has been duped.  But they won’t accept the video.  They will make excuses.  They will pretend there were good reasons for not running the story.  They will pretend that this was a one-time omission.  In order to stay duped, people can make a lot of excuses to themselves.

The good news is that some people are not in either of the two worlds.  You may be able to have a conversation with someone where they don’t shut you out or find you annoying.  You may be able to post this video on Facebook and get someone to reflect a little.  There are cracks between the two worlds.

In the pre internet era, this video never would have been exposed.  Even if someone had gotten the secret video to leak, where would they have leaked it?  If ABC won’t run a story exposing Epstein, Prince Andrew, and Bill Clinton, then ABC isn’t going to run a story showing they spiked that story. And I don’t think the other major networks would run it either.

Maybe the National Enquirer would have picked up the story.  But you can’t watch a video in a magazine.  And how many people would have bought a copy?  How many people would have believed the story without an accompanying video?

For this reason alone, we should be very thankful for the internet and our technology today. These stories would not have been exposed in the past.  We would not know about these stories at all.  We might not even know anything about Epstein.

At some point, there is a breaking point where the establishment media is forced to cover a story.  It just becomes too well-known by the public.  I don’t know if we will ever see headlines saying that Bill Clinton is accused of being a pedophile.  They never ran stories about him being accused of rape.  But when that happened, it was in the early days of the internet.

There really are two political worlds.  There are those who don’t trust the establishment media, and there are those who are being fooled, and you can’t convince them otherwise.