The man who for decades had been an almost lone Congressional advocate of non-interventionism in American foreign policy is former Congressman Ron Paul. When he ran for president in 2008, he took what the late Justin Raimondo called “libertarian realism” to the masses in the famous moment wherein he tangled with Rudy Giuliani on the GOP debate stage. Paul described that “blowback” resulting from Washington militarism and adventurism abroad was a contributing cause of 9/11. But for a population fed on a steady diet of the world-saving messianism of Wilsonian internationalism, in which America’s mystic destiny is to “make the world safe for democracy” (to quote Raimondo)—Rep. Paul’s policy positions were deemed somehow ‘too radical’ for American voters to swallow at the time (or rather, the mainstream gatekeeping pundits assured their viewers of his “fringe” views). Fast forward to well over another decade of the failed GWOT later, and now a common refrain heard on social media and even in the halls of Congress and occasionally the State Department is: Ron Paul was right. 

The US ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East led to a jaded, war-weary, and questioning public which tends to be ever-more skeptical anytime the political class starts talking a new major foreign intervention. This is perhaps why, ever since the Obama presidency Washington has shown a preference for covert and proxy wars, or involvement from the shadows, instead of Bush-style ‘shock and awe’ outright invasions. But currently, the Pentagon and US intelligence are involved in two disastrous hot wars (on a proxy and covert level) which could escalate into massive regional wars, or even world wars, at any moment: Ukraine and Gaza.

Back in 2014, another realist accurately predicted the tragic and disastrous Russia-Ukraine war which would eventually erupt in February 2022 when he said in a University of Chicago lecture: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.“ Professor John J. Mearsheimer’s now famous 2014 hour-and-fifteen minute lecture, once it was popularly ‘discovered’ on YouTube after the Russian invasion of 2022, has since racked up nearly 30 million views. We wrote about his insights and forecasts in Mearsheimer’s Ukraine Crystal Ball. And now in 2024 more and more people continue to say: John Mearsheimer was right. 

It was perhaps only a matter of time before these two great thinkers who have done so much to expose the follies and dangers of US interventionism abroad would meet and share the same stage.

This past weekend that’s exactly what happened. They addressed the Ron Paul Institute’s Liberty Platform Conference in the Washington D.C. area, with an audience of several hundreds of people in attendance. It was Dr. Mearsheimer’s first time at the annual Ron Paul Institute conference hosted in Dulles, VA.

Paul in delivering his usually strong “end the Empire and end the Fed” liberty message agreed with Mearsheimer’s words, who said of Washington action in the world, “We decided we are going to use that awesome military power that we had to run around the world and do social engineering.” The University of Chicago professor further pointed out: “And of course it’s social engineering in many cases at the end of a rifle barrel.”

Both also agreed, as the nation enters a charged election in November, that fundamentally there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats on the question of foreign policy and Washington’s penchant for constant military interventionism.

Dr. @RonPaul today at the 8th Annual @RonPaulInstitut Peace and Prosperity Conference on what he learned from Ludwig von Mises:

“…there has to be people who know how to take those complex ideas and make them palatable to the people and that’s what I work on daily, trying to… pic.twitter.com/u27Md61E1z

— Liberty Seeds (@Libertyseedsco) August 31, 2024

Mearsheimer explained that when he references the foreign policy establishment, “your talking about tweedle dee and tweedle dum.”

He also observed, “Both the Republicans and the Democrats love their ‘color revolutions’.” But given that nation-states do not like other countries running around interfering in their affairs, the enduring blowback and forever wars has led to a “permanent state of emergency”: 

“People who don’t understand the limits of what you can do with the military… and think that we have the right and responsibility and the capability to reorder the world in our image, are going to end up creating a highly militarized society. Remember I said that in international anarchy the United States is always going to have a large military. But that’s different from saying we are always going to have a large military that’s fighting wars,” Mearsheimer told the Ron Paul Institute audience.

Interestingly, though Mearsheimer has lectured all over the world, the only time he ever had to cancel a trip and event altogether due to potential threats to his life was when he was set to give a talk in the NATO ‘eastern flank’ country of Poland. He told ZeroHedge that “they could not guarantee my safety”—in reference to the event organizers and Polish police.

Below are key excerpts from John Mearsheimer’s address given to the Ron Paul Institute’s “Liberty Platform” conference on Saturday Aug.31. [Transcribed by ZeroHedge with subheadings added]

* * *

US power & international anarchy

It’s great to be here. I appreciated all the people who come up to me and talk to me, and I look forward to talking to you about international anarchy and limits of military power. What I want to do here is I want to explain to you why I believe that international anarchy means that the United States will always have a very large and powerful military. And then I want to talk about what the limits are regarding how you use that military.

So to start, what do I mean by international anarchy. As I’m sure many of you in the audience know international anarchy is a catchword for saying that in international politics there is no higher authority that sits above states that can rescue them if they get into trouble. The international system is basically comprised of states – states are the principle actors in international politics. So anarchy, in the lexicon of international relations scholars is the opposite, it’s the opposite of hierarchy. If you live inside the United States you have hierarchy – you have a state that is very powerful that sits above you. It has a police force associated with it, it has courts and so forth and so on. In the international system there’s not higher authority.

Furthermore, it’s very hard to know the intentions of other sates and it is impossible to know the future intentions of other states, because you don’t even know who’s going to be running China, or the United States, or Russia – in five years. So how can you know what their intentions are going to be? So you’re in an anarchic system there’s no higher authority to rescue you if you get into trouble. And there are states out there that may have malign intentions, and furthermore there may be states out there that are really powerful.

China demonstrated what happens to a weak state

So if a really powerful state decides it’s going to come after you, and you dial 911, you know who’s at the other end: nobody. And in a system like that you have no choice but to have a powerful military. Your goal is to be the most powerful state in the system. And you want to be the most powerful state in the system because you understand that if you’re weak and you get into trouble, nobody can help you. It is what we call a ‘self-help system’.

If you have any doubts about this go to China and ask them about the ‘century of national humiliation’. The Chinese were very weak from the late 1840s until the late 1940s: they call it the century of national humiliation. What happened then? China was weak and it was preyed upon – it was preyed upon by the United States, you know the open door policy – Japan, and the European great powers. The Chinese are never going to let that happen again. They want their own state and they want that state to be powerful.

US History: a voracious appetite for conquest

The same basic logic applies to every other state in the system. And this includes the United States of course. The United States you all understand worked very hard to become powerful. It started out as thirteen measly colonies strung out along the Atlantic seaboard. We marched across North America all the way to the Pacific Ocean, acquiring and conquering territory all the way. We invaded Canada in 1812 for the purpose of making it part of the United States. And all those island countries in the Caribbean today would be part of the United States were it not for the slavery issue, because the northern states did not want more slave-holding states admitted into the Union. And course because of the sugar industry there were a huge number of slaves in the Caribbean. So the Caribbean did not become part of the United States.

But we had a voracious appetite for conquest and we built a very powerful military once we became the dominant state in the Western hemisphere. This is just the way international politics works. Now for most of you that’s bad news. But from my point of view that’s not the really important issue. The really important issue is how you use that military power. What I’m telling you is we’re always going to be powerful militarily – the question is what do you do with it? And this is where the United States has gone off the rails – at least since the end of the Cold War and many would argue, before the Cold War.

America’s Unipolar Rise

And what’s happened since about 1989 when the United States became the unipole. You all remember remember the unipolar moment, when we were incredibly powerful relative to every other state on the planet? What the foreign policy establishment in this country decided it was going to do is that we decided we were going use that awesome military power that we had to run around the world and do social engineering. What we were gonna do is we were gonna try and remake the world in our own image. We were gonna spread democracy here, there, and everywhere.

We were gonna spread capitalism and economic independence all over the planet. We were going to take these institutions that we created during the Cold War and we were going to integrate countries all around the world into those institutions, and turn them into ‘rule-abiding citizens’. But the most important thing we were interested in doing was spreading Liberal Democracy. And when I say the foreign policy establishment it’s very important to understand I’m talking about Republicans as well as Democrats. As far as the Republicans and Democrats go on the issue of foreign policy, you’re talking about tweedle dee and tweedle dum [laughter]. 

Republicans & Dems are the same on Foreign Policy

Just think of the Bush doctrine – and as you all know George W. Bush was a Republican. The Bush doctrine, right, which was enunciated after the Afghanistan war – that was in 2001 – and before the Iraq war, which was of course was March 2003. The Bush doctrine said that what we’re gonna do is gonna go into the Middle East. We’re gonna topple the regime in Iraq, right, we’re going to put in its place a democracy. Right, we’re gonna create democracy, get rid of Saddam, just as we had done in Afghanistan? Remember? […laughter]  We toppled the Taliban and we put Hamid Karzai in power in Afghanistan.

We’re gonna do that in Iraq, and then maybe we have to do it in one more country: Syria maybe? Iran? And pretty soon everybody in the region would get the message, they’d throw up their hands for fear that the United States would come after them, and they’d all turn into Liberal Democracies. That’s what the Bush doctrine was about. This is Republicans, and of course the Democrats were no better.

Below: AntiWar.com News Editor Dave DeCamp (with Mearsheimer, right) spoke during the conference’s Friday session…

Just a couple dudes chatting about foreign policy pic.twitter.com/HmPGWbpvwf

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) August 31, 2024

Color Revolutions & Social Engineering by force

Both the Republicans and the Democrats love their ‘color revolutions’. What color revolutions? This is where you run around the world, overthrowing regimes, and putting in place pro-Western Liberal Democracies. It’s social engineering. And of course it’s social engineering in many cases at the end of a rifle barrel. That’s what the Bush doctrine was – it was social engineering at the end of a rifle barrel. And you ought to think about what’s going on here. You’re pursuing… a policy which me and my friends call liberal hegemony.. you’re saying you can take this big stick that you have and you can use that big stick – you can use military force – to turn a political tide inside particular countries in ways that are favorable to you.

Nationalism is the fly in the ointment 

There’s a fundamental problem with this approach to dealing the world. The fundamental problem is political. Clausewitz said war is an extension politics by other means… he’s telling you that it’s the politics that really matter… Now that’s the real fly in the ointment that the foreign policy establishment faced. That is that the most powerful political ideology on the planet is nationalism… a remarkably powerful force. It’s very hard for Americans to understand this… It basically says the world is divided into nations. The highest social group that we identify with is the nation. Sam Huntington talked about the ‘clash of civilians’. Civilians are not the highest social unit that people will really identify with in a meaningful way: it’s the nation. And what nations want is their own state… think about the concept of a nation-state… that’s nationalism. It has nationalism embedded. 

Theodore Hertzel, who was the father of Zionism… his most famous book is called “The Jewish State”… nation-state.. Jewish nation state.. Jewish state. The Palestinians want their own state. They view themselves as a nation, as in they want their own state. You live in a liberal state, in a liberal country… you live in a liberal nation-state. Madeline Albright who was a card carrying liberal of the first order, she was famous for her statement that we are an exceptional nation, we stand tall, we see further than other nations. She understood that we were a nation-state. She was not only a liberal, she was a nationalist par excellence…

And the problem that you face is that nationalism has deeply embedded in it the concept of self-determination: ‘we’re sovereign’. And nation-states do not like the idea of other nation states coming into their territory and doing social engineering. You know how exercised American get when there’s talk about the Russians interfering in our elections? [laughter]…this is American nationalism at play. Countries around the world… they don’t want us doing social engineering… can you imagine us allowing someone doing social engineering inside the borders of the United States? Well as my mother taught me as a little boy what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Unsurprisingly people outside the United States don’t like that at all. 

Vietnam: not about Communism, but Nationalism

In Vietnam… we weren’t fighting communism, we were fighting nationalism. The Vietnamese wanted their own nation state, they wanted self-determination. They drove the French out at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and they had every intention of drive us out. They didn’t want a bunch of Americans in their country telling what color toilet paper they could use [laughter]. They thought they could figure that out for themselves – that’s nationalism. You go into Afghanistan, you go into Iraq, you are really asking for big trouble. You think you’re gonna do social engineering in those countries? You think you’re going to be able to tell them what kind of political system they can have? It’s not gonna work! [clapping]

Putin doesn’t want Western Ukraine

Take the Russians. The Russians during the Cold War – as many of the old dogs in this audience like me remember – occupied a huge portion of Europe. Most of it Eastern Europe… they were up to their eyeballs in alligators dealing with protests. They had huge trouble in east Germany in 1953. In 1956 they had to invade Hungary. In 1968 they had to invade Czechoslovakia. They almost invaded Poland three separate time. And the Albanians and Romanians were a total nightmare for the Soviets. They were glad to get out of there! [laughter].

You think Vladimir Putin wants to go back there? Putin, as I’ve said on numbers occasions, did not want to invade Ukraine, he knows what happens when you start invading other countries. And he’ll take a big chunk of territory in Eastern Ukraine but he’s not gonna take a big chunk of territory in Western Ukraine cause it’s filled with ethnic Ukrainians.

And you know what that means? That if he goes in there he is going to have an insurgency that is gonna be impossible to stamp out. Because those ethnic Ukrainians are as nationalistic as you can get, and they don’t want Russia running their politics. One of the principle reasons that the Ukrainians are fighting so fiercely – it’s truly remarkable how they’ve been able to stand up to the Russians – is because of nationalism… this is the way the world works. 

Israeli plan didn’t work

And just one final example: look at the Israeli case… The Israelis long thought they could use a big stick, they call it the iron wall, to beat the Palestinians into submission to get the Palestinians to accept that it is a Jewish state, that Israeli Jews run the place, and that Palestinians are third class citizens. They have been unable to win with that policy. And what happened on October 7th is just the latest manifestation of Palestinian resistance – which is another way of saying Palestinian nationalism. 

Blindness of foreign policy elites spells more trouble ahead

What’s really amazing is the foreign policy elite does not seem to have gotten the message. There’s just no healthy appreciation of the power of nationalism inside the American foreign policy establishment, be they Democrats or Republicans. The end result is we are likely in the years ahead to have more trouble because of our inability to conceptualize just what a powerful force nationalism is. 

Blunt killing machines & social engineering? 

Militaries are good at breaking things [laughter]. These are giant killing machines. For anybody who spent any time in a military organization, it’s very important to understand: that’s what their good at. You want lots of people who are good at killing people on the other side. When you go to war you have these two huge organizations clashing into each other, armed to the teeth with all sorts of sophisticated weapons. And the A’s are trying to kill the B’s and the B’s are trying to kill the A’s. They’re trained to do that. Well, do you think that that military – just think of the people who will be at the front lines of that military – is gonna be good at doing social engineering in a foreign country… where nobody knows the culture, nobody speaks the language. Really? A bunch of American GIs running around in south Vietnam… what do you think that’s going to end up doing? You are more likely to get a Mai Lai massacre with Lieutenant Calley than you are… and have successful social engineering. Furthermore, even if you brought in a bunch of trained people, and you replaced those GIs with trained experts at social engineering, and you set them at the task of doing social engineering in south Vietnam or Afghanistan. Do you think they’d succeed? I don’t think so [laughter].

Think about the United States. Think about doing social engineering in our own country. Our system is broke and we can’t even fix it. But we’re going to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. …The Soviets figured this out in Eastern Europe… This is the way the world works [nationalism as the driver]… and it’s a relative recent phenomena – you don’t want to lose sight of that, but it is the most powerful political ideology on the planet. 

Permanent State of Emergency

People who don’t understand the limits of what you can do with the military… and think that we have the right and responsibility and the capability to reorder the world in our image, are going to end up creating a highly militarized society. Remember I said that in international anarchy the United States is always going to have a large military. But that’s different from saying we are always going to have a large military that’s fighting wars. That’s they key distinction you want to keep in mind. 

And what’s happened to the United States over time is that we not only have a large military but we’re fighting wars all the time. And the end result is that we’re in a permanent state of emergency… it happens to be worse now than it was two years ago or four years ago… but we’re in a permanent state of emergency… when you’re in a permanent state of emergency liberalism begins to erode in serious ways [that is, the classical Liberalism which undergirds the rise of the modern West]. …Liberalism is in my opinion under threat in the United States, and what’s quite remarkable here is that the foreign policy elite, Republicans and Democrats – that have taken us into these wars – have had a worldview that is thoroughly infused with liberal values and liberal thinking… and as I said to you… [they] missed the importance of nationalism. So these people are not anti-liberals at heart, but the policies that they are pushing this country to pursue… those policies are undermining liberalism in the end, which in my opinion is a great tragedy. 

Update (1505ET): It would appear that Hunter Biden doesn’t have a nicely arranged plea deal with the DOJ after all – as prosecutors have urged the judge in the case to reject his proposal to plead guilty.

Of note, Hunter is attempting to plead guilty via an “Alford plea,” which would have to be approved by the prosecution and higher-ups at the DOJ.

It appears they were caught off guard.

Hunter Biden attempting a bait-and-switch stunt like this via an Alford plea is a total joke. A defendant would never do this without the knowledge that he had a commutation or pardon in his back pocket. And any normal prosecutor would just laugh, reject it, and proceed to trial.

— Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) September 5, 2024

I hope the prosecutors reject this Alford plea offer. Hunter would be able to still maintain his innocence. pic.twitter.com/5Jke14RzTM

— Mary K (@MadeMeJoin2Read) September 5, 2024

Developing…

*  *  *

Hunter Biden’s lawyers announced on Thursday that the first son will plead guilty in his $1.4 million tax evasion case.

“Mr. Biden intends to change his plea this morning,” Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell told the judge in a Los Angeles federal courtroom, with the younger Biden facing trial on nine federal charges for failing to pay federal taxes from 2016 – 2019.

If convicted, Hunter faced up to 17 years behind bars. He currently faces up to 25 years behind bars when he’s sentenced in November for a conviction on gun charges.

With the potential sentence of 17 years, Hunter Biden today pleads guilty pic.twitter.com/OyJwMhYYRU

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) September 5, 2024

With the potential sentence of 17 years, Hunter Biden today pleads guilty pic.twitter.com/OyJwMhYYRU

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) September 5, 2024

Authored by Donald Jeffries via “I Protest”,

Merriam-Webster defines “democracy” as: “a: Government by the people especially : rule of the majority, b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”

Well, that sounds good. Do we have a rule of the majority? The majority of Americans, after all, about eighty percent of them, are losing in this rigged economy, and living paycheck to paycheck at best. I don’t think they’re “ruling” anything. We all (well, some of us) know that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Again, sounds good. But when’s the last time you heard about one of our tyrannical judges ruling in favor of someone invoking the 10th Amendment? Since the Constitution delineates very limited powers to the central government, this should mean that the vast majority of power in this country resides in the States, or the people.

The 10th Amendment isn’t any more popular than the 1st, the 2nd, or the 4th. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have any “hate speech,” or “gun control” laws, or no-knock SWAT team raids on private residences. It’s pretty obvious that the people don’t have any power. There are, of course, distinct differences between democracy and the constitutional republic our Founders established. But today, in the year of our Lord 2024, we don’t appear to have either in America 2.0. Plenty of taxation, but no representation. Lincoln shattered the foundational principle of our War for Independence, the consent of the governed. Millions don’t consent to this tyranny and authoritarianism. It doesn’t matter. We can’t elect better leaders. 96 percent of these horrific incumbents are returned to office every election. It’s just as bad whether that’s because of fraud, or massive stupidity on the part of the voters.

Note in the illustration above that four of the ten hands are Black. Forty percent. Blacks are twelve percent of the U.S. population. Yes, I know that any television viewer would be shocked by that. I think that more than half the actors in commercials now are Black. I don’t need to mention how overrepresented Blacks are in sports and entertainment. So, how does all this excessive interest in our second largest minority group equate with majority rule? Which is what the dictionary says “democracy” is. What does “the people” mean? In our multicultural society, which people are we talking about? There are conflicting interests among these various groups of people. But the interests of White people- who are still clinging to a majority of the population- are ignored. Or belittled. By White elites.

Ballot referendums are a pure form of democracy. The voters decide on a policy, without any representative go-between. In 1994, a very demographically different California approved Proposition 13, which would have prohibited illegal immigrants from obtaining government services. Well, what could be more reasonable than that? The beloved Bill Clinton campaigned strongly against the measure, so you know it was a good one. Under the unconstitutional concept of Judicial Review, which I examine in detail in my book American Memory Hole, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer was able to quash the measure, and thus the will of the people, a month after the proposition was approved. To today’s Left, that was “democracy.” A judge overriding the majority of the people- you know, the ones who run things under a “democracy.” Millions of illegals later, we’re probably more “democratic” than ever.

In 2008, public opinion polls showed that 95 percent or more of Americans were opposed to the banker bailout. So, this being a democracy and all, every national political leader was opposed to the will of the people, and the disastrous bailout was implemented. In the 2020 election, millions of Americans were convinced that there had been massive electoral fraud, and that Joe Biden hadn’t been honestly elected. Was it a majority of the people? Hard to tell, but certainly enough that their voices should have been heard. That’s what would happen in any “democracy.” Instead, untold numbers of protesters were imprisoned, and some are still being denied due process over three years later. Those who appeared in court were subjected to Alice in Wonderland-style kangaroo trials, and given incredibly harsh prison sentences. We are told that these “insurrectionists” were a “threat to democracy.”

We hear that a lot now; about the “threat to democracy.” Donald Trump is a threat. So are all of those who support him. And the “White Supremacists” who secretly rule the land, but are too shy to ever make their presence known, represent the “greatest threat to democracy” of all. According to the lovable hair sniffer Joe Biden, before he was deposed from office in a silent coup. Elon Musk is another “threat.” Just issuing statements in support of free speech was enough. He probably doesn’t really believe in it, but in today’s climate, just saying something against censorship is a “threat to democracy.” Apparently, censorship is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Somebody tell Webster’s to update their definition. They did it for vaccines, after all, during the COVID psyop. Robert Reich and others now want Musk to be arrested. For making comments in support of free speech. That’s a “threat to democracy.”

Disputing the vote is a “threat to democracy.” If you don’t believe it, you may find yourself being prosecuted by the state. The same state that would be responsible for rigging elections, if one can imagine such a thing. Is that any different from the Crown prosecuting someone a few centuries ago, for offenses against the king? “Hate Speech,” the Orwellian term meant to cover Thought Crimes, is also something that violates the precepts of “democracy.” Disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories, all of it is a “threat to democracy.” Only FCC approved content is allowed in this democracy, peasant. The state will eagerly censor any unapproved books about Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, 9/11 and the like. But don’t you dare touch a pubic hair between the covers of the all-time classic Gender Queer. The Left considers removing this detailed account of man-boy love from school libraries to be “book burning.”

Prior to the 2022 midterm elections, Joe Biden attempted to frame the choices as either “democracy” or “MAGA Republicans.” Political satirist Tim Young observed, “I’m not saying ‘fascism’ officially had its coming out party in America tonight… I’m just saying Biden condemned his political opponents as a threat to America and democracy set to a blood red background with the military standing behind him.” Never before had an American president demonized the opposition to such an extent. Biden was labeling half of America as “extremists.” Perhaps “insurrectionists.” So he was saying that protecting the border- as any nation must to remain sovereign- wasn’t “democracy.” Is private gun ownership part of “democracy?” So what does he and his ilk represent? Empty “Woke” rhetoric? Cancel culture? Abortion on demand?

I would love to hear a “journalist” ask Kamala Harris or Tim Walz for their definition of “democracy.” As we’ve shown, it isn’t the rule of the majority. White people, for example, are still a majority in this country, but anti-White discrimination in business and government hiring is established practice. That’s an odd way to treat the majority. You know, the ones who are in charge under a democracy. Harris, Walz, and every other leading Democrat is on the record as opposing free speech, and supporting censorship. So I guess democracy doesn’t mean free speech. Freedom of association? Nope, you’ll be branded “racist” if you say you aren’t interested in Black guys on a dating site. But you can harass Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of your restaurant. Does democracy respect privacy? Well, not if some cop asks you for your identification and you refuse, as you should under the Bill of Rights.

So what, then, is democracy? It sure isn’t what the dictionary says it is. To US leaders, who champion “our democracy” incessantly, it means sending billions to a comedian turned dictator in Ukraine, who has banned all political opposition and shut down newspapers who criticize him. Our billions are helping to “defend democracy.” Again, I’d really like to hear some Democrat define democracy. When I was a young, ACLU card carrying radical, I thought of the First Amendment when I thought of democracy. I thought of “the people” exerting their will, like Frank Capra taught me in his populist films. I thought of defending the little guy. Helping the poor. Avoiding war. Today’s Democrats defend the powerful. They don’t even notice the poor. And they haven’t opposed a war since Vietnam. To “Woke” Democrats, democracy means censorship, prosecuting your opponents, continuous war, and divisive cultural lunacy.

Benjamin Franklin described democracy as “two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for dinner.” In America 2.0 “democracy,” we have a small cartel of powerful wolves, and hundreds of millions of sheep. Despite it being a democracy, the sheep curiously have no power whatsoever. Thomas Jefferson is considered the first American Democrat, although his party called themselves the Democratic-Republicans. No modern Democrat dares to invoke Jefferson’s name, except perhaps to slander him as a “racist.” Jefferson would be a monumental “threat to democracy” in today’s world. So would all the Founders. Except Hamilton, of course. The Declaration of Independence is filled with “threats to democracy.” So is the Constitution, because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Freedom. Liberty. Independence. All of it goes against the “core values” of America 2.0.

The word “democracy” comes from the Greeks, who are credited with establishing the first such form of government. In Greek, it means “peoples power.” Remember, the great Abraham Lincoln talked about of the people, by the people, for the people. Now he was celebrating a “cause” that revolved around stopping people from practicing all that “of, by and for” stuff, with guns and cannons. But the words are beautiful. They’re just classic disinformation. If only the Fact Checkers had been around at Gettysburg. So, the way the Greeks defined it, democracy sounds a lot like populism. Remember John Lennon’s song Power to the People? When’s the last time you heard that one on an oldies station? America is the wonder of the world; a democracy where the people have no power. And if you point that out, you’ll be considered a “threat to democracy.”

To most average people, democracy means freedom. Hey, we live in a democracy. We get to vote! The vote is sacred to defenders of American “democracy.” Go ahead, pick your candidate. You have two choices. Two! Our democracy is full of choices. That’s why “pro choice” is kind of the foundation of our “democracy.” The MAGA people are a “threat to democracy” because they want women to stop having abortions. To a mere community college dropout like me, that would seem to be a good thing. But apparently not. I see all the older women, past menopause, violently confronting pro-life demonstrators. It’s as if they would love to just have an abortion for the sake of it, if they were still biologically able to. That’s a moral disfunction I can’t comprehend. And we wonder why these same angry women embrace the transgender madness? Anything but birth! That would be a “threat to democracy.”

Just searching online, it’s easy to find all the “threats to democracy.” Like “racist,” they are everywhere. Democrats have called “Republicans” in general “threats to democracy,” much as Whites in general have been castigated for their imaginary “privilege.” During the 2022 elections, many Republicans were referred to as a “threat to democracy.” And to think the best the right-wingers in the 1950s could come up with was “commies” or “pinkos.” And elections themselves appear to be a “threat to democracy.” Time magazine warned, in 2021, that “American Democracy Can’t Survive Unless the Far Right Is Marginalized. Here’s How to Do It.” So despite their “rock the vote” lust for this “precious democratic right,” today’s Left actually wants to limit your largely nonexistent “choices” further. They want you to pick between a Democrat and a RINO. Every vote counts! Don’t complain if you didn’t vote. That’s “democracy.”

We also learn that “gender imbalance” is a “threat to democracy.” Presumably, this “threat” will be mitigated if the eminently qualified Kamala Harris attains the presidency. Another “threat to democracy” is the “climate crisis.” There are currently some 2807 climate-related laws and policies all around the world. But there is a call for even more. This obsession with the “climate” meshes perfectly with the insanity of transgenderism and critical race theory. What is meant by the “climate” is unclear. For instance, the damage done to the ecosystem by the Gulf Oil spill seems not to be any kind of “crisis.” Greta Thunberg is as disinterested in that as she is in the environmental disaster in East Palestine, Ohio. Well, at least the poor residents there got some fast food, courtesy of Donald Trump. Trump going there was probably a “threat to democracy.” Buying them fast food definitely was.

Now, before you chide me by saying, don’t you know we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy? So let’s go to the dictionary again. We learn that a republic is a “form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people.” So that sounds pretty much like a democracy to me. Both stress the power of the people. But if we are a republic, then again 80 percent or more of “the people” appear to have no power, no matter what the dictionary says. So, yes, I know we are supposed to be a republic, but what we have doesn’t look like that, either. How about an oligarchy? Which the dictionary says is “a government in which a small group exercises control, esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes.” Now, that sounds familiar! Is there a better description for our society?

Well, how about plutocracy? A plutocracy is defined as “a form of government or rulership by the rich. It is a form of governance where policies and systems are geared to benefit the wealthy and powerful more than others.” Well, bingo there as well! I think we can combine the small, corrupt group of oligarchs with the plutocratic reality that all our policies are designed to benefit the rich and powerful. So what do we call that? An oligocracy? A plutoarchy? However you look at it, our system of government is much closer to an oligarchy or a plutocracy than a constitutional republic or a democracy. So Thought Criminals like us are not a “threat to democracy.” We’re a threat to oligarchy or plutocracy. “Woke” Hollywood catchphrases are not a substitute for human liberty.

So, in essence, the “democracy” today’s Democrats extol and claim to be defending is not a “democracy” by any definition of the word. The January 6 protesters felt that their votes hadn’t been honestly counted. To our “representatives,” that means they were a “threat to our democracy.” If they’d shown you didn’t count the votes honestly, your “democracy” might be overthrown. The defenders of America 2.0 democracy embrace censorship, and war, the Great Replacement, the transgender lunacy, and multitudes of illegal immigrants. And if those immigrants commit violent crimes, you better not mention it, or you’ll be as “racist” as Donald Trump. Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus for you. Your vote is precious. The troops died to preserve it. If anyone suggests otherwise, cancel them. Prosecute them. Hum the Black national anthem, click your heels three times and remember, you are defending democracy.

Update (1255ET):

Former President Trump confirmed at the Economic Club of New York that he will create the Department of Government Efficiency. 

“At the suggestion of Elon Musk, who has given me his complete and total endorsement, I will create a Government Efficiency Commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government — and making recommendations for drastic reforms.”

PRESIDENT TRUMP: “At the suggestion of @elonmusk, who has given me his complete and total endorsement, I will create a Government Efficiency Commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government — and making recommendations… pic.twitter.com/ETZcsf7qbR

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 5, 2024

Watch Trump Live

*    *    * 

Former President Trump plans to adopt Elon Musk’s proposed new commission, the Department of Government Efficiency, abbreviated as ‘DOGE.’ According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump could unveil the new government efficiency commission as early as today. 

Trump plans to unveil the government efficiency commission before he delivers a speech at the Economic Club of New York. He will tell reporters that the commission would conduct “a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government” and make “recommendations for drastic reform.” 

The commission’s primary goal is to identify ways to eliminate fraud and improper payments, according to portions of the speech viewed by journos at WSJ. 

Trump’s upcoming speech and proposed commission to address the failures of Biden-Harris’ Bidenomics, which sparked an inflation storm and financially crushed mid—and low-tier consumers, also aims at deregulation. Trump has actively championed deregulation to make the economy great again.

Musk endorsed Trump on X shortly after the failed assassination attempt on July 13. He pledged millions of dollars to a super PAC supporting causes on the right. 

Speaking with Reuters last week, the former president said he would offer Musk a position if he were seriously interested. 

” He’s a very smart guy. I certainly would—if he would do it, I certainly would,” the former president said. “He’s a brilliant guy.”

Musk and Trump first publicly discussed a government efficiency commission during a two-hour conversation on X on August 13. The conversation has received 60.4 million views so far. 

pic.twitter.com/cPUMFx9Qu5

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 13, 2024

Musk shared an AI picture last month of himself standing at a platform that read “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) and wrote on X, “I am willing to serve.”

I am willing to serve pic.twitter.com/BJhGbcA2e0

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 20, 2024

Earlier this week, Musk reiterated, “I can’t wait. There is a lot of waste and needless regulation in government that needs to go.” 

I can’t wait. There is a lot of waste and needless regulation in government that needs to go. https://t.co/BOh3MIv4sJ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 3, 2024

On X this morning, Musk responded to one user’s post about WSJ’s story. He said, “I look forward to serving America if the opportunity arises. No pay, no title, no recognition is needed.”

I look forward to serving America if the opportunity arises.

No pay, no title, no recognition is needed. https://t.co/5PSNtjBQn7

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 5, 2024

Trump also plans to say, “This election will decide whether we reward Kamala Harris with re-election and four more years of economic calamity—or whether we change direction.” 

Let’s not forget that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion to fraud annually, or about $4,000 per American household, as per The Hill. 

The Kremlin has just threatened to take over and directly occupy essentially the whole of Ukraine, extending the main theater of war far past the Donbass in the East, in a warning aimed at Washington and NATO as President Biden mulls allowing US weapons for long-range attacks deep inside Russian territory.

The fresh warning was issued by the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, who is certainly no stranger to issuing boisterous, hugely threatening statements. He told a press briefing with correspondents from TASS that a future permanent buffer zone along Russia’s southern border with Ukraine will crucial in staving off cross-border shelling and attacks.

But, he explained, if the West supplies longer range missiles to Kiev and greenlights their use on Russian soil, Russia’s military will then expand the proposed buffer zone all the way to Poland. Reuters this week has reported the Biden administration is getting closer to approving the long-range missiles the Zelensky government has been pleading for.

“Obviously, we need to create a buffer zone for the future to ensure that nothing flies in. Its size is anyone’s guess, but it should be sufficient,” he began in the Wednesday comments.

Referring to the Ukrainians, Medvedev continued, “If they wish to get long-range means of attack, such as cruise and ballistic missiles, then this buffer zone should stretch as far as Poland.”

TASS explains further of the context:

On June 13, at a meeting with frontline correspondents, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia might consider creating a buffer zone on the territory of Ukraine, if bombardments of its regions went on.

Once again Putin mentioned the subject at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on June 16. He said that Russia would consider creating a “buffer zone” on Ukrainian territory if attacks from their side continued.

In essence Medvedev just described the possibility of establishing Ukraine as a buffer zone against all of NATO, particularly its eastern flank country of Poland, which has embarked on a path of heightened defense spending of late.

In the opening months of the invasion launched in February 2022, Russian troops made it all the way to Kiev in a show of force, but by many accounts it proved a massive logistical challenge – and Russia primarily withdrew to solidify the territories of the Donbass, where the front lines are located now.

Whether Russia could actually successfully occupy the whole of Ukraine is another story, but Medvedev clearly intends to send a message of massive escalation should the White House approve long-range weapons.

Separately, on the same day as these remarks Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued the following warning: “The US has already crossed the threshold that they designated for themselves. They are being incited and [Ukrainian President] Zelensky, of course, sees this and uses it. Whoever jokes about our red lines, do not fool with our red lines. They know perfectly well what they are,” he was cited in Sputnik as saying.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers announced on Thursday that the first son will plead guilty in his $1.4 million tax evasion case.

“Mr. Biden intends to change his plea this morning,” Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell told the judge in a Los Angeles federal courtroom, with the younger Biden facing trial on nine federal charges for failing to pay federal taxes from 2016 – 2019.

If convicted, Hunter faced up to 17 years behind bars. He currently faces up to 25 years behind bars when he’s sentenced in November for a conviction on gun charges.

With the potential sentence of 17 years, Hunter Biden today pleads guilty pic.twitter.com/OyJwMhYYRU

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) September 5, 2024

With the potential sentence of 17 years, Hunter Biden today pleads guilty pic.twitter.com/OyJwMhYYRU

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) September 5, 2024

Developing…

On Wednesday Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba announced his resignation amid an ongoing major Zelensky shake-up of his cabinet – which the biggest of the war – and has involved at least seven top officials and ministers being forced out in a ‘reboot’ aimed at staving off defeat amid the Russian invasion.

The following day Ukraine’s parliament voted to appoint Andrii Sybiha as the country’s top diplomat. He will now be the international face representing Kiev to countries abroad, just as Kuleba was for two-and-a-half years of war.

Sybiha is Ukraine’s former ambassador to Turkey and had previous to that served as deputy head of the presidential office. 

The Washington Post describes of his recent experience in government: 

Sybiha, a senior diplomat, left his role as Yermak’s deputy earlier this year to serve as deputy foreign minister. He was ambassador to Turkey from 2016 to 2021, an experience that was likely seen as an asset due to the critical role Turkey plays in the war.

The same publication says he will likely accompany Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a trip to the Unites States later this month. Zelensky will be in New York for the United Nations General Assembly where he’s expected to unveil his “victory plan”.

It has been reported that this victory plan will at some point be presented to both presidential candidates Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump.

David Arakhamia, who is head of the ruling Servant of the People group in parliament, wrote on Telegram this week: “As promised, a major reboot of the government can be expected this week.” He identified that starting Wednesday there will be “lay-offs, and the day after . . . the day of appointments.”

Again, this big reboot appears a major cabinet and government reform effort toward securing greater and quicker Western support. It’s curious that the shake-up is happening just weeks before Zelensky is expected in the US.

The Washington Post recounts that “Ukraine blamed delays in U.S. support at that time for the fall of Avdiivka, a key eastern city where Ukrainian forces were outgunned. The fall of that city paved the way for Russian forces to advance steadily on the key transit hub of Pokrovsk.”

And Pokrovsk is now in Russian crosshairs. The eastern city is so vital as a key logistics hub for Ukraine that its probable collapse is likely result in Kiev finally losing the whole of Donetsk.

A suspected terror attack was attempted near the Israeli Consulate in Munich on Thursday, which resulted in the attacker being fatally wounded by police amid a huge security response.

A shootout erupted shortly after 9am after a young man was witnessed carrying a “long-barreled gun” with a bayonet attached to it in the Karolinenplatz area, near downtown Munich. Five officers were at the scene at the time and responded with gunfire. The 18-year-old shooter later identified as being a Muslim from Austria died at the scene. 

German Police said they immediately deployed 500 officers to the area on fears there could be more attackers. Authorities believe that the Israeli consulate was the target given it happened on the anniversary of the Palestinian terror attack on the 1972 Munich Olympics which killed eleven Israeli athletes. But investigators say they are still looking at the motive.

German authorities in a follow-up press briefing confirmed they are treating a shooting as a “possible attack on an Israeli institution,” according to the words State Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann. The weapon used was also revealed to be a vintage rifle.

Dr. Josef Schuster, the head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said that while the background and motive for the attack is still not fully known, “What we do know takes our breath away.” He added: There could have been a catastrophe in Munich today. I thank the police for their quick intervention.”

German police shot dead an armed assailant near the Israeli consulate in Munich, saying the incident was a “possible attack on an Israeli institution.”

Police confirmed the attacker was an 18-year-old Austrian national known to security authorities as an Islamist. pic.twitter.com/ljJXcC9f8m

— DW News (@dwnews) September 5, 2024

Spiegel news outlet reported that the gunman was already known to security authorities as an Islamist who lived in Austria’s Salzburg area near the border with Bavaria. Below is Times of Israel citing German and European media:

The suspect in a shooting near the Israeli consulate in Munich was a teenage Austrian national who was known to security authorities as an Islamist, the Standard newspaper and Spiegel news outlet report.

The suspect lived in Austria’s Salzburg area near the border with Bavaria and had recently traveled to Germany, the reports say.

“We have to assume that an attack on the Israeli Consulate possibly was planned early today,” Bavaria’s top security official, state Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann, told reporters at the scene. “It’s obvious that, if someone parks here within sight of the Israeli Consulate… then starts shooting, it most probably isn’t a coincidence.”

It turns out the consulate was closed at the time of the shooting, with diplomatic staff at the time planning to attend a memorial memorial ceremony for the 1972 attack. No Israeli personnel were hurt in Thursday’s incident.

#BREAKING Israel President says the shooting at the consulate in Munich was a terror attack after a phone call with his German counterpart pic.twitter.com/MFiwIEyxVs

— Guy Elster (@guyelster) September 5, 2024

The fact that the young Islamist was already known to German authorities raises a lot of questions about not only his ease of entry into the country from Austria, but how he wasn’t apprehended and questioned earlier. There’s also the question of how he was able to walk around central Munich for so long in broad daylight (long enough to be filmed by nearby bystanders) brandishing a large vintage gun with a bayonet.

Authored by Brett Wilkins via Common Dreams,

Palestine supporters hopeful that the United Kingdom’s announcement of a partial suspension of arms export licenses to Israel were left disappointed on Tuesday after a U.S. State Department official said the Biden administration was not considering any similar move.

Asked by CBS News national security reporter Olivia Gazis during a daily press conference if the U.K.’s decision “changed the U.S.’ position on whether international humanitarian rights have been violated” by Israel or if the U.S. is “rethinking any of its arms exports,” Miller said “no.”

“This is a decision that the United Kingdom made based on its assessments under its own laws,” he said. “We have our assessments that are ongoing when it comes to looking at possible violations of international humanitarian law, and those continue to be ongoing.”

Miller—who has admitted that the Gaza death toll could be even higher than the figure claimed by Palestinian authorities—added that there are “a number of incidents” committed by Israeli forces that “remain under review.”

Pressed by Reuters foreign policy correspondent Hümeyra Pamuk how “two countries with pretty similar values” are “looking at the same battlefield and coming with very different conclusions,” Miller said that “we have not reached conclusions.”

“We have reviews that are ongoing, and we haven’t made any final determinations or any final conclusions yet,” he continued. Miller said that the U.K. makes “their determinations based on the standard that is written in U.K. law. We will make our determinations based on the standard based in U.S. law, which I don’t think is that hard to understand.”

“We’ve said that it’s reasonable to assess that there have been violations of international humanitarian law committed,” Miller acknowledged. “What we are doing is going and looking at specific incidents to make specific judgments on those specific incidents to find if they have been remediated… what are the actions that Israel took, if any.”

“You have to answer those two questions before you can make those determinations under United States law,” he added. “That’s what we’re doing.” Asked when those assessments will be completed, Miller said, “As soon as possible.”

In addition to providing Israel with tens of billions of dollars in armed aid, the Biden administration also shields the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations by vetoing Security Council cease-fire resolutions. Experts argue this makes the United States complicit in what many jurists and scholars say is genocide. Israel is currently on trial for the crime of genocide at the International Court of Justice. Last week, Palestinians, Palestinian Americans, and rights groups asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to revisit a lawsuit accusing senior Biden administration officials of complicity in genocide.

Meanwhile, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan has applied for arrest warrants targeting Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged “crimes of causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, [and] deliberately targeting civilians in conflict.”

Khan also wants to arrest Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh, and Mohammed Deif for alleged “extermination, murder, taking of hostages, rape, and sexual assault in detention.” Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran in July. Israel also claims to have killed Deif.

Biden and members of his administration have decried Khan’s bid to arrest Israeli leaders and members of U.S. Congress from both major parties support legislation to sanction ICC officials over its prosecutor’s pursuit of warrants.

.@Olivia_Gazis asked StateSpox if the US is rethinking any arms exports to Israel after UK decision to halt some weapons

Miller: No…we have our own assessments

Gazis: Last we heard of those was in April, there’s been no updates since April

Miller: No… pic.twitter.com/SjYoaxkH7R

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) September 3, 2024

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice charged six senior leaders of Hamas—a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization—with terrorism, murder conspiracy, and sanctions evasion.

The Gaza Health Ministry said Tuesday that Israel’s 333-day assault on Gaza has left more than 145,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing. The Israeli onslaught has displaced nearly all of Gaza’s 2.3 million people and pushed much of Gaza into famine.

Instead of pursuing a different policy toward Israel amid its increasing international isolation over the Gaza war, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris—who became 2024 Democratic presidential nominee after Biden bowed out of the race in July—has flatly said she will not block any arms transfers to Israel. Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, is expected to be even more supportive of Israel if he wins a second term.

There has been much talk of the calamitous possibility that Kamala Harris will implement an unrealized gains tax if she is elected, effectively short-circuiting one of the core precepts of capitalism: the impetus for enterpreneurs to create value out of nothing, and to cash out on their own terms. Well, spoiler alert: an unrealized gains tax has a zero chance of ever happening, and would require not just Democrats but their progressive communist wing to sweep Congress to ram such a revolutionary overhaul to the US tax system, one which would almost single-handedly blow up the US economy and capital markets.

But the truth is that one doesn’t even need something as unorthodox as unrealized gains tax to crush trillions in value: merely hiking the capital gains tax would be perfectly sufficient to spark a chaotic firesale, as the UK is gradually learning.

As the FT reports, fears that the socialist UK government will raise capital gains tax in its October Budget are driving a “frenzy” of activity by business owners, property investors and shareholders, according to wealth managers and tax experts.

Last week the country’s new PM Keir Starmer, gave the strongest signal yet that the Labour administration will raise taxes to close a £22bn “black hole” in the public finances at the October 30 budget.

“There’s a Budget coming in October and it’s going to be painful,” Starmer said in a speech last Tuesday, and like any good socialist, added that “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden.”

In kneejerk response, several advisers told the FT that their asset-owning clients were “worried about potential increases in capital gains tax — particularly as Labour ruled out raising national insurance, income tax or VAT in the run-up to July’s general election.”

“It is a frenzy”, said Tim Stovold, partner at Moore Kingston Smith, an accountancy firm, who reported inquiries about selling assets, due to worries about tax rises, had rocketed since the election.

Capital gains on assets including businesses, second homes and shares are currently taxed at between 10 and 28% — lower than the 20 to 45% levied on income.

Miles Dean, partner and head of international tax at Andersen, said his clients with real estate, company shares and crypto assets had been pushing to sell them and pay tax at the existing rates for at least 18 months “ever since it became clear that Labour were going to get into power.”

The scramble to sell became a liquidation avalanche once the new cabinet made it clear what its tax plans were: Nimesh Shah, chief executive at advisory firm Blick Rothenberg, said the prime minister’s statement had prompted a “significant number of queries in the last 24 hours”.

Several clients who own businesses were pushing “through business sale transactions way in advance of when they would have, with an urgency to complete”, added Ian Cook, financial planner at Quilter Cheviot. Cook said he knew of a number of property investors who were in the “throes of liquidating property portfolios”. Most of them had started selling down their assets as soon as the new government was confirmed. Investment properties owners who had not yet started selling would find it difficult to complete before the October Budget, Cook warned.

“For both property owners and entrepreneurs, there’s a lead time. You don’t put it on eBay and then it’s gone in a week,” he said erroneously: anything will sell on eBay in a week, or even a day, if the seller is motivated enough, i.e., if the price is low enough.

Stovold agreed that some people were “losing their common sense” and looking at accelerating sales of assets that they had intended to hold for at least the next 10 years. He added that there would be tax raising benefits for the government of letting the CGT “rumours run rife”.

Overall the uncertainty was unhelpful for businesses and their owners, said Mike Hodges, partner at accountancy firm Saffery.

“Causing people to act in haste doesn’t feel like the best way to create the confidence and stability around the tax system that will encourage people to invest,” he said. “With two months still to go until the Budget, we don’t want to encourage a fire sale mentality.”

We bring that up because with exactly two months until the election, we finally got some more details on one of Kamala Harris’ primary economic policies, and it pretty much assures that the selling panic seen now in the UK will very soon jump the Atlantic.

Speaking at an event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Kamala Harris – still silent on the idea of a taxing unrealized gains – called for a 28% capital gains tax rate on people earning $1 million or more, touting it as a measure that would ensure the wealthy paid their fair share as she sought to detail her economic agenda and draw a contrast with Donald Trump.

“While we ensure that the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share, we will tax capital gains at a rate that rewards investment in America’s innovators, founders and small businesses,” Harris said Wednesday at an event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

To this date, nobody – not even the socialists – have defined what “fair” means, besides of course, some random number they believe is… well… fair.

The Democratic presidential nominee’s proposal falls short of the 39.6% rate that President Joe Biden has embraced, marking her efforts to chart an economic vision separate from the sitting president in an election in which voters’ skepticism of the administration’s handling of the economy threatens to weigh down her ticket. The current capital gains tax rate is 20%.

Harris in recent weeks has sought to roll out her agenda, seeking to convince voters to trust her on the economy and to assure them that she will work to curb the high prices that have hit US households hard under the current administration.

Her proposals have included calls for expanded tax credits for parents and $25,000 down-payment assistance for first-time home buyers. Harris plans to pay for those tax cuts by increasing the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%, imposing a minimum income tax on billionaires and quadrupling a levy on stock buybacks, according to a campaign official who spoke on condition of anonymity to detail policy discussions.

Harris has vowed to pay for all of her spending plans – of which there are plenty – with higher taxes on businesses and wealthy households.

Harris also detailed plans to expand small business tax relief for entrepreneurs. Her blueprint calls for increasing the small business tax deduction for startup costs tenfold to $50,000 from $5,000. And the vice president is setting a goal of 25 million new small business applications in the first term of a potential Harris administration, a tally that would surpass the record 19 million so far under Biden, of which the vast majority are fraudulent and meant to facilitate PPP fraud as we have explained previously on multiple occasions.

Fraudulent small business creation over the past 4 years (to illegally benefit from PPP loans) is why the US labor market is such a mess (near record downward job revisions) with the Birth/Death indicator the most inaccurate it has ever been https://t.co/PT817HXmXt

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 4, 2024

“As president one of my highest priorities will be to strengthen America’s small businesses,” Harris said, stealing even more policy promises from Donald Trump.

Harris’ policy rollout comes a little over a month after she entered the presidential race and with about two months until Election Day. The vice president has seen a surge in momentum in the polls and fundraising but is still seeking to counter Trump on the economy, an issue on which polls show voters trust the former president more.

On the campaign trail, Harris’ surrogates have sought to pitch her as a pro-business candidate to donors to assuage concerns over the Biden administration’s policies.

“Her vision is pro-capitalism, pro-innovation, pro-growth, you know, lots of employment, lots of housing. It’s just forward looking,” her husband Doug Emhoff lied to donors at an event last month, because while Kamala may lie through her teeth now, the reality remains that she was and is the kamala liberal Democrat, left even of Bernie Sanders.

Meanwhile, Trump has called for a series of tax cuts on corporations, individuals and retirees.

In any case, whoever wins the White House in November will contend with a major tax bill next year with parts of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts on households and small businesses set to expire at the end of 2025. But even before then it will get messy: the US is currently adding about $100 billion in new debt every month, which is why US debt, which just hit a record high, will surpass $36 trillion by year end.

US debt up $64 billion in 1 day to start the month of September, to a record high of $35.3 trillion.

Will be up another $1 trillion by year end. https://t.co/BSMbhUmTL6 pic.twitter.com/6ykmdbRXCG

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 5, 2024

And then there is the problem with interest expense: it was $1 billion daily before covid, $2 billion during, and $3 billion in interest on the US debt every day today. Something tells us this number will never really go down, because even if interest rates drop materially, the US will just borrow that much more…