Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Aramco IPO is Extortion on a Grand Scale

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, December 13, 2019:

Now that the IPO results are coming in, commentators are applauding it as a move away from Saudi Arabia’s near total dependence upon oil and into other ventures like real estate, tourism, entertainment, and manufacturing. Said the Wall Street Journal at the end of the first day of trading: “The public offering of the world’s most profitable company is part of a sweeping overhaul of the kingdom’s economy to invest in non-oil industries and create jobs for young Saudis.”

A closer look reveals no such thing. By nearly every metric, the Aramco IPO was a failure. It posted an initial value of the company below bin Salman’s value of $2 trillion and generated just one quarter of the $100 billion he claims he needs to bring his sand and oil empire into the 21stcentury by diversifying into entertainment, manufacturing, and tourism. By the second day, shares in the tiny Saudi-controlled Tadawul stock exchange had jumped 20 percent, but by that time the Prince was out, licking his wounds, and no doubt wondering how he was going to fulfill the promise of his Vision 2030 without the additional billions. He was also no doubt pondering just how much longer his kingdom could run double-digit billion-dollar deficits.

Aramco’s CEO put the best face he could on the fiasco:

We are happy on the results today. And you have seen the market responds to our results, the company will continue to be the leader globally when it comes to the energy sector and at the same time we are looking at sustained and growing dividends to our investors. At the same time we continue our growth strategy, increasing profitability across cycles.

On the other hand, Ellen Wald, author of “Saudi, Inc.” (a look behind the façade of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ruthless murderous oil empire), called the first day’s results a “hollow win,” adding that “The local demand from retail investors wasn’t as high as (Saudi Arabia) hoped for. The investments were almost entirely local and attracted [almost] no money from outside the region … the government had to manufacture demand [for shares].”

Just 10 percent of offers to buy came from foreign investors, according to Samba Capital, one of Aramco’s financial advisors. The rest came from threats, intimidation, pressure, and blackmail as reported in articles listed below (under Sources).

The real value of the company remains opaque. In the real world, investors can price a company through the market’s valuation of its shares. Not so with Aramco. The tiny sliver – just 1.5 percent of the company went on sale on Tuesday – means that the Prince’s empire controls 98.5 percent of the company, and, according to the fine print in the “risks” section of the 600-page prospectus made available just a week earlier, he can do pretty much whatever he wants to do with the money.

His government’s desperate need for cash to cover the deficits his kingdom has been running since 2014 forced him to demand a “special” dividend from Aramco of $20 billion last year, and to enter the bond market for the first time in history to obtain another $12 billion. His finance minister just announced that this year’s deficit is $36 billion, while the shortfall next year is expected to exceed $50 billion. The $25 billion from Tuesday’s stock offering is more likely to be absorbed by his government to sustain its welfare state spending rather than be invested in new projects.

Because most of the offering was purchased under threats, and is subject to many risks not faced by established international energy producers, the real value of those shares won’t be known for months. That’s because built into the purchase agreement is a “lockup agreement” that prohibits insiders from unloading their shares for a year. There’s another incentive to keep the share price from tumbling: individual investors who hold their shares for at least six months will receive a “bonus” share for every 10 shares they own.

Finally, the government itself has sufficient interest in keeping the company’s valuation above market that it will no doubt be more than willing step in to buy shares following the expiration of that lockup agreement to keep share prices high.

This is not a typical free market IPO, but an attempt to sell a tiny sliver of a state-owned and -controlled oil company in order to help its owners pay its bills. It’s worse than that: in order to raise the $25 billion, the prince had to resort to threats and intimidation to get his Saudi princes – the same people he locked up last year during his inquisition against their corruption – to cough up the money he needs.

This is not an investment. It is extortion on a grand scale.



The McAlvany Intelligence AdvisorSaudi Arabia’s Aramco’s “Road Show” Ends on Wednesday; Shares to be Offered a Week Later

The McAlvany Intelligence AdvisorRun, Do Not Walk, Away from the Aramco IPO

The Wall Street JournalAramco Shares Rise 10% After World’s Biggest IPO

CNBCSaudi Aramco shares surge 10% as historic IPO begins trading

MarketWatchAramco shares climb on second day to top $2 trillion valuation

CNNSaudi Aramco shares spike after historic market debut

ArabianBusiness.comSaudi budget deficit set to grow to $50bn for 2020

BloombergAramco’s Failed IPO Went Pretty Well

Economic TimesSaudi Aramco’s true value is still a mystery

Washington PostSaudi oil giant Aramco starts trading shares a week after historic IPO

What Is a Lock-Up Agreement?

CNBCSaudi Aramco prices shares at top of the range, valuing it at $1.7 trillion

Amazon: Saudi, Inc.: The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Profit and Power , by Ellen Wald

No articles for awhile

Due to my accident I won’t be writing any articles for awhile. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Please check back from time to time.

U.S. Enjoying Its New Role as World’s Largest Energy Producer

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, July 1, 2019:

There’s an old saying in sales and marketing: “There aren’t too many problems that can’t be solved by sufficient production.” Donald Trump is learning that it also applies to production of crude oil and natural gas. Sufficient production solves many problems.

For one, he delivered a clear and distinct message to Middle East oil producers when he pulled his punch last week and canceled a military response to the shooting down of a U.S. drone surveilling the Strait of Hormuz:

Keep reading…

Latest Poll Increases Pressure on Pelosi to Impeach Trump

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, June 17, 2019: 

The latest poll from NBC News/Wall Street Journal is putting increasing pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to begin impeachment proceedings against the president. It showed support for impeachment from rank-and-file Democrats increasing from 30 percent to almost 50 percent in just the last month.

The poll of 1,825 adults taken between June 8-11 showed 48 percent of Democrats supporting filing impeachment papers against the president.

Talk of impeaching the president began even before he took office. There was an effort to impeach in 2017 when the House was still in Republican hands. The bill to impeach failed by a vote of 58-364.

That was then. Now, the Democrat caucus is growing increasingly restless under Speaker Pelosi’s iron fist. A month ago, 57 House Democrats favored moving ahead with impeachment, but that number now exceeds 60 and continues to grow.

Pelosi has come down hard on anyone promoting impeachment to the press. Private conversations behind closed doors supporting impeaching are acceptable, but permission must be sought and given before any such position is expressed to the press. The Washington Post reported just how Pelosi shut down a potential impeachment explosion in May. A cowed Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, left that meeting and said, “Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it.”

But what if, in their perception, the “American people” (i.e., likely Democrat voters) change their collective mind? What then?

Pelosi clearly said on Sunday in an interview with CNN that impeachment is off the table, at least for the time being, calling the move “divisive.” She added, “You have to handle it with great care. It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”

The president is stonewalling Congressional requests and demands for additional documents as the Democrats continue their witch hunt now that the Mueller investigation is over. So Trump has put Pelosi into a delicate and dangerous position: She must somehow respond to the increasing pressure to open impeachment hearings while considering the political risk in doing so. If she makes the wrong decision, that 37-seat advantage her party currently enjoys in the House would be in extreme jeopardy next November.

She has worked behind the scenes to quell that pressure. When House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told the press that he thought impeachment was “inevitable” during a television appearance two weeks ago, Pelosi’s staff called his office and told them to have Clyburn walk it back.

Another time, when Representaive David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — one of the 60-plus Democrats now favoring impeachment — publicly expressed his views she snapped at him, telling him to soften his rhetoric, or else.

Certainly Pelosi is aware of the risks of taking on the president during this reelection cycle. As smart and politically savvy as she is, having served in Congress since 1987, surely she must know what would happen if the House does in fact impeach the president. The effort would then move to the Senate, where nothing will happen thanks to the Republican majority there.

But the trial in the Senate will include calling witnesses and obtaining testimonies about everything, including the DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of and the funding sources behind the Trump dossier, and the cover-up and destruction of e-mails that very likely include additional incriminating evidence. Witnesses will likely incriminate each other for lying to the FISA court, for spying and wiretapping the Trump election campaign, and for colluding with numerous foreign actors.

That could put Trump firmly into the White House for a second term as a result of voter backlash against Democrat petulance, temper tantrums, and hypocrisy.

Cicilline agrees with this assessment. He said that it’s only a matter of time before the number of pro-impeachment Democrats in the House grows: “In those instances where the president acts in a way where he believes that he’s above the law … additional members of the caucus will be forced into no other choice but to open an impeachment inquiry.”

So does Patrick Buchanan: “If Trump continues to defy subpoenas and denounce those who issue them … the louder will be the clamor of the Democratic base to remove Trump. At some point, Pelosi will have to go along or lose control of her rebellious caucus.”

President Donald Trump’s D-Day Speech

This may be the finest speech the man has given:

You are the greatest among us that will ever live, you are the pride of our nation, you are the glory of our republic and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts, says President Trump thanking WWII veterans.

President Macron, Mrs. Macron, and the people of France, to the First Lady of the United States, and members of the United States Congress, to distinguished guests, veterans and my fellow Americans.

We are gathered here on freedom’s altar, on these shores, on these bluffs, on this day 75 years ago, 10,000 men shed their blood, and thousands sacrificed their lives for their brothers, for their countries, and for the survival of liberty.

Today we remember those who fell and we honor all who fought right here in Normandy. They wouldn’t back this ground for civilization. To more than one 170 Veterans of the Second World War, who join us today, you are among the very greatest Americans who will ever live. You are the pride of our nation. You are the glory of our republic. And we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Here with you are over 60 veterans who landed on D-Day. Our debt to you is everlasting. Today we express our undying gratitude. When you were young, these men enlisted their lives in a great crusade – one of the greatest of all times. Their mission is the story of an epic battle and a ferocious eternal struggle between good and evil. On the 6th of June, 1944, they joined a liberation force of awesome power and breathtaking scale.

After months of planning, the Allies had chosen this ancient coastline to mount their campaign to vanquish the wicked tyranny of the Nazi empire from the face of the earth.

The battle began in the skies above us. In those first tense midnight hours, 1,000 aircraft roared overhead, with 17,000 allied airborne troops preparing to leap into the dark just beyond these trees. Then came dawn. The enemy who had occupied these heights saw the largest naval armada in the history of the world.

Just a few miles offshore, were 7,000 vessels bearing 130,000 warriors. They were the citizens of free and independent nations united by their duty to their compatriots, and to millions yet unborn.

There were the British, whose nobility and fortitude saw them through the worst of Dunkirk and the London Blitz. The full violence of Nazi fury was no match for the full grandeur of British pride. Thank you.

There were the Canadians, whose robust sense of honor and loyalty compelled them to take up arms alongside Britain from the very, very beginning.

There were the fighting Poles, the tough Norwegians, and the Intrepid Aussies. There were the gallant French commandos soon to be met by thousands of their brave countrymen ready to write a new chapter in the long history of French valor.

And finally, there were the Americans.

They came from the farms of a vast heartland, the streets of glowing cities in the forges of mighty industrial towns. Before the war, many had never ventured beyond their own community. Now they had come to offer their lives half a world from home.

This beach, codenamed Omaha, was defended by the Nazis with monstrous firepower, thousands and thousands of mines and spikes driven into the sands so deeply. It was here that tens of thousands of the Americans came. The G.I’s who boarded the landing craft that morning knew that they carried on their shoulders not just the pack of a soldier, but the fate of the world.

Colonel George Taylor, whose 16th infantry regiment would join in the first wave, was asked what would happen if the Germans stopped them, right then and there, cold on the beach, just stopped them. What would happen? This great American replied, “Why the 18th Infantry is coming in right behind us, the 26th infantry will come on too. Then there is the 2nd Infantry Division, already afloat, and the 9th Division and the 2nd Armored and the 3rd Armored, and all the rest. Maybe the 16th won’t make it. But someone will”.

One of those men, in Taylor’s 16th regiment, was Army medic Ray Lambert. Ray was only 23 but he had already earned three Purple Hearts and two Silver Stars fighting in North Africa and Sicily.

Where he and his brother Bill, no longer with us, served side by side. In the early morning hours, the two brothers stood together on the deck of the USS Henrico, before boarding two separate Higgins landing craft.

“If I don’t make it,” Bill said, “please, please take care of my family”. Ray asked his brother to do the same.

Of the 31 men on Ray’s landing craft, only Ray and six others made it to the beach. There were only a few of them left. They came to the sector right here below us. Easy Red it was called. Again and again, Ray ran back into the water. He dragged out one man after another. He was shot through the arm, his leg was ripped open by shrapnel, his back was broken, he nearly drowned, he had been on the beach for hours bleeding and saving lives. When he finally lost consciousness, he woke up the next day on a cot, beside another badly wounded soldier. He looked over, and saw his brother Bill. They made it. They made it. They made it. At 98-years-old, Ray is here with us today, with his fourth Purple Heart and his third Silver Star. From Omaha, Ray, the free world salutes you. Thank you, Ray.

Nearly two hours in, unrelenting fire from these bluffs kept the Americans pinned down on the sand, now red, with our heroes’ blood.

Then, just a few hundred yards from where I’m standing, a breakthrough came. The battle turned, and with it, history.

Down on the beach. Captain Joe Dawson, the son of a Texas preacher, led Company G through a minefield to a natural fold, in the hillside still here.

Just beyond this path to my right. Captain Dawson snuck beneath an enemy machine gun perch, and tossed his grenades. Soon, American troops were charging up “Dawson’s draw”. What a job he did. What bravery he showed. Lieutenant Spaulding and the men from Company E moved on to crush the enemy strong point on the far side of this cemetery and stop the slaughter on the beach below.

Countless more Americans poured out across this ground all over the countryside. They joined fellow American warriors from Utah Beach, and allies from Juneau, soared in Gold, along with the airborne and the French patriots.

Private First Class Russell Pickett, of the 29th division’s famed 116 Infantry Regiment had been wounded in the first wave that landed on Omaha Beach.

At a hospital in England private Pickett vowed to return to battle. “I’m going to return,” he said. “I’m going to return”.

Six days after D-Day. He rejoined his company. Two-thirds had been killed already. Many had been wounded, within 15 minutes of the invasion. They lost 19 just from the small town of Bedford, Virginia alone. Before long, a grenade left private Pickett and he was gravely wounded. So badly wounded.

Again he chose to return. He didn’t care. He had to be here. He was then wounded a third time and laid unconscious for 12 days. They thought he was gone. They felt he had no chance. Russell Pickett. Is the last known survivor of the legendary Company A. And today, believe it or not, he has returned once more to these shores to be with his comrades.

Private Pickett, you honor us all, with your presence. Tough guy.

By the fourth week of August, Paris was liberated.

Some who landed here pushed all the way to the center of Germany. Some threw open the gates of Nazi concentration camps to liberate Jews who had suffered the bottomless horrors of the Holocaust.

And some warriors fell on other fields of battle returning to rest on this soil for eternity.

Before this place was consecrated to history, the land was owned by a French farmer, a member of the French Resistance. These were great people. These were strong and tough people. His terrified wife waited out D-Day in a nearby house holding tight to their little baby girl.

The next day a soldier appeared. “I’m an American,” he said. “I’m here to help”. The French woman was overcome with emotion and cried. Days later, she laid flowers on fresh American graves. Today her granddaughter Stephanie serves as a guide at this cemetery. This week. Stephanie led 92-year-old Marion Wynn of California to see the grave of her brother Don for the very first time. Marion and Stephanie are both with us today. And we thank you for keeping alive the memories of our precious heroes. Thank you.

9,388 young Americans rest beneath the white crosses and Stars of David, laid on these beautiful grounds. Each one has been adopted by a French family that thinks of him as their own. They come from all over France to look after our boys. They kneel, they cry, they pray, they place flowers and they never forget. Today, America embraces the French people and thanks you for honoring our beloved dead. Thank you.

To all of our friends and partners, our cherished alliance was forged in the heat of battle, tested in the trials of war, and proven in the blessings of peace. Our bond is unbreakable.

From across the Earth, Americans are drawn to this place as though it were a part of our very soul. We come not only because of what they did here, we come because of who they were. They were young men with their entire lives before them. They were husbands who said goodbye to their young brides and took their duty as their fate. They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons and daughters because they had a job to do, and with God as their witness, they were going to get it done.

They came wave after wave without question, without hesitation, and without complaint. More powerful than the strength of American arms was the strength of American hearts. These men ran through the fires of Hell, moved by a force no weapon could destroy. The fierce patriotism of a free, proud and sovereign people.

They battled, not for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy, and self-rule. They pressed on for love and home and country, the main streets, the schoolyards, the churches and neighbors and families and communities that gave us men such as these. They were sustained by the confidence that America can do anything, because we are a noble nation, with a virtuous people, praying to a righteous God. The exceptional might came from a truly exceptional spirit. The abundance of courage came from an abundance of faith.

The great deeds of an army came from the great depths of their love as they confronted their fate, the Americans and the Allies placed themselves into the palm of God’s hand. The men behind will tell you that they are just the lucky ones, as one of them recently put it, “all the heroes are buried here”. But we know what these men did, we knew how brave they were, they came here and saved freedom, and then they went home and showed us all what freedom is all about.

The American sons and daughters who saw us to victory were no less extraordinary in peace. They built families, they built industries, they built a national culture that inspired the entire world in the decades that followed, America defeated Communism, secured Civil Rights, revolutionized science, launched a man to the Moon and then kept on pushing to new frontiers – and today America is stronger than ever before.

Seven decades ago, the warriors of D-Day fought a sinister enemy who spoke a 1,000-year empire. In defeating that evil, they left a legacy that will last, not only for 1,000 years, but for all time. For as long as the soul knows for duty and for honor, for as long as freedom keeps its hold on the human heart.

To the men who sit behind me and to the boys who rest in the field before, your example will never, ever grow old. Your legend will never die, your spirit, brave, unyielding and true, will never die. The blood that they spilled, the tears that they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that they made, did not just win a battle. It did not just win a war. Those who fought here won a future for our nation. They won the survival of our civilization, and they showed us the way to love, cherish and defend our way of life for many centuries to come.

Today as we stand together upon this sacred earth, we pledge that our nations will forever be strong and united. We will forever be together, our people will forever be bold, our hearts will forever be loyal, and our children and their children will forever, and always be free. May God bless our great Veterans, may God bless our allies, may God bless the heroes of D-Day, and may God bless America. Thank you. Thank you very much.

FAA to Investigate San Antonio’s Ban of Chick-fil-A From Its Airport

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, May 28, 2019: 

Officials with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced on Friday that it was opening an investigation into charges of discrimination at two airports: the Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BUF) and the San Antonio International Airport (SAT). Both have been charged with denying contracts with franchisees affiliated with Chick-fil-A based on religious grounds:

The Department has received complaints alleging discrimination by two airport operators against a private company due to the expression of the owner’s religious beliefs. The FAA’s Office of Civil Rights has notified [the airports] that it has opened investigations into these complaints….


The FAA notes that federal requirements prohibit airport operators from excluding persons on the basis of religious creed from participating in airport activities that receive or benefit from FAA grant funding.

Until now San Antonio has certainly benefited from those grants, which amount to millions of dollars annually.

Repercussions against the San Antonio airport were, justly, in the offing early on. If the FAA didn’t get involved, a lawsuit would likely have ended in Chick-fil-A’s victory. When a bill to protect companies such as Chick-fil-A from being discriminated against because of the religious beliefs of its founder and family was about to become law, David French, a senior writer for National Review, noted:

Keep reading…

China’s Trade war Expresses Sun Tzu’s Strategy Perfectly

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, May 17, 2019:

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War isn’t about war in the traditional sense. It is about defeating a stronger enemy through other means, such as deceit and the making and then breaking of treaties after the enemy has been lulled into a sense of complacency.

In China’s case, the World Trade Organization, adopted and signed on to by 124 nations in 1994, is the current best example of both China’s deceit and the making and breaking of treaties. China never intended to keep its word. It only wanted the treaty’s special dispensations in order to build its economy into the most dominant one in the world at the expense of its enemies.

And they were well on their way, thanks to America’s traitorous leadership turning its eyes away from China’s machinations.

Enter Donald Trump.

Keep reading…

Evolutionists Continue to Practice to Deceive

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, April 12, 2019: 

Sir Walter Scott’s romantic poem Marmion tells the story (set in the year 1513) of how Lord Marmion lusts after Clara, a rich woman. He forges a letter accusing Clara’s fiancé of treason. Things go haywire from there, leading to the quote that applies to evolutionists in our day and time: “Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Evolutionists, particularly paleontologists, have had a rough go promoting their religion of evolution. History is filled with examples of their fraud and deceit, some of which later turn up to be positively laughable.

Take, for example, the skull found in a quarry in the United Kingdom in 1912 by Charles Dawson that “proved” the existence of the “missing link” between apes and man, the Piltdown Man. It was a fraud. The skull was bleached and weathered to make it look like it was 500,000 years old.

Or take this as another: In the 1920s, a Nebraska rancher, Harold Cook, found a tooth which evolutionists claimed proved that man descended from apes. The tooth allegedly belonging to Nebraska Man turned out to belong to a pig.

And then there’s perhaps the greatest fraud ever perpetrated: Beringer’s Lying Stones. Beringer, the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Wurzburg, Germany, in 1725 discovered pieces of limestone carved into the shape of various animals such as lizards, frogs, and spiders in their webs. On some of them were engraved the name of God in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew.

Beringer bought the lie (they had been planted by two of Beringer’s associates as a gag) and published a book describing them. So gullible was Beringer that, upon noticing that they had been carved, he claimed it was the finger of God: “The figures … seem to bear the unmistakable indications of the Sculptor’s knife.”

Little has changed. Last week, Nature magazine – totally given over to promoting the religion of evolution – announced a new discovery: paleontologists digging in a cave in the Philippines for the past three years have found evidence of a “previously unreported hominin species.” They named it after the island where the Callao Cave is located, Luzon: Homo Luzonensis.

What French paleontologist Florent Detroit and his fellow diggers found were some hand and foot bones, part of a thigh bone, and some teeth from what they claim originally belonged to two adults and a child. They were unable to perform DNA testing, but they did perform something called “uranium-series testing,” which allegedly measures the rate of radioactive decay over time. It works like an hourglass: they assume a certain level of radio isotopes at the moment of birth, calculate the rate at which they decay over time (the rate at which sand granules fall through the middle of the hourglass), and then they have the proof they need to date the age of the bone and tooth fragments. By working backwards, they concluded that these H. Luzonensis hominins lived between 50,000 and 67,000 years ago.

That’s good to know because no one in the party of diggers was there at the time. But that didn’t deter Detroit from celebrating the “discovery”:

We recognized [those fragments] almost immediately as hominin. The molars were so tiny, so small. The pre-molars had two or three roots.


I thought: Uh-oh, this is clearly a human-like something.

According to Nature, the creatures’ teeth, toes, and finger bones appeared to combine various aspects of other hominins, of which there are five: Homo sapiens, Denisovans, Neanderthals, Homo naledi, and Homo floresiensis (which is nicknamed the “hobbit species” for its small stature and big feet).

There are lots of questions about the find, according to the good professor Detroit: where did they come from, how long did they live there, and how did they support themselves (Luzon is an island!), and so on:

We don’t know how they got to Luzon. They crossed the ocean, but we don’t know when and we don’t know how, but they did it a long time ago.

The mystery follows from the assumption that hominins first appeared in the fossil record about six or seven million years ago in Africa, and, according to Nature, “the earliest hominin fossils in Eurasia are about 1.8 million years old.” So this new discovery disrupts everything they think they know about humanity’s origins, and “will no doubt ignite plenty of scientific debate” over it.

Missing from that debate, however, will be anything that questions the validity of this discovery, its underlying assumptions, or the long history of paleontology’s frauds and deceptions used to market the theory of evolution.

The primary issue is the questionable validity of radiometric dating upon which the discovery depends. Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney, Australia, and currently serves as Director of Research for Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization that, according to its founder, Ken Ham, “believes the Bible from the very first word.” Snelling writes that “the reliability of radiometric dating is subject to three unprovable assumptions that every geologist must make when using the radioactive ‘clock.’” The first assumption is about the conditions at “time zero.” The second is that the bones haven’t been tampered with or contaminated over time. The third is that the granules of sand falling through the hourglass (the rate of radioactive decay) fall at the same rate over time.

Snelling notes how far off radiometric dating is with two recent examples: the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1986 and a similar eruption of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand less than 50 years ago. Radiometric dating of lava flows from Mount St. Helens showed them to be 350,000 years old, while the same tool used to date lava flows from Mt. Ngauruhoe claimed they were 133 million years old.

The Creator of the universe does not suffer these fools gladly. David wrote in Psalm 14, verse 1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”



Marmion: “Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive”

Background on Scott’s Poem Marmion

NaturePreviously unknown human species found in Asia raises questions about early hominin dispersals from Africa

Background/history of Nature magazine

Wall Street JournalFossil Evidence of New Human Species Found in Philippines


Popular Mechanics9 Fossils and Finds That Were Total Fakes

AnswersInGenesis.comRadiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

Bio on Dr. Andrew Snelling

Background on Johann Beringer’s lying stones

History of Paleontology

Psalm 14:1 

High Noon in Venezuela

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 22, 2019: 

High Noon wasn’t supposed to arrive in Venezuela until Saturday, the deadline announced by the country’s interim president for foodstuffs and medical supplies to begin entering his starving and suffering country. But on Friday morning, Venezuelan officials reported that a woman was killed and a dozen more wounded in a clash between Maduro’s military and people from an indigenous community near Cucuta, Colombia.

On Thursday Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Nicolas Maduro closed the three likely entry points for aid: the Tienditas bridge into Cucuta, Colombia; the country’s entire southern border with Brazil; and all sea and air links on the northeast coast that serves the island of Curaçao, a staging area for some of that aid.

Maduro’s opposition, Juan Guaido, is headed for Cucuta at this writing to drum up support for moving that aid across the border. Also headed for Cucuta is Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin Group, who is planning a massive rally dubbed Venezuela Aid Live for Friday night. It is estimated that some 250,000 people are expected to attend that event, featuring many local and regional stars, performers, and personalities.

If there is going to be a High Noon, it is likely to be there.

This is what is known:

More than 200 tons of food and supplies have arrived at the three staging areas, mostly from USAID via U.S. cargo planes;


At least 30 buses are headed for the border from Caracas to help move the aid inland;


The Branson concert could turn into a recruiting tool for volunteers to move the supplies onto those buses;


There is a network of aid stations leading into Caracas which will disperse the food and supplies to locals;


There is enough food to provide for those in critical need for a few weeks;


Russian President Vladimir Putin says that American troops are already in Colombia, ready to assist if and as needed to get the aid into Venezuela;


Elliot Abrams, President Trump’s Special Representative for Venezuela, is in Bogota, presumably waiting for his marching orders from Washington;


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is persuaded that Maduro’s military will stand down in the face of Guaido’s efforts: “Saturday’s the day when we’re going to find a lot about the Maduro regime. I have reason to believe that rank-and-file military are not going to violently suppress aid workers”;


Maduro is in daily contact with Putin over the crisis with potential strategies in dealing with the crisis remaining unclear;


There are at least 15,000 Cuban “advisers” imbedded in Maduro’s military, many of them responsible for targeting dissidents which has resulted in “a massive purge of Venezuelan military officers over the last two years”, according to Rubio; and


While rejecting the aid from the U.S. Maduro recently accepted some 300 tons of aid from the United Nations.

What isn’t known is if Maduro will fold and allow the aid into his country. The confrontation taking place in Cucuta puts him into an untenable position: If he caves and orders his military to stand down and let the aid flow through to his people, he delivers the message that his regime has failed to feed its people after all. If he orders them to stand tall and resist, using deadly force if necessary, he will confirm the opinions of the more than 50 countries already aligned against him and his repressive Marxist regime that he really is a criminal and a thug after all and needs to be removed, with extreme prejudice if required.

The Wall Street Journal put the matter well:

The aid showdown puts in stark relief the choice in Venezuela between a dictator who wants to block aid for the people, and the Guaido government that wants to deliver it.

It’s High Noon in Venezuela.

Guy Smith Blows Up Giffords’ “Gun Laws Scorecard”

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, February 11, 2019: 


The phrase “lies, damned lies, and statistics” reflects the use of various mathematical means to achieve foul ends. Giffords Law Center has engaged in it for years, and Guy Smith has caught up with them.


With a background in quantitative management and a nose for fraud and deceit, he took up the cause of debunking gun controllers’ misinformation, such as that from Giffords. Smith has no vested interest on either side of the issue, and apparently has no bias. He claims that he:


is not a member of any organization – not the NRA, not Everytown for Gun Safety, not the Second Amendment Foundation, not the Brady Campaign. Nada. Someone once bought [me] a membership in the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and [I] immediately demanded to be removed from their membership roster.


He is the editor of Gun Facts, and claims that “we are neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. We are pro-math and anti-B.S.”


Last year he took on the task of debunking Giffords’ latest scorecard, and, after doing much digging, he concluded:


Just when you think people could not be more deceitful, they somehow manage.


And by “deceitful” I mean Giffords Law Center and their rather ridiculous state-by-state scorecard on gun control policy, wherein they attempt to convince an unwary public that guns lead to mayhem.


His major takeaways included:


“Strong” gun control is associated with higher rates of violent crime (homicides, assaults, and rapes;

They handily omitted Washington D.C., which has very high violent crime rates;

They included suicides (which we know are not a gun issue);

They don’t cite sources for their data; and

Their grading scheme for the “strength” of gun control laws is 100% opaque.


What he found was that Giffords included all forms of gun deaths in their states’ tallies: legal interventions and justifiable homicides as well as suicides.


What Smith found applies as well to Giffords’ latest attempt to use incomplete statistics in its latest Annual Gun Laws Scorecard released last week. Consider its ranking of Wyoming, a state that historically has allowed its citizens maximum freedom in exercising their Second Amendment rights:


In 2018, Wyoming legislators put their constituents at risk by enacting a dangerous Stand Your Ground law and passing legislation allowing people with concealed carry permits to bring guns into places of worship.


The state has very weak gun laws and a remarkably high gun suicide rate. Wyoming could save lives by, among other things, passing universal background checks and imposing waiting periods on gun purchases.


On the other hand, it ranks California as its “best state” in its rankings:


California continued to strengthen its already strong gun laws in 2018 by, among other things, raising the minimum age to purchase and manufacture guns and broadening its domestic violence laws.


To uphold its role as a leader in gun violence prevention, California should also substantially increase its investment in violence intervention programs, restrict bulk firearm purchases, and regulate the sale of homemade “ghost gun” components.


Giffords chastised Mississippi for being its “worst state”:


Mississippi did not pass any new gun safety laws in 2018. The state has one of the highest gun death rates in the nation and correspondingly weak gun laws.


To raise its grade and save lives, Mississippi should, among other things, pass universal background checks, prevent domestic violence offenders from accessing firearms, and repeal its dangerous permitless carry law.


It congratulated Florida for being the “most improved” state in its survey:


Florida significantly raised its grade in 2018, from an F to a C-. After the mass shooting in Parkland in February, the state legislature passed a package of gun safety bills that included an extreme risk protection law, a higher minimum age for buying firearms, and stronger waiting periods.


To save more lives and further raise its grade, Florida should adopt universal background checks and regulate military-style weapons and magazines.


Its scorecard then purported to show that where the Second Amendment was honored, “gun deaths” soared while those with strict limitations infringing on it were much lower. Therefore, mission accomplished: more gun laws are needed to reduce “gun deaths.” It called it an “undeniable correlation”: “Annual state gun deaths per 100,000 people [are] grouped by grade. Gun deaths tend to increase as grades weaken.”


Therefore it follows that Giffords’ proposals should be adopted by any state that wants to reduce those so-called “gun deaths”: background checks into every transfer of a firearm including transactions between private individuals and ERPOs (extreme risk protection orders) or “red flag” laws.


Two years after Gabby Giffords, a liberal Democrat (Freedom Index rating of 14 out of 100 based on her five years’ voting record in the House) from Arizona, was nearly killed by a gunman, she and her husband founded Americans for Responsible Solutions. It was merged into the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in 2017 and changed its name simply to Giffords.


Its attack on gun rights is in three parts: a lobbying arm, a super PAC, and a research arm which publishes its Annual Gun Law Scorecard.


Giffords’ attempt at complete transparency failed, as this writer discovered doing his own research. Said Giffords:


The attorneys at Giffords Law Center spend the year tracking and analyzing gun legislation in all 50 states, evaluating bills for their relative strength or weakness.


Taking note of newly enacted laws, we use an exhaustive quantitative rubric to score each state on its gun law strength, adding points for safety regulations like universal background checks and extreme risk protection orders and subtracting points for reckless policies like “Stand Your Ground” and permitless carry laws.


We then rank the states, convert point totals to letter grades, and compare our findings to the most recent gun death rates released by the CDC.


Year after year, our research yields the same conclusion – stronger gun safety laws lead to lower gun death rates.


The latest report from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – see Sources below) reveals the following data for 2016 (the most recent available): total deaths “by firearms”: 38,658. “Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms”: 22,938.


That means, for starters, that Giffords is “off” by nearly 60 percent. As Smith noted, “almost all [suicides] are committed with legally acquired handguns (no assault weapons or extra capacity magazines required).”


Next up is how Giffords breaks down the 40 percent of homicides committed with a firearm: they don’t. Not a word. Nothing about firearms-assisted suicides increasing following the financial crisis. Nothing about the increase of gun violence in inner cities as drug cartels were shifting their concentration from marijuana to opioids like fentanyl. And of course nothing was said about DGUs (defensive gun uses) in the United States.


Estimates of DGUs vary, from 50,000 to nearly 5 million every year. Most estimates are likely to understate how often a citizen is able to prevent a crime by the mere presence of a legally owned firearm. As John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, noted, “In many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished and no one is harmed [and so] many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.”


If Giffords had its way, there would be at least two disastrous results: First, gun violence would increase sharply as the law-abiding population would be disarmed; and second, only criminals and the state would have firearms. Is it possible to believe that Giffords doesn’t know that it’s rigging its scorecard and that its goal would be a military dictatorship in the U.S. as a result?



How statistics and used and abused

Giffords Law CenterAnnual Gun Law Scorecard 2019

Guy Smith at Gun FactsGifford’s Goof

Giffords Law Center website

Background on Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Background on Giffords organization

Giffords’ Mission Statement

Background on Gabby Giffords

Gabby Giffords’ Freedom Index rating: 14/100

Gun FactsSuicides and Guns

Gun FactsGun Deaths: Meaningless Metric

Gun FactsHigh Gun Death Perspectives

Background on defensive gun use (DGU) in the US

Background on Guy Smith, editor of Gun Facts

CDC.govNational Vital Statistics Reports  Volume 67, Number 5 July 26, 2018   Deaths: Final Data for 2016

Background on the CDC

SafetyLit.orgHow did we get here? Heroin and fentanyl trafficking trends: a law enforcement perspective

Keep reading…

What Recession? Jobs, Manufacturing, Consumer Sentiment All Up in January

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 1, 2019: 

Three reports released on Friday were good news for everyone involved in the U.S. economy, except for forecasters who once again underestimated its strength. From the Department of Labor came news that in January the economy gained 304,000 new jobs, far exceeding “expert” predictions of 172,000. And even that blowout number failed to appreciate just how strong the economy really is as it overcame both the normal post-holiday layoffs and the partial shutdown of the federal government.

And that job growth is getting stronger, not weaker. The economy has added an average of 241,000 new jobs a month since November, one of the best stretches during the nearly 10-year-old economic expansion. And job gains in 2018 were the strongest in three years.

Omair Sharif, an economist at French banking firm Société Générale, nailed it:

Keep reading…

Brookings Says a Quarter of U.S. Jobs To Be Automated Soon

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, January 25, 2019:  

The report from the Brookings Institution released on Thursday drew lots of attention, most of it positive. Its conclusions were condensed into a single sentence: “Approximately 25 percent of U.S. employment (36 million jobs in 2016) will face high exposure to automation in the coming decades.”

In the past this was cause for much hand-wringing and calls for more government training for people working in low-skilled positions to prepare them for the brave new world of automation and artificial intelligence. Instead what is remarkable is how the U.S. economy is adapting to the changes taking place, and preparing for more of them in the very near future.

Kiosks are replacing order takers in half of the MacDonald’s restaurants. But instead of laying off employees, the workers are being trained to offer additional services to their customers, such as in-person delivery of orders to their tables.

Online grocery ordering is providing workers the opportunity to do the shopping for their customers, aided by robots telling them where the items are located that are being requested. Further, those robots continually scan the shelves for outages, which are then relayed electronically to the back room for restocking. This technology also allows unloading to take less time and be more efficient, placing items in convenient stacks for quicker restocking.

Those collecting online orders are testing new computer glasses that tell where the items desired are located so that they don’t have to use their smartphones. At present Walmart has 18,000 personal shoppers who fill online orders — jobs that didn’t even exist just a few years ago.

Short-haul autonomous trucks are freeing up drivers for other tasks, often higher paid. The Amazon Go store in Seattle is now fully operational after a year of testing by its employees. Shoppers enter by scanning their Amazon Go app at a turnstile, which opens the door. When an item is pulled from the shelf it is added to that shopper’s virtual cart. Shoppers have commented that it feels like stealing, until the bill appears on their phone as they leave.

Cooks in fast-food and fast casual restaurants are becoming more efficient as robots help prepare the meals. Matt O’Brien, reporting for AP News, explained how it works in a fast casual restaurant in Boston:

Push a touch-screen menu to purchase a $7.50 meal called “Hearth.” A blend of Brussels sprouts, quinoa, kale and sweet potatoes tumbles from hoppers and into one of the pots. The pot heats the food using magnetic induction, then tips to dunk the cooked meal into a bowl. Water jets up to rinse it off before a new order begins.

Hotels are going robotic with facial recognition technology being matched with robots carrying guests’ luggage to their rooms and giving advice on restaurants and near-by theatre showings. At Sheraton’s Waikiki resort, the staff is being trained on “Mobile Key,” which lets guests check in and gain access to their rooms without ever having to use a key card or speak to a check-in clerk at the front desk.

Where robots fail is with interpersonal relationships and judgments based on past experience. For instance, Best Buy has begun to offer a free in-home consultation service where sales people will sit with customers and make recommendations on setting up a home office or designing a home theatre system.

The fears generated by reports such as this from Brookings have largely been placated by the remarkable ability of the U.S. economy to adapt, and the laws of the free market to operate. New jobs always emerge to replace those that have been lost to technology. Automation raises worker productivity, which translates into lower costs and prices to customers for goods and services. Lower prices translate into higher demand, requiring more workers to fulfill it. Customers can now afford to buy more products than before, which then creates new jobs for workers to fill.

For proof, just check the latest unemployment claims for last week, which hit a low not seen in decades. If automation and artificial intelligence cost jobs, those claims should be increasing, but they aren’t. Instead of viewing the Brookings Institute’s report with foreboding, it should instead be considered as a positive harbinger for higher standards of living for everyone participating in the remarkable U.S. economy.

Maduro’s Second Six-Year Term Won’t Last Six Months

This article was published by the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, January 16, 2019:

This writer is happy to declare that his prediction (see Sources below) about Maduro’s longevity appears to be dead wrong. Washington has just issued credible threats that it will turn off Maduro’s cash flow by prohibiting exports of crude from his state-owned PdVSA oil company to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

Last Friday, this writer thought that Maduro could not only remain as Venezuela’s dictator for another six-year term, but for as long as he wished. Now his tenure is likely to be measured in months.

An unnamed White House official told the Wall Street Journal on Monday that, “until now, we have been going around the edges. Now, it’s a new dynamic: we are no longer going to be tinkering around the edges.”

Earlier the Journal pointed out that

Keep reading…

What Can One Person Do In the Freedom Fight? Ask Kevin Shaw.

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, December 31, 2018:  

In his freshman year at Pierce College, Kevin Shaw joined YAL – Young Americans for Liberty – and decided to get active. He stood on the sidewalk in the middle of the sprawling community college campus serving Los Angeles and started passing out copies of the United States Constitution.

It didn’t take but about an hour for the administration to shut him down. He was violating the board’s “free speech zone” mandate: Shaw could only exercise his First Amendment rights inside a 616 square foot rectangle at the edge of the 426-acre campus. And only if he obtained permission to do so first. The enforcers gave him another option: if he didn’t like the rule, he could leave the campus.

Shaw stayed and grew a backbone. He had enough knowledge to know that his rights had been violated and he began to seek help. He found FIRE – the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education – and they helped him find his voice. FIRE – a foundation founded in 1969 by a libertarian professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Alan Kors, to provide support for students like Shaw who felt their First Amendment rights had been violated – filed suit.

FIRE’s director of litigation, Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, explained:

Keep reading…

Government Shutdown? What Government Shutdown?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, December 26, 2018: 

The three Washington Post writers lamenting on Saturday the Trump government shutdown complained that it is forcing 400,000 federal employees to keep working without pay. While they were at it, they griped that Trump had the audacity to pull a few thousand American troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, resulting in the resignation of his Secretary of State, Jim Mattis. They grumbled that the decline of stocks on Wall Street presaged an economic recession in 2019. They moaned that dozens of federal agencies were going to be losing their funding. And all because President Trump got grumpy over not getting from Congress a paltry one-fifth of the money he needs to build his wall.O, woe is me.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson said that “a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies,” so let’s review the Post’s half-truths.

Keep reading…

IRS Enforcement Arm Continues to Shrink

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 12, 2018:

Complaints over lack of sufficient funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) often appear at this time of year, just as taxpayers are beginning to focus on readying their tax returns due in April. This year is no exception. Whining over insufficient funding began with Dennis Ventry, the chairman of the IRS Advisory Council (IRSAC), who complained on Monday that Trump’s tax reform had created a “nightmare” for the agency. He lamented: “[IRS] personnel had to work on reform this year when they otherwise would have been working on something else. So, in some respects, it was a lost year.”

That lost year, Ventry opined, cost the federal government billions in taxes owed but not collected. And it’s all because Congress keeps cutting the IRS budget. As a result, the IRS now employs about 24,000 fewer full-time agents than it did back in 2010 (now down to a scant 76,000), with most of those cuts (17,000) coming from the tax-enforcement arm. Ventry estimates that the agency was unable to collect somewhere between$58 billion to $84 billion over the last eight years due to those cuts.

ProPublica and the Atlantic picked upon the agency’s troubles and co-published a 20-page defense of the agency,recounted its woes, and suggested that Congress (Republican-controlled, that is) was derelict in its duty to fund the agency sufficiently to collect all the taxes that were due. 

They moaned that the rich were getting away with underpaying massively while those remaining enforcement agents were going after the little guy — the taxpayer who was so poor that he claimed the“earned income tax credit” (EITC) — without mentioning that the EITC has spawned an industry fraught with fraudulent advisors helping people who don’t qualify to get the benefit anyway.

They griped that the agency’s staff had been so emasculated that it didn’t have the resources to go after “nonfilers”or those who filed but didn’t include a check for what they owed. They lamented that agents didn’t go after those taxpayers hiding funds in overseas accounts because it took too long — up to three years — to find them, tax them, and collect the amounts due.

They warned that the agency is now so weak that word is likely to get out, that cheaters will multiply, knowing that the chances of their getting caught continue to diminish: “The IRS conducted 675,000 fewer audits in 2017 than it did in 2010, a drop in the audit rate of 42 percent.” They predicted that the damage done to the agency over the past eight years is so severe that it might not ever recover: “Agency veterans wondered whether the damage of the past several years will ever be undone. And they had a greater worry: that the American public will inevitably realize how weak the IRS has become.”

Little was mentioned in the jointly published defense that most of the damage done to the agency was self-inflicted. Think Lois Lerner. Think John Koskinen. It was Lerner who directed the branch of the agency that targeted conservative groups seeking tax exemption. It was Koskinen who took over the agency just after the scandal was made public and hid Lerner’s e-mails, destroyed them, and then lied about it to Congress.Impeachment papers were prepared by the House Oversight Committee, which accused him of failing to prevent the destruction of evidence in allowing the erasure of backup tapes containing thousands of e-mails written by Lerner, and of lying to Congress. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman, said that Koskinen “failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena, documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled.”

Neither of these miscreants was ever charged, convicted, or sentenced, and today they remain free to enjoy their retirement pensions from the government.

Of course, targeting wasn’t a new thing under Obama. Previous presidents used the tactic to attack their enemies as far back as FDR. Said Roosevelt’s son Elliott, “My father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.”

Included in the impeachment papers prepared for President Nixon (before he resigned) was this: “RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon … endeavored to … cause, in violation of the constitutiona lrights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

The agency may be underfunded. It may not have enough agents to prepare themselves for questions arising from taxpayers over Trump’s tax-reform act. It may be leaving money on the table as a result. But at bottom, the agency not only has brought this upon itself by its past and recent unconstitutional behaviors, it also violates the principle that what a person earns he has a right to keep. Instead, through withholding, the government stands in front of the taxpayer to get its share first, allowing the taxpayer to keep what is left. There is no sympathy from this corner. The damage done was done by the agency itself.

Trump’s Judges Starting to Repair Damage Done to the Constitution by Liberals

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, December 12, 2018: 

One of candidate Donald Trump’s most important campaign promises was that, if elected, he would install conservative judges who treat the Constitution with the respect that it deserves. He has been keeping his promise, having nominated 154 federal judges, 84 of whom have already been confirmed. This is more than any of his five most recent predecessors, including the unlamented Obama administration. President Obama managed to get 329 federal judges confirmed, but it took him eight years to do it.

Now the most recent judges are beginning to undo the damage done to the Constitution by the liberal judges. Take the case of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc., which sued New Jersey’s state attorney general over the state’s recent law limiting possession of magazines to those capable of holding 10 rounds or less.

The case was heard by a three-judge panel of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where New Jersey’s law was upheld in a split decision: 2-1. The majority opinion was written by one of Obama’s appointees, Patty Shwartz:

Dissenting from the opinion was one of Trump’s newly-minted appointees, Stephanos Bibas. Bibas is a brilliant legal mind who is not only the 15th most cited law professor by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and numerous state high courts, but also the 5th most-cited professor of criminal law and procedure by professors teaching in law schools around the country.

Bibas assumed office on November 20, 2017 and took advantage of his appointment to the three-judge panel to excoriate Shwartz’s opinion and lay the groundwork for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Bibas built his case around the backhanded treatment the Second Amendment received by the majority in the case. The majority was in sync with anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety, which brought in its attorneys to defend New Jersey’s AG in the case.

Bibas’s dissent runs 19 pages (see Sources below, starting at Page 44) and makes interesting reading for those wanting to know how the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment liberal majority reasons, and how that thinking relegates that amendment to second-class status. Here, however, Bibas’s carefully-selected comments will suffice to make the point. Bibas opened his dissent declaring that “the Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our [your] own sense of wise policy.”

He not only provided a defense of the Second Amendment that obliterated Schwartz’s opinion, but prepared the case for appeal to the Supreme Court. In essence, Bibas did the Supreme Court’s homework on the case should the high court decide to review it on appeal. Here are just a few of the salient points Bibas made in his exterpation of the majority opinion in the New Jersey case:

[blockquote]The Second Amendment provides a right to “keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. It protects possessing arms, not just firing them. So the majority misses a key part of the Second Amendment. The analysis cannot turn on how many bullets are fired….

New Jersey has not met its burden to overcome intermediate scrutiny [the state must prove the ban serves an “important” public interest], let alone strict scrutiny [the state must prove the ban serves a “compelling” public interest]. True, the government has a compelling interest in reducing the harm from mass shootings. No one disputes that. But New Jersey has failed to show how the ban advances its interest….

The majority’s concerns are understandable. Guns kill people. States should be able to experiment with reasonable gun laws to promote public safety. And they need not wait for mass shootings before acting. The government’s and the majority’s position may thus be wise policy. But that is not for us to decide. The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly told us not to treat it differently.[/blockquote]

In this specific case, Bibas was in the minority. But he has done his homework in the event the Supreme Court takes the case on appeal. He was one of the judges on the Federalist Society’s approved list of constitutionalists for the president to consider who are now being tasked with the job not only of correcting the majority when they go astray, but restoring the Constitution (and the Second Amendment) to its rightful place in American jurisprudence.

The damage inflicted to that precious document by liberal judges appointed by the likes of Clinton, Bush, and Obama is substantial, but with judges like Bibas now at work repairing the damage, there is hope of its restoration. If the high court reviews this case, Bibas’s brilliant and insightful defense will no doubt aid it in overturning the Third Circuit’s weak and intellectually deficient decision.



USAToday.comPresident Trump’s conservative court shift may slow down as liberal judges avoid retirement

Ammoland.comThird Circuit: Second Amendment is a Second Rate Right


Background on Judge Bibas

President Obama’s judicial appointment controversies

Who’s to Blame for the Decline on Wall Street?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, December 10, 2018:  

Following a volatile week in the stock market, President Trump met with his advisors to see if his Twitter account had anything to do with it. It is hoped that Trump’s original diagnosis remains in play: It’s Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed and his Keynesian sycophants on the Federal Open Market Committee (and not Trump’s Twitter account), who thinks it’s time to slow down the Trump train.

Some have opined that that decision was made more than a year ago when the Fed started raising interest rates an inch (25 basis points) at a time. Others think it was September 2017 when the Fed began shrinking its Adjusted Monetary Base with a vengeance. According to the FRED chart provided by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank (see Sources below), on September 12, 2017 the AMB was $4.0 trillion. On November 21, 2018, it had shrunk to $3.5 trillion, a 12.5 percent decrease in the single most important ingredient a capitalist economy needs to survive and thrive: capital. In simpler terms, the Fed has been stepping on Trump’s economy’s oxygen hose for more than a year, and the results are just now showing up.

Pundits have been peering into every other conceivable corner for the culprit(s) to blame for the ferocious decline: shrinking housing and auto sales, rising credit card debt delinquency rates, rising oil and gas prices, slowing of job growth and capital investment, the accusations leveled at Chinese companies trying to break into technology service providers here in the U.S., the appearance of “yield curve inversions,” and so forth.

The appearance of so-called “death crosses” (the 50-day moving average falling below its 200-day moving average) in the major averages have no doubt triggered more volatility. Algorithms have driven trading by computers (program and high-frequency trading) to up to half of all stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange. This leaves money managers and individual investors behind, forcing them to the sidelines to wait for calmer times.

Who is the real culprit behind this volatility in stocks? The well-informed have been pointing to the actions of the Federal Reserve as the prime driver, focusing on its determination to slow the economy by raising interest rates. For example, the insider bank Goldman Sachs said in late November: “The FOMC [the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee] will likely be reluctant to stop [raising interest rates] until it is confident that the unemployment rate is no longer on a downward trajectory….” In other words, the Fed is determined to keep on raising interest rates until the economy is so weak that unemployment starts to increase!

That oxygen starvation is now showing up in the various places pundits are looking to place the blame: anything that affects the financial wellbeing of the economy. As interest rates rise and money supply shrinks (the two most powerful tools the Fed is using to slow the economy), housing starts slow, car sales dwindle, credit card payments increase, profit margins decline, and capital expenditure projects are taken off the board as being no longer profitable enough to be justified.

Add to this the toxic blend of mixed messaging from the White House over the China trade talks, the incipient arrival of the Mueller investigation’s findings into Trump’s alleged misdoings, the threats being ramped up against the president by the Democrats salivating over their power to investigate when they take control of the House in January, and one wonders that Wall Street has any buyers left at all.

What about the economy? Does the “yield curve inversion” signal a recession in six months or so? Not according to Joseph Haubrich, an economist and a consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. In April 2006 Haubrich was tasked with answering the question, “Does the Yield Curve Signal Recession?” His answer:

Evidence since the early 1990s suggests that the relationship between the yield curve and [future economic] growth has shifted, if not disappeared….

Speculating on whether or not the yield curve is truly predicting a recession remains exactly that: speculation.

Evidence continues to pour in regarding the health and strength of the U.S. economy. The latest reports from the Institute for Supply Management on both the manufacturing and services sectors of the U.S. economy confirm that health and strength. The latest jobs report, coming in below expectations for the first time, shows remarkable strength considering the shrinking pool of capable and skilled workers so desperately needed in the increasingly technology-driven U.S. economy. Oil and gas prices will continue to trend lower worldwide thanks increasingly to U.S. production records being set on an almost daily basis that are making the U.S. the world’s largest producer of crude and refined products.

It’s not your Twitter account that’s causing Wall Street to stumble, Mr. President, although there are times when you’re less than totally consistent in your using of it. It’s not the “natural end” of the nearly 10-year long bull market. Bull markets (and economic growth) don’t die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed. There is only one enabler that has the power to raise interest rates and shrink the money supply, Mr. President, and Powell and Friends are using both of these tools to stop your economy.



McAlvanyIntelligenceAdvisor.comWho gave Powell the Power to Manipulate Markets?

CNBC.comDow tumbles more than 500 points, wipes out gain for the year to cap wild week on Wall Street

Does the Yield Curve Signal Recession? By Joseph G. Haubrich, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (2006)

Five year chart of the Adjusted Monetary Base

History of the Financial Crisis of 2007

MarketWatch.comA death cross for the S&P 500 highlights a stock market in tatters

Investopedia.comProgram trading 30 to 50 percent of daily NYSE volume

Background on Joseph Haubrich

Jon Caldera, Freedom Activist, Defies Boulder’s Gun Ban

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, December 7, 2018: 

Just as the Boulder, Colorado city council was about to pass (unanimously) a ban on the sale or possession of so-called “assault” weapons in May, Denver radio show host and president of the free market think-tank The Independence Institute, Jon Caldera, defied the coming ban. The Denver Post published his defiance titled “To Boulder’s anti-gun bigots, I will not comply with your hate law”:

My home town of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move.

Let this column serve as a public notice: I will not comply.

After writing of his history as a citizen of the once red but now blue Colorado, and his disappointment about the typical liberal response to gun violence by criminalizing the innocent, he reiterated his defiance:

Let it be known, like those who refused to go to the back of the bus, I will not surrender or destroy my guns, nor will I place my name on a government watch list.

Ah, but the city council doesn’t want to put his name “on a government watch list.” It just wants every gun owner among the city’s 100,000 people to have their firearms “certified” that they owned them before the ban became effective. The grandfathering would require only that they take the offending firearm(s) down to the local police station where they pay a fee (per weapon), subject themselves to a background check, and have the department then issue a certificate of ownership (in duplicate, in case one gets lost) against the day when his ownership is questioned in the future.

But it isn’t registration, honest. The Boulder Police Department, according to the ever reliant and forthright local media (the Boulder Daily Camera and the Denver Post), have said so. The BPD doesn’t even keep a record of who came in with their newly criminalized firearms. Really.

But there are teeth in the new law. Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr said that anyone found owning a “non-certified” firearm in his possession after December 27 would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and (not or) 90 days in jail. The now illegal firearm would be confiscated and destroyed.

Carr questioned just how many citizens in the enclave known as “the People’s Republic of Boulder” would comply with the demand that their grandfathered firearms be certified: “This is a very divisive issue where people have strong feelings. The folks who oppose these kinds of bans … some of them suggest they’re not going to cooperate. I can’t predict what people are going to do, but I respect their feelings.”

If national averages of gun ownership are applied to the citizens of Boulder, then there are one or more firearms per citizen, most of them owned before the ban. Roughly speaking, that means there are approximately 150,000 firearms in Boulder that need to be “certified” by December 27.

As of December 1, the Boulder Police Department had certified 85 of them.

Caldera has lots of support, even in “The People’s Republic of Boulder.”



BearingArms.com: Boulder Residents Given Just Days To ‘Certify’ Rifles Or Face Consequences

DailyCamera.com: 85 assault weapons certified in Boulder as ban compliance date looms

DenverPost.com: As Boulder assault weapons ban looms, authorities have certified 85 firearms

Caldera’s letter of defiance: To Boulder’s anti-gun bigots, I will not comply with your hate law

Background on Jon Caldera

History of Boulder, Colorado

QZ.com: Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US

Improvements in China Trade Relations to Happen “Very Quickly” Says Top Trump Official

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, December 4, 2018: 

The director of Donald Trump’s Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, expressed optimism that many improvements will be seen in U.S.-Chinese trade relations before the end of the 90-day “truce” announced on Sunday. Said Kudlow, “Those things should kick in soon. We should see palpable change on the Chinese side immediately. I don’t want to be too specific but I think the generic answer is we will see changes very quickly.”

Skeptics were quick to point out that Chinese promises are easily made and just as easily broken, as Chinese hardliner Peter Morici pointed out:

Keep reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2020 Bob Adelmann