Article Image
Radio/TV • Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock
Program Date:

03-30-16 -- James Corbett - Walter Block - Paul Rosenberg (MP3s & VIDEO LOADED)

James Corbett (The Corbett Report) provides World News Update, GOP POTUS Circus, comments on Brussels - Walter Block (Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute) on why Libertarians should vote for Trump - Paul Rosenberg (Freeman's Perspective) on the poli
Media Type: Audio • Time: 164 Minutes and 0 Secs
Guests: James Corbett
Media Type: Audio • Time: 58 Minutes and 15 Secs
Guests: Walter Block
Media Type: Audio • Time: 50 Minutes and 57 Secs
Guests: Paul Rosenberg

Hour 1 - 3

Media Type: Audio • Time: 164 Minutes and 0 Secs
Guests: James Corbett

Hour 1 -- James Corbett (The Corbett Report) provides World News Update, GOP POTUS Circus, comments on Brussels

Hour 2 -- Walter Block (Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute) on why Libertarians should vote for Trump

Hour 3 -- Paul Rosenberg (Freeman's Perspective) comments on the political circus, and his latest article, 'The 18-Year-Olds' League'

 CALL IN TO SHOW: 602-264-2800


Feature Article  •  Global Edition
Freedom's Phoenix
Declare Your Independence APP now on Google Play 
Donna Hancock
   Listen to any recent show of "Declare Your Independence" at the click of a button!


March 30th, 2016

Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock

on LRN.FM / Monday - Friday

9 a.m. - Noon (EST)

Studio Line: 602-264-2800 


Hour 1

James Corbett

The Corbett Report

Webpage: CorbettReport.Com

James comes on the show to discuss U.S./World  politics/foreign policy, World News Update, GOP POTUS Circus, comments on Obama's supreme court justice selection


James's previous interviews on the Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Radio Show:



Latest video:

Episode 225 – Still Listening to the Enemy

In this jam-packed 90 minute episode of the podcast, we tap into enemy communications once again to find out what the global "superclass" are thinking and doing. From global government to synthetic biology, the phony left/right paradigm and Rockefeller's ruminations, we break down the arguments and parse the rhetoric of the globalists' transmissions.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).


Latest Article:

The Entire Global Economy Now Hinges on One Thing

by James Corbett
March 29, 2016

As I write these words we are now only hours away from The Most Important Event Ever to Happen in the History of the Global Economy. Investors are bracing themselves. Markets are anticipating. Journalists are spilling Olympic sized swimming pools of ink on writing headline after headline after headline after headline after headline after headline about this, the deciding economic event of our time.

If only this math actually added up.

No, the great event is not the announcement of the discovery of free energy. Or a major new technological breakthrough that will revolutionize industry and increase productivity. Or even an innovative new theory for how to pull us from the brink of the global derivative black hole collapse. It's something entirely more ordinary: words.

That's right, with just a few magic words uttered at today's meeting of the Economic Club of New York, Fed chair Janet Yellen will cause entire markets to rise or fall. A single declarative sentence could strike down a small country. An effusive adjective could cause an entire industry to boom, a disparaging remark could cause that same industry to collapse. A rising intonation, an arched eyebrow, a significant pause, even a semi-colon could be the difference between rags and riches for millions of workers around the world.

Just imagine what she could do with a dangling participle.

Sound ridiculous? It is. Yet nevertheless this is the situation we've arrived at.

As I've noted before time and time again in this column, we have entered the "New Normal" where fundamentals do not matter at all, only perception. Do you believe the Fed has solved the market meltdown of '08? Then they have solved it. Do you believe the skyrocketing debt and geyser of excess liquidity created in the last decade are not a problem? Then they are not a problem. Do you think Janet Yellen can speak rising stocks or a falling dollar into existence? Then she can.

The long story short: the MSM has been playing up the idea of a "Fed revolt" in recent weeks. Don't get your hopes up. Sadly, this revolt has nothing to do with an angry public finally learning the truth about the Federal Reserve and running the banksters out of town.

Although such a revolt is fun to think about.

Although such a revolt is fun to think about.

Instead, it's to do with Yellen's much-scrutinized remarks at this month's Federal Open Market Committee press conference. After the remarks were run through the usual round of tea leaf reading and innard scrying, it was decided that Yellen was telegraphing a slow down in the rate hikes that the Fed had been projected to engage in this year. In the last couple of weeks, four of the 17 FOMC members have spoken out of turn to say they disagree with this approach and will be voting for or advocating a quicker rate hike schedule, with the first one as early as next month.

So at today's meeting of the Economic Club of New York, where Yellen will be giving an address, markets around the world are on the edge of their seat to see if Yellen will maintain her dovish stance on the Fed's monetary approach this year or if she will adopt to the bear's advanced schedule.

If you don't believe me that this is a Big Deal that is Driving the Global Economy right now, just look at any of the major financial rags in the last 24 hours. They have explained rising European stocks and sliding futures and a strengthening dollar and easing gold and modestly lower American stocks and who knows what else on the mere anticipation of Yellen's speech today.

Maybe her speech will explain how this guy ever got a TV show

Maybe her speech will explain how this guy ever got a TV show

Of course, Yellen is not the first person to have this seemingly infinite power over the global economy. Bernanke had it before her. And Greenspan before him. And presumably every Fed chair before him, too. There's a reason they're called the Gods of Money and Greenspan was referred to as a Wizard whose use of the words "irrational exuberance" popped the dotcom bubble.

In this system, central bankers conjure economic reality into existence merely by speaking the words. The very essence of magic. Now it's Yellen's turn to have the power to conjure.

That would explain why she's taken to wearing this hat in public all the time.

That would explain why she's taken to wearing this hat in public all the time.

If all of this seems insane to you, then congratulations. You're right. It is insane. But in a system that has been constructed around the whims of the central bankers, this is the result: an economy where one bankster technocrat has the power to push the economy off a cliff or to keep the whole thing levitating simply by commanding it to do so.

For those looking for a solution to this situation, the answer is obvious. Run (don't walk) away from the banksters' rigged game. Every step toward disassocating yourself from the bankster system is a step away from this insanity. Alternative and complementary currencies, cryptocurrencies, credit unions, barter, P2P, community organizations, food independence. All of these things are vital steps to be taking if we ever hope to get off the craziness of the central bankster carnival ride otherwise known as the status quo.

Or you could just sit around waiting for Janet Yellen to set the world economy straight.


What could go wrong?

Hour 2

Media Type: Audio • Time: 58 Minutes and 15 Secs
Guests: Walter Block

Hour 2 -- Walter Block (Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute) on why Libertarians should vote for Trump


Hour 2

Walter Block

Dr. Block is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.



Walter's latest articles:

Libertarians for Trump


March 15, 2016

Dr. Donald Miller ( and I ( are starting up a new group to be called Libertarians for Trump.

LFT has its work cut out for it in mobilizing massive support for Donald Trump within the libertarian community. For there are some libertarians who oppose supporting any politician for political office, even a 99% pure one such as Dr. Ron Paul. However, I dedicated this book to refuting arguments of that sort: Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press. (By the way, the foreward to that book – not written by me — contains, in my opinion, the single best short essay ever written about Dr. Paul).

Let me just say that there is nothing, nothing at all, incompatible between libertarianism and voting, or supporting political candidates. Both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard can be considered political junkies, and you won't find too many better libertarians than those two.

Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians? Anyone who thinks so does not really understand this philosophy. For a remedial course, read this book: Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press.

There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.

And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.

But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.

When put in this way, it is clear that The Donald is the most congruent with our perspective. This is true, mainly because of foreign policy. And, of the three, foreign policy, economic policy and person liberties, the former is the most important. As Murray Rothbard and Bob Higgs have demonstrated over and over again, US foreign policy determines what occurs in economics and in the field of personal liberties. Foreign policy is the dog that wags the other two tails.

We readily concede Mr. Donald Trump is no Ron Paul on foreign policy or anything else for that matter. However, compared to his Republican alternatives, the Donald stands head and shoulders above them. He has said, time and time again, things like "Look at what we did in Iraq. It's a mess. Look at what we did in Libya. It's a mess there too. And we're going to repeat our mistakes in Syria? Not on my watch." Would Cruz or Rubio ever say anything like that? To ask this question is to answer it. And, very importantly, who is the one candidate who went out of his way so as to not antagonize Russia and Premier Putin? It is the Donald, that is who. Do we really want to fight World War III with Russia? With Mr. Trump at the helm, we minimize the chances of this catastrophe occurring. (See Donald Miller's brilliant article on this issue, mentioned below).  Yes, future President Trump wants a strong military, but with only a few exceptions, fewer than the other Republican candidates, only to defend our country

Here are some positive things written about Mr. Donald Trump:

Buchanan, Patrick J.  2016. "Will the Oligarchs Kill Trump?"  March 8;

Heilbrunn, Jacob. 2016. "The Neocons vs. Donald Trump." March 10; The New York Times.

Mercer, Ilana. 2016. "Trump and Trade." March 10

Miller, Donald W, Jr. 2016. "Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III." March 9

Please consider joining our new group, LFT. There are no dues or fees. All you need to do is give me your name, email address (which we will not use) and affiliation (professional and/or just mention the city and state you live in). We will release the list of names of LFT members once we reach 100 participants. I ask that you do this not because in this way we may have some effect on a Trump Administration although there is an outside chance we might (he is now beset upon from so many sides, and so unfairly, that he might well appreciate the relatively small support we can give him). I ask you to do this, rather, because it is the right thing to do; he is, of all the major candidates for the office of President of the United States, the one most closely, albeit very far from perfectly, aligned with our beloved libertarian philosophy. If you know of other essays written in support of Mr. Trump, either by a libertarian, or, emphasizing the fact that his views are more aligned with our own than those of other major candidates, send them to us so that we can add them to our bibliography of such literature.

Reprinted from


Libertarians for Trump, Revisited


March 29, 2016

I had this idea that we libertarians should support Donald Trump for the nomination of the Republican Party for president, not because he was a libertarian, nor, even, because his views were very congruent with our philosophy. My thought, though, was that out of all the Republican candidates, he was the most libertarian on foreign policy. He was the least likely to get us into World War III.  And, thanks to the tutelage I had received over the years from the likes of Murray Rothbard, Ralph Raico and Bob Higgs, I knew that imperialism, foreign aggression, were more of a threat to liberty than were violations of economic or personal liberty rights.

[[I pause for a "commercial" message: here is our Twitter handle: @DTLibertarians]] Now, back to our regular programming:

I was brought to these thoughts by this excellent article:

Miller, Donald W, Jr. 2016. "Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III." March 9

Because of this very important essay, I wrote one of my own in this vein:

Block, Walter E. 2016.  "Libertarians for Trump." March 15;

Whereupon I asked my then acquaintance, and now friend, Dr. Donald Miller if he would join with me in starting up a group to be called Libertarians for Trump (LFT). He quickly and enthusiastically agreed to do so.

There are several highlights of the beginnings of this organization:

First, in the words of my friend and mentor Ralph Raico (who writes to refute the notion that only the uneducated can support Mr. Trump, and who soon afterward joined me and Dr. Miller as the third founding member of LFT): "My friend Walter Block, who has a Columbia doctorate and is a college professor, has started a support group, Libertarians for Donald Trump. I'm a Chicago Ph.D. and retired college prof, and I've joined Walter's cabal of the intellectually deficient. We are happy to join with legions of our fellow Americans who aren't university educated but–isn't it obvious?–are still capable of displaying common sense. Personally, my main reason for endorsing Trump and praying for his victory is his opponent. The Queen of Chaos would be the most dangerous person ever to fill the office of president. Quite aside from the colossal corruption of the Clinton crime family, I believe she would push Putin to a nuclear confrontation."

And here is the second; Roger Stone on LFT:

Third, we have gathered a whole host of other blogs, essays, statements, from all sorts of people in support of Mr. Trump on our web page.  But, don't go there just yet. This is still a work in progress.

Initially, I had hoped that 100 people would sign up; then, I thought, I'd send their names to the Trump campaign, and be done with this effort of mine. But this initiative grew like topsy. It is now far greater than I ever imagined it would be. By my estimate, almost 400 people have already signed up for LFT and another dozen or so are trickling in every day. I'm too busy to count them since I'm still coping with dozens of sign up letters coming in pretty regularly.  However, in future, if you want to sign up for LFT, please no longer use my own e-mail address; instead, access this one:

In order to get to this point, I went through, oh, perhaps 500 e-mail messages sent to me. This was quite an experience. The majority of opinion from the libertarian community was overwhelmingly positive. Many people articulated the view that they, too, had supported Trump, for reasons similar to mine, but were uncomfortable expressing this perspective, since they thought they would be drummed out of our precious libertarian movement. Trump, after all, is not an advocate of the freedom philosophy. They were delighted an organization was being started along these lines.

However, there were some objections.

One set claimed that voting was per se a violation of the libertarian principle of non-aggression. I tried to answer this objection in my initial publication in this vein regarding the overseer Goody and Baddy example. Evidently, it did not convince everyone.

Another set objected on the ground that Trump is not a pure libertarian. True, he is not as close to the freedom philosophy as is Senator Rand Paul, let alone his dad, Congressman Ron Paul. Here comes a joke: An economist was asked: "How is your wife." Came the answer: "Compared to what?" Precisely. We are in a comparative "game" here. It is not sufficient to point out the many and serious deviations from pure libertarianism espoused by the Donald.  They exist, to be sure. The issue is, is he worse on any of these than any of his Republican competitors, Cruz or Kasich (or maybe Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney, in case any of them sneak back into contention)? When put in this manner, it is clear that Mr. Donald Trump is head and shoulders above them, at least on foreign policy. Get out of NATO? Bless you, Mr. Trump. No neo-con can come within a million miles of saying anything like that. Is Trump a protectionist? Unfortunately yes, but so are all the others. Does the Donald refuse to "take anything off the table, including nukes?" Yes, unhappily, but, again, the same applies to the others. You can go down the list of Donald Trump's deviations from libertarianism, and you will find all of his competitors for the Republican nomination, also, in the same camp.

A third set was more challenging to me. The point made was, "What about Bernie Sanders? You say anti-imperialism, anti-war perspectives are all important. Ok, I agree. But why don't you feel the Bern? Senator Sanders is pretty good on these issues too." When I first heard of this objection, I confess, I was taken aback. But, on more measured reflection, let me say the following. I VASTLY prefer Bernie to Hillary; certainly on these grounds (I deny the claim that I am biased in his favor since we were friends for four years in high school; we were on the Madison High School track team together and overlapped for one year at Brooklyn College). Hillary is a war-monger par excellence, and Bernie is not. For me, the ideal run-off in November 2016 would be Bernie versus Donald. I judge them roughly equal in avoiding World War III, but would give the nod to my man Donald J. Trump since Bernie's views on economics are nothing less than appalling; far worse than Donald's. However, I confess, I find "Libertarians for Bernie" intriguing. Were Donald not in the race, I would choose Bernie over any of the other Republican contenders. This would sort of being like groups such as "Tenants against rent control" or "Unionists against the minimum wage law" or "Corporate capitalist businessmen against bailouts." It would certainly garner attention.  I have no real problem in supporting Bernie against any neo-con warmonger, of any of the main two parties. Hey, I supported Barack Obama against John McCain in 2008; I feared the latter would drop a nuclear bomb on someone. Similarly, I was in favor of our Nobel Peace Prize President :) in 2012, vis a vis Mitt Romney, who was trying to pick a fight with China, of all places.

What about the Presidential race in the fall, when there will be a Libertarian Party candidate in contention? My colleagues and I at LFT have decided that the sole purpose of this organization is to help Mr. Donald Trump attain the Republican Party's nomination for president. When and if that occurs, we plan to disband LFT.  We confine ourselves toward working toward the day when Mr. Trump receives the nomination of the Republican Party for president — and nothing else.

One final issue. Several people who joined LFT offered to help us with all sorts of things: running the website, blogging, twitter, general publicity and other such efforts of LFT. No, I misspoke. Dozens of our members have done so.

I ask that if you are interested in helping us with a myriad of such tasks, you get in touch with Martin Moulton, who is, in effect, our chief operating officer who is based in Washington, DC. Send emails to: — with "VOLUNTEER" and "your last name" in the subject line. We have decided not to raise any money for our efforts even though several of our members have offered to help with such an initiative.

Reprinted from

Here is an example of what we need if you are going to have Libertarians for Bernie and Trump (Trim Bulletins from the John Birch Society):

TRIM Bulletins

TRIM, a nonpartisan, nationwide program of The John Birch Society, seeks to inform the electorate so that it will demand from the House of Representatives lower taxes through less government. The word "trim" is a verb, meaning "to remove the excess." The TRIM Bulletin reports on legislation that includes significant unconstitutional or excessive spending; or indicates a desire, or lack thereof, to restore constitutionally limited government and curb the welfare state.

The "Star" and "X" columns on the back page reflect the impact of votes on the bills listed. Occasionally stars (indicating a correct vote) are earned for the wrong reason, such as when a rep. opposes an excessive spending bill because it allegedly does not spend enough. In addition to votes on final passages, we also report on amendments that separate big-spenders from those who champion limited government.

Average Cost Per Household expresses incomprehensibly huge spending costs in units that more clearly reflect personal impact. The total cost of a bill or amendment (over the next fiscal year or the life of the bill, as stated) is divided by the approximate number of households in the U.S. These costs will be born through personal taxes and various forms of indirect taxes such as monetary inflation.

Spring 2005
See how Cliff Stearns voted on the following issues: Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - UNESCO, Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - UN Funding, FY2005 Agriculture Appropriations, FY2005 Foreign Operations - Millennium Challenge Account, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Debt Limit Increase and Fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations - Conference Report.

Summer 2004
See how Cliff Stearns voted on the following issues: Community Service Grants - Unemployment Benefits, Child Nutrition Programs, North American Development Bank, Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution, Surface Transportation, Continuity of Congress, "Marriage Penalty" Relief and Ten Percent Tax Bracket.

Spring 2004
See how Cliff Stearns voted on the following issues: FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, U.S. Chile Trade, VA-HUD Appropriations, Transportation-Treasury Appropriation - Election System Overhaul, Transportation-Treasury Appropriation - Amtrak Routes, Flood Insurance Reauthorization, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - Conference Report and Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations - Conference Report.

Fall/Winter 2003/2004
See how Cliff Stearns voted on the following issues: Estate Tax Repeal, Prescription Drug Benefit, Fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, State Dept. Authorization - Millennium Challenge Account, FY2004 Interior Appropriation - Arts and Humanities Funds and Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - UNESCO Funds.

Summer 2003
See how Cliff Stearns voted on the following issues: Fiscal 2003 Omnibus Appropriations, Fiscal 2004 Budget, Energy Plan/Oil Consumption, Special Education, AIDS Relief, Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits.

Spring 2003
See how Cliff Stearns voted on the following issues: Education Tax Break, Rent-To-Own Contracts, Abortion Service Refusals, Churches and Campaign Activities, Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Election Overhaul, Community and Rural Health Care and Homeland Security.


Hour 3

Media Type: Audio • Time: 50 Minutes and 57 Secs
Guests: Paul Rosenberg

Hour 3 -- Paul Rosenberg (Freeman's Perspective) comments on the political circus, and his latest article, 'The 18-Year-Olds' League'


Hour 3

Paul Rosenberg

Freeman's Perspective



Paul's latest article, and book:

The 18-Year-Olds' League

Written by Paul Rosenberg
Date: 03-29-2016
Subject: WAR: About that War

18-Year-OldsMy dream of what could be.

In 2016, after realizing that humanity had been at war for some 6,000 years with seldom a break of even a single year – and very often in a dozen places at once – a simple thought appeared in at least a hundred young minds scattered across our planet:

It's not the evil old men who keep all the wars going; it's us, the 18-year-olds.

The problem, they saw, was that they kept obeying the bitter and rapacious old men. Swept along by authority and the fear of standing alone, they had been – for millennia – marching off to kill other young people exactly like themselves.

The 18-year-olds on the opposite sides of all the battle lines had been doing precisely the same thing: obeying the orders of their own bitter and rapacious old men.

And then a very simple thought struck them: If the 18-year-olds in every country agreed to not fight, who would?

After all, the old men never fought for themselves.

And so, being a generation gifted with worldwide communication, they began to find each other and to talk among themselves.

Some of them dug into military literature to see if they were missing something. Others read studies in the psychology of killing. A few researched guerrilla warfare. And then, one by one, they began to study economics, cooperation and consent.

Within months, they had no more doubt; war was almost wholly dependent upon them.

Old men with bloodlust would never stop the killing; once they passed 50 or 60 years old, they were never going to change. But that wasn't really much of a problem, because a sufficient number of 18-year-olds could stop war anytime they wanted.

And so, in a matter of days, they wrote an agreement to be published in every country. They agreed they would carry it to their schools and to the streets of all their cities… they would eventually confront every young person in the world and encourage them to take their vow and add their names to the list of 18-year-olds who refused to march off to war.

Their agreement read as follows:

We, young men and women of all nationalities, hereby vow not to kill each other at the behest of old men and women.

We don't want to fight. We do not want to die. We do not want to see our friends dismembered, nor do we want to dismember others… or even to assist in it.

We want to live and love. Most of us want families. All of us want rewarding lives. And we do not want to live with the nightmares of war.

If the old people want war so badly, let them go fight it. They've already had their families and careers.

Bitter old men and women will send us off to war forever if we let them. They've been doing just that, continuously, for 6,000 years; they're not going to change.

The jungle warlord and the militant senator are precisely the same in this; they need war. For 6,000 years they've issued orders to us, and we – confused and obedient – have marched off, in thousands and even millions, to kill each other.

But no more. We, the 18-year-olds of the world, hereby affirm that we will not go to war. We will protect our home towns if necessary, but we will not march off, based upon the fears and intimidations of old men and women, to fight other 18-year-olds like ourselves.

We are confirmed in this resolve by the wise words of Albert Einstein: "Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."

We therefore jointly refuse. Let the old men kill each other if they care so much.

This, their agreement, was presented to young people in almost every school in the world, in thousands of town squares, and in countless homes. The names of more than 10 million signers were posted to Internet pages before they were certified as "domestic terror sites" and hijacked. After that, they moved to the DarkNet. At that point, the old men and women panicked, banned the evil, unpatriotic document, and threw thousands of the young people into jail cells.

But there were too many, and soon there weren't enough obedient enforcers to attack the young petitioners and not enough government cages to hold them.

* * * * *

If you've enjoyed Free-Man's Perspective or A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, you're going to love Paul Rosenberg's new novel, The Breaking Dawn.

It begins with an attack that crashes the investment markets, brings down economic systems, and divides the world. One part is dominated by mass surveillance and massive data systems: clean cities and empty minds… where everything is assured and everything is ordered. The other part is abandoned, without services, with limited communications, and shoved 50 years behind the times… but where human minds are left to find their own bearings.

You may never look at life the same way again.

Get it now at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)

* * * * *


Paul Rosenberg

Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:

Watch the Ernest Hancock Show on Flote
Watch the Ernest Hancock Show on DLive
Watch the Ernest Hancock Show on
Live Chat
Talk about the Ernest Hancock Show on Telegram
Listen to the Ernest Hancock Show
Live Phone:

Apple Podcast

Please help fund Declare Your Independence with a one-time or recurring donation.

Archive By Year

Shows By Topic

Shows By Guest