![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/ron-paul-lecture-thin-600-fade_orig.png)
![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/909268956_orig.gif)
Cover-Up! Fauci 'Prompted' Scientific Report Falsifying Covid Lab-Leak Origins!
Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
![]() ![]() Cover-Up! Fauci 'Prompted' Scientific Report Falsifying Covid Lab-Leak Origins! Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute
0 Comments
![]() ![]() ![]() The dash for the White House in Washington on Friday by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz remains a riddle wrapped in a mystery. Scholz landed in DC, drove to the White House and was received by President Biden in Oval Office for a conversation that lasted over an hour. No aides were present. And he flew back to Berlin. Associated Press reported cryptically, “If any agreements were reached or plans made, the White House wasn’t saying.” Scholz had insisted while leaving Berlin that he and Biden “want to talk directly with each other.” Scholz mentioned “a global situation where things have become very difficult.” He said, “It is important that such close friends can talk about all of these questions together, continually.” The official readout of the meeting mentioned that the two leaders discussed the war in Ukraine and “exchanged perspectives on other global issues.” In remarks before the meeting, Biden effusively welcomed Scholz and paid tribute to the latter’s “strong and steady leadership.” Scholz briefly responded that “this is a very, very important year because of the very dangerous threat to peace that comes from Russia invading Ukraine.” The optics of the White House readout is that the two leaders “reiterated their commitment to impose costs on Russia for its aggression for as long as necessary.” Scholz’s dash to the Oval Office came at a defining moment in the Ukraine conflict. Russia has seized the initiative in the Donbass campaign and its spring offensive may start in the coming weeks. Ukraine’s military took heavy battering and the country depends almost entirely on western financial handouts and military aid for survival. Most important, Kiev’s western backers are no longer sure of its ability to reclaim all the territory under Russian control — roughly, one-fifth of erstwhile Ukraine. An inchoate belief is also gaining ground in the western mind, behind all rhetoric, that the burden of the war effort is not going to be sustainable for long if the conflict extends into an indeterminate future. Support for Ukraine is waning in the western public opinion. A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs Research shows that while 19% of Americans repose confidence in Biden’s ability to handle the situation in Ukraine, 37% say they have only some confidence and 43% have hardly any. Vast majority of adults, including most Democrats, do not want Biden to run for president in 2024. Many also express little confidence in his abilities. Scholz’s one-on-one with Biden took place only a week after the latter’s triumphant secret trip to Kiev to mark the first anniversary of the war. In reality, the display of Western unity with Ukraine that Biden claims is wearing thin against a backdrop of strains within the trans-Atlantic alliance and a growing sense of despondency that the war has no end in sight. The heart of the matter is that the Ukraine conflict has shattered the existing security architecture of Europe. Germany, Europe’s powerhouse, is hit badly. The German electorate is increasingly skeptical about the West’s approach to the war. There has been animated discussion in Germany over the findings of the renowned American journalist Seymour Hersh regarding the sabotage of the Nord Stream. After Scholz’s return to Berlin, on Saturday, Sevim Dagdelen, leader of the Left Party — a four-term MP since 2005 — labeled the sabotage of the Nord Stream as a terrorist attack, adding that the German government is obligated to look into the case and find the culprit. If Scholz was privy to Biden’s plan to destroy Nord Stream, it signifies an act of collusion. A major German national strategic asset owned in joint venture with Russia was destroyed, seriously damaging the country’s economy and impacting tens of millions of jobs, putting many lives at risk. Germany has had to pay 10 times the market price for gas to bolster its reserves. Europe has fallen into the trap of becoming highly dependent on US energy imports. The US is the main beneficiary of Europe’s energy crisis and its ensuing “deindustrialization” and “industrial hollowing-out.” A deep recession appears inevitable in Germany. This climate forebodes dire consequences for the German government, as the election to the Bundestag in 2025 draws closer. Two days after Russia’s special operation in Ukraine began, Scholz had vowed in his famous “Zeitenwende” speech in the Bundestag that Germany, long wary of militarisation, would take steps to boost defence spending. But Wolfgang Schmidt, Scholz’s chief of staff and longtime friend, acknowledged this week that a budget crunch was likely to prevent Berlin from fulfilling the promise of increased defence spending. “We must be honest about this,” he told Wall Street Journal. “Ambition and reality are diverging.” What complicates matters further is an emerging divide in Europe over how to end the war. While Old Europeans, including Scholz, are urging peace talks now, the Russophobic East European and Baltic leaderships are clamouring for Russia’s defeat and a regime change in Moscow. According to Politico, Biden had to deliver a reminder to the Bucharest Nine with whom he had a meeting in Warsaw after his trip to Kiev that the goal of the war is not to remove the regime under Putin. Meanwhile, there is frustration building up in Europe that the continent finds itself in a cul-de-sac. So far, the lack of European cohesion provided policy space for the US to divide and rule. However, if Europe finds itself today in a subordinate position, it must also own part of the blame for it. Europe’s inability to define its own core interests so far weakened its internal cohesion, while the lack of internal cohesion condemned it to subaltern role. Thus, European strategic autonomy has become meaningless talk. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said last week that the most important realisation of the war is that “Europe has retired from the debate.” “In the decisions adopted in Brussels, I recognise American interests more frequently than European ones,” he added, also pointing out that today in a war that is taking place in Europe, “the Americans have the final word.” Belling the cat Enter Rishi Sunak. In the prevailing complex situation, there is no one better than the UK Prime Minister Sunak to bell the cat, as it were. Britain has impeccable credentials as a trusted friend of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and Sunak inherits the legacy left behind by his discredited predecessors Boris Johnson and Lis Truss. More importantly, this erudite, youthful PM is raring to go. Sunak was never an ardent believer in Brexit — nor is he a mindless Russophobe. He has set his compass navigating Britain toward calmer waters, which requires making up with the EU that helps the UK’s economic recovery, and he hopes to lead the Conservatives in next year’s general election with a solid record in office. An overreach in Ukraine he cannot risk. Period. Thus, it is that Sunak floated the tantalising idea last month to put Ukraine on the NATO summit’s agenda in June in Madrid an offer to Zelensky to discuss a package of incentives that would give Kiev much broader access to advanced military equipment and convince the Ukrainian leader to pursue peace talks with Moscow realistically, given the deepening private doubts among politicians in London, Paris and Berlin about the trajectory of the war and the gut-wrenching belief that the West can only help sustain the war effort for so long. The French President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Scholz are on the same page as Sunak. The Biden Administration is in the loop but Zelensky is not a pushover and a NATO security pact may be needed, apart from bringing on board the fiery “New Europeans” of Eastern Europe and the Baltic. The good part is that the UK, France and Germany are in this together. Yet, the road ahead is long and winding. For Putin, the bottomline will be that no NATO membership for Ukraine and the ground realities must be heeded. But, fundamentally, peace talks would vindicate the raison d’être of Russia’s special military operation, which aimed to force the West to negotiate regarding NATO expansion. AP reported that when the one-on-one meeting in Oval Office ended, Biden and Scholz walked across the hall to the Roosevelt Room, where the American and German officials had been mingling. Biden apparently joked that the two leaders had solved all the world’s problems by themselves. That gives a positive spin. Reprinted with permission from IndianPunchline.com. Ukraine: A War to End All Wars in Europe Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Below is my column in The Hill on the latest release of the Twitter Files and what it suggests about ever-widening scope of possible government censorship efforts. Here is the column: An old saying, attributed to Henry David Thoreau, maintains that you do not have to find a trout in your glass to know someone is watering down the milk. This week Americans found a veritable school of trout in their milk — and a demonstration by the Biden administration of why such a gathering of trout is often called a “lie.” In the 17th release of the “Twitter Files,” journalist Matt Taibbi disclosed that the US government is funding a group that has supported the censorship of dissenting viewpoints on social media, including those of US citizens. That may sound familiar. Just a few weeks ago, I wrote here that the congressionally created, federally funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had supported the British-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The index was widely ridiculed for targeting ten conservative and libertarian sites as the most dangerous sources of disinformation; it sought to persuade advertisers to withdraw support for those sites, while listing their most liberal counterparts as among the most trustworthy. At the time, I noted that the Biden administration had played us for chumps. As we celebrated the demise of the infamous Disinformation Governing Board with its “Disinformation Nanny,” the Biden administration never disclosed a larger censorship program. Shortly after my column posted in The Hill, the NED wrote to me to say that it was discontinuing support for the GDI. Microsoft also was forced into retreat after it was shown to be pushing the GDI’s biased blacklist. Again, many celebrated a victory for free speech. Yet, here we are again staring down at a trout in our milk. This week, Taibbi reported that the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) may have supported a different disinformation blacklisting operation. The GEC controversy appears strikingly similar to the one involving the NED. Both have supported third-party organizations that carried out blacklisting. Taibbi contends that the GEC contracted with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), which sent suggested blacklists to Twitter; DFRLab says Taibbi’s report is incorrect and that it does not make content moderation decisions. Yet, even Twitter censors reportedly balked at the size of the suggested blacklists and lack of supporting evidence. One list submitted by the GEC included several CNN journalists and Western government accounts, according to Taibbi. Twitter’s Patrick Conlon reportedly mocked the list by referring to network anchor Anderson Cooper, joking: “Not exactly Anderson’s besties, but CNN assets if you will.” Yoel Roth, then Twitter’s head of trust and safety, responded “omg” and “what a total crock.” It would be funny except for the fact that we know Twitter has admitted censoring many of those targeted by the government. Still, many congressional Democrats continue to oppose efforts to investigate government censorship efforts, unleashing a type of Red Scare 2.0 by accusing critics of supporting insurrectionists or being “Putin lovers.” Others have simply insisted that if you see a trout in your milk, it is just your opinion. When I testified at a recent hearing on the Twitter Files, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticized me for offering “legal opinions” without actually working at Twitter. As I have noted, it is like saying that a witness should not discuss the contents of the Pentagon Papers unless he worked at the Pentagon. It was particularly bizarre because the content of the Twitter Files — like the Pentagon Papers — are “facts.” The implication of those facts are opinions. Twitter is confirming these emails from the government — so we are not imagining trout. “Opinion” is what we should do about it. While insisting there is nothing to “factually” see here, Democrats insist on remaining willfully blind. Rather than investigate the full scope of the government’s insular censorship programs and efforts, we are told to trust the government. In the meantime, we are left with the same game of whack-a-mole: We strike down a Disinformation Board, and a Disinformation Index pops up … we strike down a Disinformation Index, and a disinformation blacklisting appears. Using third-party groups gives the government added cover — to a degree. The government is not allowed to engage in censorship, but Twitter has shown that censorship-by-surrogate has its own potential risks, including the possible legal status of a company as an agent of the government. While Twitter, as a private company, is not controlled by the First Amendment, it can become an agent of the government and trigger constitutional protections. As with intelligence operations, censorship programs are best carried out behind layers of third-party groups. We do not know the full extent of the government’s knowledge of the latest blacklisting operation to be disclosed, or any similar projects. But polls have shown that the public wants an investigation despite Democrats repeatedly blocking such efforts. The most chilling aspect of these latest two controversies is that they involve blacklisting of individuals and groups. We have citizens who were unaware that their government was flagging them to be silenced or suspended from sharing their views on subjects ranging from Indian corruption to COVID to election fraud. The latest Twitter Files release suggests the Biden administration may have seeded various groups to help it censor by surrogate. We still have no idea how extensive the federal funding and support for censorship has been. Right now, however, it is beginning to look like we have more trout than milk in our glasses. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. More Trout Than Milk: Twitter Releases More Evidence of Government Censorship Operations Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Now you see it … maybe soon you won’t. Over the last year, the seeming ability of stock values of many technology companies to keep rising forever met resistance. This was true even for the major technology companies known collectively as “big tech.” During the last 12 months, Meta (parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram), Amazon, and Alphabet (parent company of Google and YouTube) suffered layoffs and big declines in stock prices. These were the result of both bad decisions and changing market conditions. For example, the end of covid lockdowns obviously reduced demand for Amazon’s delivery services. Also, an increasing number of people are leaving Facebook and other Meta sites for newer social media sites. Many of those who use social media for political organization, education, or discussion are abandoning Facebook and YouTube for sites such as Rumble — sites that don’t deplatform individuals for sharing opinions and news that displeases “woke” bureaucrats and politicians. The magician in this scenario — the Federal Reserve — played a major role in big (and medium and small) tech’s rise and fall. Technology writer David Streitfeld, writing in the New York Times, recently examined how the Fed’s 2008 market meltdown related policy of near zero interest rates led many investors to throw money at tech companies. In many cases, these investors would not have bought tech companies stock had the Fed not distorted the signals sent by interest rates, which are the price of money. The historic expansion of the Fed balance sheet thanks to “quantitative easing” also helped create a tech bubble. Now that the Fed is raising interest rates (although still keeping them well below what they would likely be in a free market), the tech bubble is being popped as investors are able to get a more realistic view of tech companies’ value. This is causing a painful but necessary correction. For example, Carvana, which aimed to be the “Amazon of used cars” went from an 80 billion dollars valuation to a 1.5 billion dollars valuation, a 98 percent loss, in just 18 months. Also, the Fed-created tech bubble allowed Amazon to lose millions opening new businesses, including physical bookstores. Amazon announced in March of last year, the same month the Fed started increasing interest rates, that it would close all its bookstores. The tech bubble enabled large companies to grow via mergers and acquisitions. Many small and startup companies attracted investors with a promise of a big payoff from an acquisition. The frequency of tech-related mergers and acquisitions is a major reason behind the left’s (and some people on the right’s) renewed interest in antitrust laws. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan owes her position to her advocacy of using antitrust to limit the growth of big tech. Khan’s crusade against big tech has suffered some setbacks in the courts. However, Khan need not worry since the Federal Reserve may do a more effective job of limiting tech-related mergers and acquisitions than the FTC ever could. Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst with Guidehouse Insights, accurately summed up the tech industry’s recent history for Streitfeld’s article: “The whole tech industry of the last 15 years was built by cheap money. Now they’re getting hit by a new reality, and they will pay the price.” Federal Reserve created bubbles and busts are not a new reality. They have been with us since the Fed was created and will remain until the system collapses or until Congress audits, then ends, the Fed. The Federal Reserve’s Magic Trick: Big Tech Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]()
The American people are fed up with the lies, corruption, deceit and cowardice that is now synonymous with holding elected office. RFK Jr. is just one man, but he is a man with a powerful message, movement and pedigree behind him. 1968 wasn’t so long ago. Perhaps it is time for a Kennedy to make a heroic run for The White House to bring back the ideals, passion and dedication to justice that his father and uncle before him evoked. Are we ready for it? I know I am. Reprinted with permission from Jackman Radio Podcast. Subscribe and support the writer/broadcaster. RFK Jr. For President? Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has released a new survey of nearly 1,500 faculty members at four-year colleges in the US. Ideologically The survey of college faculty is consistent with other polls and surveys in showing that over half of the faculty nationwide is afraid to speak freely in the current atmosphere of intolerance and orthodoxy. What is most striking about this and other surveys is that the number of conservatives on faculties is comparably very small. Yet, even liberal faculty now fear backlash for speaking freely in classes or on campus. More than half of the faculty respondents (52%) indicated they are worried about losing their jobs or reputations over statements that could be misconstrued or attacked. Not surprising, that view is overwhelming among those identifying as conservative with 72% reported that they are “somewhat” or “very” worried. Yet, even 40% of liberal faculty also felt this way. Polls and surveys show that this fear is now shared by both students and faculty, including a recent poll at MIT. Again, what is notable with this data is that only a small percentage (if any) of faculty self-identify as Republican or conservative. Yet, a significant percentage still fear speaking openly in their own classes or on campuses. Cancel campaigns are now a common pattern in schools ranging from Yale to Northwestern to Georgetown. Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned). This dangerous trend in academia is discussed in my law review article, Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. We have seen how this can turn into a type of “heckler’s veto” where speeches are cancelled in advance or terminated suddenly due to the disruption of protesters. The issue is not engaging in protests against such speakers, but to enter events for the purpose of preventing others from hearing such speakers. Universities create forums for the discussion of a diversity of opinions. Entering a classroom or event to prevent others from speaking is barring free speech. I would feel the same way about preventing such people from protesting outside such events. However, the concern is not with outdoor events where all groups can be as loud and cantankerous as their voices will bear. Both sides have free speech rights to express. The issue on campus is the entrance into halls, or classrooms to prevent others from hearing speakers or opposing viewpoints by disputing events. This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others. Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. We are seeing the result of such policies. This generation of administrators and professors have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation on our campuses. There is a dwindling level of diversity on our faculties and a failing level of trust in free speech protections. It is the destruction of the very touchstone of higher education as a place for freedom of thought and expression. That tradition has been replaced by speech codes, compelled speech, and cancel campaigns. Yet, it is not the actions of administrators that is most disgraceful but the silence of most faculty members as their colleagues are targeted and harassed. As these surveys show, the silent acquiescence has not given faculty more security or freedom to teach and speak. Through their silence, they are creating the very hostile environment that they now fear. Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. Survey: Over Half of Faculty Fear Retaliation for Speaking Freely on Issues Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Yes. I think they will. But not because Russia is running out of shells and rockets. Nope. I think China wants a chance to field test some of its weaponry and drones against a foe that shoots back in order to see how they perform in a combat environment. Firing artillery or surface-to-air missiles on a closed range does not compare with lighting them up on a bona fide battlefield. The warnings to China to not help Russia is not new. One year ago the Biden team put out the word that: China will face consequences if it helps Russia evade sanctions in its invasion of Ukraine, the US says.Well, the Chinese ignored those unnamed officials and stepped up its cooperation and coordination with Russia. Could this be the real reason behind Joe Biden’s order to shoot down an errant Chinese balloon (spy or weather) last month? Biden’s revenge for Beijing’s decision to ignore the West’s sanctions on Russia? Those damn Chinese. They do not know the meaning of kowtow (for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke). As Yogi Berra said, “it’s deja vu all over again.” A week shy of the anniversary of the first warnings to China over helping Russia, the Biden team exited their clown car and reiterated their past empty threats: The United States warned China of serious consequences were it to provide arms to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as Kyiv’s top general visited the frontline town of Bakhmut where Ukrainian defenders were holding out against constant attacks.Xi Jinping and his advisors must be wondering if Biden, Sullivan and Blinken are partaking of Hunter’s illegal stash of hallucinogens. The Chinese have watched the United States and Europe flood Ukraine with money, artillery, artillery shells, anti-tank missiles, Bradley fighting vehicles and tanks and, in typical Chinese restraint, have not chided the NATO countries, at least in public, for this lethal support. Yet the United States, with the European poodles trotting obediently behind, has the Fàngsì (that is Chutzpah in Chinese) to warn Beijing to not do what it is doing. There has to be some serious head scratching going on among Xi’s advisors. What the hell is America trying to do? Pissing off China seems to be Biden’s play. Along with ordering China to not send military help to Russia, the Biden team leaked intel blaming China for Covid and backed Congressional legislation to ban Tik Tok. I think this has eliminated any doubt among Chinese leaders that the United States is intent on humiliating China rather than find a constructive diplomatic solution. Back to Russia for a moment. Russia does not need Chinese weapons or aircraft, including drones. However, I think Vladimir Putin is quite willing to give the Chinese military a chance to test their weapons on the battlefield. Chinese military planners are taking US threats about going to war with China and want to be sure their weapons function as intended. I think the Chinese response to Secretary of State Blinken went something like this, 我們不是你的婊子 (Wǒmen bùshì nǐ de biǎo zi). Look it up. Reprinted with permission from Sonar21.com. Will China Send Weapons to Russia? Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute ![]() ![]() ![]() Throughout the coronavirus scare, Saturday Night Live repeatedly ducked the opportunity to ridicule mandates that, in the name of countering coronavirus, proliferated in America and across the world. Instead, skits on the NBC TV comedy show repeatedly praised the authoritarian measures and scorned people who opposed those measures or who challenged the supporting “science” propounded by government and big money media “experts” that has proven to have been wrong across the board. Saturday Night Live had a reputation as a comedy show willing to make jokes challenging those holding political power. In years preceding the coronavirus scare, the show had developed a much heavier bias in favor of the liberal and Democratic end of American politics. Yet, it still took shots at politicians and views across the political spectrum. When the exercise of power went into overdrive with the imposing of draconian measures including stay at home orders, mask and “vaccine” mandates, vaccine passport requirements, and the forced closing of stores, offices, churches, schools, sports venues, and other places people could interact in person, the jokes challenging such exercises of authority did not materialize. Instead of challenging team tyranny, Saturday Night Live joined in promoting it. This choice was particularly interesting because it deprived the show of much good material for skits. Making the show funny was placed on the back burner. People watching Saturday Night Live throughout the coronavirus scare were treated over and over to sycophantic praising of coronavirus police state actions and the echo chamber of pseudoscientific justifications offered in its support. For people who saw through the coronavirus fearmongering and associated power grabs, Saturday Night Live’s propping up of tyrannical reordering of human behavior turned the show into an annoying weekly display of skits advancing authoritarian propaganda. Entertainment would need to be found elsewhere. One example of this bleak situation with Saturday Night Live came in an opening skit of the April 25, 2020 episode of the show relatively early in the coronavirus scare. The opening skit concluded with actor Brad Pitt breaking character to praise top coronavirus scare and coronavirus crackdown culprit Anthony Fauci. This followed the earlier portion of the skit in which Pitt had depicted Fauci, all the while failing to ridicule Fauci even mildly in regard to Fauci’s coronavirus fearmongering and mandates support. Fauci was the face of a huge expansion of power in America at the expense of freedom and of an all-out effort to instill enough fear in the American people to ensure that power expansion could proceed. But, instead of challenging Fauci with humor, Pitt in his skit portrayed Fauci as a voice of reason. Watch the episode’s opening skit here: Woody Harrelson, Saturday Night Live, and Ridiculing Coronavirus Tyranny Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() Unspeakably Cruel! US House Votes To Maintain Sanctions On Earthquake-Ravaged Syria! Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity ![]() ![]() ![]() On Wednesday evening, the Senate voted unanimously to pass a bill calling on the Biden Administration to declassify “information related to the origins of Covid-19.” In recent days, select US government agencies have claimed, behind the shadow of classified reports, that they now believe a lab leak is to blame for the Covid-19 outbreak. It’s fascinating to observe this radical narrative departure from the not so distant past, when these very same people declared that blaming China for Covid was racist, xenophobic, and whatnot. On top of that, it seems that the new Congress is positioning itself only to investigate the gain of function versus lab leak scenarios, but not the origin of the information operations and very oddly timed coincidences that resulted in full blown Covid hysteria. They’re signaling that people like Fauci, Bill Gates, and Big Pharma are going to be let entirely off the hook, which is quite unfortunate. Unsurprisingly, this is a signal that Congress is not very serious about the real origin story of Covid, and never will be. So what’s going on with all the China bashing? Previously, the Uniparty Standard was to do everything possible not to offend the Chinese Communist Party, and to even engage them as a potential partner on the climate hoax and other power grab campaigns. Now, suddenly, everyone in D.C. seems to agree that China can do no right. So what changed? Why take this action now, several years after the first reported outbreak in Wuhan, China? One possible explanation is China’s behavior concerning the war in Ukraine. Take into account that the D.C. Uniparty has already “invested” well over $100 billion in taxpayer funds into the Slava Slush Fund. Despite these “investments,” the regime in Kiev continues to find itself on increasing shaky ground, losing battle after battle in the conflict. Ukraine is about to retreat from Bakhmut, once declared a “stronghold” city by Ukraine’s President Zelensky. When Zelensky went to Congress in December, he presented them with a flag from soldiers he said were fighting in Bakhmut. "The fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence & freedom," Zelensky said. Now, the fall of Bakhmut will serve as a massive strategic and moral failure for Kiev. Making matters exponentially worse for Ukraine is the possibility that China will take a more active role in this conflict. China is increasingly considering arming Russian forces, and it’s noticeably setting off alarm bells in Washington. China’s economy is ten times bigger than Russia’s, and counteracting the support coming in from D.C. would serve as a significant boost for an already progressing Russian military campaign. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Tony Blinken demanded that China take this idea off the table. “We did very clearly warn China about the implications and consequences of going through with providing such support,” he said. “We will not hesitate, for example, to target Chinese companies or individuals that violate our sanctions, or otherwise engaged in supporting the Russian war effort.” And earlier Wednesday, the White House press secretary labeled TikTok a “potential national security risk,” opening the door to a ban of the social media platform. More broadly, the China quarrell is about much more than the D.C. Globalist American Empire’s once-unchecked campaigns concerning Ukraine. Sensing an imperial power in decline, China is increasingly challenging America’s status as the global hegemon, and they're doing so on multiple fronts. Beijing is also turning up the heat on Taiwan, which is not very committed to its own self-defense. The CCP seems no longer afraid of the repercussions of upsetting the people in charge here. Over the past few years, they've become much more aggressive on the political, economic, and military fronts. And their statements vis-a-vis Russia may have been the political straw that broke the D.C. camel’s back. Reprinted with permission from The Dossier. Subscribe and support here. What Sparked D.C.'s Sudden, Dramatic Anti-China Shift? Click on the headline to read the full story from |
Ron Paul
|