![](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)
'New World Order or Nuclear Armageddon?' - Ron Paul at the RPI Houston Conference
Click on the headline to read the full story from
![]() ![]() 'New World Order or Nuclear Armageddon?' - Ron Paul at the RPI Houston Conference Click on the headline to read the full story from
0 Comments
![]() ![]() ![]() Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Suppose that Ukraine was headed by a pro-Russia regime. After repeated failed attempts at assassination by the CIA, the Pentagon finally decides to invade Ukraine for the purpose of bringing about regime change — i.e., ousting the pro-Russia regime from power and replacing it with a pro-US regime. What then would be the response of American statists, especially those within the US mainstream press? There is no doubt about the answer. Everything would be different than it is today with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The media would be proudly embedding itself within the US military’s invading forces. Mainstream papers would be reporting and commenting on the courage of US troops. There would be no sympathetic pictures or videos of Ukrainian civilians killed; they would all be labeled as “collateral damage.” Church ministers across the land would be exhorting their congregations to pray for the troops. Every statist across the land would be tripping over himself to find some soldier to thank for his service. Airlines would be inviting soldiers to board planes first as a way to honor them. Statists would be condemning the “bad guys” — that is, those Ukrainians who were shooting at American soldiers. Every statist would be praising and glorifying the Pentagon for bringing freedom to Ukraine. How do we know that American statists would react in this way to a Pentagon invasion of Ukraine? Two answers: Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s how statists reacted when it was the Pentagon that invaded those two countries. That’s how we know that that’s how statists would react if it were the Pentagon, rather than Russia, that invaded Ukraine. When I was in high school and college, a common question that would be asked regarding World War II was: How could the German people overwhelmingly support Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party? After all, today the Nazi regime is easily recognized by most Americans as the “gold standard” when it comes to evil. Why weren’t the Germany people able to see that? The answer lies in the power of state indoctrination and government propaganda. The German people had the same conception about government that American statists do. They believed that the more powerful their government, the stronger their nation. Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The more powerful the government, the weaker the nation — that is, the weaker the populace. That weakness is reflected by citizens with passive and deferential mindsets — ones that are easily molded into believing whatever government officials want people to believe. That’s why powerful governments will always have the nation’s children herded into state education camps — that is, “public” schools. The purpose is always to mold the mind of the child from its earliest years to become loyal, patriotic, passive, and deferential. That mindset becomes so well-fortified over 12 years in school that it oftentimes lasts until the person dies. Consider the words of Nazi official Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials: “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” Isn’t that why US statists overwhelmingly supported the Pentagon’s invasion of Afghanistan? Didn’t they passively and patriotically buy into the US government’s official pronouncement that the Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks? Didn’t they also passively and patriotically buy into the US government’s official pronouncement that Iraq was about to unleash “mushroom clouds” over American cities? And isn’t that also why US statists are doing everything they can to avoid confronting the sordid role that the Pentagon, operating through its old Cold War dinosaur NATO, has played in producing the Russia-Ukraine war that has now killed thousands of people? This is what happens under omnipotent government. You get a weak nation of citizens with passive, deferential mindsets, ones that go with whatever the official flow is. As I point out in my new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, it is always easy to identify and confront evil in foreign regimes. Anyone can do that, as American statists are easily able to do with respect to Nazi Germany. It is a much more difficult task to identify and confront evil within one’s own regime, which is why most Germans were unable to identify and confront the evil of the Nazi regime. What we need in America is a great awakening, one in which Americans achieve a higher level of conscience, consciousness, and independence of thought, one that would empower them to identify and confront the evil within their own regime. Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation. What If the US Had Invaded Ukraine? Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() President Biden often looks like a punch-drunk old fighter sent into the ring once too often. At this point, the only thing lower than Biden’s approval numbers is his energy level. Is Uncle Joe too old to rebound? At this point, Biden is running on little more than fumes and righteousness. In his televised antigun speech Thursday night, Biden proclaimed that he expected most people “to turn your outrage into making this issue [assault weapons] central to your vote.” Biden’s histrionic spiel was far more likely to turbo-charge gun owners than gun banners and could be another coffin nail for Democratic candidates in middle America. Biden perennially tells audiences that banning assault weapons is justified because the Second Amendment didn’t permit Americans to own cannons—a falsehood that even the Washington Post has repeatedly derided. Inflation is the top issue by a wide margin for Americans nowadays. Biden’s inflation will soon have inflicted a 10 percent cut in the purchasing power of Americans’ paychecks. But Biden is indignant at criticism of his policies. When Peter Doocy of Fox News asked about the impact in January, Biden called him “a stupid son of a bitch.” In a March speech to Democratic members of Congress, Biden raged at being blamed for inflation: “I’m sick of this stuff! … We have to talk about it because the American people think the reason for inflation is the government spending more money. Simply. Not. True.” Biden first tried to blame greedy corporations for inflation and then began railing about “Putin’s price hikes.” Didn’t work. Last week, the Washington Post revealed that Biden now blames White House aides who “were not doing a good job explaining the causes of inflation and what the administration is doing about it.” But his aides have a hell of a challenge when Biden boasts “a gallon of gas is down 14 percent today”—as he claimed based solely on a happy fantasy on March 9. Even wackier? Last Friday, Biden boasted that Americans feel more “financially comfortable,” thanks to his policies. Biden won in 2020 in part because he promised in the final debate: “I’m going to shut down the virus.” Biden bet his presidency on covid vaccines. When their efficacy faded, Biden dictated a “jab or job” ultimatum to more than a hundred million Americans. The Supreme Court rebuffed most of that mandate but not before the omicron variant was causing a million new cases a day and obliterating Biden’s covid victory boasts. Last month, the White House predicted up to a hundred million new covid cases this fall—after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitted that almost half of covid fatalities now are among the fully vaxxed. In lieu of more reliable vaccines, Team Biden is pressuring social media companies to crack down on “disinformation” that casts doubts on presidentially ordained injections. Biden has a long DC reputation for trampling the facts. His first presidential bid collapsed in the late 1980s, thanks to his brazen plagiarism of a British politician. But the Democrats in 2020 were desperate to find someone who could defeat Donald Trump. Their verdict: “He’s a pathological liar, but he’s our pathological liar.” During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden was shielded by a phalanx of media allies and former government honchos who helpfully buried issues such as the damning revelations of Hunter Biden’s laptop (first exposed by the New York Post). But, regardless of how often Biden flees back to Delaware, he is in the limelight far more than during the campaign. He struggled to find his way off stage after a speech, and the video of him attempting to shake hands with invisible people on stage was jolting. A decade ago, Biden seemed mentally quick and verbally agile in battering Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in the vice presidential debate. But Biden’s verbal and mental struggles make that stellar performance seem like a thousand years ago. The Biden White House discloses little or no verified medical information on the president’s health, mental or physical. Instead, Biden’s apologists in the media insist that he is doing fine—the same way that much of the press corps covered for President Woodrow Wilson after he was debilitated by a stroke. Last month, the Washington Post reprinted a column by Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein demanding that Americans “Stop Smearing Biden’s Mental Capacity.” Bernstein described doubts about Biden’s acuity as “one of the many ugly things that’s happened during Joe Biden’s presidency.” Bernstein rests his defense of Biden on the trustworthiness of the Washington elite: “To believe that Biden is impaired requires a belief in a massive conspiracy … by thousands of people.” Like the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction—a Bush scam to justify a war that was supported in lockstep by most of the media and the Washington establishment? Or the notion that the Federal Reserve flooding the nation with increasingly worthless currency is good for America—another beloved myth embraced by the Beltway? A poll last month showed that 53 percent of Americans doubted whether Biden was “mentally fit” for the presidency. Who knew that antigeezer prejudice would explode during Uncle Joe’s reign? But even 51 percent of senior citizens doubt Biden’s mental competence for office. That the official scorekeepers ruled that Biden won eighty-one million votes in the 2020 election is supposedly the only proof of “competence” that matters. Perhaps there is only one proof of Biden’s mental capacity that matters in Washington: he is delivering the conflict with Russia that the Democratic Party has craved since Hillary Clinton made anti-Russia agitation a linchpin of her 2016 presidential campaign. Biden’s hysterical denunciations of Vladimir Putin have endeared him to DC insiders itching to drag this nation into a military conflict that they know most Americans would not support if the full facts and risks were presented to them. The White House, State Department, CIA, and Pentagon have provided almost zero credible evidence on how the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine is proceeding. Instead, Biden has been the front man for a fairy tale that pretends that providing almost unlimited US government aid and weapons to a corrupt regime in Kiev will create a historic victory for democracy everywhere. But Russia's unjust invasion and atrocities against civilians do not purify a Ukrainian regime that has been abusing its own people for decades. In effectively opposing any peace talks between Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Team Biden has simply assured more pointless deaths on both sides. Biden is a listless president surrounded by aides with broken compasses. Biden’s worst pummeling could occur if Democrats lose control of Congress in November. Republican committees will be investigating an array of potential abuses of power that Team Biden has successfully buried (at least according to media scorekeeping) so far. Unless Biden can make it a hate crime to attach “I did this!” stickers to gas pumps, his support will keep draining away every time Americans fill up their tanks. Reprinted with permission from Mises Institute. Will Punch-Drunk Biden Take America Down with Him? Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() Rebellion Against The Woke: San Francisco Ousts Soros DA! Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() That dwindling band of observers that continues to express concern over the catastrophe that constitutes United States foreign policy under President Joe Biden have come to realize how the Ukraine situation is being used as cover for interventions and other similar mischief in other parts of the world. Recent reporting, for example, reveals that the Biden Administration has decided “to reestablish a persistent US military presence in Somalia to enable a more effective fight against al-Shabaab” in spite of the fact that “there is absolutely no constitutional authority for President Biden to send troops into Somalia or drop bombs on Somalia.” Nor does al-Shabaab represent a threat to Americans or American interests. To be sure, the emphasis on Ukraine has a certain cogency as it is particularly dangerous and could lead to nuclear devastation in a situation where intervention by the United States was not only unwarranted but also unresponsive to any actual national interest of threat. And escalate it will if the White House continues on its current path. Ukrainian government sources are now stating that the United States is preparing to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet to end the blockade of Ukraine’s ports. The commander of US forces in Europe General Christopher Cavoli seems to be confirming that report when he refers to the preparation of “military options” to help export Ukrainian grain. One might suggest that such a move could just be enough to start World War III and World War III would almost certainly turn nuclear very quickly. Some might consider that taking a deliberate step that would inevitably escalate into destruction of the entire planet as we know it just might be a foreign policy mistake on the part of the President Joe Biden Administration but I’m sure the chairborne warriors down at Foggy Bottom would disagree, pointing out that nothing would make old Vladimir Putin run and hide faster than a barrage of harpoon missiles imbibed with his breakfast tea. And, of course, there’s more. There’s always more. The focus on Ukraine in the US and international media combined with a stream of befuddling malapropisms coming out of the White House has obscured what is going on in other corners in the world, where Washington is also flexing its biceps in full knowledge that a manageable war or two will surely help one’s favorability rating come elections in November. And there is always Israel. The Israeli army and police have recently been shooting dead Palestinian teenagers on a nearly daily basis, and that comes on top of the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh a month ago. Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz was in Washington two weeks ago to meet and greet and one might suspect that he just might have been in town inter alia to express some apology for his army’s assassination of Abu Akleh, but that would be to misunderstand the bilateral relationship. In reality, when Israel shouts “jump” the Biden Administration responds “how high, sir?” Also in the Middle East and also related to Israel, the US State Department has gone into a hissy fit over the May 26th Iraqi parliament’s unanimous vote to make illegal all “normalization” ties with Israel. State was quick to react, in contrast to its torpor dealing with most issues, but it was Israel involved, not just “most issues.” A statement was issued saying “The United States is deeply disturbed by the Iraqi Parliament’s passage of legislation that criminalizes normalization of relations with Israel [while also] jeopardizing freedom of expression and promoting an environment of antisemitism…” Ah yes, the old anti-semitism canard surfaces yet again! There is also several interesting stories relating to Syria, which continues to be a hotspot because Israel wants to maintain its ability to freely bomb targets that it describes as “terroristic” or connected to arch enemy Iran. The bombing has continued regularly since the Ukraine situation started and has hardly ever been reported in the US media. And, yet again, there is more to the story in terms of US involvement. First of all, Russia reacted to the lukewarm Israeli support for its invasion of Ukraine. An Israeli attack on targets in Syria last week was met by a S-300 missile fired by Russian army manned air defenses. Up until now, Moscow has refrained from attempting to shoot down Israeli warplanes, but the missile was clearly a warning of what might be coming if Israel persists in its attacks. Also relating to Syria, it is ironic that the US has accused Russia of war crimes over its intervention in Ukraine while at the same time continuing its own illegal occupation of Syria. And it has its own war crimes record. Last week the Pentagon announced that it had completed its investigation into an attack in Syria on March 18, 2019 that killed some presumed ISIS guerrillas as well as four civilians while wounding fifteen others. The Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said the Defense Department had determined that that the airstrike “did not violate the laws of warfare or the rules of engagement. Neither the ground forces commander nor anyone involved in carrying out the airstrike ‘acted inappropriately or acted with malicious intent’ or ‘deliberately wanted to and sought out to kill civilians.’” In an earlier investigation concluded last December, the Pentagon said “it would not hold anyone accountable for a drone strike also in Syria in late-August that killed 10 civilians, including seven children. A review of the strike concluded it was a ‘tragic mistake’ that was the result of ‘execution errors.’” And there are also credible reports that the United States is preparing to de facto partition Syria, to create a separate state run by its Kurdish allies in the country’s northeast that would be under Washington’s protection and would include a garrison of American troops. Such a move would, of course, be completely illegal and is in fact eerily reminiscent of the alleged “war crimes” that the US is claiming regarding Russia for its attempted partition of Ukraine. Interestingly, the planning has not been reported in the mainstream media, yet another instance of the Ukraine crisis serving as cover to drown out all background noise and provide the US with opportunities to increase its meddling in places like the Middle East on behalf of feckless allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ironically, when the United States initially intervened in Syria, it claimed to do so to fight the terrorist group Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). Subsequently, it cooperated with an al-Qaeda affiliate while close ally Israel had a similar arrangement with ISIS itself. The Kurds and both ISIS and al-Qaeda are all believed to be involved in the theft and sale of Syrian oil. Now the US, which also has been stealing the oil, is seeking something like a permanent presence to solidify its control over Syrian resources. Interestingly, the planning by Washington to create a sub-state or autonomous region in the north east of Syria was revealed by no less than State Department number three Victoria Nuland at a recent conference held in Morocco. Nuland, who was the driving force behind regime change in Ukraine in 2014, described the Syria development as a “stabilization” activity. The new entity would include Syria’s major oil producing region, which is currently being exploited by Washington and its “allies,” as well as much of the country’s arable land. Washington has already applied unprecedented punitive sanctions on the parts of Syria controlled by the Russians and President Bashar al-Assad, to include the so-called Caesar Syrian Civil Protection Act’s secondary sanctions that punish anyone trying to avoid the restrictions placed by Washington. Former US Ambassador to Syria James Jeffrey put it this way “And of course, we’ve ratcheted up the isolation and sanctions pressure on Assad, we’ve held the line on no reconstruction assistance, and the country’s desperate for it. You see what’s happened to the Syrian pound, you see what’s happened to the entire economy. So, it’s been a very effective strategy….” He also added “My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.” To circumvent the existing sanctions, the new mini-state would therefore be granted economic viability by making it sanction free as an inducement for foreign investment and development of settlements largely inhabited by Kurds associated with the United States. A “general license” will be issued to facilitate investment and other economic activity. The US will commit $350 million to the project, which is being carried out with the cooperation of the Turkish authorities controlling their own militias along the border. By securing the north east of Syria, Washington would also be able to maintain and protect the illegal US Al-Tanf military base in the south-east of the country bordering Jordan. Al-Tanf blocks the creation of a contiguous “Resistance Axis” from Iran to Lebanon and ultimately to Palestine, thereby maintaining “Israeli security” in the region. As is all too frequently the case, Israeli interests always come first in the minds of Washington politicians. Reprinted with permission from Unz Review. Biden Rocks the Middle East Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() Desperate Biden Uses Military Powers...To Push 'Green' Energy Production! Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() Show of hands? How many still believe Trump and Russia colluded? That Trump is somehow beholden to Russia? That Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with “Russiagate?” Anyone? In the back, Bueller? And we’ll get to the large group chanting “it doesn’t matter” and “but Trump did, too…” in a moment, so stick around. Hillary Clinton lied about Russiagate. The latest information shows Hillary paid experts to create two data sets, one purportedly showing Russian cellphones accessing Trump WiFi networks, and another allegedly showing a Trump computer pinging an Alfa Bank server in Russia. The latter was supposedly how Trump communicated incognito with his handlers in Moscow Center. We’ve seen the lipstick on the collar before but how do we know for certain this time? Because former Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias on May 18, 2022 during the trial of his former partner, Michael Sussman, swore to it under oath. Special Counsel John Durham brought Sussman to trial for allegedly lying to the FBI, perjury, claiming he was not working for a client when he was actually surreptiously representing the Clinton campaign. Elias admitted he briefed Clinton campaign officials about the fake information, including Hillary herself, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri, and policy director Jake Sullivan, now Joe Biden’s national security adviser. Elias also personally briefed campaign manager Robby Mook. In a bombshell during the Sussman trial, Mook testified Hillary Clinton signed off on the plan to push out the information about the link between Trump and Alfa Bank despite concerns the connection was dubious at best. Mook’s testimony is the first confirmation Clinton was directly involved in the decision to feed the Trump-Alfa story to journalists. It explains some of her later actions. Here’s the timeline which reveals the specific “why” behind Russiagate:
— On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey issues a statement clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrong doing in connection with her private email server. This removes what was thought to be her last major hurdle to nomination.
— Wikileaks releases information taken from the DNC servers which showed, inter alia, the Clinton campaign’s efforts to disparage Bernie Sanders. The leaks break during the Democratic Convention (July 25-28) and threaten to split the party, with the Sanders wing considering walking away from Hillary. This development means crisis time for the Democrats.
— Clinton’s sign off to begin the Russiagate dirty tricks campaign (as Mook testified to, Smoking Gun One) had to have been in late-July (likely concurrent with the Wikileaks disclosure and the Democratic National Convention 2016, which would have created a sense of panic inside the campaign) because on or about July 28, 2016 CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie Candidate Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. A highly-redacted document states “We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. Cite alleged approved by Hillary Clinton on July 26 a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”
— The FBI then opened its omnibus investigation into all things Trump-Russia, Crossfire Hurricane, on July 31, 2016, a Sunday, coincidentally only four days after Clinton initially approved the dirty tricks campaign and as the DNC ended with Clinton’s nomination. Crossfire was ostensibly opened based on information on Trump campaign member George Papadopoulos relayed by an Australian diplomat. Many believe the timing of the investigation suggests it was based on disclosures to the FBI of the Steele Dossier from inside the Clinton campaign, not diplo gossip about Papadopoulos. Many believe a cut out like Sussman, or Steele himself, ran the dossier data to the FBI the same way Sussman ran the Alfa Bank data to the FBI.
— Brennan may have been personally tipped off by Jake Sullivan, now Joe Biden’s national security advisor and then the most likely “foreign policy adviser” inside the Clinton Campaign running the Russiagate caper, as Brennan as CIA Director briefed Obama on Clinton’s July 26 sign-off (Smoking Gun Two) on the dirty tricks campaign while his own agency would not come to the same conclusions until September 2016, when it forwarded to the FBI an investigative referral about Hillary Clinton approving “a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections in order to distract the public from her email scandal.” If not a tip off, then how did Brennan, always a public Hillary supporter, know before his agency did?
— Aiming for an October Surprise (i.e., a major, game-changing political event breaking in late October, early enough to influence the election but too late for the opposition to effectively rebut), Sussman then meets with the FBI to lay out the Alfa-Bank and smartphone story on September 18, 2016.
— Following a press release by Jake Sullivan, Hillary tweeted on October 31, 2016 Trump had a secret server and it was communicating with Russia (Smoking Gun Three.) She knew her campaign paid to create that information and push it into the public eye via Sussman (to the FBI) and a woman named Laura Seago.
Seago was an analyst at Fusion GPS, the people who commissioned the infamous Steele dossier on behalf of Clinton. Seago testified at the Sussman trial she, Fusion co-founder Peter Fritsch and another Fusion staffer went to journalist Franklin Foer’s house to pitch the story, telling him it had been vetted by “highly credible computer scientists” who “seemed to think these allegations were credible.” Foer ran the story on October 31, 2016 strongly suggesting the server connecting Trump with Alfa Bank was used as a clandestine communications tool, a smoking gun in the world of espionage. The story stated “the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.” Need it even clearer? Comey cleared Clinton of legal trouble over her emails. The last barrier to nomination was breached. Then Wikileaks disclosures threatened to derail the convention. A distraction was needed. Mid-convention Hillary signed off on the Russiagate dirty tricks campaign per Mook and Brennan and then just days later the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane based on either flimsy foreign gossip and/or the Clinton paid-for Steele Dossier. “The trial is the vehicle that Durham is using to help bring out the truth, to tell a story of a political campaign that in two instances pursued information that was totally fabricated or at least misinterpreted with the Alfa Bank connection to Trump and use that disinformation to mislead the American voter,” Kevin Brock, the FBI’s former assistant director for intelligence, said. The Sussman trial shows if nothing else Hillary Clinton herself was personally the start and the end of Russiagate’s false story. As dirty tricks go, this was a helluva tale she sold to a gullible public and ready media. But so what? Politicians approve dirt being spread on their opponents all the time. But not outright, fabricated lies, which is fraud/defamation, that’s the short answer. And Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, played a still-hidden role in all of it. And what kind of president would Hillary have made if she was willing to lie like this to get elected? She is all appetite, still active in her party, still a dangerous animal. The spiteful Clinton still maintains Trump has ties to Russia and through surrogates like Brennan kept Russigate alive to defang the Trump administration even after she lost, the real insurrection. Twitter has still not removed the Clinton/Sullivan Russiagate tweets from 2016 as “disinformation.” That silence allows the lie a second life, important because of course Trump is running again for president and polls show almost half of Americans still think he colluded with Russia. It is easy enough to still say “so what?” at this point. Most people who did not support her concluded long ago Hillary Clinton was a liar and untrustworthy. Her supporters know she’ll never run for public office again, hence the claims that none of this matters, right? Wrong. What matters in the end is less the details of Hillary’s lie than that as someone close to being elected as her would lie about such a thing, claiming her opponent was working for Russia against the interests of the United States he would soon swear an oath to. This week’s revelations and the way they fill in “motive” in the timeline are bombshells if you blow the smoke away. No doubt in many minds Clinton and the intel community’s manipulations are being measured alongside whatever transgressions are attributable to Trump himself. Those who think that way may have missed the day in kindergarten when everyone else was taught how two wrongs don’t make a right, and in high school where good and bad were shown not to be a zero sum game. Trump did not win to absolve Hillary of her sins. And those who worry about the 2024 election being stolen over simple vote miscounts are thinking way too small. Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com. The Specific 'Why' Behind Russiagate Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() We all remember Anthony Fauci’s response to the striking down of the transportation (and especially airplane) mask mandate: only “public health” authorities may make these decisions. So what do we do if the geniuses who run our public health establishment do something stupid, or overstep their (imagined) authority? No answer. You will be ruled by public health bureaucrats, and you will like it. Last week Fauci even went so far as to say that the battle over the airplane mask mandate has less to do with masks on planes than it does with who gets to say whether we’re forced to wear masks on planes: “One of the issues that I have articulated in the past, and I will in the future, [is] it’s less about mandates on the plane than it is about who has the right and the authority and the capability of making public health decisions. And I believe that the Department of Justice is operating on the principle that decisions that are public health decisions belong with the public health agency, in this case, the CDC.” As long as we’re on the subject, let’s take a look at the death trends since the mandate was lifted. Remember what a catastrophic health decision this was supposed to have been? The numbers must be through the roof, right? Let’s take a look: I’m sure you’re just shocked at this graph: ![]() The great Ian Miller, author of Unmasked, just said that one of his favorite 2022 headlines has been “California extends mask mandate amid record COVID cases,” because it showed not a hint of awareness of what this said about the effectiveness of mask mandates. The main reason they’ve fought against the lifting of mandates is that we’ll see that no catastrophe occurs when the mandates are lifted. I’ve been saying throughout this fiasco that the parallel between the regime’s “public health” experts and its so-called monetary experts is almost exact. In each case, the alleged experts make bad situations worse, and then expect us to thank them because without them we’re supposed to believe it would have been worse still. In each case, we peons are not entitled to an opinion. Why, the experts have spoken! Now shut up and obey, citizen! And it’s the monetary mismanagement that’s now coming to the fore. Read the whole article here. What Happened After Masks Disappeared From Planes? Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() NATO Launches Big Baltic War Games...What Could Go Wrong? Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() In a video published yesterday Gonzalo Lire, currently under house arrest in Karkov, is asking a very interesting question: What Happens To Europe When Russia Wins? (vid) Lira states, and I agree with him, that Russia will win the war in the Ukraine, take the south and east to likely create a new country and leave the rest of the cadaver for Poland, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania and others to feast on. But then what? The US controlled NATO will still be there. It is practically guaranteed that the US will use it to push for revenge for the loss of Ukraine. This will be done by a steady buildup of troops and long range missile capabilities along Russia's Nordic and Baltic borders and additional naval threats in the northern Arctic as well as the southern Black Sea. Some ten years from now the US would be able to again try to wage a big (proxy) war against Russia. Then with a decent chance to win. No negotiations or peace agreements will prevent that. The US is famously non-agreement-capable (недоговороспособны). It has broken ALL promises and agreements it has ever made with Russia. Dozens of US and European luminaries had promised to Russia that NATO would expand 'not one inch' towards Russia. Look where its borders are now. The US and the EU have confiscated huge amounts of Russian state owned money. They have even taken, in contradiction to their own constitutions, the properties of private Russian citizens just because those persons happen to be Russian. In 2014 Germany and France signed on to guarantee elections for a peaceful regime change in Kiev. A day later the fascists stormed the Ukrainian parliament and those guarantees turned out to be totally worthless. The US simply said fuck the EU. It does not give shit about European interests. Germany and France later negotiated and signed the Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 agreements. They continued to feed billions of EU money into Ukraine even as the Ukrainian government, controlled by the US, did nothing to fulfill them. Yes, they were that stupid. The US has installed 'missile defense' systems in Poland and Romania which are in fact designed to lob Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) onto Moscow. These are a serious danger to Russia. Even after Ukraine is finished, NATO and its EU proxies will continue to be a danger to Russia. Both have proven to be unable to keep promises. Russia in consequence will have to rearrange them. Russia could do that by force. But there will be no march towards Riga, Warsaw, Berlin or Paris. (Remember that Russia has been there and done that which every time has led to major changes in Europe.) Russia has announced its strategic aims. In December 2021 Russia set forth two agreements which the US and NATO. They included demands for a future arrangement in Europe that would guarantee indivisible security for all. On January 21 2022 the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was to meet Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Geneva to talk about Russia's proposals. Just minutes before that meeting the Foreign Ministry of Russia held a news conference to answer media questions: Question: What will Russia’s demand that NATO return to the 1997 framework mean for Bulgaria and Romania? Will they have to leave NATO, remove US bases from their territory, or something else?Reuters reported: MOSCOW (Reuters) - The security guarantees that Russia seeks from the West include provisions requiring NATO forces to leave Romania and Bulgaria, the Russian foreign ministry said on Friday.After more than 20 years of watching Lavrov and Putin everyone should know that they do not publicly set out aims if they have no way to achieve them. They always have well thought out plans before announcing their goals. So how can Russia actually achieve a retreat of NATO back to its 1997 borders? Sanctions. The US has used its economic and military powers to sanction this or that country that did not do as it was told to do by Washington. Unless enacted by the UN Security Council such sanctions have no basis in international law. Despite that the US even used secondary sanctions. It threatened sanctions against Europe, and everyone else, as it ordered them to not deal with Iran or Venezuela. The US is thinking about "allowing" Europe and Venezuela to trade together. Think about what this story tells us about global power relations and who is in charge. Russia can do similar. But as it always follows international law, it will have to do it in a slightly different way. Russia is a superpower in that it produces all kinds of raw materials the world, and especially the 'west', needs. Europe, and especially Germany, is depending on natural gas and oil from Russia. Energy prices in Germany will at least triple if it is completely cut off from Russian supplies. German industry leader have loudly announced that they will have to close shop if the current European policies of restricting Russian energy supplies continues. The chemical giants BASF and Bayer will have to move to some other country. Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW will have to stop all production in Europe. Steel production would fall to zero. Lack of fertilizer would lead to dependency on foreign agriculture. Mass unemployment would follow. Millions will be in the street to protest against rolling blackouts, freezing apartments and hyperinflation. Russia can achieve this at any time. It simply has to stop supplying gas and oil to Europe. Despite six European 'sanction packages' against Russia there has yet to be a reciprocal response from Russia. It may still hope that European leaders will recognized the deadly game the US is playing with them. Unfortunately the leaders of Europe are dumb and compromised. The 'olive green' German Minister for Economic Destruction Robert Habeck still dreams of bringing Russia's economy to its knees even as the ruble rises and Germany's economy is falling apart. Chancellor Olaf Scholz was never the brightest bulb in the room. He is deeply compromised through his involvement in the Wireguard scandal. He was the Minister of Finance when reports of the company's billion dollar fraud were suppressed by his ministry. And don't get me going about Ursula van der Leyen who has been proven to be corrupt and incompetent ever since she took her first public office. US secret services will know of many other crimes these people have been involved in. The current ideological leaders of Europe will have to be replaced by clean ones who follow the German tradition of Realpolitik: Realpolitik (German: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]; from German real 'realistic, practical, actual', and Politik 'politics'), refers to enacting or engaging in diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly binding itself to explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies" or "realistic policies".Only with new and decent leaders will Europe come to its senses. Russia can help to achieve that while at the same time solving its NATO problem. It can publicly declare that: THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER RUSSIAN SUPPLIES OF ANY KIND TO EUROPE UNTIL IT BREAKS WITH WASHINGTON. What would follow? Millions of discussions under candlelight would be held in freezing and hungry European households. Political opinions would change. Governments would be replaced with more pragmatic ones. France and Germany would either have to leave NATO or become impoverished and irrelevant. US troops on European grounds would be asked to leave or be attacked and thrown out by an enraged public. Germany would prohibit the US military from using its airspace. The U.S would lose its grip over the continent. That can't happen? Well, Gonzalo Lira disagrees and so do I. In early February, before the Russian intervention in Ukraine, I had warned of the consequences of current 'western' policies: The US strategy to 'fix' Russia in Europe by imposing 'crushing sanctions' on it to then attack China is failing. That is because it was completely misconceived.The consequences for Europe were obvious: The US and its proxies in the EU and elsewhere have put up very harsh sanctions on Russia to damage its economy.Europe is fortunate in that Russia, even before re-entering the Ukraine, has offered a very decent alternative to US hegemony in Europe: A man who has Putin's ear, Professor Sergey Karaganov who is the honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, has written an op-ed that points to an alternative.That last paragraph is the gist of Russia's real strategic aims. They require to destroy the current system of US hegemony over Europe. Europe will have to be de-NATO-sized. Regime changes in European countries will probably be necessary to see to that. Russia's leaders now have a once in a century chance to achieve those aims. They will be condemned by their compatriots if the refrain from doing so. The US has no way to prevent or counter a Russian sales boycott and its consequences. When will European politicians, or those behind them, finally wake up to those facts? Update (11:45 UTC): A soundbite from a press conference Lavrov is currently holding: Russian Embassy, UK @RussianEmbassy - 11:41 UTC · Jun 6, 2022 FM #Lavrov: To all appearances, no one is going to even reform #NATO. They are going to turn this “defensive alliance” into a global alliance claiming global military dominance. This is a dangerous path that is definitely doomed to failure. Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama. How Russia Can (And Will?) De-NATO-ize Europe Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity |
Ron Paul
|