NATO Must Go

If I were to attend a peace rally against the military debacle happening in Ukraine, I would arm myself with two signs. The first sign would say, “NA-TO MUST GO”. The other would read, “DE-NATO-IZE EUROPE”. I believe the NATO military alliance is at the crux of this conflict and many others.

The North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) was signed on April 4, 1949. In 1950, just over a year later, at the start of the Korean War, NATO became involved in the military operation of a war in Asia. Why? Simple, to contain a Soviet ally, North Korea. From its inception, NATO has been an alliance to contain Soviets/Russians in Europe and worldwide.

Senator Robert Taft

Sen. Robert Taft spoke on why he voted against creating NATO. He called the treaty “a program by which we arm all these nations against Russia” He continued, “It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.”

Taft went on to describe what he believed to be a Russian take on a NATO build-up in western Europe, “Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia.“

Taft’s prediction did not consider the Russian response to a NATO expansion into eastern Europe. Today former Warsaw Pact nations like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, have been brought into NATO along with Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia was admitted into NATO. The ring that Mr. Taft spoke of has tightened. NATO is now on parts of the Russian border.

George F. Kennan – Former Ambassador to Russia

Former ambassador to Russia and architect of the Cold War George F. Kennan said, “What bothers me is how superficial and ill-informed the whole Senate …” ”I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.” NATO was a Cold War military alliance against our adversaries, the Soviet Union, not the people that removed them.

William Burns – Former Ambassador to Russia

Former US Ambassador to Russia William J. Burns, who is now CIA director, admitted in a classified 2008 cable that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Russian security redlines. In that State Department cable titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines”, Burns cautioned the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine. Burns predicted that Ukraine “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”

Last week Putin explained the reality of Senator Taft’s prediction. “For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but the very existence of our state and its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.”

For 30 years, Russia has not on wavered on this redline warning. It is not a surprise that Putin followed through on the message. However, idiots like NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg continues to incite war expansion. Statements like; “deploying parts of its combat-ready response force and would continue to send weapons to Ukraine, including air defenses” reeks of war posting.

“Russia is actually challenging core values for security and demanding that NATO should withdraw all forces and infrastructure from almost half of our members. And they have stated that if we don’t meet their demands, there will be “military-technical consequences.” Stoltenberg out of context quotes is rhetoric designed to incite the misinformed.

Because Stoltenberg fails to mention is that NATO expansion poses an existential threat to Russia by placing missile sites, military bases, and combat troops on its border. He also fails to mention that NATO expansion violates an agreement (all NATO members are signatories) stipulating that all parties will refrain from any action that could affect the security interests of the other members.

Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson

How many wars will it take before we listen to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Washington advised against permanent alliances, and Jefferson called for devotion to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Congressman Ron Paul

In 2008, from the House Floor, Congressman Ron Paul said that “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” Washington, Jefferson, Taft, Kennan, Burns, and Paul cannot all be wrong. NATO MUST GO!

War! – Who is it Good For?

Mutual aid, invasion, military operation, call it what you would like. It does not matter innocent civilian victims are killed, maimed, and lives destroyed by armed conflict. Why? Because central governments are evil. It does not matter if they are democracies, monarchs, fascists, dictatorial or socialist they are part of an evil, psychopathic society.

They are not good at balancing budgets, providing health care, education, fighting pandemics, and maintaining infrastructure. However, they are great at starting violent, bloody, and destructive wars. Then when they fail like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, they double down on a new one. This year, the Ukraine model might be the last ever. (nuclear war)

What purpose does war serve? To claim more servants to tax. To rally more of those sunshine patriots that cheer as the naive sign up to kill or be killed? The military-industrial complex needs to sell more armament and weapons to keep profits high. Is it just a cheap production of a new network series? After all, it has all the necessary plots; murder, international intrigue, heroes, villains, real special effects, and it has a corporation willing to sponsor it. Maybe it is as simple as determining the biggest bully on the block.

War – A Spectator Sport?

It is not a sporting event where people act like fans and choose a team to root. No, it is more like a cock fight where you root for the death of one roster over the life of another. The point is that the event is inhumane. Most of us are disgusted by the event and stay away. We do not pick a rooster to patronize, lionize or supply weapons.

Unlike governments, we do not attend or scour the earth in pursuit of cock fights. So, why do I see media personalities, Hollywood celebrities, neighbors, family, and friends picking sides? Does it matter who is killing who? Diplomacy stops the killing.

Can You Say – Diplomacy?

Diplomacy is a series of concessions to gain a purpose, a give and take process. Biden has said that Ukraine will not be approved for membership into NATO. And back in 2015, the US officially recognized the Minsk Agreement for the autonomy of the Donbas as part of a peace process. Obama, Trump, and Biden never pressured the Ukrainian leaders to enforce the Minsk agreement. Nor have they ever taken steps to stop NATO expansion into eastern Europe. In reality, they voted to approve NATO membership for Eastern European nations.

Presidential candidate Biden promised a presidency of diplomacy. He has failed. NATO expansion to the east has long been one of the Russian concerns. Biden blew a diplomatic action that would have stopped Russian troops from rolling across the Ukrainian border.

Putin’s Birdseye View

Putin, a former KGB colonel, came to power in 1999 after the disastrous rule of Boris Yeltsin. That same year, Putin watched as America conducted a 78-day bombing campaign on Serbia, the Balkan nation that had historically been a protectorate of Russia. Also that year, three former Warsaw Pact nations, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, were brought into NATO. Then in 2004, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria were admitted into NATO. Three of those counties were former republics of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

What boogyman are US arms and the NATO alliance protecting these countries? The answer is Russia and Putin would be stupid not to realize that. Last Monday, Putin said that during a Clinton visit to Moscow in 2000. He had asked Bill Clinton about the prospects of Russia joining NATO. Putin would not reveal the actual response but pointed out subsequent US policies like “support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring Russian demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on.”

Last week, Putin said that for eight years, he had tried to bring peace to the Ukraine situation in a way that would keep the breakaway republics as part of Ukraine. Consequently, he has no alternative but to announce Russian recognition of the two republics. He signed mutual aid treaties with both republics. The Russian mutual aid package began by demanding Kyiv immediate stoppage of all hostilities. Otherwise, Putin added, all responsibility for a possible continuation of the bloodshed will be on the consciousness of the regime ruling in Ukraine.

With no response from the Ukrainian military, a Russian version of Shock and Awe ensued. Russian forces decapitated Ukrainian missiles and everything that supported the Ukrainian military forces. They hit the HQ of the Armed Forces of Ukraine stationed in Donbas. This blow to the Ukrainian General Staff severed control of all its troops.

Accusations of a Russian invasion are blaring across mainstream media. Is Putin using recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent republics as an excuse to bolster his peacekeeping forces, or has Russia initiated an invasion? It appears Russian armed forces are doing what Putin defined as a “special military operation (…) aimed at demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine”. I assume his declaration to demilitarize includes neutralizing oppositional military forces. No matter what the excuse, crossing over the border is wrong.

The western media is not asking, Why does Putin feel it necessary to make this move at this particular time? He believes that the Ukrainian government that came to power after the 2014 coup is illegitimate, corrupt, and is a threat to Russia. The U.S.-sponsored coup ousted an elected leader that was very popular in the Donbas.

Ukraine History – Pre-Maidan 2014 Coup

In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, Viktor Yanukovych was declared the winner. Later that year, as a result of the Orange Revolution, he was removed from power.

Yanukovych returned to power in 2006 as prime minister in the Alliance of National Unity until snap elections in September 2007 curtailed his power once again. Amid the 2008–09 Ukrainian financial crisis, the Ukrainian economy plunged by 15%, Russia briefly stopped gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006 and 2009.

In 2010, Ukraine needed an experienced leader. Ukrainians elected Viktor Yanukovych president once again with 48% of the votes. It is important to note much of his support came from eastern Ukraine, especially the Donbas provinces.

Maidan Coup

In November 2013, Viktor Yanukovych began moving away from the European Union partnership and chose closer ties with the Russian Federation partnership offer. The European Union and supporters were incensed, protesters went to the streets. The path to the Euro-maidan coup chartered. Fringe groups sided with the pro-European Union protestors. Yanukovych felt threatened enough to flee to Russia. In February of 2014, Ukraine Parliament voted to remove him as president once again and set an election for May to select his replacement.

During the Euromaidan coup, pro-Yanukovych and anti-Maidan protesters took to the streets in the Donbas. They occupied the Donetsk regional state administration (RSA) building for six days. Their protests involved violent clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan protesters in Donetsk. Separatist groups seizures control over police stations and government buildings in Donetsk and other cities in the Oblast.

Post-Maidan

Ukrainian transitional president Oleksandr Turchynov launched a full-scale anti-terror military operation to reclaim the Donbas buildings. Ukrainian forces made a series of attacks into the Donbas against the rebels. The Ukrainian government forces blockaded cities throughout the Donbas and continued their anti-terror operation. In April, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts held referendums to determine their future status. The results established two new republics, Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

Meanwhile, Petro Poroshenko, running on a pro-European Union platform, won over fifty percent of the presidential vote, therefore not requiring a run-off election. His policies angered the Donbas: he opposed the constitutional protection of Russian as a recognized language in ethnic Russian regions; he intensified Ukrainian nationalism; supported decommunization; and administrative decentralization. All measures further infuriated ethnic Russians living in the Donbas opposed.

Poroshenko immediately launched a War on Terror against Russian-speaking separatists in the Donbas. The civil war has dragged on for years, claiming up to 15,000 lives. His newly installed government empowered neo-Nazi militias and ultra-nationalist factions of the coup. He did little to rebuff western Ukrainian stereotypical beliefs that easterners in the Donbas are a thug culture, a Soviet cesspool, and backward.

Ukraine Today

Today Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former actor and comedian, has been serving as the president of Ukraine since 2019. Zelinsky promised to end the Ukrainian conflict with Russia as part of his presidential campaign. His attempt to engage in dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his promises to end the war in Donbas have all failed. These squandered promises have resulted in Russian military forces rolling across the Ukraine border.

Ukraine is not a western democracy. I would call it a coup-ocracy controlled by mafioso-type parties, gangs, special interest groups, and US puppets. It is a country that savory characters leverage their power and influence for selfish returns. Ukraine is so unstable that a coup could break out over the weather.

I do not know what the Donbas offers that makes it war-worthy. I do know that after the 2014 coup removed their popularly elected president, Donetsk and Lugansk voted to leave Ukraine. It is called a secession. In a democratic world, some might even call it a declaration for independence. However, in an indentured world, the masters will battle for their property. Remember Abe?

Compliant, obstinate, and defiant are words used to describe a behavioral response to authoritative edicts. Authorities treat people differently based upon which behavior they demonstrate. The compliant rewarded, the obstinate coerced, and the defiant persecuted. Canadian truckers were essential workers defying covid as they delivered goods for the Zoom crowd. They were considered heroes. 

In 2020, when thousands of farmers from all over India traveled to the capital city of Delhi, Trudeau insisted, “Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest.” Fast forward two years to last Wednesday when he told the Canadian Parliament trucker, ”blockages, illegal demonstrations are unacceptable, and are negatively impacting businesses and manufacturers… It has to stop.” 

Trudeau evades the fact that he can stop it immediately. Concede to the truckers’ simple demands; end mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations and the government tracking system used to enforce them. Instead, he first resorted to name-calling. Recently he denounced those Canadian truckers as fringe, racists, misogynists, criminals, and terrorists. The hero status is fleeting when you change from compliant to defiant. 

Monday, at a news conference on Parliament Hill, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he invoked the federal Emergencies Act so that ”the federal government is ready to use more tools at its disposal.” He is not talking about more phillips screwdrivers and wrenches. He is talking hammers. Yes, and with an abundant supply of hammers, everything looks like a nail.

Trudeau justifies his action “is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people’s jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions.” Protecting jobs is the most interesting of these. His mandated lockdowns and labeling of non-essential workers prevented many Canadian from working.  

Not About Covid

Is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the darling of liberal media and the first “Woke” democratic leader of western democracy, exposing the true nature of governmental authority? Left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative does not matter. The monopolistic power of government is intoxicating.

Trudeau’s confrontation with the truckers is state dictates versus freedom of choice. It is a battle between state dictates in the name of safety and security versus family, church, the community choice. It is a challenge to the “rule of law” versus responsive governance. It is a struggle between the independent workers versus the Zoom society. It’s a conflict that pits real-world human interaction against the splendors of online isolation; the experiences of working men and women versus the professional experts. It is a clash between the life experienced crew and the formula quoting, statistics referencing prognosticators. 

First, it was a lockdown, then social distancing, followed by mask mandates, its vaccine programs, and finally vaccine mandates and passports. All initiated to convince the public that only state power can make them safe and secure. They imply since the state can save, its leaders are the only legitimate source of authority. Proud men and women will not tolerate this level of arrogance for long.  

The leaders suggest that only the state is qualified to keep the population educated, healthy, safe, prosperous, and satisfied. Without their intervention, things will go badly. They believe that the family, the church, and the community, are all inadequate to secure human well-being.   

Trudeau claims he instituted the vaccine mandates to save and secure. Without him, the reasoning goes, the population would suffer and die from Covid. The political logic is inescapable. Leaders, like him, believe they alone are fit to govern and that there is only one path to follow. They insist that opponents to their mandates are just obstacles that need to be removed. 

Trucker Threat?

The truckers represent a threat to Trudeau. They have a social and political power that they independently achieved and garnered by their status amongst the working class. This socio-economic class represents the last bastion of self-sufficiency and independence in a modern society such as Canada and the United States. 

In today’s economy, the professional classes like; doctors, academics, teachers, and civil servants mostly derive their incomes and status from the state built on regulatory apparatus that only the state can provide and enforce. 

Then there is the underclass, who most often rely on the state for their needs. They pose no threat to the state’s legitimacy. The state prefers this existence and wishes all of society were that way. A population entirely reliant on the state would never question its growth of power and its legitimacy. 

The truckers are making a stand for the independent working class. They gather incomes from private sources, owners of small businesses, and employees of small and medium-sized enterprises. They are independent-minded that see self-sufficiency as a virtue and rely on themselves and their relationships with others rather than the state. They earn their money using a skill that others value and pay for their service. 

They represent a barrier to state authority because they do not need it. To them, the state frequently stands in their way. They see a problem and want to find a solution for themselves. They want to make up their minds about whether to take a vaccine, wear a mask, and assess their health-related risks. 

The modern state has waged a covert war against the independent. At every step, it seeks to regulate their business affairs, restrict their liberty, and confiscate their prosperity. There is always a purportedly good reason for this. But it contributes to a whittling away of their independence and strength. They are squeezed, squashed between the welfare-reliant underclass and the white-collar professionals who draw their wealth from the state. 

Justin Trudeau’s contempt for the truckers is genuine. He sees them as a challenge to his political future and an increasing scope and scale for governmental authority. His authority has waned during this crisis. His reaction to this protest will determine his political future. 

Trudeau and all bureaucrats derive their legitimacy from their positions of rulership. Whether elected or appointed, their number one prerogative becomes job security. Their jobs are reliant on convincing the population that they are necessary. Necessary to impose lockdowns and mandates? Necessary to freeze bank account and seize personal money based on charitable donation? Do government-enforced “necessary dictates” help or hinder? 

With no government-imposed mandates, would we have treated covid symptoms more effectively, would there be a lesser economic and social impact, would there have been fewer covid deaths? Would we have more freedoms? Yes!

There Is Nothing You Can Do About It!

Not many statements make me angrier than when the indoctrinated and misinformed bloviate “there is nothing you can do about it.” It is the standard narrative parroted when referencing treatment for covid symptoms. 

In late 2020, the Mexico City government initiative a covid treatment program. Based on worldwide positive results for ivermectin (IVM), the city handed out nearly 200,000 kits that included four IVM pills. The program started in December 2020 when hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID cases spiking.

Residents who tested positive and had mild to moderate symptoms received kits. The city distributed 83,000 kits resulting in a 52% reduction in hospital admissions among those who had received the kits. Later reports indicate a 70% reduction in hospital admissions.

The government spent just under 29.3 million pesos (USD 1.4 million) on 293,000 boxes of IVM. José Antonio Peña Merino, the head of the Mexico City government’s Digital Agency for Public Innovation (ADIP), said in May 2021, “the medical kit was a significant factor in the reduction of hospital admissions and course possible deaths.”  

The Mexico City Health Ministry stated that the distribution of ivermectin to COVID-19 patients was not an experiment. The IVC treatment program, initiated from the recommendation made by a group of expert pulmonologists and infectious disease doctors, took into account the stage of the pandemic, which had claimed the lives of many Mexicans. 

A medical abstract study “to measure the effect of Mexico City’s population-level intervention –an ivermectin-based Medical Kit, in hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic,” resulted in a significant reduction in hospitalizations among patients who received the ivermectin-based medical kit. The range of reduced hospitalization is 52%- 76% depending on model specification. The abstract concluded that “the study supports ivermectin-based interventions to assuage the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health system.”

IVC is an approved medication in Mexico, used to treat many parasite infections and other diseases with great success. The ministry said that the distribution of ivermectin to ambulatory COVID-19 patients is safe, cheap, and without adverse effects. IVC is also an approved medication in the United States to treat parasite infections and other diseases. Mexico approved the distribution of ivermectin as an ambulatory treatment for covid. The United States does not. Warning! Crossing the Mexican border may reduce hospitalization from covid by 50% – 70%.

Everyone should watch the academy award-winning film Dallas Buyers Club to get a snapshot of the powers that the Fauci cabal uses to ensure the profits of Big Pharma at the expense of the ill. I’m not counting on today’s Hollywood heroes to produce a sequel to Dallas Buyers Club exposing the Fauci cabal’s covid pandemic abuse. Brain fog from mask-wearing and asbestosis from cowering in basements might be more appropriate themes.

Planned or Coincidence?

Disaster Capitalism is when catastrophic opportunities happen to advance economic and political agendas, a red flag of sorts. “Remember the Maine”, the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, or Syrian gas attacks are examples of this nefarious tactic. Was the covid virus such an opportunistic event?

The medical/pharmaceutical elite was well-practiced and prepared for a pandemic disaster. The covid pandemic virus provided an opportunity that only comes along every so often. Psychopaths do not waste these occurrences. They react. Their 2019 simulated germ game produced the blueprint to control the narrative with an authoritative response.

A simulated practice for a pandemic virus took place in October 2019. The participants were: the Bloomberg-financed Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, the CDC, the (American trained) head of the Chinese health authority, a former deputy director of the CIA, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and so on.

The practice run appeared to have established a protocol more concerned with suppressing truths and science from being exposed. The plan was to rely on social media and the mainstream media to control the narrative and censor the truth. They considered shutting down the Internet altogether. However, they were confident that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google would only allow news in keeping with the narrative and flood the Internet with information that confirms their information while discrediting and blocking the truth.

Participants like Admiral Stephen Redd of the U.S. Public Health Service overreacted to criticism. Redd thought critics on social media should be monitored, by intelligence services, if they took issue with the narrative. One international minister suggested that dissidents should be arrested and brought to justice. The head of the Chinese health authority worried that suspicion might arise that the virus originated in a laboratory. Johnson & Johnson thought it prudent to suppress adverse results in vaccine trials to prevent public knowledge of poorly tested vaccines.

State of Emergency

Recently Kees Van Der Pijl’s authored a book, States of Emergency. Pijl makes an argument showing that the pandemic is a political emergency, not a medical one. Its purpose is to suppress populations and transition to an authoritarian state and social structure. He believes the Covid crisis advanced authoritarianism and overrode objections from the people and independent medical scientists. The pandemic provided a perfect cover to increase surveillance based on a medical emergency.

Kees Van Der Pijl concludes the attempt by the global elite to solidify their control was too ambitious to succeed. He states they did come close, especially in Australia, Canada, Austria, Italy, and Germany. He thinks that judiciary decisions and actions by governors such as Ron DeSantis in Florida blocked the authoritative take-over in the U.S.

Co-authors for the Marketing Department?

Van Der Pijl’s book exposes regulatory agencies such as FDA, NIH, CDC, and the WHO as marketing departments for Big Pharma. He describes politicians taking their political stance based upon the sources of their campaign funds. He explains how universities and the media must function as Ministries of Propaganda for the ruling elites and their narratives. Fauci and Big Pharma control content in medical journals via grants to medical researchers, and the money the pharmaceutical industry provides have corrupted medical publications.

Van Der Pijl writes, “According to the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, who had 20 years of experience, it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the published clinical research.” Pijl mentions that much of The Lancet‘s revenues, a prestigious British journal, come from billing pharmaceutical companies to reprint articles that support their products.

Many of the tin-foil-hat crowd preached that the free world willingness to shut down civil liberties with tyrannical lockdowns, mask, vaccine, passport mandates, and falsified pandemic and death data was suspicious and looked like a conspiracy. How far-flung are those tin-foil-hatters?

In a recent Rasmussen poll, 1,000 likely voters responded to a statement that characterized the FBI as a totalitarian tool; 46% of respondents said they agree, including 29% that strongly agreed. 30% of Democrats had an unfavorable view of the FBI. In the poll, 38% disagreed with the characterization.

One year after the January 6th protest and trespassing violations on federal property Uncle Joe Biden and his administration have continued to weaponize fear. Earlier in the year, the administration proposed several menacing actions in response to a 2021 event.

To secure our democracy, the Biden Justice Department will create a new federal unit, under the guise of the Patriot Act, focused on the threat of domestic terrorism. His new team will use a 222-year-old Act to arrest and prosecute terrorists. Then his ex-fellow Congressmen will summon the social media giant to the Congressional woodshed for some good old ass whooping.

Never mind that no post 9/11 surveillance measures under the USA PATRIOT have ever stopped an attack on the United States. No data shows that more spying by the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security would make the Capitol riot less likely to have occurred.

Considering the FBI has dispatches investigations to spy on groups like Concerned Women for America, the bar for domestic terrorism appears to be set very low. Then again, the group mistakenly stated its purpose as “to protect and promote Biblical values and Constitutional principles through prayer, education, and advocacy”.

January 6, 2021, the Capitol Complex was violated by rioters/demonstrators with no weapons; lawmakers and staff evacuated, property vandalized, police assaulted, and trespassers occupied the federal building for several hours. One woman trespasser was shot dead by Capitol Police, and five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event.

Thousand of people legally visited the Capital in 2020. However, when our self-indulgent politicians become inconvenienced and scared, those termites of our democracy will ignore justice and turn their backs to habeas corpus for the accused.

We have become calloused to tyranny. Our sense of liberty has hardened over the past few years. Covid mandates instituted by our governments have limited speech, movement, and personal choice. The First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights violations under the Patriot Act have been abusive to many innocent people. Whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden, provided the documentation of such abuse.

Today, in the spirit of not letting a crisis go to waste, the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland is expanding the Patriot Act to include domestic terrorism. The man authorized the FBI to investigate parents who engaged in domestic terrorism behavior at local school board meetings. In other words, parents advocating for input into the curriculum of their local public schools are now, according to Garland, domestic terrorists.

As far back as the Truman administration in the 1950s, the Bureau of Investigation (renamed the FBI) was considered a threat to civil liberties. President Harry S. Truman put it, “We want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction.”

Under J. Edgar Hoover, it gathered intelligence on politicians and prominent public figures under the guise of fighting communism, causing fear and intimidation nationwide. Hoover had a special hatred for homosexuals and was well versed in coming-out parties. In the Hoover FBI, framing innocent people was common. Crossing the Director brought on character assassination and ruin.

In the 1960s, the FBI COINTEL program infiltrated and radicalized leftist groups to undermine them. This technique would surface again during the war on terror. The Justice Department’s new domestic terrorism unit evokes memories of the FBI COINTEL initiative. Their list of victims is impressive; the NAACP, MLK, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, and the Weather Underground.

COINTEL tactics included discrediting targets through psychological warfare, smearing individuals/groups, using forged documents, planting false reports in the media, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, and illegal violence, including assassination. The FBI maintained files on many people. Such as Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, John Denver, John Lennon, Jane Fonda, Groucho Marx, Charlie Chaplin, Lou Costello, Sonny Bono, Bob Dylan, Michael Jackson, and Mickey Mantle, people they consider dangerous. Some for their political belief, and others in connection with antiwar activities.

Nothing has changed in almost a century under this playbook. In the 1990s, the FBI was murdering unarmed mothers with babies in their arms (Ruby Ridge) and burning religious zealots to death in their church (Waco). Agents infiltrated political organizations and encouraged their members to plot violent acts. Then when the plan (a product of FBI entrapment), federal agents swoop in to save the day.

Informants and undercover agents manipulate and recruit the feeble and the gullible into engaging in violence and other conduct to make them felons and discredit their causes. The result is a misconception by the general public believing that because of FBI vigilance, disaster would have struck. In reality, without the FBI provocation, the conspiracies would never have occurred in the first place.

The true nature of the FBI is not what Missy Peregrym, Zeeko Zaki, and Jeremy Sisto depict on the small screen, or is it the Efrem Zimbalist Jr version of the FBI. The assassination of Black Panther Party leaders like Fred Hampton, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City Bombing, the Whitey Burger Cases, and the Hillary Clinton email investigation demonstrate the true corruptive nature of federal law enforcement power.

In 1942, a war on domestic terrorists began against the public. The FBI and federal authorities “domestic terrorist units” initiated and oversaw the arrest of innocent people of Japanese ancestry. The overzealous feds rounded up 120,000 Japanese Americans, executed warrantless searches of their property, forced the victims to relocate to internment camps.

This failed security plan is just one in the line of federal law enforcement debacles. Another FBI pre-crime theme, based on ancestry, religion, and physical appearance, was repurposed after 9/11. Pre-crime conviction and prosecution initiative against potential terrorism is tyranny, not liberty and justice.

Freedom of speech is another victim drown in the wake of federal law enforcement. In 1918, Eugene Debs made speeches against President Wilson’s administrative decision to enter World War I. Wilson responded by denouncing Debs as a traitor to his country. Then on June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. Debs was arrested and charged with ten counts of sedition. Elimination of free speech is just one stop on the tyranny train.

I cringe to think of what sort of treatment they will employ against actual critics of their policies and narratives. The Reign of Terror and the guillotine beheading of King Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette may not be far off.

Treason is the only federal crime mentioned in the US Constitution. Terrorism is a vicious tactic of conflict in which one man’s domestic terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The innocent Japanese in the 1940s, Muslims in the 2000s, and the un-trialed prisoners of the January 6th intrusion are victims of federal law enforcement overreach.

In conclusion, the solution is not more! We do not need a new federal law enforcement unit purposed to limit dissent. What we need to do is dismember the current ones. Move federal law enforcement, other than treason, back to the states.

Keep The Public Ignorant

When science takes root in the minds of the American community, it is defended with vigor by some. Dissenting opinions are squelched. Sometimes self-censored other times silenced by the machinations of an authority. The truth is restricted, minds close, ignorance survives, and mainstream media provides fodder. Hell, even the “science of eugenics” was the darling of the ruling class until hijacked by Hitler. 

Today, an echo chamber surrounds the virus ignorant with voices of affirmation with hostility toward any exchange of thoughts and feelings. The voice of Dr. Anthony Faucis is the most powerful, dominant, loudest, and corrupt of these voices. Listen to the science is their favorite adage. But the science he speaks is the result of flawed, unethical, and corrupted clinical endorsements of his cronies over the past 40 years.

Little effort is required to keep a false narrative alive when the opposition is missing or canceled. Education gets edited to conceal the truth. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, exposes a litany of situations that depict Fauci as a corrupt psychopathic shill for Big Pharma.

In the world of Anthony Fauci, big Pharma gets protection, profits prioritized, and innocent individuals are killed or damaged. Many of his nefariously flawed clinical trials result in needless death. Fauci’s exploitation of the helpless may be best exemplified by examining his machinations, after the discovery, of a new novel virus. He did it during the HIV epidemic and has repeated the same strategy with the covid pandemic.  

Induce Fear

The first play, in the Fauci playbook, is to induce fear. Some of his favorite actions include; abuse the data, changing definitions, and seizing the media. Specifically; PCR testing at 45 cycles, dying with covid instead of dying of covid, a continued count for covid deaths, change the definition of vaccine, slandering of drugs proven to lower symptoms of covid, and with the help of the social media giants, cancel any opposition.

Discredit Existing Non-Patterned Drugs

The second step in his playbook is to prove that no medications or treatments exist in the current Pharma arsenal of drugs and vaccines because existing non-patterned drugs sold genetically drastically lower the profit margins of the Pharma giants. So, the race to develop an approved drug or vaccine creates a frenzy of competition to obtain a monopolistic pattern that guarantees profits. 

Once Fauci proved that all current medications are ineffective against covid, the emergency approval process began. Funding for clinical tests must be approved and then money appropriated. Funding is Fauci’s domain welcome to his spider web. This protocol has been a winning formula in the reign of Fauci. The problem is that big Pharma is the winner, and the paying public is the loser. 

Fauci’s strategy became apparent in the early stage of the Covid pandemic. He endorsed a covid protocol that denied patients treatment. Hospitals were encouraged to send Covid patients home. Why? So they could get sicker and weaker? Those suffering co-modalities, compromised immune systems were accepted into the hospitals much too late to save. Then those covid patients that survived long enough to make it to the hospital were strapped to deadly respirators, prescribed remdesivir, and other feeble attempts to save an already condemned victim. 

Dismiss Real Doctoring

However, some independent doctors, those that honored their Hippocratic Oath, developed a sequence protocol of prescribed inexpensive and non-patented drugs to battle the symptoms of covid. Usage of Ivermectin and chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine produced favorable results. For years these drugs have been used and are listed on the World Health Organization (WHO) essential drug list. Fauci used semantics to slander these drugs. But because of a technicality, there was no clinical trial proof or approval of their effectiveness against covid, Fauci condemned their usage.   

These independent doctors caught the ire of Fauci and his minions. No one goes against a Fauci dictate without impunity. Fauci and his cabal, aided hugely by Donald Trump’s admission of use, discredited the drugs as horse dewormers or used only for malaria and lupus that caused heart rhythm problems. Ignored, in his defamation, was the fact that Trump recovered quickly without any severe symptoms. 

Fauci, his gang of doctors, and mainstream media succeeded in canceling an effective procedure that drastically reduced the symptoms of covid. Fauci deliberately blotched the handling of the covid pandemic. His diabolical proceedings were successful to the hoodwinked public. Fauci then became the gatekeeper to the federal coffers. His big Pharma cronies already had an entry ticket.

$Erika$ – Obtain Emergency Status

Fauci and his shenanigans warranted an emergency for a vaccine against a highly mutant virus with genetic similarities to the common cold. The maestro was ready to conduct another deadly masterpiece. Upon entering into an emergency status, the controls on drug development research lowered. The emergency classification sparked a wild west mentality for vaccine development. Patient health and safety were the first to be compromised. 

King Fauci had the gold needed to distribute, conduct, approve, and assess the clinical trials. He was very comfortable picking the winners and discarding the losers. Apparent is loyalty, not merit, determines what companies are eligible to vie for the patterned jackpot. 

Fauci’s power of the purse makes or breaks companies and individual scientists. Fauci losers are scattered across the medical world, while his cohorts get protection against litigation for damages caused by the vaccines. 

With guaranteed profits, Pharma was able to roll out a vaccine that did not stop the spread, did not prevent the vaccinated from getting covid and did not prove that it lowered the symptoms. Fauci stopped clinical trials prematurely after early signs indicated the vaccine reduced incident levels. Prematurely ending clinical trials hide adverse results. No problem, they would use the public for the final stage of the clinical trials. The public now awaits a fourth booster shot followed by who knows how many more. 

Repeat History

History appears to have repeated, documented in the mishandling of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Again, a corrupted clinical trial allowed an early rollout of AZT, an all-cell killer. His hubris for vaccine immortality and obsession for a magic drug cure against AIDS killed thousands. Nevirapine would be another example of a Fauci-corrupted science.

Control Groups or Controlled Results?

Clinical trials usually involve two groups of volunteers. One group is the control group. The control group or placebo group includes participants who do not receive the drug or treatment instead receive a standard of care or a placebo. The reactions, conditions, and changes between the control group and the experimental group, drugged group, are necessary to determine the effects of the drug/vaccine.

The control group plays a fundamental role in clinical trials as they serve as a baseline for determining the effectiveness of the treatment. Scientifically reliable conclusions are reliant upon control groups. When participants in an experimental group have a better outcome than those in the control group, one might conclude that the intervention has been effective.

For both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, individuals who initially received the placebo, the control group, were subsequently given the vaccine. It is corrupted science. Deliberately destroying the opportunity for long-term follow-up of all health outcomes in those who did not receive the vaccine is diabolic. In others words, Fauci eliminated the control group to get a rushed and untested product. This pollution of clinical trials is a consistent practice in those that Fauci oversees.

Data comparing the unvaccinated group to the vaccinated group is the only scientific method to evaluate the vaccine effects. Fauci is part of an elimination process of the covid unvaccinated control group. Free COVID vaccines for everyone, proof of vaccination as a ticket for admission, mandated by employers, and advertised with federal funds have reduced the unvaccinated control group. This program will not end until the unvaccinated control group gets eliminated. 

Someone with an ounce of cynicism left examined the two existing groups (vaccinated, unvaccinated) the real culprits in this pandemic would be exposed. Proof that validates covid vaccination should be clear from clinical trial results. Both groups get covid, and both groups can spread it. Latest statistics indicate that the vaccinated are getting covid at higher rates. Which group is leading in all-cause mortality? Which group is experiencing higher heart ailment, Bell palsy, new blood disorders, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and other modalities? 

Get Up – Stand Up – Don’t Give Up Your Rights (bob marley)

The ignorant will not stray because they follow the shepherd. The meek tend to self-censor and remain silent, concealing their dissent as we totter on the cusp of tyrannic rule. It is alarming that this group chooses to sit down instead of standing up. “Go along to get along” is easy, comfortable, and tempting but immoral. The cynical must be courageous, speak their mind, ask questions, and demand answers for they can initiate change.   

Trust Fauci science? Eliminate the control group, mandatory vaccines, never fully understand the benefits or danger of the product as big Pharma makes huge profits with no liability. Fauci Science! What could go wrong? 

Democracy is one man/woman, one vote, majority rule. Democracy loses legitimacy when the group, not the individual, is sovereign. Communitarianism, not democracy, is a power-sharing structure between three groups; the state (including its agencies), the private corporations (big pharma, weapons manufacturers, etc.), and the community.

French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, was sent to North America to examine the prison system in the United States. During his travels, he took copious notes. Upon returning to France, he published two volumes titled Democracy in America.

Tocqueville wrote of civil society. He pointed out that voluntary institutions of civil society promoted active engagement in decision making and acted as a bulwark against the excesses of centralized, governmental authority. 

Tocqueville said, “associations of a thousand other kinds -religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books … found hospitals, prisons, and schools”

However, Tocqueville warned about the potential for civil society being exploited by the powerful interest of groups when they combine. “… each of them brings great strength to the partnership, the number of its members may be very limited; and when the members of an association are limited in number, they may easily become mutually acquainted, understand each other, and establish fixed regulations.”

In 1996, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor highlighted political communitarianism in the US. A softer approach to what Tocqueville warned. Its most vocal leader was Amitai Etzioni, an Israeli-American dual citizen. The director of the Center for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. 

Amitai Etzioni’s 2011 book, The New Normal, explores a communitarian view on a post-global economic collapse world. Etzioni applied New Normal to a society suffering from a diminished economy. Today it is used to describe a post covid pandemic society. The connection is troubling.

His liberal communitarian society governments and private corporations consult with the people via the communities to form a civil society. In other words, the combination of these three communities has absorbed the individual. Group-think is when all sections of society become aligned. 

Etzioni believes that the community represents and can speak for the individual. Etzioni assumes that only single identities or homogeneous communities exist. He is guilty of imposing a broad-brush version of the community. 

Etzioni ignores any diversity of thought or dissenting opinions within the community. The problem arises that the communities he creates are in theory only. He is a utopian socialist that calls himself a liberal communitarian. 

Implicit to the communitarian theory is that dissent from the community or disagreement with their common good is unacceptable. Etzioni takes a lockstep approach to compliance. “We should not hesitate to speak up and express our moral concerns to others when it comes to issues we care about deeply […] Those who neglect these duties, should be explicitly considered poor members of the community.”

He classifies poor members as not good citizens and even offers a remedy. “Responsibilities are anchored in community […] communities define what is expected of people; they educate their members to accept these values, and they praise them when they do and frown upon them when they do not. “

His community is a control mechanism, not an egalitarian meritocracy that our forefathers envisioned. In a communitarian society, the community defines responsibilities and expectations, instills values, and demands compliance. The individual is not permitted to flourish. The non-compliant will be educated or excluded. 

The communitarian power structure has blossomed, as a result, of the covid pandemic. The shared morality of civil society has issued commands directed at our responsibilities, like arbitrary orders such as social distancing, masks, quarantines, and vaccines, all unproven directives from civil society. The new normal to make a safer society. 

Freedom of speech and expression, public protest, and freedom of choice are more important than a commitment to any prescribed community or their authorized version of the common good. Civil Society is the collective opinion of a mob, not the voice of all communities or individuals. Some communities still believe in individual sovereignty.

President Biden memorandum delivered on October 22, 2021, confirms the participants in the Kennedy assassination and the importance of their deniability: “Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.”

President Biden, a spokesman for the Executive Branch, statement concerning thousands of government secrets on the Kennedy assassination sheds light on the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and his murderers.

The following blog could be titled: Anatomy Of An American Coup (The Metastasis Of A Security State).

Roosevelt Avoided It

In 1943, the Soviets began turning the tide on the Germans. The U.S. recognized that the Soviet Union would emerge from World War ll as a significant world power. FDR had already accepted that the Soviets would have a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. 

At the February 1945 Yalta Conference, President Roosevelt (FDR), Churchill and Stalin met for their second and final time. FDR and Churchill agreed to several concessions proposed by Stalin. Stalin had a paranoia personality but trusted that Roosevelt would abide by the Yalta agreements. The Soviets would retain control over part of Germany, and the USSR would also have free reign to influence the governments of its Eastern European and Asian neighbors.

Truman Started It

FDR would die two months after the Yalta Conference. Under the command of hardliner Harry Truman, the political dynamics changed dramatically. The U.S. would renege on many of FDR’s promises and concessions. Coupled with America and British fears over the spread of communism, the US-Soviet relationship spiraled downhill. Truman and his administration viewed USSR as an unfriendly nation undergoing an arms buildup with an interventionist approach to international relations.  

By 1945, the power and ambition of multinational defense corporations had expanded outside of their domain. They began a self-interest pursuit to keep the funds coming. During WWII the defense spending had increased by over 13,000 percent. By the end of the war, these companies had made huge profits.

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, at a 1945 White House meeting, advocated for not sharing information on the atomic bomb with the Soviet Union. Forrestal persuaded Truman to agree, thereby averting any trust-building with the Soviets. The Cold War arms race had begun.

Defense contractor executives such as Lockheed, Northrup, and Douglas were looking for schemes to maintain government subsidies for their industries. They created a panel with representatives of the defense industry to lobby Congress. 

The Military-Industrial Complex was very satisfied with the passing of the National Security Act of 1947. The military budget became a war budget with two permanent bureaucracies; the Department of Defense and the newly created Central Intelligence Agency. American wars would no longer be temporary, with peacetime pauses. This act unchained the perpetual war machine fueled by federal money.

Baby Steps – Greece

After the evacuation of German forces from Greece in 1944, two groups vied for power; the monarchists and the communists. Britain and the United States supported the monarchists. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria supported the communists. A civil war soon developed. 

In late February 1947, Britain informed the United States it could no longer afford aid to Greece and Turkey. President Truman recognized a vacuum of influence. He feared that the Soviet Union could fill that vacuum. 

Feeling that this could be a geopolitical disaster, Truman decided to take over the British role. But doing so required persuading a Republican-controlled Congress looking to cut federal spending to foreign countries. 

In March 1947, President Harry S. Truman delivered a speech before Congress. Truman felt he had to scare the hell out of the American people. Truman outlined the threat facing the United States. He declared, “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” 

The Military-Industrial Complex Recruits Congress

Truman asked for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. In May, Congress voted to appropriate the funds Truman had requested. By embracing what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the United States broke with its traditional reluctance to become entangled in events outside the Western Hemisphere. Truman had declared the responsibility of global leadership.

The involvement of the United States in the Greek civil war marked a new era in their attitude towards world politics. The new approach became known as the Truman Doctrine. A doctrine that still guides U.S. diplomacy today. The United States actively offers assistance to preserve the political integrity of selective nations deemed to be in the best interest of the United States.

The Marshall Plan

In June of 1947, at Harvard College, Secretary of State George C. Marshall made one of the most consequential foreign policy speeches in American history. Marshall proposed a plan as bold as it was simple: the United States would help rebuild war-torn Europe if Europeans agreed to develop a plan for reconstruction. Joseph Stalin and his allies would reject the offer. This break led to geopolitical competition between the two post-WW2 superpowers for control of Europe.

The Long Telegram – Russian Containment

In an article in Foreign Affairs dated July 1, 1947, a State Department official named George Kennan argued that U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union had erroneously assumed that offering incentives would persuade the Kremlin to be more cooperative. On the contrary, Kennan wrote, powerful internal dynamics drove Soviet behavior, and “as a result, only the threat of force could limit or alter Soviet ambitions.” 

In The Sources of Soviet Conduct, Kennan refined and extended his argument, writing that the “main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” The doctrine of containment would guide U.S. foreign policy for the next four decades. 

Fear – Soviet Explode Nuclear Bomb 

In September 1949, the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb. Congress approved the military appropriation for NATO that Truman had requested. The US-Soviet arms race had commenced. This escalating back and forth became the pattern for the Cold War arms race for the next 50 years, much to the delight of armaments contractors and the generals and admirals on both sides. However, pushback on military and defense spending was beginning to surface in Congress.

Opportunity Knocks – Korean War 

In early June of 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared Korea outside the defense perimeter of US national security. Later that same month, Kim Il-sung’s North Korean troops crossed over the 38th Parallel into South Korea. Acheson then led the charge to join the Korean conflict. Pentagon leaders warned against a land war in Asia, but President Truman followed Acheson. The United States, under cover of the United Nations, went to war, scuttling any hope for a post-World War II movement to demilitarize America. 

Instead, the US defense budget jumped from $13 billion in 1951 to $50 billion in 1953; the US nuclear arsenal grew from 300 bombs in 1950 to 1,300 bombs in 1953. Welcoming in the permanent war economy, Dean Acheson said, “Korea saved us.” Meaning that the Korean Action jump-started what Eisenhower in 1961 originally termed the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex. Congress defense spending paved the way for a new government-funded warfare state. 

Korea afforded unprecedented opportunities for advancing the globalist program. Truman assigned the US Seventh Fleet to patrol the strait between Taiwan and the mainland. The US added four more divisions in Europe and allocated $4 billion for the rearmament of our European allies. 

Indochina – Before The U.S. Vietnam War 

Some months before the Korean War, Truman had initiated American involvement in Indochina, supporting the French and their puppet ruler Bao Dai against the nationalist and Communist revolutionary Ho Chi Minh. Korea furnished welcome cover for stepping up aid to the French, which soon amounted to a half-billion dollars a year. 

The United States provided the bulk of the material resources for the French-Vietnam colonial war. The State Department defended this commitment citing the production of much-needed rice, rubber, and tin imported from Indochina. More to the point, after Mao took control of China, there was the fear that the loss of Indochina, including Vietnam, would represent a defeat in the struggle against what was portrayed as a unified and coordinated Communist push to take over the world. 

Eisenhower – Grew It

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, under the guidance of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother CIA Director Allen Dulles, grew the Security State. The foreign and domestic policy would never be the same. The Truman Cold War containment policy became covert and overt actions. Eisenhower cut resources to the conventional military but increased spending on nuclear weapons. 

In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) helped stage a coup in Iran to replace nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh with the American allied Shah of Iran. In 1954, the CIA staged another coup in Guatemala. President Jacabo Arbenz Guzman, a land reformer was removed in favor of a more friendly dictator. 

CIA covert actions in foreign nations damaged the ability of the U.S. to exercise moral and ethical leadership throughout the world. While the Eisenhower administration succeeded in reducing communist influence in the 1950s, covert operations damaged the long-term national security interests of the United States. 

By 1960 Eisenhower warned, “God help this country when we have a man sitting at this desk who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.” Then on January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his nationally televised farewell address from the Oval Office. “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry,” he said, “in contrast with the permanent armaments industry of vast proportions that had been created in the previous fifteen years.”

Eisenhower concluded his farewell address with, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That misplaced power has pushed, cajoled, and coerced the US into wars, coups, and assassinations abroad and at home.  

Kennedy – Felt It

In June 1963, Kennedy made his famous Peace Speech at American University. Kennedy would declare that he intended to end the Cold War. That day in June would be Kennedy’s final plead for peace. He was calling for the end of the Cold War because it was “the necessary rational end of rational men.” In 2021 we are still looking for those rational men or women. 

Kennedy proposed an offer: “We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people — but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.” His vision for American foreign policy did not sit well with the Pentagon and the CIA. They viewed Kennedy to be naive and dangerous to the extreme. 

Kennedy Treasonous Acts?

In their eyes, what Kennedy was doing and had previously done were grave threats to national security. The Pentagon and the CIA believed a communist takeover of the United States was imminent if Kennedy remained in power. They considered many actions of the Kennedy administration as treasonous. 

Like:

1. Refusing to provide air support to the CIA-trained Cuban exiles who invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. They blamed him for the capture or death of these men.

2. He fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, a man admired and revered by the U.S. national-security establishment.

3. He threatened to destroy the CIA by tearing it into a thousand pieces and scattering it to the winds.

4. He rejected Operation Northwoods, a Pentagon fraudulent plan to kill American citizens to provoke a Cuban invasion.

5. He settled the Cuban Missile Crisis with back door communications with Khrushchev, keeping the security state officials and Joint Chiefs of Staff in the dark. 

6. He gave up NATO/US missiles in Turkey, aimed at the Soviet Union, as a tradeoff for the Soviets removing their missiles from Cuba. 

7. He agreed the U.S. would never invade Cuba, basically agreeing to Cuban sovereignty.

8. He entered into the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union over the vehement objections of the CIA and Pentagon, which believed that nuclear testing was essential to national security.

9. He proposed a joint project to the Moon with the Soviets. Reaching out to the Soviet Union in a spirit of sharing rocket technology, offers of peace and friendship were unacceptable.

10. In National Security Action Memorandum 263, dated October 11, 1963, Kennedy articulated his decision to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965 — with full withdrawal completed after the 1964 election. 

11. He supported the U.S. civil rights movement, which the national-security establishment believed to be a front for an international communist conspiracy generated from Moscow.

Kennedy was a junior Naval officer telling his military superiors how to behave, what they could do, and what they could not do in pursuit of National Security. His attitude did not last long in that world of powerful, arrogant Generals and Admirals. Today peace is still a threat to the budgets and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the army of defense contractors.

The Kennedy peace movement ended in Dallas in November of 1963. What action would the National Security State take if those that believe in peace called for a friendly and harmonious relationship with Russia, China, North Korea, and Cuba? Would we all be assassinated? Nah, there are not enough Oswald patsies to go around. 

Gave An Inch – Took 600 Miles

In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany. In thirty years, Russia has acquiesced 600 miles. Since the Baker promise NATO has wandered through Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and Poland.

Today NATO is knocking at the border of Ukraine, a neighboring country to Russia, once part of the Soviet satellite states with a 1,500-mile border. Vladimir Putin has demanded a new promise from NATO not to expand into Ukraine. He has made it clear that he regarded the presence of any NATO troops or weapons in Ukraine as intolerable.

Post-2014 Maidan Coup
In 2014, a majority voted for independence from Kyiv. Putin asked to annex two provinces in the Donbas region. (areas high in ethnic Russians) Putin declined the offer and did not recognize their independence. When Ukraine deployed troops to this region, Putin sent a limited number of Russian special operation troops into the Donbas region.

The 2014-2015 Minsk agreements called for Ukraine to reabsorb two separatist-controlled regions while affording them special status. Instead, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky essentially declared a hot war on the predominant Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas.

Putin has been frustrated with the Ukrainian reluctance to implement the results of the Minsk agreement. He has been vocal about the treatment and attacks from the increasing Ukrainian military troops. Ukrainian troops being largely financed and equipped with US-NATO support has provoked Putin to respond. His response has brought what the U.S. described as a large and unusual troop movement near the Russian/Ukraine border.

Tuff Guy Bluster
The Biden administration’s handling of the Ukraine policies has been unclear and inconsistent. In September, President Biden pledged his support for Ukrainian Euro-Atlantic aspirations and American support for complete integration in Europe. Biden has announced a $60 million security assistance package in addition to the $400 million in security assistance the U.S. has already provided Ukraine this year.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has insisted that Washington is committed to Ukrainian territorial integrity. He warned Moscow against continuing the buildup of Russian military forces near the border with its neighbor. He has threatened to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 states that the United States has an explicit obligation to assist another member if attacked; there is no obligation to non-members.

Even NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, has been bellicose in addressing the Putin concerns about potential NATO missiles in Ukraine aimed at Russia. He recently informed Russia that what happens on the Ukraine border is none of their business, “only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO.” He continued, “Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors.”

Whoa, Nelly – Not so fast!
Biden recently took a 180-degree turn on his Ukraine position. He said, “the idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now.” “We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO allies under Article 5 [a collective defense provision]. It’s a sacred obligation. That obligation does not extend to Ukraine,” he added.

In early December, the Biden administration was busy rallying European allies with warnings about Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine. Then, Biden abruptly says the U.S. will not be sending troops to help Ukraine in its desperate hour of need. Was his Russian invasion warnings just hyped-up propaganda, as Moscow has been saying? Why?

Unbiased Journalism?
The American corporate news media has been peddling stories disguised as news reports to ratchet up tensions with Russia. The media frenzy omits the buildup of military forces in the region by the NATO-backed Kyiv regime. Ukraine has half of its total troop numbers now positioned near the contact line against pro-Russian separatists in southeastern Ukraine. Nor is there mention of the U.S. and NATO powers having embarked on rapid deployment of warships, nuclear-capable bombers, and reconnaissance planes in the Black Sea region.

Follow The Money
Is it coincidental that the U.S. Congress just passed a new annual military budget that includes $300 million in weaponry and other support to the Ukrainian armed forces? Since the Kyiv regime was installed in 2014 by a CIA-backed coup d’état, Washington has supplied it with $2.5 billion of military aid. Close to $3 billion total in less than eight years. New weaponry includes helicopters, warplanes, warships, artillery, and Javelin anti-tank missiles. Sending massive shipments of offensive weapons to a rabidly Russophobic regime is akin to dousing a fire with gasoline.

The Ghost Of Zbigniew Brzezinski

Russian Commander General Valery Gerasimov noted that funneling the United States and NATO war material to Ukraine is the driving force behind Kyiv’s repudiation of the 2015 Minsk peace accord. Washington has emboldened Ukrainian authorities to believe they can resolve the civil war against the Donbas region through force. If the Kyiv regime launches a new offensive against the ethnic Russian people of the Donbas, Russia will be under moral pressure to intervene. It seems that the United States is trying its best to lure Russia into a quagmire of a conflict.

In this production, the Kyiv regime is playing a supporting role. Washington is playing the lead role. They are seducing Ukraine into a proxy war against Russia. If the final scene has Russian troops invading Ukraine, the Western media will blame Russia for violating Ukrainian territorial integrity, and Putin becomes the new Hitler. Then economic sanctions are imposed on Russia and the Nord Stream 2 gas project. These sanctions would benefit U.S. gas exports.

The biggest prize for Washington would be luring Russia into combat with U.S.-backed Ukrainian military battalions and Neo-Nazi splinter groups like the Azov Battalion. A page is taken from the Zbigniew Brzezinski playbook that the Carter administration employed in Afghanistan in 1979. A plan that Washington considers its finest moment. Over 15,000 Soviet troops killed, 562,000 and 2,000,000 million Afghans dead, and millions of refugees. What a moment!