Boycott Target? Woke Retailer Suffers MASSIVE Backlash After LGBTQ-Themed Clothing Targets Kids
Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
Boycott Target? Woke Retailer Suffers MASSIVE Backlash After LGBTQ-Themed Clothing Targets Kids5/24/2023
Target executives are scrambling to contain the fury of its core customer base after nationwide displays of pro-trans and pro-gay clothing in the children and baby section. Target's stock is tanking and calls for a boycott are increasing. Also today: Hungary's Prime Minister says the quiet part out loud...and he's backed up by John Mearsheimer. Watch today's Liberty Report: Boycott Target? Woke Retailer Suffers MASSIVE Backlash After LGBTQ-Themed Clothing Targets Kids Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
0 Comments
It’s no coincidence that US President Joe Biden made a sharp U-turn to send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine on the same weekend that the NATO-backed Kiev regime just lost the strategic battle for Artyomovsk (Bakhmut). Recall that Biden had emphatically said no to supplying the American warplane to Ukraine partly out of concern to not antagonize Russia. The battle for the transport hub city in the Donbass region had been raging for eight months. Some commentators have compared the pivotal fight for Artyomovsk – a “meat grinder” – to Stalingrad in World War Two which largely determined the final victory of the Soviet Red Army over Nazi Germany. Russian forces claimed to have finally taken full control of Artyomovsk on May 20, despite Kiev denials and a reluctance in the Western media to admit reality. Indeed, the relentless Western narrative of defiant Ukraine sticking it to the Ruskies is also a casualty here, lying bloodied on a stretcher, as is the supposed entire authority of this same media (aka Western propaganda service.) This major defeat for the Kiev regime at the weekend completely upends Washington and NATO’s presumed prowess. The Biden administration has bankrolled President Vladimir Zelensky’s forces with $38 billion in military aid over the past 15 months. Other NATO members, Britain, Germany, France and Poland have likewise pumped Ukraine with all sorts of advanced weaponry. The defeat of Zelensky’s forces at Artyomovsk is as much a defeat of the US-led NATO alliance. That embarrassing blow would explain Biden’s about-turn on now giving the go-ahead for F-16 fighter jets. The announcement is aimed at shifting the news headlines from a crucial military defeat. On one hand, the prospect of the American warplane flying over Ukraine sounds like an ominous intervention threatening Russia. The F-16 is the workhorse of the US Air Force having seen combat action in dozens of countries backing up American ground forces. It is nuclear-capable and has a maximum strike range of 800 kilometers. That is roughly the distance from Kiev to Moscow. Potentially, the US jets could launch air strikes on the Russian capital. President Biden, in making his announcement, said that he “was assured” by former comedian Zelensky that the F-16s would not strike the territory of the Russian Federation. Such an assurance is worthless, as countless sabotage, drone attacks and assassination attempts by Kiev agents in Russia have shown. Also, Team Biden has already made it known that they don’t consider Crimea to be Russian territory which would therefore not rule out F-16s making air raids on the Black Sea peninsula, yet Moscow is adamant that Crimea is an integral part of Russia. In any case, on the other hand, the F-16 “breakthrough move” can be seen as an empty gesture that won’t alter the outcome of the war in Russia’s favor. For a start, Washington is saying that its fighter jets are not going to be supplied from the US inventories directly but rather will be re-exported from other NATO countries. So far, NATO members Poland, Italy and Germany have ruled out any supply of their American-made jets. No doubt, the European allies have balked at the provocation of such a move toward Moscow. Uncle Sam’s slobbering bulldog, Britain, is always game for provocation, but the Brits do not have F-16s. Another factor is the logistics and training. It would take at least six months for Ukrainian pilots to attain competence in combat performance. Ukraine’s pilots are trained up on Soviet-era MiG jets and most of them have been shot down by the Russians. It will also take months for F-16 mechanics and ground crew to be established, which would make American personnel targets. The Americans, British and other NATO states are offering F-16 training to Ukraine. But by the time, these jets are able to take off for combat sorties it will be towards the end of this year. That implies another delay in the already much-delayed and hyped Ukrainian counter-offensive. Russia’s long-range air defense systems are reckoned to be the best in the world, exceeding the American Patriot system which was put out of action by Russian hypersonic missiles last week. The Russian air defense systems will give the F-16s a daunting challenge. The American warplane has appeared to operate successfully in various countries against non-state militant groups who have had negligible air defenses. In these theaters, the F-16s have been able to dominate the skies with impunity. Not so in Ukraine. Russia’s multilayered air defense systems are a different matter. The S-400 ground-to-air missiles have a deadly range of 400 kilometers. Several locations along Russia’s western border can cover a distance to Kiev. That means the F-16s can be blown out of the sky long before they get within strike range of Russia. It also means that the warplanes could be targeted for destruction even before they get off the ground. Biden’s F-16 bravado is a flight of fancy. It’s all about creating a commotion from ostensible muscle flexing. But it’s all so absurdly futile. Washington can’t even pay for its shambolic debt-ridden government, which in turn is throwing F-16s and missiles around like confetti. Militarily, the Russians have got this covered, just like they have had with every other supposed advanced weaponry that the tech-fetish Western militarists have pumped into Ukraine to prop up their pet Nazi regime in Kiev. If Biden and his hubristic Western minions had any sense, never mind morals, they would call off the whole proxy war in Ukraine, knowing that the war is un-winnable and is potentially liable to spiral out of control into an Earth-ending nuclear conflagration. But then, what do you expect from people who pat themselves on the back at a G7 summit in Hiroshima while obscenely declaring more weapons for Ukraine? No, these blind, self-righteous, arrogant imperialists don’t know when to stop digging a hole for themselves – and, despicably, for the rest of us. The Western regimes and their lackey media have invested so much of their narcissistic, fraudulent, and lying images in trying to beat Russia, they don’t know how to capitulate. But capitulate they will have to, eventually. Mr. Biden is acting tough and he is once more recklessly escalating the war with Russia with his latest move on sending F-16s. But it’s a desperate throw of the dice by a loser who is going to be seen as an even bigger loser when the chips are finally down. Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation. Biden’s F-16 Move Is Flight of Fancy Signifying Desperation Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity Five months ago to this day, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky delivered what has now become an infamous address to the US Congress. During his speech, Zelensky boldly declared the city of Bakhmut as his country’s “stronghold in the east,” adding, “the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom.” Zelensky then presented Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris with a flag he claimed was from soldiers in Bakhmut, which at the time was a hotly contested battle ground. He said to thunderous applause: “Let this flag stay with you, ladies and gentlemen. This flag is a symbol of our victory in this war. We stand, we fight and we will win because we are united — Ukraine, America and the entire free world.” Zelensky’s bold proclamation did not come to fruition. This weekend, The Wagner Group, a mercenary/penal battalion that is loyal to Moscow, took complete control of the city, and shortly thereafter, declared victory. The corporate media once considered Bakhmut both strategically important and a “symbol of heroic resistance.” But now, with the fall of Bakhmut, the media and NATO-aligned governments are in full damage control mode, writing off this devastating battlefield loss as unimportant. Nonetheless, no matter how they spin it, Ukraine’s loss of Bakhmut is a big deal. Russia has captured a city that allows their forces to disrupt critical supply lines. It also opens up a path of attack to multiple additional Ukrainian cities. Meanwhile, Americans continue to be looted by our own government to subsidize Kiev and supply the continually debilitating Ukrainian military. Instead of embracing a potential role as an intermediary and promoting peace talks, the Biden Administration is an antagonistic force, facilitating the constant delivery of heavy weapons and other miscellaneous supplies to an increasingly war-torn Ukraine. On Friday, the White House announced plans to deliver F-16 fighter jets to the Ukrainian military. Additionally, the Biden Administration announced an additional $375 million in weapons and supplies to Ukraine, showcasing its commitment to the war effort. Despite Ukraine’s piling losses, the Uniparty’s anti-humans in Washington D.C. and Brussels want to continue to expand the battlefield as much as possible, “fighting” from afar down to the very last Ukrainian, if necessary. They have big plans for a “counterattack” on Russia-controlled cities, and embrace the perpetual continuation of this war to grease the skids for the enrichment of their benefactors. Americans have been looted for well over one hundred billion dollars and the Slava Slush Fund’s biggest promoters are noticeably silent while attempting to spin Ukraine’s military defeat in Bakhmut to a Russian mercenary network. Where exactly did that $150 billion in US taxpayer supplied aid end up, and when, if ever, will the people in charge consider striking a peace deal to the benefit of humanity? Reprinted with permission from The Dossier. Where did all the money go? Ukraine's organized military loses major stronghold city to Russian mercenaries Click on the headline to read the full story from
Are the warmongers getting nervous? Disgraced former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was in Texas this week to lobby Republicans to continue sending billions to Ukraine. Who's paying for his lobbying? Guess who...us! Also today: US military contractors are FLEECING the American taxpayer and getting mega-rich on the Ukraine war. Grift all around. Watch today's Liberty Report: Send In The Clowns: UK's BoJo In Texas...To Lobby For Ukraine! Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity Both liberals and conservatives are convinced that the biggest threat to our freedom and well-being lies with Russia and China. And, well, also the terrorists, Muslims, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, North Koreans, Cubans, Syrians, Vietnamese, communists, Reds, and others. They are wrong. The biggest threat to our freedom and well-being is our very own federal government, especially the national-security branch of the federal government. The Framers clearly understood this. That’s why the Constitution strictly limited the powers of federal officials. Our American ancestors also clearly understood this. That’s why they demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights. They knew that the federal government would inevitably attract people who would destroy their fundamental, God-given rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. With the Bill of Rights, they wanted to make it clear to all those future little federal power-mongers that they lacked the powers to engage in such destruction. No Russian and no Chinese has ever infringed upon my freedom. The same holds true for all the other things that scare liberals and conservatives to death (i.e, the terrorists, Muslims, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, Cubans, North Koreans, Vietnamese, commies, Reds, Syrians, etc.) The same can’t be said, of course, for the federal government. It not only has destroyed our freedom, it has also threatened our economic well-being with its out-of-control federal spending and debt as well as its decades of monetary debauchery. Currently, it is getting us perilously close to life-destroying nuclear war, just as it did back in 1962. Consider American socialism, which is best manifested by income taxation, Social Security, and Medicare, which are the crown jewels of America’s welfare-state way of life. Operating through the coercive and terrifying apparatus of the IRS, the feds forcibly take money from young people in order to give it to seniors. They say that socialism reflects our collective “care and compassion.” But freedom entails the right to keep everything you earn and decide for yourself what to do with it, with charity being totally voluntary. Consider the drug war. The feds punish people with criminal prosecution, incarceration, and fines for ingesting unapproved substances. Freedom entails the right to ingest whatever you want to ingest, no matter how harmful. Consider embargoes and sanctions. The feds punish Americans who travel to unapproved countries or enter into economic transactions with unapproved people. Freedom entails the right to travel wherever you want, associate with whomever you want, and trade with whomever you want. Consider the federal government’s socialist system of immigration controls. It has brought a police state to the American Southwest. A police state is the opposite of freedom. Freedom entails the right to cross any political border in search of a better life and to enter into mutually beneficial transactions with others. Consider the federal government’s trade wars and trade restrictions. They prohibit Americans from trading with foreigners. Freedom entails the right to trade with whomever you want. Consider America’s system of paper money and the Federal Reserve. It has resulted in decades of monetary debauchery that tax people in a fraudulent, surreptitious way. Freedom entails the right to use whatever money you wish to use. Consider the regulated economy. The minimum wage, for example, has locked countless people out of the labor market, such as black teenagers. Freedom entails the right to enter into any transaction with anyone on any mutually agreeable terms, including wages. Consider the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. All three wield omnipotent powers, including torture, indefinite detention, mass secret surveillance, and assassination against both Americans and foreigners. No one living under a system of omnipotent government can ever be considered free. Consider the federal government’s policy of deadly and destructive foreign interventionism. It has produced an endless supply of people who hate Americans, which the feds use as an excuse for destroying our freedom in the name of keeping us “safe and secure.” What do Russia and China and all those other scary creatures have to do with all this? They provide a convenient way to divert the attention of the American people away from the real threat to their freedom and well-being. Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation. Our Biggest Threat Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
Just when the nearly $50 billion wasted on Ukraine was about to run out...Biden discovered another $3 billion under his couch cushions to keep the war chugging along. Also today: US Supremes green-light more IRS spying powers. Watch today's Liberty Report: Biden 'Discovers' Another $3 Billion For Ukraine! Click on the headline to read the full story from Ron Paul Institute In the month that has passed since Emmanuel Macron issued his call for greater European strategic autonomy, two rival camps have gone to battle over its legacy. The first is populated by Atlanticists such as European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, outraged by Macron’s alleged ingratitude towards US security guarantees and his suggestion that Europe must consider its own strategic interests independent from Washington. The second contains Macron’s neo-Gaullist and pan-European supporters, such as European Council president Charles Michel, who praised him for standing up to Washington with a vision of the European Union as the alternative “third pole” to China and the United States in a multipolar world. Both responses were entirely predictable; and both suffer from a similar misapprehension about the emerging paradigm of international relations today and the structural shifts on the horizon. From the Euro-Atlantic standpoint, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a galvanising event. The war reforged a long-dormant Manichaean framing of existential conflict between Russia and the “West”. What is, for Ukraine, a physical and territorial conflict thus assumed ontological, apocalyptic dimensions. In the spiritual fires of the war, the myth of the “West” was rebaptised. For a Nato that was seeking a mission ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, here was an opportunity to renew its institutional and ideological rationale, as well as to project solidarity in an the face of an emergency crisis. From the perspective of America’s elites, meanwhile, the Ukraine war has underscored Europe’s profound military dependence on Washington and further reinforced the US-centric basis of transatlantic relations. Not only did it ostensibly justify their long-held position that Europe must pay a much larger share for the privileges of a US security guarantee, but the debate over the strategic worth of Nato and its enlargement was effectively silenced. Since the invasion, the alliance has already expanded to Finland, while Sweden remains in the process of accession. All of this was cause for celebration, if not triumphalism, in liberal internationalist circles: America, along with the Western order it sponsors against great power challengers such as China, appeared to be vindicated. It was not surprising, then, that Macron’s remarks drew the ire of the Atlanticist foreign policy establishment, who not only falsely conflate the transatlantic relationship with Nato and measure its health in terms of Nato’s strength and durability but, crucially, have also internalised America’s Wilsonian and “Nato-centric” approach to European security. For them, the endurance of Nato as a permanent alliance serves as an effective hedge to the formation of a European defence force independent of Washington. Yet, the alliance is also an instrument for continued American influence over European policy. As Ronald Steel presciently wrote in the Sixties: “There is more than one kind of empire, more than one way of exerting control over others, and more than one justification for doing so.” In his war memoirs, former French general and president Charles de Gaulle certainly agreed, calling Nato a “false pretence” designed to “disguise America’s chokehold over Europe”. The Americans, he argued, “should recognise that the United States’ best ally is not the one who grovels before them, but the one who knows how to say no to them”. Yet, de Gaulle, a proud European aristocrat who had had to deal with an imperious Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War, was also more pessimistic about the future direction of US policy, fearing Americans had developed “that taste for intervention in which the instinct for domination cloaked itself”. Across the Atlantic, de Gaulle’s views found parallels with those of America’s original cold warriors, such as George Kennan and Dwight D. Eisenhower. “If in 10 years”, observed then-Presidential-candidate Eisenhower in 1951, “all American troops stationed in Europe for national defence purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole [Nato] project will have failed”. Recognising the strategic value of the Europeans as equal and sovereign partners, Eisenhower understood that US policy should aim to foster a separate transnational defence force in Western Europe with the capacity to eventually become fully self-reliant. Some seven decades later, it appears we have gone full circle. More than a year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the sense of consensus produced by the tragic war is slowly dissipating. As French President Emmanuel Macron noted, with America shifting its strategic focus to Asia, the question of European strategic autonomy is no longer academic but vital if Europe wants to be one of the “poles” in the emerging multipolar world, rather than a vassal of Washington. Yet there is also a different, more complex story here, too. Notwithstanding their questionable practicality, recent calls for a collective defence initiative premised on European unity and its claims to shared identity paradoxically suffer from a globalist and Caesarist predisposition: not only are they wedded to the project of European integration designed to keep Franco-German elites in a position of primacy, but their cast of mind seems entranced by the notion of great power competition on a global scale. Indeed, Macron has internalised the epistemological basis of modern international relations theory and its stubborn fixation on global realpolitik. This reflects the far-too-common modern bias towards the world as the spatial setting of choice for both life and strife. “The fundamental event of modernity”, as Heidegger wrote, “is the conquest of the world as picture.” Within this distortive vision, to stay relevant, an entity — whether individual, national, or organisational — must develop the capacity to influence the global, because one draws existential meaning from the hope of mastering the world as such. Read the rest of the article here. How America Weaponised the West Click on the headline to read the full story from The G7 Leaders’ 2700-word statement on Ukraine, issued in Hiroshima after their summit meeting glossed over the burning question today — the so-called counter-offensive against the Russian forces. It is a deafening silence, since rumours are swirling about the disappearance of the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces. Significantly, President Vladimir Zelensky himself is making himself scarce from Kiev touring world capitals — Helsinki, Hague, Rome, Vatican, Berlin, Paris, London and Jeddah and Hiroshima. It does seem that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. As the G7 summit ended, the head of the Wagner PMC, Yevgeny Prigozhin announced on Saturday that the Russian operation to capture the strategic communication hub of Bakhmut in Donbass region of eastern Ukraine lasting 224 days, has been brought to a successful completion, overcoming the resistance by more than 80,000 Ukrainian troops. It is a painful moment for Zelensky, who had boasted before US lawmakers in Capitol Hill last December that “just like the Battle of Saratoga (in 1777 during the American Revolutionary War), the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom.” Meanwhile, to distract attention, there is talk now about a subtle shift in the US policy regarding supply of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine in an indeterminate future. In reality, though, no one can tell what the Ukrainian rump state will look like when the jets arrive. Unsurprisingly, the Biden Administration still seems to be in two minds. F-16 is a hot item for export; what happens if the Russians were to blow it out of the sky with their hi-tech weapons and rubbish its fame? The Russians seem to have concluded that nothing short of a total victory will make the Americans and the British understand that Moscow means business on the three objectives behind the special military operations that are non-negotiable: security and safety of the ethnic Russian community and their right to live in peace and dignity in the new territories; demilitarisation and de-Nazification of Ukraine; and a neutral, sovereign, independent Ukraine freed from the US clutches and no longer a hostile neighbour. To be sure, the unprecedented levels of US hostility towards Russia only hardened Moscow’s resolve. If the Anglo-Saxon alliance keeps climbing the escalation ladder, the Russian campaign may well expand the operation to the entire region east of the Dnieper River. The Russians are in this war for the long haul and the ball is in the American court. What comes to mind is a speech last July by President Vladimir Putin while addressing the Duma. He had said, “Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. Well, what can I say? Let them try. We have already heard a lot about the West wanting to fight us ‘to the last Ukrainian.’ This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but that seems to be where it is going. But everyone should know that, by and large, we have not started anything in earnest yet.” Well, the Russian operation has finally started “in earnest.” The thinking behind the delay is unmistakeable. Putin underscored in his speech that the West should know that the longer Russia’s special military operation goes on, “the harder it will be for them to negotiate with us.” Therefore, the big question is about the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The Russian forces enjoy overwhelming superiority in every sense militarily. Even if the hard core of the Ukrainian forces who were trained in the West, numbering some 30-35000 soldiers, manage to achieve some “breakthrough” in the 950-kilometre long frontline, what happens thereafter? Make no mistake, a massive Russian counterattack will follow and the Ukrainian soldiers may only end up in a fire trap and suffer huge losses in their tens of thousands. What would the Anglo-Saxon axis have achieved? Besides, the Ukrainian military will have so thoroughly exhausted itself that there will be nothing stopping the Russian forces from advancing toward Kharkov and Odessa. Herein lies the paradox. For, from that point, Russians will have no one to talk to. If past American behaviour — be it Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq and Syria — is anything to go by, Washington will do nothing. The well-known American strategic thinker Col. (Retd.) David MacGreggor couldn’t have put things better when he said earlier this week: “I can tell you that Washington is going to do nothing. And I’ve always warned… we (United States) are not a continental power, not a land power anywhere but in our own Hemisphere. We are primarily an aerospace and maritime power, much like Great Britain. And what does that mean? When things go badly for us, we sail away, we fly away, we go home… That’s what we always do. Eventually, we just leave. And I think, that’s on the agenda now.” The stony silence of the G7 statement on the Ukrainian counteroffensive is understandable. The G7 statement needs to be juxtaposed with a report appearing in Politico on the eve of the summit in Hiroshima which, quoting senior US officials elaborated on an audacious plan to transform Ukraine war into a “frozen conflict” on the analogy of the Korean Peninsula or Kashmir. A Pentagon official told the daily that recent military aid packages to Ukraine reflect the Biden administration’s “shift to a longer-term strategy.” Reportedly, US officials are already talking to Kiev about the nature of their relationship in the future. Principally, if Ukraine’s NATO membership bid stalls, western guarantees could range from a NATO-style Article 5 mutual defence deal to Israel-style arms deals with Ukraine so that “the conflict will wind up somewhere in between an active war and a chilled standoff.” Indeed, the G7 statement began conceptualising the “Europeanisation” of Ukraine with reforms, market economy driven by private sector and western financial institutions, and boosting Kiev’s deterrent capability vis-a-vis Russia militarily. It is quite amazing. Hardly has one flawed narrative — espousing Russia’s military defeat in Ukraine and the overthrow of Putin — unravelled, another narrative is being hoisted, predicated on the simplistic notion that Russia will simply roll over and passively watch the US integrating Ukraine into the western alliance system to create an open wound festering on Russia’s western borders that will drain resources for decades to come and complicating ties with neighbours. However, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s reaction to the G7 Summit confirms that Moscow will not fall into the trap of a “frozen conflict.” Lavrov said, “Could you take a look at those decisions which are being debated and adopted at the G7 summit in Hiroshima and which are aimed at dual containment of Russia and the People’s Republic of China? “The objective was announced loudly and frankly, which is to defeat Russia on the battlefield, and without stopping at this, to eliminate it later as a geopolitical rival, so to speak, along with any other country that claims an independent place in the world, they will be suppressed as opponents.” Lavrov also pointed out that the Western countries’ expert community is overtly discussing the order to work out scenarios aimed at Russia’s breakup, and “they do not conceal that the existence of Russia as an independent centre is incompatible with the goal of the West’s global domination.” The Minister said, “We have to give a firm and consistent response to the war declared upon us.” Yet, it is not as if Americans are incapable of seeing the war through Russia’s eyes. Read here a letter pleading for some sanity in Washington penned by a group of distinguished former American diplomats and military officials associated with the Eisenhower Media Network. By the way, they paid to get it in the New York Times, but the rest of the establishment media chose to ignore it. Reprinted with permission from Indian Punchline. US hopes to snatch victory from jaws of defeat in Ukraine Click on the headline to read the full story from When the smoke finally clears, President Biden’s Ukraine debacle will go down – along with Afghanistan and Iraq – as one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in US history. Hundreds of thousands have been killed on both sides in the service of the US neocons’ long standing desire to “regime change” Russia. And let’s not forget that $100 billion authorized by Congress to finance the neocons’ “Project Ukraine.” With Russian control established in the strategic city of Bakhmut over the weekend, the neocon Ukraine project – like all neocon foreign policy projects before it – looks to be progressing rapidly toward failure. But that won’t stop the Biden Administration from attempting to extort more money from an America already teetering on the brink of economic collapse. And let’s not forget the battle over the “debt limit” raging in DC. The Biden Administration’s profligate domestic spending is a battleground for Republican lawmakers, however when it comes to endless spending on Project Ukraine, with a few exceptions the two parties are in lockstep. At least when looking at Republican party leadership. One thing is sure: we can count on Congress to throw good money after bad. After all, 20 years fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan got us…the Taliban in Afghanistan! With a cost of perhaps three trillion dollars. But the military-industrial complex and the think tanks pushing war and the mainstream media glorifying war all got paid well. It may seem bleak, but this is where we have something to be optimistic about. As I’ve always said, you don’t need a majority to change the course of the country. A dedicated minority driven by the principles of liberty can produce incredible results. The mainstream media is in a panic over the fact that of the $48 billion appropriated for Ukraine, only $6 billion remains. That won’t be enough to sustain “Project Ukraine” for more than a few weeks. With the tide of US public opinion turning overwhelmingly against throwing more money down the corrupt black hole called “Ukraine,” even unprincipled politicians are going to start listening to the emerging progressive/conservative alliance in Congress that’s had enough. In Congress a principled multipolar minority is going to overtake a corrupt and mindless majority – bolstered by the American people. And that’s a good thing. Election season is upon us, and although we would prefer to have recruited a majority of progressives and conservative/libertarians in Congress to our view that a hundred billion to Ukraine and possible World War III is not a good idea, we must nevertheless be satisfied that political realities are in our favor. The communists talked about the “correlation of forces,” which took into account factors beyond military power to include politics and “soft power.” With that in mind, it seems likely that as the public mood in the US turns against sending endless billions to a corrupt Ukraine with the threat of World War III in the mix, the political animals in DC will begin abandoning the sinking ship. With President Biden clearly flailing – and with the surprisingly strong primary challenge of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – we should look for lawmakers to begin abandoning “Project Ukraine” in droves. That movement, led by principled conservatives and progressives, will sink forever the neocon “Project Ukraine” and thus save us from global nuclear annihilation. Hopefully after this disaster, Americans will turn against neocons one and for all. Biden’s Running Out of Ukraine Money? Good. Click on the headline to read the full story from The world’s most powerful and influential geopolitical voices are meeting from Thursday to Sunday in Portugal to navigate several global crises (many of which they’ve they’ve helped to facilitate), and oddly enough, the corporate media has no interest in reporting on this secretive gathering of powerful figures. The attendees list for this year’s infamous Bilderberg Meetings has just been released, and just like years prior, global heavyweights inundate the 2023 roster. The list includes America and Europe’s top spy chiefs, several heads of state, and some of the world’s most powerful business executives. What is essentially Davos on steroids, the annual Bilderberg confab includes some of the world’s most powerful and influential people. As The Dossier explained in our piece Wednesday: “Although it is significantly staffed by publicly elected officials, the discussions that happen during Bilderberg conferences remain a closely guarded secret. Unsurprisingly, this has led many to suspect that the powerful globalist ideologues who attend these closed-door wargaming discussions are up to no good. Organizers defend the secretive nature of the conference by claiming that it allows attendees to speak informally among peers.” Bilderberg meetings are held under Chatham House rules, which means that participants “are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed.” There is lots of new and returning star power to the 2023 attendees list. The American contingent includes the likes of:
Albert Bourla of Pfizer
Sam Altman of ChatGPT
Avril Haines, America’s top intelligence official as the Biden Administration’s Director of National Intelligence
Henry Kissinger, who turns 100 years old at the end of the month
Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft
Matthew Pottinger, the former national security official who played a major role in pushing covid lockdowns.
Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google
Peter Thiel
Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of US European Command
The non-American (mostly European) side includes:
Borge Brende, the president of the World Economic Forum
Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO
Bernard Emie, leader of France’s top spy agency
Jeremy Fleming, a longtime British top spy official
Chrystia Freeland, deputy prime minister of Canada and World Economic Forum leader, infamous for her crackdowns against free speech
Mette Frederiksen, prime minister of Denmark
Dmytro Kuleba, Ukrainian minister of foreign affairs
Sanna Marin, the Finnish prime minister
Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish politician who thanked the US for bombing the NordStream pipeline
The topics of discussion this year include (new topics for 2023 are in bold):
AI
Banking System
China
Energy Transition
Europe
Fiscal Challenges
India
Industrial Policy and Trade
NATO
Russia
Transnational Threats
Ukraine
US Leadership
Particularly interesting is the inclusion of AI, fiscal/banking challenges, and the so-called energy transition, and the vague topic of “US leadership.” If you are familiar with the names on the participants list, you will find that they largely subscribe to a globalist, hyper-interventionist worldview, making the annual Bilderberg confab an echo chamber of ruling class ideologues. There remains a media blackout of the Bilderberg Meeting this weekend in the corporate press. Despite attendees including the leaders of several major publications, there has been virtually zero press coverage of this weekend’s gathering in Portugal. Reprinted with permission from The Dossier. Subscribe and support here. Top spy chiefs, heads of state, and global business titans begin secret Bilderberg meetings in Portugal Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity |
Ron Paul
|