Now, as they beg OPEC, Venezuela and Iran for help to reduce onerous price and inflation consequences of their own policies ahead of 2022 midterm elections, they are likely to discover that maybe Putin and petroleum companies really aren’t their biggest problems after all.
As his administration now scrambles to solicit supply oil shortages from OPEC, Venezuela, and Iran to reduce skyrocketing energy costs ahead of Democrat congressional mid-term election casualties, let’s remember this contradicts former 2019 candidate Joe Biden’s campaign pledge that “I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels.”
Let’s also recall that President Biden then inherited an America that was not only energy independent, but also a leading global oil and gas exporter, and that gas prices began going up long before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine recently provoked a bipartisan ban on Russian oil, gas and coal imports.
That ban was likely influenced by a March 8 Reuters/Ipsos poll which found that 80% of all likely voters surveyed responded that the U.S. “should not buy oil or gas from Russia during this [Ukraine] conflict, even if it causes American gas prices to increase.”
Simultaneously, inflation over the past year has risen to a 40-year high of 7.9%, most all occurring prior to the Ukraine conflict catastrophe.
Also, recall that immediately upon taking office, Joe Biden revoked a permit essential for the Keystone XL pipeline to deliver oil from Canada.
Shortly thereafter, his administration launched an effort to overturn an oil drilling program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, and empowered Department of Interior regulatory efforts to delay drilling permits.
Blaming U.S. companies—not Biden policies—for not producing more oil and gas, White House press secretary Jen Psaki asserted that there are 9,000 available unused drilling permits, while only 10% of onshore oil production takes place on federal land.
A big problem here, is that the companies first must obtain additional permits for rights of way to access leases and build pipelines to transport fuel, a requirement that the Biden administration’s Interior Department has made more difficult.
Next, the companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits before they can contract rigs – requiring added regulatory difficulties of operating on federal lands.
For example, it takes 140 days or so for the feds to approve a drilling permit versus two for the state of Texas.
Not supporting a crippling sanctions regime on Russia, or arming neo fascist Ukrainian militias to the teeth, or even the imposition of a World War 3 level no fly zone over Ukraine, has become akin to being a bad person, and will sometimes even result in your labeling as a traitorous agent for a foreign regime.
I wanted to turn your attention to a fascinating poll that came out the other day.
The Toronto Star hired a polling agency to survey Canadians about their views about the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. What made this poll unique is that it separated the sides to three separate groups: the triple vaccinated, the double vaxxed, and the unvaccinated.
Now, it’s one thing to have taken two COVID injections, but those who committed to the repeated booster regime were either compelled to do so (frequently under duress) or became true believers to the COVID narrative. As the polling shows, this group, by and large, submits to authority figures and embraces the current narrative, regardless of the actual merits of the solutions.
The other group — and remember, unvaccinated Canadians have faced severediscrimination for not taking the mRNA injections — saw the government’s appeal to their supposed health, and wholly rejected the COVID narrative. Unvaccinated Canadians are still not allowed to leave the country. Their rejection of the government narrative comes at an incredible personal and professional cost.
Friday marks the seventh anniversary of the Saudi-led military intervention against Yemen, and thanks to Saudi Arabia’s escalation with U.S. assistance, the violence seemingly gets worse everyday.
On the sixth anniversary, Biden’s recent inauguration inspired hope that the U.S. might successfully encourage the warring parties towards a ceasefire. Yet over the course of the past year, it became clear that the Biden administration supported Saudi and Emirati objectives in Yemen almost as actively as the Trump administration, although they veiled their preference for the Saudi-led coalition in a veneer of diplomacy.
A new brief from the Quincy Institute highlights ongoing U.S. assistance for the Saudi-led military intervention, despite Biden’s declaration that he would “end all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.” The administration paused two arms deals, but later proceeded with over a billion dollars in new sales to the kingdom. It characterized these weapons as defensive, yet as the brief argues, defensive capability converts directly to offensive advantage. By assisting Saudi Arabia and the UAE with defense, the U.S. allows these countries to attack Yemen with greater impunity. Further, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE already possess hundreds of billions of dollars in offensive weapons, mostly purchased from the United States, which they continue to use against Yemen.
Biden administration officials frequently condemn Houthi transborder attacks, yet fail to condemn Saudi air strikes. On February 10, 2021, State Department spokesperson Ned Price described the Houthis as “continually demonstrat[ing] a desire to prolong the war by attacking Saudi Arabia, including endangering civilians.” In August 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that since the beginning of the year, Saudi Arabia “has endured more than 240 attacks by the Houthis.” On January 24, 2022, Tim Lenderking, the special envoy, emphasized “the U.S. government’s condemnation of the recent Houthi attacks against the UAE and Saudi Arabia that killed civilians.”
The problem with these statements is one of proportion. The administration’s narrative consistently blames the Houthis and stresses their transborder attacks as particularly dangerous, yet transborder attacks on Yemen carried out by the Saudi-led coalition far outnumber them and have been magnitudes more destructive.
Houthi transborder attacks never surpass and rarely even approach the number of coalition air raids conducted on Yemen each month. Crucially, with the help of U.S.–made defense systems, Saudi Arabia successfully deflects 90 percent of the Houthis’ transborder attacks.
The Saudi-led coalition has carried out more than 24,800 air raids since 2015, an average of almost 10 each day. Coalition air raids have killed almost 9,000 civilians and wounded more than 10,000.
In contrast, the Saudi coalition spokesperson reported in December 2021 that the Houthis have launched over 400 missiles and over 800 drones at Saudi Arabia since the start of the war in March 2015, killing 59 civilians. Added together, Houthi missile and drone attacks average approximately one attack every other day.
Over the weekend, the Houthis launched a series of coordinated attacks on Saudi energy facilities: there were no casualties. In contrast, a Saudi air raid on a detention facility in Yemen in January killed 91 people and injured hundreds.
The Saudi air force relies heavily on U.S. military contractors to provide maintenance, spare parts, and repairs for their planes: without U.S. help, the Saudis could not bomb Yemen. Based on Biden’s post-inauguration declaration that the U.S. was ending support for offensive military action, it is surprising that coalition air raid levels remained relatively consistent from 2020 to 2021. If the U.S. had genuinely withdrawn support for Saudi offensives, the rate of coalition air raids should have declined from the Trump era to the Biden era, but it has not.
Instead, coalition attacks began to increase dramatically in late 2021. Contrary to the characterizations of the Biden administration, this was not in response to Houthi transborder escalation, as Houthi attacks remained relatively stable. The Houthis may have escalated within Yemen, but they did not increase their attacks on Saudi territory.
The war is often framed as a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia, supporting the ousted government of President Abd Rabo Mansur Hadi, and Iran, backing the Houthi rebels. Yet in practice, the Saudi-led intervention constitutes a campaign of collective punishment against the Yemeni population, 80 percent of whom live in areas controlled by the Houthis. The Saudis justify their aerial bombardment and fuel blockade as necessary to counteract the Houthis and their Iranian allies, but the Houthis’ strength has only grown over the past seven years, while the lives of ordinary Yemenis have been shattered. Saudi actions have only contributed to Houthi strength: the longer the war continues, the more likely the Houthis will consolidate control, an outcome many Yemenis dread.
There are no “good guys” in this war: All parties to the conflict have been credibly accused of war crimes by U.N. experts. In contrast to the Biden administration’s narrative that it is committed to supporting the resolution of the conflict, the U.S. nonetheless signals its ongoing support to the Saudis and Emiratis for their war on Yemen. By consistently reiterating U.S. support, the Biden administration risks escalating U.S. involvement in the war.
Competition with Russia and China has prompted Biden to prioritize close military ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is this calculation that has caused him to renege on his pledge to end the war. This not only risks dragging Washington deeper into the conflict; it also prolongs the war, compounding the destruction of Yemen. The Saudi and Emirati military aggression that the U.S. supports is little different from Russian actions in Ukraine.
The Biden administration should instead adopt a strategy that takes American national interests as its starting point. This would mean not deferring to Gulf partners on matters that undermine U.S. interests and could plunge it into yet another military confrontation in the Middle East. Deferring to Gulf partners as a means of countering China and Russia is also a questionable strategy, as the Saudis and Emiratis have already demonstrated that they will hedge their bets on U.S. competition with other great powers, as demonstrated by their unwillingness to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The following is the Introduction to The Future of Freedom Foundation’s new book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story by Jacob Hornberger. Purchase the book at Amazon: $9.95 for the Kindle version and $14.95 for the print version.
Introduction
In 1983, the late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck wrote a book entitled People of the Lie. It was a study of evil in human affairs. There is, in fact, evil in the world, Peck observed.There are evil institutions, and there are evil people. When a person encounters either one, it can be a deeply unsettling experience.
This book is also about evil, more specifically, one person’s chance encounter with evil, an encounter that ended up destroying the rest of his life. The dark secret involved in that encounter also resulted in a decades-long family taboo, extending long after that person who had that encounter with evil had passed away.
That person was Abraham Zapruder, the man who filmed the famous “Zapruder film” that captured the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Through sheer happenstance, Zapruder’s life and the lives of his family were changed forever — for better and for worse — by his encounter with evil.
Revolving around a book entitled Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film, which was written in 2016 by Abraham Zapruder’s granddaughter, Alexandra Zapruder, this book is also about the avoidance of evil, specifically what some people will do to avoid identifying and confronting it.
I have studied the Kennedy assassination for some 30 years and have written four books prior to this one relating to the assassination: The Kennedy Autopsy; The Kennedy Autopsy 2; Regime Change: The JFK Assassination; and The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State, all of which were published by The Future of Freedom Foundation, a non-profit libertarian educational foundation that I founded in 1989 and where I serve as president. FFF’s mission is to present the principled, uncompromising case for free markets, private property, and limited government.
FFF previously published a book entitled JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s and later authored a five-volume book entitled Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK.
FFF has also published two books on the Kennedy assassination by Jefferson Morley, a former reporter for the Washington Post, entitled CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files and Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation.
FFF has hosted two conferences relating to the Kennedy administration and assassination: “The National Security State and JFK” (2017) and “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination” (2021). The video presentations from those two conferences are posted in the multimedia section of FFF’s website (fff.org).
The multimedia section also includes a five-part video presentation by Douglas Horne entitled “Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the Medical Evidence” and a 29-part video presentation called “The JFK Assassination” by me.
Additionally, FFF’s website contains countless articles on the JFK assassination.
Like most people who have taken an interest in the Kennedy assassination, I was acquainted with the Zapruder film when I discovered Alexandra Zapruder’s book in 2021. I thought it would be an interesting account of the Zapruder family’s experience with the film. As I began reading it, however, I quickly realized that it was much more than that. Although she does not realize it and although it was no part of her intention, Alexandra Zapruder’s book provides a fascinating insight into evil, what happens to people when they encounter evil, and what people will do to avoid acknowledging and confronting evil.
March 18 (Reuters) – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 966,575 deaths from COVID-19 on Friday after it corrected the data earlier this week, which reduced the death tallies in all age-groups, including children.
The health agency, in a statement to Reuters, said it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker’s mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.
The adjustment resulted in removal of 72,277 deaths previously reported across 26 states, including 416 pediatric deaths, CDC said.
Children accounted for about 19% of all COVID-19 cases, but less than 0.26% of cases resulted in death, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which summarizes state-based data.
Americans have been polarized over the mitigation measures the CDC recommended for schools during the pandemic from urging schools to be remote, require masks and set up social distancing measures. It now advises that for most of the country, children should be in school and can be without masks.
The number of U.S. children with COVID-19 rose sharply during the Omicron variant wave due to its increased transmissibility and low vaccination rates among children 5-11 who are eligible for the vaccine. Children ages 0-4 are not eligible for the vaccine in the United States.
Reporting by Mrinalika Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Arun Koyyur
The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country.
Few people today ask the most important question about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Many people want America to stay out of the fight, but even they don’t ask the vital question. Why does the world face a crisis today? Why has a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine escalated to the point where people fear nuclear war?
The answer is simple. America, under the “leadership” of brain-dead Biden and the forces controlling him, has done this and, by doing so, brought the world to the brink of disaster. As always, the great Dr. Ron Paul gets it right: “Three weeks into this terrible war, the US is not pursuing talks with Russia. As Antiwar.com recently reported, instead of supporting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that could lead to a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed, the US government is actually escalating the situation which can only increase the bloodshed.
The constant flow of US and allied weapons into Ukraine and talk of supporting an extended insurgency does not seem designed to give Ukraine a victory on the battlefield but rather to hand Russia what Secretary of State Blinken called ‘a strategic defeat.’
It sounds an awful lot like the Biden Administration intends to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian. The only solution for the US is to get out. Let the Russians and Ukrainians reach an agreement. That means no NATO for Ukraine and no US missiles on Russia’s borders? So what! End the war then end NATO.”
Let’s look at an analogy that will help us understand Dr. Paul’s point. For years, the Ukrainian government has attacked an area in the Donbas region that has seceded from Ukraine and formed an independent, pro-Russian, republic. Just before Putin moved against Ukraine, Ukraianians increased the scale and scope of their attack. Rick Rozoff describes what they did: “Two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen have been amassed along the Donbas contact line, Eduard Basurin, spokesman for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) militia, said on Thursday.
“Another three brigades are on their way [to Donbas], which is 20,000 to 25,000 troops more. The total number will reach 150,000, not to mention the nationalists. This is about two-thirds of Ukrainian Armed Forces’ personnel,” Basurin said on the Rossiya 1 television channel (VGTRK) on Thursday.
Unlike what has just happened, the Ukrainian attack did not result in US sanctions on Ukraine. There were no meetings of the UN to condemn Ukrainian aggression. There was no talk of world war. On the contrary, Ukraine government used American weapons in its attack and asked America for more weapons to continue their attack. Let’s listen to Rick Rozoff again: “The Armed Forces of Ukraine used the American anti-tank missile system Javelin in the hostilities in Donbas. This was announced by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Kirill Budanov in an interview….
Budanov said that ideally, the U.S. would help deter any Russian incursion, through additional military aid and increased diplomatic and economic pressure, including more sanctions against Russia and the seizure and blocking of Russian banking accounts.
Also, in addition to U.S. aid already promised and delivered, including Mark VI patrol boats, Javelin anti-armor systems and AN/TPQ-53 light counter-fire radar systems, Ukraine seeks additional air, missile and drone defense systems and electronic jamming devices, Budonov said. Patriot missile batteries and counter rocket, artillery and mortar systems are on Ukraine’s wish list.
The AN/TPQ-53 systems were used to great effect, Ukraine military officials have previously reported. Budanov said the Javelin systems have also been used against Russian forces. Those, along with Turkish-manufactured drones, used against Russian-aligned separatist artillery troops, have a significant psychological deterrent value, said Budanov.”
Why the difference? We think that the US should not have shipped arms to Ukraine. Doing this made the situation worse. But for what we’re saying now, it doesn’t matter what you think of the policy. The key point is that because there was no international outcry and no sanctions, the matter remained a local fight. If brain dead Biden and his gang had reacted to the so-called Russian “invasion” in the same way, the matter would have remained a local quarrel. Russia and Ukraine would have made a deal and that would be that.
The neocon warmongers and other defenders of “democracy,” who unfortunately include some deluded “libertarians” object. Don’t we have a duty to resist “aggression?” The answer is clear: No, we don’t. We do not have a duty to evaluate every foreign quarrel and assess who is at fault. We do not have a duty to require leaders of regimes we, or rather our masters in Washington, don’t like to accept existing boundaries of countries as unchangeable. We should reject the false doctrine of “collective security,” which makes every border disputes a world war. The great American historian Charles Beard recognized what was wrong with “collective security” in the 1930s. In his article, “Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels,” he asked: “On what … should the foreign policy of the United States be based? Here is one answer and it is not excogitated in any professor’s study or supplied by political agitators. It is the doctrine formulated by George Washington, supplemented by James Monroe, and followed by the Government of the United States until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the frenzy for foreign adventurism burst upon the country. This doctrine is simple. Europe has a set of ‘primary interests’ which have little or no relation to us, and is constantly vexed by ‘ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.’ The United States is a continental power separated from Europe by a wide ocean which, despite all changes in warfare, is still a powerful asset of defense. In the ordinary or regular vicissitudes of European politics the United States should not become implicated by any permanent ties. We should promote commerce, but force ‘nothing.’ We should steer dear of hates and loves. We should maintain correct and formal relations with all established governments without respect to their forms or their religions, whether Christian, Mohammedan, Shinto, or what have you.”
Beard then responded to those who wanted to scrap our traditional policy of non-intervention with “collective security”: “In the rest of the world, outside this hemisphere, our interests are remote and our power to enforce our will is relatively slight. Nothing we can do for Europeans will substantially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. Nothing we can do for Asiatics will materially increase our trade or add to our, or their, well-being. With all countries in Europe and Asia, our relations should be formal and correct. As individuals we may indulge in hate and love, but the Government of the United States embarks on stormy seas when it begins to love one power and hate another officially.”
We should heed Beard’s wisdom today. Otherwise, the world may go up in flames.
Your ability to say “No!” may be your greatest power.
This is especially true when you are in a situation in which you are part of the minority. Your lack of cooperation can be far more easy to leverage than being cooperative and gently trying to sway opinion.
So I ask again — In your own life, how can you be as uncooperative with evil as possible?
Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin helped lead the impeachment movement against Trump. Accordingly, his wife, Sarah Bloom Raskin, a swamp-dweller, will not be getting a promotion that former Vice President Joe Biden recommended her for at the Federal Reserve Bank. A few other political issues also caused strife, but the decision came down to one man and it was not Biden.
The reason she will not get a promotion?
Democrat Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia refused to support her nomination.
Manchin watched West Virginia switch to heavily Republican during his time in office. Manchin is now one of a handful of Democrat office holders in heavily Republican West Virginia, and the only Democrat federal office holder from that state out of the delegation of five.
To illustrate that further, Cook lists West Virginia’s three congressional district as R+22, R+20, and R+27. This is to say, the state is presently very pro-Republican. Some may bemoan that Manchin is in a difficult situation to be a Democrat.
I discourage such whining. It hides reality.
The truth is, Manchin is in a wonderful situation, as are the voters of West Virginia.
That is because, in response to a difficult situation, Manchin has chosen to rise to the occasion.
Manchin has become influential over the past year of the regime, like Republican Senator Rand Paul was during the Trump Administration. Rand Paul, who came to office in the midst of the Tea Party movement, was understood to not be a reliable party line voter, but to be principled and obstinate. Many Senators want to appear independent. Rand Paul really is independent.
Because Rand Paul behaves so independently and at the same time has some political clout, Trump was able to use Paul as the scapegoat to a horrible neo-con who sought to be Secretary of State.
John Bolton, in the book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, recounts a strategy that legitimate President Trump used against him to leverage the well known, public, concerns of Rand Paul.
Bolton wanted to be Secretary of State in 2018 and asked Trump for the position. Trump allegedly told Bolton, “I’d love to have you over there,” if it wasn’t for that “son of a b**** Rand Paul.”
The evil that requires our obedience will not stop until we recognize them for who they really are and fearlessly point them out with the simple label they deserve, “Fascists!”
Instead of counting sheep, repeat the following nursery rhyme to yourselves as you lay your head on the pillow tonight:
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Not Benito Mussolini, but still true.
Corporations have been controlling governments across the west to varying degrees since there were governments to control. Today this happens with back room deal making, revolving doors of executives shuffling between board rooms and government agencies charged with that industry’s oversight and then back to the board room. It happens through funding research with corporate grants and state subsidies in what is now called ‘regulatory capture’.
We do not call ‘regulatory capture’ bribery or corruption. We do not even call bribery or massive corruption in government by its real name, we call it “lobbying”. We do not call the lateral move from corporation to government agencies on behalf of that corporation’s industry corruption, we call it “public service”. No matter how large the speaking fees or how many millions in stock options await the public servant they are apparently still serving the public and not the corporation.
When politicians take millions in contributions from corporations we do not call that corruption either, or bribery, we call it “campaign financing” through “political action committees”. No matter how many millions the politician raises through these legal mechanisms we are still supposed to believe they will serve the voters and not their financial contributors.
When corporate lawyers working for lobbying firms write legislation for congress, often prepared in advance of manufactured “news” (sometimes catastrophic events: See Patriot Act) that warrants its immediate passing and signing without meaningful debate or even lawmakers reading the bill, we call this the “legislative process”.
When vaccine trials with experimental gene therapy are rammed through something called ‘operation warp speed’ with falsified data and questionable practices and immediately approved for emergency use authorization while suppressing cheap effective therapies at the expense of millions of lives, we call this “following the science”. We do not call it Democide or Pharmacide.
When the man who was part of creating and funding the man-made virus that was “accidentally” released from a level four bio lab in China is put in charge of managing the government response to his own catastrophic failures, we do not call him a war criminal but a “public health servant”. He is paraded across the public airwaves for two years making contradictory statements while hailed by Corporate-State elites as a hero.
The word “Orwellian” gets bandied about daily now, and rightly so. The people sense they are watching the boot of tyranny descend closer and closer to their heads.
War is Peace.
War criminals are heroes.
Bribery is lobbying.
Corruption is regulatory capture.
Looting Treasuries is Quantitative Easing.
When children are forced to wear masks that do absolutely nothing other than destroy their souls and torment them psychologically this is sold to the inquisitive parent and obedient masses as “public health policy” for the “common good”. It’s never called overt child abuse worthy of prison time for those who mandate or enforce it.
Freedom is Slavery.
Child abuse is safety for the common good.
George Carlin warned us about euphemisms and political correctness. Ronald Regan warned us about fascism masquerading as liberalism. When we allow the government and its public relations servants in the media to manipulate language against us, what evils will they cloak next in benign adornments of bureaucratic double speak?
Will they call for the end of civilian casualties and suffering in Ukraine with more war? How about cloaking World War Three with something called a ‘no-fly zone’?
If the bankers of global management want another brother war on European soil, they will find a way to engineer it as they did the last two. It would allow them to accelerate the final stages of transition from free market capitalism rooted in western consumerism and interconnected global trade with winners and losers, to a top down, centrally controlled system of elite-managed Corporate-State Fascism.
The transition has been in the works since the turn of the century, though it’s roots can be traced to a series of events last century: 1) The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 2) End of the gold standard 3) Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. The past two years have presented a series of “opportunities” to usher in their new normal through a ‘build back better’ program which cements the final transition to total tyranny. We know this, because they have told us this is what they have planned for us.
In order to realize their new normal tyranny, dissent must be punished. Emergency authorizations must be enacted to stop protestors who challenge authority and power. Corporations must work hand in glove with states to realize whatever is needed.
For years tech monopolies have worked with western intelligence agencies to collect everything on their citizens and spy on them. They are now openly working with governments to publicly censor speech and label truth as “misinformation”. This can earn the added label “Covid-misinformation” or “Russian-disinformation” for that extra boost it needs to convince the masses that only “authoritative sources” are to be trusted.
What constitutes an authoritative source? Corporate media that works with the agents of state power, mainly oligarchs and their foundations. This includes wikipravda and google search to capture and control public education and universities.
This is how the con works: Authoritative sources are lies and propaganda, while conspiracy theories and misinformation are often the truth slandered with those meaningless labels. Centers of power have no need to censor lies and propaganda because they are the source for both. Censorship is reserved exclusively for when lies and propaganda are exposed by the truth, which is always the greatest threat to power anywhere and has been throughout all of human history. If you search google for ‘why censorship’…?
This certainly would be a convenient time to give Joe Biden the hook, as he’s so far underwater he’s dragging the whole party down with him, and a predicted dire assessment of his party’s chances in the midterms seems widespread. If the charges against Hunter are filed, his father is inextricably involved in the foreign payoffs,
The New York Post, without all these sordid details and photographs, reported the story in that same month before the election. But in the face of widespread denial, the story got little coverage. It is only now almost two years later, that the New York Timesconfirms that the Post’s reporting on the laptop was accurate.
A comprehensive report about the ongoing federal probe into Hunter Biden’s tax filings published by the New York Times on Wednesday night confirmed the existence of the first son’s infamous laptop.
In October 2020, The Post exclusively reported on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop that he ditched at a Delaware repair shop in April 2019.
The laptop’s hard drive contained a trove of emails, text messages, photos and financial documents between Hunter Biden, his family and business associates — detailing how the president’s son used his political leverage in his overseas business dealings.
The repair shop owner reported the laptop to the FBI, which seized the device and its hard drive.
As part of their investigation into Hunter Biden, the Times reports, federal prosecutors have looked into emails between the first son and his former business associates that were recovered from the laptop.
Emma-Jo Morris the author of the Post report tweeted:
“Just to clarify: the New York Times did not ‘confirm’ my reporting on the laptop from hell. They did not add any new information speaking to its authenticity. All they did was ADMIT that it was legit. That is not a minor distinction.”
No, it isn’t minor. There was ample evidence the report was accurate, as Apelbaum’s reporting all that month demonstrated.
It is hard to imagine how the Times justifies hiding from its readers news this important which clearly would have affected the election.
Its refusal to cover this allowed Joe Biden to get away with brushing off the story without dealing with its serious evidence of incredible family corruption of every sort imaginable.
Brush offs like this when a brave reporter asked about the laptop:
“God love ya man, you’re a one horse pony,” he told the reporter while walking away.
“I promise my Justice Department will be totally on its own making these judgments about how they should proceed,” he added.
Joe Biden oversees the Justice Department, the agency in charge of rooting out corruption – even at the highest levels.
It was not only the NYT, and media figures like Leslie Stahl and Brian Stelter who discounted the report about Hunter’s laptop. Fifty former senior intelligence officials suggested the report was Russian disinformation
On Wednesday, when the New York Timesacknowledged the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop, it struck a blow to Biden and his Democrat lieutenants who have claimed for years the laptop is Russian disinformation.
Biden’s spokesperson, Jen Psaki, is still clinging to Biden’s baseless defense:
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday dodged two questions about Hunter Biden’s laptop after the New York Times confirmed the laptop from hell is in fact real. The New York Times finally admitted that Hunter Biden’s laptop is real…. Two White House reporters confronted Psaki about Hunter Biden’s laptop on Thursday and her previous claims it was Russian disinformation. Psaki looked visibly irritated and refused to answer any questions. The president previously said that the [Hunter Biden laptop scandal] was a bunch of garbage and that it was a Russian plant. Does he stand by that assessment?
C’mon man. They gotcha. Almost two years too late, but you can’t continue to hide this. Game’s up.
I can’t disagree with wretchardthecat who apropos tweeted: “The difference between a conspiracy theory and ‘so it happened, get over it’ is about six months.”
The difference between a conspiracy theory and “so it happened, get over it” is about six months. https://t.co/lhUqQu4966 — wretchardthecat (@wretchardthecat) March 17, 2022
Well, that seems to be the Clinton-Obama-Biden playbook for what you do when the evidence of your wrongdoing has finally made its way through the layers of disinformation and media coverup.
I don’t think that will work this time. For one thing, there does seem to be some kind of ongoing federal investigation in which at least Devon Archer, Hunter’s close business associate, was sentenced for defrauding an Indian tribe. And that investigation seems to involve Hunter’s dealings:
WASHINGTON — In the year after he disclosed a federal investigation into his “tax affairs” in late 2020, President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, paid off a significant tax liability, even as a grand jury continued to gather evidence in a wide-ranging examination of his international business dealings, according to people familiar with the case.[snip]
But Mr. Biden’s taxes are just one element of the broader investigation stemming from work he did around the world. Hunter Biden is a Yale-educated lawyer; his professional life has intersected with his father’s public service, including working as a registered lobbyist for domestic interests and, while his father was vice president, pursuing deals and clients in Asia and Europe.
As recently as last month, the federal grand jury heard testimony in Wilmington, Del., from two witnesses, one of whom was a former employee of Hunter Biden whose lawyer was later subpoenaed for financial records that reflected money Mr. Biden received from a Ukrainian energy company.
Investigators have examined Mr. Biden’s relationships with interests in Kazakhstan, a Chinese energy conglomerate and Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, according to people familiar with the investigation.
They said prosecutors had investigated payments and gifts Mr. Biden or his associates had received from foreign interests, including a vehicle paid for using funds from a company associated with a Kazakh oligarch and a diamond from a Chinese energy tycoon. Prosecutors also sought documents related to corporate entities through which Mr. Biden and his associates conducted business with interests around the world.
I’m inclined to endorse this Facebook post of Michael Walsh:
It’s important for you civilians to know how to read the secret messages encoded in Pravda’s “news” stories. Its admission that — surprise!! — the Hunter Biden laptop stories were all, of course, true is a signal to Dems that the Big Guy is now expendable.
This certainly would be a convenient time to give Joe Biden the hook, as he’s so far underwater he’s dragging the whole party down with him, and a predicted dire assessment of his party’s chances in the midterms seems widespread. If the charges against Hunter are filed, his father is inextricably involved in the foreign payoffs, and a majority Republican Congress in the coming term could well institute impeachment proceedings. So why not have his own party usher him out the door first to signal their togas are clean?
“It’s exactly what we’ve been saying,” said James Kreindler, one of the lead attorneys in a lawsuit by more than 10,000 9/11 victims and relatives against the Saudi government. “Saudi government officials at a high level were integral to the 9/11 attacks.”
Soon after the 9/11 attacks two decades ago, the FBI quietly launched an investigation into a seemingly obscure Saudi Arabian government bureaucrat in Southern California.
The man claimed to be nothing more than a Saudi aviation official who innocently happened to befriend two Islamic jihadists in the months before they carried out the 9/11 attacks.
That story now appears to be false. The alleged aviation official was really a Saudi spy who reported directly to a Saudi prince who happened to be the kingdom’s influential ambassador in Washington and a close friend of President George W. Bush and other top U.S. government officials.
The FBI concluded five years ago that there was a “50/50 chance” that this Saudi spy knew ahead of time that the two Islamists he befriended were about to join the plot to hijack commercial jetliners and crash them into buildings in what turned out to be America’s deadliest terrorist attack. But the FBI refused to go public with its findings — until now.
No, it isn’t minor. There was ample evidence the report was accurate, as Apelbaum’s reporting all that month demonstrated.
MCViewPoint 
