MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

WATCH: Father of 5 Refuses Blood Test, Half Dozen Cops Handcuff and Suffocate Him to Death

Posted by M. C. on March 21, 2022

“Instead of trying to save his life, they slap him in the face thinking that’s going to wake a dead man up. Where is CPR? Where is first aid? None of that is administered to Edward Bronstein, and that’s why his family is suffering here today,” said Carrillo.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/watch-father-of-5-refuses-blood-test-half-dozen-cops-handcuff-and-suffocate-him-to-death/

by Matt Agorist

cant breathe 1050x525

The words ‘I can’t breathe’ have become a rallying cry for those who advocate for an end to police brutality. In case after gruesome case, these words are captured on video as cops squeeze the life from American citizens. Though police apologists will claim that saying “I can’t breathe” means you can breathe because you can talk, time after time, they are proven wrong.

Although they were likely uttered countless times before, as cops squeezed the breath from their victims, the words “I can’t breathe” were burned into history when officer Daniel Pantaleo choked the last breath from Eric Garner.

Showing their utter disregard for human life and the disturbing nature of the thin blue line culture, NYPD officers had shirts made that said, “I can breathe,” to mock the last words of a father of six, who they killed.

Those words have been caught on film countless more times since that fateful day, yet they didn’t spark a major outcry until George Floyd uttered them on Memorial Day in 2020 as cops squeezed the life from his body.

Instances like Floyd’s happen so frequently that since that day, multiple body camera videos have been released showing cops doing the same thing to other folks, who die shortly after saying, “I can’t breathe.”

Edward Bronstein was one of these men. Though he died two months before Floyd, video was not released until this month as part of a lawsuit. After watching the video, we now know why the California Highway Patrol fought for two years to keep you from seeing it.

For a misdemeanor, Bronstein was handcuffed, thrown to the ground and suffocated to death by a half dozen cops — none of whom have been held to account for his death.

The nightmare for Bronstein’s family began when this father of five was pulled over for alleged DUI. When Bronstein refused to have his blood drawn, which is his right, he was subsequently attacked and killed.

Tragically, Bronstein’s family said that he had a fear of needles which is why he didn’t want to submit to the test.

“[Bronstein] says, ‘I can’t breathe’ 12 times, is what I counted,” said family attorney Michael Carrillo during a news conference this week. “Twelve times he says, ‘I can’t breathe.’ Not one officer took the action to pull the others off of him. Pull him to his side…do something to give him air.”

According to the family’s lawsuit, filed in December 2020, CHP officers used excessive force against the unarmed and restrained man who was not a threat to anyone.

What’s more, after they squeezed the life from him, instead of providing potentially life saving first aid, like CPR, cops simply slapped him in the face.

“Instead of trying to save his life, they slap him in the face thinking that’s going to wake a dead man up. Where is CPR? Where is first aid? None of that is administered to Edward Bronstein, and that’s why his family is suffering here today,” said Carrillo.

As the video shows, Bronstein is begging the cops to get off of him, crying that he can’t breath and that he is complying.

“This is wrong,” Bronstein said, to which a cop replies, “You are bringing the fight to this, not us.”

“I’m not fighting at all.”

Bronstein would tell the officers who several more times that he couldn’t breathe before he became unresponsive and died—for an alleged misdemeanor.

“What these officers did on that day was reprehensible and shocking,” said Luis Carillo, another one of the family’s attorneys, according to ABC7.

“My dad was a good person,” said Bronstein’s daughter Brianna Palomino. “Nobody deserves to die this way. They left all of us without a dad.”

Indeed.

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Facing Unpleasant Facts: What You aren’t Supposed to say about the War in Ukraine

Posted by M. C. on March 20, 2022

The empowerment of far right extremists since the 2014 coup, a significant number with openly Neo-Nazi affiliations, is reflected in the dramatic rise in attacks on Jews, feminists, and the LGBTQ and Romany communities. It has further led to the banning of books that question Kyiv’s nationalist propaganda, which itself features the whitewashing of Nazi collaborators.

https://mises.org/wire/facing-unpleasant-facts-what-you-arent-supposed-say-about-war-ukraine-0

Joseph Solis-Mullen

Having been lied into war in Iraq in 2003, the American public swore it had wised up. Sure, it went on to drop the ball by supporting the Libya intervention, itself prefaced by lies, and supported the government’s intervention in the civil war in Syria (or at least didn’t mind it), even though the US sided with the very Sunni extremists it had been fighting a few years before in Iraq. But these were admittedly obscure conflicts, made all the more so by the blatantly biased coverage of events by Western media, which parroted obvious lies about impending massacres and staged chemical weapons attacks.

But in Europe, where the US had extensive military alliance commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the US population should ostensibly have been more informed and less prone to beguiling, it has been disappointing to see the American public once again so easily led down the path to supporting a war that never had to be—never would have been—but for the policies enacted by our government.

And just as with the baseless rush to war with Iraq, which every outlet of mainstream media loyally supported, those who refuse to repeat slogans of “Ukrainian democracy” or “Russian aggression” are denigrated, either as cowards or as apologists for the heinous actions of others, for which they are obviously not responsible. Besides being inaccurate, the latter accusation is particularly perfidious because it effectively makes reasoned dissent impossible.

But by pretending that history started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the story is made simple, a clear case of right and wrong. And while it is true that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine and so is responsible for the present war, such a Manichean telling of the story does little to further informed policy discussion. Indeed, that is precisely the point: to ignore the decades of declared Russian security interests in the orientation of states directly at its border, as well as to obscure a history of US meddling in Ukraine.

So unless you think context is irrelevant, that recent history is unimportant to understanding current crises, here are four things you aren’t supposed to say about Ukraine but that are absolutely true and that all Americans should be aware of before forming a hasty opinion regarding a deadly serious matter that until a few weeks ago most knew nothing about.

The “Revolution of Dignity” Was a US-Backed Coup

The 2014 ouster of slightly Russian-leaning Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who drew his support primarily from the ethnic Russian–dominated eastern parts of the country, was spun by Ukrainian nationalist and Western media as a ”revolution of dignity.” It was in fact, in the words of Western security analyst George Friedman, ”the most blatant coup in history.” In case the obvious nature of events on the ground weren’t enough, this was confirmed by the leaked phone call between then assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, then the US ambassador to Ukraine, during which they picked their favorites for the new Ukrainian leadership and plotted how to prevent the meddlesome EU from screwing it all up by moving too slowly, potentially allowing Russia a chance to interfere in the obviously illegal ouster of an elected government through a street putsch.

The proximate cause of the coup was Yanukovych’s taking of what was essentially a large Russian bribe to eschew an EU association agreement. In a country ranked 122nd in corruption, literally the most corrupt country in Europe, none of this was a surprise. But what was a surprise was the US move to sweep in and take Kyiv—something US foreign policy insiders publicly bragged about in the immediate aftermath.

There Is a Significant Neo-Nazi Problem in Ukraine

This is something that until a few years ago the mainstream media reported seriously on; of course, that was before they knew they were going to have to try and lie us into another war. Now any mention of what was taken to be an obvious problem just a year ago is decried as “Russian propaganda!”

The empowerment of far right extremists since the 2014 coup, a significant number with openly Neo-Nazi affiliations, is reflected in the dramatic rise in attacks on Jews, feminists, and the LGBTQ and Romany communities. It has further led to the banning of books that question Kyiv’s nationalist propaganda, which itself features the whitewashing of Nazi collaborators.

What are we to think when at the same time that public witch hunts for supposed white nationalists are carried out domestically with something near hysterical zeal, state-of-the-art shoulder-fired antiaircraft and antitank weaponry is shipped in great volumes to extremist white nationalists in Ukraine that would make the top of any of our own domestic terrorist watch lists?

We aren’t supposed to think about it all, at least not critically—just like we aren’t supposed to think critically about anything else.

The Russians Always Objected to NATO Expansion into Ukraine

For example, how about the fact our government always knew the Russians vigorously objected to any NATO involvement in Ukraine but downplayed or dismissed the obvious steps they were taking in that direction—downplayed it to themselves, to the American public, and tried to downplay it to the wider European community. Of course, Germany and France knew better and refused to grant a membership action plan to Ukraine despite Washington’s intense pressure. And though blocked from de jure absorbing Ukraine into the alliance, Washington was taking de facto steps to that effect—conducting joint military exercises in Ukraine at the same time that it was shipping the US-coup-installed government sophisticated heavy weaponry whose only obvious use was against Russia. Since at least 2014, when Putin ordered Russian forces to seize the Crimea to protect the only warm water port of the Russian navy after threats by Kyiv to evict them despite Moscow’s legal lease, Washington has known Putin feels particularly threatened in Ukraine. Even in the years since then, Washington has rejected repeated attempts by Moscow to establish an officially neutral Ukraine, including in the weeks leading up to the invasion.

Biden Could Have Prevented the War

Yes, even at that late date in January 2022—and all it would have taken was agreeing to Putin’s minimum terms: Ukraine could never join NATO, and new missiles could not be deployed in eastern European NATO member states. Outrageous and rightly rejected? Not according to Joe Biden, who claimed NATO membership for Ukraine was not on the table nor a serious priority at any point in the foreseeable future. Taking him at his word, why wouldn’t Biden simply agree to put it on paper and prevent what he himself repeatedly said were imminent Russian plans to invade and destroy Ukraine? What we’re told, and have been told since NATO expansion began, is that “keeping the door open” to alliance membership is a ”sacred principle.”

Perhaps it should be made public exactly how many Ukrainian lives the State Department and the Pentagon reckon this principle to be worth and how such calculations are made.

Conclusion

Really, what this looks like is a tragic combination of the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the decade-long Soviet-Afghan War. In the first instance, US encouragement of actions by Tbilisi directly contrary to Russian interests led directly to a Russian military intervention; in the latter case, the leading US policy maker at the time, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admits precipitating that war on purpose: provoking the USSR into fatally overreaching in an attempt to protect an allied government from being undermined by the US—in this case by funding the proto-Taliban mujahideen in Afghanistan from bases in neighboring Pakistan.

As Poland gets set to potentially play Pakistan to Ukraine’s Afghanistan, serving as a staging area and training ground for rebel fighters slipping back and forth across the border to Ukraine, thereby further threatening war between NATO and Russia, we should recall that this all, in a sense, happened because the local governments in Donetsk and Luhansk could see the obvious: what had happened in Kyiv in 2013–14 was a coup, and they refused to recognize the new government. Further, we should remember that it was only when the Ukrainian military attempted to retake these regions by force that Russia intervened—and that since the Minsk Two peace accords failed to bring about a durable ceasefire, over 80 percent of those killed have been ethnic Russians living in the breakaway regions, and they were killed by the government in Kyiv.

With Democrats and Republicans fighting about who supports intervening in Ukraine more, and with uninformed and misled people increasingly calling for even more disastrous interventionist measures, the American public needs to be reminded that it is entirely possible for us to have a foreign policy that keeps us perfectly safe while not getting large numbers of people killed elsewhere, and further, that most of the various crises around the world that we are told the US needs to play a direct and integral part in solving are themselves the direct result of previous US interventions in those places.

Author:

Joseph Solis-Mullen

A graduate of Spring Arbor University and the University of Illinois, Joseph Solis-Mullen is a political scientist and graduate student in the economics department at the University of Missouri. A writer and blogger, his work can be found at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Eurasian Review, Libertarian Institute, and Sage Advance. You can contact him through his website http://www.jsmwritings.com or find him on Twitter.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Why I Was WRONG About Guns!” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

https://youtu.be/7fKO1-hE2Wg

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

99.9% Of Americans Support Sending Mitt Romney To Fight In Ukraine | The Babylon Bee

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

https://babylonbee.com/news/99-of-americans-support-sending-mitt-romney-to-fight-in-ukraine

U.S.—While Americans remain divided over whether we should expand our involvement in Ukraine to direct military intervention, possibly causing the world to descend into a Fallout-style apocalyptic wasteland, Americans were able to unite over one issue: whether we should send Mitt Romney to the frontlines to fight against Russia.

The poll was taken shortly after Romney strongly advocated for escalating conflict with Russia over the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Of those polled, 99.9% agreed with the statement “Mitt Romney should be sent to the battlefront, issued a rifle, and fight in the war he continues to call for.” According to the survey results, the remainder of the respondents were Mitt Romney, within a one percent margin of error. One respondent also answered, “Who is Mitt Romney?”, and this response was reportedly correlated with strong levels of ignorant bliss.

Pollsters also said that several respondents could not answer the question, as they had an instant reaction to the name “Mitt Romney,” immediately vomiting all over the survey.

“Honestly, it’s just being kind to him,” said one man in Iowa. “He obviously wants this really badly, and we just want to give him a front-row seat to the action. We’d hate for him to start World War 3 and then just sit back at home while others go to fight the war for him. No one likes feeling left out.”

Romney was quick to clarify his remarks after the poll came out, saying that his support for going to war with Russia would drop significantly if he had to actually do the fighting himself and not send other people’s kids to die.

Bee seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Congratulations to the “Woman” of the Year!” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

https://youtu.be/xOopLmUCvUg

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The Real Importance of Hunter Biden’s Laptop

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/rudisinfo?e=4e0de347c8

We thought we were free…
Dear Friends:
 
Few who pay attention should be shocked, but for those who still look to the “newspaper of record” to be the newspaper of record, the New York Times has acknowledged – some 17 months after the story broke – that President Biden’s son’s laptop was indeed President Biden’s son’s laptop.

As Glenn Greenwald recounts in the above link, the oldest newspaper in the US, the NY Post, broke an explosive story just weeks before the US presidential election: Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden’s son had left a laptop computer at a repair shop and never returned for it. On the computer was a veritable cornucopia of corruption liberally seasoned with some of the most depraved behaviors known to man.

The tales of corruption from that laptop, apparently leading up to the “big guy” himself, may have been enough to have turned the electoral tide against Biden. As a result, the entire US mainstream media moved as one to suppress any mention of the “laptop from hell.”

They refused to even cover it in the media and they erased it completely from the social media. Twitter actually suspended the account of the New York Post for two weeks as punishment for breaking the story. Facebook’s Andy S
tone – a longtime Democratic Party political operative – was trotted out to inform the world that Facebook would actively use its tech powers to suppress any discussion of the laptop.

The message was clear: the US media delivers narratives, not information. 

But their next move is where it gets most interesting and revealing. The powers-that-be then trotted out very CIA-friendly “reporter” Natasha Bertrand to launch a nuclear strike on the trickling out of Hunter laptop information. As she wrote for Politico, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

The story cited some 50 “former intelligence officers” who signed a letter “casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president’s son.”

In one fell swoop, any inquiry into the laptop was halted in its tracks. If the whole story is a plant from Russian intelligence to get Trump another turn, obviously any journalist – or anyone else – looking into the story or even discussing the story was doing the bidding of a foreign intelligence service. A traitor!

Never mind that the 50 intel officers actually said no such thing. What they actually said was: We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. For propaganda purposes, this little qualifier was not even a speed bump on the road to “Biden laptop is Russian disinfo” that came pouring out of every MSM outlet. Here is a very helpful montage of the entire choir of the US mainstream media singing as one on the topic of “Russian disinformation.”

Many people sensed at the time that the whole thing was a lie. But still there is that nagging feeling: “I don’t want to be accused of spreading Russian disinformation so I just won’t mention it to anyone or even read about it.”

That’s how information has been suppressed by totalitarian governments from time immemorial. Censorship and demonization leads to self-censorship and the burial of any information counter to the desired narrative. Rinse and repeat.

Accusations of “Russia collusion” or “repeating Putin’s talking points” is just a variation of the old Soviet accusations of counter-narratives being the product of “foreign wreckers” or “lapdogs of imperialism.” 

Lies to demonize the truth.

As Dr. Paul has said many times on the Liberty Report, under communism they would not automatically send you off to the gulag for “anti-state” activities. Sometimes they would just take away your livelihood. Being fired from a job and being unemployable is a kind of existential purgatory where one’s “sins” may or may not eventually be expiated in a rehabilitation. But in the meantime it feels like hell.

That is, shockingly, where we are in this country. And it is only made all the more obvious with the current Russia/Ukraine war. In the “West,” which prided itself on its liberal outlook to include free speech and free expression (in contrast to that “evil East” which suppressed such products of the Enlightenment), the very first move when shots rang out was to begin suppressing any counter-narratives. Americans and citizens of the EU were to be forbidden from watching any broadcast seeking to provide the other side of the story. RT was banned. Same with Sputnik. Even the personal Twitter profiles of American citizens who happened to be employed by these news outlets found a label slapped on their page identifying them as “Russian state-affiliated media.” 

Twitter even just labeled the personal account of former RT news anchor Ed Schultz to be “Russian state-affiliated media.” One problem: Schultz has been dead for four years!!!

The message is clear: these are non-persons. Engage with them at your own risk. Even if they are dead!

That is the goal of the “Russia disinfo” tag, which has been used to attack truth-tellers and challengers of “conventional wisdom” for years. Just weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the Washington Post ran a scurrilous piece accusing many dozens of independent news and analysis organizations – including LewRockwell.com, ZeroHedge, Antiwar.com, and, yes, even the Ron Paul Institute – of being “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.”

The current Ukraine/Russia war – no matter what you think of who is responsible etc. – is proceeding on those same lines, but on steroids. If you dare question whether Ukraine’s Zelensky – who until recently was a soft-porn TV comedian – is the second coming of Mother Theresa (as Col. Macgregor recently joked) you are a Putin apologist spreading “Russian disinformation.”

The real importance of the Biden laptop is that the term “Russian disinformation” to suppress facts and distort reality is now laid bare as the stuff of totalitarian governments. And our government and media are joining forces in that totalitarianism.

Just like Soviet thugs sought to deprive dissenters of their ability to provide for themselves, our modern day thugs seek to deprive the livelihoods of organizations questioning what we know are lies layered upon lies. They want to intimidate people into withholding support for truth-tellers – be it Julian Assange, RT, ZeroHedge, or the Ron Paul Institute. We know you will not allow that to happen and we are grateful to you for that.  
Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Trading with the Enemy: An American Tradition

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

Large numbers of deserting sailors, furthermore, left to join the merchant marine for large-scale smuggling and trade with the enemy. New York City was a lively center for deserting sailors, and New York merchants systematically hid the sailors from the British troops. The British compelled their return in 1757 by threatening to conduct a deliberately brutal and thorough house-to-house search, and to treat New York as a conquered city. British troops were quartered upon New York against the vehement opposition of the citizens they were supposedly “protecting.” In Philadelphia, pacifist mobs repeatedly attacked recruiting officers and even lynched one in February 1756.

https://mises.org/library/trading-enemy-american-tradition

Murray N. Rothbard

During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), Americans continued the great tradition of trading with the enemy, and even more readily than before. As in King George’s War, Newport took the lead; other vital centers were New York and Philadelphia. The individualistic Rhode Islanders angrily turned Governor Stephen Hopkins out of office for embroiling Rhode Island in a “foreign” war between England and France.

Rhode Island blithely disregarded the embargo against trade with the enemy, and redoubled its commerce with France. Rhode Island’s ships also functioned as one of the major sources of supply for French Canada during the war. In the fall of 1757, William Pitt was told that the Rhode Islanders “are a lawless set of smugglers, who continually supply the enemy with what provisions they want…”

The Crown ordered royal governors to embargo exports of food and to break up the extensive traffic with the West Indies, but shippers again resorted to flags of truce and trade through neutral ports in the West Indies. Monte Cristi, in Spanish Hispaniola, proved to be a particularly popular intermediary port.

The flags-of-truce device particularly irritated the British, and the lucrative sale of this privilege—with the prisoners’ names left blank—was indulged in by Governors William Denny of Pennsylvania and Francis Bernard of New Jersey. French prisoners, for token exchanges under the flags, were rare, and therefore at a premium, and merchants in Philadelphia and New York paid high prices for these prisoners to Newport privateers. The peak of this trade came in 1759, for in the following year, with the end of the war with New France, the Royal Navy was able to turn its attention to this trade and virtually suppress it.

However, in the words of Professor Bridenbaugh, “Privateering and trade with the enemy might have their ups and downs … but then as now, government contracts seemed to entail little risk and to pay off handsomely.”1 Particularly feeding at the trough of government war contracts were specially privileged merchants of New York and Pennsylvania. Two firms of London merchants were especially influential in handing out British war contracts to their favorite American correspondents.

Thus, the highly influential London firm of John Thomlinson and John Hanbury (who was deeply involved in the Ohio Company) received a huge war contract; the firm designated Charles Apthorp and Company its Boston representative, and Colonel William Bayard its representative in New York.

In addition, the powerful London merchant Moses Franks arranged for his relatives and friends—David Franks of Philadelphia, and Jacob Franks, John Watts, and the powerful Oliver DeLancey of New York—to be made government agents, New York, furthermore, was made the concentration point for the British forces and the general storehouse of arms and ammunition, thus permitting “many merchants to amass fortunes as subcontractors if they enjoyed the proper family connections.” By 1761, however, all the great ports in America were suffering badly from the severe dislocation of trade wrought by the war.

Smuggling and trading with the enemy were not the only forms of American resistance to British dictation during the French and Indian War. During the French wars of the 1740s, Boston had been the center of violent resistance to conscription for the war effort, an effort that decimated the Massachusetts male population. During the French and Indian War, Massachusetts continued as the most active center of resistance to conscription and of widespread desertion, often en masse, from the militia.

Thomas Pownall took over as governor of Massachusetts in early 1757, and cracked down bitterly on Massachusetts’ liberties: he sent troops outside Massachusetts without Assembly permission, threatened to punish justices of the peace who did not enforce the laws against desertion (hitherto interpreted with “salutary neglect”), and threatened Boston with military occupation if the Assembly did not agree to the arrival and quartering of British troops. In November, English recruiting officers appeared in Boston, and the Assembly and the Boston magistrates forbade any recruiting or any quartering of troops in the town. Pownall vetoed these actions as violations of the royal prerogative, especially in “emergencies.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Pearl Harbor My Eye!

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

In any event, a TV actor who has no script other than that handed to him by his Washington/NATO overseers is one thing. And at the end of the day, it small potatoes compared to the grotesque negligence and misdirection of Sleepy Joe’s own keepers.

That is to say, Secy Blinkey and Snake Sullivan should be bent over the above map in earnest conversation with their Russian counterparts as to the fine points of the partition, and the meaning of “neutrality,” “de-nazification” and “demilitarization” of the green area of the map, which is to become the future “Ukraine,” if there is to be anything left at all.

By David Stockman

We were already getting sick and tired of this Zelensky clown, but the sheer chutzpah of comparing Ukraine’s predicament with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 is just fricking outrageous. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bensten’s famous retort to Dan Quayle in the 1992 VP debate: We knew the United States of America and Ukraine isn’t any United States.

To the contrary, it is a cesspool of corruption, mal-governance and rank stupidity on the foreign policy front. For crying out loud, its situation is comparable to the drug cartels taking over Mexico, demanding the return of the Gadsden Purchase and then seeking to join a Russian-led anti-American treaty organization.

That is to say, Ukraine brought the Russian attack on itself by poking the bear in its eyes repeatedly since the 2014 coup. Yet now its leader has the gall to petition the US Congress to start WWII via standing-up a No Fly Zone in lieu of the obvious solution: Namely, Zelensky should resign and make way for a collaborationist government that will sue for peace on the following basis:

  • Recognize that Crimea is Russian territory and always has been since it was purchased by Catherine the Great in 1783;
  • Permit the separation of the Donbass Republics from Ukraine because the overwhelmingly Russian speaking populations there has been part of “New Russia” for more than 300 years and do not wish to be ruled by the anti-Russian fascists and oligarchs who control Kiev;
  • Amend the constitution of the rump state of Ukraine to prohibit its joining NATO or any similar western alliance, while reducing its military to a domestic law enforcement agency.

Those terms may seem harsh, but it’s the only alternative to the complete destruction of Ukraine and an eventual Russian win anyway. The fact is, the NATO cavalry simply ain’t coming no matter how many standing ovations are stumped up by the armchair warriors of the US Congress.

That’s because even the bully boys of Washington and Brussels aren’t ready to trigger WWIII over the broken remnants of a country that never had been a country historically until Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev made it an administrative district of the Soviet Empire – the latter being a stain on mankind that thankfully disappeared into the dustbin of history 31 years ago.

Yet without direct US/NATO engagement with the Russian military forces now occupying growing segments of Ukrainian territory the expedient of sending arms – even highly advanced lethal anti-air and anti-tank weapons – is futile. Russia now has total air superiority over Ukraine’s skies, meaning that incoming NATO weapons (and the so-called “foreign legion” fighters, too) will be destroyed long before they can make a difference.

So for god’s sake Washington needs to stop standing on ceremony and leading the hapless Ukrainian government down the primrose path to national destruction. There is no way out of the current catastrophe except for Washington to:

  • concede that recruiting Ukraine to join NATO and potentially putting NATO missile bases within one minute’s cruise missile flight time from Moscow was an egregious mistake; and
  • that its demonization of Putin as a modern day Hitler on a quest to revive the Soviet Empire is just plain War Party hogwash and is no justification for its sweeping Sanctions War, most especially if Kiev capitulates to Moscow’s terms.

The truth, in fact, is more nearly the opposite. That is, there really are not two distinct nations there, one invading the other. Russia and Ukraine have never been neighboring independent states like Germany and France or Spain and Portugal or Columbia and Peru. To the contrary, they have been an intermingled territory and peoples for the last 1300 years with borders, governing arrangements episodic external invasions all over the lot.

The Ukrainian language itself is testimony to that history and geography. The dialects spoken in the Donbas (brown and yellow areas) are a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian; the old Galician territories of Western Ukraine centered in Lviv (red areas) are heavily influenced by Polish, Slovakian and Rumanian vocabularies.; and the blue areas of the North present dialects heavily influenced by Belarusian.

What is also true is that these segmented populations have never been united under a common polity except by communist arms between 1922 and 1991; then between 1991 and 2014 by tenuous and continuously shifting electoral balances after the Ukrainian administrative entity was arbitrarily disgorged from the old Soviet Union; and finally after the February 2014 coup by dint of a Kiev government based on central and western Ukraine that essentially declared a civil war on Crimea (which seceded) and the eastern, Russian-speaking Donbas regions that have tried to do the same.

So again, what’s wrong with partition? At the end of the day, Zelensky stood before Congress and had the gall to demand WWIII in behalf of an abortion of a nation that has virtually no chance of long-term survival in its present form. Yet the knuckleheads from both parties are in such war heat that they vociferously applauded the unctuous rantings of a clown who should have stuck to the comedy business.

Still, for want of doubt about the madness of defending Ukraine by economic warfare now, and military confrontation with Russia if the warmongers get their way, just recall how the arbitrary borders depicted above got here. If this mongrel merits all out defense in behalf of the “rule of law,” then the rule of law be damned.

Kiev Is the Ancestral Homeland of Russia

In the first place, Putin is essentially correct when he says that Russia and much of the Ukrainian territory have been one through long stretches of history. Ironically, therefore, the Kiev today being laid to waste by the Russian army is actually the birthplace of Russia!

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Meet Ghislaine: Heiress to an Espionage Empire

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

More than just being the favorite child of her father, Ghislaine Maxwell was at the center of the influence operation and the web of businesses linked to organized crime and intelligence that Robert Maxwell set up in New York City before his 1991 death.

by Whitney Webb

Despite being found guilty late last year for her role in sex crimes against minors, Ghislaine Maxwell, the “madam” and chief accomplice of the intelligence-linked pedophile and sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, may soon walk free. A juror in the case, Scotty David, subsequently took credit for the jury’s decision to find Ghislaine Maxwell guilty and “inadvertently” revealed that he had incorrectly answered a pre-trial questionnaire. As a result, the possibility of a mistrial, and Ghislaine walking free, now looms large.

David has some interesting connections, as he currently works for the Carlyle Group – the global investment firm whose ties to the bin Laden family during the early 2000s have come under scrutiny. Carlyle’s executives often have ties to intelligence, with one example being its former chairman and then chairman emeritus, Frank Carlucci, who had been deputy director of the CIA and, later, Reagan’s Secretary of Defense. Carlyle’s current co-founder and co-chairman David Rubenstein, as noted in this article from Free Press Report,  served on the board of the influential Trilateral Commission during the same time as Jeffrey Epstein, while his ex-wife Alice Rogoff (divorced in 2017) had a very close working relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, including with her now defunct “charity” the TerraMar Project. Given the fact that there are known ties between David’s employer and Ghislaine Maxwell, why has this potential conflict of interest gone unmentioned by mainstream media?

Not only that, but – according to a family member of one of the women who testified against Maxwell during her trial – David was connected with the journalist who would publish the now infamous, post-verdict report via Vicky Ward. Ward has been denounced by Epstein victims and others close to the case for having had a past “chummy” relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell she declined to disclose for years and for subsequently telling Ghislaine that Epstein victim Maria Farmer had been the person who had first reported Maxwell and Epstein to the FBI back in 1996. Farmer later claims that Ward’s lack of journalistic integrity, after promising to keep Farmer’s identity secret, had put her life in danger and forced her into hiding.

It seems that there is, yet again, a major cover-up in the works, one which involves major centers of financial and political power in New York City and beyond. In order to fully understand the sexual trafficking and blackmail operation that Maxwell and Epstein oversaw, and why powerful forces apparently continue to intervene in the case, one must first understand its genesis, particularly how and why Ghislaine Maxwell arrived in New York City. In this second installment of “Meet Ghislaine” (read Part 1 here), the beginnings of Ghislaine’s career – closely controlled by her father, Robert Maxwell, until his 1991 death – are followed in detail.

The Young Ghislaine

Early on in life, Ghislaine Maxwell was surrounded by the rich and powerful figures who frequented her father’s offices as his publishing empire and political connections grew both in the UK and abroad. Her father, Robert Maxwell, was a dominant force in her life as he was for her siblings as well, though Ghislaine gained a reputation as his favorite child, despite having been neglected in the earliest years of her life. 

However, Ghislaine did not escape the abuse that was known to befall Robert Maxwell’s other children. While brothers Kevin and Ian were well known to regularly receive tongue lashings from their father in full view of friends and business associates, Ghislaine received “prearranged hidings [beatings]” from her father, with a nine-year-old Ghislaine telling author Eleanor Berry, a friend and confidant of her father’s, that “Daddy has a series of things lined up in a row. There’s a riding crop with a swish to it, another straight riding crop and a few shoehorns. He always asks me to choose which one I want.”

By all accounts, Robert Maxwell had firm control over Ghislaine’s young life. This was particularly true when it came to her love life through her teens and into her time at university, when he reportedly would ban her boyfriends from the family home and try to keep her from being seen with them publicly. It appears that Robert Maxwell applied this rule uniquely to Ghislaine and not to his three older daughters. Though such behavior could be attributed merely to his being a protective father, he later went to great lengths—even involving his publishing empire—to promote Ghislaine’s affairs with certain individuals, particularly those who inhabited elite circles (explored in more depth later in this article). This behavior suggests that Robert Maxwell may have seen Ghislaine’s sexuality as a useful tool in growing his influence empire, beginning when she was quite young. It also may have contributed to Ghislaine’s willingness, years later, to sexually exploit and abuse the young women targeted by herself and Jeffrey Epstein.

In much the same way as Ghislaine’s young personal life was controlled by her father, her entry into the working world after her graduation from Oxford was directly facilitated and managed by her father, with Robert Maxwell setting her up “with a string of jobs across his business empire.” By 1984, at age twenty-two, she was serving as a director of the British football club Oxford United alongside her brother Kevin. At the time, Robert Maxwell held shares in the club through a company created explicitly for that purpose. He served as the club’s chairman beginning in 1982.

Ghislaine and her father at an Oxford United football match

Prior to and during this same period, Ghislaine worked in various roles at her father’s companies Pergamon Press and the Mirror Group, with British media later describing her early career as “entirely dependent on her father’s patronage.” She was working for the Mirror Group by 1984 and possibly earlier. During this period, Robert often used Ghislaine to market and generally represent his newspapers publicly.

In 1985, and with Robert Maxwell’s full approval, The People — the Sunday edition of the Daily Mirror— ran a story claiming that efforts were being made to blackmail the paper’s publisher, Robert Maxwell himself. The blackmailer had reportedly threatened Maxwell with information regarding Ghislaine’s alleged relationship with David Manners, then-Marquis of Granby and the future Duke of Rutland. The article sought to paint Robert Maxwell as bravely resisting the “blackmailer,” but there is more to the story.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What Americans Should Do if They Are Concerned About Ukraine

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2022

To those Americans who are calling for U.S. troops to go to Ukraine and fight the Russians, I simply say this: What’s stopping you? Oh, so you’re too old or feeble? Then what about your children or grandchildren? Are you willing for them to shed their blood and die to liberate Ukraine from the Russians? Why do you instead want to send other Americans to fight, bleed, suffer, and die. And for what?

By Laurence M. Vance

You have heard it on the television, you have read it in the newspaper, you have seen it on social media, and perhaps you have even heard it in church on Sunday: the people of Ukraine are suffering because of the Russian invasion. What is then usually said or implied is that the United States (meaning, the U.S. government) should do something—send aid, send supplies, send money, send weapons, or send troops.

There is no doubt that the Ukraine people are suffering, and that some of them are being maimed and killed. That is obvious. The question is what the U.S. government should do about it.

And the answer is none of the above.

Let me say first of all that the same Americans who are lamenting the fate of the Ukrainian people right now were not concerned a whit about the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who were shelled for the past eight years by the Ukrainian military.

And it is these same Americans who never opened their mouth to express concern about Iraqis, Afghans, and Vietnamese who were suffering, bleeding, and dying at the hands of the bombs and bullets of the U.S. military. When it is the United States that is engaging in a military operation half way around the world, then we are told to be patriotic and support the troops, thank them for their service, and consider them heroes.

It doesn’t matter where the troops go, why they go where they go, how long they stay where they go, whether they should go in the first place, what they do when they are there, how much it costs to keep them there, how much collateral damage they cause while there, how many people they kill when they are there, how many widows and orphans they make while there, how much infrastructure they destroy when they are there, or how many atrocities they commit while there.

Secondly, although the U.S. government shouldn’t be sending aid, supplies, money, or weapons to Ukraine or any other country, the worst thing it could possibly do is send troops.

It all comes down to the purpose of the U.S. military.

The purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the United States. Period. Not defend other countries, not take sides in wars, not change regimes, not establish democracy, not nation build, not train foreign armies, not enforce no-fly zones, not protect U.S. commercial interests, not serve as peacekeepers, not carry out UN resolutions, not contain communism or “radical Islam,” not invade other countries, not occupy other countries, not provide disaster relief, not dispense humanitarian aid, not intervene in civil wars, not secure the borders of other countries, not try to right every wrong in the world, and not police the world.

The terrible truth is: If Russia killed every person in Ukraine—men, women, and children—razed every building, destroyed all the infrastructure, and turned the whole of Ukraine into a parking lot, then it would still not be the business of the U.S. military to intervene.

And third, if the U.S. government should do nothing about the crisis in Ukraine, then what should Americans do if they are concerned about Ukraine?

Simple.

They can—individually or collectively—send aid, send supplies, send money, send weapons, or go fight on behalf of Ukraine. The Ukrainian government is calling for volunteers from other countries to come and fight alongside Ukraine forces. Foreigners who do can even receive Ukrainian citizenship.

To those Americans who are calling for U.S. troops to go to Ukraine and fight the Russians, I simply say this: What’s stopping you? Oh, so you’re too old or feeble? Then what about your children or grandchildren? Are you willing for them to shed their blood and die to liberate Ukraine from the Russians? Why do you instead want to send other Americans to fight, bleed, suffer, and die. And for what?

What Ron Paul said back in 2014 about the Russian annexation of Crimea (“Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?”) can be applied to the situation in Ukraine today. Whether the Ukrainian or Russian flag flies over Kiev is not worth one drop of American blood nor one penny from the U.S. treasury.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »