Lew Rockwell Institute

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iván Archivaldo Guzmán recently evaded capture by Mexican police by using escape tactics that he learned from his father Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. The Journal described Iván as “Mexico’s Most Wanted Drug Kingpin.”

But wait a minute! I thought that when U.S. officials recently sentenced El Chapo himself to life in a U.S. prison, the war on drugs was supposed to have been won. Alas, apparently not. It turns out that El Chapo has several sons who took over the family drug business.

Darn! And here I thought that the drug war was finally over. Who would have thought that the busting of one big drug lord only means that new drug lords are there to take their place? Gosh, so does that mean that if officials capture or kill all the Chapitos, the drug war will finally be over? If you believe that, I’ve got a nice bridge across the Rio Grande I’d like to sell you.

President Trump knows that the drug war is a long way from being over, no matter how many Chapitos are killed or captured. Trump now wants to use military force against drug cartels inside Mexico. He says the drug dealers are more than drug dealers. He says there are also “terrorists.” So, he wants to kill them by dropping U.S. bombs on them, firing missiles at them, or using U.S. troops to shoot them — inside Mexico. Trump obviously feels that by winning the war on drugs in Mexico, he will be winning the war on drugs here at home.

Unfortunately for Trump, however, when he asked Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum for permission to use U.S. military force inside Mexico, she said no. That must have undoubtedly surprised Trump, given that he has been praising her for several months and even cut her some slack on his tariff campaign. In fact, Trump was so miffed over Sheinbaum’s rejection of his request that he responded by suggesting that she was just scared of the drug cartels.

However, it’s not difficult to understand why Sheinbaum has rejected Trump’s request.

For one thing, Trump’s request is a variation of “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you.” Who believes that one? Not anyone in Mexico, including Sheinbaum.

Another thing to consider is that if U.S. troops enter Mexico ostensibly to combat the drug cartels, there is a good possibility that they will never leave. After all, aren’t there still U.S. troops in Iraq? Indeed, aren’t there post-World War II troops still in Germany? Why would Mexico want a permanent occupation by the U.S. national-security establishment? Would Americans want a permanent occupation of the United States by the Mexican army?

A third thing to consider is that the U.S. government hasn’t exactly done a great job in smashing its own illicit drug distributors here inside the United States. After all, if it had done so, U.S. officials could have declared victory and an end to the drug war. Instead, implicitly acknowledging defeat domestically, they now feel that they need to go into Mexico to win the drug war over there. One can understand why Mexico would question the competence of U.S. officials to win the war on drugs in Mexico when it can’t even win the war on drugs inside the United States.

Something else to consider is all of the innocent people who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against Mexican drug cartels. Remember: U.S. officials don’t exactly put a high value on the lives of Mexicans. After all, isn’t that one of the countries that U.S. officials say is filled with rapists, murderers, thieves, and robbers who are invading the United States? Given such, I can’t imagine that U.S. officials are going to be very upset about the large number of Mexican citizens who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against the drug cartels.

Finally, based on what happened in the Mexican War, one can understand why Sheinbaum and the Mexican people would be a bit skittish about permitting a U.S. invasion of their country. When the U.S. government provoked that war, U.S. officials used the war to steal the entire northern half of Mexico. Who’s to say that the U.S. government wouldn’t do the same thing today — after forcing all Mexican citizens to move south, of course, to avoid having them become U.S. citizens.

As President Trump has pointed out, Sheinbaum is a very sharp person. She is smart to say no to Trump’s request to invade and bomb her country in the name of winning the ongoing, never-ending, perpetual immoral and destructive war on drugs.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Will Trump Invade or Bomb Mexico to Win the Drug War? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Favoring capital over wage earners is the long-established policy of both political parties.

Cribbing a line from a Grateful Dead song (“ain’t it a shame”) seems appropriate when discussing the prospects of America’s burgeoning Precariat Class who are increasingly depending on tips, side hustles, credit cards and buy now, pay later schemes to survive in a stupidly high-cost economy where all the media-hyped “GDP growth” benefits the few at the top, a fact well-documented here courtesy of FRED-Federal Reserve charts.

Living on Meds, Vitamin C and Ibogaine is not a high quality of life, and the only thing that has any real meaning is the quality of life of the majority of the citizenry, particularly the bottom 60% who own the fewest income-producing assets (i.e. capital).

If the quality of life of the majority is tanking, all the glowing economic statistics in the world are nothing but the self-serving bleating of financial toadies, apparatchiks and sycophants who are part of the problem, not the solution, as all the statistics they tout are misdirections.

My focus on the quality of life of America’s Precariats is rooted in my own experiences as a Precariat. Construction is notoriously boom and bust, and when work dries up, precarity is the order of the day. In the brutal 1973-74 recession, work dried up and I emptied my boyhood piggy bank to buy a few gallons of gas.

In the brutal recession of 1980-82, I was down to around $100 cash, which in today’s money is equivalent to about $25.

Small business owners face a particularly intense level of precarity due to their responsibilities for employees and high fixed costs. When work finally picked up in 1983, cash flow didn’t, as banks only release construction loan payments after the work has been done, so my partner and I had to take cash advances on our own credit cards to make payroll for our crews. We couldn’t afford to pay ourselves so we lived on fumes until the cash flow increased–often a couple of months.

This is common in the world of small businesses: after paying your crew, there’s nothing left for you.

The reality is even outwardly successful small businesses are going broke and the owners are burning out. Expenses are increasing in leaps and bounds, but there’s only so much you can charge customers. So small business owners sacrifice themselves to try to make it work–something that is increasingly impossible.

‘Doesn’t make financial sense’: Michelin-starred SF restaurant calls it quits. “Even with the busiest the restaurant’s ever been, it just doesn’t make financial sense,” Stowaway said. “We’ve done a lot of great things and we’re proud, but the financial instability starts to affect everyone, and you have to make big changes.”

Free-lance writing has always been poorly paid, and being paid $150 or $250 for an article was typical in the go-go 1990s. I was so far below “poverty level” (generally considered 80% of median income in one’s region) in the high-cost, high-income San Francisco Bay Area that to me a “poverty level” income was like a king’s ransom.

We hear that high-paying jobs are stressful. Yes, they are, but precarity is stressful without the reward of ample compensation. Most people working for a living are stressed out, and so anti-anxiety / anti-depression meds, pain-killers, etc., are part of the self-medication menu, along with supplements (Vitamin C, etc.). But no med or supplement can fix what’s actually broken–our economy and society.

Ibogaine makes the list because it’s being studied as a treatment for PTSD / traumatic experiences, addiction and severe depression. These have a high correlation with precarity, for those with these conditions have a difficult time escaping precarity, and precarity is itself a low-level trauma that few economic cheerleaders acknowledge.

Ibogaine Inspires New Treatments for Addiction and Depression: Targeted Molecules Are More Powerful Than SSRI Antidepressants and Avoid Dangerous Side Effects.

What to Know About Ibogaine: Some researchers hope the drug, still illegal in the United States, may be considered as a treatment for addiction, PTSD and brain injuries.

Read the Whole Article

The post Living on Meds, Vitamin C and Ibogaine: American Precarity appeared first on LewRockwell.

While waiting with a friend on the southbound platform at the crowded junction of Medellin, Colombia’s two Metro elevated train lines in February 2017, a short, bespectacled, wavy-black-haired, thirtyish man approached me and asked, in Spanish, where I was from.

I answered, “Los Estados Unidos.”

He replied, “Gracias para derrotar Alemania en la segunda guerra mundial” and walked away, smirking.

I can say most of what I want to say in Spanish and understand most of what natives say to me. But after Japanese, Spanish is the world’s second fastest spoken language. Sometimes, as on that occasion, I don’t immediately comprehend what Spanish speakers say.

Thus, it took me about five seconds to figure out that the Colombian had said, completely out of context, “Thanks for defeating the Germans in World War II.”

I chuckled. Incongruity amuses me. I told my non-Spanish-speaking-friend what the man had said. My friend also thought it was funny.

Many a truth is said in jest. But some people who aren’t joking still love America for something it did eighty years ago. No thanks to me.

And of course, even given the passage of time, the death of young soldiers is the opposite of funny.

—

I haven’t been to Europe in 38 years. For reasons I mentioned a few weeks ago, I prefer to travel in the US and Latin America. I appreciate that Europe has countless elegant, old buildings. Some book I read, perhaps William Manchester’s A World Lit Only by Fire, accurately described Europe as a 500-year art, architecture and historic preservation project. Needs more trees though.

Rick Steves is known for his European guidebooks and hundred-plus episode public TV series portraying Euro destinations. Steves is a cultural archetype: an affluent, androgynous Caucasian from Seattle who spouts progressive platitudes and complains about climate change as he jets around the world and encourages others to do the same.

Home alone tonight, I switched on the TV. PBS showed a new, uncharacteristically dark Rick Steves installment entitled “Fascism in Europe.”

During a pledge break, Steves explained that he produced this episode because, while his travelogues routinely portray Europe as a chill and “progressive” smorgasbord of wine, baguettes and cheese, chill cafes, pubs and plazas, art museums, castles and cathedrals and punctual trains and oompah bands—my summary, not his—between 1930-45 fascism took hold in Italy and Germany and Spain. Steves said he wanted to acknowledge and preserve the memory of that grim period.

As he retraced those years, he solemnly enumerated the strategies and actions of these nations’ oppressive governments. As he did, I couldn’t help but notice that even though the 1930-45 regimes in those three nations killed more people—at least until the Covid lockdown and vaxx effects have fully manifested themselves—American, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and European governments applied similar social control tactics during the Covid response.

Per Steves, in both periods, governments began by inciting fear to manipulate their citizens. Just as fascists fanned fears that Soviet Communism would spread to Germany, Italy and Spain, during Coronamania American, European and Oceanian officials incited terror about a virus that they said would ravage their nations. They convinced the populace that governors and the governed had to pull out all stops to crush a microbial invasion.

Both frenzied periods were driven by cults of personality. People believed that visionaries would rescue them. Europe had Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. Coronamania was driven by Fauci, Birx and Collins. The hype surrounding these evil individuals fueled fandom and fanaticism.

Officials from each era relied on a central lie. Italians, German and Spanish fascists convinced many citizens that they were part of a superior race and culture. Covid Era officials sold the lie that a respiratory virus threatened people of all ages but that enlightened people could defeat this scourge by “Following The Science.”

Relatedly, during both periods, officials scapegoated specific groups for ruining life for everyone else. During fascist years, Jews, Slavs, communists and others were blamed for the poverty and malaise that gripped Europe following World War I. During Coronamania, the division was based more on socioeconomic status, political affiliation and Covid-measure compliance than on ethnicity. Laptoppers and vacation homeowners skipped their commutes while vilifying MAGA “superspreaders” who refused to stay home, wear masks and inject mRNA.

European fascists curtailed individual identity and civil liberties. They urged national unity with discipline. Everything was purportedly done on behalf of the collective, embodied by The State. During Coronamania, Western governments promoted, and many people fervently internalized, the same collective, restrictive ethos. Since we were said to be “all in this together,” those who questioned any government-imposed restriction or demand for sacrifice were angrily labeled “reckless” and “selfish.” They were deemed Enemies of the State.

In both eras, officials defied constitutions and democratic principles and invoked Emergency Authority. They peremptorily, opportunistically and dishonestly asserted that they needed to suspend basic rights in order to protect peoples’ security. The masses bought in.

Steves notes that fascism was implemented incrementally. Similarly, the Covid response began with “two weeks to stop the spread.” Following the fascist playbook, when the shots were introduced, 2020-2021 American officials assured the public that these wouldn’t be mandated. These, and other, pledges were soon abandoned and more extreme measures were implemented.

During both the period spanning 1930-45 and 2020-2025, the State relied on media control, propaganda and suppression of dissent. Fascist rallies and radio broadcasts resembled Covid Era government briefings and TV ad blitzes. Fascist censorship, including book-burning, resembled Covid Era-captured news outlets and internet deplatforming and shadow-banning. Those who dared to question the human cost of the lockdowns, school closures, masks and tests were subjected to government-directed “devastating takedowns” in order to quash open discussion of the badly overblown Covid risk and the extreme and foolish government interventions.

Overt coercion occurred in both periods. The Europeans had secret police who raided and abducted civilians. Coronamanic police made examples of the non-compliant by chasing, tackling, handcuffing or fining those who didn’t stay home or mask. Covid shot decliners were fired on a mass scale. Concentration camps were big in fascist Europe. These were proposed in the US during Coronamania, but not built. Instead, viral house-arrest and hotel quarantines were common here and abroad.

Both fascism and the Covid response were economically disastrous. In 1930-45 Europe and during Coronamania, governments spent prodigious sums of borrowed or printed money to implement their strategies and subsidize cronies, saddling the general public with mountains of intergenerationally impoverishing debt. I suspect that, despite a net worth exceeding $20 million, Steves got PPP money when lockdowns disrupted travel and show filming.

Read the Whole Article

The post Rick Steves, the Fascist Playbook and the Covid Response appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a recent post on her Substack newsletter, Sarah Cain made a statement that, although predictable and already common in such difficult times, always gives us pause for thought: “Pope Francis was the biggest impediment to my conversion. I know that I’m not alone in that.”

Clearly, Cain is not the only one who has had to overcome such a difficulty. Terrible problems and doubts have confronted all those converts to Catholicism who, like myself, embraced—out of ignorance or excessive enthusiasm—a hyper-papalist interpretation of Pastor Aeternus, the famous dogmatic constitution from the First Vatican Council. Without a doubt, this type of purification of our Faith is one of the most painful imaginable.

Putting aside for now the discussions about “good popes/bad popes” and all the consequences of disastrous pontificates (especially when, at least through ambiguity, our faith is put at risk), many of those who have found themselves facing the walls of hyper-papalist Jericho still believe in the authority of the hierarchical structure of the Church as ordained by God and in the necessity of the papal office.

Unfortunately, there are also many Catholics who have not passed the test. If I mention only the names Rod Dreher and Michael Warren Davis, I am sure you will immediately understand whom I am referring to. These are all those who, scandalized by the ambiguity of the pontificate that has just ended, not only left the Catholic Church but went so far as to deny the very existence of the papal office.

It is tragic that such former Catholic thinkers and authors claim to be “orthodox” while denying a teaching—the dogma of infallibility—which is a Truth of faith confessed by saints like Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and Theodore the Studite. A careful reading of the section titled “La Monarchie Ecclésiastique fondée par Jésus-Christ” (“The Ecclesiastical Monarchy Founded by Jesus Christ”) from Vladimir Solovyov’s work La Russie et l’Église Universelle (Russia and the Universal Church) might help them discover some of those testimonies of the Holy Fathers—Greek and Latin—who recognized both the primacy and the infallibility of the Apostle Peter and his successors.

In any case, I hasten to add that the denial of the pope’s infallibility on the part of the “orthodox” does not stop there. In the end, it leads to the rejection of the very existence of the papal office. It is as if an “orthodox” scandalized by the sins of a certain metropolitan or bishop were not only to criticize that particular hierarch but to deny the very function itself. He might do so directly, but more often—and this is usually what happens—he does it indirectly, by denying the main prerogatives of the office.

The Protestants took things to the extreme: they denied any form of sacramental hierarchy in the name of the “universal priesthood” of all the baptized. Naturally, such an attitude—especially from those of our brethren who have left the Church—cannot leave us indifferent.

It is true that my special sensitivity to this subject stems from the fact that I converted to Catholicism precisely because I discovered (thanks to the brilliant Russian philosopher—himself a convert to Catholicism—Vladimir Solovyov) that there is no Church without the pope. Yes, the Holy Father is the visible head of the Church, the “reflection” of its absolute and invisible Head, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

In other words, the Christian faith that is truly orthodox also has an ecclesiological dimension: the belief in the hierarchy instituted by our Savior Christ, which includes, as the visible head of the Church and “servus servorum Dei,” the Supreme Pontiff. My Ancient Greek professor, passionate about Christian sacred symbolism and translator of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, taught us that the hierarchy existing in the Kingdom of Heaven—whose head is God Himself—is mirrored by the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Militant Church—whose visible head is the pope.

Despite the debatable pontificates of recent decades, not for one moment has this conviction of mine wavered. Today, in such troubled times, we must work more than ever to strengthen this faith. Of course, we should not do this in the hyper-papalist spirit so well captured in an anecdote told by the historian of religion at the University of Chicago, Mircea Eliade.

He heard a meaningful joke from a Jesuit priest and noted it in his journal. It is said that a cardinal, speaking enthusiastically about conversion to Catholicism and the essential condition for recognizing and validating such a decision, asked rhetorically and casually: “Does he believe in the Pope? Yes? Then it’s good. He is a true convert. If he believes in the Pope, that’s enough! Who cares if he believes in God or not?”

Although it is just a joke, it clearly contains a jab aimed at the convictions—so widespread in our times—of those Catholics who regard the pope as a kind of superman or oracle who can never be wrong under any circumstance, whether speaking ex cathedra or merely expressing a personal opinion. Let us remember it only as a joke.

Read the Whole Article

The post Yes, the Visible Head of the Church Is the Pope—This Is Our Christian Faith appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the 1988 campaign, George W. Bush came to the Courthouse in Maryville, TN to speak at a rally for his Dad. As we were leaving, I told my friend and later Chief of Staff, Bob Griffitts, “Bob, he is better than his Dad.”

When he ran for President in 2000, then Governor Bush went all over the Country saying we needed a more humble foreign policy, and according to Foreign Policy Magazine, he “famously campaigned against nation building.”

The Independent Institute reported that in a 2000 debate, candidate Bush said “If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us; but if we are a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”

Wikipedia says Bush criticized President Clinton as being too interventionist and said: “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem down the road, and I’m going to prevent that.”

Because of statements like these, along with my favorable impression from 1988, and my strong opposition to Vice President Gore, I became enthused about the Bush campaign.

During all of my 15 campaigns for Congress, I held a Duncan Family Barbecue with 6,000 to 8,000 in attendance. I was very pleased when Gov. Bush rearranged his schedule just a few days before the election on very short notice to also attend.

We marched into the Knoxville Coliseum behind the University of Tennessee Pep Band, and he stood in the receiving line much longer than I expected. When I walked him back to his limousine, I said “Governor, you’re going to carry Tennessee.” He replied “If I do, I’ll win the  election,” and that is exactly what happened.

That night, my son, Zane, said “Dad, I have never heard you so excited as when you shouted ‘the next President of the United States, George Bush!”

I had been a Pat Buchanan-American Firster all through the 90s, so you can imagine my disappointment when President Bush allowed himself and, more importantly, his foreign policy to be controlled by Neocons.

Of course, in spite of being put into a little secure room at the White House with Condoleeza Rice and the top two leaders of the CIA so they could put pressure on me, I shocked my district and voted against going to war in Iraq.

And then, over the next many years, Reps. Ron Paul and Walter Jones and I were the only Republicans in the U.S. House who consistently and repeatedly spoke and voted to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan many years before we did.

Then, after Sen. Rand Paul decided not to run for President in 2016, I became one of the first members of Congress to endorse Donald Trump for President. I did this because I thought he was the least hawkish of all who were running for the Republican nomination, and he had made some critical comments about the decision to go to war in Iraq.

But I was disappointed once again when he put Neocons like John Bolton and others into key positions in his Administration, appointments I think he later regretted.

With this history and background, you may think I am very foolish, but my hopes are up once again because of President Trump’s Inaugural Address and even more so because of his speech in Riyadh on Tuesday.

In his Inaugural Address, he said: “We will measure our success not only by little battles we win, but also by the wars that end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

Then I was ecstatic when I heard what he had said in his speech in Riyadh: “But in the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

“No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation builders’, Neocons or liberal non-profits, like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Baghdad and so many other cities.”

He added: “The birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves—the people that are right here, the people who have lived here all their lives, developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions and charting your destinies in your own way.”

Trump also said what he called the “great transformation” of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East “has not come from western interventionists…giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.” These are words Ron Paul himself could have said.

This speech, along with numerous reports that Trump is tired of being manipulated by Netanyahu, his ending sanctions against Syria, entering negotiations with Iran, stopping the bombing of Yemen, and leaving Israel off his Middle East trip, all give hope for a different and perhaps more diplomatic, less hawkish U.S. foreign policy.

When you add to all these hopeful signs from Trump the May 9th column by Thomas Friedman entitled “This Israeli Government Is Not Our Ally”, change may be in the air.

Friedman wrote that “Netanyahu is not our friend” and added: “On the Middle East, you have some good independent instincts, Mr. President. Follow them.” This may be one of the very few times I have ever agreed with one of the longest-serving employees of the New York Times.

Now, I just wish there were a few more in Congress with the courage of Thomas Massie.

The post Can Trump Slip the Grip of the Neocons? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Dave Smith: Debating Douglas Murray, the ‘Woke Right’ Narrative, and the Moment He Found God appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tucker Carlson – Warren Commission Stooge and Deep State Shill

The post Tucker Carlson’s “Evolving” Views on Lee Harvey Oswald and Who Murdered JFK appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Watch on YouTube

The post Why You Wouldn’t Last 24 Hours in Medieval Times appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Hill

The post Haley furious that American officials can be bought by Qatar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Newsweek is hardly a “ right wing” publication, but if you watch the MSM, Black South Africans are the victims.

Because Trump is a White Supremacist.

Newsweek

The post A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Writes Gail Appel:

This IS real!

News.com.au

The post South Africa farm murders: Jacob Zuma calls for white land to be confiscated appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes, Andreatta G.:

Lew,

The state of Colorado shamefully is harassing and threatening the license of the 77-year-old Christian camp called “Id-Ra-Ha-Je” (short for, “I’d Rather Have Jesus”), over the bathroom issue. “The government has no place telling religious summer camps that it’s ‘lights out’ for upholding their religious beliefs about human sexuality,” says the camp’s legal counsel.

I cannot even express how disappointed I am that this abomination is happening in the territory formerly known as the Wild West.

The post “I’d Rather Have Trans” summer camp? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The post Watch “Investigating civilian deaths by US-made bombs in Lebanon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.  

See here.

The post Another Report on Israel’s Genocide. More Silence & Complicity From The Liberal West appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

The post Holes in the Constitution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  John Smith. 

Fair Magazine

The post One Side Routinely Uses Human Shields in Gaza—But Not the Side That’s Usually Blamed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Gateway Pundit

The post “Makes Me Livid” – John Brennan FUMES After Tulsi Gabbard Fires Top ‘Deep State’ Officials appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Blaze

The post Let’s build a statue honoring Pat Buchanan appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Eugyppius

The post Spy agency report on the alleged “extremism” of Alternative für Deutschland… appeared first on LewRockwell.

We have seen this play out before, the United States government relentlessly acting to control the government in a former Soviet Union republic bordering Russia and then proceeding to support that government in war against Russia. That course of action has led to devastation in Ukraine, including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals, in a US proxy war against Russia. Through Monday approval in the United States House of Representatives of the Mobilizing and Enhancing Georgia’s Options for Building Accountability, Resilience, and Independence Act (MEGOBARI Act) by a vote of 349 to 42, the House took a big step toward a replay of this disaster in Georgia.

The MEGOBARI Act (HR 36) is overflowing with repetition of the type of justifications that were brought out in support of the US government’s disastrous intervention in Ukraine. “[T}he consolidation of democracy in Georgia is critical for regional stability and United States national interests,” proclaims the bill before declaring it is “the policy of the United States” to “support the constitutionally stated aspirations of Georgia to become a member of the European Union and NATO,” to “continue supporting the capacity of the Government of Georgia to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity from further Russian aggression or encroachment within its internationally recognized borders,” and to ensure several other listed developments occur in Georgia that would increase the nation’s connection to the US and European Union (EU) while creating antagonism between Georgia and Russia. US policy is also listed as including “to combat Russian aggression, including through sanctions on trade with Russia and the implementation and enforcement of worldwide sanctions on Russia.” Even included, as happened before with Ukraine, is a demand for reduced trade ties between Georgia and Russia.

The statement of US policy in the bill further includes a recounting of USAID-style manipulation of a foreign government, depicted as democracy promotion, that has been well exposed in the last few months through the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). For example, the MEGOBARI Act declares it is US policy “to continue supporting the ongoing development of democratic values in Georgia, including free and fair elections, freedom of association, an independent and accountable judiciary, an independent media, public-sector transparency and accountability, the rule of law, countering malign influence, and anti-corruption efforts and to impose swift consequences on individuals who are directly responsible for leading or have directly and knowingly engaged in leading actions of policies that significantly undermine those standards.” That may sound nice — though seriously buttinski — out of context (as is its propaganda intent). But, this is standard US regime changer language for “the US has decided to run the show in your country.”

Right after declaring it is US policy for the US to impose its will on Georgia and harm Russia, the bill moves on to mandating the delivery to congressional committees of a specially prepared classified report “examining the penetration of Russian intelligence elements and their assets in Georgia, that includes an annex examining Chinese influence and the potential intersection of Russian-Chinese cooperation in Georgia.” Got to keep track of the competition. But, really, the main purpose is probably to help the politicians and their media supporters justify the continuing ramping up of intervention in Georgia and antagonism toward Russia and China. The classified information, it will be asserted, shows the “bad guys” are doing such dastardly things in Georgia that would really shock the American people if the details didn’t just have to be kept secret. This will support intervention in Georgia and the fearmongering behind the US government’s resurrected cold war.

Beyond stating US policy supporting exercise of control over Georgia, opposition to Russia and China, and, potentially, war, the MEGOBARI Act calls for the creation of a five-year plan by that old regime change pro USAID — still alive and well — in coordination with other unnamed US government departments. That plan would be purposed to turn into action the stated interventionist US policy.

The bill also calls on President Trump to start slinging the go-to interventionist weapon of sanctions against Georgians from Parliament members to government and political party officials who Trump determines “knowingly engaged in significant acts of corruption, or acts of violence or intimidation in relation to the blocking of Euro-Atlantic integration in Georgia.” Their family members can also be sanctioned. You can ignore the fluff about “corruption” and “violence or intimidation.” That is not what the US is interested in stopping. Otherwise, the remainder of the sentence describing who should be sanctioned would not have been included. The US via these sanctions will be acting to advance “Euro-Atlantic integration.” Oppose that in Georgia and the “corruption” or “violence or intimidation” determination regarding you can be expected to be tagged on as justification for sanctions. This fits right in with the US routinely failing to condemn terrorism and human rights abuses by people, organizations, and governments acting in line with US foreign policy.

The MEGOBARI Act also gives the president an additional broad sanctions direction that he “determine whether there are foreign persons who, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, have engaged in significant corruption in Georgia or acts that are intended to undermine the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Georgia for the purposes of potential imposition of sanctions pursuant to powers granted to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).” Rest assured, though, efforts to “undermine the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Georgia” will be judged A-OK as long as those efforts are US supported.

Near the end of the bill comes the language that gives away what is seen as a likely outcome of the intervention the bill puts in place: war with Russia. The president, the bill states, “in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, should maintain, and as appropriate, expand military co-operation with Georgia, including by providing further security and defense equipment ideally suited for territorial defense against Russian aggression and related training, maintenance, and operations support elements.”

House members who voted for the MEGOBARI Act are setting up expanded intervention in Georgia that follows the Ukraine model. Even preparation for another proxy war against Russia is included in the process the bill sets up.

The MEGOBARI Act is not the beginning of US intervention in Georgia. That has been ongoing for many years. But, the bill is a significant step forward. The timing of the bill’s approval is also important. Even as President Donald Trump talks of ending the Ukraine War and removing sanctions on Russia as part of a peace deal, the MEGOBARI Act signals that the US is preparing for a replay of the entire catastrophic policy of intervention in another former Soviet republic on Russia’s border.

A Monday press release issued by MEGOBARI Act megasupporters Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Richard Hudson (R-NC) and Marc Veasey (D-TX) upon House approval of the bill, states the MEGOBARI Act “is fully negotiated between House and Senate, Democrat and Republican leaders and is expected to move quickly.” Those Republican and Democratic leaders make a fuss about their disagreements on some things. But, when it comes to major interventions abroad, they tend to be fully supportive.

The press release goes on to note in its next sentence that “MEGOBARI means ‘friend’ in Georgian.” People in Georgia would do well to look at how the Ukraine and US governments being “friends” has worked out for Ukrainians.

Reprinted with permission from The Ron Paul Institute.

The post US House Approves MEGOBARI Act to Pursue in Georgia More Ukraine-style Intervention and Conflict With Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.