Lew Rockwell Institute

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Gateway Pundit

The post President Trump Names Archbishop Cordileone to New Religious Liberty Commission Advisory Board appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

ANNE FRANK DIARY IS FAKE ADMITS GERMAN MEDIA

See also “What Did Anne Frank Have against Americans?“

The post Anne Frank Diary Is Fake Media appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Rian Dunaway wrote:

Just another day in the consummate evil of modern culture.

Why anyone would still be on Facebook is incomprehensible. Wouldn’t a class-action lawsuit, on this matter alone, be enough to bankrupt Facebook?

Rogan Guest Reveals Facebook’s Secret Experiment That Manipulated 700,000 Users | ZeroHedge

The post Rogan Guest Reveals Facebook’s Secret Experi)ment That Manipulated 700,000 Users appeared first on LewRockwell.

On David Martin wrote:

It hits the nail directly on the head, I think.  If you get your “news” from Fox, you’d never even know about the wholesale slaughter of civilians going on in Gaza, and as the video suggests, I’ll bet the “liberal” mainstream ignored that heavy-duty protest at Bernie Sanders’ speech.  The media, especially Fox, would have us believe that only far left crazies object to their tax dollars going to pay for genocide.

See here.

The post Pariah State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

DeepNewz.com

The post U.S. Fed Buys $8.8 Billion in 30-Year Bonds, Totaling $43.6 Billion This Week Amid Stealth QE Concerns appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Why the Trump administration can’t be a mediator in the Ukraine War with Daniel McAdams appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Daley Abdullahstani.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-prepares-long-war-with-china-that-might-hit-its-bases-homeland-peter-apps-2025-05-16/ 

https://asiatimes.com/2025/05/us-betting-big-on-robo-fighters-to-win-a-taiwan-war/

The post US prepares for long war with China that might hit its bases, homeland appeared first on LewRockwell.

Christopher W Green wrote:

Lew,

It’s very long but that’s because it’s an unedited firsthand and full account of the experience of a J6 pardon recipient. He was witness to the Ashli Babbitt murder. 

The few people who have listened have found it very compelling. I believe this is the only interview of its kind. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Listen here.

The post J6 Pardon Recipient appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Krall:

No one believes them.

Body Language Analysis of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: “Yes, Epstein Offed Himself”

The post Body Language Analysis of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: “Yes, Epstein Offed Himself” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Here’s Why… | ZeroHedge

The post Tattoos May Be Linked To Cancer appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The post Bruce Springsteen Pays Tribute To Biden By Falling Onstage appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Hi Lew,  The Evil Woodrow Wilson: Lew Rockwell

Great article! I agree with Raico. Woodrow Wilson was the worst American president. He only won the presidency because that idiot, Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Shit Party, split the Republican vote. Taft would have won re-election otherwise.

The best WWI museum is in Kansas City. I’ve toured it twice. It is amazing. If you ever visit KC, check it out.

I also amazes me how politicians, especially presidents (JFK excepted) can be blind to the horrors of war. JFK saw the reality of war in WWII on his PT-109. It was rammed by a Japanese destroyer. JFK risked his life to save his crew. He’s the last president to see combat.

The post The Evil Woodrow Wilson appeared first on LewRockwell.

Why did America abandon its traditional foreign policy of non-involvement in European power politics? With some exceptions, that was America’s foreign policy from the founding of our Republic to the end of the nineteenth century. when America’s pursuit of Empire began. The traditional policy was encapsulated in John Quincy Adams’s famous declaration in his Independence Day Oration of July 4, 1821 that “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

Of course, Wilson can’t be blamed for our pursuit of Empire in 1898. The primary responsibility for that lies with Theodore Roosevelt and his allies. But the policy of involvement in European power politics took a giant step forward when Wilson, an inveterate Anglophile, followed an unneutral course of conduct after the outbreak of World War I in August 1914. In spite of urging America to be neutral in thought, word, and deed, Wilson soon tilted our foreign policy toward the British cause. He insisted that the Germans strictly respect American neutrality while colluding with the illegal British hunger blockade of Germany, a blockade responsible for a vast number of deaths from starvation.

As Laurence White points out, relying on a book by Malcom Magee, “Wilson, who supported the views of his uncle James Woodrow on Theistic Darwinism, ‘believed the United States was divinely chosen to do God’s will on earth.’ The United States was the ‘redeemer nation’ destined by God to ‘instruct and lead the world.’ While president of Princeton, Wilson said in a speech that the mighty task before us was ‘to make the United States a mighty Christian nation, and to Christianize the world.’ Wilson viewed himself as ‘the divinely appointed messenger.’ The United States was his parish, and he would ‘be an evangelist, a missionary, for the export of Christian democracy.’ He compared himself to the prophet Ezekiel. He equated patriotism with Christianity and the United States with God’s chosen people. What is of most interest in What the World Should Be ( Magee’s book) is how Wilson viewed himself and the United States during World War I. He said soon after the war began that it ‘may have been a godsend.’ Comments Magge: ‘He was unshaken by the conflict since, despite the carnage, it seemed to open possibilities for his own mission to bring God’s order to the world. He was called by God.’ Being ‘predisposed to be an Anglophile,’ Wilson interpreted information ‘in a way that favored British interests and penalized Germany while continuing to believe that he and the country were being absolutely neutral.’ Wilson had some strange ideas about neutrality. His ‘active’ neutrality ‘allowed America to act on behalf of the righteous.’ The United States would ‘use its power as an aggressive neutral to conquer the forces of disorder and selfishness in the world on all sides.’ Wilson referred to his policy of neutrality as the ‘peaceful conquest of the world’ U.S. neutrality would ‘conquer, convert, and change the nations.’ The United States was chosen by God to be the ‘mediating nation of the world.’ America was the ‘house of the Lord’ and the ‘city on a hill.’ The entrance of the United States into the war meant ‘salvation’ to the Allies. Wilson believed in using ‘neutral force to mediate peace.’ Even as American soldiers were dying in Europe, the United States was ‘neutral in spirit’ in fighting a ‘righteous war.’ Naturally, before he led the country into war, Wilson advocated an increase in the military, the reserves, and military spending, but ‘purely for defense.’ If war became necessary, it ‘must be a peacemaking war’ He wanted a ‘new international order’ that would prevent such a war from happening in the future. The Versailles Treaty would allow him as president to ‘do great good for the downtrodden inhabitants of the world.’ The paternalistic Wilson had a tendency to ‘see the nonwhite peoples as being in need of instruction.’”

If the United States had remained neutral in World War I, it is very likely that a negotiated settlement would have brought the war to an end. In that case, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires would have remained in place, and Hitler never come to power. Instead, Wilson demanded that Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicate and end the German monarchy before he would consent to negotiate an armistice. He also insisted that the Austro-Hungarian Empire come to an end, thus unleashing the conflicts among rival ethnic nationalist movements that did so much to cause World War II.

Wilson said that the League of Nations, his pet project, would ensure lasting peace. Instead, it cemented in place the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. As the great  historian Ralph Raico noted in a lecture, “The world then, after 1919, when the conference takes place, seems to be pretty much under British and French control. The high point of British and French imperialism is reached—the greatest extent of the British and French Empires. And then they set up the League of Nations. Why was the League of Nations set up? As you know, the League of Nations was set up for all good things. There is not a good thing that the League of Nations was not set up for, right? There is another way of looking at this, which is this: Once the treaties of Paris are signed, what do we have in the world? We have established British and French world hegemony—British and French control of the world (with the possible assistance of the United States, if the U.S. is interested). But Germany has been demolished. Russia is involved in turmoil—it’s not going to be a problem for a long time. The British and French have come to the apogee of their empires. And now, let us freeze that for all time. Let us set up an international organization with all the power of all the international community behind it, which says that any crossing of any boundary is an act of aggression which is to be answered by the whole world community. And what have you got then? You have, locked in for all time, British and French control of the world. That’s, as I say, an alternative view of what the League of Nations amounted to.”  Raico rated Wilson as our worst president, and it is easy to understand why.

The post The Evil Woodrow Wilson appeared first on LewRockwell.

“For posterity’s sake.” Those words from President Joe Biden sum up the crushing impact of the leaked audiotapes from the interview between then-President Joe Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur. Not only did they remove any serious doubt over Biden committing the federal crimes charged against President Donald Trump, but they also constituted what is akin to a political racketeering indictment against much of the Washington establishment.

The interview from Oct. 8-9, 2023, has long been sought by Congress, but was kept under wraps by the government even as Biden campaigned for a second term.

Many of us balked at Hur’s conclusion that no charges were appropriate despite the fact that the President removed classified material for decades, stored it in grossly negligent ways, and moved it around to unsecure locations, including his garage in Delaware.

Given President Donald Trump’s indictment for the same offenses, it was hard to imagine how the Special Counsel could not recommend the same criminal charges (presumably after he left office).

Instead, Hur declared it would have been hard to get a jury to convict Biden because he was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

It appears that Trump, on the other hand, was presumptively not sympathetic or well-meaning and possessed a good memory for prosecution.

The contrast was glaring and only reinforced the view of many citizens that there are two tracks for justice in Washington.

Soon after the report’s release, President Biden gave an irate press conference in which he lied about the findings of his culpability and lashed out at any suggestion that he had gapped or stumbled in the interview.

For example, when reporters raised how Biden forgot when his son Beau died, Biden angrily responded, “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Frankly, when I was asked the question I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

However, it was not Hur but Biden himself who raised the death of his son, and he forgot a wide array of dates, including when he served in office.

The interview shows that in 2023 it was clear that Biden was mentally diminished despite claims from many allies and former aides that there was a sudden loss of capacity just before the disastrous debate in 2024.  It is now undeniable that the White House staff actively hid the president’s incompetence from the American public. That includes the White House press secretary Jen Psaki (who left her post in May 2022) and Karine Jean-Pierre who insisted that Biden was sharp and “running circles” around the staff.

Of course, the media is now covering the story after the public saw the truth in the debate. Figures like CNN’s Jake Tapper have even written books that belatedly pursue the question despite previously insisting that there was no evidence of a diminishment in Biden’s mental state.

Tapper repeatedly dismissed the claim and even mocked Lara Trump for raising it. In one interview, he pushed a White House talking point that such suggestions were mocking Biden for a childhood stutter:

“It’s so amazing to me- a ‘cognitive decline.’ I think you were mocking his stutter. Yeah. I think you were mocking his stutter and I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody’s cognitive decline. I would think somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar.”

When Lara Trump insisted that this was clearly evidence of a “very concerning” cognitive decline, Tapper dismissed her statement by saying  “Thank you, Lara. I’m sure it’s from a place of concern. We all believe that.”

Keep in mind that others beyond Lara Trump were raising this issue and there were tapes showing physical and mental diminishment. The media simply refused to seriously pursue the story until the cover-up no longer mattered after the debate.

Over on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was equally apoplectic at those raising the issue and stated

start your tape right now because I’m about to tell you the truth. And F— you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I have known him for years…If it weren’t the truth I wouldn’t say it

This media effort continued all the way up to the debate itself. On CNN, Oliver Darcy wrote, “Right-wing media figures are desperately pushing conspiracy theories about Biden ahead of the debate.”

Once the public found out, the media was ready to tell the story when there was no longer any advance or ability to deny it. Articles began to appear with the same realization of “Oh you meant THAT mental decline. Well sure.”

It was the same belated acknowledgment that came, after the election, with Hunter Biden’s laptop. The media just moved on with a shrug and a collective “our bad” concession.

As for the President himself, the one moment of clarity in the interview may have been his most incriminating line. When asked why he removed classified material on Afghanistan, Biden admitted “I guess I wanted to hang on to it for posterity’s sake.”

That is precisely what critics on CNN and MSNBC accused Trump of doing: removing material as types of keepsakes or trophies.

One president was indicted for that and one was sent along his way to a second term in office.

The real indictment that comes out of these tapes is a type of political racketeering enterprise by the Washington establishment. It took a total team effort from Democratic politicians to the White House staff to the media to hide the fact that the President of the United States was mentally diminished. If there were a political RICO crime, half of Washington would be frog-marched to the nearest federal courthouse.

Of course, none of this complicity in the cover-up is an actual crime. It is part of the Washington racket.

After all, this is Washington, where such duplicity results not in plea deals but book deals.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

The post ‘For Posterity’s Sake’: Why the Biden-Hur Tapes Is a Virtual Racketeering Indictment appeared first on LewRockwell.

All Things are NOT Going-Well for Netanyahu.

Washington’s unspoken intent is to eventually scrap “The Greater Israel” project, while retaining the rhetoric. 

Confrontation between Netanyahu and Trump is currently unfolding, sofar behind closed doors. 

President Trump has confirmed his intent is to transform Gaza into an “American Territory” . It’s a neo-colonial project

US. Foreign Policy will eventually overshadow the so-called “Greater Israel” project.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Trump Says Goodbye to ‘Greater Israel’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lysander Spooner is well known as an abolitionist who argued that slavery was a violation of natural law. In his 1858 pamphlet, “A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery, and To the Non-Slaveholders of the South,” Spooner set out what he considered to be the relevant “principles of justice and humanity,” arguing that “so long as the governments, under which they live, refuse to give them liberty or compensation, [slaves] have the right to take it by stratagem or force.” Spooner argued that property owned by slave masters belonged, in justice, to the slaves. He called on his readers to help the slaves in the South to revolt and to seize their masters’ property by force:

…the rightful owners of the property, which is now held by their masters, but which would pass to them, if justice were done; to justify and assist them in every effort to acquire their liberty, and obtain possession of such property, by stratagem or force.

Spooner did not see slavery as a legal institution. His own interpretation of the United States Constitution was that the Constitution did not permit slavery. He therefore saw the institution of slavery as not only immoral and unjust, in the ethical sense, but also as illegal and unconstitutional. This is an important distinction. As readers of Murray Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty will be aware, Rothbard did not purport to set out the principles that are contained in the United States Constitution or in any positive (formal) legal instruments, but rather to set out moral principles of justice. By contrast, Spooner was a lawyer who had published a book called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Spooner’s reading of the Constitution goes a long way in explaining why he encouraged slaves in the South to rise up and seize their masters’ property. He explained that he did not see this as theft, but rather he saw it as merely vindication of what he called “a natural right to compensation (so far as the property of the Slaveholders and their abettors can compensate them) for the wrongs they have suffered” (emphasis added). He was very much in favor of slaves in the South “taking justice into their own hands” as compensation for their suffering:

Perhaps some may say that this taking of property, by the Slaves, would be stealing, and should not be encouraged. The answer is, that it would not be stealing; it would be simply taking justice into their own hands, and redressing their own wrongs.

Spooner’s argument was not simply that anyone who works on a resource becomes its owner, nor was he simply arguing that slaves should seize their masters’ property as compensation for their labor. Spooner did not show any interest in whether slaves were ever compensated for their labor, as might perhaps be expected if his concern was merely that slave labor was not directly paid. Historians have noted cases where slaves kept part of their crop and even cases where slaves worked for wages or were paid stipends. But this is not the issue Spooner had in mind when he talked of seizing the property of slave owners. The compensation Spooner had in mind was not for “unpaid labor” but for the unjust and (as he saw it) unconstitutional holding of men in bondage. Spooner regarded slavery as a war crime, and to him a slave revolt amounted to a just war. As he explained:

The state of Slavery is a state of war. In this case it is a just war, on the part of the negroes—a war for liberty, and the recompense of injuries; and necessity justifies them in carrying it on by the only means their oppressors have left to them.

Murray Rothbard also thought that seizing the plantations of slave owners and giving them to the slaves would have been an appropriate punishment for the crime of slavery. Thus, the abolitionist call for seizure of the plantations was not simply an application of Lockean homesteading principles of first acquisition or just acquisition of title, as many libertarians tend to assume. It was based on the notion of compensation and punishment for the injustice or crime of slavery. Spooner went even further, arguing for violence and killing of slave owners because, after all, as far as he could tell from the safety of his home in Massachusetts, nothing less than war would suffice to right this grievous wrong that was being carried on in the South. Spooner wrote:

In war, the plunder of enemies is as legitimate as the killing of them; and stratagem is as legitimate as open force. The right of the Slaves, therefore, in this war, to take property, is as clear as their right to take life; and their right to do it secretly, is as clear as their right to do it openly.

Spooner argued that slaves would be justified in violent revolt against “the governments, under which they live,” calling for abolitionists to establish a more “just” system of law enforcement to replace what he saw as the “corrupt” governments of the South:

To form Vigilance Committees, or Leagues of Freedom, in every neighborhood or township, whose duty it shall be to stand in the stead of the government, and do that justice for the slaves, which government refuses to do…

Spooner argued that abolitionists should “ignore and spurn the authority of all the corrupt and tyrannical political institutions, which the Slaveholders have established for the security of their crimes,” namely, the crime of slavery. It is worth reiterating that he did not use the term “crime” only in the moral or ethical sense, as Rothbard does in the Ethics of Liberty, but also in the legal sense, as he believed slavery to be a violation of the Constitution. But to many Northern abolitionists, the constitutionality of slavery was in any case irrelevant. They saw the Constitution itself as a “corrupt and tyrannical political institution.” The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison—also fulminating about slavery in the South from the comfort of his Massachusetts eyrie—referred to the Constitution as “a covenant with death and an agreement from hell”:

Garrison’s position was clearly and colorfully stated in 1854, when abolitionists convened in Framingham, Massachusetts to protest the return of a runaway slave, Anthony Burns. During his speech Garrison held up a copy of the Constitution and condemned it as “a covenant with death and an agreement from hell.” Then Garrison burned the Constitution while declaring, “So perish all compromises with tyranny!” Most of the spectators responded with amens.

According to Garrison, the Constitution was “the most bloody and heaven-daring arrangement ever made by men for the continuance and protection of a system of the most atrocious villainy ever exhibited on earth.”

Conservatives in the South were alarmed by this talk of revolt, death, and bloodshed. As Steve Byas explains:

John Brown had exacerbated the intensity of the national debate of the 1850s over slavery by murdering some settlers in Kansas in 1856. Brown and his fellow murderers slaughtered five of them, mostly using a sword to hack them to pieces. He later explained that he had had “no choice” but to kill them: “It has been ordained by Almighty God, ordained from Eternity, that I should make an example of these men.” While some slanted accounts describe the incident as Brown and his so-called Northern Army of terrorists killing some “pro-slavery settlers,” the truth is that none of his victims were slave owners, nor were they “pro-slavery.” They were simply farmers who had moved from Tennessee, a “slave state,” because they did not wish to compete with slave labor.

Even supposing the farmers from Tennessee had been pro-slavery, hacking them to pieces with a sword would still be wrong. As Rothbard makes very clear in the Ethics of Liberty, in his discussion of the proportionality of punishment, declaring anything to be a crime does not justify committing new atrocities which are much worse than the crimes one purports to be against.

To the Southern Democrats, the abolitionist terrorists of Massachusetts were a menace. They posed a real threat to law and order, to peace, and to the sovereignty of their states. Ensconced in Massachusetts—the heart of Puritanism—they were too wrapped in their own self-righteousness to have any concerns about the upheaval they were causing in the South. A primary reason why teaching slaves to read and write was banned in some states of the South in the 1830s—after the slave revolt led by Nat Turner—was to stem the influence of pamphlets spewing forth from Massachusetts encouraging slaves in the South to wage “just war” against their states. Spooner’s proposal that “Leagues of Freedom” supported by Northern abolitionists should run law enforcement in the South on behalf of the freed slaves was viewed as mischievous. Notably, as Donald Livingston has pointed out, there were more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North, but the abolitionists in the South favored peaceful means. Peaceful reform was also favored by the conservative Democrats in the North, regardless of whether they owned slaves.

It is in this context that the arguments of John C. Calhoun—the statesman and philosopher from South Carolina—should be read. The historian Clyde Wilson—who is regarded as the leading historian of Calhoun—explains that, “There is no doubt that in 1837 he [Calhoun] intended to change the political dynamic in regard to abolitionism.” Calhoun saw that all this talk of war and killing wicked Southerners was a threat to the harmony of the Union. Wilson explains:

With this introduction Calhoun was ready to reply to the abolitionist attack on the South, and to do so he had to discuss the realities of Southern life as he and his colleagues knew them. According to the abolitionists the South was a land of horrors devoid of religion and decency and law and order, inhabited by depraved white barbarians and black people out of whom all humanity had been crushed. Calhoun and all Southerners knew this to be a false picture. Neither the whites nor the blacks of the South resembled their portraits as painted by the abolitionists.

Mr Calhoun “insisted that the slaveholders of the South had nothing in the case to lament or to lay to their conscience…. Nor was there anything in the doctrines he held in the slightest degree inconsistent with the highest and purest principles of freedom.”

Calhoun sought to give the Constitution the attention he felt it deserved, as in his opinion the type of violent revolt which the abolitionists were calling for was not the best approach to resolving constitutional debates between North and South. In addition, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Radical Abolitionists—who were political opponents of the Southern Democrats—were now deploying the rhetoric of abolition in political debate for partisan purposes. Calhoun’s concern was not to defend slavery for its own sake, but to debunk the lies that were spread by New Englanders who had never been to the South, and to reject the notion that the constitutionality of slavery should be settled with armed conflict. As can be seen in the writings of both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens—the President and Vice President of the Confederate States of America—the interpretation of the Constitution at all times took center stage in their understanding of the conflict in which they were involved.

Modern historians often assume, wrongly, that abolitionism was generally popular in the North, and that there was popular support in the North for fomenting violent revolt in the South. In his book, No Party Now: Politics in the Civil War North, Adam I.P. Smith observes that there was, in fact, no widespread support for abolitionists in the North. Far from supporting abolition, the Republican Party was well aware that being associated with the abolitionists calling for revolt and bloodshed, and denouncing the Constitution as “an agreement from hell,” would tend to lose them the popular vote among ordinary Americans:

The defensiveness of leading Republicans, even those who fervently supported black freedom, revealed their acute awareness of the resistance of the majority of Northerners to the idea of emancipation. Even the great antislavery senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, urged in the fall of 1861 that, when it came, as he was confident it would, the freedom of the slaves should be “presented strictly as a measure of military necessity and the argument is to be thus supported rather than on grounds of philanthropy.”

Adams also mentions “the President’s old Illinois friend Orville Hickman Browning, who complained in his diary that ‘nothing should have been said on the subject of slavery.’” The point of Lincoln’s war, as the Republicans saw it, was not abolition. Their goal was to keep the Southern states in the Union. Tom DiLorenzo also shows in The Real Lincoln that Lincoln himself was no abolitionist. He had one primary goal, and that was to save the Union. As Murray Rothbard writes in “Just War”:

What was the North’s excuse for their monstrous war of plunder and mass murder against their fellow Americans? Not allegiance to an actual, real person, the king, but allegiance to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, “the Union.”

The post Abolitionist Hypocrisies appeared first on LewRockwell.

The endgame is clear: the US losing the entire Eurasian land mass. Ukraine, under these immense geopolitical imperatives, is only a sovereign-deprived pawn in the (Great) Game.

Did President Putin really change the game by proposing the resumption of negotiations on the proxy war in Ukraine in Istanbul – over three years after the first ones were scotched by NATO?

It’s complicated. And depends on which “game” we’re talking about.

What the Russian move instantly accomplished was to throw into total disarray the European warmongering Three Stooges (Starmer, BlackRock chancellor, Le Petit Roi) Cocaine Express.

Irrelevant Europe was not even at the table in Istanbul – except via extensive previous briefing of the low-rent, shabby-dressed Ukrainian delegation. That was compounded by the noisy barking threat in the sidelines advocating “more sanctions” to “pressure Russia”.

In March 2022 in Istanbul, Kiev could have stopped the war. Every one of us who were in Istanbul at the time could foresee that Kiev would eventually have to be forced to the table all over again.

So in essence we are back to the same negotiation – with the same top Russian negotiator, competent historian Vladimir Medinsky, heading a delegation composed by pros, but with Ukraine now facing over a million dead; deprived of at least four regions – more on the way; what’s left of its mineral wealth de facto controlled by the US; and a horrendous black hole that passes for an “economy”. We are talking about country 404 territory.

During the negotiations on Friday, Medinsky went straight to the point:

“We don’t want war, but we are ready to fight for a year, two, three – as long as it takes. We fought with Sweden for 21 years [the Great Northern War, 1700-1721, as it is known in Russia]. How long are you ready to fight?”

That’s the geopolitical/military state of things for Kiev and their “to the last Ukrainian” warmongering backers: either you capitulate, or we’re going to hurt you even more.

What’s the point of these negotiations?

Turkiye under uber-opportunist Sultan Erdogan in fact hosted a P.R. meeting between Moscow, Kiev and itself – with the Ukrainians unleashing a blitzkrieg of infantile tantrums only designed to influence global public opinion. In sharp contrast, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, did his best to put a positive spin on the proceedings.

Istanbul 2.0, Dmitriev asserted, achieved a large exchange of prisoners (1,000 on each side); ceasefire options to be presented by both sides; and a continuation of dialogue.

That’s not much. Well, at least they discussed in the same language: Russian. Nothing was lost in translation.

A serious case can be made that to propose the resumption of these negotiations, under this format, was meaningless. There’s no evidence in the horizon both parties might touch the fundamental issue anytime soon: the whole geopolitical strategic equation in Eastern Europe, from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea and beyond – leading to an “indivisibility of security” new deal with global repercussions.

That implies that whatever track these negotiations may follow further on down the road, they are an objective impossibility. Meanwhile, the proxy war in Ukraine – and the SMO – will go on.

That would also suggest that the Moscow security establishment considers the neo-nazi instrumentalized goons in Kiev at best as a re-enactment of the 6th Army of Paulus, with which you negotiate the end of a battle, but not the end of the war.

Even NATO semi-realists as retired Commodore Steven Jermy have been forced to admit that “Russia is in the driving seat” and clueless Europeans “appear to believe that the losers should dictate the terms of ceasefire or surrender.”

All the barking by the – European – chihuahuas of war cannot disguise the fundamental geopolitical/military fact: a massive NATO humiliation. Trump’s humongous problem is that he has to manage it – and sell it to domestic public opinion and the global public opinion as some sort of “deal” he struck with Putin.

It’s enlightening once again to go back to Grandmaster Lavrov, always the uber-realist, back in September 2024: “In April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached agreement in Istanbul. If that agreement had been observed, Ukraine would have preserved part of Donbass. But every time another agreement, always accepted by Russia, is broken, Ukraine shrinks in size.”

The (Great) Game, revisited

Now back to the (Great) Game. Kiev negotiators eventually admitting Ukrainian capitulation means a NATO capitulation and an Empire of Chaos capitulation. That’s the ultimate anathema for the US ruling classes. Even an ultra-negotiated, carefully managed Ukrainian surrender will be an impossible sell – not to mention Washington under Narcissus Drowned Trump acknowledging a strategic defeat.

Because that will mean the Empire of Chaos losing Eurasia for good: the ultimate Mackinder/Brzezinski nightmare. Coupled with the consequential solidification of the multi-nodal, multipolar world.

The Russia-China stategic partnership is very much aware of every nook and cranny in this larger-than-life process. Beyond the current Turkish kabuki, they clearly understand the Big Eurasia Equation.

Beijing is fully aware NATO’s real goal was always to confront it via Russia.  Ukraine was NATO’s pawn to take down Russia then get to China from the West. The goal of the US ruling elites as they configured their thalassocratic empire remains to blockade China from the West by land and sea, using Russia; then use Taiwan as a staging area to blockade China from the East by sea. No wonder control of Taiwan is a Chinese strategic imperative.

Enter Mackinder panic – all over again: the China-Russia strategic partnership can beat NATO hands down – and Russia, by itself, is already doing it. Xi and Putin once again discussed the chessboard in detail, in person, prior to the Victory Day parade last week in Moscow.

The endgame, once again, is clear: the US losing the entire Eurasian land mass. Ukraine, under these immense geopolitical imperatives, is only a sovereign-deprived pawn in the (Great) Game.

As for the tantrum-addicted clown in Kiev, he is merely an actor with no authority whatsoever, negotiations included. He is completely dominated by Ukrainian neo-Nazis who will kill him if and when the war is over. He merely fronts for them and gets paid off. And that’s why – enthusiastically supported by inconsequential London, Paris and Berlin – he’s obsessed to continue a Forever War destroying the very nation he claims to represent.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post The Istanbul Kabuki – Decoded appeared first on LewRockwell.

Back in the “War on Terror” days, the UK security services fabricated multiple fake terror plots. There was, for example, the 2009 Easter Bomb Plot in Manchester, taking entire front pages of newspapers. Gordon Brown as PM hyped it as a “very big terror plot”. It was a total fabrication, nobody was convicted and it eventually emerged that the trumpeted “bomb-making ingredient” the police confiscated from kitchens was sugar – in normal quantities.

The Great Ricin Plot in in 2003 was again kitchen obsessed, and the media that ran screaming headlines about the discovery of ricin did not bother to later report that the amounts the police announced they had discovered turned out to be the almost undetectable trace which might be found in any kitchen.

The propaganda was the purpose, all ramping up Islamophobia to justify the Western destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. When the Manchester Arena attack eventually did happen, it turned out that MI5 had been the perpetrator’s sponsor and he and his father had been ferried from Libya by the British armed forces. Sponsorship of terrorism abroad is always likely to result in blowback at home.

The propaganda is now being ramped up again to promote the Islamophobia intended to drive public support in the UK for the Genocide in Gaza and a forthcoming attack on Iran.

MI5 Head Ken McCallum is arguably the most prolific and sustained liar in the history of the UK public service. He has not yet generated the deaths with his lies that Alistair Campbell caused, but give McCallum time for his Goebbels-like repetition to pay off. McCallum has a much more compliant media landscape to work with than existed a quarter of a century before.

I have to remind myself that my continued outrage at the destruction of millions of very real and ordinary people in the Middle East from 2003 onwards, to secure hydrocarbons for rich and evil men and based on total lies about Iraqi weapons, is something extremely vivid and fundamental to me, but the average university student was not even born at the time.

The myth of a “good” West continually self-propagates. The media distracts and obfuscates in a constant and prolonged process of attrition of the truth; it is tempting to believe that the Genocide in Gaza has awoken a public consciousness which may be a historic break of the system. But it is already becoming harder to access true news from Gaza. Fewer images are available as the murder of countless citizen journalists and the throttling of internet in Gaza takes effect.

Social media suppression of the reach of pro-Palestinian accounts and massive boosting of Zionist accounts are reinforced by systematic state persecution of pro-Palestinian voices.

Even as Israeli ministers openly proclaim their Genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza, European ministers continue to deny it. I am reminded of Harold Pinter’s great acceptance speech for his Nobel prize, speaking in particular of the lies and atrocities of the Iraq War:

This is the reality of power. Power does not have to justify itself. Power does what it wants, and the rest of the world is expected to accept it.

But there is another reality, one that is rarely reported. The reality of resistance. The reality of people who refuse to accept the lies, who refuse to be silenced. In every country where the United States has intervened, there have been people who fought back – not just with weapons, but with words, with ideas, with courage.

These voices are often ignored by the Western media, which prefers to focus on the narrative of American benevolence. But they exist, and they are growing. From Latin America to the Middle East, people are standing up to imperialism, to exploitation, to lies.

We are still standing up, but the lies keep coming, the exploitation keeps coming and the murder keeps coming.

Now let us return on to the arch-propagandist Ken McCallum and his latest invented plot. This is a biggie – the largest state-promoted terrorism scare for twenty years.

As usual, there is not any actual evidence. This straight propaganda piece from the Guardian accidentally makes that plain:

Of course, the weapons the police are searching for may yet magically turn up under the bed. I recall the search of Charlie Rowley’s house after the death of poor Dawn Sturgess. The police searched the home for five days, looking for a small phial of liquid, with no luck. Then it amazingly turned out that the perfume bottle had been sitting in plain sight on the kitchen counter all along!

That perfume bottle obviously had miraculous qualities and could materialise and dematerialise at will, because it had also sat undetected inside a regularly emptied charities’ donation bin for over three months. I suppose an RPG may yet materialise under the settee in the current search; when the British police and security services are involved, the laws of physics are frequently suspended.

As usual, Ken McCallum’s “five plots” last year had not resulted in any convictions, or indeed evidence, and in fact the claim was modest for McCallum – who has claimed that MI5 had foiled “twenty plots” since 2022. Even that was not his record.

McCallum reminds me of the man walking around St. James’ Park scattering rubber bands “to keep the elephants away”. When told there are no elephants, he stated “See, it works, doesn’t it?” McCallum has kept vast amounts of Iranian terrorism at bay in a similar fashion.

But, unusually, in 2023 one of McCallum’s fictional “Iranian plots” did result in an actual conviction, and I would like you to look at this one as a window into the twisted psyche of the security services.

In a crowded field, Iran International is probably the world’s dodgiest media channel. A Saudi Arabian-funded niche Farsi language operation, it caters to those Iranians who support Israel, support the restoration of a Shah and support Saudi Arabia.

As I said, it is very niche.

Yet this tiny media operation was set up with a Saudi investment of a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, you did read that properly, 250 million dollars. Just where all that money really went is an interesting question. There have been persistent rumours of money laundering and of ties to Eastern-European-organised crime.

There was a brief period, after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, when the UK media would print disobliging things about the Saudis. In that short window, this article appeared in the Guardian.

Iran International, perhaps unsurprisingly, specifically supports a Sunni Arab terrorist organisation operating within Iran: the “Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz” – ASMLA. This is a Sunni ethno-nationalist group conducting armed struggle for the secession of certain Arab districts of southern Iran from the predominantly Persian and Shia state.

ASMLA has exactly the same covert backers as HTS in Syria: namely, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Israel, and Western security services.

In September 2018 ASMLA carried out an attack in Ahvaz which killed over 60 people (ISIS also claimed the attack, but the two organisations are linked). Iran International carried an interview with an ASMLA spokesman which very definitely supported ASMLA, and where he insisted on ASMLA’s right to armed resistance and specifically claimed responsibility for the attack as a victory.

In an era where Western activists are routinely arrested for supporting “terrorism” if they oppose the Gaza genocide, you might imagine that this would be an offence by Iran International. But supporting Western- and Saudi-backed terrorists is not only tolerated, it is official British government policy, and in response to complaints OFCOM found that Iran International were entitled to interview the advocate of the right sort of terrorism.

So how does this relate to the single conviction from all of Ken McCallum’s alleged terrorist plots?

Somebody from Iran International has been convicted of glorifying terrorism, right?

Don’t be silly. Iran International is pro-Saudi and pro-Israeli, and in December 2023 it opened a second HQ in Washington DC with additional CIA funding. Remember they are on the same side as HTS. Iran International are the “victims of terrorism” here.

The conviction under the Terrorism Act was for taking photographs of the Iran International HQ building in Chiswick.

In December 2023 Magomed-Husejn Dovtaev, a Chechen with Austrian citizenship, was sentenced to three and a half years in jail for photographing Iran International HQ in Chiswick, which was deemed to be in preparation for a terrorism offence.

The prosecution case was specifically that Dovtaev was operating on behalf of the Iranian Government.

This is the important bit. No evidence of any kind was presented in court of connections between Dovtaev and Iran. There was nothing on his phone and nothing from surveillance. He had not spoken to any Iranians or mentioned Iran.

The prosecution argued – and I kid you not – that Dovtaev was Chechen, which is in Russia, which is geopolitically allied to Iran, and therefore he was probably acting on behalf of Iran. That was it. It really, really was.

This ultra circumstantial argument is a reach enough anyway, but ignores several individual factors.

Dovtaev is a Sunni, therefore not aligned to Iran. He is definitely not one of those Chechens allied to Russia. His family arrived in Austria as refugees from the Chechen war of Independence and he is an anti-Russian Chechen nationalist and an Austrian citizen. He was actually wearing Chechen Independence gear when caught photographing the building.

The prosecution argument, that Dovtaev must be working for Iran because of Russia’s links to Iran, is therefore complete and utter nonsense. But it fits the official anti-Iranian narrative we are being force-fed. And it was rammed down the throats of the jury.

I might add that the evidence that Dovtaev was indeed casing the joint for some ulterior purpose was very strong, and I do not doubt it. But there was no evidence of any kind that it was for Iran, or for terrorism, as the prosecution alleged. The judgment is not published, which is why I do not link it.

That is the one conviction for Iranian terrorism for all McCallum’s false claims – and no connection at all to Iran was shown.

Which leads me to the only other actual arrest – though not yet conviction, until this week – in all of McCallum’s so-called Iranian terrorist plots. Two young Romanians were extradited from Bucharest to London for stabbing in the leg an employee of … you guessed it, Iran International.

Nandito Badea, age 19 and George Stana age 23 were arrested for stabbing in London the Iran International presenter Mr Pouria Zerati. The assault was captured on CCTV.

Now, you might remember that I said at the beginning that there are alleged links between the dodgy finances of Iran International and Eastern-European-organised crime? Well, the story reported from Bucharest is that the defendants admit to the stabbing but say it was a warning with regard to a business debt. Which, when you think about it, makes far more sense. The CCTV shows that the attackers could have killed the victim, but stabbed him in the leg instead. That is a gangland warning, not a state operation.

The notion that Iran is hiring random teenage Romanians to slightly wound people is a nonsense. Furthermore, does not the “business dispute” narrative make infinitely more sense in the case of Dovtaev, who had no links to Iran? The gangster scenario would fully explain why he would keep his lips firmly sealed about who really hired him and what he was doing, even at the cost of a harsher “terrorism” sentence.

So that is all the concrete evidence, or lack of it, in existence about McCallum’s multiple Iranian terrorist plots. This is now, of course, augmented by this new screamed narrative about a planned Iranian attack on the Israeli Embassy in London.

As the Gaza genocide proceeds, you could write a long essay about the ethics of attacking an Israeli Embassy (and Israel has not shown restraint in attacking other nations’ diplomatic premises, but I shall let that pass as not relevant to the current case).

You have to ask, “cui bono?”. Iran has shown tremendous restraint in avoiding being dragged into a wide war over Gaza in face of continued attacks, and is in the midst of a tense negotiating process over its nuclear programme. The idea that, at this moment, it would attack the Israeli Embassy in London is crazed.

However, the narrative very strongly serves the UK interest, as support for the Genocide in Gaza dwindles further, especially among Labour Party supporters, and of course such an attack, or even the allegation of a planned attack, also boosts the perpetual Israeli narrative of victimhood. MI5’s arrangement of this fake plot now is totally predictable; in fact I have been predicting false-flag operations since the genocide started.

My guess is that there is probably an agent provocateur operation at the base of this, where some poor young men have been entrapped into agreeing with wild statements or a fantasy plan. Alternatively, as usual it will prove to be a complete propaganda invention to influence public opinion at a key moment.

It is worth noting that the United States has this last few days currently concentrated four B-52 and six B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia. This is an extremely rare concentration and indicates preparedness for a major operation; Iran is the most likely target. This kind of force is very much greater than anything deployed against Yemen to date. This anti-Iranian propaganda is not being ramped up right now to no purpose.

This article was originally published on CraigMurray.org.uk.

The post MI5’s Fake Terror Plots appeared first on LewRockwell.

The National Socialist German Workers Party had a rather short life span, existing from 1920-1945. With that “Socialist” word in there, you’d think that it designated some kind of far Left, Bolshevik inspired movement. But from the very beginning, the Nazis- as they came to be known to the world- were depicted as extremely right-wing.

There seems to be no credible evidence that the National Socialists ever called themselves Nazis, and present day “extremists” contend that it was a derogatory term coined by influential German journalist Konrad Heiden, who was predictably enough a Jew. The court historians counter by claiming that in 1926, propagandist extraordinaire Josef Goebbels used the term “Nazi-Sozi” as an abbreviation for National Socialists. Knowing what I do about the absolute lack of credibility on the part of the court historians, I am naturally dubious about this. Thus, I think it’s far more likely that Leftists devised the term as a slur. I suppose it’s “anti-Semitic” just to wonder about this. Like many German Jews, Heiden would later flee to America, where he not surprisingly found a New York publisher for the first critical biography of Adolf Hitler, which recounted the Nazi persecution of anonymous Jews.

Adolf Hitler rose to power on the basis of the horrific German economy, which was devastated even beyond what Americans saw during the worst of the Great Depression. Following World War I, Germany became the first known nation in the history of warfare to be forced to pay those who defeated them on the battlefield. These economic sanctions were so onerous that, as hard as it is to believe, they continued to be paid until 2010. Now, I don’t believe that Hitler, a frustrated artist, started an organic revolt of the common people. Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler did an admirable job of documenting the great powers that were behind him. There has seldom been a grass roots movement in any country without those great powers financing, coordinating, and manipulating it. But much of Hitler’s rhetoric still attracts followers today, and there are obvious parallels to America 2.0.

It is impossible to determine the truth about Hitler. He is the most demonized figure in the history of the world. Was he Catholic? Actually Jewish himself? A believer in the occult or fierce defender of Christianity? Did he really have one testicle? Was he having sex with his own niece? Was he gay? Or did he remain a virgin until his fake suicide in 1945? I suppose it’s to be expected that such a thoroughly demonized man is unlikely to be portrayed as a tireless lover of countless beautiful women. The hatchet job on him was so thorough that, in one dramatization of his life, I think from the 1990s, the World War I veteran (he was a genuine war hero) was shown beating his little dog to death after his entire regiment, except him, was wiped out by the Allies. In other words, he would have been the only witness to killing his dog. Obviously, Hitler never confessed to that. And yet viewers shook their heads in disgust.

While Goebbels is credited with being a Hall of Fame propagandist, Hollywood’s own anti-Nazi propaganda seems to have been far more successful and long lasting. Charlie Chaplin turning to the camera at the end of The Great Dictator, breaking the fourth wall, pleading with America to join the war against “fascism,” and pledge the flesh and blood of their own youngsters. The Three Stooges, with Moe’s own demeaning caricature of Hitler. Bugs Bunny and other cartoon stars. Everyone from Jack Benny and Carole Lombard to Tarzan was battling Nazis on the screen. I’ve documented the efforts of the Roosevelt administration to get America involved in the new European war, just like Charlie Chaplin wanted, in my books Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963 and American Memory Hole: How the Court Historians Promote Disinformation, which culminated in the Pearl Harbor false flag.

How can we possibly know the truth about Hitler? Could he really have been the good guy in World War II? I wouldn’t say that, but we know that Stalin, FDR and Churchill were certainly not good guys. Hitler pointed out the obvious to the German people, who were struggling under desperate economic circumstances. Jews held a wildly disproportionate amount of power in the German media, literary and film industries. Sound familiar? Did he really propose a Hollywoodish-sounding “Final Solution?” Who knows? I don’t speak German, and while I can sometimes distinguish the word “Juden” in his wild, arm raving rants, I have no idea what he was really saying. I’ve read what he said about usury, and agree with him that it is always a very bad thing. The Catholic church used to consider it a mortal sin. He had a valid point about the land that had been taken from Germany at the Versailles conference following WWI.

Regardless of the reality of the 1930s and 1940s, in 2025 everyone considers “Nazi” to be the ultimate slander. It’s the word both the Left and the Right use to denigrate the hopelessly wrong or evil people they disagree with. Excessive police power is routinely referred to as “Gestapo tactics.” When the word dictator is uttered, people think of Hitler. Not Stalin. Or Mao. Or Pol Pot. Or Robert Mugabe. Hitler, and his Nazis, are in a class by themselves, eighty years after they disappeared from the world. Some of them were executed, after unprecedented “justice” at Nuremberg. Others supposedly committed suicide. Still others, like Rudolph Hess, were given unfathomably harsh lifetime prison sentences. And then there were the fortunate ones, who were brought into America under Operation Paperclip, to start NASA and help convert the OSS into the CIA. Some Nazis are more equal than others.

The Nuremberg Trials took the concept of victors punishing the vanquished even further than the Versailles Treaty. Now, not only could you enact financial penalties upon a losing army, you could prosecute them in a court of “law.” For “war crimes,” which was a heretofore unheard of term. As some have noted, war itself is a crime. Kind of a precursor to the even more Orwellian “hate crimes.” The Nuremberg Trials were so far beyond the pale that many distinguished Americans opposed them, including Edgar Eisenhower, attorney brother of the president, Supreme Court Justice Harland Fiske Stone, and Senator Robert Taft, whose opposition to this “legal” lynching was cited as one of the Profiles in Courage by then Senator John F. Kennedy in his book, who objected to the proceedings himself. I humbly suggest that I was the first American in decades to take this position, as I did in Crimes and Cover-Ups.

After Germany surrendered and World War II finally ended, part of the terms of the surrender was that the National Socialist Party would be banned forever. There can never be another Nazi party in Germany. So, considering they were exorcised from any future Germany, it seems strange that millions of people continue to believe there are “Nazis” alive and well today. These are the same people who used to make fun of Elvis or Bigfoot sightings. And, of course, they regularly ridicule those of us who have faith in the “magical being in the sky.” I don’t know how many reputable Bigfoot sightings there have been, but when was the last Nazi discovered in the wild? I mean actual National Socialist, not someone who criticized Israel or talked about the international bankers. Ironically, the Head Nazi Hitler and perhaps others were hidden away in Argentina for decades, covered up by all the obsessed Nazi hunters.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Enduring Power of Nazi Derangement Syndrome appeared first on LewRockwell.

A segment of former President Joe Biden’s October 2023 interview with special counsel Robert Hur was just released.

As ZeroHedge pointed out:

Biden couldn’t remember details such as when his son Beau died, when he left office as vice president, what year Donald Trump was elected, and why he had classified documents in his possession that he shouldn’t have had.

According to Axios, which released the recording, Biden frequently slurred words or muttered, and “appears to validate Hur’s assertion that jurors in a trial likely would have viewed Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Hur elected not to prosecute Biden for mishandling classified documents … angering Republicans as Trump was facing his own charges of mishandling classified information.

It’s also of course notable because the MSM insisted Biden was “sharp,” and slammed Hur’s assertions as politically motivated.

Jake Tapper is obviously lying when he claims in his new book that President Biden’s mental incompetence—caused by advanced senile dementia—was concealed from him. Anyone with ordinary powers of perception and common sense could see it. In their characteristically vulgar way, the commentators at Fox have made the former president’s dementia an object of mocking derision.

Both approaches to this story fail to plumb its dark and disturbing depths. The audio interview with a special prosecutor is significant because the federal law officer’s conclusion—euphemistically phrased as “elderly man with a poor memory”—that the former president was not liable for his conduct because he was non compos mentis.

Who was the de facto executive during President Biden’s presidency? Recall that his presidency included COVID-19 vaccine mandates and grave threats to national security including an unsecured southern border, a proxy war against nuclear-armed Russia, and tens of billions of taxpayer money and valuable weapons sent to Ukrainian oligarchs.

Obviously the U.S. Constitution was suspended for—at the very least—the last year of Biden’s presidency. During this period, an unidentified person or persons held de facto executive power to make decisions about grave matters of public safety, including decisions that escalated the risk of nuclear war.

We live in a very strange era in which we are presented with stunning corruption of such vast dimensions that much of the public struggles to comprehend it. When I was growing up in the 1980s, the Biden administration would have been perceived by educated adults as something akin to Richard Condon’s 1959 thriller, The Manchurian Candidate.

Now it’s the subject of mendacious dumb-bunny Jack Tapper’s new book—even though Tapper himself played an instrumental role in the very cover-up that he now pretends to regard as the “Original Sin.”

If there were any justice in this broken world, the Biden administration de facto executives would be discovered, tried for treason, and face the death penalty if found guilty.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Who Was True Executive of Biden Admin? appeared first on LewRockwell.