guest_621 : They faked the Torah, nothing else. Even their own neutral Rabbies tell that truth. The ORIGINAL Torah has nothing to do with the satansih Talmud or faked Torah!
guest_7642 : Look into Crowley Satanism in Hollywood. Actual Satanic kikes and space kikes working together.
guest_5248 : The Search works. it takes time to sift through 700,000 articles.
guest_5419 : Gotta love that the search doesn't work
NMNV : wake up sheeple
guest_6482 : May this site live on and expand. EVERYONE SAVE THIS SITE AND PDF IT WHATEVER.
guest_7482 : Amen
guest_8470 Revelatio : Revelation 2:9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
guest_380 : New World Order is the Jew World Order
guest_77 : love the chat
guest_2019 : shut it
nazi jews : wake up stupid
nazi jews : lol
guest_5277 : ok
guest_1726 : ok
meee : fuck u dikhead
meee : ggg
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. – John 8.44
“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” Rev 3.9
“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” Rev. 2.9
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." Matthew 3:7
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” – Romans 2:28-29
"I and my Father are one,[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. JOHN 10:30-31
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last. - Thessalonians 2:14-16
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12
GOD cursed the Satanic Jews out of Jerusalem for life. Jesus arrived and focused on Jerusalem because it was the most unholy, evil, place on earth... still is today.
The Nomadic Turks (ashkeNAZIS) have been behind all the Evil in the world since Cain's children... using their News Networks to create the News, and set the stage, to blame their opponents, for everything evil they do, across the globe.
Jewish Communist Dictum:- "Accuse the enemy of those crimes you are guilty of"
1.PROBLEM 2.REACTION 3.SOLUTION.
The Elite Jews create the illness, then sell the Cure. They create Chaos & Terrorism, then sell the solution... for more control and power.
Islam and Christianity have become servants of the Jews. Acting as physical and spiritual cattle for the Jews to harvest in building their Global Satanic Kingdom.
If I converted to Buddhism, does that make me Chinese? If I converted to Hinduism, does that make me Indian? When Khazarians (Turks) converted to Judaism in 740 BC and stole the true Semite Israelite Greek Aegean identity, did that make the counterfeit Jews Hebrew? Well, the Jew World Order seems to think so. They crucified Jesus Christ for exposing them.
The invention of the Muslim Terrorist by our Jewish Governments... to keep us in fear, and to justify raping the World, and slaughtering billions of innocent families in every country for power and control...for their 2 horned Gods.
Every Religion Church and Mosque has been infiltrated by the Jews. How do you know? ... if your Church has not discussed the below phrases by Christ... then it has been compromised.
Democratic nominee for Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared in a recent interview that anti-white critical race theory is a “right-wing conspiracy” that “is totally made up by Donald Trump” and his Republican opponent Glenn Youngkin.
“That’s another right-wing conspiracy,” McAuliffe told a questioner in audio obtained by Fox News released Monday. “This is totally made up by Donald Trump and Glenn Youngkin. This is who they are. It’s a conspiracy theory.”
LISTEN:
“Those comments were purportedly made on June 4, after months of debate surrounding racial content in Virginia schools,” Fox News reported.
A new poll which included over 2,000 participants finds that a clear majority of Brits – 54 per cent – think COVID-19 was leaked from the Wuhan lab, with just 25 per cent saying they don’t believe that to be the case.
The survey, which was was conducted by JL, found that an additional 21 per cent say they don’t know where the virus originated.
The results of the poll contradict statements made recently by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who both said they doubted the lab leak theory.
New: JL Partners poll of 2,020 British adults
‘Thinking about what you have heard about the origins of the coronavirus, do you believe it is true or false that it leaked from a Chinese laboratory?’
As we previously highlighted, an even higher number of Americans – 58 per cent – also believe that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with even 43% of Democrats sharing that view.
Almost a quarter of Americans also believe that the virus was deliberately created and leaked by the lab, not that it escaped accidentally.
For the best part of a year, the mainstream media, the Biden administration and social media networks dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as a “debunked conspiracy theory” and those who circulated it faced ostracization and deplatforming.
On Monday night, comedian John Stewart joked with Stephen Colbert that the lab leak theory was obviously true, which is somewhat of a shift given that the liberal elite framed the whole issue as a piece of Trumpian fake news for most of last year.
Despite the fact that investigations into the lab are ongoing, the former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove warned that the Communist Chinese government has likely already destroyed the evidence.
“We don’t know that’s what’s happened, but a lot of data has probably been destroyed or made to disappear so it’s going to be difficult to prove definitely the case for a gain-of-function chimera being the cause of the pandemic,” Dearlove noted.
As we highlight in the video below, the doctor who was tasked with investigating the Wuhan lab by the WHO (he spent a mere 3 hours doing so) was also empowered by Facebook to censor information about the lab leak theory.
In an April 2020 email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak thanked Fauci for dismissing the entire issue as unscientific.
“I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” wrote Daszak.
Why have thousands upon thousands of very wealthy people suddenly felt an overwhelming urge to buy a home in Montana?
At this moment, Montana is one of the hottest real estate markets in the entire country. When a desirable house is put on the market, it can often spark a wild bidding war.
Of course the vast majority of the potential buyers involved in these bidding wars do not actually have any roots in Montana at all.
Vast hordes of wealthy individuals from Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other major cities are flooding into the state, and there is only a limited amount of housing to accommodate them.
As a result, home prices are being pushed to absolutely absurd levels.
In the Flathead Valley, home builders have been working incredibly hard to construct houses for the new arrivals.
All around the Lodge, along Montana Highway 35, from Kalispell to Whitefish, are what the locals call “COVID homes,” prefabricated track houses that line up along what used to be a timber farm — all of which were built last year and sold at around $550,000.
“Most were bought sight unseen for cash deals,” said Doug Averill.
$550,000 may have seemed like a hefty price when those homes originally went up, but today $550,000 would be considered a bargain price.
That is because the average selling price of a home in Flathead County has now risen to more than $638,000:
In May 2020, the average sale price for a home in Flathead County was $447,387 — a year later it had increased to $638,992. The average number of days a property stayed on the market has been cut almost in half, from 77 days in May 2020 to 41 days in May 2021.
The Flathead Valley possesses great natural beauty, and Whitefish in particular has become an extremely popular tourist destination.
All of this interest in Whitefish has helped to fuel a home price boom that is unlike anything the region has ever experienced:
While this may be good for realtors, locals are shell-shocked at the price hikes due to what the Flathead Beacon called the “COVID migration” from states like New York. “(The housing crisis) is happening all over Montana,” one Whitefish local told The Post. “No one who is from here can actually afford to live here anymore.”
According to Realtor.com, just before the pandemic in December 2019, the average home price in Whitefish, a town of 7,700 people just south of Glacier National Park, was $369,450. A year and a half later, that has almost doubled — and the average home price is now $704,000. Local average wages in Whitefish are just $30,642, according to bestplaces.net.
Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans cannot afford a $700,000 home.
Only the wealthy have enough money to relocate to Whitefish now, and many locals with roots in the area are having to leave for good because housing has become so ridiculously expensive.
A similar thing is happening over in Missoula. From last May to this May, the median sales price in Missoula shot up a staggering 41 percent:
New real estate data for the month of May shows an increasingly competitive market in western Montana.
New Multiple Listing Service data shows the median sales price in Missoula increased 41% from May 2020 to May 2021, up to $449,338.
Ten years ago, the median sales price in Missoula was just $205,000.
If you go all the way back to 2001, it was just $138,000.
One hundred thirty thousand dollars. That’s what it takes for a down payment to buy an average-priced home in Bozeman, Montana.
Then an aspiring homeowner must fork out another $3,000 each month, which is more than two-thirds of their household’s paychecks if they make the median income for the metro area.
That’s because the average home in the greater Bozeman area is going for more than $650,000, up from an already astronomical $500,000 in early 2020.
So why is this happening?
Why are home prices in Montana and other desirable locations around the country going absolutely nuts?
Many are blaming the COVID pandemic, and that certainly played a major role at first, but now the COVID pandemic is subsiding.
Ultimately, I believe the the largest reason why we are seeing such a home buying frenzy is because people can see that our society is starting to come apart at the seams and they can sense that enormous trouble is ahead.
Just consider what happened this weekend. We literally witnessed mass shootings in four different U.S. cities in a period of just six hours:
At least four major U.S. cities were reeling from an onslaught of mass shootings over the weekend that left at least 39 people wounded, five dead and police officials alarmed that the surge in gun violence is a prelude to a bloody summer as the nation emerges from the pandemic.
Police in Austin, Cleveland, Chicago and Savannah were all investigating on Sunday mass shootings that erupted over a six-hour streak that began around 9 p.m. on Friday and spilled over into Saturday morning.
All over America, countless numbers of people are finally waking up and realizing that it is time to leave the major cities and head for greener pastures.
As I have been encouraging people to do for years, those that are leaving are looking for areas with low population density and low crime rates.
Of course the wealthy also value great natural beauty, and this is one of the big reasons why the Flathead Valley has become so popular.
And once they have purchased their beautiful new homes in remote parts of the nation, many wealthy individuals are filling them up with emergency food and supplies.
Collectively, rich people tend to be much more into “prepping” than the general population as a whole.
Sadly, the vast majority of the population is still asleep. The mainstream media keeps telling us that everything is going to work out just fine somehow, and most Americans blindly believe them.
Meanwhile, many among the wealthy are buying up properties in remote locations at a blistering pace, and this is going to permanently change the character of those communities.
In a dream vision, the Holy Spirit took me to a time in the future when the sky darkened to an almost purplish gray. It resembled the slightly darker time after twilight but the sky swirled, its clouds lit up with the silhouettes and shadows of moving images.
The first images were those of countless giant snakes swimming through the clouds. It seemed impossible that snakes could remain in the air, but there they were. I wondered if the snakes were illusions that had been projected onto the night sky as if on a movie screen.
Then the images changed to those of the bone structure of enormous wings. Looking up, I saw what appeared to be the fossilized wings of ancient dinosaur creatures. Then as the sky grew even darker, I saw a stream of fire streaking diagonally from a point in the sky and hitting the earth. I heard a sound like a screech and thought I saw the flapping of wings as long as those of an airplane, and for a second I wondered if a dragon flew above. Where did all these creatures come from? Were they a projected illusion or real?
Standing there in awe, I felt as if our world had just intersected with the atmosphere of another world, an ancient and hellish one. As if our earth and hell temporarily coexisted. Or the once invisible hellish regions had manifested for a time. The Tribulation.
Revelation 12:1-17 (NIV)
1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth and his angels with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. 12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.
GENEVA (AP) — President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded their summit on Wednesday with an agreement to return their nations’ ambassadors to their posts in Washington and Moscow and a plan to begin work toward replacing the last remaining treaty between the two countries limiting nuclear weapons.
But the two leaders offered starkly different views on difficult simmering issues including cyber and ransomware attacks originating from Russia.
Putin insisted anew that his country has nothing to do with such attacks, despite U..S. intelligence that indicates otherwise. Biden, meanwhile, said that he made clear to Putin that if Russia crossed certain red lines — including going after major American infrastructure — his administration would respond and “the consequences of that would be devastating.”
Mikhail Metzel via Getty Images
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and President Joe Biden shake hands as they meet for talks at the Villa La Grange in Geneva.
Will Putin change his behavior? Biden was asked at a post-summit news conference.
“I said what will change their behavior is if the rest of the world reacts” in a way that “diminishes their standing in the world,” Biden said. “I’m not confident of anything. I’m just stating a fact.”
Both leaders, who have stirred escalating tension since Biden took office in January, suggested that while an enormous chasm between the two nations remains the talks were constructive.
Putin said there was “no hostility” during three hours of talks, a session that wrapped up more quickly than expected.
When it was over, Putin had first crack at describing the results at a solo news conference, with Biden following soon after. Biden said they spent a “great deal of time” discussing cybersecurity and he believed Putin understood the U.S. position.
Mikhail Metzel via Getty Images
President Biden and Russia’s President Putin meet for talks at the Villa La Grange on Wednesday.
“I pointed out to him, we have significant cyber capability,” Biden said. “In fact, (if) they violate basic norms, we will respond. … I think that the last thing he wants now is a Cold War.”
Putin noted that Biden raised human rights issues with him, including the fate of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Putin defended Navalny’s prison sentence and deflected repeated questions about mistreatment of Russian opposition leaders by highlighting U.S. domestic turmoil, including the Black Lives Matter protests and the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.
Putin held forth for nearly an hour before international reporters. While showing defiance at queries about Biden pressing him on human rights, he also expressed respect for Biden as an experienced political leader.
The Russian noted that Biden repeated wise advice his mother had given him and also spoke about his family — messaging that Putin said might not have been entirely relevant to their summit but demonstrated Biden’s “moral values.” Though he raised doubt that the U.S.-Russia relationship could soon return to a measure of equilibrium of years past, Putin suggested that Biden was someone he could work with.
Alexander Zemlianichenko via AP
President Putin and President Biden shake hands during their meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on Wednesday.
“The meeting was actually very efficient,” Putin said. “It was substantive, it was specific. It was aimed at achieving results, and one of them was pushing back the frontiers of trust.”
Putin said he and Biden agreed to begin negotiations on nuclear talks to potentially replace the New START treaty limiting nuclear weapons after it expires in 2026.
Washington broke off talks with Moscow in 2014 in response to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and its military intervention in support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Talks resumed in 2017 but gained little traction and failed to produce an agreement on extending the New START treaty during the Trump administration.
The Russian president said there was an agreement between the leaders to return their ambassadors to their respective postings. Both countries had pulled back their top envoys to Washington and Moscow as relations chilled in recent months.
MIKHAIL METZEL via Getty Images
Putin says he and Biden have agreed to begin negotiations to replace the last remaining treaty between the two countries limiting nuclear weapons.
Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, was recalled from Washington about three months ago after Biden called Putin a killer; U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan left Moscow almost two months ago, after Russia suggested he return to Washington for consultations. Putin said that the ambassadors were expected to return their posts in the coming days.
Advertisement
The meeting in a book-lined room had a somewhat awkward beginning — both men appeared to avoid looking directly at each other during a brief and chaotic photo opportunity before a scrum of jostling reporters.
Biden nodded when a reporter asked if Putin could be trusted, but the White House quickly sent out a tweet insisting that the president was “very clearly not responding to any one question, but nodding in acknowledgment to the press generally.”
Their body language, at least in their brief moments together in front of the press, was not exceptionally warm.
ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO via Getty Images
Putin held a solo press conference after the US-Russia summit in Geneva. He said the meeting was “very effective” and “substantive.”
The two leaders did shake hands — Biden extended his hand first and smiled at the stoic Russian leader — after Swiss President Guy Parmelin welcomed them to Switzerland for the summit. When they were in front of the cameras a few minutes later—this time inside the grand lakeside mansion where the summit was held—they seemed to avoid eye contact.
For months, Biden and Putin have traded sharp rhetoric. Biden has repeatedly called out Putin for malicious cyberattacks by Russian-based hackers on U.S. interests, for the jailing of Russia’s foremost opposition leader and for interference in American elections.
Putin has reacted with whatabout-isms and denials — pointing to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol to argue that the U.S. has no business lecturing on democratic norms and insisting that the Russian government hasn’t been involved in any election interference or cyberattacks despite U.S. intelligence showing otherwise.
Biden gives a thumbs up before boarding Air Force One after his summit with Putin.
Even so, Biden said it would be an important step if the United States and Russia were able to ultimately find “stability and predictability” in their relationship, a significant goal for a president who sees Russia as one of America’s crucial adversaries.
Arrangements for the meeting were carefully choreographed and vigorously negotiated.
Biden first floated the meeting in an April phone call in which he informed Putin that he would be expelling several Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions against dozens of people and companies, part of an effort to hold the Kremlin accountable for interference in last year’s presidential election and the hacking of federal agencies.
The White House announced ahead of the summit that Biden wouldn’t hold a joint news conference with Putin, deciding it did not want to appear to elevate Putin at a moment when the U.S. president is urging European allies to pressure Putin to cut out myriad provocations.
Mikhail Metzel via Getty Images
Russian and American flags fly on Mont Blanc Bridge ahead of a meeting scheduled to take place between Putin and Biden.
Biden sees himself with few peers on foreign policy. He traveled the globe as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was given difficult foreign policy assignments by President Barack Obama when Biden was vice president. His portfolio included messy spots like Iraq and Ukraine and weighing the mettle of China’s Xi Jinping during his rise to power.
He has repeatedly said that he believes executing effective foreign policy comes from forming strong personal relations, and he has managed to find rapport with both the likes of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom Biden has labeled an “autocrat,” and more conventional Western leaders including Canada’s Justin Trudeau.
Advertisement
But with Putin, who he once said has “no soul,” Biden has long been wary. At the same time, he acknowledges that Putin, who has remained the most powerful figure in Russian politics over the span of five U.S. presidents, is not without talent.
“He’s bright. He’s tough,” Biden said earlier this week. “And I have found that he is a — as they say … a worthy adversary.”
Calling all HuffPost superfans!
Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter
“The hard-core base — Mastriano’s playing to it,” said Carl Fogliani, a Republican strategist based in Pittsburgh. “He has a following among core activists, and he’s trying to grow it out.”
A little-known state senator from central Pennsylvania until last year, Mastriano began developing a following among grassroots conservative activists even before the November election for his outspoken criticism of coronavirus-related restrictions.
He was “ahead of the curve” of other politicians on the issue, said Lowman Henry, president of the Pennsylvania Leadership Council, which puts on a state-based gathering of conservative activists.
Following the election, Henry said, “as is his typical fashion, he mounted the horse and led the charge on the election fraud issue as well, which only I think added to his luster with the Trump base, which is very large in Pennsylvania.”
Al Schmidt, a Republican elections commissioner in Philadelphia who was pilloried by Trump and his supporters for refusing to capitulate to baseless claims of voter fraud, recalled that Mastriano was “pretty vocal” during the presidential campaign but mostly struck him as just “a state senator from someplace else in Pennsylvania.”
He said, “It’s actually difficult to articulate what is going on, because it is so utterly detached from reality, and that was that the election was free and fair and not even close.”
Mastriano’s efforts have not produced evidence of widespread election fraud, but they’ve given him leverage in a likely run for governor.He met with Trump at Trump Tower in New York in May, and CNN is now tracking him down at events in his home state. Mastriano said Trump himself has encouraged him to run for governor.
“A year ago, would anyone have known Mastriano’s name out of a 50-mile radius of his district?” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisanCenter for Election Innovation & Research, lamenting what he called “a large segment of grifters that are looking to cash in” on baseless accusations of voter fraud. “And now, he can likely fundraise nationally off his name, his connections to Trump.”
It’s possible Mastriano is making too much of his connection to Trump, aggravating some in Trump world. After Mastriano said in a radio interview last month that the former president had asked him to run for governor, Jason Miller, a Trump adviser, said on Twitter that Trump “has not made any endorsement or commitments yet in this race.”
Still, when Mastriano and two other Pennsylvania lawmakers later traveled to Arizona, Trump heralded the “great patriots” led by Mastriano. That kind of statement — when repurposed on a mailer — could be significant in a Republican primary in Pennsylvania next year.
Mastriano, who did not respond to a request for comment, has said he’s still considering whether to run for governor, but he is widely expected to. The Republican primary is likely to be crowded, including former Rep. Lou Barletta and, potentially, Rep. Dan Meuser and former U.S. attorney Bill McSwain, among others.
“I think he’s probably got a pretty low cap in terms of the percentage of the primary electorate he can go after, which is probably what he’s trying to increase now in terms of going to Arizona and everything, in terms of being the Trumpiest of the Trumpers,” said Joshua Novotney, a Republican lobbyist and former adviser to Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Given his relatively low name recognition, even after his ballot audit crusade, Novotney said, “I don’t think he’ll impress too many donors.”
He said, “A lot of the Trump supporters are trying to move on and win races… even if they feel things may have been stolen.”
Still, the fact that Mastriano is even in the mix is along way from 2018, when he couldn’t even get out of a congressional primary, finishing fourth in the race for an open seat in a solidly Republican district in southern Pennsylvania.
Today, the retired Army colonel is one of the most prominent examples of a class of politicians who are building careers off the doubt cast on the results of the November election, both benefiting from and reinforcing the belief in Trump’s lie — widely held position among Republican voters — that the election was rigged.
“[Mastriano] absolutely has the right idea that we still don’t have a full accounting of what happened in the 2020 election,” said Bruce Marks, a Republican lawyer who has done work for the Trump campaign and who met with Mastriano last month. “I think he’s absolutely on the right track.”
Marks, a former Pennsylvania lawmaker who was seated as a state senator only after a court determined in 1994 that widespread voter fraud had resulted in his Democratic opponent’s apparent victory, said he met with Mastriano largely to share with him the details of that case — a rallying cry for Republicans who insist that the presidential election can still be overturned.
“I wish this was like 1994,” Mastriano said, suggesting the media that year had done a “fantastic job” finding fraud. In the same speech, Mastriano compared the November election unfavorably to elections run in “war-torn Kosovo,” Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
“When you’re in the cauldron, making those tough decisions, it becomes much more clear,” Durkan said. “I could either do the job they elected me to do or run to keep the job. But I couldn’t do both.”
Durkan is far from the only mayor calling it quits after an exhausting year navigating the front lines of an unprecedented confluence of crises that touched nearly every aspect of human life. Across the country, mayors in cities big and small, urban and rural, are giving up — for now — on their political careers. In the process, they’re shaking up the municipal landscape, creating a brain drain in city halls and upsetting the political pipeline all over America.
Covid-19 changed the calculus for mayors mulling reelection, but the public health crisis was only a fraction of a much larger equation. The associated economic downturn “decimated” city budgets, leading to months of fiscal headaches before federal aid helped ease the problem. George Floyd’s killing last May sparked protests that grew into a national reckoning on racism and policing that’s still ongoing. And all of that kindling turned an already fiery presidential election into an inferno.
Many city leaders did not want to stick around to stamp out the flames.
Not unlike the current exodus from Congress, mayors across the country are stepping down en masse after years and even decades of public service. Their reasons range from personal to professional, but many share common threads spun from a year of unparalleled tumult and a recognition that what might be best for their city’s future might not be what they envisioned for their own.
“It is time to pass the baton,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said last month when she announced she wouldn’t seek a second term, a surprising move for one of the Democratic Party’s biggest rising stars.
In an interview, Lance Bottoms said the last year had drained her and left her wanting to move on to something else. What, exactly, she does not yet know.
The days after Floyd’s death, in particular, were a ”perfect storm of disappointment,” as people took to the streets of Atlanta and some demonstrations turned violent, Lance Bottoms said. “It was exhaustion, it was sadness, it was fatigue. I mean there’s so many words that I could use, none of them probably strong enough to really capture the last 18 months. But it was, I can say personally, it felt like a very low point.”
Michelle De La Isla, the Democratic mayor of Topeka, Kan., felt those emotions twice over — as her city’s leader and as a congressional candidate running a campaign she began pre-Covid.
“It was ugly,” De La Isla said. “It was very ugly.”
Four months after losing her bid for Congress, De La Isla, Topeka’s first Latina and single-mother mayor, announced she wouldn’t seek a second term.
“Covid had a big impact in my decision to not run for mayor again,” De La Isla said. “You really cannot wholeheartedly focus on recovery while you’re running for office. You have to be fully present and make sure that your head is in the game.”
The level of turnover in city corner offices isn’t entirely inorganic. Some mayors, like New York’s Bill de Blasio, are term-limited out. Others, like Boston-mayor-turned-Labor-secretary Marty Walsh, have moved on to other jobs.
What is raising eyebrows, though, is the number of mayors citing pandemic burnout and political exhaustion on their way out the door. It’s a phenomenon showing up more among Democrats, who account for nearly two-thirds of America’s mayors. Many spent the past year feuding over police reform or battling Republican governors over Covid restrictions.
“There’s no question that there’s a common thread of fatigue and frustration,” former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a past president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said in an interview.
It’s a trend that’s poised to grow as the election cycle goes on. Some big names — Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser — have yet to announce their intentions. And in cities all over the country, local leaders are mulling over their own futures.
“When you look at the general population and the numbers of people that say they’re looking to leave their jobs, we’ve never seen statistics so high on kind of the movement within the workforce,” said Brooks Rainwater, senior executive and director of the National League of Cities’ Center for City Solutions. “Certainly with mayors, being in one of the most high profile and stressful jobs you can imagine during a crisis that this has just been amplified.”
Nearly a fifth of the mayors in Massachusetts, for example, are on their way out of office or have already left, according to a recent analysis from CommonWealth Magazine. It’s not a wholly atypical number for the Bay State, Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Geoffrey Beckwith said, but the pressures of the past year likely served as a “tipping point” for some.
It was certainly a contributing factor for Somerville, Mass., Mayor Joseph Curtatone, a Democrat who announced back in February he would end his nearly two-decade run as mayor while batting away speculation of a run for governor.
“I’m tired of Covid,” Curtatone said. “I’m not tired of the job.”
The pandemic has taken an emotional and physical toll on mayors who spent the better part of 15 months lurching between health and economic crises in near isolation, fielding call after dreaded call about deaths in the community — while being unable to offer the most basic comfort to their grieving constituents and friends.
“I was sitting in that office, which I went to every day during Covid, looking out the window of city hall, and everyone was gone. There was no one there,” Curtatone said. “And to get those calls about people’s struggles and the loss of life — you sit there and ask yourself, ‘Have I done enough?’”
Former Columbus, Ohio, mayor Michael B. Coleman steered his city through multiple financial crises during a 16-year tenure that spanned the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2008 economic meltdown. But he described the past year-plus as “unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”
“The mayor’s job is already the most difficult job in government, except for maybe the president of the United States,” Coleman said in an interview. “And life as a mayor is more challenging now than it has ever been.”
Mayors are, quite literally, the faces of their cities. Far more accessible than a governor and often with broader powers than a city councilor, mayors are uniquely proximate to the people they serve — and as a result are far more likely to directly bear the brunt of their constituents’ criticisms and frustrations when things go awry.
Few likely felt that heat more this past year than Durkan, a Democrat who grew up with a front row seat to the rough world of politics as daughter to Martin Durkan, a lobbyist, state legislator and power broker in Washington state politics.
The mayor last year proposed slashing Seattle’s police budget by $20 million, or about 5 percent, as she pursued other policing reforms in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. But protesters and some city councilors, supportive of the Defund the Police movement, wanted a 50 percent cut. Demonstrators — including a city councilor — marched on her neighborhood last summer after figuring out her address, which had been hidden for years due to threats she received during her time as a U.S. attorney prosecuting cartels and Russian hackers.
Durkan and her family were again receiving death threats. Messages like “Guillotine Jenny” were written on her street. She personally spent tens of thousands of dollars in cleanup costs — and had to fight off a recall effort and calls for her resignation
“You can come to my house 100 times and that’s not going to stop me from doing what I think is right,” Durkan said. “But it did make things inordinately more difficult because I was worried not just about my own personal security but the security of my family.”
Then there was the president. Donald Trump loomed large as the pandemic raged and protesters took to city streets last summer, downplaying the virus while playing up the violence that was in many cases the byproduct of a few bad actors operating separately from largely peaceful demonstrations calling for policing reform.
Democratic mayors like Durkan and Lance Bottoms soon found themselves battling the president and his polarizing rhetoric on top of the virus.
“When the president tweeted about and against me, immediately I got thousands of emails, hundreds of them with misogynistic and sexist language, death threats to me and my family,” said Durkan, who is also openly gay. “You had these pressures building up in the streets by some people who were unhappy with the pace of police reforms locally on the progressive side, and then you saw the president and his supporters on the other side.”
As some protested pandemic restrictions and others protested police brutality, the politics of it all overwhelmed some mayors not used to facing such blowback in their inherently nonpartisan jobs.
“The pressure we were getting from the public, it’s something I had never seen before,” De La Isla, the Topeka mayor, said. “But we have to remember all of it is coinciding with the presidential election that got extremely nasty. So all that division occurring because of the election was seeping into the psyche of individuals who were being told that, you know, wearing a mask was taking away their free speech.”
De La Isla said there were nights she went home and cried.
“People forget you have a family and a life. All of the stuff happening in the community was also happening to my family. It was a very trying time,” she said.
Yet the pandemic almost convinced Betsy Price, the outgoing Republican mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, to try for another term.
Price on Tuesday wrapped up a decade at the helm of her city — the longest-serving mayor in Fort Worth’s history — fulfilling a promise she made after her last reelection to spend more time with her family.
“If anything the pandemic made me potentially reconsider it, to think: ‘Do we need to stay another term and have the continuity?’ And the protests, too,” Price said. “But I decided there’s always going to be a crisis or a challenge or a reason to stay, and I just made that commitment with my family, so that’s what I did.”
Thrust into the belly of the pandemic beast, mayors turned to their counterparts near and far for professional and emotional support. Mayors in the Dallas-Fort Worth area held weekly meetings by phone to coordinate messaging and response efforts and share tips for combating a deadly virus for which there was no guidebook. Mayors in Massachusetts did the same.
The ties that bind aren’t just a product of the pandemic. Mayors have forged and strengthened relationships with their colleagues and with regional and national municipal groups for years — and have leveraged those networks to become more influential within their states and on the national stage.
“Mayors have become a political force to be reckoned with in the United States in a way that they never were before,” Rainwater said.
Yet as mayors walk out the door for good, the connections that help propel that advocacy are leaving with them, as are years and in some cases decades of institutional knowledge of their individual municipalities and lessons learned from combating the pandemic.
“The lesson in all this is always to develop a good bench, people who can step in,” Coleman, the former Columbus mayor, said. “It does shake up things a little when a mayor, especially a long-term mayor, is not going to run for reelection, because people have a certain degree of comfort.”
Price, the outgoing Fort Worth mayor, is being succeeded by her 37-year-old chief of staff, Mattie Parker, who was sworn in Tuesday evening.
“If anything, the pandemic woke up a lot of younger people who weren’t really following the impact of local government on their lives” to get involved and start running for office, she said.
Beyond shuffling the municipal landscape, the corner-office departures are also potentially disrupting regional and state political pipelines. Some mayors, like De La Isla, say they’re likely done with politics for good.
When US vice president Kamala Harris visited Mexico, a demonstration took place in the Mexican capital on June 8 in front of the National Palace. During the protest, representatives of the #24F Coalición Vida y Libertad Julian Assange movement demanded the release of the journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and spoke against his extradition to the United States and the police harassment against him. “Secrets, censorship and fear are tools used by tyrannies to control us because a well-informed population cannot be controlled. We are gathered here today to send our thoughts to the vice-president Kamala Harris and that she deliver these thoughts to US president Joe Biden. This country calls itself a defender of democracy but we now see this country attacking the principle of freedom of speech in their fight against Julian Assange,” said the demonstrators as quoted by the Mexican news channel La Jornada.
In a recent interview with The Guardian, Julian Assange’s fianceé Stella Morris claimed that the global reputation of the United Kingdom is being damaged as long as he remains locked up in a maximum security prison. She also expressed hope that continuing pressure from human rights organizations could cause the Biden administration to change its policy towards Julian Assange. The publication reiterates that the British judge rejected the arguments put by Assangeʼs lawyers about freedom of the press and also refused bail.
The French newspaper Le Monde published an article by Assange’s lawyer Eva Joly called “Julian Assange will die in prison for exposing war crimes”. In the article she comments on the lack of interest in Assange from the mainstream media and his deteriorating health as a result of being incarcerated. Assange, whom Le Monde in 2010 named ‘Person of the year’, remains in isolation in Britain’s high security Belmarsh prison, which is home to some of the worst criminals and terrorists and is often referred to as Britain’s Guantanamo. An international group of six dozen doctors have tried to draw attention to the deteriorating physical and mental health of Julian Assange while he remains in prison. They genuinely believe that he may “die in prison”. Despite all of this the silence from the world press on this matter continues, even though the very same global media wrote countless articles about the war crimes committed by the Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to the documents provided by Assange and his team.
Le Monde points out that after the revelations from WikiLeaks, Assangeʼs life turned on its head. The Swedish prosecutor general launched an investigation on rape charges (which he categorically denied), while the United States launched an espionage case against him and continues to push its allies to condemn Assange as criminally liable. That is why Assange initially decided to seek refuge from extradition to America disguised as a Swedish arrest warrant, at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012. Later, Assange had his refugee status revoked by the Ecuador government and he was detained at the embassy in London, despite the fact that the Swedish authorities had dropped all rape charges against him. According to Assange’s lawyer the democratic system must now prove that it is capable of protecting human rights and the rights of one individual in this case. “Our media and the general public cannot continue to turn a blind eye: A man is dying in Belmarsh prison. And along with him also our honor,” said Eva Joly.
On January 4 at the Old Bailey in London judge Vanessa Baraitser refused to extradite Julian Assange to the United States. However, it was reported in The New York Times that the Biden administration will continue to push for his extradition to the United States from Britain. In early February more than 20 American organizations called on the US department of justice to end the persecution of Assange. According to them, the charges against him threaten the freedom of the press because most of the actions he is charged with in the indictment are routine practices for journalists. This appeal was signed by Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists.
In January of this year, French MP Sereine Mauborgne proposed the idea of giving medical assistance and political asylum to Julian Assange, by sending a request to the Minister of justice of France Eric Dupont-Moretti. The current situation in which Assange find himself is a cause of great concern to human rights organizations as well as French citizens, said Mauborgne.
Mexico is also ready and willing to grant Assange with political asylum, Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador said in January.
In March of this year Assange received a personal message of support from Pope Francis.
OSCE representatives on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir urged the British authorities not to extradite Assange to the United States, where he would face a prison sentence of up to 175 years.
The Russian foreign ministry and general public slammed the condemnation against Assange as totally shambolic.
The author of this article simply cannot comprehend the obvious disconnect between this passivity in relation to Assange and the usual rhetoric of most politicians in Europe and the US presenting themselves as ‘fighters for democracy’, freedom of the press and human rights. At the same time they have actively fanned the flames regarding the legal detention in Russia of Alexei Navalny on large scale embezzlement charges, which is punishable under part 3 of Article 33 and part 4 of Article 160 of the Russian criminal code. Or for the detention in Belarus of the creator of the Telegram channel NEXTA Roman Protasevich, who partook in armed clashes in the Donbass on the side of Kiev as part of a neo-Nazi “Azov’ battalion, while using his social media platform to work against the government. If similar offenses had been committed in the West, would they not have been similarly charged and prosecuted? What is the difference between the actions by Protasevich and those who organized the storming of the Capitol on January 6 who are on trial in Washington today?
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
President Joe Biden’s administration announced their plans to create ways for Americans to report radicalized friends and family to the government, in an effort to fight domestic terrorism.
In a conversation with reporters, one senior administration official explained the importance of stopping politically fueled violence before it started.
“We will work to improve public awareness of federal resources to address concerning or threatening behavior before violence occurs,” the official said.
The official cited the Department of Homeland Security’s “If you see something say something” campaign to help stop radical Islamic terror as a domestic possibility.
“This involves creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers know that there are pathways and avenues to raise concerns and seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing towards violence,” the official said.
Biden began his presidency with a stark warning in his inauguration speech about the “rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.” On June 1, Biden described the threat from “white supremacy” as the “most lethal threat to the homeland today.”
The Biden administration said it would also work with large technology companies on “increased information sharing” to help combat radicalization.
“Any particular tech company often knows its own platform very well,” the official noted. “But the government sees things — actually, threats of violence — across platforms. They see the relationship between online recruitment, radicalization, and violence in the physical world.”
The Department of Homeland Security also plans to deploy “digital literacy” and “digital fitness” programs to help combat “malicious content online that bad actors deliberately try to disseminate.”
Fox 26 reporter Ivory Hecker was suspended today, after announcing live on-air that she had decided to come to Project Veritas for what she described as pure “corruption” at the Houston affiliate – She said the station’s actions are an affront to real journalism and claimed leadership prioritizes corporate interests over the viewer.
Hecker obtained recordings of her superiors telling her to prioritize the opinion of the station’s General Manager, and the company’s CEO, above that of the audience.
Hecker: “What’s happening within Fox Corp is an operation of prioritizing corporate interests above the viewer’s interest and, therefore, operating in a deceptive way.”
She also obtained audio of Fox 26’s VP and News Director, Susan Schiller, telling Hecker to “cease and desist” posting about Hydroxychloroquine on social media.
Hecker interviewed Dr. Joseph Varon, MD, Chief of Critical Care and COVID-19 Unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, who told her of his success using Hydroxychloroquine on certain patients.
Hecker: “The viewers are being deceived by a carefully crafted narrative in some stories.”
Things turned racial behind the scenes, according to Hecker, who recorded her superior, Lee Meier, as they judged the newsworthiness of a story based on specific demographics — on one occasion, a Fox 26 executive said that a “poor African-American audience” wouldn’t care about Bitcoin stories.
Hecker said the decision to shy away from these topics was not made in the interest of the public good, but rather, in line with the leadership of Fox Corp and Fox’s advertisers — one of which is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Hecker: “There’s a narrative. Yes, it is unspoken. But if you accidentally step outside the narrative, if you don’t sense what that narrative is and go with it, there will be grave consequences for you.”
Hecker: “Fox came at my throat for standing up against censorship.”
Hecker had a call with Fox 26 earlier today in which she was asked to return her reporting equipment to the station.
Fox 26 Houston has responded through a company spokesperson: “FOX 26 adheres to the highest editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality. This incident involves nothing more than a disgruntled former employee seeking publicity by promoting a false narrative produced through selective editing and misrepresentation.”
[HOUSTON, TX – June 15, 2021] Project Veritas released a new video today featuring a sit-down interview with recently-suspended Fox 26 reporter, Ivory Hecker, who blew the whistle on her own network for what she says are acts of deception. She claims the station’s editorial decisions are an affront to honest journalism.
Hecker, who serves as a dayside reporter primarily for the five and six o’clock news, came forward to Project Veritas with recordings of her colleagues and superiors showing a pattern of “censorship” on COVID-19 and Bitcoin-related stories. She also highlighted a pattern of submission among the local affiliate’s leadership to Fox’s corporate interests, rather than acting in the interest of transparency with its viewers.
“Viewers are being deceived about some of the things that are going on,” Hecker told Veritas.
One major issue Hecker addressed was Fox 26’s pressure on her to minimize stories presenting Hydroxychloroquine as an acceptable treatment for COVID-19. Hecker cited a seemingly tangled web of ad dollars, network corporate executives, government health departments and money-making motivations as the main reasons behind such censorship.
“Fox came at my throat for standing up against censorship,” Hecker added.
She secretly recorded phone calls with two of her supervisors, Vice President and News Director, Susan Schiller, and Assistant News Director, Lee Meier.
Hecker also cited a specific story in which Lee Meier, her boss, deemed a Bitcoin piece to be inapplicable “for a poor African-American audience” that represents a large portion of Fox 26’s audience during the five o’clock hour.
Veritas reporters recorded members of the Fox 26 team shedding light on the surprisingly young producers who joined the network “right out of college,” the mechanics of how ad dollars affect stories, and the recent push to publicize the Coronavirus vaccine as much as possible.
Jennifer Bourgeois, Sales Coordinator for Fox 26, admitted on tape that the CDC is heavily influencing stations such as theirs due to the amount of money they are pouring into ad campaigns – and how that, in turn, affects the network’s coverage of major health issues.
“Yeah, they [CDC] are spending money. They are spending money because they can,” she told an undercover Project Veritas reporter. “Yeah, they can. They [CDC] are in the pocket. You know? They’re there.”
Hecker went on to say her superiors lost their way when they forgot their “first loyalty is to the citizen.”
“Vaccines are a potential money maker for Fox,” she explained. “Fox gets paid for that. As a viewer you need to look at who is advertising on this TV station, and you’ve got to realize — surely that the TV station doesn’t want to hurt its advertisers.”
When asked why she would risk her career and professional reputation to come forward, she said the “corruption” at the network became too overwhelming.
“It affects the viewers. That’s why I’m doing this,” Hecker explained. “The viewers are being deceived by a carefully crafted narrative in some stories, okay? In some areas they do fantastic journalism. For some reason, some of these stories have an incredible slant. If you accidentally step outside [the narrative], they try to internally destroy you — as I’ve witnessed firsthand.”
She concluded, “At this point, I want out of this narrative news telling. I want out of this corruption. I want to tell true stories without fear of whether it fits the corporate narrative.”
About Project Veritas
James O’Keefe established Project Veritas in 2011 as a non-profit journalism enterprise to continue his undercover reporting work. Today, Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society. O’Keefe serves as the CEO and Chairman of the Board so that he can continue to lead and teach his fellow journalists, as well as protect and nurture the Project Veritas culture.
Project Veritas is a registered 501(c)3 organization. Project Veritas does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues raised through its investigations. Donate now to support our mission.
… is expected to last around five hours according to some reports.
Despite the highly theatrical optics, expectations are slim in terms of any breakthroughs, which were heavily tempered down by Russia’s Kremlin well-ahead of the confab. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said whether or not to send back ambassadors would be decided by the two presidents. “Today the presidents will need to determine how to proceed with the heads of the diplomatic missions,” Peskov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies, meaning very little of substance will actually be discussed let alone decided.
The relationship between the two nuclear nations hit new lows this year – exacerbated by a combination of military shows of force, punchy rhetoric, and a string of sanctions (from the US side) – in turn prompting Russia to step up its de-dollarisation activities.
The White House suggested that a “full range of pressing issues” will be discussed with the Russian President, including arms control, climate change, Russian military involvement in Ukraine, Russia’s cyber-hacking activities, and the jailing of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
As Newsquawk notes, the key at this meeting will be to gauge the atmosphere between the leaders, and whether this sets the precedence for a more productive meeting in the future. As usual, a joint statement would be seen as constructive, although Biden recently met with top Russia experts ahead of the summit who advised him against doing a joint press conference, and is expect to be alone during the post-meeting press conference, unlike Trump who stood side-by-side with the Russian leader.
These lines were aimed at a tiny number of human beings. Certainly almost no Americans have any idea what “Article 5” is part of or what it says.
But Biden’s words were genuinely significant. Article 5 is a clause in the North Atlantic Treaty, the founding document of NATO, which states that any armed attack against any member of the alliance “shall be considered an attack against them all.”
This is at the core of how the U.S. runs the world and intends to keep running it in the future. It also signifies that should we face the prospect of sharing power with others — today that mostly means China — we may end up destroying the world.
The North Atlantic Treaty is also known as the Washington Treaty, which tells you most of what you need to know about it. It was written in 1949, a time when U.S. power was so overweening that it could simply dictate terms to its allies. Most of whatever little discussion there was with other countries’ diplomats took place in secret over two weeks at the Pentagon. It was co-written by the delightfully-named Thomas Achilles, a State Department official who later said his boss had told him, “I don’t care whether entangling alliances have been considered worse than original sin ever since George Washington’s time. We’ve got to negotiate a military alliance with Western Europe in peacetime and we’ve got to do it quickly.”
The public rationale for NATO was that it was a defensive alliance necessary to stop the Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. The private rationale, as articulated by Achilles, was somewhat different:
At that point Western Europe was devastated, prostrate and demoralized and it badly needed confidence and energy within. With the Soviet armies halfway across Europe and still at their full wartime strength and the Communist parties the largest single political elements in France and Italy, something to inspire Soviet respect was equally essential.
Some top U.S. officials did honestly think that the Soviet Union was poised to stage a military attack. Whether that belief had any basis in reality is extremely debatable; about 27 million Russians, or 1 in every 6 people in the country, had just died in World War II. The equivalent for the U.S. today would be 50 million dead Americans. Even Joseph Stalin might have had a tough time motivating the country to immediately embark on another such event.
A more reasonable concern for the American government was a political, rather than military, threat. As Achilles said, there were powerful communist parties across Europe, especially in France and Italy — ones that could plausibly win honest elections. The anti-communist forces in those countries needed the “confidence and energy” of NATO to fight back. Meanwhile, NATO would “inspire Soviet respect” that would hopefully lessen Russian support, material and moral, for Europe’s communist parties.
Something else is notable about NATO’s founding. The original 12 members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the U.K., and the U.S. — in hindsight, something of an all-star league of European colonialism. It’s difficult today not to notice the blindingly alabaster complexion of the officials who signed the treaty. The original version of the treaty even specifies that it applied to any attack on “the Algerian Departments of France.”
A fuller reading of history suggests that the formation of NATO helped intensify and institutionalize the Cold War.
In any case, the architects of NATO would say that they were simply responding to the Cold War, already in progress at the instigation of the Soviets. A fuller reading of history suggests that the formation of NATO helped intensify and institutionalize the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact, after all, was not created until 1955, six years later, and its text is in many ways a replica of that of NATO’s treaty. It even has its own Article 5 language, except it’s in Article 4.
The unstated logic of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact was also the same. Indeed, it’s identical to that of similar alliances for thousands of years going back to the Delian League, founded in 478 B.C. and led by Athens. Providing protection is one key way for powerful countries to bind less powerful ones to them. The U.S. didn’t create NATO because we believed that we’d someday need Luxembourg’s military might to save us, nor did the Soviets come up with the Warsaw Pact because they felt that way about Albania. Rather, both superpowers knew that if they didn’t promise smaller countries protection, the smaller countries would feel compelled to protect themselves — which would lead to them wandering off on their own with their own foreign policies. That’s no way to run a sphere of influence.
NATO worked during the Cold War, both in the sense that there was no Soviet invasion and that the U.S. was able to corral Western Europe into following our instructions most of the time. A smattering of new countries joined during this period: Greece and Turkey in 1952, West Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.
Then came the dissolution of the Soviet Union, beginning in the late 1980s. If NATO’s champions were correct, it would have similarly been disbanded, its purported purpose now moot. But NATO’s more skeptical critics, who claimed that it was largely an aggressive instrument of U.S. power, have clearly been proven right by time.
As Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to peacefully dismantle the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, he sought assurances from the U.S. that NATO would not expand into the areas the Soviets were vacating. James Baker, President George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state, told Gorbachev not once but three times that wouldn’t happen. “Not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction,” Baker promised.
NATO’s goals have expanded along with its territory.
Instead, in 1999 NATO incorporated the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, a big chunk of what had been the Warsaw Pact. Then in 2004 Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia, more of the Warsaw Pact, joined, along with Latvia and Lithuania, which had actually been part of the Soviet Union. Other Eastern European countries followed, bringing NATO’s current membership to 30.
NATO’s goals have expanded along with its territory. The U.S. has found it particularly useful as a way to create legitimacy for wars when the United Nations won’t authorize them, as with the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011. In both cases, the American government pointed to NATO’s involvement as making the wars “multilateral” — that is, not unilateral acts by the U.S. — even though the U.S. provided the crucial firepower and neither war would have happened if America hadn’t wanted them to.
Russia has greeted these events with the same enthusiasm that the U.S. would if Mexico, Canada, and a newly independent Texas joined a Russian-led military alliance. Of particular concern to Russia is the possibility of Ukraine, another huge chunk of the former Soviet Union, becoming part of NATO.
NATO is also looking farther afield, to the entire planet. It just released “NATO 2030,” which describes an “an ambitious agenda to make sure NATO remains ready, strong and united for a new era of global competition. … NATO needs to adopt a more global approach to tackle global challenges to Atlantic security.” The head of NATO recently discussed this need with Lloyd Austin, the new U.S. secretary of defense.
Oddly, it turns out that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s “Atlantic security” now is largely about China, a country famously located on the Pacific. After Tuesday’s summit, NATO released its formal communiqué, which said, among other things, that “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.”
It now seems quite possible that NATO will accomplish in the near future what it did 70 years ago — that is, push countries outside it into their own alliance in what they perceive as necessary self-defense. Thus just as NATO helped create the Cold War then, it’s well on its way to creating a sequel now.
Ominously, there is essentially no discussion about this in the U.S. and Europe. As Biden said, the small number of elites who are involved in these discussions see NATO as “sacred.” Similarly, when advocating for the creation of NATO, then-British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin said it was necessary for “the salvation of the west.” As strange as it may seem for normal people, NATO is an institution of religious fervor for Western elites and therefore cannot be debated, any more than the Pope is open to debate about the Holy Trinity. And we all know how religions can lead to war.
In this episode, Whitney and Robbie Martin of Media Roots discuss how the recent heavy promotion of UFOs by the military and intelligence communities masks a decades-old neoconservative agenda to militarize outer space as a way to indefinitely secure American military hegemony. Originally published June 12, 2021 on Rokfin.com
It’s amusing as well as alarming when industry folks go to great lengths to depict “Smart Homes” as something desirable now and in the future. For many years already, experts have warned about privacy and cybersecurity risks associated with ALL “Smart” and wireless technology including “Smart Home” appliances and technology (see 1, 2). In fact, Samsung has discontinued its Smart Home “SmartThings Ecosystem”.
The future of smart tech: How homes will look in 50 years
From health monitoring panic rooms to biometric sensors in every corner, by 2071 our homes could virtually run themselves, according to insight from a leading smart tech expert.
With the recent announcement of the 2025 ban on gas boilers and the government’s focus on slashing carbon emissions, making positive changes to live more sustainably is a priority.
But just how could our homes look in 50 years’ time?
The electric heating and technology innovators at Rointe have partnered with tech expert Cecilia Harvey, founder of Tech Women Today, to reveal what a typical smart home could look like by 2071 and how this will affect our ability to enjoy a more energy efficient, economical and sustainable lifestyle.
Some of the most interesting smart home innovations to expect in 2071 include:
Biometric scanners in every room to monitor activity and detect potential danger;
A responsive heating system that adapts each room to individual needs;
Centralisation and automation of all appliances in the home;
A panic room linked to appropriate authorities;
Health monitoring technologies that track an individual’s vitals.
Below are more details on exactly what we can expect from our homes in 50 years time…
Efficient living space that adapts to individual needs
A centralised combined utility that supports heating, electricity and air conditioning could help to make energy consumption much more efficient and sustainable. The home will be entirely connected, including all kitchen, bathroom and electrical appliances and heating devices. This could allow for a consolidation of energy consumption data which in turn will improve energy efficiency.
Cecilia explains: “Smart meters will incorporate data from sensor technology embedded in clothing, accessories and furniture. The meters will dynamically adjust based on your personal biometrics, meaning that each room in your home will always be at the optimum temperature to suit your comfort levels, whether that’s staying cool whilst working out in your living room or keeping warm at bedtime.
“Instead of traditional radiators and towel rails taking up space, heating could be embedded within the structure of your house, including the walls, floors and around the window to ensure efficiency.”
Efficient living space that adapts to individual needs
The internet of things (IoT) has increased the prevalence of intelligent objects at home. These devices can be anything from smart light bulbs to televisions, appliances to cameras, and even water heaters – can be hacked and weaponized to create an army of smart devices to scale up attacks against corporations and governments, according to Bloomberg.
Researchers from Nokia Deepfield published a report Monday, revealing global DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) traffic between January 2020 and May 2021 and found the threat potential for DDoS attacks is around 10 Terabits per second, as much as five times more than the most significant attacks reported so far.
DDoS threats are immensely harmful to the day-to-day operational activities of targeted networks operated by corporations and or governments and can cause considerable damage.
This means billions of smart home devices could be susceptible to cyberattacks and silently weaponized to launch DDoS attacks in a simultaneous fashion.
The proliferation of IoT devices has increased the number of devices a malicious actor can weaponize. The combination of IoT and DDoS may result in a devastating cyberattack using armies of IoT devices.
A problem we notice is that much of the world’s electronic devices are produced in China. As a result, the communist government may have the ability to backdoor these devices and weaponize them against the US.
Colwell said on average about 10 to 15 people who’ve taken fentanyl are treated in the San Francisco General emergency room a day, sometimes more. And that’s at just one hospital in the city.
The majority of people are found passed out and brought into the emergency room by emergency medical services. Most are very sleepy and unable to stay awake. Those who are on both fentanyl and methamphetamine can be very agitated and unable to stay still.
Naloxone (Narcan) is a medicine used treat a fentanyl overdose and prevent death, and when administered, patients actively vomit and sweat.
“Our most immediate threat right now is the opioid epidemic and the trauma we are seeing. We are seeing increases I haven’t seen in my career around dependency and overdoses, mostly involving fentanyl. We always had problems with opioids, specifically heroin, but fentanyl has changed the whole landscape of drugs.”
Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine. Like all opioids, it’s a respiratory depressant and can impact the user’s ability to breathe.
It was initially created in the 1960s to manage pain after surgery, and its clinical use expanded in the 1990s with the introduction of the extended release patch for chronic pain, typically advanced cancer pain.
“I give fentanyl in the ER every day for people in trauma,” said Colwell. “It’s very quick. Morphine reaches peak effect is 20 minutes. Fentanyl is immediate.”
More recently, fentanyl is being illicitly made in labs and usually either sold under its own name as powders or tablets or mixed with a wide range of drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA. It’s also made into counterfeit pills that look like other prescription opioids.
It is no secret that millions of Americans have either been outright forced to take a COVID-19 vaccination or deal with everything short of an official mandate. Cadets at the United States Military Academy, West Point have been subjected to the extreme end of the former, with draconian rules being applied to a minority of cadets who have continued to refuse the vaccine.
Those who have elected not to take the vaccine endure forced masking all around West Point, specifically differentiating them from students who took the shot. Disgruntled parents of several cadets are in the process of organizing legal counsel for their children, with CDMedia reporting that they are “banding together to fight this perceived criminal behavior by those in power over their children.”
Per National File, a whistleblower gave a detailed account of the restrictions unvaccinated cadets must face. Cadets returning for summer programs will be forced into a 7 day quarantine with 23 out of 24 hours of each day involving strict solitary confinement, with only an hour granted to walk or run outside. It does not at all matter if the cadets are perfectly healthy, nor if they show a negative COVID-19 test; they are subjected to the requirement regardless. Initially, 700 cadets reportedly refused the vaccine. That number has now fallen significantly to around 50 after allegations of pressure by “senior officials” at the premier military school caused many cadets to either leave altogether or cave to their demands.
West Point is allegedly planning on sticking all the cadets who will not take the COVID-19 vaccine into one platoon based on how many there are. This whistleblower expressed that this may be a good thing for them, as they would avoid the bullying of fellow servicemen who have shamed them for not taking the shot. “They’re being treated like criminals,” the whistleblower added. “They’re trying to protect other people’s rights and their rights are being compromised.”
Just last year, two cadets of the Colorado Springs Air Force Academy committed suicide in succession, with students claiming that the deaths may have been attributed to strict social distancing policies in the academy. One can only pray that continued draconian policies in West Point and other parts military will not potentially spur more tragedy.
“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.
The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.
The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.
A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”
Who Are the Vanguard?
The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.
Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021.3,4 Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded.5 As reported in the featured video:6,7
“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.
In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”
While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp.8 and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders.9 Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.
The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.
BlackRock/Vanguard Own Big Pharma
According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively.10 At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.11
Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some.
Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.
To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.
As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report12 “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.
In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.
BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media
When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43% of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11%).13,14
In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.15,16
Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.
If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.
However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and that’s BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.
Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in,17 its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.
Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.
BlackRock and Vanguard Own the World
That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one.18,19 It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.20
BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet Inc.21 As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below,22 featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.
In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.23
A Global Monopoly Few Know Anything About
To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.
How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:24
“When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?
She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.
In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.
To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.”
As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at top of article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.
Critical race theory is an academic term that studies how race and racism have impacted social and local structures in the United States. Over the past year, GOP leaders have decried its teaching in public schools, pointing to limited examples in various school districts across the state. In 2020, former President Donald Trump had banned federal employees from training that discusses “critical race theory” or “white privilege,” calling it propaganda.
Several versions of the bill passed back and forth between the two chambers as Texas Democrats raised concerns the bill would have a chilling effect on classroom conversations. An amended version sent back to the House had appeared dead at one point after state Rep. James Talarico, D-Round Rock, tanked it on a procedural violation. But it was revived by the Texas Senate later that evening after senators reverted back to an earlier approved version of the bill and sent it to the governor’s office. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had signaled support for the legislation since the start of the legislative session.
This law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, includes a list of founding documents that Texas students must be taught. It also includes a list of additional historical documents written by people of color and women that House Democrats had added. It also mandates that students be taught “the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong.”
Still, many educators and education advocacy groups had opposed the bill, which states that teachers cannot be compelled to discuss current events and if they do, they must “give deference to both sides.” Opponents say it limits honest conversations about race and racism in American society and will force teachers to equivocate on controversial or sensitive topics that will result in less educated students.
It also prohibits students from getting credit or extra credit for participating in civic activities that include political activism or lobbying elected officials on a particular issue.
The version signed by the governor also bans the teaching of The New York Times’ 1619 Project, a reporting endeavor that examines U.S. history from the date when enslaved people first arrived on American soil, marking that as the country’s foundational date.
Supporters of House Bill 3979, which mirrors legislation making its way through state legislatures across the country, argue they are trying to combat personal biases bleeding into public education, pointing to a few individual instances in school districts across the state where parents have raised concerns.
Throughout legislative debates over the bill, they expressed concerns that teachers are unfairly blaming white people for historical wrongs and distorting the founding fathers’ accomplishments. In recent years, there have been calls for more transparency about historical figures’ racist beliefs or connections to slavery.
Corporate media outlets like Bloomberg News, the CBS news program 60 Minutes, and CNBC have been seduced into obsequious behavior when it comes to Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, despite the fact that Dimon has presided over the most unparalleled crime spree in the history of U.S. banking. Between 2014 and September of last year, JPMorgan Chase has been charged with five criminal felony counts by the U.S. Department of Justice. The bank admitted to all five counts. (See the bank’s detailed rap sheet here.)
Despite this crime spree and endless probation periods followed by more crime, Dimon has further seduced federal bank regulators into allowing his unrepentant behemoth to become the most systemically risky bank in America. That assessment is not our opinion. It is the assessment of the federal government based on hard data.
The National Information Center is a repository of bank data collected by the Federal Reserve. It is part of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), which was created by federal legislation to create uniformity in the examination of U.S. financial institutions by the various banking regulators.
Each year the National Information Center creates a graphic profile of banks measured by 12 systemic risk indicators. The data used to create these graphics come from the “Systemic Risk Report” or form FR Y-15 that banks are required to file with the Federal Reserve. To measure the systemic risk that a particular bank poses to the stability of the U.S. financial system, the data is broken down into five categories of system risk: size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional activity. Those measurements consist of 12 pieces of financial information that banks have to provide on their Y-15 forms.
The most recent data for the period ending December 31, 2019 indicates that in 8 out of 12 measurements – or two-thirds of all systemic risk measurements – JPMorgan Chase ranks at the top for having the riskiest footprint among its peer banks.
To put it another way, the largest bank in the United States with an apparent insatiable appetite to commit felonies is also the riskiest bank based on other key metrics.
RSS Feed
June 16th, 2021 
Awake Goy 
