Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 2

Was September 11, 2001 A Chain of Coincidences, Or Was It Something More Sinister?

Anyone who has paid attention to the fiasco over the last two years with COVID-19 and the authoritarianism that became apparent should be aware that our federal and state institutions are not worth putting faith into. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its standards constantly, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received funding from Big Pharma. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and White House are waging a war against right-wing conspiracy theorists and the ultra-MAGA folks; and in the past, we had MK Ultra, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the internment of Japanese Americans, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction lie, and the Gulf War “babies out of incubators” disinformation campaign.

Yet, we are still supposed to be good citizens and obey government demands, without question. The families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks still have not received satisfactory answers with the 9/11 Commission Report, and any attempt to challenge the official narrative is met with labels of “crazy conspiracy theorist” or “unpatriotic whack-job.” In the wake of the January 6th “insurrection” and the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump, some conservatives are actually waking up to the reality that the FBI and other agencies are crooked wings of a deep state controlled by corporate overlords and that they care more about spying and control of the populace than they do about protecting the country.

Even with knowing all of this, will the general public ever be willing to hear out the evidence and critically think about the events of 9-11? Was it an inside job to usher in a massive surveillance and data collection state, the normalization of indefinite detentions and torture, the end of privacy and free speech, drone warfare in any global location, and endless wars that benefit defense contractors (now that Lockheed Martin and others have Ukraine, we can wind down wars in the Middle East)? To those who understand the history of manipulation and the relationship between the elites and their peasantry, the answer may be clearer than it is for others.

Before delving deeper into this question, it should be understood that I do not have all of the answers of what happened that day, nor does anyone. Was there inside trading of airline stocks right before the event? Did World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 collapse because of a controlled demolition, being that the towers were specifically designed to withstand hits by commercial aircraft? Did a missile hit the Pentagon, since it would be nearly impossible for even the most experienced pilot to evade the United States’ air defenses and fly that low to the ground to hit the building perfectly? Was Flight 93 shot out of the sky? Did the corporate media announce that World Trade Center Building 7, where several government agencies had offices, was collapsing before the tower started to fall? How did the black box of the planes get destroyed or go missing, but the passport of one of the hijackers was left undamaged and conveniently located where it could be found by investigators? Regardless of who murdered the nearly 3,000 Americans and the thousands of other first responders who were dispatched, we should still be angry and sad by what transpired. It was an act of terrorism, and we the people should put pressure on officials to reveal all of the details of that day.

I hear many times that conspiracy theories are false because nobody could keep a secret for that long, but in a highly compartmentalized system of government, people involved would only know bits and pieces of the puzzle and enough to do their job. Having served in the military with a secret clearance, I can attest to the fact that you would only possess enough knowledge to perform a few tasks on a “need-to-know” basis, and everything else involving your job as a whole would be unknown. So, the idea that 9-11 could not have been carried out as an inside job because thousands of employees would not be able to keep a secret is preposterous, and plus, look at how the Edward Snowden leaks of National Security Agency (NSA) data collection and spying took about twelve years to surface.

People are often turned away from 9-11 conspiracy theories because they could not possibly comprehend why the government would have motivation to kill its own people and commit such an atrocity. Yet, we have documented proof that the government would do just that. It was called Operation Northwoods of 1962, and it entailed false-flag military operations created by the Department of Defense (DoD), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to hijack aircraft and swap them with missiles to strike targets, sink civilian ships, falsify enemy documents, blow up civilian strategic points of interest, kill refugees, and stage fires on military bases. These actions would then be used to gain public support for a war against Cuba, giving American officials the ability to overthrow the Castro regime. Although the plans were halted by President John F. Kennedy (who was later assassinated), the fact that proposals such as these exist is frightening. If government attacks against citizens were planned once, they certainly could be planned again.

Operation Northwoods in no way proves that elements within our federal government committed acts of terror against the populace in 2001, but when this is factored in with things that were going on around that time, you should start to wonder. In fact, two months prior to the attacks, President George W. Bush was already working out plans to eradicate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and declare war on the Taliban, if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden; and he was preparing to declare a worldwide war against terrorism on September 9, 2001. Lucky for the president, he did not have to look like a pre-emptive invader, because he got his wish of an attack against Americans and justification for war just days later.

It was reported in 2004 that the real-world invasion of Afghanistan was directly modeled after the pre-9-11 plans, and President Bush’s prepared threat against the Taliban ended up coming into fruition when the effective Afghan government refused to obey his demands to hand over Osama bin Laden. However, the organization did unsuccessfully offer to have the terrorist “mastermind” tried in an Islamic court in Afghanistan, if the United States could provide evidence of his involvement. After about one week of bombing, the Bush administration rejected the Taliban’s second deal of handing Osama bin Laden over to a neutral country (not subject to influence of the United States) in exchange for proof that the former American ally was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Playing from a position of strength (this is not hard when you have superior weaponry pointed at a weaker foe), President Bush’s response was, “There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty.” Well, if you know that he is guilty, Mr. President, what is the harm in providing evidence? Could it be that there is none? I mean, bin Laden did deny responsibility up until a potentially fabricated video recording seemed to show him flip-flop on the issue (some suggest that the videos showing bin Laden were not actually him and that the government released fake footage).

So basically, if Bush had not been so arrogant, a twenty-year war in Afghanistan and subsequent wars throughout the Middle East, as well as the spying on American citizens, could have been avoided. If the administration’s true intentions were to have bin Laden tried and convicted, why would it not attempt to negotiate a peace agreement with the clearly reasonable Taliban? Instead, we are left with the conclusion that the war had always been intended to happen, and Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were going to have their war, one way or the other. It is too much of a coincidence that the justification for the war fell on the White House’s lap just days and weeks after the plans were concocted.

It is certainly a bit suspicious how the heavily-funded intelligence apparatus of the United States government somehow allowed nineteen radical Muslims (who did not shy away from strip clubs, pornography, or a Western way of life) to evade the most powerful defense system in the world and murder almost 3,000 Americans. The official story was that there were gaps in the intelligence systems, but if that were the case, what were Americans even paying for in the first place? Why would taxpayers want to fund something that sucks up so much money but is so incompetent?

This argument also does not hold water when you consider that the CIA was tracking two of the hijackers that were known to be al-Qaeda operatives (they came to the United States in 2000 without issue), and the agency intentionally withheld that information from the FBI (and actually blocked the transferring of it). These hijackers were traced back to senior members of the government of Saudi Arabia (and to its embassy in the United States), and Saudi Arabia has been accused of being a huge contributor to al-Qaeda itself. State Department officials and the CIA also pressured Saudi Arabia to issue passports to dubious individuals potentially linked to terrorism, which cleared the way for the hijackers to be able to gain entry to the United States (yes, the CIA allowed the hijackers to come to the United States). At least President Barack Obama’s decision to keep Saudi Arabia’s role in 9-11 shielded was thwarted, and the voices of the victims’ families were able to successfully get Congress to override the veto, thus opening the door to lawsuits against the kingdom.

The Israeli government and its Mossad (intelligence agency) have also been accused of being additional funders of the 9-11 attacks, and although it may be hard to swallow, the endless wars in the Middle East benefit Israel greatly. Having the American military reducing the Knesset’s enemies and paving the way for Israel’s dominance in the region are invaluable services.

In addition, the Saudi-funded PTech, which provided software to the FBI, DoD, House of Representatives, Secret Service, Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), had known links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The FBI was notified of the terror connections, but it did nothing to seriously investigate the situation. Therefore, the company potentially had unobstructed access to top-level systems and could manipulate and threaten aspects of our national security (like maybe gain access to weaknesses that could then be exploited?). So, was it that 9-11 was an intelligence failure, or were the terrorists permitted to attack the United States and essentially given the blessing to do so?

Interestingly, whistleblower Indira Singh, who testified against PTech, showed a then-active relationship between the CIA and other elements of the American government, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Saudi government, and radical Muslim terrorists; and this company was used to covertly funnel money between all of them. This means that the CIA was potentially funding Muslim terrorists, including the hijackers on 9-11 (this may prove that the United States never actually stopped funding Osama bin Laden). Were some of the unaccounted $2.3 trillion that Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld had declared missing on September 10, 2001 part of a black ops budget to fund the 9-11 hijackers (and then conveniently, the Pentagon was hit, and there was no longer any proof of what it was used for)? Could this explain why the agency wanted to keep its knowledge secret and not have its plans hindered by inquiring members of the government? Was the CIA one of the main culprits behind 9-11, and did it use radical Muslims as tools for an agenda?

If this seems farfetched, do not forget that former head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed, ordered Omar Sheikh to wire the lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta, $100,000. Ahmed was reported to have visited the United States right before the hijacking, and he met with George Tenet (head of the CIA), as well as officials in the White House and Pentagon. Additionally, the CIA and FBI had ignored reports of al-Qaeda agents being sent into the United States by the direction of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (a Pakistani and the alleged architect of the 9-11 attacks), and they both tried to cover this up and put gag orders on those attempting to testify. If the CIA was secretly funding the ISI, which was a supporter of al-Qaeda, it is no wonder that it has kept its involvement under wraps.

In the months leading to 9-11 and up until the actual day, exercises, such as the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s (NORAD) Vigilant Guardian and Fertile Rice, were being practiced, which simulated the hijacking of commercial aircraft and flying them into buildings. So, of course, when President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed that there was no way that the federal government could have envisioned this type of scenario, it was as ridiculous as Governor Andrew Cuomo suggesting that they could not have known how unprepared they were to fight a coronavirus pandemic, right after New York was a participant in the Crimson Contagion drill. The exercises conducted by the DoD, NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had striking similarities to what happened in real life, so could the hijackers, who were handed access to information and computer systems of several agencies (remember PTech?), including of the military and FAA, have picked that day, by the suggestion of the CIA, because they knew that the exercises would confuse the military and the whole defense structure? It was reported that the military struggled to make sense of the events, due to the exercises being conducted on the same day as the real incident, and even military members in communication with the FAA and NORAD had to ask, “Is this real-world or exercise?”

Were these exercises coincidental, or was the confusion deliberate to allow the hijackers free reign of the skies? Based on what we know from the CIA’s involvement, it would seem that the simplest explanation would be that there was manipulation that paved the way for the attacks, because otherwise, you are forced to explain away every coincidence for an event that benefited government officials and members of the intelligence community (who gained control of the population without regard for the Constitution) and defense corporations (which made large profits off of the subsequent wars). If this was just a chain of hundreds of coincidences, why were there none that were positive or that hindered the actions of the hijackers? Is that not statistically impossible (if the events were accidents, the hijackers would have coincidentally ran into some kind of issue in their plan, right?)?

Was 9-11 a perfect storm, with terrorists being so crafty that they could exploit every possible intelligence and defense vulnerability known to the government, or was there something more sinister going on? According to Indira Singh, fed-up FBI and CIA agents claim that the elite are making the Third Reich look like a “tea party,” but let us continue to live our lives as if nothing is happening. As the Biden administration turns the War on Terror inward, subjecting citizens to the same tools that we were conditioned to accept against radical Muslims, and labels those who question and challenge the narrative as domestic terrorists, we must ask ourselves: how much more government power and abuse can we take? When will we terminate their plans and take back control over our own lives? If ever you wondered how Adolph Hitler was able to pull off a totalitarian regime, which utilized democratic institutions, and commit genocide, creating false-flag operations that can then rally the populace under collectivism and patriotism is how it was done. Our government is now painting truth seeking and critical thinking as conspiracy theories. The out-of-control elements within our own government have been successful, and there is no indication that the plans of the elites are going to halt or fail, so it is up to us to choose our destiny from here.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

An Analysis of President Biden’s “Soul of the Nation” Speech

It was the night of September 1st, 2022 when the Great Unifier filled the Philadelphia air with awe and wonder, as the “Soul of the Nation” speech was spewed in front of a dark and creepy black and red background, with Marines proudly standing behind him to emphasize the militarism and power of the American Empire. Do not dare to challenge the imperial presidency, or you may be labelled as a domestic terrorist. President Joe Biden’s eerie message of strength was as eloquent as something spoken by Coriolanus Snow, Adam Sutler, or Sheev Palpatine (it would be too extremist to mention nonfictional characters such as Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin among the list, of course).

A message of unity and collectivism is tempting and difficult to oppose on the surface, but we must remember (the 5th of November) that all totalitarian regimes throughout history were able to force the compliance of the masses and convince them, through propaganda, to turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the state. Although we have not reached a point where political dissidents in the United States are arrested for their political beliefs, people are being ridiculed and targeted as potential terrorists for utilizing symbols of the American Revolution or opposing pandemic measures, and if we are not careful and allow the government to consolidate its power and create nationalistic narratives, a more radical approach may eventually be taken.

With that being said, it was clear from Biden’s speech, in conjunction with actions taken by the FBI, DHS, Post Office, and other agencies, that a war is being waged against certain segments of the population; and from where I am sitting, it appears that this was a declaration of war against the American people. We have now reached a sort of War on Terror II, with Donald Trump as the new Osama bin Laden and MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans as al-Qaeda. The War on Terror I brought us the ever-expanding surveillance state, torture (or “enhanced interrogation”), drone strikes that killed thousands of civilians, and years of wars in the Middle East, all in the name of “saving democracy.” Do you think that Biden’s new war against domestic terrorism will be a neutral adherence to the law and will not expand governmental powers further? How can we be assured that it will not target people based solely on their political views?

Of course, those who are apathetic towards politics or toe the line of the narrative will be fine, but it should be those who critically think and criticize the government in power who we must strive to protect, regardless of whether we agree with their conclusions. You never know when the power can be turned against you when you are no longer in control. Those who see Trump as Satan’s assistant and want nothing more than to see the former president barred from running for political office will cheer on any attempt to incriminate him and his supporters for all of the problems that face the country, but for those with a mind capable of seeing past the partisan divide and their Trump Derangement Syndrome, it should be clear that so-called “ultra-MAGA Republicans” have become public enemy number one and will be treated as such in society. Internment camps, unwarranted searches, unjust arrests, and torture will not deter those bent on destroying the MAGA movement; and just like the people of Nazi Germany accepted Jewish genocide or World War II-era Americans agreed to Japanese internment, it will not take much to get brainwashed individuals to turn on their fellow citizens for political gain.

If you cannot conceive any of the things that I suggest here, I urge you to ignore your political bias for a second and explore the possibility that everything you ever believed in politics could be wrong. What if in a hundred years from now, the history books paint this speech as the beginning of the end of civil liberties as we know it? What if the United States government, in its current phase, goes down as one of the most brutal regimes in human history? Are you willing to accept that you were on the wrong side of history just because you thought that it was right at the time? I am willing to admit that history could label me as a villain and terrorist if the United States government is successful at quelling opposition movements, but are you willing to keep an open mind?

Below is my analysis of the speech:

--“My fellow Americans, please, if you have a seat, take it. I speak to you tonight from sacred ground in America: Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.”--

Right off the bat, he is assuming that there is a sort of religious aspect to his political agenda. Using the word “sacred” implies that you are either for his religion or against it, which is not how you unite the populace. It is also a reference to the January 6th event, being that the idea was that the MAGA protesters desecrated the cathedral of democracy. Therefore, the initial take is that the speech is less rational and more about condemning the heretics.

--“This is where America made its Declaration of Independence to the world more than two centuries ago with an idea, unique among nations, that in America, we’re all created equal.

This is where the United States Constitution was written and debated.

This is where we set in motion the most extraordinary experiment of self-government the world has ever known with three simple words: “We, the People.” “We, the People.”--

The implication here appears to be that the United States government adheres to the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, but in reality, our politicians only care about staying in power and pushing their agendas. It does not actually matter if the concept of separation of powers, for example, is upheld, as we saw during the pandemic that governors and the president were willing to legislate through edicts. The Declaration of Independence was a document of secession and for arguing in favor of altering or abolishing the current form of government when it takes away our liberties, but yet, the Biden administration seems to be suggesting the opposite. We are to blindly follow our leaders and obey the narrative and never entertain the idea that the MAGA crowd might have legitimate grievances.

You are either with Biden and mainstream politicians, or you are a MAGA terrorist. This sounds eerily similar to President George W. Bush’s statements about terrorists that followed the events on September 11th, 2001. If half of the country wants to peacefully separate from the federal government and gain the self-government that Biden seems to suggest is lawful, what do you think the results would be? Would conservatives and libertarians be free to form their own government without the military being deployed?

--“These two documents and the ideas they embody — equality and democracy — are the rock upon which this nation is built. They are how we became the greatest nation on Earth. They are why, for more than two centuries, America has been a beacon to the world.

But as I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.”--

To the contrary, this nation was built on the idea that everyone is equal under the law and has the opportunity to pursue happiness (or property) without the interference of the government. This does not mean that everyone will have equal outcomes. Using the government to redistribute wealth and resources to make everyone the same is not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind.

This nation was not founded as a direct democracy, as our founders were quite aware that the majority-rules concept could be just as tyrannical as any form of autocracy (or monarchy or oligarchy). Since our rights do not come from government, they cannot be taken away by fifty-one percent of the populace, and to suggest otherwise can bring you down a dark path (just ask Jewish prisoners during the Holocaust or Japanese Americans during World War II). So, Biden is rewriting history to benefit his political persuasions.

--“So tonight, I have come this place where it all began to speak as plainly as I can to the nation about the threats we face, about the power we have in our own hands to meet these threats, and about the incredible future that lies in front of us if only we choose it.”--

He quickly goes into the idea that the United States is under threat and that direct action must be taken, and this infers a division of society into good guys and bad guys. After all, who would not want to stop those baddies? He is setting this up to mean that his political enemies need to be stopped at all costs, and you must rally around the flag to support the war that is soon to be waged.

--“We must never forget: We, the people, are the true heirs of the American experiment that began more than two centuries ago.

We, the people, have burning inside each of us the flame of liberty that was lit here at Independence Hall — a flame that lit our way through abolition, the Civil War, Suffrage, the Great Depression, world wars, Civil Rights.

That sacred flame still burns now in our time as we build an America that is more prosperous, free, and just.”--

It is ironic that he refers to “we the people,” but yet, he has been part of the American aristocracy his entire life. He represents the very status quo that has been subjugating the American people to expanding government for years, and he has the audacity to suggest that he is on the side of liberty. America has had incredible achievements, but advocating for policies that strip Americans of their rights and livelihoods is really the antithesis of the concept for which he speaks.

--“That is the work of my presidency, a mission I believe in with my whole soul.

But first, we must be honest with each other and with ourselves.

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”--

After he set up the idea that there is a threat to this country and that it comes from certain people, he then goes on and names that threat. These people have to labelled as “extremists” because it builds a sense of nationalism around a common enemy. President Bush (number two) used similar tactics. Who did not want to go destroy the radical Muslims and unite around patriotism after 9-11? We had to stop those terrorists no matter what, and in the process, our government committed massive amounts of atrocities, both domestically and abroad. Someday, after the war against MAGA Republicans concludes, we will look back in disgust at all of the things that we did under the guise of preserving democracy and destroying the Trump followers.

--“Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.”--

After making a radical statement that scapegoated a certain segment of the population and considered them a threat to the nation, he attempted to soften the blow by suggesting that he only wants MAGA Republicans eliminated. This is a good political move because it makes his message of targeting his political rivals seem less radical. This type of statement helps draw in moderates and independents who may have been turned off by his other statements, and this can be played off as a message of unity.

--“But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”--

This statement allows Biden to seem like the knight in shining armor that will save moderate Republicans from their own party. Not all Muslims are bad, and some are friendly partners with the West. It is just the ones who oppose the imperialism of the United States government that need to be terminated. We will liberate the moderate Muslims from the evil of religious fundamentalists. The Trump cult and the religious zealots are holding the Republican party hostage, and once we defeat this great evil, you will be free to once again play by the rules that we set before you.

--“These are hard things.

But I’m an American President — not the President of red America or blue America, but of all America.

And I believe it is my duty — my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful.”--

Maybe he really believes that he is a uniter of red and blue America, but his speech is so divisive and partisan that it is difficult to take this statement seriously. All authoritarian leaders attempt to claim that they are fighting for the best interests of all people and the nation as a whole, so we have to look at the actions of his administration and not solely base our conclusions on his language.

--“And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.”--

It is ironic that Biden claims that MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution when he sits there and issues executive orders, such as those requiring large companies to get their employees vaccinated or those allowing him to wave his magic wand and eliminate portions of student debt. None of these were done through Congress, and again, Democrats spent the last two years forcing people and businesses to stay home or shut down, wear masks, and get vaccinated, or face the consequences. Where in the Constitution does it allow for authoritarian rule by the executive branch?

Biden’s party (and to be fair, Republicans as well) has restricted gun rights, prevented people from assembling in businesses and churches, spied on citizens and collected their data without warrants, invaded people’s homes looking for drugs, and engaged in warfare overseas without a declaration of war; and yet, Biden has the nerve to go in front of the American people and say that his government respects the Constitution.

How exactly do MAGA Republicans not respect the Constitution? I would prefer a full analysis of this, but I will probably never see it because it is just rhetoric. Yes, you cannot change the results of an election, intimidate the vice president or state officials to decide the election, or use fake electors; but these are just conspiracy theories pieced together to create a narrative that Trump attempted to overthrow the government. A handful of unarmed trespassers on the Capitol grounds does not have the ability to overthrow the most powerful government in history, period. It is a fantasy to believe that January 6th or any of the events surrounding it was a serious coup attempt.

And as far as the will of the people is concerned, again, the majority does not have the right to take away the rights of the minority, so the will of the people does not need to be recognized if our rights are under threat. We are allowed to exercise them, regardless of what the party in power says.

--“They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.”--

Restricting people from giving water to voters waiting in line (this is not necessarily a good thing, but you can survive without water for a couple hours) or requiring identification to vote are not methods of voter suppression, and why do we have to show ID’s or licenses to be able to do anything in “progressive” America, but with voting it is a different story? Holding polling places accountable or not allowing for mail-in ballots unless requested is not Jim Crow II, as some would suggest. However, the FBI pressuring social media companies to hide the Hunter Biden laptop story was interference in our free elections.

Is there gerrymandering that takes place by Republicans? Yes, but let us also remember that a court in New York recently threw out Democrats’ congressional map for the exact same thing. Plus, Democrats in New York stripped third parties of their ability to be placed on the ballot, so who is really limiting free elections?

--“MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.”--

Here, Biden is implying that the MAGA numbers are growing and that they are mobilizing to challenge the government. Under these circumstances, it would then be justifiable to use intelligence gathering and military force to stop this threat. Again, this is a rally-around-the-flag type of message.

The only choice that Biden really cares about is the ability to slaughter babies in the womb. Let us be honest about this, as abortion is what he means when he says that MAGA Republicans are attempting to take away choice. He did not care about choice when he wanted to coerce people into taking a needle. Bodily autonomy took a backseat to nationalism and an agenda (forced public health choices). And, of course, the choice of what kind of firearm someone can own is not something he would defend, as he has made it clear that he is coming for semi-automatic weapons.

The right to privacy argument is interesting, being that he commands an intelligence and law enforcement army of FBI, NSA, CIA, ATF, IRS, and DIA agents that are ready to quickly violate your privacy, among other rights; so again, the only privacy that Biden cares about is when a person and their doctor have privacy to murder the unborn.

No serious Republican wants to strip away the right to marry someone of a different race or the same gender, and this is just fearmongering rhetoric to get people to go out and vote for Democrats.

--“They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.”--

What political violence is the president referring to? Does he not remember an entire summer of political violence committed by Black Lives Matter (BLM), where businesses were burned down, rioters attacked police, and protesters captured entire city blocks? These were classified as “mostly peaceful” protests because only a small percentage of protesters committed acts of violence, but how many Trump supporters actually stormed the Capitol? There seems to be a huge double standard here, and suggesting that all MAGA people are violent just allows for more scapegoating, which is bigoted and dangerous.

--“They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.”--

First of all, video footage exists showing that Capitol police allowed the rioters to enter the building, and as someone who has served in military law enforcement, I can tell you that they would not do this without receiving orders. There was some violence that took place that day (although the people who were declared dead died later of heart failure, strokes, and a drug overdose, the narrative is still that that day was deadly because of the protesters), but if Biden took the time out to listen to what MAGA Republicans say, he would conclude that most of them condemned the violence. There are not too many Americans who actually consider the trespassers patriots, but what conservatives fear is a crackdown on certain political beliefs, which appears to be justified.

--“And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people.”--

What evidence does the president have that MAGA Republicans are preparing to steal the upcoming elections? It is just as likely that Democrats, who may suffer large defeats in the midterms, might want to cheat. Having questions about the 2020 election and thinking that it was full of fraud and not legitimate do not constitute trying to overthrow the will of the people.

Biden is making up conspiracy theories that the next elections will be stolen, and even if one were to concede that some in the MAGA movement were attempting to forcibly change the results of the election, it does not mean that it will definitely happen in 2022 or 2024. Do you not declare that we have to wait for definitive evidence before making baseless claims? Why are conspiracy theories on the left side acceptable, but those on the right side are not?

--“That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a “clear and present danger” to our democracy.”--

This is just more rhetoric to prove to Americans that the MAGA threat is real and that they should rally around the nationalistic narrative, and bringing in past or present figures, who are respected by many, is a tactic often used in speeches and literature.

--“But while the threat to American democracy is real, I want to say as clearly as we can: We are not powerless in the face of these threats. We are not bystanders in this ongoing attack on democracy.

There are far more Americans — far more Americans from every — from every background and belief who reject the extreme MAGA ideology than those that accept it. (Applause.)

And, folks, it is within our power, it’s in our hands — yours and mine — to stop the assault on American democracy.

I believe America is at an inflection point — one of those moments that determine the shape of everything that’s to come after.”--

By suggesting that America is not powerless to stop the threat that he had spent much energy on describing for us, he is getting Americans’ approval to use tactics to stop it. The DHS has issued some bulletins showing that people opposing pandemic restrictions or denying the election results are potential terrorists, and then it was revealed that those utilizing symbols of the Americans Revolution (like the Gadsden flag, Betsy Ross flag, or Second Amendment symbols) could also be a threat to the nation. The Post Office has even been spying on the political Right, so the message in this speech is far from empty rhetoric.

So, now you have to walk on eggshells and be afraid that you could become a target of an investigation because you might want to spread the message of “Don’t Tread on Me.” This causes a chilling effect, which violates the First Amendment.

In addition, the White House and FBI influenced social media and pressured them to align their posts with the pandemic narrative, and the Wuhan lab leak theory, for example, was intentionally suppressed until it was shown to be plausible. The government was censoring information and violating the First Amendment, and yet, MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution? What is to say that this censorship, surveillance, and political targeting will not expand at the expense of all free Americans?

The real inflection point in America is whether we comply with tyrannical government and continue to be brainwashed by the propaganda.

--“And now America must choose: to move forward or to move backwards? To build the future or obsess about the past? To be a nation of hope and unity and optimism, or a nation of fear, division, and of darkness?

MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.”--

The president is giving us two choices: follow the narrative and be happy or be one of those bad people over there in the corner. Besides the fact that the Left obsesses about the past when it comes to January 6th but forgets about it in other areas, Biden wants us to embrace truth over lies, but how many lies has the government told us (“pandemic of the unvaccinated” and “Russia is going to use chemical weapons in Ukraine,” come to mind)? How many times has it manipulated the narrative and caused fearmongering propaganda to dominate the political culture?

MAGA Republicans are angry for good reason. The Democrats keep targeting Trump (with two impeachments, a phony Russian-collusion investigation, a witch hunt January 6th probe, and an FBI raid at his Florida residence to finally put him behind bars and prevent his re-ascension to politics) and calling his supporters insurrectionists and terrorists. I am angry on their behalf.

--“But together — together, we can choose a different path. We can choose a better path. Forward, to the future. A future of possibility. A future to build and dream and hope.

And we’re on that path, moving ahead.

I know this nation. I know you, the American people. I know your courage. I know your hearts. And I know our history.

This is a nation that honors our Constitution. We do not reject it. (Applause.)

This is a nation that believes in the rule of law. We do not repudiate it. (Applause.)

This is a nation that respects free and fair elections. We honor the will of the people. We do not deny it (Applause.)”--

This is just a repeat of what he said before about not respecting the Constitution and free elections, and this works to cement the idea in people’s heads about how dangerous MAGA Republicans really are and how you are a good person if you fight the heretics. This is a good propaganda tool.

--“And this is a nation that rejects violence as a political tool. We do not encourage violence.”--

Again, Democrats embraced political violence during the BLM riots, but it is only when it is the other party that does it when it becomes a problem.

And, have we forgotten about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fallujah, drone strikes against Yemen and Somalia, sanctions against Iran and Russia, an invasion against Iraq and Libya, etc.? Are those not acts of violence that were utilized as political tools?

--“We are still an America that believes in honesty and decency and respect for others, patriotism, liberty, justice for all, hope, possibilities.

We are still, at our core, a democracy. (Applause.)”--

Biden is attempting to tie patriotism and liberty to those who fight MAGA ideas, and the war against these infidels will be with the backing of armed agents of the state, of course.

--“And yet history tells us that blind loyalty to a single leader and a willingness to engage in political violence is fatal to democracy.”--

Blind obedience to Trump is bad, but blind obedience to Biden or Fauci is perfectly acceptable. Were not the latter two individuals issuing orders and guidance that we were expected to follow without question?

--“For a long time, we’ve told ourselves that American democracy is guaranteed, but it’s not.

We have to defend it, protect it, stand up for it — each and every one of us.

That’s why tonight I’m asking our nation to come together, unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy regardless of your ideology. (Applause.)

We’re all called, by duty and conscience, to confront extremists who will put their own pursuit of power above all else.

Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.”--

Here we go again with the rally cry to fight extremists. This sounds like something out of Bush’s playbook, when he waged war against radical Islamists throughout the Middle East. We are now engaged in a great crusade to rid the world of the filth that is Trump and his followers. We must battle against extremists to save democracy, and you are either with Biden, or you are with the MAGA terrorists. Everyone must partake in the patriotism that having a common enemy brings, and extreme nationalism will help save us. This is a full declaration of war against MAGA Republicans, and ultimately, it is a war against the people.

--“We, the people, will not let anyone or anything tear us apart. Today, there are dangers around us we cannot allow to prevail. We hear — you’ve heard it — more and more talk about violence as an acceptable political tool in this country. It’s not. It can never be an acceptable tool.

So I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever. (Applause.)

We saw law enforcement brutally attacked on January the 6th. We’ve seen election officials, poll workers — many of them volunteers of both parties — subjected to intimidation and death threats. And — can you believe it? — FBI agents just doing their job as directed, facing threats to their own lives from their own fellow citizens.”--

Serious MAGA Republicans are not suggesting that violence should be used against election officials, FBI agents, etc. There are some people who may want to use violence or threaten it, but the majority of the MAGA crowd does not. If the president keeps lumping all people who support Trump together, he may entice people, who would not otherwise be violent, to take a different approach. He may actually be creating radicals by calling for the division of society by political affiliation.

As far as the FBI is concerned, the agency has committed crimes against the American people, so let us not pretend like it is some kind of trusted and benevolent institution. This does not justify violence, as most agents are just following orders, but perhaps the president could scale back its operations.

--“On top of that, there are public figures — today, yesterday, and the day before — predicting and all but calling for mass violence and rioting in the streets.

This is inflammatory. It’s dangerous. It’s against the rule of law. And we, the people, must say: This is not who we are. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, we can’t be pro-ex- — pro-ex- — pro-insurrectionist and pro-American. They’re incompatible. (Applause.)”--

Well, actually the United States began as an insurrection against the British government, so the idea that it is un-American to rebel is simply false. I seem to recall that public figures on the Left were calling for mass violence in the streets when it came to BLM, so this is just the president being a hypocrite.

--“We can’t allow violence to be normalized in this country. It’s wrong. We each have to reject political violence with — with all the moral clarity and conviction this nation can muster. Now.

We can’t let the integrity of our elections be undermined, for that is a path to chaos.”--

He did not spend this much time condemning the violence of BLM, so why is it different with MAGA folks? Oh, it is because they are his political enemies?

--“Look, I know poli- — politics can be fierce and mean and nasty in America. I get it. I believe in the give-and-take of politics, in disagreement and debate and dissent.

We’re a big, complicated country. But democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the republic. Only if we, the people, accept the results of free and fair elections. (Applause.) Only if we, the people, see politics not as total war but mediation of our differences.”--

At least the president acknowledges that there are many people with different views and that politics can be dirty, as it has been throughout history.

--“Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: either they win or they were cheated. And that’s where MAGA Republicans are today. (Applause.)

They don’t understand what every patriotic American knows: You can’t love your country only when you win. (Applause.) It’s fundamental.”--

I seem to recall that Democrats spent years undermining Trump’s legitimacy and charging him with collusion with a foreign power, and even saying “not my president.” Why is it okay for Democrats to believe that they were cheated, but when Republicans do that, it is the end of the world?

--“American democracy only works only if we choose to respect the rule of law and the institutions that were set up in this chamber behind me, only if we respect our legitimate political differences.”--

People on both the Right and the Left do not respect some of our institutions, so that statement seems irrelevant. We just spent two years under the rule of the CDC and FDA, which became politicized, and now we are finding out that the FBI is being used for political purposes.

--“I will not stand by and watch — I will not — the will of the American people be overturned by wild conspiracy theories and baseless, evidence-free claims of fraud.”--

Are you not making baseless claims that Republicans will try to cheat in upcoming elections and that MAGA terrorists will inevitably commit acts of violence? Where is your evidence of that?

--“I will not stand by and watch elections in this country stolen by people who simply refuse to accept that they lost. (Applause.)”--

What elections were stolen by the crew that you claim will steal elections in the future?

--“I will not stand by and watch the most fundamental freedom in this country — the freedom to vote and have your vote counted — and — be taken from you and the American people. (Applause.)”--

How is the right to vote being taken? Please enlighten us.

--“Look, as your President, I will defend our democracy with every fiber of my being, and I’m asking every American to join me. (Applause.)

(A protestor disruption can be heard.)

Throughout our history, America has often made the greatest progress coming out of some of our darkest moments, like you’re hearing in that bullhorn.

I believe we can and we must do that again, and we are.”--

America has made progress, and we can accomplish great successes, but we will not do that with a president causing division and hunting for terrorists among our citizens.

--“MAGA Republicans look at America and see carnage and darkness and despair. They spread fear and lies –- lies told for profit and power.”--

Of course, scapegoating segments of the population and suggesting that they are terrorists is not viewing the world as dark and in despair.

--“But I see a very different America — an America with an unlimited future, an America that is about to take off. I hope you see it as well. Just look around.

I believed we could lift America from the depths of COVID, so we passed the largest economic recovery package since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And today, America’s economy is faster, stronger than any other advanced nation in the world. (Applause.) We have more to go.

I believed we could build a better America, so we passed the biggest infrastructure investment since President Dwight D. Eisenhower. And we’ve now embarked on a decade of rebuilding
the nation’s roads, bridges, highways, ports, water systems, high-speed Internet, railroads. (Applause.)”--

The problem with him naming the spending bills that he passed is that excessive spending leads to inflation, and stimulus packages passed during the pandemic contributed directly to the high costs that average Americans are now facing. It is great to brag about your accomplishments, I suppose, but maybe you should wait to see what happens with the economy in the next few months before getting too carried away.

--“I believed we could make America safer, so we passed the most significant gun safety law since President Clinton. (Applause.)”--

Ah yes, taking away gun choice from Americans is a common tactic of Democrats. Were you not just talking about how MAGA Republicans were anti-choice?

--“I believed we could go from being the highest cost of prescriptions in the world to making prescription drugs and healthcare more affordable, so we passed the most significant healthcare reforms since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. (Applause.)

And I believed we could create — we could create a clean energy future and save the planet, so we passed the most important climate initiative ever, ever, ever. (Applause.)

The cynics and the critics tell us nothing can get done, but they are wrong. There is not a single thing America cannot do — not a single thing beyond our capacity if we do it together.

It’s never easy. But we’re proving that in America, no matter how long the road, progress does come. (Applause.)”--

Passing climate regulations that force Americans to adhere to new and more expensive standards is considered a great accomplishment to some, but what if the people do not want these “green” regulations? What if they do not want to be forced to buy health insurance? Just shut up and obey, huh? That seems a bit like what you claim MAGA Republicans do with choice.

--“Look, I know the last year — few years have been tough. But today, COVID no longer controls our lives. More Americans are working than ever. Businesses are growing. Our schools are open. Millions of Americans have been lifted out of poverty. Millions of veterans once exposed to toxic burn pits will now get what they deserve for their families and the compa- — compensation. (Applause.)

American manufacturing has come alive across the Heartland, and the future will be made in America — (applause) — no matter what the white supremacists and the extremists say.”--

COVID-19 did not control our lives. You and your Democratic governors did this with restrictions. You did not allow us to live our lives, keep our businesses open, go to work without a vaccine, or shop without a mask. That was not the virus’ doing. That was your forced compliance.

More Americans are working because your colleagues forced people to stay home and lose their jobs, and then when you lifted the restrictions, of course people would start working again. That does not mean that you created new jobs. You just permitted people to go back to work. There is a huge difference there, and you are just spitting out rhetoric.

--“I made a bet on you, the American people, and that bet is paying off. Proving that from darkness — the darkness of Charlottesville, of COVID, of gun violence, of insurrection — we can see the light. Light is now visible. (Applause.)

Light that will guide us forward not only in words, but in actions — actions for you, for your children, for your grandchildren, for America.

Even in this moment, with all the challenges we face, I give you my word as a Biden: I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future. Not because of me, but because of who you are.

We’re going to end cancer as we know it. Mark my words. (Applause.)

We are going to create millions of new jobs in a clean energy economy.

We’re going to think big. We’re going to make the 21st century another American century because the world needs us to. (Applause.)

That’s where we need to focus our energy — not in the past, not on divisive culture wars, not on the politics of grievance, but on a future we can build together.”--

You know what, I hope you do end cancer and bring about a better tomorrow for everyone, but I do question the tactics you might try to use. Like, will you partner with pharmaceutical companies to ensure profits for them at taxpayer expense? It would be great to build a future of progress together, but causing division and scapegoating people based on political beliefs will not achieve that.

--“The MAGA Republicans believe that for them to succeed, everyone else has to fail. They believe America — not like I believe about America.

I believe America is big enough for all of us to succeed, and that is the nation we’re building: a nation where no one is left behind.”--

Who do MAGA Republicans wish to fail? Who do they want to leave behind? It appears that most Trump supporters just want to be left alone, and they do not need people to fail in order to live their lives in peace. It is when government gets involved in people’s lives that the resistance begins. Building a nation where nobody gets left behind sounds great, in theory, but how will you accomplish the task? Will you use the power of big government to force people to make decisions against their will so that others can have what they have?

--“I ran for President because I believed we were in a battle for the soul of this nation. I still believe that to be true. I believe the soul is the breath, the life, and the essence of who we are. The soul is what makes us “us.”

The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy — democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible. (Applause.) Folks, and it’s up to us.

Democracy begins and will be preserved in we, the people’s, habits of heart, in our character: optimism that is tested
yet endures, courage that digs deep when we need it, empathy that fuels democracy, the willingness to see each other not as enemies but as fellow Americans.

Look, our democracy is imperfect. It always has been.”

Does anyone disagree with what you are saying here, as you present it? It is, of course, a matter of how you want to achieve those things that causes conflict and debate. It also depends on your definition of democracy, as a majority-rules policy does not always provide the best results or preserve our rights in the correct manner.

“Notwithstanding those folks you hear on the other side there. They’re entitled to be outrageous. This is a democracy. But history and common sense — (applause) — good manners is nothing they’ve ever suffered from.”--

If people on the “other side” are permitted to be angry, why did you suggest that embracing anger is bad just a few moments earlier, and why did you spend an entire speech railing against MAGA Republicans? It seems like you are not serious and that you are just attempting to humanize your enemies in order to get people to rally behind your cause.

--“But history and common sense tell us that opportunity, liberty, and justice for all are most likely to come to pass in a democracy.”--

There was no liberty and justice for Japanese Americans who were interned via the executive order of your democratic hero, Franklin Roosevelt, as the majority of Americans accepted that this group of people should be forced from their homes (the will of the people does not trump our rights).

--“We have never fully realized the aspirations of our founding, but every generation has opened those doors a little wider to include more people who have been excluded before.

My fellow Americans, America is an idea — the most powerful idea in the history of the world. And it beats in the hearts of the people of this country. It beats in all of our hearts. It unites America. It is the American creed.

The idea that America guarantees that everyone be treated with dignity. It gives hate no safe harbor. It installs in everyone the belief that no matter where you start in life, there’s nothing you can’t achieve.

That’s who we are. That’s what we stand for. That’s what we believe. And that is precisely what we are doing: opening doors, creating new possibilities, focusing on the future. And we’re only just beginning. (Applause.)

Our task is to make our nation free and fair, just and strong, noble and whole.

And this work is the work of democracy — the work of this generation. It is the work of our time, for all time.

We can’t afford to have — leave anyone on the sidelines. We need everyone to do their part. So speak up. Speak out. Get engaged. Vote, vote, vote. (Applause.)

And if we all do our duty — if we do our duty in 2022 and beyond, then ages still to come will say we — all of us here — we kept the faith. We preserved democracy. (Applause.) We heeded our wor- — we — we heeded not our worst instincts but our better angels. And we proved that, for all its imperfections, America is still the beacon to the world, an ideal to be realized, a promise to be kept.

There is nothing more important, nothing more sacred, nothing more American. That’s our soul. That’s who we truly are. And that’s who must — we must always be.

And I have no doubt — none –– that this is who we will be and that we’ll come together as a nation. That we’ll secure our democracy. That for the next 200 years, we’ll have what we had the past 200 years: the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

We just need to remember who we are. We are the United States of America. The United States of America. (Applause.)

And may God protect our nation. And may God protect all those who stand watch over our democracy. God bless you all. (Applause.) Democracy. Thank you. (Applause.)”--

This sounds like something out of a high school pep rally, but there is not much to disagree with here. Even MAGA Republicans would get on this train, so if you really believe this, why not try to send an olive branch to your enemies instead of treating them like they are the scum of the earth?

If you were able to read this all the way to the end, I appreciate your time (and please consider checking out my website). As Americans, we really need to resist this fascistic mentality of extreme patriotism being tied to certain narratives and the scapegoating of political enemies. If we do not, we may be doomed to repeat the totalitarian history of the past. Let us hope that this was not a declaration of war against domestic terrorists, but if the events of the last twenty plus years have shown us anything, we may be in for a dark road ahead, despite what President Biden says.

Red Flag Laws and New York’s New Gun Measures Threaten Our Rights

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled that New York State’s laws restricting the right to the concealed carry of firearms was unconstitutional (one had to show a special need to receive a permit and carry a gun in public), unelected Governor Kathy Hochul (like the dictator that she is) quickly defied the Court and issued executive orders, without the legislature, to strengthen gun laws. She then called her puppet legislature (in the undemocratic one-party state dominated by a single liberal city) into session to pass even stricter measures, thus bypassing the spirit of the ruling and ignoring the rights of New Yorkers who live outside of the Big Apple’s metropolitan area (the majority of Upstate New Yorkers lean conservative and do not want laws forced down their throats by city dwellers).

In a free society, we would not even be arguing about this, and the state would not have the right to prevent people from openly carrying a pistol without a permit, but the liberals of New York, do not respect the 2nd Amendment, nor do they care if they violate the federal or state constitutions or follow the will of the people (of Upstate New York). A false sense of security from guns trumps all right to self-defense or other lawful purposes for possessing firearms (I have heard liberal pundits claim that you have a right to “feel safe” from guns). According to them, you do not have a right to own a gun, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states (revisionist history is their way), and rather, it is a privilege, which can be restricted in any manner, granted by the state. Yet, they cry when the state takes away or restricts their precious “right” to directly murder a baby. So, have we gotten to a point where whichever political party is in power gets to participate in retributive theft of rights or values that are held dearly to the other?

Besides preventing the biathlon in Lake Placid and other sports events that require guns in venues that have now become gun-free zones, or banning the carry of weapons throughout parts of the Adirondacks (the largest park in the contiguous United States and a hunting hotspot); the governor’s new executive orders give the State Police authority (through the New York State Intelligence Center) to utilize social media platforms to monitor people for extremism, force counties to look into improving their strategies and policies in regards to domestic terrorism, require the State Police to adhere to red flag laws by issuing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) whenever there is probable cause that someone poses a threat to themselves or others (it is no longer discretionary), and provide the Office of the Attorney General the ability to monitor or study social media for messages posted by conservatives (though it is not explicit, the announcement mentions replacement theory and white supremacy, and not BLM or Antifa, so it is clear that one side is being targeted by the party in power). Of course, former Governor Andrew Cuomo unilaterally declared a gun emergency (after his pandemic emergency that allowed him full dictatorial powers), which now gives his successor the “authority” to legislate from her luxurious mansion, while the people are forced to shut up and obey whatever dictates that she has to bestow upon us mere peasants (how democratic of her and her party).

Targeting people based on their political beliefs is clearly unconstitutional (at the federal and New York State levels), and just like we saw with the FBI monitoring people who use symbols of the American Revolution, this authoritarian state will continue to create a leftist narrative and spy on conservatives and libertarians (and especially Trump supporters and the Proud Boys). Even if the government intimidates people into accepting certain beliefs or causes fear over whether or not they may be targeted because of their affiliations (a chilling effect), it is clearly unconstitutional to do so, as the government is supposed to be neutral in judging speech. And now, if you make what is deemed as a public threat in our hyper-sensitive culture, you can be prosecuted. Great, now we have to walk on eggshells so that we do not accidentally cause people to take our words out of context. Free speech means nothing to New York City liberals.

According to the new laws, in order to carry a concealed weapon, gunowners now have to hand over three years’ worth of social media posts (and four references) to local officials and bureaucrats for examination. If one’s speech is deemed acceptable by state standards, he or she may be granted a permit (how gracious of them). Not only does requiring people to submit their social media typings for review violate the 1st Amendment, but the state does not have the right to violate the Fourth Amendment by searching people’s records without a warrant specifically outlining the target, place, and things that need to be searched or seized. Being subject to a broad search to be able to exercise a right does not qualify as reasonable, and if you believe that this is just, why should you be able to drive a car, eat freely at a restaurant, visit friends or family, play sports, watch television, or surf the internet without first submitting your records to the state for a background check? Why is the right to bear arms so much different in the minds of liberals? Are rights not the ability to pursue something without needing permission? If you must speak within certain parameters and be subject to unwarranted searches in order to retain a right outlined in the Bill of Rights, you do not really have freedom.

For gunowners who hunt or would like to protect themselves while running their businesses, the new state gun laws have made it extremely difficult to know where the state permits concealed carry. Even if you carry your rifle on a hunting trip, you now have to worry that you may accidentally walk through a “sensitive location,” which includes churches, parks, playgrounds, summer camps, casinos, museums, public transit, theaters, bars, public health centers, and sports venues. Would you get arrested if you walked on a sidewalk with a concealed weapon? The laws are too vague to know for sure, but this is a violation of the right to travel while exercising a simultaneous right (the right to “bear” arms does not mean that you can only “keep” it at home, as the 2nd Amendment clearly includes both words). The entire state of New York is now one giant gun-free zone.

Liberals claim that they want to reduce interactions between law enforcement and the public and move away from arresting people for committing victimless crimes, but here we have one example (among many) where liberals violate their own principles and want to turn average law-abiding citizens into criminals for carrying guns in the wrong place. But, what do liberals care about constitutional protections, as long as their evil guns are restricted (unfortunately, those pesky guns just walk right up to unarmed citizens and pull the triggers themselves)?

Perhaps the worst of all of the measures in the new laws is the expansion of the existing red flag laws to include the ability of healthcare practitioners and social workers to file an order with the state to seize people’s guns. So now, you not only have to worry about your doctor or therapist turning you into the state for gun confiscation (I guess you cannot be open and honest with health professionals anymore), but red flag laws are gaining in popularity among politicians (even Republicans). So, if you thought that this will just affect New Yorkers, think again, as these laws also exist in some form in the District of Columbia, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Plus, the federal government has proposed enacting them nationally (even Donald Trump has endorsed them), thus overriding the ability of states to prevent the unconstitutional theft of our rights.

Red flag laws violate four of the Bill of Rights right off the bat, but because politicians and statisticians are able to convince the populace that they make us safer (have we heard this about other laws that violate our rights too?), it is easy to put aside constitutional concerns and migrate towards authoritarian tendencies. But, it is about safety, man. That is why governments exist, right? That is the erroneous argument that we hear from statists.

Just like conservatives dragged liberals down the path towards the surveillance state and lack of privacy, under the guise of security after 9-11, liberals are now doing the same to their rivals with red flag laws. If it can be agreed (and apparently it cannot in our divided society) that rights exist outside of government and cannot be infringed without due process of law, why has it become acceptable to restrict them (President Joe Biden made it clear that the government does not consider certain rights as absolute)?

It should be obvious how red flag laws violate the 2nd Amendment, as it, plain and simple, infringes on someone’s right to own a gun and forces the weapon away from the victim; but why are more people not infuriated over the theft of other rights associated with them? Could the conditioning of people to hate guns be a culprit (society was conditioned to hate Islamic terrorists, drugs, and alcohol, so it accepted harsh measures against those things)?

As was discussed with the new laws enacted in New York, red flag laws restrict free speech rights because officials and law enforcement could use social media or other platforms to base an order for confiscation, and as has been discussed several times over various works, the narrative is hammering down on people who hold conservative views. These people are now considered domestic terrorists and a danger to society. Having to fear an armed agent of the state stealing your firearm because you may have said something stupid, believed something unpopular, or used inappropriate language under duress or when acting under emotions (we are all human and have done this) is unethical and unconstitutional. But, the Left does not care, as taking away guns from people that it perceives as dangerous is more important than following the Bill of Rights.

Violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under red flag laws deal with whether or not someone can be considered a criminal under the suspicion that they may be a threat to themselves or others. In order to be searched, a judge must issue a warrant based on probable cause of a crime having been committed or in the works (not suspicion that a crime may occur). Suggesting that someone may act violently or become a danger to him or herself or others at some point down the road does not constitute probable cause, nor is it reasonable (is this the Minority Report?). As we have seen with FISA courts and measures under the Patriot Act (and other terrorism measures), judges can just rubber stamp warrants (and do, as it is estimated that almost all FISA warrants are granted to federal agents), so a requirement of having to get a warrant for gun confiscation is not a something that should ease anyone’s mind. But, of course, treating people like they are criminals before committing a crime is nothing new to liberals, as we have spent the last two years being forced to comply with masking rules where everyone was automatically considered guilty of having been infected, without due process.

However, there are provisions in place to protect due process, right? Well, according to government sources and the not-so-objective fact checkers, there are. But, how much due process can really be practiced when law enforcement personnel are able to deprive people of their property when they have not actually committed a crime, nor have they had the chance to challenge a temporary order issued before the official hearing? Saying that you could just sue for your gun back is ridiculous, and if a police officer came pounding on a liberal’s door to confiscate their pride flag for hate speech, only to have that person have to sue to get the flag back, there would probably be outrage. Why do we treat guns in a different tier of rights? Having to go through the complex legal system to fight to get back your gun and property rights before you commit a crime is the antithesis of due process (we are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law in this society, at least I thought).

Plus, what if a girlfriend, teacher, cop, or doctor lies, perhaps out of retribution, to take your gun away? Is that fair or an adherence to due process? Oh, that is an easy one: you need to prove “clear and convincing evidence” of “substantial risk” in order to seize someone’s gun. Problem solved, right? Not quite. What is clear and convincing to a judge or an emotionally-charged individual may not be the same as it is for others, and again, property should not be seized unless a crime has actually occurred. Although final ERPO’s in New York require a hearing where the respondent is able to gather evidence and witnesses for his or her case, with the aid of a lawyer possible (a lawyer will not be provided if one cannot be afforded, like is the case in typical criminal cases), the ERPO can last up to one year (with renewals possible), and the respondent still has to sue to get the gun back upon the order’s expiration (and even then, the court can deny the return of one’s weapon).

This process is ripe for governmental abuses (this would be no different from those under the Patriot Act), and if an official or former friend wants your gun removed, it could easily happen (emotional stories can be convincing). Perhaps in the future, red flag laws will be a workaround to ban guns completely in this country, as politicians and officials might attempt to target people with certain political beliefs (as we are seeing happen already) and serve them with ERPO’s. The days of owning guns could be numbered for the dangerous right-wing conspiracy theorists, since the confiscations could be based solely off of what those people say and take place before a crime is committed.

As the government constricts on our rights day by day, we should be reminded that our rights will gradually erode until we wake up and realize that freedom was a concept from the past. Just when you thought that the New York gun laws could not reach a new level of lunacy, the governor and her puppet legislature just targeted toy guns for restrictions (on top of it being illegal to buy or sell body armor for protection). New York may be the first state to enact ludicrous laws that do not keep us safe, but eventually, the whole country will adopt these things. New York is the trendsetter for the totalitarianism that we will deal with in years to come.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Are Government Agencies Being Weaponized Against People Who Hold Certain Beliefs?

What a last week or so in the news! We had explosions in Crimea, a humanitarian crisis caused by the Ukrainian government, a seemingly politically-motivated law enforcement raid against a former president, a bill that will simultaneously save us from climate change and inflation, a leak from the FBI showing that people expressing themselves with symbols from the American Revolution might be domestic terrorists, and the addition of IRS agents armed with guns to collect taxes. What do all of these things have in common? If you mention or oppose them, you are a violent and fascistic right-wing conspiracy theorist who spreads disinformation and bigotry under the Russian banner, and you adhere to white supremacy and replacement theories that run rampant in the Trump cult (does this cover all of the Left’s derogatory language that it tries to paint on those it disagrees with?).

I have covered Ukraine extensively in previous works and will not focus on this issue here, but I will say that it was once considered Russian disinformation to suggest that Ukraine was setting up bases in highly populated areas, which would then prompt the Russian military to strike schools and hospitals. The corporate media would then call the attacks indiscriminate and paint Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, when in reality, his rival, Volodymyr Zelensky, was also responsible for war crimes. The federal government was quick to label those who spoke out against Zelensky’s tactics and the American funding of the war effort as Russian agents, and now that Ukraine seems to be blowing up Crimea, there is little room to argue that that country cares about human rights or lives. However, I am sure that the FBI would be more than happy to raid my home or conduct warrantless searches of my records for even suggesting that we should not be feeding the coffers of defense contractors or starting World War III (in the name of defending democracy and freedom).

Speaking of the FBI conducting searches based on a person’s political beliefs, Project Veritas recently released a document coming from the bureau, suggesting that using certain symbols may be an indication of violent and extremist behavior. According to the FBI, Militia Violent Extremists (MVE) commonly use quotations from the American founding fathers and revolutionary symbols, such as the Gadsden flag, the Betsy Ross flag, the Liberty Tree, and those promoting the 2nd Amendment. It is ironic that most Americans could not care less about their fellow citizens being targeted, while they watch the fireworks on the 4th of July and virtue signal about how patriotic they are because they are good little sheep that follow the guidance put before them by the government and the corporate media. How have we gotten to a place where symbols of our great nation, which was formed through revolution and secession, are now considered hate speech and representations of terrorism. Have we traded the tyranny of King George III for a closer one in our own land?

Initiating investigations and increasing scrutiny based on political perspectives are unconstitutional and against free expression and the right to state grievances against the government. The government does not get to choose which ideologies it deems acceptable and punish or chill expression that it finds offensive, and although the FBI and other agencies have historically targeted Communists, followers of Martin Luther King, Jr., and BLM protesters, there seems to be a clear bias in the post-January 6th world against Trump-supporters, conservatives, and libertarians.

To the FBI, the First and Fourth Amendments are just suggestions, and as the media continues to claim that the Right is dangerous and prone to violence and desires to overthrow the government, many on the Left now believe that conservatives are ready for a civil war. Well, here is the thing: if you want to avoid this scenario, stop trying to force your will on those who wish to be left alone (Covid-19 restrictions are a great example of the Left’s submission to authority requirements). Instead of labelling people as dangerous, try to understand why they believe what they believe, but yet, the Left seems to lack sympathy and understanding and would prefer to resort to insults and control. If you disregard others’ concerns and dismiss them as conspiracy theories, your social and intellectual growth will be stunted. Plus, the Left is shortsighted, since if one day a right-wing president reascends to the Washington throne, the government may then be used to target its own political views (I believe that Mohandas Gandhi had a thing or two to say about endless cycles of violence and retribution).

However, with the non-violent coup against Donald Trump and the events on January 6th, it is not surprising that the Biden administration would target its political enemies. I mean, as I have mentioned previously, even the Post Office is spying on people who are considered right-wing conspiracy theorists; and we saw the White House and HHS instruct social media companies to take down posts that went against the narrative, the DHS issue bulletins suggesting that people opposing Covid-19 measures and the results of the 2020 presidential election are domestic terrorists, and the partisan witch hunt trial (an objective trial would have arguments for and against the “crime,” but this is just a single narrative meant to paint Trump as a violent fascist) to investigate the January 6th “insurrection” (the Left used to call it a “coup,” but it wised up after realizing that nothing on that day was even close to an actual coup, and someday, it will learn that the idea of unarmed trespassers on the Capitol grounds does not meet the definition of “insurrection” either).

So, was the FBI raid against the former president an attempt to bar him from running for reelection in 2024 (the Left failed to accomplish this after two impeachments, which were clearly politically motivated)? It is actually difficult to know for sure whether Trump committed a crime and violated the Espionage Act, and he may very well have held onto nuclear secrets after being prompted to hand them over months ago, but this seems very much like a double standard, being that Hilary Clinton was not prosecuted or raided for irresponsibly mishandling classified documents (the State Department investigated the incident and determined that her 33,000 emails, which were conveniently deleted, did potentially compromise national security). Also, Hunter Biden’s laptop was disregarded prior to the election (gee surprise), before gaining some traction post-election; but regardless, it appears, at this time, that no conviction or serious investigation will be conducted on this either.

Oh, but the Clinton and Biden thing is just whataboutism! Focus on the facts of this particular case only. Oh, how convenient! Disregard what people on your team did but concentrate on this incident now that your hated political rival is under investigation. This sounds like the type of excuse that an authoritarian regime would use (focus on whatever will further our political agenda, like prohibiting a rival or dissident from seeking reelection, while ignoring other similar mishaps). If Trump did intentionally try to hide classified documents and criminal charges are brought forth, it will be difficult to argue on his behalf, but to be consistent, Hilary Clinton should also be indicted (or, we could be mature about this and just wipe the slate clean, not charge either, move on with our lives, and eliminate the Espionage Act altogether).

Even if we were to concede that Trump should be prosecuted, we cannot rule out the FBI raiding ordinary citizens’ homes on the assumption that they will commit acts of violence because they display certain symbols or associate with militias (contrary to the narrative, being a member of a militia is constitutionally protected). The Right is clearly being targeted for its political beliefs, so it is not a stretch to suggest this. Furthermore, Reuters and other news outlets want you to know that the FBI and DHS are preparing for an increase in attacks by right-wing extremists in the wake of the former president’s home, and surveillance and unwarranted searches may be necessary to prevent domestic terrorist attacks. We should give up our rights to a single administration and scapegoat people with certain views, all in the name of stopping violence and fascism (oh, the irony).

If we become conditioned to the idea that the FBI should be allowed to conduct investigations based on political beliefs, we are in deep trouble in this country, and the First and Fourth Amendments will be reduced to words on a page. Is the FBI the only agency surveilling and arresting Americans for speech (agencies may not be able to overtly arrest people for what they say, but they can plant child pornography, drugs, or bomb-making materials on political dissidents)? The NSA has been spying on Americans for years under the massive surveillance state that we willingly accept, and hey, the IRS could be used to go after people who oppose the government’s narrative, by subjecting them to additional examination for tax purposes.

The IRS did famously target Tea Party groups filing for tax-exempt status in 2010 and 2012, and if the agency can get away with this once, it will certainly try again. This is frightening in the face of the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (a mixture of unrelated items on hundreds of pages that will be handed over to the executive branch to do whatever it wants with them, but yay, democracy), which allows for an additional $80 billion to be added the agency’s budget and a potential for the hiring of 87,000 new employees (this may be a high figure, and some of the employees may be simply replacing retiring workers) to go after high-income filers (how many agents do you need in an era of computer systems and technology that can easily track anyone, anywhere?).

Either way, $45.6 billion of the new funds will, in fact, increase tax enforcement, and with precedent from the IRS and FBI towards hating on conservative groups, why would people adhering to this type of political persuasion not be afraid of what is to come? The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation disputes the IRS’ claim that the new funding will only be used to examine large businesses, and it says that in order to collect the anticipated $200 billion in tax revenue, small businesses will, in fact, be targeted. So, not only may the IRS sink the First and Fourth Amendments, but it may bring down small businesses in favor of large corporations that will have less of a problem facing audits (this reminds me of the essential versus nonessential division during Covid-19, when large corporations were permitted to operate, and small businesses failed or were subject to much harsher conditions).

Up until there was backlash over the IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent job hiring website, the description included a phrase that read, “[agents must] Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary” (I quoted the original wording in a social media post before the IRS altered the description, but unfortunately, I did not take a screenshot). Now, the posting reads, “[agents must] Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.” Regardless of how it is worded, the IRS does intend to expand its ability to perform law enforcement duties, and it will not hesitate to point a gun at people’s head and force them to comply with its orders. Not only do we have to contend with the federalized militarization of state and local police, NSA surveillance, FBI search warrants and raids, ATF and DEA home invasions, and DHS fearmongering bulletins; but now, we have an ever-increasing IRS force that is armed and ready to strike.

In the first half of 2022, the IRS has purchased $696,000 worth of ammunition to supply the 2,200 special agents that carry or stockpile 4,487 guns and 5,062,006 pounds of ammo, just in case the agency needs to violently harass citizens over their taxes. However, PolitiFact is here to tell us that spending up to $1,100,000 (the 2011 figure) per year on ammo is a routine function of IRS procedures. Yes, collecting taxes for Uncle Sam requires armed agents of the state to search for evaders and then invade private homes and businesses to potentially drag citizens off to cages. This is completely normal in a free country, of course. We have not turned into a police state, or anything, and it is not like any other federal agency is buying up guns and ammo, right? And, what happens when these IRS agents accidentally or wrongfully discharge their weapons, as is the case at times?

While the federal and state governments are attempting to restrict our right to keep and bear arms (New York state is taking draconian measures that disregard the Supreme Court ruling on concealed carry), the very departments that enforce gun infractions are arming themselves. Why do IRS agents get to carry weapons in government buildings and gun-free zones, but the average person can become a criminal for carrying a weapon in those very same places? Why do the president and governors get armed bodyguards, and the rest of us have to fend for ourselves in areas where having weapons is prohibited? This double standard is disturbing, but what is even more terrifying is the growing police state in this country. Armed and militarized federal and state governments, in conjunction with the deliberate targeting of Trump-supporters, right-wing militias, conservatives, and libertarians, are part of the very fascism that the Left claims that it hates, while an entire class of people are being scapegoated by a corporate media that spreads the government’s propaganda. Will we be arrested or hauled away to concentration or reeducation camps for opposing government action or a single narrative under a collectivist society? Time will tell.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Why Should We Support the Ukrainian Actor and Fraudster?

By now, all of us have heard about the grand heroism of Volodymyr Zelensky, who valiantly led his troops into battle to drive the Russian forces out of Kiev. While dodging ruthless Russian attacks on schools and hospitals, this real-life G.I. Joe is fighting for democracy on behalf of the entire civilized world. But, how much of that story is true, and how much of it is myth?

Why does it even matter? Well, the short of it is that American taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill to support something that they may not believe is right, if given all of the appropriate details. It is ironic that the Biden administration is forcing hard-earned dollars from the American people, in the name of democracy, to the military-industrial complex (corporatism is a tenant of fascism) and profit-driven policies that could cause World War III. I do not remember approving of a proxy war with Russia that has seemingly turned into an arms race in the region. Yet, we are compelled to throw our support behind a corrupt government that spent years engaging in genocide in the Donbass and utilizes neo-Nazi militias and other elements of its police and guard forces to brutally torture, kidnap, and murder civilians.

I remember seeing countless news reports that Russia was committing war crimes in Ukraine and how the bully was striking civilian targets. However, a new report from Amnesty International seems to cast doubt on the official story, but just as expected, the corporate media has been completely silent on it. It turns out that the Zelensky regime was setting up military bases and storing and utilizing weapons in the middle of civilian neighborhoods, including in hospitals and schools. So now, when we hear that the Russians “indiscriminately” aimed at schools and hospitals, it makes a little more sense with the full context added. Russian forces were not so much indiscriminately attacking as they were bombing strategic sites that Ukrainians deliberately established in the middle of populated areas, perhaps to drum up international support for their cause.

To be fair, though, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not justified, and the deaths, no matter how much the Ukrainian military can be blamed, should never have occurred; but it is interesting how the media and officials in the Biden administration lied about Russia’s indiscriminate attacks and pushed propaganda in order to rally Americans around the Ukrainian flag. Kiev has a lot of explaining to do, but yet, it will likely never be held accountable for its violation of international law and war crimes against its own citizens.

Aside from homosexuality being illegal in Ukraine, despite unconditional support from LGBTQ activists in the United States, Zelensky’s government has been accused of mistreatment of African immigrants and other racial minorities, preventing them from leaving the country. This is overt racism, being that white Ukrainians are permitted to leave without issue, unless they are males of fighting age (this might be sexist too, because women are also capable of fighting). In that case, the Ukrainian military is more than happy to employ semi-fit men into forced servitude, and really, there is no choice in the matter, because the government physically blocked their ability to exit. The Ukrainian leader is also attempting to get the world, and particularly Europe, to ban Russian immigrants (and expel those already in their countries). Of course, Zelensky is not a white supremacist or a bigot, or anything, because the Western media and government officials say that it would be Russian disinformation to suggest such a thing. Ukraine sounds like a wonderful democracy that follows human rights, does it not?

We cannot let a little thing like racism and slavery hold us back (unless we are talking about the American founding fathers) from defending our precious freedom fighters, because after all, there is freedom of speech still in Ukraine, right? I mean, one of the bedrocks of democracy would never be threatened, after all. What!? Freedom of speech and press are limited, and you can be jailed for opposing the Zelensky regime? No way! This has got to be some sort of mistake.

Unfortunately, our hero-in-chief has prohibited opposition political parties, consolidated all media companies into a single platform to promote a single narrative, arrested and kidnapped dissidents, tortured Russian prisoners of war, and assassinated mayors accepting aid from Russia. Plus, when Zelensky is not being an autocrat, he seems a little too preoccupied getting media attention and posing for photoshoots than he does actually fighting the war (oh yeah, and there are accusations that the photos showing him on the battlefield were as fake as his role as the president of Ukraine in the television show from before he took on the role in real life).

Why would any American genuinely want to support such a fraudster who represents the antithesis of democracy and defending human rights? The people have fallen for his acting, and we have to continue funding the charade, in the name of “defending democracy” (where have we heard that line before?).

We were previously exposed to leaked information showing that American intelligence led to the Ukrainian destruction of a Russian warship in the Black Sea, but now, Russia is outright accusing the United States of directing the Ukrainian military, especially with utilization of HIMARS, on which targets to hit. If true, this would mean that the United States is engaging directly with Russia and bringing the two superpowers ever closer to a hot war. Not to mention, CIA operators are doing their covert missions inside of Ukraine’s borders, and American and European mercenaries and special forces have been training Ukrainian soldiers. The Biden administration may have declared war on Russia, but since the opposing power does not seem to be interested in such an arrangement (it would have retaliated by now), we can hope for a rational approach, at least until the United States decides to commit the next aggressive action.

One of the talking points from Russian hawks was: if Russia really intended to liberate ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in areas like Kharkiv or the Donbass, it would not level cities to the ground. Perhaps there is some truth to this, but the Ukrainian government just bombed an airbase in Crimea, which killed and injured a few civilians, and a nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia. Now, because of this and the fact that the Ukrainian military has been conducting its operations in civilian areas, the argument could be made that the Ukrainian government does not care much for the lives or safety of its own people, just like the Russians apparently do not. Or, we could just conclude that war is hell and that we should try to avoid it at all costs (not send weapons to prolong it), and both sides have been responsible for war crimes. However, because of American propaganda, we will continue to believe that only Russia is capable of atrocities, and we will ignore those committed by Ukraine. To believe otherwise would make you an agent of Vladimir Putin himself, and you do not want to bear that burden.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

A European Eye for a Russian One with the Ukraine War

If someone intentionally started hitting another person in the face, would you expect the victim to sit by quietly and take the beating? Turning the other cheek is a principle worth adhering to, but in reality, how many of us actually follow it? Why, then, would the United States government and the European Union expect Russia to roll over and not fight back on the economic front?

Back in the beginning of Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine, economic sanctions were implemented on a large scale, and so much so that the all-but stated goal was to make life miserable for the Russian people so that they would want to force Vladimir Putin’s hand. Basically, the United States wanted to isolate Russia from the global community, cut off access to SWIFT, destroy the ruble, and decrease oil exports that would be able to fund the war effort. Now that it is clear that American and European sanctions have failed (gee surprise) in halting the Russian war machine in Ukraine and have had the opposite effect (the ruble rebounded to become the strongest currency in the world, and India has replaced others in buying up Russian oil), Washington and Brussels do not believe that Russia should retaliate against European countries when it comes to the supply of gasoline and other resources.

The United States, after pressuring Germany into terminating the Nord Stream 2 pipeline against its better judgement, would have been happy to see the Russian economy sink, but now that Russia has the upper hand on the economic front, it is expected to tone down its tactical moves. Part of the retaliatory measures that Russia is taking in response to the economic warfare and supplying of weapons and aid to Ukraine is having state-owned Gazprom reduce its capacity of gas, which would mean half of the supply to Germany. As a result, the German people may have a hard time keeping warm this winter, and if gas supplies cripple the transportation industry, supplies of necessary items, like food, medicine, or electricity, may have a difficult time finding those who need them. Several countries in Europe are dependent on Russian gas, and even though some have attempted to find alternative sources, it may not be soon enough. But hey, it is totally worth the sacrifice that the people of those countries will be forced to make, because Russia is embarrassed on the world stage and Zelensky's corrupt regime is being propped up.

And if Germany’s Siemens Energy is not able to ship the necessary turbine, which Russia claims is being hindered by American and European sanctions, for maintenance of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, that country may get even further behind for the upcoming cold season. Even if Germans freeze and starve this winter, it will do wonders for the environment because there will fewer fossil fuels utilized. Their sacrifice will be remembered, just like the Dutch farmers being forced to yield their small businesses to larger corporations in an effort to reduce pollution. Maybe the Biden administration will soften the blow by sending apology letters to every German killed as a result of this, but I would not hold your breath.

If you are holding your breath, though, it may be because opening your mouth reminds you of the abundance of food that we once could shovel down. By now, most have seen signs of food shortages, and the war in Ukraine has not helped the situation, as that country exports large supplies of wheat, barley, sunflower oil, and fertilizers. Whether or not Russia is using the supply chain and food supply issues to its advantage and to starve the Ukrainian government cannot yet to be determined, but Turkey recently brokered an agreement between the two parties that would see crops shipped out and directed by Ukrainian pilots from Odessa to the Bosporus Strait (via the Black Sea), after the ships are inspected by Russian, Ukrainian, and Turkish officials. If Russia were holding the world hostage with an embargo of Ukrainian grains, it appears that the West can no longer cry that this is the case, as the first ship (flying under the Sierra Leone banner) has made it to Turkey.

While the high school drama that is the United States and Europe condemning Russia for doing the same thing that they do regularly (harming average citizens with economic sanctions in order to intimidate the target government into granting their demands), the war in Ukraine continues. As the Russian invasion force consists largely of mercenaries and a small percentage of the overall military numbers that Russia is capable of mustering up, North Korean volunteers may be entering the battlefield under Vladimir Putin’s command. We already know that American special forces units are in Ukraine training soldiers, but there are also reports that CIA operatives are performing unknown objectives within the war-torn country. If HIMARS are being supplied, you can bet that American military members are on the ground training the Ukrainian operators on how to use the systems. So, while we may be experiencing Russian retaliation in the economic sphere, we also have a covert war being waged directly between the United States and Russia (this is not just a proxy war between Kiev and the Donbass).

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Nancy Pelosi Almost Started a War with China Over Taiwan Visit

If conditioning Americans toward accepting war with China (through conducting military exercises that show a hot war scheduled for 2027, alarming New York City residents that a nuclear strike could be on their front steps tomorrow, and pivoting NATO into direct confrontation with China over the Indo-Pacific region) were not bad enough, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to stir things up even more with a visit to Taiwan. For years, the United States Navy has executed “Freedom of Navigation” patrols to intimidate China and see how close to claimed islands in the South China Sea that it can get before action is taken, but the representative’s trip to an island that the United States only de facto recognizes as independent (by its military and economic cooperation and the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979) was provocative and far from routine, as the last high ranking official to embark on a trip there was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Immediately after Pelosi’s roundabout route into Taiwan (to avoid being shot out of the sky), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sent ships and aircraft towards the middle of the Taiwan Strait, while simultaneously, the United States “coincidentally” had its routine patrol ships hanging around the east side of the island. This was not because of Pelosi's visit and the possibility of a war starting, or anything. No, it was simply because the ships happened to be in the area and wanted to greet Pelosi in person. Why not, right? Then, China attempted to deter the United States by engaging in war games off the coast of Taiwan. I mean, what could go wrong?

The next day, the Chinese government announced that all airlines should cease operations over the island in order to avoid a free fall trip to the ocean or the mountains. If we were really unlucky, we could have had a Lusitania-type event (the Germans had warned passengers about boarding the ship and heading towards the conflict zone, but people chose to embark anyway) or another Gulf of Tonkin incident (all it would have taken was for a misinterpretation of the situation or one false move for an exchange of fire between two nuclear powers to have occurred).

Although Pelosi is no longer in Taiwan, China has not relented on its show of force. In fact, the exercises have expanded to include anti-submarine operations, ship movements of fourteen vessels into maritime territory formerly considered as part of Taiwan, missile strikes, armored vehicles, and sixty-six aircraft. In addition to the United States’ intervention and deployment of ships, Taiwan has sent military units of ships and aircraft to monitor the situation, meaning that it could be a matter of time before one of the militaries makes a mistake and shoots at the opposing side.

While our global supply chains suffer, a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, which produces roughly half of the world’s semiconductor chips (supplying many American companies), could be devastating to the average citizens of many countries (so far, the blockades have only been on certain food items); so why was Nancy Pelosi provoking the Giant Panda? Does she want war with China? Does she want Taiwan’s computer chip industry to tank so that American companies, which are in the process of being subsidized through the CHIPS Act, can take the island’s place as the largest producer in the global market (her husband, Paul, bought stock in Nvidia right before the Act was set to pass, but then he was pressured to sell the stocks at a loss to avoid accusations of insider trading)?

It is astounding that an American official could be so reckless in a time of rising tensions, and although nuclear war may be years out, entangling alliances, nationalism, militarism and arms races, a changing global order, and economic warfare could expedite the process. Many Americans naively believe that World War III and nuclear war are nearly impossible because of mutual assured destruction, but most people also thought that World War I (called the Great War at the time) would be “the war to end all wars,” so this idea of deterrence proved to be erroneous. World War III may not be inevitable, but as long as arrogant politicians embark on campaigns of fearmongering and lunacy, as House Speaker Pelosi did, we will continue to move closer down the path to global conflict.

Instead of walking on eggshells and sending arms to Ukraine or ships to Taiwan, maybe we should just blow each other up now, like our politicians seem to want. This way, those who survive can move on with their lives.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

Climate Change Tyranny Has Begun, But Protesters in the Netherlands and Sri Lanka Are Taking a Stand

The sky is falling! Run for the hills and away from the coasts! Even though they have been saying for years that we will all die in fifty years because of climate change, this time we have certainly entered the point of no return! Greenland is melting, and the roads and bridges in London are collapsing! Roofs in China are melting! Whatever should we do? We need politicians to take off in their air-polluting private jets to sit around in conferences and scold us for how many fossil fuels that we consume daily. We need to spend billions of dollars to subsidize “green” corporations to produce technology that may become obsolete in a few years (but at least the businesses will make money in the meantime). It seems as if former CNN technical director, Charlie Chester, was correct when he admitted to a journalist at Project Veritas that the news network would focus on climate change fearmongering after the COVID-19 hysteria faded (well, the most deadly and dangerous day in human history, January 6th, is up there too).

And, of course, what follows the paranoia and emotional-based responses is government action. In fact, nearly sixty congresspersons have urged President Joe Biden to declare an emergency, thus giving him the power to nationalize industries and control the means of production for environmental concerns and energy technologies (a soft form of socialism). Plus, he will get to bypass Congress when necessary to achieve a green agenda (it is ironic that those on the Left, who associate Trump-supporters as fascists and anti-democrats, are the largest proponents of using executive power to rule through edict and outside of the representative body of the people). Although the president did not officially declare an emergency, he suggested that he will utilize executive power to keep Americans “safe” from the planet (perhaps when we get done fooling around in Ukraine and transferring billions of dollars for the military-industrial complex to make a profit, while the average person struggles to get by, we can outright declare war on Mother Nature). Who needs democracy when you have the power to rule unilaterally by simply declaring an emergency? When Congress (or Senator Joe Manchin) blocks your agenda, a pen and a phone will suffice.

Just when some of us (but not all of us) thought that lockdowns from the pandemic were over, the Bordeaux region of France, prohibited all outdoor events (and indoor ones, if air conditioning was not available) for a time, in what appears to be among the first climate change lockdowns worldwide. Do you think it is an exaggeration that COVID-era stay-at-home orders will be repurposed and make a comeback within the next few years (even Ireland proposed a forced “work from home” order in case of a fuel shortage)? Well, remember that to “flatten the curve,” we only needed two weeks, but this evolved into two years of restrictions. If indefinite climate emergencies are declared, there will be on-and-off regional lockdowns that will become more and more intense, as freedom gradually erodes in front of our eyes. Lockdowns are not over, folks.

In the unlikeliest of places, the Netherlands, farmers and their allies are taking after the Canadians and blocking roads and food distribution plants with tractors, in order to show the Dutch government their grievances. The protesters are worried that the government’s plan to reduce nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions by 50% by 2030 will shutter small farms (some of which have been handed down for several generations) where the landowners cannot afford to meet the new requirements, and although the government acknowledges that many farmers will be forced out of work and from owning their businesses, officials do not really care because of what they claim is the bigger picture. This is the neoliberal utopia, though: favor large corporations, and in this case big farmers, while crowding out small businesses not capable of meeting environmental regulations. Plus, the liberal media is here to tell us that anyone who opposes climate change measures and supports the Dutch farmers (just like those who donated to the Canadian truckers) are white supremacists who believe in replacement theories, or whatever (yes, the Left knows people who oppose its agenda far better than any of them know themselves, of course).

And hey, this all sounds reasonable because we are saving the planet after all, and we do not want those selfish right-wing pigs stopping progress, now. If you were worried that small farmers in the United States will be run out of town because they cannot afford to follow the rules, fear not, because philanthropists like Bill Gates (and BlackRock) will come to the rescue and buy farmland (and residences) to protect us from ourselves (and as Gates’ newest venture of picking up fertile lands in North Dakota, as well as other states, shows, we will soon be serfs to billionaires before long and will not have to worry about changing rules). Climate change tyranny is among us, and it has just begun. It comes as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as tens (or even hundreds) of millions of Americans are oblivious to what is happening.

Contrary to the talking points of left-wing commentators, the protests in Sri Lanka are not simply about President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s policies, as the World Economic Forum and the World Bank have been eyeing the country since 2017-2018 (called Sri Lanka’s Vision 2025), when Maithripala Sirisena was in power; and the International Monetary Fund may soon implement one of its bailouts, in exchange for the country selling its soul to corporate interests, of course. It is ironic that Klaus Schwab and other manipulators of the 2030 Agenda (or the Great Reset) always claim that their reforms will make standards of living increase, while simultaneously advancing environmentally clean objectives; but in reality, their vision is more of a means to break down countries and rebuild them in their image.

Keeping with the WEF’s goal of exploiting Sri Lanka, President Rajapaksa banned chemical fertilizers, which decimated farmers’ ability to grow produce. In addition to rising global prices (caused largely from inflationary spending of nations’ central banks and forced global lockdowns, almost in lockstep, during the pandemic), the country has defaulted on its loans. In response to nationwide protests, the Rajapaksa regime seized property, suspended laws, and arrested dissidents, all before being forced to step down and hand over power to Ranil Wickremesinghe (also a supporter of the WEF and contributor towards Vision 2025).

Sri Lanka is yet another example of how planned societies fail (just like in Venezuela, Sweden, prior to its movement back to the free market, and likely Chile and Colombia in the not-so-distant future), and if we are not careful, more countries could fall in line with the WEF's and the World Bank’s vision. It is difficult when we see the constant fearmongering in the corporate media showing headlines that seem to depict our certain demise, but we must resist the hysteria and think for ourselves, unless a technocratic and corporate system of totalitarianism is what we really desire.

Every successful autocratic regime in history was able to convince the populace that the measures taken, regardless of how difficult or morally reprehensible, were necessary to save lives. Most people in those societies were unaware that they were even living under tyranny, which is a testament to good propaganda and censorship efforts. How else could totalitarianism take root? If people are content enough living their lives under the control of a regime, why would they care what the government does? Since most Americans are already apathetic when it comes to politics, corruption in government, and concepts of democracy (as long as their preferred agenda, as whispered in their ears by government and corporate actors, is being met); how far on the road towards tyranny have we currently walked down? Just like COVID-19 (or 9-11) was a means to implement measures that otherwise would never have been accepted, climate change policies will be the next tool in the belt of our overlords. People in Canada, the Netherlands, and Sri Lanka have taken a stand. Will you?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

An Update on Ukraine and NATO’s Pivot Towards China

With the fall of Lysychansk and Sievierdonetsk, Russia now has control of the entire People’s Republic of Luhansk, and within the next few weeks, it is likely that the People’s Republic of Donetsk will follow suit. Though Ukraine vows to regain the Donbass, with the support of NATO weapons, the likelihood of success is very low, despite what the corporate media suggests. Moreover, the Oblast of Kherson, of which the capital city was captured early in the war, will soon have a referendum to determine if it should be annexed by Russia, and this may set the stage for the future pro-Russian state of Novorossiya, stretching from Crimea to Luhansk (or, Kherson may be directly annexed). Fighting also continues on the near-border cities of Kharkiv, Ukraine and Belgorod, Russia, where both countries accuse each other of bombing sovereign territory and harming civilians.

As American military aid (alone) to Ukraine approaches Russia’s entire military budget for the fiscal year 2021 (roughly $66 billion), Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is asking the “entire democratic world” for a modest favor of $750 billion for the reconstruction of the country when Russia finally leaves (if Zelensky is suggesting that Russia will eventually withdraw, and British Foreign Minister Liz Truss and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz agree that a new “Marshall Plan” is soon to be in the works, would this not imply that these countries realize that Russia’s intentions are not to conquer the country, but rather, it is attempting to accomplish whatever narrow goals it has set?), and the plan is to have formerly neutral Switzerland leverage Russian oligarchs and commodity traders to have money redistributed towards the recovery effort. And, of course, American defense contractors will have a field day with this, after they finish supplying missile systems, such as Lockheed Martin’s HIMARS and Raytheon’s NASMAS.

Things are heating up as Russia plans on sending Iskander-M nuclear and conventional missiles to Belarus, just as the United States has had similar weapons sitting in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey for years and continues to conduct nuclear exercises near the Belarusian and Russian borders; and NATO has pledged to increase its readiness forces in Europe to over 300,000. As Turkey has dropped its objections to Sweden and Finland joining NATO and the two countries sign their accession agreements with the alliance, Russian President Vladimir Putin warns that any mobilization or troop buildups in Scandinavia would be met with reciprocal actions (direct threats against the two countries previously were just bluffs, as I had said at the time). In addition to this, Russian propaganda suggests that Putin’s forces are prepared for direct confrontation with NATO and could strike Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland first, should nuclear war break out; while simultaneously, British Chief of the General Staff Patrick Sanders has told all troops in his country to prepare for fighting in World War III. There is even talk in Russia of matching American missiles by placing them in Latin America (Cuban Missile Crisis II?), and Russian propagandist, Olga Skabeyeva (the Iron Doll) leaked satellite images of bombing scenarios in London, Washington, and Brussels, among other cities. There is now serious talk of a hot war breaking out between the United States and Russia on both sides, and although the Biden administration pretends that it does not want war with Putin, its actions speak louder than words.

At the 2022 NATO summit in Madrid, Spain, Russian aggression in Ukraine and growing influence in Africa were not the only items of discussion, and increased partnerships with nations in the Indo-Pacific region to counter the threat of China is now a high priority of the North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization (since the alliance is now putting its nose in every part of the world, perhaps renaming it the Treaty Organization of the Seven Seas would be more appropriate). So, now all of NATO will patrol the Pacific Ocean looking to start conflict with China, in addition to the United States’ years-long Freedom of Navigation patrols in the South China Sea (let us see how close to Chinese-claimed islands we can get before the superpower punches back) and Australia’s tiff with China over Solomon Islands and Cambodia. But, never fear, as the Biden administration has a plan. He will spend $200 billion that Americans do not have to invest in infrastructure projects that benefit other countries. There is no need to help Americans in a time of inflation and potential food shortages. We need to defeat China economically for bragging rights, first and foremost (yes, solar projects in Angola and government-corporate partnerships to build a submarine telecommunications cable from Singapore to France are just what Americans need right now).

Well, if a hot war does not break out with Russia within the next five years, do not worry, my dear war-starved patriots. War with China is in the making for 2027, at least according to former Pentagon officials, Chinese experts, and congressmen that participated in a large-scale NBC-hosted exercise, which simulated an invasion of Taiwan, subsequent preemptive attacks against American military targets (like Japan and Pearl Harbor), and reactions by the United States military against mainland China. It would not be surprising if government officials and the corporate media are preparing us to accept an upcoming war with China (or at least increased spending for the military-industrial complex), especially with NATO’s pivot to the Pacific; and if that day comes, it will not be difficult to see the missteps of how we got there.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

If You Were Alive in 1776, Which Side Would You Have Taken?

“Taxation without representation” is an old phrase that we learned back in our elementary and high schools, but how many of us stop to think about what this truly means and where we are now? How many modern-day Americans would have supported the patriot cause, as opposed to remaining loyal to the British Crown?

To answer this question, we have to look at both the historical context and the modern political environment, as most Americans would quickly respond that there is no way that they could have supported King George III. Since John Adams seemed to estimate that only about one-third of the American colonists were in favor of secession from the British Empire, it cannot be true that all, or even most, Americans of today would have been rebels. It becomes even more complicated when you consider that most people cringe when they hear the words “secession” or “nullification,” especially in the context of the American Civil War. However, you cannot believe that these two concepts are evil and undemocratic and still believe that you would have desired independence around 1776.

If you believe that the current system is set in stone and that altering it would harm the safety and well-being of the masses, you automatically oppose the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Radically changing the status quo was the main component of what the American Revolution did, so the common slogans of our day, such as “follow the science,” “trust the experts,” “support Ukraine,” or “celebrate pride month,” are clear establishment ideas that stem from propaganda. These mantras would be no different from British-generated propaganda that was meant to push the notion of respect for taxes and the established order that was represented by the king and his officers. The British troops patrolling the streets of Boston and other cities were there to keep people safe and to ensure order, according to the indoctrination of our founding generation.

Speaking of safety and order and soldiers marching in the cities, what about the standing army and police forces that we take for granted every day? We have come to think of the police as necessary for the security of our communities, but is this conducive to a free society? Surely our founders did not envision SWAT teams and DEA agents storming houses looking for drugs (or guns), nor would they have thought of patrol cars on the sides of highways meeting speeding quotas as helpful to our liberties. And certainly, they would not have accepted a federal government that gifts and sells military equipment, like assault rifles, BearCats, and MRAPS, to standing local police departments.

Standing armies were definitely frowned upon by our founders, and to take it even further, spreading the armed forces overseas to dictate to countries abroad what is acceptable behavior, and invading or supporting coups against noncompliant nations, would have been an abomination to our framers, who generally advocated for staying out of entangling alliances and European affairs. Yet, we have been conditioned to accept a constant state of warfare and welfare for the military-industrial complex as necessary for the common good.

We know that our founders were not a big fan of unwarranted searches and seizures, and the surveillance state established in the wake of the 9-11 attacks would have been reason enough for them to spark a revolution. The British troops used to write their own blank search warrants or get them issued from secret courts in London, ensuring that the colonists were adhering to tax policies, counterfeiting and trade regulations, and smuggling standards. Such a thing pales in comparison with what the FBI and NSA do on a regular basis, as the agencies can search your records, spy on you through your laptop, collect your data, and listen to your conversations, all under rubber-stamping FISA court orders (if they even bother getting a warrant at all). Anyone who does not care about this (or thinks that if you have nothing to hide, it is no big deal) or standing armies would have also not worried that the British government was searching people’s homes or dispatching Red Coats to keep order and prevent the conspiracy theorists from causing trouble. After all, security and keeping us safe are the highest priorities of government, right? Well, that is what most modern Americans think, but this is far from the truth. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration, clearly articulated that governments are necessary only to secure our rights, and any overreach of power outside of this was nothing less than tyranny.

Those who believe that those pesky conspiracy theorists are so dangerous that they need to be censored and monitored would have had little concerns about the actions of the monarch. King George III would have dreamed about being able to have a centralized depository of information that can shape the monopolistic narrative established by our politicians, corporate journalists, and experts (like a disinformation governance board or consolidated media that parrots the government’s talking points), but today, we see these as vital to democracy. It is clear that most Americans do not really understand how the United States got started. Secret communications, perhaps like Telegram (and other networks used by those damn January 6th insurrectionists), were key to spreading information across colonies, and circular letters and Committees of Correspondence (most notably by Samuel Adams) were tools to help get the job done. Groups that were opposed to British rule, like the Sons of Liberty, may not have been much different from the hated Proud Boys or Oath Keepers of today. These groups are demonized, and January 6th rioters are held in solitary confinement, while the DHS and FBI are monitoring so-called right-wing domestic terrorists (when they are not planting agents to perform acts of entrapment to help bolster an agenda).

People do not like to think about this, but our founding fathers were labelled as terrorists and traitors. Instead, we show hatred towards those who oppose the narrative. I mean, Bostonians antagonized British regulars and trespassed on East India Company (granted a monopoly by the king) ships and vandalized its product, thus sparking the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party (and the Coercive or Intolerable Acts that followed). The ungrateful rebels protested the security of the Crown and the established order, and they tarred and feathered officials, all over a miniscule tax. Yet, in the present, we complain and try to censor posts that speak negatively about a certain vaccine. Those selfish unscientific hicks who just cannot appreciate the benevolence of the collective community. How dare they make a post on Twitter or Facebook. Such speech is more dangerous than what our founders did.

It is ironic that most Americans hardly complain about paying large portions of their income to the federal government (and state governments on top of that), but yet, the taxes against the colonists were quite small in comparison. Because we live luxurious lives compared to many countries and eras, we gleefully accept our employers withholding money from our paychecks throughout the year, because after all, we get a rebate when the tax season is complete and never really know how much the government steals in the first place. Paying taxes is the price we pay for having all of the “free” stuff we get, like welfare, Social Security, Medicare, an imperialist army, a central bank that plans our economy for us and manipulates our currency, and interstate highways. But, does anyone stop and think about how waste and inefficiencies, corrupt dealings, quantitative easing, and government-corporate partnerships cause us to have to pay more money than we otherwise would?

If we are paying this hefty price to live in this country, are we really represented at the end of the day? Sure, we have districts and send congressmen to Washington, D.C. on our behalf, but how much do our representatives actually care for our interests? I have written to politicians at every level of government, and I have never, once, received a response. Most politicians spend the majority of their time campaigning and receiving corporate donations (used for favors later on), and they hardly ever read the thousands of pages of unrelated items that are wrapped into bills headed to the president’s desk. Why read the bill, when we can pass it and see what is in it later, right Congresswoman Pelosi?

Once the bill is passed, we let the excessive bureaucratic departments piece together the details and interpret it in a manner of their choosing, at the direction of the president. So, wait a minute. If the individual departments and administrative components of the executive branch get to manipulate the wording to create their own policies, is this not legislating without Congress (or maybe it is Congress unconstitutionally delegating legislative powers to the executive branch, but does it really matter?)? So, are we the people really represented when the executive branch, which is unelected (besides the president), is actually the one determining policy? Both parties utilize this nonsense to get their agenda items passed without much scrutiny, but if an oligarch of unelected elites are deciding on policies that affect all of us, is this much different than living under a monarchy and a parliament that did not represent the American colonies?

As a side note, my congressional district (New York’s 19th district) is currently vacant, and the House of Representatives is busy jamming new gun control measures, as well as other bills, into law without my consent (literal legislation without representation, but do not expect the so-called progressives, who claim to advocate for democracy, to care). Our current system is an elite club that dictates to us how to live, and if you brush this off as just part of liberal democracy in the twenty-first century, you would not have been too sympathetic to the selfish radicals who rebelled against the tyranny of the British system either (the technology and power of the federal government in the present is far worse than anything that our founders faced back then).

Speaking of selfish radicals who bucked the system over minor inconveniences (like having to pay a tiny tax), what about emergency orders, like those during COVID-19 (and now climate change, gas and food shortages, and gun violence)? Just wear that mask and stick a needle up your arm. It is your patriotic duty to serve your king, I mean, stop the spread. During this time, governors, who were not elected to unilaterally handle a health crisis, nor did they have the authority to act as dictators and become sole arbiters of legislation, locked down their citizens, prohibited them from free association (at bars, restaurants, and small businesses), violated their right to practice their religion, fired employees for making a choice over their bodies, and set up identification systems that would deny access to services if an action that they desired was not taken. Bodily autonomy and liberty were destroyed (this is ironic and hypocritical, given the cries about abortion by the same crowd that wanted to force people to wear masks or get the vaccine). The so-called supporters of democracy had no issue utilizing the executive branch to push their public health agenda and keeping the mandates and orders flowing without the legislature.

If you were in the camp that said that people needed to sacrifice liberty for the collective “good” and adhere to public health guidelines without question, I am sorry to say this, but you would have been a Tory. Again, our founding fathers were radicals who fought for their rights as British citizens, and they rebelled when those rights were being violated. By today’s standards, our founders would have been what we now call right-wing conspiracy theorists and spreaders of disinformation (against the king and taxes). A tax against tea was a minor thing (especially because the other taxes had been repealed, and the legal tea eventually became cheaper than smuggled tea), but to those who wished for their rights to be honored and representation to be practiced, it was a huge deal and a matter of principle. While the modern-day loyalists to the Crown cry that wearing a mask is such a small gesture of appreciation for the established order and collective good and that spreading disinformation about forced jabs is an act of terrorism, patriots are those who fight for retaining whatever rights are left under our technocratic-fascist-corporatist state.

Happy Fourth of July and Independence Day! Stay strong and do not let the authoritarians bring you down or prevent you from keeping your eye on the goal of eventual freedom.