Craig Peterson Jr.'s Blog, page 9

Does Making Something Illegal Have Consequences?

Do people realize what making some action illegal really means? Do they realize that advocating for this means that they support dispatching an armed person, who is ready to unleash violent tendencies under certain circumstances, to detain an individual and drag him or her away to a cage? Are there too many laws and regulations in the United States that make this scenario all too common? Are there people who want their representatives to legislate morality and attempt to force their agenda on others, despite the fact that this results in greater confrontation between law enforcement and the public? Do many of the same people who cry for criminal justice reform often desire more laws and regulations that result in potential violence and excessive incarceration? Does the United States have the largest prison population in the world, even larger than that of China?

Is it justified to dispatch an armed person to drag away someone who desires to smoke a plant or sell it in a voluntary transaction between consenting adults? Should Americans be thrown in a cage because of such a business deal? What if these people just want to be left alone to live their lives how they see fit and not have to risk a record with a felony charge for an action that does not result in victims? Does a war on drugs lead to superfluous violence due to militarization of police, no-knock warrants, and underground gang activity? Does the concept of police raiding the homes of Americans seem eerily similar to a military invasion?

Now that marijuana is becoming normalized in society, will the next prohibition be against guns? Is there now talk of forcing law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms with the federal government or face hefty fines and jail time? Is it justified to turn ordinary citizens into criminals for refusing to comply with such orders? Will this lead to more black-market activity much like with the prohibition against drugs?

Do the federal and state governments always have to have some kind of war against inanimate objects or ideas in order to keep Americans locked up for just trying to live their lives in peace? Is this sometimes done to keep the coffers of privatized prisons afloat? Did the state governments wage a war against a virus that led to prohibitions against business owners just trying to scrap by, while allowing large corporations to remain open? Did many governors threaten to shut down establishments that did not comply with masking and social distancing requirements set forth through executive edict and without the assistance of an elected legislature? Did these same governors threaten to send armed individuals to break up parties, churches, and other gatherings by people exercising their right to peacefully assemble? Did governments force their citizens to wear a dirty piece of cloth over their breathing apparatuses or potentially face consequences?

Did the federal government and local law enforcement institute curfews and militarize the streets when people were protesting their government for acts of racial injustice? Were there rubber bullets flying and people unjustly dragged away? Because a few radical individuals desecrated the holy shrine of democracy over dissatisfaction of the verification of an election, will certain Americans now become the victim of McCarthyism-style terrorist investigations? Will an increased surveillance state targeting domestic terrorism be far worse than that of post-9-11 monitoring and lead to armed soldiers dragging away average people from their homes?

Is there now a cancel culture and nationalistic narrative that is brewing with the potential to turn the country into a fascist haven? Are the anti-fascists the ones who are leading the charge down this road and the ones who wish for more restrictions on people’s lives that will inevitably lead to the increased police conflict and imprisonment that they supposedly oppose? Is it dangerous to create a narrative and demonize and alienate those who do not agree? Has the government, the mainstream media, and Big Tech colluded to create such a narrative that is not conducive to free speech?

Are we headed down this dark road under the guise of collectivism? Does collectivism lead to genocide and concentration camps in times when the ruling class is able to convince citizens that dictatorial powers are necessary to keep the populace safe?

Has fear of a virus caused people to shy away from liberty and move towards monarchy and paternalism in a similar manner that the events subsequent to 9-11 frightened people into accepting increased surveillance measures? Is it considered a radical view to stand up for one’s rights? Has it now become selfish to wish for a free society where individuals can make their own decisions and be left alone? Has the United States embraced authoritarianism without many people even realizing that they are applauding it? What has happened to America?

Can you please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website?

Will the New Administration Warm Up to American Imperialism: A Look at Myanmar, Venezuela, Syria, and Saudi Arabia

For all the grief that former President Trump received for being this unprecedented leader bent on destroying democracy and usurping power (I should not have to remind anyone that he could have easily become a dictator in a COVID-19 environment of constant public fear, but he refrained), is the new president shaping up to be a beacon of hope in a sea of status quo leaders? I hope the answer is clear, but if not, below is a review of his first month in the realm of foreign policy.

After a coup left a military junta in control of the government in Myanmar (or Burma), President Biden was quick to reinstate economic sanctions against the country. Since sanctions rarely do anything to deter a targeted regime and cause extreme detriment to the average people, it is safe to say that the new administration’s actions are a symbolic way to act like it is doing something to punish evil officials in far off lands. In reality, however, freezing assets or prohibiting the free access of certain goods or services into or out of a country constitutes economic terrorism and are acts of war. Blockades and other such economic measures have been utilized throughout history during invasions to cut off supplies to the enemy. Even based strictly on American history, sanctions have often given way to bombing campaigns and other violent actions (think Iraq or Syria).

A relative rookie in the American sanctions game will likely not get relief from economic terrorism either, and the Biden administration has thus stayed on course in recognizing the illegitimate Venezuelan leader, Juan Guaido. President Trump was far too eager to confront Nicolas Maduro, but it appears that not much will change in the United States’ approach to Venezuela. More sanctions on the oil-rich nation will continue to harm the people already devastated by socialist policies.

Reading news pertaining to President Biden’s first airstrike in Syria should not shock anyone who has been paying attention to foreign policy over the last several years because the United States government has been involved in its own manifest destiny to dominate the Middle East and perpetuate war in the region for the military-industrial complex under the guise of bringing democracy to a savage land and cleansing the region of terrorism (yet, terrorism seems to be made worse wherever the United States military treads). The new president’s airstrikes, though claimed to be protective and retaliatory strikes in response to an attack on an American installation in Iraq by a group supported by Iran, have caused casualties and destruction of infrastructure and put further strain on the relationship with Iran (the president has since given it a warning) and Syria (a country that did not invite the United States, and thus, the American government has been violating the country’s territorial sovereignty for years). Tit for tat strikes just lead to increased violence, and status quo bombing and drone strike campaigns seem to be on the horizon.

After the release of an intelligence report showing that Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman directed the assassination of dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi, it was not too surprising to hear that President Biden was soft on the de facto leader (sanctioning other officials in the Saudi government, but not the prince himself). Although Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally in securing American oil interests and making large sums of money for the military-industrial complex under the guise of being a partner in the global effort to combat terrorism, the symbolic move of intentionally excluding the prince from criticism and silently defending him show the continuity among American presidents in foreign policy. The Saudi Arabian government has been a terrible actor in the region by destroying lives in Yemen, violating human rights in its own territory, and funding radical jihadism, yet the Biden administration is seemingly warming up to its ally (it did announce an end to the military support for the war effort in Yemen, which is positive, but even this remains to be seen in the long-term).

President Biden is setting himself up to become the new face of the American Empire, but as a result, he has to act the part and appease elements within the deep state that will never allow for a non-interventionist (different from isolationist) policy to dominate the political scene. There is little hope that things will truly change around the world, and we can be certain that economic sanctions, drone warfare and airstrikes without congressional approval, troops stationed in roughly two-thirds of the world’s countries, covert operations, and overall bullying will all be part of the Biden administration’s “build back better” strategy.

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

We Might Cut Off Some Ties to the War Effort in Yemen, But Not All

The United States government’s support of the Saudi-led slaughter in Yemen has been an ongoing issue that has united some progressives and conservatives due to the unilateral executive discretion in determining how much aid should be provided in the civil war. Congress has not declared war against Yemen or the Iran-backed Houthis, but the military has conducted numerous drone strikes. Now, President Biden has a chance to correct the mistakes of his predecessors and steer the United States away from this conflict in the Arabian Peninsula, but will he?

The newly-inaugurated president has announced that he will not support continued efforts in the war that are related to “offensive operations,” which is a good starting point. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (it ended its ground operations in 2019, but it still participates in bombing campaigns), and a few other countries have been bombing, sanctioning, and destroying Yemen for the last several years, and this has led to a humanitarian crisis of a major scale. In fact, there have been roughly 18,400 civilians who have been forced to breathe their last breaths due to the Saudi-led airstrikes and ground campaign, and it may be that two-thirds of the airstrikes have hit civilian targets (perhaps not intentionally), including mosques, hospitals, bridges, and markets. It is estimated that Saudi Arabia has conducted 20,000 airstrikes (or about twelve per day), and in addition, the kingdom and its allies have engaged in blockades that have prevented much needed supplies, food, and medicine to the struggling people. About 80% of the population (twenty-four million) need assistance, and roughly ten million people are in desperate need of food (two million children are “acutely malnourished”).

What did the Obama and Trump administrations do to “punish” Saudi Arabia’s war crimes and violations of human rights? It supported the war effort through many avenues, including logistical and intelligence support, aerial refueling (ended in 2018 due to the Khashoggi incident), targeting advice, and supplying of weapons. For this, the United States government is complicit in the terrorist actions of its allies. But if you thought, the federal government was only partially responsible for the bloodshed, think again. Unrelatedly, the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have engaged in drone strikes, which have led to hundreds of additional civilian casualties, to hunt down radical Islamic elements within the country. These attacks have further exacerbated the situation and led to individuals supporting the very terrorism that was being combated (either through radicalization or for assistance from groups like Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or the Houthis).

So, is it a wonder why I am not completely optimistic when it comes to Biden’s words on ending hostilities in Yemen? Is it a good thing that he removed the terrorist designation from the Houthis, pledged to terminate aid in regards to lethal actions, plans to cut off certain arms deals to the Saudis and the Emiratis (precision-guided bombs and fighter jets, for example), and wishes to negotiate an end to the war overall? Of course, these are moves in the right direction, but very few details have been laid out so far. Will the president’s advisors or military generals convince him to water down the plan further? President Biden has already suggested that he does not intend to withdraw security forces in Saudi Arabia that have been training and assisting the kingdom in defending its borders or ceasing the airstrike operations against AQAP or ISIS.

Actions speak louder than words, and since presidents of both parties have continued what their predecessors have started, there is little hope that things will change dramatically in Yemen. The president may have good intentions and truly wish to change the American involvement in the country, but the establishment in the government may have other ideas. We will have to see what comes out of this in the coming months, but it does have the potential for some promising results.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website to read more examples of how the United States government has engaged in terrorism and failed in pursuits around the world.

Biden’s Dark Winter May Include Authoritarian Crackdowns on Free Speech

Is the new Biden administration getting ready to crack down on political dissidents? Is free speech about to become a thing of the past? Is the militarization as witnessed in Washington, D.C. over the “threat” of domestic terrorism about to make it to a city near you? Will there be a new USA PATRIOT Act aimed at nearly half of Americans who disagree with the liberal agenda, as former Representative Tulsi Gabbard (a Democrat who actually has an independent mind and is willing to speak out against her own party) has suggested? What dangers lie ahead for those who do not accept forced indoctrination and the growing authoritarianism?

Even if you do not identify as conservative, libertarian, a conspiracy theorist, a Trump supporter, pro-life, or anything “controversial,” this should still concern you. Pushing people with views that go contrary to the accepted nationalistic narrative out of the dialogue and into the fringes can not only be considered fascist and a violation of individual liberties, but it also creates more extremism than is necessary. These unintended consequences of censorship and isolation may cause more harm than good, and the marginalized groups may become martyrs in a political war that is on the verge of erupting. Even libertarians were singled out by former CIA director John Brennan, and if every group or individual that does not embrace what the left considers decent political views becomes a target of an investigation, we are in for a wild ride.

There have been calls for a new domestic terrorism bill, however, at this point, many people have been wary of such an approach. Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed sweeping new measures to attempt to combat terrorism, but many of these have been abused and decried as violations of individual rights. A new law would inevitably create a scenario where more Americans become the victim of surveillance, and possibly even arrest, in an unwarranted manner. Those hastily calling for this should think twice. Maybe today it is conservatives that are targets, but in the future, under a Republican president, Black Lives Matter or some other progressive group could become the victim of similar tactics. Let us not have to resort to the idea of “what goes around comes around.”

A new domestic terrorism law would become permanent, just like the Patriot Act, and if we want to keep our liberties (which, it is becoming apparent, especially with the COVID-19 response, that Americans do not value freedom and might be easily manipulated into further targeting of fellow Americans with whom they disagree), let us not give in to the tyranny that this would create. Remember, if Americans have to self-censor their activities, internet searches, and the content of their discussions in public for fear that they may be under surveillance by the government, it is a threat to the freedom of speech.

The Department of Homeland Security released a memo a few days ago about how domestic terrorism by racist hicks who opposed lockdowns and were unhappy about the election results (the charge of racism is thrown out there to degrade anyone who disagrees with the liberal view of social justice) is most certainly in the process of being plotted across the country. DHS apparently has a crystal ball that can show that these attacks are inevitable. When these so-called “rightwing terrorists” are considered more dangerous than BLM, which had extremist elements that were literally burning down small businesses and attempting to breach federal buildings, it should be easy to spot the double standard coming from the media, the new administration, and liberals in general. DHS has also advised Americans to snitch on their neighbors (perhaps like the Gestapo or the Stasi?).

If all of this fear of the unknown in the upcoming days of President Biden’s Dark Winter was not bad enough, there have been national guardsmen posted in Washington, D.C. as a way to show that violent extremism on the right is a constant threat that needs to be met with militarized police in the streets (again, leftwing extremism is largely ignored by the media and those who agree with the messages that it espouses). During the inauguration, there were upwards of 25,000 guard members from various states, and it has been recently announced that roughly 5,000 members of these units will remain in the city until mid-March.

There is no reason for there to be a small army to prevent riots from getting out of control. This is a concerted effort to condition Americans into accepting the militarizing of American streets and to show how people who cling to certain political ideologies are more dangerous than others and need to be combated. This was not just about protecting legislators and creating law and order. The January 6th attack was conducted by a group of a few hundred individuals who acted irrationally, and since most Americans (on both the right and the left) have condemned the attacks and do not believe in engaging in similar activities, it is certainly a political symbol to station that many troops in one American city and erect a security barrier (similar to the Green Zone in Iraq?).

If the Biden administration successfully convinces Americans that more security and surveillance are necessary nationwide, we may be looking at the infancy of a fascist state that labels anyone who does not have popular views as a terrorist. Although this may seem farfetched to many, consider how far we have devolved from the system of a republican government and the guarantee of freedom. The drug war that has justified the militarization of police, and later added on the addition of a war on terrorism, has laid the framework for a police state. There is also the massive surveillance state that has become normalized, and then, we had the COVID-19 lockdowns that conditioned Americans to accept draconian measures into their daily lives. Now, we are in the process of creating a war against conservatives and libertarians and those who question the election results, do not believe that the January 6th attack was a coup (there was no evidence that the mob was actually attempting to seize control of the government), and do not believe that President Trump incited violence (since the plan to storm the Capitol was likely initiated the night before, Trump’s speech was not what caused it, and an immediate threat without any chance for opposing speech did not occur, as the Supreme Court standard for incitement requires).

The gradual introduction of authoritarianism will soon enter the final phase unless we step up and demand that things change. Be prepared for an increasing number of “emergencies” in the upcoming months and years to justify the theft of our civil liberties because it is much easier to achieve this under such conditions. Fear will certainly be America’s downfall as we “progress” towards our fascist utopia. I will leave you with a warning from independent journalist Glenn Greenwald.

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

One Executive Order…Two Executive Orders…Ah, Who’s Counting?

Although presidents throughout American history have rarely shied away from utilizing excess executive actions, why do we allow such unilateral decisions in a republican form of government? Have we not learned from history? Do we not realize that Andrew Jackson made his own interpretation of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 when he committed genocide against Native Americans? What about Franklin Roosevelt when he confiscated all gold in the United States and forced Japanese Americans into concentration camps? Executive fiat without congressional approval often leads to negative consequences and sets bad precedents, and as we have seen with the COVID-19 crisis, emergency dictatorial power can destroy people’s lives (in this case, only to find out that these orders did not halt the spread of the virus and still came with an array of societal and economic costs).

President Biden is starting to conform to his position well, and his two predecessors were certainly no strangers to the use of unauthorized edicts. Generally, whichever political party is in power at the time praises their leader’s actions and condemns the opposing party’s similar measures, and vice versa. However, on principle (something both parties lack), we should not be thrilled by the consolidation of power in the hands of one man (or woman).

Under President Obama, two actions, in particular, were concerning from a separation of powers concept: DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). Although I agree with the idea behind both executive actions, on principle, they were not conducted in the proper manner and are not constitutionally sound. After Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act, Obama was upset and created his own law to allow illegal immigrant children, who were brought to the United States at an early age and by no fault of their own, to apply for a program that would defer their deportation for at least two years and allow them to apply for work permits. I agree that these children should not be deported (past presidents have prioritized deportations and overlooked certain individuals due to lack of resources in rounding up every illegal immigrant), but Obama took it a step further and legislated his own program into existence.

The concept of presidents negotiating executive agreements with foreign powers (a treaty in all but name) has been around for some time, but this does not mean that it is constitutional. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran did not meet this criteria set forth by the Constitution. Although participating in a deal to halt sanctions and prevent war with Iran was sound policy and was better than the alternative scenario, the president having sole power to enter into treaties is not something that should be praised (even if there is precedent for it).

President Trump had a couple of concerning measures as well that were conducted through executive action pertaining to immigration. Early in his presidency, he legislated his own immigration policy through a couple of executive orders that established bans on individuals migrating to the United States based on national origin and a non-existent national security threat. He started with bans from seven Muslim-majority countries, and then after being challenged in court, he added North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmar, Tanzania, Eritrea, and Nigeria (Muslims do make up a slight majority over Christians in this African country) in order to not appear to be discriminating against Muslims. However, freezing immigration and refugee entry based on national origin or religion is not constitutionally sound, and furthermore, this is not something that should be done through executive edict.

After failing to get the funds from Congress (or Mexico) considered necessary to build his border wall, President Trump decided to redistribute funds from other places in the federal budget to pay for the large infrastructure project. However, reappropriating funds is not permitted by the Constitution, and according to this document, only the House of Representatives may originate bills related to spending, even if the executive branch declares an emergency (in this case, it was clearly not even that). Therefore, President Trump overstepped his authority to attempt to create a barrier that was never going to work in the first place.

Both Presidents Obama and Trump failed on their human rights records, and the whole idea of “kids in cages” started with Obama (though he only held them for three days or less and tried to keep families together) and then ended horribly with Trump (his separation of immigrant families and conditions of the cages were abhorrent). Then, of course, there were the endless slaughters of civilians in drone strikes in certain targeted countries where a declaration of war by Congress was never issued (drone warfare was initiated under the Bush administration). During the Bush and Obama administrations, there were also the indefinite detention and torture of “enemy combatant” issues. The United States government (under administrations of both parties) have committed atrocities by executive fiat, and it does not seem likely that this will change under a Biden administration.

In fact, President Joe Biden has issued more executive actions in his first week and a half in office than any other president (forty-two at the time of this writing), and although some may argue that this was because of the necessity to reverse the former president’s policies and respond to the pandemic, this is a dangerous precedent to set. Some of the reversals included reinstating the former DACA provisions, ending the border wall project, re-entering the World Health Organization, and reversing the immigration bans, but it should now be clear to the American public that executive abuse of power has been a consistent problem for many years (it is now Republicans’ turn to criticize executive orders and Democrats’ turn to praise them).

He issued several initial orders on the climate, immigration, economics, and the pandemic. The Paris Agreement (which was a treaty entered into by executive agreement under the Obama administration without the required two-thirds approval by the Senate) was withdrawn by President Trump and will now take effect as a treaty through the decision of only one man. Also on the environment front, President Biden terminated Trump’s permit (also issued through action) for the Keystone XL pipeline (the oil will still be produced, but now it will be transported by truck, which is just as dangerous, if not more so). President Trump was also responsible for executive orders to pause student debt and residential rent payments for those who were unable to pay due to financial issues caused by the pandemic, and the new president will continue these policies without congressional approval.

Additionally, related to the pandemic, the president issued several orders, including having FEMA send additional payments to states for national guard units that participated in the pandemic response; creating brand new federal vaccination sites; forming a brand new cabinet position to act as a pandemic coordinator; establishing a new program to boost the development of therapeutics; prohibiting travel of immigrants and non-immigrants from a number of countries (something that suddenly becomes acceptable because it is not Trump doing the banning); requiring mask-wearing on all federal property, airports and airplanes, trains, intercity buses, and maritime vessels; and requiring proof of a negative COVID-19 test prior to arrival in the United States.

None of these actions have been passed by Congress, but hey, who needs that pesky legislature to vote on bills and decide what becomes law? Executive orders take the effect of laws, so why not just bypass the body that will just slow down progress anyways? Having a republic does not mean a thing when we have paternal benevolence to guide our nation, and monarchy is best form of governance in this high-paced century in which we find ourselves.

We have already seen checks and balances fade away at the state level during the pandemic, and the erosion of this concept has been in the works at the federal level for many years. Hopefully, Americans will wake up and recall the proper procedures from their history textbooks, but if not, our country may end up repeating the failures of past authoritarian empires.

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

The Great Media Hypocrisy and Increasing Calls for Censorship after the January 6th Attack

Last week, we witnessed an attack on the United States Capitol by a group of domestic terrorists, and although such an attack should be condemned by Americans (and was by almost everyone), the implications of this may lead us further down the road of fascism and into further civil liberties violations. Hypocrisy has been displayed by both major political parties over the last year, and this event is no different. It has been hyper-politicized to the point where the House of Representatives is now looking at its second impeachment of President Trump, who should have toned down the election fraud rhetoric and was wrong to fish for additional votes in Georgia and attempt to convince Vice President Pence to prevent the certification of the electoral votes without sufficient proof.

Some obvious areas of hypocrisy lay with the mainstream media. Back over the summer, during the Black Lives Matter protests, the media encouraged all expressions of the fight against what it deemed as oppression and privilege and was even willing to look the other way as some of the protests erupted into scenes of chaos, arson, and looting. When BLM protesters captured a few city blocks (this became known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone of Portland, Oregon) and trapped residents and small business owners, set up barriers to prevent free travel in and out of the zone with armed guards posted throughout the area (a bit ironic in of itself), and destroyed property; the media largely ignored it, or they classified it as a peaceful party. All of the violence was condoned, and there were even comparisons made between the riots and the Boston Tea Party with the heroic destruction of buildings occupied by small business owners (the mentality became: the business owners had insurance, and even though they may have worked hard to get to where they were, it was just too bad).

The media condemned the January 6th attack right away (and justifiably so), but it then went on to paint all of the pro-Trump protesters as violent and radical thugs, despite thousands of peaceful protesters taking to the streets of Washington, D.C. Yet, despite some violence, the BLM protests were quickly classified as “mostly peaceful.” Where is the consistency? Liberal politicians and the general Democratic population followed suit in the double standard. Both sides have the right to protest and became victims of agitators that hijacked the movements and utilized unwarranted violence, but my problem is more with the hypocrisy. Conservatives largely viewed the BLM protests as violent when they generally were not, just like liberals did with the Trump rally. By media standards, though, it seems to only be considered violence when right-wing groups are involved, and left-wing groups are allowed to be as violent as they please without consequence.

Questioning the media is generally frowned upon by “scholarly” sheep who believe that our institutions in this country are sacred, should not be touched, and can be trusted without the shadow of a doubt. It should be asked, “what did President Trump or his followers gain from storming the Capitol?” This is important because if only condemnation, another article of impeachment, and talk of the use of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment were the results, why would the president risk doing something so imprudent? He knows that the media is biased against him and that a large portion of politicians hate him, so this seems like an illogical political move at a time when tensions were high. Therefore, it seems unlikely that he was intentionally attempting to incite violence against the very government that he was a part of due to the consequences that he would have known would ensue (I will let you decide if anything he said actually constituted overt rallying of people to physically storm the inside of the building). Also, though the media dismisses the idea out of hand, perhaps Antifa (a far-left militia) took place in the riots and lured the protesters into storming the building (a few images of supposed Trump supporters looking eerily similar to Antifa members from the summer exist, and one protester allegedly had a “hammer and sickle” tattooed on his hand). Since the majority of the public lacks curiosity of the world and blindly follows what they are told, it is safe to assume that these questions will not be examined in the near future.

Another area of concern is: why was it so easy for the protesters to storm the building? The Capitol is supposed to be one of the most secure buildings in the country, and yet on a day when they knew that this could happen and all of Congress was meeting in the same place during a hotly contested election, they decided to be less strict with the security? I worked in military security and law enforcement, and I can tell you firsthand that even low-level installations had constant security (but a high-level target with our nation’s lawmakers inside was left without adequate security?). There is something suspicious about this, and even though liberals like to pretend that this was because white protesters were involved (though there is some disparity in levels of response due to race, this cannot be the case here), why was there video evidence of police taking selfies with the protesters and opening gates and allowing them to leave without issue? No sane police officer is going to open gates for protesters (for fear of courts-martial or other equivalent sanctions) unless they were ordered to do so.

President Trump has been continuously harassed as the cause of this horrific breach, despite telling people to go home and remain peaceful. Yet the media, as they normally do, took what he said out of context and did not accept his attempt to persuade his supporters to stand down. No matter what the president says or how he says it, his haters will always criticize his every move (he could give someone a million dollars, and the press would find some way to charge him with racism and foul play for the kind gesture). This is the type of environment we find ourselves in, and now there are calls to purge the nation of Trumpism and force his followers to face consequences for not renouncing him.

Should people who question the election results and endorse someone that many regard as pure evil be punished simply for their support? The idea has been floated around, and Facebook and Twitter certainly did not waste time suspending his accounts and censoring unfavorable information about the event. The social media giants have been “fact-checking” posts hardcore over the last several months because they are afraid inconvenient information that goes against the main narrative may gain steam. Big Tech does not believe in free speech, and although the average liberal claims that he or she advocates for it, this is clearly not the case because there is an increasing push to censor whatever they deem as misinformation and classify anything that goes against the liberal agenda as dangerous.

In most cases, liberals’ hatred for free speech would just be passed off as intolerance (the opposite of what they claim to be), but with an active campaign (see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s idea) to punish Trump supporters or rid the world of the filth associated with the devil himself, anyone who values free speech and association should be appalled by what may come to pass. We do not need another round of McCarthyism in the United States. Will there be calls for fines, arrests, or social cancellations as retribution for support of a president? Will it become illegal to spread information about election fraud (there were likely some cases of fraud and irregularities, but it is currently unknown whether there was enough of it to change the election results, and the president and his team have failed to provide sufficient evidence in a timely manner)? Will right-wing groups become a scapegoat for the nation’s problems? Will there be a nationalistic purge of Trumpism and limits on free speech? If so, this sounds eerily similar to the very fascism that these people supposedly oppose (creating a national narrative that everyone has to follow or face the consequences). Will Americans be conditioned to embrace a new set of Alien and Sedition Acts and force free speech supporters to draft new versions of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions?

As we approach our dark winter with a new president, will the division that has been increasing finally cause the end of the United States as we know it, or will our nation be able to heal itself? It seems unlikely that the division will instantly dissipate, and if the party in power chooses to force their will upon the “conquered” group of people, civil war may ultimately come. However, if the ruling party sends out an olive branch and prevents the temptations of authoritarianism, and the conquered party actually accepts the invitation, peace may be a possibility. With more COVID-19 restrictions looming, the United States does not need punishments for people who desire the expression of their views. Anti-Trump people need to embrace tolerance and work to find common ground with those whom they disagree and stop acting like they are morally superior to the diseased pro-Trumpers. It will be interesting to see what will happen on Sunday (January 17th) with the planned protests in all of the state capitals, and the media is already warning that there will be right-wing violence before the events have even occurred.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website. I will leave you with a quote from Glenn Greenwald:
“Authoritarians never believe they’re authoritarians, no matter how much censorship, surveillance, jingoism, & imprisonment they demand. They tell themselves their enemies are so uniquely evil and dangerous – terrorists – that anything done in the name of fighting them is noble.”

The Big Bad COVID Lies of 2020

This year has been quite the year. Our normal lives became upset by an authoritarian spirit that possessed our politicians to the height of insanity. We got a glimpse of what all narcissistic politicians desire, as their true colors were shown quickly with the disaster of a lifetime. The COVID-19 pandemic was more than just an opportunity for leaders to control our lives in unprecedented ways, but it also allowed for the public to become more malleable with the new normal (think the Great Reset) on the horizon. Governments would never let a crisis be wasted when there are new opportunities for exploitations of the populace, and we have much more misfortune to look forward to in 2021. Despite the bleak outlook on the future, we must consider how we got to where we are and the deception that was orchestrated by the government and the elites.

We begin our adventure of exploring the COVID-19 lies with Dr. Anthony Fauci and his National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The mainstream media kept insisting that the novel coronavirus was naturally occurring, despite its peculiar characteristics of asymptomatic spread (everyone became guilty of having the virus without a chance to prove one’s innocence); nocturnal behavior; ability to infect people gathering in churches, small businesses, gyms, and theaters, while leaving protesters with certain politically correct agendas alone; and the inability to penetrate through masks, despite years of studies showing that masks are not a successful mitigation measure (Dr. Fauci originally opined that masks are about making people feel better, and that they do not halt the spread and may only stop a few droplets). The NIAID and NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China that studied how coronaviruses could jump from bats to humans and got criticism from doctors that this could start a pandemic, and yet, the public still believes that the virus coincidentally started in the same city where the research was being conducted and had no connection whatsoever to the laboratory. This is how effective the media is with its propaganda.

The next big propaganda lie that has been told over and over again by both the media and politicians was that this virus crept up on us and that there was no way we could have known how unprepared we were to combat a virus. However, as previously discussed, scientists warned that a pandemic could start from gain-of-function research, but that aside, I can list three exercises right off the bat (pardon the pun) where government officials, corporations, the healthcare industry, and billionaires literally practiced the pandemic that we were about to experience just months before the first recorded case was known. Politicians, which are interested in making themselves look good, needed a cover story, and the public bought it. Clade X, Crimson Contagion (a January to August 2019 exercise that simulated an influenza-like virus coming from China and showed the unpreparedness of the federal and state governments and hospitals), and Event 201 (an October 2019 exercise involving the WHO, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins Center for Health and Security, the World Economic Forum, business professionals, medical experts, and policy makers that simulated a pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus). So, when Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York comes on the television and tells you that he had no idea that this could have occurred, remember that his government participated in Crimson Contagion and that he won an Emmy Award.

With the two topics listed above, in conjunction with the fact that most states moved quickly to coordinate lockdowns and other measures and that there was a constant push for a new normal, should it be any surprise as to why many Americans, despite the best propaganda efforts by the mainstream media to censor information and condition people into accepting whatever the official narrative seems to be at the time, believe that the coronavirus pandemic was planned? Think about the exercises that were conducted just before September 11, 2001, such as Vigilant Guardian and Fertile Rice, in which the military was unaware whether or not the actual hijackings were real. Plus, there was the planning of al-Qaeda’s and the Taliban’s removal days and months before the event occurred.

If one is to examine past historical events, it should not be too difficult to understand motivations and parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and 9-11. Just like 9-11 ushered in the Patriot Act, the massive surveillance state, endless wars in the Middle East, and the bolstering of the military-industrial complex; COVID-19 has the benefit of ushering in new economic policies (like the Great Reset), increased restrictions on people’s lives, and an expanded medical-surveillance state (think contact tracing and mandatory vaccinations). To the majority of Americans who do not study these things, this all may seem farfetched, but before dismissing these things as conspiracy theories and something that the government would never do, I would like to remind people of Operation Northwoods and MK-Ultra.

As if the lies involving the background of the pandemic were not bad enough, let us dig into the details inside of the crisis. As mentioned above, Dr. Fauci told the world that mask-wearing was unnecessary and was just a feel-good measure, and then halfway through the first wave, he decided to change his opinion and backtrack, saying that he only said that out of concern for a mask shortage. However, that is clearly not what he said at the time, and why would there be a mask shortage if wearing cotton shirts or bandanas over one’s face was permissible? There is no shortage of those things.

There was something fishy going on with the flip-flopping doctor, and questions remain about the effectiveness of mask-wearing. The Danish mask study shows that the wearer has essentially no protection from the virus, and although the mainstream and social medias went ballistic and tried to cover this up as misinformation, there is no denying that the majority of Americans are conforming to the donning of dirty rags over their faces with little hindrance to the pesky disease. The number of cases continues to skyrocket (see these charts), despite the compliance, and if masks really were an effective mitigation measure, we should not be seeing such increasing rates of infection. The media and the government have been lying about masks and will not allow any scientist or citizen who questions the official narrative to have a say in the matter.

Similar to the lack of allowance of an opinion on matters regarding masks, people were told to just shut and obey when it came to lockdowns. Government officials rushed to shut down businesses, economies, and people’s livelihoods in order to curb a virus with a less than one percent death rate. Lockdowns did not halt the spread, and in fact, the death statistics (which is more important than the total number of cases) were all over the place. For example, during the first wave, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Spain performed far worse than Sweden (at the time of this writing), a country that did not impose a lockdown. Peru and Italy had some of the strictest lockdowns, yet, they had some of the worst results in the world. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (states with some of the strictest measures in the United States) consistently topped the charts for deaths per capita, while states like Florida (a state that did away with strict measures and continues to holdout), Georgia, Texas, and South Dakota (a state that still has not implemented a lockdown) fared better (again, all death statistics per capita will need to be viewed for the date that this was published for accuracy). Though death statistics do not account for the entire story, if lockdowns were effective, the positive results should be skewed significantly towards states and countries with stricter lockdowns, but that is simply not the case.

Politicians have touted lockdowns as the great success story that has saved countless lives, but this is far from the truth. In fact, things like suicides, drug overdose deaths, fatalities from undiagnosed medical conditions due to obsession with one virus (the full effect of this will not be known for some time), and domestic abuse have increased astronomically. Plus, people’s emotional and mental well-being have been destroyed, as life has become less enjoyable, and elderly people suffer in isolation. Socialization (something necessary for humans) has been affected, and children have not been able to learn key social skills due to school closures. All of this does not take into consideration the financial burdens that people have suffered while their political overlords are living luxurious lifestyles in their mansions and palaces.

Poverty is on the rise, and even the WHO admitted that lockdowns should not be the primary means of controlling the virus due to the damage caused. Despite continuing the trend of trading certain lives for others, politicians claim that the lockdowns have saved lives (if more people are dying from the “collateral damage” and suffering severe emotional and mental issues, how can lockdowns be considered successful?).

Small businesses have closed or continue to struggle to make ends meet, and the cronyism and corporatism associated with the government picking large corporations to remain untouched and profitable has destroyed the prospects of the little guys. Governments have divided all businesses into two categories, but since when does the government get to choose which businesses are essential or nonessential? Destroying small businesses to bring about a new world where large corporations and governments restructure the economy may be the intended goal of taking advantage of the crisis. Focusing solely on a virus while the whole world around us burns is a poor strategy that has failed, yet, the overlords do as they will in order to control people and rebuild society to their liking.

Politicians and the media have paraded around the idea that lockdowns would prevent the overcapacity of the healthcare system, but just like much of what comes out of Governor Cuomo’s mouth, the idea that hospitals would be overwhelmed was a lie. The concept of two weeks being enough to flatten the curve and prevent overcapacity of hospitals quickly and expectedly transformed into indefinite virus-halting measures that would be back and forth for weeks to come. This was never about overcapacity.

The New York governor has a habit of spinning the truth, and he even tried to blame President Trump for his decision to force nursing home patients into facilities where they would spread the disease. Then, he tried to cover the order up by altering it and pretending like he never caused thousands of deaths by his actions. The CDC guidelines put forth by President Trump stated they should try to accommodate nursing home patients who tested positive, but the order was a mandate that required the acceptance of these patients without question. He even had the time to write a book about how great he was, despite New York being one of the worst-performing states in the country (and one of the worst-performing political entities in the world).

The media has been pounding the death and case projections into our heads, and politicians have been frightening the populace into accepting lockdowns so that they can control their lives. In fact, Governor Cuomo even said that lockdowns are not the best approach, but he has attempted to instill fear in the populace in order to justify the very lockdowns that he claims are needed to bring down anxiety levels. He does not truly care about the science as he claims, but rather, he is more interested in control and exercising power. Politicians at many levels of government have taken advantage of the opportunity to become more powerful at the expense of the people.

The propaganda surrounding COVID-19 has been dishonest in many ways. The constant projections of deaths and case numbers were meant to cause fear, and it worked. Masked people could be seen everywhere (sometimes even in their cars), and bullying of people into wearing masks was not unheard of. The mantra became, “you are selfish and do not care about science (something that is supposed to be about questioning things) or people’s lives if you do not blindly follow the narrative.” It became our patriotic duty to stay home and wear a mask and sacrifice everything that gives life meaning. Television advertisements became full of masked individuals. Almost everyone fell for the propaganda in the extremely nationalistic transformation of society, and most people decided that the television should tell them to be afraid and not question anything. Coupled with enforcement of executive orders, fascism became popularly accepted.

Government officials constantly sold us the lie that a public health emergency means that individual rights need to be suspended. They claimed that the Bill of Rights does not apply if there is a pandemic, and the populace fell for it and accepted the destruction of civil liberties. People were forced to stay home, arrested or fined for having or attending gatherings, and disallowed from having certain people in their homes. Privacy and the right to one’s property got thrown out the door. People were not allowed to attend church to practice their religions or assemble at restaurants, theaters, or gyms. Forced masking (and now vaccines when they become mandatory) prevents a person from having a right to their own bodies. Lives, liberty, and property were taken without due process, and businesses that were arbitrarily declared as unimportant by government standards were forced to close without just compensation. Businesses that did not comply with strict regulations imposed by executive fiat were fined or shut down (business owners have even been arrested for trying to make a living).

People were also convinced that monarchy was a superior form of government over a republic during a time of crisis, as governors usurped power and issued executive orders that took on the effect of law or suspended existing law (Governor Cuomo suspended hundreds of laws). Because of fear, the majority of people thought only a king issuing edicts could prevent the spread of a disease, and the legislatures and courts took a break so that their assembling would not become super-spreader events. Even now, legislatures and courts are not checking the governors appropriately. These lies allowed for the strengthening and consolidating of governors’ power.

The arbitrariness of allowing certain gatherings and not others also became apparent. Protesters who were interested in protesting racial injustice were encouraged, while churches and synagogues were forced to close. Protesting lockdown measures were discouraged, but Black Lives Matter protests were supported. This inequity and application of executive orders in an oppressive manner helped fuel the fire of political divide. The lie that the virus would spread at conservative or Trump rallies and not at liberal or Antifa rallies was contradictory and showed the true colors of liberal politicians bent on controlling lives and not stopping the virus.

The hypocrisy of political leaders was also astounding. On the one hand, they would claim that everyone needs to stay home and not travel, but on the other, they would get caught out and about without a mask or attending a large gathering. Governor Cuomo, who lives in a mansion, wants everyone to make sacrifices to “save” lives, but he does not want to sacrifice his luxurious lifestyle or salary (he altered laws by executive order, so he could waive his pay). He was also caught on multiple occasions without a mask, including when he was on his under twenty-four hour trip to Georgia. California Representative Nancy Pelosi was caught at a hair appointment after urging her constituents to stay home and follow the state’s guidelines, which included shutdowns of barbershops and hair salons. Governor Gavin Newsom, one of the most authoritarian of the governors, was caught at a large assembly in a restaurant without a mask after issuing orders telling residents that they should not do exactly what he did. Austin, Texas Mayor Steve Adler told residents to stay home and not travel for Thanksgiving while on vacation in Mexico.

The public blew these occasions off as mistakes due to human error, but the truth seems to be that they are not really all that concerned about the virus. If a political leader goes to an event, they know for sure what they are doing, and there is no excuse besides arrogance and the thought that they would not be discovered. The “do as I say and not what I do” mantra has become popular during the pandemic. If politicians, who presumably have more information on the virus than the general public, are not worried about it in their daily lives, why should everyone else live in fear? Our politicians are lying about the disease and using it as an excuse to control the sheep that blindly follow their every words.

There have also been financial incentives for labelling deaths in hospitals as COVID-19, and in fact, healthcare facilities received $13,000 in Medicare payments per positive case and $39,000 if the patient went on a ventilator. Some physicians say that they were pressured to list the novel coronavirus as the cause of death, and financial gain can be a great motivating factor that can inflate the numbers.

Now that we have broken down the erroneous arguments that mitigation measures have been successful, it is now important to focus on the virus itself. Political leaders have attempted to force their will upon the populace for a disease that is not really that deadly, and if we analyze the statistics from the virus, we learn that it is not really as much of a concern as they claim. This is not to say that people should not be cautious, but it does mean that they can live their lives without constant anxiety and without obsession over it.

Back when people thought the death rate from COVID-19 was around four or five percent, paranoia broke out. However, since then, we have learned that the death rate is actually around 0.6%. Granted, this figure shows that the virus is significantly more deadly than the common influenza, but it is still very small. Of that 0.6% of people who die, 94% of them had comorbidities. This means that 6% of all deaths are solely from the disease, and ultimately, only 0.036% of people who have the disease die from it without comorbidities. Is this virus really that deadly to warrant a complete obsession and shutdown of normal life?

In addition, up to 90% of people who test positive for COVID-19 have such a low amount of the virus that they cannot spread it to others (a high number of cycles, which is something that is not reported, indicates that the PCR tests are too sensitive), and around 80% of people who have the virus do not show signature symptoms. This means that the virus is not as contagious as previously thought, and if someone is not displaying symptoms, they are less likely to spread it, provided that they are not shouting or singing at someone. If only 10% (maybe more) of all people who test positive (given that the PCR tests are even accurate to begin with) can spread the virus, why is everyone so afraid?

Now, if we take these statistics and apply logic to them, we can come up with some simple ideas. First, you are unlikely to catch the virus, but if you do, you are extremely unlikely to die from it (if you are not elderly or have other underlying conditions). You are not likely to spread it, but if you do, the person or people who you spread it to are very unlikely to die or spread it to others. This chain continues, and a rational person would conclude that societal shutdowns are not warranted. Yes, we should shield the elderly and people with underlying conditions (see the Great Barrington Declaration) and take precautions to prevent them from getting it, but it is insane to ask the young and healthy to sacrifice their lives for something so inconsequential to them. Increased infections that occur among the young and healthy end up benefiting society as a whole, and ultimately, that is what the vaccine is attempting to accomplish. Why are we being sheltered from the virus in order to develop herd immunity through artificial means when we could develop it naturally? What is it about these vaccines that they are trying to push it through so quickly and aggressively?

Politicians have lied time and time again relating to this pandemic, and we can expect more falsehoods in the coming months. We are now at the precipice of our “dark winter” (did Joe Biden make a reference to Operation Dark Winter from 2001?), and more lockdowns will be pushed upon the populace. An authoritarian winter filled with all kinds of fearmongering propaganda will certainly lead to many more deaths and deteriorating mental and social health. However, these deaths will not be from a virus with a 99.4% survivability rate.

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

Happy Thanksgiving to the Peasants of the Kingdom of New York

Hear ye, hear ye: His Majesty the King of the Imperial City of New York, the Surrounding Communities, and the Vassal Counties to the North, on the advice of His Holiness Pope Fauci, has decreed that the Traditional Feast of Thanksgiving be limited to ten individuals due to the continuation of the Plague. This is a decision that was not made lightly, but the only way to stop the spread is to prevent family members of separate households from meeting. He understands that this will cause a minor inconvenience, but just think about the service that this will provide for your Benevolent Ruler. As you worship at the Altar of the State, remember that the Gods of Science will be smiling down upon you in favor.

The enforcement of this edict will be carried out by Constables and Sheriffs across the Kingdom, and the expectation is that these officers of the law will quickly enter into private homes with arms drawn in order to count the number of individuals present and issue fines, payable to His Majesty, for those found in defiance of the order. If these confrontations are met with resistance, arrests will be made. His Majesty is growing tired of the insolence and the desire of His Subjects to have any sort of enjoyment in their short existences.

If the Constables and Sheriffs refuse to enforce the edicts, the King’s Elite Health Guard will come in to do headcounts and issue the fines. However, they are limited on resources, so His Subjects are asked to rat out anyone that they suspect may be gathering in numbers greater than ten. If you see eight or nine participants through a window or more than four horses staked in front of a house, call the guards over immediately so that they can inspect the property for excess bodies. This is your civic and patriotic duty. Do not disappoint your Benevolent Ruler.

His Majesty would also like to remind His Subjects that the curfew of 2200 hours for all taverns remains in effect. The Plague is a brutal beast that is not only nocturnal, but it also only targets select establishments and individuals practicing certain activities, such as singing in churches or gathering in small markets. Remember that face coverings are required until further notice, and they will still be necessary even after the release of the Cure, which should only be administered once Emperor-Select Biden assumes the Throne of the American Kingdoms United.

It is suggested that you do not participate in any celebration this year, but if you must, it is imperative that you abide by the simple and just orders set forth in the Royal Guidelines. His Subjects would do well to remember that His Majesty could have prohibited all gatherings this year, but He so graciously decided to allow assemblies of up to ten people. Do not make Him regret this decision, and mass failure to comply will result in the tightening of restrictions for the Christmas Celebration.

We are to take comfort in the Paternal Benevolence of our Beloved Leader, and although some of you still sin against Him, He wants you to be confident in His Abilities by reading His new Holy Book. The insights in this book will be used as a guide for future Plagues for generations to come, and it should be noted that the Grand Senior Massacre has now been erased from written history. His Majesty is incapable of mistakes, so any perceived shortcomings will now be blamed on Emperor Trump. Be sure to give His Majesty eternal praise for His work in single-handedly halting the spread of the Plague. Do we not have so much to be thankful for this year, my fellow peasants?

The CIA May Not Have Been Involved In the Current Chilean Protests, But It Was Against Allende

The people of Chile recently decided by a large margin that it was time to draft a new constitution to replace the current Cold War-era one that relied on segregation and led to large inequalities in wealth and services. Protests erupted across the country in 2019 over what was deemed as unfair subway prices, and the people voted to consume fresh new policies to allow for more centralization of services such as education, healthcare, and pensions. Although the referendum will not be voted on until 2022, the committee will consist of an equal number of men and women elected from the populace instead of having politicians take the reins.

This goes to show that if enough people stand up to what are viewed as injustices, change can occur, and the last remnants of another one of the United States’ anti-Communist governments resulting from a coup d'état will soon fade away. It may still be unknown to what degree that the CIA actively took in the 1973 revolution against the democratically-elected, Communist-leaning Salvador Allende, but it is clear that the United States was greatly responsible for Augusto Pinochet’s rise to power.

President Richard Nixon was not thrilled that Allende, someone who threatened to nationalize American-owned businesses in Chile, was about to ascend to the presidency, so he secretly ordered the CIA to take whatever actions were necessary to prevent this from happening (called Track I). The $10 million budgeted operation utilized tactics, such as bribery and black mail against the congressional body, public disinformation, funding of opposition parties, and coercion against the South American nation’s government. The CIA (under Track II) was able to assassinate General Rene Schneider through a right-wing group led by General Roberto Viaux (involving a $35,000 check from the CIA), but it failed to carry out the sought after coup against the Chilean government.

After Allende was confirmed by the legislature and nationalized U.S.-owned companies, it was game on. The CIA worked with the Chilean military and attempted to propagandize the public against Allende, and President Nixon went further by manipulating a decrease of the global price of copper (an important resource), cutting off economic aid, pressuring the World Bank to halt loans, and successfully convincing the Inter-American Development Bank, Export-Import Bank, and foreign invenstors to abandon the country. After economic calamity plagued the nation as a result of American bullying, it was then effortless for the Chilean military to plot a coup amidst the inflation, labor strikes, and mass hunger. Though it is disputable whether the CIA actively participated in the coup, it was certainly in communication with the military conspirators during the attacks and bombardment against Allende’s government.

Right after the illegal overthrow, President Nixon recognized the brutal dictatorship (military junta) installed under General Augusto Pinochet by providing military and economic aid. With the support of the U.S. government, thousands of Allende supporters and other political dissidents were slaughtered or forcibly removed from society. In 1988, a referendum was held allowing democracy to again take hold in Chile (starting in 1990), thus ending seventeen years of authoritarian rule. However, the constitution implemented under the military dictatorship remained intact throughout years of a relatively stable democracy, but perhaps in the near future, the people will choose the direction of the country and a different governing document.

Thank you for reading, and if you would like to learn about more Cold War coup operations, please check out my book, The Global Bully, or website.

Which Presidential Candidate Do You Want to Lead the Country through COVID-19?

I was watching CNN recently, and after the commercial break, the reporter led off the election discussion with something along the lines of, “only xx number of days until Americans cast their ballot for who they want to lead the country through the pandemic.” This stuck with me for a couple of reasons. There are all kinds of issues that the country will face over the next four years, but the news outlet picked this one as the front and center issue due to perceived failure on the part of the current administration. The news and social medias greatly favor the former vice president and are attempting to highlight the failure while maintaining the appearance of objectivity. At the same time, the mainstream media desires to mislead the public into believing that the virus is worse than it is in order to rally the public around a nationalistic narrative that is not allowed to be questioned.

Despite the constant propaganda and anti-Trump rhetoric that is constantly thrown in our faces every day, the reporter’s question was valid for an unintended reason. Do we the people want a more nationalist approach to the virus or one where the states take a leading role? At this time, it is clear that Americans have been conditioned to accept light-weight authoritarianism as the only viable solution to combat a virus with a less than a one percent death rate, and as a result, they will likely accept the nationalist approach with open arms.

Despite initial projections showing that millions of people in the United States would be dead by now, Democrats still overwhelmingly and erroneously claim that the president is responsible for the two hundred thousand souls that have been lost because of his inaction. They cannot even stop to think logically about this and perhaps be grateful that that many people did not perish. Nope. It is all Trump’s fault. No matter what he did or did not do, Democrats were always going to place all of the blame on him because they have been obsessed with freeing the country of his leadership for the last four years.

If Vice President Joe Biden claims victory in the election, there will be a national mask mandate at the very least. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a proclaimed prophet of the scientific religion that has taken over society, has already stated that a national mask mandate is now necessary. He is obviously saying this right before the election because he wants to frighten the country into voting for Biden, as he is more partisan and political than he will admit. If enough people are afraid, they will vote for the preferred candidate.

Fear is what makes people comply, and New York Governor Cuomo has admitted that this is the case. Biden would most likely follow Cuomo’s lead and install a lockdown plan that would cover the entire country, and if this is the case, the economic and social consequences from the new lockdowns will be devastating to the people who have already struggled from the first lockdown. I live in New York (though in the more rural Upstate), so either way, I will be forced to live through another lockdown and increased police state measures, as mandates will now be more heavily enforced this time around because governments know that people will not resist. However, if we can push for a more state-centered approach, people living under less tyrannical governors may have some chance at freedom.

This writing should not construed to show endorsement of the current president, who has taken numerous unconstitutional actions and has continued the status quo that President Obama passed down to him. For example, he has placed immigrant children in cages that were constructed and used under the previous administration (though to a lesser extent), increased bombing the Middle East through drones, and not attempted to halt the surveillance state or the war on drugs and militarization of police. However, Democrats have unjustly criticized the president, and if Biden wins, a national approach will become accepted by the majority of the populace.

We do not need more detrimental lockdowns in the United States that have no benefit to Americans, but if we are not careful, the federal government will make a stronger move towards totalitarianism, and with this, the government will usher in forced vaccinations, increased efforts towards a globalist system, and future authoritarian measures enforced by a police state. It seems at this point that if Democrats win, authoritarianism will be brought in from the start, and if Republicans win, there could be a civil war sparked from violence by those who will not accept the results of the election. Either way, the political scene from this upcoming election looks bleak for the good people of the United States, and as the COVID-19 numbers begin to rise in the second wave (something Bill Gates alluded to months ago when he gave an excited little smile to his wife instead of expressing grief about it), we need to resist the efforts by the federal government to centralize power and move towards tyranny.

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