Biden Advocates for Impeaching Biden

Joe Biden in 2007: "I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years, as a ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutes law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate, pointing out the President has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against the country of 70 million people, unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The house obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing--and I don't say it lightly. I don't say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what was adding up to be, what looked like to the rest of the world what we're about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done at this moment in our history that I can think of."

Continue ReadingBiden Advocates for Impeaching Biden

Why the U.S. Has Ukrainian Blood on its Hands: Jeffrey Sachs Offers this Primer

So many people I know proudly ignore the indisputable history of US meddling in Ukraine. Because they are ignorant, they deny that the US is responsible for the needless deaths of 600,000 Ukrainians and 70,000 Russians (and the squandering of the U.S. treasury). The Neocons in the Biden-Harris cabinet (including Biden and Harris) have blood on their hands, but you wouldn't know it because the corporate media has been covering it up and lying to you. The history of Ukraine did not begin in 2022. Please consider listening to Jeffrey Sachs for 10 minutes. These facts are not disputed by anyone who has been paying attention.

Continue ReadingWhy the U.S. Has Ukrainian Blood on its Hands: Jeffrey Sachs Offers this Primer

What is the Deep State?

What is the "Deep State"? No one exemplifies this reality more than Victoria Nuland. To understand and acknowledge the deep state is to recognize the primary tectonic plate of the US, the thing that drives our constant warmongering, our interference with the governance of other countries, our constance forceful confiscation of the natural recesses of other countries and the ubiquitous censorship that is preventing you for seeing all of this for what it is.

Jeffrey Sachs I think it's obvious there's basically one deep state party, and that is the party of Cheney Harris, Biden, Victoria Nuland,--my colleague at Columbia University now-- and Nuland is kind of the face of all of this, because she has been in every administration for the last 30 years. She was in the Clinton administration, wrecking our policies towards Russia in the 1990s. She was in the Bush Administration, Jr, with Cheney, wrecking our policies towards NATO enlargement. She was in then the Obama administration as Hillary's spokesperson first, and then making a coup in Ukraine in February 2014, not a Great move, started a war. Then she was Biden's Undersecretary of State. Now that's both parties. It's a colossal mess, and she's been Cheney's advisor. She's been Biden's adviser. Makes perfect sense ....

John Mearsheimer When we talk about the deep state, we're talking really about the administrative state. It's very important to understand that, starting in the late 19th, early 20th century, given developments in the American economy, it was imperative that we developed--and this was true of all Western countries--a very powerful central state that could run the country, and over time, that state has grown in power. And since World War Two, the United States, as you all know, has been involved in every nook and cranny of the world, fighting wars here, there and everywhere. And to do that, you need a very powerful administrative state that can help manage that foreign policy. But in the process, what happens is you get all of these high level bureaucrats, middle level and low level bureaucrats who become established in positions in the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence community, you name it, and they end up having a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy. And the particular foreign policy that they like to pursue is the one that the Democrats and the Republicans are pushing. And that's why we talk about Tweedledee and Tweedledum, with regard to the two parties you could throw in the deep state as being on the same page as those other two institutions.

Jeffrey Sachs There's a very interesting interview of Putin in Figaro in 2017 and he says, I've dealt with three presidents now. They come into office with some ideas even. But then the men in the dark suits and the blue ties--and then he says, I wear red ties, but they wear blue ties--they come in and explain the way the world really is. And there go the ideas. And I think that's Putin's experience, that's our experience, that's my experience, which is that there's a deeply entrained foreign policy. It has been in place in my interpretation, for many decades, but arguably a variant of it has been in place since 1992. I got to watch some of it early on, because I was an advisor to Gorbachev and I was an advisor to Yeltsin, and so I saw early makings of this, though I didn't fully understand it, except in retrospect, but that policy has been mostly in place pretty consistently for 30 years, and it didn't really matter whether it was Bush Senior, whether it was Clinton, whether it was Bush Jr, whether it was Obama, whether it was Trump. After all, who did Trump hire? He hired John Bolton. Well, the pretty deep state. That was the end of they told, you know, he explained, this is the way it is. And by the way, Bolton explained also in his memoirs, when when Trump didn't agree, "we figured out ways to trick him."

Continue ReadingWhat is the Deep State?

The Connection Between the War in Ukraine and the U.S. Censorship industrial Complex

You have a choice. One option is to follow the dictates of the U.S. warmongering uniparty, who tells you, "Putin is bad. So shut the fuck up and support our policy of endless treasury-draining war. Or you could listen to Mike Benz, Executive Director of Foundation for Freedom Online.

Mike discussed Ukraine and U.S. censorship recently on Twitter. I created a transcript of his conversation with Win Marshall:

Win Marshall

Do you not think America should have supported Ukraine in the war?

Mike Benz

It's good question. It's strange for-- You know, if I'm hesitating, it's because to answer that question, there are so many layers that come before it that I haven't even really honestly had to think about where I actually fall on the underlying issue, because the process is so corrupted. And we lived through Russiagate, this thing where anybody who supported a detente with Russia was it was effectively deemed to be a Putin puppet, and then you could launch a federal investigation. You could bring in indictments and domestic spycraft on, you know, Trump's whole campaign, because of his policy of neutrality, with with Russia effectively, or his NATO skepticism. They were able to argue, you know, that he was effectively a Russian puppet, and so they spied on his campaign.

Win Marshall

These things are happening today in Britain with Nigel Farage, and he's been called a Putin apologist. I think it's continuation

Mike Benz

It's the same thing. And so I think the way I would answer the question is: if you took the gun off of my head, where the state, the regime, the NGOs, the cutouts, the media, the lawyers, the federal investigators, all said, "Hey, you know what? If you have your own opinion on the Ukraine war, I'll put the gun down." Then maybe I'd think about and say, Okay, well maybe we can now talk about whether or not it actually redounds to US interests to try to secure these $12.4 trillion in the natural resources, whether it redounds to our benefit to have this elaborate CIA State Department operation to kill Gazprom and pry all the profits off with this endogenous, you know, Ukraine Petro industry and lifeline by all these US oil and gas companies and British companies like Shell. Maybe. But the answer is a hard no while they still have a gun to my head, because you can't, you can't do that.

Win Marshall

Okay, so let's say there's no gun to a head.

Mike Benz

That feels like a hypothetical that is kind of irresponsible for me to indulge in because there is a gun to my head. The censorship industry grew out of Ukraine. That whole infrastructure of censorship that Americans live under and inherited during the 2016 presidential election cycle came from the 2014 US-UK overthrow of the Ukrainian-democratically elected government. When, when we orchestrated that coup, when the head of the US Embassy was personally handing out cookies and water bottles to the January 6 style protesters surrounding the parliament building, pumping them full of money, when our own senators like John McCain were there on the ground calling for a transition of the government, when we overthrew that government and then did not expect the blowback, did not expect the counter coup.

When the entire eastern side of Ukraine broke away and declared itself a breakaway state in 2014 and when Crimea voted in its referendum to formally join the Russian Federation, this set off a total crisis across NATO and called for a fundamental reimagining of how NATO understood warfare. This gave rise to something which I've talked a lot about. You know, first was called the Gerasimov doctrine. Then it was called hybrid warfare, and now it's sort of called sharp power. But it was essentially this idea that NATO could no longer just be a military alliance. It had to expand its mandate, and this is a direct quote from Jen stellenberg, from tanks to tweets. The reason that we lost in Ukraine was because we lost the information war. We lost to Russian propaganda, infecting the mines of Ukrainians. And it was Russian propaganda who was infecting the mines of Germans, because at the time the German AFD party was on the rise. They were running on restoring gas relations with Russia, because they were mostly a sort of working class, sort of like Trump, Trumpism. They were running on, sort of because these sanctions that the US State Department and UK Foreign Office effectively imposed on all these different other European countries, after Crimea, to sanction Russian gas, which was the cheapest gas.

The alternative was LNG liquefied natural gas harvested in Houston, liquefy ship 5000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean. You know, de-liquefied in ports in Portugal or in through the Baltic strait into Poland. You know, de-liquefied transported. That's orders of magnitude more expensive than Russia, which means the industries suffer, which means the middle class suffers. The welfare safety net suffers. So AFD was running on restoring gas relations with Russia. Marine. Le Pen was was running on the same from from France. So is the Vox party in Spain.

And so NATO is saying, Oh, my God, these right wing populist parties are all running on this economic nationalist what's best for us. Don't care what the US or UK says about, you know, being a good Global Citizen and sanctioning Russia, we want to do what's economically best for our own middle class citizens. And so our intelligence State, the trans military alliance of NATO, at that point in 2014 declared this hybrid warfare doctrine. Said war is actually not about tanks anymore. It's about tweets. It's about control over social media. Because we lost to Russia without Russia firing a bullet, Crimea voted itself to join the Russian Federation. It's the same thing as if they had rolled into Crimea with tanks and submarines, they now control it because of the referendum of the people.

Well, where are they getting their information?

Continue ReadingThe Connection Between the War in Ukraine and the U.S. Censorship industrial Complex

Piers Morgan to Jeffrey Sachs: Why Do You Trust Putin?

Piers Morgan to Jeffrey Sachs: Why Do You Trust Putin? Jeffrey Sachs proceeds to school Morgan on the history of United States meddling in the affairs of other countries, including the fact that we have repeatedly overthrown democratically elected governments. Here is the discussion:

Piers Morgan:

You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's world view rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war.

Jeffrey Sachs:

Yeah, maybe because I know too much about the United States.

Because the first war in Europe after World War II was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install bond to steel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the southwest Balkans. So the US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country. We didn't have any UN authority. This was a quote NATO mission to do that.

Then I know the United States went to war repeatedly, illegally in what it did in Afghanistan, and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar Al Assad. And then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple norm or Gaddafi.

And then what it did in Kyiv in February 2014 I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The US overthrew Yanukovych, together with right wing Ukrainian military forces, we overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity and a stand down of both sides that was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote, unquote, says, we don't agree. They stormed the government buildings and they deposed Yanukovych, and within hours, the United States says, Yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, Oh, we had an agreement that's unconstitutional. What you did.

So we overthrew a government contrary to a promise that the European Union had made. And by the way, Russia, the United States and the EU were parties to that agreement, and the United States, an hour afterwards, backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for in 2015 the Russians did not say we want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk two agreement. The Minsk two agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the Government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person. It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainians said, We don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, Don't worry about it. Angela Merkel explained in design in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation, she said, Oh, you know we knew that Minsk two was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No, mins too. Was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war.

So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe, and so forth, I guess my problem, Piers, is I know the United States government. I know it very well. I don't trust. For a moment, I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, these are the terms then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world, we're not going to overthrow governments anymore. The United States needs to say, we accept this agreement, the United States needs to say, Russia needs to say, we're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached, and NATO is not going to enlarge. And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while, treaties actually hold.

Continue ReadingPiers Morgan to Jeffrey Sachs: Why Do You Trust Putin?