Rand Paul Slams Alarmist Default Rhetoric [Video]

Rand Paul Slams Alarmist Default Rhetoric [Video]


Rand Paul Slams Alarmist Default Rhetoric

Outlines Fiscal Reform Plan

Doomsday talk is “Completely Dishonest”

Steve Watson

Summit News

Senator Rand Paul has slammed ‘doomsday’ talk regarding the debt ceiling and a potential default, saying that such rhetoric is “completely dishonest.”

Appearing on Fox Business with Larry Kudlow, Paul noted that such alarmism will “worry the markets, and is bad for the country and bad for all of us,” further explaining that “There is absolutely no reason for us to default.”

“Our interest payments are about 400 billion,” Paul continued, adding “We bring in about five trillion, so we have plenty of money to pay our interest payments. We have plenty of money to pay our soldiers, to pay our social security and to pay for Medicare.”

Paul went on to explain that spending has to be trimmed, but over time.

“We’re about a third overdrawn, so there’s an enormous amount of government we’d have to trim,” Paul asserted, adding “if you do it over a five-year period, what I proposed recently, you bring the baseline down, you cut $100 billion immediately and then you freeze spending for about four or five years. Guess what? You actually achieve balance through growth, and so it can be done and it can be done with very small amounts.”

[Early last] week, Paul pointed out that the current back and forth between Democrats and Republicans over the debt ceiling should make it clear that fiscal reform is necessary.

“If we were to have a $100 billion cut — which would still have us spending way more than we spent before COVID — $100 billion cut and free spending,” Paul said at a press conference, noting “We would balance our budget in just four years.”

“We have an opportunity here. It could be done. But it would take compromise between both parties,” he continued. “Republicans would have to give up the sacred cow that says we will never touch a dollar in military, and the Democrats would have to give up the sacred cow that they will never touch a dollar in welfare.”

“President Biden needs to know absolutely he will have to negotiate and it’s better to start now,” Paul urged [].

*********

(TLB) publlished this article from Summit News

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Paul/FOX NEWS scteen shot

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Why Even A Corrupt Ukraine Is Worth Supporting Against Russian Aggression

Critics of America’s support for Ukraine often cite the latter’s corruption as a rationale not to provide assistance. Ukraine has struggled under the burden of corruption, but that does not override the fact that a Russian victory over Ukraine would be harmful to U.S. national security interests — two things can be true at the same time in a complicated world.

First, from a national security standpoint, Russia is one of a handful of hostile nation-states with nuclear weapons (or advanced nuclear programs) that pose a threat to America and its allies — the other nations being China, Iran, and North Korea.

Should Russia prevail against Ukraine, the threat to Europe and NATO, and thus the likelihood of direct U.S. intervention under NATO’s Article V, would be higher than it is today with the Ukrainians carrying on the fight themselves. A Russian victory in Ukraine would embolden Russian President Putin and confirm his view that the Western powers are weak, with an open invitation to test NATO resolve in the Baltic states.

Instead of a battlefield victory, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its resulting massive loss of tanks, artillery, and infantry has reduced the Russian threat to Europe — especially the frontline states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania — for a generation. This is entirely due to a successful Ukrainian resistance made possible by material and financial support from the U.S. and its European partners.

Unfortunately, the war drags on. Were Russia to leave Ukraine tomorrow, the war would stop.

Regarding whether it makes sense for the U.S. to provision Ukraine, a nation whose corruption has intruded onto our shores and into our politics, consider the U.S. World War II Lend-Lease program for context. This effort involved about $800 billion in assistance in today’s dollars or, as a share of GDP, more than $7 trillion to some 36 nations, including highly problematic or corrupt regimes like the Soviet Union and China, then ruled by the nationalists. While billions in aid were lost to corruption, the fact is that American capital allowed Allied soldiers to resist the Axis powers more effectively, saving American lives and shortening the war.

Wartime Corruption Is Par for the Course

Ukrainian corruption is hardly unique. Around the globe, public corruption is the rule, not the exception. Weak to nonexistent rule of law, family and tribal loyalties over allegiance to a state, and culture conspire to make clean, honest government rare.

I saw this firsthand in post-Soviet Russia in 1993. That’s when I was involved in creating the first Western-run commercial aviation technical stop in Kamchatka in the Russian Far East. We refueled cargo aircraft coming up from Taipei and Hong Kong, saving carriers about $25,000 per flight by avoiding the high landing charges and fuel costs at Hokkaido in Northern Japan.

Every week, suspicious Russians would want to renegotiate our joint venture agreement. At one point, a Russian civilian aviation official was attached to the Russian embassy in Japan. Suddenly, approvals for needed air routes over Russian air space started to be slow-rolled. I suspected the Japanese were applying “encouragement” to slow the competition. Eventually, when we had to invest millions more to be able to de-ice aircraft to FAA standards over the long Siberian winters, we finally had to say “nyet,” knowing that the Russians could simply take our investment at any time. It was a painful and costly lesson in doing business overseas, where rule of law was an alien concept.

Even America has had its challenges with political corruption, lest we think Ukraine is a special case. From New York’s Tammany Hall to Chicago City Hall, and points large and small from our founding to the present day, corruption can be found at all levels of government. This is especially true in wartime, as the pressures of urgently supplying the military run up against safeguards for public funds.

President Abraham Lincoln’s first secretary of war, Simon Cameron, lasted 10 months before corruption under his leadership became a costly distraction for the war effort — though it’s not as though there wasn’t ample warning that the “Great Winnebago Chief” might be given to bending the rules for personal profit. The Confederacy as well struggled with corruption, especially with regard to property confiscation.

Wartime, with its chaos and urgency, expands the opportunities for unscrupulous entrepreneurs and public officials.

In this context, Zelensky’s sacking of several high-ranking officials for corruption 11 months into Russia’s invasion should be seen as a positive, not a negative. It shows Zelensky has enough confidence in his government that it is able to withstand some needed internal housecleaning.

Community Wards Off Corruption

Lastly, there’s one largely unspoken factor weighing in Ukraine’s favor in its fight against corruption: the renewed strength of Ukraine’s civil society. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that Americans, unlike their counterparts in Europe, formed associations operating outside the sphere of government and economic life that met important needs. In the Soviet Union, these nascent voluntary associations were utterly crushed by the state. In places like communist China, they’re banned — nothing outside the Chinese Communist Party is allowed to exist. Yet during the opening stages of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, we saw remarkable images of Ukrainians spontaneously organizing to assemble Molotov cocktails and weld steel beams into vehicle barriers known as hedgehogs.

In this, the desperate battle for Voznesensk and its bridge over the Pivdennyi Buh River on the way to Odessa 100 miles to the southwest is instructive. During a two-day fight when Russia still appeared to have a plausible path to conquer Ukraine, a small detachment of Ukrainian soldiers was decisively supported by the farming town’s 34,000 civilians, including the mayor, shopkeepers, and old women. The townspeople armed themselves with hunting rifles and even threw bricks at the invading Russians. They blew their own bridge on the first day, frustrating Russian attempts to turn a vulnerable flank to get at Odessa. In the battle’s aftermath, the defenders were jubilant, displaying the sort of pride and initiative that will likely lead to a reduced acceptance of the corrupt old ways among average Ukrainians who survived the crucible of conflict.

The bottom line is that some U.S. aid to Ukraine is bound to end up corruptly enriching a few Ukrainians who now face an increased possibility of being prosecuted for it. Even so, Americans need to ask themselves: Is it worth it to severely degrade the threat from the Russian military, recover some of the credibility lost by the Biden administration in its embarrassing pullout from Afghanistan, and bolster deterrence against China; and is the expected level of corruption more or less than was experienced in the Lend-Lease effort that was so vital in vanquishing the threat from the Axis powers in WW2?

One last note on corruption: When Lincoln was vetting soon-to-be-Secretary Cameron, he asked Thaddeus Stevens, an acquaintance of Cameron, about his honesty. “I don’t think he would steal a red-hot stove” was Stevens’ reply. Cameron heard about it and demanded an apology, which Stevens delivered, “I apologize. I said Cameron would not steal a red-hot stove. I withdraw that statement.”


Source

Exclusive – Lt. Col. Daniel Davis Warns of Nuclear War: U.S. Has ‘No Plan’ in Ukraine, This Is Not a ‘Video Game’

Providing new tanks to Ukraine won’t change the reality on the ground of the current conflict with Russia, according to retired Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, who claimed the United States has “no plan” or strategy and warned of the real-world danger of invoking NATO’s “mutual defense” clause, which would trigger a nuclear war.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Thursday, Davis discussed the situation on the ground in Ukraine.

Davis, a Defense Priorities senior fellow and military expert, spent over two decades in active service, which included combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was awarded two Bronze Star medals.

“It just doesn’t work that way in reality”

Calling the recent decision by the U.S., Germany, and other European nations to send tanks to Ukraine a “huge information operation ‘game changer,’” Davis cautioned that “information operations and claims don’t translate into reality on the battlefield.”

“From someone who has done combat operations in tank-on-tank fights; in operations patrolling the East-West border during the Cold War and its potential Soviet invasions; and was the second-in-command of an armored cavalry squadron for the First Armored Division in the mid 2000s in Germany; I can tell you that just having NATO tanks does not equal battlefield success,” he explained.

Davis cast doubt on the perception many have on how effective the new tanks will prove on the battlefield.

“The problem is that what works on video games and on paper — you have to make it work on the ground,” he said. “And very few people anywhere in the western media or anywhere in the other media, for that matter, understand how combat power is made. 

“And it’s not just the platform, though that is very important, but roughly 90 percent of the success is the people who operate the equipment,” he added. 

In order to achieve that, he explained, a “trained individual at each of the positions within a tank” is needed, in addition to “a trained crew that knows how to fight well together.” 

“And then you have to have a trained platoon, platoons in a company; and a company in the battalion; and if you’re talking about the inner-level operations, battalions within brigades etc,” he said.

“So all of those are necessary and they all take time,” he added. 

Recalling his unit’s “intense training” in Europe and Saudi Arabia prior to battle in order to “replicate” how war would play out, Davis noted that it had all taken place with [military] officials in key positions with many years of experience — something he asserted could not be “manufactured.”

“You can’t send 500 [Ukrainian] dudes to Germany and conduct six weeks of maneuver training and think you’re going to get the same output, because those guys don’t have the experience,” he said. “They don’t even have the baseline understanding that we had a whole career and our whole training before we even arrived at that one year preparation.”

Davis suggests imagining the chances that someone who has “never even seen this equipment” will “have to just fall in on it while they’re in [combat] potentially a few months from now — which is what they’re saying they’re trying to do — and it’s somehow those things are going to be effective in combat.”

“I mean just on the surface of it, that’s ridiculous,” he said. “I mean it’s people who just don’t have any idea of how actual combat power is generated that would believe that.” 

“Because maybe it works for movies and in video games — just getting this capacity on your video game and poof, you’ve got the full capacity as though you were fully trained, but it just doesn’t work that way in reality,” he added.

“What makes somebody think that just the presence of a different kind of tank is suddenly going to change all that?”

Another problem Davis pointed to is that Ukraine has already possessed strategic weapons on the ground throughout the conflict. 

“It’s not as though Ukraine has no tanks and so they need tanks to operate because suddenly [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky said he needed 300 new tanks,” he said. 

“Well, the fact is they’ve got — depending on who you want to believe — somewhere around 1,000 tanks already and, according to Bloomberg, something along the neighborhood of 410 Soviet-era tanks have been given to them since the war started in addition to whatever survives from when they first started,” he continued.

“So they have tanks; they have artillery pieces,” he added. “We’ve given a bunch of those. They [also] have rocket launchers.”

As a result, Davis questioned “just what an Abrams or Leopard tank is going to do differently than the T72s, the T80s or the T64s that they have right now?” 

“And that’s the part that no one’s even talking about,” he said. “It’s like, look, you have tanks already; you can say that our Abrams is more capable but what is that going to do in the field?”

“I’ve been scouring the internet and any report I could find for months, and there’s hardly any tank-on-tank engagements,” he noted.

Highlighting how Ukraine, “in a year of fighting, has never pushed Russia back [from the Donbas area],” Davis questioned, “What makes somebody think that just the presence of a different kind of tank is suddenly going to change all that?”

He also noted that Ukraine “has no experience in maneuver warfare.” 

“They have lots of experience in trench-warfare, in static warfare, and in defensive warfare — they’ve actually gotten very good at it and that’s why it’s so hard and taking Russia so long to push Studenok, because they’re actually very good at defending,” he said.

“But that doesn’t help you at offense, it’s a completely different skill set and I haven’t seen any evidence that they have that,” he added. “And that’s just something you can’t manufacture in a couple of months. You just can’t do it. It takes a lot longer than that.” 

Davis, who fought in the largest tank battle of Desert Storm, the Battle of 73 Easting, concluded that “the expectation that so many in the West, and certainly those in Kyiv, have been professing: that they think the possession of these Bradleys, Abrams, Leopards, AMX-10, M109 Paladins, etc. combined, is going to allow them to go on a NATO-type offensive maneuver is just not going to happen because it’s way more than the platforms required to enable that kind of offensive operation.”

“You’re… making Russia want to go to war”

The former Lt. Col. admitted that “if providing all this equipment we have in the last eight days combined with what’s apparently coming from these other dozen European nations, had a legitimate shot at ending the war and winning it for Ukraine without sparking a nuclear retaliation from Russia, then I’d be willing to say it is worthy.”

However, he explained, “there’s none of that.” 

“All you’re doing is making Russia want to go to war,” he warned. “Far from wanting to deter Russia or making them hesitate and count the costs – it’s having the exact opposite effect across the board in Russia.”

“If anything, it makes them want to be more aggressive,” he added. “It makes them absolutely think we cannot lose this and double down on their efforts.” 

According to Davis, “even the general Russian population — you don’t see any protests anymore and you barely see any kind of negative social media comments, and that’s usually people who aren’t even in Russia.” 

“In Russia you don’t see any of that, because people are for the most part convinced that this is what has to be done because [they feel] it’s a very valid position to say all of NATO is against them,” he said. 

Davis insisted that reality was “not some fantasy,” but “it’s graphically produced on the ground, you see it.”

“We’re doing everything except physically pulling the trigger,” he asserted. 

“We’re providing intelligence. We’re providing ammunition. We’re providing weapons systems [and] repair facilities, literally everything but the pull of the trigger,” he added. 

He then suggested considering another country doing the same to the United States:

“Imagine during the war with Afghanistan that Russia or China had just completely got behind the Taliban, gave them everything they had, including all their modern gear to kill American soldiers,” he said.

“Do you think we would have accepted that? Would we have been OK with that?” he asked. “We’d go crazy. We’d have potentially gone to war with them.”

And yet, Davis noted, “we think that, like Biden said hiding behind a fig leaf today, when he announced this change, that ‘we are not going to war with Russia’ and ‘we’re not a direct participant,’ as though just saying those words means anything to Russia.”

“They’re looking at your actions, and the actions speak louder than the word,” he said. 

Though, according to his analysis he did not see “any possibility that this can accomplish an objective and outcome that we want,” Davis did see it as having “a real chance at making sure that Russia does whatever it takes to win.” 

“And I think that there’s not enough recognition of just how much risk and gamble we’re taking right now,” he warned.

“We have no plan”

Davis described the “unambiguous” conclusion of all the aforementioned as the fact that the U.S. has “no plan.” 

“We have no strategy,” he said. “Nobody is asking what comes next.” 

Having “just talked ad nauseam on the failings of the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom — when we went in in 2003, nobody talked about what comes next and then — after we had this easy military victory — we didn’t know what to do next and we’ve been paying for it ever since.” 

“All the stuff that happened after is because we didn’t have a plan,” he added.

 According to Davis, “we’re now doing the same thing. — we have no plan.” 

“We’re just giving all this stuff, nobody’s talking about, not even ethereal kinds of overarching statements. What is this supposed to accomplish? What is the outcome you see by giving [these tanks]? What are you trying to produce on the ground? How is this going to benefit the United States of America as opposed to not doing it? What are the pros and cons? 

“That conversation hasn’t even taken place,” he added. 

“We don’t even know what we want to do”

Davis noted that without a clear plan, it would be impossible to achieve a successful outcome.

“Imagine if you’re throwing all of this military equipment out there and you don’t even know what you want to accomplish — how are you going to know if this is successful?” he asked. “How can President Biden or anybody in the Pentagon tell the American people whether it’s worth it to send this equipment or whether it’s not? Whether it’s making a difference or not?” 

“There’s no criteria!” he exclaimed. “We don’t even know what we want to do.”

Even if you claim to want to “win,” Davis insists the term be clearly defined.

“Define ‘win,’” he said. “Because you had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff one week ago repeat what he’s been saying a lot, and one of the few things I agree with him on, [that] he sees no military path for Ukraine to win this war in the foreseeable future, meaning throughout the entire 2023.” 

“And he’s right,” he added. “Even with all this stuff, of course, he knew what we were going to offer before he made that comment. And he’s right, but no one pays any attention to that, they just pretend it didn’t happen, [as if] he didn’t say it.”

Asking what the objectives are, Davis questioned exactly what the “American national security interest here we’re trying to protect is?” 

“And what does President Biden hope to accomplish by giving Ukraine all of this stuff [tanks, sophisticated military equipment]?” he continued.

He insisted that the American people “deserve an answer” to such questions. 

“Not a general statement, but an actual physical, detailed answer: ‘Here’s what we want to accomplish; here’s what we consider success; here’s the objectives we want to accomplish.’ That should be a bare minimum, and it’s not even on the table,” he said. 

“And that is a major major problem,” he added. “Because then you can stumble into all kinds of stuff, if you haven’t given thought to those.” 

“Russia has the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world”

Davis also highlighted the uniqueness of the situation.

“One of the things that’s been from the outset that it just has not come to grips within the West [is that] this is not Syria; this is not Iraq; this is not Libya; this is not Yemen; this is not even Iran,” he said.

“We have basically done whatever we wanted to do in all these places and didn’t even care about what they might do because we know they don’t have the ability,” he added.

According to Davis, “we’re having that same mentality in Russia,” which possesses “the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world.” 

“They can do something. The rules are different. You cannot behave and act in the interest of Russia or opposed to it, like you can against Syria,” he explained.

“You just can’t just launch a strike into Russia — especially on their territory — like you could against Syria, or like we did in Libya or all these other places and not worry about what would happen,” he added. “We have to worry about it now.”

Though the “rules are different” in the current scenario, “we’re not acting like it.” 

“And I fear that one day, Russia’s going to say, ‘OK, you finally did cross a red line this time and we’re going to take action,’” he said. 

“For example,” he added, “[Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov recently said that based on all this stuff about the tanks, they reserve the right to attack any provider of NATO gear, NATO tanks, NATO vehicles, their ammunition – no matter where they are, meaning Poland or in some other NATO country.” 

“So they’re now saying that they may attack those things that are directly for war, that are there against their forces wherever they are,” he added.

Davis also warned that Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty, which dictates that member states consent that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” could lead to an explosion: 

There is zero chance – and I mean zero – not point anything, that Russia could ever militarily defeat NATO in a conventional sense. It’s a physical impossibility. They’re just struggling even now to defeat Ukrainians in part of the Donbas, their next-door neighbor, so they certainly couldn’t take on a 30 member NATO military alliance; they know that. 

“So the only way they can defend against NATO, is through nuclear weapons, of course,” he explained. “So if we try to think we’re going to trigger Article 5 and not trigger nuclear war. I mean, we’re just insane and fooling ourselves.”

And while, he claimed, the information he relayed is “just common sense and logic, if you just played stuff through,” Davis argued that “we don’t like to play with reality.” 

“We like to play with words,” he said. “In fact, we just create our own reality, whatever we prefer.”

The matter comes as Western countries agreed to supply tanks for use against the Russian invasion this past week, prompting the Ukrainian government to push the envelope further, with discussions about more major military equipment advancing.

Follow Joshua Klein on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.

Source

Like Nixon, Biden Will Be Shown the Exit Door to Pennsylvania Ave [Video]



Like Nixon, Biden Will Be Shown the Exit Door to Pennsylvania Ave

NEWS WIRE 

Biden’s classified document scandal is beginning to get interesting. After repeated denials by White House staff that “there is no there, there,” it’s now clear that the octogenarian Democrat leader is being shown the way out by the deep state. 

Fox News host Tucker Carlson drops a couple of major bombshells, as he explains why ‘permanent Washington’ has now grown tired of President Biden’s leadership – echoing the CIA’s overthrow of Richard E. Nixon, and assassination of JFK.

This monologue will shock you, as it turns what we thought was history… on its head. Watch:

*********

(TLB) published this video report from 21WIRE

READ MORE CIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire CIA Files

ALSO JOIN THEIR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

YOU CAN HELP SUPPORT 21WIRE’S INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Nixon/Biden/orginal 21WIRE post

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Former Recon Marine: The Biden Admin LIED about Americans able to evacuate Afghanistan

Former Recon Marine: The Biden Admin LIED about Americans able to evacuate Afghanistan


Former Recon Marine: The Biden Admin LIED about Americans able to evacuate Afghanistan

“There’s Americans still there that want to get out,” ~Chad Robichaux

Just the News | A John Solomon Pod-Cast

Former Force Recon Marine and author of the book “Saving Aziz,” Chad Robichaux says that the Biden administration lied to the American public when they said that Americans were able to evacuate after the Afghanistan debacle.

“There’s Americans still there that want to get out,” Robichaux said on the Wednesday edition of the “Just the News, No Noise” TV show. “There’s 75,000 Afghan allies who are vulnerable to be being beaten and interrogated for what they know about America and some are executed for serving America.”

The Biden administration had a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, resulting in Americans being left behind, 13 American soldiers dying and the Taliban taking control of the country.

“Last week the Taliban announced that women are no longer allowed to see male doctors,” Robichaux said. “But women aren’t allowed to be doctors, nor are women allowed to be educated. So there’s no women’s health care in Afghanistan right now.”

Getty

According to the former marine, many Americans wanted to get out during the withdrawal, but knew they would be threatened at the gates by the Taliban. 

“The State Department controlled only the airport, which meant that the Taliban controlled the outer perimeter of who got in and out of the airport,” Robichaux explained. 

“The Taliban is out there checking people’s IDs, beating people, taking their passports away, and killing people in the streets,” he continued. “If you are an American and wanting to go to the airport, you have to go through a Taliban checkpoint.”

In his book, “Saving Aziz,” Robichaux writes about how he and a team of other service members came together to save the lives of some of the people trying to avoid becoming victims of the Taliban.

__________

RELATED

Biden’s national security advisor to visit Israel and discuss a ‘threat posed by Iran’

Islamists’ grip on power in Iran weakening as protesters demand regime change: experts

Iran conducts military exercises near Strait of Hormuz

*********

(TLB) published  this article  with permission of John Solomon at Just the News.  Click Here to read about the staff at Just the News

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Military at gate/images.squarespace

Emphasis and pictorial content added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

CNN ‘Breaks’ News The Federalist Reported Years Ago On James Biden

CNN ‘Breaks’ News The Federalist Reported Years Ago On James Biden

CNN published a nearly 4,000-word story Tuesday outlining the Biden family network of influence peddling, in which clan members touted their relationship to Joe Biden for personal profits.

“A famous last name, business deals and a looming probe: Republicans ramp up investigation of Biden family,” read the CNN headline, which, as always, frames Republicans as the aggressors.

The story highlighted how President Joe Biden’s brothers, Frank and James, have leveraged the family name for years to land lucrative business deals both at home and abroad. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, also infamously served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess compensation despite no prior experience in the industry.

Many of the details branded as revelations in CNN’s reporting, however, were already reported by The Federalist years ago.

In May 2020, Federalist Editor Mark Hemingway reported on a lawsuit alleging James Biden committed fraud and racketeering in deals with Americore Health, a health care management company focused on rural hospitals. Former Americore CEO Grant White claimed that James Biden promised to exploit the family’s name and political connections to drive tens of millions of dollars in international investment toward the company. Americore ultimately went bankrupt when said investment never came to fruition, White said, and the FBI raided his home.

Documents reported on by Hemingway allege James lined his own pockets instead with money that was promised for the company. According to CNN, James has since paid out $350,000 in a settlement.

Biden family business deals are currently under investigation by President Biden’s Department of Justice, both by the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office and in Pittsburgh.

According to Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland, the president’s appointed prosecutor appears to be allowing James Biden to escape a substantive federal investigation in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

“That the U.S. attorney Joe Biden appointed to the job, and who has since been nominated by the president to a federal appellate clerkship, is overseeing this investigation is scandalous,” Cleveland wrote. “Attorney General Merrick Garland should immediately tap a special counsel to investigate Jim Biden’s involvement with Americore.”

Garland appointed a special counsel to probe President Biden’s apparent mishandling of classified documents last week, but no special counsel has been appointed to delve into the potential corruption concerns of Biden family members leveraging their proximity to the president in shady business deals. The family business ventures were among Cleveland’s top 10 scandals to watch in 2023.

Transactions between James and Hunter Biden and influential individuals connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), meanwhile, were flagged in September 2020 by Senate investigators as potential criminal activity.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

January 6 Riot LIVE! Helping to Propel the War on Domestic Terrorism and More

January 6 Riot LIVE! Helping to Propel the War on Domestic Terrorism and More

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“January 6th and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. The world is watching what we do here.”

– U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson [1]

“The most important point today from January 6th is: this was a setup. This was a psychological operation, in my opinion, meant to execute this larger thing we just discussed.”

  • Ryan Cristian, from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
During a speech at the White House marking the second anniversary of the chaos that engulfed the U.S. Capitol, President Joe Biden remarked that “our democracy was attacked!”

“A violent mob of insurrectionists assaulted law enforcement, vandalized sacred halls, hunted down elected officials, all for the purpose of an attempt to overthrow the will of the people, and usurp the peaceful transfer of power. All of it fuelled by lies about the 2020 election.” [2]

He also mentioned and honoured the valiant efforts of police and election workers on this brand new “Day of Remembrance.”

“What would you think Mr President if tomorrow you woke up and you had a headline in the press saying that in the British Parliament you had a mob had come down the hall, broken down the doors to the House of Commons, police officers were killed or died, the place was vandalized in order to overthrow the election of a speaker of the House, a Prime Minister’s election. Think about it!” [3]

It was importantly also a big media event. The dramatic event broadcast live on all major news stations would be difficult for average citizens with access to any media to ignore. As with 9/11, the “threats, the violence, the savageness” accentuated by mainstream punditry helped craft the peril of this moment of profound partisan discord into a threat. But not from Islamic extremists or dangerous leaders of authoritarian countries. From Domestic Terrorists!

The enemy within.

The riot itself was triggered by the elections of 2020 which saw power slide away from Donald Trump toward Joe Biden. Trump, a number of electoral analysts, and millions of voters, staring at unusual election activities, and said the election was rigged against the Republicans. In other words, the REAL coup against democracy was executed not by a “mob,” but quietly beforehand when the power of the people at the voting booth was robbed by special interests.

The prominent media claimed Trump was repeating “false election fraud claims” before launching the thousands of upset supporters off on Washington. [4]

With a similar looking eruption of (righteous) outrage taking place in Brazil with Bolsonaro supporters ransacking buildings in Brasilia, including the Supreme Court, Congress, and the presidential palace, the January 6 event in the United States potentially has international as well as domestic repercussions. That’s why this week on the Global Research News Hour, we will examine the riot and its spillover with greater attention.

In our first half hour, the journalist and author Joachim Hagopian joins us to explain why exactly there was more to Trump’s loss than negative public reaction to his policies. He also shares how similar acts of rigging were in play during the Mid-Term elections. We also speak to a pioneer of electoral forensics, Jonathan Simon, who is of the view based on his own analysis, that most of the evidence of foul play points actually to the Republicans and about how Americans should and must work to get those red thumbs off the electoral scales.

In our second half hour, we have a long discussion with Ryan Cristian of The Last American Vagabond. He will discuss how the January 6 event was largely staged and that the repercussions included not just a “War on Domestic Terrorists,” but a pre-staged implication of Russians well before their attack on Ukraine this past year.

Joachim Hagopian is a journalist and commentator. He is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Jonathan D Simon is the former executive director of Election Defense Alliance (2006-16) and author of CODE RED: Computerized Elections and The War on American Democracy: Election 2020 Edition.

Ryan Cristian is the Founder and Editor of The Last American Vagabond, an independent media critic, and recipient of the Serena Shim Award For Uncompromising Integrity In Journalism.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 375)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript of Ryan Cristian, January 6, 2023

Global Research: It is a real treat for me right now to introduce Ryan Cristian to the stage. He is the founder and editor of The Last American Vagabond and he is a committed analyst of news. His work earned him the Serena Shim Award for uncompromising integrity in journalism. He has done amazing work exposing – exploring the Covid-19 situation, surveillance technology, and American foreign policy, among other subjects. But considering the date we are having this interview is January 6th, I thought it would be a good idea to explore what he has revealed about the famous riot on this date, taking place on Capitol Hill in Washington. He has definitely found evidence that there was more to it than a bunch of grumpy Trump supporters staging an insurgency because they are wicked. Rather, this event set the stage for events outside the theatre of political partisanship, to build up not only the fight against supposed domestic terrorism, but in support of prevailing narratives about Russia, and much, much more. Ryan Cristian, thank you for joining us on the Global Research News Hour. We are looking forward to the gems of investigation you are willing to share with our listeners.

Ryan Cristian: Well, thank you, Michael. It’s an honour to be here. I’m looking forward to it. I definitely think this is – I mean, it’s almost hard to say from a – people won’t – I think it’s more important than most people realize, put it that way. And which I mean, it’s hard to say that, because most people see that there’s something that’s very important. But even then, it ties to so many more things than I think we’ve – a lot of people have patched together like you were touching on there in regards to foreign policy connections and even – honestly even ties to the Great Reset and Covid-19 and a lot of different things. So, thank you for having me on to talk about it, it’s important. And on the day, on the anniversary of this gigantic psychological operation.

GR: Yeah, happy annniversary. The riot was an event where people were contesting the vote turnout, alleging voter fraud, or election rigging. There have been accusations in the past that the election was turned against Democrats in the past. Now they’re turned against Republicans. But we saw people wanting to change, to charge forward. The courts were not contesting the election. But people charged forward. Remind our listeners, if you could, what particular anomalies were there in the media coverage of the riots that you felt seemed, in certain ways, untruthful or offside with what was known at that time.

RC: Hm, yeah. That’s a gigantic – from my perspective, just about —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — literally everything that they did that day or ongoing from before or since then. But I think the important points to make —

GR: If you could just pick out – yeah.

RC: I’m sorry?

GR: Just pick out maybe a few, just a few highlights because we don’t want it to dominate the discussion.

RC: Oh, right. Of course, of course. Yeah, but I would like to say first that I think it’s important to note that, you know, anybody engaging in – even if they’re wrong, by the way – questioning the outcome, the government’s decisions, the statement by the media around an election, it’s valid and important to be able to do that and that’s something that’s being shut down and it goes both ways. Historically speaking, I think are always – I view – to make it clear from the beginning – I view all this as a uni-party, as the government manipulating the people. Left-right paradigm stuff, I think, is what keeps people from seeing the full picture here.

Now, on the concept of the media and the coverage, I mean, from top-to-bottom – and again, I mean this in just about every topic we could point at today, but specifically focusing on January 6th – it was framed – like, the way I look at it, is it seems as if there was a narrative set about the way this was supposed to go, and the way it was supposed to be perceived, that very quickly did not pan out for any number of reasons we could get into, whether people were armed and they were – you know, being pressured to be armed. They didn’t show up with any weapons, or whether they were being violent or not. And they had the narrative that it was supposed to look like. And it was almost as if the media and the government just stuck to the narrative and talking points, even as it quickly fleshed out to not be the way it was being presented as.

And so, the media was very quick to frame this as, ‘Racist and misogynistic,’ or whatever else, just as some kind of an insurgency active – activity. Right? That they were going there to take violent action against politicians. I mean, Pelosi was kind of insinuating it outright, saying this from the beginning, especially as it got more intense. And the way that they covered this was so inherently dishonest, and I think we see this in every aspect. And it was just about the way that they either were told to cover it, or the way that they were perceiving it, regardless of what was actually happening.

I mean, you can talk about the way that the engagement of the police that were on the ground and whether they were supposed to be called in, and they were turned down. And you know, all these things were ignored. Or whether they called it an “Armed insurrection,” or “violence –” I mean, you know, there’s all these examples that aren’t just about the media coverage, but the way that it was ongoing since then. Right?

But I get it. I think from top-to-bottom, it was clearly dishonest, all the way to this very point. Even from a congressional standpoint, to call it something that it wasn’t.

GR: Mm-hmm.

RC: Now, if you you’d like me to get into the things that —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — I do think were also wrong, I mean like – I’m not – there were things that were done there, whether allowed to happen or not, that need to be pointed out, you know. The crimes that were committed, even if I do think they were minor, that were valid to point out, you know. The violence taken against people in authority – in a police position, or breaking windows, let’s say, which is destruction of property, you know, these are things which should be pointed out. So, it’s not to say that there was no – nothing that was done there that should be held accountable for. But it was represented as something so exponentially more serious than that, all the way to this point.

GR: Yeah. Well, there was also the images, because they’re a series of different images and I mean, you saw them recycling over and over again, the people breaking into a window or something like that. And then, on the other hand, they were showing people walking down the main line as they entered, and they were walking, they weren’t raiding it like a bunch of hooligans. They were staying within the lines of the – you know, as you enter, you —

RC: Yeah, —

GR: — know. And there are the – go ahead.

RC: I was just going to add to that, and that these are people that are being still framed on that same kind of, you know, over-the-top, hyperbolic statement about what they’re supposed to be trying to accomplish. But you can very clearly tell that, by and large, a lot of these people were just kind of going along with the flow, not even realizing – like, I always often point out, if you were to come up to this after this has all begun and walked in, not realizing that things had already been kind of – like, I argue right there that even though they broke through the barriers after weirdly – when you talk about Ray Epps and how that seems to influence that. But break through these barriers, and then seemingly people were just allowed to keep coming in. Like, why wasn’t there more people put in place to stop that? So, people wandered in essentially and were taking pictures and, you know, walking, staying between the velvet ropes and you know. So, at the very least, you could tell a lot of people weren’t even aware, in and of themselves, that there was a problem and something happening that was perceived as violent. So, it just – it’s kind of impossible to frame everybody there as violent attackers when half of them clearly didn’t even realize what they were involved in. You know? It just – it screams psychological operation.

GR: Yeah. Could you talk about Ray Epps? Because, I mean, he was someone who was, I guess, appeared to be directing things.

RC: Even himself, I went over the transcript of the weirdly redacted and controlled release of the engagement of this committee. But Ray Epps on the record, said he did – he used his own word “orchestrate,” ‘that I helped orchestrate or that I orchestrated this.’ And then, he walks it back later in the conversation. But either way, you can clearly see on video him doing things that his own testimony seems to contradict. That was the first thing that stood out to be: the timing of it, whether or not he was telling – like, he was saying ‘We’re going to go inside the Capitol.’ And people pushed back on that, even called him a Fed, you know, chanting, “Fed, Fed.” And all these videos have been seen, weirdly absent from the conversation of the January 6th committee, and also acting like they didn’t even know who he was, despite being one of the main people put on the list by the FBI. All these weird omissions and things that don’t make sense. But Ray Epps himself, was the most important point was there chanting, both on the 5th and the 6th, that we’re going to be going inside the Capitol.

Anybody knows that’s not allowed, especially in the context or – specifically in the context of how this was going. Now obviously you can go in the Capitol if they’re – you know, in a normal setting or tours or whatever else. But in this context, it was very clear that if they were to march up there as a mob, or even just as a protest, and try to march in Capitol, they know that’s not allowed. Right? So they – when he says that, he knows that he’s saying ‘We’re going to do something that’s going to put them on the defensive.’ And then, that – so, you know that what he’s doing is calling for action that will lead to conflict, whether it’s violent conflict or political – he knows that. And yet, now he gets represented as some kind of patsy that was just there for peaceful protesting, except on the record repeatedly screaming, “We’re going to go inside the Capitol,” and then telling them that they’re not going to – he even says once on the record, ‘I’m worried about saying this, because this will get me in trouble, but we need to go inside the Capitol.’ So, —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — clearly point out he knew it was a problem. And the point is —

GR: Was he —

RC: — is that guy got quickly kicked out of the conversation until way later when pushed by people like Thomas Massie and others to be talked about, you know, to be brought into the conversation, and it was very quickly pushed to the side. I mean, this was a 9/11 committee-style manipulation from the beginning, in my opinion.

GR: So, when the committee was investigating – doing their recent investigations, was he ever arrested? Or did they just leave him aside, but go after other individuals?

RC: I don’t believe he was ever technically arrested. I believe that he was overlooked and intentionally overlooked for a long time, until way later in this process that they brought him in. But I think they just – I don’t know, I don’t have the full – I’m going to go ahead and say I don’t know. But I think that he was invited, you know, via congressional subpoena to come in and testify. But we all know how wildly different that is, then even for example, some grandmother with a cell phone that actually got arrested and actually got charged for a crime, for doing something – for being present, despite the fact that he’s the one out there screaming, “We’re going to go in the Capitol.” Right? So, you can just see a very different way they engage with people when, I mean – let’s put it this way: when dealing with somebody they perceive to be a Trump supporter, they very clearly have dealt differently with them. But weirdly enough, the way that they engage with Epps seems to be from a perception of, ‘He’s being taken advantage of.’ Now, why is that? Right? It doesn’t make any other sense, any sense compared to how they treat everybody else. That doesn’t prove anything, but it gives you examples of why I think it’s pretty clear this person was an agent provocateur. That’s my opinion, just my opinion.

GR: Has the committee investigated the possibility that these people were actually armed, or that some of these people were actually armed? Was there any individuals discovered carrying firearms?

RC: No, as far as I can tell. And again, I’ll be – to be clear, I haven’t fine tooth comb gone through everything that’s been on transcripts from the January 6th committee. Frankly, I find it to be kind of a waste of time. Not that we shouldn’t be doing it, but there’s just so much else going on. But my point is that, what we know is that there was nobody armed there. If it comes out later that one person was like personally carrying a gun, we know how that’s going to be taken out of context.

Like for instance, saying that people were killed despite the only actual person being killed there was Babbitt who was shot by Capitol police. Right? Yet, they all still argue that people were killed there by the protestors. And that’s even a stretch to argue that it was because of the protestors. That’s a whole conversation we can get into if you want. But I think that what we know is that this was an unarmed protest.

And that was done for a very clear reason: because it was – it was discussed amongst these circles long before this started, that they were being set up. Right? So, this was known. And so, an entire – like, the whole sentiment, even to this day, is that it was an armed insurrection. There are still politicians saying that, even though it’s been very clearly proven that wasn’t the case. You know? So, my point in saying that in the beginning was: I bet you you could flesh this out to the point to where you’ll find out somebody was legally carrying. Somebody may be allowed to. Or more importantly, that we know that there were different people that were at the lead positions of some of these militias that turned out to be FBI. Or a woman that worked for a psychological operations department. I believe it was for the military, the Navy, I forget the exact location. But all this was discussed openly at the time. They are there of there own capacity, they claim, but except the FBI one. The point being is that there are probably examples of some kind of firearm at this large event. Point being, it was an unarmed insurrection, and that speaks volumes.

GR: Okay —

RC: Or, excuse me. I should —

GR: So, —

RC: — well, hold on —

GR: — did you —

RC: — I have to correct that: I didn’t mean to say, “Insurrection.” The point is, an unarmed protest that they call an “Insurrection.” Important correction. Go ahead.

GR: Okay. Well, you’re talking about this whole situation, including the media, seeming to just set up, you know, the parade – the protestors for – you know, basically criminalizing them. That suggests, because there’s a history of this sort of thing, that maybe there were agent provocateurs involved. I mean, are there any that come to mind, any individuals that you would say, okay, that that guy smells like a provocateur?

RC: Well, Ray Epps is an obvious example. I mean, whether he – whether that was what he was being paid to do or not, that’s what he was doing. Period. Right? And he was out there going, ‘We’re going in the Capitol. We’re going to do this, follow me. The Capitol’s this way.’ So, orchestrating. That’s exactly what – the word he even used.

So, I can’t prove that he did it on behalf of somebody else, but that’s my opinion and I think it’s pretty obvious, based on all the things we’ve already said. The way they engage with them, the way they didn’t go after him, on and on and on.

But there’s more than that. I mean, you can see examples of – there’s examples of Antifa members that have been caught on the record – their own videos, by the way – speaking both before, pretending to be Trump supporters, telling people to go in the Capitol. Telling them to do things that were against the law. And then, on video – which many people have copies of – running afterwards, saying, ‘We did it. We got them, we tricked them.’ I don’t think they use the word “trick,” but basically, ‘We got them, we got them to do it. They get – they went inside.’ It’s all on the record.

And then, you can prove that the guy, the – I forget… I don’t remember if they ever got his name, but the dark-skinned, dark-haired guy that was proven to be a member of Antifa. On, you know, his own social media profiles. So, whether again that was at the behest of some kind of government organization or intelligence, we don’t know. But obviously, they were there with dishonest intentions to either set up the MAGA people or frame them for a government agenda, or something. There’s an obvious example, verifiably, of an agent provocateur.

But you’ll never find that video, which is literally everywhere when – you know, in these conversations in the January 6th committee. Now why would that be? It’s record, it’s on the record, it’s provable, you know. They just don’t want to factor that in, they call it conspiracy theory.

But there’s endless examples of these kind of factors playing in any of these things, including – I would argue in a reverse sort of way – the allowance of people to go through certain areas and barriers and doors. You know, it’s not necessarily agent provocateurs, but in a reverse way they’re sort of doing so in the hope that they take some kind of action that they can then frame as being what they want it to be. You know? I mean, we could speak about Pelosi and the Capitol police, and how numerous calls were made to bring in reinforcements and it was turned down numerous times.

Or even before January 6th, speaking on the record, saying, ‘We need more people, we know what’s coming. We have this planned,’ and doing nothing about it. You know? It’s very obvious that this was at least allowed to happen, which is a classic tenet of US foreign policy and examples throughout. You know, Pearl Harbor, for example, it’s one of those examples.

GR: Now I want to talk about, you know, other aspects of it. It’s not just about Trump versus the Democrats and some Republicans, like Vice President Pence, for example. You were also talking about expanding it to the point where we are actually looking forward to, you know, what would transpire in Ukraine. I’m thinking there’s an individual that was parading around with face paint and a buffalo hide, I think. Very noticeable.

RC: Mm-hmm.

GR: You dug into his background and discovered a lot of interesting things as well on the record. Can you describe some of the things – into his background? And his buddy, as well, Dybynyn I believe his name is. It causes one to wonder about what they were doing there.

RC: Yeah, yeah. Well, there’s a lot of really interesting overlap there, and I am going to ask you – I had actually forgotten about this point, because I am looking forward to getting into the Ukraine overlap here, and Project Aerodynamic and all of this and Rise Above Movement. Before that, though, with – I’m glad you said that, I had actually forgotten about the Ukrainian individual that was there, pretending to be Russian, as one of these individuals.

This is all stuff that’s been fleshed out on the record. You can see the social media profiles. And this is an individual that was there alongside specifically the guy with the horns and that guy that was this prominent individual. But in numerous other examples as well, and is seen wearing the Azov colours and symbols before this. Seen wearing the Right Sector information. You know, all of – very interesting stuff. And so, the point was, to make it very concise for people, is that we have an individual directly tied to the Azov movement in Ukraine in this event acting like a Russian. Screaming things in Russian. All of this is easily provable. We went over this in our own January 6th coverage.

Without knowing what we’re going to get into next, that wouldn’t make much sense. But what’s important to understand – unless you wanted to make a further point on that – is how that, in my opinion I think provably connects with what has been a long sought agenda to create this exact situation, but ultimately blame the rise of what they claim is white supremacy, and so on. Or rather, what they claim is the rise of white supremacy and all these racist nut ideas because of Russia, despite the fact that I can prove to you this was a CIA agenda that’s been built. Just like the Mujahadeen, Afghanistan, Soviet Union play in Ukraine in order to blame specifically people that they call Republicans, but just anybody in this country that pushes back.

I’m happy to get into all that overlap there, but, unless you want to go further on that Ukraine guy. Because that’s such an interesting point that nobody really talks about.

GR: Yeah. Well, I think when you said “Mujanadeen” [SIC] you meant Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, right? Because we were – you were supporting, you know, the same people – we were supporting the Mujahadeen which were doing a lot of nefarious and evil things. But now you’ve got a white equivalent, if you will, doing these things.

RC: Yeah, no —

GR: But, —

RC: — I was —

GR: — yeah.

RC:— referencing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Soviet Union overlap. Right? That they did —

GR: Yeah.

RC: — the same thing in arming a fascist entity to use them against the Soviet Union. Right? Which later became Al-Qaeda, later became ISIS. My point is, you’re showing that they have a play – the playbook, right? Where they will happily engage with the people that they later call terrorists in order to use it against somebody that they perceive as an enemy.

Right? The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against Soviet Union is the same game they’re playing right now with the fascist neo-Nazis and Nazis in Ukraine to use against Russia. And it’s the same game, it’s very interesting.

GR: Yeah. And I’m just talking briefly, like maybe in just a couple of minutes you could talk about the Ukrainians in this situation. Because they met in the past or – yeah, it was in the past in Donetsk, I think. There was a picture of the two of them together. So, well, okay how is it that we’re – that this group of angry Americans has these individuals from Ukraine speaking Russian to American citizens?

RC: Well, I don’t know exactly how this individual came to be there, like as the – you know, it happened. And what’s important to understand is to flush out the background of why that makes sense or why it’s important. I mean, I could make this quick, but there’s a whole bunch to unpack around this and the point that is what you can prove today.

First of all, is that there is Project Aerodynamic in 1948 to today, is a CIA operation to build fascism in Ukraine to use against Russia. Or first the Soviet Union, but now against Russia. And it’s ongoing. I mean, this is on the record CIA documentation where they picked up a guy named Mykola Lebed who was a Nazi war criminal, who was actually sentenced to death in Poland, and then was saved by the US government and was used both in New York and in Ukraine to head up a company called Prolog. And this was a media company. And this is a Nazi war criminal, they knew that. And so, this guy was the basis for what grew to this day.

It became less – the point is it was ongoing. Who knows to the level they were still using this, up until around 2014, when we saw the Maidan Square regime change. Which, by the way, is also on the record knowing that they knew who actually shot people, which was the US-backed entities and they framed the other side, sort of like Syria.

Now the point is that that created a new government and since – from that point forward, the agenda really kicked off, and there was articles written about this. That’s when this truly began, what we’re seeing today in the context of the, you know, invasion of February 25th. Now, a lot happened before that, but that was like the real re-initiation of this agenda as far as I can tell.

Now that began in the concept of trying to create and grow that fascist entity, neo-Nazis and Nazis, in Ukraine to be able to blame it on Russia and the influence of that around the world. Because we all saw every corporate media outlet, pre-February 25th, was writing about the neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine and suddenly it just vanished when it became something – it’s very transparent.

The important part to see here is that they were building this for the game of blaming it actually on Americans, as far as I can tell. And to make that point clear, the Rise Above Movement, which is the movement in the United States that was in Charlottesville that kind of was the beginning point for this white supremacy conversation around the Trump movement and MAGA. Right? They were the ones with the tiki torches marching down the street in Charlottesville. You know, what was it, “They will not replace us,” or whatever they were saying.

Now, people don’t know that that is verifiably, even according to Newsweek, the US arm, the faction of the Azov movement in the United States. Why that’s not discussed is obvious, because that’s not supposed to be traced back to the CIA. Because once the CIA documentation and this conversation got really fleshed out, that kind of fell apart.

But the whole point is, we having a rising white supremacy threat in this country. And if you trace the lines they were making, that was supposed to be laid at the feet of Russia and their efforts to do this and, you know, create the white supremacy threat. But if we know that the CIA was raising and growing this Azov movement group, along with Right Sector and Svoboda and all the other Nazi elements in this country. And then we know that that arm of that agenda was what created the conversation in the United States with the Rise Above Movement, as well as other groups: CasaPound, in Germany, they’re all over the world. We know that the CIA is the group that is responsible for this, at least in part, and yet that doesn’t get discussed.

And now, this has been spinning out of control and all they want to try to do is frame this as some kind of rising white supremacy, Nazi, fascist mentality. Well, the US government is openly arming the most obvious Nazi elements in the world right now in Ukraine, and working directly with the most openly fascist government I would argue, which is Israel’s government. And it’s very interesting that – the point – no, you tell me where you want to go from there. But the point is to realize that I think this has been carefully crafted to blame anybody freely thinking in this country, and I don’t just think Republicans.

I mean, they call me a Republican, I scream two-party illusion. But anybody pushing back. And that kind of fell apart with the Ukraine agenda, but it’s still going forward, so. It’s very interesting and very concer  ning. I call it the MAGA trap or the Vanilla ISIS psy-op.

GR: Probably be our last point, but the idea also is that you’re building up resistance to what they call domestic terrorism. So, it’s not terrorists, just you know, Islamic terrorists or those people outside the country. There is a domestic terrorist entity building within the country. And —

RC: Yeah.

GR: — there are all sorts of references, you know, among the people who – even before January 6th, people were making note of this. And then, boom, along comes the riot. And all of a sudden they have free – it’s kind of like where when 9/11 happened, they just pulled up the Patriot Act which was written before 9/11 and —

RC: Right.

GR: — put it out there to vote on. So, if you could just briefly talk about the – that mode of using this on Americans to divide them and —

RC: Yes.

GR: — the created terrorist threat which is going to build up a lot of monetary control, and other controls to stop it.

RC: Yeah, it’s a great place to wrap – to, you know, bring this to, the domestic terrorism angle. We have to remember that Biden wrote an executive order overlapping just basic misinformation with the concept of domestic terrorism. Right? So, we already see this effort to argue that if you challenge the vaccine agenda, that you’re suddenly not just dangerous, which is not even the – you know, words are not violence. But over the top of that, that you are a domestic terrorist, that you’re actually killing people. We saw people like Hotez make this argument on the vaccine.

The same point is happening around all of this, that they – this is all meant to kind of converge, in my mind, around the idea that you are a – there’s the domestic terrorist threat, but that’s the white supremacy threat and that comes from the outside. That’s their clumsy narrative. That’s where Vanilla ISIS got thrown out. That somehow, these white supremacists are so – I mean, I don’t even know how they try to piece together that you’re a white supremacist yet you work with foreign entities that are not white, but that’s what they’re doing, Iran and so on.

But that’s where the Russia angle came in. And we have to remember the groups like The Base – which by the way is the literally translation for the term Al-Qaeda, it translates to The Base in English – is a group that was based out of Russia, that only went there about 2018. But it was founded by a guy that worked for the DHS, for the US government at top secret clearance, and used to work on counter-terrorism, and just one day woke up and said, ‘I’m now a white supremacist, I’m going to go live in Russia and start a group.’ These things I think aren’t supposed to be so clear.

My point is I think it’s obvious this was built to create that exact thing that you’re pointing out. The domestic terrorism threat that stems from the bad guy, so it swings in all the foreign policy, despite this being built by the CIA and other groups. That overlaps with the overarching point of where this is all going, whether it’s the bio-security state direction or anything. It comes down to what you think is most important.

But as Whitney Webb has coined in the past that, you know, today under the security state, right, the idea was about fighting the idea of the boogeyman overseas and then ultimately realizing that it was turned in against us. But today, the bio-security state, your body is the new battlefield. Right? So, we now see how it’s been inverted even though it’s always kind of been that way, directly pointed at us. Even calling – you know, the domestic terrorism threat is the biggest rising threat.

So, I think this has been planned and I think we’re watching executed moves that bring this together in a larger way that, if you want me to touch on it, I think do connect with the Covid-19 agenda and where that all goes. But regardless, the most important point today from January 6th is: this was a setup. This was a psychological operation, in my opinion, meant to execute this larger thing we just discussed. Right? That was the point where they were going to say, ‘See, we told you. They’re violent, they tried to overthrow the government, and it all ties back to Russia.’ That’s what I think this really was. And you can prove it ties back to the CIA. It’s alarming.

GR: Well, Ryan, it’s great to have you on the show and I think maybe we can pick up on this at a later date. But we’re going to close for now. Thank you so much for being a guest on my show. And as always, we’ll allow our listeners to think for themselves thoroughly. Thank you for being our guest.

RC: Thank you, Michael. Appreciate it. Looking forward to next time.


The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22057379-thompson_openingstatementpreparedfordelivery
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YexrmlBPvt8
  3. ibid

Source

Former Biden assistant questioned over Classified Docs in Hunter Emails

Former Biden assistant questioned over Classified Docs in Hunter Emails


Former Biden assistant questioned over Classified Docs in Hunter Emails

Hunter Biden recommended that his father hire Kathy Chung to be his executive assistant in 2012

FOX News

A former top aide to President Biden — who reportedly was questioned by federal investigators as part of the probe into the president’s handling of classified documents — exchanged emails with Hunter Biden on numerous occasions, according to a Fox News Digital review.

Kathy Chung, Biden’s executive assistant when he was vice president and the Pentagon’s current deputy director of protocol, is among several former aides to the president to be interviewed by law enforcement, NBC News reported Thursday. Chung and the others questioned reportedly helped move materials and belongings from Biden’s office at the end of the Obama administration in early 2017.

Throughout much of her five-year tenure working for Biden during the Obama administration, Chung regularly communicated with Biden’s son Hunter Biden, transmitting information about his father’s schedule and passing messages directly from the then-vice president, according to emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop and verified by Fox News Digital.

Chung’s relationship with Hunter Biden also appears to date back before she worked for his father. The emails showed that Hunter Biden recommended Chung for the executive assistant role when the previous holder of the job, Michele Smith, departed the White House in the spring of 2012.

Hunter Biden is pictured during his father President Biden's innauguration ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021 in Washington, D.C.Hunter Biden is pictured during his father President Biden’s innauguration ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“Thanks for calling and thinking of me,” Chung wrote to Hunter Biden on May 14, 2012. “After the initial shock of taking in what you said…how could I pass up an opportunity to work for the Vice President of the United State!!!! I do have a few questions. What is Michelle’s primary job? I think I know what the job would entail, minus the scheduling part, which is a huge part of what I do now. But what would be my top 3 – 5 responsibilities be in the office? Do you know the salary? Again, thanks for thinking of me.”

At the time, Chung worked in former Sen. Mark Udall’s, D-Colo., office as his scheduling director. She previously worked for Delaware Sen. Ted Kaufman, who was appointed to replace Biden in the Senate in 2009 and is a longtime confidante of Biden dating back decades.

In response to her message, Hunter Biden responded later that day saying that the job would make her the primary gatekeeper of Biden’s and would be “involved in everything that goes on outside of policy.”

Kathy Chung and Hunter Biden discuss an opening for then-Vice president Biden's executive assistant position in May 2012.

Kathy Chung and Hunter Biden discuss an opening for then-Vice president Biden’s executive assistant position in May 2012. (Fox News)

“Call if/when you want me to tell Dad you are interested and I’m sure Michele would also want to talk to you at some point,” he added. “I don’t know who else they were considering but I thought you would be great.”

One month later, on June, 13, 2012, Chung emailed Hunter Biden informing him that she had been offered the job.

“I cannot thank you enough for thinking about me and walking me thru this,” she said. “What an incredible opportunity! Thanks, Hunter!!”

Kathy Chung informs Hunter Biden that then-Vice President Biden had selected her to be his executive assistant in June 2012.Kathy Chung informs Hunter Biden that then-Vice President Biden had selected her to be his executive assistant in June 2012. (Fox News Digital)

Dozens of additional emails between Chung and Biden’s son showed various levels of correspondence between the two.

Continue reading…

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Hunter/FOX News composits/(TLB) staff

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)