QUESTION: Do the Ukrainian people understand that they are the pawns of the Neocons? Can you confirm that Ukraine shot down Russia’s hypersonic missile? They are sacrificing innocent people on both sides in this quest to destroy Russia and take all its resources.
DJ
ANSWER: This is the former adviser to Zelensky, Alexey Arestovich, who quit in protest after he told the truth that a Russian missile that hit a building in Dnipro, killing 44 people, was shot down by Kyiv and was not directed at an apartment building. He has publicly stated that
“The West deceived Russia. They promised not to push NATO to the east, and they did. They turned Ukraine into a huge anti-Russian country. If I was in Russia’s shoes, I would have done the exact same thing.”
I have spoken to some Ukrainians who are fully aware that they have been used as cannon fodder. They are starting to wake up that they are losing everything for someone else’s geopolitical game. Had the government honored the Minsk Agreement, there would have been no civil war.
Back in 1999, it was the Neocons who were linked with the bankers in their attempt to take over Russia. I was asked to invest $10 billion into their Hermitage Capital Management organization and I refused. In this second edition, I have added the info on the Neocons and their antics. This book was written using all the declassified documents from the Clinton Administration so it is not my opinion.
As I have said, we had two Ukrainian employees, one from Donstk and the other from Kyiv and they could not be in the same room together. This is well entrenched the same as the Irish v the Protestants in Ireland or the Suni v Shite in the Middle East.
As far as actually shooting down a hypersonic missile, we will have to see if this is true or not. My fear is that if this is correct, then removing Putin will open the door to Russia using nuclear weapons if they have no other defense. The computer has been targeting June/July on many levels.
Posted originally on the CTH on May 18, 2023 | Sundance
In the fifth week since the Bud Light backlash began, the latest scan data released shows a worsening drop in sales. The overall trend now shows Bud Light has lost a full quarter of its market position, dropping 23.6% in unit volume and -27.7% in dollar sales.
Despite these dollar losses, the parent company does not seem willing to address the root cause. Despite North American sales impacts, the Diversity Equity and Inclusion outlook of the Anheuser-Busch global company is still strongly entrenched in the branding. It does not appear the company is going to modify anything as the very vocal Alphabet ideologues have them captive.
(Washington Examiner) – Bud Light sales are down for a fifth straight week as the financial beating endured by the Anheuser-Busch brand following its partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney appears to have no end in sight.
Sales of Bud Light fell 23.6% for the week ending on May 6 compared to numbers recorded in 2022, according to a report citing data acquired by Bump Williams Consulting and NielsenIQ. (read more)
Previously – Across the United States, wholesalers are on the hook for inventories of Bud Light and Budweiser products that no one is buying. These products have an expiration date, thanks in part to the A/B freshness campaign long ago created. The wholesalers have to swap out the close-dated products that are not being sold in retailers and restaurants. The wholesalers are then stuck with out-of-date product and turn back to the corporate office for help.
From reporting in the Wall Street Journal, Anheuser-Busch (A/B) is telling the wholesalers to give the product free to their employees rather than dump it. By law, they cannot give it away to consumers, and they cannot cross promote the beer by “bundling” alcohol with another CPG product (ie, buy chips, get free beer).
The story is being promoted as A/B being magnanimous in giving the beer to the employees; however, in reality as the product hits its expiration or sell-by date, A/B only has that option, other than to dump it in the garbage and recycle the containers.
Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted May 16, 2023 by Martin Armstrong
I have said it countless times – the only way they will keep Biden in power is to enter the war. The US and all NATO nations have already unofficially entered the war by supplying soldiers and a blank check to Ukraine and attempting to nuke Russia’s economy by removing it from SWIFT and placing outrageous sanctions on individual citizens. Now, Zelensky is saying he believes Ukraine will achieve victory before the 2024 US Presidential Elections.
No one is going to “win” this war. Neither side can back down now without a full-scale global conflict. The US will likely officially enter the war before the 2024 US Presidential Election. Zelensky confidently stated that regardless of who wins our independent election, the leader of the free world (allegedly) will still support the war in Ukraine. He’s right! There are neocons on both sides of the aisle and no one will permit Trump to win even if the people elect him.
During Trump’s town hall meeting, the first-time people actually tuned in to CNN, he said that deaths on both sides could have been prevented. Everyone is talking about strategy and winning as if we are playing Battleship. Mothers are losing their sons every day, and human nature never changes. The Ukrainian mother mourns her son the same as the Russian mother, and neither had a say in this completely preventable conflict. DeSantis has also said that backing Ukraine is not a priority for the US. “We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland,” DeSantis declared.
Trump ruffled feathers in Europe as president. He warned Germany that they were too dependent on Russian energy, and they laughed in his face. He threatened to exit NATO is other nations failed to pay their fair share. Trump is still standing firm on his position that the US has less to lose and has accused Europe on unfairly relying on the US. His former vice president disagrees, as Mike Pence, a potential candidate, as stated. “We support those who fight our enemies on their shores, so we will not have to fight them ourselves,” wrote Pence. UN Ambassador (the title gives it away) Nikki Haley also wants to continue fighting the proxy war in the US.
Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy is also against the war. Kennedy tweeted:
“In 2019 actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky ran as the peace candidate winning the Ukrainian presidency with 70% of the vote. As Benjamin Abelow observes in his brilliant book, “How the West Brought War to Ukraine,” Zelensky almost certainly could have avoided the 2022 war with Russia simply by uttering five words — “I will not join NATO.” But pressured by NeoCons in the Biden White House, and by violent fascist elements within the Ukrainian government, Zelensky integrated his army with NATO’s and allowed the U.S. to place nuclear-capable Aegis missile launchers along Ukraine’s 1,200-mile border with Russia. These were provocations that senior U.S. diplomats like post-WWII foreign policy architect George Kennan, former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Perry, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock had long described as “red lines” for Russian leadership. Let’s face it, the Neocons wanted this war with Russia, just as they wanted war with Iraq. Listen here to NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark describe how White House Neocons justified the Iraq invasion.”
I have posted the video he shared with this tweet at the top of this article. I have been criticized for analyzing Kennedy’s economic and environmentalist views, but I am not for or against anyone and would not write someone off simply because of their political party. I believe he is right in his views regarding Ukraine and COVID, although I may disagree with him on other items. Again, anyone against the establishment is going to have a rough time leading up to the election.
Everyone in the establishment craves war; hence, the machine will ensure that the US is positioned where they MUST enter the war. I wish I were wrong, but the computer has always been right. The War Cycle turned up in 2014 and only indicates a further escalation.
Those who see what is coming are beginning to resist the Great Reset. Ultimately, their plan to create a one-world government will fail but it will take firm resistance. As one reader mentioned, English residents of Oxford began protesting the 15-minute city concept in March. Thousands of people took to the streets to protest what they deemed a “Stalinist-style, closed city.”
Media agencies such as Politico are calling protestors far-right extremists. Yet thousands have joined the “Not Our Future” group to tell the global elite that they will not willingly surrender. Oxford’s city council agreed to implement these cities within the next 20 years. Reporter Mark Dolan said the “dystopian” city planning would create “”a surveillance culture that would make Pyongyang envious.” Tory MP Nick Fletcher called them an “international socialist concept” intended to “take away personal freedoms.”
Bloomberg News condemned the protestors as well, calling them “a case study in conspiracy paranoia.” They also called lockdowns a conspiracy before they happened. The plans for these cities are out in the open. Schwab clearly states his plan for the Great Reset in interviews, books, online writings, and conferences. He boasts about infiltrating cabinets across the globe. Every politician in recent years has had a big “BUILD BACK BETTER” logo on their podium. Everyone is suddenly pushing for the same non-existent issues such as creating legislation against naturally occurring weather patterns. It is in our faces, people. This is public information that the masses choose to ignore because it is upsetting.
As a reminder, here are some of the projections from the WEF for Agenda 2030:
All products will have become services
There is a global price on carbon
US dominance is over. We now have a handful of global powers
Virtual health assistants will replace human doctors
You will eat less meat
Refugees will be CEOs
The values that built the West will have been tested to the breaking point
QUESTION: Marty; There are those who say Scalia was wrong for he claimed the civil war was correct and he changed the meaning of the Second Amendment. You are the real constitutional scholar on these issues. Is there a right to secede by a state? Did Scalia really change the Second Amendment?
Thank you so much for your diverse background.
Kirk
ANSWER: As far as the question of the Civil War, Scalia answered a question for a movie and it was simply a letter and not a court decision that he rendered. Saying that question was decided by the Civil War and that the precedent was that there is no right to secede was not his opinion, but the established law of the Court. Scalia could not respond otherwise for that was in fact the law, right or wrong. The decision of the Court was not Scalia’s. The argument for secession is not nearly as clear-cut as people think. The Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that secession is illegal.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869 where Texas sought to recoup its bond losses. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. Texas filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court under the Constitutional provision giving the Court original jurisdiction.
The court ruled that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union. The fact that it joined the Confederate States and was at the time under military rule. Therefore, they decided on the merits of the bond issue. That is where the Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. Consequently, that meant that all the acts of the legislatures within the Confederate states were “absolutely null” and void. Hence, that decision was mandatory or the US would have to also honor the bonds of the Confederate States. That is why the 14th Amendment was passed stating that the Confederate states would not question the debt of the North, but there would be no compensation for the debt of the South.
Therefore, those who ridicule Scalia are just typical soap-box lawyers who pretend to know things they do not. Scalia’s response was correct for that was the precedent and we see that the same position is taken in Europe. Once you join, there is no divorce. We see the war in Ukraine is also over the secession of the Donbas. This was the difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin believed that the states could secede from the federation and Stalin said no way.
Scalia is correct. The power of the federal government will NEVER acknowledge any right of any state to secede. Scalia said that the Civil War decided that issue which is correct because any secession today would also have to be by force of arms – not in some court.
What people seem to wrongly think is that Justice Antonin Scalia made some ruling on this subject. Scalia was responding to a letter from a screenwriter working on a comedy dealing with secession in 2006. Scalia wrote he could not imagine such a case ever reaching the Supreme Court. Scalia wrote in 2006:
“I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment?
But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”
Scalia said that the last attempt at secession also established a clear precedent.
“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”
Scalia is correct insofar as Texas v White established that there is no right to secede. However, there is no strict construction of the Constitution to support that. Many historians and legal experts also say the Civil War clearly established there is “no right” to secede. However, that was by force of arms – not law! Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists acts that states cannot undertake, and secession is not on that list. That was a decision that was biased and necessary at the time to prevent having to pay the debts of the South. The real question is when the United States breaks up, I seriously doubt that it will be a legal case asking permission. I personally believe that the Constitution does NOT prohibit secession. That is simply the self-interest of Washington and thus the only real right will be by force of arms. Anyone who claims otherwise is a toss-up between an idiot and a fool.
As far as Scalia’s decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER back in 2008, his strict construction came shining through. Many people who want to eliminate gun ownership argue that bearing arms was only for a militia that has been supplanted by a standing army and therefore the Second Amendment is no longer valid.
It was Scalia who shot that argument down. He held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the 2nd Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. That shows what I am talking about with strict construction. The liberal view would have said the right was tied to a militia exclusively. He wrote:
” We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. “
So I do not see where anyone can say that Scalia somehow rewrote the Second Amendment to deny gun rights. All things, including speech, have limits and regulations. It is not free speech to yell fire in a movie theater. Judge Amy Coney Barrett has vowed to follow Scalia. It was Apprendi v New Jersey, the decision championed by Justice Scalia was based upon strict construction. Before then, it was Judges deciding facts – not juries. The denial of a right to a jury trial was common practice in the United States. It was Scalia who change the Judiciary and defended the people. No other judge would protect citizens and finally, Scalia was able to convince others that this was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Anyone who disparages Scalia must be a leftist who loves government power. Scalia had no problem ruling against the government.
When I got to the Supreme Court, they ordered the government to explain how they were keeping me in prison on civil contempt without a trial indefinitely when the law, 28 USC 1826, said the maximum sentence was 18 months. They were rolling it every 18 months. Only when the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond, then I was released and they told the court the case was “moot” for I was suddenly released. Without Scalia, I would probably have died in prison. He at least stood up for the law and 18 months was one-term, not indefinitely, where the NY judges protect the bankers. Trump will NEVER get a fair trial in NYC. From what I saw with others, nobody gets a fair trial in the Second Circuit or State court. When my case began, my lawyer, Richard Altman, said NYC practices law differently. Boy was that an understatement. Nobody should do business with any bank domiciled in NYC.
Texas State House Representative Shawn Thierry, D-Houston, joined with Republicans to support Senate Bill 14 which would restrict gender modification in children. As a Democrat from the Houston area, Mrs. Thierry came under blistering assault from organized alphabet activists in her decision to support the House version of the Texas bill.
Facing threats, ostracization, ridicule and direct personal attacks against her, Ms. Thierry stood against the rage of the mob and voted to support the bill. Explaining her position, Representative Thierry delivered eloquent and powerful remarks on the issue to the House chamber. WATCH:
.
At times it feels like we are living in a dystopian era well beyond the prescient writing of George Orwell. Indeed, I think we can all feel the shift that has taken place as the battle between commonly accepted right and wrong has morphed into a spiritual battle between good and evil.
Joe Biden was installed as a one-term disposable Cloward-Piven opportunity for the most destructive elements of political activism. Every left-wing fantasy operation is now enveloping the United States and tearing at the fabric of the nation. In this era, any Democrat who stands up for moral values with an intent to protect the children becomes a mortal enemy to the tribe of wicked enterprise. Shawn Thierry should be appreciated for taking a stand against the raging mob.
TEXAS – Texas is one step closer to banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors who live in the state.
On Friday, the Texas House of Representatives voted to preliminarily advance Senate Bill 14, a measure that would prohibit the administration of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to people under 18 years old who are transitioning.
Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, told lawmakers from the House floor that he believes gender dysphoria should be treated with counseling rather than gender-affirming care.
“In contrast to experimental medicine and surgery, professional counseling and psychotherapy is a proven alternative that helps children overcome gender dysphoria,” he told lawmakers.
The legislation is one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s priorities and has already passed the Senate.
Under the Senate version, minors currently on transition-related medical care would have to stop their treatment after the bill goes into effect in September.
The version passed Friday in the Texas House, however, would give transgender minors a period of time to wean off treatment.
Still, trangender-rights advocates say the legislation is hateful and will have a negative effect on the lives of transgender minors.
Sofia Sepulveda, the community engagement and advocacy manager with the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Texas, said SB 14 is just one of many measures targeting people in the LGBTQ community.
“It feels like every other day there is legislation or there’s a hearing targeting the trans community,” Sepulveda told reporters Friday morning. “We are literally fighting for our lives.” (read more)
The ideological leftists have gone totally nuts on this issue.
Their activism on the mutilation of children is evil. These are not issues that can be debated in nuance and soft pastels.
Protect the children.
The mentally ill alphabet people are filled with psychosis.
Where is the Nashville mass murderer’s “Manifesto”?
Let’s take a closer look at Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that have been proposed for 15-minute cities. These small units are typically under 1,000 sq ft and were once considered secondary structures on an existing residential lot. Think of what we once considered “in-law suites” or guest houses. There are numerous designs for ADUs, but 15-minute cities will seek to create connected units to house as many people as possible. The exact plans for ADUs within 15-minute cities are shrouded in mystery, but we can ascertain what they have planned based on other proposed policies.
“You will own nothing,” as these structures will be built upon government and/or privately owned land for the people to rent. The 15-minute city is marketed as a futuristic town where everyone will live within 15 minutes of essential services. Some may say that large cities already meet this criterion, but the difference is that people currently have the ability to own their properties. Excess will not be possible in ADUs due to size. The World Economic Forum is also proposing more “micro-housing units” or “plug-in houses” that will be no larger than 500 sq ft. Cars will be unnecessary in these sustainable cities, as reducing fossil fuels and sustainability is the top priority.
Senseable City Lab analyzed 40 million mobile devices to analyze how and where people travel. The study backed by MIT found that people tend to travel 7 miles for essentials, which is much further than what is being proposed for 15-minute cities. Hence, the ADUs proposed for the 15-minute cities will be connected, one on top of the other, for this to work logistically.
Regulations and zoning restrictions need to be altered or dismantled for these cities to work. Another issue is equity and eliminating our “unfair” capitalistic societies where some have more than others. The C40 Knowledge Hub explains this premise to “build back better” in detail throughout their writings.
“In a successful 15-minute city, everyone would have the opportunity to live in a 15-minute neighbourhood. It is vital that cities prioritise 15-minute city-style investments for lower-income neighbourhoods and those that are most underserved, informed by the baseline mapping of existing amenities in each neighbourhood. Just as critically, take steps to ensure that existing local populations in those neighbourhoods are not displaced through the process of gentrification, or feel excluded due to changes to local identity. Cities should also pursue opportunities to build affordable homes and diversify the mix of homes within neighbourhoods.”
Equality in this manner does not meet the dictionary definition, as equality is intended to “prioritize the most underserved neighbourhoods and disadvantaged groups.” Hence numerous policies are being brought forth that penalize the middle class with taxes, shrinking the group that was once the bulk of modernized societies.
Sustainability, equality, and going green are cited as the main reasons to “build back better” with these 15-minute cities. However, the real motive here is control and power. They are discussing controlling everything, including food production. They are making it increasingly harder for the average person to obtain housing, whether it be rentals or owning. These AUDs will be brought forth as perhaps the only solution for permanent housing. Yet, they are making it clear that those dwelling in these structures will have landlords who may become overlords as the people relinquish all their freedoms to exist.
QUESTION: The rumor was that you were considering coming to London to hold a quick update WEC. Is there any chance of that?
WJ
ANSWER: You have good sources. Yes, I was considering that. Since the UK has insanely crossed Putin’s “red line” by sending Ukraine long-range “Storm Shadow” missiles to use in its fighting against Russia, I am not sure London is a viable place anymore. Ukraine is NOT trustworthy. Why do they need long-range missiles unless they intend to attack Moscow? Germany sunk the Lusitania because the US was secretly sending arms on passenger ships to London. Britain has made that mistake with Ukraine.
Britain has just put its own national security and its citizens at risk all for what? This war would NEVER have taken place if the West did not lie and simply honored the Minsk Agreement and let those people in the Donbas, which are Russian, not Ukrainian, decide their own future. That was OK for Kiev, but not the Russians?
Those in the Donbas had a basic human right to vote on their own future. This is a war against Russia to conquer it. Handing these missiles to Ukraine will provoke Russia and would even justify attacking Britain according to the basic rules of war. They use these to attack Moscow, and Russia would be justified to attack London. This is a BS war that was to destroy Russia from the start.
The British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told lawmakers in the House of Commons that Storm Shadow missiles “are now going into or are in” Ukraine, but he did not say how many Britain was planning to send.
I love London. I miss it very much. But the British government is out of its mind putting all of Britain at risk for Ukraine? These people making these decisions are just Neocons who love war all the time.
Wars should be fought between leaders – not the people. Put them all in a room and let them sort it out and leave the people alone. But the truth is, your children are expendable. They risk NOTHING themselves. You mean less than nothing to these people. By their decisions, they prove we do NOT live in a democracy. For Wallace to unilaterally send those long-range missiles without the people’s approval shows he is not a trustworthy individual who should be in charge of even being a meter-maid for parking tickets.
So it does not look good for a WEC in London. I would have to ask my staff how they would feel.
Congressman Byron Donalds represents Southwest Florida CD-19; he comes from good stock. After the CNN attack townhall in New Hampshire last night, Donalds appeared on a CNN panel to discuss.
Prior to Donalds joining the panel, the six other panelists were echo-chambering their narrative talking points without rebuttal. Donalds put that nonsense to rest. However, beyond the epic pushback, notice how the panel reacts to having their narrative challenged; this should be very familiar to people.
Notice how when confronted by an opposing viewpoint the panel uses a familiar tactic. Instead of discussing the policy points, the issues at the heart of the policy positions, the panel instead begins to question the person confronting them. “Do you want Ukraine to win,” is one question. “Do you accept the results of the 2020 election” is another.
The CNN panel approach is to make the person pushing back become the issue, because the points raised are antithetical to their belief system. This method of distraction is straight from the Alinsky rulebook about debating opposition. Byron Donalds succeeds because he doesn’t engage the nonsense. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 