The Road To War

One of the major differences between President Trump and President Biden is that President Trump knows how to wage economic war rather than physical war. All it would take to bring peace to Ukraine and cripple Iran would be to resume domestic drilling in America on a large scale. Since oil is an international commodity, that would drop the price of oil. A dropped price in oil would weaken the economies of both Russia and Iran. So why hasn’t the Biden administration done this? Ukraine is great for money laundering and if the Biden administration resumed drilling, they would lose the ‘green’ vote.

On Friday, The New York Post reported:

NATO is mapping out “land corridors” to enable US troops and other allied forces to reach the front lines quicker in the event of a broader European ground war with Russia.

The move follows warnings from NATO leaders earlier this year urging Western governments to prepare themselves for a full-blown war with Russia sometime in the next 20 years.

The newly established troop expressways would see American soldiers landing at one of five designated ports.

They would then be deployed along pre-established routes depending on how a potential attack by Moscow would play out, NATO officials told The Telegraph.

The new routes would expand on existing arrangements that have been in place since last year when the alliance agreed to have 300,000 troops in a state of high readiness during a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.

Under the current plans, US forces would land at ports in The Netherlands before being transported through Germany and on to Poland by train.

If you are over 60, you remember the beginnings of the Vietnam War. The American involvement in Vietnam began in the 1950’s under President Eisenhower. Our involvement began innocently enough–we sent advisors. The election in November will determine whether or not your sons and daughters are deployed to Ukraine. You have a choice–a President who will wage an economic war or a President who will wage a physical war.

Follow The Money

On January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower said the following (source: Yale Law School):

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

On January 5th, The Daily Caller reported:

Members of Congress raked in profits from defense contractor stocks after voting to send billions in military aid to Ukraine, according to financial disclosures and voting records reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The U.S. has delivered more than $20 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine between Jan. 24, a month before Russia invaded, and Nov. 20, according to data compiled by the Council on Foreign Relations, and Congress has approved billions more in spending on Ukraine. To make up for that aid, top defense companies have boosted production, and lawmakers trading on company stocks saw a financial windfall as a result, according to publicly available stock trading data.

Overall, Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon netted the highest average returns on defense company stocks since 2021 at 40%, according to a chart published Tuesday by Unusual Whales, a site known for exposing how members of Congress profit from trading related to legislative issues. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has voted against Ukraine aid, was the top Republican at 35.5%.

We are seeing what President Eisenhower warned us about.

Bad Day at Black Rock

Below is a guest post by Raynor James, an eastern North Carolina resident who has followed the debate on North Carolina House Bill 184 very closely:

Tuesday, April 3rd was a sad day in the North Carolina House of Representatives.

Let me tell you about it. Dale Folwell is North Carolina’s Treasurer. He’s a very popular fellow for all the right reasons. He did a good job when he served in the North Carolina General Assembly. He got North Carolina’s unemployment insurance out of debt to the Federal Government when he served in Governor McCrory’s administration, an accomplishment that continues to save North Carolina’s employers significant sums annually. He’s known as a problem solver.

North Carolina’s State Health Plan (which pays for medical expenses of current and retired state employees) is seriously underfunded and is projected to be bankrupt by the year 2023.When Dale Folwell was elected Treasurer, many who voted for him expected him to solve the Plan’s problems as its administration was in the Treasurer’s portfolio.

Enter HB-184 which if implemented will tie the Treasurer’s hands and not allow corrective action to be taken while a committee studies the situation.

HB-184 was debated on the floor of the House April 3rd. Let’s look in on how some conservative House members tried to kill the bill.

First, Representative Michael Speciale offered two amendments to the bill. Representative Speciale’s first amendment would give the Treasurer a vote on the study committee and would make it impossible to expand the size of the committee (something that is sometimes done when the “powers that be”don’t like the direction a committee seems to be taking).

That amendment passed by a vote of 106 to 5.

Representative Speciale’s second amendment would remove Section 2 from the bill. Section 2 requires that Blue Cross-Blue Shield continue to be used during the study period.

It also prevents the Treasurer from switching the Plan to using referenced based pricing for medical services to the Plan during the study period.That amendment failed by a vote of 88 to 23.

During debate on HB-184 itself, Representative Larry Pittman cited a memo from the Plan’s Board of Trustees that projects that the plan will be out of money in 2023, and said that we can’t wait on a two year study. He talked about how hospital groups were groaning about how burdensome the Treasurer’s planed payment changes would be on them [tie pricing of medical services to 172% of the average Medicare pays for the same service], and pointed out how well funded many hospitals are. In support of his assertion, Representative Pittman mentioned that the hospital at East Carolina has given $10 million dollars to fund a stadium.

Representative Pittman asked that members not pass the bill and added that when Treasurer Folwell had requested info from the hospital groups, they had sent him the schedules he asked for with page after page blacked out. “They might as well have slapped him in the face and spit on him,” Representative Pittman said.

He continued by saying passage of the bill would hurt both members of the Plan and taxpayers who pay the freight and pointed out that members of the Plan are also taxpayers, so they get hit two ways.

He stated that Dale Folwell is “competent” and “honest” and renewed his request by saying, “Defeat this bill.” Representative Michael Speciale said, “We’re told that if we don’t pass this bill, the sky will fall; we’ll lose our rural hospitals.” He went on to say that they’d heard the same thing when he was trying to get rid of the CON [Certificate of Need] laws [which did not pass] and shortly thereafter they closed one of the hospitals in my district.”

“I hear fake news ads” [on the topic of rural hospitals closing if HB-184 doesn’t pass] when I drive in my district.”

Representative Speciale went on to say that Dale Folwell got the people together who are opposing him [mainly large hospital groups] and asked how much waste, fraud, and abuse there is in the system. The answers they give him ran from 12% to 25%, so he took a middle number and asked them to figure out how they could reduce costs by 15% and said that they needed to get together again as soon as that was done.

After that meeting, Treasurer Folwell tried to set follow up meetings, and time after time he was stonewalled.

Representative Speciale continued, “Now we’re faced with $33 to $36 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities. If we don’t allow him to cut costs, how are we going to cut costs because it’ll be on us!”

“Dale Folwell has increased what would be going into rural hospitals. He’s compromised, but they won’t budge an inch.If we do not pass this bill, then the hospital lobby will sit down and talk to him. Let the state Treasurer do what he was elected to do. Throw the politics aside and vote NO!

Representative Keith Kidwell said, “For the last 10 years, health care costs have gone up and up. We asked Treasurer Folwell to handle it. Let’s not bobble him,or we’ll be faced with taking $235 million to $509 million [dollars] from the general fund to deal with the problem AND $1.1 billion will be added to the unfunded liability.”

“HB-184 will cost us a ton of money!” “Cut through partisanship and look at the numbers! We HAVE to block this bill!’

In spite of those eloquent pleas and others, too, HB-184 passed 75 to 36, and it will now be sent to the North Carolina Senate where it is hoped that wiser voices will prevail.

If you’d like to hear the whole debate, you can go to the NC General Assembly website at which NC House sessions are archived.

Thank you, Raynor. This is a picture of what is going on in the North Carolina state legislature. President Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. What we see here is the result of intense lobbying by the healthcare-industrial complex. We need to stop this bill.

Who Gains If We Begin A War In Syria?

A few days ago a friend sent me a video of what looked like a poison gas attack on a group of civilians. However, as the video continued, it became obvious that this was not a real attack. At the sound of a bell, everyone fell to the floor and began choking and writhing in pain and others with gas masks began administering aid. Then the bell sounded again, and everyone got up and began standing around talking and acting totally normally. I haven’t been able to locate the video again, but I have seen similar videos of other events. I have no idea who made this video, and I wonder what the person who made it had in mind in terms of using the video. Thus, I have no way of knowing whether the recent gas attack in Syria was real or staged, but not knowing raises some interesting questions.

If America goes in and bombs the assumed source of the poison gas attack, who are they bombing? Are they attacking some of Bashar al-Assad‘s forces or are they attacking the rebel forces? Who are the rebel forces? What is the rebel forces link to militant Islam? Why are Russia and Iran so interested in keeping al-Assad in power? If this turns out to be a proxy war between America and Russia with al-Assad watching as we fight his enemies, what are we fighting for?

The final question is who gains financially if America begins a targeted war against whoever initiated the poison gas attacks (if the attacks were real)? Is this the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago? War costs money–weapons, ammunition, medical supplies, troops, etc. War also has geopolitical consequences. Who profits from our fighting?  If America can be drained of money and power through continuous wars, who gains? The globalists who are fighting President Trump see American power as an obstacle to one-world government (with them in charge, of course). That is also something that needs to be considered in decisions regarding Syria.

America has been at war since 2001. The Muslim Brotherhood has been at war with us since 1978, but their war uses different weapons than ours. This is a link to the Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group (the Muslim Brotherhood). The Memorandum explains their strategies for America–rather than use weapons of war, they are using weapons of influence. For a number of years there have been a number of members of the Muslim Brotherhood placed in high positions in our government. This has resulted in a purging of our national security resources of any references to Islamic terrorism. We need to spend more effort on combating the enemy within than the enemy without.