Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 1272 >>
The Impeachment Problem
By David Swanson
I wish U.S. academics would spend less time fantasizing choices between various murders with trollies, or playing games with theories about how greedy robots might do diplomacy, and more time on the impeachment problem.
The United States has an impeachment problem. Impeachment was put into a Constitution that made no mention of, allowance for, or plans to survive the existence of political parties. Presidents are now generally not impeached for any abuse or outrage unless there is one party that doesn’t itself engage in that same abuse or outrage and that party is in the majority in the House. The use of a sex scandal for the impeachment of Bill Clinton was part of the process of destroying the impeachment power, but we’re now probably past sex scandals, for better or worse. We’re reduced to obscure or even fictional offenses, or physical attacks on Congress Members. And even those can be impeachable only when the non-presidential party has a House majority. And even then, the same party would have to have a two-thirds majority in the Senate to get a conviction, since a president’s party’s members will do virtually anything a president commands.
Trump’s Big Bodacious Pill: A Poison Pill for Democracy
Cathy Smith
Hidden Bombshells in Trump’s “Big Bodacious Pill”
“The most dangerous place to be is between power and its reckoning.”
—Rewritten maxim of Beltway survival
In the dark guts of Trump’s 2025 legislative monolith—cheekily christened the Big Bodacious Pill by sycophantic media outlets—lurks a pharmacopoeia of policy poisons whose long-term effects may prove more lethal than a failed pandemic response. Pitched as a “freedom-first reform package,” this deceptively branded mega-bill is not merely a fiscal statement. It is a manifesto of annihilation disguised as a budget.
Whereas previous administrations etched their cruelty in explicit policy or wartime deception, this bill cloaks its deadliest intentions in footnotes, fiscal jargon, and buried statutory provisions. Its ambition is not just ideological—but existential. What appears at first as a routine omnibus bill contains embedded time bombs that could unravel constitutional guardrails, institutional protections, and the biological viability of the working poor.
Profits and Poison: The Pseudoscience Killing Millions
Robert David
A global exposé of how corporations distort science, erase truth, and turn human death into quarterly growth.
I. Introduction: When Truth Becomes a Liability
In an age when algorithms dictate belief and lobbyists author legislation, truth itself has become a controlled substance. The modern multinational corporation no longer merely markets deception—it manufactures consensus. Beneath the polished veneer of public relations campaigns and peer-reviewed façades lies a ruthless calculus: that human suffering is profitable, and scientific integrity is for sale.
The overpowering industrial empires of the twenty-first century—pharmaceutical conglomerates, petrochemical behemoths, agrochemical giants—do not simply deny evidence; they engineer alternate realities. These are not lapses in regulatory oversight, nor isolated ethical breaches; they are symptoms of a deliberately constructed system where science is not discovered—it is commissioned. Their “findings” happen to be profitable, convenient, quick and deadly.
How PR Firms Delete the Evidence of Environmental Crimes—Then Blame the Victims
Robert David
Polluters don’t just dump toxins. They dump stories—engineered by billion-dollar PR firms.
They Poisoned the Planet—Then Hired Spin Doctors to Make You Forget
When a chemical spill poisons a town, when a pipeline ruptures in a fireball, when a refinery’s exhaust leads to childhood leukemia—the catastrophe is not accidental. It is logistical. The spill, the leak, the cancer cluster—these are the externalities of an engineered calculus where human life is expendable, but reputation is not.
Behind every ecological crime scene is a constellation of public relations firms, brand protection consultants, litigation deflectors, and "strategic communication specialists" whose task is not to repair the damage, but to erase it from memory. They do not merely manage the narrative—they construct a counter-narrative so aggressively curated that the victims themselves are often blamed, pathologized, or pathologized into silence.
This is The Corporate Erasure Machine—a metastasized apparatus of elite information control, built not to win debates but to bury causality. It is the reason DuPont could pollute an entire watershed with PFOA, lie to regulators, and then mount a media campaign implying the chemical was safer than table salt (Rich, 2016). It is the reason Chevron spent over $2 billion to surveil, harass, and ultimately jail a lawyer who held them accountable for their toxic legacy in the Ecuadorian Amazon (Lerner, 2020). And it is why, to this day, most Americans have never heard of the 40,000-plus documented “sacrifice zones” where pollution-related illness and premature death are normalized (Hedges & Sacco, 2012).
The Radical Wisdom of Neutrality
By David Swanson, World BEYOND War
Switzerland got that way through NEUTRALITY
I grew up in a town in the United States that was built from nothing in the 1960s around an artificial lake with — in the lake — a fountain modeled on the fountain in Geneva. Yesterday I saw the fountain in Geneva for the first time, and felt at home.
I also feel at home with neutrality.
I think another word for neutrality is blindness.
Not in the sense that if you are for neutrality you are blind to the imperative to join in on mass slaughter and destruction on either this side or that side.
Rather in the sense of all those statues of Lady Justice with a scale in one hand and a blindfold over her eyes — and usually a building behind her where the rich cut deals and the poor cannot, but where sometimes, in some ways, the laws of cities and states are applied equally to all without fear or favor.
FLUORIDE: DENTAL CARE OR NAZI LEGACY? Disturbing History They Hide
Fred Gransville
I. The Fluoride Question
For decades, fluoride has had an uncontested official story: it is a beneficial, even benevolent substance—vital to healthy teeth. In toothpaste tubes to water supplies, fluoride has been presented as a dental wonder, the panacea for tooth decay. But is this portrait accurate, or are we denying the evil, lesser-known side of fluoride?
Establishment sources, including Snopes (Mikkelson, 2007) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, 2020), immediately dispel any suggestion that fluoride was used by the Nazis as a control agent in concentration camps. Such claims are labeled "debunked conspiracy theories," thereby silencing the debate. But when explored in greater depth, the unity and scope of these official refutations begin to disintegrate. What if fluoride, rather than a benign substance, is really a poisoned weapon—a material whose history is wrapped up with coercive control, chemical warfare, and chronic health effects?
The Billionaire Bench & Presidential Syndicate: SCOTUS + POTUS as America's Fascist Cartel
Tracy Turner
#SCOTUScorruption #FascistAmerica #EndCitizensUnited
Bush started it. Obama enabled it. Trump perfected it. And the Court? It never checked power—it built it.
I. Opening Jab: The Judicial Illusion
"They wear robes to appear impartial. But they rule like monarchs—cloaked in corporate silk and sanctified by centuries of deception."
The average American still clings to the myth of the Supreme Court as an impartial temple of jurisprudence—a cold, austere citadel where "law" supersedes ideology, and justice is handed down like tablets from Mount Sinai. This fantasy persists not because it is true but because it is useful. It camouflages raw power in ceremonial pageantry. It converts oligarchic edicts into "legal precedent."
In reality, the Court has never functioned as a neutral arbiter. It has always been the legal wing of entrenched capital, an enforcement mechanism of aristocratic consensus masquerading as judicial restraint. Marbury v. Madison wasn't a triumph of constitutional clarity—it was a hostile seizure of interpretive authority. From Dred Scott to Citizens United, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled not in service to liberty but in favor of property, hierarchy, and the interests of war.
Carl von Clausewitz and the Clausewitzian Viewpoint of Warfare: A Theoretical Approach
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic
Carl von Clausewitz
The focal questions about war
In dealing with both theoretical and practical points of view about war, at least six fundamental questions arise: 1) What is war?; 2) What types of war exist?; 3) Why do wars occur?; 4) What is the connection between war and justice?; 5) The question of war crimes?; and 6) Is it possible to replace war with the so-called “perpetual peace”?
Probably, up to today, the most used and reliable understanding of war is its short but powerful definition by Carl von Clausewitz:
| “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” [On War, 1832]. |
It can be considered the terrifying consequences if, in practice, Clausewitz’s term “merely” from a simple phrase about the war would be applied in the post-WWII nuclear era and the Cold War (for instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962).
Due Process Dies First: How Trump’s Deportation Blitz Threatens the Constitution
By Tracy Turner
What begins as an assault on immigrants ends as an assault on the Constitution itself.
The Constitution Is Not a Loophole
Come the summer of 2025, the sitting president of America is pushing the limits of constitutional tolerance yet again-but this time- not in a time of war, but under the pretense of “enforcing immigration policy.” The target isn't only unauthorized migrants; it's also the legal system that safeguards every individual within these borders-including citizens. And focus to this latest blow is one principle: due process. Removers are no longer confined to border regions but instead has turned into an interior campaign of militarized removals, bypassing court hearings and staged hearings.
What is dangerously becoming standard practice is state sanctioned force being used to strip individuals of their freedom without trial or any form of judicial scrutiny. Step by step, eroding one legal precedent after another disintegrating constitutional limits on power.
How Democrats’ 15-Year Fake Culture War Created Trump—And Made His Worst Excesses Inevitable
By Tracy Turner
I. The Faustian Bargain
“Kids can’t eat pronouns. Families can’t pay bills with gender-neutral bathrooms.”
Somewhere between Occupy Wall Street and “Latinx Heritage Month,” the Democratic Party lost the plot—and with it, the nation. In the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, a moment ripe for a New Deal–level moral reckoning, Democrats instead chose symbolism over substance, abstraction over bread, hashtags over housing. They waged war on the semiotics of gender while Walmart wages stagnated, and American infrastructure buckled like rusted bridges in the Rust Belt. They spoke of inclusion while excluding working-class concerns from the national stage.
This was not accidental. It was strategic neglect, wrapped in the velvet cloaks of progress. While Wall Street looted the Treasury and Main Street collapsed, elite Democrats and their media echo chambers channeled outrage toward language, identity categories, and Twitter micro-crimes. Real problems—failing schools, disappearing pensions, fentanyl-soaked Appalachia—were reduced to footnotes in a morality play that cast working-class skepticism as bigotry and populist frustration as “fascism.”
