Pages: << 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 1269 >>
Open Borders Subject Women and Girls in the US to Rapes and Wanton Violence
12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray's lifeless body was found under a bridge
By Betsy McCaughey
Open Borders Subject Women and Girls in the US to Rapes and Wanton Violence. The United Nations calls it "femicide," the wanton assault, rape and murder of girls and women. It's a cultural epidemic in Latin America.
Femicide is visible every step of the way from South America and the Northern Triangle countries to the Mexico-U.S. border. Rape trees, where women's panties hang from branches, and rape tents, where girls and women are dragged by smugglers, dot the route. Do you think the rapes stop when illegals cross into the U.S.? No.
Now women are being victimized by migrants bringing femicide to your neighborhood. Where are the women's rights groups? Silent. They couldn't care less. It's politically incorrect to criticize Latin American culture -- even its tolerance for violence against females.
Last week in Queens, an Ecuadoran illegal, Christian Geovanny Inga-Landi, allegedly attacked a 13-year-old girl walking home from school, held her at knife-point and raped her, recording the assault for his own future pleasure as he proceeded.
The Supreme Court Takes on the Administrative State
On June 28, the Court ruled in favor of the fishermen plaintiffs
By Ellen Brown
In a highly controversial decision, the Supreme Court on June 28 reversed a 40-year old ruling, reclaiming the Court’s role as interpreter of statutory law as it applies to a massive body of regulations imposed by federal agencies in such areas as the environment, workplace safety, public health and more.
The Court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned a 1984 ruling, also issued by that Court’s conservative majority, that granted authority to a federal agency if a Congressional statute involving that agency was ambiguous or incomplete. It left the interpretation of the law to the agency rather than the courts.
This principle blocked individuals and businesses from suing agencies in court for damages incurred when the agencies exceeded their Congressional mandates.
“Chevron deference,” the name given the 1984 decision due to the litigation involving that company, has been grounds for upholding thousands of regulations by a host of federal agencies over the last four decades. Opinions by commentators on its reversal range from “an epic disaster, … one of the worst Supreme Court rulings … another huge gift to special interests and corporations,” to “a victory for the common man” and “an important win for accountability and predictability at a time when agencies are unleashing a tsunami of regulation — in many cases clearly exceeding their statutory authority ….”
Lies, Damn Lies, and NATO
By David Swanson
Remarks on Stop the War Coalition webinar
After someone shot Donald Trump, Joe Biden said, indignantly, “we resolve our differences at the ballot,” which is classic propaganda, taking something obviously true (namely: it’s evil to shoot people) and using it to make seem true something obviously false (namely: you can use a ballot in a U.S. election to choose policies you support and have them enacted). When Trump and Biden debated, they debated who would destroy Gaza faster and who would make Europe move more money into war. No election ballot in the U.S. will resolve any war. And of course, when Biden says he is running the world, at least 96% of the world doesn’t get any say in that on any ballot.
Here’s another bit of Biden propaganda. See if you can spot any problem with it: “We support NATO in order to work together with the world.” Spot anything?
If you spotted the fact that there are ways to work with the world other than mass-murder, or the fact that NATO is only part of the world and is heartily despised by most of the world in polling, or the fact that NATO decisions are mostly made by the U.S. government and not by all of its members or all of its members and partners, or the fact that the United Nations — deeply flawed as it is — exists and that the most serious longstanding violation of its charter is the existence of NATO as a gang that drags nations into participation in wars, then you win the prize. The prize is getting to go explain things to other people.
War Abolisher Awards of 2024 Announced, Presentation Scheduled
By World BEYOND War
World BEYOND War has announced four recipients of 2024 War Abolisher Awards. They are:
The awardees are honored for their body of work directly supporting one or more of the three segments of World BEYOND War’s strategy for reducing and eliminating war as outlined in the book A Global Security System, An Alternative to War. They are: Demilitarizing Security, Managing Conflict Without Violence, and Building a Culture of Peace.
Whoopi Goldberg said, "Somebody needs to take him out”
When Whoopi Goldberg said on The View, "Somebody needs to take him
out”, in reference to Trump, there's no question about what she meant.
Editor thepeoplesvoice.org
Nobody is talking about how this happened and why this happened, who is responsible and who caused it.
Some are blaming the slow response of the police. It was five minutes after rally attendees brought the sniper to the attention of police before they reacted. Others say it was the fault of the Secret Service sharpshooters because they allowed the assassin to squeeze off seven rounds before they shot him. Those were certainly contributing factors to a near fatal tragedy, but was that the cause? No, that was simply the chain of events that took place.
The unbridled and incendiary left-wing propaganda from the globalist media caused this. It happened because of the twenty-four-seven lies spewed by the leftist talking heads. As Americans, we must ask: Who controls the globalist media, and who pays these people to do what they do? Why is there no punishment, no retribution for their dangerous incendiary words? They incite hatred and division and caused this event. We all possess constitutional First Amendment freedom of speech rights, but nobody has the right to suggest assassination and murder.
China’s Soft Power
By Vladislav B. Sotirovic
It is of extreme importance to understand the concept and motivation of soft power by China – the most rising emerging market power today and already the first export nation with the second-largest economy in the world.
Concerning China and its foreign policy, soft power is one of the most frequently used political and social concepts during the last two decades. It has to be immediately noticed that one of the major reasons for China’s easy acceptance of soft power is that soft use of power has historically a strong cultural foundation in traditional Chinese foreign policy (for instance, in the case of the Korean Peninsula). Traditional China has a rich military-free culture, which mostly contributes to China’s use of cultural power in its foreign relations.1 The revival of material and cultural power prompts China to easily find an echo in the concept of soft power. As a matter of fact, all ethnic Chinese people are proud of their cultural history.
Given that soft power is highly related to culture, it can be said that it is natural that China should stress the importance and use of cultural and soft power concerning its competitive cultural advantage in international society. Additionally, for most Chinese political and economic elites, the factor of civilization is playing a key role in shaping the future global order of world politics. In other words, in the eye of the Chinese elite, the way civilizations shape world order is not through clashes, as Samuel P. Huntington claims (a theory of Clash of Civilizations), but through dialogue between them. Such belief in civilization as well as is reinforcing the Chinese emphasis on soft power. Another reason for this is that Chinese society is fundamentally a relation-based society. This means, practically that social power is originating mostly, but not entirely, from the density of relational networks. Social power should be used for strengthening rather than disrupting the balance of social relations. Such a particular understanding of power is as well as consistent with the nature of soft power.
And Now Begins the Third World War
Editor thepeoplesvoice.org
Biden, the senile corrupt pathological liar and the treasonous Marxist democrats lead America and the world to war.
The Marxist democrat plan to use the votes of illegal aliens to rig the election has encountered a serious setback. The House has passed the Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act by a 221-198 vote. Now Voters will be required to prove their citizenship in order to vote in the upcoming presidential election and all future federal elections.
Although democrats have millions of falsified paper ballots, rigged voting machines, and 30% of Americans believe the globalist media lies and support Biden, that will not be enough to insure a democrat victory. They cannot win without the votes of some forty million illegal aliens.
After Biden's speech to the NATO members, it appears that he wants to start a war with Russia. If Biden can embroil the United States in a war with Russia he can invoke the War Powers Act, cancel the election and remain in power indefinitely.
German Parliamentarian in Washington Says No to NATO – Yes to Peace
Peace Instead of NATO
Speech by Sevim Dagdelen, Member of the German Bundestag at
„No to NATO – Yes to Peace“-rally in Washington DC on July 7th 2024.
As NATO marks its 75th anniversary on the eve of its Washington summit, three of its great myths are unravelling.
First myth: That NATO is a defensive alliance abiding by international law.
In reality, over the last quarter century, NATO has waged unprovoked, illegal wars of aggression against Yugoslavia and Libya; and the United States, the leader of the alliance, invaded and occupied Iraq, in a catastrophic adventure – to name three notorious examples.
Second myth: That NATO stands for democracy and the rule of law.
The reality is that NATO has never had a problem with counting military dictatorships or fascist regimes among its members. Portugal, one of NATO’s founding members, murdered thousands of Africans in its colonial wars and tortured hundreds to death in concentration camps. That was never a problem for this particular collective of shared values, just as Erdoğan’s Türkiye, with its support for jihadists terrorist groups in Syria, poses no particular ethical problem for it today.
The Evolution of Black Ops, Surveillance, and Mockingbird Press: From Paperclip to the NSA - The Origins of Psyops
By Tracy Turner
Project Paperclip, a significant and secretive program initiated by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and later taken over by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) following World War II, is crucial in history. The objective was to recruit German scientists with military and technological research expertise to assist the United States' post-war efforts. Many of these scientists were former members of the Nazi Party and orchestrated unethical and illegal research, including experiments on human subjects.
The implications of Project Paperclip extend beyond its original purpose, as it laid the foundation for future black ops projects. The CIA's collaboration with these scientists contributed to the development of advanced surveillance techniques, mind control programs, and psychological warfare methods.
The Darker Side of Surveillance: MKUltra
MKUltra, a CIA mind control program that emerged from the same environment that produced Project Paperclip, was a stark example of unethical conduct. The project aimed to manipulate human behavior using drugs, hypnosis, and psychological torture. MKUltra remains classified; it is common knowledge that the project involved unethical experimentation on civilian and military populations without consent or knowledge.
The View From France: No to NATO, Yes to Peace
By Alain ROUY, Le Mouvement de la Paix (France)
I’d like to give you a French voice on NATO: in France, NATO has never been very popular, because the USA, which dominates this military alliance, respects neither the diplomatic nor the military autonomy of its member states. That’s why, in 1966, the President of the French Republic, General de Gaulle, decided to withdraw France from the integrated military structures and to close the US military bases in France. De Gaulle did not dispute the existence of the Atlantic Alliance, and had always been a loyal ally of the United States in times of East-West crisis. But he contested the determining weight of the USA in the integrated military command, at the service of the American policy of hegemony. De Gaulle was opposed to bloc politics, refusing to alienate member states to the will and interests of the United States. Other French presidents have also opposed NATO’s orientations: President François Mitterrand contested the American conception of global security assured by NATO, and questioned NATO’s role after the end of the USSR; President Jacques Chirac criticized NATO’s evolution towards a broader alliance engaged in military interventions, a NATO that presents itself in Kosovo or Afghanistan as a kind of “armed arm of the UN”, which France rejects. Logically, in 2003, Chirac announced that he would veto any UN resolution authorizing war against Iraq.
