Category Archives: History

War in Ukraine: follow the money

A crudely politically incorrect joke has been making rounds on the internet recently, and to huge applause: a cannibal tribe chief told his tribe members to stop eating one another. Why? Because he realised that the practice would lead to the total extermination of his tribe.

A perfectly timely joke: senior European Union officials have woken up and realised that American President Joe Biden’s administration are capitalising on the Ukraine conflict and the bloc’s economic problems.

What took them so long to realise that it is the U.S. who is profiting from the conflict the most? It doesn’t require expert knowledge of nuclear science to realise that the Americans are all of a sudden selling more natural gas and at higher prices, as well as selling more weapons.

All that when Europe has begun suffering critical shortages. EU sanctions imposed on Russia over her military campaign in Ukraine have led to major disruptions in gas deliveries from Russia to Europe.

The result: the EU is now forced to rely on American gas. It would take a bit of counting to figure out whether it’s only the transportation that causes it, but the fact remains, Americans pay four times less than the Europeans for U.S. gas.

Here’s another issue: eyewitnesses say that when European leaders accosted Biden at the recent G20 meeting, demanding to know the reasons for these “un-friendly tactics,” he “simply seemed unaware.”

Whether he only pretended being in the dark or whether his briefing notes didn’t mention the topic, or whether he forgot them in his hotel room, or whether he just forgot their content, none of it matters. What does matter is the fact the EU countries are sliding down into an economic abyss, and that it seems to suit their American counterparts just fine.

Pissed off like nobody’s business

What also irks the Europeans is the way the U.S. is making a spoiled and rotten stew of their so-called green policies. An incentive scheme which offers huge subsidies and tax breaks to green businesses, a.k.a. Inflation Reduction Act, may kill Europe’s Green Deal. The EU scheme, based on ideology with no regard for basic (and complex) issues of basic economics, is a mill-stone for European economies in and of itself.

Add to it America’s nonsense climate schemes, and what you’re in for is disaster.

In practical and somewhat short-term conditions, it could give American electric vehicle manufacturers an advantage over their EU counterparts in the U.S. market that they view as too lucrative to ignore.

Again, it matters not whether they are correct in their assessment. What does matter is that this is how they see it.

A longer-term view sees the green minds on both sides of the Big Pond moving into an irreconcilable argument that could split the two sides worse than Sir Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech (in Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946) that triggered what become known as the Cold War.

These disagreements may undermine Western efforts to support Ukraine and the transatlantic alliance itself, European Union ideologues fear quite openly.

Besides, America seems to not have realised that Europeans’ public opinion has started shifting away from unconditional support for Volodymyr Zelensky and his regime in Ukraine. That’s what leaked information about the rampant anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism and overall economic and political corruption within Ukraine’s highest offices tends to do.

European Union countries try to impose the strongest forms of censorship, except many of her citizens remember similar measures under both Communism and Nazism. And they are intelligent enough to put two and to together.

Not that Russia is not guilty of similar assault on freedom of information (and, as importantly, freedom of expression). Except, the relentless propaganda attack against Russia seems to have failed miserably: too one-sided.

Trying to hide something

Add to it several European government’s calls for their citizens to snitch on people whose opinions may differ ever so slightly from the official line. Add, also, their calls to include differing opinions into lists of criminal crimes, offences punishable by prison terms and hefty fines, and some Europeans’ eyebrows seem to have started shooting up.

Here’s the Europeans’ view: U.S. defence industry is making gobs of money making new and new weapons to support Ukraine. Meanwhile, EU weapon supplies have been close to nil, and to replenish their own stores, they will have to go begging. Where? To the U.S., of course.

That’s obviously what then-President John Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower had in mind when he spoke in the 1950s and 1960s of the dangers posed by the military-industrial complex.

It would take but a half of a century for him to be proven right.

Russia, the part that is supposed to suffer irreparable losses does suffer human losses on the battlefield. Compared to Ukraine’s losses, Russian casualties are only a fraction.

Still, those losses are tragic. On both sides.

So far as economics go, Russia is on the winning side. Not only because she has found new markets and enhanced those that had existed earlier, but also because her opponents are findings themselves in quagmires of their own doing.

The U.S. could have thought they were winning when they drew Russia into her war on Ukraine. The Americans would fight the Russians till the last Ukrainian standing, defending American business interests.

Now, it turns out that it’s only the direct participants and NATO (both actual members and candidates for membership) who are keenly engaged in the conflict.

The rest of the world seems to be keenly bored. That’s a dangerous game, too, what with the nuclear weapons clatter from both sides. But this is another topic for another day.

Russian government see it as the EU trying to isolate their country but, as their Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed, the EU only “imposes costs on EU countries and their citizens, who are forced to pay out of their own pockets for the strategic blunders of their politicians.”

The real question: who benefits? America’s military-industrial complex, that’s who.

Anybody else?

How about the Great Reset crowd?

Yes, now we’re talking. Dividing the world so that killing seven eights of the planet’s population gets easier done than said, that’s where we should be looking for answers.

Advertisement

Bringing Bolshevik manners back

Just a few decades ago the Soviet regime ordered its physicians to send all those who disagree with communism into closed mental asylums. Communism is paradise, they reasoned. Anyone who doesn’t want to live in paradise simply must be a total clinical moron, if not a village idiot.

The world was shocked, and Soviet psychiatrists came under fire of heavy criticism wherever they would appear, ostracized all over the world.

Now, taking their cue from the Bolsheviks, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons have tried a bit of copycatting. They sent out an official suggestion to their members to either prescribe psychiatric medications or order treatment in closed psychiatric institutions for all those who disagree with the official news releases announcing that there exists a viral pandemic as well as those who don’t believe that they need to be vaccinated to be protected against it.

It was physician and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis who blew the whistle. Speaking to Gateway Pundit, an American website that the current establishment hates more than the sound of a dentist’s drill inside their mouths, Dr. Makis elaborated: “So this has come out recently out of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college sent out a letter or a memo to all the doctors in Ontario suggesting to them now, so far, they’re not mandating it, they’re just suggesting it, that any of their unvaccinated patients, that they should consider that they have a mental problem and that they should be put on psychiatric medication. So far, it’s just a suggestion.”

His opinion?

“But the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario should not be making these kinds of suggestions. This is extremely unethical and this is a very, very slippery slope. If they’re suggesting that people who wish to have bodily autonomy and don’t want an experimental vaccine, that there may be something mentally wrong with them, that is a very, very dangerous, slippery slope that we’re on.”

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia and other such unreliable sources spew venom on Gateway Pundit, calling it a far-right fake news website that is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories?

The Swiss have gone off the rock, too

Dr. Thomas Binder, a Swiss cardiologist with over 34 years of experience in treating respiratory infections, has been locked up in a psychiatrist asylum for speaking out against government’s Covid regulations.

Armed with a doctorate in immunology and virology from the University of Zürich, Dr. Binder has been specialising in internal medicine and cardiology.

Still the Swiss government have deemed him insane for speaking out against Covid regulations.

Here’s more detail: since the beginning of the so-called pandemic, Dr. Binder has been an outspoken critic of Covid restrictions. After he gave his own analysis on his private website, Dr. Binder was in for a mother of all shocks: 60 armed police officers and 20 members of the Kantonspolizei (regional police) Aargau’s anti-terrorism unit forcibly removed the good old doctor from his home. The authorities’ thugs searched through the doctor’s online activity and could not find anything to use against him.

Still, they brought in an emergency room doctor. It was this doctor who would describe Dr. Binder as a person suffering from “corona insanity,” a novel complaint that has not yet been described in medical books.

Dr. Binder was locked away in a mental asylum for questioning the Covid narrative.

Yet, Dr. Binder refuses to be silenced. He is now a member of the Doctors for Covid Ethics and the German Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom, and Democracy.

Meanwhile, back in Ontario

Dr. Makis also spoke about the shocking series of deaths. He meant the 93 doctors’ tragic fates, assigning the fault to the vaccine rollout.

He wrote a letter to the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), demanding serious analysis of the unbelievable increase in mortality among Canadian medical professionals, linking them all to the implementation of mandated vaccinations for medical personnel.

Writing on his Gettr account, Dr. Makis claimed that he had caught fact-checkers lying flagrantly about a Canadian doctor’s sudden death.

Three physicians at Canada’s Trillium Health Partners-Mississauga Hospital died unexpectedly within the same week.

A nurse who shared this information was very specific: the three doctors died after the hospital started mandating the fourth Covid shot for their employees.

“Three physicians at the Mississauga hospitals have died this week,” the unidentified nurse said. “1st memo Monday, 2nd Tuesday, 3rd Thursday. (The) cause of death wasn’t shared in the memos, but how many times have three doctors died in one week, days after the hospital started administering the fourth shot to staff?”

These three physicians were Dr. Lorne Segall (July 17), Dr. Stephen McKenzie (July 18), and Dr. Jakub Sawicki (July 21), all dates in 2022.

The hospital dismissed the social media speculation that their deaths were all related to the Covid-19 vaccination as “simply not true,” providing no facts to support their statement.

“It is with deep sadness that THP mourns the loss of three of our physicians who recently passed away. Dr. Jakub Sawicki, Dr. Stephen McKenzie and Dr. Lorne Segall were respected physicians who dedicated their lives to caring for their patients and community,” tweeted the hospital.

Another tweet followed: “The rumour circulating on social media is simply not true. Their passings were not related to the Covid-19 vaccine. We ask to please respect their families’ privacy during this difficult time.”

Remember the rule: never believe any rumours until and unless they are officially denied.

Respectful as becomes well-mannered physicians who know their bedside manners, Dr. Makis retorted that Dr. Lorne Segall had died suddenly of a pulmonary embolism and blood clots in the lungs.

Medical community are now in overwhelming agreement that these are not symptoms of cancer in any shape or form. These are symptoms of passing caused by the impact of the so-called anti-Covid vaccines.

And, Dr. Makis pointed out, he knew that the late Dr. Segall had been fully vaccinated when he died.

What is it all about?

Simple, in three words: divide and rule.

While the argument touches upon tragedy, it is important to remember that the idea behind it is to divide humanity along the lines of internecine arguments, keeping their attention away from the genocidal plans known as The Great Reset.

EU flabbergasted by Hungary’s defiance

Éljen Magyarország! Istenem![i]

Viktor Mihály Orbán Úr’s government blocked a planned European Union financial aid package that was supposed to be sent to Ukraine.

EU wanted to borrow the €18 billion (an amount in the neighbourhood of $25 billion in Canadian money) from several banks at going commercial rates, to be paid back in 35 years. Imagine how much that would be with all that interest compounding through the years.

Hungary’s Finance Minister Mihály Varga explained his country’s position: “Hungary is ready to support Ukraine, but we do not wish to contribute to any new loan to be taken up by the EU.”

Unofficially, but still for the record, Hungarian officials said that their country had unpleasant experiences with earlier loans to address economic issues caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Borrowed funds in the billions of € (euros) went to friendly governments in Italy, Spain and several other Western European countries, all with no justification, while newer members facing similar troubles had been ignored.

That is why Hungary opposes and will oppose any other new loans, Varga explained.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock got hot around the collar, accusing Hungarian government of playing poker: Hungary has been involved in a major dispute with the EU brass regarding the definition of what is known as rule-of-law.

Unable to come up with any proper argument in the debate, Baerbock accused Prime Minister Orbán’s government of blackmail.

Strong words, these. The official goal of the loan was announced as helping Ukraine keep its economy and public services afloat throughout the coming year while restoring critical infrastructure destroyed by the Russians.

Perfectly fascinating, noble, even.

And all that is to go down in flames just because Hungary said no, and no money can flow anywhere: EU budgets require full unanimity by all 27 member countries.

What’s up?

Ignoring Hungarian representatives’ statements, EU officials claim it’s because the organisation has threatened to withhold €13 billion of EU funds: Brussels mandarins claim Hungary are not upholding rules of democracy as written by the European Union.

This is an ongoing dispute. Hungary is not alone here: Poland shares her view. They keep telling the Brussels club their domestic laws take precedence over the EU legislative gulyas. Hungary’s (and Poland’s) laws are none of EU’s bloody business. European elites insist that their laws and regulations take precedence over everything else.

Germany’s Baerbock shot back, again, ignoring Hungary’s stated objectives: “Our financial, our humanitarian support (to Ukraine) within the framework of winter aid is not a normal European matter where people play poker and negotiate back and forth about financial resources.”

Your typical kind of argument: identify something as your opponent’s views and then go on to dismantle them.

“We are in a situation where we are saving lives precisely with the financial support from Europe,” said Baerbock.

May be yes, may be not. Sure, Ukraine’s infrastructure has suffered heavy damages, and yes, winter is just around the corner, and Ukrainian winters are not much to write home about.

Germany has got in on the act, and whether that helps matters is quite questionable.

Her three ruling parties are urging Chancellor Olaf Scholz to “thoroughly” scrutinise Hungary’s rule-of-law reforms and only support releasing billions of withheld EU money if Budapest can prove it’s serious about addressing EU’s longstanding concerns over democratic backsliding.

It would be quite difficult to judge, looking from the outside in, who has put more points on the board in this dispute.

Anti-corruption campaigners in Budapest claim that Orbán is (their words) duping the EU with his reform promises, which they call insufficient.

Pro-EU media and establishments elsewhere call these protesters “experts and activists,” without providing any proof to either designation.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles

Lawmakers in the Bundestag share these concerns.

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) — the three parties in the ruling coalition — want to move to “request” the government to “thoroughly assess” Hungary’s reforms and concentrate upon (their words) “a sustainable impact in practice.”

If Hungary do not meet what can be described as German requirements rather than standards, these parliamentarians demand that the government should draw up the appropriate consequences and vote for suspending payments to Budapest.

If this sounds like meddling in another independent state’s affairs, it’s because that’s precisely what it is.

If this sounds like introducing a misleadingly confusing angle into Great Reset plans that are now openly calling for genocide, it’s because that’s precisely what it is.

Yes, genocide: statements to the effect that there are way too many people on this planet, and that, instead of today’s 8 billion about 1.5 billion would suffice, call for nothing else.

Compared to this the conflict in Ukraine, the phony pandemics, the climate changes, and whatnot are children’s games.

Except: all of these events are interconnected, with one simple and single goal: steer our attention away from what’s really going on.

The Hungarians are perfectly right to fight for their independence.

We should join them.


[i] These three words mean: Fame to Hungary! By God!

Do as I say, not as I do

“I deeply believe that COP27 is an opportunity to showcase unity against an existential threat that we can only overcome through concerted action and effective implementation.”

Thus President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt on the occasion of his country throwing away unreported millions Egyptian pounds. Hosting 2,000+ speakers, 35,000+ expected participants to debate 300+ topics at a venue that covers 150,000+ m² isn’t a cheap proposition.

The Sharm El Sheikh International Airport is the third-busiest airport in Egypt after Cairo International and Hurghada International airports. Ophira International Airport originally, it is capable of about 9 million passengers annual throughput.

Still, both of its runways (about 3 km long each, both asphalt) have hardly seen such onslaught of touchdowns (and subsequent take-offs) ever before.

More than 35,000 arriving people put the immigration and customs officials under heavy strain.

But the runways must have groaned the most: the defenders of pure air arrived in 400+ private jets.

Yes. Those who speak the loudest of preventing carbon print arrived using vehicles that leave the most carbon print in the air this side of military aircraft.

Whether the Sharm el-Sheikh airport required any renovations right now became irrelevant. The airport belongs to Egyptian government, the country’s President has been all gaga about the event and so, the renovations happened, whether they were going to be needed after the climate change hypocrites leave or not.

For the record: a regular private jet can emit two tons of carbon dioxide in one hour. Compare this figure to commercial aircraft, and the result is shocking beyond belief: measured per passenger, a private jet’s pollution is 14 times as high as that of your typical airliner.

Hypocrites? Absolutely!

The entire agenda of the so-called environmentalist movement is based on ideology rather than on facts.

First, we had new Ice Age, then we had Global Warming. This was awkward: how can you be seen changing your slogans so often and still remain believable?

Climate change would come to the rescue. As brilliant as brilliant can get. Cooling-shmooling, or warming-shwarming, who cares, they both indicate change.

Except, if the proponents of these hysterics paid any attention in their high school science classes, or, worse still, if their curricula included any basic facts, they would have known about solar cycles and shifts in earth axis tilts.

Sure, we ought to respect nature and leave it in better shape than what it used to be upon our arrival, but environmental pollution quotas (tradeable between nations) may make those who trade in them happy and filthy rich, yet, they won’t make our planet any cleaner.

The verbiage (and amount of hot air) coming out of gatherings such as COP27 shock, to say the least.

A couple of verbatim examples:

“The hope is that COP27 will be the turning point where the world came together and demonstrated the requisite political will to take on the climate challenge through concerted, collaborative and impactful action.

“Where agreements and pledges were translated to projects and programs, where the world showed that we are serious in working together and in rising to the occasion, where climate change seized (HUH?) to be a zero sum equation and there is no more ‘us and them’ but one international community working for the common good of our shared planet and humanity.”

Seized? They must have meant ceased.

“We must unite to limit global warming to well below 2c and work hard to keep the 1.5 c target alive. This requires bold and immediate actions and raising ambition from all parties in particular those who are in a position to do so and those who can and do lead by example.”

Enough?

It would only take $100 billion (U.S.) annually to “build more trust between developed and developing countries.”

Who’ll pay the piper?

We, the taxpayers will. Whether we agree or not. Nobody’s going to ask us. Especially not those busybodies who are flying around in private jets, drumming up custom for their schemes.

A logical question: just as they are exempt from flying with the hoi-polloi to attend those various “great-cause” events, will they be exempt from rules some countries have begun implementing on private homes, trying to meet their own agenda?

How about going to jail for three years for heating your home or business?

That may be new reality in Switzerland soon: heating your home above 19 Celsius (66.2 F) would be excessive, a punishable offence. Boiling water? Are you kidding? Anything above 60 Celsius (140F) is verboten. So are private saunas and hot tubs powered by radiant heaters. And swimming in cold water in your own indoor swimming pool is better for your health, anyway.

Some media say flight trackers have been coming up with lower private jet arrival numbers for the Sharm el-Sheikh airport. Which media? Mainstream (a.k.a. legacy) media who never checked how many of those private jet flights were logged into the monitoring services in the first place.

While we’re at it: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s flights aboard Canada’s Air Force aircraft have been monitored very rarely lately, too. Upon his own office’s request.

Yes, there was one misleading post in Spanish that claimed there were as many as 1,500 private jets.

In order to improve on this shocking image, an unnamed official with the Egyptian aviation authorities told the Agence France Presse (AFP): “More than 400 private jets landed in the past few days in Egypt.

“There was a meeting ahead of COP27, and officials were expecting those jets and made some arrangements in Sharm el-Sheikh airport to welcome those planes,” that official would corroborate.

People in the know call the current movement “Green fascism” or “ecofascism.”

What’s that? “A totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being of the ‘land,’ understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states.”

Thus Michael E. Zimmerman, retired Professor of Philosophy and former Director of the Center for Humanities and the Arts at Colorado University Boulder, known best for such works as Contesting Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity, University of California Press, 1994.

He’s too generous: most of the participants in these movements are simply naïve and less-than-educated (read: illiterate) simpletons whose enthusiasm is fed by brochures.

Their leaders are a band of hypocritically cynical thieves who had formed a cushy bandwagon to jump on, and live comfortably off it, as long as other humans allow them.

Godfather of cultural Marxism thrives

Do you know what happened on Friday, January 23, 1891?

If you’re not old enough to remember, here’s a reminder: the Gramsci family in Italy’s Ales, Sardinia, celebrated the birth of son Antonio.

The small town in the province of Oristano in the Mediterranean Sea lies on the eastern slopes of Mount Arci. Before Antonio Gramsci’s arrival on the scene, Ales used to be known as the only Sardinian source of obsidian, a naturally occurring volcanic glass formed when lava extruded from a volcano cools rapidly with minimal crystal growth.

Had Antonio Gramsci lived into the 21st century, rather than dying in 1937, 46 years young, Gramsci would have been delighted: his dream of destroying the mightiest beacon of freedom (however relative) has become reality.

Just look at the United States of America today.

The latest sample

The United States men’s national football (soccer) team crest is no longer red, white and blue. It now consists of a rainbow design. The idea, American sporting officials say, is to show solidarity with LGBT issues ahead of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar.

FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association, International Federation of Association Football in English) is the international governing body of association football, beach football and futsal.

The new crest won’t appear on the team’s jerseys. It will be adorning its training facility at Al Gharrafa SC Stadium in Ar-Rayyan.

Many human-rights campaigners have been objecting to what they call discrimination against LGBT individuals in the host country. Here’s the issue: homosexuality remains illegal in the Gulf state of Qatar.

Neil Buethe, chief communications officer for the team, told the British newspaper Daily Mail that the rainbow crest plays an important role in the fabric of U.S. football.

“Locations that we will manage and operate at the FIFA World Cup, such as the team hotel, media areas and parties, will feature both traditional and rainbow U.S. Soccer branding,” Buethe declared.

This seems to explain why FIFA saw fit to send a letter recently to each of the tournament’s 32 participants in which it implored them to “concentrate on the football.”

Not that FIFA would see it necessary to mention that – as guests, no matter how honoured – they should obey their host’s laws and culture.

Gramsci would be dancing with joy reading this.

In 1921, together with Amadeo Bordiga and Nicola Bombacci, Gramsci founded the Italian Communist Party in Livorno by seceding from the Italian Socialist Party.

Unlike Russia’s Vladimir Lenin who saw the development of Marxism in violent takeovers, Gramsci saw the future in socialist thinkers invading churches, charities, the media, and schools.

The progress, if we can call it that, has taken almost a full century. But, unlike Leninism, it seems to have former foundations. Soviet-style communism lasted seven decades only. Yes, it left the countries that suffered through it cruelly harmed but not beyond repair.

The so-called Frankfurt School of Marxists Gramsci-style have worked their way through America’s education system to major roles in America’s economy and politics. It took them about the same time the Leninist Marxism took to break down, but they seem to have arrived.

Seeing America’s major financial institutions telling businesses not to ask for loans and credits until and unless they meet those banks’ quotas for race and gender inclusivity says it all.

There exists no definition for either of the two inclusivities. Simple: they are both fruits of an ideology. Banks and their clients are parts of economy, a science that requires solid numbers to prove its theories. How can anyone rate race and gender using figures that have nothing to do with economics?

Here’s the craziest thing: today’s leftists unite all kinds of groups that would have been in serious legal trouble in countries that were run by communists. The gender movement would been hit the hardest: if anyone considered crime what they called “unusual erotic tendencies,” it was the puritans of Marxist persuasion.

And all those BLM and Antifa vandals wouldn’t know what hit them before they were sent to perform hard labour in one of the Gulag camps.

Rudi Dutschke, the German vandal of the 1960s, used to call Gramsci’s approach the long march through the authorities (der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen).

Rule by ignorant masses

The recent U.S. midterm elections showed one basic thing: most of the voters in the under-29-years-of age haven’t been aware of the real issues.

Greenish slogans and student loan forgiveness, blocked in the meantime by courts as illegal, have won the day, if the Democratic Party did actually win: reports of cases of unusual handling of ballots, to put it mildly, haven’t been exaggerated.

Canada shouldn’t be huffing and puffing with pride, either: remember what won the first elections for Justin Trudeau? Why, his promise to legalise marijuana, combined with his statement that he and his brothers used to indulge, too. In trouble with law enforcement at the time, the young Trudeaus used their papa, the former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s, influence to get out of the jam.

Young Trudeau based his promise on a view that not everybody had such influential parents, and so, he wanted everybody to have equal access to the drug without trouble.

How frightfully endearing!

Gramsci and Frankfurter Schule’s success in the U.S. can be attributed to Americans’ faith in freedom of expression.

Originally, official America tried to silence the Frankfurter Schule Profs, Gramsci’s flag bearers one and all. This raised a complex question: how can a free society try silencing any views, no matter how unacceptable?

Questions of morality aside, as one of the original stage versions of the famous musical Hair had it, kids, be free, do whatever you want, so long as you don’t hurt anybody.

An artist as famous as Charlie Chaplin could be hounded much more easily for his erotic indiscretions than for his pacifist (and partially leftist) views.

The world has crossed its Rubicon

Karl Marx’s buddy and colleague, Friedrich Engels, published The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan (German: Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats). This philosophical treatise is an early historical materialist work, regarded by most nibs as one of the first major works on family economics.

German governments of the day were aware that assault on the idea of families endangers the basic foundations of modern societies. That’s why they tried to legislate rules families were supposed to live by. In addition, they tried to make attacks on family concepts illegal.

Socialists took a different view: monogamy, for example, happens to be just one level of social development, aiming at maintaining private property.

Family, to Marx and Engels, is nothing but a business proposition.

Nothing new in their thinking: point 3 of their 1848 Communist Manifesto demands that bequests be abolished.

Who will be caring for children if not their Mom and Dad?

Why the society.

And who represents society?

Why, the government.

These were 19th century statements that we are now seeing more and more as reality.

Black Lives Matter used to claim on its website thus: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

Somebody asked: HUH? and this statement is no longer there.

People still prefer Mom and Dad to Parent 1 and Parent 2. How much longer, with teachers educating their charges in questions of genderism instead of A-B-C and such useless gobbledygook like golden rule?

Antonio Gramsci, rot in hell.

Who’s the boss? Definitely NOT the government

As economics go, this decision by Justin Trudeau’s government is far beyond insane: they rammed legislation through Parliament that bans oil tankers on the West Coast, while allowing those same boats to sail into Canada’s East Coast harbours.

Called Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the law bans ships that hold over 12,500 metric tons of oil from waters off the north of B.C.’s coast.

The ban would start at north of 50°53′00′′ north latitude and west of 126°38′36′′ west longitude — from the northernmost point of Vancouver Island to the Alaskan border. It establishes an “administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of $5 million.”

Here’s what it does: Western Canadian oil faces additional difficulties getting to markets, while Canada imports oil from elsewhere (the Middle East, mostly).

Then-Transport Minister Marc Garneau sponsored the bill. He explained his reason thus: that “coastline abuts one of the last temperate rain forests left in the world.”

Another reason: protecting the region from potential oil spills.

Garneau, a former astronaut, claimed that “navigational hazards” of the region would make it tougher to respond to a potential oil spill.

In May 2019, the Senate transport committee presented a report to the Senate as a whole, recommending that the bill not move forward, thus defeating it.

The full Senate could either accept the report, killing the bill right then and there, or reject it to let the bill to move forward to face talk of potential amendments.

To sum up: the Senators, claiming the report was too political, decided to shut down shipping crude by pipeline from Alberta to a northern British Columbia port for export to overseas markets.

Senatorial flip

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said the new law would “permanently block” Canadian oil from reaching international markets.

That statement, of course, could be described as conflict of interest, and the government dismissed it out of hand.

Except: the new law made no economic sense. The environmental balderdash wouldn’t pass the most lenient smell test, either.

So, it had to be something else.

Enter a bit of history: Trudeau Junior’s papa, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a former Prime Minister of Canada, introduced the National Energy Program (a.k.a. NEP) in the 1980s.

The Trudeau Senior’s plan was intended to put Canada’s western provinces, Alberta in particular, into poor house: the energy-rich west was getting too big for its britches. Why not rob the west (confiscate was the official word) and use its riches to enrich central Canada?

Former Liberal strategist John Duffy was very open about it: “Screw the West, we’ll take the rest!” was the motto of the Liberal war room’s, as he described it in his book The Fights of Our Lives.

Trudeau Jr. seems to be acting on impulses, but he’s killing Canada’s economy, nevertheless.

Some call Trudeau Jr.’s NEP the Naïve Energy Program.

Not so fast: if it were so, why would Trudeau Jr. keep hiding the documentation that would explain his tanker ban legislation?

Dirty deals might be a conjecture, but how do we know if we aren’t allowed to see the reality?

Michael Oberman, a researcher into these matters, filed access to information requests to get the federal government’s economic analysis of the tanker ban legislation. Every Canadian has a right to see such analysis. That was in 2018.

Politicians are supposed to be the public’s servants, not the other way round.

Absolutely not, is Canada government’s view.

First of all, Oberman could act as your normal everyday Canadian citizen to be within his rights in demanding to see the documentations. No need to be a researcher into the matter. It’s his right as a citizen.

In any case, Oberman would file a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner. The commissioner told the federal government to turn over the documents.

Translated from the legalese: the independent Information Commissioner told the Trudeau government that it’s breaking the law by failing to release these documents.

The government’s answer?

Buzz off, they say

What we’re doing and how and why is none of your bloody business.

Courts seem to be the only remedy. This is tragic: a government that is supposed serve their voters must be told by courts to be accountable to their employers.

Yes, the equation is simple: we the people are employers, they the government are our employees.

The Canadian Taxpayers Association took the case up on Oberman’s behalf.

Their budget forecast: $50,000.

The government are convinced their pockets are deep enough to dry any plaintiff white. That they are doing so using money that isn’t theirs, money that by rights is the plaintiffs’ in the first place, seems not to have crossed their minds.

The Canadian Taxpayers Association are willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court. But: they live off volunteer contributions. Not a brass cent in any government grants or subsidies. Not a whiff from any huge corporation with government contacts. Just normal taxpayers.

While loath of any such calls on this author’s behalf, this case is way too important. The Canadian Taxpayers Association has calculated that, should just five thousand of us, ordinary citizens, chip in a tenner each, the government could be pushed into the corner where they belong.

I did. Right here.

Will you?

Take this Green Deal and shove it

Edmonton city budget will see city taxes go up by 3.9 per cent in each of the next four years.

Someone’s got to pay for the Mayor and his entourage taking trips to United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh. The picturesque city sits on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, on the coastal strip along the Red Sea. Under 400 kilometres removed from Egyptian capital of Cairo as the crow flies, it has one advantage over Alberta’s capital: it hasn’t seen snow in millennia, and its average temperature these days hovers around 23 degrees Centigrade (on the plus side, of course).

That’s where Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, his Chief of Staff, and Stephanie McCabe, the Deputy City Manager for Urban Planning and Economy, will be spending their next few days.

They won’t be alone: they’re flying across the Big Pond as part of a provincial delegation. They won’t be staying for the duration: the conference runs Nov. 6 through 18, while the intrepid Albertans will be staying Nov. 8 through 12.

It’s not known yet how much the entire junket will set Edmontonians back but, what with airline travel and hotel fees spiralling out of control, it’s not going to be cheap.

And all that for a few days of hot air coming out of the participants’ throats.

Sohi will be on a panel of municipal leaders to talk about net zero emissions. The Mayor says this is a good opportunity to show what mid-sized cities are doing to fight climate change.

The climate WHAT?

According to the Mayor, it’s important “to highlight the efforts of mid-sized cities and to learn what others are doing on climate change.”

Besides, where else to show off Alberta’s alternative energy sectors, such as hydrogen, lithium, geothermal, wind and solar technologies.

Did you notice that oil, natural gas or coal didn’t make the list of Alberta’s energy sources in Mayor Sohi’s list? And that neither did the nuclear option?

Sohi went on to say (his face dead serious) that “We all know that climate change is a real threat, we have a responsibility to play in a climate emergency.”

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Vegreville Coun. Taneen Rudyk will also be attending. Representatives from University of Alberta, Innovate Alberta and the provincial government will fly over to the balmy climes of Egypt, too.

One thing to remember: Amarjeet Sohi is no greenhorn in the climate change rhetoric. While a member of Justin Trudeau’s government, he used to be minister of infrastructure and communities, and, later, minister of natural resources.

Whether he believes the nonsense emanating from the United Nations climate change fear-mongers is irrelevant. He is an active participant (and promoter), and that IS relevant.

Yes, we all know that climate change is real. Not as a threat, however.

And Mayor Sohi has gone well beyond his responsibilities with his climate change agenda. It was his idea that had City Council ban stores within city limits from using plastic bags.

Not only it’s not his business at all to meddle in private business decisions, but he’s obviously also never heard that the industry had several years ago developed plastic bags made of compostable material.

The modern era climate change fear-mongers have been crying wolf about global cooling (remember the new Ice Age midway through the 1960s?). Then, they switched to global warming. They followed that with global climate change, a name that can be used in any situation.

To compare such obvious observations like the 11-year solar cycles that correspond with the climate changes with shocking regularity never crossed their minds.

That the earth’s axis shifts, causing changes in the angles under which sun’s rays hit the Blue Planet’s individual parts, seems to be too complex for the crowd that prefers keeping humans in the state of constant fear. The fact that the axis has been slightly shifting over time has been known for quite some time. And the fact that scientists haven’t been able to exactly figure out why plays neatly into the fear-mongers’ hands, as well.

Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Wilhelm Göring, asked how the Nazis could order such a generally educated nation to do their bidding, had an easy explanation: fear. Scare them excrement-less, and they’ll do whatever you tell them. A cynic that Göring was, he added that this mantra works in any system, all the way from dictatorship to democracy, from a republic to a monarchy, and it never fails.

That’s also how politicians can get away with outright lies.

An example: Edmontonians should foot the bill for this trip, Sohi said, because climate change is something Edmontonians want city council to take strong action on. How does he know? Who told him?

Scary admission

According to Sohi, “The world needs to know that the Edmonton region is the place to be for investing in hydrogen, investing in artificial intelligence, investing in renewable energy.”

Artificial intelligence happens to be one of the pillars of the charlatan movement known as Great Reset, dubbed as feudalistic socialism by American economist Martin Armstrong.

It is also one of the foundations of the genocide the World Economic Forum, and the Gates Foundation, and the Open Societies have been promoting with chilling openness.

Yes, genocide: telling the world there are way too many people occupying it, and the number must be cut from today’s 7.8 billion souls to 1.5 billion within a few years at most is a frank admission of plans for genocide.

It takes paying attention to see that the entire plan is co-ordinated. Just ten days after the Egyptian hoopla ends, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will open the High-Level Discussion on Climate Security. Its organisers say openly that it’s based on this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh.

American commentator Leo Lohmann put it best: “Climate hysteria, i.e. Earth Worship, is a key component of the coming one-world religion and we’re seeing it on full display in Egypt this week at the United Nations COP 27 climate conference.

“The logo of the COP 27 conference says it all.

“The logo depicts the African sun (top) and embracing the ancient Egyptian Aten’s sun (bottom), which implies giving rise to a new horizon (new world order).”

End of quote.

To get back to Alberta’s capital: Edmontonians deserve much better than a trendy Mayor whose council is unable to keep the city’s infrastructure in working order, whose council is unable, also, to do a proper job of re-building the city’s roads properly, doing a makeshift job of it because the proper way would be too expensive.

Simply put: Amarjeet Sohi must go, taking his green ambitions with him.

History in state of denial

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric to explain the 2014 annexation of Crimea reminded those who remember their history of Konrad Henlein.

Konrad – who?

Konrad Henlein, the leader of Germans living in the Sudeten part of what used to be Czechoslovakia. Claiming they had been maltreated by the then-Czechoslovakia’s government, the Sudeten Germans’ wish was to return into the embrace of their former home. Heim ins Reich (Home Into The Empire) was their main slogan.

Unlike Putin, Henlein at least had one point quite right: the Sudetenland had been part of German-speaking territories for centuries.

This has been a contentious question for historians and sundry politicians throughout history: where precisely is the moment that establishes a nation’s borders once and for ever?

In the case of Crimea, Putin’s statements about the historicity of Russian ownership of the peninsula raise eyebrows. If the area belonged to anyone, it would have been the Tatars.

Yes, those whom Soviet dictator Josif Stalin had forcibly removed: he feared (correctly) that the fiercely independently-minded Tatars hated him and all his works strongly enough to start collaborating with the invading Nazi Germany.

History goes beyond the following dates, but, in any case, before the 1783 Russian annexation, since 1441, Crimea used to be part of the Crimean Khanate.

Russian Tsars would interfere in Crimean affairs even before the annexation, and history sources describe that time as an almost unending series of Crimean Tatars’ revolts, with the Ottoman Empire’s remarkably ambivalent approach to the proceedings.

The 1917 revolution made Crimea part of the newly-established Soviet Union, her status changing in quick succession from the anti-Bolshevik (White) forces’ rule all the way to all kinds of levels of Soviet governance.

So far as Putin is concerned, only one year is important in the history of Crimea: 1921. That’s when she became part of the Russian (Socialist Soviet Federal) republic.

Tragic comedy

Then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev used to be the supreme leader in Ukraine before ascending to the throne vacated by Stalin’s 1953 passing.

Khrushchev would later on denounce Stalin’s crimes and his leadership style (a.k.a. cult of personality, культ личности, pronounced as coolt lichnosti in Russian). Still, he was very much aware of how many Ukrainians he made suffer when he served as Stalin’s representative in Ukraine (from 1938 to 1947). He knew that many Ukrainians would remember how much of their compatriots’ blood there was on his hands.

So, on Monday, January 25, 1954, as he and his comrades were strolling to take their lunch, he said, almost as if in passing: “Yes, comrades, there is an opinion to deliver Crimea to Ukraine.”

By this time, Khrushchev was closing in on establishing himself as the Soviet communist party first secretary. That would make him an indisputable boss whose word is law.

So, the other members of the communist party leadership just nodded in agreement. The most ambitious comrades tried to convey their surprise that they hadn’t thought of this lofty idea themselves, making sure the boss saw their respect and admiration for his quick thinking. Nothing beats brown-nosing.

The only thing remaining was to find and express a politically acceptable reason. That was relatively easy: how about the 300th anniversary since Ukraine’s unification with Russia?

The rest of the proceedings would become a mere formality. Nobody dared express questions like that the “indestructible” Soviet Union would become a dim memory of a so-called “glorious past” within a mere few decades.

The leadership of the communist party (known at the time as the party’s presidium) met on Monday, January 25, 1954, with the question of transferring Crimea from one Soviet jurisdiction to another taking all of 15 minutes. The decision was unanimous.

Judging by the surviving records of that meeting, not one member raised a single question, and nobody expressed any doubts, either.

To ask what the Crimeans themselves (consisting mostly of Russian stock by then) would think about the scheme was unthinkable. It was none of their bloody business, after all.

Why? Because we said so!

Issues as the territorial movement of regions were for the communist party poohbahs to decide. Why bring nonsense such as referenda in?

The Presidium of the Supreme Council (rubber-stamp parliament of the Soviet Union) gathered for a session on Friday, February 19, 1954. Some members had other commitments, obviously: the record shows that only 13 of 27 members were present. The meeting participants didn’t constitute anything resembling a quorum. Still, the vote was unanimous.

It would take Russia’s powers-that-be all of 38 years to start smelling a rat. The explanation would be convoluted, to say the least, but Russian Federation’s Supreme Council ruled in 1992, at long last, that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was illegitimate.

What took Putin all of three decades to decide that his government would act on that decision remains to be seen. If we (as humanity are lucky (and still around), we’ll find out more about these records a half of a century hence.

The most logical question: Russia has decided that her closest neighbour to the west has become too enmeshed in activities that serve a third party, and that this third party would rather see her lay in ruin.

Right? Wrong? Debatable?

One thing is obvious even now: the entire argument is based on fundamentally nonsensical lies.

Rats abandoning the ship

A guy murders his parents. Apprehended by the cops, he throws himself at the mercy of the court: he is a complete orphan, he tells the judge.

That used to be the proper definition of chutzpah.

No longer.

Emily Oster wrote and The Atlantic published an article explaining that all those who had been pushing all kinds of tyrannical would-be pandemic mandates, abusing those who disagreed, and killing untold numbers of people all over the world in the process, just didn’t know what they were doing.

Thus, they all deserve to be pardoned.

The timing is obvious: the impressive group of experts in a number of fields who are preparing the so-called Nuremberg 2.0 criminal trials are getting close to the opening session.

The original, post-Second World War series of Nuremberg tribunals judged the guilt of Nazi war criminals, sending most of the former Nazi Germany leaders to the gallows.

Whether the forthcoming version would go so far, given how many countries have abolished death penalties, remains to be seen. There exist jurisdictions, even today, including in the U.S., where capital punishment is still part of the judicial system. That, for the moment, is less relevant than the fact that the purveyors of the greatest hoax in the history of humanity since the invention of organised religion (not faith, that’s something else) are beginning to see where history (and their future) are headed.

Labels shouldn’t be part of serious debate but Mike Adams’s description of The Atlantic as a left-wing globalist propaganda mouthpiece can hardly be more on the money.

Adams, founder of Brighteon news services (both on the web and on television), has seen a lot and experienced about as much.

And The Atlantic’s record speaks volumes for itself. Including the latest Emily Oster diatribe.

The gist

The perpetrators of the Covid hoax are asking us all to forget and forgive (not necessarily in that order).

The people who had been pushing the Covid tyranny simply didn’t know what they were doing. They were just following orders.

Thus Oster. Thus The Atlantic. And thus those whom the rag represent.

Here’s what they are demanding: get us off the hook. Yes, we killed a million people in the U.S. alone (lowest known estimate supported by serious actuary statistics), and at least 20 million worldwide. But nobody told us that murder is a criminal offence.

The post-Second World War Nuremberg tribunals have put together a series of rules that used to exist since ancient Greece and Rome.

All nations all over the world have agreed to subscribe to what has become known as Lex Naturalis. Basically: no matter what all kinds of individuals in ruling positions, or authorities of any kind in any society declare law, such law loses any validity should it fail the test of humanity.

Here’s the legal definition: Lex Naturalis is a doctrine that the authority of any legal system or of certain laws within that system derives from their justifiability by reason, and that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority.

This may shock some, but even in Nazi Germany during the Second World War there used to be courageous people who lived by Lex Naturalis. And, surprisingly, they would live to tell the tale.

There have been several recorded cases where soldiers of Wehrmacht (armed forces) units were told to massacre civilians in areas Germany was occupying. They refused to do so, telling their superiors they were soldiers. Their work was to fight the other side’s military, not harming the civilian population.

In those cases, it would be entire Wehrmacht battalions refusing to commit such heinous crimes, including their commanding officers. The higher-ups would simply order those battalions to move elsewhere, bringing the notoriously sadistic SS Einsatzkommando (Special Deployment) units in.

The Wehrmacht officers’ promotions in rank would see a total halt. Their consciences would not.

Only three high-ranking Nazis were spared the gallows at the original Nuremberg tribunals.

Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Wilhelm Göring, committed suicide the night before his execution. How it happened remains a mystery even today.

Albert Speer, a German architect and the Minister of Armaments and War Production in Nazi Germany during most of World War II, mounted a strong enough defence to escape with (only) two decades behind bars. Close enough to the Führer, Speer still managed to convince the Justices that he only cared about the economics and had nothing to do with the death camps his premises would turn into.

Rudolf Hess, another former Hitler’s second-in-command, got a life sentence, and served it all the way to his funeral. The fact that he stole a Luftwaffe plane and used it to defect to England, allegedly trying to negotiate peace with Great Britain, saved his neck.

Angry reaction

As could be expected, most of those who wasted their time to read Emily Oster’s apologia for the Great Reset criminals in The Atlantic were aghast and furiously angry.

Many pointed out, too, that Oster doesn’t even mention that those guilty should say they’re sorry. Not that many would believe their crocodile tears, but Oster (and The Atlantic) wouldn’t offer even a modicum of regret.

Breitbart.com’s John Nolte put it best (in a verbatim quote): “There will be no forgiveness before there’s a reckoning for the mercenary liars who abused our elderly and children.

“There will be no moving on before there’s justice for those who were bankrupted, fined, jailed, mourned alone, forced into lonely despair, and stripped of youth’s magic and irreplaceable moments.

“Most of all, there will be no reprieve because you are not sorry; because given the opportunity, you will do it all over again; because you are vicious, heartless, mercenary, politically-driven bullies only asking for amnesty so you can catch us off guard the next time.”

Until and unless society all over the world make those guilty (by act or association) undergo proper legal and lawful investigation, followed by indictments, prosecutions with court proceedings, justice won’t be served.

The world must know the truth and those responsible must suffer for their crimes.

Grey shadow hangs over America

Who the heck is running America’s Democratic Party? And, of course, who the heck is running the United States?

Many put forward Barack Hussein Obama’ name as the answer. Many questions raised at the time when he was suggesting he might consider running for Presidency for the first time remain.

Most of these questions were pooh-poohed at the time, but they are alive still, confirming the good old basic rule of the ancient game of chess: there exist no new moves, there only exist moves long forgotten that are now coming back.

These questions also confirm a relatively new rule: most of the matters dismissed today by the nibs as conspiracy theories return within the period of anywhere between six weeks to six months as confirmed news reports.

Phoenix-like questions

Some try to resurrect the question of the legitimacy of Obama’s Presidency: the guy wasn’t born in America, they say. Obama’s, and Donald J. Trump’s (and, too, Joe Biden’s) Administrations have managed to keep the missing documentation under rugs which, to many, is a sound confirmation of the fact that something stinks here.

But does it?

His mother was American. That’s all that matters. He was born to an American citizen, and if that citizen happened to be flying to Mars at the time of young Obama’s delivery, so what?

The question of his post-secondary studies on scholarships granted to foreigners should say more. That question remains unanswered. Should the answer become known, the former president ought to face serious legal consequences.

Considering his former Secretary of State (and candidate to succeed him) has still not faced a single minute behind bars for a number of proven (and, potentially, dangerous) contraventions of American law, is it a surprise her former boss is allowed to laugh his accusers off?

Back to his roots

Many expect that they will find answers to their questions about the former President in the Presidential Library carrying Obama’s name. It is now undergoing construction in Chicago’s Jackson Park, in co-operation with University of Chicago. The planned cost of somewhat under half a billion U.S. greenbacks has meanwhile jumped up to almost three quarters of a billion.

Here’s a more important question: given the secrecy Obama’s office used to deny nosy reporters and citizens access to any meaningful historical information, how much of relevant information will make its way into the new library?

The dim became so loud the library felt forced to reply.

Verbatim:

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, assumed physical and legal custody of the Presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, when those Presidents left office. NARA securely moved these records to temporary facilities that NARA leased from the General Services Administration (GSA), near the locations of the future Presidential Libraries that former Presidents built for NARA. All such temporary facilities met strict archival and security standards, and have been managed and staffed exclusively by NARA employees. Reports that indicate or imply that those Presidential records were in the possession of the former Presidents or their representatives, after they left office, or that the records were housed in substandard conditions, are false and misleading.

It added a link for more information, as meaningless as the original news release.

It also confirmed that yet another rule makes sense: do NOT believe any rumours, guesses or buzzes until and unless they’d been denied officially.

Yes, facts such as Obama (and his office) repeatedly refusing to release his academic records may be hiding some really sinister.

Note the word: may. Still: will any of such documents appear in his official Library?

Peek-a-boo

Here’s an interesting issue: American law limits the size of these institutions, without limiting the number of files. Quite important these days, as most of the data are filed electronically, and most original papers, while held in safe vaults, are available digitally (with links leading to Portable Data File readers conveniently included).

What does it mean? Not much more than that Obama’s academic records, no matter how wonderful, wouldn’t take much space, a megabyte here or there, give or take.

Yes, the reply would be, but it’s nobody’s business how well the former President fared in his studies. Today’s Grey Cardinal of all matters involving Democratic Party is a rather shy, modest and unassuming kind of guy, you know, one who doesn’t wasn’t to be known as a show off.

Let’s accept that, and let’s even accept that his children’s birth certificates aren’t available to the public, either. Again, a family matter.

Of course, given we’re talking about the U.S., it is somewhat surprising that no women came forward to share stories of being invited to prom by the future Chief Executive of the United States. The so-called “15 minutes of fame” formula, while invented by a Slovak native Andrej Varhola (Andy Warhole), was nothing more but a keen observation by the former sheep herder’s son (or grandson? Who cares?) from somewhere in the Low (or High?) Tatra Mountains.

Another simple explanation: first if all, preparing himself for Oval Office duties since early childhood, America’s 44th President had no time for any shenanigans – ooops, he did admit himself he’d found time to taste some of the then-illicit, today’s recreational (and who knows what they will be tomorrow) drugs.

Not even those who went to the same university which had the honour to host Barack Hussein Obama (also known at the time of his studies as Barry Soetoro) could recall his name, at least, for all of his alleged brilliance. Many, questioned on the topic, seem not to remember ever meeting him in the hallowed halls of Academe.

An example: George Stephanopoulos of ABC Television, an ardent Democratic Party supporter, formerly one of its influential advisors, was born in 1961. So was Barack Hussein Obama. They both graduated from Columbia University, that haven of wildly leftist teachings, in 1984. Stephanopoulos can (and does) prove it. Obama?

Of course, members of both 1983 and 1984 classes can all suffer memory losses.

Yearbooks include photographs (with brief descriptions) of all students, no matter how good (or bad).

Young Obama must have been very shy: according to available records, all of his schools’ yearbooks remain silent.

Questions that used to be dismissed when Barack Hussein Obama ran for Presidency (and won, twice, too) are still awaiting a coherent reply.

Such as: can anyone explain how a Barry Soetoro, an admittedly foreign student, studied on American taxpayer dime, and all of a sudden became an American citizen, with rights that included running for public office?

Has anyone explained yet the number of U.S. social security identifications assigned to one Barack Hussein Obama?

There are apparently 27 of them. It would take a detective of Lieutenant Colombo’s abilities to discover how a Connecticut man’s social security identification lands being issued to a Barack Hussein Obama shortly after the Connecticut original had passed away in Hawaii, of all places?

Forget about Barack Hussein Obama’s openly Marxist leanings, tinged with spots of Islam now and then. That’s politics, and voters either accept or reject people espousing such views.

The grey puppeteer

Here’s the important part: Barack Hussein Obama has become Democratic Party’s Grey Cardinal.

A few words of explanation: named after François Leclerc du Tremblay, the right-hand man of France’s Cardinal Richelieu. Leclerc, a Capuchin friar, used to wear beige robe attire, and beige was termed ‘grey’ in the 16th and 17th centuries. Tremblay, officially a mere servant to the Cardinal, used to keep in the shade, yet, his influence on his master’s decision-making was unusually important.

Today, the U.S. has an admittedly mentally weak President in Joe Biden at the helm, as well as an unelectable Vice-President in Kamala Harris a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Whether Obama pulls a Vladimir Putin on the U.S. remains to be seen: that question (and answer) remains a couple of years away.

When Russian President’s second term expired, and he couldn’t run for the third term, he switched positions with his then-Prime Minister, Dmitri Medvedev, and, once Russia’s next Presidential elections came along, Putin just switched positions with Medvedev again. Smart? Yes. Cynical? Yes. Legal? Yes, too.

What’s to stop Barack Hussein Obama? Not much. His wife Michelle, perhaps. She’s about to start a tour to promote her newest literary chef d’ouevre, called The Light We Carry: Overcoming In Uncertain Times.

By all accounts, she’s carrying a star-studded list of people to host her show, starting from Oprah, all the way to David Letterman.

Asked whether she’d consider running for Presidency, even though the current incumbent claims next election is his to run again, Michelle Obama briskly denied any such notion.

Remember: do NOT believe any rumours, guesses or buzzes until and unless they’d been denied officially.

Whether the former FLOTUS (these guys are simply obsessed with abbreviations) runs or not is not as relevant as her husband’s decision would be.

Will any of the unanswered questions that he managed to keep under wraps still remain unanswered mysteries? Into his third term, too?

Given where the U.S. under Biden sits these days, and considering most of it is Barack Hussein Obama’s work in action, America’s voters deserve answers.

Will they get them?

Your bet is as good as mine.

My money says: no.

%d bloggers like this: