Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

After his nomination of Linda McMahon as the new Secretary of Education, President Trump told reporters that he wanted her to put herself out of a job. The following month, on March 20th, Donald Trump signed an executive order with the promising title “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The order instructs the Secretary of Education to dismantle the federal Department of Education and return authority over children’s education to parents, states, and local communities.

The Department of Education was already dismantled once before, but through the efforts of the National Education Association (NEA) it returned. The NEA has also lobbied for federal spending on education, which has dramatically increased without improving student outcomes. Trump’s executive order is a step in the right direction, certainly improving government efficiency, but it is not enough.

Education in the Hands of the Federal Government

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since the Constitution does not delegate power over education to the federal government, this power is reserved to the States or to the people. States and individual people are free to decide how to handle education.

The Department of Education does not directly regulate education, but it exercises powerful indirect influence through its grant-giving ability. In 2022, the Department of Education provided 13.7 percent of the funding for K-12 education. The department gives grants to districts and schools based on their adherence to its specific guidelines. The federal government also gives grants to teachers for professional development and training programs, like National Board Certification or TEACH. The more money available to the Department of Education, the greater its power, a power that should be reserved to the states.

Thomas Jefferson was the Founding Father who spoke most extensively about education. He is often misrepresented as one of the early pioneers of the public school system, but he advocated for a very limited version of state-regulated public schools. In 1779, Jefferson successfully passed “A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” in the Virginia state legislature. This bill provided free education for three years in reading, writing, and arithmetic to all citizens. In an 1817 bill proposed by Jefferson, he encourages local control of public school funds and warns that with control at the level of state government, “they would be badly managed, depraved by abuses, and would exhaust the whole literary fund.”

For many years, the role of the federal government in education, as described in the 1785 Land Ordinance, was simply to ensure land grants for public schools. Government involvement expanded with the establishment of the federal Department of Education in 1867.

History Repeats Itself: The Department of Education and the NEA

The NEA has played an instrumental role in molding federal education policy, though it began with different aims. The NEA was founded as the National Teachers Association (NTA) in 1857. Thomas Valentine, President of the New York Teachers Association, invited forty-three other educators to a National Teachers’ Convention in Philadelphia to discuss the formation of a national teachers’ union. Valentine told these educators that the NTA would gather and disseminate education information to teachers across the country. Valentine assured those present that the NTA would perform the duties of a much-needed federal department of education which, once established, would remove the necessity of the NTA. Other speeches at the first meeting of the NTA also called for a Department of Education in the federal government, including that of Zalmon Richards, voted to be the first president of the NTA. Speakers at subsequent NTA meetings year after year called for a federal Department or Bureau of Education.

Finally, in 1867, the United States Congress passed an Act to Establish a Federal Department of Education. The following year, however, Congress abolished the department and replaced it with an “Office of Education,” due to questions about its constitutionality and fears that a federal department might exert too much control over local education policies in the states. Nevertheless, the Office of Education remained part of the federal government, a long-term victory for the NTA.

In 1870, the NTA merged with the American Normal School Association, the National Association of School Superintendents, and the Central College Association. Upon this merger, the National Teachers Association changed its name to the National Education Association (NEA).

Writer and educator Samuel Blumenfeld details the lobbying efforts made by the NEA in his book NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education. In 1889, a committee of the NEA urged legislators that “the Bureau of Education should be restored to its original position as an independent department.” In 1918, the NEA set up its headquarters in Washington and created a “Legislative Commission” (now the “Legislative Program”) for drafting legislation proposals to Congress. In 1921, the Journal of the National Education Association  started running a column in every issue that detailed the status of legislation related to education, urging members to write to their legislators for support. By 1964, the NEA was sponsoring weekend “Teacher-In-Politics” training workshops with the purpose of inspiring and aiding teachers to become active in politics at the service of NEA-driven goals.

After years of NEA lobbying, in 1965, Congress approved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), with an initial appropriation of $1.3 billion. This act granted a yearly payout to be administered to schools based on the school meeting certain requirements (in 2023, the ESEA appropriated $29.3 billion).

The success of the 1965 ESEA did not satisfy the NEA. NEA president Sam Lambert said the following in his 1965 inaugural speech as executive secretary:

NEA last year had 1,030,000 members; and by the end of this year we will have at least 1,100,000. . . . We are already four times as large as any other professional organization in this country. Within a few years we will be six or seven times as large. And, beginning now we are going to put our power and influence to work for the things that are most important:

NEA will become a stronger and more influential advocate of social changes long overdue.

NEA will become a political power second to no other special interest group.

NEA will have more and more to say about how a teacher is educated, whether he should be admitted to the profession, and depending on his behavior and ability whether he should stay in the profession.

And, finally, NEA will organize this profession from top to bottom into logical operating units that can move easily and effectively and with power unmatched by any other organized group.

In 1975, the NEA published a report entitled “Needed: An Education Department.” In 1976, for the first time in 119 years of its existence, the NEA endorsed a presidential candidate: Jimmy Carter. In 1979, Jimmy Carter repaid the favor by signing a bill re-establishing the Department of Education.

Just two years later, Ronald Reagan announced plans to dismantle the Department, threatening a historical repeat of the first establishment and disestablishment of the department in 1867. The NEA voiced strong disapproval, and Reagan was ultimately unable to get the legislation passed by Congress.

Spending without Results

The Department of Education website states the following:

In the 1860s, a budget of $15,000 and four employees handled education fact-finding. By 1965, the Office of Education had more than 2,100 employees and a budget of $1.5 billion. As of mid-2010, the Department has nearly 4,300 employees and a budget of about $60 billion.

How did the “Office of Education” grow its budget so much from 1867 to 1965? Clearly, the power of the “Office of Education” was not limited during its time as a mere “office.” Even considering inflation, the education budget grew by a factor of 40,000. From 1965 until 2024, the growth in budget was not nearly as significant, only growing by a factor of between seven and eight.

The figure below maps a timeline of the spending in billions of dollars by the department of education together with the NAEP reading results from 1970 to 2022. The spending dollars are inflation-adjusted to represent constant 2022 dollars.

Chart created using data from the Digest of Education Statistics

The National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP), sometimes called “The Nation’s Report Card,” is a nationwide test administered to students to get an idea of how well students are learning various subjects. Despite an increasing Department of Education budget, reading scores on the NAEP have hardly budged for fifty years. The NAEP defines each corresponding to a numerical cutoff score on the NAEP. “Basic” indicates partial mastery of the subject. “Proficient” level indicates “solid academic performance and competency,” and “Advanced” is anything beyond this. In 2024, 69 percent of fourth graders and 62 percent of eighth graders performed below “Proficient” and 40 percent of fourth graders and 33 percent of eighth graders performed below the NAEP “Basic” level of reading. The grade level averages in reading (graphed above) have never risen beyond the “Basic” level in the history of the NAEP.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) provides data on the performance of students worldwide. In 2019, the United States spent 38 percent more per student than the average of other participating countries, yet PISA reading scores for the US are very similar to the average of other countries and have not changed significantly since 2000. In 2022, the United States spent roughly twice the amount per student compared to Japan, yet Japan’s PISA results far surpass our own. The percentage of our government spending dedicated to education is also roughly twice that of Japan’s.

Chart created using data from the OECD

The poor performance on literacy tests has not gone unnoticed by the federal government. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), passed in 2001, appropriated more funding for districts and schools whose NAEP performance was significantly lower than the US average. NCLB increased federal funding for education by about 25 percent, or about $13 billion. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed in 2015, appropriating more federal money for education and requiring all states to submit annual education goals and plans to the Department of Education. These are just a few of the acts Congress has passed over the last fifty years to address concerns about the status of education in the United States. Clearly, they are not working.

Closing the Department Is Not Enough

Closing the Department of Education won’t be enough. Organizations like the NEA do not want it to happen. Even if it does happen, they will lobby it back into existence just as they did before. The NEA sued the government this year for what they claim is an unconstitutional executive order.

In 1983, Congressman John Ashbrook explained the NEA’s deep interest in federal funding for education:

An integral part of the NEA design is to siphon ever more control of public education from the grass roots to Washington, closer to its own powerful lobbying influence, farther from the parents and taxpayers who elect the school boards and pay the bills.

The NEA, originally intended to be an organization for teachers to discuss education, is now a lobbying powerhouse. In 1920, the headquarters were moved to Washington, DC and a “Representative Assembly” for discussing policy issues was attached to the annual meeting. With the NEA Legislative Program, the political influence that this organization wields will pose a challenge to the free education of American citizens, even if the federal Department of Education is dismantled. The NEA also advises all three million of its members on various bills in the Congress. The NEA, like the Department of Education, also provides grants to individuals and schools. Many of the grants provided to individuals are to occupy positions in local politics. Last year, when Trump announced his intention to appoint Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, NEA voiced strong disapproval. The NEA is concerned that power will be returned to the states and the people.

The Trump administration has demonstrated an emphasis on federalism, moving power and authority from the federal government to local control. In 2016, Gerard Robinson, in an article for the American Enterprise Institute, suggested a federalist “encouragement philosophy” to guide the role of federal involvement in education. In 2020, Lindsey Burke and Jonathan Butcher wrote a policy report for the Heritage Foundation, suggesting the dissolution of the Department of Education. But if action is limited to the political sphere, the public education system will not improve.

Work needs to be done in the private sector to eradicate organizations like the NEA that exercise such enormous lobbying power and sway members’ political activism. Rachel Greszler and James Sherck of the Heritage Foundation have written about how large unions like the NEA frequently fail to serve the needs of workers, instead focusing on political lobbying. Nevertheless, the suppression of a union like the NEA by the federal government would be unnecessarily authoritarian, not to mention a violation of the constitution.

The laws of our beautiful nation provide for and facilitate a grass-roots effort to dismantle bloated unions like the NEA. Legally dismantling the NEA would require a “decertification election.” A union can be decertified if, after 30 percent of its members petition the National Labor Regulations Board for a decertification election, a majority of union members vote in favor of decertification. The National Right To Work Committee has explained that the purpose of a decertification election is to remove a union as the “exclusive representative” of the workers. The NEA is the largest labor union in the country with 3 million members. In 2016, roughly 70 percent of all public school teachers in the US were members of the NEA, the same percentage of teachers nationwide that were members of unions. The NEA does have exclusive representation for teachers, and it should be decertified.

For long-term success in protecting local control of public education, the National Education Association must go.

Image by Tada Images and licensed via Adobe Stock.

The Montana Supreme Court on Monday struck down three pro-life laws passed in 2021, upholding  District Court Judge Kurt Krueger’s 2024 decision that concluded the laws violated the state’s right to privacy.

“The laws have been on hold since 2021 after a preliminary injunction was granted in Planned Parenthood’s favor,” John Riley reported.

According to the Attorney General’s office, here are the three commonsense laws struck down:

HB 136 prohibited abortion in the case of babies who can feel pain, generally defined as a baby 20 or more weeks old.

HB 140 required that a pregnant woman be afforded the opportunity to view an active ultrasound and listen to a baby’s heartbeat before undergoing an abortion.

HB 171 established a protocol for the prescription of abortion-inducing drugs to protect the health and welfare of mothers, requiring in-person visits for prescribing and dispensing of chemical abortion drugs.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

The Montana Attorney General’s office and Gov. Gianforte blasted the decision, written by Justice Beth Baker. “This isn’t surprising. It’s another rubber stamp for Planned Parenthood from their allies on the Montana Supreme Court” said Emilee Cantrell, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice. “And as the dissenting opinion correctly points out, ‘the State’s vital role in protecting and preserving human life,’ was ignored.”

Gov. Gianforte hammered the justices for striking down the three laws that were aimed at protecting the life, health, and welfare of mothers and their babies,

“Activist justices on the Montana Supreme Court continued their series of attacks on commonsense measures to protect the life, health, and welfare of mothers and their babies. Clinging to a shaky, outdated ruling and failing to account for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, these activist justices aren’t interpreting the law. They’re overreaching, making law from the bench and rejecting the will of Montanans’ duly-elected representatives who make laws.

“These activist justices rejected modern medicine and are instead clinging to medical care available more than 50 years ago. Ultimately, they have failed the lives, health, and welfare of mothers and their babies, and they should be ashamed.

Gov. Gianforte concluded

“As a pro-life governor, I believe all life is precious and must be protected. I will continue to defend the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves. I’ll also pray for changed hearts as we work to bring nabout a culture of life for every Montanan, born and unborn.”

In her 69 page decision, Justice Baker “cited the Montana Supreme Court’s 1999 ruling, commonly known as the Armstrong decision, which stated that the state constitution’s right to privacy protected access to abortion before a fetus is viable,” Riley reported.

Wrote Justice Baker, “Armstrong thus explicitly and unequivocally acknowledged that the right of individual privacy—encompassing the right to personal and procreative autonomy—is protected separately under Montana’s right to privacy, a broader provision independent of federal law.”

Gov. Greg Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen “have argued the Armstrong case was wrongly decided, and the state again made that argument in this case,” according to Riley.

In January 2022, Knudsen told the state Supreme Court that “All three laws unquestionably enhance the health and safety of Montana women. And they represent basic regulations of the practice of medicine—bread-and-butter exercises of (state government).” He added that the reasoning in Armstrong

is a deeply flawed tribute to unrestrained judicial activism. Nowhere in Montana’s constitutional text is there a right to elective abortion. Instead, the framers intentionally excluded abortion from the Constitution and left to the Legislature the prerogative to permit, prohibit, or regulate it.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.

The post Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down 3 Pro-Life Laws, Claims Unlimited Right to Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 13-10 on June 10, 2025, to advance a bill to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. That’s the 1994 law Joe Biden’s administration used to put pro-life Americans in prison for peacefully protesting abortion.

The FACE law was weaponized by the Biden administration to target and imprison peaceful pro-life activists, including elderly women. The legislation, led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, aims to prevent future administrations from using the law to punish pro-lifers for exercising free speech and religious freedoms outside abortion clinics.

The FACE Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, prohibits the use of force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with abortion businesses and pro-life pregnancy centers. However, pro-life groups argue it has been disproportionately enforced against their advocates.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Data cited by Roy’s office shows that 97% of FACE Act prosecutions from 1994 to 2024 targeted pro-life activists, including cases against elderly women like 89-year-old Eva Edl, a wheelchair-bound Soviet concentration camp survivor convicted for praying and singing hymns outside a Michigan abortion clinic in 2020.

“This vote is a victory for the unborn and for the free speech of Americans who stand for life,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life Action, which has championed the repeal effort. “The FACE Act was twisted into a tool to jail grandmas and peaceful protesters while ignoring attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers. It’s time to end this injustice.”

Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department prosecuted 55 pro-life activists in 24 cases, securing 34 convictions, according to congressional testimony.

Notable cases include Paul Vaughn, arrested by FBI agents at his Tennessee home in 2022 for a 2021 nonviolent sit-in, and Edl, who faced up to 11 years in prison for her role in a peaceful blockade.

Pro-life advocates argue these prosecutions, often paired with “conspiracy against rights” charges to inflate penalties, represent a double standard, as attacks on pro-life facilities post-Dobbs—such as vandalism and firebombings—rarely faced federal charges.

“Joe Biden’s DOJ turned the FACE Act into a weapon against everyday Americans who believe in the sanctity of life,” Roy said in a statement. “With a Republican-led Congress and President Trump’s support, we can repeal this law and protect free speech for all.”

The bill’s passage through the Judiciary Committee marks a significant step, though it faces hurdles in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has introduced companion legislation, and pro-life groups are hopeful that President Donald Trump, who pardoned 23 FACE Act convicts in January 2025, will sign the repeal if it reaches his desk. Trump’s Justice Department has already limited FACE Act enforcement to “extraordinary circumstances,” leaving most cases to state and local authorities.

The bill now heads to the House Rules Committee before a potential floor vote. If passed, it would end a law that pro-life groups say has been used to silence their message and imprison their supporters, including vulnerable elderly activists.

The post House Committee Passes Bill to Repeal Law Biden Used to Put Pro-Life Grandmas in Prison appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A federal investigation has concluded that Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital in Texas violated federal law by failing to promptly treat Kyleigh Thurman’s life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, resulting in severe health consequences, including the loss of a fallopian tube.

Pro-life advocates argue the case highlights hospital mismanagement, not Texas’ pro-life laws, which explicitly permit treatment for ectopic pregnancies.

According to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) report, Thurman, 36, sought emergency care in 2023 for symptoms including vaginal bleeding and cramping. Despite clear signs of an ectopic pregnancy—where a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, posing a risk of rupture and death—the hospital discharged her without treatment or transfer to another facility.

Days later, after continued bleeding, she returned, but the hospital again delayed care until her fallopian tube ruptured, necessitating emergency surgery that compromised her future fertility.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

The CMS investigation found the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) by failing to provide a proper medical screening or stabilizing treatment.

This tragedy stems from hospital failures, not pro-life protections. Blaming Texas’ abortion ban misrepresents the truth and distracts from holding hospitals accountable for neglecting women in crisis.

Thurman’s case, detailed in a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, underscores the dangers of ectopic pregnancies, which account for up to 10% of first-trimester maternal deaths nationwide. Her initial visit showed low hormone levels and a blocked fallopian tube, but staff sent her home with a miscarriage pamphlet. Only after her OB-GYN’s urgent pleas on a third visit did the hospital act, too late to prevent the rupture.

Pro-life groups argue that Texas’ abortion ban, enacted after the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, includes clear exceptions for ectopic pregnancies and other medical emergencies. They contend that fearmongering by abortion advocates has sown confusion among providers, leading to hesitation in cases where treatment is legally permitted.

Hospitals must train staff to follow the law and prioritize women’s lives. Pro-life laws protect both the mother and her unborn child, and ectopic pregnancy treatment aligns with that mission.

The CMS report noted multiple hospital deficiencies, including failure to consult an OB-GYN during Thurman’s initial screening. Ascension Seton Williamson issued a statement denying the allegations but offered no further comment.

For pro-life advocates, Thurman’s ordeal reinforces the need for accountability in healthcare, not the dismantling of laws protecting unborn life.

The post Hospital Failures, Not Abortion Ban, Caused Failure to Treat Woman’s Ectopic Pregnancy appeared first on LifeNews.com.

 Gay activism in the diocese of apostate Timothy Dolan

Archdiocese New York: Apostate Parish Celebrates Homosexual March – Gloria.tv

This homosexual propaganda Eucharist coincides with a so-called "WorldPride" event in the city that weekend.

The Catholic parish is notorious for homosexual activism. The prelate responsible for the scandal is "conservative" Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.

Across state lines, in Hoboken, New Jersey, Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church is planning to celebrate its seventh annual homosexual propaganda Eucharist on the same weekend.

Gay activism in the diocese of apostate Joseph Tobin

Dissident Pro-LGBT Priest Given Free Rein in Cardinal Tobin’s Archdiocese

Hoboken's apostate church, Our Lady of Grace, engages in gay activism in rebellion against God's natural law and Catholic moral doctrine, using Bergoglio's photo.

Apostate and gay activist Alexander M. Santora

Apostate Alexander M. Santora implemented Bergoglio's pseudo-blessing for sodomite couples

WATCH: New Jersey Gay Pride Mass Proceeds with Apostate Cardinal Tobin’s Approval

Pro-Gay Apostate Cardinal Tobin Approves Pride Mass – Gloria.tv

The names of the apostate churches St. Francis of Assisi and Our Lady of Grace are on the list of dissident gay activists New ways Ministry

Free speech and religious freedom advocates, groups speaking out on the harms of radical gender ideology, and 22 states have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of two Vermont families who had their foster-care licenses revoked by Vermont because of their religious beliefs. On May 30, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the families filed their opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Wuoti v. Winters.

Despite a track record of success and high praise from social workers who knew Brian and Katy Wuoti and Bryan and Rebecca Gantt, Vermont’s Department for Children and Families revoked their foster-care licenses after the couples expressed their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa. The state applies this policy categorically—prohibiting families with these views from caring for any child, even if they sought to care for a relative, provide respite care for an infant for just one day, or care for a child who shared their faith.

“Vermont’s foster-care system is in crisis: There aren’t enough families to care for vulnerable kids,” said ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse. “As numerous states have attested, religious families play a critical role in the foster-care system. Yet instead of inviting families from diverse backgrounds to help care for vulnerable kids, Vermont is shutting the door on them, putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of suffering kids. When it comes to finding kids a loving home, everyone should be able to recognize that the needs of kids should come first. And even Vermont agrees that the Wuotis and the Gantts are loving and caring parents willing to open their door to any child.”

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

The state’s foster-care system has more kids in need than families willing to care for them, and officials have had to place some kids in institutions and unlicensed placements, including hospitals and police stations, to fill the gap. To help meet this need, the Wuotis became foster parents in 2014 and adopted two brothers from foster care. The Gantts became foster parents in 2016 and focused on caring for kids born with drug dependencies or with fetal alcohol syndrome. The Gantts have since adopted three kids.

Vermont officials described the couples as “amazing,” “wonderful,” “kind,” and “welcoming.” Yet the state revoked both families’ licenses when they expressed their religious belief that a person should live consistent with their sex and marriage is the union of one man and one woman. According to the state, that made them “unqualified” to parent any child regardless of the child’s age, beliefs, or identity. Vermont will not license these families to provide any type of foster care or even respite care. ADF attorneys say this exclusion burdens constitutional rights as much as it needlessly deprives kids of loving homes.

“Foster parents represent the best of society: local citizens who give back to their community by helping the State raise children that have fallen into its care,” explains the multi-state brief led by Florida and the Arizona legislature. “Unfortunately, foster-care systems are in crisis across the nation as states deal with a shortage of foster homes. Vermont’s brusque approach to foster care has only exacerbated that crisis…States like Florida, Oklahoma, and Idaho, whose foster systems are highlighted in this brief, employ foster-care programs that achieve the same interests through means that do not disqualify scores of good-hearted citizens with genuinely held religious and political views: by matching like-minded parents with like-minded children.”

In a brief filed by The Conscience Project on behalf of prospective foster families in Vermont, attorneys further detail the discrimination by state officials. “Despite the clear desire and ability to provide a safe and loving home for children in need, the Crams were denied a license to foster. According to the denial letter sent to the Crams in June of 2021 by Vermont’s Department for Children and Families, the Crams’ ‘fundamental belief’ of ‘God’s plan for all of us,’ would ‘not meet the emotional or developmental needs of children.’”

The post 22 States Support Couple Who Lost Foster Care License in Vermont Because They’re Christians appeared first on LifeNews.com.

YouTube is full of videos of women complaining that men are no longer

 interested in forming relationships. 

Heterosexuality is based on the exchange of female worldly power for male protection & love.

Most men love a woman because she sacrifices power. She trusts his leadership.

Feminism has taught women to seek power instead of love, and compete with men. This has effectively neutered them. Power = penis.

(Feminism is a Communist depopulation program aimed at undermining marriage and the family.)

At the risk of being politically incorrect,  many men do not seek strong independent women. They do not seek great beauty, brains or sex, but the simple feeling of "possessing" a woman. In other words, what they seek is a degree of ownership or power. This is part of masculine identity.

Democrats in the New York Legislature approved a bill on Monday that gives individuals with terminal illnesses the right to end their own lives, known as medical aid in dying (MAID).

The New York State Senate approved S138, or the “Medical Aid in Dying Act,” which allows those with incurable illnesses to be prescribed medication to “hasten the patient’s death,” according to the bill’s text. The legislation will now head to Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk, and if enacted, New York will join 11 other states and the District of Columbia with similar assisted suicide laws.

“It’s not about hastening death, but ending suffering,” said state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Democrat who sponsored the proposal, according to ABC News. Hoylman-Sigal did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

The bill was approved by the Senate with a 35-27 vote, with no Republicans supporting it and six Democrats joining the opposition. In April, the State Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 81-67, also with no Republican votes in favor.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

New Yorkers who are expected to die within six months, as confirmed by two doctors, would be able to request lethal medications, according to the bill’s text. Two witnesses must sign the request to confirm that the patient has decision-making capacity and is acting voluntarily, without any coercion.

“Assisted suicide? That’s the priority, with all the issues facing New Yorkers?” Republican state Sen. Rob Ortt said at a news conference on Monday, as reported by The New York Times.

Critics are concerned that the bill could put New York on a similar path as Canada, which has among the most expansive MAID laws in the world. In 2023, 4.7% of deaths in Canada were assisted by physicians.

“This is a dark day for New York State. For the first time in its history, New York is on the verge of authorizing doctors to help their patients commit suicide,” said the New York State Catholic Conference in a statement following the Senate’s passage of the bill. “We reject the false notion that suicide is ever a solution. Instead, we call on New York State to expand palliative and hospice care, mental health services, and family caregiver support.”

The Medical Aid in Dying Act has been endorsed by several medical organizations, including the Medical Society of the State of New York, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, the New York State Psychiatric Association and the New York State Nurses Association.

Hochul’s office has indicated that she will be reviewing the legislation, though it is not yet known whether she will sign it into law, according to the NYT.

“Make no mistake – this is only the beginning, and the only person standing between New York and the assisted suicide nightmare unfolding in Canada is Governor Hochul,” the New York State Catholic Conference said.

LifeNews Note: Melissa O’Rourke writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

The post Democrats Think Killing People is a Solution appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The excuse that this regime is better than it was, or might otherwise have been, only lasts so long. 

Every transition government in history has deployed that trope. Think the Girondins in France, Kerensky in Russia, Weimar in Germany, the Second Spanish Republic, Chiang Kai-shek in China, and so on. In order, they were replaced by Robespierre then Napoleon, Lenin then Stalin, Hitler, Franco, and Mao. 

In each of these cases, the transitional government was caught between and ultimately smashed by pressures from both sides: industrial and intellectual partisans of the old regime with legacy control, on one side, and the radicalism of the populist movements that brought new people to power on the other. 

Threading this needle is not easy in revolutionary moments. Of such times, history teaches one lesson more than any other. The new regime must be brutally honest about the criminality of the old one and work with focus to dismantle it as fast as possible. Anything short of that leads to its own discrediting and eventual replacement. 

In every area of government today under the Trump administration, now entering its second phase, we witness these very historical forces at work. The grassroots movement that beat all odds to put the new people in power had high and even revolutionary expectations following the five most horrid years of our lives. 

Some of these hopes are being partially met in good ways but blocked and neglected in too many other ways that are unbearably conspicuous. This dynamic affects the budget disaster, the demand for transparency, and in the realm of public health. 

As a result, the wild optimism that greeted the inauguration of Trump has turned to something different, a mixture of incredulity from the grassroots combined with outrage and disgust from the legacy media and establishment that fought this revolution at every turn. 

This further raises the prospect about which we’ve repeatedly warned: the Trump administration could go down in history as a transitional regime like we’ve seen so many times in history, a four-year experiment in moderation bookended by different brands of totalitarianism on either side. 

This is a serious matter, not a parlor game. Nor is this a typical political battle. What happened over the last five years was for the ages. The world economy was smashed by nearly all states due to a lab leak for a product partially funded by the US government. The unannounced fallback plan, pushed in the name of science, was to universally distribute a new shot with a new gene-altering technology. 

The shot did not work. It was not effective. It was not safe. Nor were they properly vetted because they were imposed by military edict under the cover of emergency. Other therapeutics were disparaged and banned. The critics in all areas were censored and shut down. People who refused the injection were fired. Public health collapsed in the name of preserving it. 

Those harms have seen no justice. 

Meanwhile, to finance this calamity, debt-financed spending ballooned by $8-10 trillion, leaving the federal government’s budget $2 trillion higher than it otherwise would have been. The shots are still on the market despite undeniable and widely known harms. 

None of this is a secret, as it might have been in former times. Because of information technologies, people are well aware of every detail. The so-called “populist movement” has become a vast community of in-depth expertise, fully capable of running circles around legacy people and institutions. 

The new leaders – elected to change course on all the above and more, including the accompanying crime and migration chaos – began with tremendous bravado and sweeping edicts that seemed promising. Four months later, they are asking for patience while dealing with legacy barriers on all sides from media harassment to court blockages. 

The trouble is that public trust is completely gone. The whole country, traumatized by years of lies, has become Missouri: show me. 

First, no one believes that the “one big beautiful bill” is just a first step on the way to future draconian cuts. We’ve seen this too many times, which is why Elon Musk finally broke his silence and denounced the entire “massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill” as “a disgusting abomination.” That has set off a power struggle for the ages. 

Second, in areas of government transparency, there have been some steps but not nearly enough to fulfill the promises. There are still no new Epstein files. The JFK files are a mess and incomplete. We know no more than already public information about the two shooters who tried to kill Trump. There are still many lingering questions about 9-11, the Covid disaster, and so much else. This is not the opening for which the people had hoped. 

Third, let’s talk more at length about the public health area of policy where we’ve seen the most progress. We have a new and excellent Executive Order on science. Tax-funded Covid testing has ended. A contract of $750M for a Bird flu shot has been cancelled. There are new limits on gain-of-function research, and experiments on beagles and other animals are over. Many terrible contracts from NIH have been cancelled while parts of the CDC have been dismantled. 

As for the mRNA shots, the market has been narrowed from everyone to only vulnerable populations, leaving aside the known issue that vulnerable populations should not risk them either. 

There are new standards for randomized controlled trials with placebos, but no assurance that these companies will do them in a timely way. RCTs for a five-year-old product with massive immune-altering effects can never cobble together a valid sample selection at this late date, nor is a continuation of this experiment in any form morally justified. 

In two tremendous victories, the shots have been removed from the routine childhood schedule, the first time this has ever happened to any product targeting a specific disease apart from eradication or replacement. In effect, the CDC/FDA are saying: it is better to get Covid than risk these products. Such a message will drive uptake to new lows approaching zero eventually. 

In addition, the outrageous advice from the CDC that expectant women should take them is gone, finally. The champion of that policy has fled the CDC. 

These are all welcome changes in policies that never should have existed in the first place. Even now, however, no one says the quiet part out loud: even if these shots had been safe and effective, which they are not, they were never necessary for the overwhelming number of people. Which raises the profound question of how and why all this came to be in the first place. 

There are other initiatives too concerning food nutrition, mental health, and other matters in the MAHA Commission report that are hugely welcome changes from what has existed before. 

The people in power in these agencies are pleading for patience. That is not unreasonable. Remember that these few appointees are confronting a beast larger, more entrenched, and better financed than any hegemon in human history. The pharma/media/tech/NGO/academia complex is larger and more powerful than the slave trade, the East India Company, Standard Oil, or even the munitions industry that started the Great War. 

It’s certain that such a Leviathan cannot be ended in three months, not even with the best people in charge. All the grassroots really need to see is evidence of progress plus a transparent reason for delays. If the shots cannot be pulled now, people need to know why. If Covid emergency powers cannot be ended, explain why. If the new Moderna shot was already in the works and could not be stopped, people need to know the reasons. 

Everyone who has watched all this unfold is of two minds, never mind the endlessly mutating factions within the dissident movements that have seen their leadership ascend to power. The people in the MAGA/MAHA/DOGE movements are as thrilled by the progress so far to the same extent that mainstream media and the legacy establishment are furious about all the changes. 

For my own part, having watched public affairs for decades, this is the first time I’ve witnessed some progress in at least one area of state operations. That is worthy of celebration. I don’t even need to dwell on the many ways in which improvement over the darkest times of our lives is perhaps not as great an achievement as it would be otherwise. 

That said, the release of yet another shot, implausibly called NexSpike, especially in light of all evidence and promises, is a tremendous shock for which no one was prepared. If they were in the works and the appointees could not stop them, we should be told that and the full explanation should be given to all. If President Trump himself is still attached to the foul spawn of Operation Warp Speed, and has forced them back onto the market despite vast public opposition, we should know that too. 

Above all else, what we really need is the blunt truth about the last five years. We need to know that the people in office, whether elected or appointed, still share the deep outrage that fueled the movement that put them in power. We need to hear frank talk about the harms, the mandates, the suffering, the deceptions, the payoffs, the graft, the abuses, the illegal vanquishing of freedom, science, and human rights. 

It is not enough to proclaim a new Golden Age and be done with it. This pertains to every aspect of public life. Press conferences by the new officeholders, with smiles and promises of better behavior in the future, don’t cut it given the mass loss of trust, rampant cynicism, and grassroots fury. There must be more straight talk, more decisive action that goes to the heart of what happened, and some degree of accountability. 

We hear daily rumors that all of this is coming. Great. In which case, the new leaders need to make that clear. The masses are not inherently unreasonable. But they are the people within whom the leadership must reason – not “message,” not presented with flim-flam, not entertained with digital Punch and Judy shows, and not sniffily dismissed as ignorant extremists and conspiracy theorists. 

Every new leadership in government that inherits that kind of disaster of the last five years is necessarily going to be squeezed between the legacy regime – including its vast bureaucracies and industrial interests – and the populist movements that put them in power. In these cases, the status quo usually proves irresistible but with disastrous consequences later. 

Now is the time to stop that unfolding disaster, one which can only compound the errors of the past. 

Reprinted with permission from Brownstone Institute.

Is Putin’s Soft Approach Bringing War in its Train?

Paul Craig Roberts

“If Mr. Putin genuinely wants to save the lives of his soldiers and of his civilians then he should end the war conclusively and dramatically right now. This, I believe, is well within his power if he has the will and the vision to act as the situation requires.” — Gilbert Doctorow

I am pleased to see Gilbert Doctorow’s concurrence with my longstanding position that the greatest threat to peace is Putin’s reluctance to bring the conflict in Ukraine to a quick decisive end. Putin’s ongoing war is a direct road to wider war. 

In his ever-widening war Putin has done nothing to prevent the Kiev government from continuing the war.  I have suggested that Putin hoped to use peace negotiations to achieve a wider understanding with the West.  Others have attributed Putin’s inaction to his concern that if Russia acts decisively, the result will be to unite the West to more hostile action.  Still others attribute the never-ending conflict to Russian weakness.  Whatever the cause, the longer the war continues the more it spins out of control.  Although dismissed by Putin, the attack on Russia’s triad is a very serious matter.

Gilbert Doctorow and John Helmer are commentators, analysts, whatever you want to designate them, who seek out the facts instead of pushing official narratives. They don’t always see eye-to-eye, but I read them as a check on my own thinking.  The fact that most so-called experts are pushing narratives instead of correct explanations is why we are in danger from such reckless actions as attacking Russian strategic nuclear forces.  As I have said, that attack should scare the world to death.

Use it or Lose It

Gilbert Doctorow

https://gilbertdoctorow.substack.com/p/more-on-use-it-or-lose-it 

I note with some satisfaction that my last two essays questioning Vladimir Putin’s ‘softly, softly’ approach to conduct of the war in Ukraine attracted particular support from the Community. In what follows, I intend to take this logic one big step further for the sake of argument. Let us do what Herman Kahn famously proposed in his controversial book of 1962 and think about the unthinkable.

I do this in the knowledge that a fair percentage of readers in Alternative Media, including this web platform, may be pacifist minded. My intention is not to offend them, but to allow them to consider other positions on how this war can be prosecuted to bring it to a close sooner rather than later and to spare the lives of combatants and civilians on both sides of the conflict. All the while, my first concern is to avoid escalation to nuclear exchanges, which is what the Community surely believes to be the underlying motive of Putin’s ‘softly, softly’ approach.

In a world of demented politicians occupying highest office, as in the case of Joe Biden, assisted by wholly irresponsible, insane assistants like Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken, ‘softly, softly’ may have made sense. In a world dominated by Realists like Donald Trump it no longer makes sense.

*****

As readers of yesterday’s essay here will be aware, the Russian government is presently pretending that the attack by Ukrainian drones on its strategic bombers last weekend never happened. Mr. Putin spoke about the Ukrainian attempts to sabotage the peace talks the day before they were scheduled to resume in Istanbul on 2 June by staging terror attacks on civilian rail infrastructure in the Kursk and Bryansk oblasts. This allowed him to attach the ‘state supported terror’ label to the Kiev regime and to prepare the world community for a possible decapitating strike some time in the future. But in time present, Russia’s response to the attacks of last weekend were just more of the same destruction it has rained down on Ukrainian drone manufacturing facilities, design offices and arms caches over the past year or more, all without any apparent effect on the intensity of Ukrainian drone counter-strikes on civilian targets within the Russian Federation, not to mention Ukrainian sabotage by paid agents inside Russia.

The only indirect Russian response to the Ukrainian drone strikes on Russia’s heavy nuclear capable bombers in air bases across the Federation was the seemingly offhand remark by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Ryabkov during this past week that it is unlikely there will be any renewal of the New START treaty which mandated the vulnerable stationing of Russian bombers out in the open when that treaty expires early next year.

The logic of Putin’s conduct of the war has been to minimize casualties among Russian soldiers. That prioritization has dictated against Russia’s staging any further storming of Ukrainian fortified cities such as was practiced in the first year of the war in the capture of Mariupol and Bakhmut. Though Russian forces have been advancing steadily along the entire 1200 km Donbas front for many months now, the big summer offensive that Western military commentators are talking about is unlikely to happen precisely because such offensives normally result in much higher casualties on the attacking side than in the defending side and the Kremlin does not want to reverse its overall advantage in casualties incurred till now, which may be reckoned at 7:1 or better.

Let us be clear eyed: this laudable concern for its soldiery results not only from humane considerations. I believe that uppermost are political considerations. Russia today is not the USSR in 1942. It is a democracy, not an iron-fisted, murderous dictatorship and it is responsive to the wishes of its citizenry, who do not want to lose vast numbers of men on the battlefield for the sake of national interests.

The Kremlin is sticking to its plan of a slow war of attrition that has played out reasonably well till now. However, this war of attrition has not brought Ukraine to the point of capitulation, which is the fundamental precondition for their agreeing to the peace terms set out in the Memorandum that the Russian delegation handed over to the Ukrainians a week ago in Istanbul and made available publicly by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since then.

Considering the size of Ukraine and of its population; considering the residual military aid it may yet receive from friends around the world even if the USA steps aside; considering the hatred of moskali (pejorative for Russians) in the broad Ukrainian population that the past decade of intense U.S.-paid propaganda has fanned – the naturally arrived at point of capitulation by Kiev is unforeseeable, even if many, myself included, have suggested it could come soon. Supporting this view are the videos of Russia’s war correspondents speaking to front-line soldiers, especially those manning artillery or tanks shown on Russian state television daily: these soldiers are constantly moving positions to stand clear of incoming artillery and drone strikes coming within minutes of what they themselves are firing. This means that the Ukrainian forces are not fleeing the battlefield but are staying and fighting with deadly effect. Regrettably I do not see any of this reflected in the commentaries of my peers.

*****

During the first Istanbul face to face meeting of Russian and Ukrainian peace negotiators, the head of the Russian delegation Medinsky pointed out that Russia is ready to continue the fight with Ukraine to complete victory however long that takes and he made reference to the Great Northern War with Sweden conducted to victory by Peter the Great…over the course of 21 years.

Twenty-one years!

However, the logic of this argument does not hold. As I said long ago, Vladimir Putin launched the Special Military Operation in February 2022 because he and his advisors saw a window of opportunity to end the military build-up of Ukraine and its planned accession to NATO. The window of opportunity was defined by Russia’s having reached a new plateau in development and first deployment of cutting-edge strategic weapons systems giving it an edge of perhaps five years over the United States. It was also defined by the way the economy had been made sanctions proof since 2014.

This window of opportunity would close within five years as the USA caught up in strategic weapons and as Putin’s holding center stage in Russian politics comes to an end for natural reasons of health, life longevity and so on.

In the meantime, the war itself has created new ‘sell by dates’ on its continuation. The rise to power of Donald Trump has pointed to the possible withdrawal of US military support for Europe under NATO, all of which has empowered those voices in Brussels calling for a big expansion of military production and expansion of military budgets in Europe. It is now conceivable that Europe will pose a serious threat to Russia in conventional warfare within a five-year time horizon unless Russia scores a military victory in Ukraine soon, compelling a capitulation not only in Kiev leading to the country’s neutrality but also capitulation in Brussels and Washington leading to negotiations redrawing the European security architecture and bringing Russia in from the cold.

If Mr. Putin genuinely wants to save the lives of his soldiers and of his civilians then he should end the war conclusively and dramatically right now. This, I believe, is well within his power if he has the will and the vision to act as the situation requires.

As I suggested a couple of days ago, an Oreshnik strike on the headquarters of Ukrainian terror operations headed by Kyrylo Budanov in downtown Kiev would seriously curtail if not completely shut down the terror dimension of Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Why wait?

An Oreshnik strike on wherever in Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and his closest advisors happen to be would free up Ukrainian politics for a genuine move towards peace talks as opposed to the charade we see today.

But why stop there? It is widely assumed that the leading country in the West promoting delivery of a humiliating defeat on Russia and the country’s subjugation is the United Kingdom. It is widely assumed that the planners and likely help-mates to the Ukrainians in their implementation of Operation Spider Web last weekend were the Brits.

Accordingly, I believe that the best response to the attack on the Russian nuclear triad of last weekend would be for Russia to quietly sink a couple of British nuclear submarines.

Who would back Britain in a retaliatory strike against Russia? No one! Mr. Trump is not going to put the entire USA under threat of instantaneous destruction from unstoppable Russian missiles by rising to the defense of Mr, Keir Starmer and his warmonger ministers.

To those who fear for Mr. Putin, who admire his saintly forbearance, I repeat the bit of folk wisdom I received from my boss in a multinational corporation back in the 1980s: the cemeteries are filled with irreplaceable people.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Further comment by PCR:

An alternative to Doctorow’s view that “the logic of Putin’s conduct of the war has been to minimize casualties among Russian soldiers” is that Putin, having foolishly relied on the Minsk Agreement that was used to deceive him was not prepared for the conflict that Washington forced upon him. Therefore, the Russian intervention had to be restricted to clearing Ukrainian forces from the independent Donbas republics. Having been trapped into a limited response, Putin was kept in the trap by Western accusations that he had “invaded Ukraine” and would go on from there to Western Europe. If Putin finally mobilized sufficient forces to destroy resistance, the West would find its prediction confirmed and unite to enter the conflict. Thus was Putin trapped in his “Special Military Operation.”

Fearful of an expanded conflict, Putin’s failure to respond to provocations and to enforce his red lines has expanded the conflict into attacks on Russia’s nuclear triad, and Putin side-stepped reality again. The consequences of Putin’s acceptance of provocations is his lack of credibility. The West does not believe that he will really fight. This belief, reinforced by Putin’s behavior, will result in a provocation that cannot be ignored, and WW III will begin.

Doctorow is correct that the only way to avoid a real war is for Putin to quickly produce an overwhelming Russian victory that completely removes Ukraine from the conflict and sends a believable message to the West. This can be done with conventional weapons. At the moment Putin’s non-action has eviscerated the credibility of Russia’s war doctrine.

Will Putin end the conflict with victory, or will he condemn the world to war?

I seldom see intelligent and relevant analysis from Russian commentators . Whether this reflects censorship or a misunderstanding of events I do not know. The Western foreign policy community simply repeats official narratives.

This website relies on readers’ support — https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/donate/

Can Reality Any Longer be Acknowledged? “The Attack on Russia’s Strategic Forces”

Paul Craig Roberts

https://www.globalresearch.ca/reality-acknowledged-paul-c-roberts/5889833 

The attack on Russian strategic forces by Ukraine, with or without President Trump’s knowledge and with or without help from Washington and the British, could have been the most dangerous event in East-West relations during my lifetime. The reason is that recently revised Russian war doctrine states that an attack, even by a non-nuclear country, on the Russian strategic triad requires a strategic response. Strategic usually means nuclear or at least a disabling response.  

Putin dodged the responsibility (more later), but no one knew for certain that he would. In other words, whoever is responsible for the attack on Russia’s strategic bombers subjected Ukraine, Europe, the US to the possibility of nuclear attack, depending on whom the Russians decided was responsible. This person (or persons) is a madman, a maniac who must be identified and removed from his position. Try to imagine how it is possible for, say Zelensky, to launch an attack that could result in nuclear war between the US and Russia.  How can control over whether or not the US faces nuclear war be in the hands of Zelensky?  If Zelensky is responsible, the US and NATO have a massive failure in command and control. If Trump or someone in the Trump administration gave the green light, they should be removed for committing the most potentially dangerous act during my lifetime.

The extraordinarily reckless and extremely dangerous attack on Russia’s nuclear triad is being treated by all concerned as a nothing event, a mere terrorist act, not an act of war. The fact that there is no acknowledgement in Washington, Europe, Moscow, or the media of the seriousness of an attack on Russian strategic forces, and thereby no measures put in place to prevent such dangerous acts, means either full scale, not proxy, war between Russia and the West or Russia’s surrender. Perhaps Putin would like to surrender in order to avoid nuclear war, but he won’t be permitted to surrender.

Putin took the lead in burying the seriousness of the attack on Russia’s nuclear triad. By designating the attack a “terrorist act” he evades the responsibility that Russian strategic doctrine imposes on him for a strategic response.  

Nothing of consequence has happened, says the President of Russia. Amen say Washington and Europe. Therefore, whoever is responsible for the attack knows that the next attack can go further. It too will be unacknowledged as an act of war.

How many times can Putin pretend that attacks on Russia’s sovereignty, which is what attacks on Russia’s nuclear triad are, are mere terrorist events before he discredits himself with the Russian people?  

The purpose of the recent revision of Russian strategic doctrine was to discourage or prevent attacks by Western proxies such as Ukraine on Russian strategic forces. It failed because Putin has taught the West not to take him seriously. He is ever ready to turn the other cheek. Now Putin has shown that he will not acknowledge attacks on Russian strategic forces as anything other than a terrorist event, not an act of war. So Putin has negated Russian strategic doctrine. It means nothing. Now that the West knows this, Russia can expect escalating provocations. All of Putin’s good intentions have ended in disaster, and a major war will be the consequence.

It could be that Russia is doomed. Decades of successful Western propaganda have turned most of the Russian professional and intellectual class into Atlanticist Integrationists. They think that Russia belongs as part of the West and are willing to make concessions of sovereignty to be part of the West. Clearly this point of view is strong in the Kremlin and the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The Zionist American neoconservatives are very much aware of this Russian weakness, and they are adept at taking advantage of it. They don’t have to do much, because Putin does their work for them. 

Putin has declared Ukraine to be conducting terrorism, not war, against Russia. Putin’s declaration also absolves Washington and Europe for any responsibility.

Here are English language Russian headlines of Putin’s hiding from reality that apparently he is unable to face up to. Or perhaps he is not yet ready, being at work constructing a powerful military that US/NATO cannot resist. 

“‘Illegitimate Kiev regime’ turning into terrorist organization” – Putin

“The latest terrorist acts carried out by Ukraine in Russia are the outcome of decisions made by the Ukrainian political leadership.”  Putin added that “the decisions to carry out such crimes were, of course, made in Ukraine” by the political leadership in Ukraine. In other words, Washington and Europe have no responsibility for the act of war, which is not an act of war, but merely terrorism. See this:  https://www.rt.com/russia/618651-kiev-regime-rejecting-peace/ 

In other words, the Kremlin has said that Washington and Europe have nothing to do with the attack on Russia’s strategic triad, and that Ukraine is merely creating terrorist incidents, not making war against Russia. 

I find it hard to believe that Putin is this stupid. My bet is that he is not yet ready. He keeps the minor Ukraine conflict going while he builds up to remove NATO from Russian borders.

Trump can remove the coming conflict by giving Putin the mutual security agreement Russia has been requesting for years. This would be the costless solution, but Trump is not really in power, and the power and profit of the US military/security complex needs the Russian Enemy.

So, how will a devastating war be avoided? Information such as I have just presented is banned by the official narratives.  It is scary how many Americans are gleeful over the attack, brainwashed as they are by their indoctrination that “the Russian enemy” needs to be taught a lesson if not destroyed.  How can such indoctrinated people be saved from their own folly?

Indeed we might find ourselves in more than one devastating war.  The American neoconservatives are still trying hard to get a war going with Iran by raising the specter of Iranian nukes.  It is a false charge, but the indoctrinated American public, according to recent polls, supports war with Iran to prevent an Iranian nuke.  Mike Whitney tells the story: https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/will-tuckers-article-on-x-stop-a-war-with-iran/ 

If two devastating wars are not enough, China is there to be provoked into a third war.   Democracy and an ignorant population make a mixture for disaster.

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The Inside Story of Washington’s Cover-up of Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty

Republished from seven years ago.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/09/israel-completely-owns-america-subject-people/ 

Most of them are white liberals.