How to prepare for collapse (COMPLETE GUIDE) https://youtu.be/oPYXoz63VUc Gear up here (Call 1-833-384-7737) between 9-5 CST and talk to a real person who speaks good English! Use discount code SURVIVALPREPPER for 10% off / Premium Survival/ Emergency Equipment https://canadianpreparedness.com/ GET EMERGENCY PRESCRIPTION MEDS AND ANTIBIOTICS (affiliate link) https://jasemedical.com/canadianprepper GET WHOLESALE FREEZEDRIED FOOD (World reknown quality) USE DISCOUNT CODE 'CanadianPrepper' https://tinyurl.com/nhhtddh6 Gasmasks and Protective Equipment https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/first-aid Emergency Food Supplies https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/food Survival Tools https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/all-tools Shelter and Sleep Systems https://www.canadianpreparedness.com/product-categories/shelter/ Water Filtration https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/water-filtration Cooking Systems https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/cookware Silky Saws https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/silky-saws-canadian-prepper Flashlights & Navigation https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/electronics Survival Gear/ Misc https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/protection-hunting Fire Starting https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/fatrope-firestarter-canadian-prepper Hygiene https://canadianpreparedness.com/collections/towels

Before Covid, four types of pneumonia added together were the highest cause of death in the UK.  In a newly implemented Medical Examiner System to certify deaths, the Medical Examiner was certifying […]

by Martin Jay, Strategic Culture: It’s incredibly hard to decipher the recent events in Lebanon. First, it was pagers exploding and then more recently walkie talkies with now 20 dead and over 500 wounded. Although Israel doesn’t admit the operation, it is clear their fingermarks are all over the operations and so it would be […]

Israel putting explosives into everyday items including iPhones which they can remotely detonate at any time is nothing to worry about, according to The Atlantic. The same newspaper that infamously called for a “pandemic amnesty”, [...] The post The Atlantic: Don’t Worry About Israel Turning Your Phone Into a Bomb appeared first on The People's Voice.

The next time you feel triggered to store up food or supplies out of fear, panic, or worry, thank God for the daily bread He faithfully provides. Ask Him to calm your heart and mind in these situations.

Foreign Affairs The Damage Victoria Nuland Has Done The State Department’s former top woman on Ukraine has been an invaluable source on Americans’ involvement in the war—particularly her own. Credit: image via Shutterstock The Fifth Amendment, it seems, is something Victoria Nuland is unaware of. The former undersecretary of state for political affairs just keeps incriminating herself. But her statements—both intercepted and public—have done more than incriminate herself: They have incriminated the United States. Nuland’s statements have acted as some of the most important sources for U.S. involvement in Ukraine from the roots of the war, the growth of the war, and the decision not to cut down the war and stop it. The war in Ukraine is a tangled web woven from three separate, but related, conflicts: the conflict within Ukraine, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the conflict between NATO and Ukraine. Nuland has had a hand in all of them. The conflict within Ukraine goes back long before the war with Russia, but the proximate cause is the 2014 coup that removed Viktor Yanukovych from power and replaced him with the Western-leaning Petro Poroshenko. Nuland was a force in that coup, and her comments are among the most important sources of proof of U.S. involvement. The “Maidan Revolution” received American financial backing. The U.S.-government funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded a staggering 65 pro-Maidan projects inside Ukraine. Nuland revealed that there was much more U.S. money flowing into Ukraine than the money provided by the NED. In December 2013, she told an audience at the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference that the U.S. had “invested over $5 billion” to secure a “democratic Ukraine.” But Nuland did more than disclose U.S.-financed meddling in Ukraine. Nuland, who ran the Obama State Department’s Ukraine policy, revealed the deep involvement of the U.S. in the coup itself. Nuland was caught plotting who the Americans wanted to be the winner of the regime change. She can be heard on an intercepted call telling the American ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, that Arseniy Yatsenyuk is America’s choice to replace Yanukovych. Most importantly, Pyatt refers to the West needing to “midwife this thing,” an admission of America’s role in the coup. At one point, Nuland even seems to say that then Vice President Joe Biden himself would be willing to do the midwifery. Along with Senator John McCain, Nuland, who at this time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, publicly endorsed and supported the anti-Yanukovych protesters. Nuland also applied pressure on security forces to stop guarding government buildings in Kiev and so to allow the protesters in. Once the coup was completed and the war was on, Nuland was one of the leading voices for escalation and a lack of caution over Russian redlines. On February 17, Nuland publicly called for the demilitarization of Crimea and said that Washington supports Ukrainian attacks on military targets in Crimea despite the U.S. belief that such actions would cross a Russian redline and dangerously escalate the war. Nuland’s comments have also been a source of incrimination of U.S. involvement in clandestine operations during the war, including in one of the most spectacular political and environmental acts of terrorism in history. On January 27, 2022, Nuland declared, “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. On September 26, the Nord Stream pipeline exploded. Nuland’s comments have not only been invaluable sources on U.S. involvement in the events leading up to the war and in U.S. involvement in its escalation, but she has now also implied that the U.S. was actively involved in killing talks that might have ended the war.  There is a large and growing body of evidence that peace talks that might have succeeded in the early days of the war were blocked by the West. Testimonials come from several individuals who played a role or were present, including Israel’s former Prime Minister Naftali Bennet, Germany’s former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Turkish officials, and Davyd Arakhamiia, who led the Ukrainian negotiating team, as well as from reporting on the intervention of the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The New York Times has recently reported that “American officials were alarmed at the terms” and patronizingly asked the Ukrainians, who had agreed to those terms, whether they “understand this is unilateral disarmament.” In confirming the reporting by the Times, Victoria Nuland may now have become the first American official to imply that the West played a role in blocking the peace talks. In a September 5 interview, Nuland said,  Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that Putin’s main condition was buried in an annex to this document that they were working on. It was about restrictions on the exact number of weapons systems that would be available to Ukraine after the deal. It would basically be neutered as a military force. At the same time, there were no such restrictions for Russia. It was not required to retreat, or to create a buffer zone on the Ukrainian border, or to impose similar restrictions on its own forces opposing Ukraine. So, people inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart. Nuland also supported the idea that the talks were genuine, saying, “Russia had an interest at that time in at least seeing what it could get. Ukraine, obviously, had an interest if they could stop the war and get and get Russia out.” Nuland suggests that there was a possible deal, that the two sides appear to have been genuinely engaged in negotiations and that things fell apart when, rather than encouraging further negotiations, the West began to question the deal. Even now, two and a half years later, when the Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance outlines what a peace plan for the war in Ukraine could look like, it is the now retired Victoria Nuland who reemerges to shoot it down. From the causes of the war, to escalating U.S. involvement in the war, to the West’s role in continuing the war when peace talks seemed possible, Victoria Nuland has been both the source of a great deal of damage and the source of a great deal of information on the United States’ role in contributing to the war and to road blocks to ending it. The post The Damage Victoria Nuland Has Done appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs AMLO Secures a New Judiciary for Mexico The amendment passed amid chaos and accusations of corruption. Credit: image via Shutterstock “Coward!” “Traitor!” “Judas!” Such were the epithets hurled at Miguel Ángel Yunes Márquez, senator from the National Action Party (PAN), as he crossed the aisle to cast the determining vote in favor of the controversial judicial reform that promises to remake Mexican politics. In a whirlwind of confusion, consternation, and accusations of corruption and foul play, that constitutional amendment passed its final hurdle last week, and Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador can claim what is perhaps his greatest victory and what will almost certainly be his most important legacy. Beginning next year, Mexico’s current system of examinations and appointments for judges will end, and instead, all federal judges, including the judges of the Supreme Court of Mexico and the Federal Electoral Tribunal, will be chosen by popular election. The passage of the amendment was in some doubt, as López Obrador’s coalition had only 85 of the 86 votes necessary to meet the supermajority required by the constitution. The opposition bloc whipped votes furiously, promising that there would be no defections. Things appeared to be at a standstill until Monday night, when two senators—including Yunes Márquez from the National Action Party—failed to show up to their party meetings, prompting speculation they would defect. For Yunes Márquez, the speculations were true. The senator comes from a large but embattled political dynasty in the state of Veracruz, where he, his father, his wife, and his brother have all held offices as part of PAN—most of whom are now under investigation by either the government of Campeche or the office of the Mexican Prosecutor General (both under the control of López Obrador’s party Morena). A few of the pending investigations include a federal investigation into his brother, former mayor of the city of Veracruz, for allegedly forcing municipal workers to support Yunes Márquez’s candidacy; an investigation of his father, Miguel Ángel Yunes Linares, by the prosecutor general of Veracruz into corruption and misuse of public funds during his term as governor of the state, and an accusation this July of embezzlement against the senator himself and his wife, the current mayor of the city of Veracruz—an event which prompted his sudden departure to the United States on matters of his health, regrettably forcing him to miss an appearance in court. That same issue apparently plagued him last week, as on the day of the vote he sent his father as his replacement to the Senate, who entered and sat down with the majority to cheers from Morena and allies and consternation among the opposition. Yunes Sr. excused his son, saying that he was gravely ill and in the hospital. And yet, that evening, as preparations for the vote were being made, Yunes Márquez himself arrived, little worse for wear.  The furious opposition railed against Yunes Márquez’s betrayal. “It is obvious that there has been a bargain for immunity,” asserted PAN’s Senate leader, Marko Cortés, announcing his belief that the senator had defected in return for an end to judicial action against himself and members of his family (which, by all accounts, have prospered exceedingly during their time in politics). Other opposition members denounced him as a “traitor to the nation.” Yunes defended himself, saying, “it is no treason to act in accordance with my principles.” So it was that the man who once accused the president of being insane, of being an epicurean pig who spends all day eating, and of spewing “barbarity,” ended up casting the final vote necessary to cement López Obrador’s greatest political triumph. The consternation of the opposition was augmented by the absence of Senator Daniel Barreda of Citizen Movement, who disappeared overnight without warning. Opposition leadership initially reported that the Senator had been arrested, and so prevented from casting his vote. This accusation was fervently denied by the government, however, witnesses confirmed that his father’s house had been raided by the Morena-controlled state of Campeche. The next day, Barreda surfaced in Campeche and told news media that while he had not been arrested, his father and another allied local politician had been. When he was told the news the morning of the vote, he left the capital to secure his father’s release—which happened in the evening of that same day, a few hours after the vote took place, preventing him from being in attendance. Last week’s vote essentially brings an end to what is perhaps the most divisive and transformative political contest of Mexico’s 21st century. The final hurdle for the proposal is ratification by a sufficient number of Mexican states, a trivial matter for López Obrador’s coalition, which controls the vast majority of state governments. As a result, Mexico’s current system of examinations and appointments for judges will end. In two elections, one next year and one in 2027, the current Mexican judiciary will be swept clean of all currently appointed justices and magistrates, and new ones will be chosen by popular vote. This is a dramatic departure from the current system, in which (with the exception of justices on the Mexican Supreme Court) the selection of judges is almost completely isolated from the political process and is largely dependent on following a cursus honorum of appointments and examinations to, theoretically, ensure independence and competence in the Mexican judiciary. Since 1994, control of the judicial system in Mexico has been centered in two bodies: the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico and the Federal Judicial Council. The method of appointment to the Supreme Court is similar to that for judicial appointments in the United States: The president of Mexico nominates three candidates for an open position, and the Senate ratifies one of the proposed candidates for the position. All other federal judges and magistrates, however, are appointed neither by the executive nor the legislative branch, but by the Federal Judicial Council. This council is composed of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, three panelists appointed by the Supreme Court, two panelists appointed by the Senate, and one by the President. According to the constitution, these panelists may not act as representatives of those who appoint them, but are responsible to carry out their duties as independent authorities. The system is not particularly popular among the Mexican people. Accusations of favoritism, nepotism in judicial selection, and corruption in the execution of justice are common. López Obrador sees it as a tool of the neoliberal power of capital; Ricardo Monreal, one of Morena’s leaders in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, cried that “the people are fed up with the dictatorship of the cap and gown….The people are fed up with the corruption, the nepotism, the traffic of influence, and the conflict of interest in the judiciary!” Even the opposition parties broadly agree that the judicial system needs to be reformed. Nevertheless, the decision to use popular election to determine the composition of the entire judiciary is a radical one, and unique among modern countries. Critics have pointed out a number of potential risks to such a system. A popularly-elected judiciary is likely to be significantly more partisan, and therefore compromises the essential independence of the judiciary and its capacity to restrain abuses of power by elected governments. It is also likely to be much more susceptible to political interference in the election of judges: Many worry that the system will enable cartels and other organized criminals to capture significant portions of the judiciary by controlling local judicial elections, further weakening the capacity of the Mexican government to respond to the organized crime endemic to the nation. The Biden-Harris administration seems to share those concerns. The progress of the judicial reform has already occasioned a conflict with the United States, when López Obrador froze relations with the American embassy after Ambassador Ken Salazar labeled the amendment a “major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.” The Mexican president was outraged at the intervention into Mexico’s domestic affairs. “How are we going to allow the ambassador to give his opinion, to say what we’re doing is wrong?” he said. For opposition parties especially, a major concern is that the reform would allow Morena—which currently has the support of a large majority of the population—to dominate the agencies that administer Mexican elections and cement its power permanently. This would essentially be a return to the days of the “dictadura perfecta” (perfect dictatorship), the long period during the 20th century when Mexican politics was absolutely captured by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Indeed, the judicial reform is part of a package of reforms called “Plan C” proposed by López Obrador to reorganize the independent National Electoral Institute, which he argues is corrupt and dominated by political enemies. The package is titled “Plan C” because it is the third attempt by the president to accomplish this goal. The first, in April 2022, failed to pass Congress. The second, “Plan B,” was carefully shepherded through Congress in early 2023 by López Obrador, but was struck down by the Supreme Court that same year—a decision that many suppose was the impetus for this year’s judicial reform. Morena, on the other hand, argues that the corruption of the current judicial system can be resolved by appeal to the wisdom and faith of the people. Supporters of the reform note that candidates must be qualified to stand for election: the amendment requires that candidates have been licensed to practice law, meet a certain score in legal examinations, have at least five years of experience practicing law, submit a selection of essays and provide letters of reference to vouch for their good character. Those who are elected will be evaluated by a judicial disciplinary tribunal after their first year in office to ensure their competence in the execution of their state functions. The success or failure of López Obrador’s judicial reforms will have major effects on the United States. Mexico’s inability to control its cartels has been a major driver of crime, drug usage, and illegal immigration. Mexico is also one of America’s largest trade partners. Americans will have to hope that the president’s trust in Mexican democracy is not misplaced. The post AMLO Secures a New Judiciary for Mexico appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Why Do the Neocons Deserve the Right’s Loyalty? Despite wave upon wave of defections and sabotage, movement conservatism continues to host neoconservatives in high places. Credit: image via Getty Images Last Sunday’s attempted assassination of former president Trump by a leftwing activist, Ryan Routh, caused me to think about one of my admitted obsessions, the fateful alliance of the conservative establishment with the neoconservatives. Vicious attacks on Trump that led Routh to go after the supposed “new Hitler” threatening American democracy, did not come entirely from certified Democrats. As Dan McCarthy observed in a column this week, the “Trump is Hitler” meme has been quite popular with “moderate conservatives” in the Lincoln Project. Indeed, the kind of anti-Trump invective that resonated with Routh has been popular among anti-Trump Republicans for years.  The association of Trump with Nazism and virulent anti-Semitism has also been a rhetorical practice among those writing for that quintessentially neoconservative website, the Bulwark. The contributors Jonah Goldberg, Charlie Sykes, Mona Charen, Cathy Young, Gabriel Schoenfeld, David French, Jonah Goldberg, and Kevin Williamson have all taken turns sliming The Donald. In 2022, the Bulwark posted an invective by Sykes, which dragged up the already then refuted charge that Trump said Nazis were “fine people.” He and Young have tried repeatedly to tie Trump to right-wing nationalist and anti-Semitic groups, typically through a fog of innuendo.  While these developments are going on, other identifiable neoconservatives have either declared for Kamala (e.g., George Will and Dick and Lisa Cheney) or spoken out against Trump (John Bolton, Condoleezza Rice). These neoconservative celebrities are joining kindred spirits like Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and David Frum in the other camp, where said journalists have already profitably located themselves. What makes all these defections noteworthy, speaking as a historian of the conservative movement and as someone on the independent right, is that those involved were the pampered darlings of the movement for decades. And these privileged few have behaved exactly as some of us, including the founders of The American Conservative, predicted they would. What supposedly made such allies valuable assets was their unswerving dedication to building an American empire centered on spreading “democratic values.” There is of course nothing intrinsically conservative about such a vision, no matter what the conservative faithful were told by their leaders for years. What’s more, this bizarre mission diverted the conservative movement from focusing their energy on the moral and cultural revolution that the organized left was carrying out domestically.  In the end, many neoconservatives have made their peace with that revolution, providing they’ve been promised an opportunity to entangle us in more overseas adventures. The democratic model that neoconservatives have sought to inflict on others has changed dramatically since they first emerged as “new conservatives.” Our politics and culture are no longer what they were in the 1980s, when the neoconservatives were ascending to influence in the conservative establishment. Now wokeness has become an intrinsic part of our “democratic mission,” a situation that is not causing those neocons in transit to the Kamala camp any indigestion.  It might take nothing less than reading my surveys of the conservative movement to understand how the neoconservatives gained influence and then control over conservative publications and institutions. Significantly, their position went largely unchallenged, until some of their spokesmen decided to abandon their conservative colleagues and join the far more powerful leftist establishment. But the neoconservative presence never departed the conservative scene entirely. Many neoconservative personalities still enjoy places at the conservative table, including the ones who denounce Trump as a Nazi. Watching Fox News, or reading the New York Post or Wall Street Journal, I see lots of the old names featured. As long as these people have wealthy patrons and mainstream respectability, the conservative establishment will hold on to them. While our conservative gatekeepers frown on anyone seen as too far to the right, their treatment of neoconservative luminaries is entirely different. Providing these figures wish to associate with authorized conservatives, neocons may call Trump whatever they want. Only the Democrats are to be denounced for such practices. This all reminds me of the German concept of Nibelungentreue, which refers to unconditional loyalty among allies. The term refers back to the medieval Nordic saga, das Nibelungenlied, in which a Burgundian princess turns furiously on her brothers for shielding their vassal who slew her husband. The extravagant loyalty of the Burgundian kings leads to the destruction of their entire family and to the descent of their kingdom into chaos. First used by the German Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow in 1909 to characterize his country’s unswerving support for its ally, Austria-Hungary, this concept came to pertain to any loyalty that defies limits. But a younger generation on the right feels no such loyalty toward the neocons. It has no interest in democratizing the world and is far more committed to liberating America from the deep state and the fake media than it is in making the world woke or neoconservative. This younger generation also has zilch interest in joining the leftist chorus against Trump.  These younger conservatives may also sense how much the conservative movement has sacrificed in terms of credibility by displaying this Nibelungentreue toward those who have proven unworthy of their confidence. The question, then, is when the movement’s powerbrokers will give up their unconditional loyalty.  The post Why Do the Neocons Deserve the Right’s Loyalty? appeared first on The American Conservative.