Politics To Reform DOD, Congress Must Do Its Job Dysfunctional budgeting begins in the legislature. (W. Scott McGill/Shutterstock) On September 7, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin transmitted a letter to the congressional appropriations committees warning against the passage of a six-month continuing resolution. Austin’s warning was dire—failing to pass a full-year appropriation would be “devastating to our readiness and ability to execute the National Defense Strategy.” Eighteen days later, Congress passed a six-month continuing resolution anyway.  Between 2000 and 2010, Congress passed the defense budget on schedule five times—only once did Congress rely on continuing resolutions for more than 100 days after the start of the fiscal year. Between 2011 and the present, Congress passed the defense budget on schedule only once. Congress relied on continuing resolutions for more than 100 days seven times. Prior to calendar year 2010 (fiscal year 2011), the Department of Defense operated under a continuing resolution for a total of 335 days, just less than one year. After calendar year 2010 (fiscal year 2011), the Department of Defense operated under a continuing resolution for a total of 1,701 days, or almost five years. Under a continuing resolution, the Department of Defense cannot start new programs, a fact that hinders the department’s need to respond to rapidly changing conditions or to capitalize on technological innovations. Five years under continuing resolutions is five years wasted. To its credit, the Department of Defense has finally begun exploring options to reform its 63-year-old planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process—PPBE—a relic of the McNamara era. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Congress included a provision creating an independent commission tasked with conducting a comprehensive assessment of the PPBE process and developing recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The Commission issued its final report in March 2024 and is replete with descriptions of current processes as time-consuming, inflexible, and an obstacle to innovation. For readers unfamiliar with the defense budget, department officials begin crafting it two years in advance of its submission. To complicate matters, the planning, programming, and budgeting phases overlap. As the commission noted, while the department is executing fiscal year 2023 and 2024 appropriations, it is testifying on its 2025 budget, finalizing its budget submission for 2026, building its budget for 2027, and beginning conceptual planning for 2028. Three years ago, the United States was emerging from the COVID pandemic, coping with global supply chain disruptions, and finally preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan. Today, the Russia–Ukraine war has entered its third year; Israel is at war with Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah; and China continues its ascent. During this period, unmanned aerial systems have demonstrated their efficacy in war and artificial intelligence has dominated policymakers’ attention. International circumstances and challenges three years from now will defy prediction. Yet the Department of Defense will proceed on the basis of decisions made years ago. The commission proposed a total of 28 recommendations encompassing the establishment of an entirely new resourcing process, transforming the budget structure, and granting decision-makers more discretion over appropriated funds. To date, the department has enacted 13 reforms and has established a number of cross-functional teams to explore further implementation. The commission additionally submitted recommendations to Congress for its consideration, principally adjustments to appropriation processes and the establishment of a new authority to more easily transfer dollars from research phase to procurement. Three of the four relevant congressional committees—the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee—signaled their general support for the commission’s proposals.  The holdout? The Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. In its report on fiscal year 2025 defense appropriations, the subcommittee articulated a polite but emphatic “no, thank you,” “cautioning against blank recommendations without measurable outcomes or data to justify the changes.” As for continuing resolutions, the committee felt the department’s pain and passively spread the blame—“the difficulties and inefficiencies they cause underscores the importance of Congress enacting appropriations on-time.” Again, this is the Appropriations committee making this point. In short, reform for thee, but not for me. The truth is that reforming either institution would be an undertaking of gargantuan proportions. Since 2000, Congress has enacted over 100 continuing resolutions to keep the federal government open. Since 2015, continuing resolutions have funded government operations for an average of 137 days every year, a little more than a third of the year. If Congress can’t be counted on to reduce spending, it could at least pass the budget on time. In December 2022, the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress issued its final report which contained 202 recommendations to make the body more effective, efficient, and transparent. To date, fully or partially implemented recommendations have totaled 132. Notably recommendations to enhance transparency, such as streamlining the bill-writing process and making it easier to know who is lobbying Congress and for what they’re lobbying, remain open. More pointedly, the recommendations only apply to the House. During the same period, the Department of Defense has never passed an audit. Last year, the DOD Inspector General found that financial managers recorded more than 1,573 unsupported adjustments totaling more than $192.7 billion. DOD financial management has been on the Government Accountability Office’s High-Risk List since 1995.  Between August 2021 and April 24, the United States has executed 56 drawdowns to provide approximately $24 billion in aid to Ukraine. In June 2023, the department announced that it had incorrectly overstated the value of transfers by $6.2 billion, conveniently providing the Pentagon the opportunity to dispatch more defense articles to Ukraine. The Inspector General reported this past June that the revaluation was not in compliance with federal or DOD guidelines. More succinctly, “DOD has limited assurance that the values it reported are correct.”  Cruelly, the $24 billion in drawdowns is only one-quarter of the assistance provided. So far, Congress has appropriated over $110 billion in assistance to Ukraine and it has opposed calls to establish a Special Inspector of Ukraine as was done for Iraq and Afghanistan. The inability of either institution to hold the other accountable leaves the duty to voters. Awarding one’s vote based on the timely passage of budgets and the thorough accounting of defense dollars may be the most elementary of democratic expectations, but such are the circumstances in which Americans find themselves today. The post To Reform DOD, Congress Must Do Its Job appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs What Was Gained by the Ukraine War? The Ukraine–Russia war has dragged on for at least two years longer than it had to—and for what? (Photo by OLEKSII FILIPPOV/AFP via Getty Images) It was April 2022, and the diplomatic delegations from Ukraine and Russia were meeting in Istanbul just weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine had begun. Although there were details—especially on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces after the war and on the nature of security guarantees for Ukraine—to be worked out, a draft agreement had been signed by both sides.  According to the Ukrainian delegation, Putin “demonstrated a genuine effort to find a realistic compromise and achieve peace.” Oleksandr Chalyi, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team, said, “We managed to find a very real compromise. We were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April, to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement.” Another member of the team, Oleksiy Arestovych, says that negotiations could have worked and that they were “90 percent prepared.” The Istanbul Communiqué, a Ukrainian summary of the negotiated deal, states that “the parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on… 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim of signing an agreement and/or making political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.”  “We opened the champagne bottle,” Arestovych said. That draft treaty stipulated that Ukraine could pursue European Union membership but would provide a written guarantee that they would not join NATO. This was the key point. It provided protection for ethnic Russians in Ukraine, security guarantees for Ukraine and limits on the Ukrainian armed forces. The Donbas would be autonomous, Crimea would be Russian. The Kherson and Zaporozhye regions that Russia has now incorporated were, at that time, still part of Ukraine. But instead of encouraging and nurturing the promising talks, the United States and Britain discouraged them. Davyd Arakhamiia, who led the Ukrainian negotiating team, has confirmed that “when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight.” In December 2022, Ukrainska Pravda reported that on April 9, 2022, Johnson hurried to Kiev to tell Zelensky that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with” and that, even if Ukraine was ready to sign some agreements with Russia, “the West was not.” Rather than encourage Ukraine to pursue negotiations that would have satisfied their goals and potentially ended the war, the U.S. promised Ukraine whatever it needs for as long as it takes in the pursuit of “core principles” that made the war “bigger than Russia” and “bigger than Ukraine,” namely “the principle that each and every country has a sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy, has a sovereign right to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances, its partnerships, and what orientation it wishes to direct its gaze.” Instead of nurturing diplomacy, “the West ramped up military aid to Kyiv and increased the pressure on Russia,” according to a former U.S. official “who worked on Ukraine policy at the time.” There is now a convincing body of testimony from those who played intermediary roles or were present at the talks that shows that the West discouraged a diplomatic solution to the war.  Turkey played host to the talks. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu says that the talks were on course to end the war, but that “there are countries within NATO who want the war to continue.” The deputy chairman of Turkey’s governing party, Numan Kurtulmus, reports the same thing: “In certain matters, progress was made, reaching the final point, then suddenly we see that the war is accelerating…. Someone is trying not to end the war. The United States sees the prolongation of the war as its interest…. There are those who want this war to continue…. Putin-Zelensky [were] going to sign, but someone didn’t want to.” Then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder both acted as intermediaries to the talks at the request of Ukraine. Bennet says that “there was a good chance of reaching a ceasefire,” but the West “blocked it.” Schröder agrees: “Nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington… The Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed.” The New York Times has recently reported that “American officials were alarmed at the terms” and patronizingly asked the Ukrainians whether they “understand this is unilateral disarmament.” The Times report adds for the first time that Polish President Andrzej Duda “feared that Germany or France might try to persuade the Ukrainians to accept Russia’s terms” and joined the U.S. and Britain in discouraging the promising diplomacy. And now, the former undersecretary of state for political affairs, Victoria Nuland, has 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 that when “the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going…. 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.” Two and a half years ago, in April 2022, a diplomatic end to the war was possible until the West “blocked it.” At that time, most of the devastation, loss of life and loss of land had not begun. Since then, autonomy for Donbas has turned into annexation and two more territories have been added.  Already by January 2024, Yuriy Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general and ex-head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, said that 500,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded. A number of 400,000-500,000 is consistent with internal Ukrainian communications and reports from the battlefield that 20,000 soldiers a month would be necessary to replace the dead and wounded. That number also accords with the 450,000-500,000 number Zelensky requested in a new mobilization. Reliable estimates of the dead and seriously wounded are hard to come by. But in the nine months since, that number may have swollen even more. By some accounting, Ukraine is losing more troops per day than at any time during the war. Commanders in the Ukrainian armed forces estimate that “50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.” Ex-Rada MP and Aidar Deputy Commander Ihor Mosiychuk has recently put the number of dead or seriously wounded at 500,000. Some analysts have suggested that could translate into about 320,000 dead and 180,000 seriously wounded. One analysis says that the number of dead could be as high as 600,000. And the loss of land is now catching up to the loss of life. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and his commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, hoped that crossing the Russian border and invading Kursk would relieve pressure on the Donbas front by diverting Russian forces from Ukrainian territory to Russian territory. It didn’t. Instead, Russian forces exploited the weakness caused by the diversion of Ukraine’s best trained and equipped troops away from the Donbas front into Russia.  There are indications that the Ukrainian front is crumbling. The Washington Post reported on October 2 that “Ukrainian forces have been retreating along dozens of miles of a front line being pushed to its breaking point.” The city of Pokrovsk is being threatened. Its fall would challenge Ukraine’s ability to supply its troops in the Donbas by rail or road and open fields to the west of the city over which Russian troops can pour into the rest of Donbas, advancing Russia’s goal of annexing the region. But while attention was focussed on Pokrovsk, Vuhledar (Ugledar), the other key logistical hub that the Ukrainian armed forces depend on to supply their forces in the east and defend territory to the west, has fallen. On October 2, the Ukrainian armed forces announced that its troops were withdrawing from the city.  The loss of Vuhledar will change the war in four ways. Like Pokrovsk, it will threaten Ukraine’s ability to supply its troops in the east and it will expose difficult to defend land to the west. It will also protect Russian supply lines that were shelled form Vuhledar. And the loss of the fortified city would “allow the Russians to step up attacks in the direction of Pokrovsk.” The failure of the Kursk offensive, the crumbling of the Donbas front, and the seeming death of Zelensky’s hail Mary “Ukrainian Victory Plan” may be giving birth to a dawning realization in both Washington and Kiev that a retreat to the treaty negotiated in Istanbul may be the strategically soundest move. Russia has frequently said that the Istanbul agreement could still be “the basis for starting negotiations.” Putin has recently set out a peace proposal based on the Istanbul agreement, but adjusted for the new territorial realities.  And that is the tragedy of Ukraine. In April 2022, Ukraine was on the threshold of a diplomatic end to the war with Russia that satisfied its goals. But they were encouraged by the West to fight on in pursuit of Western goals. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died since then. Many more have been wounded: many irreparably. Over six million Ukrainians have fled the country. Infrastructure has been demolished and the environment devastated. And after all that, Ukraine has arrived again at the same settlement that was in their grasp in April 2022.  The time may be coming when Zelensky, U.S. President Joe Biden, Johnson, and a large supporting cast, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, will have to answer the question of what was gained by going to war. The post What Was Gained by the Ukraine War? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs The Dangerous Radical on Our Southern Border Sheinbaum’s inaugural speech was a study in bad ideas. Claudia Sheinbaum was sworn in as Mexico’s president last Tuesday. Her ceremony was replete with the pomp and circumstance expected of the Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Her Toma de Protesta (oath of office speech) was delivered with a mild-mannered, cool affect—starkly contrasting with the flair and bombast of her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO). On matters of substance, however, the event cemented AMLO’s legacy in Mexican history. Sheinbaum paid AMLO reverent homage, hailing his personal and political achievements: You [AMLO] have asked us on several occasions not to unveil busts or put your name on streets, avenues, or neighborhoods; nor monuments or making great tributes. The truth is that you don’t need to because you will always be where only those who fight all their lives reside, those who do not give up, those who restore hope and joy; you will always be in the heart of the people of Mexico. Sheinbaum’s speech itself was AMLO’s first great tribute. The Señora Presidenta postulated that “Mexican Humanism,” which she dubbed a “peaceful revolution” and the “Fourth Transformation of Mexico’s public life,” will be carried on in earnest. She waxed on, noting AMLO’s activism as a means of firing another diplomatic shot at Spain: He retires from public life as a democrat and Maderista, to continue fighting from another trench, to write about what he has maintained since his first days when he worked with the Chontal Maya: that the origin of Mexico’s cultural greatness lies in the great civilizations that lived in this land centuries before the Spaniards invaded. It is no coincidence, but a harmony of history, that yesterday the reform of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, granting full rights to the indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples of Mexico. Sheinbaum’s potent oratory laid out a sweeping, visionary account of Mexican history. From the revolutionaries to the activists of 1968 to Pancho Villa, Sheinbaum deified a litany of progressive national heroes and symbols. Omitted, naturally, were the symbols and legacies of men who represented what Sheinbaum might call a less-progressed Mexico. King Felipe VI wasn’t invited, after all. Mexico’s first female president continued the aspirational address with similar deifications of Mexican women. Capitalizing on her mandate, she made an unequivocally feminist speech, though not in the grievance-laden manner associated with American feminism. Her remarks contained only one passing condemnation of machismo. The message largely focused on addressing the material needs of Mexican women, a noble endeavor in a nation that still faces a 43 percent poverty rate.  Sheinbaum laid the cornerstone of AMLO’s monument throughout the policy-oriented section of her speech. Mirroring AMLO’s 2018 Toma De Protesta, she listed her commitments and priorities, one to one hundred. The beginning of Sheinbaum’s list recounted specific commitments to Mexican Humanism and emphasized broad, populist economic policies. Given her party’s economic successes, Sheinbaum was able to indict the pre-AMLO past with authority: The answer is: It [AMLO’s sixenio] changed the country’s development model, from the failed neoliberal model and the regime of corruption and privileges to one that emerged from Mexico’s fertile history, love for the people and honesty. We call it Mexican Humanism. AMLO did, indeed, change Mexico’s developmental model. Embracing LNG and other fossil fuels, AMLO enabled a post-COVID manufacturing boom. Having successfully negotiated the USMCA Agreement, AMLO masterfully positioned Mexico for the onset of nearshoring. Impressive infrastructure projects across the country are being completed at a rapid clip, including transnational railways and port construction. The country benefited from record foreign investment throughout 2024 and has amassed an impressive roster of relocations. Morena has capitalized on the windfall, funding generous social programs that have contributed to the party’s staggering popularity. Though Mexico continues to struggle with inflation, the AMLO years fostered a relatively stable peso, especially in the eyes of an electorate accustomed to volatility. Anecdotally, a conventional bullishness percolates in Texas. I’ve heard Dallas energy retailers, Houston pipeline salesmen, and Austin tech engineers all say the same thing: “Watch out for Mexico.” I can’t say I share the optimism, but the integration of the Texas triangle into a wider Latin American market, especially in light of the creation of the TXSE in DFW, is viewed as inevitable.  I hate to break the news to my bullish Texas friends reading this, but Claudia Sheinbaum spent three years at the California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory completing a PhD thesis in energy engineering. Her speech reflected an appreciation for market-oriented renewable investment, but contained a pledge to cap fossil fuel consumption at a daily 1.8 million barrels. She provided an assessment befitting a Berkeley education: We are going to promote energy efficiency and the transition to renewable sources of energy to absorb, through these sources, the growth in energy demand. Remember that the energy reform proposed a production of three million barrels per day. That is environmentally impossible; it is better to promote efficiency and renewable sources. I wrote last week that the United States might find Sheinbaum to be a less practical actor than her predecessor. Nearshoring, a critical priority for the United States as the global order frays, requires Mexican investment in fossil fuel production. The energy output required for manufacturing growth cannot be achieved by cobbling together an assortment of renewables. Taking Sheinbaum’s words, this task would be “environmentally impossible.” Her environmental proposals, coupled with judicial reform and broadly left-wing rhetoric, fueled a 14 percent drop in the peso’s value in the aftermath of her election. The delivery of her speech might communicate moderation to Americans accustomed to vitriolic rhetoric, but doubling down on ill-conceived ideological commitments amid a currency downturn is generally considered political malpractice. Ask Liz Truss.  Sheinbaum’s inflexible environmental views won’t just endanger further economic integration, it will endanger the sustainability of social subsidies that have proved the foundation of Morena’s popularity. Sheinbaum, armed with her PhD, will stake her presidency and popularity on reversing a key component of the AMLO developmental model she so ardently hails. Limiting fossil fuel extraction is a risky bet across multiple fronts.  Despite this, Sheinbaum’s speech was impressive. It was visionary in its ambition, sweeping in scope, and straightforward in purpose and policy. From an American conservative’s perspective, her remarks might smack of socialism or climate alarmism, but those are mundane grievances. The troubling aspect of Sheinbaum’s address, rather, was what was communicated by omission.  Sheinbaum made no reference to the ongoing crisis at the U.S .–Mexico border or human trafficking. This is remarkable, given that American politics are wholly subsumed to the crisis. Sheinbaum would speak briefly on the need to reduce record homicides, but only as a segue to attack Felipe Calderón’s mid-2000s war on drugs: “In terms of security, we will guarantee the reduction of high-impact crimes. Calderón’s irresponsible war on drugs, which continues to do so much damage to Mexico, will not return. Our conviction is that security and peace are the fruit of justice.” In other words, Sheinbaum plans to continue AMLO’s failed “hugs not bullets” approach to narco-terrorism. Morena’s record on crime has been catastrophic for Mexico’s citizenry. Homicides have been roughly 30–40 percent higher during the AMLO years than they were during the much-demonized war on drugs. Large swaths of the country remain under paramilitary control while human and drug trafficking markets are booming. Unless serious reversals are achieved, Mexico will lose their 500,000th citizen to drug-related homicide sometime during Sheinbaum’s term. Soon, the death toll will surpass that of Mexico’s cataclysmic War of Independence from Spain. Are Mexican citizens sure Felipe VI is the head of state who owes them an apology? Sheinbaum’s only substantive mention of migration was her reference to the “heroes and heroines” living in the United States, sending “help” back to communities in Mexico. The overt praise for the $60 billion remittance flow from the United States to Mexico was jaw-dropping. Capital outflow associated with remittances reduces domestic demand and contributes to American wage stagnation. This practice, accomplished mostly via criminally trafficked labor, is inherently at odds with the economic interests of U.S. citizens. Sheinbaum’s open and profuse praise for the practice (with FLOTUS in attendance) lends credence to the unsettling suspicion that the Mexican government is acting (or rather not acting) to let traffickers operate undeterred. The financial motive is there, after all. When remittances of the U.S. dollar account for four percent of your nation’s GDP, confronting traffickers could become costly. One could also speculate that the Biden administration has been using this flow of remittances as a form of back-door foreign aid. Claudia Sheinbaum may not be the most important head of state in the minds of the next American administration’s diplomats. Heads of state in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are competing for the guest-of-honor invitation to the State Department happy hour. But for an American president concerned with solving key crises of national interest—supply-chain security, migration, fentanyl proliferation—engagement with Mexico will be crucial. Sheinbaum’s address shows that, like her predecessor, Mexico is prepared to assert a sharp interpretation of their national interests. It would be a mistake to underestimate her political appeal and, by extension, Mexico’s new concept of self-identity. For the next sexenio, Claudia Sheinbaum will be a crucial figure in the story of the United States. She follows a man whose approval ratings and public adoration defy a dreary global political climate. AMLO has fundamentally reoriented Mexican politics, with consequences likely to resonate for decades. Will a great woman follow the great man? The post The Dangerous Radical on Our Southern Border appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, No ‘Fact-Checkers’ Needed For Kamala Harris, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. When my late mother became annoyed with a person’s nonsensical position(s), she would say: “You might have been born yesterday, but I wasn’t.” Specific to the zeitgeist of today is the relevance of her colloquialism. The growth of cultural-Marxism has given rise to an eristic weaponization of demonizing factual truth. The choice of weaponry in … Continue reading No ‘Fact-Checkers’ Needed For Kamala Harris ...

What is the UN "Master Plan for Humanity"? A Communist Like Global Great Leap Forward 10-7-2024 - The Founders and Leaders of the United Nations HAVE DIRECTLY TOLD US THEMSELVES - - THEY ARE PLANNING TO ESTABLISH THE UN AS AN ALL POWERFUL ONE WORLD GOVERNMENTS. - UN AGENDA 21/2030 IS LIKE A CHINESE COMMUNIST GREAT LEAP FORWARD. THE MAOIST PURGE THAT KILLED 60 MILLION CITIZENS *** October 7th, 2024 Alex Newman - The New American - The United Nations "Pact for the Future" contains dozens of references to the UN 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals, also known as the "Master Plan for Humanity," but what does that mean for liberty and for you? In this episode of Behind The Deep State, The New American magazine Senior Editor Alex Newman, freshly returned from the UN "Summit of the Future," breaks down the goals and why they threaten freedom, prosperity, national sovereignty, and much more.  - Catch all episodes of Behind The Deep State by visiting https://thenewamerican.com/video/deep-state/ - For reliable news and in-depth information, explore The New American at https://thenewamerican.com  - Subscribe to our print magazine today and save over 25%! https://thenewamerican.com/Rumble25  - Check out our social medias and more! - https://linktr.ee/newamericanmag85
 Visit JBS.org for more on The John Birch Society. https://jbs.org/ - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://old.bitchute.com/channel/thenewamerican/

Top Int'l Law Prof Warns of UN 'Power Grab' With 'Pact for the Future' 10-7-2024 - October 7th, 2024 Alex Newman - The New American - The United Nations Pact for the Future, despite being passed using tactics of dubious legality, represents a "POWER GRAB" of enormous proportions that must be resisted by all governments and nations, explained University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle in this interview on Conversations That Matter with The New American magazine Senior Editor Alex Newman. - Boyle, Harvard-trained leading expert on international law recognized worldwide, also warned that this pact centralizes power and authority in the hands of socialist UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in violation of the UN charter. Finally, Boyle warned about the effort to create a global totalitarian police state under the guise of "public health" and that Trump must take urgent action.  - Catch all episodes of Behind The Deep State by visiting https://thenewamerican.com/video/deep-state/ - For reliable news and in-depth information, explore The New American at https://thenewamerican.com  - Subscribe to our print magazine today and save over 25%! https://thenewamerican.com/Rumble25  - Check out our social medias and more! - https://linktr.ee/newamericanmag85
 Visit JBS.org for more on The John Birch Society. https://jbs.org/ - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://old.bitchute.com/channel/thenewamerican/

UTL COMMENT:- Interesting report. But very sad to see what happened....and how the genocide happened....

Yep they're doing it....

"Take some time and learn how to play.T The post Every artist who has covered the song ‘So You Want to Be a Rock ‘n’ Roll Star’ by The Byrds first appeared on Far Out Magazine.