Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
ax1
Legend
It was also Trump's, he fully embraced it.
Last edited:
ax1
Legend
Actually I just deleted it before I saw your post after looking into it that it wasnt anything new, but I could care less about "fact checkers" giving their opinions on Wikileaks. I mean any document you need be careful, more so anything "fact checking" you run into online on Wikileaks is a hard red alarm. Wikileaks is as real as it gets, especially anything from the Julian Assange era, anything after that Id take a little extra step of precaution.
ax1
Legend
Hmm....Ill tell you guys (sorry if that offended anyone, "people") after last years Supreme Court decision for New Yorkers right to carry victory, the NY Government in fact made it worse than ever in terms of 2nd Amendment rights. We took a step forward and 3 steps backwards.
Biden will announce new actions on student loans later today
Source CNN
President Joe Biden plans to announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers when he speaks later Friday, a source familiar with the White House plans says.
The White House strongly disagrees Invalid Link Removed, the source said, but had been preparing for it.
The administration plans to make "crystal clear to borrowers and their families that Republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that President Biden has been fighting to get to them," the source said.
Biden will announce new actions on student loans later today
Source CNN
President Joe Biden plans to announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers when he speaks later Friday, a source familiar with the White House plans says.
The White House strongly disagrees Invalid Link Removed, the source said, but had been preparing for it.
The administration plans to make "crystal clear to borrowers and their families that Republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that President Biden has been fighting to get to them," the source said.
ax1
Legend
Another slap to the face on the woke generation.
I can understand protecting someone's religious rights and not force him to go through the details of making a website for a gay marriage.
For the record, I can also defend something like a Gay Wedding Cake customer being rejected (I personally would do it no problem)....on the other hand if any bakery does not let gay people through the doors and refuses to serve them, or treats them as any other customer should be treated Im personally boycotting that bakery and never going back there every again.
Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections with ruling in favor of Christian web designer
Invalid Link Removed
I can understand protecting someone's religious rights and not force him to go through the details of making a website for a gay marriage.
For the record, I can also defend something like a Gay Wedding Cake customer being rejected (I personally would do it no problem)....on the other hand if any bakery does not let gay people through the doors and refuses to serve them, or treats them as any other customer should be treated Im personally boycotting that bakery and never going back there every again.
Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections with ruling in favor of Christian web designer
Invalid Link Removed
BamBam54
Well-known member
Rights have to work for everyone. And someone's right to wear a dress and call themselves a girl does not overrule someone else's right to see it differently. To each their own. Freedom! But their right to play dress up DOES NOT get to trample on someone else's right to have sanctity in the bathroom of their born gender.
So if a private business baker doesn't want make a gay cake, that is his right too. Sticks and stones.... just don't hurt anyone (literally).
So if a private business baker doesn't want make a gay cake, that is his right too. Sticks and stones.... just don't hurt anyone (literally).
BamBam54
Well-known member
And if the Iranians arm Houthi rebels to overthrow the government of Yemen, it is not "warmongering" to help the legitimate government of Yemen fight back.
Yemen was a great friend to the US, and provided a refueling port in Aden for our ships. We even ran drone operations out of Yemen to fight ISIS. Terrorists attacked and nearly sunk our ship the USS Cole in port at Yemen.
You can runaway from terrorists.... or you can help a friendly nation fight back.
The Libertarians just don't seem to understand.... if you have a policy of appeasement and retreat in all cases everywhere.... eventually you run out of places to runaway to!
FWIW - in those same years, Obama also killed the leader of Libya and threw that country into total chaos. Total bullsh1t move.
Yemen was a great friend to the US, and provided a refueling port in Aden for our ships. We even ran drone operations out of Yemen to fight ISIS. Terrorists attacked and nearly sunk our ship the USS Cole in port at Yemen.
You can runaway from terrorists.... or you can help a friendly nation fight back.
The Libertarians just don't seem to understand.... if you have a policy of appeasement and retreat in all cases everywhere.... eventually you run out of places to runaway to!
FWIW - in those same years, Obama also killed the leader of Libya and threw that country into total chaos. Total bullsh1t move.
ax1
Legend
If be shocked if the CIA didnt personally help the Iranians arm the Houthi rebels in the first place. The US has a history of funding both sides (we both helped Iraq and Iran to fight each other!!!!)
And you speak of ISIS? They were another creation of bad (but intended) US foreign intervention policy, the CIA armed, financed and trained ISIS to fight in Lybia and afterwards transported to Syria to cause further destabilization in that region creating another civil war. Then the US Government armed, financed, armed and re-trained Al-Queda (the US created and funded Al-Queda and Osama Bin-Laden in the first place to fight the Russians,) ya know the people who we started the Afghan and Iraq war in the first place for "attacking" us on 9-11 to fight ISIS, I mean LMFAO when are people ever going to learn that all these wars are to fuel the Military Industrial Complex and its endless craving for wars, and when the solutions come from the very same people that created them you know whats up $$$$$$$. This has absolutely nothing to do with helping a friend, and why are we giving billions of dollars in arms to the Saudi's, what the fuq made them an legit government? Because we planted their little princesses in power decades ago? How are they not terrorists? That’s easy, they have black gold, different rules for different folks.
Make America Great again and leave all these foreign entanglements before whatever is left of our country is completely gone.
Last edited:
Tunaking14
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Legalize self defense!!!!
Anyways another great 2A story the deep state doesn’t want you to know about!
ax1
Legend
Nobody who is running for office in 2024 will defend your gun rights (and all our Bill of Rights) more than Jacob Hornberger, its not even close other than the other Libertarian Candidates.
Republcrats traditionally are mostly all anti-2A, and always will be.....dont let them fool you!
Make America Great Again, not Yemen! or NATO and Ukraine!
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right
By: Invalid Link Removed|Published on: Dec 2, 2020|Categories: Invalid Link Removed
There are those among the gun-control crowd who advocate repealing the Second Amendment. They think that by doing so, they would be prohibiting people from owning guns. Unfortunately, they have a woeful lack of understanding of rights and the Constitution.
People’s rights do not come from either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That’s what many in the gun-control crowd do not understand. They think that the reason people have the right to own guns is because of the Second Amendment.
As the Declaration of Independence points out, people’s rights come from nature and God. Thus, even if the federal government had never been established, even if the Constitution had never been ratified, and even if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the right to keep and bear arms because people’s rights preexist government and are independent of government.
By its very terms, the Constitution does not give anyone any rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Constitution was simply to call the federal government into existence and to set the powers that it would have. If a power was listed, the government could exercise it. If a power was not listed, it could not exercise it.
Thus, the question naturally arises: Did the Constitution give to the federal government the power to control people’s ownership of weapons? It did not. That’s because the American people did not want a government that would have the power to infringe on people’s natural, God-given rights.
What about the Bill of Rights? It too does not give anyone any rights. A careful examination of the language of the First and Second Amendments shows that those two amendments are simply restrictions on the power of the federal government to infringe on rights that are natural and God-given and that preexist the federal government. In fact, a better name for the Bill of Rights would have been the Bill or Prohibitions.
Why did our American ancestors insist on passage of the Bill of Rights? After all, since the original Constitution did not give the federal government the power to deprive people of such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religions, and the right to keep and bear arms, why did Americans deem it necessary to expressly restrict the federal government from infringing on such rights?
The answer is that the American people wanted to be doubly certain that federal officials got the message, which was: Don’t even think of using your power to destroy our rights. Our ancestors knew that the Constitution had called a government with limited powers into existence, but they used the Bill of Rights to make certain that federal officials clearly understood that they were expressly prohibited from infringing on people’s rights.
What about rights that were not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights? That was the idea behind the Ninth Amendment. It essentially says that people have more rights than are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that the federal government is prohibited from infringing on those as well.
Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not affect people’s natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms. For that matter, neither would abolition of the Constitution and the federal government. Rights that are endowed in people by nature and God are permanent and inalienable and exist independently of government.
Invalid Link Removed
Republcrats traditionally are mostly all anti-2A, and always will be.....dont let them fool you!
Make America Great Again, not Yemen! or NATO and Ukraine!
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right
By: Invalid Link Removed|Published on: Dec 2, 2020|Categories: Invalid Link Removed
There are those among the gun-control crowd who advocate repealing the Second Amendment. They think that by doing so, they would be prohibiting people from owning guns. Unfortunately, they have a woeful lack of understanding of rights and the Constitution.
People’s rights do not come from either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That’s what many in the gun-control crowd do not understand. They think that the reason people have the right to own guns is because of the Second Amendment.
As the Declaration of Independence points out, people’s rights come from nature and God. Thus, even if the federal government had never been established, even if the Constitution had never been ratified, and even if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the right to keep and bear arms because people’s rights preexist government and are independent of government.
By its very terms, the Constitution does not give anyone any rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Constitution was simply to call the federal government into existence and to set the powers that it would have. If a power was listed, the government could exercise it. If a power was not listed, it could not exercise it.
Thus, the question naturally arises: Did the Constitution give to the federal government the power to control people’s ownership of weapons? It did not. That’s because the American people did not want a government that would have the power to infringe on people’s natural, God-given rights.
What about the Bill of Rights? It too does not give anyone any rights. A careful examination of the language of the First and Second Amendments shows that those two amendments are simply restrictions on the power of the federal government to infringe on rights that are natural and God-given and that preexist the federal government. In fact, a better name for the Bill of Rights would have been the Bill or Prohibitions.
Why did our American ancestors insist on passage of the Bill of Rights? After all, since the original Constitution did not give the federal government the power to deprive people of such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religions, and the right to keep and bear arms, why did Americans deem it necessary to expressly restrict the federal government from infringing on such rights?
The answer is that the American people wanted to be doubly certain that federal officials got the message, which was: Don’t even think of using your power to destroy our rights. Our ancestors knew that the Constitution had called a government with limited powers into existence, but they used the Bill of Rights to make certain that federal officials clearly understood that they were expressly prohibited from infringing on people’s rights.
What about rights that were not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights? That was the idea behind the Ninth Amendment. It essentially says that people have more rights than are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that the federal government is prohibited from infringing on those as well.
Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not affect people’s natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms. For that matter, neither would abolition of the Constitution and the federal government. Rights that are endowed in people by nature and God are permanent and inalienable and exist independently of government.
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
I think its fair to say your understanding of military history is as clear as your understanding of the 911 attack, CGI, and mysterious space lazer cannons.
And leave it at that.
*SDI was created by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983.1 It is thought that SDI may have been first dubbed "Star Wars" by opponent Dr. Carol Rosin, a consultant and former spokeswoman for Wernher von Braun. However, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) historians attribute the term to a Washington Post article published March 24, 1983, the day after the Star Wars speech, which quoted Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy describing the proposal as "reckless Star Wars schemes."2 Before it was named the "Star Wars Program (SDI) in 1983, it was the Advanced Space Programs Development.3
SDI RONALD REAGAN STAR WARS PROGRAM DOCUMENTARY 1983
(note keep in mind, Star Wars isnt even original, it was ASPD Advanced Space Programs Development under the US Airforce and who knows what else? Keep in mind the 30-50 year time frame that we are than for public consumption )
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
And 'Ax' keeps throwing garbage, hoping one day something sticks?
Invalid Link Removed
LMFAO!!!! NICE!!
ax1
Legend
In 1978, Biden supported the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, which eliminated income restrictions on federal loans to expand eligibility to all students. Biden helped write a separate bill that year blocking students from seeking bankruptcy protections on those loans after graduation.
Joe Biden’s Role in Creating the Student Debt Crisis Stretches Back to the 1970s
As a senator, Joe Biden supported several bills that contributed to the rise in borrowing from $1.8 billion in 1977 to $12 billion in 1989.
Invalid Link Removed
January 7 2020, 3:04 p.m.
Joe Biden played a central role in the creation of the student debt crisis that he and other candidates are now Invalid Link Removed to fix, according to a close look at the legislative history around the spiraling phenomenon.
Today, more than 44 million Americans collectively owe nearly $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, a figure that has surpassed similar numbers for nearly every other form of debt, including credit cards and auto loans. The issue of student loan debt has even radicalized a high-ranking Trump administration student loan official, A. Wayne Johnson, Invalid Link Removed from Betsy DeVos’s Education Department last October to launch a Senate campaign in Georgia centered on mass student debt forgiveness.
Early in his senatorial career, Biden played a role in making it easier for students and parents to take out burdensome loans, spanning across several decades. Later, his landmark bankruptcy reform legislation made it nearly impossible to discharge student loans, birthing a predatory industry and sinking millions into unsustainable levels of debt.
Full story:
Invalid Link Removed
Joe Biden’s Role in Creating the Student Debt Crisis Stretches Back to the 1970s
As a senator, Joe Biden supported several bills that contributed to the rise in borrowing from $1.8 billion in 1977 to $12 billion in 1989.
Invalid Link Removed
January 7 2020, 3:04 p.m.
Joe Biden played a central role in the creation of the student debt crisis that he and other candidates are now Invalid Link Removed to fix, according to a close look at the legislative history around the spiraling phenomenon.
Today, more than 44 million Americans collectively owe nearly $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, a figure that has surpassed similar numbers for nearly every other form of debt, including credit cards and auto loans. The issue of student loan debt has even radicalized a high-ranking Trump administration student loan official, A. Wayne Johnson, Invalid Link Removed from Betsy DeVos’s Education Department last October to launch a Senate campaign in Georgia centered on mass student debt forgiveness.
Early in his senatorial career, Biden played a role in making it easier for students and parents to take out burdensome loans, spanning across several decades. Later, his landmark bankruptcy reform legislation made it nearly impossible to discharge student loans, birthing a predatory industry and sinking millions into unsustainable levels of debt.
Full story:
Invalid Link Removed
cdawgismoney
New member
It looks like everyone here understands that something is wrong. That is good. And I'm not being condescending because I was at that stage for years. And even though I would investigate who or what was behind it, it still took my dense skull many years before it absorbed the truth. But once you are awake to the truth, listening to people discuss politics who are asleep to the central truth sounds a lot like a conversation about weight loss that never refers to metabolism/calories/diet/exercise.
After all, there likely are some things that affect weight loss that don't directly relate to diet and exercise, e.g., sleep, stress, mood. But you're really talking about things at the edges. And even these marginal aspects of the issue cannot fully be understood until you understand how they are (indirectly) connected to the central truth.
A lot of what occurs benefits the "Military-Industrial Complex", but does that really explain what specific wars we are fighting? Why would we create ISIS only to have that problem turn on us? If you recall, it isn't that we created ISIS and then used that as the pretext for more wars. The Arab Spring was actually the first time I noticed something didn't quite add up. We had just got out of the Middle East. The war in Iraq was recognized as an abject failure of such an astounding magnitude, even people that hated Obama had to give him credit for voting against it (whether he legitimately supported it or not is beside the point, the point is that you could use the notion of voting against the war in Iraq as a sort of political trump card). But then, Obama, a man totally obsessed with his image and legacy of all people, pushes to go to war with Syria with even less pretext than we had for Iraq. We would go to war with Assad who, by Middle East standards, is about as magnanimous as its going to get (I repeat: by Middle East standards). And it looks like Assad will lose a civil war, but then Russia intervenes, the tide turns and then as he has taken back 90% of the country, he allegedly uses chemical weapons on his own people... So he wouldn't use it at the moment his fate was looking sealed (this is someone who would've seen what just happened to Gaddafi), but rather he waited for the moment when it would've been senseless. It's at this point, where he has nothing to gain, he's going to commit a war crime, jeopardize what he support he has with his people, and provide a legitimate pretext for the West to attack Syria. Does this make any sense? Oh yeah, the news explained it: he's a bully. Right. The Freudian explanation of world affairs--always a sign of objective and veritable journalism.
With the exception of Iran and Syria (where we are still flirting with war), you can't help but notice that it's almost as if we toppled every government that had any degree of coherence in the Middle East. That's neither good for future trade because we didn't install governments that are more likely to do business with the West in their place. And if this was driven by the "Military-Industrial Complex", why would we not create ISIS and then continue those wars against Muslim Brotherhood and all the other terrorist groups that took power in the wake of Arab Spring? That was a missed financial opportunity. I'm not saying that big Military-Industrial Complex isn't a part of the power structure, but it leaves as many questions as it answers if you think that this is primarily driven by the Military-Industrial Complex.
One of the reasons we didn't go to war with Syria is because America is having a lot of trouble drumming up support for wars. You saw this again in the response from the public with the conflict between NATO and Russia. Even the the dunderheads who put a Ukrainian bumper sticker on their car are not pushing for US involvement. One of those reasons, as everyone in the Military-Industrial Complex surely knows, is because the US, like all of the other countries in the West, has become too racially heterogeneous (the data on this stuff is clear and if I know it, there's a good chance that Military-Industrial Complex knows it better than me). The countries have become too fractured and atomized. So then, why would the Military-Industrial Complex permit open borders and a push for ever-expanding refugee asylums if that will only make it more difficult to motivate and facilitate wars in the future?
And let's not forget those complicit in supporting this Syrian conflict as it was very telling: The Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, Hollywood (e.g., awarding an Oscar to the documentary "The White Helmets" which amounts to nothing more than ISIS propaganda), the Republicans, Fox News, etc. So anyone that thinks DeSantis is a threat to the power structure is severely misinformed.
After all, there likely are some things that affect weight loss that don't directly relate to diet and exercise, e.g., sleep, stress, mood. But you're really talking about things at the edges. And even these marginal aspects of the issue cannot fully be understood until you understand how they are (indirectly) connected to the central truth.
A lot of what occurs benefits the "Military-Industrial Complex", but does that really explain what specific wars we are fighting? Why would we create ISIS only to have that problem turn on us? If you recall, it isn't that we created ISIS and then used that as the pretext for more wars. The Arab Spring was actually the first time I noticed something didn't quite add up. We had just got out of the Middle East. The war in Iraq was recognized as an abject failure of such an astounding magnitude, even people that hated Obama had to give him credit for voting against it (whether he legitimately supported it or not is beside the point, the point is that you could use the notion of voting against the war in Iraq as a sort of political trump card). But then, Obama, a man totally obsessed with his image and legacy of all people, pushes to go to war with Syria with even less pretext than we had for Iraq. We would go to war with Assad who, by Middle East standards, is about as magnanimous as its going to get (I repeat: by Middle East standards). And it looks like Assad will lose a civil war, but then Russia intervenes, the tide turns and then as he has taken back 90% of the country, he allegedly uses chemical weapons on his own people... So he wouldn't use it at the moment his fate was looking sealed (this is someone who would've seen what just happened to Gaddafi), but rather he waited for the moment when it would've been senseless. It's at this point, where he has nothing to gain, he's going to commit a war crime, jeopardize what he support he has with his people, and provide a legitimate pretext for the West to attack Syria. Does this make any sense? Oh yeah, the news explained it: he's a bully. Right. The Freudian explanation of world affairs--always a sign of objective and veritable journalism.
With the exception of Iran and Syria (where we are still flirting with war), you can't help but notice that it's almost as if we toppled every government that had any degree of coherence in the Middle East. That's neither good for future trade because we didn't install governments that are more likely to do business with the West in their place. And if this was driven by the "Military-Industrial Complex", why would we not create ISIS and then continue those wars against Muslim Brotherhood and all the other terrorist groups that took power in the wake of Arab Spring? That was a missed financial opportunity. I'm not saying that big Military-Industrial Complex isn't a part of the power structure, but it leaves as many questions as it answers if you think that this is primarily driven by the Military-Industrial Complex.
One of the reasons we didn't go to war with Syria is because America is having a lot of trouble drumming up support for wars. You saw this again in the response from the public with the conflict between NATO and Russia. Even the the dunderheads who put a Ukrainian bumper sticker on their car are not pushing for US involvement. One of those reasons, as everyone in the Military-Industrial Complex surely knows, is because the US, like all of the other countries in the West, has become too racially heterogeneous (the data on this stuff is clear and if I know it, there's a good chance that Military-Industrial Complex knows it better than me). The countries have become too fractured and atomized. So then, why would the Military-Industrial Complex permit open borders and a push for ever-expanding refugee asylums if that will only make it more difficult to motivate and facilitate wars in the future?
And let's not forget those complicit in supporting this Syrian conflict as it was very telling: The Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, Hollywood (e.g., awarding an Oscar to the documentary "The White Helmets" which amounts to nothing more than ISIS propaganda), the Republicans, Fox News, etc. So anyone that thinks DeSantis is a threat to the power structure is severely misinformed.
Last edited:
sammpedd88
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Oh I know, I do post all kinds of links from various sources I dislike for specific content out of convenience all the time, including Fox, NBC and CiaNN all all the smaller left/right/pretending2bCenter biased outlets.
Back in the day it was easier to google search sources of my preference but google has done a hard job to push those aside and push mainstream to the front over the recent years.
A better source about Trump's (not just him of course) atrocities and illegal actions in Yemen would have been directly from Dr. Rand Paul (one of the very few Republicans I support to an extent) but who wants to watch a 25 minute video? lol
Invalid Link Removed
Last edited:
ax1
Legend
Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine
Invalid Link Removed
June 30, 2023
Wealthy donors have long funded think tanks with official-sounding names that produce research that reflects the interests of those funders (Extra!, Invalid Link Removed). The weapons industry is a major contributor to these idea factories; a recent report from the Quincy Institute (Invalid Link Removed) demonstrates just how much influence war profiteers have on the Invalid Link Removed.
The Quincy Institute—whose own Invalid Link Removed came mainly from George Soros and Charles Koch—looked at 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, and counted each time one of 33 leading think tanks was mentioned. Of the 15 think tanks most often mentioned in the coverage, only one—Human Rights Watch—does not take funding from Pentagon contractors. Quincy’s analysis found that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with war industry ties than they were to cite think tanks without war industry ties.
With 157 mentions each, the top two think tanks were the Invalid Link Removed and the Invalid Link Removed (CSIS). Both of these think tanks receive millions from the war industry. The Atlantic Council has long been the brain trust of NATO, the military organization whose expansion towards Russia’s borders was a Invalid Link Removed in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. (See FAIR.org, Invalid Link Removed.) Both think tanks receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, companies which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
CSIS was revealed in a New York Times expose (Invalid Link Removed) to produce content that reflected the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It also “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations” of military funders.
More, complete story here: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
June 30, 2023
Wealthy donors have long funded think tanks with official-sounding names that produce research that reflects the interests of those funders (Extra!, Invalid Link Removed). The weapons industry is a major contributor to these idea factories; a recent report from the Quincy Institute (Invalid Link Removed) demonstrates just how much influence war profiteers have on the Invalid Link Removed.
The Quincy Institute—whose own Invalid Link Removed came mainly from George Soros and Charles Koch—looked at 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, and counted each time one of 33 leading think tanks was mentioned. Of the 15 think tanks most often mentioned in the coverage, only one—Human Rights Watch—does not take funding from Pentagon contractors. Quincy’s analysis found that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with war industry ties than they were to cite think tanks without war industry ties.
With 157 mentions each, the top two think tanks were the Invalid Link Removed and the Invalid Link Removed (CSIS). Both of these think tanks receive millions from the war industry. The Atlantic Council has long been the brain trust of NATO, the military organization whose expansion towards Russia’s borders was a Invalid Link Removed in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. (See FAIR.org, Invalid Link Removed.) Both think tanks receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, companies which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
CSIS was revealed in a New York Times expose (Invalid Link Removed) to produce content that reflected the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It also “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations” of military funders.
More, complete story here: Invalid Link Removed
Tunaking14
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Heard nothing about it on the news, did find out on Twitter early on though.
They made sure to let people know about the body armor though, wonder if they will try to use this to ban good legal folks including those who are licensed to conceal carry from owning it? And yes, it is also illegal in NY to buy body armor for your children.
ax1
Legend
US to supply Ukraine with munitions banned by over 100 nations
CNN - The United States is expected to announce a new military aid package for Ukraine on Friday that will include cluster munitions for the first time, defense officials have told CNN.
CNNInvalid Link Removed that US President Joe Biden’s administration was strongly considering approving the transfer of the controversial weapons to Ukraine, whose forces have been struggling to make major gains in a weeks-long counteroffensive.
Invalid Link Removed
CNN - The United States is expected to announce a new military aid package for Ukraine on Friday that will include cluster munitions for the first time, defense officials have told CNN.
CNNInvalid Link Removed that US President Joe Biden’s administration was strongly considering approving the transfer of the controversial weapons to Ukraine, whose forces have been struggling to make major gains in a weeks-long counteroffensive.
Invalid Link Removed
BamBam54
Well-known member
Russia is not one of those 100 nations to ban cluster munitions. Nor is the US, or Ukraine.
If the worry is for civilians getting killed by dud cluster bomblets... I would bet those civilians are at FAR greater risk of death by the Russian rockets, missiles, and tanks shooting into Ukraine every day.