conflict
Jeffrey Sachs charges CIA, White House with endangering the world in interview with Tucker Carlson
Jeffrey Sachs
From LifeSiteNews
The left-leaning diplomat emphatically warned of possible nuclear annihilation due to the neoconservative policies of the U.S. government. ‘Are we mad?’ he asked, advising Joe Biden to ‘tell the truth’ and ‘stop the wars today.’
In an extraordinary interview with Tucker Carlson, Columbia University economist and senior UN adviser warned that a neocon-inspired “deep project of the (U.S.) security apparatus” is driving a policy that is endangering the world with nuclear war, primarily due to the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
He further cautioned such a catastrophe could happen very easily, through even an “accidental tripwire,” and yet if American policy makers decided to do so, these wars could be ended “today.”
According to the well-known analyst, this aggressive foreign policy plan was inspired by the neoconservatives and began just after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, with the now-disbanded think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) later articulating its goals and principles, especially with the document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (RAD) released in 2000.
In the opening portion of the interview, Sachs thoroughly explains the well-documented reasons why, contrary to the western mantra that Russia’s February 2022 military movement into Ukraine was “unprovoked,” a long succession of serious provocations over three decades were committed by the U.S. and NATO against this nuclear adversary.
READ: ‘Monumental provocation’: How US and international policy-makers deliberately baited Putin to war
These included 1) the relentless expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders despite frequent, clear, and emphatic warnings from Russian leaders who reasonably saw such expansion as a security threat; 2) the facilitating of a violent overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014; 3) the building up of Ukraine’s army to be the largest in Europe poised to attack Russia; 4) the persistent and intensifying military attacks on ethnic Russians in the Donbass region of the country; 5) disregarding peace treaties it had agreed to (Minsk I & II); and finally 6) a cascade of reckless diplomatic and military provocations after the installation of the Joe Biden administration in 2021.
Sachs tells Jake Sullivan: Ukraine’s neutrality builds U.S. security, ‘don’t have an accidental tripwire’
While reviewing the historical outline, Sachs recalled Putin’s last attempt to come to a negotiated settlement before their invasion. On December 15, 2021, after a meeting with Biden, the Russian president “put on the table a draft Russia-U.S. security agreement” that, “the core of it was to stop the NATO enlargement.”
READ: Putin tells Tucker it would have been ‘culpable negligence’ for Russia to not intervene in Ukraine
Given his diplomatic status, the economic professor said he called the White House and spoke to national security adviser Jake Sullivan, imploring “don’t have a war over this. We don’t need NATO enlargement for U.S. security. In fact, it’s counter to U.S. security. The U.S. should not be right up against the Russian border. That’s how we trip ourselves into World War III.”
Sullivan assured Sachs “there’s not going to be a war,” yet their policy was that Russia had no say or interest in whether or not Ukraine joined NATO, which could then house U.S. first strike missiles just minutes from Moscow.
Mocking this posture, Sachs observed, “to use the analogy, if Mexico and China want to put Chinese military bases on the Rio Grande, the United States has no right to interfere in that. And this was the formal U.S. response in January 2022.”
“So, unprovoked? Not exactly. Thirty years of provocation where we could not take peace for an answer one moment. (The only posture) we could take is, ‘we’ll do whatever we want, wherever we want, and no one has any say in this at all.’”
“We are not threatened by Russia, and Ukraine being neutral is not a threat to U.S. security. It builds U.S. security, period,” Sachs reported telling Sullivan. “‘It’s not even a concession, Jake. It’s a benefit for us. Leave some space between you and them. That’s what we want, some space so we don’t have an accidental tripwire … We don’t have to be everywhere. We’re not playing (the board game) Risk. We’re trying to run our lives. We’re trying to keep our children safe. We’re not trying to own every part of the world.’”
Neocons: NATO no longer about protecting Europe but U.S. hegemony
Before Europe became “a kind of vassal province of the United States government,” Sachs explained that they, with Russia, wanted what is termed “collective security” which he defined as “security arrangements in which one country’s security doesn’t ruin the security of another country.”
In such an arrangement, this would mean that Mexico would not rationally be able to welcome Chinese bases on the Rio Grande, and Ukraine would not be allowed to become a member of NATO with the ability to host U.S. military assets on Moscow’s front porch.
To reach this end the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe was created in the 1970s, but another way to get to such collective security arrangements, Sachs said, was that after USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev’s dissolving of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO should have been dissolved as well.
The neocons, however, explicitly wrote that the maintaining of NATO “‘is our way of keeping our hegemony in Europe,’” the political analyst explained. “In other words, this is our way of keeping our say in Europe, not protecting Europe, not even protecting us. This is hegemony. We need our pieces on the board. NATO is our pieces on the board.”
U.S. senators ‘don’t care at all’ about massive Ukrainian deaths
And according to Sachs, the resulting presence of American troops in Europe in places like Germany means they are not “free actors,” and thus lack sovereignty. “When the U.S. has a military base in your country, it really pulls a lot of the political strings in your country,” he said, citing Germany’s non-response to the U.S. obliterating the Nord Stream pipeline in September 2022.
“They’re so subservient to the U.S. interests, it’s a little hard to understand because it makes no sense for Europe,” he said. In fact, “it’s doing huge damage to Europe (and) it’s destroying Ukraine … wasting a hell of a lot of lives and money in the United States, which the neo-cons don’t count … (including) 500,000 Ukrainians dead for nothing.”
Neocons ‘gambling’ with others’ lives, country and money and not ‘their own stakes’
Carlson noted that despite U.S. rhetoric justifying the war as supporting “our friends in Ukraine, the standard bearers of democracy,” senators in Washington “have no idea” how many Ukrainian lives have been lost “and they have no interest in knowing.”
“And they don’t care at all,” Sachs confirmed. “And sometimes they say they don’t care. Mitt Romney said, ‘It’s the greatest bargain, no American lives!’ Dick Blumenthal said the same thing … No, they don’t count the Ukrainian lives.”
He added that these neocon wars are not in the interests of the United States either, observing “we’ve spent maybe $7 trillion on these reckless perpetual wars since 2001,” adding to the national debt that has “gone from about 30% of national income to more than 100% of national income.” And considering that “millions of people have died in American wars of choice,” Sachs called these neocon policies “completely perverse.”
With regard to the current results of these wars, Sachs said the neoconservatives and allied policy makers have “gambled wrong all along … with someone else’s lives, someone else’s country and someone else’s money, our money, the taxpayer money… (and) not with their own stakes.”
All must understand: ‘Ukraine will never join NATO short of a nuclear war’
Going on to highlight the recklessness of American and other governmental leaders in the West, the lifelong Democrat, who stated he left the party last year over COVID policy, ridiculed these “idiots” who are willing to risk a nuclear conflict.
“My resentment gets very high when we reach that level,” he said, noting in disbelief current political rhetoric actually discussing the possibility of nuclear war, the many “crazy people in our government,” and allies cheering on the prospect of an all-out war with Russia. This includes the president of Latvia who has repeatedly tweeted, “Russia delenda est!” (“Russia must be destroyed”).
“Honestly, a president of a Baltic state tweeting that ‘Russia must be destroyed’? This is prudent? This is safe? This is going to keep your family and my family safe? Are we out of our minds? And all through this, Biden hasn’t called Putin one time,” Sachs complained. “I don’t like my family being at risk of nuclear war.”
Proposing some essential clarity for Carlson’s sizable audience, the former UN adviser observed that “until this moment, every senior official in the U.S. or the secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, says, ‘Ukraine will join NATO.’”
“One thing everyone that’s listening should understand: Ukraine will never join NATO short of a nuclear war, because Russia will never allow it, period,” he affirmed. “So every time we say it, all we mean is the war continues and more Ukrainians are destroyed.”
Neocons seek to break-up Russia, and instead commit strategic blunder in driving them into union with China
Contradicting Carlson’s perception that current Secretary of State Antony Blinken was a “driving force” of this ongoing U.S. aggression, Sachs opined that its origin is rather in “a big, deep project of the security apparatus that goes back 30 years,” including the CIA as “a driving force” along with the Pentagon, the National Security Council and other governmental bodies.
“It’s not one individual, but it’s a project that is long dated and it doesn’t turn,” meaning its “a rudder that’s stuck.” In other words, “they can’t do something different,” even when it is clear their current course is not capable of achieving their objectives.
Thus, with regard to the heavy U.S. economic sanctions imposed on Russia 2 1/2 years ago, Russia was able to adjust, and instead of selling their oil to Europe, they sold it to Asia and “and the sanctions didn’t have any effect,” the economist said.
Additionally, the neocons caused what the late realist school, former National Security Adviser under President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, implored to be the worst possible outcome.
“In all of this neo-con strategizing, they had this glimmer of insight, and actually Zbig Brzezinski was very good on it,” Sachs explained. “He said, ‘by all means, the one thing never, never to do is to drive Russia and China together.’” And yet, “this is exactly what these (neoconservative) dunderheads have done.”
READ: Col. Douglas Macgregor tells Tucker that US handling of Ukraine war has ‘backfired’
In addressing what he believes to be the motive behind this U.S. government’s aggression towards Russia, Sachs indicated it is to break up this enormous nation into several smaller states. In making his case, he cited PNAC’s RAD document which “says maybe Russia will be decentralized into a European Russia, Central Asian Russia, a Siberian Russia they call it, and a Far East Russia.”
“The CIA’s hope… probably in this deep long-term vision, was after the Soviet Union fell, so too will Russia disintegrate. It will disintegrate along its ethnic lines… [and] geographic lines,” he surmised.
Sachs opines that this is a chosen project for the U.S. government only because they resent “there is a country of 11 time zones, and it’s so big that it is, on its face, a denial of U.S. global hegemony. In other words, how obnoxious of them to be there!” he quipped.
CIA’s ‘overthrowing’ of governments ‘not a good vocation for us’
When addressing Carlson’s question regarding the influence of the CIA in the operations of the U.S. government, Sachs said the agency “has absolutely extraordinary influence” including his relating a story where he personally witnessed a CIA-orchestrated coup d’état of Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004, which he couldn’t get the New York Times to even cover at the time.
“Definitely in many, many places, [the CIA] is the instrument of regime change,” he explained. “The US is the only country in the world that relies on regime change as the lead foreign policy instrument.”
“We are the country that makes a living by overthrowing other governments. And that’s not a good vocation for us. It almost always ends in disaster, in bloodshed, in continued instability,” the diplomat explained.
Making reference to the Church Committee hearings in the House of Representatives, which conducted oversight of the CIA in 1975, Sachs said they discovered the agency was “a private army of the president of the United States” which may operate in a rouge fashion, on their own, but is “completely outside” the “oversight and control” of Congress. They also discovered that the agency had been involved in foreign assassinations, including that of Patrice Lumumba in Congo in 1961, was “trying to kill Castro” in Cuba “and many other things.”
JFK assassination ‘probably’ a CIA ‘coup in broad daylight’
In the last 49 years, “there’s never been another Church committee of its kind. It’s unbelievable,” he commented. “How many things have happened since then?”
Carlson asked, if the CIA’s expertise is “taking down leaders of foreign countries, how long before it does that here in the United States?”
Sachs responded that their “first run” at a coup in the United States “probably” came 61 years ago with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. According to his “best guess,” this treasonous crime was committed “at least maybe rogue CIA or maybe official CIA or maybe a compartmentalized CIA operation. It was clearly someone’s operation, not Lee Harvey Oswald’s, from all we know.”
“We probably had a coup in broad daylight on November 22nd, 1963, and we never quite got over it,” he said. There is “a tremendous amount of evidence that it was a conspiracy at a high level. And yet, it passed for the last 61 years without any official practical note of that fact.”
Neocons ‘think it’s a game,’ playing Risk with our lives and Ukrainian lives
The political analyst also recalled the last time he “had a word on mainstream media” was when he stated why he believed the U.S. government destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline. “I was yanked off the air within 30 seconds,” he said.
Carlson called this event “the largest act of industrial sabotage” in his lifetime and marveled that it is not being covered more by the press.
Sachs said it was “an act of war” and continued, “Look, if you can kill a president in broad daylight and get away with it for 61 years, if you can walk a president of a neighboring country out to an unmarked plane and not have it covered, if you can have a ‘unprovoked’ war that you provoked over a 30-year period, you can do lots of things. And this (blowing up of Nord Stream) is just one of the things that you could do.”
“The people in power think it’s a game,” he said. “They’re playing Risk with our lives … (and) with Ukrainian lives … The government says what it wants … (and) pretty much everyone knows it’s lies.”
“I don’t like the risks that were being put under Tucker. I don’t like it. This is not a game. I’ve got grandchildren and I really care about this, and I don’t like the games, and I want people to tell the truth,” he said.
Telling the truth would end the wars ‘today’
“If we told the truth, we could actually stop the wars today,” he asserted. “If we told the truth about Ukraine, if Biden called Putin and said that ‘NATO enlargement, we’ve been trying for 30 years, it’s off. We get it. You’re right. It’s not going to your border; Ukraine should be neutral.’ That war would stop today.”
“If the government of Israel either were told or said, ‘There will be a state of Palestine and we will live peacefully side by side,’ the fighting would stop today. These are basic facts, basic matters of truth that if we actually spoke them, if we actually treated each other like grownups, we would resolve what seems to be these insurmountable crises. They’re not at all insurmountable. They just require a measure of truth,” Sachs said.
World remains in close proximity to annihilation, ‘stay away from the cliff’
The diplomat also contends that since 1945, Americans have been living in a situation where their nation is just one mistake away from causing the potential extinction of humanity.
“The ability to screw things up in this world is very high,” he said, citing the apparent leak of the COVID-19 virus as just one example. This corresponds to “the ability to have a nuclear war even by accident,” which becomes much more likely “when you’re in the face of your opponent and talking about defeating them.”
Americans have been living in such close proximity to potential annihilation for these many decades but “don’t know it, because like everything else, the narrative doesn’t permit it,” he observed. He went on to give an example of how Biden uttered in the fall of 2022 that “we could be on a path to nuclear Armageddon” for which the media excoriated him for “scaring the people.”
He also unpacked a true story about how the world “came within a moment of a full nuclear annihilation” in 1962 when a Soviet naval officer named Vasily Arkhipov intervened to countermand an order by a submarine commander to fire a nuclear torpedo. The commander was under the false impression that a war was happening above the surface and they were under attack. According to U.S. military doctrine at the time, this single nuclear discharge would have triggered “the full force of the U.S. nuclear arsenal” with strikes across the Soviet Union, China and all of the Eastern European countries killing an estimated 700 million people.
“Now I take this not only as a literal event, but as a metaphor for our reality, which is something can always go wrong,” Sachs advised. Therefore, “stay away from the cliff. Stay away from the cliff. This is how close we are. Talk to President Putin, negotiate with China, make a two-state solution to stop the war in the Middle East. Stop carrying on like you run the world, because you don’t.”
conflict
Trump Brings Glimmer Of Hope For Peace In Europe
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Morgan Murphy
As the war in Ukraine rages onward, President-elect Donald Trump brings a glimmer of hope for peace in Europe this Christmas season.
An end to the fighting hinges on three key points: (1) Crimea (2) the Donbas region east of the Dnieper River and (3) NATO membership for Ukraine. Many more issues lurk, but without agreement on these major negotiating points, it is unlikely a peace deal will emerge.
Wars often begin with wild optimism that leads to untenable positions. In 1860, Confederates imagined a “short war,” and after early successes at Fort Sumter and Bull Run thought they would be marching through Philadelphia in a matter of months. In 1941, the Japanese strategized they could knock out the U.S. Pacific fleet, shocking and demoralizing the American public long enough for Japan to consolidate their “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,” capitalizing on resource-rich territories like Southeast Asia, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. In both cases, initial optimism led to eventual disaster.
In 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aimed to seize Kiev and roll over the rest of Ukraine. U.S. intelligence agencies predicted he would be successful. Similarly, after an unexpectedly strong defense, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy vowed to reclaim every inch of land occupied by Russia. Until as recently as this fall, he was touting a “victory plan” to force Moscow to surrender.
Yet, as it tends to do in conflict, the specter of death clarifies the mind. One thousand days of bloodshed in Eastern Europe has washed away initial optimism, giving way to grim realism on both sides. With the war approaching its third year, the biggest recent change in the dynamic is Trump’s landslide election in November.
In a word, Trump’s victory crushed any hopes that America might come charging into the war with air cover and boots on the ground. Out too, are further multi-billion “supplemental Ukraine spending packages.” The American people resoundingly voted to shrink government and cut off the firehose of taxpayer dollars spewing out of Washington, D.C.
Last Wednesday, Trump named Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg as the special envoy to Russia and Ukraine. In the announcement, Trump said of Kellogg, “He was with me right from the beginning! Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!” The battle-hardened warrior and former Fox News analyst (and full disclosure — my boss and colleague at the America First Policy Institute) will no doubt bring massive pressure to bear on both sides.
After the election, it did not take long for all parties to adjust to the new reality. Putin said what Trump publicly said “about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion, deserves attention at least.” Last week, Zelenskyy soberly admitted to Sky News that Ukraine would surrender Crimea, Russia’s critical entry point to the Black Sea.
“He’s been saying that quietly for more than a year,” another prominent Ukrainian politician told me privately this week.
Likewise, European leaders are quietly discussing the most likely scenario: Russia keeps Crimea and the Russian-centric provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Speaking off the record with several former Senate colleagues, the mood seems the same in Washington.
That leaves, of course, the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine. President Joe Biden and his senior-most cabinet membersr loudly and repeatedly promised NATO membership for Ukraine. The problem with that promise was their resounding defeat. The American people feel great sympathy for Ukraine, but that stops short of committing the lives of our youth to defend Ukraine’s borders.
Since at least 2007, Putin has made clear that NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia are non-negotiable for Russia. Though many Western leaders seem to doubt his resolve, Putin has more than backed up his red line with 700,000 Russian casualties. More American jets or long-range missiles are unlikely to change Putin’s calculus.
Short of NATO membership, perhaps we will see a U.N. peacekeeping mission similar to the armistice on the Korean Peninsula in 1953. Ukrainian membership in the European Union may be in the offing as well.
Either way, a new American president and seeming willingness on both sides to negotiate brings with it the hope of peace in the new year.
Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
conflict
Russia’s foreign minister tells Tucker the West must avoid making this ‘serious mistake’
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, published Thursday night, was an 80-minute conversation that provides remarkable insights on war and politics beyond the narratives we are told by the news.
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was posted Thursday night.
If you are interested in whether there will be a world war, why, and indeed whether it has already started, the 80-minute conversation will provide remarkable insights beyond the narratives we are told by the news.
Carlson begins with the question of the moment: Is the U.S. at war with Russia?
Lavrov says no, but that the danger is obvious. NATO and the West, he says, “don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announce the red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again and again. This is a very serious mistake.”
Statements such as this can be dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” Yet Lavrov is simply stating the case. The Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center – the home of “world-leading” U.S./NATO strategic thinking – has admitted that “nudging Russian red lines” has been the gambit of the West for many years.
Lavrov explains the situation conversationally, but with a frankness uncommon from Western diplomats.
He explains that Russia seeks to avoid war, though it remains prepared to fight one.
READ: Putin calls out Biden for ‘escalating’ war in Ukraine right before Trump takes office
“We are ready for any eventuality, but we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations” – to the Ukraine conflict.
It was “Russian propaganda” until recently to speak of this as a U.S./NATO “proxy war” waged by the West against Russia, until Boris Johnson admitted it was a proxy war in an interview last week.
With so many former “conspiracy theories” having come true in the West, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, the tainted and dangerous COVID mRNA injections, and the narrative of the Ukraine war itself, Lavrov’s genial and revealing chat with Carlson reveals a rich seam of information.
He covers the death of Alexei Navalny, the effective suspension of U.S. diplomacy with Russia, the now obvious role of Boris Johnson in destroying peace and prolonging war in Ukraine, along with Russian relations with China and its role in the current Syrian war.
His remarks provide food for thought for an audience ravenous for information. It is understandable that Lavrov’s view of these events would prove controversial, as the denial of the obvious is a basic principle of the liberal-global system which is currently fighting Russia in two theaters of war.
It is a credit to Carlson that he asks Lavrov, at around the one-hour mark, what his opinion is on the question of who is in charge in the United States.
“Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the U.S.?” Carlson asks.
“I wouldn’t guess,” says Lavrov. “I haven’t seen Tony Blinken in four years”.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the chief diplomat of the United States and is effectively Lavrov’s counterpart. That he has not spoken to Lavrov since 2020 is an extraordinary fact in itself, given the nuclear brinkmanship his administration has lately pursued, following a long campaign towards a failed proxy war against Russia.
Lavrov says in these four years all he has had from Blinken is a “few words” outside a G20 meeting, where Blinken astonishingly told the Russians, “Don’t escalate.”
Lavrov described the brief exchange: “I said, we don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia?”
Apparently, Blinken rejoined, “No, no, no, no, it is not, it is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”
Yet it is not only Blinken playing peek-a-boo. Lavrov’s description of the last meeting of the 20 most powerful nations is startling.
“Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish and unbelievable,” he said.
Following this shocking depiction of the state of Western diplomacy, Lavrov moves to the serious business of regime change, saying it has long been U.S. strategy to “make trouble and see if they can fish in the muddy water” afterwards – in Iraq, for example. As for “the adventure in Libya,” he says, “after ruining the state [there] … they went on to leave Afghanistan in very bad shape.”
His summary recalls that of JD Vance, who denounced the last four decades of forever war as “a disaster” in his speech in May, when he asked, “What are the fruits of the last 40 years of American foreign policy? Of course, it’s the disaster in Iraq, it’s the disaster in Afghanistan, it’s Syria, it’s Lebanon, it’s on issue after issue after issue.”
Lavrov was far more polite about the matter, and said simply, “If you analyze the American foreign policy steps – ‘adventures’ … is the right word.”
There is simply no way to do justice to the example set by Russia’s leading diplomat. Of course, he skillfully represents Russian interests, but it is not to collude with him or his nation to note a master at work.
His extraordinary composure and command of the situation contrasts starkly with the near total absence of any diplomacy at all by the U.S. with this most significant strategic rival – or future partner. It is a credit to Carlson that he brings this view to the West, which explains so much of the crises in Ukraine and Syria from a viewpoint that has been canceled in the formerly free world.
If you have 80 minutes to spare you will learn more about the state of the world watching Lavrov than in a year’s consumption of mainstream media. One obvious shock is how impoverished our political system is, that it produces no one of the caliber of our supposed enemies, no one who discusses with cordial directness the naked truth of a near-nuclear crisis.
His sobering analysis can be condensed into one statement, from which it is hoped the red line nudgers will not seek to test. Lavrov warns the game players of the U.S. and NATO:
“They must understand that we are ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call a strategic defeat of Russia.”
This strategic defeat, now impossible in Ukraine, is being pursued right now by Western proxies in Syria. With one war about to end, another has been started. Russian patience is exhausted, and they have committed fully to preventing the takeover of Syria by U.S. and Ukrainian backed “foreign terrorists.”
It is to be hoped that someone will be in charge in a few weeks’ time who will listen, rather than hiding and seeking escalation.
-
COVID-192 days ago
Verdict for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber coming next spring
-
Christopher Rufo1 day ago
America’s Verdict
-
National2 days ago
Trudeau government bans even more guns, wants to send them to Ukraine
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province “rewiring” Alberta’s electricity grid for growth
-
National2 days ago
JD Vance sounds alarm over slew of Canadian church burnings: ‘Anti-Christian bigotry’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Biden admin used banks to spy on Americans’ financial data, targeted Trump supporters: House report
-
International1 day ago
Russiagate Remnants
-
COVID-191 day ago
Is FDA ‘covering for Pfizer’? Court orders agency to release a million more pages of COVID vaccines documents