The United States is in a deep crisis on virtually all levels. Both household political parties have spilled over internal issues to the global arena, intertwining them with global superpowers, making it nearly impossible to establish normal diplomatic ties. While the GOP is Sinophobic, the DNC is clinically Russophobic. This isn't to say the GOP is pro-Russian or the DNC pro-Chinese, although both parties have accused each other of these "crimes". In reality, they simply see the urgency of a supposed long-term threat from China and Russia differently. This inability to separate internal and foreign policies results in a new era of global confrontation, effectively cementing a new Cold War, whether against China or Russia. This further exacerbates internal issues, resulting in a vicious cycle.
Since Obama, some have naively started seeing the GOP as less pro-war, but in reality, this is more of a result of Trump's policies. However, even his policies were hardly anti-war. Trump's presidency was simply based on realpolitik more than ever since the Reagan era. After the (First) Cold War ended, but especially in the post-9/11 era, America spent much of its resources on destroying and pillaging the world. It scooped up and dismantled numerous "noncompliant" regional powers, spending decades on making its massive Military-Industrial Complex more powerful than at any point in US history, including the heyday of the (First) Cold War.
For the rest of the world, the only difference was that the Republicans preferred "boots on the ground", while the DNC was relying on air power (piloted or unmanned) and subterfuge to further the interests of US oligarchy. For the world's population, it made little difference whether US marines, tanks, drones, strategic bombers or jets were killing them. By the time he decided to run for presidency, Trump realized where this runaway train was headed and tried to stop it. This wasn't because of his altruistic convictions or anything of sorts. Simply, Trump was one of the billionaires who benefited greatly from America's endless money printing with no backing and stealing the world's resources in the process.
He wanted to mitigate the side effects of America's imperial overstretch and make the US position in the new multipolar world the best it could've been. America's status as the world's "sole superpower" was unsustainable, but it certainly could've kept the status of "primus inter pares" - "the first among equals".
However, the belligerent oligarchy had other plans. Trump was ousted and "America was back", as President Biden
stated. And indeed, it was back, as we can see in the sharp resumption of global instability. However, the incumbent hardly made any decisions, as his mental health has come under scrutiny. If there ever was any doubt US presidents don't control the political establishment, it's gone, quite possibly forever, as Biden was elected and officially keeps running a country with over 5,000 nuclear weapons. Ironically, it's somewhat relieving that a person of his mental stature (by his own
admission) isn't actually in control.
Yet, the relief fades away soon, as we realize the establishment is refusing to change course.As the DNC is trying to cling on to power while furthering the (neo)imperialist thalassocracy agenda, internal divisions are pushed to extremes, whether it's gun control, abortion laws, race, illegal immigration, etc. The issues piled up over the decades have become grossly politicized and inextricably connected to the interests of political parties and their sponsors, whether it's the media corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex, intelligence cartels, etc. The DNC is using these issues to keep the power, as the final resolution of these problems would take away their main political talking points. In contrast, the GOP realizes these issues will hardly ever be solved and, thus, it tries to live with them, focusing on preserving the status quo or reversing some of the policies enacted by the other side. The result is a major division between "blue" and "red" states.
As federal legislation becomes increasingly delegated to individual states, these divisions are further exacerbated. Political parties can't resolve existing or any new issues, so they try to keep what power they have left in their counties and states. As the states continue to diverge significantly on key issues, the federal center becomes paralyzed while trying to find some middle ground for these polarizing problems. The "red" states want lax gun laws, and stricter abortion and border protection laws, while the blue states want the exact opposite
. This division has become so extreme that Texas, one of the most important US states, is contemplating a secession vote in 2023.According to
The Daily Mail, Texas GOP added a secession referendum to their 2023 platform. They took up the secession issue during the last day of their State Party Convention, also declaring Biden's presidential win illegitimate. The platform has a section titled "State Sovereignty" that reads "Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government.
Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified." Although it's unclear if the GOP is just putting pressure on the federal center under DNC control, or genuinely calling for secession, the die is cast.
America has a choice - it can stop its global aggression and try to resolve mounting internal issues or implode under the weight of its own imperial overstretch.
Reader Comments
Neither side can blame the other, as both have played along with the LIE
Both sides have benefited from that fateful day
Both sides are complicit
In one way or another ALL Americans are responsible, thus a New Investigation may enable be long overdue healing.
NIST confirms its Building 7 report is indefensible — Part 1 of 5: The omitted web stiffeners
Ted Walter May 19, 2022
On August 21, 2008, exactly six years to the day after launching its investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and the nearby World Trade Center Building 7 — a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane that nonetheless fell to the ground at 5:20 PM on 9/11 — the National Institute of Standards and Technology held a press conference to announce the release of its draft report on Building 7. Its report on the Twin Towers had been issued three years earlier.
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, gave prepared remarks and fielded questions for about 50 minutes, then concluded the Q&A session with an unusual admonishment for a scientist to make:
“The public should really, at this point, recognize that science is really behind what we have said.”
Dr. Sunder then stood there in silence as the director of media relations, Ben Stein, wrapped up the briefing.
The thing is, in science we do not simply take people at their word. We judge scientific reports and articles on their merits — i.e., for their ability to explain all of the available evidence. No one should be told to “recognize” the validity of any scientific report. The report should speak for itself.
Case in point: If the investigators at NIST were truly confident of their findings and wanted the public to accept their report as scientifically sound, they should have opened the door wide to scrutiny and made it easy for other engineers to attempt to replicate their analysis. This is how the scientific process works.
But NIST has done exactly the opposite of that since issuing its final report in November 2008. Here are a few examples:
In 2009, after a member of the public submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for NIST’s computer modeling data, NIST classified the data based on the absurd grounds that releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”
Also in 2009, NIST denied a FOIA request for the text of interviews with witnesses who reported explosions inside Building 7, basing its decision on the equally absurd grounds that these interviews “were not directly related to the building failure.” (See page 69.)
On more than one occasion, the information NIST has disclosed in response to FOIA requests has conspicuously omitted drawings of structural elements that are central to its explanation of how the building collapsed.
NIST has continually ignored basic questions posed by outside engineers about decisions made during NIST’s computer modeling — decisions that materially affected the results of its analysis.
When prominent criticism has emerged — for example, the 2016 article in Europhysics News critiquing the NIST report or the 2020 release of the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Building 7 study — NIST has either responded with superficial boilerplate language (see page 44) or has not responded at all.
Indeed, over the past two decades, NIST has rarely, if ever, had to answer criticism of its reports.
But now, finally, NIST’s hand has been forced. It all started two years ago this spring, when ten 9/11 family members, 88 architects and engineers, and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth submitted a request for correction to NIST’s Building 7 report under the Data Quality Act, a law that enables the public to seek correction of information disseminated by federal agencies.
In the request for correction, NIST was asked to revise eight areas of its report that the requesters argued were in violation of the agency’s information quality standards. Implementing the requested corrections would have required NIST to discard its probable collapse sequence (i.e., its theory of how Building 7 collapsed) and develop “a new probable collapse that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence.”
In other words, a controlled demolition.
More...
( Continued at www.ae911truth.org [Link] )
Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
[Link]
If you expect any real change you got to got back to the Constitution of the Republic of Texas. That is, when Texas declared itself an independent, unitary republic, rather than the federal republic as defined in the current US Constitution.
Did you know Houston and Jackson share some history?