The following can be found under Title 16 Elections and Electors, Article 10, 16-602 , Tally and returns,Removal of ballots from ballot boxes; disposition of ballots folded together or excessive ballots; designated margin; hand counts; vote count verification committee.
This is the procedure on how they process hand counted audit results.
This confirms the reported winner.
“If the hand count results in a difference in that race that is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, the electronic tabulation constitutes the official count for that race.”
This next part tells them there is a problem with the vote count. If this happens then we know there is a problem with the vote count and the reported winner may not be the winner. All votes need to be recounted by hand. But they ignore it and continue to do hand counts until the results match the machine count,
In any expanded count of randomly selected precincts, if the randomly selected precinct hand counts result in a difference in any race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, the final hand count shall be extended to include the entire jurisdiction for that race. If the jurisdictional boundary for that race would include any portion of more than one county, the final hand count shall not be extended into the precincts of that race that are outside of the county that is conducting the expanded hand count. If the expanded hand count results in a difference in that race that is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, the electronic tabulation constitutes the official count for that race.
If a final hand count is performed for an entire jurisdiction for a race, the final hand count shall be repeated for that race until a hand count for that race for the entire jurisdiction results in a count that is identical to one other hand count for that race for the entire jurisdiction and that hand count constitutes the official count for that race.
They audit the early voting using the same rules.
If the expanded early ballot manual audit results in a difference for that race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to any of the earlier manual counts for that race, the manual counts shall be repeated for that race until a manual count results in a difference in that race that is less than the designated margin. If at any point in the manual audit of early ballots the difference between any manual count of early ballots is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those ballots
They also eliminated cross jurisdiction audit. This basically means if one jurisdiction count is off, they won’t check other jurisdiction counts. This should trigger a state wide recount, but it doesn’t .
If the jurisdictional boundary for that race would include any portion of more than one county, the final hand count shall not be extended into the precincts of that race that are outside of the county that is conducting the expanded hand count.
*The follow the same rules for the final hand count audit.
Arizona Revised their statutes.
Arizona The Arizona Revised Statutes have been updated to include the revised sections from the 55th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session. Please note that the next update of this compilation will not take place until after the conclusion of the 56th Legislature, 1st Regular Session, which convenes in January 2023.
All legislators that approved the audit procedure currently in place should be held on criminal charges and forced to resign, regardless of party affiliation.
These audits don’t prove who is the winner nor the loser.
The only way voters can have confidence in the results is do a full hand count in all elections.. No short cuts. Hand count every ballot by hand.
No person should be considered the winner until this is done.
Don’t just take my word on it . Look for yourself. source
*Changing the Audit rules so they ignores audit results that suggest the reported winner is not the actual winner is very much like they did in California.
On August 27, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2400 (Quirk, 2020) to make changes to the Risk Limiting Audits pilot program created by AB 2125 (Quirk, 2018). AB 2400 permits a county to conduct a risk-limiting audit on one or more contests fully contained in the county rather than all contests held in the county as was required under AB 2125; deletes the AB 2125 requirement to conduct partial risk-limiting audits for each cross-jurisdictional contest; and extends the sunset date of the pilot program from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023.
They have done the same thing in Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, California, Nevada, , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Connecticut , Rhode Island, Mississippi and Arkansas. I believe in Colorado also.
Is this enough to question the 2020 election results?
Respectfully,
Deplorable Patriot
Here is the full context,
I tried to keep it short but maybe this will help.
C. If the randomly selected races result in a difference in any race that is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, the results of the electronic tabulation constitute the official count for that race. If the randomly selected races result in a difference in any race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, a second hand count of those same ballots and races shall be performed. If the second hand count results in a difference in any race that is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation for those same ballots, the electronic tabulation constitutes the official count for that race. If the second hand count results in a difference in any race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation for those same ballots, the hand count shall be expanded to include a total of twice the original number of randomly selected precincts. Those additional precincts shall be selected by lot without the use of a computer.
D. In any expanded count of randomly selected precincts, if the randomly selected precinct hand counts result in a difference in any race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, the final hand count shall be extended to include the entire jurisdiction for that race. If the jurisdictional boundary for that race would include any portion of more than one county, the final hand count shall not be extended into the precincts of that race that are outside of the county that is conducting the expanded hand count. If the expanded hand count results in a difference in that race that is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those same ballots, the electronic tabulation constitutes the official count for that race.
E. If a final hand count is performed for an entire jurisdiction for a race, the final hand count shall be repeated for that race until a hand count for that race for the entire jurisdiction results in a count that is identical to one other hand count for that race for the entire jurisdiction and that hand count constitutes the official count for that race.
F. After the electronic tabulation of early ballots and at one or more times selected by the chairman of the political parties entitled to continued representation on the ballot or the chairman’s designee, the chairmen or the chairmen’s designers shall randomly select one or more batches of early ballots that have been tabulated to include at least one batch from each machine used for tabulating early ballots and those ballots shall be securely sequestered by the county recorder or officer in charge of elections along with their unofficial tally reports for a post election manual audit. The chairmen or the chairmen’s designers shall randomly select from those sequestered early ballots a number equal to one percent of the total number of early ballots cast or five thousand early ballots, whichever is less. From those randomly selected early ballots, the county officer in charge of elections shall conduct a manual audit of the same races that are being hand counted pursuant to subsection B of this section. If the manual audit of the early ballots results in a difference in any race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to the electronically tabulated results for those same early ballots, the manual audit shall be repeated for those same early ballots. If the second manual audit results in a difference in that race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to the electronically tabulated results for those same early ballots, the manual audit shall be expanded only for that race to a number of additional early ballots equal to one percent of the total early ballots cast or an additional five thousand ballots, whichever is less, to be randomly selected from the batch or batches of sequestered early ballots. If the expanded early ballot manual audit results in a difference for that race that is equal to or greater than the designated margin when compared to any of the earlier manual counts for that race, the manual counts shall be repeated for that race until a manual count results in a difference in that race that is less than the designated margin. If at any point in the manual audit of early ballots the difference between any manual count of early ballots is less than the designated margin when compared to the electronic tabulation of those ballots, the electronic tabulation shall be included in the canvass and no further manual audit of the early ballots shall be conducted.
Since 2020 I hear a lot of talk from the right about democrats cheating in our elections. I hear a lot about mail in voting, ballot harvesting and such. Although there is some evidence that activity does occur, Nobody has actually proved how any of these “cheats’ put Democrats in the winning circle.
I’m not going to discuss any of these “cheats”. I’m going to tell you how the Democrats have been winning. You can ignore what I tell you and do nothing. If that is the case the Democrats will win in 2024, guaranteed.
Understand that when Newsom and almost the entire Democrat line up in California’s most recent elections claim victory when only 30% of the votes have been counted it should be obvious they know something everyone else doesn’t.
Back in 2018 I predicted TRUMP would lose in 2020. I predicted Newsom would win if he was recalled. I predicted Democrats would win in our most recent elections., regardless of who ran for office.
How did I know?
It’s pretty simple. They win because in California the election official is a Democrat and they are using a Risk-Limiting Audit Pilot Program for auditing our elections. The program is not Certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). I’m not even sure if using the system is legal.
After Newsom was first elected he and the Secretary of State did what all winners of a honest election would do and ordered the removal and replacement of all election equipment. Then and the Democrat controlled Assembly authorized the Risk limit program that was to remain in effect until Jan 1, 2021. On the first or second day of the RNC convention Newsom quietly extended the program until Jan 1 2023.
The following comes from California’s Secretary of State’s web page and related sites. All sources listed at end of write up.
California Pilot Program
In 2018, Assembly Bill (AB) 2125 authorized a risk-limiting audit pilot program that will remain in effect until January 1, 2021. Under AB 2125 and beginning with the March 3, 2020, Presidential Primary Election, a county may optionally use risk-limiting audits in lieu of the 1% manual tally. (See, Elec. Code, §§ 15365-15367.)
On August 27, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2400 (Quirk, 2020) to make changes to the Risk Limiting Audits pilot program created by AB 2125 (Quirk, 2018). AB 2400 permits a county to conduct a risk-limiting audit on one or more contests fully contained in the county rather than all contests held in the county as was required under AB 2125; deletes the AB 2125 requirement to conduct partial risk-limiting audits for each cross-jurisdictional contest; and extends the sunset date of the pilot program from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023. These changes address concerns with AB 2125 raised by the working group the Secretary of State convened pursuant to AB 2125 and allows counties to participate in the pilot program without risking a full hand count.
The Secretary of State has promulgated regulations that implement and administer the risk-limiting audit pilot program. T Risk-
Limiting Audit Process in California
The process of conducting risk-limiting audits in California is summarized below. This process is available for public observation.
Public Notice of the Audit
Any county that chooses to participate in the pilot program must provide at least five days public notice. This webpage will list each county that has chosen to participate.
Audit Board Selection
The county elections official will appoint people to review ballot cards and identify voter choices. No fewer than three people will review each ballot, but the same people do not need to review every ballot. Audit boards may be comprised of volunteers from the public and elections office staff. All audit board members must complete and sign a declaration of intent to faithfully discharge audit board duties.
Generation of the Random Seed
Members of the public will be invited to take turns rolling 10-sided dice to generate a random number (or seed). The audit software will use this seed to randomly identify ballots to audit.
Entry of Election Data into the Audit Software
The county elections official will enter information about the election into the audit software that allows the audit software to randomly identify ballots to audit.
Identification of Ballots to Audit
The audit software will determine the number of ballots needed to audit in order to confirm the result of the election to a 95% certainty. The audit software will randomly generate a list of ballots to review.
Ballot Examination
Audit board members will review each ballot selected by the audit software and determine voter choices on all contests being audited. The county elections official will resolve any disagreements among audit board members.
Entry of Voter Choice into the Audit Software
The county elections official will enter determinations of voter markings made by the audit board into the audit software. The audit software will use this information to determine whether the expected result of the election is confirmed by those voter selections.
Statistical Confirmation of Election Results
The audit will continue until the audit software can confirm the results of the election based on the voter choice determinations made by the audit board on the ballots they review. If the results represented on the ballots reviewed do not agree with the election results, the audit software will generate a list of additional ballots to review. This process will continue until either the results of the election are confirmed, or all ballots cast in the election are reviewed.
Reporting of Audit Results
The county elections official will report the results of the risk-limiting audit in the certification of the official canvass of the vote, which is due to the Secretary of State within 30 days of the election. This report will include information about the ballots reviewed and anything unusual that occurred in the audit.
Risk-Limiting Audit Software Tool
All counties participating in the pilot program shall use an RLA software tool provided by the Secretary of State to conduct the audit. The Secretary of State has procured a tool called Arlo for this purpose. Arlo is a web-based tool based on open-source and freely available code that is provided by VotingWorks. VotingWorks is also providing hosting and support services for participating counties.
The difference between a 1% manual tally and a risk-limiting audit:
1% Manual Tally:Elections officials conduct a public manual tally of 1% of all ballots tabulated on a voting system during an election, including vote-by-mail ballots. This is a public process of manually tallying votes in 1% of the precincts, selected at random by the elections official, and in one precinct for each race not included in the randomly selected precincts. This procedure is conducted during the official canvass to verify the accuracy of the automated count. In a regular election year, counties hand count tens of thousands of ballots as part of the 1% manual tally. This process does not provide statistical evidence that the machine tally found the true winner for each contest on the ballot. This process also does not describe what should be done if the results of the manual tally do not agree with the election results. (See, Elec. Code, § 15360.)
Risk-Limiting Audit: Elections officials manually tally randomly selected ballots, stopping as soon as it is implausible that a full recount would show a different result than the ballots reviewed. As long as it is statistically plausible that a full recount would overturn the result, the risk-limiting audit continues to examine more ballots. Risk-limiting audits determine precisely how much hand-counting is necessary to confirm election results to a given level of confidence. The audit will continue until the audit software can confirm the results of the election based on the voter choice determinations made by the audit board on the ballots they review. If the results represented on the ballots reviewed do not agree with the election results, the audit software will generate a list of additional ballots to review. This process will continue until either the results of the election are confirmed, or all ballots cast in the election are reviewed.The closer the contest, the more ballots that must be examined to havestrong evidence – because fewer errors can change the outcome. The higher the desired confidence (e.g., 99% versus 90%), the more ballots that must be examined – because higher confidence requires more evidence. State law requires a 5% risk limit, or 95% confidence in the result of the election reported by the voting system. (See, Elec. Code, § 15367).”
Lets review a few key points mentioned.
‘”This process does not provide statistical evidence that the machine tally found the true winner for each contest on the ballot”
No it tells us if we should recount all the ballots.
“This process also does not describe what should be done if the results of the manual tally do not agree with the election results. (See, Elec. Code, § 15360.)”
If the count doesn’t agree with the election results then recount all the votes. Obviously.
The auditor For each targeted contest, will enter the contest name, number of winners, number of votes allowed, the name and votes for each candidate, and total number of ballots cast. Using randomly selected ballots, Arlo attempts to find a solution that validates the winners within the risk limit. It doesn’t validate actual total vote count. If Arlo produces results that tell us if a full recount would overturn the election results, they ignore it and continue using sample ballots until they can validate the reported winner..
Still confused?
They haven’t hidden what they are doing. They put it in writing multiple times on the California’s Secretary of State’s web page
“As long as it is statistically plausible that a full recount would overturn the result, the risk-limiting audit continues to examine more ballots”
“The audit software will determine the number of ballots needed to audit in order to confirm the result of the election to a 95% certainty”
“The audit will continue until the audit software can confirm the results of the election based on the voter choice determinations made by the audit board on the ballots they review. If the results represented on the ballots reviewed do not agree with the election results, the audit software will generate a list of additional ballots to review. This process will continue until either the results of the election are confirmed, or all ballots cast in the election are reviewed.”
Have you figured it out yet?
Since they are telling the world what they are doing it’s hard to say the Democrats are cheating. To be more accurate, they have outsmarted the right, in plain site.
What’s obvious is that nobody is paying attention.
What are the chances If we were to hand count all the ballots in states that use Arlo we would see a different winner?
The simple truth,
Risk-limiting audits consider contest margins and errors discovered by the audit, yielding a minimum of missing incorrect outcome, called a “risk limit.” You start with the assumption that there must be an incorrect outcome, and you audit until you disprove it or correct it. If you go through the first round and have found enough discrepancies that haven’t met the risk limit, then you conduct a second round, and continue conducting rounds until we meet the risk limit. The ballots are compared with the sample of the reported winner instead of the voting system.
The main function is to disprove the possibility of a inaccurate vote count, and find a way to validate the reported winner. So if, in fact. the vote count is actually inaccurate and the reported winner is not the actual winner there isn’t any possible way of finding out. This doesn’t validate the actual results. It’s a “work around'” from proving the vote count is correct and the reported winner is actually the winner.Basically whoever has the most votes, legit or not, at the time of the audit, is guaranteed to be the winner every time.
If the election official is a Democrat, they will not run the audit until the Democrat candidate has more reported votes then the opposition.
If you haven’t noticed already, Democrats have been changing their position on the systems they swore were secure while pushing to switch to risk limiting audits.
All the chaos, dice rolling events, talk about ballot security, procedure on how ballot boxes are handled, legal voters, Russia influencing in our elections, more security at polling stations , voter ID, etc. is just fluff and to keep your mind occupied. It creates a false sense of security while providing a distraction from the Risk limited audits.
What should be important concerns are now irrelevant.
Legit votes no longer matter in the California and states that use risk limiting audits. If you want to win the election just be sure you have more ballots(legit or not) counted at the time of the audit. Don’t forget to have a couple million ballots on standby when the opposition discovers a box of “lost ballots“.
Don’t take my word on it .
Here is what the founder of Voting Works has to say about risk limit audits.
You don’t run a risk-limiting audit because there was a problem,” Ben Adida, executive director of nonprofit Voting Works, said Tuesday in a webinar. “You run a risk-limiting audit to build more confidence in the outcome.
*When elections are legal and legit and all the ballots are counted, the confidence in the outcome comes naturally. It’s not necessary to build confidence.
There you have it. I have shown you the way. Now you know how Democrats have been ‘“winning“.
You have several options.
What are you going to do about it?
*You might ask the question “In California some republicans won in the midterms, how did that happen?’ It’s because what most people don’t understand is that Democrats have control of the state. That doesn’t mean the majority of voters are Democrats. Republicans far outnumber the democrats as far as being actual living people. What’s important to Democrats is to keep control. Some areas in California would be virtually impossible convincing people a Democrat won. It would draw so much attention that it would make people question the validity of all official seats the democrats won. I’m confident that if we counted every ballot that was a legal vote, Republicans would win every seat in the state.
Additional information, facts and sources.
Besides California what is the link between the Democrats, the Voting Works, other states and our elections?
What states use Arlo?
On Voting Works website they list the following. Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, California, Nevada, Washington, Michigan , Pennsylvania , Connecticut , Rhode Island
Keep in mind that there are other states that are not mentioned that use their product . Mississippi and Arkansas use their product. The minimum being 12 states that use their product.
For example ,“Arkansas Begins 2020 Election-Audit Pilot Program December 1, 2020 at 8:50 AM CST Source
All States that use Arlo minus North Carolina went to Biden in 2020
In 2020 battle ground states were Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada
At least 5 out of the 7 battleground states use Arlo
What is to the election officials party affiliation in these states?
Washington/strong>- In 2020, REP- Rino by GOP current DEM
Were there problems with the vote count in these states?
Were any of these states a key factor for election results in 2020?
Is it just a coincidence that Democrats always win in states that democrats are the election officials
About Voting Works
All this information is available to the public
Founder Ben Addida (Leftist)
He is the creator and maintainer of the open source Helios Voting System. Adida is also the Executive Director of the non-profit Voting Works which builds open and publicly accountable election technology.
Donors Government grants and contracts, CISA and the NSF funded Voting Workswith in 2019 and 2020. Source
*The legality of branches of the federal government funding/influencing our elections should be questioned.
Donations from foundations , Democracy Fund, Schmidt Futures, and New Venture Fund are foundations that have funded Voting Works.
I won’t get into their top individual donors. I will mention that one being former Administrator at the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) (Obama apointee) The following link will list top donors. Source
Is Voting Works certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)? No
Hardware available for purchase, VxAdmin – EMS & BoD $2,000 VxCentralScan – Central Scanner $2,750 VxMark – Ballot Marking Device $1,750 VxScan – Precinct Scanner $2,500
I don’t know the Actual price for their services
From their News Room
Nov 14, 2021 Updated Jul 6, 2022
“How one company came to control San Francisco’s elections” “Bennett believes his long relationship with Arntz fills an important need for veteran leadership in a market lacking it. “The Elections Commission doesn’t know anything about California elections,” Bennett told The Examiner. “Most people in San Francisco don’t care about voting.”
November 25, 2020
“VotingWorks Partners with Security Compass to Secure Risk-Limiting Audit Software Arlo Ben Adida “Arlo, assessed by Security Compass, was used to support Georgia’s full hand-count audit. Arlo, a secure and open-source election audit tool developed byVotingWorks, received high marks in a recent third-party security assessment. Arlo was a key component of the state of Georgia’s risk-limiting audit (RLA) in mid-November, and is the only software of its kind, allowing any state to carry out a risk-limiting audit.” Source
December 1, 2020 at 8:50 AM CST
“Arkansas Begins 2020 Election-Audit Pilot Program Source
December 5, 2018
Ben Adida “Today, we’re excited to announce that the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) has agreed to become our host organization while we apply for our standalone non-profit status. Check out their announcement. This means VotingWorks is collaborating closely with the CDT’s experienced team to ramp up operations and begin in earnest the development of affordable, secure, open-source voting machines for use in US public elections. It also means that Voting Works can now accept tax-deductible donations by way of CDT.”
“The Center for Democracy & Technology is the ideal partner for us. They’ve been instrumental to most critical technology policy debates for the last 25 years. They’ve elevated the discussion around privacy and personal data control, security and surveillance, free speech online, and, of course, election security. They’ve done so in a uniquely non-partisan way, because democracy is non-partisan. We’re humbled and proud to be working with them.” Source
November 14, 2019
Ben Adida “Voting Works is now a recognized 501(c)(3) public-benefit corporation. We are incredibly thankful to the Center for Democracy and Technology that incubated us over the last year. And we want to tell you a little bit more about our governance structure.”
“Voting Works was founded by me, Ben Adida, and Matt Pasternack in November 2018. I serve as Executive Director and lead product/engineering, and Matt runs operations. Together, we answer to the Board, which is composed of me and two wonderful individuals: John Lilly and Ryan Merkley.”
“John Lilly was one of our first champions. His experience developing products in mission-driven companies, both for- and non-profit, is second to none. He was a General Partner at Greylock, and before that he was Mozilla’s CEO. He sits on the board of a number of exciting product-focused startups, as well as on the board of Code For America, an organization I deeply respect and look up to as a model govtech non-profit.
“Ryan Merkley is Chief of Staff at Wikimedia, before that CEO at Creative Commons. He brings unparalleled experience in non-profit operations and governance, especially around the creation of open-source-based movements. I had the pleasure of working with him when we were both at Mozilla.”Source
*Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is Soros Funded Source
*Lilly left Greylock in January 2019 to dedicate himself more to activism, explaining “it’s crystal clear that 2019 & 2020 are crucially important years — certainly the most important time in a generation, but maybe much longer than that.” Code For America- Newsom gave access/control to California’s DMV, Identification and voting information to Code for America after he took office.
“Colorado takes one final step to verify the vote count. Here’s how an audit works.” “Counties with older systems that don’t read or export a voting record use a ballot-polling risk-limiting audit. This audit performs the same process, only the ballots are compared with the sample of the reported winner instead of the voting system,”
““You don’t run a risk-limiting audit because there was a problem,” Ben Adida, executive director of nonprofit Voting Works, said Tuesday in a webinar. “You run a risk-limiting audit to build more confidence in the outcome.””
“Risk-limiting audits consider contest margins and errors discovered by the audit, yielding a minimum of missing incorrect outcome, called a “risk limit.”
““You start with the assumption that there must be an incorrect outcome, and you audit until you disprove it or correct it,” Rudy said. “If we go through the first round and have found enough discrepancies that we haven’t met the risk limit, then we conduct a second round, and continue conducting rounds until we meet the risk limit.” source
From Influence Watch
“Voting Works is a left-of-center non-profit provider of voting machines and open-source election verification software. In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it would partner with VotingWorks to pilot the use of its vote verification software in six battleground states during the November 2020 election. In April 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, VotingWorks announced it would be providing technological assistance to states and local jurisdictions seeking to scale-up voting by mail opportunities.
Voting works was created within and incubated by the left-leaning Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). CDT’s major donors include large left-of-center foundations, including George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society, the Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. “
” An April 2020 news release announced Voting Works was building VxMail, a set of tools to help implement and deploy vote-by mail with services such as ballot printing, envelope stuffing, mailing, ballot receipt, signature verification, and ballot tabulation.VxMail is designed to assist jurisdictions that previously had only a few hundred ballots to deal with manually, but now may have thousands or tens of thousands” source
*Interesting fact- Calif has at least 24,000 precincts. They do a hand count audit of just 1 precinct
Just to be clear I do not consider myself politically aligned with any politician in DC. I am a flag waving, stand up for the for the flag type of person. This write up is only to provide the results of my unbiased research. The results of my search for the truth. You may not like my findings. Understandable. Nor do I. Please fact check my work. This is one of the few times I hope I’m wrong.
What’s important is that people understand the situation today. I start of giving a brief review of the history between Ukraine and Russia after the collapse of USSR.
I give my opinion at the end of the history review. Some won’t like it but just remember, it’s just my opinion.
It’s important that people know the correct history but what really matters to me the most is if you read the section after the history review. So if you don’t want read my understanding of the history, Just scroll down to where it says Today.
Does the following sound like people that are maliciously invading a country?
Putin,
“I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic.
I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly.
We want those who seized and continue to hold power in Kiev to immediately stop hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will lie entirely on the conscience of Ukraine’s ruling regime.”
“During its 518th sitting, the Federation Council gave its consent to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation outside of the territory of the Russian Federation.”
“The upper chamber of parliament received a corresponding request from the President of the Russian Federation, Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko said.”
“Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation – Head of the Main Military-Political Directorate of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel General Nikolai Pankov read out the request of the head of state.
In keeping with the Federation Council Rules of Procedure, the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, and the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs held a joint meeting to review the request submitted by the President of the Russian Federation, and the Council of the Chamber also met for this purpose.
The chairs of the three committees, Andrei Klishas, Viktor Bondarev and Grigory Karasin, were the rapporteurs on the item.
Andrei Klishas said that “the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Lugansk People’s Republic were ratified on 22 February 2022, signed by the President of the Russian Federation and came into force. “These treaties provide for the protection of the rights of citizens living on the DPR and LPR territory, establishing a legal framework for the presence of the Russian military on these territories as may be necessary to maintain peace in the region. Therefore, the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, together with the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security and the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs decided to recommend that the Federation Council grant its consent to the President of the Russian Federation to use the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation outside of the territory of the Russian Federation based on the universally recognized principles and norms of international law.”
Taking the floor, Viktor Bondarev reminded the senators that under the ratified treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, either side may grant the other the right to have its armed forces build, use and improve military infrastructure and military bases on its territory for the sake of security of the state parties.
Adopting the resolution is a logical step for protecting the people, as well as safeguarding the interests of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, Grigory Karasin pointed out.
Deputy speakers of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev and Yury Vorobyov delivered their remarks during the discussion.
Konstantin Kosachev pointed out that by taking this decision the senators seek to avert a full-scale war. “It enables the President of the Russian Federation to ultimately take all the necessary steps to ensure peace in the region.”
Yury Vorobyov said that he was confident this step would be enough to stop the war in Donbass.
“The Federation Council’s decision is designed to establish peace and stop the bloodshed and the shelling of civilians. This will contribute to bringing life back to normal and ensure their safety,” Valentina Matvienko summed up the discussion.
“The senators unanimously supported the adoption of a resolution to this effect.”
As much as the media in the west and the nations leaders would like you to think, decisions are not made by a single person. Placing sanctions on all these people because they recognized the sovereignty of 2 regions is straight out of the NAZI handbook. Where is a law that says recognizing sovereignty is illegal? You won’t find one.
Why is Ukraine allowed to have its independence and Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) or Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) are not?
As you are reading this protesters are raging in Ukraine. Not because they support their current government.
How many people actually know the history between Ukraine and Russia?
After the USSR collapsed the USA poured tons of money into Russia. The Clinton administration gave them all our technology. Russia was now our friends. The Cold War was over. The citizens of Russia voted for democracy over communism. We won. I remember it well. I was so happy that I spent that summer taking LSD daily. It was in December 1991. Metallica just played in front of 1.6 million people in Moscow 9/28/91. I wasn’t 10 years out of high school I had already been kicked out of college because my friend and I thought it would be funny dressing up like terrorist and run through the dorms we were kicked out of screaming Allahu Akbar. I had already ran my first nightclub and restaurant into the ground. And was currently a kitchen manger/chef working for this mobster named Tony.
After the summer of dropping LSD daily I lived in the welthy side of Santa Rosa, Calif. for awhile. A friend and and I would find ourselves spending a summer sitting in lawn chairs on this grassy area by the 7-11. We would sit there and people would bring us beer. That’s all we did all day. People we didn’t even know would give us a case of beer and watch us drink. We were both living with our girlfriends at the time. We would wake up, go to our chairs and drink. Stumble home sometime in the evening. Good times, Stupid, wasted good times.
It was around 1993-94 when the USA help negotiate nukes Ukraine had taken with them when the USSR had collapsed. Ukraine wasn’t stableenough. The USA was able to convince Ukraine return them to Russia. A treaty was signed and everything was going well.
“The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The treaty prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one anther’s country respectively, and declaring war. Ukraine announced its intention not to renew the treaty in September 2018.”
“The Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet refers to three bilateral treaties between Russia and Ukraine signed on 28 May 1997 whereby the two countries established two independent national fleets, divided armaments and bases between them, and set forth conditions for basing of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. The treaty was supplemented by provisions in the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, which was signed three days later.”
“The Soviet Black Sea Fleet that was headquartered in the Crimean Peninsula at the time, was partitioned between Russia (81.7%) and Ukraine (18.3%). In exchange, Russia agreed to pay $526 million as a compensation for its part of the divided fleet.”
“Ukraine agreed to lease Crimean naval facilities to Russia for 20 years until 2017, with an automatic 5 years renewal option. Russia would pay Ukraine $97 million annually for leasing Crimean bases. This payment was deducted from the cost of Russian gas provided and billed to Ukraine.The basing rules were set in a status of forcesagreement, namely Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of the Stationing of the Black Sea Fleet [BSF] on the territory of Ukraine.The treaty also allowed Russia to maintain up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes on the Crimean Peninsula.”
“A fourth agreement, the Kharkiv Pact, was signed on 21 April 2010 and extended the lease until 2042 (with possibility of renewal for an additional five years) in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas.”
Russia didn’t invade Crimea, they were already legally there.
In Feb 2014,
Thousands of protesters advanced towards parliament, led by activists with shields and helmets in response to legally elected President Yanukovych’s sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU). They occupied government buildings throughout the country. They overthrew the government and forced a the legally elected president to flee the country. They changed the form of government and replaced the legally elected president. Then they put out warrants for arrest for the political opposition. After threats of violence the forced the Ukrainian parliament vote which led a decision to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0 (out of the parliament’s 450 members) . Yanukovych said that this vote was illegal and possibly coerced, and asked Russia for help. Russia considered the overthrow of Yanukovych to be an illegal coup, and did not recognize the interim government. Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) or Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) didn’t want to be part of the rogue government. They had elections which resulted in the majority wanting independence. These 2 regions just like Crimea tried to have their independence. The newly formed government wouldn’t let them have it. They found themselves under constant attack. They asked for help. Putin helped. America should have also helped. America turned its back on their friends and democracy. America backed the people that overthrew the government. Ukraine declared Russia the enemy and here we are today.
Put it this way. How would you feel if Jan 6 the protesters overthrew the government and changed our form of government, put warrens out on political opposition and made Trump president? Would you back Trump?
If you cannot support Trump and don’t agree with him being made president because a bunch of protesters overthrew the government then you shouldn’t be accepting Ukraine’s current leadership and government.
Overthrowing your government, making up your own government , replacing a elected president is not democracy. So why would the USA ignore democracy and support far right nationalist insurrectionist?
The treaty that was signed after the nukes were returned to Russia stated all parties had guarantee to be sure Ukraine kept it’s sovereignty. That meant protecting them from invasion. When the government was overthrown Russia and the USA failed at keeping protecting Ukraine. They should have intervened before the government was overthrown. At least Putin stepped up when asked for help. The former communist stands up for democracy and the USA turned it’s back. The treaties they had were with the old regime. The current regime in Ukraine should be removed. That’s exactly what Putin is going to do. Sorry, Putin has the moral high ground.
Today
Let me ask you a few questions,
What do you call it when a nation intentionally destroyed the economy of another nation , then goes in to that country to “aid and assist” and buys all the debt, properties that local banks took ownership because property owners defaulted on their loans, all the bonds, all the bankruptcy shares, all the shares of businesses that are surviving?
What if they buy everything they could while granting new loans to people so they could rebuild their home or business? Issued loans to the local government so they can rebuild their schools, hospitals, police stations?
What if they made themselves the only source of financial assistance?
What if they controlled who can own a business? Who a person can send money to? How people spend their money? Regulated the trade? Take money from private citizens? Control their bank accounts?
What if they tried to hide their actions?
What if they used a third party to do all the buys, loans and everything else I mentioned?
What if all the was done by a third party bank?
What if they owned part of that third party bank?
What if they were on the board of the third party bank and took part in any decision making?
They would essentially making the nation receiving aid financially dependent on the other nation and so much more. Would you consider doing this to a nation an abuse of power and a crime?
I think we would all agree that this is not acceptable behavior. Intentionally destroying the economy of a nation is fairly aggressive behavior. Nations destroy other nations economies all the time. But they are usually at war with each other. That’s actually incorrect. Some nations are constantly attacking other nations economies. But that’s a different kind of situation.
What I’m talking about is a nation that offers support to a developing nation and while in the process of “saving/fixing the developing nation” they take advantage of their entrusted position and take everything of value from that nation.
Not just a single nation but a group of nations doing this to a single developing nation.
A group of nations that to some represents the majority of the developed world.
This is an example of “Tyranny of the majority.” A possible outcome for a democracy.
You may not see it but this is the sort of situation we are in today. Please fact check my work. This is one of the few times I hope I made a mistake.
Although I provide factual information with sources, in the end, it’s just my opinion. Take the information and dray your own conclusions. Lets get into it.
Since 2/21/2022 the media has been hard at it informing the public about sanctions placed on Russia. How much damage these sanctions are doing to Russia. How Russia deserves these sanctions because they invaded Ukraine. That’s not what I’m going to be talking about. Sanctions will be part of it but I’ll be talking about their effect on Ukraine. The USA role along with the G7 nations and other nations involved.
Most of the sanctions were created when Obama was president. They recycle the same sanctions with a new date with more people, banks, etc. Some have been active since 2014. Some don’t become active until 3/26/2022.
As far as the sanctions impact on Ukraine goes. There shouldn’t be any. The sanctions are to punish Russia, not Ukraine. This is what we have been told. The sanctions are to “teach Russia a lesson”. That should make perfect sense. But that isn’t the case.
On 2/21/2022 Putin recognized Donetsk and Luhansk Regions. The following is what the White House had to say. Keep in mind that this Executive Order (EO) is supposed to be a “get back” on Putin . “Executive Order to Impose Costs for President Putin’s Action to Recognize So-Called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.
If Russia was the target for this EO, they missed. The EO puts more restrictions on Ukraine. It restricts people like you or myself from investing in Ukraine. It restricts us from giving money to business owners that are going out of business. It prohibits us from lending any aid to any business, including family owned businesses.
If we have any contracts, investments, business partnerships, business ownership, property ownership or bank accounts, we have until March 3/23/2022 to cut ties and clear out of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions in Ukraine. . All American banks, financial institutions and corporations are just as restricted as you and I. American banks cannot issue loans, American Hedge Funds can’t invest, Big corp cannot expand into Ukraine. The EO prohibits any funding for commercial use in Ukraine.
FEBRUARY 21, 2022
President Putin’s Action to Recognize So-Called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics
Today’s E.O. prohibits:
STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
Today, President Biden signed an Executive Order (E.O.) to respond to President Putin’s action to purportedly recognize the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR and LNR) as “independent” states. President Putin’s action contradicts Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements, refutes Russia’s claimed commitment to diplomacy, and undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
This E.O. is distinct from the swift and severe economic measures we are prepared to issue with Allies and partners in response to a further Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are continuing to closely consult with Ukraine and with Allies and partners on next steps and urge Russia to immediately deescalate.
New investment in the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine by a United States person, wherever located;
The importation into the United States, directly or indirectly, of any goods, services, or technology from the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine;
The exportation, re exportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine;
And any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be covered by these prohibitions if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
The E.O. also provides authority to impose sanctions on persons determined:
To operate or have operated since the date of the order in the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine;
To be or have been since the date of the order a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of an entity operating in the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine;
To be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;
Or to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
The Department of the Treasury is issuing six General Licenses to ensure that humanitarian and other related activity can continue in these regions:
The purpose of this E.O. is to deny Russia the chance to profit from its blatant violations of international law. These actions are not directed at the people of Ukraine or the Ukrainian government.
Treasury’s General Licenses are designed to support the innocent people who live in the so-called DNR and LNR regions who did not have a choice in Russia’s destabilizing and illegitimate actions today.
The licenses allow a short-term wind down of activities, as well as for the export to the regions of food, medicine and medical devices, and ensure personal remittances can continue to flow.
The licenses also allow telecommunications and internet services to remain operational, and mail
services to continue.
The licenses allow international organizations to be able to provide aid to the people in these two regions.
The United States will not hesitate to use its authorities to target those supporting efforts to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This authority provides the United States with the flexibility to impose similar restrictions on any other regions of Ukraine as appropriate.
Here is the actual EO from Biden
Executive Order on Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine
FEBRUARY 21, 2022
•
PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, and expanded by Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014, and Executive Order 13662 of March 20, 2014, and relied on for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13685 of December 19, 2014, and Executive Order 13849 of September 20, 2018, finding that the Russian Federation’s purported recognition of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) or Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) regions of Ukraine contradicts Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements and further threatens the peace, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Accordingly, I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) The following are prohibited:
(i) new investment in the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine or such other regions of Ukraine as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State (collectively, the “Covered Regions”), by a United States person, wherever located;
(ii) the importation into the United States, directly or indirectly, of any goods, services, or technology from the Covered Regions;
(iii) the exportation, re exportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the Covered Regions; and
(iv) any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 2. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to operate or have operated since the date of this order in the Covered Regions;
(ii) to be or have been since the date of this order a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of an entity operating in the Covered Regions;
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 2 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 5. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 6. (a) The unrestricted immigrant and non immigrant entry into the United States of non citizens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 2 of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or non immigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, determines that the person’s entry would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate, so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives.
(b) The Secretary of State shall implement this authority as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.
(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this order as it applies to the entry of non citizens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish.
(d) Such persons shall be treated by this section in the same manner as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 7. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, expanded in Executive Orders 13661 and 13662, and further expanded by this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 2 of this order.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(b) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “non citizen” means any person who is not a citizen or non citizen national of the United States; and
(e) the term “region of Ukraine” includes the land territory in that region as well as any maritime area over which sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction is claimed based on purported sovereignty over that land territory or area.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, expanded in Executive Orders 13661 and 13662, and further expanded by this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 2 of this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, re delegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All executive departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 11. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 21, 2022.
One of the six general licenses that came with the EO.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL Executive Order of February 21, 2022 Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine GENERAL LICENSE NO. 17 Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving the So-called Donetsk People’s Republic or Luhansk People’s Republic Regions of Ukraine (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) of February 21, 2022 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) or Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) regions of Ukraine, including the divestiture or transfer to a non-U. S. person of a U.S. person’s share of ownership in any per-February 21, 2022 investment located in the DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine, and the winding down of operations, contracts, or other agreements in effect prior to February 21, 2022 involving the exportation, re exportation, sale, or supply of goods, services, or technology to, or importation of any goods, services, or technology from, the DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine, are authorized through 12:01 am. eastern daylight time, March 23, 2022. (b) This general license does not authorize any transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to E.O. of February 21, 2022 unless separately authorized.
Andrea M. Gacki Director Office of Foreign Assets Control D
G7 nations along with several other nations(around 30) have similar sanctions that we have in the USA.
The sanctions creates more hardship on citizens in Ukraine. It isolates these regions from the west . Limiting their options to develop their country. If they cannot keep their businesses open then they can’t pay back their bank loans. The bank ends up owning their business, property. Here is example of how petty they are being.
Perhaps someone in Ukraine drives a taxi and they need tires for their vehicle. I would be happy to pay for tires to keep that person in business. But the sanction won’t allow it. The US government desire control all funding from the USA they have actually taken control of the Go Fund Me Ukraine Humanitarian Fund. Just Google it.
The sanctions literally restrict investors from the free world while at the same time eliminates the competition for nations like China to come in and invest in local businesses, buy securities, loan money, etc.
By not allowing aid and investments into Ukraine Businesses, workforce, production and industry they are essentially “killing” Ukraine’s economy.
They cannot use the excuse “Russia has control of these regions” because Ukrainians like Burisma located in Kylv, Ukraine still own properties and have investments in these regions.
They are one of the top natural gas producers in, Ukraine. Burisma is owned by Ukrainian oligarchMykola Zlochevsky through his company Brociti Investments Limited.
Subsidiaries
Burisma Services
Aldea
Esko-Pivnich
Persha Ukrainska Naftogazova Kompaniya
GasOilInvest
KUB-Gas
Naftogaz Garant
Naftogazopromyslova geologiya
Pari
Nadragas
Nadragasvydobuvannya
SystemOilEngineering
Tehnokomservis
“Burisma was founded in 2002.consolidation of the Burisma Group took place mainly in 2006 and 2007.It became a major shareholder of Sunrise Energy Resources, a Delaware Corporation”
“Burisma’s primary operations are in Ukraine, supplemented by activities in Germany, Mexico, Italy, and Kazakhstan. It holds 35 gas production licenses in Ukraine in the Dnieper-Donets, Carpathian, and Azov–Kuban Basins. Exploration and production activities are carried out at eight sites in five regions. Burisma also provides natural gas well services, including hydraulic fracturing. Burisma plans to build a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) plant in harkiv with a capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year.
In 2016, Burisma was the second largest privately owned natural gas producer in Ukraine after DTEK,accounting for 26% of all natural gas produced by privately owned companies and more than 5% of total gas production in Ukraine. According to the company, it produced 1.3 billion cubic meters (4.6×1010)cubic feet) of natural gas in Ukraine in 2018.
In Kazakhstan, the company has provided drilling servicesto KazMunayGas and its subsidiaries, including at the Urikhtau gas field.In Italy, Burisma develops three geothermal powerprojects in partnership with Gesto Investimento e Gestão.
If Burisma sounds familiar it’s because Joe Biden’s son Hunter was on the Burisma Board of directors back in 2014.
If there is any connection, that’s for you to find out.
To give you an idea what’s at stake in Ukraine, the country has approximately 5% of the world’s mineral resources. Over 20,000 deposits of 194 known minerals can be found in Ukraine. Of these deposits discovered, 7,800 deposits of over 90 hold important industrial minerals. Ukraine has one of the leading reserves and extraction of manganese, iron, and non-metallic raw material. The deposits can be found in different regions across the country. Here are some of the major natural resources of Ukraine.
Coal is a main fossil fuel raw material whose reserve can meet the demand for energy and industry in Ukraine for the next 500 years. It is the largest hydrocarbon fossil resource of Ukraine, accounting for 95% of the fossil resource. Ukraine has the world’s 7th largest and Europe’s 2nd largest coal reserve at about 34 billion tons. Other sources have estimated the reserves to be approximately 115 billion tons. The country’s major coal reserves are located in Donbas Basin and Lviv-Volyn Basin. The two deposits hold 95% of coal reserves in Ukraine, with Donbas holding 92.4% and Lviv-Volyn Basin 2.5%. Over 30% of the reserves in the two basins are cooking coal. Producing about 100 million tons of coal annually, these reserves are expected to last for about 570 years. Some coal deposits are also found in Dnieper Basin. The majority of the coal produced in Ukraine is for domestic use, especially for electricity production. Coal accounts for about 44% of the fuel for energy generating companies, making it the second-most important fuel after nuclear.
Oil And Natural Gas
Ukraine was estimated to hold over 1.1 trillion cubic meters of natural gas reserves in 2004, ranking it 26th among the countries with proven gas reserves before Crimea was annexed. It is also estimated to hold over 135 million tons of oil and 3.7 billion tons of shale oil reserves. The country also has reserves of gas condensate of about 80,000 tons. Several oil and gas fields have been exploited years and some are almost exhausted. Gas, alongside oil fields, are mainly located in three provinces of Ukraine. The major field is the Dnieper-Donetsk which was discovered in the 1950s.
Iron Ore
Ukraine, Australia, and Russia have the biggest proportion of iron ore deposits in the world. Each of the three countries has over 10% of the world’s iron ore reserves. Ukraine alone has an estimated 27 billion tons of iron ore reserves and ranks 6th in global iron ore production. There are about 88 deposits across the country. These rich iron ores deposits are mainly located in Kremenchuk, Kerch, Mariupol, Belozersky, and Kryvyi Rih. Of the 88 deposits, 60 are located in Kryvyi Rih basin which has a reserve of about 19 billion tons. The Kremenchuk basin has about 4 billion tons while Belozersky holds 2.5 billion tons. A large portion of the iron ore deposits has been extracted by surface mining. Ukraine mainly exports its iron ore to China.
Manganese Ore
Ukraine is in the top ten producers of manganese ore in the world and has the largest manganese ore reserve in Europe. In 2010, the country produced over 736,000 metric tons of marketable manganese ores and concentrates, of which some 121,000 metric tons were exported and the rest used domestically to produce ferroalloys. The major reserves are located in the southern part of Ukraine. The Nikopol basin holds about a third of the explored reserves in the country while the Veliko-Tokmakskoye field holds 66% of the explored reserves.
Other Major Resources Of Ukraine
Ukraine holds the largest titanium reserve in Europe. There are 15 known deposits in different parts of the country, of which four are being explored. These deposits are situated in Kharkiv, Kiev, Donetsk, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. The country also has the largest uranium deposit in Europe and accounts for 1.8% of the world’s uranium deposit. The proven reserves contain estimated 45,600 tons of uranium. Ukraine has 300 deposits of graphite, containing more than 1 billion tons or 20% of the world’s graphite. Only China has more graphite reserves (26% of the total world’s graphite reserve). Other major resources include mercury (2% of the world, 30,000 tons, ranking it 5th after Spain, China, Algeria, and Kyrgyzstan), potash salt, gold, building material, ornamental stones, and hydro power resources.
*As far as sanction impact of Ukraine and Russia agriculture check out
Revisiting Ukraine, Russia, and Agricultural Commodity Markets
The west leadership’s desire to own Ukraine’s natural resources is a possibility
But why would they deny the opportunity for citizens and investors from their own nation a chance to invest in Ukraine? Why give the amount of military aid the USA has given to Ukraine? Nations don’t help other nations simply because “it’s the right thing to do”. There is always a price. Why just give it to countries like China?
Not just China but approximately 165 other nations in the world?
What I found it that they did deny the opportunity for investors from their own nations, but not for themselves. Not for their nations government
What I mean is “the government”, Federal government.
Natural resource ownership in the United States is closely tied to land ownership.
Land ownership
There are four main types of land owners: citizens and corporations; the federal government; state and local governments; and Native American tribes and individuals. There are two types of owners for submerged lands under the ocean: states and the federal government.
Private lands
Private lands are owned by private citizens or corporations.
Federal lands
Federal lands are owned by or under jurisdiction of the federal government, including:
Public domain lands ceded to the U.S. by treaty, purchase, or conquest
Acquired lands purchased by, given to, exchanged with, or transferred through condemnation proceedings to the federal government
Military acquired lands purchased by the federal government under military acquisition laws
Outer Continental Shelf submerged lands located farther than three miles off a state’s coastline, or three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico off of Texas and Western Florida
State and local lands
State and local lands are owned by state or local governments, including:
Lands owned by a particular state
State submerged lands under the ocean stretching from a state’s coast to three miles out into the ocean, or in the case of Texas and western Florida, from the coast out to three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico
Lands owned by a local government, such as a county
Native American lands
Native American lands include:
Tribal lands held in trust by the federal government for a tribe’s use
Allotments held in trust by the federal government for individual Native American use
Alaska Native Corporation lands in Alaska, held by 12 regional Alaska Native Corporations that received rights to some surface lands, as well as rights to natural resources below the surface. Along with these 12 regional Alaska Native Corporations, certain village-level Alaska Native Corporations hold additional surface land rights.
Natural resource ownership
Private individuals and corporations, as well as federal, state, local, and tribal governments, can own both land and the oil, gas, coal, and other minerals found below the surface. In fact, widespread private ownership of these resources makes the U.S. different from nearly every other country in which these resources simply belong to the national government.
Natural resource ownership has historical roots in the 19th century, when the federal government passed homestead and development acts to encourage settlement in the West. These acts, along with the General Mining Law of 1872, allowed for federal public domain lands, and the natural resources within them, to pass to private ownership. Starting in the 20th century, the U.S. passed legislation that began to withdraw both specific natural resources and eventually public domain lands from settlement and other development, preserving these lands and natural resources in federal ownership today.
Split ownership
Sometimes the land’s surface owner is different from the owner of the minerals in the ground below. The party that owns the land’s surface has surface rights, while the party that owns the natural resources in the ground has subsurface rights. When ownership is divided in this way, it is referred to as a split estate. There are 57 million acres of land in the U.S. where the federal government owns oil, gas, coal, and other minerals below the surface, but another party, mostly citizens or corporations, owns the surface land above. Land and mineral ownership can become quite complicated. Often, a combination of private landholders, the federal government, a state government, or Native American tribes own the span of a single mine or field.
When it comes to the natural resources found off the coast, the federal government and state governments split ownership. In general, states have primary authority and natural resource ownership in the three-mile area extending outward from their coasts. The federal government owns oil, gas, and minerals located in the submerged lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, which extend from the states’ offshore boundaries out to at least 200 nautical miles from the shore.
The EO allows the governments from the USA, G7 nations to engage in all the things they restrict the citizens from their nations of being able to do. In the USA it’s the Federal government. It does not matter if you are a qualified-purchaser, accredited investor, bank, hedge fund, state registered adviser and so on.
You might be thinking that they can’t openly limit access to a country and then make themselves the only source of funding for the country. They can’t force the citizens to sell, divest, “get out of town”, restrict them from future investing and then come in and buy everything they forced the citizens to sell.
The truth is that’s exactly what they are doing/have done. But not directly. Personally I don’t think what they have done/are doing is legal. Be sure to let me know.
How are they doing it?
The EO/sanction announced on 2/21/2022, Executive Order to Impose Costs for President Putin’s Action to Recognize So-Called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Came with 6 licenses. This is perhaps the most important one. It allows certain organizations that they consider to be international organizations that are allowed to provide aid to the people in these two regions.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order of February 21, 2022
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect
to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of
Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 20
Official Business of Certain International Organizations and Entities
All transactions prohibited by Executive Order of February 21, 2022 that are for the
conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors
thereof are authorized:
(a) The United Nations, including its Programs, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies,
as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
(b) The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);
(c) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group
(IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing;
(d) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and
__________________________
Andrea M. Gacki
Director
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Dated: February 21, 2022
We know who these are,
The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and
(e) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
(a) The United Nations, including its Programs, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies,
as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;
This is The World Bank which Russia, USA, all parties are members/shareholders,
b) The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)
This is a bank where all parties are members/shareholders.
The European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
All parties are members
(e) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Finally we have these three
(c) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group(IDB Group).
Inter-American Development Bank Group(IDB Group).- Primarily has always operated in Latin America. The Bank was formally created on April 8, 1959, when the Organization of American States drafted the Articles of Agreement establishing the Inter-American Development Bank.
The Bank is owned by 48 sovereign states, which are its shareholders and members. Only the 26 borrowing countries are able to receive loans. Bank has approximately $101 billion in capital,
The African Development Bank Group- Primarily operates in Africa. The AfDB was founded in 1964 by the Organization of African Unity, which is the predecessor of the African Union. The AfDB comprises three entities: The African Development Bank, the African Development Fund and the Nigeria Trust Fund. In November 2019, the bank’s capital was reported as $208 billion .
The Asian Development Bank- Primarily operates in Asia- is a regional development bank established on 19 December 1966, which is headquartered in the Ortigas Center located in the city of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines. The company also maintains 31 field offices around the world to promote social and economic development in Asia. The bank admits the members of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, formerly the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East or ECAFE) and non-regional developed countries. From 31 members at its establishment, ADB now has 68 members. Financial information is limited. In 2009 their capital base was $165 billion
Each of these banks were created to function in their regions in the world. That’s what they have always done.
Why would all three be authorized conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors in Ukraine?
Perhaps the ADB got authorized because as of 31 December 2020, Japan and the United States each holds the largest proportion of shares at 15.571%. China holds 6.429%, India holds 6.317%, and Australia holds 5.773%.
Perhaps Inter-American Development Bank Group(IDB Group) got authorized because
The developing countries that borrow from the IDB are the majority shareholders, and therefore control the majority of the decision-making bodies of the Bank. Each member’s voting power is determined by its shareholding: its subscription to the Bank’s ordinary capital. The United States holds 30 percent of the Bank’s shares, while the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean combined hold 50.02 percent but with another 20% from Europe the US can veto decisions. This arrangement is unique in that the developing member countries, as a group, are the majority shareholders.
Maybe authorized because Andrew Baukol the Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury for International Affairs since 2021 is on the Board of Governors
Perhaps The African Development Bank Group got authorized because of the following members/share holders membership and voting power
1 Nigeria 10.077
2 United States 7.581
3 Japan 6.284
4 South Africa 5.863
5 Algeria 5.758
6 Germany 4.779
7 Canada 4.395
8 Morocco 4.386
9 France 4.299
10 Egypt 3.062
11 Italy 2.780
12 Libya 2.749
13 Ghana 2.552
14 United Kingdom 2.083
15 Ivory Coast Cote d’Ivoire 1.988
16 Sweden 1.802
17 Switzerland 1.683
18 Kenya 1.660
19 China 1.389
Non-Regional Member Countries
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finlande, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America
All entities that have authorization under General license 20 the USA is a member/shareholder.
The person representing the USA in each entity works for the US Treasury.
With the remaining G7 nations membership in these entities they are able to control each bank.
Why does this matter? The leaders of each nation put restrictions on their citizens while giving themselves full control of Ukraine. They are forcing the economy to collapse in Ukraine. Now they are going in and buying everything they can.. They created sanctions which caused all stocks, bonds all securities to crash. They forced they forced the citizens they represent to sell as they buy them up for themselves. They are buying all the debt that they caused. They have made themselves the only banks Ukrainians can go to for loans. They essentially will own Ukraine. With the world bank in control, all foreign labor has to be approved through the bank. They already have specific companies they use. Ukraine will never have it’s sovereignty. Ukraine is being split up between the members of the banks.
They are going to try the same thing with Russia. Sanctions caused Russian securities to crash. They forced people to sell their Russian securities, block anyone from buying them and buy them up for themselves. They are going after Nord Stream 2, the $11`billion pipeline that the Russian built. Once it was complete Germany quit inspection/authorizing it for use. America put sanctions on it forcing American partners out. This is “in your face” corruption. These sanctions literally destroyed investors throughout the world.
They made a serious mistake with Russia.
The sanctions and problems the west has created for Russia these past 8 years has made them a stronger country. The people are united more then they ever have been in history. Russia will not give up any part of Ukraine that they have control of. They will never give up 1 inch of Russian soil. Russia will use it’s nukes.
If Ukraine stays a neutral non NATO country Russia might stand down will stand down.
That will cheat the west out of their prize.
The west won’t want to accept those conditions.
Western Aggression and greed is the root of the problem in Ukraine.
Our leaders decided that other nations should prosper before it’s own citizens as they abuse their power that we gave them. They sold us out. If you are reading this and you are part of “Big Corp” in America or you own or work for one of our financial institutions, Brokers, hedge funds, etc. you need to step up and help fix this problem. .You are getting burned just like the rest of us. You put our politicians in office, you need to remove them.
Tyranny of the Majority. Not because they represent the majority of the world. It’s because they represent the majority of the money.
If you live in the west , understand that your leaders have started WW3.
There will be no winners if the situation does not change.
You should force your leaders to stand down.
Everyone should lower their weapons and stand down.
People won’t like hearing this but Russia seems to be the only sane “dogs in this fight”.
I bet there are far more communists in the USA than there currently are in Russia.
Unaccompanied illegal alien children talk to an agent outside at a pod in a Department of Homeland Security holding facility, the main detention center for unaccompanied alien children in the Rio Grande Valley run by the US Customs and Border Protection on March 30, 2021. Photo by Dario Lopez-mills / Getty Image
——————————————————————————————————————–
Forbs staff writer Anna Kaplan, citing the Wall Street Journal which broke the story Thursday (Oct. 28), reported that the Biden administration is in talks to offer illegal immigrant families that were separated during the Trump administration around $450,000 a person in compensation for what their advocates say is “lasting psychological trauma.”
Kaplan quoted the Journal’s reliance on unnamed “people familiar with the matter,” that several agencies are at work to resolve lawsuits filed on behalf of parents and children who say the government subjected them to traumatic stress during the Trump administration.
The U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family, though the final numbers could shift, the people familiar with the matter said. Most of the families that crossed the border illegally from Mexico to seek asylum in the U.S. included one parent and one child, the people said. Many families would likely get smaller payouts, depending on their circumstances, the people said.
It is unclear how many people will be eligible for the settlement, but about 940 families have reportedly filed claims to date.The illegal immigrant families were separated after crossing the border from Mexico to claim asylum in 2017 and 2018 as part of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), among others, have filed lawsuits against the government alleging that the thousands of children and parents impacted by the policy have mental health effects from the prolonged trauma. The Journal reports that lawyers representing families and the government are continuing to negotiate the settlement and aim to reach an agreement by the end of November.
During Biden’s first weeks in office, he vowed to reunite the families that had been separated by the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy. Starting in 2017, the Trump administration tried to prosecute all immigrants who illegally crossed the border, resulting in children who arrived with their parents being sent to shelters and border facilities.
Lawyers representing the children in lawsuits allege that children were subjected to malnutrition and provided little medical attention at these facilities. The ACLU identified approximately 5,500 children who were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border in 2017 and 2018, according to court documents. Not all of the children have been reunited with their parents, as governmental investigations found that the Trump administration did not create ways to track the parents and the children who had been separated.Approximately 1,000 families have yet to be reunited, Family Reunification Task Force leader Michelle Brané said in an interview earlier this month. She noted that there could be more as it’s “very hard to know because there’s no record.” She said the task force has reunited at least 52 families since Biden assumed office.
Politically correctness has entered the U.S. military.
In October 2020, the Pentagon replaced the Army Physical Test that had served the U.S. military for 40 years with the gender-neutral (the test applies equally to both men and women) Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT).
The ACFT will strengthen our fitness culture, reduce injuries, and increase Army readiness. The Army’s physical readiness program and physical fitness test must evolve to reduce injuries and empower Soldiers abilities to perform those basic Soldier tasks on an age and gender neutral battlefield. The ACFT drives balanced and appropriate physical training that will reduce overuse injuries and unplanned attrition. As of April 2020, 58,000 Soldiers (equivalent to 13 Brigade Combat Teams (BCT’s)) were non-deployable.
ACFT maximum deadlift
The Army Combat Fitness Test consists of 6 sub-tests:
The maximum deadlift: Deadlift the maximum weight possible 3 times. The standard equipment is the 60-pound hex bar and plates.
Standing power throw: Throw a 10-pound medicine ball backward and overhead for distance.
Hand-release push-ups: Complete as many hand-release push-ups as possible in 2 minutes.
Sprint, drag and carry: Conduct 5 x 50 meter shuttles for time – sprint, drag, lateral, carry and sprint. The standard equipment are 2×40-pound kettlebells and 90-pound sled.
Leg tuck: Using a climbing bar, complete as many leg tucks as possible; maintain a relative vertical posture while moving the hips and knees up and down without excessive swinging.
Two-mile run: Run 2 miles for time on a measured, generally flat outdoor course.
To pass the Army Combat Fitness Test, soldiers must score at least 360 points out of a possible 600. Those who achieve higher scores are more likely to be promoted.
But, as reported by the UK newspaper, The Telegraph, on March 13, 2021 , a Pentagon study showed that:
Women were failing the ACFT at a rate of 65%, while only 10% of men did.
Average scores for women were 100 points lower.
The poorer performance of women on the ACFT meant they were less likely to be promoted.
What is the reaction from the Biden Administration’s Pentagon and the Democrat-majority Congress? Instead of improving women’s fitness:
Congress halted implementation of the test and declared that the test in its current form should not be a factor in deciding whether someone gets promoted.
The Army launched an independent review into whether the test is fair, and changed the test from gender-neutral to evaluate men and women differently.
How core body strength is tested in the leg tuck event. Instead of hanging from a bar and tucking legs to their chest, soldiers will instead be given the option of doing a two-minute plank exercise. Early research showed female soldiers’ scores were improving with the plank option.
Rather than using their raw scores, men and women would separately be categorized as in the top 1%, top 10%, and so on. That means, women who scored in the top 1% among women would be promoted, even though their raw scores may be lower than those of men.
An Army officer told Military.com that “We have to figure out a way to make it fair to both genders…that accounts for physiological differences,” and insisted that the new test is “a more gender-neutral assessment process because it doesn’t show the raw scores.”
To her credit, Captain Kristen Griest, the US Army’s first female infantry officer, argued that the ACFT should be scored the same for men and women because not doing so would have “insidious impacts on combat effectiveness.” She said critics might call her “uncaring” but “nothing could be further from the truth. To not require women to meet equal standards in combat arms will not only undermine their credibility, but also place those women, their teammates, and the mission at risk.” For in the last analysis, the Army can ignore the differences in combat fitness between men and women, but the differences “may still exist on the battlefield.”
The Department of Defense under the Biden administration has proposed forcing National Guard troops who are stationed around the Capitano buildings to remain there under involuntary deployment through May of this year. This order will force volunteer guardsmen who were set to end their deployments this month to remain in Washington, rather than returning to their homes and jobs on schedule. The involuntary deployment orders are usually reserved only for service in times of national emergency or wars. National Guard troops originally were deployed this year as a response to the Antifa-led riot January 6, and the subsequent military occupation of the nation’s Capitol.
Details of the proposed expansion and continuation of the military presence around the Capitol buildings are detailed by Tara Copp-McClatchy, Washington Bureau correspondent for American Military News. She writes:
he Defense Department is considering issuing involuntary activation orders to National Guard units to protect the U.S. Capitol through May, even as thousands of those service members who have been in Washington since January are set to return home this weekend, two defense officials told McClatchy.
The National Guard deployment was in response to the deadly attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6. On Inauguration Day, more than 26,000 National Guard service members were protecting the nation’s capital. About 5,200 have remained, but their mission was set to end on Friday.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin this week directed that 2,300 service members continue to protect Congress through May 23, citing a request from the U.S. Capitol Police. Throughout Wednesday, National Guard leaders were speaking to their state governors and Guard leadership to find volunteers to come to Washington for the next two months.
One defense official told McClatchy the units may be placed under involuntary activation so that instead of individual service members from various states filling the request, an entire unit and its leadership would do it, which the official said would improve command and control.
Often the National Guard fulfills requests by getting governors to support deployment, then that governor tasks the state’s Guard units to issue voluntary activation orders, which take into account a service member’s ability to leave a full-time job.
In times of war or natural disaster the activation orders can be involuntary, which provide service members additional protections from losing their civilian jobs due to their military responsibilities.
Having to rely on involuntary activation reflects the hesitation some states have expressed in sending forces to the Capitol, or extending the ones already there, citing the many demands those units have faced, including supporting COVID-19 response and natural disaster relief.
Michigan National Guard troops account for almost 1,000 of the approximately 5,200 service members still guarding the Capitol, and those forces will be returning home this weekend, said Bobby Leddy, a spokesman for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Michigan’s Guard members “were some of the first troops on the ground to answer the call to protect our nation’s Capitol Building from security threats,” Leddy said. “There is no intention of extending this deployment.”
California has also sent members of its National Guard to protect the Capitol since January. The 200 that remain “will be heading home” this weekend and there are no plans to extend the mission in Washington, said California National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Jason Shiroma.
Kansas has 50 National Guard members at the U.S. Capitol, but “they will be back mid-month and will not be extending,” the Kansas National Guard said in a statement to McClatchy.
Florida received a request to help protect the Capitol in the days following the inauguration, but declined to send forces.
“Florida was not (and is not) able to support based on current COVID requirements within the state and ongoing federal mobilizations and training requirements,” Florida National Guard spokesman Will Manley told McClatchy in a statement.
While it did have service members in the capital to support the inauguration, “the South Carolina National Guard will not be supporting the mission in D.C.,” said South Carolina National Guard spokeswoman Capt. Jessica Donnelly.
Other Guard units, including Kentucky and Washington state, said they are ready to assist if needed.
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute on Wednesday released an annual survey that found that trust in the military has declined from 70 percent in 2018 to 56 percent in 2021. Although the poll did not identify specific reasons for the decline, institute experts told reporters that last year’s military’s response to protests over the death of George Floyd could be one of several reasons for the drop.
Kathleen McInnis, a national security expert who recently testified before Congress on civil-military relations, said the optics of having a continued military presence surrounding Congress did not help.
“The capitol is supposed to be the heart of our democracy,” McInnis said. “A key question is, what does it say that the military is the solution to this challenge?”
The Times UK reports, March 3, 2021, that China has made anal COVID-19 swabs mandatory for all foreign travelers arriving in the country. (New York Post)
The New York Post reports on Feb. 25, 2021 that the Chinese Communist government has used anal swabs to test U.S. diplomats for COVID-19, without Washington’s consent. It is unclear how many diplomats or their family members had been subjected to the procedure.
Anal COVID-19 tests require inserting a swab up to 2 inches into the rectum and rotating several times. A traveler from Australia to China who was tested with anal swabs said the procedure felt like having diarrhea.
A State Department representative told VICE World News that Washington had complained that the invasive procedure was undignified and that “The State Department never agreed to this kind of testing and protested directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when we learned that some staff were subject to it. We have instructed staff to decline this test if it is asked of them, as was done in the past.”
Beijing first claimed that the anal tests had been given “in error,” and that they had assured Washington that diplomats were exempt from the test, which is required for incoming travelers in some parts of China.
Then Reuters reported that in a daily new briefing on Feb. 25, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denied Beijing had even asked American diplomats to undergo the anal tests: “To my knowledge…China has never required US diplomatic staff stationed in China to conduct anal swab tests.”
But officials in China have used anal swabs to test people it considers at high-risk of contracting the illness, some international travelers and residents of neighborhoods with confirmed cases, according to AFP.
Michelle Pugle reports for Healthline on February 3, 2021 that the Chinese claim the anal swab as a more effective COVID-19 test. Researchers from the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Medicine said they found for the first time that people with COVID-19 have active and prolonged gut viral infection, even in the absence of gastrointestinal symptoms and even after the respiratory infection has cleared. That means anal swab testing could detect COVID-19 cases that the standard nose and throat swabs would miss, because viral traces in fecal samples and anal swabs can remain detectable for longer periods than in those from the respiratory tract.
But experts in the United States question the use of anal swabs to detect the virus, and caution against taking seriously Chinese University of Hong Kong’s study or anal swab testing.
What do Democrats know about Joe Biden that we, the American people, should know about a sitting president, who is arguably the most powerful man on Earth?
On Feb. 24, 2021, Fox News’ Audrey Conklin reported that about three dozen House Democrats, including Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), had taken the unusual step of signing a letter “asking President Biden to renounce his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons.”
On inauguration day, the outgoing president passes to his successor what is often referred to as the “nuclear football” — a briefcase containing all the necessary materials to dial up a nuclear strike using a specific code.
The letter to Biden, obtained by Politico, reads:
Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks. Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.
While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so. The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.
In a tweet on February 22, Rep. Panetta said he is “calling on” Biden “to install checks [and] balances in our nuclear command-and-control structure.”
The letter offered some alternatives to sole nuclear authority, such as requiring the vice president and House speaker to agree with a launch order from the president before it is executed.
If the letter is successful, a precedent would be created for future presidents.
Having convinced themselves that President Trump was dangerously insane, Democrats previously had expressed concern about his access to the nuclear football. For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that on January 5, 2021, she had spoken with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley about protecting nuclear codes from an “unhinged president.”
In Biden’s case, as this letter suggests, even Democrats know about and are worried about his senile dementia, signs of which he had displayed before the election. He often struggled to speak, even with pre-written remarks. He avoided hard questions and public events, and rarely hosted a campaign rally.
As an example, appearing on PBS’ News Hour, Biden was incoherent, uttering gibberish:
The Patriot Journalnotedthat since his inauguration, “We haven’t seen too many public appearances” of Biden. “Some might claim it’s because of the pandemic. But it’s still unusual for a newly-installed president to be seen so little by the country.”
The latest example of Biden’s dementia was on February 22, 2021. While speaking on COVID-19, Biden repeatedly struggled to say the word “milestone”. He froze before the camera and closed his eyes, seemingly defeated. Then he continued in a weak and frail-sounding voice.
If Joe Biden can’t even articulate the word “milestone,” how can he be trusted to do anything else?
No wonder the House Democrats signed the letter asking him to relinquish sole control over the nuclear football — the prelude, perhaps, to invoking the 25th Amendment to replace Biden with Kamala Harris.
As we get older, our immune system — our body’s defense system — tends to get weaker.
Not only do you have fewer immune cells as you age, the ones you do have don’t communicate with each other as well. That means they take longer to react to harmful germs. Your body also produces fewer immune cells, including white blood cells, which can slow down healing. (WebMD)
The COVID-19 virus especially targets the elderly with aging immune systems, and those already ill with pre-existing conditions.
Citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rachel Nania reports for the AARP on October 30, 2020 that:
95% of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. were among people who were 50 or older, even though people under age 50 accounted for the majority of reported coronavirus cases.
About 8 in 10 deaths were among people 65 and older.
A year of COVID-19 has had its toll in life expectancy.
Dennis Thompson reports for HealthDay, Feb. 18, 2021, that a new report by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), published in the Vital Statistics Rapid Release, found that average life expectancy in the United States took a drastic plunge during the first half of 2020. Overall U.S. life expectancy dropped to 77.8 years, down one full year from the 78.8 years estimated in 2019.
To put those numbers in context, it made headlines when average U.S. life expectancy, after years of steady increases, dropped by just 0.2 years between 2014 and 2015.
The NCHS report also found that life expectancy varied much more widely when gender and ethnicity were taken into account:
Black male life expectancy dropped by 3 years (71.3 to 68.3)
Hispanic males lost 2.4 years of life expectancy (79 to 76.6)
Black females had a 2.3-year decline (78.1 to 75.8)
Hispanic females had a 1.1-year decline (84.4 to 83.3)
By comparison, white males had a decline in life expectancy of 0.8 years (76.3 to 75.5), while white women had a 0.7-year decline (81.3 to 80.6).
Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, noted that during the pandemic America lost more people than it did during the entire span of World War II, including deaths both in combat and on the home front: “We had over 400,000 people die in the five-year period of World War II, and we’ve done that in one year. That should get people’s attention. And it’s not over yet.”
Benjamin said that the nearly three-year decline in life span among Black Americans is especially troubling: “These are enormous differences in life expectancy. It’s a big deal to lose a year, but to lose three years, that’s staggering.”
Jesse Schold, director of the Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute’s Center for Populations Health Research, pointed out that life expectancy for all Americans likely also took a hit because of other factors, including:
The pandemic prompted people to forgo health screenings that would have caught potentially life-threatening illnesses.
People who had lost their jobs and in lockdown were more likely to eat poorly, drink more alcohol and use drugs. In fact, overdoses have increased during the pandemic.
Add to the above factors this: Some sick people avoided going to the hospital for treatments because they were afraid of getting the coronavirus in the germ-filled hospital setting.
COVID-19 is a demon virus.
The fall in U.S. life expectancy is expected to continue because many people who contracted COVID-19 have long-term health problems that can ultimately limit their life span.
For many who contract the novel coronavirus, the manifestations of the disease tend to the mild and moderate, with improvement in a couple of weeks. But for those who survive COVID-19 after intubation and a long hospital stay, the health ramifications may last long after they are discharged.
COVID-19 is showing itself to be much more than respiratory disease. It can affect organs beyond the lungs — from the skin to the kidneys — potentially creating long-term health issues.
(1) Heart:
According to Robert Myerburg, M.D., a cardiac electrophysiologist at UHealth, some viral infections may affect the heart long-term as a result of leaving behind some of their viral DNA, potentially causing continuing heart damage. Myerburg said that many COVID-19 related cardiac problems are “secondary” to pulmonary issues, but the effects are nevertheless serious on our tickers and cardiovascular system, resulting in a variety of conditions, from heart failure to heart rhythm problems to clotting.
There is also some emerging evidence regarding direct coronavirus infections in the heart:
UHealth cardiologists estimate that about a third of their coronavirus patients develop myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that reduces the organ’s ability to pump blood.
In addition to arrhythmias, a patient can suffer from chest paint, shortness of breath, and fatigue.
Doctors are also noting cases of abnormal clotting, including those in large vessels such as deep vein thrombosis in the legs and lungs, and smaller clots in smaller vessels in multiple organs. A clot can cause strokes, lung blockages, and heart attacks, sometimes resulting in death. Most worrisome? This unusual clotting is happening even while patients are on blood thinners.
(2) Kidney:
Early reports suggest that up to 30% of hospitalized coronavirus patients develop moderate to severe kidney injury. Many of them already suffered from conditions, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, that make them more susceptible to kidney disease. Nephrologist Oliver Lenz, M.D., said: “But even in the absence of underlying kidney disease patients with severe COVID-19 may develop acute kidney failure and require dialysis.”
(3) Digestive tract:
COVID-19 sometimes presents with abdominal pain and diarrhea as well as nausea and vomiting and loss of appetite. In one small and unpeer-reviewed study, GI issues were not nearly as common as respiratory and heart symptoms, but they appeared to last longer than expected, with 10% reporting they still had diarrhea for the three weeks in which they were followed.
While there’s little data about long-lasting GI issues, doctors warn that patients with chronic digestive conditions, such as digestive cancers, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and liver diseases, might be more vulnerable to the coronavirus.
(4) Brain and neurological system:
Just as COVID-19 damages other organs, scientists have discovered that the virus can also cause neurological problems, from seizures to hallucinations to mental confusion. This could be a result of oxygen starvation or the aftermath of the cytokine storm when the body’s immune system overreacts to the virus.
Reports cite cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, an affliction that can lead to temporary paralysis, as well as dizziness, headaches, temporary loss of smell and taste, agitation, and confusion. However, there is no data, whether such symptoms, tracked during the course of the disease, will prove to be permanent.
For those who still doubt the reality of COVID-19, here is a video from Todd Herman, who regularly guest-hosts on the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show:
UPDATE (Feb. 20, 2021):
This is an outrage.
The lab in Wuhan, China, from which the virus had leaked in Fall 2019, is approved for U.S. taxpayer funding for animal research until January 2024, the National Institute of Health told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is at the center of widespread speculation that COVID-19 could have entered the human population in China due to an accidental lab leak. Researchers at the lab were studying bat-based coronaviruses prior to the outbreak, a project partially backed by 600,000 in U.S. taxpayer funds routed to the lab through the nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance. (Epoch Times)
Some 26,000 National Guard troops were sent to Washington, D.C., ahead of Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, following the storming of the Capitol building on Jan. 6. (See Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald’s important essay, “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot“.)
6,000 of the troops have remained in D.C., ostensibly to provide “assistance such as security, communications, medical evacuation, logistics, and safety support to state, district, and federal agencies,” a National Guard spokesperson told theWashington Examiner.
Although the current plan is to keep those 6,000 troops until mid-March, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly half a billion dollars, according to an internal DHS memo, National Guard troops could remain in Washington, D.C., until at least this fall.
The memo from Robert Salesses, assistant secretary for homeland defense and global security, which was obtained by Fox5, also said that the National Guard troops could be supplemented by reserve and even active military personnel, despite the fact that:
A federal statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, forbade the use of the U.S. military as a posse comitatus or for law enforcement purposes without the approval of Congress.
In 2013, a directive from the US Secretary of Defense prohibits the use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps for domestic law enforcement.
From the DHS memo:
If it’s not possible to sustain at the current level with NG personnel, we need to establish the number of NG personnel (DCNG and out-of-state) we can sustain for an extended period — at least through Fall 2021 — and understand additional options for providing DoD support, to include use of reserve personnel, as well as active component.
In a tweet on Feb. 11, 2021, PBS News Hour reports that Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) revealed the true purpose of the National Guard troops.
Lieu said (1:21 mark):
“And he [President Trump] does not saythe one sentence that matters. He does not say the one sentence that would stop future political violence — ‘The election was not stolen.’ He still hasn’t said that sentence. That is why National Guard troops in full body armor still patrol outside.“
“‘The election was not stolen.’ He still hasn’t said that sentence. That is why National Guard troops in full body armor still patrol outside,” Rep. Lieu says, pointing out that in former President Trump’s statements on and after Jan. 6. there is no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. pic.twitter.com/AONEcGFxYc
displacedjim
George Griffin
wm2ggo
Consortium of Defense Analysts 