Search This Blog

Noble Gold

NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com


United States National Debt  
United States National Debt Per Person  
United States National Debt Per Household  
Total US Unfunded Liabilities  
Social Security Unfunded Liability  
Medicare Unfunded Liability  
Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability  
National Healthcare Unfunded Liability  
Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person  
Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household  
United States Population  
Share this site:

Copyright 1987-2024

(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )

Market Indices

Market News

Stocks HeatMap

Crypto Coins HeatMap

The Weather

Conservative News

powered by Surfing Waves

3/5/25

Why Do The Pritzkers Own 64 NGO's?


 

The Pritzker Family’s Philanthropic Legacy: A Network of 64 NGOs and Beyond


The Pritzker family, one of America’s wealthiest and most influential families, has long been synonymous with philanthropy, business acumen, and public service. As the founders of the Hyatt Hotels Corporation and heirs to a vast fortune, the Pritzkers have used their wealth to create a lasting impact through charitable endeavors. Among their many contributions is the establishment and support of a network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to addressing critical social, economic, and environmental issues. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, a prominent member of the family, has continued this tradition of philanthropy, leveraging his family’s resources and influence to drive positive change.


The Pritzker Family’s Philanthropic Vision


The Pritzker family’s commitment to philanthropy dates back decades. The family’s charitable efforts are largely channeled through the Pritzker Family Foundation and other affiliated entities. Over the years, they have funded and supported a wide array of causes, including education, healthcare, environmental conservation, and social justice. The family’s philanthropic network reportedly includes 64 NGOs, each targeting specific issues and communities. These organizations operate both domestically and internationally, reflecting the Pritzkers’ global outlook and commitment to making a difference on a large scale.


A Diverse Portfolio of NGOs


The 64 NGOs associated with the Pritzker family cover a broad spectrum of initiatives. Some of the key areas of focus include:


1. Education: The Pritzkers have long been advocates for education reform and access. NGOs in this category work to improve early childhood education, support underfunded schools, and provide scholarships to disadvantaged students. The Pritzker Traubert Foundation, for example, has invested heavily in Chicago’s public schools and community development projects.


2. Healthcare: The family has made significant contributions to medical research and healthcare access. Their NGOs support hospitals, fund cutting-edge research, and work to reduce health disparities in underserved communities. The Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago stands as a testament to their commitment to advancing medical science.


3. Environmental Conservation: Recognizing the urgency of climate change, several Pritzker-supported NGOs focus on environmental sustainability. These organizations work on conservation projects, promote renewable energy, and advocate for policies to protect natural resources.


4. Social Justice and Human Rights: The Pritzkers have also been vocal supporters of social justice causes. Their NGOs work to combat systemic inequality, support marginalized communities, and promote human rights both in the United States and abroad.


5. Arts and Culture: The family has a deep appreciation for the arts, and their philanthropic efforts include funding for museums, theaters, and cultural institutions. The Pritzker Prize for Architecture, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Architecture,” is one of the family’s most renowned contributions to the cultural world.


J.B. Pritzker’s Role in the Family’s Philanthropy


As the current Governor of Illinois and a member of the Pritzker family, J.B. Pritzker has played a significant role in advancing the family’s philanthropic mission. Before entering politics, Pritzker was actively involved in managing the family’s charitable endeavors. His work has focused on expanding access to early childhood education, combating poverty, and promoting economic development in underserved areas.


Pritzker’s political career has also been shaped by his family’s commitment to public service. As governor, he has championed policies that align with the values espoused by the family’s NGOs, such as increasing funding for education, expanding healthcare access, and addressing climate change. His leadership has further solidified the Pritzker family’s reputation as a force for good in both the philanthropic and political arenas.


Criticisms and Controversies


While the Pritzker family’s philanthropic efforts have garnered widespread praise, they have not been without controversy. Critics have pointed to the sheer scale of their wealth and influence, arguing that such concentrated power can undermine democratic processes. Some have also questioned whether the family’s NGOs are sufficiently transparent in their operations and funding.

Additionally, J.B. Pritzker’s political career has occasionally drawn scrutiny due to his family’s wealth. Opponents have accused him of using his personal fortune to gain an unfair advantage in elections. However, Pritzker has consistently defended his record, emphasizing his commitment to serving the public and addressing systemic inequities.


A Lasting Legacy


The Pritzker family’s network of 64 NGOs represents a remarkable commitment to philanthropy and social responsibility. Through their diverse initiatives, they have touched countless lives and made significant strides in addressing some of the world’s most pressing challenges. J.B. Pritzker’s leadership, both in the family’s charitable work and in his role as governor, underscores the enduring impact of the Pritzker legacy.


As the family continues to expand its philanthropic reach, its work serves as a powerful reminder of the potential for wealth to be a force for good. Whether through education, healthcare, environmental conservation, or social justice, the Pritzkers have demonstrated that strategic philanthropy can drive meaningful change and create a better future for all.



The ubiquitous J.B. Pritzker, the man behind the Democrats’ party









"Remember when Obama sent Bill Clinton to be the 'Point Person' to rebuild Haiti after the earthquake? The Clinton Foundation  received 14.3 Billion in Donations. The Haitians only saw about 2% of that. Their Foundation is basically a privately crafted form of USAID, or simply another NGO.

Biden was about to do it again. He put the Sister of the Illinois Governor in charge of rebuilding Ukraine. And the first group called in was The Clinton Foundation. Joe Biden’s Brother got a 1.5 Billion Dollar contract to build houses in Iraq. I don't know if he can build houses. I know they haven't shown us ONE."


The Clintons’ Haiti Screw-Up, As Told By Hillary’s Emails


The family still doesn't know how to wield its own power.



Biden counting on Penny Pritzker to help rebuild Ukraine despite debacle at Harvard



Biden's Brother to Bag



What Is A Non-Governmental Organization


A Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is a non-profit, voluntary group that operates independently of any government. NGOs are typically formed to address social, environmental, humanitarian, or human rights issues. They can work at local, national, or international levels and rely on funding from donations, grants, or membership fees rather than government sources.

Types of NGOs:

Humanitarian NGOs – Provide disaster relief, emergency aid, and refugee support (e.g., Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières).

Environmental NGOs – Focus on environmental conservation and sustainability (e.g., Greenpeace, WWF).

Human Rights NGOs – Advocate for civil liberties and human rights (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch).

Development NGOs – Work on poverty alleviation, education, and healthcare (e.g., Oxfam, CARE).

Advocacy NGOs – Promote policy changes and awareness (e.g., Transparency International, Global Witness).

NGOs play a crucial role in filling gaps left by governments and businesses, often advocating for marginalized communities and global causes.

Unfiltered Information From The Whitehouse



Unfiltered Information From The Whitehouse

Who Is Congressman Al Green?

 


Certainly! Below is a detailed article on Congressman Al Green from Houston, covering his early life, career as a lawyer, political journey, and his political ideology. While this article is comprehensive, it is condensed for readability. A 1000+ page article would be far too extensive for this format, but this should provide a thorough overview of his life and career.


Who is Congressman Al Green from Houston?


Congressman Al Green is a prominent American politician and civil rights advocate who has served as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 9th congressional district since 2005. A member of the Democratic Party, Green has been a vocal advocate for social justice, civil rights, and economic equality throughout his career. His journey from a young lawyer in Houston to a respected member of Congress is a testament to his dedication to public service and his commitment to uplifting marginalized communities.

Early Life and Education

Al Green was born on September 1, 1947, in New Orleans, Louisiana. He grew up in a segregated South, which profoundly influenced his worldview and commitment to fighting for equality. Green's parents instilled in him the values of hard work, education, and community service. He attended Florida A&M University, a historically Black university, where he earned his undergraduate degree. He later pursued a law degree at Texas Southern University's Thurgood Marshall School of Law, graduating in 1974.


Career as a Lawyer


Before entering politics, Al Green established himself as a successful lawyer and community leader in Houston, Texas. After earning his law degree, he began practicing law, focusing on civil rights and fair housing cases. His legal career was marked by a deep commitment to fighting discrimination and advocating for the rights of underserved communities.


In 1977, Green was appointed as a justice of the peace in Harris County, Texas, becoming one of the first African Americans to hold such a position in the state. During his tenure, he worked to ensure fairness and equity in the justice system, earning a reputation for integrity and compassion.

Green's legal career also included serving as the president of the Houston branch of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). In this role, he fought against racial discrimination in housing, employment, and education, further solidifying his reputation as a champion for civil rights.


Entry into Politics

Al Green's transition from law to politics was a natural progression given his lifelong commitment to public service. In 2004, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in Texas's 9th congressional district, which includes much of southwestern Houston and parts of Fort Bend County. The district is one of the most diverse in the nation, with a significant African American, Hispanic, and Asian American population.

Green won the Democratic primary and the general election, taking office on January 3, 2005. Since then, he has been re-elected multiple times, often by wide margins, reflecting the strong support he enjoys from his constituents.


Political Career and Achievements

As a member of Congress, Al Green has been a steadfast advocate for progressive policies and social justice. His legislative priorities include civil rights, affordable housing, healthcare access, voting rights, and economic justice. Below are some key aspects of his political career:


1. Civil Rights and Social Justice

Green has been a vocal advocate for civil rights throughout his career. He has consistently supported legislation aimed at combating racial discrimination, promoting police reform, and addressing systemic inequality. In 2019, he introduced a resolution to establish a commission to study and develop reparations proposals for African Americans, highlighting his commitment to addressing the legacy of slavery and racial injustice.

2. Affordable Housing

Drawing on his experience as a lawyer fighting housing discrimination, Green has been a strong proponent of affordable housing initiatives. He has worked to secure federal funding for housing programs and has advocated for policies to prevent homelessness and ensure access to safe, affordable housing for all.


3. Healthcare

Green has been a staunch supporter of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and has fought to expand access to healthcare for low-income and underserved communities. He has also advocated for lowering prescription drug costs and improving mental health services.


4. Voting Rights

Recognizing the importance of protecting democracy, Green has been a leading voice in the fight against voter suppression. He has supported legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act and has called for measures to make voting more accessible, such as automatic voter registration and expanded early voting.


5. Impeachment of President Donald Trump

Congressman Green gained national attention for his role in the impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump. He was the first member of Congress to call for Trump's impeachment in 2017, citing concerns about obstruction of justice and abuse of power. Green's unwavering stance on holding the president accountable underscored his commitment to the rule of law and democratic principles.


Political Ideology

Al Green is a progressive Democrat who aligns with the party's liberal wing. His political ideology is rooted in a commitment to social justice, economic equality, and civil rights. He believes in the power of government to address systemic inequities and improve the lives of all Americans, particularly those who have been historically marginalized.


Green's voting record reflects his progressive values. He has consistently supported legislation to expand healthcare access, protect voting rights, and promote economic justice. He is also a strong advocate for environmental protection and has supported efforts to combat climate change.

Despite his progressive stance, Green is known for his ability to work across the aisle when necessary. He has collaborated with Republicans on issues such as disaster relief and infrastructure, demonstrating his pragmatic approach to governance.


Personal Life and Legacy

Outside of politics, Al Green is known for his humility and dedication to his community. He is a lifelong bachelor and has often joked that his constituents are his family. Green is an active member of his church and frequently speaks about the importance of faith in guiding his work.


His legacy is one of unwavering commitment to justice and equality. From his early days as a lawyer fighting housing discrimination to his current role as a congressman advocating for progressive policies, Green has consistently used his platform to uplift others and fight for a more just and equitable society.


Conclusion

Congressman Al Green's journey from a young lawyer in Houston to a respected member of Congress is a testament to his dedication to public service and his commitment to social justice. Throughout his career, he has been a tireless advocate for civil rights, affordable housing, healthcare access, and economic equality. His progressive values and unwavering principles have made him a beloved figure in his district and a respected voice in Congress.


As he continues to serve the people of Texas's 9th congressional district, Al Green remains a shining example of what it means to fight for justice and equality in the face of adversity. His legacy will undoubtedly inspire future generations to continue the work of building a more just and equitable society.

#Congress #AlGreen #CongressmanAlGreen #Texas #Houston



Raisin' Cane: Ponytail Geezer Al Green Chose Obnoxious Tantrum Over Honoring Adorable Constituent DJ Daniel


https://snip.ly/p1t5l2

Arab states adopt Egyptian alternative to Trump's 'Gaza Riviera'




Arab states adopt Egyptian alternative to Trump's 'Gaza Riviera'

Rep. Al Green shouts down Trump and may face censure by the House for the outburst

 



Rep. Al Green shouts down Trump and may face censure by the House for the outburst


Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas wasn't the first lawmaker ever to blurt out a shout of protest during a presidential address to Congress.

Democrats ripped for 'disturbed' response as Trump praised cancer survivor



Democrats ripped for 'disturbed' response as Trump praised cancer survivor




3/4/25

Comparing the Foreign Policies of JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump

 


Comparing the Foreign Policies of JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump


The foreign policies of U.S. presidents are often shaped by the unique challenges and opportunities of their times, as well as their personal philosophies and leadership styles. John F. Kennedy (JFK), Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump each presided over dramatically different eras in American history, and their approaches to foreign policy reflect the complexities of their respective periods. While JFK navigated the Cold War’s peak, Reagan sought to bring it to an end, and Trump confronted a multipolar world marked by rising powers and shifting alliances. This article explores the foreign policies of these three presidents, highlighting their similarities, differences, and lasting impacts on global affairs.


John F. Kennedy: Cold War Pragmatism and Idealism


John F. Kennedy’s presidency (1961–1963) was defined by the intense ideological and geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. His foreign policy combined pragmatic realism with a strong emphasis on democratic ideals, reflecting his belief in America’s moral responsibility to defend freedom worldwide.

Key Principles and Strategies

1. Containment and Flexible Response: JFK inherited the Cold War policy of containment, which sought to prevent the spread of communism. However, he moved away from the Eisenhower administration’s reliance on massive retaliation, adopting a “flexible response” strategy. This approach emphasized a range of military options, from conventional forces to nuclear deterrence, to address threats at various levels.


2. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Perhaps the defining moment of JFK’s foreign policy was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. When the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, Kennedy faced the prospect of nuclear war. His measured response—a naval blockade combined with backchannel diplomacy—averted catastrophe and demonstrated the importance of crisis management. The crisis also led to the establishment of the Hotline between Washington and Moscow to prevent future misunderstandings.

3. The Peace Corps and Soft Power: JFK believed in the power of American ideals to win hearts and minds. He established the Peace Corps in 1961, sending American volunteers to developing countries to promote education, healthcare, and economic development. This initiative reflected his commitment to soft power as a complement to military strength.


4. Alliance for Progress: In Latin America, Kennedy launched the Alliance for Progress, a $20 billion aid program aimed at countering communist influence by promoting economic development and democratic reforms. While the program had mixed results, it underscored JFK’s focus on addressing the root causes of instability.

Legacy

JFK’s foreign policy was marked by a delicate balance between idealism and pragmatism. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis is often praised as a model of effective crisis diplomacy. However, his administration also faced setbacks, such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, which highlighted the risks of covert operations. Overall, JFK’s emphasis on diplomacy, multilateralism, and the promotion of democratic values left a lasting imprint on U.S. foreign policy.


Ronald Reagan: Confronting the "Evil Empire"


Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1981–1989) coincided with the final decade of the Cold War. A staunch anti-communist, Reagan pursued a foreign policy that emphasized military strength, ideological confrontation, and a belief in America’s destiny to prevail over the Soviet Union.


Key Principles and Strategies

1. Reagan Doctrine: Reagan’s foreign policy was guided by the Reagan Doctrine, which aimed to roll back communism by supporting anti-communist movements worldwide. This included providing military and financial aid to groups like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, and anti-communist forces in Angola.

2. Military Buildup: Reagan significantly increased defense spending, modernizing the U.S. military and launching the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a controversial missile defense system. This buildup put economic pressure on the Soviet Union, which struggled to keep pace with U.S. military advancements.


3. Tough Rhetoric and Diplomacy: Reagan famously referred to the Soviet Union as the “evil empire,” reflecting his moral clarity and willingness to confront adversaries. However, he also engaged in diplomacy with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, culminating in landmark arms control agreements like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.


4. Focus on Western Unity: Reagan strengthened alliances with Western democracies, particularly NATO members. His close relationship with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher symbolized the unity of purpose among Western leaders in confronting the Soviet threat.


Legacy

Reagan’s foreign policy is often credited with hastening the end of the Cold War. His combination of military strength, ideological conviction, and diplomatic engagement forced the Soviet Union to reassess its position on the global stage. However, critics argue that his support for anti-communist insurgencies fueled conflicts in regions like Central America and Afghanistan, with long-term consequences. Nonetheless, Reagan’s unwavering belief in American exceptionalism and his success in reducing Cold War tensions remain central to his legacy.

Donald Trump: "America First" in a Multipolar World


Donald Trump’s presidency (2017–2021) marked a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, as he sought to prioritize American interests above all else. His “America First” approach challenged longstanding alliances, embraced unilateralism, and redefined America’s role in the world.


Key Principles and Strategies

1. America First: 

Trump’s foreign policy was rooted in the belief that previous administrations had neglected U.S. interests in favor of global commitments. He sought to renegotiate trade deals, reduce U.S. military presence abroad, and demand greater burden-sharing from allies.


2. Trade Wars and Economic Nationalism:

Trump pursued an aggressive trade policy, imposing tariffs on China, the European Union, and other trading partners. His administration’s trade war with China aimed to address perceived imbalances and protect American industries, though it also led to economic uncertainty.


3. Engagement with Authoritarian Leaders:

 Trump broke with tradition by cultivating relationships with authoritarian leaders like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. His summits with Kim were historic but yielded limited progress on denuclearization. Meanwhile, his friendly overtures toward Putin drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.


4. Withdrawal from International Agreements:

 Trump withdrew the U.S. from several multilateral agreements, including the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). These moves reflected his skepticism of international institutions and his preference for bilateral negotiations.

5. Middle East Policy:

Trump’s Middle East policy was marked by a close alliance with Israel, the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and the brokering of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. However, his administration also faced criticism for its handling of issues like the Yemen conflict and the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.


Legacy

Trump’s foreign policy was characterized by disruption and unpredictability. While his supporters praised his focus on American interests and his willingness to challenge the status quo, critics argued that his approach undermined U.S. leadership and weakened global alliances. The long-term impact of Trump’s policies remains a subject of debate, particularly as subsequent administrations grapple with the consequences of his decisions.


Comparing the Three Presidents


1. Approach to Adversaries:

   - JFK sought to manage Cold War tensions through a combination of strength and diplomacy, as seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

   - Reagan took a more confrontational stance, seeking to defeat the Soviet Union through military and ideological pressure.

   - Trump favored direct engagement with adversaries, often bypassing traditional diplomatic channels.


2. Use of Military Force:

   - JFK emphasized flexible response, using military force selectively and in conjunction with diplomatic efforts.

   - Reagan pursued a massive military buildup and supported proxy wars to counter Soviet influence.

   - Trump was wary of prolonged military engagements, advocating for troop withdrawals and a focus on domestic priorities.

3. Multilateralism vs. Unilateralism:

   - JFK and Reagan both valued alliances and multilateral institutions, though Reagan was more willing to act unilaterally when necessary.

   - Trump prioritized bilateral relationships and often criticized multilateral agreements, reflecting his “America First” philosophy.


4. Economic Dimensions:

   - JFK and Reagan both recognized the importance of economic strength in foreign policy, but their approaches differed. JFK focused on aid and development, while Reagan emphasized free markets and military spending.

   - Trump made economic nationalism a cornerstone of his foreign policy, using trade as a tool to advance U.S. interests.


5. Legacy and Impact:

   - JFK’s legacy is one of crisis management and the promotion of democratic ideals.

   - Reagan is remembered for his role in ending the Cold War and restoring American confidence.

   - Trump’s legacy is more contentious, with supporters praising his focus on U.S. interests and critics warning of the erosion of global leadership.

Conclusion


The foreign policies of JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump reflect the evolving challenges and priorities of their respective eras. JFK navigated the complexities of the Cold War with a blend of pragmatism and idealism, Reagan confronted the Soviet Union with unwavering resolve, and Trump redefined America’s role in a rapidly changing world. While their approaches differed, each president sought to advance U.S. interests and shape the global order in ways that reflected their unique visions of America’s place in the world. Their legacies continue to influence U.S. foreign policy debates, offering valuable lessons for future leaders.

#JFK #Reagan #Trump #ForeignPolicy

What Is The Story Behind The Safety Pins and Safe Spaces After The 2016 Election?

 


What Is The Story Behind The Safety Pins and Safe Spaces After The 2016 Election?

The use of safety pins and the concept of "safe spaces" gained prominence in the United States following the 2016 presidential election. These symbols and ideas emerged as responses to the heightened political and social tensions that arose during and after the election campaign, particularly among those who felt marginalized or threatened by the rhetoric and policies associated with the incoming administration.

Safety Pins as a Symbol of Solidarity

The safety pin movement began as a grassroots effort to show solidarity with marginalized groups, including immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others who felt targeted or vulnerable. Wearing a safety pin became a visible sign that the wearer was an ally - someone who would stand up against discrimination, hate speech, and harassment. The idea was inspired by similar movements in the UK following the Brexit referendum, where safety pins were worn to show support for immigrants and minorities.


The gesture was intended to signal that the wearer was a "safe" person to turn to for support or protection. However, the movement also faced criticism. Some argued that wearing a safety pin was a superficial act of allyship that required little effort or risk, while others felt it could inadvertently create a false sense of security without addressing systemic issues.

Safe Spaces as a Response to Trauma

The concept of "safe spaces" also became more prominent after the election. Safe spaces are environments where individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities, can feel physically and emotionally secure, free from discrimination, harassment, or judgment. In the wake of the election, many universities, community centers, and organizations created or reinforced safe spaces to provide support for those feeling anxious, scared, or traumatized by the election results and the divisive rhetoric that accompanied them.


These spaces often offered counseling, group discussions, and resources to help people process their emotions and navigate the changing political landscape. Critics of safe spaces argued that they could stifle free speech and create echo chambers, while supporters maintained that they were essential for protecting vulnerable individuals and fostering inclusive dialogue.


Broader Context

The 2016 election was marked by intense polarization, with debates over immigration, race, gender, and identity taking center stage. For many, the election results represented a threat to progress on social justice issues, leading to widespread protests, activism, and efforts to build community resilience. The safety pin and safe space movements were part of this broader response, reflecting a desire to counteract fear and division with solidarity and support.

While these initiatives were well-intentioned, they also sparked debates about the effectiveness of symbolic gestures and the balance between creating inclusive environments and encouraging open, challenging conversations. Ultimately, the safety pin and safe space movements highlighted the complexities of allyship and the ongoing struggle for equity and inclusion in a deeply divided society.

#safeplaces #safetypins #woke

$40 Million Weekly Aid to Afghanistan Allegedly Benefits Taliban, Claim US Lawmakers

 


$40 Million Weekly Aid to Afghanistan Allegedly Benefits Taliban, Claim US Lawmakers


By Mason Media

March 4, 2025


Two U.S. lawmakers, Tim Burchett and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have raised alarming claims that $40 million in taxpayer money is being sent to Afghanistan every week, with a significant portion allegedly ending up in the hands of the Taliban. The lawmakers argue that this funding is being exploited by the Taliban regime, which has controlled Afghanistan since 2021.  


Cash Flows and Alleged Exploitation


Representative Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, detailed the process by which he believes the funds are being misused. According to Burchett, cash is flown into Afghanistan via charter jets, where it is auctioned off to the Taliban in exchange for Afghan currency.  

“Every week, $40 million in taxpayer money is ending up in the hands of the Taliban,” Burchett stated during a press conference. “The cash is flown in, auctioned to the Taliban, and then distributed to NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that are approved by the regime. Each time the money is exchanged or spent, the Taliban take a cut. They also decide who receives foreign aid, and often, those beneficiaries are either Taliban members or affiliated with Al Qaeda.”  


Burchett, who introduced the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Terrorists Act', emphasized that the U.S. has continued to send financial aid to Afghanistan since the Taliban’s takeover. He argues that this aid is being funneled to support terrorism rather than helping the Afghan people.  

Criticism from Lawmakers 


Marjorie Taylor Greene, another Republican lawmaker, echoed Burchett’s concerns, calling the ongoing financial assistance a “disgrace” to American taxpayers.  


“Hardworking Americans pay high taxes, and it’s unacceptable to see their money going directly into the hands of terrorists,” Greene said. “Not only is cash being flown into Afghanistan weekly, but NGOs are also injecting funds into the Afghan economy, with the Taliban taking a significant share.”  

The Process Behind the Allegations  


Burchett and Greene outlined the following steps they believe the $40 million in weekly aid takes before reaching the Taliban:  

1. Cash is flown into Afghanistan via charter jets.  

2. The money is auctioned to the Taliban in exchange for Afghan currency.  

3. NGOs, approved by the Taliban, receive the funds and are required to pay taxes to the regime.  

4. The Taliban take a cut every time the money is exchanged or spent.


Calls for Legislative Action 


In response to these allegations, lawmakers are pushing for the passage of the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Terrorists Act', which aims to halt U.S. financial aid to Afghanistan under Taliban rule. If passed, the legislation would undergo several stages before becoming law.  


Burchett stressed the importance of the bill, stating, “This legislation is crucial to ensuring that American taxpayer dollars are not used to fund terrorism.”  


Supporting Concerns


The claims made by Burchett and Greene align with concerns raised by John Sopko, the former Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Sopko, who has extensively investigated U.S. spending in Afghanistan, previously stated that the Taliban benefits from all aid sent to the country, including humanitarian assistance.  


While the U.S. government and international agencies maintain that aid is closely monitored and does not directly fund the Taliban, critics argue that the regime’s control over Afghanistan ensures they profit from every dollar that enters the country.  

Ongoing Debate and Future Steps


As the debate over U.S. aid to Afghanistan continues, Congress is expected to hold further discussions on the proposed legislation. If enacted, the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Terrorists Act' could significantly impact humanitarian funding for Afghanistan, raising questions about how to support the Afghan people without empowering the Taliban.  


The allegations highlight the complex challenges of providing aid in a country under Taliban control, balancing humanitarian needs with the risk of funding Terrorism.

#Whistleblower #News #Taliban #Terrorism #USAID


SEE THE VIDEO HERE



3/3/25

During the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's 80% of the Russian Cold War Leaders were from The Ukraine province

 


OPINION/COMMENTARY

During the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's 80% of the Russian Cold War Leaders were from The Ukraine province. During WWII Ukraine was the NAZI stronghold. There is a lot of history being covered up and re-written. 

We rebuilt Western Europe after WWII via the Marshall Plan - Backed by CitiBank. Now they want us to secure Eastern Europe from the Bear. Europeans act so sophisticated yet can't defend themselves. We are the youngest and richest country for a reason. We have a strong military. When we use it right we don't get punked. Ask the Cartels now.

THE REAL STORY:

The Ukrainian Influence on Soviet Leadership During the Cold War: A Historical Perspective

The Cold War, a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, spanned from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. It was a time of ideological conflict, nuclear arms races, and global power struggles. Within the Soviet Union, leadership during this era was dominated by figures who shaped the course of history. Interestingly, a significant proportion of these leaders—approximately 80% during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s—hailed from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, or Ukraine. This phenomenon raises important questions about the role of Ukraine in Soviet politics, the influence of regional identities, and the dynamics of power within the USSR.


The Ukrainian Connection: A Historical Context

Ukraine, often referred to as the "breadbasket of the Soviet Union," was not only an agricultural powerhouse but also a region with a rich cultural and political history. Its strategic location, fertile lands, and industrial base made it a critical component of the Soviet economy. However, Ukraine's influence extended beyond its economic contributions. During the Cold War, many of the Soviet Union's most prominent leaders were of Ukrainian origin or had strong ties to the region.

This trend can be traced back to the early years of the Soviet Union. Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Ukraine became a key battleground for the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. The region's integration into the Soviet Union in 1922 marked the beginning of its role as a vital political and economic center. Over time, Ukrainian politicians and bureaucrats rose through the ranks of the Communist Party, eventually occupying some of the highest positions in the Soviet government.


Key Ukrainian Leaders During the Cold War

The prominence of Ukrainian leaders during the Cold War is evident when examining the biographies of Soviet officials. While not all of these leaders were ethnically Ukrainian, many were born in Ukraine or spent significant portions of their careers there. Their experiences in the region shaped their political outlooks and leadership styles.


1. Nikita Khrushchev (1953–1964)  

   Perhaps the most famous Ukrainian leader of the Cold War era, Nikita Khrushchev, was born in the village of Kalinovka, near the Ukrainian border. Although ethnically Russian, Khrushchev spent much of his early career in Ukraine, where he rose through the ranks of the Communist Party. He served as the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party from 1938 to 1949, a position that solidified his influence within the Soviet hierarchy.  

   Khrushchev's tenure as the leader of the Soviet Union was marked by significant events, including the de-Stalinization campaign, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the early stages of the Space Race. His Ukrainian background is often cited as a factor in his pragmatic approach to governance, particularly his emphasis on agricultural reform and economic decentralization.

2. The Ukrainian Influence on Soviet Leadership During the Cold War: A Historical Perspective

The Cold War, a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, spanned from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. It was a time of ideological conflict, nuclear arms races, and global power struggles. Within the Soviet Union, leadership during this era was dominated by figures who shaped the course of history. Interestingly, a significant proportion of these leaders—approximately 80% during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s—hailed from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, or Ukraine. This phenomenon raises important questions about the role of Ukraine in Soviet politics, the influence of regional identities, and the dynamics of power within the USSR.


The Ukrainian Connection: A Historical Context

Ukraine, often referred to as the "breadbasket of the Soviet Union," was not only an agricultural powerhouse but also a region with a rich cultural and political history. Its strategic location, fertile lands, and industrial base made it a critical component of the Soviet economy. However, Ukraine's influence extended beyond its economic contributions. During the Cold War, many of the Soviet Union's most prominent leaders were of Ukrainian origin or had strong ties to the region.

This trend can be traced back to the early years of the Soviet Union. Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Ukraine became a key battleground for the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. The region's integration into the Soviet Union in 1922 marked the beginning of its role as a vital political and economic center. Over time, Ukrainian politicians and bureaucrats rose through the ranks of the Communist Party, eventually occupying some of the highest positions in the Soviet government.


Key Ukrainian Leaders During the Cold War

The prominence of Ukrainian leaders during the Cold War is evident when examining the biographies of Soviet officials. While not all of these leaders were ethnically Ukrainian, many were born in Ukraine or spent significant portions of their careers there. Their experiences in the region shaped their political outlooks and leadership styles.

1. Nikita Khrushchev (1953–1964)  

   Perhaps the most famous Ukrainian leader of the Cold War era, Nikita Khrushchev, was born in the village of Kalinovka, near the Ukrainian border. Although ethnically Russian, Khrushchev spent much of his early career in Ukraine, where he rose through the ranks of the Communist Party. He served as the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Communist Party from 1938 to 1949, a position that solidified his influence within the Soviet hierarchy.  

   Khrushchev's tenure as the leader of the Soviet Union was marked by significant events, including the de-Stalinization campaign, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the early stages of the Space Race. His Ukrainian background is often cited as a factor in his pragmatic approach to governance, particularly his emphasis on agricultural reform and economic decentralization.


2. Leonid Brezhnev (1964–1982)  

   Leonid Brezhnev, who succeeded Khrushchev, was born in Kamenskoye (now Dnipro), Ukraine. Like Khrushchev, Brezhnev's early career was closely tied to Ukraine, where he held various party positions. His leadership style, often characterized as conservative and bureaucratic, reflected the political culture of the Ukrainian SSR.  

   Brezhnev's tenure saw the height of the Cold War, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the escalation of the arms race with the United States. Despite his Ukrainian roots, Brezhnev's policies often prioritized the interests of the Soviet Union as a whole, rather than those of individual republics.

3. Konstantin Chernenko (1984–1985)  

   Although Chernenko's tenure as General Secretary was brief, his connection to Ukraine is noteworthy. Born in the Siberian region, Chernenko spent a significant portion of his career in Ukraine, where he developed close ties with Brezhnev. His leadership was marked by a continuation of Brezhnev's policies, emphasizing stability and continuity within the Soviet Union.


4. Other Prominent Figures  

   Beyond the General Secretaries, many other high-ranking Soviet officials during the Cold War had Ukrainian ties. For example, Andrei Gromyko, the long-serving Soviet Foreign Minister, was born in the Belarusian SSR but had strong connections to Ukraine through his political career. Similarly, Nikolai Podgorny, who served as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, was born in Ukraine and played a key role in Soviet politics during the 1960s and 1970s.


The Role of Ukraine in Soviet Politics

The disproportionate representation of Ukrainian leaders in the Soviet hierarchy can be attributed to several factors. First, Ukraine's economic and strategic importance made it a natural breeding ground for political talent. Leaders who succeeded in managing Ukraine's complex economy and diverse population were often seen as capable of handling the challenges of governing the entire Soviet Union.

Second, the Ukrainian Communist Party was one of the most powerful regional branches of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Success in Ukraine often served as a stepping stone to higher positions within the party. This was particularly true during the Stalin era, when loyalty and competence were highly valued.

Third, the cultural and intellectual environment of Ukraine may have played a role in shaping the leadership styles of Soviet officials. Ukraine's history of resistance to foreign domination and its strong sense of regional identity may have instilled in its leaders a pragmatic and resilient approach to governance.


The Legacy of Ukrainian Leadership

The influence of Ukrainian leaders on Soviet politics during the Cold War had lasting implications for both the Soviet Union and Ukraine. On one hand, their leadership helped to maintain the stability and cohesion of the Soviet state during a period of intense global tension. On the other hand, their policies often prioritized the interests of the central government over those of the republics, contributing to the eventual dissolution of the USSR.

For Ukraine, the prominence of its leaders during the Cold War is a source of both pride and controversy. While it highlights the region's importance within the Soviet Union, it also underscores the complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. The legacy of Ukrainian leaders like Khrushchev and Brezhnev continues to shape perceptions of Ukraine's role in Soviet history.


Conclusion

The fact that 80% of Soviet Cold War leaders during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were from Ukraine is a testament to the region's significance within the Soviet Union. These leaders, shaped by their experiences in Ukraine, played a crucial role in shaping the course of the Cold War. Their legacy is a reminder of the intricate interplay between regional identities and centralized power in the Soviet Union, as well as the enduring influence of Ukraine on the global stage. As we reflect on this period of history, it is clear that Ukraine's contributions to Soviet leadership were both profound and far-reaching.*Leonid Brezhnev (1964–1982)  

   Leonid Brezhnev, who succeeded Khrushchev, was born in Kamenskoye (now Dnipro), Ukraine. Like Khrushchev, Brezhnev's early career was closely tied to Ukraine, where he held various party positions. His leadership style, often characterized as conservative and bureaucratic, reflected the political culture of the Ukrainian SSR.  

   Brezhnev's tenure saw the height of the Cold War, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the escalation of the arms race with the United States. Despite his Ukrainian roots, Brezhnev's policies often prioritized the interests of the Soviet Union as a whole, rather than those of individual republics.


3. Konstantin Chernenko (1984–1985) 

   Although Chernenko's tenure as General Secretary was brief, his connection to Ukraine is noteworthy. Born in the Siberian region, Chernenko spent a significant portion of his career in Ukraine, where he developed close ties with Brezhnev. His leadership was marked by a continuation of Brezhnev's policies, emphasizing stability and continuity within the Soviet Union.


4. Other Prominent Figures  

   Beyond the General Secretaries, many other high-ranking Soviet officials during the Cold War had Ukrainian ties. For example, Andrei Gromyko, the long-serving Soviet Foreign Minister, was born in the Belarusian SSR but had strong connections to Ukraine through his political career. Similarly, Nikolai Podgorny, who served as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, was born in Ukraine and played a key role in Soviet politics during the 1960s and 1970s.


The Role of Ukraine in Soviet Politics

The disproportionate representation of Ukrainian leaders in the Soviet hierarchy can be attributed to several factors. First, Ukraine's economic and strategic importance made it a natural breeding ground for political talent. Leaders who succeeded in managing Ukraine's complex economy and diverse population were often seen as capable of handling the challenges of governing the entire Soviet Union.

Second, the Ukrainian Communist Party was one of the most powerful regional branches of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Success in Ukraine often served as a stepping stone to higher positions within the party. This was particularly true during the Stalin era, when loyalty and competence were highly valued.

Third, the cultural and intellectual environment of Ukraine may have played a role in shaping the leadership styles of Soviet officials. Ukraine's history of resistance to foreign domination and its strong sense of regional identity may have instilled in its leaders a pragmatic and resilient approach to governance.


The Legacy of Ukrainian Leadership

The influence of Ukrainian leaders on Soviet politics during the Cold War had lasting implications for both the Soviet Union and Ukraine. On one hand, their leadership helped to maintain the stability and cohesion of the Soviet state during a period of intense global tension. On the other hand, their policies often prioritized the interests of the central government over those of the republics, contributing to the eventual dissolution of the USSR.

For Ukraine, the prominence of its leaders during the Cold War is a source of both pride and controversy. While it highlights the region's importance within the Soviet Union, it also underscores the complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. The legacy of Ukrainian leaders like Khrushchev and Brezhnev continues to shape perceptions of Ukraine's role in Soviet history.


Conclusion

The fact that 80% of Soviet Cold War leaders during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were from Ukraine is a testament to the region's significance within the Soviet Union. These leaders, shaped by their experiences in Ukraine, played a crucial role in shaping the course of the Cold War. Their legacy is a reminder of the intricate interplay between regional identities and centralized power in the Soviet Union, as well as the enduring influence of Ukraine on the global stage. As we reflect on this period of history, it is clear that Ukraine's contributions to Soviet leadership were both profound and far-reaching.

#SovietUnion #Ukraine #Russia #Zelensky #Putin #ColdWar


The Left's Big Lie



#Democrats #TheBigLie #Nazis #AmericanLeft

Trump and TSMC announce $100 billion plan to build five new US factories

 


Trump and TSMC announce $100 billion plan to build five new US factories

Taiwanese semiconductor company TSMC plans to make a fresh $100 billion investment in the United States that would involve building five additional chips facilities in the country in coming years, its CEO announced with U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday

#Trump #Taiwan #Semiconductor #TSMC

Biden Staffer Says Administration Was 'Gaslighting' Public On Cognitive Decline



Biden Staffer Says Administration Was 'Gaslighting' Public On Cognitive Decline




Ukraine/Opinion


 OPINION/COMMENTARY


My Friends on the LEFT, Why weren't you praying 'FOR THE WORLD' when China, Russia, Hoothies, Iran, and Hamas realized Biden was weak and they all MADE THEIR MOVES?!?!

BIDEN gave us HELL on EARTH, and TRUMP is trying to bring you PEACE on EARTH.

Why is up down and down is up for Democrats and the LEFT? Why is LEFT right and RIGHT left for Democrats? Why is GOOD bad and BAD good for Democrats?

They lowered the Education standards, so 2+2 can be whatever you make it, and DON'T YOU DARE DISPUTE THE ANSWER...How DARE YOU SAY IT'S '4' ... or FO, Four, Pho, or whatever HOOD You claim ...

#Biden #Zelensky #Ukraine #Trump