I conclude from the evidence that will here be presented, that a well-coordinated plan appears to be forming within the U.S. Government, first, to choke-off and thoroughly censor-out from U.S.-and-allied news-media any information that might reduce the willingness of their publics to support going to a full-fledged all-out war against Russia and/or China; second, to commit the U.S. Government to demanding nothing less from Russia than capitulation to Ukraine, and for the U.S. to invade Russia if Russia refuses to do that; third, for the U.S. to supply to Ukraine the means and training to destroy Europe’s largest nuclear-power plant, which is in a Russian-controlled part of Ukraine, and thereby to cause a release of radiation from it which will immediately be blamed on Russia, so that the U.S. Government will then invade Russia in order to ‘protect’ Europe against Russia; and, fourth, for NATO ultimately to expand also into the Asia and Pacific region, in order to defeat China.
The authority for each of the allegations in this article is its sources that can immediately be seen and checked by simply clicking onto the relevant link in the article:
There are a number of proposed new laws (called “Bills”) that are pending in the U.S. Congress for the U.S. Government to initiate WW III — a nuclear invasion against Russia and/or China.
On April 6th, I headlined “How the U.S. Government Is Now Secretly Instituting Martial Law”, and reported that:
The U.S. Congress is now about to pass into law something called “The Restrict Act” that is being promoted as aiming to empower the Government to protect children from being influenced by foreign “adversaries” but would basically enable the Government to control all media in order to protect everyone in America from having access to allegations that come from a “foreign adversary” which it defines as “any foreign government or regime determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.” (All of the clauses in that determination are judgmental on the part of that “Secretary,” not necessarily based upon any proofs or even on any allegations about facts — and not at all based upon the finding by any court or by any independent scientific body.) This dictate, that there will be censorship against the “foreign adversary,” will be targeted against, but not be limited only to, the following countries, which are specifically identified as being “foreign adversaries,” in this Act to be passed by Congress and signed by President Biden (if that happens): China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. Those 6 countries are specifically named as being “foreign adversaries,” but the Act also allows the “Secretary” to add others that are, as yet, unidentified. (The Act specifically names Venezuela’s leader as being the reason why that country is on that list of 6 — essentially as being targeted by the U.S. for regime-change. Each of the other 5 countries on it is a “foreign adversary” irrespective of the identity of any of its leaders.)
Without Congress having to comply with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires a congressional passage of a declaration of war in order for the President to be authorized to order U.S. troops to invade a foreign country, this Act, if it becomes passed into law, will already institute martial law of strict censorship to prevent, in America, whatever the “Secretary” declares to be allegations from a “foreign adversary” to be published or publicized in the United States. The result, of course, will then be that the U.S. Government will be legally enabled to censor-out and ban whatever the U.S. Government wants to ban, and will need only to claim that the information that is being banned comes from a “foreign adversary.” …
On May 3rd I headlined “Pending U.S. Congressional Resolution on War Against Russia”, and opened:
The Ukraine Victory Resolution, which was introduced in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate on April 25th, now appears likely to become passed in both houses of the Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden. The Resolution says that, “It is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion and restored to its internationally recognized 1991 borders,” which means that unless Russia will return to Ukraine all of the land that it now is controlling within what had been the 1991 borders of Ukraine (Crimea, Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporizhia), America will declare war against Russia. …
In a separate article on the same day, I headlined about “The Pending WW III Resolution in Congress to Defend Ukraine Against Russia”, reporting that:
On April 25th, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02) and Ranking Member Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09) introduced the Ukraine Victory Resolution in the House of Representatives. Then, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), introduced the same resolution in the Senate. It states that U.S. policy is to assure Ukraine’s victory against the Russian invasion, and that, if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia there, then the U.S. Government will guarantee that Russia will be defeated in Ukraine.
It is not yet a formal U.S. declaration of war against Russia, but commits the U.S. to going to war against Russia if Russia wins its war in Ukraine. In other words: it says that there will be WW III if Russia wins in Ukraine. If this Resolution becomes U.S. law, then there will be only two possibilities: either Ukraine will defeat Russia in Ukraine, or else America will go to war against Russia thereby producing WW III.
Original cosponsors of the resolution in the House of Representatives also include: Mike Lawler (NY-17), Richard Hudson (NC-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Bill Pascrell (NJ-08), Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27), Brendan Boyle (PA-02), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Deborah Ross (NC-02), Jim Costa (CA-21), David Trone (MD-06), Joe Morelle (NY-25), Susan Wild (PA-07), and Marcy Kaptur (OH-09).
The Resolution says: “it is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion.” …
U.S. Executive decisions for war against both Russia and China:
On May 5th I reported the fact of, and then on May 15th I reported the news-censorship regarding, “Evidence U.S. Plans a WW III Against Both Russia and China”, and stating:
On May 3rd, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told C-Span in an interview, that there will be no objection by the U.S. Government if Ukraine’s Government attempts to or does assassinate Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. He said: “These are decisions for Ukraine to make, how it’s going to defend itself, how it’s going to get its territory back, how it’s going to restore its territorial integrity, and its sovereignty.” America has supplied over a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine in order for it to defeat Russia, and now says that if Ukraine uses some of it to assassinate Putin, that’s okay. This is unprecedented. (Even Hitler wasn’t as bad as that.)
Also on May 3rd, Japan’s Nikkei Asia news service headlined “NATO to open Japan office” and reported that “NATO is planning to open a liaison office in Tokyo, Japan, the first of its kind in Asia.” The North Atlantic Treaty Organization aims now to become not only America’s anti-Russian military alliance but also America’s anti-Chinese military alliance, which will support the breakaway of China’s province of Taiwan (which since 1972 the U.S. Government has formally recognized Taiwan to be) from China, just as it refuses to support the breakaway of Crimea and three other provinces of Ukraine from Ukraine. (In other words: though the U.S. regime supports the breakaway of Taiwan from China, it rejects the breakaway of Donbass, Crimea, etc., from Ukraine.)
America and its NATO deny that they are either anti-Russian or anti-Chinese and insist that they instead seek merely regime-change in both countries so that both Russia and China will come to provide democracy and human rights like America’s Government (the one that perpetrates far more invasions and coups than all other Governments in the world collectively do) provides (which it actually does not provide). …
On June 26th, I headlined “Two U.S. Senators Propose Nuclear War Against Russia”, and reported that,
U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced on June 22nd a Resolution which if passed and signed by President Biden (whom both Senators praised for his resolute hostility toward Russia), would commit the U.S. as the head of NATO to launch, on behalf of NATO, war directly against Russia, if (regardless of the reason) Russia uses even the smallest tactical nuclear weapon (for example, to destroy a command-center deep underground) in Ukraine (which isn’t a NATO country), and which Resolution alleges that the reason why America would do this for NATO (even though Ukraine isn’t a member) is that there might be some nuclear fall-out that might reach a NATO member nation from such an attack by Russia against Ukraine. In other words: they want to enable the U.S. President to launch a U.S. invasion of Russia if Russia becomes forced to use a nuclear device in order to be able to prevent Ukraine from joining America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.
At the press conference introducing their Resolution, Senator Graham said,
“Our message is to those around Putin: If you do this and follow his order, should he give it, you can expect a massive response from NATO. You will be at war with NATO.”
Their Resolution will allegedly be for “NATO” instead of for just the U.S. Government, and so if it becomes U.S. law, then — if the U.S. Government subsequently alleges that Russia has violated it — America will invade Russia and will expect all NATO countries to be on its side in the resulting World War Three. America would be in this War for NATO — not merely for America.
The Resolution furthermore says that the U.S. Senate:
“(2) views the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life, as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty,” which is the Treaty Article that obligates each member-nation to support NATO’s war.
That’s the core passage in this entire proposed document. In other words, not ONLY would Russia’s use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine trigger WW III under the Graham-Blumenthal Resolution, but ALSO an attack against Europe’s biggest nuclear electric-power plant, which is in Zaporozhia in Ukraine and which nuclear-power facility Ukraine’s government has several times aimed missiles at but not yet successfully hit, would trigger a NATO invasion of Russia, even though Ukraine, and not Russia, had done it. Russia has, in fact, been protecting that nuclear power plant, which is in territory that Russia controls, and this is the reason why none of Ukraine’s missiles against it has yet succeeded at hitting it. (Well, there was one that barely did, but not badly enough to cause any release of radiation from the plant.) The Resolution’s key clause is the sub-clause “or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory.” That’s the clause which (if this Resolution passes) could empower Ukraine’s government to spark a U.S. invasion of Russia — i.e., then a successful Ukrainian attack against that nuclear facility would “immediately” produce a U.S. nuclear attack against Russia (since the hypothesis of this Resolution is that in any such case, Russia had already entered a nuclear war against NATO, since a NATO member received some downwind radiation from that plant). …
Essentially, what Bill #3 aims to establish is the congressional authorization for the U.S. President to launch WW III against Russia if Ukraine’s government succeeds in hitting the Zaporozhia nuclear power plant hard enough for that plant to leak some radiation which might reach a NATO country. Interestingly: Bill #3 is written so as to authorize only an “immediate” invasion of Russia, and not to wait the perhaps months that might be necessary for an independent investigative commission to rule on whether it had been Ukraine or Russia that had perpetrated this attack. Also, “immediate” means NOT even to wait until there is any verification that a NATO member had received fall-out from that hit. “Immediate” means immediate.
Since, on May 3rd, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken already has made clear that the U.S. Government will have no objection if Ukraine kills Russia’s President, America has already made clear that whatever Ukraine’s Government might do in order to provoke Russia’s Government to a full-scale WW III will be acceptable to the U.S. Government.
On 3 August 2022, I had headlined “Ten Truths that Can’t Be Published Under the U.S. Regime”, and documented the history that had led up to this U.S. Government obsession ever since 1945 to ultimately conquer the entire world. This is solidly documented real history, no mere conspiracy-‘theory’ or hypothesis — and it is documented there in the article’s links to its online sources; so, you can check it out for yourself.
Only one U.S. Presidential candidate is campaigning against censorship, and against the U.S. Government’s and press’s hate-Russia and hate-China campaigns, and that person is leading in the approval ratings among the U.S. public, and is being treated by the American press as being a kook and a “conspiracy theorist.” What? — are all conspiracy theories false? None of them is true? Really? No conspiracy ever succeeds? Really? Is the U.S. major media’s overwhelming hostility toward that candidate evidence for intelligent persons to seriously consider possibly voting for that person? Or, has the U.S. Government been doing such a superb job for the American people as to instead foreclose considering to vote against it — to vote against the existing officials, in both Parties?