"The national debt isn't the cause of our problems: It's the receipt. It's the paper trail of the largest upward transfer of wealth in 250 years of American history ..."
                                                  ~The Hartman Report

 

 

2/26/26
 

2/24/26

BREAKING: Democrats Declare War on Trump's State of the Union With Boycotts, Counter-Rallies and Epstein Survivors

Democrats are refusing to play along with Donald Trump's State of the Union pageant tonight, mobilizing a full-scale show of resistance that includes boycotts, dueling counter-events, and a powerful symbolic move that will put Epstein survivors inside the Capitol chamber itself. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries made clear his caucus has two acceptable options: attend in "silent defiance" or join alternative programming happening across Washington, and Democrats are doing both in a big way.

Thousands are expected to gather on the National Mall for the "People's State of the Union," hosted by MoveOn Civic Action and featuring everyday Americans hit hardest by Trump's agenda. Senators Ed Markey, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff and others will be there instead of giving Trump the audience he craves. A second counter-event, the "State of the Swamp," is being held at the National Press Club, and the name alone says everything about how Democrats view this administration.

Some members are skipping Trump's speech altogether. Rep. Ami Bera put it plainly, writing that after watching Trump "run roughshod over the Constitution" and "openly engage in corruption," he refuses to give Trump the dignity of his presence. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Dina Titus and Sen. Ruben Gallego are also staying away.

But perhaps the most powerful protest is happening inside the chamber itself. Rep. Ro Khanna will bring Epstein survivor Haley Robson, calling her presence proof that accountability must come to "the Epstein class." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is also bringing an Epstein survivor. Democrats are making sure the faces of Trump's failures and cover-ups are impossible to ignore tonight.

Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus will wear white, honoring the generations of women who fought for the right to vote and sending a message that they are still in that fight, especially as the Trump administration wages specific attacks on women's voting rights.

Jeffries summed it up perfectly: "We're not going to Donald Trump's house. He's coming to our house."

 

 

 

February 23, 2026 10:00A.M.

 

This morning in Brussels, NATO confirmed that Canada has formally requested Article 4 consultations — a serious step that allows member states to meet when they believe their security or sovereignty is threatened. This is only the seventh time Article 4 has ever been invoked — and the first time it has been used over concerns about another NATO member.

Canada did not name the United States directly, but its request references statements questioning Canadian sovereignty and threats to review NORAD. Canada is asking NATO to reaffirm member sovereignty, review North American defense stability, and explore backup intelligence and defense coordination if U.S.–Canada cooperation weakens.

Several NATO countries — including the UK, France, Germany, and others — have expressed support for consultations. The White House dismissed the move as political, while the Pentagon signaled it would participate constructively, revealing internal U.S. divisions.

This puts Washington in a difficult position: engaging validates Canada’s concerns, while rejecting the process risks isolating the U.S. within its own alliance.

Three possible outcomes: the U.S. retreats under alliance pressure, NATO becomes internally divided, or Canada gradually realigns its defense relationships toward Europe.

What happens next could shape the future of NATO and Western security.

 

 The Russian Civil War, Foreign Intervention, and the Myth of Wall Street Control

The Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1921) remain among the most dramatic political collapses in modern history. Because the period was chaotic, secretive, and violent, it has generated many theories — some supported by evidence, others not.

I. The Bolsheviks and War Communism (1918–1921)

After seizing power in October 1917, the Bolsheviks faced:

• World War I collapse

• Economic breakdown

• Civil war against anti-Bolshevik forces

• Foreign military intervention

To survive, they implemented War Communism, which included:

• Nationalization of major industries

• Abolition of private trade

• Forced grain requisition from peasants

• Centralized control of banks

• Strict state distribution of goods

This resulted in:

• Hyperinflation

• Collapse of the monetary system

• Urban depopulation

• Severe famine

There was widespread confiscation of property belonging to nobles, clergy, merchants, and political opponents.

This is well documented in Soviet archives and mainstream scholarship.

II. The Red Terror

In 1918, following assassination attempts and internal unrest, the Bolsheviks launched the Red Terror:

• Political repression through the Cheka (secret police)

• Arrests and executions of perceived “class enemies”

• Confiscation of property

• Suppression of dissent

The Red Terror was a brutal consolidation of power. It did involve seizure of wealth from elites. However, historical evidence shows these resources were primarily used to sustain the regime and its war effort — not to finance foreign bankers.

III. Foreign Nationals in the Red Army

The Red Army included non-Russian fighters, most notably:

• Latvian Riflemen (who played an important role in early Bolshevik security)

• Former Austro-Hungarian POWs

• Some Hungarians, Germans, and Chinese workers

However:

• Most were stranded prisoners of war after World War I.

• Many joined for ideological, political, or survival reasons.

• They were not primarily mercenaries funded by foreign capital.

The claim that 200,000 foreign mercenaries were paid by Western financiers is not supported by mainstream academic research.

IV. Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War

Several foreign powers intervened against the Bolsheviks:

• Britain

• France

• United States

• Japan

• The Czechoslovak Legion

Their motivations included:

• Preventing German access to Russian resources

• Protecting Allied war supplies

• Attempting to reopen the Eastern Front

• Containing Bolshevism

However:

• The intervention was limited and inconsistent.

• Western governments were war-weary after World War I.

• There was no unified strategy to restore the Tsar or decisively defeat the Bolsheviks.

• Allied withdrawal occurred largely due to domestic political pressure and lack of commitment — not because Bolsheviks repaid debts.

V. Wall Street and the Bolsheviks

Wall Street and the Russian Revolution by Richard B. Spence examines financial interactions between Western bankers and revolutionary Russia.

Spence argues:

• Some American and British financiers engaged pragmatically with Bolshevik authorities.

• There were complex financial dealings involving gold and bonds.

• Certain business interests sought opportunities amid chaos.

However:

• There is no strong archival evidence that Washington financed the Bolshevik Revolution.

• There is no proof that Wall Street orchestrated Russia’s collapse.

• Western investors actually lost enormous sums when the Bolsheviks repudiated Tsarist debt in 1918.

If Western elites had intended to profit from the Revolution, the immediate outcome was largely financial loss.

VI. Confiscation and “Asset Stripping”

During War Communism:

• Aristocratic estates were seized.

• Church valuables were confiscated (notably in 1922).

• Palaces and museums were appropriated by the state.

• Banks were nationalized.

There was chaos, corruption, and some looting.

Estimates of hundreds of millions of dollars in seized valuables appear in historical discussions. However:

• Most confiscated wealth remained under Soviet state control.

• There is no reliable evidence that these assets were systematically transferred to Western financial institutions as repayment.

VII. What Can Be Concluded

Historically Supported

• The Bolsheviks confiscated wealth.

• The Red Terror involved repression and expropriation.

• Foreign nations intervened in the Civil War.

• Some Western financiers had limited financial dealings with the new regime.

Not Supported by Strong Evidence

• That Wall Street engineered or financed the Bolshevik Revolution.

• That Red Terror wealth was used to pay American bankers.

• That 200,000 foreign mercenaries were funded by Western capital.

VIII. Philosophical Reflection: Revolution and Power

The Russian Civil War illustrates a recurring historical pattern:

Revolutions often dismantle existing elites — but replace them with new hierarchies.

The Bolsheviks destroyed:

• Aristocratic privilege

• Church authority

• Private capital

• Traditional social hierarchy

They created:

• Party bureaucracy

• Centralized state power

• Political repression

• A new ruling class

Rather than making Russia “amendable to capitalism,” the Bolsheviks constructed a state-controlled economic system that remained fundamentally anti-capitalist until reforms decades later.

Final Assessment

The Russian Civil War was primarily the result of:

• World War I exhaustion

• Economic collapse

• Political radicalization

• State breakdown

• Ideological extremism

Foreign opportunism existed. Financial entanglements occurred. But the claim of a coordinated Western conspiracy to fund Bolshevism and destroy Russia is not supported by strong documentary evidence.

History is often tragic enough without adding hidden puppet masters.

https://substack.com/@rodermortega