Connect with us

Courageous Discourse

Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump

Published

3 minute read

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) encouraged Zelensky to reject deal with Trump, confirms my suspicion the Dems have been acting as agents for Ukrainian oligarchic state.

By John Leake

Zelensky’s conduct during his Oval Office meetings strongly suggested his confidence that Ukrainian’s oligarchic state—of which he is the dictatorial figurehead—has been calling the shots in Washington for the last four years.

I just saw a New York Post report that confirms my intuition. Turns out, Zelensky met Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) before he met President Trump at the Oval Office. As the Post reported:

Before meeting Trump, Zelensky met with anti-Trump Democrats who advised him to reject the terms of the mineral deal the president was offering, according to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

“Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine,” Murphy’s office posted on X at 11:15 a.m. Friday.

He attached a picture of Zelensky at a conference table, with Murphy seated on the opposite side. Forty minutes later, Zelensky arrived at the White House, where Trump met his car, smiled, shook his hand and walked him into the Oval Office.

This is consistent with my suspicion that many Democrat politicians have been acting as agents for the Ukrainian state. They may claim that their agency is purely out of personal conviction in the righteousness of the Ukrainian cause, but the sheer amount of public money that has been transferred to Ukraine raises the suspicion of corruption.

Because the mainstream media and the Democrats have succeeded in creating widespread adulation for Zelensky and Ukraine, it seems that approximately half of Americans don’t recognize the danger to U.S. national security that this state of affairs poses.

We don’t know who is actually running Ukraine and who is actually receiving the money and taking possession of the weapons, and where the weapons are ending up. What we do know is that multiple international watchdog organizations, including the European Commission, have long regarded Ukraine as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

I do not share the common affliction of having a short memory, and I still vividly recall this 2015 report in the Guardian and many other similar reports, including reports issued by the European Commission. As recently as 2023, former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker characterized Ukraine as “massively corrupt.”

I hope that the FBI under Kath Patel is considering the possibility that Democrats such as Chris Murphy have violated—or at least subordinated—their duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution by acting as agents (official, unofficial, or undeclared) for the oligarchic state apparatus of Ukraine.

Share

Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Courageous Discourse

Europe Had 127,350 Cases of Measles in 2024

Published on

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

US Mainstream Media Maintains Myopic Focus on Less than 1000 Cases

As the measles story in the US continues to unfold with reporting of a few cases here and there come in through mainstream media, I wondered about measles in Europe.

The WHO casually reported that the Europe Region had 127,350 cases in 2024.

According to an analysis by WHO and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 127 350 measles cases were reported in the European Region for 2024, double the number of cases reported for 2023 and the highest number since 1997.

Children under 5 accounted for more than 40% of reported cases in the Region – comprising 53 countries in Europe and central Asia. More than half of the reported cases required hospitalization. A total of 38 deaths have been reported, based on preliminary data received as of 6 March 2025.

Measles cases in the Region have generally been declining since 1997, when some 216 000 were reported, reaching a low of 4440 cases in 2016. However, a resurgence was seen in 2018 and 2019 – with 89 000 and 106 000 cases reported for the 2 years respectively. Following a backsliding in immunization coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic, cases rose significantly again in 2023 and 2024. Vaccination rates in many countries are yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, increasing the risk of outbreaks.

Many regions in Europe have lower rates of measles vaccination than the goal of 95%.

 

Less than 80% of eligible children in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Romania were vaccinated with MCV1 in 2023 – far below the 95% coverage rate required to retain herd immunity. In both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro the coverage rate for MCV1 has remained below 70% and 50% respectively for the past 5 or more years. Romania reported the highest number of cases in the Region for 2024, with 30 692 cases, followed by Kazakhstan with 28 147 cases.

The WHO Report does not mention adjudication of hospitalizations or deaths. Presumably hospitalization of healthy kids is routine for contagion control. So if measles is so common and presumably well-handled by Europe, why is it such a big deal in the United States? Don’t look for Sanjay Gupta or Anderson Cooper to tell you that a similar size region and population handles >100K cases per year without much fanfare.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

 

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.

Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Courageous Discourse

Europe Turns Totalitarian

Published on

In case anyone doubted what Vice President J.D. Vance said in Munich back in February, I can confirm that everything he said was correct—but I can also add that it was only a scrape on the surface.

Europe is going downhill. A wave of anti-democratic, anti-freedom laws, policies, and campaigns are rewriting the landscape of the continent where democracy and freedom were born.

This is nothing new per se—the Europeans not only invented the institutions of modern, Western civilization, but they also created Fascism, National Socialism, and Stalinism. It also ignited two World Wars in the last century. On the upside, its political leaders spent a good long time after 1945 trying to stamp out all forms of totalitarianism—and yet here we go again:

A 16-year-old was recently removed from her high school by police in Germany. Her crime? Reposting a pro-AfD video on TikTok involving the Smurfs (the populist-right wing party’s color is blue). A woman in the United Kingdom was detined for silently praying outside of an abortion clinic; the land of George Orwell has someone arrested for a literal thought crime.

It gets worse:

An Austrian woman was arrested for calling Muhammad, who married a nine-year-old girl, a paedophile. Another woman, this time in Germany, was fined €80,000 [$87,190] for making a Nazi salute. Again in Germany, an AfD politician was arrested and fined for claiming that migrants commit more gang rapes than German citizens do (the court did not dispute her facts, but said they incited hatred).

On February 3, a court in Stockholm, Sweden, sentenced a man for so-called “agitation against an ethnic or national group”. The court applied the Swedish “hate speech” laws, make it a crime to criticize any ethnic or national group—except for ethnic Swedes. You can de facto get sentenced for blasphemy against Islam, but not against Christianity.

Thanks for reading Larson’s Political Economy!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Most of the attacks on individual freedom are taking place within the borders of the European Union. The Orwellian Digital Services Act from a few years ago, and by ominous rulings by the Court of “Justice” of the European Union, show that the crackdown on citizens’ freedom is not a spur of the moment. However, as Britain is demonstrating with its efforts to lead the anti-freedom crusade. leaving the EU is no guarantee that a country will protect even the most basic rights of its citizens.

The totalitarian ambitions of Europe’s political leadership are not limited to free speech. Back in January,

Thierry Breton, the European Union’s former internal market commissioner, admitted in a French TV interview … that the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) bowed to EU pressure. It annulled the country’s presidential elections last month, following the first-round victory of the Eurosceptic and anti-NATO, right-wing populist candidate, Călin Georgescu.

In other words, Bretton—who has also been referred to as the EU’s special “censorship czar” for his role in advancing encroachments on free speech—openly admits that the EU interfered with the domestic affairs of a member state to have an election result nullified. Why? Because the EU’s top brass did not like the outcome of the election.

The annulment of the election result was ordered by Romania’s supreme court, which—it might be worth mentioning—is a mixture of judges and politicians. It based its decision on allegations of “foreign interference” where foreign, of course, refers to Russia.

To date not a shred of evidence has been presented in support of the supreme court’s ruling.

After Thierry Breton admitted to the EU’s active, foreign interference in the Romanian election, he threatened that the EU would do the same to Germany if the national conservative party Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD, got too many votes.

Along the same line of contempt for conservatives and for the integrity of democratic elections, the EU has waged an administrative, judicial, and increasingly fiscal war on Hungary. For the past 15 years, the Fidesz party has governed Hungary based on a consistent but in not way radical conservative platform.

Given the unending hostility toward Hungary, you might think that the country’s prime minister Victor Orban has been restraining free speech and rigging or annulling elections. He has done none of that: all his government is ”guilty” of is promoting traditional families, protecting children from the LGBTetc movement, enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, keeping taxes moderate, and encouraging foreign direct investment.

The result is a safe, economically thriving, socially cohesive, and family friendly country, right there in the heart of Europe. The Hungarian election system—the integrity of which has been proven time and time again—is an intriguing combination of proportionate and simple-majority representation. Voters get not one, but two votes to cast, one for each part of the system.

Four elections in a row, the Hungarian people have elected conservatives who prioritize Hungary and the needs of the Hungarian people. For this, they have received repeated showers of scorn from Brussels, including a barrage of accusations that Hungary is a semi-totalitarian state.

The implication, of course, is that Hungary does not have free elections, and yet every single election since at least 2010 has been meticulously scrutinized by foreign election observers. Not a single one of them has come up with any evidence of interference or wrongdoing by the government.

This is unsurprising, but it is also a point that leads us directly back to what former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton said about the Romanian and German elections. In the view of the European Union, the democratic nature of an election is not determined by the form under which the election takes place. It has nothing to do with the secrecy of the ballot, the equal right of every citizen to vote, or the government’s respect for the election outcome. The democratic nature of an election is determined entirely by what opinions the winning parties hold.

If those opinions are conservative, the election was undemocratic.

The European Union has now reached the point where it actively tries to prohibit election outcomes that it ideologically disagrees with. This means that elections where the EU engages in foreign interference—as Breton explained happened in Romania—are about as democratic as elections in Russia.

Add the growing crackdown on free speech, and the comparison to Russia becomes even more compelling. Throw into the mix the blatantly political prosecution of Marine Le Pen in France, which has eerie similarities to the prosecutions of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny—and the difference between the European Union and the Russian Federation boils down to a matter of time.

Thanks for reading Larson’s Political Economy!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Continue Reading

Trending

X