The Washington Post and Politico are among the foremost, albeit generic, Democrat propaganda outlets.

During the Trump presidency, both organizations breathlessly and relentlessly amplified the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, while comparing President Trump to authoritarians and fascists and making claims that he had the "design taste of dictators."

Despite Joe Biden now occupying the White House, they still cover a "never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines" and claim that the legal walls are closing in around Trump.

However, in recent times, both outlets are focused on a potential armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Politico has articles with headlines such as "Should the U.S. rattle Putin's cage?" and "Psaki: 'Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine."

Politico is accessible to all without a subscription.  Politico's newspaper is available for free in Washington. 

So who pays for employee salaries, the infrastructure, and maintenance?

They have web adverts, but is there any other source of funding?

Most of the articles on Politico that were justifying war with Russia have something distinctive that was noticed by Tucker Carlson.

Between the main body of the article and the author's name is the caption "Presented by Lockheed Martin."

Who is Lockheed Martin?

It is an arms and defense corporation based in the U.S.

This is adept wordsmithing.  They know that "Sponsored by Lockheed Martin" or "Paid for by Lockheed Martin" is too blatant.  They do not want to boast about their paid promotional activities.  So they keep it vague with the word "presented."

Next to the article is a web advert, clicking on which leads you to the official website for F-35.  F-35s are Lockheed Martin's stealth combat aircraft.

Politico may be biased, but it must be commended for fully disclosing its ties with Lockheed Martin.  Not every outlet is upfront about its conflicts of interest.

The Post carried an article with the headline "Biden must show that the U.S. stands ready to support Ukraine, militarily if necessary."

The article laments the U.S.'s failure "to deter Russia across four administrations, beginning with its invasion of Georgia in 2008, its seizure of Crimea and the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine in 2014, its intervention in the Syrian civil war in 2015."

It also cites the disproved "[Russian] interference in the U.S. presidential elections in 2016 and 2020."

It ends with this: "If Putin succeeds in conquering Ukraine and the United States does not respond forcefully, the Biden presidency will surely be limited to one term."

In other words, guarding the Ukraine-Russia border ranks high in the minds of U.S. voters.

The piece was authored by Michael G. Vickers, whom the Washington Post describes as "a former Special Forces officer and CIA operations officer, served as assistant secretary of defense for special operations, low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities (2007–2011) and undersecretary of defense for intelligence (2011–2015)."

You would think Vickers opted for retirement after 2015.  That is not the case.  In December 2015, Vickers was appointed to the board of BAE Systems, Inc.

BAE Systems is multinational arms and security firm.  It is the largest defense contractor in Europe and ranked the seventh-largest in the world based on 2021 revenues.

However, unlike Politico, the Washington Post didn't care to disclose Vickers's links to an arms manufacturer.

We hence have articles appearing in different publications pushing for armed conflict where the "presenters" and authors stand to profit from the war.

Perhaps a thorough background verification may cause the discovery of similar links among politicians, defense experts, and columnists who are sowing seeds for war.

The war-mongers are relying on the lack of curiosity on the part of casual news consumers to push their propaganda.  Even if their ties are discovered, they think the public can do nothing to deter them.

But war with Russia is different.

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were third-world countries with no retaliatory capabilities.  U.S. armed forces were able to prevail upon them in a matter of weeks.

Russia is a different proposition.  The Russians have a strong military and arms capability, which they will be justified in using if they sense a threat to their existence.  They are armed with nuclear weapons.

Should the protection of the Russia-Ukraine border be such a high priority for the U.S. when the U.S. is suffering under Biden?

Inflation is at a 39-year high, the supply chain crisis is causing a shortage of basic commodities; there is a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and deaths; there is a crime wave; and finally, the open borders are causing an influx of illegal aliens.

A war at such a juncture will add to the inflation, hurting an already fragile economy.

An armed conflict will lead to losses of lives of armed personnel and civilians living in nearby areas.  Matters could be considerably worse if there is a global conflict.

It has to be remembered that Biden empowered Russia by shutting the Keystone XL pipeline and waiving off sanctions on Nord Stream II, Russia's state-owned energy company subsidiary.  This has increased European dependence on Russian gas.  Hence, either war or even sanctions on Russian gas could skyrocket global gas prices. 

The Kremlin has said he wants to avoid raising tensions over Ukraine.  There have been talks between the U.S. and Russian officials.

But the warmongers seem unfazed.  They stand to make billions of dollars should there be a conflict.

We are thus reminded of President Eisenhower's final address to the nation when he issued the following stark warning: 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," he warned. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

That was in 1961.

We now have a media-military-industrial complex that has a global presence.

This is an unholy alliance of the myriad branches of worldwide government, arms-dealers, mercenaries, and the news media.  This coalition profiteers from wars, hence its members persuade governments to enter into wars and then to protract the conflicts in perpetuity.

President Trump wisely refused to enter into optional conflicts, which is why these war-mongers are ravenous for some fresh action.  They are hoping to deceive clueless Biden into the conflict.

The Democrats and their media allies probably think a war will serve as a distraction from their abominable record for misgovernance.

So what can you do about this?

Do not think you are powerless.

Call your congressional representative and senators to make it loud and clear that you are vehemently against this war.

Emphasize that you will vote them out or have them primaried if they justify or approve or vote for a war.

This insanity has to stop!

Image: National Archives via Picryl, no known restrictions.