congress

Image

The New Paradigm (Short Film)

  • New Paradigm Institute

Western man in the last several centuries has voided the universe of all other intelligence. This voiding has left human beings in a deep state of grief, feeling that something fundamental is missing, something is wrong, and something is left out. It appears that what this reflects is a kind of “reinsolment” of the disowned cosmos. The sentiment is palpable; there are elements in our existence that we have not yet fully acknowledged or integrated into our understanding of reality.

Turning to current events, the spotlight is on Capitol Hill, where a highly anticipated congressional hearing is set to discuss unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs), commonly referred to as UFOs. Interest in this topic has surged, moving from the fringes to the mainstream, drawing government officials, military experts, and whistleblowers. The atmosphere is charged with anticipation as members of the public line up to access the hearing.

At the hearing, witnesses highlighted that inexplicable phenomena have been observed by multiple individuals, challenging our current scientific understanding. Army Colonel Carl Nell, a member of the federal UAP task force, claimed that non-human intelligence interacts with humanity and that this engagement is not a new phenomenon. Such claims raise questions regarding governmental transparency and assert that there are unelected officials aware of these interactions, which they may be reluctant to disclose fully.

The upcoming release of information to the National Archives marks a pivotal moment in the journey toward transparency regarding UAPs. However, many believe that this “controlled disclosure” process is designed to both mitigate public reaction and manage how this information is released. While some may see efforts to slow down the revelation of information as an attempt to keep the truth hidden, others argue it is a responsible way of preparing society for profound new realities.

The complexity of this situation is compounded by the claims that programs related to UAPs operate without proper congressional oversight, raising significant concerns about the constitutional structure of governance. There is a growing sentiment that such secrecy undermines democracy, allowing a national security bureaucracy to make decisions that should involve elected representatives. This has prompted calls for a more engaged citizenry and greater accountability from government officials.

In Europe, efforts are underway to establish a harmonized system for monitoring and analyzing UAPs, reflecting the global nature of the phenomenon. Reports indicate that millions have witnessed UAPs, yet only a small fraction feel safe enough to report their experiences. This underlines a widespread need for a more robust platform for those who have encountered unexplained aerial phenomena.

As the dialogue continues, the global community grapples with the implications of nonhuman intelligences potentially visiting Earth. This moment challenges historical notions of human supremacy, urging a shift in perspective towards a respectful relationship with other forms of life and intelligence, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial. The transformation in human identity that this realization demands could mark a significant evolutionary leap.

Ultimately, public engagement is critical to driving demand for transparency and accountability on this pressing issue. History shows that substantial movements for change often arise from grassroots demands that push for attention from policymakers. Organizations like the New Paradigm Institute are stepping up to facilitate this process, encouraging citizens to mobilize and hold their representatives accountable in matters of UAP disclosure.

Image

Pete Hegseth melts down after Pat Ryan humiliates him live at tense hearing

In a recent congressional session, Congressman Pat Ryan from New York took a firm stance on the subject of military neutrality and the importance of apolitical service. Recognizing the shared experiences of his fellow servicemen and women, Ryan emphasized that the military exists to uphold the Constitution, not to serve any political party or individual. His address was notable for cutting through the typical partisan rhetoric, aiming instead to foster a sense of patriotism and unity among those who have worn the uniform.

Ryan specifically highlighted troubling events that occurred at Fort Bragg, where soldiers from the 18th Airborne Corps were reportedly advised that if they possessed political views that opposed the current administration, they needed to speak with their leadership to be swapped out of an event featuring the president. Additionally, the presence of a pop-up shop selling MAGA merchandise on the base raised significant concerns. Ryan stressed that these incidents are alarming for anyone who values the military’s role as a nonpartisan institution, labeling them as a “bad week for the army.” His application of accountability was clear: military service must be about loyalty to the Constitution, not to political figures.

In his questioning of General Kane and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegth, Ryan sought clarification on the military’s stance regarding political loyalty. General Kane firmly stated that during his over 30 years of service, he had never been required to pledge any sort of political loyalty. This was a critical affirmation of the military’s longstanding tradition of apolitical service. Ryan pressing Hegth on his familiarity with DoD Directive 1344.10, which governs the political activities of service members, revealed significant tension as Hegth struggled to directly address Ryan’s concerns. Ryan pointedly questioned Hegth about the appropriateness of the president wearing MAGA merchandise at official events, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between military service and political expressions.

Ultimately, Ryan’s strong statements about the inappropriate mingling of political loyalty with military service culminated in his demand for Hegth’s resignation, which he characterized as necessary due to the Secretary’s failure to uphold the integrity of the military. This call for accountability went beyond mere rhetoric; it served as a clear warning against allowing political influences to compromise the neutrality essential to the military’s function in a democratic society. Ryan’s remarks illustrated the critical importance of safeguarding the military’s apolitical nature in an era where political divisions run deep, stressing that any erosion of this principle poses a danger to the very foundations of American democracy.

As discussions around military neutrality continue, Ryan’s challenge remains pertinent: should political loyalty have any place in the U.S. military? This inquiry resonates deeply within the broader conversation about the role of the armed forces in a politically charged environment, urging all to consider the implications of intertwining military service with partisan politics.

Paradigm-Changing UFO Transparency Legislation Fails In Congress For Second Consecutive Year

An unprecedented Senate amendment aimed at increasing transparency on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), introduced by U.S. Senators Mike Rounds and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, has been excluded from the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (NDAA FY 2025) Manager’s Package.

It was seen as the final opportunity for the amendment to be considered for inclusion in law within the finalised version of the NDAA.

(https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/paradigm-changing-ufo-transparency-legislation-fails-in-congress-for-second-consecutive-year)

Reality of National Security State Trumps ‘Delusions’ of U.S. Democracy

In the halls of U.S. government, “policy in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions,” political scientist argues in new book

“I think the American people are deluded.”

So says Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon, whose new book, National Security and Double Government (Oxford University Press), describes a powerful bureaucratic network that's really pulling the strings on key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

The 'double government' explains why the Obama version of national security is virtually indistinguishable from the one he inherited from President George W. Bush.

The American public believes “that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change,” Glennon told the Boston Globe in an interview published Sunday. “Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy… But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.”

Glennon argues that because managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies operate largely outside the institutions meant to check or constrain them—the executive branch, the courts, Congress—national security policy changes very little from one administration to the next.

This explains, he says, why the Obama version of national security is virtually indistinguishable from the one he inherited from President George W. Bush. It's also why Guantanamo is still open; why whistleblowers are being prosecuted more; why NSA surveillance has expanded; why drone strikes have increased.

“I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against,” Glennon said. Drawing on his own personal experiences as former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as conversations with dozens of individuals in U.S. military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies and elected officials, Glennon drew the following conclusion: “National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy.”

To dismantle this so-called “double government”—a phrase coined by British journalist and businessman Walter Bagehot to describe the British government in the 1860s—will be a challenge, Glennon admits. After all, “There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.”

But he is not hopeless. “The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people,” he said. “The people have to take the bull by the horns.” More

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License