On July 7, 1941, a large American naval task force with a 4000-man Marine brigade arrived off Iceland. Despite British pressure, the government of Iceland refused to invite the American troops ashore. President Roosevelt ordered the Marines to invade and informed the US Congress that Marines had landed because it was in Iceland’s best interest.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MOBILIZATION, WORLD WAR II, 1938-1942; Office of the Chief of Military History; Department of the Army; Dr. Stetson Conn; 10 March 1959; https://history.army.mil/documents/WW…
According to the Russian military, NATO has increased its aerial surveillance efforts near the Russian border by 30 percent compared to the previous year.
Russia is not interested in an arms race, but is forced to combat capabilities in response to unfriendly actions by NATO, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Saturday.
“All measures taken are aimed exclusively at strengthening the defense, are limited in scale and correspond to modern military dangers”, Shoigu told reporters.
“We are not interested in the arms race. To reduce tensions, we intend to adhere to the maximum openness regarding military activity”, the minister said adding that the relevant information is being posted on the Defence Ministry’s website, while briefings are held for military attaches and media.
Shoigu pointed out that Russia had offered NATO a reduction in the number of drills amid the pandemic to prevent further difficulties, but the alliance responded negatively.
“The military leadership of Russia has repeatedly proposed to agree on joint measures in order to prevent further complications in relations”, Shoigu said.
According to the minister, these measures include transferring military drills to the inland exercise areas from the contact line between Russia and NATO, agreeing on the minimum permissible distance of approach of ships and aircraft, reducing the number of exercises and other activities of the Russian armed forces and the joint armed forces of NATO during the pandemic.
“These initiatives are still relevant. However, Brussels perceives them negatively. NATO is not yet ready to work together constructively to enhance regional stability”, Shoigu added.
The minister said that the North Atlantic Alliance has recently intensified its aerial surveillance efforts.
“The intensity of NATO’s air reconnaissance near the Russian border increased by more than 30 percent compared to the last year, in August of the last year, [there were] 87 flights, now about 120”, Shoigu told reporters following the end of the International Army Games.
According to the minister, from 23 August to 2 September, Russian jets were scrambled at least 10 times to intercept foreign planes over the Baltic, Barents, and Black seas.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in late August that Moscow has repeatedly offered NATO to start de-escalating military tensions, but the alliance has not demonstrated its readiness for similar steps. “Russia has already abandoned large-scale exercises near the borders of NATO countries, and moved large-scale military drills inland”, Lavrov said.
Shoigu expressed hopes that the alliance’s stance would change in the future.
Russian doctors have proposed to their German colleagues that they establish a joint group on the case of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, the president of Russia’s National Medical Chamber, noted paediatrician Leonid Roshal, told reporters on Saturday.
“Many people are concerned about Navalny’s fate, and the National Medical Chamber has now appealed to the German Medical Chamber … in order to create an expert group with them to study the main reason for Navalny’s condition,” Roshal said.
The paediatrician added that the reasons were not clear yet, noting that Russian doctors treating Navalny did their job very well and saved the patient. Studies carried out in Russia did not show that the politician was poisoned though, he noted.
“Let us gather calmly — the representatives and specialists of Russia, as well as toxicologists and specialists from Germany — and we will discuss whether or not [Navalny was poisoned], because if it turns out that Navalny was, indeed, poisoned, we believe that it is necessary to initiate a criminal case in Russia,” Roshal said.
According to Roshal, the Russian side has sent a request to German law enforcement agencies, as well as German doctors regarding the situation with Navalny, but there has been no answer yet.
On 20 August, Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny fell gravely ill during a domestic Russian flight. Following an emergency landing in the Siberian city of Omsk, he was taken to a local hospital and, according to regional doctors, he arrived just 17 minutes after landing.
For the next 44 hours, doctors waged an uninterrupted struggle for his life, as he went into a coma and was put on an artificial lung ventilator.
Immediately after Navalny fell ill, his spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh claimed that he might have been poisoned.
Upon conducting multiple tests, Russian medics established that no traces of poison had been found in his system, saying that Navalny’s condition was caused by an abrupt drop of glucose in his blood due to a metabolic imbalance.
How do we focus our resources to minimize the devastation caused by California’s wildfires? First, we can reduce ignitions. California’s deadliest fire, the Camp Fire and California’s 2nd largest fire, the Thomas Fire were ignited by faulty powerlines during high wind events. California’s sprawling power grid has rapidly expanded since 1970 to accommodate the influx of 20 million people. Accordingly, powerline-ignited fires increased area burnt by five times relative to the previous 20 years.
California’s largest fire (Mendocino Complex), its 3rd largest (Cedar Fire), 5th largest (Rim Fire), and 7th largest (Carr Fire), were all ignited by accidents or carelessness. Uncontrollably, more people cause more accidents, suggesting California’s wisest course of action requires creating more defensible space.
In contrast, the August 2020 fires, which will likely rank in the top 10 of burned area of California, were all naturally started by an onslaught of dry lighting. This prompted Governor Gavin Newsome to blindly blame climate change, implying we need to focus resources on minimizing CO2 concentrations to improve fire safety. But the science doesn’t support Newsome’s narrative.
Some researchers blame global warming, regardless of increased ignitions. They argue warmer temperatures dry out the vegetation more quickly, so more of California burns. Indeed, warmer drier weather creates a higher fire danger. But fire experts only found that correlation within forests. They found no such correlation along California’s central coast where the August 2020 lightning fires have been raging. The experts stated, as California’s summer drought proceeds, “grasslands and coastal chaparral are usually already hot, so they are not as sensitive to the extra heat from global warming.” And it was grasslands and chaparral the lightning ignited.
More resources must be focused on managing invasive grasses, or California will continue to experience larger fast-moving fires, regardless of climate change. Grasslands and chaparral provide an abundance of insensitive “fine fuels” that dry out within a day. Grasses grow quickly and unless managed provide more fuel for hotter fires. Fine fuels act as kindling that can ignite larger logs in cooler habitat. Invasive grasses increased ground fuels in desert regions, promoting more frequent fires that were once uncommon because the deserts’ lacked enough fuel. Along California’s coast invasive grasses have likewise usurped areas of shrublands. Furthermore, grasses provide a corridor for grassland fires to spread into chaparral and forests. The greater the abundance of grasses the faster and further fires spread.
Finally does dry lightning increase with climate change? Dry lightning usually occurs when the lower 1000 feet of the atmosphere is warm and dry and is overlain by unstable air at mid-elevation between 1000 and 5000 feet. The greatest occurrence of dry lightning happens in New Mexico and Arizona. Moisture pumped northward from the Gulf of California and Mexico causes mid-elevation air to become unstable and turbulent, generating lightning and precipitation. However, while the lightning reaches the ground the precipitation doesn’t, evaporating in the dry desert air. In the Sierra Nevada, dry lightning causes 69% of the lightning fires, peaking in August. But lightning is uncommon along California’s coast because the ocean provides a cool marine layer that inhibits convective turbulence.
However, in August 2020 a high-pressure system centered over the Southwest pushed the marine layer offshore. Simultaneously the high-pressure system carried air northward along the California coast, while entraining a seasonally unusual layer of moisture from a decaying tropical storm and setting the stage for dry lightning. Such coastal events are so uncommon and erratic weather models have great difficulty simulating and predicting them. Thus, it’s impossible to attribute coastal dry lightning to climate change and resources would be best spent on fuel management.
One of the most humiliating journalism debacles of the Trump era played out on December 8, 2017, first on CNN and then on MSNBC. The spectacle kicked off on that Friday morning at 11:00 a.m. when CNN, deploying its most melodramatic music and graphics designed to convey that a real bombshell was about to be dropped, announced that anonymous sources had provided the network with a smoking gun proving the Trump/Russia conspiracy once and for all: during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, Jr. had received a September 4 email with a secret encryption key that gave him advanced access to WikiLeaks’ servers containing the DNC emails which the group would subsequently release to the public ten days later. Cable news and online media spontaneously combusted, as is their wont, in shock, hysteria and awe over this proof that WikiLeaks and Trump were in cahoots.
CNN has ensured that no videos of the festivities are available on YouTube for anyone to watch. That’s because the claim was completely false in its most crucial respect. CNN misreported the date of the smoking gun email Trump, Jr. received: rather than being sent to him on September 4 — ten days prior to WikiLeaks’ public release, thus enabling secret access — the email was merely sent by a random member of the public after the public release by WikiLeaks (September 14), encouraging Trump, Jr. to look at those now-public emails.
Though the original false report cannot be viewed any longer (except in small snippets from other networks, principally Fox, discussing CNN’s debacle), one can view the cringe-inducing video of CNN’s Senior Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju explaining, after the Washington Postdebunked the story, that “we are actually correcting” the reporting, doing his best to downplay what a massive blunder this was (though the whole thing is fantastic, my favorite line is when Raju says, with no small amount of understatement: “this appears to change the understanding of this story,” followed by: “perhaps the initial understanding of what this email was, perhaps is not as significant based on what we know now”: perhaps):
Washington (CNN) Correction: This story has been corrected to say the date of the email was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The story also changed the headline and removed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., who posted a message about WikiLeaks on September 4, 2016.
So mistakes happen in journalism, even huge and embarrassing ones. Other than some petty schadenfreude, why is this worth remembering? The reason is that that sorry episode reflects a now-common but highly corrosive tactic of journalistic deceit.
Very shortly after CNN unveiled its false story, MSNBC’s intelligence community spokesman Ken Dilanian went on air and breathlessly announced that he had obtained independent confirmation that the CNN story was true. In a video segment I cannot recommend highly enough, Dilanian was introduced by an incredibly excited Hallie Jackson — who urged Dilanian to “tell us what we’ve just now learned,” adding: “I know you and some of our colleagues have confirmed some of this information: what’s up?” Dilanian then proceeded to explain what he had learned:
That’s right, Hallie. Two sources with direct knowledge of this are telling us that Congressional investigators have obtained an email from a man named “Mike Erickson” — obviously they don’t know if that’s his real name — offering Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump, Jr. access to WikiLeaks documents… It goes to the heart of the collusion question….. One of the big questions is: did [Trump Jr.] call the FBI?
How could that happen? How could MSNBC purport to confirm a false story from CNN? Shortly after, CBS News also purported to have “confirmed” the same false story: that Trump, Jr. received advanced access to the WikiLeaks documents. It’s one thing for a news outlet to make a mistake in reporting by, for instance, mis-reporting the date of an email and thus getting the story completely wrong. But how is it possible that multiple other outlets could “confirm” the same false report?
It’s possible because news outlets have completely distorted the term “confirmation” beyond all recognition. Indeed, they now use it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means, thereby draping themselves in journalistic glory they have not earned and, worse, deceiving the public into believing that an unproven assertion has, in fact, been proven. With this disinformation method, they are doing the exact opposite of what journalism, at its core, is supposed to do: separate fact from speculation.
CNN ultimately blamed its anonymous sources for this error, but refused to out them by insisting that it was a somehow a good faith mistake rather than deliberate disinformation (how did multiple “good faith” sources all “accidentally misread” an email date in the same way? CNN, in the spirit of news outlets refusing to provide the accountability and transparency for themselves that they demand from others, refuses to this very day to address that question).
But what is clear is that the “confirmation” which both MSNBC and CBS claimed it had obtained for the story was anything but: all that happened was that the same sources which anonymously whispered these unverified, false claims to CNN then went and repeated the same unverified, false claims to other outlets, which then claimed that they “independently confirmed” the story even though they had done nothing of the sort.
It seems the same misleading tactic is now driving the supremely dumb but all-consuming news cycle centered on whether President Trump, as first reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, made disparaging comments about The Troops. Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate.
So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate. Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story. … Full article
There is no doubt that having to take off your shoes when you go into someone’s house is a bit, well, we will just say, annoying. I know I despise it. However, it seems as though there may be some decent logic backing the house rule.
Shoes traipsing through the home may well be carrying nasty toxins, such as E. coli, and a host of others, along with them. Because our shoes commonly step all over bacteria during the day (think doggy poop remains, bird poop, bugs, old food), our shoes become carriers of bacteria. Just because you think you avoid stepping on “dirty” looking portions of the ground, it is almost impossible to avoid stepping on bacteria. Even grass and leaves carry loads of toxic substances including pesticides.
Illnesses such as E. coli often cause the infected person to suffer from major intestinal distress. With over 400,000 different bacterias stuck to your shoes, do you want to take the chance that E. coli is one of them?
A 2017 study showed that Clostridium difficile is commonly spread via shoes. Here’s the thing, prior to the study, Clostridium difficile was commonly considered an issue arising in hospital settings. Nope, it seems our good old Nikes, Reeboks, and Payless footings are a large likely culprit.
Using 2538 samples, the study revealed that less than 500 of the cases were acquired while in a hospital setting. That means the rest were found from shoes that had walked in typical areas used for shopping, dining, and commuting.
In order to prevent Clostridium difficile from spreading into the home, you’d need to remove your shoes. Wiping them on an abrasive floor mat won’t do the trick.
The good news is that if your uncle Paul just refuses to take his shoes off and does spread the illness into your home, you aren’t likely to die from it. It is rarely ever fatal. But that doesn’t mean we should lose the greater point which is that taking off your shoes before entering your home (or anyone else’s) is a sanitary move.
So what do you say? Will you be removing your shoes before entering your own house from this point forward?
Russians are dumb. Hopelessly stupid. They are amateurs of the worst kind. Ignoramuses on steroids. Why?
Well, for one, their so-called super-dooper biowarfare agent “Novichok” seems unable to kill anybody. The Russians must have realized that. This is why, when they tried to kill Skripal (after freeing him from jail) they put that Novichok thing all over the place: on the bench near Salisbury, on Skripal’s door handle, even in some bottle of perfume a local addict found in the trash. Probably all over the Skripal home, and this is why the Brits initially said that they would tear down the extremely toxic place (yet both the Skripal cat and their hamster survived – tells you how utterly useless that pretend biowarfare substance really was…).
One would have thought that after this total cluster-bleep the Russians would have learned their lesson.
But no. They are clearly too dumb for that.
So they decided to poison Alexei Navalnyi, a well-know “dissident”.
And they failed.
Again!
Not only did they use exactly the same “Novichok” (or so says the German media), they allowed Navalnyi’s aircraft to make an emergency landing and the FSB did nothing to prevent an ambulance to bring Navalnyi to a hospital. Apparently, the FSB does not even have the authority to prevent such urgent treatment of the man they want to kill. Heck, they can even create a traffic jam to prevent Navalnyi from getting to a hospital.
How incompetent!
Even worse, these accursed Russki doctors gave Navalnyi atropine, the exact same substance the Germans gave him. Makes me wonder if these doctors were not all CIA/BND agents trying to save Navalnyi’s life…
Clearly, the FSB are also stupid: they can’t even get aircraft or doctors to obey them…
But it gets worse. In spite of the fact that Navalnyi has broken the terms of his suspended sentence and in spite of the fact that such a person cannot leave the country, these Russian imbeciles allowed him to fly to Germany while his body was still full of Novichok sloshing around.
All the Russians needed to do to kill Navalnyi would have been to give him a heart attack using any one of the many untraceable agents in existence (say, potassium chloride).
In despair, the clueless FSB might have caused Navalnyi do die in a car “crash”.
But they can’t even do that. Shame on you, FSB!
And since Navalnyi is diabetic, killing him ought to be fantastically simple: just give him the wrong dose of meds and, voilà, bye-bye Navalnyi. But not, these idiots decided to use the now infamous Novichok.
Obviously, Russians are the dumbest, most incompetent, idiots on the planet! Russian special services and biological research institutes are especially known for the crass incompetence.
Right?!
Just like the so-called Russian hackers (another Russian category famous for its extremely low IQ!) could not even try to hack DNC computers or steal the 2016 election without leaving their Russian sounding aliases all over the place. Heck, these hackers even worked only during Moscow time office hours.
I am telling you – the Russians are fantastically stupid, the dumbest people on the planet.
Especially their intel and security officers, their biowarfare specialists and their hackers. Morons. All of them!
Let’s all repeat it together: the Russians are dumb! the Russians are dumb! the Russians are dumb!
By Serena Wylde | TCW Defending Freedom | October 18, 2023
James A Shannon, director of the US National Institutes of Health 1955-68, said: ‘No vaccination can be proven safe before it is given to children.’
When he made that statement, it was still possible in the US to sue vaccine manufacturers under tort law for vaccine-induced deaths and injuries, which is no longer the case.
Today the US has the world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule and ranks as the sickest country, with the highest infant mortality, in the developed world. The UK does not lag far behind.
Vaccines carry three separate areas of potential risk. Firstly, they artificially stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, which temporarily inhibits another part of the body’s defence mechanism. In an infant, whose immune system is just developing, this high demand of energy can in some cases overwhelm its metabolic reserves, and cause brain inflammation. The brain is the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body, followed by the gastro-intestinal tract and the immune system.
Secondly, vaccines contain chemicals, metals and drugs. Thirdly, according to the former pharmaceutical R&D executive Sasha Latypova, traditional vaccines are consistently contaminated with plant and animal proteins which hyper-sensitise the body, especially in children, giving rise to allergies.
In the US in the 1970s there were three inoculations recommended for children… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 