The Impotence of the Supreme Court
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF |February 3, 2021
Imagine if the DEA established a torture and prison camp in, say, Odessa, Texas. Whenever DEA agents arrest someone suspected of violating America’s drug laws, the suspect is taken to the DEA camp, where he is tortured into giving up names of people involved in the drug trade. Prisoners are denied a trial for years, perhaps forever. If a trial is ever held, a tribunal of DEA officials determines guilt or innocence. Hearsay evidence is admitted at trial — the accused are not permitted to cross-examine witnesses against them. Attorney-client communications are monitored and supervised. Meanwhile, the DEA initiates an assassination program that brings swifter “justice” to drug-law violators. It enables DEA agents to simply kill drug suspects without any indictment or trial at all.
There is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would declare all of this unconstitutional. That is precisely the type of thing that our ancestors wished to avoid. That’s why they enacted the Bill of Rights. They weren’t satisfied with just the Constitution. They knew that the federal government would attract the type of people who would set up these types of camps. They wanted a Bill of Rights to specifically spell out express restrictions on the powers of federal officials.
Take the Fifth Amendment. It expressly states that no person shall “be deprived of life” without “due process of law.” Due process means formal notice of an accusation, such as a grand-jury indictment,” and a trial. That means no assassination because assassination involves killing someone without an indictment or trial.
Thus, if the DEA established an assassination program for drug suspects, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional.
Consider the Sixth Amendment. It states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….”
Why did our ancestors include that provision? Because they knew that without it, federal officials would jail people indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of their lives. They also knew that if they didn’t make it clear in the Bill of Rights, federal officials would use judges or tribunals, not juries, to decide guilt or innocence.
Thus, if the DEA established our hypothetical system, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional.
The Sixth Amendment also guarantees the right of an accused to confront witnesses against him. That entails the right to cross examine them. With the use of hearsay evidence, that right is destroyed. Thus, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court would declared the DEA’s “judicial” system unconstitutional.
Given that the Supreme Court would declare our hypothetical DEA torture and prison camp and “judicial” system unconstitutional, why hasn’t it done the same with the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s torture and prison camp at Guantanamo Bay?
After all, that camp has all the characteristics of our hypothetical DEA camp. Moreover, military and CIA officials are every much federal officials as DEA officials. As such, they are just as subject to the Bill of Rights as other federal officials, There is no exception in the Bill of Rights for the military or the CIA.
So, why the difference? Why do the Pentagon and the CIA get a pass on violating the Bill of Rights while the DEA doesn’t?
The answer is very simple: In a national security state, the military-intelligence establishment is sovereign and supreme. It runs the show. It permits the Supreme Court, along with the president and the Congress, to have the veneer of power but it is the ultimate decider of how the federal government is going to run.
It all turns on power. In the final analysis, government is force. It is through force and the threat of force that its commands and orders are carried out. The Supreme Court’s orders are enforced by U.S. Marshalls. Imagine a team of U.S. Marshalls appearing at the Pentagon and CIA headquarters with an order to shut down the torture and prison center at Gitmo. What do they do when the Pentagon and the CIA ignore them? They do nothing because the amount of force wielded by a team of U.S. Marshalls is minuscule compared to the military and intelligence force they are facing.
Everyone in the federal government fully understands this phenomenon. The national-security establishment is all-powerful within the federal government. Its powers are omnipotent. When it comes to enforcing the Bill of Rights against the omnipotent power of the Pentagon and the CIA, the Supreme Court knows full well that it is impotent.
Beijing hopes Washington will follow China’s lead and invite WHO to the US in search for origin of Covid-19
RT | February 2, 2021
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has urged Washington to invite the WHO to conduct traceability testing in the US, citing the fact the American authorities found Covid-19 antibodies in blood donations as early as December 2019.
Speaking on Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters that Beijing has always maintained close communication and cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO) on Covid-19 traceability, and he said it was time the US followed suit.
“I hope that the United States will adopt a positive, scientific, and cooperative attitude on traceability issues, as well as maintain transparency, like China, and invite WHO experts to the United States to conduct traceability research and make positive contributions to international anti-epidemic cooperation and scientific traceability.” Wang said.
The spokesman told reporters that traceability testing was a very complex issue, with many clues, reports and studies needing to be taken into account.
“I will give you an example. According to a research report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were antibodies to the new coronavirus in some American blood donations in December 2019. This means that the new coronavirus may have appeared in the United States at that time, earlier than the official US report,” Wang stated, reinforcing Beijing’s call for Washington to invite the WHO to America.
Wang continued to point out that China has conducted multiple rounds of in-depth exchanges and shared a lot of information and research results with international partners, including the WHO.
WHO experts are currently in China investigating the source of Covid-19, and they visited a wet market in Wuhan on Sunday. It has been widely suggested that a Chinese wet market was the environment where Covid-19 first passed to humans.
Scientists are still exploring a number of theories relating to the origins of the virus.
Lithuania is training the Ukrainian military despite its own inexperience
By Paul Antonopoulos | February 3, 2021
Lithuanian military instructors trained the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UBS) last month as a group of specialists from the National Defense Volunteer Force, the Training Doctrine Headquarters, the GKS Air Base and the Engineering Battalion went to Ukraine. The Lithuanian Ministry of Defense is attempting to bring the Ukrainian army closer to NATO standards by helping the reformation of military education and fund the training of Ukrainian officers at the Baltic Defense College. Decisionmakers in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius think they can assist Ukraine in joining NATO.
NATO granted Ukraine enhanced partnership status in June 2020 and the UBS switched to NATO’s military rank system in January this year. This increased Ukraine’s access to Alliance programs and military maneuvers. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry set a goal – to bring the Ukrainian military into compliance with NATO requirements. Ukrainian soldiers even began to learn English. This Lithuanian leadership over Ukraine is strange considering the vast differences between their military capabilities.
In the Global Firepower military ranking for 2021, Ukraine ranks 25th in the world despite supposedly having outdated standards. Lithuania is ranked 85th. For 2021, Kiev will spend $9.6 billion dollars on its military and Lithuania only $880 million. The UBS has 255,000 soldiers in their ranks, and Lithuania has only 20,565. Ukrainian warplanes and tanks are incomparable to Lithuania’s fleet. In addition, Ukraine has a defense industry, something the Baltic country does not. This huge difference in ranking and data brings to question why Lithuania is “teaching” Ukraine about military matters.
If specific quantitative indicators are ignored and some abstract NATO standards are prioritized, the Alliance’s operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere are considered catastrophic failures as they did not achieve any peace or stability after the Alliance’s regime change operations. Lithuania’s planned participation in NATO’s 2021 international operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Central African Republic, Mali and Kosovo is very modest with only 170 soldiers – this hardly constitutes as major wartime experience. In fact, Ukraine has more military experience than Lithuania when we consider the conflict in Donbass.
Lithuania will help Ukraine adapt to NATO standards, but despite Kiev’s loud statements about full membership by 2030, it is unlikely to be achieved. Replacing weapons and training hundreds of thousands of soldiers to NATO standards is a very complex, expensive and time-consuming process. As an example, Poland, which has been in the Alliance for 20 years, has not yet been able to completely get rid of its Soviet-era weaponry.
The problem of technological disadvantage also applies to the Lithuanian Armed Forces. Lithuania’s military-political ambitions, its desire to become NATO’s main center in the Baltic region against Russia, and becoming the main trainer of the UBS goes beyond their actual capabilities. Lithuania’s military spending exceeds 2% of GDP per year and is one of the very few countries to actually meet this criterion. However, the entirety of Lithuania’s GDP is only $54.63 billion, tiny compared to Ukraine’s $154 billion or Russia’s $1.7 trillion. Lithuania plans to increase its military spending to 2.5% of GDP. Although Lithuania is extremely ambitious, the reality is that NATO only views the Baltic country as a bridgehead against Kaliningrad in a potential war against Russia.
The indefinite stay of foreign military forces in Lithuania has been ongoing since 2017. Lithuania has the largest number of NATO military facilities in the region and the significant foreign presence demonstrates the powerlessness of their military despite their constant provocations against Russia and even Belarus. Lithuania has no tanks and most of their armored personnel carriers and military transport helicopters are Soviet remnants. In addition, Lithuania’s Naval Forces were formed by purchasing scrapped British trawlers and patrol cutters without missile armaments, something that is hardly up to NATO standards.
Lithuania joined NATO in 2004, long before Crimea reunited with Russia, and the militarization and utilization of the Baltic country’s sovereignty began immediately after they joined the Alliance.
An example of Lithuania’s military weakness is the 2006 agreement with Denmark, in which their only brigade at the time, the so-called Iron Wolf, was part of a Danish division and hence subordinated to foreigners. The brigade was eventually relocated to a German division, but the Danish division received a new Lithuanian brigade. Apparently, Lithuania’s military, which depends on the decisions of foreign commanders, is now capable of training and instructing the Ukrainian military.
The reality is that the strategic security of the Baltics is determined not by NATO forces in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, but by good neighborly relations with Russia that has expressed endlessly that it has no interest in a military conflict. Vilnius however refuses to take this into account while it increases its military budget and facilitates Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Armed conflict between Venezuela and Guyana will involve US forces
By Lucas Leiroz | February 3, 2021
A new focus of tensions is emerging in South America. Since the discovery of oil in Guyana, this country has been increasingly approaching Washington both as an economic partner and as a political ally. The Americans see the partnership with the Guyanese as an opportunity to fill the void left in the global oil market with the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela. But, in addition to a mere economic alliance, the ties between both countries are also rising to the military sphere, which is generating concerns in Caracas.
On January 21, regional tensions reached their peak. Guyanese fishing boats Nady Nayera and Sea Wolf were intercepted by Venezuela after an illegal incursion into Venezuelan territory. Caracas, not having authorized the entry of the vessels, interpreted the maneuver as dangerous to national security and kept the boats under its control. However, this Venezuelan version of the facts was denied by Georgetown, which claimed that the ships were detained within Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
Some noteworthy factors preceded this escalation of tensions. On January 7, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro signed a decree that establishes the formation of a new maritime territory on the Atlantic coast. The decree includes part of the Essequibo region, in which there is a territorial dispute with Guyana. The so-called “Guyana Essequiba” refers to a territory currently under the rule of Guyana that previously belonged to Venezuela, having been transferred to Guyanese possession after an arbitrary sentence in an international court organized by the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century.
Venezuela has since claimed sovereignty over Essequibo, but tensions have been mild most of the time. However, Guyana, since aligning with the US, has been adopting more aggressive measures in the region. The US armed forces recently began military exercises in Guyana and deployed several military ships along Essequibo’s 159,000 km². The territory is rich in oil and the American justification for the exercises is precisely to protect the oil extraction bases installed by the company ExxonMobil. In the midst of such circumstances, Venezuela has its national sovereignty violated and is therefore trying to establish minimum measures to guarantee its interests.
However, despite the rivalry having resumed an old territorial dispute, it is necessary to emphasize that there is an agreement in force on Essequibo that Guyana is directly violating. In 1966, Guyana and Venezuela signed the Geneva Agreement, mediated by the United Nations, which determined which activities would be permitted in which area of Essequibo. In this document, oil exploration by foreign companies is not allowed. Since 2015, the Guyanese government has violated the pact, allowing multinationals to explore for oil there. In 2018, Venezuela had already intercepted ExxonMobil vessels that invaded its territory to explore oil. Now, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has determined the creation of a Special Strategic Zone to increase security over Essequibo because the tendency is for territorial violations to increase further, considering that regional diplomacy is already broken, and that Guyana has become a satellite nation of Washington’s interests – which publicly plans to overthrow Maduro. The Venezuelan decision was condemned by the president of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, which prompted Caracas to issue a statement saying that such positions suggested preparation for an armed confrontation.
The Guyanese attitude has not changed over time. Now, once again, ships have entered Venezuelan territory, leading to their capture by the Bolivarian forces. If that situation continues, the Venezuelan response to foreign incursions may become increasingly rigid and the armed forces are likely to start taking down invasive vessels, which will lead to Washington’s severe responses. Currently, we can no longer regard the South American scenario as “unlikely” for a war to arise. The security crisis is widespread and with Biden in power many experts suggest that American foreign policy will become more aggressive and interventionist. Guyana has a much weaker military apparatus than the Venezuelan State and cannot face the neighboring country with its own forces. It remains to be seen what Washington’s willingness to invest in a conflict in South America will be.
More than ever, a new international agreement is needed to establish a new regulation for the region. The agreement, however, must be impartial and try to favor both nations. In an ideal scenario, the other South American nations, being co-participants in the disputes, should mediate such an agreement. But, today, the political structure of South America is absolutely broken, and no nation has sufficient diplomatic strength to resolve a demand of this nature.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Claims of Silicon Valley bias are ‘disinformation’, say researchers citing disgraced partisan ‘experts’ and Big Tech itself
By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 2, 2021
Silicon Valley wants you to know that even thinking they might be biased against conservatives is ‘disinformation,’ and cite a paper informed by censorious busybodies, partisan hacks and their own executives to prove it.
Twitter spokesman Nick Pacilio approvingly quoted the Washington Post story about a report arguing that the “claim of anti-conservative animus on the part of social media companies is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.”
Nothing to see here, folks, just a former press secretary for Democrat Kamala Harris (it’s in his bio) retweeting a newspaper that openly endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket saying that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong, right?
Before the “fact checkers” declare that actually, Pacilio was a spokesman for Harris in 2011-2014, when she was California’s attorney general – the point is that he doesn’t bother hiding his political allegiance, and neither does the Post. But it would be wrong to judge a report solely by the people who endorse it, so let’s take a look at it, shall we?
Authored by Paul M. Barrett, deputy director of Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University (NYU) and research fellow J. Grant Sims, the 28-page paper is a regurgitation of talking points by mainstream media, “disinformation researchers” advocating for censorship under the guise of ‘Russiagate,’ and Big Tech companies themselves. Looking at their 74 endnotes, one finds multiple mentions of mainstream media outlets, but also citations of the Democrat propaganda shop Media Matters, the German Marshall Fund, and even the Biden-Harris campaign.
Any study of social media censorship that doesn’t address the New York Post getting locked out by Twitter and suppressed by Facebook over the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 election is a farce. This report mentions it exactly once – in a “conservatives pounce” way, no less.
Describing the NY Post story as “questionable” and “apparently based on stolen emails,” the researchers claim it was a case of “reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes.” Their conclusion mirrors the (footnoted) Washington Post editorial, literally headlined “Twitter and Facebook were right to suppress a Biden smear. But they should tell us why they did.” No bias here, everyone!
In other words, they literally want increased censorship on social media platforms, justified by the conservatives supposedly “falsely” claiming they’re being censored.
To no one’s surprise, the researchers conclude that platforms need a “content overseer” executive who would report directly to the top, and “do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content.” They also want the Biden administration to either set up a new agency for digital oversight or give more power to existing ones, and reform Section 230 – the legal shield protecting platforms from lawsuits over content – to make it conditional on their censorship, or as they put it, “acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content.”
Now comes the best part. Among the people the authors thanked for their “time and insight” are representatives of Google, Twitter, and Facebook; two people from NewsGuard, a few Big Tech apologists from the neoliberal and neoconservative circles, a former Obama White House tech policy advisor – identified here by his new gig at Harvard Kennedy School – and Renée DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory.
DiResta has made herself quite a career at Stanford, producing alarmist reports of what Russia “might” do to harm American democracy or something, but she started out as research director at a shop called New Knowledge. This group of “tech specialists who lean Democratic,” to use a New York Times understatement, was literally caught running a false flag “Russian bot” operation on Twitter in 2017, during the US Senate special election in Alabama, in order to elect a Democrat.
Her inclusion is just the cherry on top of the giant hypocrisy cake that is the Barrett-Sims paper. It’s worse than merely factually wrong: it’s an exercise in gaslighting, projection and breath-taking dishonesty, it relies on self-serving and dishonest sources, and literally advocates for censorship. Whatever it takes to protect Our Democracy from “disinformation,” I guess.
Once the story of that broke – in December 2018, too late to change anything – New Knowledge quietly rebranded as Yonder, and that was it. No accountability. Instead of being disqualified as partisan hacks, the Senate Intelligence Committee doubled down on “insights” from New Knowledge/Yonder to insist there was “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election. DiResta simply moved to Stanford and kept doing the same thing.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator and on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
Fake News Over What’s Fit to Print a NYT Specialty
By Stephen Lendman | February 2, 2021
Like other establishment media, the NYT operates as a mouthpiece for wealth, power and privilege.
It long ago abandoned news fit to print, state-approved propaganda featured instead.
Relying on its reports for news, information and analysis assures mind manipulation over truth and full disclosure on major issues of the day.
The self-styled newspaper of record is consistently on the wrong side of cutting-edge ones relating to the health, welfare, and rights of ordinary Americans and others abroad.
Instead of denouncing US imperial wars on invented enemies, it cheerleads them.
Instead of opposing hazardous to health covid vaccines, it supports mass-vaxxing in flagrant violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Instead of advocating for peace, equity, justice and the rule of law, it long ago abandoned these principles.
In its latest edition, the Times reinvented what happened in the run-up to last November’s US presidential election and its aftermath.
It continued to suppress indisputable evidence of election fraud in a fake news piece titled: “Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election (sic).”
What happened last November was a selection, not an election, for the nation’s highest office.
Trump won. Biden lost. He’s now America’s 46th president, his predecessor a private citizen again.
The will of US dark forces triumphed over popular sentiment, rendering Biden/Harris illegitimate.
To its disgrace, the Times pretends otherwise.
A litany of bald-faced Big Lies defined its election reporting.
In its latest edition, it defied reality once again by falsely claiming the following:
“There was no substantial evidence of election fraud (sic), and there were nowhere near enough ‘irregularities’ to reverse the outcome in the courts (sic).”
“Mr. Trump did not, could not, win the election, not by ‘a lot’ or even a little (sic).”
“Allegations of (Dem) malfeasance had disintegrated in embarrassing fashion (sic).”
No “suitcase(s) of illegal ballots” were found (sic).”
“Dead voters… turn(ed) up alive (sic).”
No evidence showed “Dominion Systems voting machines had transformed thousands of Trump votes into Biden votes (sic).”
All of the above are bald-faced Big Lies, further proof that the self-styled newspaper of record is a lying machine, that nothing it reports on major issues can be taken at face value.
It called legitimate efforts to expose brazen election fraud by Trump’s legal team “an extralegal campaign to subvert the election (sic), rooted in a lie so convincing to some of his most devoted followers that it made the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol almost inevitable (sic).”
No “deadly” assault on Capitol Hill occurred.
It was stormed by anti-Trump hooligans, bussed in for the orchestrated anti-DJT false flag — falsely blamed on him and his supporters who had nothing to do with what happened.
The Times reinvented reality with its fake news claims.
Throughout Trump’s tenure, it consistently bashed him for the wrong reasons, ignoring his real wrongdoing because the vast majority in Washington share guilt.
Trump’s upcoming Senate trial next week for inciting insurrection lacks legitimacy.
With the vast majority of Republicans opposing the phony charge, acquittal is virtually certain.
A two-thirds Senate super-majority required to convict is nowhere in sight.
Substituting fiction for fact, the Times said the following:
Pre-and-post-Election 2020, “forces of disorder were… directed by (Trump) in one final norm-defying act of… reality-denying (sic).”
His legal team “skated the lines of legal ethics and reason (sic).”
Daily “the lie grew (sic), finally managing to… upend the peaceful transfer of power that for 224 years had been the bedrock of American democracy (sic).”
What the Times calls “democracy,” is government of, by, and for privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others.
It’s been the American way from inception that includes numerous past instances of federal, state and local election fraud since at least the early 19th century.
Throughout his tenure, Trump was wrong time and again on domestic and geopolitical issues.
On brazen Election 2020 fraud, he’s right. Indisputable evidence backs him.
Anti-Trump dark forces manipulated results in key battleground states to hand Biden/Harris the election DJT legitimately won.
Elected to a second term, he’s out, Dems in the old-fashioned way — by brazen election fraud carrying the day.
Claims by the Times otherwise blackens its tattered reputation more than already.
Its overly-lengthy piece was long on fake news propaganda — bereft of journalism the way it should be, what’s absent in virtually all its reports on major issues, rubbish featured instead.
The bottom line is that now-private citizen Trump was denied reelection by brazen fraud.
Fake news claims otherwise by the Times and other establishment media represent some of the worst fourth estate rubbish in memory.
Their Election 2020 reports read like bad fiction, reality airbrushed out in support of loser Biden over winner Trump.
New York Times Calls For Biden to Appoint “Reality Czar” to Fight “Disinformation”
RT | February 2, 2021
Striving to silence voices with which the mainstream media disagrees, the New York Times has urged President Joe Biden to appoint a “reality czar” to lead the fight against “disinformation and domestic extremism.”
And yes, George Orwell fans, America’s supposed newspaper of record used the phrase “reality czar” in describing the task-force leader that several “experts” recommended would be needed to take charge of the cross-agency “strategic response” to those odious people who say things deemed false by the government. This would be equivalent to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s ‘1984’, and the New York Times’ ‘experts’ see the secretary of truth, or reality czar, turning loose the tools of Big Brother to crack down on those conspiracy theorists who have created “the reality crisis.”
Of course, Roose’s experts also said Biden’s administration would need to be given peeks into those “black-box algorithms” at Twitter, Facebook, etc. to “open the hood on social media” and properly investigate reality offenders.
“It sounds a little dystopian, I’ll grant,” Times technology columnist Kevin Roose conceded on Tuesday, “but let’s hear them out.” He went on to say that the “tip-of-the-spear” task force could hold regular meetings with social media platforms and demand “structural changes,” such as violating the privacy of their customers under special government exemptions.
The targets of such scrutiny would, of course, include purveyors of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Roose’s other examples of “collective delusions” included the “baseless theory” that Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab.
In lieu of having a reality czar installed already, it’s not clear where the Times got the official ruling that the Chinese lab theory is baseless. Just last month, the US State Department said it had new information suggesting that the pandemic could have emerged from a lab in Wuhan, China, where evidence claimed to show researchers became sick with coronavirus-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before the first identified case of Covid-19 was reported in Wuhan. China has vehemently refuted such allegations, reminding that it was the first country to identify and report its cases to the world in what they say was likely one of multiple simultaneous outbreaks of the new disease.
The call for a reality czar comes amid assertions by media outlets and Democrat politicians that the US has a domestic terrorism crisis, rooted largely in white supremacy and unhinged support for former President Donald Trump. CNN has campaigned for its largest competitor, Fox News, to be forced off the air for reporting falsehoods.
Some observers suggested that the reality task force should start by responding to the falsehoods reported by the mainstream media, including false allegations that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 presidential election.
Free-speech advocates said the Times’ call for a reality czar was predictable. “Ah, the Ministry of Truth,” UK journalist Raheem Kassam said. “I’ve been waiting for this one.”
“People who spent four years ranting about Russians taking over the government and now ranting about a coup want to appoint themselves to explain reality to the rest of us,” one Twitter user said.
See also:
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It
- Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal
- How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- If Americans Knew
- This is ceasefire? Israel’s biggest massacre yet in Lebanon, another journalist killed in Gaza – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 