Aletho News


Telegraph Journalist Calls For Matt Hancock Arrest

By Richie Allen | March 8, 2023

The Telegraph columnist Alison Pearson has called for former health secretary Matt Hancock to be arrested for wilful misconduct in public office.

Writing in today’s paper Pearson summarises the revelations contained in Hancock’s WhatsApp messages, which were leaked to The Telegraph by Isabel Oakeshott.

Hancock handed more than 100,000 messages to Oakeshott when she wrote his lockdown memoir.

They revealed how Hancock gleefully plotted to “frighten the pants off everyone” to ensure lockdown compliance.

Hancock mooted using Covid variants to scare people into changing their behaviour. He supported blackmailing lockdown sceptic MP’s into keeping quiet.

One MP (James Daly, Bury) was told that if he didn’t shut up, his constituency wouldn’t receive funding for a disability hub.

Hancock repeatedly lied about the pressure Covid was exerting on the NHS. He briefed daily that hospitals were collapsing under the weight of Covid cases. The leaked messages reveal that in fact he knew from day one that there was no likelihood of hospital capacity running out.

He even offered beds to French and Italian Covid patients.

The leaks clearly demonstrate that Hancock was lying through his teeth day in, day out.

Has he broken the law? Alison Pearson thinks he just might have.

She concludes her excellent piece in today’s Telegraph, saying:

Are there grounds for a prosecution of the former minister for misconduct in a public office? Did Matt Hancock “wilfully misconduct himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification”?

Some families of care-home residents are preparing a private prosecution against Hancock, I know. The Crown Prosecution Service must then decide if it is in the public interest to proceed. The Lockdown Files should provide critical evidence.

With the third anniversary of lockdown looming, the Rights for Residents campaign asked their members to post a picture of their loved one in happier times, along with the three words that best describe them. Before, that is, those elderly ladies and gentlemen were locked away with no interaction with a close relative or friend.

They were consigned to a living death that was designed by our mad Covid masters to “save lives”. What could ever have justified such a crime against humanity?

Now, that’s what I call an Urgent Question.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The Vaccine Was “95% Effective” How?

By Robert Blumen | Brownstone Institute | March 8, 2023

The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between the British Crown and Maori chiefs was a landmark event in the history of New Zealand. Drafted in English, a Maori translation was prepared, ostensibly to ensure that Maori could have an accurate understanding of the terms. In retrospect, it is less clear that a meeting of the minds was intended:

The English and Māori texts differ. As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into the written Māori language of the time, the Māori text is not a literal translation of the English text. It has been claimed that Henry Williams, the missionary entrusted with translating the treaty from English, was fluent in Māori and that far from being a poor translator he had in fact carefully crafted both versions to make each palatable to both parties without either noticing inherent contradictions.

The covid vaccine is 95% effective” is a contemporary Treaty of Waitangi. The original is in the language of clinical trials. It was never translated. The public interpreted this phrase in their native language, normal English. What Pfizer said and what the public heard were quite different. The public would have been far more skeptical of these products had the clinical trial results been translated into normal English.

What we need is a proper translation and an explanation of how miscommunication happened.

The Injections Did Not Stop Infection

By now, everyone knows that the Pfizer and Moderna products did not stop people from getting Covid. Covid disease has mowed a wide strip through the double and triple-masked talking heads who told everyone that the shots would make them immune.

What is less well known is that:

  1. The products were never expected to stop infection or transmission.
  2. The clinical trials did not test for their ability to do so.

A clinical trial is designed to test a drug for effectiveness, which is strictly defined by one or more endpoints. An endpoint is a measurable outcome that can be assessed for each participant. With that in mind, prevention of infection was not an endpoint of the BioNTech/Pfizer injection clinical trials. And, this was known in 2020 before the products were approved for emergency use and distributed to the public starting in 2021.

In this New England Journal of Medicine research summary, Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine, under Limitations and Remaining Questions, we find that “whether the vaccine protects against asymptomatic infection and transmission to unvaccinated persons” remains unanswered by the clinical trial.

What did the clinical trial test for, if not the ability of the mRNA vaccine to stop transmission and/or infection? The trial was designed to test the ability of the injections to prevent “symptomatic Covid 19 cases” defined as one or more of a number symptoms and a positive test (see page 7 of the supplementary appendix for details).

@pfizer tweeted in Jan 2021 that stopping transmission was their “highest priority”. Their product does not do that, nor did the tweet make a claim that it did so. But it was their highest priority nonetheless. That, and getting as many people injected as possible.

Failure to Prevent Infection Was Known Before the Rollout

In October 2022, a Pfizer executive testified to an EU body that Pfizer had not tested the ability of the vaccine to stop transmission. This story was shocking to some and generated accusations that Pfizer had lied about the capabilities of the shots. But this information had been available since the trial results were released early in 2021. Pfizer had already been criticized for this.

Dr William A Haseltine PhDwrote in Forbes in September 2020:

What would a normal vaccine trial look like?

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

On October 21, 2020 the editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) Peter Doshi asked:

Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus….

Is It Even a Vaccine?

A vaccine that prevents infection is known as “neutralizing” or “sterilizing”. I am a software engineer with no training in medicine, pharmacology or clinical trials. I consider myself a good  barometer of what the average untrained person would think about such things. Prior to 2021 I had thought that immunity was a necessary condition for a drug to earn the title of “vaccine”. If anyone had asked me, I would have told them that the Covid injections were a treatment, not a vaccine.

The Wikipedia article about vaccines (Mar 5 2023) aligns with my untrained understanding:

A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease. … A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body’s immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future.

Cornell Law provides the following legal definition of vaccine, sourcing 26 USC § 4132(a)(2), which is consistent with the above:

The term “vaccine” means any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of 1 or more diseases.

The definition published by the CDC prior to 2021 said much the same. But the CDC website changed the definition on or after August 2021. The older version found on the internet archive is here (emphasis added):

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.

Here is the new version (emphasis added):

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

The earlier pair of definitions is quite easy to understand. The latter, much more difficult. What exactly is a “preparation”? Does a vaccine stimulate the body or only prepare the body? What is or is not a vaccine according to the new definition?

While the CDC may think that they can change the meanings of words whenever they like, public memory retains the original meaning. The assumption of immunity permeates almost all non-expert level discussion of vaccines. A web search for “why are vaccines good” shows results that assume or imply immunity.

Even the CDC did not finish the job of memory-holing the old language. On the very same CDC website, under 5 Reasons It Is Important for Adults to Get Vaccinated, we read “By getting vaccinated, you can protect yourself and also avoid spreading preventable diseases to other people in your community.” And then, “Vaccines Can Prevent Serious Illness”.

The timing of the CDC’s edit suggests to me that prior to 2021, the CDC had the same understanding of vaccines as I do. I believe that they wanted a new definition because they knew that the products being developed at warp speed were not vaccines in the original sense of the word. And it was important that those products be called “vaccines” for reasons that I will explain later. This incident brings to mind a meme that I no longer have a link to. captioned: “We changed what ‘definition’ means so you can’t say that we redefined anything.”

What Does “95% Effective” Mean?

The “95% effective” message was repeated in nearly all reporting on the clinical trials. But the question, “effective at doing what?” was rarely asked. To answer this requires walking down the links of a chain of terminology from the world of clinical trials.

The first link in the chain is “risk”. Risk is the probability of a bad outcome. These are assumed to happen randomly within a group. A clinical trial must define in advance the bad outcomes that the drug intends to avoid. The next link is “endpoint”. Each distinct bad outcome is an “endpoint”. The trial compares the endpoints between a control group who did not take the drug and a test group, who did.

The purpose of a clinical trial is to determine the ability of a drug to reduce risk.  A drug that reduces risk is “effective”. There are two ways of quantifying risk reduction.  From the NIH glossary:

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) or risk difference

the difference in the incidence of poor outcomes between the intervention group of a study and the control group. For example, if 20 per cent of people die in the intervention group and 30 per cent in the control group, the ARR is 10 per cent (30–20 per cent).

Relative risk (RR)

the rate (risk) of poor outcomes in the intervention group divided by the rate of poor outcomes in the control group. For example, if the rate of poor outcomes is 20 per cent in the intervention group and 30 per cent in the control group, the relative risk is 0.67 (20 per cent divided by 30 per cent).

The difference between the ARR and RR (also known as “RRR”, to align with ARR) is in the denominator. The ARR divides by the number of participants in one of the groups.  The RRR divides by the number of people with bad outcomes in the control group – a necessarily much smaller number.

The ARR is the number most relevant for a drug – such as the Pfizer injections – that was to be given to everyone. But the RRR is the preferred method of presentation for pharma when they want to exaggerate the effectiveness of a drug because it will always be a much larger number. Would you take a drug that could reduce the incidence of a rare disease by 50%? From 10 per 1 million to 5 per 1 million is an 50% RRR and an 0.0005% ARR.

The 95% figure cited for the covid injections is the relative risk. The absolute risk reduction was 0.84%. In a slide deck from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance (CCCA), slide 11 shows how the 91% was achieved (it is 91%, not 95%, because the it refers to an earlier version of the study):

The research paper COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room puts the ARR in the 1% range. The CCCA slide deck gives an ARR of 0.84%, though it is not clear how they reached this number, based on the other numbers in their slides.

A clinical trial finding of a 1% ARR  means that 99% of the people who take the drug either did  not experience the condition that the drug treats, or they did experience it, but were not helped by the drug. The 1% both had the condition and were helped by the drug.  Another way of saying this is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). NNT is the reciprocal of the ARR and  is the number of people who must take the drug to help one person reach the endpoint.  An ARR of 1% corresponds to an NNT of 100 people.

We can now answer the question of the meaning of vaccine effectiveness. The endpoint of the trial was a severe confirmed case of covid at least 7 days after the second dose. This endpoint requires the participant in the trial to have covid symptoms and a positive covid test. “95% effective” means that 95% of the patients who had Covid symptoms and a positive test were in the control group. Five percent were in the test group.

Here’s what “95% effective” did not mean:  if you take the shots, then you will have a 95% lower chance of getting covid. But that is how most people understood it because that is what the words mean in normal English.

Then the Lying Started

Once the public had their hopes raised by the false translation of the “95% effective” message, the pandemic-industrial-complex went into high gear to amplify it. They stated the incorrect  message loudly, frequently, and as if it were fact. The injections would – with 100% certainty (perhaps 200%) – protect you from infection. Many of the people who said this were doctors or scientific researchers who must have understood how to interpret clinical trials.

Here are some choice quotes that did not age well:

  • “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations.” Joe Biden, CNN Town Hall July 2021
  • “Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else,” she added with a shrug. “It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. [Vaccines] will get us to the end of this.” – Rachel Maddow, March 2021
  • “When people are vaccinated they can feel safe that they won’t get infected, whether they’re outdoors or indoors.” – Dr. Anthony Fauci, May 2021 (outdoors: seriously?)
  • “Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents breakthrough infections, Stanford researchers find.” – Stanford Medicine, July 2021
  • Vaccinated people become “dead ends” for the virus – Anthony Fauci, May 2021

Demonizing the Unvaxxed

The public has consistently over-estimated the infection fatality rate of Covid. Some even believed the fatality rate to be above 10%. They believed that we were in great danger.   They also believed that the “95% effective” vaccine would bring the pandemic to a quick end, once everyone had taken it.  Anyone who refused to do so was therefore risking not only their own life, but everybody else’s as well.

Dr Anthony Fauci estimated herd immunity would emerge when around 60% of the population had taken the vaccine … or perhaps 70, 80, no wait … 85%. Or maybe 100% (which would include large numbers who already had natural immunity). Bill Gates extended that to everyone on earth.

The narrative then turned to demonization of those who refused to submit to vaccine coercion. The selfish anti-social behavior of the anti-vaxxers with their stubborn attachment to “free dumb” that was keeping everyone locked indoors and forcing us all to wear diapers on our faces. Yale University behavioral researchers tested messaging strategies to determine whether shame, embarrassment or fear was most effective.

President Biden said that we the nation was experiencing a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Later, Biden ominoulsy warned the unvaccinated that he had been waiting a long time for them to get injected, but “our patience is wearing thin”. In December of 2021 the White House issued a cheery year end greeting to the vaccinated. The unvaccinated, on the other hand, were “looking at a winter of severe illness and death.” Merry Christmas.

Even South Park, which I consider a reliable source of contrarian political opinion, ran a storyline set in the year 2050 in which every single character had to be vaccinated for the 30-year pandemic to end. This episode featured one lone holdout who would not get vaccinated due to a crustacean allergy i.e. for “shellfish reasons”. This gag took aim at people who considered the vaccine to be a violation of body autonomy, and those who objected to components used in its development for religious reasons, thereby scoring a “two for one”.

Volumes can, and will, be written about the intense onslaught of propaganda aimed at getting two needles in every deltoid.  I will provide one more example that represents no more than the median level of insanity; plenty of people called for the same or worse. @ClayTravis, in February 2023, tweeted the results of a Rasmussen poll from 2022:

Last January 60% of Democrats wanted to lock everyone who didn’t get the covid shot in their houses. Over 40% of Democrats wanted those who rejected the covid shot sent to quarantine camps. Over 40% also wanted anyone who criticized the covid shot fined & imprisoned. Over a quarter wanted those who didn’t get the covid shot to have their kids seized.

While there were many agendas driving the madness, the Treaty of Waitangi effect was a critical part in carrying it out.  If the message had been that “everyone is going to get exposed to covid – injected or not”, then it could not have happened. The misunderstanding convinced the public that mass vaccination would stop the pandemic; and that the holdouts were prolonging it. Without this belief, none of the coercion made any sense: employment mandates, school mandates, quarantine camps, or vaccine passports.  As the hysteria fades, the last remaining mandates are being dropped as the reality sinks in that the shots do not stop the spread.

Welcome to Waitangi World. I hope that you have a pleasant stay.

Robert Blumen is a software engineer and podcast host who writes occasionally about political and economic issues.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments

‘We Just Showed the Truth’: Russian Pranksters Vovan and Lexus React to YouTube Ban

Sputnik – 06.03.2023

One of the pranksters, Alexey Stolyarov (Lexus), said he does not believe that their videos on YouTube violated the digital platform’s guidelines, suggesting instead that the “truth” the prankster duo shared “probably was not convenient for western officials.”

Western Big Tech has once again demonstrated just how much it “cares” about freedom of speech as video-hosting platform YouTube, which is owned by Google, banned the channel of Russian prankster duo Vovan & Lexus over alleged violation of community guidelines.

During an interview with Sputnik, one of the pranksters, Alexey Stolyarov (Lexus), pointed out that the ban came shortly after they pranked William Hague, the UK’s former foreign secretary.

“We got a letter that we have broken the rules of YouTube because of the prank with the ex-Foreign Secretary William Hague,” Stolyarov said. “And they wrote that they had to remove it, but probably after 2 hours they removed the whole channel without explanation.”

He noted that this is far from the first time their channel has been blocked on YouTube, and that the last time they got banned, the British government and the UK Ministry of Defense actually sent a letter to the video hosting’s management, naming the pranksters as “real threats to the UK national security.”

“This time we have pranked ex-Foreign Secretary William Hague. It was in all Russian media, but it wasn’t in the UK media. Because since the last prank call with the defense secretary, they noted in the letter that other contributors of information have already agreed not to spread our pranks,” he said. “At first, YouTube kept silent for about three days. And then they blocked us.”

The prankster also expressed his skepticism about allegations of their pranks violating YouTube’s community guidelines.

“We just spread the statements of their western officials. It’s not our words. It’s their words,” he said, referring to the admissions those officials made during prank calls with Vovan and Lexus. “We just showed the truth and this probably was not convenient for western officials.”

Stolyarov added that they have already moved to platforms such as RuTube, Telegram and VK, over which Western governments and tech corporations hold no sway.

“It’s good that it works in Russia and nobody could ban it because of political reasons but also we have a reserve channel on the Reddit platform. It’s also available in the West.” Stolyarov a.k.a. Lexus remarked.

Vovan and Lexus have gained considerable fame in recent years as they prank a number of prominent western politicians, including current UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, tricking them into making rather frank admissions about poignant geopolitical matters.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Strange Case of Jacob Anthony Chansley

By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | March 8, 2023

On January 9, 2021, Jacob Anthony Chansley was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for allegedly committing the following offenses:

Civil Disorder; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building; Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.

If the unarmed Chansley (known in the mainstream media as the “QAnon Shaman”) indeed committed these offenses, why was he escorted around the Capitol Building by armed police officers, at one point standing in the midst of NINE of them? If the strangely-clad young man bearing an American flag was trespassing and behaving in a “violent, disorderly, and disruptive” way, why didn’t the officers arrest him on the spot?

In reviewing the strange case of Jacob Anthony Chansley, the American people should consider that this country has a longstanding tradition of civil disobedience. In its relationship with the citizenry, the United States government has always had to contend with the somewhat awkward fact that the Republic was founded by men who, legally speaking, committed treason. Thomas Jefferson justified their conduct as follows:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson’s sentiments sound good and reasonable to a citizenry animated with classical liberal principles of government, but they are problematic for men in power who have little patience or tolerance for pesky dissenters like Jacob Anthony Chansley.

While the surveillance tape shows that many of the January 6, 2021 protestors did indeed commit acts of violence and vandalism, where is the evidence that Jacob Anthony Chansley was one of them?

As Tucker Carlson points out (starting at 2:50 on the tape) multiple cameras from multiple angles show that he is completely unarmed, calmly walking around carrying an American flag in his left hand and a bullhorn in his right.

Since November 17, 2021, Chansley has been serving his sentence of 41 months in prison. Does he really deserve this severe punishment?

Mainstream media pundits have made him—presumably because of his visually arresting and outlandish costume—the face of what it has characterized as an insurrection, but what kind of insurrectionist shows up with no weapons or incendiary devices?

People who identify themselves a Democrats and despisers of Donald Trump will doubtless claim that by posing this question, I am expressing my own partisan political sympathies and attachments. I am NOT.

I write this post out of concern that those who are currently holding power (and their propagandists in the media) can no longer be trusted to tell us the truth about ANYTHING, whether it be the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the purported safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, the war in Ukraine, the events that transpired in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, or anything else of importance.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

The Right to Be Let Alone: When the Government Wants to Know All Your Business

By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | March 7, 2023

There was a time when the census was just a head count.

That is no longer the case.

The American Community Survey (ACS), sent to about 3.5 million homes every year, is the byproduct of a government that believes it has the right to know all of your personal business.

If you haven’t already received an ACS, it’s just a matter of time.

A far cry from the traditional census, which is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), these questions concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

And then the survey drills down even deeper.

The survey demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer.

The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties.

Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on whatever criteria the government wants to use to target and segregate the populace, the potential for abuse is grave.

As such, the ACS qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while sold to the public as routine and benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

The Rutherford Institute has received hundreds of inquiries from individuals who have received the ACS and are not comfortable sharing such private, intimate details with the government or are unsettled by the aggressive tactics utilized by Census Bureau agents seeking to compel responses to ACS questions.

Those who want to better understand their rights in respect to the ACS may want to take a look at Rutherford’s Q&A resource on the topic.

Bottom line: there are significant and legitimate questions concerning the authority of the government to require, under threat of prosecution and penalty, that persons answer questions posed by the ACS.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have no obligation to answer questions posed by the government and are free to refuse to do so—a principle that could be applied to questions posed by ACS agents—the question of a person’s right to refuse has not yet been decided by a court.

Until the courts take up the challenge, if you receive notice that you have been targeted to respond to the ACS and you desire to assert your right of privacy, you can voice those objections and your intent not to respond to the ACS by writing a letter to the Census Bureau. The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information.

If you are contacted by Census Bureau employees, either by telephone or in person, demanding your response, you can assert your rights by politely, but firmly, informing the employee that you believe the ACS is an improper invasion of your privacy, that you do not intend to respond and that they should not attempt to contact you again. Be sure to document any interactions you have with Bureau representatives for your own files.

If you believe you are being unduly harassed by a Census Bureau employee, either by telephone or in person, it is in your best interest to carefully document the time, place and manner of the incidents and file a complaint with the U.S. Census Bureau.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans should jealously guard what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

January 6 committee should be ‘tried for treason’ – Trump

RT | March 8, 2023

Former president Donald Trump has declared that the Democrat-led panel formed to investigate the January 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill should be “tried for fraud and treason.” The committee portrayed the riot as a “violent insurrection,” while video footage released by House Republicans showed more orderly scenes inside the Capitol.

“The Unselect Committee of political hacks and thugs has been totally discredited,” Trump declared on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, repeating a label he has often used to describe the House committee formed to investigate the riot.

“They knowingly refused to show the videos that mattered,” Trump continued. “They should be tried for fraud and treason, and those imprisoned and being persecuted should be exonerated and released, now!”

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently shared more than 40,000 hours of security camera footage with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who aired a selection of clips on Tuesday night. The clips show Capitol Police peacefully escorting a number of Trump supporters through the Capitol building during the riot, including so-called ‘Qanon Shaman’ Jacob Chansley, while suggesting that a man called Ray Epps – who some Trump supporters allege was a federal agent tasked with inciting violence against police officers – lied about leaving the Capitol before violence broke out.

The committee’s final report, on the other hand, declared the riot a “violent insurrection” aimed at “overthrowing our democracy.” The committee recommended in December that Trump be criminally charged with inciting an insurrection attempt, obstructing Congress, and conspiring to defraud the United States, arguing that a speech he gave to the crowd before the riot had instigated the riot.

Trump, who is running for office again in 2024, has not been criminally charged, but faces numerous civil lawsuits over his alleged role in fomenting the riot. More than 100 police officers say they were injured on the day, while four Trump supporters died. Two died of natural causes and one of an accidental overdose, while Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt was shot by a Capitol Police officer near the entrance to the House chamber.

In an earlier Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said that the footage shown by Carlson “sheds an entirely different light on what actually happened” on January 6, 2021. Carlson said that while there were some “hooligans” in the crowd that day, the majority of so-called “insurrectionists” were “sightseers.”

Out of more than 950 people charged in connection with the riot, 351 have been sentenced and 192 incarcerated. Around three quarters of those who pleaded guilty did so to misdemeanor offenses, according to the Department of Justice.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 2 Comments

British SAS Soldiers Posing as Arms Dealers Scour World for Shells for Ukraine

By James Tweedie – Sputnik – 08.03.2023

Ukraine has run through its stockpiles of arms and ammunition — inherited from the Soviet Union in 1991 — along with weapons supplied by its NATO backers since Russia launched its military operation to defend the Donbass republics.

A team of SAS commandoes are reportedly scouring the world for stocks of Russian-calibre artillery shells to refill Ukraine’s depleted arsenals.

A British daily newspaper reported that a dozen special forces troopers have been travelling across Africa, the Middle East and Asia along with intelligence agents and Foreign Office officials.

The group, posing as arms dealers, carry “substantial amounts of cash” to buy up stocks of 122mm-calibre shells — fired by many of the artillery pieces Ukraine inherited from the Soviet Union — on the spot.

“Our people have sources all over the world who will know if there is any ammo available and who to contact to strike a deal,” one military source said. “It is not always easy — it has been a scramble with many dead ends — but there have also been successes.”

The team have already journeyed to Angola, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam. But this week sources claimed a deal was struck on a stockpile in an unnamed European country.

Arms factories in both Bulgaria and Romania still produce Soviet-era arms and ammunition.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently begged his Western backers for more artillery, on top of his demands for fighter jets. “Artillery is the number one thing that we need. Both systems and ammunition — shells in large amounts,” he said.

US Army General Christopher Cavoli, the NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, has said the Ukrainian army fires around 100,000 shells per month compared to 600,000 from the Russian side — as Russian forces encircle the key city of Artemovsk (Bakhmut).

The reputed mission follows a failed attempt in the summer of 2022 to buy tens of thousands of rounds of 122mm ammunition from Pakistan, which has remained neutral in the conflict between Ukraine — with its NATO allies — and Russia.

The report claimed 40,000 shells were flown by RAF transport planes from Pakistan’s Nur Khan Air Base to Romania’s Cluj International Airport for delivery to a local arms dealer acting as a middleman.

However, none of those rounds made it to Ukraine. Unconfirmed rumours of quality control issues were superseded by Islamabad’s denial last month that it had allowed any ammunition to be transferred to the conflict zone.

“The reporting about supply of defence items by Pakistan to Ukraine is not accurate,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mumtaz Zahra Baloch said on February 16.

“Pakistan maintains a policy of non-interference in military conflicts. Pakistan only exports defence stores to other states based on strong End Use and none re-transfer assurances,” Baloch stressed. “And this is the case of Pakistan’s position in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.”

The Russian imperial army adopted the 122mm (4.8-inch) artillery calibre before the First World War. It remained in service after the 1917 revolution and throughout the Soviet era with the Red Army, and is still used by the modern Russian army and those of other former Soviet republics and Warsaw Treaty member states.

Before Russia launched its military operation, the Ukrainian army reportedly possessed around 440 122mm-calibre D-30 towed howitzers and 600 2S1 ‘Gvozdika’ (carnation), the armored self-propelled versions of the same gun — although most were in long-term storage at the time.

Daily reports by the Russian Ministry of Defence have reported the destruction at least 146 D-30s and 99 Gvozdikas since the start of the demilitarization operation.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | | Leave a comment

The coming spring offensives in Ukraine


As it looks now, there are two potential spring offensives in Ukraine. Either of these offensives would be laden with significant risks for both sides. Predicting the outcome is difficult because outside players may intervene, especially US and NATO forces.

The first offensive is fairly well known. It is the spring offensive being organized by the Russian army. Considerable preparations have been made over many months. The Russians have honed their tactics, brought in new offensive weapons and replaced equipment so far lost in the war, especially tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.

One report suggests that Russian production of tanks, including T-90s and T-14 Armtas, is running at a high level. Manufacturing of other weapons, especially ammunition of all types, also appears to have been accelerated.

What isn’t known is how the Russians will use the large force they have assembled, numbering between 200,000 to 300,000. One theory is they will move out from the south and east in a wide encirclement trying to trap Ukrainian forces.

Another is that they will use the encirclement to tie down the Ukrainians while making a dash for Kyiv from three sides (south, east and north). This may be their best bet, but it is questionable whether they have the manpower to do the job, or enough mobility to escape Ukrainian counterattacks.

The other spring offensive is the one that Ukraine is preparing for in earnest. This offensive probably has been planned in the Pentagon rather than in Kyiv.

NATO is rapidly bolstering its forces. This past Saturday the US-flagged vehicle carrier Liberty Pride sailed into the port of Alexandroupolis, Greece, carrying military equipment destined for NATO forces.

The US-flagged vehicle carrier Liberty Pride. Photo: Ships Nostalgia

How many other US ships are in the ocean at the moment or arriving at other ports, isn’t yet known. But what is known is that NATO is girding itself for a spillover, once the Ukrainian offensive gets underway.

The main focus of the Ukrainian spring offensive likely is an assault on Crimea and on Russian forces in the south. The objective is to cut them off (Kherson area across to Zaphorizia) and systematically destroy them, followed by a big push into Crimea.

The US is supplying a huge amount of war materiel for this assault. It includes bridging equipment that can support German-origin Leopard II tanks, which weigh more than 62 tons (roughly the same as the phantom M1 Abrams tanks that won’t arrive until next year, if ever).

Ukraine will have its hands full in such an operation and is dependent on US intelligence and, very likely, US airpower. There is not enough time to train Ukrainian pilots on F-16s, and there are not any spare up-to-date F-16s to throw into the battle – unless, of course, US fighter squadrons are in the mix.

One can expect that US aircraft will be painted over with Ukrainian insignia and flown by US or NATO pilots. These planes will operate as standoff assets, firing long-range air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.

By staying wide of Russian air defense systems, but protected by what remains of Ukrainian air defenses, the F-16s could target Russian armor, command centers, troop formations, caravans, jammers and air defense radars.

The Ukrainian offensive also is likely to appear to the Russians as a casus belli involving NATO direct participation. How Russia might respond to a direct challenge is hard to say.  The most likely Russian response could be to attack stockpiles and massing areas in Poland and Romania – and, almost certainly, airfields supporting the war.

Russian strategists have the opinion that Polish forces might also move into Ukraine, perhaps taking Lviv (Lvov) or other prizes, hedging that the Ukrainian offensive might fail or that the Russians are successful in toppling Kyiv’s government.

If these prognostications on the two spring offensives are anywhere near correct – and there is plenty of evidence suggesting both offensives are being prepared – then Europe is on the brink of a great catastrophe.

Stephen Bryen is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 2 Comments

It’s Zugzwang for Biden in Ukraine


There is a cardinal difference between the Washington Post report of June 18, 1972 by Alfred Lewis breaking the news of the Watergate burglary and the sensational claim by the New York Times on Tuesday — per a CNN report — that “intelligence suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group” sabotaged the Nord Stream gas pipelines. 

The WaPo reported on Watergate several months after Richard Nixon’s thumping victory for a second term as president, while the Times’ claim has been advanced even before Joe Biden has announced his candidacy for the November 2024 election. 

A common thread, though, could be that while the Lewis story was followed up a day later by two young Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Times report  also hopes to be a developing story but with a contrarian purpose. 

If Watergate wiretapping forced Nixon to resign eventually, the big question is whether the Nord Stream sabotage will also be the undoing of the Biden presidency? 

These are early days. But the reverberations of the Times’ claim are already being felt in Europe — Ukraine and Germany — although the report was carefully worded to keep Ukrainian leaders outside its purview.  

But the bottom line is the caveat that the Times report was not made with high confidence and is apparently not the predominant view of the US intelligence community, and that the Biden Administration has not yet identified a culprit for the attack — succinctly put, this isn’t necessarily the last word on the subject!

That’s smart thinking — with an eye on Seymour Hersh, perhaps?  Meanwhile, Ukraine has flatly denied involvement and German media reports stressed that there’s no proof that Ukrainian authorities ordered the attack or were involved in it. Evidently, Kiev and Berlin (and Washington) prioritise that the business of war must continue as before. And neither is in a position to hit back in defence. 

But Moscow is plainly derisive. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA Novosti, “Clearly, the authors of the terrorist attack want to distract attention. Obviously, this is a coordinated stuffing in the media.” 

Indeed, when asked about the Times report, the highly opinionated US National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, John Kirby referred questions to investigating European authorities and excused himself saying he was “not going to get ahead of that investigative work.” Kirby played it safe.  

So, as Lenin would have asked: ‘Who stands to gain?’ To be sure, what we have here is a high level leak planted in the Times by the US intelligence, which is non-attributable but probably serves as kite flying to see how far it will travel, especially in Europe, or, equally, it could just be, as Peskov put it, the stuff of an “obvious misinformation campaign coordinated by the media.”

Either way, someone high up in the Biden Administration is playing for high stakes. This is taking place at a time when Biden himself has been implicated by Seymour Hersh for ordering the destruction of Nord Stream   — an act of international terrorism  — and of course Biden is yet to announce his candidacy for the 2024 election. 

As things stand, candidate Biden will not want the Nord Stream scandal to be another Albatross around his neck. The point is, if he stands for election, which he likely intends to, Biden can be sure that the scandalous Ukraine stories concerning him and his son Hunter Biden, dating back to his time as vice-president, will roar back to centrestage. 

The questioning that the US ambassador to Estonia Senator George Kent was subjected to by Senator Tom Cruz at the hearings on his appointment in Tallinn in December suggested that the Republicans have a lot of dope on Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine and are waiting for the right moment to strike.

Kent, a career diplomat and former deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs with three stints in Kiev — the second time as DCM from 2015 to 2018 and the third as Charge d’Affaires a.i, in 2021 during Biden presidency— is in Senator Cruz’s crosshairs. 

Last week, again, Sen. Cruz returned to the topic. This time around, he tore into attorney general Merrick Garland accusing the Justice Department of leaking uncontrollably in a calibrated bid to save Biden’s reputation.

Conceivably, the implication by the Times report that a “pro-Ukrainian group” may have been behind the Nord Stream attack can be seen as a veiled threat to the powers that be in Kiev to understand which side of their bread is buttered if push comes to the shove.

So far, Zelensky has played ball. Biden is bending over backward to appease Zelensky, if the manner in which the move to sack the Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksiy Reznikov, a close ally of the president, was summarily shelved is any indication.

The western media was copiously reporting on a purge under way in Kiev but when the trail came to Reznikov and Zelensky dug in, the US inspectors deputed from Washington to investigate the corruption scandal in the defence ministry simply disappeared.  

Indeed, Biden must willy-nilly remain in power beyond 2024 or else he becomes extremely vulnerable. Therefore, Biden desperately needs a second term. He cannot be too sure even if some other Democratic candidate wins in 2024. God forbid, if the Republicans seize the presidency, Biden and his family members will be fighting with their backs against the wall. 

But there is also the flip side. Biden’s candidacy will bring Nord Stream, Hunter Biden, Ukraine war, et al, to the centre stage of the election campaign. Is it worth the risk? 

Frankly, it is a ‘zugzwang’ for Biden. It is his turn to move, but all of his moves are so bad that having to move can lose the game — and in chess, there is nothing like “pass,” either. 

The sabotage of the Nord Stream forms part of the Ukraine issue. Whoever destroyed that pipeline did it with the intention to eliminate any residual prospect left of a revival of the post-cold war Russian-German alliance in Europe built around the two countries’ energy cooperation and interdependency. 

The Biden team in sheer naïveté thought that sabotage of the Nord Stream would be a geopolitical masterstroke to humiliate Germany and make it a vassal state, destroy all bridges leading from Russia to Europe, and consolidate the US’ transatlantic leadership. They overlooked, out of sheer hubris, that it still remained a cowardly criminal act. 

To compound matters, the war in Ukraine flowed out of Biden’s decision to destroy the Nord Stream (which, according to Hersh, dated back to September 2021.) Today, Biden cannot easily end his war as he is also beholden to Zelensky (who knows far too much about Hunter Biden’s escapades in Kiev.)    

Will Biden Administration succeed in hushing up the Nord Stream scandal? Hersh is sure to revisit the topic. Biden cannot walk away from the crime now. But it doesn’t cease to be a crime.

Biden’s remaining option may be to announce he’s going to contest the 2024 election because Build Back Better Framework is still a work in progress.   

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , | 3 Comments

Georgia Is Targeted For Regime Change Over Its Refusal To Open A “Second Front” Against Russia

By Andrew Korybko | March 8, 2023

The former Soviet Republic of Georgia experienced a serious Color Revolution attempt Tuesday night after radical pro-Western rioters tried to storm parliament in response to its passing of a bill requiring all organizations with at least 20% foreign funding to register with the authorities. The US-led Western Mainstream Media (MSM) artificially manufactured the false narrative in the run-up to events alleging that the law is based on Russia’s related system even though it’s explicitly inspired by the US.

This well-intended attempt to protect Georgia’s fledging and admittedly imperfect democracy from foreign meddling per its sovereign right was subsequently exploited as the pretext for organizing a violent regime change against Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili. The West wants to punish him for his pragmatic refusal to open up a “second front” in the US’ proxy war on Russia after he publicly exposed this plot in early December while also pledging never to arm Kiev either.

President Salome Zurabishvili, who was visiting the UN in New York during the unsuccessful regime change against Garibashvili on Tuesday night, threw her full support behind the riots in a video that peddled the West’s false information warfare narrative alleging that the bill is backed by Russia. Readers should be aware that she served most of her career as a French diplomat after having been born there and was previously that country’s Ambassador to Georgia up until 2004.

She only received Georgian citizenship at that time due to a deal between those two governments proposed by Mikhail Saakashvili following his successful Color Revolution the year prior in order for her to become his Foreign Minister. For all intents and purposes, Zurabishvili has since functioned as one the Golden Billion’s top “agents of influence” in Georgia. Despite the Prime Minister nowadays holding more power due to prior reforms, the Presidency still provides her with some sway over society.

It was within this context that Tuesday night’s violent seizure of power against Garibashvili was attempted, though Russia was already prepared for this scenario after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned in early February that something foul was indeed afoot in that former Soviet Republic. He told a popular TV anchor at the time that “The fact that they would like to turn Georgia into another irritant, to roll the situation back into the aggressive condition of the Saakashvili era is beyond doubt.”

It also deserves mentioning that the West’s latest Color Revolution attempt in the region took place amidst continued Russian gains around Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”, which prompted Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to warn that Russia could roll through the rest of Donbass if it captures that city. Earlier that same day and just hours before the attempted storming of parliament in Tbilisi, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu confirmed that a victory there would smash Kiev’s regional defenses.

To summarize the strategic dynamics on the eve of Tuesday night’s unsuccessful regime change in Georgia, the MSM had already manufactured the false narrative ahead of parliament voting on that country’s US-inspired foreign agents bill alleging that it symbolizes the country’s tilt towards Russia. This information warfare campaign is waged against its premier for his refusal in early December to open up a “second front” against that Eurasian Great Power to relieve pressure upon the US’ Ukrainian proxies.

The Georgian President, who’s arguably always functioned as one of the Golden Billion’s top “agents of influence”, happened to be in New York when everything unfolded and threw her full support behind those regime change riots. Earlier that same day, both Defense Minister Shoigu and Zelensky informed everyone that Russia could roll through the rest of Donbass if it captures Artyomovsk/“Bakhmut”. The stage was therefore set for attempting to violently overthrow Zurabishvili on Tuesday night.

It would be premature to declare that he’s secure in his position despite the security services successfully defending parliament from the rioters since a lot could still happen to advance the US’ regime change agenda. Georgia is a deeply divided country that’s been under immense Western influence for the past two decades, during which time the Golden Billion managed to manipulate a sizeable proportion of the population into doing its geopolitical bidding.

There’s no dearth of “useful idiots” who can easily be misled into destabilizing their country to the detriment of its objective national interests due to their liberalglobalist ideology. This means that Georgia is therefore expected to become the latest front in the New Cold War seeing as how it’s unlikely that its latest crisis will be resolved anytime soon. The situation is extremely serious and the outcome of the US’ undeclared Hybrid War on Georgia could directly affect developments in Donbass.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine responds to Nord Stream claims

RT | March 8, 2023

Kiev had nothing to do with the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, the Ukrainian defense minister has said in response to media reports blaming last September’s explosions in the Baltic Sea on a “pro-Ukraine” group.

“For me, it’s a little bit strange story,” Aleksey Reznikov replied when asked about the issue after his arrival at an informal meeting of EU defense ministers in Stockholm on Wednesday.

“This story has nothing [to do] with us,” he said, expressing confidence that “the investigation [by] the official authorities will describe every detail” of what had happened.

The claims of Ukrainian involvement in the sabotage are “like a complement for our special forces, but this is not our activity,” the minister added.

Journalists asked Reznikov if he was concerned that the latest media reports could lead to a reduction in EU support for Kiev amid the conflict with Moscow. “No, I’m not concerned. Everything would be OK,” he said.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported, citing US officials and unspecified new intelligence, that a “pro-Ukrainian group” may have been behind the September attack that disabled the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which were built to deliver Russian gas to Europe via Germany. The US paper’s anonymous sources stressed that “no American or British nationals were involved” in the sabotage.

A few hours later, several German outlets claimed the country’s investigators looking into the Nord Stream blasts had found that a yacht reportedly used in the attack belonged to a Polish-based firm, owned by two Ukrainians.

Kremlin press-secretary Dmitry Peskov described the reports in the US and German media as “a coordinated media hoax campaign,” aimed at diverting attention from the actual “masterminds” of the sabotage.

Last month, veteran American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh released a bombshell report blaming Washington for destroying the Nord Stream pipelines. According to an informed source who talked to Hersh, explosives were planted on the pipelines in the Baltic Sea back in June 2022 by US Navy divers under the guise of a NATO exercise, and detonated remotely two months later. The White House has denied the report by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, calling it “utterly false and complete fiction.”

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | 1 Comment

Kremlin: New Reports on Nord Stream Attacks Are Part of a Coordinated Disinformation Campaign

Sputnik – 08.03.2023

Media reports about the attacks on Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines are part of a coordinated spread of disinformation and an attempt to divert attention from the real perpetrators, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Sputnik on Wednesday.

“Obviously, the authors of the terrorist attack want to divert attention. This is obviously a coordinated spread of disinformation in the media,” Peskov said, commenting on the Western media reports.

He said the Kremlin wonders how US officials that media reports cite can assume anything about the attacks without an investigation.

Peskov also called for a transparent investigation into the Nord Stream attacks; one where Russia would be a participant in the probe.

“We are still prevented from taking part in the investigation. Only a few days ago, we received relevant notes from Denmark and Sweden. This is not just strange, it has scent of a heinous crime. At a minimum, Nord Stream shareholders and the UN should demand an urgent transparent investigation with the participation of those who can shed light on the matter,” the Kremlin spokesman underscored.

A US newspaper earlier cited American officials as saying that new intelligence suggested a “pro-Ukrainian group” had carried out the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. A few hours later, a German newspaper reported that the investigators had identified the vessel used to carry out the attack on the pipelines.

The developments come about a week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Sputnik that Moscow would do its utmost to make the Nord Stream probe happen.

“You remember how the West reacted to the investigation into Nord Stream published by Seymour Hersh – their nervous reaction. They started saying it’s nonsense and that they were not even going to discuss it. I think this makes everything clear. But we will do our best to make this investigation happen, we will not allow them to just sweep it all under the rug,” Lavrov stressed.

This followed Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzia saying that Russia’s Western partners on the UN Security Council were not demonstrating any desire to cooperate in an independent investigation to verify a report that presented significant details that the US was behind the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

The investigative report was published by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who revealed that US Navy divers had planted explosives to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines during NATO’s Baltops exercises in the summer of 2022. Norway activated the bombs three months later at the behest of US President Joe Biden, the journalist wrote, citing insiders.

In September 2022, underwater blasts occurred at three of the four strings of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 underwater pipelines, built to carry a combined 110 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to Europe annually. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden launched separate investigations into the incident, while Russia wasn’t given access to their probes.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | 1 Comment