Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | APRIL 19, 2024

BBC oddball Chris Packham has hit back at claims reported on Neil Oliver‘s GB News show that half the world’s population could die if Net Zero was implemented in full. “So Ofcom can you please explain how you allow this utter BS to be broadcast,” he wails. Running to Ofcom would appear to be a trade protection measure – millions will die has been the tried and trusted modus operandi of climate catastrophist Chris for decades.

This would appear to be the same Chris Packham who told the Telegraph in October 2010 that there were too many humans on the planet, and “we need to do something about it”. In 2020, he informed the Daily Mail  that “quite frankly” smallpox, measles, mumps and malaria were there “to regulate our population”. Over his broadcast career, untroubled by Ofcom interest, Packham has claimed mass extinctions of all life on Earth unless humans stop burning hydrocarbons. Of course there are those who point out that these popular mass extinctions only seem to exist in computer models. Hydrocarbons, meanwhile, have led to unprecedented prosperity and health, unimaginable to previous generations, across many parts of a planet that now supports a sustainable population of humans numbering eight billion.

Of course Net Zero is not going to kill four billion people because Net Zero is never going to happen. Day-by-day, support is crumbling around the world as the political collectivisation project, supported by increasingly discredited computer-modelled opinions, is starting to fall apart as it bumps into the hard rock of reality. History teaches us that tribes that grow weak and decadent are easy prey for their stronger neighbours. But the suggestion that four billion will die if Net Zero should ever be inflicted on global populations is worth examining. After all, it is likely to be true.

The four billion dead noted on GB News came from a remark made by Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace. Interviewed on Fox News, he said: “If we ban fossil fuels, agricultural production would collapse. People will begin to starve, and half the population will die in a very short period of time”. Four billion dead if artificial fertiliser is banned is not ‘BS’, it is an almost guaranteed outcome. In a recent science paper, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively noted that “eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertiliser and pesticides will create worldwide starvation”. With the use of nitrogen fertiliser, crop yields around the world have soared in recent decades and natural famines, as opposed to those local outbreaks caused by humans, have largely disappeared.

Much of the luxury middle class Net Zero obsession is based on a seeming hatred of human progress. It is a campaign to push back the benefit of mass industrialisation, although it is doubtful that many of the ardent promoters think the drastic reductions in standards of living will apply to them. It is narcissism on stilts and based on an almost complete ignorance of how the food in their faddy diets arrives on their plates. It shows a complete disregard for the central role that hydrocarbons play in their lives. It is based on a profound distaste for almost any modern manufacturing process. These days, they do not know people who actually make things, and when they meet them they often dislike them. Nutty Guardianista George Monbiot recently tweeted that ending animal farming is as important as leaving fossil fuels in the ground. “Eating meat, milk and eggs is an indulgence the planet cannot afford,” he added.

Leaving fossil fuels in the ground will mean the following products will largely disappear.

Circulated on social media and recently published by Paul Homewood, the illustration is a wake-up call to the importance of hydrocarbons. Without it, humans would struggle to make many medicines and plastics. Similar difficulties would be found in the manufacture of common products such as clothing, food preservatives, cleaning products and soft contact lens.

Alec Epstein, the author of the best-selling book Fossil Future, agrees that Net Zero policies by 2050 would be “apocalyptically destructive”, and have in fact already been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented. A reference here, perhaps, to the wicked policies conducted by Western banks and elites in refusing to loan money to build hydrocarbon-fuelled water treatment plants in the poorer parts of the developing world. Billions still lack the cost-effective energy they need to live lives of abundance and safety, notes Epstein. Many people in developing countries still use wood and dung for cooking. Like Happer and Lindzen, he believes that if Net Zero is followed, “virtually all the world’s eight billion people will plunge into poverty and premature death”.

Much of what is planned is hiding in plain sight. The C40 group, funded by wealthy billionaires and chaired by London mayor Sadiq Khan, has investigated World War 2 style rationing with a daily meat allowance of 44g. Reduced private transport and massive restrictions on air travel have all been considered. Labour party member Khan has already made a cracking start on his elite paymasters’ concerns having recently driven many of the cars of the less affluent off London roads with specialist charging penalties.

Honesty rules the day at the U.K. Government-funded UK FIRES operation where Ivory Tower academics produce gruesomely frank reports showing that Net Zero would cut available energy by around three quarters. They assume, rightly, that there is no realistic technology currently available, or likely in the foreseeable future, to back up power sourced from the intermittent breezes and sun beams. No flying, no shipping, drastic cuts in meat consumption and no home heating are all discussed. A ruthless purge of modern building material is also proposed with traditional building supplies replaced by new materials such as “rammed earth”

A move back to primitivism is also foreshadowed by a recent United Nations report which suggested building using mud bricks, bamboo and forest ‘detritus’. It might be thought that mud and grass huts will hardly be enough to deter unfriendly foreign hordes that hove into future view on the horizon. And no point in asking the last person to turn out the lights, because there won’t be electricity anyway.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

UN Official Condemns Health “Misinformation,” Advocates for “Digital Integrity Code”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 30, 2024

The United Nations continues with an attempt to advance the agenda to get what the organization calls its Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms implemented.

This code is based on a previous policy brief that recommends censorship of whatever is deemed to be “disinformation, misinformation, hate” but that is only the big picture of the policy UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is staunchly promoting.

In early April, Fleming gave a talk at Boston University, and here the focus was on AI, whose usefulness in various censorship ventures makes it seen as a tool that advances “resilience in global communication.”

A piece on the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases site first asserts that AI had a “major role” in helping spread misinformation and conspiracy theories “in the post-pandemic era,” while the UN is described as one of the institutions that have been undermined by all this, while “working to dispel these narratives.”

(The article also – helpfully, in terms of understanding where its authors are coming from – cites the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “authority” which has proclaimed that “the threat from misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term threat facing the world today”).

You will hardly hear Fleming disagreeing with any of this, but the UN’s approach is to “harness” that power to serve its own agendas. The UN official’s talk was about how AI can be used to feed the public the desired narratives around issues like vaccines, climate change, and the “well-being” of women and girls.

However, she also went long into all the aspects of AI that she perceives as negative, throwing pretty much every talking point already well established among the “AI fear-mongering genre” in there:

“One of our biggest worries is the ease with which new technologies can help spread misinformation easier and cheaper, and that this content can be produced at scale and far more easily personalized and targeted,” she said.

Flemming said that with the pandemic, this “skyrocketed” around the issue of vaccines. But she didn’t address why that may be – other than, apparently, being simply a furious sudden proliferation of “misinformation” for its own sake.

Flemming then mentions a number of UN activities, basically along the lines of “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking” (like “Verified,” and #TakeCareBeforeYouShare”).

Some might refer to Flemming as one of the “merchants of outrage” but she has this slur reserved for others, such as “climate (change) deniers.”

And it wasn’t long before X and Elon Musk cropped up.

“Since Elon Musk took over X, all of the climate deniers are back, and (the platform) has become a space for all kinds of climate disinformation. Here is a connection that people in the anti-vaccine sphere are now shifting to the climate change denial sphere,” Flemming lamented.

But, the UN official reassured everyone that “she and her team are working to build coalitions and initiatives that leverage AI to promote exciting, positive, fact-driven global public health communications.”

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

States Move to Oppose WHO’s ‘Pandemic Treaty,’ Assert States’ Rights

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 29, 2024

Two states have passed laws — and two states have bills pending — intended to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy.

Utah and Florida passed laws and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes. Several other states are considering similar bills.

The WHO member states will convene next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, to vote on two proposals — the so-called “pandemic accord” or “pandemic treaty,” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) — that would give the WHO sweeping new pandemic powers.

The Biden administration supports the two WHO proposals, but opposition is growing at the state level.

Proponents of the WHO’s proposals say they are vital for preparing humanity against the “next pandemic,” perhaps caused by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”

But the bills passed by state legislatures reflect frequently voiced criticisms that the WHO’s proposals imperil national sovereignty, medical and bodily sovereignty and personal liberties, and may lead to global vaccine mandates.

Critics also argue the WHO proposals may open the door to global digital “health passports” and global censorship targeting alleged “misinformation.”

Such criticisms are behind state legislative initiatives to oppose the WHO, on the basis that states’ rights are protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Such powers, critics say, include public health policy.

Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender :

“It is encouraging to see states like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah pass resolutions to clarify that the WHO has no power to determine health policy in their states. Historically, health has been the purview of state and local government, not the U.S. federal government.

“There is no legitimate constitutional basis for the federal government to outsource health decision-making on pandemics to an international body. As state legislatures become aware of the WHO’s agenda, they are pushing back to assert their autonomy — and this is welcome.”

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that, contrary to arguments that the drafters of the constitution could not foresee future public health needs, vaccines, doctors and medicine were all in existence at the time the 10th Amendment was written. They were “deliberately left out,” she said.

This has implications for the federal government’s efforts in support of the WHO’s proposals, according to Nass. “The government doesn’t have the authority to give the WHO powers for which it lacks authority,” she said.

Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Sullivan County) told The Epoch Times, “We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options.”

“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” he added.

Utah, Florida laws passed

On Jan. 31, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” into law. It does not mention the WHO, but prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252 (SB 252), a bill for “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other clauses, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of vaccination or prophylaxis for the purposes of employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.

According to Section 3 of SB 252:

“A governmental entity as defined … or an educational institution … may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.”

Nass told The Defender that Florida’s legislation offers a back door through which WHO the state can implement WHO policies because it allows a state law, rule or executive order by the governor to override the bill. According to Nass, efforts to strengthen the bill have been unsuccessful.

SB 252 was one of four bills Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed in May 2023 in support of medical freedom. The other bills were House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.

Louisiana, Oklahoma also push back against the WHO

The Louisiana Senate on March 26 voted unanimously to pass Senate Law No. 133, barring the WHO, United Nations (U.N.) and World Economic Forum from wielding influence over the state.

According to the legislation:

“No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.”

The bill is now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval and if passed, is set to take effect Aug. 1.

On April 24, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”

According to the bill:

“Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.”

According to Door to Freedom, the bill was first introduced last year and unanimously passed the Senate. An amended version will return to the Senate for a new vote, and if passed, the law will take effect June 1.

Legislative push continues in states where bills opposing the WHO failed

Legislative initiatives opposing the WHO in other states have so far been unsuccessful.

In Tennessee, lawmakers proposed three bills opposing the WHO, but “none of them made it over the finish line,” said Bernadette Pajer of the CHD Tennessee Chapter.

“Many Tennessee legislators are concerned about the WHO and three of them filed resolutions to protect our sovereignty,” Pajer said. “Our legislature runs on a biennium, and this was the second year, so those three bills have died. But I do expect new ones will be filed next session.”

The proposed bills were:

  • House Joint Resolution 820 (HJR 820), passed in the Tennessee House of Representatives. The bill called on the federal government to “end taxpayer funding” of the WHO and reject the WHO’s two proposals.
  • House Joint Resolution 1359 (HJR 1359) stalled in the Delayed Bills Committee. It proposed that “neither the World Health Organization, United Nations, nor the World Economic Forum shall have any jurisdiction or power within the State of Tennessee.”
  • Senate Joint Resolution 1135 (SJR 1135) opposed “the United States’ participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord (PPPRA) and urges the Biden Administration to withdraw our nation from the PPPRA.”

Amy Miller, a registered lobbyist for Reform Pharma, told The Defender she “supported these resolutions, especially HJR 1359. She said the bill “went to a committee where the sponsor didn’t think it would come out since a unanimous vote was needed and one of the three members was a Democrat.”

Tennessee’s HJR 820 came the closest to being enacted. According to Nass, this bill was “flawed,” as it “did not assert state sovereignty or the 10th Amendment.”

Another Tennessee bill, House Bill 2795 and Senate Bill 2775, “establishes processes by which the general assembly [of the state of Tennessee] may nullify an unconstitutional federal statute, regulation, agency order, or executive order.”

According to The Epoch Times, this would give Tennessee residents “the right to demand that state legislators vote on whether or not to enforce regulations or executive orders that violate citizens’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.” The bill is tabled for “summer study” in the Senate.

In May 2023, Tennessee passed legislation opposing “net zero” proposals and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals — which have been connected to “green” policies and the implementation of digital ID for newborn babies and for which the U.N. has set a target date of 2030 for implementation.

According to The Epoch Times, “Maine state Rep. Heidi Sampson attempted to get a ‘joint order’ passed in support of personal autonomy and against compliance with the WHO agreements, but it garnered little interest in the Democrat supermajority legislature.”

In Alabama, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 113 opposing the WHO. The bill was reported out of committee but, according to Nass, it stalled.

Other states where similar legislation was proposed in the 2024 session or is pending include Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina and Wyoming.

Recent Supreme Court ruling may curtail federal government’s powers

While opponents of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments point to the states’ rights provision of the 10th Amendment, others argue that a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws.

The tide may be turning, however. According to The Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”

Nass said that even in states where lawmakers have not yet proposed bills to oppose the WHO, citizens can take action, by contacting the office of their state governor, who can issue an executive order, or their attorney general, who can issue a legal opinion.

Door to Freedom has also developed a model resolution that state legislative bodies can use as the basis for their own legislation.

“It’s important for people to realize that if the federal government imposes something on the people, the people can go through their state’s powers to overturn it,” Nass said.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

The Pandemic Agreement. The Globalist Agenda versus the Global South’s agenda

BY MERYL NASS | APRIL 30, 2024

The USA agenda for the Pandemic Agreement appears to coincide with the globalist agenda: pathogen sharing, gain-of-function research, massively increased genome sequencing for purposes yet to be acknowledged, rapid rollout of vaccines and drugs for all the new pandemics we will see (or at least hear about, such as bird flu), centralized control of health emergencies by the WHO with a new governance role for that organization. Nations will be obligated to obey the WHO. The “One Health” concept will be used to give powers to the WHO that have heretofore not been considered directly related to health, but are being redefined so they are included in “One Health”—such as the ability to issue orders in the name of protecting animals, plants, ecosystems and so-called biodiversity.

There are more poor nations than rich ones. The poor nations would like more healthcare personnel; would like to plug the “brain drain” of medical and professional personnel to the richer countries; would like more infrastructure: clinics, hospitals, laboratories. They would like some money to flow to them.

The WHO treaty is telling them it will give them a little bit: some crumbs (10%-20% of the drugs and vaccines they will need for free or at low cost). And if they play along and provide what they consider to be their own intellectual property (dangerous microorganisms discovered on their turf) the rich nations promise them some royalties. Amount unspecified.

What the two sides want is very different. In all the drafts so far, what the globalists have offered has not moved much if at all. They have played hardball. How much are they prepared to give up at the last minute? There are no indications yet of last-minute generosity.

The Geneva Health Files substack today indicates that the WHO’s Secretariat and Bureau are jumping in to the negotiations to create new procedures to try and reach agreement. As I have said before, this is evidence that the “member-led process” claimed by Tedros is a sham, as the procedures are shaped and reshaped by bureaucrats in order to achieve the aims of the WHO’s biggest funders.

Geneva Health Files also has some interesting things to say about the country negotiators vs their ambassadors and health ministers. Priti Patnaik, the author, seems to think that consensus can be achieved if the negotiators can hold back the senior officials from their governments. Presumably this means that the negotiators are tired (or bribed) and are ready to give in to the big boys on some issues, and if they can just be allowed to manage the treaty discussions in isolation, without obeying messages from home, agreement can be reached. Hmmmm to that.

We have already seen the Russian negotiator Smolenskiy working against his nation’s interests and the Italian negotiator (who someone claimed was Ethiopian) claiming support for the treaty and amendments when the Italian government was not in favor. Does this imply that the globalists have captured other negotiators — so that separating them from those providing instructions from the home country is what is being attempted?

Will the global south give in to the globalist agenda for a measly few pieces of silver, accepting all the risks the WHO documents will subject them too? Meanwhile, the global north prints money like crazy, and could in fact offer considerably more at the last minute.

But is any amount worth the risk of entering into an era of pandemics, rolling out dangerous vaccines and giving the WHO authority over vast swathes of the planet?

I must ask again: for whom is the WHO’s agenda good? Who benefits? Only those seeking a one world government.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , | Leave a comment

Portland State University will ‘pause’ donations from Boeing following student protests against Israel

Solidarity demonstrations continue every Sunday in Melbourne, Australia [Recep Sakar – Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | April 30, 2024

Portland State University (PSU) will temporarily halt donations from Boeing, responding to student calls to cut ties with the giant aerospace and missile manufacturer amidst Israel’s war on Gaza.

President Ann Cudd stated in an open letter released Friday that PSU plans to organise a forum in May to address student concerns regarding their affiliations with the multibillion-dollar weapons manufacturer.

She wrote: “PSU will pause seeking or accepting any further gifts or grants from the Boeing Company until we have had a chance to engage in this debate and come to conclusions about a reasonable course of action.”

She added that the university “has no investments in Boeing but accepts philanthropic gifts from the company and, given that Boeing is a major employer in the region, many of our alumni work there.”

Students have been advocating for the university to sever its ties with Boeing in recent years, with increased pressure following the outbreak of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.

Boeing’s defence division, Boeing Defense, Space and Security, maintains offices in Israel and provides the country with fighter jets such as the F-15IA and the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter which has been used in Israel’s ongoing attack on Gaza.

While Cudd announced last week that she did not see “any logical reason to rethink” the relationship with Boeing, after weeks of protests against the Israeli onslaught in the Gaza Strip on university campuses across the US, she wrote that the “passion” with which students were demanding change had motivated her “to listen and ask additional questions.”

PSU’s response marks one of the initial actions taken by university administrators to distance their institution from a major weapons manufacturer. While student protests demanding divestment from weapons manufacturers and companies associated with Israel have occurred across the country, many universities have consistently stated their refusal to divest from Israel or these manufacturers.

US universities have witnessed a widespread student movement since 18 April denouncing the Israeli war on Gaza and rejecting their universities’ investments in companies that support Israel, as well as their government’s blind support for the occupation state.

The unprecedented momentum of the student movement in support of Palestine in the US has since spread to universities in France, the UK, Germany and Australia.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

Several Western Countries Propose Cutting Weapon, Technology Transfers to Israel

Sputnik – 30.04.2024

ANKARA – Several Western countries have proposed introducing cuts in weapons sales and impose restrictions on delivering technologies to Israel in a package of measures discussed during a two-day meeting in Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the League of Arab States and a number of European countries discussed measures that may be applied against Israel and countries supporting the Jewish state in the Gaza conflict at the meeting in Riyadh on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, the newspaper reported.

The discussion aimed to involve as many countries as possible in the package of “pressure elements” that contains a proposal on airspace restrictions, among other things, the report said.

Earlier on Tuesday, Politico reported that a group of more than 90 US lawyers, including at least 20 from the presidential administration, called on US President Joe Biden to stop military aid to Israel because of its actions in the Gaza Strip, which they said contradict US and international humanitarian law.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a large-scale rocket attack against Israel and breached the border, attacking both civilian neighborhoods and military bases. Nearly 1,200 people in Israel were killed and some 240 others abducted during the attack. Israel launched retaliatory strikes, ordered a complete blockade of Gaza, and started a ground incursion into the Palestinian enclave with the declared goal of eliminating Hamas fighters and rescuing the hostages. Over 34,400 people have been killed so far by Israeli strikes in the Gaza Strip, according to local authorities.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

US lawmakers threaten ICC against issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials

The Cradle | April 30, 2024

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has threatened the International Criminal Court (ICC) with “retaliation” if international arrest warrants are issued against senior Israeli officials for war crimes committed in Gaza.

According to officials who spoke with Axios, “legislation to that effect is already in the works.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul told the US publication that the legislation would call for sanctions against ICC officials “involved in investigating the US and its allies.“

Representative Brad Sherman is quoted as saying that Washington should “think of whether we stay a signatory“ to the Rome Statute — the treaty that established the ICC and established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv are among the 124 states that remain signatories of the ICC Rome Statute of 1998.

“We have to think about talking to some of the countries that have ratified [the treaty] as to whether they want to support the organization,“ he added.

“If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel,“ House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement issued on 29 April.

The Republican lawmaker also called on the White House to “immediately and unequivocally demand that the ICC stand down” and “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination.”

Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICC has been investigating war crimes committed by the Israeli military in Gaza. The court says it is also probing alleged violations by Palestinian resistance groups.

After reports broke earlier this month saying the ICC was looking to issue arrest warrants against top Israeli officials – including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – the US and its allies began pressuring the court to back out, claiming the warrants could “jeopardize” a ceasefire deal for Gaza.

“Group of Seven nations have begun a quiet diplomatic effort to convey that message to the Hague-based court,” diplomatic sources who spoke with Bloomberg are quoted as saying.

Israel has been accused of genocide by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also based in The Hague.

An interim ruling at the start of the year determined that Israel was plausibly guilty of the crime of genocide and ordered it to stop genocidal acts during its war on Gaza and take measures to guarantee the efficient provision of humanitarian aid to the strip.

In 2002, two years after Washington withdrew from the Rome Statute, then-president George W Bush signed into law the “American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002,” which authorizes the use of military force in the Netherlands to “liberate” any US citizen or citizen of a US-allied country held by the ICC.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

Yemen raps US for obstructing peace, blocking efforts to halt Gaza genocide

Press TV – April 30, 2024

The Yemeni Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates has denounced the United States over its role in scuttling UN-brokered peace efforts in the impoverished Arab nation, and its failure to stop the Israeli military’s onslaught against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

“The United States constitutes an obstacle to peace in Yemen, and prevents the ongoing criminal massacre in Gaza from coming to an end,” the ministry said in a statement released on Monday.

Pointing to the Yemeni pro-Palestine maritime operations in the Red Sea, the ministry said they “have humanitarian objectives, and are meant to pressure the Zionist regime into stopping its vicious aggression and lifting its all-out blockade on Gaza.”

The ministry went on to note that the resolution of the Yemen conflict will not stop the country’s naval units from carrying out anti-Israeli operations, emphasizing that the United Nations has been reminded that the agreement with Saudi Arabia for the Yemeni peace roadmap has nothing to do with unfolding developments in Gaza, and that neither Americans nor Britons should be involved in it.

The statement added that the latest remarks by Tim Lenderking, the US special envoy for Yemen, about Yemeni attacks on Israeli-affiliated commercial vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in response to the war on Gaza show that the US is preventing the establishment of peace in Yemen, and is blocking an end to the killings in Gaza and the removal of the siege.

Lenderking told Saudi English-language daily newspaper Arab News in an interview published on April 25 that “the onus (is) on the Houthis to stop the Red Sea attacks, adding, “That can prompt us all to begin to dial back, to de-escalate, to return the situation in Yemen to where it was on Oct. 6, which had considerably more promise and possibility than what exists now, and that’s where we want to return the focus.”

On the Gaza war, Lenderking said, “We cannot escape what’s happening in Gaza,” adding, “Not one single day goes by when the people I talk to about Yemen don’t also talk about Gaza. So we know this is a searing and very, very important situation that must be dealt with.”

The Yemeni foreign ministry statement further criticized Washington for standing “against the will of all world nations, including its own people who are expressing fierce opposition to the involvement of the Biden administration in the heinous crimes that Zionists are committing against Gazans.”

“The US has rather resorted to the brutal suppression of pro-Palestine protests at its own university campuses than to respond to global demands [for an end to Gaza war]. Such conduct has exposed the hollowness of its slogans about democracy,” the ministry pointed out.

The Yemeni Armed Forces have staged numerous pro-Palestinian strikes since October 7, when the Israeli regime began the Gaza war.

American and British warships have been carrying out attacks against the Arab Peninsula nation as means of trying to halt strikes that it has been conducting against Israeli vessels or those heading towards the ports lying in the occupied Palestinian territories.

At least 34,488 Palestinians have been killed and 77,643 others wounded in the brutal Israeli military onslaught that was launched following Al-Aqsa Storm, a retaliatory operation staged by Gaza’s resistance groups.

The US has been the main supporter of Israel, proving it with munitions and political support in its brutal war on Gaza. Washington has also used its veto power to protect Israel against UN resolutions.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

$3.5 Billion Slipped Into Ukraine-Israel Aid Bill To ‘Supercharge Mass Migration From The Middle East’

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | April 30, 2024

Tucked away in the $95 billion military aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan is a $3.5 billion slush fund to open new processing centers for Muslim migrants, in what Sen. Eric Schmitt described as a bid to “supercharge mass migration from the Middle East.”

And as Breitbart points out, the $95 billion package does not include any funds to help rebuild America’s border defenses against illegal migration – but it does contain $481 million to settle migrants in US cities, and of course, the $3.5 billion to expand migration programs worldwide.

The $3.5 billion was granted to the Department of State, which works with many international groups that feed and transport migrants on their way to the United States.

Biden’s deputies are now using the refugee programs as an adjunct to their diversity-expanding “equity” migration policy. For example, Biden’s deputies used the program in March to import 3,009 migrants from the safe and democratic countries of El Salvador and Guatemala.

They are also using the refugee funds to expand migration routes from many African and Muslim countries. In March, they pulled in 12,018 people from the Congo, plus 16,732 migrants from the Muslim countries of Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, and Eritrea, according to a report by Stacker.com.

According to an April 23 release from the Biden DHS visa-granting agency, “The Biden-Harris administration set the refugee admissions ceiling for fiscal year 2024 at 125,000 refugees,” adding “With the opening of the Doha Field Office on May 7, 2024, and the Ankara Field Office on May 9, 2024, USCIS will have 11 international field offices. Other international field offices include Beijing; Guangzhou, China; Guatemala City; Havana; Mexico City; Nairobi, Kenya; New Delhi; San Salvador, El Salvador; and Tegucigalpa, Honduras.”

So – we have the US government encouraging migration, both legal and illegal – which hurts low-income Americans the most, while neglecting to [secure] the borders. Seems we’ve learned nothing from Europe.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Western Media Spread Fake Report About Use of N. Korean Missile in Kharkov

Sputnik – 30.04.2024

Western media outlets are disseminating a fake report claiming that Russia used a North Korean -made missile to strike a target in Kharkov, a source at the United Nations told Sputnik on Monday.

Earlier in the day, Reuters reported that some three experts allegedly provided a report to the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee with a conclusion that the debris from a missile found at the site of a January 2 strike in the Ukrainian city of Kharkov belongs to a North Korea Hwasong-11 series ballistic missile.

“The report is fake. It’s non-existent. The group of experts did not submit any report to the UN Security Council,” the source said.

The fake document described by Reuters was written by a group of specialists who went to Ukraine on the invitation of the government and wrote what the Ukrainian puppet authorities told them, the source said.

“It has no value,” the source said, adding that there were no missile or conventional weapons specialists in the group.

The Ukrainian mission to the United Nations organized the trip for the specialists, who made their conclusion based on the alleged similarity of the missile remains they saw in Kharkov with those that can be seen at military parades in North Korea.

“The group of experts did not present any report. There is a procedure for a report approval and submission to the UN Security Council and it means that this report contains their personal views. Simply speaking, they wrote a report on a business trip that was offered to them [by Ukraine],” the source said.

Russia has repeatedly dismissed media reports and US claims that Moscow is using North Korean missiles to attack targets in Ukraine. The United States has not provided to date any evidence supporting its claims.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Opposition parties slam Macron’s idea to boost European defence with French nuclear weapons

By Ahmed Adel | April 30, 2024

Several opposition parties have attacked the proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron to share French nuclear weapons with the European Union. Macron’s controversy follows another recent one in which the erosion of France’s sovereignty and the legacy of Charles de Gaulle were highlighted in the most ironic way.

During a speech on April 28, Macron stated that the EU needs a common defence strategy and that French nuclear weapons could be a key component. According to him, this would provide the security guarantees that Europe expects and would also allow for neighbourly relations with Russia.

Macron stressed that a “credible European defence” needs to go beyond NATO, which “may mean deploying anti-missile shields” that will “block all missiles and deter the use of nuclear weapons.”

The French president said he was open to giving a more “European dimension” to vital interests, even if France’s doctrine has been to only use nuclear weapons when their own vital interests are threatened.

“I’m in favour of opening this debate, which must therefore include missile defence, long-range weapons and nuclear weapons for those who have them or who have American nuclear weapons on their soil,” he said.

However, his statements were criticised by all political parties.

“It is not appropriate for the head of state to say such things. Macron says he wants to start discussions on sharing nuclear weapons with European countries. This is extremely serious because it touches on the issue of French sovereignty,” said François-Xavier Bellamy, leader of the Republican Party list for the European Parliament elections, to the French channel CNews on April 28.

Thierry Mariani, an MEP from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National) party, said on April 28 that Macron had become a “threat to the nation.”

“Nuclear weapons will be followed by France’s place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which will also be given to the European Union […] Macron is becoming a threat to the nation!” the MEP wrote on X.

Meanwhile, the left-wing La France Insoumise (LFI) party pointed out that “the head of state has dealt another blow to the credibility of French nuclear weapons. He is lumping everything into a single pile. Share nuclear weapons? Lose our sovereignty. This decision does not belong to the president but to the people.”

Mathilde Panot, leader of the LFI faction in the French National Assembly, said on RTL radio that she “does not believe in a common EU nuclear umbrella.”

“We will not resort to the use of nuclear weapons because of another country,” she said, calling Macron’s proposal madness and irresponsibility as it increases the risk of nuclear war in Europe.

LFI MP Bastien Lachaud also noted on X that Macron “wants to abandon the French nuclear deterrence doctrine.”

In turn, Florian Philippot, the head of the Patriots party, accused Macron of being a “traitor” on X, recalling on April 28 the words of General Charles de Gaulle, who argued in 1959: “The defence of France must be French. […] It is essential that the defence is ours, that France defends itself, for itself and in its own way. If it were otherwise, if it were admitted for a long time that the defence of France stopped being part of the national framework and became confused or merged with something else, it would not be possible for us to maintain a State in our country.”

As Philippot points out, Macron is challenging the legacy of one of France’s most respected statesmen, which very well could lead to the French president’s demise considering his people’s fiercely independent spirit, something he has been eroding, especially after Russia launched its special military operation against Ukraine.

In fact, Moscow described the deployment of the French nuclear aircraft carrier, ironically called Charles de Gaulle, to Souda Bay on the Greek island of Crete for the largest NATO naval exercise in recent times as an “erosion of French sovereignty.”

According to Reuters, placing the Charles de Gaulle under the operational control of the Atlantic Alliance is “highly symbolic, not least because the warship is named after the former president who took France out of the alliance’s US-led command structure in 1966.”

Agreeing with Moscow’s position, “the decision to put the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier under NATO command drew criticism from the French far left and far right, who said it represented a loss of sovereign power,” Reuters reported.

Macron has consistently promoted pan-European defence, but the conversation has never reached the point of compromising French sovereignty. It is likely that this proposal will have negative effects on Macron’s popularity as the fiercely sovereign policies and spirit of Charles de Gaulle are being challenged in an unprecedented manner by the French president.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Lyndon Johnson’s Role in the JFK Assassination

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | April 29, 2024

Ever since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a question has naturally arisen: What role, if any, did Vice-President Lyndon Johnson play in the assassination?

With the publication of Douglas P. Horne’s massive 5-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, the national-security establishment’s role in the assassination has now been established beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s because Horne meticulously detailed the fraud in the autopsy that the U.S. military carried out on Kennedy’s body on the very evening of the assassination. Horne served on the staff of the ARRB in the 1990s.

Examples of autopsy fraud set forth by Horne (which are summarized in my book The Kennedy Autopsy) include (1) sneaking JFK’s body into the Bethesda Naval morgue before the official start of the autopsy in order to perform pre-autopsy surgery designed to hide evidence of shots having been fired from Kennedy’s front and (2) two separate brain examinations, the second of which involved someone else’s brain rather than Kennedy’s. Horne’s findings have now been reinforced and built upon in a new book, The Final Analysis by David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. and Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. It necessarily means criminal culpability of the national-security establishment in the assassination itself. There is no way around that. That’s how we can definitively conclude that the JFK assassination was one of the national-security establishment’s patented regime-change operations based on what have become the two most important words in the American political lexicon — “national security.” See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated.”

But what about Johnson? Was he just an innocent beneficiary of the assassination? Actually not. The circumstantial evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson himself was up to his neck in the assassination. Johnson had three primary roles in the assassination.

The first role was to get JFK’s body out of Dallas and deliver it into the hands of the military. Keep in mind that JFK’s murder was a state criminal offense. At that time, it was not a federal crime to assassinate a president. Therefore, no federal agency had any jurisdiction over the crime. That includes the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI.

Under Texas law, the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dr. Earl Rose, was required to perform an autopsy on JFK’s body. Immediately after JFK was declared dead, Rose announced that he was going to perform the autopsy. A team of Secret Service agents immediately declared that no such autopsy would be permitted. Headed by a Secret Service agent named Roy Kellerman, who was brandishing a Thompson sub-machine gun, the Secret Service team began screaming, yelling, and cussing as they began forcing their way out of Parkland Hospital  with the president’s body, which had been placed in a heavy casket. Rose refused to give ground, insisting, correctly so, that Texas law required him to perform the autopsy before the body could be released. One Secret Service agent physically picked up Rose, carried him to a nearby wall, and wagged his finger in his face. The others pulled back their suit coats to brandish their guns, thereby threatening to use deadly force against anyone who got in their way.

Kellerman declared that he and his team were simply following orders. There is only one person who could have issued such an extraordinary order to Kellerman — Lyndon Johnson, either directly to Kellerman or indirectly through one of Kellerman’s superiors. Who else would have dared to issue an order that violated state criminal law?

In fact, Johnson’s own actions confirm that he was the person who issued the order. Once JFK was declared dead, Johnson headed to Love Field, where he ordered seats to be removed from the back of Air Force One to make room for the big casket in which JFK’s body had been placed. Johnson had absolutely no intention of waiting at Love Field for the 2-3 hours that would have been needed to complete the autopsy. He was removing those seats in the full expectation that the casket and the body would be arriving shortly. How would he know that? Because he had to have been the one who issued the order to Kellerman to get the body out of Parkland at all costs and deliver it to Johnson at Love Field.

The second role that Johnson had was to conjure up the prospect of World War III by suggesting that the assassination might be the first step in a nuclear attack on the United States by the Soviet Union. He first raised this possibility while he was waiting at Parkland Hospital for Kennedy to be declared dead. He raised it again on the way to Love Field.

Yet, when Johnson arrived at Love Field, his actions belied any such concern. Rather than get up in the air immediately in order to direct America’s defenses and counterattacks to a possible Soviet nuclear attack, he instead lollygagged at Love Field, waiting, first, for a federal judge to arrive and swear him in as president and, second, for JFK’s body to be delivered to him. In fact, JFK was declared dead at 1 p.m. and LBJ waited until 2:47 to take off. That was the action of a person who knew for certain that the assassination could not possibly have been the first stage of a Soviet nuclear attack on the United States. The only way that Johnson could have been so certain is that he knew that it was not the Soviets who committed the assassination.

Once Johnson arrived at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, he dutifully delivered JFK’s body into the hands of the military, notwithstanding the fact that the military had absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever to conduct such an autopsy.

It was not the last time that LBJ conjured up the possibility that the Soviets or the Cubans had assassinated JFK, however. When he began inducing people to join what became known as the Warren Commission, he once again conjured up the possibility that the assassination had been committed by the Soviet Union or Cuba. Why would he do that? Because that was the way that the plotters were able to get the investigation into the assassination shut down immediately — in order to ostensibly avoid World War III and all-out nuclear war that would come with it.

How did this ingenious strategy play out? As I detail in my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, the plot called for shots being fired from the front and the back. That would establish a conspiracy with the supposed communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, a U.S. intelligence agent who the national-security establishment was setting up to take the fall. The only people with whom Oswald would have been supposedly conspiring were the Soviet Union and Cuba. That was the purpose of setting up Oswald in New Orleans and Mexico City as a supposed communist agent.

Keep in mind that JFK and his brother RFK had initiated Operation Mongoose, whose aim was to oust Cuban leader Fidel Castro from power. Keep in mind also that the CIA had repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro. Thus, Johnson’s second role was to assert that the communists had gotten to JFK first and that if the United States responded to their assassination of JFK, World War III would occur. Therefore, the only way to obviate going to war based on what the Kennedy brothers had started was to immediately shut down the investigation and hide the fact that shots had been fired from the front.

The third role that LBJ had was to ensure that there would never be an official investigation that could lead to the national-security establishment, including, of course, with respect to the military’s fraudulent autopsy. That was the purpose of appointing former CIA Director Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission. Dulles, who Kennedy had fired after the Bay of Pigs disaster and who loathed Kennedy, ensured that the commission stayed on track with the official lone-nut narrative.

Finally, it should be noted that if JFK had not been assassinated, it was a virtual certainty that LBJ would have been removed from office, indicted, and convicted for political corruption. In fact, it is also a virtual certainty that Johnson knew that Robert Kennedy, the attorney general, who loathed Johnson, was furnishing evidence of Johnson’s corruption to LIFE magazine. Thus, LBJ, who had a lifelong obsession to become president, had a choice: Go to jail or participate in the assassination of JFK and become president. He chose the latter course of action and, after being elected president in the 1964 election, gave the U.S. national-security establishment what Kennedy had refused to do–its war in Vietnam.

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries