Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A Looming Political Earthquake

The Inflation Reduction Act’s unprecedented climate spending — much of it uninvestigated — may soon lead to unprecedented scandals

By Mark P. Mills | City Journal | November 4, 2024

If it weren’t for the election season swamping news coverage, odds are more people would be talking about the revelation that, to quote a Bloomberg headline, “The World Bank Somehow Lost Track of at Least $24 Billion.” In fact, that may understate the reality: the World Bank’s “accounting gap” could be as big as $41 billion. The missing funds in question were for “climate finance” projects, “financed by taxpayer dollars from its member countries, the biggest being the US.”

According to the Oxfam report that was the source for the Bloomberg story, “There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used, which makes any assessment of its impacts impossible.” It is possible that much, maybe even most, of the missing money went to the intended people and purposes. But only the hopelessly naïve would dismiss the probability of rampant waste, malfeasance, graft, and outright theft as explanations for that “gap.” Spending of such magnitude and velocity with sloppy oversight is an invitation to thieves.

But the oversight scandal at the World Bank is chump change compared with the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and its massive planned “climate finance” program. The misnamed IRA is, in the words of its advocates, the “largest climate policy in US history.” [emphasis added] The law’s ambitions dwarf those of the World Bank. By various estimates, the IRA will lead to some $3 trillion in direct spending on grants, subsidies, and the like, plus another $3 trillion in related spending induced by mandates and rules. For perspective, that’s far more than the cost of Obamacare, and even more than the $4 trillion the U.S. spent (inflation adjusted) to fight World War II.

It makes zero difference which side you’re on regarding the urgency of climate change: the associated policies and spending are almost entirely about trying to create an “energy transition.” Nor does it matter what you think about whether such a transition is sensible (it isn’t): the sheer immensity of IRA spending represents a “whole of government” opportunity for waste, abuse, and fraud on an unprecedented scale.

If the likelihood for waste and abuse doesn’t strike you as obvious, consider a few well-documented features of federal spending in general. A March 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on overall federal government spending in FY2023 found that “more than $175 billion of errors were overpayments—for example, payments to deceased individuals or those no longer eligible for government programs,” and “$44.6 billion were unknown payments.” [emphasis added] The only “good news,” the GAO wrote, was that the “unknown” was $11 billion less than in the previous fiscal year, when Covid money was still being liberally ladled out. Again, only the naïve would conclude that waste, fraud, and abuse didn’t account for any of those “unknown” payments and “errors” in the normal course of our government’s $6 trillion annual budget.

Now along comes the IRA, another federal government gusher, with its overall $6 trillion directed at “climate finance,” with far fewer administrative and oversight guardrails than one normally finds in federal programs. What could go wrong?

Where are all the curious investigative journalists? Fortunately, a few still exist, notably James Varney at RealClearInvestigations, who has recently published a preliminary investigation: “Overnight Success: Biden’s Climate Splurge Gives Billions to Nonprofit Newbies.”

The purpose of Varney’s investigation wasn’t to question the efficacy of the underlying spending policies, their cost-effectiveness, or their capacity to achieve their stated goals. (For the record, we have good reasons to question both the policies’ efficacy and goals. For example, a new analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research reveals that the “IRA spends $23,000 to $32,000 per incremental EV sold.”) Rather, Varney sought answers to simple questions that fall under the purview of investigative journalism: Who’s getting the money, and what is it being spent on? Let’s hope Varney will inspire more reporters to dig in, because the massive scale of this “whole of government” spending program cannot possibly be covered by one person.

By necessity, Varney focused on just one tiny corner: the White House’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. As an EPA press release announced this past April: “Biden-Harris Administration Announces $20 Billion in Grants to Mobilize Private Capital and Deliver Clean Energy and Climate Solutions to Communities Across America.” Varney found that there isn’t “much public information” about many of the organizations receiving the funding, nor about what they’re doing or planning to do with the money.

Merely reading the EPA press release would raise some reasonable questions about the potential for waste and the relevance to “climate.” For instance, the EPA announcement says that one of the awards aims to “[d]edicate over $14 billion toward low-income and disadvantaged communities, including over $4 billion for rural communities as well as almost $1.5 billion for Tribal communities—ensuring that program benefits flow to the communities most in need and advance the President’s Justice40 Initiative.” Need it be said that poor communities consume far less energy than wealthier ones? Thus, changing behaviors or purchases among them would do nearly nothing to achieve the IRA’s stated climate goals. Regardless, one would want to know more about what, exactly, the grant-receiving organizations are doing or will do, and who runs them.

Varney reported that one award recipient obtained nonprofit status in 2023 and eight months later received a $940 million award. Another awardee received $2 billion just one month after obtaining nonprofit status and showing a prior reported income of $100 (not a typo). Varney doesn’t accuse any of these organizations of misdeeds; he merely sets out to establish some clarity on who got what, when, and where the money is going. However, when he contacted various recipients, he received either no responses or elliptical ones.

Again, setting aside the question of whether the spending will be useful, a reasonable person might object that we’re still in the early days and that it’s hard to spool up such an ambitious program. All true. But of course, the beginning is precisely the time when opportunities for waste and fraud get baked into a program. Varney reports: “The [$27 billion] awards were made by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is new to the world of major grantmaking. The agency acknowledges it has never handed out such gigantic sums of money, and its inspector general told Congress last month it marked a ‘fantastically complex’ and ‘unusual’ setup that his small staff would be hard-pressed to follow.”

Thus, we come back to obvious questions, such as: How is the grant-giving entity organized to evaluate and monitor funding recipients? How many of the groups were formed by political insiders? Regarding the latter, such arrangements can be perfectly benign, since insiders know where the money and opportunities reside. But the public has a right to know more. Certainly, one would hope Congress will put in place effective oversight. It is a huge amount of money. Again, from Varney’s reporting: “‘I can’t say enough about how complex this system will be,’ EPA Inspector General Sean O’Donnell testified to a House subcommittee in September. ‘It’s like they created an investment bank. It’s fantastically complex. I think it’s unusual.’”

Democrats have been eager to extol the IRA’s virtues. (The law was passed without a single Republican vote, only the second time something so consequential was so partisan. The other was Obamacare, which, it bears noting, didn’t create a “whole of government” lallapaloosa of multibillion-dollar grant-giving programs.) Given the stated claims and goals of the IRA, and the quantity of money already ladled out, one would expect to have seen far more news and press releases touting program successes. The IRA is, after all, the most expensive effort ever made to restructure an entire U.S. sector.

In the absence of further information, we can make a few reasonable suppositions: if the IRA is subject to typical levels of waste, abuse, and fraud for government largesse, then odds are that a major political tectonic shift is on the horizon. Perhaps more than any other single factor, the undoing of the climate-industrial complex could come from the volume of money being pushed into the economy to accelerate an impossible goal: the “energy transition.”

The popular expression “follow the money” comes from the iconic 1976 movie, All the President’s Men, which dramatized the Watergate investigation and the subsequent political earthquake. IRA spending dwarfs anything that precedes it. If serious investigative journalists do follow the money, it’s a good bet that we’ll see gargantuan scandals emerge.

Mark P. Mills is a City Journal contributing editor, the executive director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, and author of The Cloud Revolution.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | | Leave a comment

Appeals Court Rules Against CHD, RFK Jr. in Landmark Censorship Case

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 5, 2024

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is weighing next steps after an appeals court late Monday ruled against CHD and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in their landmark censorship case against the Biden administration.

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs — CHD, Kennedy and news consumer Connie Sampognaro — have no legal basis to sue the Biden administration for pressuring tech giants to censor their social media posts.

Monday’s ruling overturned a lower court decision, made in August by Judge Terry Doughty from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, who ruled the plaintiffs do have standing to sue the administration.

Standing is the legal doctrine requiring plaintiffs to show they’ve suffered direct and concrete injuries and that those injuries could be redressed in court in order to sue.

The lawsuit, Kennedy v. Biden — filed in March 2023 — alleges top government officials and federal agencies “waged a systematic, concerted campaign” to compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor their constitutionally protected speech.

“We are, of course, disappointed with and disagree with the 5th Circuit’s decision here,” CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg told The Defender.

Mack Rosenberg added:

“We believe that the additional evidence CHD presented more than sufficiently established standing for Children’s Health Defense. We pointed the court to ongoing censorship activities by the government and we demonstrated that the government has a significant and improper role in the social media platforms’ censorship of CHD.”

Mack Rosenberg said that plaintiffs are weighing the next steps.

Censorship lawsuits against Biden administration continue to drag on

The decision marks the latest major development in the ongoing anti-censorship litigation against the Biden administration.

Two separate cases — Murthy v. Missouri (originally Missouri v. Biden) and Kennedy v. Biden were filed in May 2022 and March 2023 respectively against the Biden administration in Louisiana District Court.

The cases have different plaintiffs but make similar allegations: that the administration colluded with social media companies to censor plaintiffs’ speech.

Both cases cited the disclosures of secret communications between social media companies and federal officials — in the “Twitter Files,” other lawsuits and news reports — revealing threats by President Joe Biden and other top officials against social media companies if they failed to aggressively censor content that ran counter to official narratives, including those on COVID-19 origins and vaccines.

Doughty consolidated the two cases, allowing them to share processes, such as discovery of evidence. However, the courts continued to hear and rule on the cases separately.

Plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden sought and won a preliminary injunction in the lower court to prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media companies to censor certain content. The administration appealed in July 2023 and in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the injunction.

The Supreme Court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing because there was insufficient evidence they were directly injured by the government’s actions.

The Louisiana District Court later granted a preliminary injunction in the Kennedy v. Biden case; however, the court simultaneously issued a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the injunction in Missouri v. Biden.

After the Supreme Court struck down the injunction in Missouri v. Biden, the 5th Circuit sent the Kennedy v. Biden case back to the District Court to rule on standing, where plaintiffs presented supplementary evidence.

The Kennedy v. Biden plaintiffs argued they had a stronger case for standing than the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden because there is explicit evidence that both Kennedy and CHD were specific targets of censorship and that they continue to be censored.

In a declaration by CHD President Mary Holland, Holland said CHD was deplatformed from Facebook and YouTube in August and September 2021 and continues to be deplatformed from major social media sites to this day.

Doughty found the government’s conduct is traceable to direct statements and instructions to social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. He said Kennedy and CHD showed they faced ongoing injuries that could be redressed by the court.

In October, a three-judge panel in the 5th Circuit heard oral arguments in the Kennedy v. Biden case.

In its ruling late yesterday, the 5th Circuit disagreed with Doughty and concluded CHD, Kennedy and Sampognaro lacked standing for the same reasons the Supreme Court found the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs lacked standing.

The court didn’t deny that pressure to censor and subsequent censorship of Kennedy and CHD had happened. Instead, it said the meetings between the government and social media companies had stopped in 2022.

Even if pressure exerted at that time led to the platforms censoring CHD, the organization could not tie ongoing censorship to government action, the court ruled. Therefore, plaintiffs have a “redressability problem,” and don’t have standing, it concluded.

Kennedy’s campaign Chief of Staff Brigid Rasmussen also described a series of content moderation actions taken by social media platforms against the Kennedy campaign.

The court ruled that Kennedy’s argument that he would be subjected to future censorship is speculative — and even more speculative now that his presidential campaign is suspended — and that he also therefore lacks standing.

The 5th Circuit’s decision voided the preliminary injunction and sent the case back again to the District Court.

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.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Outrage in France as MP proposes bill to ban criticism of Israel

Press TV – November 5, 2024

A proposal by a Zionist member of French parliament to criminalize all criticism of Israel has sparked outrage among activists and politicians.

Caroline Yadan, the member of the French National Assembly, will submit a bill that, among other things, would ban “the denial of the State of Israel.”

The bill would also prohibit expressions like “from the river to the sea,” during protests against Israel.

Yadan, who belongs to President Emmanuel Macron’s party, “seeks to suppress the freedom of thought, criticism, and writing,” Jean-Philippe Cazier, French poet and author wrote on X.

The lawmaker, Cazier said, is seeking “to prevent condemnation of the genocide committed by Israel in Gaza.”

European lawmaker Rima Hassan wrote in a message on X that Israel “deserves criticism,” since it has “violated all United Nations resolutions for decades and commits the most heinous international crimes.”

In a related development, Pro-Palestine protesters staged a demonstration at the headquarters of the French Football Federation in Paris, demanding the cancellation of the upcoming UEFA Nations League match between the French and Israeli teams.

Video footage of protests posted on social media shows protesters gathered in the lobby, where they waved Palestinian flags and held banners condemning Israel.

The French Football Federation has agreed to meet with the protesters to discuss their demands, according to the French daily Le Figaro.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 2 Comments

Lavrov warns NATO of missiles red line

RT | November 5, 2024

Moscow would not hesitate to respond to “aggressive actions” by NATO, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned. Allowing the Ukrainian military to use Western-supplied long-range weapons for strikes deep inside Russia would be treated as one such step, the diplomat told Rossiya Segodnya on Tuesday.

Kiev’s forces would not be able to operate such weapons independently, and would require the presence of NATO specialists as well as intelligence data obtained through the bloc’s satellite systems, Lavrov stated.

“If such weapons are used, that would mean that not just Ukraine but the NATO nations are openly at war with Russia,” the diplomat stressed. “The nature of this conflict, which the Western leaders sought to conceal… would literally come out.”

According to Lavrov, Moscow is well aware of the US-led military bloc’s aggressive policies. It has designated Russia as the biggest direct threat to its security, and NATO troops are being trained to launch offensive operations based on this, the diplomat added.

“Europe is being militarized at a quickened pace,” Lavrov stated.

“Our opponents should not be mistaken. In case of any aggressive actions by NATO or its member states against our nation, adequate retaliatory measures will be taken in full compliance with Russia’s right for self-defense embodied in the UN Charter,” the diplomat said, adding that Moscow would use “any means to ensure its security.”

“No one will be able to sit it out either beyond the Atlantic or the English Channel,” the minister warned.

Russia has repeatedly stated that it would treat Ukrainian attacks deep inside its territory using Western-supplied long-range missiles as a direct assault by the countries that supplied those weapons. Last month, President Vladimir Putin expressed hope that NATO had “heard” Moscow’s warning about the possible consequences of such actions.

Moscow would have to respond accordingly, the president said at that time, adding that “our military is thinking about this and will be offering various options.”

Kiev has for months been pushing the US and its allies to lift a ban on strikes deep inside Russia with Western-supplied long-range weapons. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky included this request in his so-called ‘victory plan’. The recently unveiled wish list for a conclusion to the ongoing conflict has been met with caution by many Western leaders.

The New York Times reported in late October that Zelensky had secretly asked Washington for Tomahawk missiles in order to strike deep into Russia. With a range of up to 1,500 miles (2,400km), Tomahawks have a greater reach than any of the Western-made weapons previously supplied to Kiev.

The Kremlin responded to the news by saying that Kiev is only seeking to drag its Western backers “into war as quickly as possible.”

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

EU will not lift Russia sanctions – MEPs

RT | November 5, 2024

EU restrictions on Russia are unlikely to be lifted in the foreseeable future due to pressure from the US, two members of the European Parliament told Izvestiya newspaper on Tuesday.

Even an eventual end to the Ukraine conflict would not necessarily mean a scaling back of Western barriers to trade, finance and travel, French MEP Thierry Mariani told the Russian daily.

“It would be logical to lift them, but I am not sure that this will happen,” the lawmaker said. “It is likely that the US will ask to keep the sanctions in place to make sure that… economic relations with Russia do not resume immediately.”

America’s energy sector has benefited greatly from the EU’s sanctions against Russia, which was previously a leading energy supplier to the bloc, Izvestiya wrote. Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Brussels chose to shun Russian natural gas, replacing cheap pipeline supplies with more expensive liquified natural gas (LNG).

Last year, the US was the largest LNG supplier to the EU, representing almost 50% of total LNG imports, having tripled the supply volume since 2021, according to the European Council data.

“The end of the military operation in Ukraine will undoubtedly push some economic players in the West to demand that the sanctions, especially in the energy sector, be lifted,” Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser told Izvestiya. The lawmaker went on to warn, however, that “influential circles” in the West, including American shale gas producers, will seek to maintain the restrictions, as they benefit from them.

“So far, no senior EU official has given any indication that sanctions could be lifted if the Ukraine conflict ends… Even if Russian negotiators succeed in convincing the EU to lift the restrictions, it will not happen immediately, and it would take years for trade relations to get back to normal,” according to EU law expert and former MEP Gunnar Beck.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who was reelected in July for another five-year term, has been one of the main backers of increasing pressure on Russia.

Last month, Politico reported that Brussels was preparing its 15th package of sanctions, aimed mainly at Russian LNG exports that are still sold to the EU. According to the newspaper, the bloc’s members plan to resume discussions on new restrictions in January.

No new measures will be introduced against Russia this year during Hungary’s presidency of the bloc, Polish media reported earlier this week. Officials in Brussels are reportedly waiting for Warsaw to take over the Council’s leadership on January 1 before they roll out any new restrictive measures.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | 2 Comments

Austria, Hungary working on reforming EU

By Patrick Poppel | November 5, 2024

After the founding of the “Patriots for Europe” platform in the European Parliament, this group is now beginning its political work. The last recent visit of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to Vienna is clearly related to this project. He was the first international guest to be officially welcomed by the new President of Parliament, Walter Rosenkranz.

This meeting would of course be presented as a scandal by the mainstream media in Austria. Orban also met the leader of the Freedom Party (FPÖ) Herbert Kickl. Since the Vienna-Budapest political axis has been very well established, it can now be expected that this can be the starting point for a new patriotic initiative within the European Union.

During the talks in Vienna, it was repeatedly emphasized that the European Union needs reform. The centralism of the European Union should be pushed back and the role of the nation states should be strengthened. The “Patriots for Europe” are clearly against gender ideology and want to preserve Europe’s cultural heritage.

A very important one is the failed migration policy of the European Union. One can see Viktor Orban’s current visit to Vienna as a starting signal for future campaigns. The meeting between the President of the Austrian Parliament (FPÖ) and the Hungarian Prime Minister had a historic character. Even though the FPÖ is currently not represented in the Austrian government, this party has the chairmanship of parliament due to the large number of votes it receives.

This party also plays an important role in Austria as an opposition force. Since this group of “Patriots for Europe” is also very well networked in other states of the European Union, one can now really speak of an opposition at the European level.

This group is also very important in security policy, as they advocate for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Even political opponents find it difficult to find arguments against this attitude, since the European Union has historically always been seen as a peace project.

What further political developments can we now expect? Orban’s visit to Vienna shows that the cartridges in Europe are very well networked and can react very quickly to developments. The political forces in the various EU states support each other. This is not only important bilaterally, but it will also play an important role in the European Parliament.

Austria and Hungary are now a good role model for the right-wing parties in other countries. It is of course clear that this political struggle in Europe is entering its final round. If the patriots in Europe do not succeed in stopping mass migration and defending peace, irreparable damage will occur in Europe.

This new alliance of patriotic forces at European level is perhaps the last chance for the future of Europe. However, it will be very difficult for all of these movements in the individual states of Europe to implement the necessary reforms, which are urgently needed.

European politics has gone completely wrong in too many areas. It’s not just about asylum policy or foreign policy. Europe’s economic and energy policy development is also catastrophic. It will take a lot of time to correct the mistakes of the last few decades, but it is not clear whether Europe still has that much time available.

The system’s parties and media expressed very negative opinions about this visit by the Hungarian Prime Minister because they were surprised by this action. The patriots in Europe are on the rise and the opponents are overwhelmed by this situation. Further elections in other European countries will confirm this trend.

The fact that a panel discussion was organized by a private Swiss media on the sidelines of Viktor Orban’s visit and that this event was fully booked shortly after the announcement also shows that the state media have less and less influence.

So not only are the patriotic forces on the rise, but also the alternative and private media. This means that the system in Europe is coming under increasing pressure. This visit to Vienna marks a historic date in the struggle for the sovereignty of the European peoples, as from now on the established parties have understood that they are not all-powerful.

But the harsh and rude statements from the other parties about this meeting in Vienna also show us clearly that the rhetoric is becoming more and more aggressive. It is therefore to be expected that the political debate will become stronger in the future.

The system loses influence and this leads to confusion and aggression. The patriots in Europe still need to organize and network better in order to be successful. The first steps have been taken, but much more effort is needed to defeat the old system. An important key to this is changing the media world.

Opposition parties and alternative media are the two forces that can bring about the necessary changes and decide the future of the European continent. Viktor Orban will play an important role in this future development.

Patrick Poppel is an expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Manipulations Possible in US Elections to Prevent Trump’s Win – French Politician

Sputnik – 05.11.2024

PARIS – There is a possibility of manipulation in the upcoming US presidential election to prevent former President Donald Trump from winning, French politician and leader of the Patriots party Florian Philippot told RIA Novosti.

“We are seeing a trend in Trump’s favor in the US, there are many indicators — polls, voting intentions. But I am afraid of manipulation. In 2020, we faced machinations, and they can happen now from the deep state and the Kamala Harris camp,” Philippot said.

According to the French politician, the EU and France openly support Harris’ candidacy against Trump, who advocates ending the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“The EU, of course, wants Harris to win: [European Commission President] Ursula von der Leyen, [French President Emmanuel] Macron. The whole system that supports NATO and the European Union, globalization, is on the side of Kamala Harris. The system that promotes war is on the side of Kamala Harris, that’s obvious, while the support for patriotism and the sovereignty of the nation is on the side of Trump,” Philippot said.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Brussels’ persecution of Hungary and war against X could spark ‘yuge’ retaliation

Remix News | November 5, 2024

Today, voters head to the polls to decide who will run the United States for the next four years. If Trump should win, relations with the EU could become extremely tense, as a Trump administration could begin to wield powerful sanctions against countries — and even Brussels itself — it deems to be in violation of democratic principles and protections of free speech.

For one, Brussels has been hitting Hungary with sanctions, freezing billions owed to Budapest over “rule of law” and generally working to oust the ruling government. Viktor Orbán has openly come out in support of Trump, and both of them enjoy a warm relationship, and more importantly, they share the same ideology on many key issues, including migration and a pro-peace path in Ukraine.

It will likely not be business as usual if Trump comes back to power. Countries like Hungary would no longer be facing the full weight of the Western left. In fact, Trump could very well start playing hardball, issuing sanctions, travel restrictions, and new executive orders to prevent democratic backsliding in Europe. Notably, the rule-of-law sanctions being wielded by Brussels against member state governments it deems undesirable would likely be viewed from Washington as an anti-democratic form of blackmail. In turn, the U.S. could quickly counter such moves, including with “rule-of-law” sanctions of its own against Brussels.

If Germany moves to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a Trump administration could move to counter this as well, including with sanctions against Germany due to democratic backsliding. Many may have already forgotten about the commando raid on a German publisher and journalists’ home over the summer. The German government, without so much as a court order, shut down an entire publication overnight. The publisher of Compact magazine, Jürgen Elsässer, was splashed across newspaper and television stations across the country in his bathrobe surrounded by officers in ski masks.

This is not normal behavior for a democratic country, and Trump’s administration may take action if further attempts are made to persecute journalists and shut down the free press in Germany.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1813205996531003470

What actions could Trump’s administration take in such a scenario? With Germany cut off from its traditional source of Russian gas, a move to restrict energy exports to Germany would be devastating. In other key areas, Germany and Europe are far more dependent on the U.S. than on vice versa.

Obviously, such a move would come with serious risks, including for the global economy, and potentially sparking a trade war. However, the U.S. would have most of the leverage in such a scenario. Europe needs U.S. energy, end of story.

The EU’s plan to restrict free speech and throttle X with fines could also result in sanctions on European companies, tariffs, and other forms of retaliation. Trump will likely be very willing to defend free speech across the world, especially after his own experience facing censorship across social media, and willing to use U.S. might to ensure this fundamental right on the web. His backers, most notably Elon Musk, will have a strong voice in the administration, and should Trump suddenly grow cold feet, he will face withering pressure from Musk and others.

Under Trump, free speech would still have a chance on platforms like X and others, even if free speech is already limited on those platforms. In turn, European conservatives, libertarians, and those opposed to mass immigration will be allowed to voice their opinions and influence the political debate in the coming years.

There are, of course, many open questions about how relations between Trump and the EU would develop, but it may obviously be a pointless thought experiment. In a matter of hours, days, or even weeks, Kamala Harris may be the decided winner. In such a scenario, the globe can also expect X to be shut down within a year or two, buried under fines and violations of the EU’s Digital Service Act. Brussels will continue to attack conservatives with its powerful sanctions mechanism. New forms of harassment and persecution, including arrests of politicians, journalists, and academics who support the “wrong opinion,” are likely as well.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1852324197084668098

The majority of Europeans may not like Donald Trump. As polling shows, Europeans, most notably Western Europeans, are very much opposed. Only a few countries from the east, such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Serbia, support the former president, but in the end, he may be the only thing between a free web and a closed web, especially on the most important topics Europeans are increasingly not allowed to talk about. Furthermore, as opposition to mass immigration grows and other left-liberal agendas, there is no telling where European sympathies will likely be in the coming years.

In short, much is at stake for Europe in the outcome of this vote. The deck remains stacked against Trump. The U.S. voting system is in shambles, with votes being counted for days and weeks after election day, with ballots stuffed in drop boxes weeks before the election, and with ballot harvesters collecting ballots outside of any real oversight. Even basic safeguards like voter ID are nowhere to be found in many states. It will be a miracle if Trump wins, but we’ll know the results soon enough and will have to deal with the outcome — for better or worse.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

Washington Storefronts Getting Boarded-Up Early Indication of Harris’ Defeat – Wall Street Analyst

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 05.11.2024

Washington DC is seeing a lot of boarded-up storefronts and buildings. The New York Times is even hinting at the possibility of violence from disenchanted Donald Trump supporters. Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel doesn’t buy into the assumption.

“Republicans are a tiny percentage of registered voters [in DC] so it is pure fiction and likely projection that they are poised for mayhem,” Ortel told Sputnik.

“The truth in a fair contest is that Trump and Vance are set to trounce Harris and Walz – deluded Democrats and reliable Antifa and Black Lives Matter mobsters are the ones set to riot, and certainly not Republicans, because they will be celebrating,” he continued.

It seems that the efforts by the corporate media and influencers to sell the Biden-Harris Administration as a “transformative success” have fallen flat. It’s becoming clear that things are actually worse now than they were under Trump, pre-Covid, according to the analyst.

“Political insiders know that Harris is a far worse candidate than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden were in 2016 and 2020 and that Trump and Vance are a potent slate backed by tens of millions of motivated and enthusiastic voters, who likely will win decisively, absent widespread cheating,” Ortel said.

He doesn’t rule out that those who poured a whopping $1 billion into the Harris-Walz ticket are preparing to throw a spanner in the works for Trump and JD Vance. They might even try to invalidate the 2024 results if the former president and his running mate win.

“I hope cooler heads prevail in what remains of the Democrat party. As of this moment, Trump and Vance seem poised to win a decisive mandate against the Deep State swamp, likely with control of the Senate and a stronger majority in the House,” Ortel concluded.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

Musk Calls Harris’ Statement on US Troops Not Being Deployed in Combat Zones Flat-Out Lie

Sputnik – 05.11.2024

US billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has designated as a lie the statement made by US Vice President and Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris that US troops are not deployed in any war zones.

During the presidential debate with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on September 10 Harris said that there currently was “not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world.”

“I know [US] troops [are] in war zones. As vice president, you’re privy. You know the official troops and the unofficial troops. What she said was a flat-out bold-faced lie. Next-level bold-faced lie. An absurd lie,” Musk said in a podcast with Joe Rogan released on Tuesday.

The United States presidential election is being held on November 5. Harris and Trump are competing for the country’s top job.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Wars for Israel | | Leave a comment

Healthcare Workers Reject COVID, Flu Shots Amid ‘Tremendous Erosion of Trust’ in Health Agencies

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 4, 2024

The number of healthcare workers receiving COVID-19 and flu vaccines declined during the 2023-24 cold and flu season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Only 15.3% of acute hospital workers and 10.5% of nursing home personnel received a COVID-19 vaccine during the 2023-24 season — down from 17.8% and 22.8% respectively, the CDC said in its Oct. 31 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Based on data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network, flu vaccine rates for the same healthcare worker groups were higher than COVID-19 vaccine rates — 80.7% for acute care hospital personnel and 45.4% for nursing home personnel.

However, the rates remained “persistently below the levels during the prepandemic period.” For example, the flu vaccine rate for hospital workers in 2019-20 was 91%.

The CDC figures also showed that nearly 1 in 100 healthcare workers reported “a medical contraindication” to receiving either the COVID-19 (0.71%) or flu (0.89%) vaccine. The CDC figures did not provide information on the rate of vaccine side effects reported by healthcare workers.

The CDC said more research is needed “to identify effective strategies to improve vaccination at a time when health care personnel are susceptible to low vaccine confidence.”

Such studies would also seek to improve “confidence about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines among health care personnel through, for example, providing additional education about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination to health care personnel.”

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), told The Defender the data didn’t surprise her.

“It is no longer possible to deny safety signals and lack of effectiveness,” Orient said. “A large percentage [of healthcare workers] have themselves had several episodes of COVID, had adverse reactions themselves, or know someone who did.”

Pulmonologist Dr. Pierre Kory, founder of the Leading Edge Clinic and president emeritus and co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, said the CDC figures represent “a welcome trend” that he hopes will continue. He said:

“Regardless of the reasons for the decline, the data shows healthcare workers’ tremendous erosion of trust in our regulatory agencies. Allowing this distrust to continue will further undermine the public’s confidence in our healthcare agencies.”

Kory noted the symbolism of healthcare workers turning their backs on the COVID-19 vaccine in particular. “If the vaccine is not for us, it is certainly not for them,” Kory said.

Danielle Baker, a certified hospice and palliative care registered nurse injured by the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, agreed.

“With the current state of public healthcare, I am not surprised by the figures. In healthcare, there were positions where you agreed to some annual vaccinations upon hire, but the events of 2021 forever shook the core of even that practice,” Baker said.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, an ear, nose and throat specialist who was suspended by Houston Methodist Hospital for treating COVID-19 patients with ivermectin, said, “85% of healthcare workers are opting not to get the COVID shots because they know these shots are all risk and no benefit.”

‘Why should we trust you?’

Dr. Marty Makary, a public health researcher at Johns Hopkins University and author of “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets it Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health,” said the disparity between the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination recommendations and the actual coverage rate “is telling.”

“It’s also embarrassing for the CDC director [Dr. Rochelle Walensky], who has made pushing the new COVID booster a leading priority of her tenure,” Makary said.

Orient said that doctors and other healthcare personnel who stood up to vaccine mandates and pressure from their employers to get vaccinated “are vindicated” by the CDC’s data “and should be applauded.”

“The message to the public should be obvious,” Orient said. “Why should we trust you?”

Others, though, do not feel vindicated. Sarah Choujounian, co-founder of the Canadian Frontline Nurses, told The Defender that while “many have been awakened to the fact that vaccines are not safe,” she and other nurses who opposed vaccine mandates are still facing professional repercussions.

“This news does not bring vindication as I, amongst many others, am still in court being dragged through a disciplinary hearing for standing up to the corruption and standing up for what is best for our communities,” Choujounian said.

Dr. Danice Hertz, a retired gastroenterologist who was “horribly injured” after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, said lawmakers and policymakers need to open their eyes to the growing distrust of the COVID-19 vaccines by the medical community.

Hertz said:

“I personally have been injured by the Pfizer COVID vaccine. I believed what I was told by our agencies, that these vaccines are safe and effective. I learned the hard way that they were not telling the truth.”

Bowden said that doctors haven’t done enough to speak out. She said:

“Why are physicians not speaking out? Our profession has veered off course, and physicians today are more concerned with protecting their jobs over upholding the Hippocratic oath.

“We have an abundant amount of data showing adverse events from these shots, but we don’t have anyone in authority who will look at the data. Physicians need to get vocal and stand up to the government doctors who have taken over our healthcare system.”

Orient said more doctors are starting to speak out, but “intense indoctrination, financial incentives and fear of ostracism and licensure are huge barriers to overcome.”

Kory said if the medical establishment and the government are to have any hope of reestablishing trust, they need to “recognize the truth about the COVID-19 vaccines. Until that happens, no message from them will be taken seriously, and the little public trust left in these institutions will eventually be gone.”

Baker said he believes the public has reached a point where they no longer need to look to healthcare professionals for an answer when it comes to COVID-19 vaccination. He said:

“People pay attention. The mass media messages, governmental overstep, blanket mandates, lack of agency support for those adversely affected and unwillingness to see and hear responses to these things have caused an implosion.

“Enough of the general public has reached a consensus when it comes to this particular shot from the collective set of experiences over the past years.”

CDC data leave unanswered questions

The CDC data — self-reported by hospitals and nursing home facilities — also demonstrated regional differences in vaccine uptake. COVID-19 vaccine update was highest in the Pacific region and lowest in the Mountain and Southern states.

For the flu vaccine, uptake was highest in the Mountain region and lowest in the Pacific region for acute care hospital employees, while for nursing home personnel, uptake was highest in the Northeast and lowest in the South.

Figures for the current respiratory illness season are not yet available.

Pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro told The Defender the data still leaves some unanswered questions.

“One criticism is that it did not delineate which types of healthcare employees were opting out of the flu and COVID vaccines. It appears that this data may not have been readily available,” Perro said.

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.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment