By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 4, 2025
The Senate Finance Committee today narrowly advanced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.
The 14-13 vote along party lines came after Kennedy secured the vote of Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that oversees HHS. Cassidy was the lone Republican considered to be a possible hold-out.
The Senate is expected to vote on Kennedy’s confirmation later this week or early next week, ABC News reported. The nomination “is likely to succeed absent any last-minute vote switches,” The Associated Press reported.
Kennedy, founder and former chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), can be confirmed even if up to three Republican senators and all Democrats vote against him in the full Senate.
If confirmed, Kennedy will oversee a $1.7 trillion budget and 90,000 employees. HHS oversees 13 public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
During today’s committee meeting, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said, “It is time to put a disruptor” like Kennedy at the helm of the HHS. “I hope he goes wild,” Tillis said.
Shares of vaccine manufacturers and packaged food companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech, Novavax, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Mondelez and Hershey, dropped after today’s vote, Reuters reported.
CHD CEO Mary Holland welcomed today’s outcome. She said:
“CHD is delighted that the Finance Committee is sending RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate. Given the 2024 presidential results, this seems only fitting. ‘Make America Healthy Again’ has become a worldwide rallying cry, and CHD is proud to be a foundational part of this movement.”
In a statement, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, also welcomed today’s vote. He said:
“Americans demand a frank conversation about the state of our government healthcare agencies, and we’re very grateful for the Senators who responded by voting to move RFK Jr.’s nomination to the full Senate.
“RFK Jr. has been asking the tough questions, and he’s been unmoved in the face of big-corporate money campaigns against him.”
In a statement before the vote, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chair of the committee, said that if confirmed, Kennedy “will have the opportunity to deliver much-needed change to our nation’s healthcare system.”
Cassidy, Kennedy agree to ‘unprecedently close collaborative relationship’
During last week’s hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, Cassidy said he was “struggling” with some of Kennedy’s positions regarding vaccines.
“I’ve had very intense conversations with Bobby and the White House over the weekend and even this morning,” Cassidy posted on X earlier today. “I want to thank VP JD [Vance] specifically for his honest counsel. With the serious commitments I’ve received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes.”
Following today’s vote, Cassidy delivered remarks on the Senate floor, revealing the content of those discussions and the agreement he made with Kennedy to secure his vote.
He said Kennedy committed to a strong public health role for Congress and to meeting or speaking with Cassidy multiple times per month. They also agreed that Cassidy will participate in the hiring process for HHS and the public health agencies it oversees.
“He and I will have an unprecedently close collaborative relationship,” Cassidy said, noting that the hiring decisions that will follow “will allow us to represent all sides of those folks who have contacted me over this past weekend.”
Kennedy also agreed to maintain statements on the CDC website that vaccines do not cause autism and to maintain the recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Cassidy said he would also reject any attempt to remove the public’s access to “life-saving vaccines” without “iron-clad, causational scientific evidence” indicating otherwise. He also said he would carefully monitor any attempt to “wrongfully sow public confusion” about vaccines.
Cassidy conceded that “many mothers do need reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, effective, and most of all, safe” and expressed his support for Kennedy’s positions on toxic foods and reforming the NIH.
“These commitments, and my expectation that we can have a great working relationship to Make America Healthy Again, is the basis of my support,” Cassidy said, noting that institutions like NIH and FDA require “reform.”
During last week’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy emphasized his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda and said he would work to tackle the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.
Kennedy also said he would implement “radical transparency” in HHS. He also voiced support for vaccines — if backed by “good science.”
Related articles in The Defender
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.
RT | February 5, 2025
US President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will assume control over the Gaza Strip, vowing to rebuild the war-torn enclave and create economic opportunities for its future residents. When asked whether US troops would be deployed to Gaza, Trump vowed to “do what is necessary.”
Trump made the remarks on Tuesday following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The US president reiterated his view that Palestinians should be permanently resettled elsewhere, adding that the US would “take over” Gaza and lead efforts to clear the destruction left by 15 months of war between Israel and Hamas.
“The US will take over the Gaza Strip. And we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” Trump said, promising to “level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings.”
Asked to clarify what exactly he meant by a “takeover,” the US leader said he envisions a “long-term ownership position” that would supposedly bring “great stability” to the entire Middle East. “Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing it, and creating thousands of jobs,” Trump claimed.
Trump also said he is not ruling out deploying US troops to support his Gaza development plan. “We’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that. We’re going to take over that place,” he said.
Approximately 92% of homes in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed or severely damaged, and around 1.9 million people – more than 90% of Gaza’s population – have been displaced since the war broke out in October 2023, according to the UN. Trump, a former real estate mogul, has repeatedly referred to Gaza as a “demolition site” in recent weeks.
When asked who would populate Gaza once the US “takes over” and redevelops it, and whether the Palestinian people would be able to return, Trump responded:
“I envision… the world’s people living there. I think the potential in the Gaza Strip is unbelievable. And I think the entire world, representatives from all over the world, will be there and they’ll live there… Palestinians also,” he said. “I don’t want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East – this could be so magnificent.”
The Cradle | February 4, 2025
Hamas announced in a statement on 4 February that talks for the second phase of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip have begun, accusing Israel of “obstructing the humanitarian protocol” that comes as part of the deal.
“The contacts and negotiations [with mediators] for the second phase have begun, and we are concerned and interested in the current phase in sheltering, relief, and reconstruction for our people in the Gaza Strip. The occupation is obstructing the humanitarian protocol in the ceasefire agreement and is evading and procrastinating in implementing it,” said spokesman Abdul Latif al-Qanou on Tuesday.
“Shelter and relief for our people is an urgent humanitarian issue that cannot tolerate evasion or procrastination by the occupation. Rebuilding hospitals, repairing roads and water wells will restore life to Gaza after the massive destruction there,” he added.
Israel said it would send a team to the Qatari capital, Doha, in the coming days for discussions.
According to the terms of the ceasefire agreement, negotiations regarding the implementation of the second phase of the deal were supposed to begin on 3 February – the 16th day since the truce began.
The deal is made up of an initial 42-day stage in which 33 Israeli captives are supposed to be released in exchange for around 1,900 Palestinian prisoners. Two more 42-day stages are expected, in which the remainder of the Israeli captives are supposed to be released in exchange for a much larger, undetermined number of Palestinian prisoners.
Over a dozen Israeli captives have been released so far in exchange for over 580 Palestinians who were detained in Israeli prisons.
However, Israel has continued to bar the entry of essentials such as reconstruction materials, equipment to help recover thousands of bodies still trapped under rubble, and tents urgently needed by displaced civilians returning to their destroyed cities – as required in the ceasefire deal.
Al Mayadeen | February 4, 2025
Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the al-Muallaqa town in Quneitra, Syria, hours after infiltrating the town, field sources told Al Mayadeen.
During their invasion, the IOF searched civilian houses in the area.
Israeli occupation forces are reinforcing their positions on strategic hills on the outskirts of Kodana, South of the Quneitra countryside.
“Israel” has been preparing for the long haul as it takes over Syrian territories. Satellite images reviewed by The Washington Post revealed buildings and vehicles within a fortified Israeli base and another base toward the South.
The two bases are connected through newly dug dirt roads that lead to the Golan Heights.
Satellite images also show two forward observation bases being built by occupation forces; one in Jubata al-Khassab and another one toward the South.
Another Israeli force invaded 2 kilometers east of the al-Salam town in Quneitra and patrolled in front of the Syrian General Security Headquarters.
Last month, Israeli Air Forces targeted a military convoy between Dara’a and Quneitra in Southern Syria, killing 3 people.
“Israel” took advantage of the collapse of the Assad regime and occupied the demilitarized buffer zone between the Golan Heights and Syria. It also targeted the former Syrian army’s arms and vehicles with violent airstrikes over days, destroying most of the capabilities.
By Mahmoud Hassan | MEMO | February 4, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s insistence that Egypt and Jordan will accept displaced Palestinians from the Gaza Strip raises significant concerns about a potential deal being negotiated behind closed doors to facilitate their forced displacement. In other words: ethnic cleansing. The final details of such a deal may not yet be fully formed, especially given the official rejection by the six-party Arab meeting in Cairo last Saturday. Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE concluded their meeting with a call for the US administration to pursue the moribund two-state solution.
Let’s be clear, though. The displacement plan is not a direct consequence of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October, 2023, or the subsequent genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing has been on the table since the 1940s, although attempts have failed repeatedly.
It is a concern, however, that Trump’s rhetoric this time was stated with immense confidence and an implicit threat. “We do a lot for them [Egypt and Jordan],” he said last Thursday, “and they will do this.” Rebuilding Gaza, added the US president, will take 15 years.
Trump reiterated his statement on Friday, reported Reuters: “Jordan and Egypt will accept people from Gaza. I heard someone say they wouldn’t, but I think they will. I’m confident they will.”
The carrot-and-stick approach has long been used by Trump to advance his agenda.
He has already offered Egypt incentives by exempting it, along with Israel, from the US freeze on aid to countries worldwide.
The US president may resort to courting his Egyptian counterpart, Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, with an official invitation to the White House, a package of financial assistance from Gulf nations, economic and military deals, and the potential write-off of part of Egypt’s external debt (which stands at a staggering $153 billion). These incentives could serve to soften Cairo’s stance.
Egyptian opposition figures warn that there may be undisclosed negotiations taking place, with concerns that Al-Sisi could leverage the situation for his own benefit, using it to solidify his grip on power and push for more constitutional amendments allowing a fourth presidential term and an extension of his rule until 2036.
Fuelling these suspicions is the reality that the Egyptian president faces a significant internal crisis due to failed economic policies and dwindling public support. Moreover, regional and Western actors fear that his regime might collapse as that of Bashar Al-Assad did in Syria. This gives Washington leverage, allowing it to hint at backing a suitable alternative to prevent instability in Egypt; such pressure could influence Al-Sisi’s stance.
Egypt’s response appears inconsistent and disjointed across multiple levels. On one hand, Al-Sisi personally declared Egypt’s rejection of Palestinian displacement during a press conference with Kenyan President William Ruto in Cairo. He described such displacement as an injustice in which Egypt could not participate, reiterating that the solution lies in establishing a Palestinian state with historical rights, based on the pre-June 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Egypt escalated its stance by orchestrating what appeared to be staged protests at the Rafah border crossing last Friday.
These demonstrations were coordinated with security agencies, involved pro-government parties and lawmakers from both parliamentary chambers, and featured slogans condemning the displacement plan. At the same time, the Egyptian authorities denied permission to the Civil Democratic Movement (a coalition of liberal and leftist parties) to organise a protest outside the US Embassy in Cairo against the same issue.
And last month, the Cairo regime renewed the detention of 173 young Egyptians for an additional 45 days pending investigation, following their participation in pro-Palestine demonstrations on 20 October, 2023.
Despite this public stance, Al-Sisi appeared to be courting Trump again, stating that the American president’s leadership could usher in a “golden age of peace” in the Middle East. According to a statement from the Egyptian presidency, Al-Sisi emphasised that the international community was counting on Trump’s ability to reach a historic and lasting peace agreement that would resolve the long-standing conflict in the region.
Jamal Al-Masri, an expert in Palestinian affairs, noted that the Egyptian government is attempting to manufacture a facade of popular support for its position. This, he argued, is meant to send a message to Washington that accepting the displacement plan could destabilise the Egyptian regime, threaten national security and provoke public unrest that might even lead the military to remove Al-Sisi from power.
Although Egypt’s options are limited, they are not non-existent. One possibility is reviving the idea of relocating displaced Palestinians to the Negev Desert (12,500 square kilometres), which is occupied by Israel and borders Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Al-Sisi actually suggested this plan at the onset of the Gaza war in October 2023.
A political analyst who requested anonymity warned that an undeclared displacement operation could take place. Egypt might quietly accept a certain number of displaced Gazans as “refugees”, integrating them in a manner similar to that of Syrian and Sudanese refugees already in the country. Another scenario could involve receiving injured Palestinians and their companions under humanitarian pretexts, without ensuring their return to Gaza. Additionally, Gazan families might be resettled informally in Rafah and El-Arish within Egypt.
Adam Boehler, the US special envoy for hostage affairs, has urged Egypt and Jordan to present alternative solutions if they reject the displacement plan. He noted that Trump has proposed what he considers a suitable option for both countries but remains open to other alternatives.
Egypt is unlikely to escalate tensions or confront the US administration directly, especially given the strong support that Trump provided to Al-Sisi during his first term (2017-2020), when he famously referred to him as “my favourite dictator.”
Egypt could, however, manoeuvre out of US pressure by leveraging its role as a mediator in negotiating a ceasefire agreement and securing a hostage exchange deal between Israel and Hamas. Cairo’s strategic importance to Israel, which is acknowledged openly by Israeli officials, also provides it with some diplomatic leverage.
It could also further consolidate Arab and Islamic opposition to the displacement plan and seek backing from global powers such as Russia and China. Additionally, the popular rejection of displacement, both within Egypt and among Palestinians, could be used to pressure Washington into reconsidering its approach.
A particularly significant card Egypt could play is the potential collapse of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty if forced displacement to Sinai proceeds. Such a scenario might provoke Palestinian attacks from Egyptian territory on Israeli targets, significantly escalating tensions. This is an outcome that Washington would certainly wish to avoid.
Observers also suggest strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s control over Gaza, accelerating reconstruction efforts, and possibly deploying an international or Arab peacekeeping force to separate Gaza from Israeli settlements.
If displacement fails as an option, Trump might pivot towards allowing Israel to annex settlements in the West Bank or resume military operations against Hamas.
Ultimately, realpolitik will likely shape upcoming negotiations between Egypt and the US. Both Trump and Al-Sisi share an interest in removing Hamas from power, ensuring Israeli security and preventing a repeat of the 7 October incursion. However, for Egypt to agree to a displacement plan, it would require massive concessions that Al-Sisi might be unwilling, or unable, to provide due to the significant political, security and strategic risks involved.
With upcoming diplomatic engagements, including Jordan’s King Abdullah’s visit to Washington next week, and ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations between Egyptian and US officials, the coming days are bound to bring new developments. The outcome will depend on how far Trump is willing to push his carrot-and-stick approach.
The Cradle | February 4, 2025
US President Donald Trump has asked Congress to approve transferring $1 billion worth of additional bombs and other military equipment to Israel, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 4 February.
The planned weapons transfer includes 4,700 bombs that weigh 1,000 lbs each, worth more than $700 million, as well as armored bulldozers built by Caterpillar, worth more than $300 million, the White House officials said.
The 4,700 bombs consist of 4,500 BLU-110s and 200 Mk-83s, which the Pentagon refers to as “general purpose bombs.”
The Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers are used by the Israeli army to demolish Palestinians’ homes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.
Funds for the weapons and equipment will come from the billions of dollars in US military aid provided to Israel annually at the expense of US taxpayers.
US-supplied bombs have significantly contributed to Israel’s killing of over 62,000 Palestinians in Gaza, the majority women and children, since the start of the war on 7 October 2023.
The report of the new weapons transfer comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are in Washington to meet with President Trump.
Netanyahu is expected to pressure Trump to approve additional arms transfers that were initially requested by former president Joe Biden, the WSJ added. These additional arms requests include $8 billion in new bombs, missiles, and artillery rounds.
Before Israel’s ground invasion of the city of Rafah in southern Gaza last spring, the US suspended just one shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel.
President Trump lifted the suspension last week, saying he released the bombs because “they paid for them, and they have been waiting for them for a long time.”
Netanyahu later thanked Trump in a video message.
While a temporary ceasefire is currently in place in Gaza, Israel is escalating its war on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including through the use of airstrikes.
On 1 February, three Israeli airstrikes killed five Palestinians and injured three others in Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank. Among the victims was a 14-year-old.
During the recent Israeli army campaign in Jenin, dozens of houses have been demolished, and roads in the refugee camp there have been dug up by armored Israeli bulldozers, driving thousands of people from their homes.
Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 900 Palestinians across the occupied West Bank.
As the war began, former national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir initiated a campaign to arm Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank with thousands of additional high-caliber rifles. He also intensified calls for Israel to annex the occupied Palestinian territory.
When asked about the possibility of annexation on Tuesday, Trump did not answer the question but stressed Israel’s small size.
“It’s a pretty small piece of land,” Trump said. “It’s amazing what they’ve been able to do when you think about it – a lot of good, smart brain power.”
By Jonathan Turley | February 2, 2025
“This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.
While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.
Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.
Some have long questioned the federal government’s subsidization of a media organization. NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. However, this country has long rejected state media models as undermining democratic values.
This funding is likely more important given NPR’s cratering audience and revenue. NPR’s audience has been declining for years. As a result, NPR has been forced to make deep staff cuts.
Ironically, NPR has one of the least diverse audiences. Its audience is overwhelmingly white, liberal, and more affluent than the rest of the country. Yet, while serving fewer and fewer people, it still expects most of the country to subsidize its programming.
Many of us have argued that NPR should compete with other radio companies in the free market. Notably, some Democratic members pushed to get Fox News dropped by cable carriers despite not being subsidized and ranking as the most-watched cable news network. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst at Fox.)
NPR and PBS are facing calls to remove the subsidy at long last. However, at the same time, pressure is coming from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Chair Brendan Carr is inquiring about NPR’s claim that it does not do commercial advertising.
Many of us have noticed that NPR has ramped up its sponsor statements with taglines about the products or firm’s clientele. Carr wrote, “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”
The support for noncommercial radio and television stations fell under different regulations. It is hard to see the sponsor acknowledgments not as commercial advertising. It is common for for-profit outlets to have hosts read commercial sponsors.
Noncommercial educational broadcast stations-or NCEs are prohibited under Section399B of the Communications Act from airing commercials or other promotional announcements on behalf of for-profit entities.
What is interesting is that NPR stresses that the “NPR way” is actually better to reach consumers:
Across platforms, NPR sponsor messages are governed by slightly different regulations, but the guiding spirit is the same: guidelines are less about what’s ‘allowed’ and more about the approach that works best for brands to craft sponsor recognition messages that connect with people in ‘the NPR way.
It is common for law firms or companies to have hosts herald their work in given areas. It is also common to have product references.
The thrust of NPR’s pitch to advertisers is that this is a different type of pitch to attract more customers. However, the federal government long ignored the obvious commercial advertisement.
There is little discernible difference between NPR and competitors beyond pretense when it comes to bias or promotions. What is striking is how NPR’s shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?
I would oppose a subsidy for Fox as I do NPR. Each outlet should depend on its viewership for support. Notably, many liberal outlets continue to maintain their biased coverage despite falling ratings and revenues. The Washington Post has had to again lay off employees and has lost roughly half of its readership.
After being called in to right the ship, Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it… We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Nevertheless, writers at the LA Times and other outlets continue to argue against balanced coverage. They would rather lose readers and revenue than their bias. So be it. These outlets have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers.
It is time to establish a bright-line rule against government subsidies for favored media outlets. “This is NPR” but it is not who we should be as a nation.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 4, 2025
A review of the UK’s policy on extremism, dubbed by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper a “Rapid Analytical Sprint” was announced last summer, shortly after the Southport stabbings.
And now, the paper it produced has been leaked to the Policy Exchange think tank.
The results of the analysis and the recommendations revealed in the leak show that the UK government’s policy may be headed toward more free speech crackdowns, through a number of new measures.
They include introducing new criminal offenses and a new definition of “extremism” itself; in the first instance, it is “harmful online communications” that should be criminalized.
The paper recommends redefining extremism in very broad terms: instead of referring to a particular ideology, it would now cover “behaviors or activity of concern” – like whatever is considered misinformation or a conspiracy theory; misogyny, violence against women and girls – but also involvement in “an online subculture called the manosphere.”
The think tank’s reading of the paper is that it aims to de-emphasize ideologies in general, and Islamism in particular, and instead focus on “behaviors and activity of concern.”
In addition to those already mentioned, some others are the “fixture on gore and violence without adherence to an extremist ideology,” “preventing integration,” and, “influencing racism and intolerance.”
When it comes to existing laws concerning hate crimes – that are, as it is, vague – the idea is to introduce longer prison sentences for people convicted on those charges.
The leaked paper also seeks to reverse the decision to limit the number of “non-crime hate incidents,” NCHIs, that the police record, by reopening the floodgates for these complaints that are often frivolous and waste police time and resources.
The intention was to only log NCHIs that represent real risk of significant harm to individuals or groups “with a particular characteristic” – or that this might happen in the future.
Reacting to reports based on the leak, Home Office Minister Dan Jarvis denied that NCHI reporting would be expanded – other, that is, than when it concerns “Islamophobia” and “anti-Semitism.”
But the authorities admitted they plan to introduce longer sentences for those whose “hate crimes” target LGB and T persons.
Regarding “the sprint” itself, a spokesperson for the Home Office said that the contents of the document have not been formalized and that ministers are how “considering a wide range of potential next steps arising from that work.”
RT | February 4, 2025
The journalist who claimed that the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron was actually born a man is reportedly seeking political asylum in Russia. In an interview with Izvestia, Natacha Rey and her lawyer, Francois Danglehant, have cited “persecution” in France as the reason for her decision.
Rey alleged in 2021 that Brigitte Macron is actually the transgender identity of her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux. Rey spent three years researching Macron’s supposed secret and later published a video on her findings on social media. Since then, she has been the subject of judicial action in France.
Explaining her decision to seek asylum in Russia, Rey described the country as a great democracy compared to France, which, in her view, persecutes the political opposition and restricts freedom of speech.
“Why did I choose Russia? Because it is a great nation, a great civilization which I admire, defending traditional and Christian values that are inherent to me,” she told Izvestia. According to Rey, Russia has been a “victim of a disinformation campaign and unjustified attacks by European and American media for decades.” … Full article
Candace Owens | January 31, 2025
Chapter one of my investigative series “Becoming Brigitte”.
Candace Official Website: https://candaceowens.com
Candace Merch: https://shop.candaceowens.com
Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq
Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT
Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – February 4, 2025
The transition from the Biden to the Trump government was marked by an interesting discussion as to how the outgoing and coming administrations view North Korea’s nuclear potential.
Republicans: DPRK is a nuclear state and de-nuclearisation is unlikely
On January 14, US Secretary of Defence nominee Pete Hegseth called North Korea a “nuclear power” that poses a threat to global stability. He noted Pyongyang’s success in increasing its nuclear potential, bringing down the size of nuclear warheads and improving mobile launch platforms, which is of particular concern given North Korea’s proximity to the territories where US military contingents are located.
Also, Donald Trump intends to appoint Elbridge Colby, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Strategy and Force Development in his first term, to the post of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. This is a man who believes that the de-nuclearisation of the DPRK is an ‘unlikely’ goal. In addition, Colby believes that US troops on the Korean peninsula should focus more on threats from China and that “North Korea is not the primary threat to the United States”. “It is irrational to sacrifice several American cities to fight the DPRK” and Washington should allow South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons or at least to seriously consider such a possibility.
Democrats: DPRK is not a nuclear state, de-nuclearisation remains the goal
On the same day, January 14, the outgoing US president’s national security adviser, John Kirby, noted that the White House’s policy on this issue had not changed. The current US administration, led by Joe Biden, does not agree with Pete Hegseth’s statement.
On January 7, former US Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Philip Goldberg, stated that, despite the issues associated with the development of Pyongyang’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, the de-nuclearisation of North Korea should remain a goal that must continue to be fought for.
The South Korean Foreign Ministry made similar statements: “North Korea’s de-nuclearisation has been a principle consistently upheld by South Korea, the United States and the international community” … Under the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), North Korea can never be recognised as a nuclear-armed state”.
The conservative media in South Korea also began to sound the alarm; such terminology ‘not only changes the international community’s understanding of North Korea’s nuclear status, but also undermines the long-standing efforts of South Korea and the United States to achieve the de-nuclearisation of the North’. “Recognising North Korea as a nuclear power is fundamentally different from recognising its technical nuclear capabilities”. Their writing show concerns that by shifting the conversation from de-nuclearisation to arms control, Washington and Pyongyang may eventually agree to freeze the nuclear programme, from which the US-ROK alliance would take a blow and which could also trigger a nuclear domino effect. “If North Korea is recognised as a nuclear power, countries like South Korea, Japan and even Taiwan may reconsider their non-nuclear positions”.
Marco Rubio’s views
A while later, on January 16, in response to statements that the US’ policy towards North Korea, including sanctions, is ‘ineffective’ and Pyongyang is only doubling down on its nuclear and missile programmes, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio has already noted that Washington should take a serious look at policy on North Korea to study how to reduce the risk of an ‘unintended’ war between the two Koreas and prevent a crisis on the Korean peninsula without encouraging countries to build their own nuclear weapons.
Note that the new Secretary of State does not make the North out to be a ‘threat to humanity’ and sets more practical tasks, avoiding what the author calls ‘conflict for irrational reasons’ and the likely fall of the nuclear non-proliferation regime due to the emergence of new nuclear actors (we shall not name them specifically, but all is clear to everyone).
Rubio admitted that he was initially sceptical about engaging with Pyongyang, but during his first term as president, Trump “stopped missile tests. This did not stop the development of the programme, but at least it calmed the situation down a bit”.
Rubio did not directly mention de-nuclearisation, but noted that Kim Jong Un “used nuclear weapons as an insurance policy to stay in power” and “no sanctions prevented him from developing this potential”.
The South Korean Foreign Ministry’s response to Rubio’s remark on January 16, 2025, was similar to the answer to Hegseth: the de-nuclearisation of North Korea is a “unanimous goal” shared by the international community. We have heard Rubio, but “the new Trump administration has yet to outline its policy towards Pyongyang” and South Korea “intends to maintain close contacts with the United States in the process of reviewing its policies to ensure a coordinated response to North Korea’s nuclear and other challenges”.
In summary…
Previously, US officials refused to publicly recognise North Korea as a nuclear power, even though Pyongyang has called itself a nuclear power in its constitution, adopted a nuclear doctrine and showed no willingness to discuss giving up its nuclear weapons. In their opinion, the use of this term can be interpreted as the recognition of the DPRK’s nuclear status and thus negatively affect US efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The Biden administration tried to look the other way and not acknowledge the reality, perceiving the North Korean regime as a country that does not yet have real nuclear potential and, importantly, may even be subject to de-nuclearisation. Although, it was clear by the end of the 2010s that such a process was possible only after a regime change.
The Trump administration is more realistic in this regard. Perhaps the fact of the matter is that there are quite a lot of military personnel who have worked in the field and are well aware of what real North Korean nuclear missile power is.
The question, however, is how US policy will be adjusted in relation to the idea of a nuclear North. Say Trump decides to recognise North Korea’s nuclear status; what practical steps will follow and how it will affect changes in sanctions? On the one hand, it becomes clear that de-nuclearisation, which was the main formal goal of the negotiations between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un at the previous stage, no longer makes sense. At best, it makes sense to talk about arms control and here there are some theoretical prospects. On the other hand, for American public opinion, North Korea remains an ‘evil state’ to which concessions are unacceptable. This means that Donald Trump will have to think very carefully to come up with a proposal that Pyongyang will actually be ready to discuss. Moreover, if such a proposal is formulated, the American deep state and public opinion will be strongly opposed to such concessions and it is unclear whether Donald Trump will be able to put his ideas into practice.
Nevertheless, it is still pleasant that the new US administration is beginning to recognise reality vis-à-vis Korea.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences
By Glenn Diesen | February 4, 2025
Organisations operating under the banner of “human rights non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) have become key actors in disseminating war propaganda, intimidating academics, and corrupting civil society. These NGOs act as gatekeepers determining which voices should be elevated and which should be censored and cancelled.
Civil society is imperative to balance the power of the state, yet the state is increasingly seeking to hijack the representation of civil society through NGOs. NGOs can be problematic on their own as they can enable a loud minority to override a silent majority. Yet, the Reagan doctrine exacerbated the problem as these “human rights NGOs” were financed by the government and staffed by people with ties to intelligence agencies to ensure civil society does not deviate significantly from government policies.
The ability of academics to speak openly and honestly is restricted by these gatekeepers. Case in point, the NGOs limit dissent in academic debates about the great power rivalry in Ukraine. Well-documented and proven facts that are imperative to understanding the conflict are simply not reported in the media, and any efforts to address these facts are confronted with vague accusations of being “controversial” or “pro-Russian”, a transgression that must be punished with intimidation, censorship, and cancellation.
I will first outline my personal experiences with one of these NGOs, and second how the NGOs are hijacking civil society.
My Encounter with the Norwegian Helsinki Committee
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is one of these “NGOs” financed by the government and the CIA-cutout National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They regularly publish hit pieces about me and rarely miss their weekly tweets that label me a propagandist for Russia. It is always name-calling and smearing rather than anything that can be considered a coherent argument.
The standard formula for cancellation is to shame my university in every article and tweet for allowing academic freedom, with the implicit offer of redemption by terminating my employment as a professor. Peak absurdity occurred with a 7-page article in a newspaper in which it was argued I violated international law by spreading war propaganda. They grudgingly had to admit that I have opposed the war from day one, although for a professor in Russian politics to engage with Russian media allegedly made me complicit in spreading war propaganda.
Every single time I am invited to give a speech at any event, this NGO will appear to publicly shame and pressure the organisers to cancel my invitation. The NGO also openly attempt to incite academics to rally against me to strengthen their case for censorship in a trial of public opinion. Besides whipping up hatred in the media by labelling me a propagandist for Russia, they incite online troll armies such as NAFO to cancel me online and in the real world. After subsequent intimidations through social media, emails, SMS and phone calls, the police advised me to remove my home address and phone number from public access. One of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee recently responded by posting a sale ad for my house, which included photos of my home with my address for their social media followers.
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee also infiltrates and corrupts other institutions. One of the more eager Helsinki Committee employees is also a board member at the Norwegian organisation for non-fictional authors and translators (NFFO) and used his position there to cancel the organisation’s co-hosting of an event as I had been invited to speak. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is also overrepresented in the Nobel Committee to ensure the right candidates are picked.
Why would a humanitarian NGO act like modern Brownshirts by limiting academic freedom? One could similarly ask why a human rights NGO spend more effort to demonise Julian Assange rather than exploring the human rights abuses he exposed.
This “human rights NGO” is devoted primarily to addressing human rights abuses in the East. Subsequently, all great power politics is framed as a competition between good values versus bad values. Constructing stereotypes for the in-group versus the out-groups as a conflict between good and evil is a key component of political propaganda. The complexity of security competition between the great powers is dumbed down and propagandised as a mere struggle between liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. Furthermore, they rest on the source credibility of being “non-governmental” and merely devoted to human rights, which increases the effectiveness of their messaging.
By framing the world as a conflict between good and evil, mutual understanding and compromise are tantamount to appeasement while peace is achieved by defeating enemies. Thus, these “human rights NGOs” call for confrontation and escalation against whoever is the most recent reincarnation of Hitler, while the people calling for diplomacy are denounced and censored as traitors.
NGOs Hijacking Civil Society
After the Second World War, American intelligence agencies took on a profound role in manipulating civil society in Europe. The intelligence agencies were embarrassed when they were caught, and the solution was to hide in plain sight.
The Reagan Doctrine entailed setting up NGOs that would openly interfere in the civil society of other states under the guise of supporting human rights. The well-documented objective was to conceal influence operations by US intelligence as work on democracy and human rights. The “non-governmental” aspect of the NGOs is fraudulent as they are almost completely funded by the government and staffed with people connected to the intelligence community. Case in point, during Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” in 2004, an anti-corruption protest was transformed into a pro-NATO/anti-Russian government. The head of the influential NGO Freedom House in Ukraine was the former Director of the CIA.
Reagan himself gave the inauguration speech when he established the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1983. Washington Post wrote that NED has been the “sugar daddy of overt operations” and “what used to be called ‘propaganda’ and can now simply be called ‘information'”.[1] Documents released reveal that NED cooperated closely with CIA propaganda initiatives. Allen Weinstein, a cofounder of NED, acknowledged: “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”.[2] Philip Agee, a CIA whistle-blower, explained that NED was established as a “propaganda and inducement program” to subvert foreign nations and style it as a democracy promotion initiative. NED also finances the Norwegian Helsinki Committee.
The NGOs enable a loud Western-backed minority to marginalise a silent majority, and then sell it as “democracy”. Protests can therefore legitimise the overthrow of elected governments. The Guardian referred to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004 as “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing” for the purpose of “winning other people’s elections”.[3] Another article by the Guardian labelled the Orange Revolution as a “postmodern coup d’état” and a “CIA-sponsored third world uprising of cold war days, adapted to post-Soviet conditions”.[4] A similar regime change operation was repeated in Ukraine in 2014 to mobilise Ukrainian civil society against their government, resulting in overthrowing the democratically elected government against the will of the majority of Ukrainians. The NGOs branded it a “democratic revolution” and it was followed by Washington asserting its dominance over key levers of power in Kiev.
Similar NGO operations were also launched against Georgia. The NGOs staged Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” in 2003 which eventually resulted in war with Russia after the new authorities in Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Recently, the Prime Minister of Georgia cautioned that the US was yet again using NGOs in an effort to topple the government to use his country as a second front against Russia.[5] Georgia’s democratically elected parliament passed a law with an overwhelming majority (83 in favour vs 23 against), for greater transparency over the funding of NGOs. Unsurprisingly, the Western NGOs decided that transparency over funding of NGOs was undemocratic, and it was labelled a “Russian law”. The Western public was fed footage of protests for democratic credibility, and they were reassured that the Georgian Prime Minister was merely a Russian puppet. The US and EU subsequently responded by threatening Georgia with sanctions in the name of “supporting” Georgia’s civil society.
Civil Society Corrupted
Society rests on three legs – the government, the market and civil society. Initially, the free market was seen as the main instrument to elevate the freedom of the individual from government. Yet, as immense power concentrated in large industries in the late 19th century, some liberals looked to the government as an ally to limit the power of large businesses. The challenge of our time is that government and corporate interests go increasingly hand-in-hand, which only intensifies with the rise of the tech giants. This makes it much more difficult for civil society to operate independently. The universities should be a bastion of freedom and not policed by fake NGOs.
[1] D. Ignatius, ‘Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups’, Washington Post, 22 September 1991.
[2] Ibid.
[3] I. Traynor, ‘US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev’, The Guardian, 26 November 2004.
[4] J. Steele, ‘Ukraine’s postmodern coup d’état’, The Guardian, 26 November 2004.
[5] L Kelly, ‘Georgian prime minister accuses US of fueling ‘revolution attempts’’, The Hill, 3 May 2024.
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025
In a November 29, 1985 piece in the Oakland Tribune, I hailed NED as “one of the newest, most prestigious boondoggles on the Potomac.” But there were plenty of scoffers early on: “NED has been called many things—an International Political Action Committee, the Taxpayer Funding of Foreign Elections Program, and a slush fund for political hacks who like to travel to warm climates in cold weather. In less than two years, NED has lived up to all these epithets.” My op-ed concluded, “The sooner NED is abolished, the cleaner our foreign policy will be.”
The following year, after fresh NED scandals, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) howled, “This thing is not the National Endowment for Democracy but the National Endowment for Embarrassment.” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) complained, “From its very inception, the National Endowment for Democracy has been riddled with scandal and impropriety.”
But it was a “jobs for the boys” program that enabled politicians to launder money to plenty of their aides and donors, so it survived one pratfall after another.
In 2006, in “Defining Democracy Down” in The American Conservative, I wrote:
“In 2001, NED quadrupled its aid to Venezuelan opponents of elected president Hugo Chavez, and NED heavily funded some organizations involved in a bloody military coup that temporarily removed Chavez from power in April 2002. After Chavez retook control, NED and the State Department responded by pouring even more money into groups seeking his ouster.
The International Republican Institute, one of the largest NED grant recipients, played a key role both in the Chavez coup and also in the overthrow of Haiti’s elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In February 2004, an array of NED-aided groups and individuals helped spur an uprising that left 100 people dead and toppled Aristide. Brian Dean Curran, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti, warned Washington that the International Republican Institute’s actions ‘risked us being accused of attempting to destabilize the government.’
The U.S. pulled out all the stops to help our favored candidate win a ‘free and fair’ election in 2004 in the Ukraine. In the two years prior to the election, the United States spent over $65 million ‘to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite exit polls indicating he won a disputed runoff election,’ according to the Associated Press. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) complained that “much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and… millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.’ Yet with boundless hypocrisy, Bush had proclaimed that “any [Ukrainian] election… ought to be free from any foreign influence.”
In a 2009 piece for the Future of Freedom Foundation, I wrote, “NED is based on the notion that its meddling in foreign elections is automatically pro-democracy because the U.S. government is the incarnation of democracy. NED has always operated on the principle that ‘what’s good for the U.S. government is good for democracy.’”
In 2017, Donald Trump’s first administration dropped “democracy promotion” from the list of official goals of U.S. foreign policy. In a USA Today op-ed with the headline, “End Democracy Promotion Balderdash,” I wrote that the reform “could sharply reduce America’s piety exports… It is time to recognize the carnage the U.S. has sown abroad in the name of democracy.” I warned:
“Democracy promotion gives U.S. policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy, created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama, Costa Rica, Ukraine, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Haiti and many other nations… Rather than delivering political salvation, U.S. interventions abroad more often produce ‘no-fault carnage’ (no one in Washington is ever held liable).”
In a 2018 op-ed headlined “Time for the US to end democracy promotion flim-flams” in The Hill, I wrote:
“Democracy promotion has long been one of the U.S. government’s favorite foreign charades. The Trump administration’s proposal to slash funding for democratic evangelism is being denounced as if it were the dawn of a new Dark Age. But this is a welcome step to draining a noxious swath of the Washington swamp…
Unfortunately, many Washingtonians are blinded by self-serving sanctimony. National Democratic Institute president Kenneth Wollack claims that equating U.S. and Russian interventions in foreign elections is like ‘comparing someone who delivers lifesaving medicine to someone who brings deadly poison.’ But the opiate crisis illustrates how easily therapeutic concoctions can produce vast carnage…
Democracy often provides a vast improvement in governance in foreign lands but bribery, finagling, and bombing are poor ways to export freedom. Can Washington politicians and policy wonks explain why the U.S. government deserves veto power over elections everywhere else on Earth?”
Since that 2018 op-ed, NED became a top funder of the worldwide Censorship Industrial Complex. It has also continued trying to rig foreign elections. NED tacitly justifies itself because “God wants democracy to win.” The U.S. government is simply doing God’s work—or doing what God would do if he knew as much as U.S. government agencies.
In 1984, Congressman Hank Brown (R-CO) provided a single sentence that should have nullified NED’s right to exist: “It is a contradiction to try to promote free elections by interfering in them.” But contradictions never stopped the growth of Leviathan. NED’s continued existence is a testament to the perpetual perfidy of U.S. foreign policy. With pressure from Musk and from the Trump administration, Americans may soon learn of far more NED scandals.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
 | Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… |
 | Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… |
 | Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… |
| John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… | |
 | eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… |
 | rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… |
 | loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… |
| eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster |
 | Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… |
 | cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… |
| loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… |
| loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De… |
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 