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.
Remix News | February 4, 2025
German MP Sahra Wagenknecht, who leads the self-proclaimed BSW party, urged a referendum on migration in an interview. Referendums on migration are not unprecedented in Europe, the first was held in Hungary in 2016, and the second in Poland in 2023,
“A migration policy that is supported by the majority of the population requires a referendum that gives the federal government a fundamental direction,” Wagenknecht told AFP over the weekend, as reported in Die Welt.
She believes a referendum with a clear result would counter the polarization of society and could take the wind out of the sails of the increasingly popular Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Wagenknecht further accused the German government of a failure in its migration policy.
“For 10 years, they have allowed a loss of control over migration, which the majority of people in Germany, including most well-integrated immigrants, do not want,” she said.
There is currently no legal basis for a federal referendum in Germany, although smaller states, such as Berlin, offer non-binding referendum votes on local issues. It is also unclear what the exact wording of Wagenknecht’s proposal would be. Many polls show that a majority of Germans want reductions in migrant numbers and say that migrants bring more disadvantages than benefits.
In the wake of soaring crime, terror attacks, and massive burdens on public service, Germans are now saying that migration is the “most important problem.” That is according to the research group Wahlen, which showed 41 percent of men and women listed this, in equal numbers, as the most important issue heading into national elections. That beats out the economy and concerns about the Alternative for Germany party (AfD).
In addition, a majority of Germans are in favor of permanent border controls and rejecting asylum seekers without documentation, according to Wahlen.
“Germans are divided on the question of whether the Union should accept votes from the AfD when’voting on a stricter migration policy: 48 percent of those surveyed think this is “not a good thing,’ 47 percent think it is ‘good.’ At the same time, a clear majority of those surveyed, 63 and 56 percent respectively, are in favor of rejecting asylum seekers without documents and of permanent border controls,” writes NZZ about the Wahlen research polling.
Other countries have utilized referendums, such as Hungary and Poland.
Hungary held a referendum on resettlement quotas in 2016, in which 98.36 percent of valid voters rejected the possibility of the European Union requiring the resettlement of migrants to Hungary, even bypassing Hungarian legislation.
In 2023, Poland held a referendum, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland’s deputy prime minister at the time, saying that it “will decide the fate of Poland and Poles, whether they can live in a safe, peaceful country.”
By Ahmed Adel | February 4, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said that elections should be organized in Ukraine. This is another message to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Washington will no longer sign him blank checks and fund his failed war efforts on Russia.
Zelensky’s claims that the constitution does not allow elections to be held during a state of emergency are meaningless because the Ukrainian constitution also does not allow the president to serve after his term expires. The powers of the president should have been taken over by the parliament, which did not express an opinion on this because it is in the pocket of Zelensky.
It is doubtful that Zelensky fears losing the elections since he has already banned all legitimate opposition parties. The only person he might be afraid of is the four-star general Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is currently serving as Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom, as he could return from London and be the opposing candidate because he is more popular, according to some indicators there.
Nonetheless, it does not matter what the results of those elections will be since it will be a farce like the rest of the Ukrainian state administration. The essence of the story is that this is a message to the Ukrainian people that Zelensky, an unelected usurper, cannot sign anything in anyone’s name. Ukrainians must have some legitimate authority, at least on paper, to be able to sign a capitulation. It will not be a truce or a peace agreement but a surrender because the Kremlin said this is the only way to end the conflict.
The US is trying to soften the situation by creating a narrative that it has defended democracy in Ukraine and that the Ukrainians have democratically decided to capitulate.
Russia is not interested in negotiating with a puppet but with the one who pulls the strings. This means that Russia will negotiate directly with the Americans. The Ukrainian delegation, whatever it may be, will be present but will not be relevant to the discussions and will only be symbolic – they will just put their signature on what is agreed.
The Americans have always been the bosses in Ukraine; the difference now is that a new boss has arrived in Washington and is now telling them what to do, and they will have no choice but to agree with it. Their options are capitulation with American oversight or trying to reach an agreement with the Russians separately.
Zelensky unfortunately cut off the second option as a possibility by issuing a decree banning direct negotiations with the Kremlin. He will have to withdraw that decree because it is absolutely clear that the Americans are in a hurry to end this as soon as possible. After all, this conflict no longer suits Washington, and they want to deal with other things, such as opposing the rise of China.
The Russians are unlikely to be satisfied with anything other than their announced goals: the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, the country’s neutral status, and recognition of Russia’s new territories.
US President Donald Trump’s team believes that elections must be organized in Ukraine so that the winner can engage in dialogue with Russia. Reuters sources say White House officials and Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, have recently discussed how to persuade Kiev to hold elections in the initial phase of a ceasefire with Moscow. They also discussed whether a ceasefire should be achieved before trying to reach a longer-term agreement.
Kellogg said that holding elections in Ukraine is important.
“Most democratic nations have elections in their time of war. I think it is important they do so. I think it is good for democracy. That’s the beauty of a solid democracy, you have more than one person potentially running,” Kellogg said.
Reuters cited two people with knowledge of those conversations and a former US official briefed about the election proposal as saying that the Trump plan for peace “is still evolving and no policy decisions have been made” but that Kellogg and other White House officials discussed pushing Kiev to agree to elections as part of an initial truce with Russia.
Zelensky’s five-year term was supposed to end in May 2024, but he has clung to the excuse that presidential and parliamentary elections cannot be held under martial law, which Ukraine imposed in February 2022. According to sources cited by Reuters, the White House raised the issue of elections with senior officials in Zelensky’s office in 2023 and 2024 during the Biden administration, and US officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that elections were critical to uphold international and democratic norms.
Given that Zelensky has no viable opposition to challenge him, besides perhaps Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the question still remains why he refuses to uphold the democratic norms that he supposedly champions and defends.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
American Public Winning Medical Culture War
Jefferey Jaxen | February 3, 2025
Watching clips from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings in D.C. one could easily discern that a paradigm shift was rapidly underway. Only a few senators stood out as aggressively clueless or purposely ignorant to the current reality of American health and the safety science underpinning vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs.
The gap exposed in understanding, or willingness to understand, between key issues facing America and what select senators and corporate media like NY Times and Washington Post refuse to confront has been laid bare. … Read full article
By Nebojsa Malic | The Libertarian Institute | February 3, 2025
For six weeks now, Serbia has been rattled by what purports to be a student rebellion, leading to the prime minister’s resignation last week and rumors of a snap election. Students from sixty-three colleges of five state and two private universities, as well as four high schools, have emerged as the biggest challenge to the Progressive Party rule—and fueled rumors of yet another “color revolution.”
On Thursday, thousands of students rallied in the capital, Belgrade, and set out to Novi Sad—the second-largest city in Serbia and the site of a tragedy that has served as the trigger for the entire crisis. The concrete canopy of the Novi Sad railway station, built in 1964 but recently renovated as part of a bullet-train project, collapsed on November 1 and killed fifteen people.
Serbia is the largest of the six successor states of the former Yugoslavia (Kosovo, a breakaway Serbian province that the United States and its allies consider the seventh, doesn’t count). Belgrade has no intent of joining NATO, which bombed Serbia in 1999 to occupy and detach Kosovo, and officially aspires to join the European Union—but has so far refused to go along with the bloc’s sanctions regime against Russia.
All of this has obviously made Serbia a place of considerable interest to Moscow, Beijing, Brussels and Washington alike. President Aleksandar Vucic has managed to parlay his balancing diplomacy into a flow of infrastructure and industrial investments, such as the high-speed train project to the Hungarian border.
Opposition parties backed by the West have long accused the Progressives of skimming funds from these construction projects—as they have done while in power—and quickly seized on the Novi Sad tragedy to demand resignations and arrests. They followed the same playbook as in 2023, when a mass shooting at a Belgrade school was harnessed into “Serbia against violence” protests to demand regime change. Vucic responded at the time by calling a snap election, which the Progressives easily won, however.
At first the Novi Sad protests looked like another street performance that would fizzle out. Everything changed when students of two Belgrade university schools walked out of class on November 21. The following day, a group of theater students blocked the street outside their school, and got into a fight with several motorists who tried to get through. The incident triggered a domino effect at Belgrade colleges, with self-appointed “student soviets” (plenum) eventually demanding the arrest and identification of the attackers—who they claimed were ruling party activists—and the release and full pardon of all students involved in the fracas.
Since then, student groups have blocked strategic streets in Belgrade for at least fifteen minutes every day, around the time of the canopy’s collapse. They have also expanded their demands: for the government to publish all the records related to the railway station’s reconstruction, and to increase the higher education budget by 20%.
The student soviets claim they are trying to compel a lawless government to uphold the law and punish those responsible for the canopy carnage. The way they have gone about it, however, is itself extra-judicial. Only a small percentage of students from every school are part of these “soviets,” and no one knows who their ringleaders are. Their spokespeople claim to be apolitical and want nothing beyond the four demands. Yet when the government tries to appease them by fulfilling their demands, they refuse to take “yes” for an answer.
Meanwhile, Western-backed opposition and NGOs have repeatedly tried to take over the protests and use them to overthrow the government. There have been calls for a “student-nominated expert cabinet” and even a new constitution (though notably not an election).
Watching the students, it is hard not to sympathize with them. They’re young, idealistic, patriotic, hungry for justice—something the Serbs value highly—and are filled with energy. Yet all of these things also make them the perfect tool of forces that have already weaponized human kindness and decency to nefarious ends, both in Serbia and elsewhere.
The protests are unusually well-organized, photogenic, and media-savvy. Every march or blockade is ringed by “staff” in high-visibility vests and sometimes hard hats. They brandish Serbian flags as well as banners declaring “no surrender” on the issue of Kosovo, reinforcing their patriotic bona fides. The logo they have adopted is a red handprint, insinuating that the government has “blood on its hands” because of the canopy collapse.
The “red hand” appears to have been lifted from Mjaft! (Enough), an Albanian “social justice” NGO founded in 2003 and funded by the United States and George Soros for years. It appears to have gone defunct in 2021, but one of its leaders, Erion Veliaj, had become the mayor of Tirana since then. No one has come forth to claim ownership of the “bloody hand” logo by the Serbian student soviets, so far.
People of Serbia are normally wary of street protests, remembering the bitter aftertaste of their October 2000 “democratic revolution” against then-President Slobodan Milosevic. Many of the people involved believed they were taking part in a spontaneous revolt against Milosevic’s purported “betrayal” of Kosovo—only to discover they had been played by the National Endowment for Democracy and its clever blueprint of subversion that would become known as the “color revolution.”
Those protests too were led by “students”—or rather, what started as a student group before getting infiltrated by NED. Known as Otpor (Resistance), they used a black fist as their symbol and also had clever marketing and branding, all funded by the American taxpayer.
Some of the people behind the October 2000 coup later openly boasted about getting “suitcases of cash” via the U.S. embassy and various NED cutouts, and a small number went on to become professional revolution-mongers in places like Georgia, Ukraine, and North Africa.
Knowing all this, the “red hand” protests certainly raise a number of red flags—including literally, in the form of a random Ferrari banner used by anti-Milosevic protesters in the 1990s. Attempts by the NGOs, Western-backed parties and some EU propagandists to co-opt and divert the protests to their own ends also stink to high heaven.
Moreover, the student soviets’ high degree of organization and discipline is in stark contrast to the generally disorganized and demoralized state of pro-Russian, “sovereignist” or right-populist forces in Serbia in recent years.
Normally a PR-savvy politician, Vucic has reacted to the protests in a clumsy fashion, eventually settling on a policy of appeasement that only seems to have emboldened the demonstrators. Every time he appears close to calming them down, a violent incident escalates things. On two occasions, cars trying to pass through the blockades injured young women holding the line—fortunately, not seriously. Yet a poem has already appeared on social media fantasizing about a deliberate vehicle attack turning fatal.
The night after Vucic called for calm and said he had met all the students’ demands, a group of protesters went to graffiti the Progressive Party offices in Novi Sad. They were confronted by some of the party members armed with bats, and one girl got her jaw broken. This is what triggered the resignations of Prime Minister (and Progressive Party chair) Milos Vucevic and the mayor of Novi Sad.
There are several ways this could end. The students could declare victory and go back to their colleges, having put the government on notice. Or they could keep going until they get hijacked by the NGO-opposition axis, which has already made plans in the media to seize power and launch purges of the Progressives. There is a non-zero chance of political violence escalating into a shooting war.
Whatever happens, the “red hand rebellion” seems to have scuttled Serbia’s opportunity to “reset” relations with the United States, or serve as the host of the Ukraine peace summit, being a truly neutral venue genuinely sympathetic to both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
… What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain. … Read full article
 | loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis… |
| loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… |
| loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje… |
| loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t… |
| loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean |
| loongtip on Australian festival boycotted… |
| loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi… |
 | seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… |
| John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… | |
 | aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… |
| John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… | |
| aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America… |
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 