Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Half of SIDS Cases Occurred Within 48 Hours of Vaccination, Former Police Detective Says

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 8, 2026

A former police detective involved in the investigations of roughly 250 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases claimed that roughly 50% occurred within 48 hours of a vaccination.

In a video interview today with The Defender, the detective, who gave only her first name, “Jennifer,” said she and her husband were detectives in the police department of a major U.S. city with a population of over 300,000 for a combined seven years, from roughly 2003 to 2010.

Jennifer said she is keeping her last name and city name undisclosed to protect her family. She said:

“The pharmaceutical industry does not want to be threatened by those sorts of secrets coming out. So, I’m a mother of many children, and their safety is my number one priority, my family’s safety. I’m a mama bear before I’m anything else.”

Jennifer said she hadn’t initially questioned the safety of vaccines. But that changed when she noticed a recurrent pattern among the police reports for SIDS cases in her unit.

“I’m like, what is the main thing that is true with all of these, the recurring theme with all of these babies? And that’s that they were recently vaccinated,” she said.

She estimated that around half of the SIDS cases involved babies who had received a vaccination in the 48 hours before their death and a “pretty decent number” of additional cases had received a vaccination in the week before their death.

The pattern was strongest among 6-month-olds, she said.

What particularly concerned Jennifer was that although the police reports noted these babies’ recent vaccinations, that information went unmentioned on the county coroner’s autopsy reports and death certificates.

“It didn’t make sense to me,” she said.

She discovered it wasn’t just her county coroner. Coroners across the U.S. are trained not to record vaccination information on autopsy reports, she said.

Some states are working to change that.

In May, Oklahoma and Louisiana passed legislation that amends existing public health law by directing coroners to document any vaccines administered within 90 days of death on autopsy reports for children under age 15 who died unexpectedly and without explanation.

Pediatrician: ‘The threat of death in SIDS is real’

Jennifer’s realization that many SIDS deaths happened soon after vaccination prompted her to start researching vaccines.

Around that time, she and her husband were looking for a pediatrician for their children. Jennifer told the pediatrician about the SIDS pattern she saw and that she and her husband did not want to vaccinate their kids.

The pediatrician acknowledged that there are risks with vaccination and said he would respect their choice, Jennifer said.

He shared that he once vaccinated a baby for hepatitis B, and it died the next day. “He’s like, I 100% believe that it was that vaccine,” she said.

The pediatrician told Jennifer he had many parents of unvaccinated kids whose medical files are super thin. The medical files of the vaccinated kids he served are really thick, he said.

Jennifer, who also shared about her conversation with the pediatrician in a 2023 interview with Steve Kirsch, told The Defender :

“He goes, there is a downside to vaccines. First of all, the threat of death in SIDS is real, and he’s like, it messes with the immune system, so it opens the door to asthma, allergies.”

The pediatrician told Jennifer that he was not supposed to tell parents any of this.

“He’s like, in fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) actually trains us on how to deflect when parents think that their child’s having a vaccine reaction or that they’re hesitant. We’re supposed to deflect and tell them those are unrealistic fears and that it’s just coincidence that this happened after the vaccine,” Jennifer said.

But his conscience wouldn’t let him do that, he told her.

Journal removes peer-reviewed analysis showing potential SIDS-vaccines link

The public debate about a possible link between vaccines and SIDS has recently heated up.

Last week, Idaho mother Andrea Shaw — whose twin babies died eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines — was arrested for allegedly murdering her twins. Shaw said doctors ignored her when she warned that the twins’ father had previously experienced a bad reaction to a flu vaccine.

Last month, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wrote to the journal Toxicology Reports, demanding to know why a 2021 peer-reviewed paper that presented data suggesting a possible link between vaccination and SIDS was recently removed from the Toxicology Reports website.

In a June 29 letter, Johnson called on the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports and the CEO of Elsevier, which owns the journal, to release all records related to the decision to remove vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller’s analysis: “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature.”

The analysis lined up with what Jennifer witnessed in police reports following SIDS deaths.

Miller found that from 1990 to 2019, many more SIDS reports were filed in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the first few days after vaccination compared to later on after vaccination.

The paper also included a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on vaccines and SIDS, including documentation of large increases in SIDS rates following the rollout of national immunization campaigns and case reports of SIDS in babies who were recently vaccinated.

Although Toxicology Reports published Miller’s analysis in June 2021 after it passed the peer-review process, the journal on April 9 posted a removal notice for Miller’s article, citing “serious methodological flaws.”

Miller told The Defender in an earlier interview why he believes the removal was unjustified. He said:

“The core findings of my paper — the temporal clustering of infant deaths in the immediate post-vaccination window, the historical SIDS rate spike following the national immunization campaign, the full literature review — remain unrefuted.

“No one has engaged with the data. They simply made the paper disappear. That should concern every parent, every researcher, and anyone who believes science advances through open inquiry rather than institutional gatekeeping.”

ICD revision eliminated vaccination as official cause of death

Research published since Miller’s analysis has also suggested a link between SIDS and vaccines. For instance, a 2025 study suggested that infants with underdeveloped liver pathways may be more susceptible to SIDS after vaccination, because their bodies cannot process toxic chemicals present in small quantities in vaccines.

The SIDS diagnosis didn’t exist until the late 1960s, when the category was created in response to a rise in sudden unexplained infant deaths.

In the early 1960s, the number of vaccines administered to most U.S. infants increased, according to Miller’s analysis.

As SIDS rates rose, so did parental concern that SIDS was connected to vaccination. However, health officials assured parents that unexplained death following vaccination was “merely coincidental,” Miller wrote.

He also said that before 1979, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) included cause-of-death classifications associated with “prophylactic vaccination” as an official cause of death.

However, in 1979, the ICD was revised, and that category was eliminated. As a result, “medical examiners are compelled to misclassify and conceal vaccine-related fatalities under alternate cause-of-death classifications,” Miller wrote.

Watch Jennifer’s interview here.

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.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | Comments Off on Half of SIDS Cases Occurred Within 48 Hours of Vaccination, Former Police Detective Says

Dressen v. Flaherty: Vaccine Censorship Case Goes to Appeal

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 10, 2026

Federal officials set out to erase the online voices of Americans who said Covid vaccines had hurt them. A new appeal asks the Fifth Circuit to give those Americans their day in court.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its opening brief on July 7, asking the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to revive Dressen v. Flaherty.

We obtained a copy of the brief for you here. 

A federal judge in Texas had thrown the case out before a single document changed hands in discovery. The suit accuses the Biden administration of running a joint government and private censorship operation against people who went online to talk about vaccine injuries.

Brianne Dressen alleges she was injured after she volunteered for an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, and Suzanna Newell each reportedly suffered serious, debilitating injuries after Covid vaccination. Ernest Ramirez was vaccinated without incident and then lost his healthy 16-year-old son five days after the boy received his first Pfizer dose. The autopsy pointed to an enlarged heart and myocarditis.

They did what people in pain tend to do. They went to social media to trade medical research, look for treatments, share hopeful stories, and find others who understood. For many of them, closed online support groups became a lifeline.

The government treated that lifeline as a threat. The Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, HHS, DHS, CISA, and the White House leaned on social media companies to flag this speech as “misinformation,” shadow-ban it, or delete it outright.

The operation reached across agencies and into the platforms themselves, coercing and colluding with the companies that decide who gets to be heard.

Stanford supplied the machinery. The now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory and its “Virality Project” tracked posts and handed the platforms lists of speech to suppress.

The Virality Project targeted Covid-vaccine speech that broke from the administration’s preferred policies, whether or not that speech was accurate. Real accounts of real injuries got flagged because they were inconvenient, not because they were false.

The censors were specific about their targets. Their tracking called out Bri Dressen by name. A woman reportedly injured in a vaccine trial, describing what happened to her own body, became something a federal effort wanted the public not to see.

None of that was enough for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which dismissed the case at the pleading stage. The plaintiffs had laid out a detailed factual account of a nationwide censorship conspiracy, and the court closed the door before discovery could begin.

NCLA’s brief says the district court got the law wrong in several ways. The judge set too narrow and exacting a bar on personal jurisdiction and used it to wave off the Stanford defendants and the individual government officials.

The court also misread the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri, which weighed whether a different set of NCLA clients had shown enough to win a preliminary injunction. No injunction is being sought here, so that higher standard does not govern this case.

The brief argues, the court made a further error on the civil-rights conspiracy claim. It tossed the plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S. Code Section 1985(3) on the theory that they had not alleged racial discrimination. The statute never mentions race. It protects “any person or class of persons” stripped of their rights through an invidiously discriminatory conspiracy, and the Supreme Court has said the provision can reach non-racial classes.

“To call what happened to our clients ‘troubling’ is a massive understatement. After suffering devastating medical injuries following Covid vaccination, they turned to social media as a lifeline for support and connection with others who understood. Rather than compassion or aid, the Government responded with relentless censorship, maligning them as liars and conspiracy theorists and cutting off the lifelines that they depended on.

“Their only offense was that their lived experiences, pain, and even private conversations in online support groups contradicted the Administration’s preferred Covid-vaccine narrative. The cruelty and injustice are difficult to overstate,” said Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA.

The appeal also presses a point the district court skipped over. Censorship harms more than the person silenced.

“We are confident the Fifth Circuit will correct the District Court’s numerous errors in dismissing the complaint, which included taking an inappropriately narrow view of personal jurisdiction and ignoring that not just speakers, but also potential listeners, suffer harm resulting from unlawful government censorship,” said Caitlin Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA.

The stakes reach past these six plaintiffs. If courts keep reading Murthy as a wall against every censorship suit, the government gains a template for silencing people with almost no risk of accountability.

“Lower courts are misapplying the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri decision, and the ruling below here is a prime example. The Murthy decision set a high bar for standing in the context of a preliminary injunction to stop future censorship. But no PI was sought here, so the Murthy standard is not applicable. If Bri Dressen cannot satisfy standing—when the defendants called her out by name in their censorship tracking—then no one will,” said Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer of NCLA.

According to NCLA, the campaign still burdens its clients’ ability to speak, to associate privately, and to exchange information with others in closed support groups.

The question in front of the Fifth Circuit is whether Americans silenced by their own government can even make their case to a jury, or whether the courthouse door stays shut before anyone looks at the evidence.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Dressen v. Flaherty: Vaccine Censorship Case Goes to Appeal

Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026

IRAN GOT NOTHING FROM the MoU – Nima Alkhorshid

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right

British charities promoting Israeli army training programs, visits to illegal settlement

The Cradle | July 10, 2026

UK-registered charities are promoting programs that allow participants to visit illegal Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine, train with the Israeli army, stay in settlements, and take part in Zionist education initiatives linked to migration to Israel, according to an investigation by Middle East Eye (MEE) published on 10 July.

The United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) promotes Israeli gap-year programs run by organizations such as Aardvark and Bina, which include visits to occupied Palestinian territory, including Hebron, the Golan Heights, and locations throughout the occupied West Bank.

UJIA-promoted programs also connect participants with the Israeli army through the Marva course, an army-run program that allows participants to live on a military base for six to eight weeks, undergoing basic training and meeting soldiers.

The investigation examined Bnei Akiva, a religious Zionist youth movement supported by UK charities. It runs activities and gap-year programs in Israel to foster commitment to the Jewish people, Land of Israel, and Torah.

Bnei Akiva’s Mechina Olamit program houses participants in Migdal Oz, an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, and also provides preparation for military service, including physical training and military activities.

Bnei Akiva promotes migration to Israel through “Zionist education” and Aliyah initiatives, with Aliyah referring to Jewish migration to Israel.

The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) told MEE that the activities raise legal concerns, adding that sending participants to settlements or treating them as part of Israel’s  territory violates international law, while describing the Marva program as resembling “pre-enlistment military training rather than cultural exchange.”

In a separate investigation, a UK charity named Friends of Yeshivat Shavei Hevron was revealed to have directly funded the expansion of a religious school in an illegal settlement within the Palestinian city of Hebron, with the charity sending over $260,000 to the school between 2029 and 2024.

These cases reflect broader concerns raised by UK government officials and MPs, who have identified dozens of British-registered charities funneling millions of pounds into illegal settlements.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Comments Off on British charities promoting Israeli army training programs, visits to illegal settlement

Trump’s post-genocide Gaza plan collapses as international ‘peacekeeping’ force shrinks to a handful of troops

Press TV – July 10, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s plan for post-genocide Gaza, which called for a 20,000-strong multinational “peacekeeping” force to secure the besieged territory, is now struggling to recruit even an initial group of up to 20 troops, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

The exclusive report reveals that the security framework meant to underpin Washington’s vision for Gaza after the genocide remains far from realization. The proposed initial deployment has faced repeated delays and sharply diminishing international support.

The original proposal envisioned a large multinational force of around 20,000 personnel. However, regional instability, political disagreements among potential contributors, and ongoing military tensions have drastically scaled back the project.

Daniel Shapiro, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, told the newspaper that the recent joint US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran has not only delayed decisions on the force but has also eroded many countries’ willingness to participate.

Indonesia, once expected to be one of the largest contributors, suspended its involvement in March, citing the worsening regional security situation. Indonesian officials have confirmed that the country’s participation remains on hold.

According to the report, only Morocco, Albania, Kosovo, and Kazakhstan are currently expected to make formal commitments.

The first Moroccan contingent, originally scheduled to deploy in June, has been delayed and is now expected to arrive in the coming months. Instead of entering Gaza immediately, these troops will first be stationed at a newly built logistics hub in Israeli-occupied territory near the Kerem Shalom crossing.

This dramatic downsizing highlights the mounting political, security, and diplomatic obstacles facing Washington’s so-called “day after” strategy for the blockaded Palestinian territory. The difficulties confronting the proposed international security force (ISF) underscore the broader failures of the Trump administration’s Gaza plan.

The ISF was intended as a central pillar of the US-backed post-genocide framework, which envisioned a phased political transition in Gaza. Under the plan, Israeli occupation forces would withdraw, and the international force would take over security responsibilities while a US-led Board of Peace oversaw reconstruction and political implementation.

Meanwhile, the Hamas resistance movement announced this week that it would dissolve the emergency committee administering Gaza but declined to disarm its military wing. Palestinian resistance groups have made clear that surrender is not an option in the face of the US-led effort to reshape Gaza’s future.

Reconstruction has barely begun across most of Gaza, with only a fraction of the estimated $17 billion in pledged funds actually secured. Wealthy donors have largely refused to finance projects in areas still under Israeli control, viewing such efforts as legitimizing the occupation.

The Israeli genocide has already killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, wounded over 171,000, and destroyed around 90 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure, according to Gaza authorities.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s post-genocide Gaza plan collapses as international ‘peacekeeping’ force shrinks to a handful of troops

Volkswagen’s planned defence deal with Israel blocked by Qatari investors

MEMO | July 10, 2026

Volkswagen’s plans for a defence partnership with Israel’s Rafael have been vetoed by the German automaker’s Qatari investors, media reported Friday, Anadolu reports.

Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, Volkswagen’s third-largest shareholder, rejected management’s proposal to manufacture missile components and military vehicles at the company’s Osnabruck plant, the Bild newspaper reported.

The move comes after Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume said in March that the company will stop manufacturing Volkswagen Group vehicles at Osnabruck starting in 2027 and confirmed talks with several defence firms about shifting the plant for military vehicles production. Blume provided no further details at the time.

The proposal has sparked significant controversy within Germany. Volkswagen employees, peace activists and opposition politicians have criticised the plan, arguing the automaker should focus exclusively on civilian production. The Osnabruck Peace Initiative (OFRI) has organised multiple protests in recent months urging Volkswagen to abandon any defence contracts.

Germany’s opposition Left Party called Volkswagen’s planned cooperation with Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defence Systems “unacceptable,” citing the Netanyahu government’s ongoing military campaigns across the Middle East, accusing it of war crimes and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Volkswagen’s planned defence deal with Israel blocked by Qatari investors

Türkiye sells S-400 systems to undisclosed Gulf state

Al Mayadeen | July 10, 2026

Türkiye has sold its S-400 air defense systems to an unnamed Gulf country, with the announcement expected to be made on Friday.

Turkish newspaper, Hürriyet journalist Abdulkadir Selvi reported that an informed source told him Ankara finalized the sale of its S-400 systems after a deal was approved overnight on Friday.

He added that the speculated buyers are either the UAE or Qatar, noting that the information will remain unknown until an official statement is made.

Selvi noted that the US assets in the UAE being targeted by retaliatory Iranian strikes during the war on Iran were a cause for wanting an increased air defense presence. He added that the attacks “crippled the UAE’s tourism-based system,” adding that it “has been trying to acquire alternative defense systems” after the Iranian retaliation.

He also brought up the Israeli attack on Qatar last year as a significant reason why Doha may want new air defense systems, as Qatar’s Patriot missile system did not activate during the attack on the Hamas officials in the capital city due to “Israel” being coded as a friendly country.

“Qatar learned from this shock attack that it was unprotected against Israel,” Selvi said.

The Hürriyet journalist reported that regardless of which Gulf state the S-400 goes to, Türkiye seeks to gain freedom from US sanctions from the sale.

Ankara is currently a target of the American sanctions package, Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which mandates penalties for entities that participate in “significant transactions” with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors.

The sale of the Russian-made S-400 systems could give Türkiye the break it needs to relieve itself of these sanctions that have barred it from the F-35 fighter jet program.

It is worth noting that US President Donald Trump signaled at returning Türkiye to the F-35 fighter jet program after a years-long ban, which caused tears in the relationship between Ankara and Washington.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on Türkiye sells S-400 systems to undisclosed Gulf state

US/Israeli equipment failing against new hypersonic tactic

Sputnik – 10.07.2026

The Russian military’s strategy of combined aerial attacks, involving waves of strike drones followed up by ballistic, cruise or hypersonic missiles, has proven highly effective not only in the Ukrainian theater, but Iran’s defense against US and Israeli aggression, says Russian defense analyst Alexander Stepanov.

The tactic, almost impossible to defend against, involves:

  • drones (slow-flying Geran-2s, faster Geran-4s or rocket-powered Geran-5s – which fly at speeds up to 800 km/h) which by themselves are “extremely difficult” to down using small arms and air defense means available to mobile fire teams
  • “multiple wave” tactics designed to overwhelm and expend expensive and limited Patriot missile stocks and overload enemy air defenses, forcing Ukraine to disperse its Patriot launchers
  • follow-up precision ballistic and quasi-ballistic missile attacks

Patriots, the last line of defense in Kiev’s arsenal, have four missiles per launcher in their PAC-2 variant, and up to 16 in PAC-3. Typically, two missiles are assigned to a single target.

Playing the Numbers Game

When Russia launches hundreds of projectiles across multiple waves, defense essentially becomes impossible, and involves expending interceptors which cost tens if not hundreds of times more than the strike systems they’re targeting ($4.2-5.3M per Patriot interceptor, compared to tens of thousands of dollars in the case of Geran drones).

“All these points create extreme vulnerabilities for SAM operators forced to respond quickly to serious threats, including in the context of massive combined attacks,” Stepanov says.

“Even if they manage to repel the first wave of attack drones, [the next waves include] ballistic weapons, high-precision missiles that can fly along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, including Iskanders, and hypersonic ones, like Zircons and the air-launched Kinzhals.”

“There is a clear understanding that the equipment being shipped, primarily through NATO countries and the United States, are incapable of countering these speeds. We saw this as well in the Iranian campaign, when expensive systems, including THAAD over-the-horizon interceptors, failed to cope with attacks and were destroyed, along with expensive radars and the regional component of the US’s global early warning system,” Stepanov summed up.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Comments Off on US/Israeli equipment failing against new hypersonic tactic

The U.S. controls who can participate in UN activities

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 10, 2026

In 2025, Donald Trump’s administration once again imposed travel restrictions on citizens of various countries, particularly in Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean. The measures have already produced concrete effects on international events hosted in the United States. One of the best-known cases was that of Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan, who was prevented from entering the country and, consequently, from officiating at the 2026 World Cup despite having been selected by FIFA.

Beyond their impact on sports, the restrictions raised even greater concerns at the United Nations, whose headquarters are located in New York, as they may hinder the participation of diplomats and representatives of member states in the organization’s work. Indeed, the Trump administration revoked or denied visas to Mahmoud Abbas and around 80 members of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO before the opening of the 2025 annual session of the General Assembly. Several members of the Somali delegation were also denied visas, preventing their participation in the meeting.

Shortly after the White House announced the travel restrictions, UN Secretary-General spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric washed his hands of the matter and, in practice, sided with Trump by stating that it is up to each country to decide how it controls its borders and who may enter its territory. No one is naïve enough to believe that if Somalia or Palestine had adopted such measures, and the affected representatives were Americans, Dujarric’s position would have been the same.

According to him, the executive order indicated that diplomats, holders of G4 visas, and United Nations personnel were exempt from the new restrictions. He added that the United States, as the host country of the UN headquarters, has obligations arising from international treaties to facilitate the movement of the organization’s personnel and delegates, noting that these responsibilities were contemplated in the presidential decree.

But this is not new. The United States has long denied entry to representatives of undesirable countries. Although Trump’s travel restrictions are particularly outrageous, previous administrations also denied or limited access for representatives of member states.

Over the decades, diplomats from countries subject to sanctions or restrictions, such as Sudan, Iran, and Venezuela, have faced delays or denials in obtaining visas to attend UN meetings. These practices have effectively thrown the 1947 Headquarters Agreement into the trash, despite its requirement that the United States, as host country, allow accredited representatives of member states to enter.

In the late 1940s, the United States barred members of nongovernmental organizations linked to the Italian Communist Party, which was part of Italy’s government. In 1988, during Ronald Reagan’s administration, Yasser Arafat was prevented from entering the country to address the UN General Assembly on the grounds of national security concerns. In response, the Assembly held its session devoted to the Palestinian question in Geneva, with Arafat present—the leader of the PLO, an organization already recognized at that time as the representative of Palestine at the UN.

The United States also denied entry to Iranian diplomat Hamid Aboutalebi, who in his youth had participated in the hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran. Years later, when he was appointed Iran’s ambassador to the UN, he was denied entry.

Over the last few decades, cases involving the issuance of visas to citizens of Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela have become frequent. Washington has been accused of using visa applications as a tool to restrict diplomatic access to UN headquarters in New York, thereby violating its legal obligations as host country.

Cubans are among the diplomats who have most frequently denounced violations of the UN Headquarters Agreement.

An emblematic case occurred in 2006. Diplomat Rodolfo Benítez, then a counselor at Cuba’s mission to the UN, received authorization to participate in a seminar for diplomats from permanent missions to the UN held at West Point. Although approximately 40 diplomats from various countries were authorized to attend, the United States denied travel authorization to the Cuban representative. Cuba denounced the measure before the UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country, arguing that the decision was discriminatory and harmed the normal functioning of the mission.

In 2007, Washington again denied authorization for two Cuban diplomats to leave the restricted 25-mile area around Columbus Circle in Manhattan in order to participate in an informal meeting of the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression held at Princeton University. Havana formally protested before the UN.

Furthermore, for decades Cuban diplomats—as well as North Korean and Syrian diplomats—accredited to the UN were subject to severe travel restrictions within the United States, being allowed to circulate only within a limited area around New York City. The General Assembly repeatedly adopted resolutions calling for the removal of these restrictions.

During Barack Obama’s administration, the Sudanese delegation accused Washington of violating the Headquarters Agreement by denying a visa to then-Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. He was supposed to lead Sudan’s delegation during the annual General Assembly debates. The United States argued that the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court would oblige American authorities to arrest him if he were allowed to enter the country. However, the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and has received various officials subject to ICC arrest warrants, including, more recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In 2024, under Joe Biden’s administration, China’s representation to the UN informed the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, a body linked to the General Assembly, that Washington had repeatedly denied visas to personnel responsible for maintaining the facilities of China’s mission.

The Chinese representative drew attention to General Assembly Resolution 78/116, emphasizing that the privileges and immunities of delegations and diplomatic missions cannot be restricted because of the bilateral relations of the host country. The diplomat urged the United States to fulfill its obligations and issue the visas without delay.

Complaints from diplomats and the public increased significantly during the first Trump administration. In 2019, Russia and Iran went so far as to disrupt the work of certain General Assembly committees in protest against the denial of visas to diplomats from both countries. Iran stated that 58 representatives faced restrictions on participating in the Assembly’s annual opening session, while Russia reported that 18 diplomats still lacked visas.

Preventing delegates from participating in UN activities seriously undermines the foreign policy of the affected countries. According to experts, countries currently included on Trump’s restriction lists may obtain visas for only a limited number of representatives, making it more difficult for them to participate simultaneously in different meetings. The diplomatic missions of these countries also face difficulties in bringing technical experts, reducing the quality of participation in specialized debates. Furthermore, the senior leaders of the affected nations become unable to conduct bilateral and multilateral meetings and negotiations, and it is well known that behind-the-scenes conversations are among the most valuable activities at meetings held under the auspices of the United Nations.

Somalia illustrates this problem. Currently an elected member of the United Nations Security Council, the country appears on Trump’s restriction list. In February 2025, it even voted in favor of a United States-sponsored resolution on a “path to peace” regarding the war in Ukraine—that is, not even bowing to American dictates enabled the African country to escape the sanction. A Somali diplomat told the PassBlue website that the country already faced strict controls on the issuance of visas to diplomats and that the new measures could also harm Somali students and business people.

In 1947, the United States signed the Headquarters Agreement, committing itself to allow the entry of persons essential to the functioning of the UN. Subsequently, however, the U.S. Congress added a clause preserving the country’s right to deny entry on national security grounds. The UN challenged this addition, arguing that it was not part of the original agreement.

The controversy persisted until an understanding was reached with then Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. It was agreed that the United States would notify the Secretary-General in advance if it intended to deny entry to representatives of any member state. This arrangement worked until 1988, when Yasser Arafat was denied a visa on national security grounds.

Larry Johnson, former adjunct professor at Columbia Law School and former UN Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, told PassBlue that the United States argued in 1988 that, by failing formally to object to the confidential invocation of national security clauses since the early 1950s, the UN had effectively accepted the practice.

UN member states and the UN Secretariat have responded in different ways to visa denials over the years. The most forceful response occurred precisely in the Arafat case in 1988, when the General Assembly transferred its entire session on Palestine to Geneva as a form of public protest.

The episode involving Arafat also led to the creation of the General Assembly’s Committee on Relations with the Host Country, tasked with dealing with visa-related problems and other issues between the United States and the other UN member states.

However, after the collapse of the USSR and the imposition of U.S. domination over the globe, the countries of the UN bowed to Washington’s will. Instead of immediately resorting to direct confrontational measures such as boycotts or relocating meetings, the Secretariat began encouraging countries to submit their complaints to the Host Country Committee. This body can recommend resolutions, request advisory opinions, or even initiate arbitration proceedings to address disputes, which in practice produces no results.

Deciding who can and cannot participate in UN activities in New York is not the only diplomatic and geopolitical advantage of hosting the world’s principal international organization. The main advantage is that virtually all heads of state, foreign ministers, ambassadors, and negotiators regularly pass through New York.

This allows the United States to maintain direct and constant contact with almost every government on the planet, hold bilateral meetings alongside UN activities, monitor diplomatic trends in real time, and exert informal influence over international negotiations. Even countries that do not maintain close diplomatic relations with Washington end up maintaining some level of contact on American territory—their representatives are more easily spied upon and co-opted.

Although this is an aspect rarely emphasized publicly, the concentration of foreign diplomatic missions in New York is a valuable source of information for American intelligence services. Historically, agencies such as the CIA and the FBI have devoted significant resources to monitoring diplomatic activities linked to the UN. Physical proximity facilitates the observation of negotiations, informal contacts, recruitment of sources, and collection of information about foreign governments.

Even without officially controlling the UN, hosting the organization also gives the United States important logistical advantages. Washington can organize side events, receive delegations at American institutions, involve universities, research centers, and foundations, and promote political propaganda through its media outlets.

Of course, all this is considered perfectly normal by the propagandists of American imperialism. But what would they say if the UN headquarters were moved to Moscow or Beijing?

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The U.S. controls who can participate in UN activities

Denmark wants NATO to protect it from US

By Lucas Leiroz | July 10, 2026

Tensions between the US and Denmark over Greenland continue to rise. US President Donald Trump refuses to change his stance regarding the alleged “need” for the US to control Greenland, while the Danish government emphasizes that it will defend its territory by all possible means – even using military force, if necessary. The major issue, however, is that both countries are members of the same military alliance. Denmark believes it would be supported by its partners in a potential conflict with the US, ignoring the fact that NATO is historically led by Washington.

The issue of Greenland was one of the topics discussed at the recent NATO summit in Ankara. During a joint press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Trump confirmed that he remains interested in acquiring control of the region. He argued that Greenland should not remain associated to Denmark, as the two entities provide no mutual benefit and are, in practice, supposedly already de facto separate. He therefore believes there should be a definitive transition to American control, given that the US has greater interests and a better capacity to “help Greenland” than Denmark does.

“That should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark (…) Greenland does not help Denmark. Denmark does not really spend money to help Greenland,” he said.

His statement was immediately responded by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who also attended the meeting in Ankara. She not only affirmed Denmark’s readiness to defend its territory – including through military means – but also stated that NATO would defend Denmark in such a scenario. According to her, NATO’s collective defense clause applies to any instance of military aggression against a member state, regardless of the aggressor state. Consequently, if the US were to attack Danish territory to annex Greenland, the entire alliance would be expected to stand with Denmark against the US.

“[The US is] an erstwhile friend (…)  We are ready to defend any inch of NATO, including our own territory (…) [And] the same goes for the US,” she said.

In theory, the Danish Prime Minister is correct. NATO should protect its members, even in the event of a war against another member of the alliance. However, in practice, that is not what would happen. The US is the leading nation within NATO. The organization was established during the Cold War as a collective defense bloc for Western nations, all of which are under the American nuclear umbrella. Although NATO member states formally retain sovereignty, in practice, the alliance is nothing more than an “international army” at the service of Washington [and ultimately Israel]. Therefore, it is entirely illogical to expect NATO to go to war against the US to protect a European country.

Tensions between the US and Europe have been rising since Trump took office. The US president demands greater defense investment and combat readiness from Europeans to assist the US (especially in the Middle East). Europeans are failing to meet the alliance’s financial targets and refuse to participate in the conflict in the Middle East. On the other hand, they remain engaged in an irrational war campaign against Russia and are promoting a plan for continental militarization, attempting to gain greater defense “autonomy”.

If European militarization plans succeed, Denmark might secure some international support in the event of a conflict with the US. However, it is entirely irrational to expect US-led NATO to fight against the US itself. In a scenario involving military engagement between the US and Denmark (or any other alliance member), NATO countries would face only two options: support the US or remain neutral.

However, it is questionable whether Frederiksen truly believes her own words. She may be promoting such rhetoric just to encourage European militarization or to appease Danish public opinion, thereby attempting to project an image of political strength that she has failed to cultivate until now. In any case, Trump is serious about annexing Greenland, as control over this territory is vital to his plans for American expansion into the Arctic. Trump considers European nations unable to assist with his Arctic strategy and therefore wants the US to control key territories in the region.

As the crisis deepens, both Denmark and the US seem to ignore the will of the local Greenlandic people. The region is inhabited by an indigenous Inuit majority. The local population was historically persecuted by the Danes, who carried out campaigns of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and forced population reduction. Now, the US – which also has a history of severe persecution against indigenous peoples – seeks to annex the region without even consulting the local population.

The international community – especially international law and human rights organizations – should intervene directly in this matter, emphasizing the need to prioritize the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on Denmark wants NATO to protect it from US

NATO summit was ‘humiliating’ for Zelensky – Moscow

RT | July 10, 2026

The NATO summit held in Türkiye this week proved “humiliating” for Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

Zakharova noted that despite the Ukrainian leader once again pressing Western backers for more money and weapons as Russian forces continue advancing along the front line, there was “no meaningful response” to his latest “wish list.”

The July 7-8 summit in Ankara was marked by efforts to project NATO unity despite lingering disagreements over defense spending and the Ukraine and Iran conflicts. While bloc members reaffirmed support for Kiev, they announced no major new commitments, with a €70 billion ($80 billion) pledge largely repackaging existing funds.

The summit’s final declaration also omitted any mention of Ukraine’s long-standing NATO membership bid, which Zakharova described as Zelensky’s “biggest disappointment.”

“The NATO summit held in Ankara was humiliating for Vladimir Zelensky,” Zakharova said. “He once again rolled out his usual wish list, begging for missile and air defense systems… while touting Ukrainian military’s terrorist capabilities. NATO members offered no meaningful response to these appeals.”

US President Donald Trump said on the sidelines of the summit that while Washington could grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air defense missiles, which Kiev has long demanded, it would not supply the systems directly. No other NATO member announced new military aid.

Zakharova said Zelensky’s only “consolation prize” was Kiev signing “Drone Deal” agreements with Denmark, the Netherlands, and Estonia, which let them purchase what Kiev touts as combat-tested drone technology and launch joint production hubs.

“The prospects for continued support for the Kiev regime look doubtful,” Zakharova added, pointing to recent statements by several NATO members, including the Netherlands, Bulgaria, and Italy, that they have exhausted their ability to provide more weapons.

Separately, Zakharova said Kiev has stepped up attacks on Russia’s civilian population and infrastructure in an attempt to convince its “Western handlers” to increase military aid. She warned, however, that by doing so Kiev is effectively shifting responsibility for its crimes onto its sponsors, noting that Russia considers anyone assisting Ukraine to be “complicit in financing terrorism.”

Ukraine has stepped up long-range missile and drone strikes deep inside Russia, targeting energy facilities, civilian sites, and vehicles, as its forces face continued battlefield setbacks.

Last week, Russian troops liberated the key Ukrainian stronghold of Konstantinovka in northwestern Donbass, opening the way toward the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, the last two major Ukrainian-held cities in the region that voted to join Russia in 2022.

Ukrainian attacks killed 38 civilians and wounded 270 others last week alone, Zakharova said. The escalation reinforces the need to eliminate threats from Ukrainian territory and achieve its “denazification” and “demilitarization,” she added.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on NATO summit was ‘humiliating’ for Zelensky – Moscow

RT producer speaks out after UK detention

James Scott said the authorities questioned him for 2.5 hours, seized his devices, and are still investigating him

RT | July 9, 2026

An RT employee was detained and interrogated after arriving in the UK from Russia several days ago under the country’s counterterrorism laws.

James Scott said he traveled to Manchester to visit friends and family and watch World Cup matches when he was stopped by the border authorities and questioned for two and a half hours.

Speaking publicly for the first time after leaving the UK, Scott said the authorities seized his electronic devices, returning them several days later, and that he remains under investigation, which he called “ridiculous” and “absurd.”

Scott is the second RT journalist to be detained by the British authorities. Last year, Steve Sweeney, the head of RT’s Lebanon bureau, was briefly detained by counterterrorism officers at London Heathrow Airport and extensively questioned about his work for the Russian broadcaster.

July 9, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Video | | Comments Off on RT producer speaks out after UK detention

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »