German MP added to Kiev’s ‘terrorist list’ because he called for a ceasefire
Free West Media – November 9, 2022
BERLIN – The head of the SPD parliamentary group, Rolf Mützenich said the Ukrainian government put him on a “terrorist list” because he had called for a cease-fire in Ukraine. He added that he had also “received threats”.
The criteria according to which Kiev differentiates its friends from its enemies has irked the president of the group SPD in the Bundestag, Mützenich. German politicians are particularly indignant that their names are now on the list of people who “promote narrative people in accordance with Russian propaganda”.
This document is published on the website of the Center for Combating Disinformation to the National Defense and Security Council of Ukraine.
“I was irritated that the Ukrainian government had put me on a terrorist list on the grounds that I was working for a cease-fire or for the possibility of taking new diplomatic measures,” he told the German news agency dpa. According to him, he has since also received “secondary threats, so to speak, which are not easy to manage either”.
Mützenich stressed that if the commitment to a cease-fire is a criterion for inclusion on this list, then the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, must also be included. He complained of “discrimination” against those who, like him, campaign for diplomacy as a means of ending the conflict.
He also accused the partners of the SPD coalition, namely the Greens and the FDP, of resorting to the same discrimination. “I oppose this rigorism. The fact remains that most wars did not end on the battlefield.”
The deputy has been on the list since July. As proof, the Ukrainians cited an article published on the website of the German information agency RND.
The article indicated that the deputy found it “normal” that the German Chancellor, with the American and French Presidents, discussed ways to end the war in Ukraine. According to the article, Mützenich referred to the sanctions packages, but also to the attempt to achieve humanitarian ceasefires.
France Increases Military Budget by Over 20%
Samizdat – 09.11.2022
The French government has increased the country’s military budget by more than 20% and will continue modernizing the army, French government spokesman Olivier Veran said on Wednesday.
“We have increased the military budget by over 20%, and we are doing everything to modernize our army,” Veran told French media.
The spokesman also said that the French authorities would soon review and adopt a law on military programming, providing for a further budget increase.
Veran rejected the statements suggesting that France weakens the capabilities of its own troops by sending military aid to Ukraine.
“When we supply weapons to our allies, we are not weakening our army, on the contrary, we are strengthening our forces within the European Union. We are not ‘undressing’ our army at all,” the spokesman added.
Hungarian objections to EU aid for Kiev regime in line with what most Europeans think
By Drago Bosnic | November 9, 2022
The bureaucratic empire in Brussels seems to be pushing all the wrong buttons in regards to Budapest. The European Union’s failed attempts to force it into submission are effectively being laughed off in Hungary. The bloc’s suicidal anti-Russian sanctions and policies are creating numerous points of contention between Brussels and Budapest. Viktor Orban’s Hungary has run out of patience for this, especially as the EU is also threatening the Central European country with internal sanctions and other restrictions under various pretexts. There are very few things Brussels and Budapest agree on and the differences aren’t only limited to domestic EU policies, but foreign relations as well.
While Hungary prefers a realpolitik approach in regards to other countries and global powers, particularly Russia (and to a certain extent China), the EU’s foreign policy framework is ideological. This often results in accusations that Budapest is a “Russian puppet/asset” and that it’s “trying to ease” the bloc’s economic pressure on Moscow. However, the reality is much simpler – Hungary is trying to ease the pressure on its citizens, as the economic fallout of the failed siege of Russia is deeply affecting the regular people. In the meantime, the detached bureaucrats in Brussels are left unscathed and thus unmoved by the struggles of tens of millions of EU countries’ citizens.
Being fully aware of this for years and determined to prevent economic consequences of such policies, Budapest stated that it won’t support the bloc’s latest “aid” package for the Kiev regime. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto openly stated that the country will not change its stance as long as it’s forced to fight for access to EU funds blocked by the “rule-of-law” dispute. Namely, Brussels is still holding up at least €7.5 billion in funds for Hungary under the pretext of “persisting corruption and fraud” in the country. In reality, the reason is Budapest’s refusal to follow anti-Russian sanctions and policies which would effectively destroy its economy.
The Western mainstream propaganda machine often portrays Hungary as a “rogue state” and the main obstacle to the futile attempts of isolating Russia, while its leader Viktor Orban is usually presented as a “dictator”, although his popularity in the country suggests otherwise. Hungary’s persistence in its demands for exemptions from anti-Russian energy sanctions is usually used to accuse it of being pro-Russian. However, the country accomplished retaining lower energy prices in comparison to the rest of the EU, which is going through economic and financial unraveling thanks to Brussels’ suicidal subservience to Washington DC.
As there is growing conviction among many EU member states that anti-Russian policies have not only failed to produce desired results, but have even backfired and are ravaging their economies, Hungary is hardly alone in this regard. In addition, the claim that Budapest is pro-Russian is genuinely laughable, as it has provided ample support for the Kiev regime and will continue to do so, as stated by the country’s foreign minister Szijjarto, who said so on November 7 during a conference in Sofia. However, “Budapest still opposes any arrangement that would see funding [for Kiev] jointly with other EU member states,” he added.
Today, November 9, the EU is set to propose a new €18 billion “aid” package for the Kiev regime, which would provide constant cash flow to the Neo-Nazi junta in 2023. The plan is to use the bloc’s joint budget as a guarantee to secure funding for the Kiev regime. The move also involves changes to the EU’s rules that require a unanimous vote to pass proposals. Hungary objects to this, as it would be a dangerous precedent which would force members who voted against certain policies to still follow them, regardless of the negative consequences for those who objected. What’s more, even if a member state voted for a certain decision, it could still be denied funds if it was under sanctions of the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
This paradox is precisely what’s happening to Hungary. Namely, the country already supported the EU’s decision to jointly raise debt to finance the bloc’s recovery from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the funds Budapest is set to receive are being blocked until it “ensures the rule of law.” Brussels is planning to discuss the status of those funds on November 22, which is the deadline given to Hungary to meet the bloc’s “rule of law” requirements. EU bureaucrats are currently working on an assessment of Hungary’s compliance regarding 17 pieces of legislation the bloc insists on. Still, Budapest is not hiding its frustration with the way it’s being treated.
“They’re punishing us and openly blackmailing us with EU money,” Viktor Orban said in a statement for the Budapester Zeitung news outlet last month. “But there’s no legal basis for this — it’s blackmail, pure and simple,” he concluded.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Israel builds fake cemeteries around Al-Aqsa Mosque, says Palestinian committee
MEMO | November 8, 2022
The Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque Committee of the Palestinian Legislative Council accused the Israeli occupation authorities yesterday of constructing fake cemeteries around Al-Aqsa Mosque, Quds Press has reported.
According to the head of the Committee, Ahmad Abu Halabiyeh MP, this was an attempt to forge “evidence” to “prove” a historic Jewish presence in the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic holy city.
“Recently, the Israeli occupation has built hundreds of tombs to prove that the Jewish existence dates back hundreds of years,” explained Abu Halabiyeh. Around 300 fake tombs have been built in Jabal Al-Zaytoun, east of Al-Aqsa Mosque, he said, and 200 others in Wadi Al Hilwa in Silwan, south of the mosque, in addition to hundreds more in different areas across occupied Jerusalem, mainly in the Old City.
The MP pointed out that these tombs were built over the past two years. One area, he said, has even been called the “Jewish Cemetery”.
“This is a clear distortion of history, as well as proof that the Israelis are intruders,” added Abu Halabiyeh. Building tombs without human remains inside, he stressed, reinforces settlement projects and serves the occupation’s interests.
Israeli aggression against and within Al-Aqsa Mosque occurs on a daily basis, he concluded.
Effects on mother and child that bear out Mike Yeadon’s warnings
By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | November 7, 2022
A British scientist with 32 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry warned right at the start of the Covid vaccine rollout that under no circumstances should the gene-based, mRNA jab be given to women of child-bearing age without studies to confirm it was safe.
Dr Mike Yeadon, former vice president for research at Pfizer, one of the manufacturers of the experimental mRNA products, filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency on December, 1, 2020, urging that even testing the jab on human volunteers was unethical without significant safety concerns being taken into account.
One of these was a similarity between virus proteins targeted by the proposed vaccinations and a protein (syncitin) essential for forming the placenta in pregnancy. If antibodies produced by the jab also acted against those proteins, the petition said, ‘it would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile’.
Co-signed by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a leading German physician, the document also warned that the vaccine trials were much too short to flag up late adverse effects. It added that the design was such that the trials could not show whether the product worked either in stopping a person from becoming infected, or from infecting others.
Subsequently, Yeadon became one of the first scientists to highlight evidence from a previously confidential Pfizer study showing that the vaccine products do not stay at the injection site but become widely distributed throughout the body, including the ovaries.
In view of the toxic nature of the ‘spike’ protein that the jab manufactures (summarised here), Yeadon warned in August, 2021: ‘My assumption at the moment is that these vaccines are concentrating in the ovaries of every female who has been given them. We don’t know what that will do, but it cannot be benign and it could be seriously harmful.’
It is now widely acknowledged that the jab neither protects against infection nor transmission, as Yeadon and Wodarg spelled out in their petition. If their knowledge had been sought at the outset of the Covid crisis the UK alone could have been spared the £500billion lockdown bill, with enormous associated social damage.
But what about the fertility warnings? Despite his years of experience at the top of his field, Yeadon has been vilified for speaking out. Is he really no more than ‘a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists’, as the Times described him?
Birth rates have fallen significantly in many countries, including the UK, in the wake of the vaccine rollouts. Various reasons for the fall have been suggested – usually excluding the jab.
Yet Dr James Thorp, a 68-year-old American physician who has practised obstetrics for more than 42 years and sees thousands of high-risk pregnant patients each year, has observed many complications attributable to the jabs, including foetal death and miscarriage. ‘What I’ve seen in the last two years is unprecedented,’ he says.
With help from several colleagues, he compared rates of adverse events following the Covid jabs with those reported post-flu vaccination in women of reproductive age. The focus was on events related to pregnancy and menstruation, using data from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
A preprint of their findings published on September 28 shows a thousand-fold increase in menstrual abnormalities after the Covid jab, and significant increases in miscarriage, foetal malformation, growth abnormalities, cardiac disorders, foetal death and stillbirth.
Thorp has also highlighted risks to newborn babies taking milk from their vaccinated mothers. One study found mRNA from the jab in five out of 11 lactating women who had received the vaccination within six months of their delivery.
Last month, in a wide-ranging review in the US-based Epoch Times of these and other findings, US microbiologist and biomedical scientist Dr Sean Lin revealed that Thorp ‘has seen at least three newborns, completely healthy at the time of their birth, who passed away after being breastfed by their recently vaccinated mothers’. This suggested the vaccine components can not only accumulate in the ovaries but can also be passed on to infants via breastfeeding, he wrote.
He added that details of animal experiments performed before the jabs were authorised, recently obtained under freedom of information legislation, showed that mRNA and spike protein can travel through all barriers in a mother rat to enter its foetus. The rats themselves experienced toxicity during gestation, with some becoming infertile and losing the use of their hind legs.
Calling for an end to all Covid shots for pregnant women until long-term safety data become available, Lin writes: ‘The medical field and health agencies should still adhere to the fundamental ethical principle of ‘Do No Harms’.’
A hospital memo leaked to the Epoch Times by a nurse in Fresno, California, revealed how the hospital is experiencing a dramatic rise in the number of stillbirth cases, now upwards of 22 a month compared with an average of one to two every three months previously. This massive increase seems to align with similar evidence from across the country showing a potential rise in problems with fertility, miscarriages and foetal development, the newspaper reported.
Could the vaccine have contributed to a ‘very unusual’ spike in deaths among newborn babies now being investigated in Scotland?
In the UK, one and a half million Yellow Card reports of suspected adverse reactions to the vaccines include 821 miscarriages and 58,171 reproductive/breast disorders.
With tens of millions of doses administered, those numbers have still not persuaded regulators that there is a problem, although real-world adverse effects can be at least ten times higher than those reported. ‘Our advice remains that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective during pregnancy and breastfeeding,’ the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reaffirmed in September.
A review last month in the journal Vaccine declared that based on studies published so far ‘there is no scientific proof’ of any association between the jabs and impaired fertility in either men or women.
It depends on what is meant by ‘scientific proof’. If scientists do not ask the right questions, they can avoid receiving unwelcome answers. Those who drove the vaccine rollout are choosing not to see the thousands of reported disorders as related to the jabs, despite the record numbers, and clearly demonstrated mechanisms of harm.
It took a mathematician/businessman, for example, to point out evidence of a dose-response relationship between the jabs and infant deaths, with significantly more deaths reported when the higher-dose Moderna jab is used during pregnancy than with the Pfizer product.
Igor Chudov, who highlighted this phenomenon using US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures, says the Moderna product is associated with nearly twice as many neonatal deaths as the Pfizer vaccine, and 42 per cent more miscarriages.
In the light of these data, he asks: ‘How can Covid vaccine given during pregnancy be safe, and NOT affect infant deaths? How come nobody at the CDC asked this question? How come our media is silent on this?’
It is as though there are parallel universes: one occupied by those who can see no harm, and the other by doctors and scientists who insist a grave situation is staring us in the face.
The latter include three American medical whistle-blowers who found a 2021 rise of nearly 300 per cent in miscarriages among women serving in the US Army compared with the previous five years. There was no increase in 2020, when Covid arrived.
Doctors calling for a halt to Covid vaccination for pregnant women often meet abuse and censorship.
In October 2021, obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Christiane Northrup told the Epoch Times: ‘Women are having bleedings. The doctors in our area are doing hysterectomies in young women, like 30-somethings. They said “Oh, it’s not unusual”. Let me tell you, as a board-certified gynaecologist, that’s very unusual. Women’s periods are messed up all over the place . . . I’ve had a huge Facebook group of thousands of women talking about this situation that was removed.’
What of Yeadon’s worry that an immune reaction to the spike protein might block pregnancy?
A small study from Singapore, in 15 women, reported that none had developed anti-syncitin antibodies after the jab, but Yeadon says the actual data showed a clear increase, arbitrarily ruled as insignificant by the researchers.
‘It looked like someone had tried to dismiss our concerns by testing for evidence of the particular problem we’d warned about. Unfortunately, all they did is to reinforce our concerns.
‘We’d envisioned the risk that, in responding to the synthetic piece of virus spike protein, women’s immune systems would also make an immune response to their own placental protein. That’s exactly what was reported in the pre-print paper.
‘Based on this concern alone, all these experimental products as a class should have been completely contraindicated in women younger than menopause.’
He insists that a series of toxicology issues meant ‘adverse impacts on conception and ability to sustain a pregnancy were foreseeable from the start . . . There was and still is no data package supporting safety in pregnancy, or prior to conception.’
How Nonsense Masquerades As Science: Climate “Code Red” Example
BY WILLIAM M. BRIGGS | OCTOBER 31, 2022
One of the reasons for broken science is nonsense being passed off as science. Today’s example, and a prominent example, too, comes from the peer-reviewed journal BioScience. From the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by William Ripple and others.
Now the word emergency isn’t undefined or unfamiliar: we know the difference between an emergency and a matter of concern, or even a problem. Further, we know the word so well that we know the weather we experience is not any kind of emergency, even if it might, possibly, someday, perhaps, who knows, maybe be a problem. Which it now is not; a problem, that is, let alone emergency. The weather is not acting in any extraordinary way.
Even though we know the word, it doesn’t have a scientific meaning. Emergency, as a word, has no place in scientific discourse. And neither does code red, a term used in the article’s opening sentences: “We are now at ‘code red’ on planet Earth. Humanity is unequivocally facing a climate emergency.”
What—what precisely—is a code red? Is it different from a code orange or code puce? What—what precisely—differentiates code red from code indigo? How many codes are there, and how do we measure or categorize without ambiguity their characteristics?
Obviously, we cannot answer any of those questions; they aren’t even meant to be asked. Which means the term is not part of science. It is instead hyperbolic, and editorial. It is scientific nonsense.
The paper, therefore, is off to a bad start. It has already signaled it is a work of politics and not science. Yet even though the work cannot function at all well as science, it might have value politically. Let’s see the very next sentences:
The scale of untold human suffering, already immense, is rapidly growing with the escalating number of climate-related disasters. Therefore, we urge scientists, citizens, and world leaders to read this Special Report and quickly take the necessary actions to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The scale of human suffering due to poor or inclement weather is not “already immense”. The suffering is not “rapidly growing”, either. This we know from the work of men like Bjorn Lomberg. One citation will do, though there are many:
Lomberg is careful to make that graph scientific (links here), by defining just what he means by “climate deaths”. Naturally, the definition can be disputed, or changed, and the numbers would change, too. It is true, also, that measuring these things is subject to at least substantial uncertainty, so that the blue line should have something like a plus or minus around it.
Those are scientific criticisms because they speak to the measurements and the certainty we have in them. But, given this picture, and the work of others, it is clear that something like that picture is true; I mean the decrease in deaths. And that, therefore, Ripple’s “rapidly growing” is false.
Which doesn’t make his statement valueless. Since we are dealing, as we have learned, with a political paper, and not a scientific one, and in politics anything goes, Ripple will likely get away with his falsehood.
Which is why he goes from the political strength of “rapidly growing” to (in the next paragraph) “The consequences of global heating are becoming increasingly extreme, and outcomes such as global societal collapse are plausible and dangerously underexplored”.
Global societal collapse! I suppose we could criticize that term, too, since it, being undefined, means only what horrors are held in the mind of individual readers, but we see where we are now.
It’s not that this paper doesn’t have aspects that look like science. It does. For instance, there’s a table which claims “April 2022: Climate change likely contributed to extreme rainfall in Eastern South Africa, which triggered flooding and landslides that killed at least 435 people and affected more than 40,000 people.”
What makes this advocacy and not science is that Ripple makes no attempt to give alternate, and even more likely, explanations for the rain. There are also many critiques proving these attributions are, at absolute best, vastly over-certain, and most likely just plain wrong.
To make this paper science, and not advocacy, those legitimate and strong critiques must be at least mentioned, even if they are dismissed. Not just for this instance, but in each claim made about the causes of weather supposedly running amok.
Science is about discovering the causes of observables. If all possible likely causes are not given or investigated, then the work can be no better than bad science. Or no science at all, as we have here.
But this paper will be taken as science, especially by those rulers who have “solutions” to sell. Especially since its original 2020 version attracted “14,700 signatories from 158 countries”. If you are in the majority who take science to be a vote, then this number of signers is irresistible.
EU ‘sucking gas away’ from poorer countries
RT | November 8, 2022
The EU energy crisis is inevitably leading to energy poverty in developing countries, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday citing an energy analyst at Credit Suisse.
“Europe is sucking gas away from other countries whatever the cost,” Saul Kavonic told the media.
Despite soaring energy bills, the EU is expected to survive the upcoming heating season, as the bloc members have purchased enough oil and natural gas. However, this comes with a high price tag for the world’s poorest nations that have been cut off from the gas market due to Europe’s ravenous demand.
Emerging market countries are reportedly at serious risk of being unable to meet their energy needs. Factory shutdowns, more frequent and longer-lasting power shortages, as well as social unrests are the most likely consequences due to the energy security challenges.
Exporters across Qatar and the US are accepting bids from European buyers seeking to purchase as much fuel as possible to fill their storages. That leaves developing countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Thailand unable to compete on price with Germany and other bigger economies.
“We are borrowing other people’s energy supplies,” Vitol Group Chief Executive Officer Russell Hardy told the media. “It’s not a great thing.”
According to traders cited by Bloomberg, soaring prices prompted some suppliers to South Asia to simply cancel long-scheduled deliveries in favor of better yields elsewhere.
“Suppliers don’t need to focus on securing their LNG to low affordability markets,” Raghav Mathur, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie said, adding that the higher prices they can get on the spot market more than make up for whatever penalties they might pay for shirking planned shipments.
“LNG will belong first to the ‘developed,’ with the leftovers for the ‘developing.’” the expert said, adding that this dynamic is likely to hold for years.
The European Union is struggling with an energy crisis as a result of the reduction of imports from Russia. Earlier, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said that it took the bloc eight months to replace two-thirds of Russian gas supplies. She added that the EU had significantly diversified the range of foreign suppliers, but that had “been costly.”
The Anti-Russia Paranoia
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | November 8, 2022
Given the mid-term elections, the anti-Russia paranoia of U.S. officials has been at a peak. The feds have been scouring the Internet to determine whether the Russians are improperly influencing American voters into supporting candidates who refuse to adopt the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s extreme anti-Russia animus. The idea is that American voters, given that they are mostly public-school graduates, have extremely pliant minds that are overly susceptible to being molded into being pro-communist or pro-Russia dupes.
For example, last July the Justice Department secured an indictment against a Russian citizen named Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov who heads up an organization based in Moscow named Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, which allegedly receives funds from the Russian government.
The charge? Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen declared, “Ionov allegedly orchestrated a brazen influence campaign, turning U.S. political groups and U.S. citizens into instruments of the Russian government.”
See what I mean? The minds of public-school educated Americans are so pliant and susceptible to propaganda that they have to be protected by their federal daddy from those evil Russkies who are trying to turn them to the dark side.
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, reinforced what Olsen stated: “Secret foreign government efforts to influence American elections and political groups threaten our democracy by spreading misinformation and breeding distrust.” U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida weighed in on the matter: “The prosecution of this criminal conduct is essential to protecting the American public when foreign governments seek to inject themselves into the American political process.”
When I read such nonsensical statements from what are supposed to be intelligent people, I can’t help but wonder about two things:
One, how U.S. officials justify their massive interventions into the political processes of other countries. Hey, just for starters, let’s not forget their knowing, intentional, and deliberate destruction of the democratic systems of Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, not to mention their programs of state-sponsored regime-change assassinations, coups, sanctions, and embargoes.
Two, when we are discussing the extreme anti-Russia animus that has long driven the federal government, I can’t help but think about President Kennedy. He was determined to move America in a direction that was opposite to that of the Pentagon and the CIA. He was determined to bring an end to the extreme anti-Russia animus that the Pentagon and the CIA had inculcated in the American people.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Kennedy had survived the assassination attempt in Dallas and had run for reelection in 1964. Would the Pentagon and CIA have been targeting Russian citizens who were supporting Kennedy and opposing his GOP opponent, Barry Goldwater, whose mindset mirrored that of the Pentagon and the CIA?
I don’t think there is any doubt that they would have been doing that. They also would have been accusing Kennedy of having become a Russian dupe who was leading America to disaster. In fact, as I detail in my newest book, An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, that’s precisely what they were saying about him before they assassinated him. Also, see FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board.
The Pentagon’s and the CIA’s extreme anti-Russia animus that has held America in its grip for decades is a grave threat to the liberty and well-being of the American people, in part because it has, once again, brought us to the edge of life-destroying nuclear war. The sooner this paranoid nonsense is brought to an end, the better off the American people will be.
Featured Video
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Forgotten Terrorist Pretext of the Vietnam War
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | February 16, 2023
Since 9/11, terrorism has become the ultimate entitlement program for America’s political elite. Whether it is illegally spying on Americans or blowing Somali dissidents to pieces, invoking terrorism provides all the cover needed for Washington policymakers. But the disastrous results of granting politicians a blank check to fight terrorism should have been undeniable almost 60 years ago.
Back in the 1960s, terrorism was what the communists did. Anti-terrorist moral fervor and ideological blinders propelled the U.S. into its biggest foreign policy blunder since World War II. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- LAPD Pilot Will Track Vehicles In San Fernando Valley
- Britain’s Online Censorship Law Now Comes With a Crisis Plan for Your Posts
- NATO’s “Nordic model” brings Arctic confrontation closer to Russia’s nuclear bases
- Using nuclear weapons, the US-Israeli alliance still can’t beat Iran
- Sunset on the Quality of Western Propaganda: Arrival of the Dr Strangelove Moment
- Ukrainian general accused of protecting crime bosses
- US-‘Israel’ alliance faces growing rupture after midterms
- GOP’s Crushing Midterm Loss Could Reshape US Political Landscape – Analyst
- Midterm loss gives Congress power to rein in US war on Iran
- Midterms Were ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in GOP, But Iran Has No Illusions About Democrats – Marandi
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
