DeSantis Says ‘Weaponization’ of Federal Law Enforcement ‘Mortal Threat to Free Society’
Sputnik – 09.06.2023
The “weaponization of federal law enforcement” in the United States is a “mortal threat to a free society,” Florida Governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis said Thursday, following the news about the indictment of former US President Donald Trump.
“The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society. We have for years witnessed an uneven application of the law depending upon political affiliation. Why so zealous in pursuing Trump yet so passive about Hillary [Clinton] or Hunter [Biden]?” DeSantis tweeted, adding that “the DeSantis administration will bring accountability to the DOJ [Department of Justice], excise political bias and end weaponization once and for all.”
Earlier on Thursday, Trump said on Telegram that “the corrupt Biden administration” had informed his lawyers that he had been indicted in a federal investigation over alleged mishandling of classified documents at his Florida residency and summoned to appear in court on Tuesday. The ex-president expressed despair over the indictment, pointing out that he is being prosecuted as polls show he is by far the leading candidate among both Republicans and Democrats.
American media, citing sources, reported on Thursday that Trump was facing seven counts, including willful retention of national defense information, corruptly concealing docs, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements.
US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said later in the day that it was “unconscionable” for US President Joe Biden to indict “the leading candidate opposing him,” adding that Biden “kept classified documents for decades” and calling the situation “a dark day for the United States of America.” McCarthy said House Republicans “will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable.”
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the classified documents case and the other three criminal probes he is involved in, including charges of falsifying business records and the former president’s alleged involvement in the events on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.
Biden Regime Censors Disclosure Of 2020 Election Censorship Documents
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 7, 2023
Censoring proof of censorship – that would be a new low for the current US administration, but that is what newly released documents – emails – are now revealing as the inner workings of the Biden White House related to online speech, and what they say they consider to be “misinformation.”
The new documents refer to the time last September when some journalists and civil rights advocates wanted to probe the role of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in censorship on social sites – a part of what is now widely considered collusion between various government agencies, and privately-owned tech giants.
But, it would appear that instead of being forthcoming about this information – in the spirit of democracy, and also, since the cat was already out of the bag anyway – the government, via the Department of Justice (DoJ) got busy trying to effectively sabotage these efforts, Lee Fang reported.
The method was to “at least” slow down the rate at which public records having to do with the authorities’ behavior were released to the public.
These latest revelations have to do with DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), University of Washington (UW) professor and a CISA advisory panel member Kate Starbird, who also heads a “disinformation” outfit at the university (funded by the government), and requests from the Daily Caller News Foundation, Tech Inquiry, journalist Lee Fang, and the Government Accountability Project, all separately asking for records from the UW.
Requests varied, but all had to do with Starbird – her job was to assist CISA in “moderating” -i.e., censoring – some types of Twitter and Facebook content.
Instead of providing this information, Western District of Washington Assistant US Attorney Annalisa Cravens emailed Starbird saying that CISA informed them about the requests – and, “(…) We would ask to have an extension of time before the records are produced so that we can have time to review them and assess whether we’ll have to file suit to protect them from disclosure,” the email reads.
This is an example not only of how the power the government has given itself to be the arbiter of what content, particularly political, or construed as political, people have access to online – but also of how it goes about trying to minimize the perception of its involvement.
“It is not clear which documents may have ultimately been delayed, withheld, or redacted because of the Biden administration’s interference in the public records request,” Lee Fang writes.
The FBI, Ukraine’s Censorship Assistant
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | June 7, 2023
Aaron Maté has been among a handful of reporters to whom Elon Musk granted access to Twitter records to uncover efforts by the United States government along with Twitter to censor communication on the social media platform in the time before Musk gained control over it. The newest revelations from Maté concern the US government, via the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), having acted as an assistant to the Ukraine government’s main intelligence agency, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), to seek censorship of 163 targeted Twitter accounts — Maté’s included — as well as personal information related to those Twitter accounts.
Maté’s chilling revelations here.
It is bad enough that the US government has been seeking to censor social media communication to advance the goals of power-hungry politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats here in America. Now, comes revelations that, on top of that, the US government has been seeking to advance the censorship goals of, and hand over personal information of individuals using social media to, the government of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is an intensely corrupt government, is overrun with nazis, and is apparently comfortable with targeting for assassination foreign individuals merely because those individuals have expressed views judged intolerable regarding Ukraine or its war with Russia.
The Ukraine government has also been relentless in suppressing free speech, opposition political parties, and the free exercise of religion within its borders.
Of course, the US assistance to Ukraine’s censorship effort has extended beyond Twitter. Maté notes in the concluding paragraph of his article:
News of the FBI’s work with Ukrainian intelligence to censor Twitter users also follows reporting from journalist Lee Fang that the FBI has pressured Facebook to remove accounts and posts deemed by the SBU to be Russian ‘disinformation.’ According to Fang, a senior Ukrainian official in regular contact with the FBI defined ‘disinformation’ in such broad terms that it could mean viewpoints that ‘simply contradict the Ukrainian government’s narrative.’
How about the US starts respecting the First Amendment, and stops assisting Ukraine in pursuing its authoritarian objectives?
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
Querying the existence of a covid ‘pandemic’
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 6, 2023
Covid-19 has been described as a global pandemic but does this title give it a severity and indeed fear factor way beyond its actual impact?
The word pandemic used to have a very specific meaning. It was used to describe a scenario where there was extensive incapacitation of key workers and large numbers of deaths, including young people. A genuine pandemic is not something that would have needed billions of dollars in advertising for people to even notice and fear. Using this long-established definition of the word, we conclude that there was in fact no global pandemic in 2020. The word was deliberately misapplied and weaponised against an unsuspecting public. Let us be clear, this article is not questioning the existence of a virus SARS-CoV-2 or an illness named Covid-19, but even the choice of ‘SARS’ (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) as the name for this coronavirus was already setting the scene for systematic fear-mongering.
The notion of a ‘pandemic’ was relentlessly promulgated through mainstream media to ramp up fear in the population, to help enforce unprecedented lockdowns and other extremely harmful policies (e.g school closures and universal mask wearing) and to push through Emergency Use Authorisations of novel technology mRNA and viral vector DNA products.
This would not have been possible were it not for three false premises that covid was:
- novel;
- extremely lethal; and
- unprecedented.
It was none of these things. It was no more novel than numerous other viruses which emerge each year in terms of the ability to be recognised by our immune systems. It was no more lethal than bad influenza viruses of the past and was less lethal than seasonal influenza for the young. Intensive care stays were longer than have been observed with flu, though whether that was due to a virus directly or caused by our changed response to how we treated respiratory infections is unclear. Overall it was a treatable, seasonal respiratory virus mostly affecting the old and infirm.
HART has written previously on how similar the mortality was to the bad influenza winter of the year 2000. The mortality data for 2020 is unremarkable globally when compared to previous influenza seasons except perhaps in New York City and Northern Italy. In both of these outliers, the data emerging is raising uncomfortable questions about the relative contribution of the virus versus the impact of policy-related responses when considering the extraordinary number of deaths reported. In spite of these outliers, global mortality data shows no evidence of a global pandemic. It could be argued that a once in every 20 year event should not be minimised, but nor does it justify an all of society emergency response or the institution of a permanent biosecurity surveillance state.
Figure 1 showing ONS crude mortality rates since 1840
Without the highly flawed PCR case data and draconian global restrictions on doctors’ freedom to treat their patients as they saw fit, there would be nothing particularly notable about this year. Outside of PCR driven data, a small rise in the number of calls to ambulances for breathing difficulties was observed, though it is possible that hysteria and fear may be responsible for at least part of this. We might have noticed an unusually late spike in influenza-like illness but not much more. Mortality-wise, it would appear as a mid-range ‘bad flu’ year. It is worth reading the work of Professor Denis Rancourt on mortality data, who has been pointing out this inconvenient truth since early 2021.1,2
Interestingly, the WHO quietly altered the accepted definition of ‘pandemic’ in 2009, just before the so-called H1N1 ‘pandemic’. The rushed-to-market Pandemrix vaccine which was pushed hard in the face of the imaginary ‘pandemic’ was subsequently pulled from the market due to life-changing side effects (often in children), a signal picked first up in Finland but later found elsewhere.
In essence, they used exactly the same playbook in 2020, but seemed to have ironed out some of the ‘problems’ encountered the first time round. Vicious behavioural psychology tactics were the main tools used to ‘correct’ these ‘problems’. Shaming people into believing they may ‘kill granny’ was a master-stroke. They used guilt, shame and the threat of ostracism, these being some of the most powerful drivers of human behaviour. There was even an identical cast of characters; Fauci, Drosten and Gates, all reporting for duty, aided and abetted by the bought and paid for media machine working on 24 hour overdrive.
In 2003, an influenza pandemic was defined as follows:
“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”
In 2009, the WHO decided, in their infinite wisdom, to get rid of the words “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” from the definition. You would think deaths and serious illness were the only meaningful characteristics of a ‘deadly pandemic’.
To successfully fight against the globalist mission creep of tyrannical public health measures, we must collectively stop stoking the ‘deadly pandemic’ fire. If we continue to allow this falsehood to embed in public consciousness, all of the unethical horrors enacted will simply be repeated for the next non-pandemic-pandemic.
Without the requirement for excess deaths and widespread serious illness, malevolent profit-driven interests can simply will a ‘pandemic’ into existence on finding any new mutation amongst the global virus population. A strategy to force countries to invest heavily in searching for genetic anomalies will fuel the pandemic creation industry. Once one is found, the response can be fuelled by using fraudulent test data and media advertising, as they did very successfully in 2020. We cannot allow this to happen again and must therefore reclaim the word ‘pandemic’ to ensure it is only applied in the correct way.
We expect a reflexive objection to this article from some quarters on the basis that the case has not been adequately argued that covid had minimal impact on overall mortality in 2020. This fact is irrelevant when challenging the terrifyingly inappropriate global response. The world’s population was sold a serious lethal deadly pandemic which – we were told – necessitated the reordering of society. The ‘new normal‘ as it was affectionately called by so many perfectly in-sync global leaders. In the event, we did not have a serious lethal deadly pandemic, and what has happened (and continues to happen) is based on a lie. Arguing about whether or not some bits of the lie might have a modicum of truth in them is a distraction from much bigger questions which need addressing.
Footnotes
Missouri v. Biden might be most important legal case in U.S. history
From what I’ve read, proof our federal government wants to kill free speech is overwhelming.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 7, 2023
Until yesterday, I’d not read any documents in the lawsuit brought by the states of Missouri, Louisiana et al vs. President Biden. Because of this, I didn’t fully grasp the stunning claims made by the plaintiffs, nor realize how overwhelming the evidence is that supports this case.
Yesterday, I read the first 54 pages of a 354-page legal document that was filed with a federal district court in Louisiana on March 3, 2023.
I now better understand why some people believe this might be the most important legal case in U.S. history.
In a nutshell, attorneys for the plaintiffs are compiling and presenting a mountain of evidence that shows actors for the U.S. government have conspired to nullify the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This Amendment was first for an important reason.
It states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The core issue at stake is should American citizens be allowed to have genuine “freedom of speech.”
In my view, the evidence already presented in this legal case proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a cadre of officials in government (and organizations working “in partnership” with government agencies) despise, fear and want to end “free speech.” In fact, they’ve already effectively blocked the free speech of millions of Americans.
In a democracy, free speech is vitally important as it makes dissent from prevailing narratives possible and thus protects the “natural rights” of citizens who may hold minority views. That is, without “free speech,” only the views of those who embrace “authorized” opinions would be allowed to participate in any meaningful way in democratic debates.
One can parse this lengthy document a thousand ways, but the bottom-line conclusion is that the U.S. government believes only its views should be allowed to be widely disseminated.
Even more terrifying, virtually all the important institutions in contemporary society defend and seemingly support the efforts of the federal government to censor any speech labeled “mis-“ or “disinformation.”
A few of my main take-aways from my (partial) reading of this must-read legal document:
All Hope is Not Lost
The fact that attorneys general from at least two U.S. states have filed such a lawsuit provides hope that the entire country has not yet become disciples and enforcers of Big Brother.
It is also significant that the push-back to mass censorship comes from the state level of our “republic” and not from the federal government itself. That is, the Attorney General of the United States should have brought this case. Instead, representatives of the U.S. government are vigorously defending mass censorship, and the effort to “abridge the freedom of speech.”
The Legal System Can Work
This document is 354 pages because it’s replete with transcripts from legal depositions and exhibits that the public would have not seen absent the commencement of this legal proceeding.
The document also proves the power of legal “discovery” wherein defendants have to turn over all relevant evidence such as emails, meeting records, etc. (although plaintiffs argue that the defendants have still not turned over every piece of “discovery” requested).
A healthy democracy hinges on “fact-finding” and a “search for the truth.” This lawsuit has made it possible for the people who are following this case (not enough people) to learn more about the activities of the most powerful individuals who work for the most powerful government on the planet.
A quick aside ….
In reading this summary of evidence, I was struck by how easy it was for plaintiffs’ attorneys to build their case.
The attorneys, investigators and staffers bringing this case are clearly intelligent professionals who’ve been very thorough in developing their evidence and trying to prove their case. That is, if they get a fair hearing (which I’m not sure they will), they should win this case with ease.
However, this example made me think of all the lawsuits and “fact-finding” exercises that have NOT occurred with any of the litany of crimes and scandals of our Covid times (and even before Covid).
One strongly suspects that if other teams of competent litigators and investigators had employed the same tools of discovery and depositions, every scandal of our times would also be just-as-easily exposed.
Just like I think about all of the mainstream news articles that are off limits to alleged “watchdog” journalists, I also think about all the lawsuits and prosecutions that are apparently off limits to the people and organizations who could bring such cases.
What’s the core issue in this case?
The first paragraph of the “motion for the injunction” describes what the plaintiffs are trying to prove (and have already proven as far as I am concerned).
- “Federal officials, including Defendants, have made a long series of public statements since at least 2018 demanding that social-media platforms increase their censorship of speech and speakers disfavored by these officials, and threatening adverse consequences – such as repeal or reform of Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), antitrust scrutiny or enforcement, increased regulation, and other measures – if the platforms do not increase censorship …. “ (emphasis added).”
Note: For more excerpts from the document, see Reader Comments (under “most recent.”)
Comments:
Laymen and legal scholars alike agree that the First Amendment does not compel any publisher to print any and all speech. For example, a private company like The New York Times can publish, or not publish, whatever speech it wants for whatever reason it wants.
The issue in this case is whether citizens living in the “town square” can use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. to share their opinions or facts.
Or, more specifically, can the government use its immense power to compel private companies to censor speech the government doesn’t like (speech labeled by the government as dangerous, extremist, false or basically “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the government defines these terms).
Plaintiffs argue that the federal government is using its power to abridge free speech. The federal government is doing this by threatening to effectively shut down social media companies who don’t comply with the government’s wishes.
The federal government could harpoon these companies by “reforming” or “amending” Section 230 of the CDA. This section grants legal immunity to such companies, meaning social media companies can’t be sued or criminally tried because of the speech of citizens who make posts on their platforms.
Paragraph 3 of the document explains the power of this “threat.”
“3. The threat of antitrust scrutiny or enforcement is also a major motivator to social-media platforms. For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated that the threat of antitrust enforcement is “an ‘existential’ threat” to his platform.”
The evidence – presented on scores of pages – clearly reveals this “threat” was made explicitly, implicitly, publicly and privately over and over and over by myriad employees of the U.S. government, including the President of the United States.
This makes one (almost) feel empathy for these social media companies, which have had a symbolic bazooka pointed at their heads by the U.S. government dating to the day “Joe Biden” allegedly won the presidential election over Donald Trump.
I write that I “almost” feel empathy for these companies because if anyone skims this document, he will quickly see that virtually every employee and key executive of these companies was eager and happy to accede to the demands of their pro-censorship rulers.
Those who read this document will see never-ending examples of government officials brow-beating and intimidating social media companies for NOT censoring MORE.
To me, these companies appear almost masochistic – as in they seemingly enjoyed their incessant scoldings. For example, social media employees often thanked their government minders for pointing out their transgressions, which they seem overly-eager to correct. (Here, the Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind).
The “stick” of repealing Section 230 is not the only motivation social media companies have for complying with Big Brother.
Numerous “carrots” also exist as almost every one of these companies also profits from big contracts with the federal government and/or receives large sums of money (such as vaccine advertising spends) for supporting the authorized narratives (or, more precisely, silencing the non-authorized narratives).
The Virality Project
The document makes many references to the Virality Project, an influential project commissioned by academics at Stanford University.
As I’ve written previously, the most important goal of the world’s real rulers in Covid times was/is the effort to fight “vaccine hesitancy.”
If people were hesitant about getting their Covid vaccines, the mRNA project would be a bust. Big Pharma and all the many entities that receives massive amounts of money from Big Pharma would not be pleased.
One thing that might make half the world skeptical of the “safe and effective” non-vaccines would be if the views of vaccine skeptics actually “went viral.”
This, very possibly, could have happened … absent mass censorship.
In my last article, I discussed several of the key “chess moves” our rulers have made to make sure they win this “game.”
Arguably, the most important move was making sure dissenting views did NOT go viral, a result which didn’t happen by chance … but by a coordinated effort to censor hundreds of millions of potential skeptics and critics.
Since the government doesn’t own Facebook (where two billion people share speech), the government had to “persuade” Facebook (Meta) to do their censoring for them.
This was a conspiracy, a massive one …
In reading this document, I was also stunned when I thought about all the employees and organizations that were involved in the effort to defeat the threat of “vaccine hesitancy” (and protect all the other many untrue Covid narratives).
I stopped reading after 54 pages, but this was enough to see that the actors in this conspiracy (a cover-up of the truth) included the President of the United States, all his key White House employees, the CDC, the Census Bureau, The Surgeon General and his staff, officials in the NIH (such as Anthony Fauci), many of the key members of Congress, all the new “fact checkers” and probably the White House chef.
Time and again, plaintiff’s attorneys present examples where government officials cite articles written by “journalists” at The New York Times or Washington Post that were used as a weapon to demand even more censorship among social media companies.
Surreally, this means our “free press” has been one of government’s key allies in suppressing free speech.
Government contractors, non-profits and think tanks were also brought in to help with the vital censorship chess moves.
Another hallmark of a conspiracy would be any evidence proving a coordinated initiative. The plaintiff’s attorneys have done an excellent job proving this happened. For example, the authors of the legal brief repeatedly show how the words “accountable” and “transparency,” were used ad nauseam by all the censorship conspirators.
When government actors told social media companies they would be “held accountable,” this was a not-too-subtle threat that they better do as told … Which, sadly and not surprisingly, they did.
The conspirators also incessantly demand “transparency” from social media companies.
The government didn’t just ask social media companies to do a little more censorship for the good of the country, they demanded access to all the algorithms, data bases, search queries, content-moderation policies, etc. that would prove companies were censoring the content the government said must be censored.
Amazingly, companies like Meta complied …. so, apparently, officials at the CDC and The Census Bureau (which for some reason took a lead role in enforcing censorship) and key White House staffers were looking at the same tools Meta used to see what Covid topics were trending on their platform.
The government would then tell the companies to ban such speech on their platforms.
Not only did government actors hold a gun to the social media companies’ heads, they wanted to see (and even use) the very tools that allow these companies to know what their users were posting.
As we’ve learned from the “Twitter files,” government officials also repeatedly zeroed in on key “disinformation super-spreaders” and made sure they were banned and punished.
Victims/targets of these censorship efforts include high-profile Covid skeptic like Alex Berenson, Steve Kirsch and Robert Kennedy, Jr., but they might as well have included Bill Rice, Jr, whose Facebook account has also been suspended (for no known or stated reason) multiple times.
Per the copious evidence in this legal brief, every time Meta banned someone or said some topic was now taboo, government officials were rarely placated, and demanded even more censorship. And, again, government officials kept demanding “transparency” to see that thy’s will was being done.
The irony of course is that the U.S. government is the least transparent entity on the face of the earth.
To be clear and to state what should be perfectly obvious by now, the multi-faceted censorship and “disinformation” programs (which pre-date Covid) were created and enforced to make sure no real government “transparency” is/was possible.
For our government officials, transparency is like sunlight or a silver crucifix to a vampire.
What will be the result of this lawsuit?
I actually don’t know what the plaintiffs are demanding except for the government to cease and desist with its efforts to compel censorship.
Speaking for myself, I’ve already seen enough evidence where this U.S. citizen won’t be mollified unless we have criminal prosecutions, the impeachment of President Biden and the censure of all the members of Congress who bullied these social media executives.
Also, the companies that went along with this need to be boycotted by every citizen that still cares about the First Amendment.
I’d also note that while Twitter has (largely) turned over a new leaf under the ownership of Elon Musk, the rest of the social media companies are censoring left and right just like they’ve been doing since “Joe Biden” was sworn into office. (This tells me these companies are betting on “Biden” prevailing in this lawsuit).
It’s not just Covid issues subject to mass censorship ….
For those who think the censorship regime only deals with Covid topics, I say you better think again … as this document also proves.
Plenty of sections of this document provide evidence showing that “disinformation” about Climate Change, election fraud and woke issues like “gender identification” will also continue to be subject to the whims of the government’s arbiters of truth.
For my part, I’m now convinced that what shouldn’t happen … will probably happen. This means, “Joe Biden” will probably win re-election and this case will probably be thrown out or the Supreme Court led by (captured?) John Roberts will ultimately side with the defendants.
If this happens, perhaps more Americans will belatedly understand the new legal precedent that has been set.
In the future, any speech that’s deemed “misinformation” by unelected bureaucrats (at say the CDC or EPA) can indeed be censored and banned.
It will be perfectly fine for presidents, Congressmen and surgeon generals to demand that social media companies censor unauthorized or “dangerous” speech. Furthermore, the government will be granted that “transparency” that tells them Meta or Google are following their orders.
Strangely, Substack wasn’t mentioned …
In reading this document, I was struck by the fact Substack (as far as we know) has yet to be targeted by the Censorship Czars.
My guess is that if this case is decided in favor of the defendants, this will no longer be the case. The “dangerous misinformation” I’ve been posting (and my readers in the Reader Comments) will suddenly be fair game for censorship as well.
Substack is replete with writers challenging the false Covid narratives, but this speech platform is also full of skeptics of Climate Change, writers who might not support the Ukraine War or central bank digital currencies … authors who think election fraud is real and correspondents who don’t like the “woke” transgender and pronoun malarky.
For the past 240 years, Americans thought the First Amendment gave them the “freedom” to share their views on controversial topics. If Biden and the U.S. government win this case, I suspect we’ll soon learn otherwise.
Russia tells US government to publish truth about JFK assassination
RT | June 7, 2023
If the US wishes to be considered an authority on democracy and human rights, it ought to come clean about the killings of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.
During her regular daily briefing, Zakharova was asked about the statement by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who said Washington intends to champion human rights and fundamental freedoms in China and worldwide.
“Washington itself has long fallen short of the standards of democracy that it publicly declares everywhere,” Zakharova replied, adding that the US promotes “pathetic, hypocritical rhetoric” abroad to hide its neo-colonial ambitions and geopolitical interests.
“The history of American politics contains many unsightly facts that are deliberately hushed up by the US authorities,” Zakharova noted. As an example, she cited the Kennedy family – and the recent anniversary of the June 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles, during the presidential primaries in which he was a favorite.
The RFK assassination came two months after the fatal shooting of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – and almost five years after the November 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 35th US president, Zakharova told reporters.
“I suggest to Mr. Blinken to muster up the courage and publish all the materials regarding the political assassinations of the US presidents, in particular John F. Kennedy, and tell his people – his people, first of all – the truth about what happened in Dallas” she said.
“Only when they close the case on these political killings, can they try to correct other countries,” the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman argued. “While such egregious crimes remain unresolved, and the killers not found and convicted, if I were American leaders I would not open my mouth about other countries, and certainly stop lecturing everyone else how to live.”
Solve the Kennedy assassination – both of them, actually – and then maybe you will be regarded as an authority. Or maybe not.
RFK’s son and JFK’s nephew Robert Francis Kennedy Junior launched his primary challenge to President Joe Biden in April. In an interview last month, he said there was “overwhelming evidence that the CIA was involved” in his uncle’s murder, and “very convincing but circumstantial” evidence the spy agency was also linked to his father’s assassination.
The official findings of the US government, known as the Warren Commission Report, said that US Marine veteran Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and shot the president while his motorcade was passing through Dallas on November 22, 1963. Before he could stand trial, Oswald was shot dead by nightclub owner Jack Ruby at the Dallas Police Headquarters. The Warren Commission ruled that Ruby had acted alone, on impulse and out of grief.
Ruby died in prison in 1967. Later that year, the CIA issued a directive on how to discredit “conspiracy theorists” who doubted the official findings of the Warren Commission.
Following Ukraine steps, Poland now uses Russophobia to crush dissent
By Uriel Araujo | June 7, 2023
President Andrzej Duda has signed a law which allows Warsaw to conduct political repression against the opposition, by creating a commission to “investigate Russian influence on Polish politics that could ban people from public office for a decade” – Duda and the the Law and Justice (PiS) party argue this is necessary to neutralize “Moscow agents”, but the opposition fear this could trigger a civil war, as journalist Wojciech Kość wrote for POLITICO. This could complicate Warsaw’s relations with Brussels, as well – “with the European Commission freezing billions in EU pandemic recovery cash over worries the Polish government is backsliding on the bloc’s democratic principles”, writes Kość.
Poland’s relations with the European bloc have been complicated for a while: in 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which is part of the Council of Europe (not the EU) condemned the Central European country over the removal of judges from office and their arrest. Warsaw has been on a collision route with Brussels as well over a number of issues regarding the rule of law (from the European Commission perspective), and also free press, LGBT rights, and so on.
Poland’s diplomacy, since 1989, has been largely shaped by its aspiration to join both NATO and the EU. Since at least 2015, Warsaw has maintained its alliance with Washington, while becoming, on the other hand, increasingly isolated within Europe and becoming kind of adrift. In 2021, Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau urged the US to support the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) projects, arguing that it could become a strategic “American economic footprint” in the Adriatic, Baltic, and Black Sea region and a “counterweight to investments in critical infrastructure by actors who do not share our democratic value.”
Since 2022, the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian confrontation has opened a kind of window of opportunity for Warsaw. In December last year, Estonian Ambassador to the EU Aivo Orav, stated that the “political center of influence” in Europe no longer was “in Berlin and Paris” (only), but now “also lies in Eastern and Central European Countries as well, including the Baltic countries, together with U.S. support.” Such a possible outcome would be very much welcomed by Washington, especially considering how both France and Germany today flirt with the idea of strategic autonomy.
As I’ve written, Warsaw has been antagonizing Berlin while trying to project its own influence within the continent – clearly with Washington’s crucial support, as the US seems to be “fed up” with Germany. Poland’s legal campaign against Germany over WWII reparations and its attempts to absorb neighboring Ukraine in a confederacy should be seen as part of this larger agenda. The Polish renaming of Kaliningrad, as I also wrote, is yet another instance of the current memory war which haunts Europe today.
Germany, in turn, on May 8 this year banned Soviet and Russian flags during its “World War II commemorations”. The Allied Forces triumph over Nazi-Fascism has been celebrated for half a century as the fundamental victory of democracy and true Western values. This Western narrative is short-circuiting as the West has seen fit to rewrite History, by preposterously erasing Russia from it while white-washing the blatant neo-Nazism of Ukraine’s Azov regiment and its human rights infringements.
In Ukraine too “anti-Russian” measures have been advanced by the current regime to persecute the opposition and civil society. Since at least December last year Zelensky has been advancing moves to outlaw Orthodox communities, something which even Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv-Halych, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, has denounced.
No less than 11 political parties have been banned there since 2022 over their “pro-Russia” stances. According to Volodymyr Ishchenko, a research associate at the Institute of East European Studies (Freie Universität Berlin), these measures have more to do with “post-Euromaidan polarization” than with “genuine security concerns”.
Since the ultranationalist 2014 Maidan Revolution, and the ongoing civil war in Donbass, “pro-Russia” has become an accusatory category to label and marginalize, according to Ishchenko, “anyone calling for Ukraine’s neutrality” as well as “state-developmentalist, anti-Western, illiberal, populist, left-wing, and many other discourses.” In the Eastern European nation, there has always been a political camp which calls for closer integration with neighboring Russia rather than the West – which is no wonder, considering that in this strongly bilingual nation, at least 34% of the population speaks Russian, with a high degree of intermarriage.
In short, in a kind of neo-McCarthyism, anti-Russia discourse and the re-writing of history is used today both by Kiev and Warsaw as a pretext to persecute and even outlaw dissent.
In other words, the problem is that being at war over the past (and at war with the past itself) can always backfire: Polish-Ukrainian bilateral relations and their ambitious plans towards a confederacy have always been hampered by differences precisely about World War II. How can there be strong ties of friendship between two nations when one of them today celebrates as heroes those who supported the genocide of the other?
Last February, while Ukrainian Parliament celebrated Stepan Bandera, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in turn expressed his disapproval of all who commemorate Bandera, describing as “genocide” the brutal murder of between 100,000 to 200,000 ethnic Poles. Here, Polish and Ukrainian nationalism clash. And both regimes clash with the democratic values which the Western bloc purportedly champions – while Europe now welcomes the specter of far-right nationalism and even neo-Nazism.
As non-alignmentism and multi-alignmentism are on the rise, the US-led Western global order has been in decline not just due to de-dollarization or to the potential end of the US-Saudi relationship – in a deeper level, its hypocritical weaponization of human rights is losing force as are its most cherished narratives and political myths.
Choked to death by hospital guards, for wearing a Covid mask too low
By Paul Stevens | TCW Defending Freedom | June 6, 2023
May 27, 2023 marked three years since the death of Stephanie Warriner. A coroner’s report records that this was the result of brain injuries consistent with ‘restraint asphyxia following struggle and exertion’, suffered more than two weeks earlier whilst a patient at Toronto General Hospital (TGH), Ontario. Stephanie’s alleged crime was failing to wear a Covid face mask properly. I recommend pausing to take that in.
Stephanie, 43, was a slight figure, 5ft 5in and 120lb. Having experienced long-term mental illness, including bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the mother of five was admitted to TGH on May 10 with what a civil suit filed by her family describes as a ‘productive cough’. A Covid test had been negative. Having gone in search of a sandwich in the early hours of May 11, she was confronted aggressively by five personnel, four of them security guards, about her improper use of a face mask, which they said was worn too low.
As recorded in the civil suit document, after being ‘berated’ and ‘demeaned’ by guards, Stephanie was forced towards a wall, thrown to the ground and restrained, with weight applied to her back. During this time she was forced into handcuffs. Once the guards removed their weight from her back, she was seen to be ‘limp and lifeless’ but they did not attempt resuscitation or call for help. Instead, they placed her in a wheelchair and removed her from the view of security cameras and witnesses.
About ten minutes later the guards, moving her body into an elevator bay, attempted to resuscitate her but, as the coroner’s report noted, because of the ‘downtime’ between the damage being incurred and measures being taken, she developed a brain injury from which she never recovered.
The majority of the incident was captured on CCTV and may be viewed here. (You will notice that during recording, the CCTV camera appears to be moved. More about this later.) As a result of the restraint, Stephanie went into cardiac arrest, but did not die immediately. In fact, she lived for another 16 days, being first intubated and placed in intensive care and then transferred to Toronto Western Hospital on May 15. No attempt was made to contact her family until May 22, a full 11 days after the incident.
In July, two of the guards were dismissed and two were the subject of unspecified ‘internal disciplinary action’. According to a media report, at this time Toronto police said investigators were ‘awaiting the results of a full autopsy and that the case was in its early stages’. Five months later Stephanie’s sister, Denise, was still awaiting information from the police. Finally, in early December 2020, two guards were each charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of manslaughter.
In November, 2022, two and a half years after Stephanie’s death, an Ontario judge quashed the case against the two guards, due to come before a jury last month, saying there was ‘a lack of admissible evidence to support the findings necessary for making a placement order on both counts’. Subsequently, the Federal government declined to pursue further criminal action. This despite the coroner’s report and other evidence, such as the CCTV video and court documents submitted by the Crown for an earlier preliminary hearing which contain evidence that one of the guards lied in his deposition, having initially claimed that Stephanie had ‘delivered several overhand and underhand punches to [Guard A’s] face and was kicking her feet’, but then ‘later on, [Guard B] began sobbing and admitted he had not been truthful in the report, saying: “I’m sorry. I would have never said the things I said in there if I knew there was a video”.’
Speaking of the CCTV footage, over two minutes of it has never been seen – and never will be. During Stephanie’s interrogation and restraint the camera was intentionally moved to point elsewhere. The guard monitoring the CCTV from the security office claimed that he ‘suffers from anxiety’ and moved the camera because he was ‘anxious and concerned about the altercation and use of force between [Guard A] and Stephanie’. In their civil suit, her family make it clear that they believe the camera was moved to ‘shield the other defendant guards from any potential criminal liability’.
This tragedy was the direct result of the febrile atmosphere and enforcement of unevidenced, irrational and petty Covid mask rules. Contrast Stephanie’s case with that of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody that same month in Minneapolis. Protests were everywhere across the US and the entire world. Movements such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) sprang up. People were ‘taking the knee’ and filling their social media profiles with BLM images. There were calls for police forces to be defunded. Floyd himself achieved something close to beatification, with statues and wall paintings appearing widely. His police attackers received hefty prison sentences.
Stephanie Warriner? Nothing. Not a squeak. Because of a police and judicial embargo, it was barely a month ago that the public could even see the video and read about her death. Those who were implicated have walked free. And the health network which owns Toronto General and Toronto Western hospitals still tells us on its website that ‘in 2019, Toronto General was named among the world’s Top 10 Hospitals by Newsweek magazine’. It insists that its priorities include being ‘compassionate and caring’ with a focus on ‘quality and safety’.
Stephanie Warriner died, at the age of 43, for wearing a Covid face mask improperly. This in the very same city of Toronto where nurses unions’ had twice – in 2015 and 2018 – won cases against hospitals seeking to mask them at work over influenza, with the evidence in favour of masking ruled ‘insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive’. As with so much harm which has been done to so many people in the name of ‘safety’ these past three years, it appears no one in authority questions this, much less cares.
The COVID-19 Pass is Dead, Long Live the Global Digital Health Certification Network
It was never going away
NAKED EMPEROR | JUNE 6, 2023
You didn’t really think the Covid Pass had disappeared did you? Knowing my readers, I’m guessing you didn’t.
Yesterday, it was announced that the World Health Organization (WHO) has entered into an agreement with the European Union (EU) to use their digital COVID-19 certification system. This will be in order to establish a global system to “help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics”.
Going by the last few years, “global mobility” most likely means restricting the mobility of the unvaccinated and “protecting citizens” means only allowing vaccinated passengers to travel together.
The WHO says this is just the first building block in their Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN). WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wants to offer all WHO Member States access to this digital health tool, which is based on “the principles of equity, innovation, transparency and data protection and privacy”.
Equity is an immediate red flag word, whilst transparency probably means telling everyone whether you are vaccinated or not.
Since the EU Covid Pass was launched it has issued more than 2.3 billion certificates. The certificates don’t only cover vaccination but also include tests and recovery. The EU claim it facilitated safe travel for citizens and supported Europe’s hard-hit tourism industry. It says that the passes allowed the coordinated lifting of restrictions from the moment it was possible.
The EU Digital COVID Certificate Regulation was set to expire at the end of June but never one to let a good crisis go to waste, the WHO has jumped in and will takeover the system this month. It then aims to progressively develop the system in the coming months.
Some might think that this will only be used for more regular vaccines. Think again. One of the first things the WHO will do with the new system is to converge digital COVID-19 certificates. This will mean all certificates will meet EU standards, validating digital signatures to prevent fraud.
The WHO says it won’t have any access to underlying personal data but national governments will.
Commenting on the latest news, Christine Anderson MEP said “During COVID, we have all been made into “potential threats” whose individual freedoms and rights must be curtailed to “protect society”!
Rob Roos MEP said “The #Coronapas is a discriminatory instrument that has only created a false sense of safety.”
and George Orwell said “Bloody hell, guys. It’s worse than I thought”.
Dear World – Writers Write
This was never going away was it. The amount of money spent on it was one thing but the temptation to retain such a huge piece of bio-control over the population was another.
We wondered why the unvaccinated ICD-10 codes had been implemented. Another conspiracy theory come true.
FDA’s ‘Rumor Control’ Hub Encourages Public to ‘Snitch’ on ‘Misinformation Spreaders’
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 6, 2023
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched an updated “Rumor Control” hub aimed at enlisting the public to help stop the spread of “misinformation.”
The updated webpage, first launched in August 2022, includes a new video that defines misinformation as information that is “false, inaccurate, or misleading … spreading intentionally and unintentionally.”
The agency said its Rumor Control hub provides the public with tools to identify and report on “misinformation.”
“Some individuals and organizations promote opinions online disguised as fact,” the FDA site says, adding that misinformation spreads “six times faster than facts.”
The video warns that people may be misled by headlines or out-of-context statements, particularly when they are shared by a trusted person.
But, according to the video, people can determine whether something is actually true by getting the information from three types of “authoritative” sources that can be trusted to provide real facts: medical journals, a nonprofit “fact checker” or a government website.
“The FDA is concerned ‘health misinformation’ is negatively impacting the public’s health,” the agency said. The FDA tweeted the video to promote the hub.
The Rumor Control site includes links for reporting misinformation on all major social media sites. By following the links, users can find instructions to mark posts as “false news,” “false information” or “inappropriate content,” depending on the website.
“Bernie’s Tweets” on Twitter called the website the FDA’s “‘snitch’ page.”
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1664917637455855617
“The federal government continues to try and fool the public into thinking misinformation is a dire problem and a crime,” Dr. Meryl Nass wrote on her Substack. “Misinformation is whatever the government does not want you to know.”
Nass added, “Clearly, the feds are getting nervous that their cons on the people are being recognized.”
The hub provides a poster that explains what misinformation is and how to address it “in language even a third grader can understand,” Nass wrote.
It explains that trusted authorities’ recommendations may change because science changes, but people should always “trust science.”
The site includes FDA-approved facts about COVID-19, sunscreen and supplements.
FDA’s project to ‘save lives’ by policing online content
Since FDA Commissioner Robert Califf began his second tenure as the agency’s head in February 2022, he has made combating “misinformation” one of his top priorities, arguing it is “a leading cause of preventable death in America now” — though “this cannot be proved,” he said.
In an Aug. 22, 2022, article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Califf wrote that “the global information environment has been contaminated by misinformation and disinformation.” He added:
“The FDA must be more proactive in preempting and countering misinformation [but there is a need for] collaboration across sectors to create an information environment in which decisions [by] consumers, patients, and clinicians are more likely to be informed by reliable information based on high-quality evidence from trustworthy sources.”
The Rumor Control initiative is one of several such initiatives launched during Califf’s tenure.
For example, the FDA also created a series of fact-checking YouTube videos — “Just a Minute” — that features Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressing COVID-19 “myths.”
The FDA also uses Twitter to tweet about misinformation, and Instagram to post memes encouraging vaccination.
Califf said that he believes “in the power of social media being used for good,” Fierce Pharma reported.
According to The Associated Press (AP), the FDA also can use a tactic known as “prebunking,” by which the agency defines something as “misinformation” before readers have an opportunity to encounter it elsewhere as possibly true.
The FDA has the ability to do this because Google “prioritizes credible websites” like the FDA’s in its searches.
Rumor Control works as a prebunking strategy that “debunks a long list of false claims about vaccines” and presents them first in people’s Google searches, according to the AP.
Califf previously worked at Verily, a life sciences company owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc.
Fact-checking the FDA
The most current version of the FDA’s fact check on COVID-19, linked from the Rumor Control hub, assures readers, for example, that vaccination does not make people more susceptible to the latest variants of COVID-19 and that the vaccine is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women.
But just last week, the Cleveland Clinic published a peer-reviewed study that found the more doses of COVID-19 vaccines a person receives, the higher the risk of getting the virus.
A number of recent studies revealed striking risks to pregnant women who get the COVID-19 vaccine and identified serious flaws in the methods government agencies used to conclude they are safe.
Government health officials knew about several of those studies, including Pfizer’s own clinical trial studies, before they recommended the shots for pregnant women.
The FDA also came under fire for granting Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 12-15 despite having identified that “safety signals” existed for myocarditis in young males following COVID-19 jabs.
The FDA, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, withheld this information from the public.
In the last two years, the FDA also was widely criticized for granting approval to an unproven Alzheimer’s drug, for its delayed response to a contaminated baby formula plant and for approving the respiratory syncytial virus vaccine for pregnant women despite concerns about premature births identified in clinical trials, among many other issues.
Nass wrote that in 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which allowed the FDA to charge manufacturers to regulate their products, compromising its integrity to such an extent that the FDA has become “a rogue agency for hire.”
Most funding the FDA uses to evaluate whether drugs are safe and effective comes from industry, she wrote, and most drugs seeking approval get fast-tracked and evaluated in just six months.
Manufacturers of drugs that are dangerous can often avoid liability by working with the FDA to write the label in such a way that meets disclosure requirements.
“So if you are looking to avoid misinformation, the FDA is the last place you might go to for truth, honesty, ethics and consideration of the public’s welfare,” Nass wrote.
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.
Rule by Decree: The Emergency State’s Plot to Override the Constitution
By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | June 6, 2023
We have become a nation in a permanent state of emergency.
Power-hungry and lawless, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers and justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.
COVID-19, for example, served as the driving force behind what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch characterized as “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”
In a statement attached to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Mayorkas, a case that challenged whether the government could continue to use it pandemic powers even after declaring the public health emergency over, Gorsuch provided a catalog of the many ways in which the government used COVID-19 to massively overreach its authority and suppress civil liberties.
Yet while the government’s (federal and state) handling of the COVID-19 pandemic delivered a knockout blow to our civil liberties, empowering the police state to flex its powers by way of a bevy of lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., it was merely one crisis in a long series of crises that the government has shamelessly exploited in order to justify its power grabs and acclimate the citizenry to a state of martial law disguised as emergency powers.
These attempts to use various crises to override the Constitution are still happening.
It doesn’t even matter what the nature of the crisis might be: civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”
They have all become fair game to a government that continues to quietly assemble, test and deploy emergency powers a long laundry list of terrifying powers that override the Constitution and can be activated at a moment’s notice.
We’re talking about lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level): the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease,” reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die.
While these are powers the police state has been working to make permanent, they barely scratch the surface of the far-reaching powers the government has unilaterally claimed for itself without any pretense of being reined in or restricted in its power grabs by Congress, the courts or the citizenry.
As David C. Unger, observes in The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security at All Costs, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have given way to permanent crisis management.”
The seeds of this ongoing madness were sown several decades ago when George W. Bush stealthily issued two presidential directives that granted the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency, which is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.“
Comprising the country’s Continuity of Government (COG) plan, these directives (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20), which do not need congressional approval, provide a skeletal outline of the actions the president will take in the event of a “national emergency.”
Just what sort of actions the president will take once he declares a national emergency can barely be discerned from the barebones directives. However, one thing is clear: in the event of a national emergency, the COG directives give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the president.
The country would then be subjected to martial law by default, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be suspended.
Essentially, the president would become a dictator for life.
It has happened already.
As we have witnessed in recent years, that national emergency can take any form, can be manipulated for any purpose and can be used to justify any end goal—all on the say so of the president.
The emergency powers that we know about which presidents might claim during such states of emergency are vast, ranging from imposing martial law and suspending habeas corpus to shutting down all forms of communications, including implementing an internet kill switch, and restricting travel.
Yet according to documents obtained by the Brennan Center, there may be many more secret powers that presidents may institute in times of so-called crisis without oversight from Congress, the courts, or the public.
Remember, these powers do not expire at the end of a president’s term. They remain on the books, just waiting to be used or abused by the next political demagogue.
So, too, every action taken by the current occupant of the White House and his predecessors to weaken the system of checks and balances, sidestep the rule of law, and expand the power of the executive branch of government makes us that much more vulnerable to those who would abuse those powers in the future.
These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.
This is what you might call a stealthy, creeping, silent, slow-motion coup d’état.
If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end.
We must recalibrate the balance of power.
For starters, Congress should put an end to the use of presidential executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements as a means of getting around Congress and the courts.
At a minimum, as The Washington Post suggests, “all emergency declarations [s]hould expire automatically after three or six months, whereupon Congress would need to vote upon any proposed extension.”
We’ve got to start making both the president and the police state play by the rules of the Constitution.
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it must start with “we the people.”
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org.
Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute.
Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Featured Video
Pravin Sawhney: Massive Escalation Pushes Every Side Toward the Brink
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
UN declares war on ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theories
‘World is not secretly run by elites’
Free West Media | August 5, 2022
UNESCO says it is seriously concerned about the increase in “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories”. And they plan to put an end to it through a network of informants.
“Conspiracy theories can be dangerous,” the UN agency warned. “Often they ignore scientific evidence and polarize society with dire consequences. This has to stop.”
Unesco’s director-general warned that “conspiracy theories” could cause damage to people as well as to their health. “They reinforce misconceptions about the pandemic, reinforcing stereotypes that can fuel violence and violent, extremist ideologies,” said Audrey Azoulay.
The UN agency has launched a campaign to help people identify, debunk and report “conspiracy theories” to prevent them from spreading further.
This campaign is being carried out in collaboration with the European Commission, Twitter and the World Jewish Congress. The UN has created a toolkit to “debunk” such theories and smear anyone who dares to claim that governments are not fair and transparent.
The UN also warned that George Soros, the Rothschilds and Israel should not be linked to “alleged conspiracies”.
World events “are not secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful players with malicious intent,” the UN agency maintained.
And if anyone therefore comes across someone who believes that the world elite is plotting to consolidate power or direct events, then that person needs to take action. According to the UN agency, when meeting a “conspiracy theorist”, under no circumstances should one enter into a discussion. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Pravin Sawhney: Massive Escalation Pushes Every Side Toward the Brink
- UK High Court Upholds Speech Regulator Notices To Meta, WhatsApp, X, And TikTok
- Two working on US Senate candidate’s campaign registered as foreign agents for Israel: Report
- Greece bans protest over docking of Israeli cruise ship
- Israel elections: More Arab votes, same Zionist consensus
- Taking the Houthis at Their Word: The Bill Saudi Arabia Doesn’t Want to Read
- Trump claims he would have bombed Ho Chi Minh City to win Vietnam War
- Russia shows Europe that prolonging the Ukraine war is pointless
- There is cautious optimism about ending the Ukraine War – Part 2
- Ukrainian air alert app hacked with fake nuclear warnings
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
