Big Media v. Marjorie Greene and Lou Dobbs
By Stephen Lendman | February 7, 2021
Instead of exposing and denouncing 2020 election rigging for Biden over Trump, establishment media cheerled the outcome.
They’ve been hostile toward everything Trump related and his supporters.
Instead of slamming what happened to Rep. Marjorie Greene and Fox News host Lou Dobbs, they expressed support for the constitutional breach of their First Amendment rights.
The hostile to truth and full disclosure NYT slammed Greene as an “QAnon congresswoman, a far-right influencer and gun fanatic who dabbles in anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bigotry,” followed by a further litany of over-the-top remarks that were all about her support for Trump.
Bezos owned, CIA-linked WaPo called her a “dangerous (GOP) crackpot (with an) extensive history of offensive conspiracy theorizing.”
According to WaPo, the Times, and other Big Media, Trump supporters are crackpot right-wing extremists for daring to challenge the official narrative — especially about the 9/11 mother of all US state-sponsored false flags, its imperial wars, and 2020 election rigging for Biden over DJT.
The Times called what led to stripping her of committee assignments “another chapter in an ongoing story: the two-step between the far right and the Republican Party and the degree to which the former is never actually that far from the latter.”
Ignored by the Times and other Big Media is that both wings of US one-party rule are hostile to an open, free society — undemocratic Dems outdistancing Republicans on issues related to warmaking on humanity at home and abroad.
WaPo said “Republicans should have sidelined” Greene straightaway, calling her appointment to House committees “abhorrent,” adding:
Support by most GOP “colleagues (is) one more sign of the… morally adrift party.”
“Thursday’s vote should never have had to happen.”
“Republicans should have had more self-respect than to support her last year, to welcome her with full honors and to allow the situation to escalate as it did.”
If Greene was anti-Trump, pro-Biden/Harris, demonizing articles about her by WaPo and the Times never would have been written.
The Times expressed support for action by Fox News to cancel Lou Dobbs Tonight.
In typical Times disinformation fashion, it called his program a “clearinghouse for baseless theories of electoral fraud in the weeks after Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential race (sic).”
There’s nothing “baseless” about indisputable election fraud — supported by the Times instead of exposing and denouncing it.
The Times cited an unnamed source — that may or may not exist because of dubious anonymity — allegedly saying:
“Dobbs’ extreme and unrepentant endorsements of Mr. Trump’s false election claims had imperiled his position.”
There’s nothing remotely false about claims proved true by indisputable evidence.
Like the Times, WaPo called Dobbs a “promoter of Trump’s false election fraud claims” — that evidence proved true no matter how hard Big Media try sweeping what’s indisputable under the rug.
Reached by WaPo text message on Friday, Dobbs said he had “no comment at this time.”
Until the unacceptable lawsuit is resolved, his lawyer(s) surely advised against commenting on the issue publicly.
Corporate controlled voting machines manipulate US election results with electronic ease.
Other techniques include ballot box stuffing, undercounting, double-counting, disenfranchising unwanted voters, demonizing candidates considered unacceptable by powerful interests, among other dirty tricks to prevent democratic outcomes.
Dirty tricks have been longstanding in US federal, state and local elections since at least the early 19th century.
Today’s sophisticated software makes losers winners and the other way around with nary a fingerprint to trace.
Throughout his time in office, Trump has been wrong on one issue after another.
On all things Election 2020 he’s right, brazen fraud deprived him of another term.
History one day will set things straight when it’s too late to matter except for the official record.
Biden/Harris entered office illegitimately — selected, not elected on January 20 while winner Trump was en route to Florida aboard Air Force One for the last time.
There WAS a color revolution in the US after all – its architects now boast they ‘fortified’ the 2020 election
By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 5, 2021
The 2020 US presidential elections wasn’t “rigged,” oh no, but “fortified” by a conspiracy of activists united in saving “Our Democracy” from the Bad Orange Man, now proud to share their story in a friendly tell-all piece in TIME.
“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” writes Molly Ball – a biographer of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by the way – in TIME magazine this week, describing it as a “vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election – an extraordinary shadow effort.”
Ball’s article reveals a lot, from why there were no street riots by Democrats either on November 4 or on January 6 – the organizers of this “conspiracy” stopped them – to who was behind the push to alter election rules in key states and set up mail-in voting, who organized “information” campaigns about the results of the election, and who even threatened election officials into making the “right” decision to certify the vote.
While everyone – myself included – was focused on the summer riots as a possible “color revolution,” they turned out to be misdirection. According to TIME, the real action was taking place behind the scenes, as Democrat activists and unions joined forces with NeverTrump Republicans, Chamber of Commerce, corporations, and Big Tech to make sure the 2020 election turns out the way they wanted. They call this a victory of democracy and the will of the people, of course, for no one is ever a villain in their own story.
“Their work touched every aspect of the election,” Ball writes, from getting states to “change voting system laws” and fending off “voter-suppression lawsuits,” to recruiting “armies” of poll workers and pressuring social media companies to “take a harder line against disinformation.”
Then, after Election Day, “they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.” Alarmed yet? Maybe you should be.
So who are these shadowy saviors of Our Democracy? One of them is union organizer Mike Podhorzer of AFL-CIO, a traditional Democrat powerhouse. Another is Ian Bassin, associate White House counsel in Barack Obama’s first administration. The roster of his “nonpartisan, rule-of-law” outfit called Protect Democracy includes a lot of Obama lawyers, a John McCain campaign aide, an editor from the defunct neocon Weekly Standard, and someone from SPLC, while among their advisers is the NeverTrump failed presidential candidate and ex-CIA spy Evan McMullin.
Bear that in mind when you read Bassin’s quote that “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” (emphasis added) but “it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.” Chilling words.
A leading member of this effort is Norm Eisen, another White House counsel under Obama. The pro-Trump Revolver News even raised the alarm about Eisen plotting a “color revolution” in September – but by then it was too late, even if anyone had been paying attention.
By then, the National Vote at Home Institute – an organization barely two years old, and part of the effort – had already instructed secretaries of state across the US with “technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes,” and even provided them “communications tool kits,” i.e. talking points.
In November 2019 – a full year before the election! – Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg hosted “nine civil rights leaders” for dinner, one of whom was Vanita Gupta, Obama’s assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. It was part of this shadowy coalition’s campaign for “more rigorous rules and enforcement” on social media platforms – just in case you were wondering how Trump ended up deplatformed, or the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop got suppressed before the election.
Podhorzer’s messaging efforts were informed by Anat Shenker-Osorio, who “applies tools from cognitive science and linguistics in her work with progressive organizations globally,” according to her 2018 fellowship bio from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Ironically, as part of their pressure on Big Tech Democrats had whipped up a moral panic about super-targeted “Russian” internet memes that somehow “influenced” the 2016 election – yet Ball’s article says that two groups involved with the conspiracy “created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted.”
Though Ball doesn’t mention it specifically, those Twitter and Facebook “pre-bunking” labels about safety of mail-in ballots and the winner not being known on Election Day are also the activists’ talking points.
Remember how Republican observers were thrown out of the ballot-counting facility in Detroit? Reports at the time said it was because of overcrowding, but the Time article reveals that a Democrat activist mobilized “dozens of reinforcements” to “provide a counterweight” to them, so eventually “racial-justice activists from Detroit Will Breathe worked alongside suburban women from Fems for Dems and local elected officials.”
It was activists who came up with a strategy of denouncing any challenge to Detroit vote counts as racist, too.
When President Donald Trump asked Michigan’s Republican-majority legislators to challenge the results, Eisen called it “the scariest moment” of the election, and the “democracy defenders” sprung into action.
Eisen’s lawyers dug up dirt on the two lawmakers invited to Washington, activists hounded them at airports, NeverTrump Republicans made calls to party friends, and Bassin’s outfit commissioned an op-ed threatening criminal charges by Michigan’s Democrat AG – whose office then retweeted it. The two were even picketed at the Trump Hotel in DC. The brigading eventually worked, as Michigan Republicans agreed to certify the elections – and other contested states followed.
Perhaps the most intriguing part is buried towards the end. Ball reveals that she got a text from Podhorzer – the AFL-CIO organizer – on the morning of January 6, hours before what the Democrats would describe as “insurrection” by Trump supporters at the US Capitol, saying that the “activist left” was “strenuously discouraging counter activity” in order to “preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem.”
How did Podhorzer know there would be “mayhem,” hours before the “storming” of the Capitol that Democrats claim Trump “incited” at the rally outside the White House at noon? It’s a mystery.
What’s not a mystery is the result of the “conspiracy” Ball has revealed: a de facto one-party state in which Democrats hold absolute power at every level of government and seek to prosecute dissent and disenfranchise the opposition.
Last month, with no inkling of the behind-the-scenes operation just revealed in Time, I wrote of a non-kinetic “fifth-generation” civil war that had unfolded as “a battle for hearts and minds, a series of psychological operations that played out on the media, political and economic fronts.” I argued it had successfully swapped the American Republic for something called “Our Democracy,” which maintains the form but has a radically different content.
One of the “heroes” of Ball’s piece, NeverTrump Republican Jeff Timmer, has a quote in the article about how “Our democracy only survives if we all believe and don’t look down,” referring to the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote.
It’s an interesting admission, as the coyote is the villain of those cartoons – and the one actually immune to the effects of gravity is the roadrunner bird. But you’re not supposed to notice this – and besides, noticing will soon be a crime in Our Democracy.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator
Revoking CGTN’s Licence is Attack on Freedom of Speech, Part of Broader UK-China Row
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.02.2021
On 4 February, the Office of Communications, the UK government-approved regulatory body commonly known as Ofcom, announced that it had withdrawn the licence for China Global Television Network (CGTN) to broadcast in the UK.
China Global Television Network has been banned by Ofcom in the UK on the pretext that Star China Media Limited (SCML), the licence-holder for the broadcaster, did not have editorial responsibility for the latter’s output; and that an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation (CGTNC), which exercises general control over the broadcaster, cannot hold the licence since it is controlled by the Chinese government.
On 5 February, the Information Department of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) of pushing “fake news” in its 29 January coverage of the People’s Republic’s tackling the pandemic. According to the ministry’s statement, the BBC video linked COVID-19 with politics and hyped up topics concerning the origins of the virus. Beijing urged the BBC to offer public apologies to China, adding that it “reserves the right to take further measures“. In response, the BBC said it stood by the story, rejecting the accusations of “fake news or ideological bias”.
Freedom of Speech is Under Attack
The revocation of licence for CGTN seems surprising given that the regulator did not mention any complaint regarding the content provided by the broadcaster, according to Earl Rasmussen, executive vice-president of Eurasia Centre. When it comes to CGTN’s links to the Chinese Communist Party, one should bear in mind that the BBC has an obvious connection with the British government, the scholar adds.
Indeed, according to the BBC website, four of the non-executive members are specifically appointed as members for each of the nations of the UK, and “the chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The Queen on the recommendation of ministers while the other members of the Board are appointed by the BBC through the Board’s Nominations Committee”.
So, when one talks about one’s editorial independence, one can hardly say that the BBC is “independent” in this respect, says Andy Vermaut, a Belgian human rights activist and political commentator. He suggests that the UK is “preparing a new cold war, where China and the Chinese voice in society is cut short and another dimensional voice is not allowed”, adding that “this is diametrically opposed to the British model which supposedly promotes freedom of the press”.
“What channel and country will be next?” Vermaut asks.Although London could regard CGTN’s narrative as “pretty unpleasant” it’s unclear why the UK decided to ban it “because after all, this was a satellite station”, according to Andrew Tettenborn, professor of Law at Swansea University.
“I believe this is politically motivated and a move to steer the narrative that is presented to the public, essentially a form of censorship to silence dissident or countering voices,” Rasmussen says. “In a free and open society it is important that we are able to obtain differing perspectives and to promote a diversity of thought. However, the UK has now lost the perspective and voice of the world’s largest economy and one of the most globally influential countries. It is a sad day for the freedom of the press, freedom of speech and democracy.”The trend of limiting “the spectrum of conversation” goes beyond Ofcom’s actions, warns Gordon Dimmack, an independent media reporter: “Media freedoms in the UK and worldwide have been constricted ever more so over the past few years, and I expect that to continue”, he adds in an apparent reference to the US Big Tech wiping out accounts of former President Donald Trump and his ardent supporters in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, and suppression earlier of The New York Post’s reporting of the supposed foreign business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
Revocation of CGTN’s Licence is Part of a Broader Trend
Ofcom’s move is yet another sign of deteriorating relations between London and Beijing, deems Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese studies and director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College, London.
“I think the UK is aligned with America on a relatively soft target because it’s kind of saying that it’s going to do something like America did with Xinhua and other news agencies about 18 months ago,” the professor says. “This is not a kind of huge move because the CGTN wasn’t a big player. It’s not important for Britain. It’s a way that Britain wants to show solidarity with America. And also the ruling Conservative Party in Britain shows that they’re trying to be tough on China without any hugely consequential outcomes at the moment”.Although the Johnson government previously indicated that it was willing to enhance UK-China ties in the post-Brexit era, tensions between the two countries have escalated over the past few years. Thus, No 10 abruptly reversed its plans to use 5G Huawei equipment in its next-generation wireless networks because of pressure from Washington. The UK also joined the US-led chorus of nations who pinned the blame for the pandemic spread on Beijing and questioned the coronavirus’s origins.
To complicate matters even further, in 2020 the UK offered a path to citizenship for around 3 million Hong Kongers with British National (Overseas) status, accusing the People’s Republic of breaking the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration after Beijing formally adopted a new security law in Hong Kong. Once the British scheme came into force in January 2021, China declared that it would no longer recognise the passports of British national overseas citizens as a travel or ID document, and “reserves the right to take further actions”.
China is Facing Growing Challenges from Western & Indo-Pacific States
Beijing is unlikely to ignore Ofcom’s insult and may take it out on the BBC, believes Jeff J. Brown, editor of China Rising Radio Sinoland: “Beijing could possibly react by reducing the number of its staff in-country, but would be unlikely to kick them out”, he suggests.
Citing the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement accusing the BBC of political bias, Kerry Brown suggests that this move could be seen as a backlash for stripping CGTN of its broadcasting licence.
“One way China will hit back is by basically attacking the credibility of the BBC,” he says. “The BBC has been a big problem for China for many decades. I think they’re basically escalating their kind of language towards the BBC. One of the issues is that obviously China is very sensitive about this responsibility for the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and has said that it’s been unfairly blamed and it was kind of not willing to share information”.Though it would appear that Beijing sees the UK now “as easier to attack because it’s not in the EU” and “a more isolated target”, China is now facing a growing challenge from a number of states, aside from the EU, including the US, Australia and others, according to the professor.
On 22 November, the UK’s influential conservative think tank Policy Exchange issued a report calling upon British allies and partners to team up in order to confront China’s rise and advocating the British naval build up in the South China Sea along with the US forces. According to the think tank, the report “reflects a broad consensus of views on Britain’s role in the Indo-Pacific region” voiced by former political and military leaders of the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia.
“I don’t think that [China’s] argument with the UK is necessarily going to escalate, but I don’t think it’s going to improve”, Brown says. “I think that the relationship is now in a period of long-term negativity. And I don’t think that that’s going to change for some while. I think this is the new normal”.
Western pundits believed post-Maidan Ukraine would serve as an ‘example’ for Russia – in reality, it’s become a cautionary tale
By Paul Robinson | RT | February 6, 2021
Many Russian liberals and foreign pundits saw Ukraine’s 2014 ‘Maidan’ as an event that would inspire change in Moscow. Today, as an increasingly dysfunctional Kiev clamps down on free speech, it looks more like a cautionary tale.
In May 2014, newly elected Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko promised that he would rapidly bring peace to his country. “The anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours,” he said.
Nearly 60,000 hours later, the war into which the badly named “anti-terrorist operation” morphed is still going on. Poroshenko’s successor Volodymyr Zelensky similarly promised to bring the fighting to an end. “My main goal… is that I want to end the war. This is my mission within these five years,” he told journalists. But he has been equally unsuccessful.
Zelensky resoundingly defeated Poroshenko in the 2019 presidential election, in which the incumbent won a plurality of votes only in the far west of the country. By portraying himself as a candidate not only of peace, but also of national unity, Zelensky was able to attract the votes of a large number of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the south and east of the country who had been alienated by Poroshenko’s increasingly nationalistic tone.
Unfortunately, since then Zelensky has betrayed those voters time after time.
Not only has he failed to take any of the steps required to bring the war to an end – most notably, the concessions demanded in the 2015 Minsk II agreements – but his government has also further suppressed the language rights of Ukrainians and is now clamping down on the opposition media.
In January 2020, liberal Russian pundits lined up to praise Zelensky’s new year’s speech. Zelensky was said to have promoted an image of national unity, seeking to overcome linguistic and other differences which had been accentuated by his predecessor’s nationalist policies. “It doesn’t matter what your street is called as long as it is clean and asphalted,” said Zelensky, in a line which seemed to suggest that his government would bring an end to the habit of changing street names from those of communist heroes to those of nationalist icons like Stepan Bandera.
In fact, it hasn’t. Not only has Zelensky failed to provide clean and asphalted streets, but it’s since become clear that what he really meant was not that he would bring an end to forcible Ukrainization, but that Russian speakers should just shut up and stop complaining about it, since, after all, none of that stuff actually “matters.”
Thus, Zelensky has done nothing to reverse the 2019 law on official languages, which sharply restricts the use of Russian. Most notably, on January 16 a new rule came into effect which obliges all service providers (shops, restaurants, etc.) to offer their services in Ukrainian by default. Meanwhile, censorship in Ukraine has reached new levels of silliness, prohibiting for instance a book about the Vikings by an American author because it referred to ancient Kievan Rus’ as “Russia.”
Now Zelensky has gone even further, banning three television stations owned by opposition politician Taras Kozak, on the grounds that they are spreading Russian disinformation. Zelensky claims that he supports freedom of speech but not “propaganda financed by the aggressors.” “These media have become one of the tools in the war against Ukraine, so they are blocked in order to protect national security,” said Zelensky’s spokesperson Yuliia Mendel.
The fact that the ban comes at a moment when Zelensky’s popularity is plummeting, and when Kozak’s party Opposition Platform – For Life is leading in national opinion polls may be entirely coincidental. But then again it may not. The move smacks of political desperation.
It is also, of course, deeply undemocratic in character. Had former president Viktor Yanukovich, who was overthrown in the February 2014 Maidan revolution, ever attempted such a thing, Ukrainian liberals and their Western allies would have cried huge screams of outrage. Now, however, they are silent, or even supportive. The US Embassy in Kiev, for instance, issued a statement that it backed the measure as designed “to counter Russia’s malign influence.”
The US response reveals the shallowness of Western assertions that in backing the Maidan revolution and subsequent governments they are supporting democracy, human rights, and a liberal order. In reality, geopolitics seems to be the primary concern. As long as Ukraine remains resolutely anti-Russia, a blind eye will be turned to nearly any and all abuses of democratic principles.
And here’s where the situation becomes rather sad. In the immediate aftermath of the Maidan revolution, it was said that Vladimir Putin’s response was driven by fears that Western-style democracy in Ukraine would provide a positive model which would incite a similar revolution in Russia.
A typical analysis was that of Paul D’Anieri, professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside, who wrote in 2015 that “the prospect was that Ukraine would, with the aid of the EU, begin turning itself around. If so, it could become an attractive model for Russians, and a very different model than the one Putin has been insisting is the only one available.”
This line continues to find supporters. For instance, in a gushing article for Al Jazeera, journalist Leonid Ragozin remarked that Zelensky’s 2020 new year’s speech showed that “Ukraine may finally be moving towards fulfilling the Kremlin‘s biggest nightmare – becoming a role model for progressive politics and democracy for Russians to look up to.”
Ragozin has it back to front, for the very opposite would appear to be the case. Commenting on recent protests in Moscow, Ollie Carroll, Moscow correspondent of the British newspaper, the Independent, asked why Russians weren’t reacting with the same sense of indignation as Ukrainians had when Yanukovich’s police attacked demonstrators in Kiev six-and-a-half years ago. Carroll implied that this meant that there was something defective about Russians’ moral values.
In reality, the answer could simply be that they’ve looked at Ukraine and decided that it isn’t a good example to follow.
Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history, and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.
Bank Of America Secretly Handed Customer Data To FBI Investigators
By Richie Allen | February 5, 2021
Bank of America customers are closing their accounts and taking their business elsewhere after it was revealed that the bank snooped through hundreds of innocent people’s accounts at the request of the federal government. The FBI wanted the information as part of its investigation into the Capitol riot. Anyone who made a transaction in DC on January 6th had their data handed to the feds. FOX News host Tucker Carlson broke the story last night.
After being contacted by the government, Bank of America handed over the information of 211 people. Of the 211 accounts that were turned over, none led to so much as an arrest, although one man was questioned and released without charge. The bank has so far refused to divulge how many accounts it trawled through before producing the 211 names. It has not revealed whether it was compelled by a subpoena or search warrant to hand over the data either.
Civil Rights groups in the US are calling for a boycott of the bank and want to know if other banks have done the same. This morning Bank of America told dailymail.com :
“We don’t comment on our communications with law enforcement. All banks have responsibilities under federal law to cooperate with law enforcement inquiries in full compliance with the law.”
Fox presenter Tucker Carlson said last night:
“These were the private records of Americans who had committed no crime; people who, as far as we know, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at the Capitol. But at the request of federal investigators, Bank of America searched its databases looking for people who fit a specific profile.”
Referring to the man who was questioned Carlson said:
“The FBI hauls you in for questioning in a terror investigation, not because you’ve done anything suspicious, but because you bought plane tickets and visited your country’s capital. Now they’re sweating you because your bank, which you trust with your most private information, has ratted you out without your knowledge. Because Bank of America did that, you are being treated like a member of Al Qaeda.”
Banks are the most criminally corrupt cartels on Planet Earth. We call them banksters for a reason. To be shocked that they violated the rights of their customers is to be naïve in the extreme. Sometime in the next few years, maybe sooner, your government will declare itself broke, having borrowed trillions in imaginary money to pay for the pandemic hoax. At that point, the idea of a wealth tax or a bail-in will be mooted. Those are code words for daylight robbery. They will take your money without your consent and your bank will be only happy to help them. What Bank of America has done should be a timely reminder of what banks really are. Your bank is not your friend.
Reinventing the company town? Nevada offers self-governing ‘Innovation Zones’ with own TAXES & COURTS
Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak is trying to lure high-tech firms into his state with an offer to allow them to effectively form independent governments at the county level, capable of levying taxes and even forming courts.
Companies with an “innovative technology” are being offered a chance to try their hand as miniature sovereign states, according to new state legislation seen by the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Wednesday. While Sisolak hinted at the idea during his State of the State address last month, few details have been made public until now.
These so-called “Innovation Zones” are being marketed to lure tech companies – perhaps those struggling with the high taxes and lockdown fetishism of Silicon Valley – with wide open spaces and the freedom to do whatever they like on their own land.
“The Board may establish a justice court,” the legislation draft obtained by LVRJ stipulates. In addition, with a few exceptions for real estate, fuel and tangible personal property, “the Board may impose any taxes or fees authorized to be imposed by a county.”
That’s not an exaggeration, either – companies that pull up stakes and move to Nevada will be able to form their own local governments with the equivalent authority of a county. They will be able to levy taxes, form courts and school districts, provide government services, and essentially act as sovereign entities. The zones will be overseen by three-member supervisory boards similar to county commissioners, and the company owners would maintain the balance of power over who sits on the board.
“The exercise of any power or duty by the Board supersedes the exercise of that power or duty by the county in which the Innovation Zone is situated.”
The proposal deems the traditional government model to be “inadequate” for attracting big-time tenants, and the state has a very particular type of company in mind for the new program. Companies would have to own at least 78 square miles of undeveloped and uninhabited land, falling within a single county without overlapping any currently-owned area. Applicants would require $250 million in assets and plan to invest at least $1 billion in their new site over the next decade.
Blockchains LLC, located in Sparks, is one company planning to take advantage of the package and has reportedly committed to building a “smart city” east of Reno. Other blockchain companies, autonomous technology and AI, internet of things, robotics, wireless, biometrics and renewable energy are some of the industries for which Sisolak is rolling out the welcome mat.
While the ‘company town’ model might call to mind the abusive labor practices of the late 19th and early 20th century – with workers paid in company ‘scrip’ unusable outside the town and sometimes even fenced in, supposedly for their protection – companies like Facebook (Menlo Park) and Google (Mountain View) appear to be hard at work renovating the company town’s image.
Nevada has been having relatively good luck poaching California megacorporations, becoming the site of Tesla’s giant Gigafactory 1 to manufacture the electric cars’ lithium ion batteries. The company even obtained the rights to mine its own lithium in the state. CEO Elon Musk is also opening a factory outside Austin, Texas, after quibbling with the state of California over its lockdown mandates (and presumably its high taxes, which Texas does not have). While Tesla received a $1.3 billion tax break to open its factory in Nevada, Sisolak appears to be counting on sovereignty as a superior incentive for expanding tech companies.
Refuse A Vaccine? You’re Likely To Be Visited By A “Persuader”
By Richie Allen | February 5, 2021
Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi said yesterday, that folks who haven’t taken up the offer of a vaccine, could get a knock on the door from council staff to “persuade” them to have it. He told MPs that he wanted to use local authority’s to find those who had refused the jab and determine what might then convince them. If that sounds sinister, it’s because it is. Very.
Zahawi went on to say that the NHS was already trying to “identify to individual level the people that we need to reach” to ensure that all over-70s had a chance to be vaccinated by February 15th. During a phone-in last Thursday, The Richie Allen Show spoke to 79 year old Ron, who said that he had received a phone call inviting him to come and be jabbed. When he politely said “no thanks”, he was told that he would be put on “the decline list.” Now that’s creepy. Why the need for a decline list unless you planned to use it to sanction those who have refused the vaccine? What might sanctions look like?
Zahawi’s comments came on the same day that Conservative MP Mark Harper, a member of The Covid Recovery Group, said that health care workers who refused the jab should not be allowed to work with vulnerable people. You are undoubtedly going to hear more of this in the days and weeks to come. “No Jab, No Job” is a catchphrase that rolls off the tongue. It’s everywhere now. And according to The Times this morning:
British officials have started work on a “vaccine passport” as Greece prepares to waive quarantine rules for tourists who can prove that they have been inoculated against coronavirus. A certification system is being planned, The Times has learnt. The Foreign Office, Department for Transport and Department of Health and Social Care are working on options for travellers to countries that may demand it as a condition of entry.
The gloves are off now and things are moving very quickly. We’re at peak lockdown fatigue. People have had enough and are beyond desperate to return to some semblance of a normal life. The government is dangling the vaccines and the health passports. It’s classic carrot and stick. No amount of money on earth could persuade me to have one of their vaccines. I’ll take my pleasure where I can find it and look forward to the knock on the door from “the persuaders.” That’ll be fun.
Richie Allen is the host of The Richie Allen Radio show, Europe’s most listened to independent radio show and is a passionate supporter of free speech.
Russian Foreign Ministry Is Concerned About Political Persecution in the United States
The Saker | February 4, 2021
Moscow intends to hold a ‘serious conversation’ with Washington about the stars and stripes allegations of unauthorized actions in Russia.
The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova spoke about this at a briefing.
The American authorities, according to their words, will not be able to “divert public views, public opinion from their own problems” with their unbridled attacks on the Russian Federation: “We mean to keep this topic in sight and have a serious conversation with Washington. I assure you, the news won’t keep you waiting.”
“I would like to appeal to Washington. I predict: their protest will not dissipate by itself. Discontent will not work under the carpet. the authorities and the media obedient to them declare, a direct quote: ‘domestic terrorists.’ Doubts about the objectivity of the US law enforcement agencies are also raised by the fact that they are essentially acting in accordance with the political order and guidelines of the current administration, which declared the events of January 6 as a mutiny, and all who were near the congress that day are almost depicted as marauders. However, most of them are ordinary US citizens who are worried about the situation in their own country. And you know how many there are? 74 million voters. They voted for their president, as they believed necessary, they defended their beliefs,” – Zakharova emphasized.
“The United States has already announced so much lately that I want to remind them of what is happening in their country … An endless, unceasing increase in the degree of violence. This is what our partners need to pay attention to, the situation in their own countries, and not try to help rock the situation in our country,” she added.
An official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that human rights with the United States “are constantly and very hypocritically taken care of in relation to other countries, but they do not hesitate to ignore them at home.”
Zakharova is sure the United States will continue at attempts to interfere in the affairs of Russia. “But if the United States of America chooses the tactics of constant intervention in our internal affairs, which we are talking about and bringing facts, and these facts are not hard to find, they are on the surface, – we will be interested to see how they end up doing.”
Maria Zakharova – on the criminal prosecution of participants in the storming of the Capitol:
“It is of serious concern of the ongoing campaign in the United States of persecution of the participants in the so-called storming of the Capitol on January 6 and, in general, all those who disagree with the results of the last presidential elections, which the authorities and the media obedient to them, have declared ‘domestic terrorists.’
According to available informaiton, the FBI has opened over 400 criminal cases, requested more than 500 permits in the courts to search and summon suspects, and also brought charges and has already arrested about 200 people. Severe pressure is carried out, including the treatment of relatives, acquaintances, coercion to give the necessary testimony. Moreover, people who have not even been formally charged are fired from their jobs, expelled from social networks, blocked or harassed.”
Bill Would Force Social Media Users To Secretly Report Suspicious People To Law Enforcement
MassPrivateI | February 4, 2021
Senator Joe Manchin wants to bring DHS’s spy on your neighbors “If You See, Something Say Something” program to social media, blogs, websites, and much more. Manchin’s bill, the “See Something, Say Something Online Act” would essentially turn social media users into Federal spies by forcing them to report suspicious people to law enforcement.
Just how bad is this bill?
This bill would essentially force anyone on social media to report suspicious “transmissions” to law enforcement.
“Known Suspicious Transmission.—The term ‘‘known suspicious transmission’’ is any suspicious transmission that an interactive computer service should have reasonably known to have occurred or have been notified of by a director, officer, employ, agent, interactive computer service user, or State or Federal law enforcement agency.”
Major Crime —The term ‘‘major crime’’ means a Federal criminal offense that is a crime of violence (as defined 13 in section 16 of title 18, United States Code); relating to domestic or international terrorism (as those terms are defined in section 16 2331 of title 18, United States Code)
What exactly is a known suspicious transmission or major crime?
“Suspicious Transmission is defined as any post, private message, comment, tag, transaction, or any other user-generated content or transmission that government officials later determine commits, facilitates, incites, promotes, or otherwise assists the commission of a major crime. Major crimes are defined as anything involving violence, domestic, or international terrorism, or a serious drug offense.”
How could social media users, bloggers, web forum moderators, web conferencing users etc., know that a comment left or uttered by someone would later lead to them committing a major crime?
The See Something, Say Something Online Act would force social media users into red flagging every person’s comments just in case someone commits a major crime in the future.
This bill would effectively destroy the First Amendment as we know it, dispelling any vestiges of America still being a free country.
Social media users would be forced to submit a Suspicious Transmission Activity Report (STAR) on suspicious individuals within 30 days.
“In General.—If a provider of an interactive computer service detects a suspicious transmission, the interactive computer service, including any director, officer, employee, agent, or representative of such provider, shall submit to the Department a STAR describing the suspicious transmission in accordance with this section.”
As Reason warned, the See Something, Say Something Online Act would put reporting on your fellow American on steroids. It would create a glut of frivolous reports, including many that are politically motivated, or otherwise disingenuous.
Social media users and law enforcement would keep detailed personal information, including metadata of suspicious people for five years.
“Each STAR submitted under this section shall contain, at a minimum— (1) the name, location, and other such identification information as submitted by the user to the provider of the interactive computer service; (2) the date and nature of the post, message, comment, tag, transaction, or other user-generated content or transmission detected for suspicious activity such as time, origin, and destination; and (3) any relevant text, information, and metadata related to the suspicious transmission.”
“Retention Of Records —Each provider of an interactive computer service shall— (A) maintain a copy of any STAR submitted under this section and the original record equivalent of any supporting documentation for the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the STAR was submitted. (B) make all supporting documentation available to the Department and any appropriate law enforcement agencies upon request.”
No one can tell a person that they have been flagged as suspicious
“Non-Disclosure—Except as otherwise prescribed by the Attorney General, no provider of an interactive computer service, or officer, director, employee, or agent of such a provider, subject to an order under subsection (a) may disclose the existence of, or terms of, the order to any person.”
Social media users could face prosecution for not reporting suspicious people
Imagine someone leaving a comment on social media like the police suck or calling someone a bitch, twit or twat and then they go on to commit a crime in the future. Would anyone like to guess what might happen next?
Every social media user who refused to file a STAR report on a suspicious person would open themselves up to prosecution or a lawsuit.
“Compliance—Any provider of an interactive computer service that fails to report a known suspicious transmission shall not be immune from civil or criminal liability for such transmission under section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)).”
Where does one begin when it comes to describing just how bad this bill is?
Forcing social media users to essentially submit STAR reports on people they deem as suspicious opens up a Pandora’s box of problems.
Social media users who are forced into reporting on people could flag everyone’s comments to guard against being prosecuted or sued. This bill, if passed as it is written, would have a devastating effect on the civil rights and freedoms of every American.
CIA Counterterror Chief Suggests Going To War Against ‘Domestic Insurgents’
By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 4, 2021
The former head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center has suggested that counterinsurgency tactics used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan should be applied to ‘domestic extremists’ inside the US.
NPR reports that Robert Grenier, who directed the CIA’s Counterterrorism program from 2004 to 2006, declared “We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen.”
In an op-ed for The New York Times last week, Grenier suggested that “extremists who seek a social apocalypse … are capable of producing endemic political violence of a sort not seen in this country since Reconstruction.”
Grenier, also a former CIA station chief in Pakistan and Afghanistan, grouped together “the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, ‘Christian’ national chauvinists, white supremacists and QAnon fantasists” and claimed they are all “committed to violent extremism.”
Grenier labeled dissenters an “insurgency” and called for them to be “defeated” like an enemy army.
In further comments to NPR, Grenier stated that “as in any insurgency situation, you have committed insurgents who are typically a relatively small proportion of the affected population. But what enables them to carry forward their program is a large number of people from whom they can draw tacit support.”
Grenier also stated that insurgents may emerge from groups who “believe that the election was stolen,” or those “who don’t trust NPR or The New York Times.”
“The most violent elements that we are concerned about right now see former President Trump as a broadly popular and charismatic symbol,” the CIA spook added, before comparing Trump to Saddam Hussein.
“You know, just as I saw in the Middle East that the air went out of violent demonstrations when [Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein was defeated and seen to be defeated, I think the same situation applies here,” he proclaimed.
Grenier suggested that Trump should be convicted at the upcoming impeachment trial as a ‘national security imperative’ because “So long as he is there and leading the resistance, if you will, which he shows every sign of intending to do, he is going to be an inspiration to very violent people.”
Grenier then compared Americans to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, noting that in Afghanistan “the thrust of our campaign there was, yes, to hunt down al-Qaida, but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to live and to flourish. And that meant fighting the Taliban.”
“I think that is the heart of what we need to deal with here,” he added.
Linking to Grenier’s comments, journalist Glenn Greenwald quipped that wedding guests throughout America should watch out for drone missiles.
If you’re planning a wedding on US soil in the next couple of years, probably best to assign one of the guests to k… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 03, 2021
The call to treat Americans as terrorist insurgents comes on the heels of a Department of Homeland Security warning that those dissatisfied with the election result may rise up and commit acts of terrorism in the coming weeks.
“Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” stated the bulletin issued last week through the DHS National Terrorist Advisory System — or NTAS.
The bulletin added that ‘extremists’ may be “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force.”
Featured Video
Spain train disaster raises questions over Israeli-linked security contractors
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Are There 50,000 ‘Israeli-born’ Individuals Living in the UK?
By Professor David Miller | August 18, 2026
Recent disclosures by the Zionist regime show that some 2,069 British nationals were serving in the IDF as of March 2025, according to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests submitted to the occupation forces (1,686 dual British-Israeli, plus 383 multinational). We cannot tell from the figures how many of these were already settler colonists and intend to stay in the colony, and how many will return or have returned to the UK. Presumably, those returning to the UK will number far fewer than 2,000, since many are known to have become permanently residents of the colony.
Additionally, the IDF figures only provide a snapshot, and do not tell us how many have served in the Jewish supremacist military either before or after March 2025. One way into the question of how many genocidaires are living in Britain is to ask how many current British residents were born in the Zionist colony. There is data on that, as we shall see. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Are There 50,000 ‘Israeli-born’ Individuals Living in the UK?
- German CDU MPs Seek Climate “Misinformation” List
- The ‘Gaza Treatment’: How Media Headlines Obscure Who is Bombing Yemen
- Ro Khanna urges Democrats to strip Israel ‘integration’ provision from defense bill
- Why Iran designated British MI6, Royal Navy, and RAF as hostile, terrorist organizations
- Armenian opposition politician dies in custody
- US still trying to recycle failed hypersonic missile programs
- France’s ‘Cold War’: Paris blames Tehran for supermarket fridge hacks
- Psywar no more? 77th Brigade’s sudden death
- Ukraine Already Carved Up… Before Talks Begin? /Prof. Richard Sakwa
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- German Authorities Start Initiative To Evaluate Public Register For Climate “Disinformation” Spreaders!
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- 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!
