Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

German Health Officials Caved to Political Pressure on COVID Policies, Newly Released Documents Show

By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | June 25, 2024

Newly released internal documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal disease control and prevention agency, reveal a stark disconnect between expert knowledge and public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stefan Homburg, a public finance expert and retired professor from Leibniz University of Hanover, brought “seven shocking RKI files” to the attention of the English-speaking world in a video published June 19.

The January 2020 to April 2021 documents suggest that scientific advisers tailored their COVID-19 medical and policy recommendations to align with political directives rather than available evidence.

Commenting on Homburg’s video, former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon, called the political interference with RKI’s scientific analysis and recommendations “appalling” and RKI’s continuing compliance “cowardly.”

‘This event was wholly political’

RKI played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s COVID-19 response. The recently disclosed files include internal meeting minutes from the agency’s crisis management team.

Initially kept confidential, the documents came to light in March — with some portions heavily redacted — following legal action by journalist Paul Schreyer, author of the documentary, “Pandemic simulation games: Preparation for a new era?”

RKI subsequently made over 2,500 mostly unredacted pages publicly available on May 30, citing “public interest in the content of the COVID-19 crisis team protocols.”

According to the RKI’s introduction to the released files, the minutes “reflect the open scientific discourse in which different perspectives are addressed and weighed up.”

The institute cautioned that individual statements in the documents “do not necessarily represent a coordinated position of the RKI and are not always understandable without knowledge of the context.”

Yeadon wrote, “I don’t think there’s an equivalent document which admits repeatedly that this event was wholly POLITICAL and decisions entirely driven by non-technically qualified political people at the top of government.”

‘Experts knew this but stated the opposite’

Homburg discussed how the RKI documents expose several discrepancies between internal expert discussions and public health messaging:

COVID-19 severity: Contrary to public messaging, internal discussions suggested COVID-19 might be less severe than typical influenza. “More people die in a normal influenza wave,” one entry reads. “The main risk of dying of COVID-19 is age.”

“Right — 83 years to be precise, in Germany,” Homburg said.

Mask efficacy: The files show a lack of evidence supporting widespread mask use. “There is no evidence for the use of FFP2 [also known as N95, KN95 or P2] masks outside of occupational health and safety,” one entry notes, adding that the information “could also be made available to the public.”

“Rather, the public was fooled and forced for years to wear FFP2 masks,” Homburg said.

School closures: Experts recommended school closures only in heavily affected areas. “School closures in areas that are not particularly affected are not recommended,” the documents state.

However, Homburg observed, “In the same week, politicians decided to close all German schools for months.”

Vaccine effectiveness and herd immunity: As early as January 2021, RKI experts questioned the propaganda around herd immunity. One entry reads, “Are we saying goodbye to the narrative of herd immunity through vaccination?”

“Pfizer’s preceding clinical trial had not demonstrated protection against serious illness and they had not even tested protection against transmission,” Homburg pointed out. “The experts knew this but stated the opposite in public and even before our courts.”

Vaccine side effects: One file reveals concerns about serious side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “Sinus thrombosis is a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine,” the document states. “There is also a 20-fold increased incidence in men.”

Homburg alleged that shortly after this statement, “German politicians pretended to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.” He showed images of various newspapers announcing vaccinations by Chancellor Angela Merkel, Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach and others.

Despite this internal acknowledgment, Homburg noted, “The experts did not inform the population about this danger, but insisted that AstraZeneca was safe and effective.”

‘Corona was a singular fraud’

The documents reveal a concerning level of political influence on scientific recommendations. One entry starkly illustrates this pressure: “Still high risk, order from the Federal Health Ministry: nothing will be changed until the first of July.”

This directive apparently led to pushing high-risk assessments despite declining case numbers. Homburg argued that this political interference helped the continuation of pandemic mandates.

“In fact, nothing was changed for three years,” he said. “To recall, in summer 2020, Corona cases were approaching zero and the public wanted a halt to the measures.”

The files also expose the experts’ fears of losing their advisory roles if they didn’t comply with political directives. One entry reads, “If the RKI does not comply with the political requirement, there is a risk that political decisionmakers will develop indicators themselves and/or no longer involve the RKI in similar assignments.”

“Corona was a singular fraud,” Homburg concluded. “The virus replaced influenza while the total number of illnesses remained unchanged.”

German politicians divided on response

The documents’ release ignited a fierce debate about the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, reaching the German Bundestag. The following is adapted from Schreyer’s April 30 report on Radio Munich (translated from German).

On April 24, 2024, the Parliament deliberated on a motion by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group to establish a commission of inquiry to review the Corona period. The proposed commission would examine the limits of intervention rights of state and federal governments and review the roles of relevant actors such as RKI.

The debate revealed deep divisions among political parties. The AfD and Free Democratic Party (FDP) supported the establishment of an inquiry commission, while the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green parties (also called Alliance 90) opposed it, arguing for alternative approaches such as a citizens’ council. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) faction suggested a federal-state working group instead.

Some politicians expressed concerns about the RKI files. CDU member Simone Borchardt argued that the handling of the RKI documents — first releasing them with redactions, then later allowing access to unredacted versions — suggested a deliberate attempt to control or limit information.

The debate also touched on broader issues, with some calling for amnesty for citizens who violated lockdown measures. Others warned against seeking scapegoats or spreading “half-baked conspiracy ideas.”

Since Schreyer’s report, the political landscape in Germany has shifted significantly. The June 2024 European parliamentary elections saw a decline in support for the governing coalition parties, while the far-right AfD made substantial gains, likely strengthening the position of those critical of the government’s pandemic response.

Yeadon called for increased activism to bring more attention to Homburg’s and Schreyer’s revelations, especially in light of the recent “drumbeat of ‘avian influenza’” or bird flu.

“This task cannot be left to a small number of us with the information, because we are so effectively gagged in relation to reaching large numbers of people that the perpetrators are no longer concerned about us speaking out,” he wrote.

Homburg’s background, pandemic criticism

Homburg’s academic background is diverse, encompassing economics, mathematics and philosophy.

From 1996 to 2003, he served on the Scientific Advisory Board at Germany’s Federal Ministry of Finance. He also was a member of the Federalism Commission of the Bundestag and Bundesrat from 2003 to 2004, and the Sustainability Council of the Federal Government from 2004 to 2007.

He authored several textbooks on macroeconomics and tax theory and has been regularly called upon as an expert for Bundestag hearings on tax and financial legislation.

Homburg was generally regarded favorably in the press until 2020 when he began questioning Germany’s pandemic policies. Since then, he has written scientific articles and blog posts on the coronavirus crisis and related topics, published podcasts and participated in interviews and talk shows.

In April 2022, Homberg published, “Corona-GETwitter: Chronik einer Wissenschafts-, Medien- und Politikkrise” (“Corona Twitter-Storm: Chronicle of a Science, Media and Political Crisis”), where he presented his pandemic-related tweets on X (formerly known as Twitter).

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.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Rules 6-3 That Biden Regime Pressuring Platforms To Censor Speech Doesn’t Violate First Amendment

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 26, 2024 

The US Supreme Court has ruled in the hotly-awaited decision for the Murthy v. Missouri case, reinforcing the government’s ability to engage with social media companies concerning the removal of speech about COVID-19 and more. This decision, affirming that these actions do not infringe upon First Amendment rights, delineates the limits of free speech on the internet, dealing a massive blow to freedom of expression online and the interpretation that the First Amendment prevents the government from pressuring platforms to remove legal speech.

The verdict, decided by a 6-3 vote, found that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue the Biden administration. The dissenting opinions came from conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, responded to the ruling, telling Reclaim The Net, “The majority of the Supreme Court has declared open season on Americans’ free speech rights on the internet,” referring to the decision as an “ukase” that permits the federal government to influence third-party platforms to silence dissenting voices. Vecchione accused the Court of ignoring evidence and abdicating its responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions that crush free speech.

Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, echoed Vecchione’s sentiments, labeling the decision a “travesty for the First Amendment” and a setback for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. “The Court has green-lighted the government’s unprecedented censorship regime,” Younes commented, reflecting concerns that the ruling might stifle expert voices on crucial public health and policy issues.

Further expressing the gravity of the situation, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a client of NCLA and a professor at Stanford University, criticized the Biden Administration’s regulatory actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya argued that these actions led to “irrational policies” and noted, “Free speech is essential to science, to public health, and to good health.” He called for congressional action and a public movement to restore and protect free speech rights in America.

This ruling comes as a setback to efforts supported by many who argue that the administration, together with federal agencies, is pushing social media platforms to suppress voices by labeling their content as misinformation.

Previously, a judge in Louisiana had criticized the federal agencies for acting like an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” However, during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, it was argued by the government that their requests for social media platforms to address “misinformation” more rigorously did not constitute threats or imply any legal repercussions – despite the looming threat of antitrust action against Big Tech.

Here are the key points and specific quotes from the decision:

Lack of Article III Standing: The Supreme Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established the necessary standing to seek an injunction against government defendants. The decision emphasizes the fundamental requirement of a “case or controversy” under Article III, which necessitates that plaintiffs demonstrate an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling” (Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409).

Inadequate Traceability and Future Harm: The plaintiffs failed to convincingly link past social media restrictions and government communications with the platforms. The decision critiques the Fifth Circuit’s approach, noting that the evidence did not conclusively show that government actions directly caused the platforms’ moderation decisions. The Court pointed out: “Because standing is not dispensed in gross, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431).The complexity arises because the platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.”

Absence of Direct Causation: The Court noted that the platforms began suppressing COVID-19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications began, indicating a lack of direct government coercion: “Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.”

Redressability and Ongoing Harm: The plaintiffs argued they suffered from ongoing censorship, but the Court found this unpersuasive. The platforms continued their moderation practices even as government communication subsided, suggesting that future government actions were unlikely to alter these practices: “Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion.”

“Right to Listen” Theory Rejected: The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ “right to listen” argument, stating that the First Amendment interest in receiving information does not automatically confer standing to challenge someone else’s censorship: “While the Court has recognized a ‘First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,’ the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.”

The case revolved around allegations that the federal government, led by figures such as Dr. Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon General, (though also lots more Biden administration officials) colluded with major technology companies to suppress speech on social media platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration targeted content labeled as “misinformation,” particularly concerning COVID-19 and political matters, effectively silencing dissenting voices.

The plaintiffs claim that this coordination represents a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. They argue that while private companies can set their own content policies, government pressure that leads to the suppression of lawful speech constitutes unconstitutional censorship by proxy.

The government’s campaign against what it called “misinformation,” particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – regardless of whether online statements turned out to be true or not – has been extensive.

However, Murthy v. Missouri exposed a darker side to these initiatives—where government officials allegedly overstepped their bounds by coercing tech companies to silence specific narratives.

Communications presented in court, including emails and meeting records, suggest a troubling pattern: government officials not only requested but demanded that tech companies remove or restrict certain content. The tone and content of these communications often implied serious consequences for non-compliance, raising questions about the extent to which these actions were voluntary versus compelled.

Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have become the de facto public squares of the modern era, wielding immense power over what information is accessible to the public. Their content moderation policies, while designed to combat harmful content, have also been criticized for their lack of transparency and potential biases.

In this case, plaintiffs argued that these companies, under significant government pressure, went beyond their standard moderation practices. They allegedly engaged in the removal, suppression, and demotion of content that, although controversial, was not illegal. This raises a critical issue: the thin line between moderation and censorship, especially when influenced by government directives.

The Supreme Court ruling holds significant implications for the relationship between government actions and private social media platforms, as well as for the legal frameworks that govern free speech and content moderation.

Here are some of the broader impacts this ruling may have:

Clarification on Government Influence and Private Action: This decision clearly delineates the limits of government involvement in the content moderation practices of private social media platforms. It underscores that mere governmental encouragement or indirect pressure does not transform private content moderation into state action. This ruling could make it more challenging for future plaintiffs to claim that content moderation decisions, influenced indirectly by government suggestions or pressures, are tantamount to governmental censorship.

Stricter Standards for Proving Standing: The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of concrete and particularized injuries directly traceable to the challenged government action sets a high bar for future litigants. Plaintiffs must now provide clear evidence that directly links government actions to the moderation practices that allegedly infringe on their speech rights. This could lead to fewer successful challenges against perceived government-induced censorship on digital platforms.

Impact on Content Moderation Policies: Social media platforms may feel more secure in enforcing their content moderation policies without fear of being seen as conduits for state action, as long as their decisions can be justified as independent from direct government coercion. This could lead to more assertive actions by platforms in moderating content deemed harmful or misleading, especially in critical areas like public health and election integrity.

Influence on Public Discourse: By affirming the autonomy of social media platforms in content moderation, the ruling potentially influences the nature of public discourse on these platforms. While platforms may continue to engage with government entities on issues like misinformation, they might do so with greater caution and transparency to avoid allegations of government coercion.

Future Legal Challenges and Policy Discussions: The ruling could prompt legislative responses, as policymakers may seek to address perceived gaps between government interests in combating misinformation and the protection of free speech on digital platforms. This may lead to new laws or regulations that more explicitly define the boundaries of acceptable government interaction with private companies in managing online content.

Broader Implications for Digital Rights and Privacy: The decision might also influence how digital rights and privacy are perceived and protected, particularly regarding how data from social media platforms is used or shared with government entities. This could lead to heightened scrutiny and potentially stricter guidelines to protect user data from being used in ways that could impinge on personal freedoms.

Overall, the Murthy v. Missouri ruling will likely serve as a critical reference point in ongoing debates about the government’s ability to influence and shut down speech.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Moldova Prepares Bill Allowing to Block Websites, Social Media Accounts – Opposition

Sputnik – 25.06.2024

Moldovan authorities are preparing a bill that will allow the blocking of websites, channels and accounts on social media, a spokesman for Moldovan opposition political bloc Podeda (Victory), Veaceslav Jukov, said on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, the country’s authorities annulled a broadcasting license held by Moldova’s Media Resurse company which owned two Russian language broadcasters, Orhei TV and TV6, Moldovan news outlet NewsMaker reported.

“The Moldovan government is considering a law which presupposes the suspension and even elimination of websites, as well as blocking channels and accounts on social media. The new legislation provides measures to control and manage the information space ,” Jukov wrote on Telegram.

In 2023, Moldovan authorities blocked access to 31 websites, including 21 managed from Russia, saying that they had been used in an “information war” against Kishinev. Apart from the Russian information sources, Kishinev has also banned websites of Moldovan broadcasters Orizont TV, Prime TV, Publika TV, Canal 2, and Canal 3, among others.

Earlier in 2023, Moldovan President Maia Sandu said that Moldova would create a national center for informational defense and combating propaganda symbolically named Patriot, which would protect Moldovan citizens from disinformation and manipulation at a national level. The new center will counter Russia’s alleged information attacks as well as deal with “traitors to the homeland” who are allegedly blocking Moldova’s attempts to integrate into the European Union, Sandu added.

June 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russia retaliates against EU’s latest media ban

RT | June 25, 2024

Russia is restricting access to more than 80 EU media outlets on its territory that have been involved in spreading disinformation about the Ukraine conflict, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday.

According to a statement issued on the ministry’s website, the move comes in response to the EU’s latest crackdown on Russian media.

In May, the European Council banned four media outlets from reporting to audiences in the EU, including leading Russian news agency RIA Novosti, as well as newspapers Izvestia and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The ban also applies to the relatively small Czech-based portal Voice of Europe, which the EU has described as a “Kremlin-linked propaganda network.” The restrictions on the media outlets came into force on June 25.

“The Russian side has repeatedly and at various levels warned that politically motivated harassment of its journalists and unfounded bans on Russian media in the EU will not go unnoticed,” the ministry said, noting that Brussels and other EU capitals had chosen to take the path of escalation with their latest illegal ban despite warnings, forcing Moscow to take mirror countermeasures.

“Responsibility for such a development of events lies solely with the leadership of the European Union and the countries of the bloc that supported such a decision,” according to the ministry.

The list of EU media outlets that “systematically disseminate false information” about the progress of Moscow’s special military operation includes 81 organizations from 25 member states. They include Germany’s Der Spiegel, Spain’s El Pais, Italy’s La Stampa and La Repubblica newspapers, the French Agence France-Presse, Le Monde, Liberation, as well as the pan-European Politico and EUobserver.

Moscow may reconsider its decision in relation to the media outlets if restrictions on Russian media are lifted, according to the statement.

Brussels had already barred several Russia-associated media from engaging with audiences in member states due to the Ukraine conflict. Even platforming content from the targeted organizations is illegal in the bloc. Those sanctions included RT and Sputnik, suspending their TV broadcasting licenses and blocking both websites for readers across the EU.

Moscow has accused Brussels of duplicity and attacking freedom of speech with its restrictions. The campaign to undermine the work of Russian news organizations long predates the Ukraine conflict and is aimed at preventing European citizens from hearing opinions that their governments deem undesirable, Russian officials have claimed.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Assange Freed, but Supporters Say Guilty Plea a ‘Big Blow to Freedom of the Press’

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender |June 25, 2024

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange agreed to a plea deal with the U.S. government and was released on bail, leaving Belmarsh maximum security prison and the United Kingdom (U.K.) on Monday morning WikiLeaks announced on X, formerly known as Twitter.

His wife, Stella Assange, an attorney who has worked for years for his release, celebrated the deal on X.

“This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grass-roots organisers, press freedom campaigners, legislators and leaders from across the political spectrum, all the way to the United Nations,” WikiLeaks wrote. “This created the space for a long period of negotiations with the US Department of Justice, leading to a deal that has not yet been formally finalised.”

A federal judge must still approve the plea deal.

Assange is en route to appear Wednesday in a U.S. federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands near Australia. He is scheduled to return to Australia after the hearing.

In exchange for his release, Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security material in violation of the U.S. Espionage Act, The New York Times reported.

Under the terms of the agreement, Justice Department prosecutors will seek a 62-month sentence, which is equal to the amount of time Assange has served at Belmarsh while he fought his extradition to the U.S. The deal would credit that period as time served, which would allow Assange to return home, according to CNN.

The deal would also disallow him from later making any claim that his long prison time in Belmarsh, where he was confined to a cell for 23 hours a day, was unjust, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald.

U.S. authorities were pursuing Assange for publishing classified materials shared with him by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 and 2011. He faced 18 counts from a 2019 indictment for his alleged role in the breach that carried a maximum of up to 175 years in prison, CNN reported.

“US officials alleged that Assange goaded Manning into obtaining thousands of pages of unfiltered US diplomatic cables that potentially endangered confidential sources, Iraq war-related significant activity reports and information related to Guantanamo Bay detainees,” CNN wrote.

‘A very courageous human being,’ and ‘a generational hero’

Journalists, politicians, press freedom organizations and countless supporters celebrated Assange’s release, although they remained outraged over what they believed to be his unjustified detainment and that he was forced to plead guilty, despite having committed no crime.

Greenwald tweeted:

There’s so much to say about the Assange case, the outrage of his being detained for almost 15 years, being forced to plead guilty despite committing no crime.
But on a human and personal level, it’s beautiful to watch him leave prison a free man, and finally leave the UK.

Independent presidential candidate and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Assange had to take the deal to get out of the life-threatening conditions under which he was being held, “but the security state has imposed a horrifying precedent and dealt a big blow to freedom of the press.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender that Assange is “a very courageous human being,” who “has suffered enough. He stood up and he did the best he could.”

Boyle said that the plea deal required Assange to agree to a conviction under subsection G of the Espionage Act but also to concede that he had violated other subsections.

“In the future, the federal government can use this as a precedent to go after journalists” for violating those subsections of the act. “In my opinion, this is a loaded gun cocked at the heads of all journalists in the future.”

Boyle said the Espionage Act was never intended to apply to journalists engaged in their trade under the First Amendment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“Basically what the feds are doing here is using the Espionage Act to set up a de facto United Kingdom Official Secrets Act,” which makes it a crime for government employees in the U.K. to leak information deemed “damaging” to the government.

It means that any journalist in the future who publishes classified information or stories based on classified information could be prosecuted for violating one or more provisions of the Espionage Act, Boyle said — even though the First Amendment is meant to protect the press.

Press freedom group PEN America, which has long called for the U.S. to drop the charges against Assange, called on Congress today in a press release to reform the Espionage Act to protect press freedoms. It wrote:

“Congress should seize this opportunity to immediately reform the Espionage Act to include an exception for information disclosures that advance the public interest. This move would send a strong signal in defense of press freedom, strengthening protections for journalists in the United States and reducing the risk of the law being wielded for political purposes in the future.”

Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006 as a nonprofit media organization to hold governments and political leaders accountable by publishing large datasets of censored and restricted official materials on war, spying and corruption.

The organization gained international attention in 2010 when it released the “Collateral Murder” video, showing classified raw footage shot from a U.S. Army Apache helicopter depicting the killing of over a dozen people in Iraq — including two Reuters reporters — along with other videos and documents leaked by Manning.

The organization also published other documents related to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The revelations became major global stories and led to intense scrutiny of American involvement in foreign conflicts.

Initially embraced by mainstream media organizations like The Guardian and the Times, Assange later became the target of critics in the mainstream, including those very outlets, Matt Taibbi reported on Substack. They alleged that WikiLeaks compromised national security by publishing classified material, tried to implicate him in Russiagate and said he wasn’t a journalist.

Assange spent almost 15 years in various forms of detention. In 2012, facing sex-related allegations from Swedish prosecutors — which were subsequently dropped in 2019 — Assange said he was willing to travel to Sweden for questioning. However, Swedish authorities wouldn’t guarantee that if he appeared for questioning he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S.

He sought and was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government and took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy from 2012-2018, where he stayed in a two-bedroom apartment with no outdoor space and the CIA spied on him.

In 2019, under pressure from the U.S. government, Ecuador ended Assange’s asylum.

The British police arrested him and put him in Belmarsh prison, which the BBC has called “Britain’s Guantanamo.” He has spent the last nearly six years fighting extradition to the U.S., where he was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by allegedly committing conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information, following the massive WikiLeaks disclosure in 2010.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

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.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Journalism under fire: Jailed for exposing Jordan

The Cradle | June 24, 2024

In Jordan, failing at self-censorship can land you in jail. Literally.

Freelance journalist Hiba Abu Taha, a passionate pro-resistance Jordanian of Palestinian origin, refused to self-censor. On 11 June, the Magistrate Court in Amman sentenced her to a harsh one-year prison term for violating the kingdom’s controversial Cybercrimes Law introduced last year.

This was due to an article she wrote for Lebanese news site, Annasher, criticizing “Jordan’s role in defending the enemy entity.” The article was published on 22 April, eight days after Jordanian, US, British, and French aircraft intercepted Iranian drones and rockets over Jordanian airspace heading towards Israeli targets.

However, Abu Taha was arrested on 13 May after Annasher published her investigative report on 28 April titled “Partners in extermination: Jordanian capital owners involved in Gaza genocide.” The timing of her arrest gave the impression that she was detained for exposing Jordanian companies transporting exports to Israel – a land corridor that government officials went out of their way to publicly deny amid growing popular outrage at Amman’s continued ties with Tel Aviv while it commits the Gaza genocide.

It is widely believed that her nearly 2,000-word investigative report, supported by a 15-minute video of evidence she gathered undercover, was the real reason for the journalist’s indictment.

Exposing government deception on Israeli trade routes

In her report, Abu Taha accused Prime Minister Bisher Khasawneh and other officials of concealing the use of Jordan as a land route for UAE and Bahraini exports via Saudi Arabia to Israel to break the Yemeni Ansarallah blockade in the Red and Arabian Seas.

She cites transport and clearance company employees in Amman and Aqaba about their services to transport goods through the northern Sheikh Hussein Bridge or the southern Wadi Araba crossing. She went on to expose the names of the Jordanian companies and their influential owners, who have shown no qualms about doing business as usual with the occupation state as it commits unprecedented war crimes in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Abu Taha also identifies influential company owners acting as agents for Israeli or Israel-bound shipping companies. Resorting to official documents, she writes that Jordanian exports to Israel increased from $123 million in 2022 to $143 million in 2023, with a record monthly high of $17 million in December 2023, a month after Yemen began targeting Israeli-owned and Israel-bound cargo ships.

She notes that despite court evidence “recognizing the existence of the land bridge” as well as video footage and pictures of the movement of trucks at the Sheikh Hussein border crossing, Khasawneh insisted that:

The land bridge is a figment of imagination with no truth on the ground … The number of trucks entering and leaving Jordan for the entity has decreased, and what is being raised is nothing but self-flagellation.

Abu Taha details her exchange with government spokesman Muhannad Mubaidin, who fires back at “those accusing Jordan” of providing a land bridge for Israel as “shameful.”

She writes that he “initially tried to deny the government’s role” in this regard and “even tried to point the finger at West Bank merchants as deceiving their colleagues in Jordan by telling them that the exports are for the Arabs.”

When confronted with the facts she found, Mubaidin immediately referred to the 1994 Wadi Araba peace treaty with Israel and stressed that the government would not ban trade with the Zionist state because “such a decision is a populist one that appeases a certain party or faction.”

Meanwhile, Trade Ministry Spokesman Yanal Barmawi told Abu Taha that he was unaware of the “export issue” and that “the private sector would know.” She writes that official denials and blaming the private sector, which cannot operate without government approval, “confirms that the authorities are trying to contain the Jordanian street.”

Opinion prosecution

Despite the rigor of her investigative report, Abu Taha was prosecuted for her 22 April opinion piece. Nidal Mansour, co-founder of the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists (CDFJ), noted that Abu Taha was convicted under the restrictive Cybercrimes Law, which was enacted shortly before 7 October 2023.

The Media Commission, a government-controlled regulatory body, filed a complaint against her, accusing her of “inciting sedition and discord among members of the community,” “threatening community peace,” “inciting violence,” and “spreading false news” through electronic media.

Abu Taha’s article accused Jordan of “treason,” among other derogatory terms, for intercepting Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel and giving the US, British, and French military forces a free hand in the country to defend the occupation state.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) quotes Media Commissioner Bashir al-Momani as saying that Abu Taha’s article contained “serious insults against Jordanian state institutions, incitement to the state’s positions, and stirring up discord among the components of the people,” which he added “necessitated her prosecution.”

According to a CDFJ statement, Abu Taha was convicted under Articles 15 and 17 of the 40-article Cybercrime Law of August 2023. Article 15 stipulates:

Whoever intentionally sends, resends, or publishes data or information through an information network, information technology, information system, website, or social media platforms that includes fake news targeting the national security and community peace, or defames, slanders, or contempt [sic] any person shall be imprisoned for a period of not less than three months or a fine of not less than 5,000 dinars and no more than 20,000 dinars, or both penalties.

Article 15 also gives the prosecutor the right to take legal action “without the need to file a complaint or claim a personal right if it is directed at one of the authorities in the state, official bodies, or public administrations,” which means that Abu Taha could have still been punished even if the Media Commission had not filed a complaint.

The court also invoked Article 17 to hand her a one-year sentence. It states that:

Whoever intentionally uses an information network, information technology, information system, website, or social media platform to spread what is likely to stir up racism or sedition, targets social peace, incites hatred, calls for or justifies violence, or insults religions, shall be punished by imprisonment from one to three years or a fine of no less than 5,000 dinars and no more than 20,000 dinars, or both penalties.

Draconian laws and legal challenges

Abu Taha’s opinion piece in Annasher undoubtedly lacked the self-censorship that Amman has successfully induced by imposing a series of restrictive press and media laws over the decades.

Mansour tells The Cradle that the press and publication laws have become more draconian with the evolution of information technology, beginning with restrictive laws on the independent weekly press back in the 1990s, to online news sites in the early 2000s, and social media with the most recent “fluid” Cybercrime Law that could effectively stifle any form of free speech on these platforms.

He notes that Abu Taha’s lawyer, Rami Odatallah, appointed by the leftist Jordanian Popular Unity Party (an offshoot of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), is more experienced in defending political activists than journalists.

Abu Taha is not a member of the political party. Still, it stood by her ordeal and denounced her arrest and sentencing, demanding her release and other activists that had been “harassed and arrested” for supporting the resistance against Israel online or on the street.

Mansour reveals that the CDFJ plans to hire a lawyer specialized in the Cybercrime Law to appeal her sentence, which his organization described as “deeply concerning” and called for “abolishing imprisonment in cases related to publication and freedom of expression in accordance with international human rights standards.”

Abu Taha’s arrest and sentencing drew attention to Jordan’s crackdown on both journalists and rightfully enraged activists by using the Cybercrime Law. … Full article

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel targets US public with massive propaganda campaign: Report

The Cradle | June 24, 2024

Israel is covertly funding a massive propaganda campaign to target the US public, including through the passage of legislation to restrict US citizens’ right to free speech when criticizing Israel and its ongoing war on Gaza, The Guardian reported on 24 June.

The UK newspaper reported that there are 80 programs already underway as part of the massive propaganda campaign known as the “Voices of Israel.”

The program is funded and run by the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, led by MK Amichai Chikli.

The program was designed to carry out what Israel calls “mass consciousness activities” targeting the US and European public.

Voices of Israel is part of the “latest incarnation” of a “sometimes covert operation” by the Israeli ministry to censor students, human rights organizations, and other critics of Israel.

Known previously as “Concert” and before that, “Kela Shlomo,” the campaign previously spearheaded efforts to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel.

Voices of Israel works through non-profits and other entities that often do not disclose donor information. From October through May, the campaign spent about $8.6 million to target US citizens with pro-Israel propaganda.

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) is one such organization receiving funding through the Israeli program.

The ISGP cited its success during congressional hearings in which Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University, was grilled for allowing pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik confronted Gay during the hearing, accusing her of fostering antisemitism at Harvard. The confrontation was widely viewed on social media.

Gay, the prestigious university’s first African-American president, soon resigned amid the resulting negative media coverage. She was replaced as interim president by Jewish-American professor and Harvard provost Alan Garber.

The Guardian reported further that the ISGAP touted its “congressional public relations coup” at a 7 April Palm Beach Country Club event.

“All these hearings were the result of our report that all these universities, beginning from Harvard, are taking a lot of money from Qatar,” bragged Natan Sharansky, the ISGAP chair. Sharansky, a former minister of Diaspora Affairs, told the assembled supporters that 1 billion people had viewed Congresswoman Stefanik’s aggressive questioning of Harvard president Gay.

The ISGAP has also been deeply involved in the campaign to limit US citizens’ Second Amendment right to free speech by passing laws at the state and local levels that redefine antisemitism to include certain criticisms of Israel, The Guardian added.

The ISGAP lobbies governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which equates criticism of Israel as a ‘racist endeavor’ and anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

“We shifted the focus to work at the local level,” said Brig Gen Sima Vaknin-Gill, a former intelligence officer now managing director of the ISGAP.

“We’ve found that mayors and states – it’s much easier to work with them and actually make the definition into something real.”

Another US group tied to Voices of Israel and the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs campaign is CyberWell, a pro-Israel “anti-disinformation” group led by former Israeli military intelligence and Voices officials. CyberWell established itself as an official “trusted partner” to TikTok and Meta, allowing it to help screen and edit content.

A recent CyberWell report called for Meta to suppress the popular slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

The Guardian notes, “One struggles to find a parallel in terms of a foreign country’s influence over American political debate.”

US-based organizations producing propaganda or lobbying to influence US citizens are required by law to register as foreign agents.

However, none of the groups identified in The Guardian’s report have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

“There’s a built-in assumption that there’s nothing at all weird about viewing the US as sort of an open field for Israel to operate in, that there are no limitations,” said Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘crossed a red line’ by banning Hungary from latest Ukraine vote, says Foreign Minister Szijjártó

BY DÉNES ALBERT | REMIX NEWS | JUNE 25, 2024

The European Union crossed a red line by prohibiting Hungary from voting on the use of the proceeds from frozen Russian bank accounts, said Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó on Monday.

Speaking during a break in the meeting of the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council, the Hungarian minister said an additional €1.4 billion from the European Peace Facility would be used for arms transfers to Ukraine, despite Hungary’s disagreement.

“This €1.4 billion is effectively the amount of the proceeds of the seized or frozen Russian assets, and since Hungary abstained in the first vote on their use, the Council’s legal service, Brussels, the bureaucrats, and some member states considered that this was a sufficient basis for ignoring Hungary’s right to decide, and so they decided to use €1.4 billion from the European Peace Facility to finance new arms shipments to Ukraine, ignoring Hungary’s position,” he said.

“This is a clear red line. Never before has such a shameless breach and disregard of common European rules been shown. Moreover, it is precisely those who are pushing for the rule of law procedures at full volume and talking about the endangerment of democratic values who are breaking European rules,” he continued.

“The self-proclaimed warriors of democracy and the rule of law have now flouted the rules in the most shameless way possible by excluding Hungary from this decision. So the pro-war fervor has effectively blinded the decision-makers,” he added.

Szijjártó underlined that the EU clearly wants to continue crossing red lines, as evidenced by the fact that High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell has this time come up with a proposal to allow the training of Ukrainian soldiers by European troops on Ukrainian territory.

“This is an extremely dangerous proposal. It is a proposal that would cross another red line. We remember the statements of leading Western European politicians during the European Parliament election campaign that European soldiers could and should be stationed, deployed, and sent to Ukraine. And here is the first step,” he said.

“They want to send military trainers to Ukraine. This is unacceptable to us, and we are protesting against it with all means at our disposal because the deployment of EU trainers in Ukraine would create another extremely serious risk of further escalation of the war,” he warned.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Former PM says Ukraine has no opposition: ‘They are in prison or abroad’

By Ahmed Adel | June 25, 2024

Currently, in Ukraine, there is no opposition and politicians challenging Volodymyr Zelensky as they are either in prison or abroad, according to the country’s former prime minister, Mykola Azarov. He also highlighted that Kiev would be forced to accept any agreement between Russia and the United States.

“There is no opposition in Ukraine now. [Pyotr] Poroshenko or [Yulia] Tymoshenko are not opposition. Their policy was no different from the current policy of the Kiev regime. The real opposition was eliminated. Some were killed, others are in prison, and some were forced to go abroad,” Azarov said in an interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty published on June 24.

According to the former prime minister, the left-wing parties and opposition forces in Ukraine now do not exist.

“In addition, trade unions are absent, and there is strong persecution of the Church. The current conflict is often presented as a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, but this is not true,” he added.

Azarov also mentioned that some people want to oppose Zelensky in Ukraine but do not speak out.

Zelensky was elected in 2019, and his first term was supposed to have ended in May. However, the regime introduced a new martial law, saying no election could be held during the war. The Ukrainian president is consolidating his power and has even purged political opponents.

It is recalled that the former head of Ukraine’s armed forces, Valeriy Zaluzhny, was appointed as the country’s ambassador to the UK only a few months ago after being touted as a potential rival to Zelensky. After being removed from Ukraine, Zaluzhny has now stayed quiet on the political front. The case of the former general is just one of many examples of individuals purged in Ukraine if they threatened Zelensky’s power.

The Ukrainian president has also jailed his political rivals, even Petro Poroshenko, shut down independent media outlets, such as ZIK, NewsOne and 112 Ukraine, and used the SBU state security agency to go after his critics, like Gonzalo Lira.

Azarov also stated that the US understands that the world cannot be subjected to the risk of a nuclear war, and Washington can start an informal dialogue with Moscow on this issue and influence Kiev.

“On the other side [USA], there are still some sensible ideas that the world cannot be subjected to the risk of a nuclear war. There are hopes that an informal dialogue could emerge that would result in some kind of concrete agreement,” he said.

According to the former prime minister, Zelensky’s regime will have to comply with this agreement between Moscow and Washington.

“There is no way around this. The Americans have one hundred percent influence over the current leadership of Ukraine. Just stop providing funding and weapons, and the regime will literally fall and physically disintegrate. The regime cannot exist without money when salaries are not paid to soldiers and the security service,” Azarov explained.

His comments on the nuclear issue come following a Ukrainian attack on the Raduga substation of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant on June 21.

“As a result of the attack by the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the Raduga substation of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, work on the infrastructure facilities was interrupted,” the press service of the nuclear plant published on its Telegram channel.

Compounding the nuclear issue, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on the same day as the attack the intentions to modernise the nuclear triad, the three components of the country’s atomic arsenal, by adding the nuclear-capable Sarmat (RS-28) intercontinental ballistic missiles, with a range of 18,000 kilometres, to its arsenal.

“We plan to continue improving the nuclear triad as a guarantee of strategic deterrence,” Putin said, adding that the advances in the land, air and naval components of the nuclear forces guarantee balance in the world.

“Taking into account the difficult international situation, the emergence of new challenges and risks, we will continue to improve our Armed Forces,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on June 24, citing Putin’s statement, told a briefing that “work is underway to bring the doctrine in line with current realities.”

This was the inevitable course of action after the US allowed the Kiev regime to use American-made weapons to strike inside Russian territory. Besides the attack on the nuclear power plant, there was also the brutal attack with ATACMS missiles on civilian infrastructure in Crimea that left four people dead and 153 seeking medical help on June 23.

The Kremlin previously vowed to respond to any Ukrainian attacks with US-made weapons, and Azarov’s assessment that Kiev may be forced to accept any agreement made between Moscow and Washington could eventuate if the Americans feel that the situation is escalating in a way that cannot be controlled. Meanwhile, despite the escalation, the US will continue to hypocritically overlook that Zelensky is heading a regime that has subverted democracy and human rights whilst lying that liberalism and Western values are being defended in Ukraine.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Rep. Thomas Massie on the Israel Lobby, foreign agents

If Americans Knew | June 18, 2024

Journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Republican Congressman from Kentucky Thomas Massie on June 7, 2024. During the interview Massey went into detail about how the Israel lobby bullies US politicians and co-opts evangelicals into getting billions of US tax dollars for Israel. Massie attended MIT where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Before entering Congress, Massie was a successful businessman who holds 29 patents. (See https://massie.house.gov/about/)

This video excerpts Massie’s statements about the Israel lobby from the full Carlson interview, “Rep. Thomas Massie: Israel Lobbyists, the Cowards in Congress, and Living off the Grid”. This can be viewed at https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show…

Congress has given $12.5 billion in military aid to Israel in 2024 (https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-is…)

For info on the new definition of “antisemitism” see https://israelpalestinenews.org/iak-i…

More videos about the lobby: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…

Articles: https://israelpalestinenews.org/lobby/ and https://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/i…

June 25, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

EU accuses Telegram of hiding its reach

European Commission vice-president for values and transparency Vera Jourova, March 14, 2024. © Getty Images / SOPA Images / Contributor
RT | June 24, 2024

Telegram underreports its user numbers to avoid being targeted by EU regulators, the vice-president of the bloc’s Commission for Values and Transparency, Vera Jourova, has alleged. She also accused Moscow of using the platform to spread “disinformation” among Russian-speaking EU residents, claiming that the Baltic nations, Poland, and Bulgaria are among the most exposed.

“I don’t trust Telegram, I don’t think they only have 42 million users,” Jourova said in an interview with Suddeutsche Zeitung on Sunday. She added that the European Commission is convinced that Telegram’s audience amounts to more than 45 million people – the threshold for regulatory control.

The commission is currently examining whether it should investigate the platform, Jourova revealed.

Last month, Bloomberg cited anonymous sources as saying that EU lawmakers were considering listing Telegram, founded by Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov less than ten years ago, as a “very large online platform.” The move would open the privacy-focused messaging app up to strict censorship regulation.

As of February 2024, Telegram had an estimated average of 41 million monthly active EU users over the preceding six months. The figure is lower than the threshold required for social media platform to be subject to more specific obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The regulation requires companies located outside the bloc to have legal representation in one of its member states.

The DSA, which came into force in February, allows the bloc’s regulators to fine platforms as much as 6% of their global annual turnover if they are found to have broken its rules. The regulation also provides the EU watchdog with the right to ban repeat offenders from operating in the bloc.

According to Durov, Telegram respects the rights of its users to privacy and freedom of expression. In an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Durov said he had rejected requests from Washington to share user data with US authorities or to build so-called surveillance “backdoors” into the platform.

Brussels has already launched investigations into X (formerly Twitter) over alleged breaches of EU rules in areas linked to risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for researchers. Similar probes have been opened in relation to TikTok and Meta, the latter of which is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

June 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Hey, Jim Jordan: Ask Fauci Who His Bosses Were!

To get to the bottom of Covid censorship, we must understand who was in charge of the global pandemic response.

llustration by Anthony Freda
By Debbie Lerman | June 13, 2024

As recently reported by Reclaim the Net, Anthony Fauci is being called to testify by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan for his “alleged role in the Biden White House’s censorship initiatives.”

Right away a glaring issue emerges: The censorship of dissenting COVID narratives started all the way back in late January-early February 2020, with Fauci implicated in the censorship as early as February 2, 2020. The Committee tacitly acknowledges this by requesting documents dating back to 2019, even as it frames the inquiry politically as a “Biden Administration censorship” problem.

In fact, the entire disastrous, unscientific lockdown-until-vaccine pandemic response was initiated and insidiously perpetrated by the Task Force, which was housed in the Trump White House, in the Office of the Vice President (OVP).

The group responsible for pandemic policy within the Task Force was not HHS or NIAID, where Fauci worked, or any other public health agency. It was the National Security Council (NSC).

All communications about Covid had to go through OVP/NSC.

We know from the Twitter files and subsequent investigations that the Intelligence Community (FBI, CIA, DHS, CISA) was heavily involved in censoring Americans on many issues, starting at least as far back as 2016. Foreign military/intelligence agencies of allied countries collaborated on censoring the U.S. population.

So if anyone is truly interested in who initiated and enforced censorship of dissenting Covid voices, they should ask the following questions of Fauci under oath:

Who was responsible for the US government’s Covid response policy, including censorship of dissenting views?

We know from official government documents that Covid pandemic policy was set by the National Security Council (NSC), NOT the public health agencies. But who exactly on the NSC was in charge? Who wrote the policy?

  • Dr. Fauci: Did you participate in crafting the pandemic response policy with the National Security Council, including censorship of dissenting views?

Why were Covid meetings classified?

On March 11, 2020 Reuters reported that “The White House has ordered federal health officials to treat top-level coronavirus meetings as classified.” Reuters sources said “the National Security Council (NSC), which advises the president on security issues, ordered the classification.”

Furthermore, government officials said “dozens of classified discussions about such topics as the scope of infections, quarantines and travel restrictions have been held since mid-January.”

  • Dr. Fauci: Why were the Covid response meetings classified? Were you present in those meetings? Were censorship plans discussed in those meetings?

Who was in charge of government communications about Covid?

According to the US Government’s COVID-19 Response Plan, starting on February 28, 2020 “all federal communication and messaging” about the pandemic had to go through the Office of the Vice President, which housed the Task Force, which was led by the National Security Council.

  • Dr. Fauci: In your role on the Task force, were you in charge of crafting the communications about the pandemic? If not, who on the Task Force was in charge of messaging?
  • Were you in charge of efforts to censor messaging that questioned or contradicted Task Force/NSC policy?
  • If not, who was in charge of designing and enforcing the censorship efforts on behalf of the Task Force/NSC?

Why was the CDC forbidden from communicating about the pandemic?

Although it was supposed to play a leadership role in pandemic communications, starting on February 28, 2020 the CDC was actually “not permitted to conduct public briefings,” according to a Senate report.

It sounds like the agency that was supposed to be in charge of communicating with the public about the pandemic was itself being CENSORED by the Task Force/NSC.

  • Dr. Fauci, who forbade the CDC from conducting public briefings about the pandemic?
  • Why were CDC communications with the public completely shut down?
  • Was this part of the overall efforts by the Task Force/NSC to censor any messaging that contradicted their policy?

Why was the intelligence community so heavily involved in Covid censorship?

Many deeply and carefully investigated reports show extensive involvement of military/intelligence agencies and personnel in Covid censorship efforts.

Here are just a few examples:

How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate, by David Zweig

Pentagon Was Involved in Domestic Censorship Scheme, by Alex Gutentag

The Virality Project Was a Government Front to Coordinate Censorship, by Andrew Lowenthal and Alex Gutentag

  • Dr. Fauci, were you coordinating with the FBI, CIA, DHS, CISA or any other intelligence entity to censor messaging that questioned or contradicted Task Force/NSC policy?
  • Why were intelligence agencies involved in censoring Covid messaging?

Were international NGOs and the WHO involved in censorship of American citizens?

Here’s one of the earliest known instances of Covid censorship from all the way back in February 2020, in which the following international cast participated:

As reported by US Right To Know :

on Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 11:28am

Farrar flagged a ZeroHedge article [now archived] in an email to Fauci and Collins, raising the possibility of virus=bioweapon. In the email, he mentioned that the WHO leaders were in the process of making an important decision. He said they might “prevaricate” which means “avoid telling the truth.”

Regardless of whether they prevaricated or not, just two and a half hours later, at approximately 1:57pm ZeroHedge was suspended on Twitter.

  • Dr. Fauci, was your correspondence with Farrar, involving the leaders of the World Health Organization, in any way related to the suspension of ZeroHedge on Twitter?
  • If so, which of you was responsible for conveying the message to Twitter about the suspension?
  • Were international organizations like the WHO, and NGOs including the Wellcome Trust, involved in Covid censorship activities in coordination with U.S. officials/agencies?
  • Were you involved in any international Covid censorship activities?

June 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »