You might argue that to say the world is warming is an obvious fact. ‘But,’ as Sherlock Holmes remarked to Dr Watson*, ‘there is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’
The meteorological fraternity tell us that as emissions keep growing the temperature of our earth will keep rising. Some of the effects, they say, can be seen in extreme weather such as floods, droughts and storms. However, research has shown the apparent escalation of this kind of event is far more likely to be due to a greater facility for reporting every incident over the last fifty years. Even more doubt lies in the fact that we have been widely recording weather details for about 150 of the 11,000 years since the last ice age. Any claims of records being broken can refer only to that brief period.
Assessing the rate of global warming, then, and any decision as to whether there is a climate ‘emergency’, rests almost entirely on measurement of the global temperature. This is always given as a difference relative to a previous period, and not only to tenths of a degree (which is how it is measured at every recording station), but to hundredths of a degree.
The UK Met Office’s global temperature for 2021 was 0.76 ± 0.04 deg C above the 1961-1990 average. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said the year was about 1.11 ± 0.13 deg C warmer than the 1850-1900 average. First worrying thought: why was such a precise measurement prefaced by that word ‘about’?
The Met Office’s figure for 2022 was 0.80 ± 0.04 °C above the 1961-1990 average and 1.16 ± 0.08 °C above the pre-industrial 1850-1900 average. The World Meteorological Organisation uses six international data sets to provide an authoritative assessment of global temperature change. They report that ‘2022 was about 1.15 (1.02 to 1.27) °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels’. There’s that curious word again.
The climatologists claim to be measuring the temperature of the earth, over land and sea, night and day, for a whole year, and giving us the result to a second place of decimals, with a tolerance of only a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. That is unbelievable.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website does admit that ‘the concept of an average temperature for the entire globe . . . may seem like nonsense’. It certainly does. It would be difficult to measure the average temperature of a small garden for a whole year to that level of accuracy, unless there were thermometers recording maximum and minimum every day in each square metre.
Why is it always a difference measurement? The NOAA website explains: ‘Because [the scientists’] goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies – the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date.’
Subsequent paragraphs shed more light on the data, and are worth quoting at length (my italics). ‘Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values . . . climatologists average data from individual stations with data from other stations in the area. When combining observations, the values for each station are mathematically weighted to account for the fraction of the averaging area they represent.’
Those four words ‘estimate’, ‘average’, ‘combining’ and ‘weighted’ all cast serious doubts on the final two places of decimals. Then there is the obvious question: how well are the recording stations covering the land and sea areas of the earth?
For measurements taken on the earth’s surface, the WMO says there are ‘well over 10,000 manned and automatic surface weather stations . . . 7,000 ships, 100 moored and 1,000 drifting buoys’.
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia confirms that its global temperature series (CRUTEM5.0) uses data from only 8,000 of the land-based weather stations because the others ‘did not have sufficient data to estimate a 1961-1990 mean’.
The land area of the earth is 148,300,000 km2. The 8,000 recording stations would therefore each represent a huge 18,500 km2 chunk of the earth’s land surface. But they are not uniformly spread. According to the CRU, ‘coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over Antarctica’.
The sea area of the earth is 361,700,000 km2. The number of ships and buoys (8,100) means that each represents around 44,600 km2 of the sea surface, and even then the accuracy of the data largely depends on where the ships (moving steadily) and buoys (drifting slowly) happen to be. Additionally, the buoys and ships are measuring sea water temperatures, not that of the air over the sea: how exactly are pre-industrial temperatures of the sea calculated for comparison?
Every year several very well-known climatological and scientific institutions tell us the earth’s annual average global temperature. The world waits anxiously for their pronouncements. But even the first decimal place is doubtful, let alone the second. The accuracy has been generated solely by way of mathematics: first the average of each station’s daily maximum and minimum is calculated, then the weekly and monthly average which is converted to an anomaly for the station, mathematical weighting is carried out if necessary, estimations added for missing values, and only then is the final annual figure achieved for that particular station over the last twelve months.
(The process is actually even more complex: see, for instance, NASA’s ‘Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records’.)
Presumably all the station annual average figures, around 16,000 for both land and sea for the whole world, are then added and a grand average figure is produced. It is that final averaging that can produce as many decimal points as you want. But by then it is meaningless.
For such a vast area of land and sea, and over such a long period of time, it is surely impossible to determine a sensible average temperature, let alone one given with such apparent accuracy. They must be right, we are supposed to think, because they are given to the nearest hundredth of a degree Celsius.
The Met Office has already forecast this year’s (2023’s)global average temperature to be between 1.08 °C and 1.32°C (with a central estimate of 1.20 °C) above the average for the pre-industrial period (1850-1900). Here are the two decimal places again, with a tolerance of a fifth of a degree Celsius, for a year that has hardly started.
All these supposedly carefully measured temperatures are surely open to some considerable doubt, but unfortunately they are treated as the ultimate and unequivocal proof of rapid climate change.
If these figures are indeed of dubious authenticity, and if bouts of extreme weather may or may not indicate any change in our climate, then how much do we really know for certain?
In spring 2022, Warsaw secretly delivered several of its MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine, despite the Polish government officially denying any such deals, a local paper has claimed, citing sources.
According to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (DGP), the planes were sent over using a “combined” method, apparently meaning that they were delivered in a disassembled state and declared as spare parts.
“The fuselage and the wings are also spare parts,” DGP wrote Wednesday, citing sources within the Polish government.
Back in March, in the first months of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Washington rejected a plan to transfer Polish MiG-29 jets to Ukraine, stating the move was “too escalatory” and risked directly involving the US or a NATO ally in the conflict, potentially triggering a direct confrontation with Russia.
In April, however, the Pentagon stated that unnamed US allies had helped bolster Ukraine’s fleet of fighter jets by donating unspecified “spare parts” which were supposedly used to restore many of Kiev’s damaged planes.
The latest article by DGP now seems to suggest that that ally could have been Poland, which in late April was also revealed to have provided Ukraine with $7 billion worth of military aid, including half of its tanks, dozens of howitzers, Grad MRLS, and missiles for MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter jets, among other munitions.
In recent weeks the US seems to have abandoned some of its prior concerns about supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine, and now plans to deliver a number of its M1 Abrams tanks to Kiev, while Germany, Poland and Finland intend to send dozens of their Leopard 2 tanks.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has responded to these planned deliveries as evidence that the West is becoming more directly involved in the conflict, despite European and American politicians claiming otherwise. That’s as Russia has repeatedly urged the West to stop “pumping” Ukraine with weaponry, arguing it would only prolong the conflict and lead to more bloodshed.
Watching a Project Veritas undercover sting operation invariably leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m struck with admiration for yet another one of James O’Keefe’s bold strokes against the corrupt empire that now dominates our world. On the other hand, I’m shocked by the disclosure that the Empire is staffed by such moral and intellectual lightweights.
Here he is giddily talking about deliberately mutating SARS-CoV-2 by means of “directed evolution” in order to keep Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine gravy train going:
John Leake | Courageous Discourse | January 26, 2023
This morning I woke up to conflicting messages about the true identity of Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker—a purported Pfizer executive who is the subject of Project Veritas’s latest sting. Some commentators have suggested that James O’Keefe failed to perform his due diligence—i.e., that instead of stinging a real Pfizer executive, a Project Veritas operative got a date with a drunk and boasting young man who grossly overstated his position and knowledge.
As I noted in my post of last night, it does seem incredible that a major corporation—one that has played a key role in perpetrating a global criminal fiasco—is staffed with an executive who seems to have been recruited at a frat party. On the other hand, the Pfizer internal documents tweeted by James O’Keefe appear to be authentic.
Additional documents were posted this morning by internet sleuth and fellow Substack author, Brian O’shea.
One of the strangest features of the Hall of Mirrors in which we now live is that the public facade of powerful institutions and corporations is staffed with people who seem stunningly incompetent and unserious. I’m thinking about Karine Jean-Pierre, Rochelle Walensky, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden.
Consider the irony that one of the great idols of the West—Volodymyr Zelensky—was, just a few years ago, a TV actor “who played a high school history teacher who wins the presidential election after a viral video created by his pupils shows him ranting against government corruption in Ukraine.”
The show (Servant of the People) was so popular—and Zelensky so charming—that he was anointed by the oligarchs who run Ukraine to be the next President.
Igor Kolomoisky,the billionaire oligarch who owned 70% of the media company that created the hit show, has been indicted in the United States on charges of large-scale bank fraud. Kolomoisky’s personal attorney served as Zelensky’s campaign manager. Again, who is really making the decisions that now affect all of mankind?
Mission Statement
Investigate & expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical & transparent society.
Core Values
MORAL COURAGE – Courage is the virtue that sustains all others. We choose to overcome our fears.
WE ARE ALL LEADERS – Turning people into leaders. Completed staff work. Ownership.
COLLABORATION – Best not to work in silos. No one individual is as smart as all of us.
RESILIENCE – Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. Never, ever, ever give up. We don’t let mistakes or setbacks discourage us. Pursue perfection, knowing full well you will never attain it.
MISSION DRIVEN – The best people are motivated by purpose. We are passionate and truly believe in our cause. We must be externally focused, not internally focused.
MAKE THE STATUS QUO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE – We move mountains. Failure is not an option. We do whatever it takes.
THE TIP OF THE SPEAR – We are a loss leader. We do not shy away from conflict or litigation.
Ethical Values
Rule #1 – Truth is paramount. Our reporting is fact based with clear and irrefutable video and audio content. Truth is paramount. We never deceive our audience. We do not distort the facts or the context. We do not “selectively edit.”
Rule #2 – We do not break the law. We maintain one-party consent when recording someone is inherently moral and ethical. We never record when there is zero-party consent. In areas where we are required to have consent from all parties, we seek legal guidance regarding the expectation of privacy’s impact on our right to record.
Rule #3 – We adhere to the 1st Amendment rights of others. During our investigations we do not disrupt the peace. We do not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of others.
Rule #4 – The Zekman Test. The undercover investigations we pursue are judged by us to be of “vital public interest” and “profound importance.” The Zekman Test is our baseline. Undercover investigative reporting is necessary because, “… there’s no other way to get the story…” Whereas the Society of Professional Journalists allows for undercover techniques, if undercover techniques are necessary to expose issues of vital public importance; we believe they are not only allowed but required.
Rule #5 – We Protect the Innocent When Possible – Embarrassing private details are not to be investigated. We stay away from irrelevant embarrassingly intimate details about private citizens personal lives. We look for individual wrong-doing and judge its public importance. The irrelevant religious or sexual dispositions of our targets are not to be investigated.
Rule #6 – Transparency. Our methods & tactics must be reasonable and defensible. We use the “Twelve Jurors on Our Shoulder” rule. The work has to be done with such a degree of integrity that it can withstand scrutiny in both law & ethics. We are comfortable with transparency. We must be willing to be ready to disclose our methods upon publication.
Rule #7 – Verifying and Corroborate Stories – Evaluate impact on third parties and Newsworthiness of Statements Alone.We consistently consider the probable truth or falsity of statements, examine any reasons to doubt the veracity of underlying assertions and whether the assertions are newsworthy. When possible, we will confirm with our subjects that their statements captured on video are accurate & truthful. At the very least, we will give our subjects an opportunity to elaborate and/or respond. In all matters, we rely on the 1st Amendment to protect our ability to publish newsworthy items after our internal deliberations. On whether there is an obligation to ensure the veracity of statements made on video, 1.) consider whether the remarks may potentially impact an innocent third party. (Factors in support of releasing the content) and 2.)The Newsworthiness of the statement alone by itself. (Factors against releasing the content).
Rule #8 – Raw Video. In certain circumstances we may release the “raw” video to the press and or the public. But as a rule, we do not.
Rule #9 – Subject Anonymity. We investigate & question sources before promising anonymity. Once we confirm, we will do everything in our power to protect the identity of our confidential sources.
Rule #10 – Being Accountable. Admit mistakes & correct them promptly.
Rule #11 – We do not manufacture content. We do not put words in our investigative subjects’ mouths. We do not lead the horse to water. Our purpose is to elicit truth.
Rule #12 – With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.
Last week, CBS “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan asked Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman why President Biden would dispatch his personal attorney, who didn’t have proper security clearance, to his Delaware home to search for classified documents. Presumably, Brennan believed that when searching for classified documents, one should have the credentials to actually read them. Brennan’s focus on who was reviewing Biden’s papers touched on a potentially interesting line of inquiry. The question hanging in the air, however, relates to the discovery that started this whole process: Why would lawyers be “packing up” Biden’s office in the Penn Biden Center in the first place?
Not unlike other politicians, Joe Biden has done a terrific job of turning political success into a financial windfall. But someone who considered himself “middle-class Joe” for decades should realize the wastefulness of having lawyers perform a task that a trusted intern or aid could perform. As many big-time East Coast lawyers now routinely charge $1,000 an hour, it’s an awfully expensive packing crew – unless the intent wasn’t truly to “pack” but rather to purge.
The timing here is suspicious as well. Apparently, this moving crew was at Biden’s University of Pennsylvania office a week before midterm elections that were widely anticipated to turn control of the House over to the Republicans. As Republicans had signaled that they were going to be spending considerable time wearing out the subpoena powers of various House committees to investigate Biden and his family, it would be an auspicious time to get rid of anything damaging. By using lawyers to carry out the document purge, Biden would be able to attach attorney-client privilege to their efforts, thereby avoiding damaging testimony about the contents of any shredded documents.
To be clear, there’s nothing illegal about getting rid of musty records in the absence of a valid document retention request. The Biden administration made it clear that it would not consider any such request valid until the new Congress was sworn in and the various committee chair gavels handed out. In a response to document requests made in December from Reps. Jim Jordan and James Comer, an administration lawyer responded, “Congress has not delegated such authority to individual members of Congress who are not committee chairmen, and the House has not done so under its current Rules.” In short, you’ll have to start over. Biden was effectively setting a hard deadline for when document purges go from being propitious to being illegal.
Unfortunately for the president, the attorneys tasked with shutting down his University of Pennsylvania office stumbled across top secret government documents and understood the consequences. Had they not made those discoveries, we likely would have never heard of these high-priced packers.
Republicans, including Donald Trump, have been quick to point out the timing of the initial discovery and the lack of prompt public disclosure. They believe the midterm elections might have been more favorable to Republicans if it was clear that Trump wasn’t the only one potentially breaking the law. Maybe. But the timing and process does lead to questions about what more the current president might have to hide.
For now, President Biden wants us to take him at his word that this whole classified documents mess is nothing more than an honest mistake. As he says, “There’s no there, there.” That may be true, but the activities that preceded the classified document discoveries raise different questions. From a man who campaigned on elevating the standards at the White House, this is disappointing to say the least.
After the St. Louis Federal Reserve tweeted out a highly misleading line graph of several nations’ defense expenditures on Monday, users highlighted its ham-fisted and deceptive nature with both humor and facts.
The tweet linked to a January 3 article about the patterns of defense spending around the world in light of the conflict in Ukraine, highlighting the steady and rapid increase of China’s military budget since the early 1990s.
However, the graph accompanying it, which was included in the tweet, has been modified in an unconventional way: while the spending by five of the nations is measured on the Y-axis on the left side of the graph, as is traditionally the case, for the line representing the United States, the Fed used a bizarre separate Y-axis on the right side of the graph.
As a result, at a glance it seems China’s spending has rocketed far above every other nation’s, including the United States’, when in fact it remains barely one-third of the amount.
As replies poured in denouncing the Fed’s deception, a few users tweeted accurate versions of the graph, if the US’ line had been placed on the same Y-axis scale as the other five nations.
Others tore into the Fed in a more rhetorical way, or simply clowned on the absurdity of the graph.
“If a student made this graph for a statistics 101 class, the teacher would give them an F,” quipped journalist Ben Norton. “But because it involves Washington’s public enemy number one, Beijing, the ‘experts’ at the St. Louis Fed were awarded a Golden Star for service in the New Cold War.”
“Congrats on making the most misleading chart of 2023 so far!” said one user. “This is dishonest to the point of misinformation,” wrote another.
One person joked the situation was another example of “American exceptionalism.”
Someone even dropped an image of the cover of the 1954 book “How to Lie With Statistics” by former tobacco lobbyist Darrel Huff, with the message “I see you’ve read one of my favorite books.”
Some dropped other graphs that they felt better illustrated the drama of the difference between US defense spending and that of other nations.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military spending reached $2.1 trillion in 2021, with the US spending $804 billion of that by itself. By comparison, China spent $293 billion on its military that year. The US spent so much on its military, it spent more than the next nine countries combined, including China.
The most recent Pentagon budget, signed by US President Joe Biden last month, was a whopping $816.7 billion.
I just had a nice chat with Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Susan E. Northrup. By the end, she no longer can say, “I didn’t know.” If she doesn’t act now, she should be prosecuted for jeopardizing pilot lives.
Executive summary
At 10:15am on Saturday Jan 21, 2023, I made a call to the private cell phone of the Federal Air Surgeon of the FAA Dr. Susan Northrup. The call lasted 2 minutes.
In the call, I referred to the news article where she basically said that she had seen no evidence that the COVID vaccines have incapacitated pilots.
At first I thought she was lying, but it turns out she was telling the truth. She’s seen no evidence because even though she admitted on the call that she knew about Bob Snow, nobody at the FAA ever bothered to call him. Ever!!! So they’ve never seen the evidence because they deliberately refused to look at the evidence!! Get it? That’s how science works.
So I asked Dr. Northrup if she was interested in speaking with pilots who have been disabled by the COVID vaccine. She indicated she was. After all, what could she say at that point? She had to say “yes.”
It’s troubling she hasn’t talked to Bob Snow. I have talked to Bob Snow. I interviewed him for my Rumble channel even though it isn’t my job to investigate these incidents. Check out my interview with Josh Yoder and my interview with Bob Snow.
In other words, I’ve done more to investigate this incident than the FAA.
Captain Snow narrowly averted crashing the plane, but she never talked to him to assess whether the vax might have been involved. Seriously?!?! I offered to put her in touch with Captain Snow and she accepted.
So I emailed her (using her official work email at the FAA) a list of pilots, their phone numbers. She now has the contact info for these pilots:
Josh Yoder (head of US Freedom Flyers who is in touch with dozens of vaccine injured pilots)
Bob Snow (American Airlines)
Kevin Stillwagon (Delta Airlines)
Cody Flint (4 doctors have determined he was incapacitated in flight due to the COVID vaccine)
John C. Lamb (66 yr old commercial aviator with no previous heart problems. On Jan 6, his first class medical was deferred, due to 2nd AB block, Mobitz type 2. His wife had a heart attack 8 days after her Moderna shot. See this story for more details).
More importantly, in that email, I also invited her to host a public roundtable at the FAA inviting people on both sides of the “safe and effective” narrative so that the FAA could learn the truth. I just talked to Senator Ron Johnson and I can assure you that he’d be DELIGHTED to help her assemble a roundtable of doctors on both sides of the narrative to brief top FAA officials on the risks of these vaccines.
And I offered to publish her revised statement to the public so we can get the truth out that the vaccines are NOT safe and are disabling pilots.
Here’s the kicker. The corruption at the FAA runs deep. Did you know that nobody at the FAA has ever called Bob Snow? How can the FAA investigate this incident without ever even talking to the pilot?
Susan is going to have to reveal to the American public what exactly the FAA did to investigate the Bob Snow incident which happened on April 9, 2022. How is it that in 9 months nobody at the FAA (or from any other government organization) has reached out to Captain Snow? WTF? We need some transparency here on how these vaccine incidents are being investigated!
But Susan knew about Snow and she must have known that nobody reached out to call him. In other words, everyone knew they had a vaccine injured pilot and deliberately chose to NOT investigate. I have asked Susan for an explanation. If I don’t receive an explanation in 24 hours, I will call for her to resign.
I am calling for this since nobody in Congress is (other than Senator Johnson). None of them want to know. Heck, when I call members of Congress, they ignore me. Neither does the mainstream media. It appears that the responsibility for investigating these incidents falls on Steve Kirsch’s Substack (which has a full-time staff of just me) to hold these people accountable.
Susan is also going to have to talk about why there was a 300% increase in long-term disability claims filed at American Airlines (Jan – July 2022) and what investigation the FAA made into what was disabling those pilots.
We have a pilot shortage in America. What did Susan find when the FAA investigated why the disability claims skyrocketed? Or did they do nothing to investigate? If they didn’t do anything, why didn’t they? I’d like to know. The New York Times and CNN …. well, not so much.
Finally, did you know that Susan’s husband, John Hyle, is a pilot. John refused to take the COVID vaccine due to safety concerns. So it’s not just a few “anti-vaxxers” spreading “misinformation.” Susan clearly realizes that intelligent people she clearly respects have legitimate concerns that cause them to refuse to take the shot.
The narrative is falling apart.
We need public transparency on all of the things above. And we need it now before lives are lost.
We’ve had a couple of close calls. The FAA needs to be proactive about this, not REACTIVE after a crash happens.
Tucker Carlson provides an excellent 12 minute report about the CIA’s removal of President Kennedy and President Nixon. I recommend that you watch it 2 or 3 times until it sinks in and forward it to all of your friends and relatives. There is nowhere else you can get so much solid and important information in 12 minutes.
Carlson believes that Biden, no longer useful to the establishment, is currently undergoing removal.
I have reported the truth about the removal of Presidents Kennedy and Nixon from office for decades. It was thrilling to me to see after a half century Tucker Carlson give the same explanations to such a large audience. If Americans could only wake up and become involved it might be possible to save our country and the liberty of Americans.
President John F. Kennedy was murdered by the CIA and US Joint Chiefs of Staff once he realized that the government he headed was not the real government. His predecessor President Eisenhower, a 5-star general, warned about the threat to democratic government posed by the military/industrial complex. President Kennedy intended to do something about it while the president still had some power, but he was struck down before he could do more than fire CIA Director Allen Dulles and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Lyman Lemnitzer. President Kennedy wasn’t able to get rid of General Lemnitzer, who transitioned to Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Both Dulles and Lemnitzer are suspected of directing the plot against Kennedy’s life.
President Nixon was the best informed and best respected abroad president of any in US history. He kept in touch with foreign leaders and was well informed about historical and current events. But he also, like Kennedy and Trump, over estimated the power of the president.
Nixon incurred the wrath, as I once again reported on January 19, of the military/security complex with his arms control agreements with the Soviet Union and his opening to China. The assassination of President Kennedy was so obviously an in-house murder, covered up by the CIA’s media whores and the Warren Commission, that the CIA dared not murder a second president.Instead, the CIA saw that one of its operatives was placed as a journalist at the Washington Post, a long-time CIA asset, never a newsman, to head the “Watergate” investigation of President Nixon which was used to drive him from office despite Nixon being reelected by the largest margin in US history.
Donald Trump, being a real estate mogul, knew nothing of Washington or who really rules it. By declaring his intention of normalizing relations with Russia, he blindly took on the CIA and the subterranean rulers of the US. And again the media was used to get rid of him: “Russiagate,” two impeachment attempts, “January 6 Insurrection,” and now “Documents gate.”
The President isn’t even protected by the Secret Service. As the tourist video clearly shows, the Secret Service men along the side of President Kennedy’s open limo in Dallas were called away by a Secret Service superior. The video shows the resistance of one of the Secret Service agents to the order. Once the Secret Service agents were removed, the video shows that Kennedy was killed from a bullet from in front that blew out the back of his head. The video shows his wife reaching out on the back of the limo to get the back of his blown away head.
Despite this clear cut undeniable evidence the Warren Commission ruled that Kennedy was shot from behind by Oswald, the patsy that the CIA had lined up to take the blame. Before Oswald could talk or be questioned he was killed in police custody by Jack Ruby (Jacob Leon Rubensein), a person whose presence is inexplicable, who was permitted by the police to be armed next to Oswald.
The bulk of the insouciant American population fell for this most improbable of all accounts, but many intelligent people did not. So the CIA did not dare murder Nixon physically. They used their Washington Post asset to murder him politically, as they used media to get rid of Donald Trump.
Americans who think they live in a democracy are out to lunch. Americans, so easily fooled time and again, are the reason we have lost our country and the freedom and the hope that it once represented in the world.
How many Americans understand that they no longer live in a free country, that they are the ruled subjects of they know not who? Voting is a cloak, a deception. No one the people prefer can be elected to the office of president. If, like Trump, he gets there unexpectedly, he is removed.
The founder of American civil liberty, Thomas Jefferson, warned us that freedom cannot exist more than 200 years before it has to be refreshed by bloody revolution. He overestimated the life of freedom.
Over the course of my life the meaning of freedom has changed. It no longer means what the Founding Fathers, today denounced as racists, meant, which was self-rule and freedom from oppressive government. Today freedom is the freedom of blacks to rob stores without prosecution, the freedom of the government and its media whores to censor and suppress truth, free expression, and free association, the freedom of government to arrest and imprison people who exercise their civil liberties as “insurrectionists,” the freedom of government and its media whores to brand truth-tellers as “threats to democracy” who are guilty of spreading “misinformation,” the freedom to take away the medical licenses of doctors who saved lives by using medicines banned by Big Pharma’s treatment protocols.
People born in recent decades have no idea how off the wall this is to someone who lived in the real America in the past. When my generation passes, there will be no one alive who knows what America once was.
Billionaire George Soros has links to dozens of prominent media figures in the US and beyond via organizations he funded, a conservative US watchdog claims.
In the last report of a three-part investigation, published on Tuesday, MRC Business examined the ties of the Budapest-born liberal mogul, coming to the conclusion that he “cemented himself as one of the most powerful influencers in global politics through his incredible influence in the media.”
MRC Business said that it had uncovered at least “54 major figures in journalism and activist media who are connected to Soros-funded organizations.” The list includes CNN’s chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour, NBC News anchor Lester Holt, and Cesar Conde, the NBCUniversal News Group chairman, who oversees the outlets NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Many of the 54 individuals play prominent roles in institutions funded by Soros. For instance, Amanpour is a senior adviser at the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which received $2.75 million from the mogul between 2018 and 2020, while Holt is listed as a board member in the same organization. Conde is a trustee at the Aspen Institute, which received over $1 million from the billionaire between 2016 and 2020.
According to MRC, in total Soros has funneled over $32 billion into his organizations in a bid “to spread his radical ‘open society’ agenda on abortion, Marxist economics, anti-Americanism, defunding the police, environmental extremism and LGBT fanaticism.” These efforts have paid off, allowing him to “help indoctrinate millions with his views on a day-to-day basis”, the group claims.
MRC has previously claimed that Soros has financial ties to at least 253 media organizations globally, funding them through his non-profit groups and enabling him to reach viewers and listeners in virtually every corner of the world.
Commenting on the report, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted on Thursday that such revelations could be compared to a “nuclear bombshell.” Should it be proven that the leading US media outlets “received money for adjusting their coverage, all US democracy could be wrapped up in their Constitution and thrown out into the garbage heap of history,” she said.
I have just received a very interesting MHRA reply to an FOI request about whether the Healthy Secretary delegated Covid vaccine decisions to the MHRA.
MHRA said “All the Covid vaccines and therapeutics authorisation decisions were taken by the Licensing Minister and were not delegated.”
What makes this so interesting is the wider context. Under the Human Medicines Regulations, the Licensing Authority is the Secretary of State for Health. He or she delegates to MHRA all the work associated with that – licensing of medicines, pharmacovigilance, inspection of manufacturers, enforcement and so on.
But for the Covid vaccines, MHRA is saying that the Secretary of State personally took all the decisions.
I read that as the blame game having started. I’ll explain why.
Back in 2020, MHRA would have known only too well that the clinical trials had been rushed (10 months compared with typical time to market of 5-10 years), had not been comprehensive (e.g. limited pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics) and wouldn’t finish until 2024. There were many warnings from experts around the world. MHRA’s line about ‘rolling review’ was, and remains, bunkum.
MHRA scientists and officials would have known about the problems (with all medicines) of scaling up production from small-scale, laboratory-based production for trials purposes to full-scale production. For example, larger quantities of ingredients can be more difficult to mix. They wouldn’t therefore have been surprised to have seen batch problems with the Covid vaccines around the world. One batch resulted in the hospitalisation of 120 children in Vietnam. One batch caused ocular injury to nurses when a vial was broken. In Japan, 1.63 million doses were recalled due to metallic contamination. Probably just the tip of the iceberg.
MHRA then saw adverse event reporting starting to reveal serious safety issues in the U.K. and around the world. First, myocarditis and blood clots, in March 2021, a few weeks after approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine (now effectively withdrawn) and later other heart issues, neurological problems and immunosuppression with Pfizer and Moderna.
MHRA knew in 2020 that the risk to younger age groups from Covid was very low and after rollout it would have seen assessments of vaccine effectiveness falling month on month. It wriggled hard against the evidence in the UKHSA weekly surveillance reports that vaccine effectiveness was even negative for younger age groups.
Since then the Covid vaccine narrative has continued to take a pounding as more clinicians around the world speak up, the research evidence about cardiac, neurological and immunosuppression problems continues to pile up, and the 1,000 per week excess deaths have still not been explained.
MHRA might have been criticised by Baroness Cumberlege for being “unresponsive and defensive”, but its staff aren’t all deaf, blind or stupid. They knew.
So my inference is that the blame game has started.
Mind you, MHRA is on a sticky wicket in any blame game. There are serious shortfalls in its own safety management:
It doesn’t have a process for investigating individual Yellow Card reports. It says it tries to investigate individual fatal and serious Yellow Card reports but it doesn’t have a process so it doesn’t know how many it has investigated (FOI 21/1109);
It doesn’t actively seek out real-world data – for example, real-world population-level data such as hospitalisation for ‘adverse events of special interest’ segmented by vaccination status and age. In January 2022, MHRA did not hold such data (CSC 88243) and in August 2022, UKHSA (FOI 22/472) only held population level info on thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). Instead, it waits for signal detection from Yellow Card reports of adverse events, which are massively under-reported;
It doesn’t (or can’t) define the quantitative level of risk which is ‘acceptable’ as the basis of “acceptably safe” (FOI 22/390);
It lost 20% of posts in 2021 due to funding cuts and has 20% vacancies below that new baseline (FOI 22/1007);
It doesn’t have a process for delegating the authority to approve medicines for public use (FOI 22/1002) or governance of individuals competence (qualification, experience and training) (FOI 22/1007) to MHRA officers;
It has hidden safety data (FOI 22/1083), redacting numbers in tables on the pretext of maintaining patient confidentiality;
It appears quietly to have dropped a key strand of its Covid vaccine surveillance: Targeted Active Monitoring. FOI 22/1083 asked for a copy of the latest report but it was 15 months old (August 2021).
But back to “All the Covid vaccines and therapeutics authorisation decisions were taken by the Licensing Minister and were not delegated.” I’m left wondering what safety advice MHRA gave to Chris Whitty and ministers about the Covid vaccines back in late 2020 and early 2021 and subsequently as the serious safety issues started to emerge. And I wonder what briefings MHRA gave to the Commission on Human Medicines Expert Working Group on Covid Vaccine Benefits and Risks and to the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Surveillance Methodologies Expert Working Group – neither publishes minutes.
It’s high time MPs and the Covid Inquiry started to ask some searching questions.
Until Nick retired a few years ago, he was a Senior Civil Servant in a Government Department.
So CIA boss William Burns made a secret trip to Kiev in January last year to warn Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky that his life was in danger from assassination. The clandestine meeting occurred only weeks before Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine.
A new book that appears to have plenty of insider help from U.S. intelligence sources claims that Burns was sent on President Joe Biden’s orders to deliver a “reality check” to Zelensky.
Western news media are gullibly spinning the claim that Burns warned Zelensky that the Russians were plotting to kill him. The impact of the top secret briefing was said to have had a “sobering effect” on the man in Kiev. In less polite terms, he crapped in his pants.
Some questions arise, however, which the Western media as usual do not ask. Why was it deemed necessary for Burns to make a long and secret flight to Kiev to tell Zelensky of a purported Russian assassination threat? Why couldn’t the CIA director have briefed the Ukrainian leader about the danger in a phone call with a secure line? That Burns had to meet Zelensky in person suggests that the American spymaster wanted to convey another, unreported message, a message that only Zelensky would hear and one that could not be taped at any cost.
If the Russians wanted to kill Zelensky surely they would have done it by now during nearly 11 months of bloody conflict and given the evident capability of Russian missiles to hit anywhere in Ukraine?
Incongruously, the Ukrainian politician seems to be at ease in traveling around the country. Only last month he visited the frontline at Bakhmut where he obtained a battle flag from his troops that he then took a day later to Washington for a made-for-television presentation to Congress.
Are they the movements of a man who is really under threat of Russian assassination?
A partial explanation reported by Western media was that at the time of Burns’ trip to Kiev, Zelensky was doubting U.S. intelligence warnings of an imminent Russian invasion. Well not really “doubting” but, more accurately, not hamming up sufficiently. The CIA boss was reportedly dispatched to give the Ukrainian leader a reality check that Russian troops were poised to cross the then border into the Donbass eastern region. That telling implies that Zelensky was being complacent or disbelieving of a Russian threat.
But that telling is not correct. Zelensky was himself playing up the threat of a Russian invasion in the months and weeks leading up to February 24 when the Russian forces entered Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered that intervention because NATO-backed Ukrainian military was intensifying their eight-year campaign to terrorize the ethnic Russian people in the breakaway Donbass region.
Zelensky had been elected in 2019 on a platform of suing for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian civil war. The war had been instigated in 2014 by the CIA-orchestrated coup d’état that brought to power a NeoNazi regime in Kiev.
After being elected, the comedian-turned-politician soon forgot his peace promises to the electorate with a little help from threats of assassination by the CIA-trained NeoNazi paramilitaries. He quickly transitioned from dove to hawk like a professional actor handed a new script.
Maybe Zelensky was getting cold feet and losing his nerve by the time of January last year. He would have known that U.S. and NATO military provocations against Russia and the spurning of Moscow’s diplomatic overtures by Washington and its European minions were leading to war. He did bridle somewhat against Washington’s incessant war drums saying that the “panic” was having an adverse effect on the Ukrainian economy. But that does not mean Zelensky was disbelieving U.S. intelligence. Far from it, he had up to then played along with it.
The reality check that Zelensky needed was to stiffen his nerves for what Washington was lusting for – a proxy war against Russia.
It seems more plausible that William Burns suddenly showed up in Kiev to maximize the intimidation. Washington wanted its proxy war against Russia to go ahead for bigger geopolitical reasons of preserving unipolar hegemony and cutting off Europe from Russian energy, and the Americans did not want their puppet in Kiev to blow it by running scared at the vital moment. Remember too that in April – two months after the conflict erupted – there were peace overtures from Zelensky to Moscow. That incipient diplomacy was promptly scuppered by the American paymasters using the British premier Boris Johnson as a conduit in a suspiciously timed visit to the Ukrainian capital. It seems like Zelensky’s pattern has been one of requiring a bit of ginning up every so often.
Burns warned Zelensky of assassination alright. But the threat wasn’t from Russia. It would have been from the Central Intelligence Agency, the agency that has excelled in bumping off American puppets down the years if they became awkward. Indeed as John F Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Texas, in 1963 illustrates, the agency is capable of bumping off American presidents if they become awkward.
The dapper diplomat Burns who previously served as U.S. ambassador to Russia (2005-2008) would be too genteel to utter the vulgar words, “We’re going to kill you”. Oh no, Zelensky would have been told, “Regrettably, we may not be able to protect you”.
The destruction of Ukraine that Zelensky has permitted is the action of a man who is getting lucrative pay-offs as well as living under the shadow of assassination. And the shadow is cast from Washington and Langley, not Moscow.
The Republicans plan to investigate where the money that Washington allocates to Kiev really goes. The conservative political party suspects that the Biden administration and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky are involved in money laundering and the sale of NATO weapons on the darknet, using the Russian special military operation as an excuse.
“Whether you support Ukrainian funding or not, the fundamental question is, we deserve, and the American people deserve to know how their money is being spent, especially when we’re talking about $120 billion dollars of it,” Freshman Republican Senator JD Vance said on January 11 on the show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
The Republicans currently occupy most key positions in the committees on Capitol Hill. At the moment, one of their most important decisions is launching an investigation into the financing of Kiev by the Biden administration.
After winning the elections for the House of Representatives in November 2022, the Republicans decided to launch an investigation. Congress has formed a committee to investigate how the financial resources of American taxpayers are spent in Ukraine. One of the major questions is whether weapons sent as military aid to Kiev actually ended up in the hands of terrorist and various other organisations.
Numerous media outlets have reported the fact that the weapons supplied to Ukraine do not always reach the front lines. There is even information that these weapons appeared on the darknet – an illegal internet network.
In addition, numerous publications reported that money was laundered through an office that dealt with cryptocurrencies. In other words, the money that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received as military aid was poured into this company, which was used to buy cryptocurrencies.
Senator Vance said in his interview with Tucker Carlson that those opposed to an audit “don’t want to be forced to acknowledge a lot of the money we’ve sent to Ukraine hasn’t been well spent.”
“There are a lot of corrupt people probably getting rich off of it,” he added.
More importantly than the allegation of corruption, the Republicans want to investigate the role of Hunter Biden – the son of US President Joe Biden, who has deep ties with Ukraine’s energy sector.
After the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, they promised in their first press conference to investigate Hunter. Back in 2014, Hunter joined the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. This was at a time when Joe Biden was Vice President and the war in Donbass was on the cusp. Hunter earned more than $50,000 a month over a five-year period as a board member of Burisma.
The Republicans claim that his appointment may have posed a conflict of interest. In 2022, more than 30 Republicans called for a prosecutor to be given special counsel authority to carry out an investigation into alleged “tax fraud, money laundering, and foreign-lobbying violations”. The conservative party has been studying messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter.
With the Republicans having gained the majority in the House of Representatives, they now have the power to issue congressional subpoenas to foreign entities that did business with him. It seemingly appears that the money that the US has sent to Ukraine since the war began is lining the pockets of Ukrainian and American officials.
Most likely, Biden’s son, and even his inner circle, were involved in money laundering and corrupt actions. As for the investigation itself, the Republicans will drag it out until it is clear who the Democrats will run in the 2024 elections. Evidence of such corruption can destroy any Democratic candidate and therefore prevent Biden from running for a second term. Ultimately, weakening the Democratic Party in view of the next presidential election is the aim of the Republicans.
The US Senate has demanded that a Congress report indicate how much money the US authorities sent to Ukraine. According to Senator JD Vance, the $114 billion that the US sent was “impacted by the situation in Ukraine” and does not even include several additional transfers previously requested by the Biden administration.
None-the-less, the senator stressed to Tucker Carlson that the Biden Administration, by law, “is supposed to tell us exactly how that money is being spent. We are putting down a marker…”
He then demanded a response by February 7. And it is until then that we wait for the latest development in the Democratic Party’s alleged corruption and money laundering with Ukraine.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
With each new release of the “Twitter Files” we learn more and more about the deep corruption in Washington. We sensed during Covid that something was really wrong – for example the bizarre denial of natural immunity. But thanks to Elon Musk’s decision to open the books, our worst fears have been proven true. Each new release seems to show something even more criminal inside America’s rotten ruling class.
In the latest release, thanks to the excellent reporting of independent journalist Matt Taibbi, we see outgoing Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), continuously pressuring Twitter to validate his fantasies of “Russian bots” manipulating US politics.
The short version of what Taibbi reported comes from around the time then-Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) was about to release his Committee’s findings about the FBI misuse of the FISA Court to spy on the Trump presidential campaign. The FBI, it turns out, relied exclusively on the widely-discredited “Steele Dossier” – paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign – as justification to spy on the Trump campaign.
When pressure grew to release the Nunes findings, Twitter exploded with users demanding that Congress “release the memo.” That’s where then-ranking Member Schiff and his staff began relentlessly pressuring Twitter to show that the accounts demanding the release of the memo were actually Russian agents, out to help their supposed favorite, Donald Trump. Schiff was not alone. Fellow “Russiagate” hoaxers like Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) also pressured Twitter to find Russians behind the demand to release Nunes’ findings.
Over and over, Twitter – which was hardly sympathetic to Trump – told Schiff and his colleagues there was simply no evidence of Russian involvement. As much as some Twitter employees may have liked to report the opposite, to their credit they refused to participate in the scam.
Even after Twitter had informed Schiff and his fellow hoaxers that there was no Russian involvement, Sen. Blumenthal released a statement he knew was not true: “We find it reprehensible that Russian agents have so eagerly manipulated innocent Americans.” Again, this was right after he had been informed by Twitter employees – who were by-and-large strongly opposed to Trump – that there was just no evidence to back up such a statement.
We are moving closer and closer to a nuclear showdown with Russia over Ukraine. For political gain the Democrats – and plenty of Republicans – have been pushing the “Russiagate” hoax and in so doing have fertilized the ground for the obsessive Russia hatred prevalent in the US today.
I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that if US/Russia relations had not been poisoned by the lie of “Russiagate” for pure political gain, we would not be anywhere near our current state of near-direct conflict with the largest nuclear power on earth, Russia.
It is shocking that Schiff and his “Russiagate” allies would potentially sacrifice millions of dead Americans to defeat Trump and other political enemies.
Let’s not forget: Rep. Jim Trafficant was expelled from Congress for asking his staffers to wash his boat. Shouldn’t there be at least equal punishment for Senators and Members who are lying us into World War III?
Media interest in Saudi Arabian connections to the crimes of 9/11 has centered on calls for the release of the 28 missing pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry’s report. However, those calls focus on the question of hijacker financing and omit the most interesting links between the 9/11 attacks and Saudi Arabia—links that implicate powerful people in the United States. Here are twenty examples. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.