‘Facebook Files’ Reveal Despicable Disregard for the Constitution
By Ron Paul | July 31, 2023
Last week’s revelation that Facebook took orders from the Biden Administration to censor even accurate information about Covid is the latest example of the US government’s disregard for our Constitution. Thanks to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, we now know the extent to which the Biden Administration went in its proxy war against the First Amendment.
Getting the information wasn’t easy. It was only after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was threatened with being held in contempt of Congress that he relented and shared information with the Judiciary Committee about Biden Administration pressure to censor Americans on Facebook who disagreed with White House policy on Covid.
What we have discovered thus far is disgusting. For example, in April 2021, a Facebook employee sent a message to top executives in the company complaining that, “we are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts. In another example, senior executive Nick Clegg complained that Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden, was “outraged… that [Facebook] did not remove” a particular post, according to Rep. Jordan’s report.
Rep. Jordan revealed that the “offending post” that the Biden Administration wanted removed was simply a joke making fun of possible vaccine injury down the road. The Biden Administration even wanted to “protect” us from jokes that it didn’t like.
The Administration did not stop at targeting what it called “misinformation.” As Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley noted in a recent column, “the administration also demanded the removal of ‘malinformation’ that is ‘based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.’” So the Biden Administration wanted to “cancel” even truthful information counter to its own preferred narrative.
This level of contempt for our Constitution is shocking. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – who was himself censored at the behest of the Biden Administration – testified recently before Congress: “A government that can censor its critics has license for every atrocity. It is the beginning of totalitarianism.”
Who knows how many thousands of Facebook accounts were banned or restricted at the behest of the Biden White House. Early last year I received notice that my own Facebook Page was “restricted” for 90 days because I pointed out that the CEO of Pfizer once claimed that his Covid shot was “100 effective” but later changed his story. The post was completely accurate but still my page was targeted.
Although some are using this information for partisan gain against the Democrats in power, Americans should not delude themselves: left unchecked, there is little reason to believe a Republican Administration would show any more respect for the Constitution than the Biden Administration. Both parties have shown themselves to be selective in their pledged oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.
It is just as unconstitutional – and thus illegal – for the US Government to violate the First Amendment by proxy – through so-called private companies – as if the government directly attacked our free speech. We must remember that the unprecedented US government censorship of Americans during Covid was just the test run. Be assured that when the next “crisis” comes – and it will – the authoritarians in charge will again ramp up the censorship machine unless we do something about it.
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
Musk’s X Corp. Sues Authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ Report Over ‘Scare Campaign’ to Chase Away Advertisers
RT | August 1, 2023
X Corp – the company formerly known as Twitter – filed a lawsuit against the UK-based nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) on Monday, accusing the NGO of seeking to stifle free expression and open discussion on X’s platform by scaring away advertisers.
Describing the CCDH as an “activist organization masquerading as [a] research agenc[y], funded and supported by unknown organizations, individuals, and potentially even foreign governments with ties to legacy media companies,” the suit accuses the group of initiating a “scare campaign to drive away advertisers” – whose funding X requires to continue to operate its platform as a free service.
In a blog post accompanying the suit, X also accused the CCDH of “targeting people on all platforms who speak about issues the CCDH doesn’t agree with, attempting to coerce the deplatforming of users whose views do not conform to the CCDH’s ideological agenda, targeting free-speech organizations by focusing on their revenue stream to remove free services for people, [and] attempting to illegally gain unauthorized access to social media platform data and to misuse that data.”
The censorship advocate also “scraped” X’s platform, slurping up all available data – something X’s terms of service forbids – and illegally accessed X’s data via a borrowed login from advertising analytics platform Brandwatch, according to the suit. This data was then used “out of context” to claim a “surge in harmful content” had driven advertisers away from X, it states.
The unnamed Brandwatch user who assisted the CCDH is among the 50 ‘John Doe’ defendants listed in the suit – co-conspirators X claims is working with CCDH to sabotage X, explaining their real names will be added as their true identities are discovered.
X does not put a dollar value on the amount CCDH’s “research” has cost it, referring only to “at least tens of millions of dollars” and demanding that the censorship advocate cease using the stolen data.
CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed dismissed Musk’s claims, telling CNN the lawsuit “sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me” and accusing the billionaire of blaming Ahmed for “his own failings as a CEO.” The CCDH has repeatedly alleged that Musk has made X a haven for bigotry, most recently airing its claims in a July 19 Bloomberg article that asserted: “hate speech towards minority communities increased” under his leadership.
The lawsuit came less than 24 hours after the CCDH published a letter from what was then known as Twitter, dated July 20, accusing the NGO of “regularly” making “inflammatory, outrageous, and false or misleading assertions about Twitter and its operations,” while positioning such assertions as scientifically-rigorous “research.” The CCDH countered that Twitter was trying to “silence honest criticism” via legal intimidation.
Never investigate what you don’t want to ‘confirm’
This maxim pretty much explains everything in our New Normal
BY BILL RICE, JR. | JULY 27, 2023
(Part 1 of 2)
I quickly formulated a maxim that pretty much explains why all the authorized Covid narratives took hold. This also explains why non-authorized narratives never had a chance.
This maxim is:Never investigate that which you don’t want to “confirm.”
As far as I can tell, this narrative-control tactic works every time.
If officials don’t want any revelations to debunk their preferred narrative, they just don’t investigate it. This way it’s almost impossible for anyone to “confirm” these trusted officials and truth-seeking scientists have been telling whoppers longer than Pinocchio.
FWIW, the intentional creation of bogus narratives satisfies the correct definitions of “disinformation” and “malinformation.”
As journalists are supposed to give examples to support our maxims, I’ve included several examples, a few which reveal my own futile efforts to learn or expose taboo truths.
Solution to protect said False Narrative: Make sure most people don’t know that the average age of a Covid victim is a couple of years over the average life expectancy.
For example, from my research for this article, I learned that in Europe the average age of a Covid victim was around 82.4 (where average life expectancy is about 79.4).
It’s hard to debunk/reject the all-important authorized narrative (“Covid is a threat to everyone”) if hardly any citizen reads that just about the only people dying from Covid were the elderly (almost all of whom had multiple co-morbid health conditions). Given the parameters established by this information template, the false narrative might as well be “confirmed.”
Narrative protection technique: Make sure no journalist ever writes a story that mentions that zero college or pro athletes ever died from Covid.
If officials and journalists did “confirm” the fact that no college or pro athlete has died from Covid, this information wouldn’t exactly promote the official bogus narrative.
Officials and journalists have never “confirmed” that zero athletes have died from Covid … because they never bothered to “investigate” this.
For reporters or researchers, confirming facts entails “investigative” effort. A bonus for journalists employing this narrative-control technique is they don’t have to do any investigative work. This actually makes their jobs much easier. One could even say this feature of their job rewards laziness.
Early in official Covid, I wrote a letter to the editor for al.com, showing that at the University of Alabama in the flu season of 2017-2018 – in just a few few weeks – at least 863 UA students students went to the college infirmary with flu symptoms.
From further research, I showed that at just one college in our state, five times as many college students had been “sick” from a flu outbreak that spanned approximately 40 days than had been “sick from COVID-19 in our entire state … in approximately 200 days.
I knew this because one journalist at al.com wrote a story on September 16, 2020 that provided several nuggets of eye-opening information.
For example, more than six weeks after students returned to Tuscaloosa in the summer of 2020, no UA student had been hospitalized due to Covid.
Per this article, Dr. Ricky Friend, the dean of UA’s College of Community Health Sciences, said: “I can also tell you very few students in quarantine and isolation are experiencing significant symptoms.”
Also from the same article (more about the real source of this info later): “Friend … said one in every four or five students tested on campus is showing symptoms. The rest are asymptomatic.This is very much in line with data and trends we are seeing across the country.”
Re-stated: 75 to 80 percent of college students who were classified as a Covid “case” at Alabama (and around the country) were “asymptomatic,” meaning they weren’t sick at all.
In late summer 2020 at the University of Alabama (after a month of non-stop student testing), exactly zero UA students had been hospitalized from Covid, none had died, “very few” students forced to live “in isolation” were “experiencing any significant symptoms” and, 75 to 80 percent of “positive” students experienced no Covid symptoms.
In other words, the flu of two years earlier had made far more UA students sick than Covid did.
And the 863 “sick” flu students identified in the news report of a Birmingham TV station were just those who went to the UA infirmary. Many sick students might have gone to another healthcare provider, or never gone to the doctor … or these students became sick while they were home on Christmas holidays.
Many thousands of UA students had no doubt become “sick” during this particular flu outbreak.
Which brings me to my main point: Life at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa did not stop in January 2018. No classes were cancelled; nobody was ordered to wear a mask; basketball season was not cancelled; Students didn’t have to take on-line courses from their dorm rooms or apartments. Nobody freaked out at all.
I pointed all of this out in a letter I submitted to al.com. In the letter, I reported that “far more UA students were sick a couple of years ago from the flu than have been sick since Alabama’s first “confirmed” case in March.
But, alas, al.com wouldn’t publish my essay.
I did get to argue my case with the the news organization’s op-ed editor (K. A. Turner). Ms. Turner was decent enough to call and talk to me about my piece. I’ll never forget what she told me:
“Bill, we can’t allow you to compare Covid to the flu.”
For a few moments, I was speechless.
Did I hear this news editor right? The leading news organization in our state would “not allow” me to publish a true and important statement, one backed up by quantifiable published data?
What happened to American newspapers?
It didn’t take me long to figure out what’d happened. People like myself – using elementary critical thinking skills – were not going to be “allowed” to debunk any authorized narrative about Covid.
The point I was seeking to “confirm” with good, old-fashioned facts …. would not be allowed.
I still think the dean’s admission that up to 80 percent of “Covid cases” at UA were asymptomatic should have been national news.
At the time, students across the country were returning to campuses after several months of lockdowns. Every college in America was testing students; newspapers were filled with stories about “new cases” and “outbreaks” at colleges.
But one dean obviously messed up and said that no students were hospitalized, very few students had significant symptoms, nobody had died and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of “cases” were as “sick” as I am right now.
That is, the dean blew up an important, albeit false, fear-mongering narrative.
Of course no other news organizations picked up on this accidental revelation, which was a bummer … because I was the person who’d sent several emails to the reporter asking this journalist to ask a UA official this very question.
The journalist was Michael Cassagrande, who normally covers sports for al.com, but expanded his journalist duties during the first months of Covid (probably because there were no sporting events to cover).
I kept emailing Michael a reader suggestion: Ask some UA official how many of these positive cases are asymptomatic.
And damn if he didn’t do it. The info the dean revealed about no student hospitalizations and all the students in isolation being fine was unexpected bonus Covid info.
So we have a lesson here: If you keep bugging a few sports reporters, one of them might ask questions “news” reporters would never ask.
I’m also a journalist (although, at the time, I was a freelance journalist who could never get any of my taboo Covid stories published).
Still, several months later, I asked the director of the University of Alabama’s Media Affairs the same questions Michael asked. I knew UA never stopped testing students so I wanted to know if the “asymptomatic” rate was STILL 80 percent.
However, the director (who used to be a journalism professor) wouldn’t answer my questions.
Nor would she arrange an interview with the dean who’d previously answered Michael’s questions (actually my questions) several months earlier.
I also wanted to know what percentage of athletes at Alabama who were testing positive were asymptomatic. She wouldn’t answer that either.
So I asked the media affairs staffers at the SEC the same question. (Testing of all student-athletes was mandatory for many months, with most athletes having to get a swab pushed up their noses three or four times a week.)
The SEC’s media affairs director said he couldn’t answer that question. He told me maybe I could go straight to the university and get that information. I told him I had: no dice.
I didn’t stop with the SEC. I asked all the media affairs people at all the big Division I conferences (Big-10, Pac-12, ACC, etc.), the same questions:
How many student athletes who tested positive via a PCR test were asymptomatic?
How many athletes have been hospitalized with Covid?
My answers were “we can’t answer those questions” … or no “media affairs” helpers replied to the questions of this media reporter.
Do these conference officials simply not know these answers or did they know the answers and simply didn’t want the public to know?
I don’t know … Oh, who am I kidding? I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday …. I know the answer.
They know the answers … they just don’t want to “confirm” them. Or they know that it’s best to NOT do any investigations that would “confirm” that Covid is and always has been a nothing burger to college students and college athletes.
They know an important part of their jobs is to protect all the authorized narratives, especially the ones that are false.
Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham team up to tackle “cyberbullying,” “physical, emotional, developmental” online harms
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | July 28, 2023
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have jointly proposed a strategy to rein in Big Tech companies, reignite competition, and curb the spread of what they call “harmful” online content.
“Our legislation would guarantee common-sense safeguards for everyone who uses tech platforms. Families would have the right to protect their children from sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, and deadly drugs. Certain digital platforms have promoted the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, suicidal ideation, and eating disorders or done precious little to combat these evils; our bill would require Big Tech to mitigate such harms and allow families to seek redress if they do not,” the senators wrote in a New York Times opinion piece.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The senators aim to establish a new federal agency tasked with cracking down on what they call potential harms originating from tech behemoths, such as Amazon, Google, Meta, and beyond, encompassing everything from social media to ecommerce and artificial intelligence.
Warren and Graham’s collaborative venture comes in response to mounting concerns about the overreach of Big Tech, which they argue have shown a pattern of flouting privacy, threatening national security, and exterminating competition.
“For too long, giant tech companies have exploited consumers’ data, invaded Americans’ privacy, threatened our national security, and stomped out competition in our economy,” stated Warren.
The proposed federal watchdog, however, raises concerns about potential censorship and individual free speech infringement. Industry advocates worry that authoritative regulation could enable government manipulation and compromise the essence of an open, unbiased digital ecosystem that advances innovation and public discourse, particularly when the senators refer to “harms” such as “cyberbullying.”
“A covered entity shall mitigate the heightened risks of physical, emotional, developmental, or material harms posed by materials on, or engagement with, any platform owned or controlled by the covered entity,” the bill states.
The proposal, titled the Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act, delineates the power of this new agency to initiate lawsuits against platforms for their potential harms, establish industry regulations, investigate alleged wrongdoings, and enforce compliance. For significant violators, the commission could have the power to revoke operating licenses, marking a move towards directing the course of the digital era.
In addition to these sweeping powers, the legislation would also prescribe outright bans on certain practices. For instance, Google would be restrained from privileging its own applications in search results. The data mining practices of these companies would also be scrutinized, restricting their ability to use personal data for targeted advertising.
Moreover, the proposal addresses the increasing national security anxieties tied to dominant tech platforms like TikTok. The legislation would require such platforms to be based in the United States or be controlled by US citizens and would curb their ability to store data in designated countries.
Senator Elizabeth Warren stated the congruity of this proposed tech-focused commission with the Federal Communications Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which specifically regulate different sectors. However, clarity regarding potential collaboration or synergy with existing agencies such as the FTC and the Department of Justice remains to be seen, fostering doubt about potential jurisdictional conflicts.
In their New York Times op-ed, Senator Graham and Warren claimed, “Enough is enough. It’s time to rein in Big Tech.” Despite this, while there is some need to curb Big Tech practices, critics call for caution over measures that could undermine free expression and technological innovation in an era where they seem more intertwined than ever before. Free speech, not censorship should be promoted.
‘Health Program or Military Program’? White House Taps Military Official to Lead New Pandemic Policy Office
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 26, 2023
Just weeks after ending the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies and the resignation of COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, the White House launched its Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR).
Retired Major General Paul Friedrichs, a military combat surgeon, will lead the office, the White House said.
According to the White House, the OPPR will be “a permanent office in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) charged with leading, coordinating, and implementing actions related to preparedness for, and response to, known and unknown biological threats or pathogens that could lead to a pandemic or to significant public health-related disruptions in the United States.”
The OPPR will take over the duties of President Biden’s COVID-19 and monkeypox response teams, including “ongoing work to address potential public health outbreaks and threats from COVID-19, Mpox, polio, avian and human influenza, and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus],” the announcement stated.
The OPPR also will oversee efforts to “develop, manufacture, and procure the next generation of medical countermeasures, including leveraging emerging technologies and working with HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] on next generation vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 and other public health threats.”
According to The New York Times, Friedrichs, set to take office Aug. 7, will have the authority to “oversee domestic biosecurity preparedness.” He will work on the development of next-generation vaccines, ensure adequate supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile and “ramp up surveillance to monitor for new biological threats.”
Several medical, biosecurity and civil liberties experts questioned the selection of a career military and biosecurity individual to head a new office charged with pandemic preparedness.
They also told The Defender they saw parallels between the White House’s establishment of the OPPR and ongoing United Nations (U.N.) efforts to draft a global declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR).
‘Is OPPR a health program or a military program?’
Friedrichs, a board-certified physician, is currently a special assistant to the president and senior director for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the National Security Council.
He previously served as joint staff surgeon at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and as medical adviser to the Pentagon’s COVID-19 task force.
Throughout his career, the White House said, Friedrichs worked closely with federal, state, tribal, local and territorial government partners, as well as industry and academic counterparts.
According to the White House:
“As the United States’ representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee of Military Medical Chiefs, he worked closely with many of America’s closest allies and partners throughout the pandemic and in developing medical support to the Ukrainian military.”
In his previous roles at the National Security Council and DOD, Friedrichs was a strong proponent of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures.
The Times reported that, in a February speech, Friedrichs said, “The military health system became the pinch-hitter that stepped in to help our civilian partners as we collectively struggled to work through that pandemic.”
In a February 2022 podcast, Friedrichs praised the COVID-19 vaccines and also appeared to blame those who were unvaccinated for placing “stress on our system.”
And in remarks shared in January 2022 with the Association of the United States Army, Friedrichs asked military families to continue holding off on gatherings so that service members are “able to do the things that our nation depends on them to do.”
Does Friedrichs’ appointment signal more vaccine mandates?
Describing Friedrichs’ appointment as “a joke and a fraud,” Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender :
“DOD has routinely enforced experimental medical vaccines on U.S. Armed Forces, in gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation — that is, a Nuremberg crime against humanity — from today’s COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and going all the way back in recent history to the ‘vaccines’ that produced Gulf War sickness starting in 1990-1991, when Friedrichs was a U.S. Military medical doctor.
“Of 500,000 U.S. troops inoculated, 11,000 died and 100,000 were disabled. I do not recall that Friedrichs was among the handful of courageous and principled military medical doctors who refused, as a matter of principle, to inflict Nuremberg crimes on our own troops. Did he? That needs to be investigated.”
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” said the selection of Friedrichs, who supported military vaccine mandates, may signal similar future mandates for the general public.
“We should not forget that the DOD mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for service members,” Rectenwald said. “The OPPR will mandate vaccines for the nation.”
And writing on her blog, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, questioned if the OPPR plans “to use the military’s OTA [other transaction] authority again to bypass the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and vaccinate us with untested junk that turned out to be poison, like it did for COVID.”
Is OPPR “a health program or a military program?” Nass wrote.
Nass told The Defender that if the main purpose of the OPPR was to respond to pandemics and pandemic threats, an epidemiologist or infectious disease doctor would have been tapped to head the office instead of a military general.
Similarly, Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told The Defender :
“COVID-19 demonstrated that the sort of interventions envisioned by the pandemic preparedness lobby such as lockdowns and coerced mass vaccination, have poor public health outcomes.
“Public health should be concentrated on informing the public to make personal decisions about health, rather than the population-control approaches we saw for COVID-19 that are most profitable to the corporate world. We must hope this new health bureaucracy is more independent of vested interests, and will take an evidence-based approach.”
Nass suggested that Friedrich’s selection belies a broadly encompassing biosecurity agenda, which would include censorship of non-establishment medical information, surveillance and mass, or mandatory, vaccination, tied to U.N. and World Health Organization (WHO) “pandemic preparedness and response” efforts.
A ‘WHO globalist worldwide medical and scientific police state’ here in the U.S.?
Other experts also noted the similarities between the name of the OPPR, the U.N.’s draft PPPR and a similar recent agreement among WHO member states.
Still in “zero draft” form, the PPPR is scheduled to be discussed by the U.N. General Assembly in September 2023. It would also be tied to the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Similarly, a June 28 document from the WHO said, “Member States … have agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
And a separate but similar set of proposals — part of the U.N.’s “Pact for the Future” and “Our Common Agenda” — would give the U.N. secretary-general unprecedented emergency powers not only for pandemics but seemingly for an unlimited range of other potential crises. The U.N. will discuss these proposals in September 2024.
Boyle told The Defender the OPPR is “obviously being coordinated with the U.N. [and] the Biden administration to establish the effective functioning of a WHO globalist worldwide medical and scientific police state here in the United States.”
“You need the mentality of an unprincipled military medical major general to do that,” Boyle said. “All the trains will run on time.”
Rectenwald drew similar connections, telling The Defender the OPPR and Friedrichs’ selection:
“Signifies the militarization of pandemic responses in the U.S., in line with the ‘global governance’ measures outlined by the U.N.’s Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response declaration.
“This new wing of the executive branch is the means by which this ‘global governance’ (read: one-world totalitarian system) is being introduced to the U.S., using pandemic preparedness as the pretext.”
Notably, proposals for a government “pandemic preparedness” office date at least as far back as October 2020, when the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued an extensive set of recommendations calling upon the U.S. government to “adopt a robust strategy for domestic and global pandemic preparedness.”
The report recommended that the U.S. “finally treat pandemics as a serious national security threat, translating its rhetorical support for pandemic preparedness into concrete action.”
According to the CFR, this would entail “bolstering the White House’s leadership role in preparing for and responding to pandemics, improving congressional input into and oversight over executive branch efforts, reforming the CDC so that it can perform more effectively, and clarifying the often confused division of labor across federal, state, and local governments in pandemic preparedness and response.”
“The president should designate a focal point within the White House for global health security, including pandemic preparedness and response,” the report added. “This office would have lead responsibility for coordinating the multiple federal departments and agencies in anticipating, preventing, and responding quickly to major disease outbreaks.”
OPPR reports to Congress required only every 5 years, not annually
The establishment of the OPPR resulted from the passage of the PREVENT Pandemics Act in December 2022.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and the now-retired Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), passed as part of an omnibus spending bill, contained a requirement for the creation of a White House pandemic preparedness and response office.
Though the bill was passed in December 2022, the White House was unable to immediately establish a pandemic preparedness office and name a director.
A Politico report in May said these efforts were “hindered by concerns over whether [the office] will have the influence within the administration and the financial resources needed to fulfill its broad mission — especially as COVID plummets down the list of political priorities.”
According to the White House announcement, OPPR will “Develop and provide periodic reports to Congress” as required by law, including drafting and delivering to Congress “a biennial Preparedness Review and Report and Preparedness Outlook Report every five years.”
On her blog, Nass wrote, “Instead of the more customary yearly reports, the reporting to Congress is being delayed considerably, perhaps until after many of us have died from the countermeasures — a great way to evade oversight.”
In a separate blog post, Nass also observed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested $20 billion for “pandemic preparedness” in its fiscal year 2024 budget.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
UK Government Censorship Unit Consulted With United Nations and G7 on “Misinformation”
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | July 28, 2023
The UK government is not a fan of free speech and its Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), which urged social media companies to censor Covid dissent from UK citizens, is one of many recent examples of the ways it tries to chill the public’s speech.
But recently released witness statements have revealed that the government’s eagerness to crack down on speech is so great that it doesn’t even restrict its censorship operations to domestic government agencies. Instead, it lets representatives from foreign governments, who weren’t elected by UK citizens, give feedback to a domestic censorship unit that target the lawful speech of UK citizens.
The witness statements from Sam Lister, director-general for strategy and operations at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and Susannah Storey, permanent secretary at the DCMS, were made public this week as part of an independent inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic. However, Lister’s statement was given in March 2023 and Storey’s statement was given in April 2023.
Lister’s witness statement revealed that the CDU consulted with international partners “who provide additional insights on potentially harmful disinformation, based on social media data and academic research.”
Storey’s statement elaborated on the scope of these consultations and revealed that the CDU attended multiple “disinformation sessions” with these international partners which include the Internet Government Forum (a United Nations initiative), Digital Nations (a UK-founded network that has 10 member countries), and G7 (an intergovernmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US).
Foreign government representatives were just some of the many partners interfacing with the CDU, according to the statements.
Both Lister’s and Storey’s statements revealed that UK spy agencies were involved with the CDU since its inception.
Additionally, the statements divulged that some of the other partners that work with the CDU, the Counter Disinformation Cell (a unit that was formed by the CDU), and the DCMS, which oversees the CDU, include other government departments, academia, civil society, social media companies, think tanks, and international organizations.
Lister and Storey claim that the purpose of these partnerships is to address “disinformation” and “misinformation” and “combat online harm spread by disinformation.”
Previous reports have revealed that the CDU has a high censorship success rate with 90% of the posts that it flags being removed or suppressed. Despite the CDU being responsible for mass censorship of lawful speech, the UK government has defended the unit and claimed that it supports free speech.
Revealed: Dark Money Funders Behind ‘Disinformation Dozen’ Report
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 27, 2023
A new report published Monday by GreenMedInfo revealed nine of the dark money sources funding the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an influential nonprofit that allegedly colluded with social media platforms and the White House to censor Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman on leave and others for spreading “disinformation.”
The report identified CCDH’s funders primarily as U.K.-based philanthropic organizations whose directors and trustees are affiliated with legacy media organizations, the U.K. government and major global philanthropic organizations such as the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation.
Despite claims by Imran Ahmed, CCDH’s CEO and founder, that the organization has “never taken government money,” the report also found at least one of its funders has received U.K. government funding.
“It appears that CCDH may be an astroturf front operation for both NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and the U.K. government to directly interfere with and target the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and this should be a concern for all Americans,” report author Sayer Ji told The Defender.
CCDH famously drafted a list of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” which included Kennedy, Dr. Joseph Mercola, the founders of The Truth About Vaccines and The Truth About Cancer websites Ty and Charlene Bollinger, and Ji, founder of the natural health website GreenMedInfo.
CCDH alleged in its report that just 12 accounts produced the majority of “anti-vaccine disinformation” on social media.
Facebook investigated and dismissed the report, releasing a statement saying that “There isn’t any evidence” to support its claims and that the small sample used in CCDH’s analysis was “in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines.”
“There is no justification for [CCDH’s] claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps,” Facebook stated.
Yet, the report was used by the White House and Twitter to censor those individuals and by legacy media outlets such as NPR, The Guardian and countless others to discredit the people on the list.
Despite its baseless claims, the report was extremely effective, Ji said.
Ji told The Defender :
“CCDH’s factually baseless campaign was amplified and disseminated globally by hundreds of colluding media outlets, such that today you can find over 3,400 news articles online uncritically citing their defamatory construct ‘disinformation dozen.’
“This has wrought profound reputational damage, and has dramatically curtailed our ability to share our message, given that over 2 million of our followers have been removed, following the deplatforming efforts of those spreading these lies.”
In Kennedy’s testimony before a U.S. House of Representatives hearing organized by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government last week, he cited his inclusion on CCDH’s list as part of a “new form of censorship, which is called ‘targeted propaganda,’ where people apply pejoratives like ‘anti-vax’ … to silence me.”
The latest “Twitter Files” released July 18 by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker detailed how Twitter and the White House used CCHD’s “Disinformation Dozen” report as justification for censoring the people on the list.
Thacker also profiled Ahmed, who previously worked for Merrill Lynch and was a British Labour Party political operative, and is the co-author of “The New Serfdom: The Triumph of Conservative Ideas and How to Defeat Them… .” Ahmed emerged during the pandemic as a “vaccine and disinformation expert,” although lacking any experience that would qualify him as such, Thacker reported.
Thacker raised questions about who funds CCDH and reached out to the organization to investigate, but received no response.
Ji’s report published Monday provides a partial answer to that question, seeking to “contribute to the collective effort to shed a sterilizing light on the dark agenda spear-headed by astroturfing organizations like CCDH,” he wrote in the report.
CCDH’s funders primarily global but U.K.-based nonprofits
Although CCDH does not make its funders publicly available and failed to respond to Thacker’s inquiries, Ji was able to identify some of them by examining the public grant-reporting website 360 GrantNav, along with other publicly available sites, including CCDH’s 2020 website archived on the Wayback Machine.
The funders identified are primarily U.K.-based charities, some of which operate globally and generally contribute to a wide variety of causes that cluster around issues of environment and poverty, rather than health or science.
According to the report, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation in 2021 gave CCDH a £100,000 grant earmarked for “growing the digital presence and impact of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.” The foundation’s trustees include the former general-director of the BBC Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead, and Sir Anthony Saltz, formerly on BBC’s board of governors.
The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, a large U.K. charity with a £1.5 billion endowment, whose mission is “to improve the natural world, create a fairer future and strengthen community bonds in the UK,” gave CCDH £200,000 in October 2021 to support a salary at the organization and to “disrupt the spread of online hate and misinformation.” It awarded CCDH a second £13,333 grant in January of this year.
The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which, according to the report, is a U.K.-based limited company — not a charity and therefore able to fund political causes — gave CCDH £53,400 in 2020.
CCDH is also funded by the Oak Foundation, a global environmentalist grantmaking foundation that gave CCDH $100,000 to help it shine a “spotlight on digital misinformation platforms that are polluting the public discourse.”
CCDH reported on its website that it received an undisclosed amount of money from the Barrow Cadbury Trust, whose mission is to “tackle profound social ills, including juvenile crime and urban poverty.”
The Pears Foundation, a U.K. charity that Ji’s report says focuses on “Israel-related projects” gave CCDH £250,000 over three years. The foundation is funded by the William Pears group and the U.K. government, according to the report.
The Hopewell Fund is a U.S.-based 501(c)(3) organization managed by a Washington, D.C.-based philanthropy consulting firm and is dedicated to funding “innovative social change projects.” It gave CCDH a small $15,000 grant in 2021.
Unbound Philanthropy, the final donor identified by the report, is a New York-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose executive director Taryn Higashi also sits on the advisory board of Soros’ Open Society Foundations and who formerly worked at the Ford Foundation.
But this is just a partial list, and in his report, Ji appealed to the public to continue researching the “dark money” behind the organization.
Ji also invited readers to take action on the Stand for Health Freedom campaign website “to send the message that the targeting of U.S. citizens to illegally suppress protected speech is unacceptable.”
The Defender examined CCDH’s 990 — the tax form nonprofits must file annually with the IRS — from fiscal year 2021, where the organization reported receiving $1,471,247 in contributions and grants and listed $860,457 in total assets.
The list of contributors was marked as “restricted,” and further information was not provided. It did report spending $12,633 on “lobbying activities.”
While The Defender was only able to find the single 2021 federal form 990, we did locate CCDH’s U.K. financial reporting form for fiscal year 2022 (ending Oct. 31, 2022), showing the organization received $904,452 from donations in 2022 and $638,499 in 2021.
Financial filings also reveal CCDH board member affiliations
The U.S. 990, the U.K. financial statements and the U.K.’s company information service also revealed CCDH’s frequently changing board members and directors, many of whom have close ties to government and media organizations.
Notable figures include Simon Clark, board chair, who was a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. The Atlantic Council is a NATO, arms industry and Persian Gulf monarchies-funded think tank.
Prior to his work at the Atlantic Council, Clark was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he led the work that informed the Biden White House’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
Ji found it “unsurprising” that “CCDH’s rhetorical points made it into several U.S. Department of Homeland Security terrorism bulletins equating free speech and open debate about mRNA vaccine safety and efficacy, or Covid origins, as possible new forms of domestic terrorism.”
Another CCDH director, Kirsty McNeill has also worked as Save the Children’s executive director for Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns since 2016, a period during which the Bill & Melinda Foundation donated more than $40 million to the organization.
Save the Children has also partnered with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Gavi maintains a core partnership with the World Health Organization and the World Bank.
McNeill previously worked as a special adviser and speechwriter for former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. She is a member of the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations, funded by such entities as the Open Society Foundations, the United Nations and the Gates Foundation.
Aleen Keshishian and Zack Morgenroth are both CCDH board members and work at Lighthouse Management & Media, a Hollywood management agency representing top stars including Jennifer Aniston, who famously cut ties with her unvaccinated friends.
Damian Noel Thomas Collins, who joined CCDH in 2022, is a British Conservative Party politician who formerly served as a junior Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.
CCDH sought to silence the voices that were ‘most effective’ at warning the public
In addition to its government, social media and legacy media connections, CCDH has partnered with “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard — specifically, its HealthGuard product, described as “a vaccine against medical misinformation” and against critiques targeting the healthcare industry and global public health authorities.
According to an article by Off-Guardian, CCDH claimed the COVID-19 pandemic “will only be overcome by the most ambitious vaccination programme in human history” and those who question this program have “fringe and extremist views,” which “should not be permitted and should indeed be banned.”
They have also advocated for the imprisonment of “anti-vaxxers.”
Ji told The Defender that CCDH’s targeted campaign spoke to the validity of the ideas of those it sought to deplatform.
He said:
“George R. R. Martin once said, ‘When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.’
“I believe CCDH’s campaign was intended to silence those of us who they believed were most effective at warning the public about the true dangers of the mRNA vaccine rollout and how this mass experiment violated the medical ethics principle of informed consent.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a 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.
Bank manager makes non-apology to Nigel Farage, fails to apologize for lying to BBC that Farage was overdrawn
But Dame Alison Rose is good at misdirecting, deflecting, delaying and blaming the law for her overreach.
BY MERYL NASS | JULY 27, 2023
What a dame. Cancels Nigel Farage’s bank accounts and then lies about the reason to the media, claiming he had negative balances. Defamation on top of her other crimes.
After that, she sends a non-apology apology to Nigel, offering to re-bank him. Here are 4 paragraphs from it:
“… I fully understand yours and the public’s concern that the processes for bank account closure are not sufficiently transparent. Customers have a right to expect their bank to make consistent decisions against publicly available criteria and those decisions should be communicated clearly and openly with them, within the constraints imposed by the law.
To achieve this, sector–wide change is required, but your experience, highlighted in recent days, has shown we need to also put our own processes under scrutiny too. As a result I am commissioning a full review of the Coutts processes for how these decisions are made and communicated, to ensure we provide a better, clearer and more consistent experience for customers in future.
The review will be reporting to me as NatWest Group CEO.
I welcome the FCA’s reviews of regulatory rules associated with Politically Exposed Persons, and we will implement the recommendations of our review alongside any changes that they or the Government makes to the overall regulatory framework…”
Her ‘non-apology’ is almost certainly lying again, and I dissect only 4 paragraphs of it:
- claiming that ‘sector-wide change is required’ to allow people to bank as they always have? Pretty please Dame Alison, what sectoral changes have occured that you might be hiding from us that require you to ‘debank’ customers? Or are you making this up too?
- claiming customers have a right to expect consistency and transparency around these decisions—then she provides him neither in the letter
- she suggests maybe the law prevents transparency and consistency. Pray tell what law might that be?
- she is commissioning a full review—the usual delaying deflecting tactic. We know she made the decision—it would not have been done without the CEO’s approval.
- and the review will go to her, not to the public. Super. The circle-jerk.
- And what are Politically Exposed Persons, Dame Alison, and what special rules apply to them? Help us out here.
Not only did Joe Mercola have his busines acount, his family’s accounts, and his employees’ accounts suddenly cancelled by Chase Bank, but Dr.Syed Haider had his accounts closed and his vacation cancelled (in the middle) when his credit card stopped working.
Welcome to the opening volley in the Social Credit Score onslaught. Do NOT get an iris scan because you were promised free cryptocurrency to do so, as many have just done. No digital IDs, no digital driver’s licenses, no CBDCs. Unless you want your life shut off at will. Time to fight back.
Documents show White House pressured Facebook to censor speech
RT | July 27, 2023
Newly unearthed documents from Facebook have revealed that US President Joe Biden’s administration pressured the world’s largest social media platform to censor commentary by its users, potentially violating their constitutional right to free speech.
US House Judiciary Committee Chairman and Republican Jim Jordan obtained the documents amid his panel’s investigation of the administration’s alleged “weaponization” of government. The documents prove that Facebook and Instagram censored posts and changed their moderation policies because of “unconstitutional pressure from the Biden White House,” Jordan said on Thursday.
Among the evidence cited by the lawmaker was an April 2021 email from a Facebook employee to top executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. “We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine-discouraging content,” the sender said. The message noted, for example, that the White House had pushed for the censoring of a humorous meme that suggested the jabs might be unsafe.
Around the same time period, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s president for global affairs, sent a message informing his colleagues that Andy Slavitt, a senior adviser to Biden on Covid-19 policies, was “outraged” that the platform didn’t take down the anti-vaccine meme. Clegg said he countered that removing the content “would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US,” but Slavitt disregarded that concern and argued that the meme would hinder the government’s vaccine-rollout effort.
Social media platforms themselves can legally choose how to restrict their content, but government intervention to influence those decisions could infringe on free-speech rights. After a report last October showed that the administration had set up a portal through which federal officials could make content-moderation requests to Big Tech, the American Civil Liberties Union said, “The First Amendment bars the government from deciding for us what is true or false – online or anywhere. Our government can’t use private pressure to get around our constitutional rights.”
Jordan warned earlier this week that his committee would vote to hold Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress unless Facebook provided the documents it had subpoenaed on government interventions into content moderation. He claimed that the committee had seen enough evidence to believe that Facebook was holding back on turning over evidence that would show it faced the same sort of government pressure that was previously revealed by Twitter.
Facebook executives feared repercussions if they didn’t appease the White House, Jordan said. Three months after Biden took office, Facebook’s vice president for public policy, Brian Rice, wrote in an April 2021 email that Slavitt’s pushback felt “very much like a crossroads for us with the White House in these early days.” He added, “Given what is at stake here, it would also be a good idea if we could regroup and take stock of where we are in our relations with the White House and our internal methods, too.”
Another document showed that “talking points” were prepared for Clegg to help smooth over relations with the administration. One of the suggestions was that he point out the company’s handling of a Tucker Carlson video that angered the White House. Although the video didn’t violate the platform’s policies, Facebook throttled back its distribution by 50% while it was queued to be “fact-checked.”
Zionist groups set up ‘taskforce’ to defend Israel under guise of combatting anti-Semitism
MEMO | July 26, 2023
Eight major pro-Israel Jewish organisations from seven different countries have united to create a new task force to defend Israel under the guides of combatting anti-Semitism. The groups in the Task Force Against Anti-Semitism have all embraced the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and placed defending Israel from criticism at the centre of their work.
Calling themselves J7, the anti-Palestinian taskforce comprises prominent Jewish organisations from the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Argentina and Australia: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organisations; the Board of Deputies of British Jews; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF); the Central Council of Jews in Germany; the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA); Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA); and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
“Anti-Semitism is rising around the world, especially in countries where there are large Jewish populations. We needed to meet these challenges through coordinated action,” ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt told Haaretz. “This new coalition of major organisations representing seven large Jewish Diaspora communities in liberal democracies will provide a formal framework for coordination, consultation and formulating global responses to anti-Semitic threats against the Jewish people.”
Greenblatt is one of the key proponents of the idea that anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel equate to anti-Semitism. He is spearheading the initiative. “The idea for the J7 came out of conversations I had with partners in France over our shared challenges and concerns. When we reached out to these seven communities, there was instant enthusiasm about the importance of the seven of us consulting, and what we might achieve working together.”
The collaboration comes as Israel faces sharp criticism for its political shift to the far-right. Internally the occupation state is facing the prospect of a “civil war”, according to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; internationally, a consensus is emerging about Israel’s practice of apartheid. With the highly controversial IHRA definition of anti-Semitism conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish racism, the increased focus and concern over Israeli policy has reinforced the false narrative with every condemnation of the occupation state and every voice in support of Palestine.
In a recent interview, legal expert Giovanni Fassina spoke to MEMO about the IHRA definition’s chilling repercussions. Fassina uncovered shocking examples of its weaponisation against critics of Israel and the suppression of free speech under the guise of combatting anti-Semitism.
The J7 group says that it will monitor and address expressions of hate from all origins. The leadership of J7 will meet regularly, both virtually and in person, with a significant event scheduled for ADL’s Never is Now Summit in March 2024.
The Western establishment just gave itself a ‘World Peace and Liberty’ award
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen receives World Peace & Liberty Award at UN headquarters in New York, on July 21, 2023 © Yuki IWAMURA / AFP
By Rachel Marsden | RT | July 27, 2023
Get a load of who won – and presented – a new honor that’s modestly being compared to the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you haven’t heard of the World Law Foundation non-profit organization, you could be forgiven. But despite only existing since 2019, it has already created an award described by the Western press as nothing less than the “judicial equivalent” of the world’s top award for promoting peace.
Wonder where they got that idea, if not from the organization itself. Can anyone just create a think tank and put it in charge of an award branded as the latest version of the Nobel Peace Prize? Good luck with that – unless, of course, your board is loaded up with establishment heavyweights – in which case, people just tell themselves that it must be legit since all these VIPs wouldn’t otherwise be involved.
So a few days ago, the humble folks of the World Law Foundation gathered at the United Nations in New York for the World Law Congress. One of the big items on the agenda was to hand out this year’s World Peace and Liberty Award to none other than European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, unelected de facto Queen of Europe, who accepted it on behalf of the commission.
Wow, didn’t see that one coming. Particularly with a former EU commissioner being the vice president of the group’s board, which also includes former Polish and French prime ministers, former Slovenian and Latvian presidents, a former EU vice president, and various Western establishment corporate figures, academics, and jurists.
You’d think that the same Von der Leyen-led EU Commission would have been a controversial candidate for a peace award given that it’s constantly sided with Washington’s military interventionism or at least have done little to nothing to stop it, and even led the way in the case of Libyan regime change. Most recently, the EU had a chance to stop the conflict in Ukraine before it even started by demanding Kiev’s adherence to the Minsk agreements and rejecting the West’s arming and training of anti-Russian fighters on the border with Russia.
“For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack,” von der Leyen said last year, calling it “a watershed moment.” Know what else is a watershed moment? Giving a peace award to someone whose knee-jerk reaction to armed conflict was to flood the zone with even more weapons. Then again, maybe the Nobel Peace Prize is indeed the right comparison, given that it was prematurely awarded to former US President Barack Obama even before he could order more bombing in Africa and the Middle East.
Von der Leyen also embodies the epitome of freedom, apparently. Or at least the best that this group could find. Who was she even up against? Did Genghis Khan’s estate turn down the award or something?
“We’ll present this month a legislative proposal for a Digital Green Pass,” she tweeted in March 2021. “The Digital Green Pass should facilitate Europeans’ lives. The aim is to gradually enable them to move safely in the European Union or abroad – for work or tourism.” She conveniently left out the part about Europeans being denied the basic right to access everyday venues, travel, work, and assemble – all because you chose not to take a jab that prevented neither transmission nor acquisition of an overwhelmingly survivable virus. We’re talking about the same Big Pharma jab about which von der Leyen has yet to hand over, even to an investigative committee of the EU itself, personal communications with the CEO of Pfizer around the time the EU was making a deal with the company.
Von der Leyen has been about as open and free with that matter as she and the EU Commission have been with media platforms and narratives that risk challenging the establishment dogma, issuing top-down bans and legislation that override any due process at the nation-state level.
So after asking themselves who’d be a worthy recipient of this global freedom and peace prize, and coming up with an unelected EU bureaucrat who’s dragging Europe and the world deeper into armed conflict and Europeans into poverty with inflation and intellectual darkness with censorship, they turned to the question of the presenter. These World Peace and Liberty folks were apparently like, “Who could we get to present this that embodies freedom and peace? Hey, how about that dude in Canada who did the Freedom Convoy crackdown and whose country helped train the Azov neo-Nazis to wage war against Russia then tried to hide it from the press to avoid embarrassment?”
Enter Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Nothing says freedom like invoking a martial law-style crackdown over a bunch of honking truckers protesting against the two-tier society fostered by Trudeau’s authoritarian Covid mandates – and then blocking their bank accounts as a dissuasion technique.
“Brexit left many wondering if the union would continue to hold strong. Euroskepticism was on the rise. And protectionism and authoritarianism were becoming more prevalent,” Trudeau said, presumably as a newly-minted authority on authoritarianism, having just recently dabbled in it himself.
“As choruses like ‘America First’ got louder, both Canada and Europe held fast to our belief that growth doesn’t come from putting up walls and turning inwards,” the Canadian prime minister added. Actually, no one has been singing backup to the America First chorus louder than Canada and Europe, blindly following along with the agenda set in Washington on everything from Ukraine to climate, even if it’s to the detriment of their own citizens’ interests.
If both – or either – of these Western entities had unambiguously stood up to Washington on recent key issues of global importance, then the world would be in a much better place, their own citizens first and foremost. And they wouldn’t need to go around blowing their own horn and making a big deal of a fawning establishment entity also offering them a blow on the world stage.
Featured Video
“IT’S JUST A VITAMIN” (VITAMIN K)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
8 Top Leaders in Field of Medicine Say Don’t Trust Science
By Fred Burks | WantToKnow
Throughout the pandemic, we were told by the powers that be to trust the science. But science is a process, not a person in whom we can place our faith. This process always produces meaningful data about how the world works, yet correctly interpreting that data isn’t always easy or possible. And for a variety of reasons, official interpretations of scientific data appear broadly untrustworthy. When science is used by powerful interests to support questionable policies, it ceases to be a tool for the betterment of all mankind.
Why do these eight top leaders in the field of medicine say that the science is not to be trusted? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Operation Geschäftsfreund: How West Germany Paid for Israel’s Nuclear Bomb
- Italian port authorities halt Israel-bound shipments of ‘military-grade steel’ from India
- Kata’ib Hezbollah warns Jordan over allowing US-Israeli reconnaissance missions against Iraq
- China firmly supports Cuba in safeguarding sovereignty, security
- US-Israeli war on Iran unlikely to resume due to global opposition: Pakistani defense minister
- Estonia shoots down alleged Ukrainian drone
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Marks the End of American Primacy
- General strike across Italy in solidarity with Gaza and in protest against the attack on Sumud Flotilla
- Iran says any agreement with US must end war on all fronts, lift blockade and sanctions
- Iran asserts sovereign rights over Hormuz fiber-optic routes
- If Americans Knew
- Who on Earth Feels Threatened by a Nun?
- Antisemitism? Really? The 33 Most Absurd Examples Listed in the ADL’s New Database
- Gaza’s water crisis: Families survive on less than 10 liters a day amid Israel’s ongoing genocide
- Why the Zionist Establishment Wants Progressives Talking About ICE Instead of Gaza
- The Media’s Double Standards on Rape in Palestine and Israel
- Leaked Documents Show Cisco Systems’ Deep Relationship with Israeli Security State
- Israel Can Sue New York Times Over Sexual Abuse Allegations, But Can’t Erase the Truth
- Israeli military commits piracy (again), kidnaps “hundreds” of humanitarians – Daily Update
- Israeli Soldiers Kill A Palestinian Teacher In Jenin
- Earworm Kars4Kids jingle yanked from California airwaves for false advertising
- No Tricks Zone
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
Aletho News 