In the CBS Boston (CBS-B) article titled “Is extreme heat the new normal in Boston? What hitting 102 degrees tells us about climate change,” Jacob Wycoff claims that Boston’s recent heat wave is a symptom of climate change and the “new normal.” This is misleading. In fact, long-term temperature records do not support the notion that heat waves are becoming more intense or more frequent in Boston or across the United States. Historical weather data shows that extreme heat events in Boston are neither unprecedented nor evidence of a climate emergency. The notion that a few hot days in June are proof of a systemic climate shift is simply not supported by the broader climate record.
“What used to be ‘unusual’ is fast becoming our new normal,” Wycoff writes. “And if we don’t act to slow warming, this kind of heat won’t be the exception, it’ll be the expectation.
“If greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, Boston’s average summer highs could rise by 9 degrees by 2100,” says Wycoff.
Wycoff’s story, as is usually the case in mainstream media stories about climate change, promotes speculative model projections, while ignoring real world data and trends to the contrary.
It’s a familiar tactic: choose the most aggressive, worst-case emissions scenario and present it as destiny. Climate Central, the source for much of the CBS-B story, uses computer model projections based on RCP 8.5, for example. Yet as noted on Climate Realism, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stepped back from emphasizing RCP 8.5 as a likely pathway, recognizing that is implausible if not impossible.
This climate alarmist framing glosses over essential context: heat waves like the one Boston just experienced have happened before, well before recent increases in carbon dioxide emissions, and are often the result of local urbanization effects—not global climate trends.
Let’s start with the basic fact that the recent heat in Boston, while certainly hot, is far from unprecedented. According to the National Weather Service data, Boston hit a record high of 102 degrees for June on June 24, 2025. But historical data shows that Boston has experienced significantly high temperatures long before modern climate anxieties took hold. Boston’s previous record June temperature of 100℉ was June 6. 1925, 100 years of global warming ago. The highest all time ever recorded temperature in Boston was 104°F in July 1911, followed by 103°F in July 1926. The city also saw 102°F temperatures in 1911, 1975, and 1977. You can see these highs in the graph below with the most recent one on the far right in the figure below.
Figure: Hottest annual temperatures recorded in Boston, Massachusetts for each year between 1893 and 2025.
So, if recently increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for this “new normal” as Wycoff claims, how did these even hotter events happen in the past when carbon dioxide levels were lower? His narrative falls apart in this context.
So, no—extreme heat is not the new normal in Boston. It’s part of a long-standing, intermittent pattern of hot weather events. In fact, the heat experienced in June 2025 didn’t even break Boston’s all-time record. It was simply the hottest June day since 1872, not the hottest day ever.
Nor are extended heatwaves new to Boston. In June 1872, Boston experienced eight days of temperatures above 90°F. Boston also had a multi-day stretch of 100-degree temperatures in July 1911, a heat wave that was deadlier and more extreme than what the city experienced in June 2025. That 1911 event resulted in numerous fatalities across the Northeast, a fact documented well before climate change became the default explanation for every summer hot spell.
The CBS-B article cites Climate Central’s claim that Boston’s overnight summer temperatures have increased by 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. But this trend is almost certainly influenced by the well-known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which causes cities to retain more heat, especially overnight, due to heat-absorbing infrastructure like asphalt, concrete, and buildings. This is not a climate crisis; this is local urbanization.
The UHI effect is well-documented and accounts for much of the localized warming in urban centers. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) acknowledges that “cities tend to be warmer than rural areas, particularly at night, because buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb heat during the day and release it slowly after the sun goes down.”
Boston, like most major metropolitan areas, has undergone significant growth over the last century. The city’s population has grown substantially over the past 70 years. With more people bringing with them the development of more houses, buildings, streets, bridges, concrete, blacktop, machinery, and denser development, all of which contribute to warmer temperatures. The temperature increase isn’t a global phenomenon playing out on a Boston street corner—it’s a localized, urbanized one.
Furthermore, the idea that climate change is singularly responsible for making hot days “six times more common” in Boston is based on computer model forecasting, not measured trends. CBS-B leans heavily on Climate Central’s Climate Shift Index, which is a modeled estimate—not direct measurement—of climate influence. These types of attributions rely on climate models that, as Climate Realism has repeatedly shown, consistently overstate future warming compared to observed reality. Research by Roy Spencer Ph.D., has demonstrated that most climate models overestimate warming by up to 50 percent compared to satellite data.
What CBS-B also fails to mention is that heat-related deaths in the U.S. have been declining, not increasing. Thanks to modern air conditioning, improved healthcare, and public awareness, society is far more resilient to heat than it was a century ago. According to a 2022 study published in The Lancet, cold weather still kills significantly more people than heat does.
The CBS-B story is a prime example of lazy climate reporting. It cherry-picks recent temperatures, ignores over a century of weather history, and repeats activist talking points without challenge. CBS-B’s failure to carry out basic fact checking resulted in a story that was alarmingly misleading. The story is an example of the type of “journalism” that is eroding the public’s trust in journalists and mainstream media outlets they report for.
July 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | CBS |
Leave a comment
Moscow has dismissed a US media report claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Iran to accept a nuclear deal that would strip it of the right to enrich uranium, calling it a dirty ploy to stoke tensions in the region.
In a statement on Sunday, the Russian Foreign Ministry slammed Western outlets as a “tool” in the hands of the political establishment and “deep state,” which it said does not hesitate to resort to any means, including provocative acts and “fake news.”
Russian officials singled out the US outlet Axios, which it described as a “toilet tank” that consistently spreads targeted disinformation, mentioning in particular its recent article titled “Scoop: Putin urges Iran to take ‘zero enrichment’ nuclear deal with US, sources say.”
The Axios story, the ministry said, was “apparently yet another dirty, politicized campaign launched with the aim of escalating tensions around Iran’s nuclear program.” It also reiterated that Moscow’s position remains that the crisis around Iran’s nuclear program should be resolved “exclusively by political and diplomatic means.”
On Friday, Axios reported, citing European and Israeli officials, that Putin told both US President Donald Trump and officials in Tehran following the 12-day Israel-Iran war that he would support a nuclear deal involving “zero enrichment.”
One European official told the paper that Putin encouraged Tehran to move in this direction in order to aid talks with Washington, but noted that the Iranians declined to consider the idea.
Iran’s Tasnim news agency, citing sources, reported that Tehran had received no such messages from Putin.
The US has insisted that Iran commit to zero enrichment as part of a potential nuclear deal, a demand Tehran has dismissed as unacceptable, explaining it needs such capacity for its civilian nuclear program. Iran also maintains it has no plans to create a nuclear bomb.
July 13, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Iran, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
For the third time, the Israeli regime has declared an implausible success rate in intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles, this time touting a fanciful figure of 86 percent, a claim parroted with little scrutiny by much of the Western mainstream media.
This week, Israeli media outlets relayed statements from the regime’s war ministry claiming that 86 percent of Iranian missiles and 99 percent of drones were intercepted during the June 2025 Israeli war against Iran.
The figures, they said, were drawn from 12 days of the war, during which Iran launched 532 ballistic missiles in approximately 42 barrages targeting the occupied Palestinian territories. According to the same sources, about 300 missiles landed in “open areas,” while 200 were allegedly intercepted by Israeli and American air defense systems.
The interception systems credited include Israel’s David’s Sling, Arrow 2 and 3, along with the US-supplied THAAD and Aegis systems, altogether costing around 5 billion shekels, or nearly $1.5 billion.
In a triumphant assessment, the Israeli war ministry claimed their interception prevented over $15 billion in potential property damage and “saved countless lives.”
Some Zionist officials went even further, asserting that only 25 to 31 Iranian ballistic missiles actually struck targets within the occupied territories.
Despite the glaring inconsistencies in these numbers, and their defiance of both available evidence and basic mathematics, Western media repeated the claims almost reverently, offering little in the way of critical examination.
A pattern of fabricated success
This is not a one-off occurrence. It marks the third time the Israeli regime has released clearly falsified data on interception success rates, only to see these narratives absorbed uncritically into Western discourse.
After Iran’s Operation True Promise 1 and 2 in April and October last year, Israeli regime officials boasted a now-familiar “99 percent” interception rate. In the second operation alone, they claimed 200 Iranian ballistic missiles were launched, implying that only two managed to bypass Israeli defenses.
Yet satellite imagery tells a vastly different story. At Nevatim Airbase, one of the three key Iranian targets (alongside Tel Nof Airbase and Mossad headquarters), 33 Iranian missiles made direct contact, 26 of which caused severe structural damage, including to five hangars.
These figures alone debunk Israel’s exaggerated claims, as does independent footage from civilian sources, which recorded dozens of strikes, far more than the “three” the regime was willing to admit.
Tel Nof Airbase saw direct hits that triggered secondary explosions among stored munitions. At least two missiles impacted areas near Mossad’s headquarters. In total, over 40 Iranian missiles successfully penetrated much-hyped Israeli defenses during Operation True Promise 2, twenty times more than Israeli officials conceded.
Their missile launch count was also exaggerated. Visual evidence confirms that 53 missiles were launched in three waves: 25 from Kermanshah, 18 from Tabriz, and 10 from Shiraz. This suggests that over 75 percent of Iranian missiles struck their intended targets, an accuracy rate far closer to Iranian estimates of 90 percent than the Israeli claim of 1 percent success.
The same distortions appeared after Operation True Promise 1, with Israel again insisting it intercepted “99 percent of 300 missiles and drones”—a figure clearly contradicted by publicly available footage capturing numerous impacts.
Latest round of deception
As with the previous two retaliatory operations, the latest Israeli claims, of an 86 percent interception rate, 300 harmless impacts in open areas, and only 30 successful Iranian strikes, lack any verifiable evidence.
Most Iranian retaliatory strikes and Israeli interception attempts occurred at night and were recorded in numerous public videos. These show luminous streaks of incoming missiles, and often, impact explosions, across the occupied territories.
All Israeli systems engaged, David’s Sling, Arrow 2/3, and THAAD use hit-to-kill technology, designed to intercept missiles at long ranges and high altitudes. When successful, these intercepts generate massive hypersonic collisions that produce blinding explosions visible across the region.
If Israel had indeed intercepted 200 ballistic missiles, as claimed, there would be a flood of corroborating footage from personal and security cameras, all time- and date-stamped.
But such evidence is conspicuously absent. Even the Israeli military, known for showcasing its “successes,” has failed to release convincing proof.
Nor is there any physical evidence of widespread missile debris in Iraq or Jordan, which should exist if large numbers of missiles had been intercepted in those areas.
Conversely, hundreds of videos document Iranian missiles piercing Israeli defenses and detonating across the occupied territories. If most Iranian missiles were truly falling into uninhabited open zones, as claimed, the regime would be eager to release images proving it. Instead, photo and video censorship has been rigorously enforced.
In fact, the scale of destruction suggests widespread strikes on Israeli military infrastructure, not craters in farmland. Israeli media themselves have pegged total damage at $12 billion, with projections reaching $20 billion when indirect costs are counted.
These staggering figures are inconsistent with the claim that only 25–31 missiles hit, unless one believes each missile inflicted $500, 800 million in damage, an implausible notion.
The official 86 percent success rate also contradicts a statement by a senior Israeli intelligence officer to American media, who admitted that by the seventh day of fighting, only 65 percent of Iranian missiles were being intercepted.
He attributed this drop in effectiveness to Iran’s deployment of faster, more maneuverable, and more sophisticated missiles.
Initially, Iran had used older liquid-fueled ballistic missiles, such as Shahab-3, known for their slow speed and predictable trajectories, making them easier to intercept. However, these outdated models were paired with decoys, confusing air defense systems and draining interceptor stockpiles.
Despite the extensive documentation of missile attacks, no comprehensive analysis has yet detailed how many Iranian missiles and Israeli interceptors were deployed, or what the true interception rate was.
Open-source analysts have attempted estimates using nighttime footage from Jordanian photographer Zaid M. al-Abbadi, but his recordings cover only a fraction of the conflict, nighttime only, with limited geographical and vertical scope.
Nonetheless, they point to a clear trend: Iranian missiles breached Israeli air defenses far more often than official figures admit, and did so with a frequency higher than the number of interceptors deployed.
Diversions and disinformation
In addition to exaggerating interception figures, the Israeli regime employs a range of propaganda tactics to conceal its failures and downplay Iranian achievements.
During Operation True Promise 1, iconic images of glowing Iranian missiles above Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds stunned the world, symbolizing Iran’s reach and resolve.
In response, Israeli regime officials, most notably UN ambassador Gilad Erdan, offered the bizarre narrative that Israel was “protecting Al-Aqsa from Iranian missiles,” attempting to sow discord between Iran and the wider Muslim world.
In truth, those missiles were aimed at Nevatim Airbase, located 65 kilometers south of occupied Jerusalem al-Quds.
Similarly, during Operation True Promise 3, Israeli propagandists claimed Iran had deliberately struck the Al-Jarina Mosque in Haifa. In reality, a missile hit the Sail Tower regime building complex 50 meters southeast, with the mosque sustaining only minor facade damage from shockwaves.
Israel also falsely alleged Iranian attacks on schools and homes. But released images show damage consistent not with Iranian warheads, but with malfunctioning Israeli interceptors.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the claim that Iran targeted Soroka Hospital. In fact, the damage was from a strike on a nearby C4I military intelligence HQ. The regime routinely positions military infrastructure adjacent to civilian areas, then manipulates resulting collateral damage as evidence of Iranian wrongdoing.
Facilities like the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv and the military-linked Weizmann Institute are presented as “civilian” in official narratives. Moreover, videos of Iranian missile strikes on these sites are heavily censored, and sharing such footage risks severe legal punishment.
Finally, Israeli propaganda claims that missile victims are mostly “non-Israelis”—while failing to mention that non-Jewish residents are often banned from entering bomb shelters.
During the recent war, Palestinians, Chinese workers, and Turkish journalists all testified to being denied shelter access, highlighting both systemic discrimination and the hypocrisy of Israeli victimhood narratives.
July 5, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Sensationalist weathermen in Germany losing credibility, get mocked and ridiculed.
Meteorologists are discovering that if they want to get attention from the media and more clicks and and likes (short term), then all they have to do is announce fictional heatwaves that weather models routinely hallucinate 10-14 days out. “Temperatures could soar to 40°C!”
German online Weltwoche reports on this phenomenon with a recent article titled: “The “heatwave” to be followed by the “red hot wave”: the climate alarmists are taking themselves to the point of absurdity and losing all credibility.”
In an attempt to sensationalize hot summer weather to convey climate urgency and panic, some German meteorologists have been bombarding their viewers with alarming headlines, like: “This summer threatens to shatter all weather records!”
These climate alarmists have been fixated on regular weather extremes and using dramatic imagery of storms, droughts, and collapsing Swiss mountains to sway public opinion – while totally ignoring the lack of statistical evidence for an increase in such phenomena.
Weltwoche, reports, however, that the increasingly shrill weather rhetoric is backfiring, leading to greater mistrust among a growing number of skeptics who use social media platforms like X to mock and ridicule the sensationalized claims.
Thanks to social media, Weltwoche concludes that the era of media monopolies on truth is over: “But the shriller the battle cries of the climate alarmists, the less credible they become.”
June 21, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Germany |
Leave a comment
Yesterday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired every single member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—the influential group of experts that decides which vaccines are added to the childhood schedule.
Today, he set fire to the media’s hysterical reaction.
Within 24 hours, legacy outlets and public health institutions lost their collective minds. Former CDC directors, industry-funded doctors, and conflicted public health groups lined up to denounce Kennedy’s move as reckless, anti-scientific, even deadly.
“This is a dangerous and unprecedented action that makes our families less safe,” said former CDC director Dr Tom Frieden.
“Unilaterally removing the entire panel of experts is reckless,” said paediatrician Dr Tina Tan to The New York Times.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said it was “deeply troubled and alarmed.” It claimed the move would “stoke distrust in lifesaving vaccines”—this from the same organisation that has spent decades pushing the childhood vaccine schedule while taking money from the very companies that profit from it.
Others framed it as a political purge, a blow to science, or a “coup” that would bring back measles and polio.
But within hours, Kennedy hit back—and this time, he wasn’t the outsider being easily dismissed. He was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And he came armed with evidence, receipts, and a brutal takedown of the media’s favourite falsehoods.
In a searing post on X, Kennedy explained the decision.
He said the clean sweep was necessary because ACIP had demonstrated its “stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children.”
And despite the media’s insistence otherwise, Kennedy argued that no routine injected childhood vaccine on the CDC’s schedule had ever been approved based on a placebo-controlled trial using an inert substance.
CNN had tried to prove him wrong last week—claiming it had found “257 placebo-controlled studies” of vaccines on the schedule.
Kennedy dismantled it in forensic detail.
“CNN is wrong,” he wrote. “No routine injected vaccine on CDC’s schedule was licensed for children based on a placebo-controlled trial. That is not conjecture. It is a fact based on FDA’s clinical trial data.”
Then came the body blows.
He pointed out that most of the 257 studies used active substances like aluminium, antibiotics, or other vaccines—not inert placebos.
He linked directly to FDA definitions of “placebo” and to official clinical trial records. Of the few studies that may have used saline controls, none were relied on by the FDA to license a single routine vaccine for American children.
Some studied products that were never approved in the US. Some occurred after licensure. Others involved discontinued vaccines. “CNN’s list ironically proves the lack of adequate safety trials,” Kennedy wrote in a stinging rebuke.
The post was devastating.
It was a clinical takedown of an industry riddled with deception—and it landed—because this time, Kennedy wasn’t being filtered through a hostile press.
He was speaking directly to the public, as a government official, with all the links to back it up. And the media couldn’t handle it.
Predictably, the media rolled out the same tired “experts” to recycle the same tired script—Paul Offit quotes, panic about “undermining trust,” warnings that children would die.
But Kennedy turned the whole thing inside out.
“We’ve gone from three routine injections by age one in 1986 to 25 in 2025,” he wrote. “And not one of them was licensed using a placebo-controlled trial.”
He said it plainly for the cameras: “That is just malpractice. So the people who are in charge of that are now gone.”
For years, the press had written Kennedy off as an anti-vaxxer and moved on. Now, they’ve thrown everything at him—and he threw it right back. Only now, he has the authority, data, and reach.
Kennedy told his followers he’d be announcing replacements in the coming days—no “ideological anti-vaxxers” just “highly credentialed physicians and scientists” committed to evidence, objectivity, and common sense.
Legacy media may still control the headlines, but they can no longer suppress the debate.
And perhaps that’s what really has them rattled.
They’re not defending science. They’re defending a regime of experts who signed off on decades of vaccine approvals without ever insisting on rigorous, inert-placebo safety trials.
When Kennedy calls them out, their only defence is to scream “danger!”—and hope no one checks the fine print.
Yesterday, he fired the gatekeepers. Today, he exposed the game.
June 11, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | ACIP, CDC, CNN, New York Times, United States |
Leave a comment
Any discussion about the future of UNIFIL falls solely under the authority of the UN Security Council, the spokesperson for UNIFIL clarified to Al Mayadeen, noting that the force remains committed to coordinating with the Lebanese Army and insists on the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.
UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told Al Mayadeen, “There are currently no talks about UNIFIL’s future,” adding that “any such discussion would take place within the UN Security Council.”
Meanwhile, a US State Department spokesperson told Al Mayadeen in a short briefing that the recent reports claiming the United States intends to end the UNIFIL peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon are inaccurate.
Tenenti stated that UNIFIL continues its operations in southern Lebanon in full cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces. He emphasized that Israeli forces should withdraw from their occupied positions in the area, noting that the UN Security Council alone holds the authority to assess whether UNIFIL’s ongoing presence remains necessary and effective.
“Restoring stability to southern Lebanon depends on Israel’s withdrawal from recently occupied positions,” he added.
Lebanese Army is adhering to resolution 1701
Tenenti also affirmed that the Lebanese Army remains committed to implementing UN Resolution 1701, deploying to required areas in close coordination with UNIFIL forces.
When asked about French troops, he responded: “I don’t distinguish between the role of French forces and UNIFIL, all are fulfilling their duties under Resolution 1701.”
The statement follows reports in Israeli media claiming the US and “Israel” agreed to terminate UNIFIL’s operations in southern Lebanon.
The Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom cited sources claiming that “the United States and Israel have agreed to end UNIFIL’s operations in southern Lebanon.” According to the report, the US administration is “not interested in renewing UNIFIL’s mandate,” and “Israel, frankly, isn’t pushing hard to convince them otherwise.”
June 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Israel, Lebanon, United Nations, United States |
Leave a comment
The recent events involving India and Pakistan, in a short-lived, conventional and timely conflict, prompt us to reflect carefully on the use and management of media coverage of the conflict.
It is important to remember that the domination of information has to do with the domination of the mind; therefore, the way in which an event is narrated largely defines the perception that the masses will have of it. Controlling the narrative means controlling the majority element of the cognitive-perceptual dimension.
So, let’s look at the facts. A few hours after the massacre of 26 civilians in Pahalgam on 22 April, the main Indian media had already passed judgement. No investigation had yet been launched, no credible claim had been made, nor had any attempt been made to identify specific responsibilities, yet in a very short time the dominant narrative had been established: Pakistan was to blame.
What happened next represents a new critical point in the information war that now accompanies every moment of tension between India and Pakistan. In the days that followed, the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi suffered expulsions of staff, Pakistani citizens were ordered to leave India by 30 April, and a decisive digital offensive was launched. Significantly, the Indian authorities blocked Pakistani YouTube channels, froze social media profiles and targeted narratives coming from across the border.
From Islamabad’s point of view, this was not simply a response to terrorism through the media, but rather a form of information terrorism, an occupation of the narrative. This is a key turning point.
The conflict between the two countries has always been marked by propaganda, disinformation and narratives inflamed by the media on both sides and also abroad, where there is a constant attempt to identify with one faction or the other (as is to be expected); but in 2025, the information landscape is not only a subject of contention, it has become colonised territory.
Pakistan, increasingly marginalised in the large international digital spaces, finds itself fighting a narrative war at a disadvantage. The way in which the Indian media reported the Pahalgam attack follows a well-established script: vague intelligence sources, information presented as established facts, inflammatory talk shows launched well before any concrete evidence emerged. Even after Pakistan’s firm denial and request for a joint investigation, the Indian press continued its campaign. Outlets such as Times Now and Republic TV immediately ran alarmist headlines: ‘Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is back’, ‘It’s time for a military response’. Terms such as ‘atrocious’, ‘state-sponsored’ and ‘surgical strike’ dominated the broadcasts, while scientific investigations were still in their early stages.
No independent verification – note this detail – has been made public. The few Pakistani voices invited onto television programmes were promptly attacked. There was no editorial caution, no balance.
It is fair to acknowledge that Pakistan also has a complicated past with press freedom and control of narratives by the authorities, but what emerges today is not a symmetrical conflict, but rather an unbalanced silence.
On 25 April, the Indian Ministry of Information banned 16 YouTube channels, 94 social media accounts and six news sites linked to Pakistan. The official reason? ‘Protection of national security and sovereignty’. The concrete result: the blocking of almost any alternative or critical viewpoint, especially on issues such as Kashmir, the attack on Pahalgam or bilateral relations. Among the platforms affected were independent media outlets such as Naya Daur, channels run by Pakistani scholars abroad and cultural content with no political affiliation. At the same time, official fact-checking units launched a campaign to expose what they called ‘Pakistani disinformation,’ but the content removed also included material based on authoritative international sources, archive articles that were still valid, and statements taken out of context. The result was a sharp restriction of freedom of expression and access to certain local sources. Even diplomatic communications were not spared. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry saw many of its official posts on X (formerly Twitter) blocked, including statements calling for calm. On 29 April, the hashtag #FalseFlagPahalgam, widely shared in Pakistan, was virtually invisible on platforms accessible from Indian territory.
Tensions reached a new peak on 7 May 2025, when India struck civilian and military targets in Punjab and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, sparking fears of a serious escalation. Islamabad called the operation ‘a blatant act of war’ and announced that it had shot down five Indian military jets, three of which were also confirmed by international media. India has not yet officially responded to this claim, but anonymous government sources have said that three fighter jets crashed in Indian-controlled Kashmir, without confirming whether they actually belonged to India or Pakistan.
Geopolitical asymmetries
It is precisely in this disproportion that the real asymmetry can be perceived. India, thanks to its technological resources, its links with major global platforms and its ability to influence algorithms, controls the digital narrative. Pakistan, on the other hand, is often its victim. The result is a one-sided war of narratives, in which Delhi sets the terms of the debate and Islamabad is relegated to the role of designated culprit.
The internal consequences are no less serious: increased Islamophobia, similarities between Kashmiri identity and jihadism, and some localised tensions. Hashtags such as #PunishPakistan and #MuslimTerror have spread widely without control, while Pakistani responses denouncing violence or discrimination have been labelled as disinformation and deleted.
This double standard only fuels radicalism on both sides. It pushes young Pakistanis towards closed and polarised environments and makes it increasingly difficult to build peaceful bridges between the two peoples. What was once a space for cultural diplomacy is now a digital minefield. The silence of big tech and Western media in the face of India’s censorship is significant: when an authoritarian regime represses dissent, it is called tyranny; when India does so in the name of ‘national security’, it is praised as moderate. Pakistan has asked for the opportunity to defend itself in the information arena and has been effectively denied, leaving it at an international disadvantage.
The absence of real journalistic scrutiny signals a deeper evil: narrative has replaced facts. The struggle for dominance is now being fought with tweets, headlines and talk shows.
At this level of conflict, the gap between what is true and what is plausible becomes very difficult to discern. Do you understand how powerful this tool is? The frame within which the narrative is placed is what determines how the ‘truth’ of that event will be constructed.
The example of India and Pakistan teaches us that there is no need to fire guns, even in a historical conflict such as theirs. Words work much better. Because even when the guns have fired, there will still be ‘good guns’ and ‘bad guns’, and that value judgement will be made by the way people perceive what happened, not by an objective or rationally agreeable truth.
In all this, the great media victory is that a narrative front has been opened up that can easily be used by other global powers and could be employed by some of them to drag other adversarial countries into an information conflict. Russia, China, the UK and the US have interests at stake and could become part of this expanded infowar front. Because in the world of information, war does not have the space and time limitations of conventional warfare: everything is fast, fluid, constantly expanding and contracting, and knows no night or day.
Information warfare may save more lives, but it claims more victims. Lives are saved because direct killing can be avoided; victims are claimed because everyone involved will inevitably be hit by the weapon of information.
May 27, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Islamophobia, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | India, Kashmir, Pakistan |
Leave a comment
“For posterity’s sake.” Those words from President Joe Biden sum up the crushing impact of the leaked audiotapes from the interview between then-President Joe Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur. Not only did they remove any serious doubt over Biden committing the federal crimes charged against President Donald Trump, but they also constituted what is akin to a political racketeering indictment against much of the Washington establishment.
The interview from Oct. 8-9, 2023, has long been sought by Congress, but was kept under wraps by the government even as Biden campaigned for a second term.
Many of us balked at Hur’s conclusion that no charges were appropriate despite the fact that the President removed classified material for decades, stored it in grossly negligent ways, and moved it around to unsecure locations, including his garage in Delaware.
Given President Donald Trump’s indictment for the same offenses, it was hard to imagine how the Special Counsel could not recommend the same criminal charges (presumably after he left office).
Instead, Hur declared it would have been hard to get a jury to convict Biden because he was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
It appears that Trump, on the other hand, was presumptively not sympathetic or well-meaning and possessed a good memory for prosecution.
The contrast was glaring and only reinforced the view of many citizens that there are two tracks for justice in Washington.
Soon after the report’s release, President Biden gave an irate press conference in which he lied about the findings of his culpability and lashed out at any suggestion that he had gapped or stumbled in the interview.
For example, when reporters raised how Biden forgot when his son Beau died, Biden angrily responded, “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Frankly, when I was asked the question I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.
However, it was not Hur but Biden himself who raised the death of his son, and he forgot a wide array of dates, including when he served in office.
The interview shows that in 2023 it was clear that Biden was mentally diminished despite claims from many allies and former aides that there was a sudden loss of capacity just before the disastrous debate in 2024. It is now undeniable that the White House staff actively hid the president’s incompetence from the American public. That includes the White House press secretary Jen Psaki (who left her post in May 2022) and Karine Jean-Pierre who insisted that Biden was sharp and “running circles” around the staff.
Of course, the media is now covering the story after the public saw the truth in the debate. Figures like CNN’s Jake Tapper have even written books that belatedly pursue the question despite previously insisting that there was no evidence of a diminishment in Biden’s mental state.
Tapper repeatedly dismissed the claim and even mocked Lara Trump for raising it. In one interview, he pushed a White House talking point that such suggestions were mocking Biden for a childhood stutter:
“It’s so amazing to me- a ‘cognitive decline.’ I think you were mocking his stutter. Yeah. I think you were mocking his stutter and I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody’s cognitive decline. I would think somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar.”
When Lara Trump insisted that this was clearly evidence of a “very concerning” cognitive decline, Tapper dismissed her statement by saying “Thank you, Lara. I’m sure it’s from a place of concern. We all believe that.”
Keep in mind that others beyond Lara Trump were raising this issue and there were tapes showing physical and mental diminishment. The media simply refused to seriously pursue the story until the cover-up no longer mattered after the debate.
Over on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was equally apoplectic at those raising the issue and stated
start your tape right now because I’m about to tell you the truth. And F— you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I have known him for years… If it weren’t the truth I wouldn’t say it
This media effort continued all the way up to the debate itself. On CNN, Oliver Darcy wrote, “Right-wing media figures are desperately pushing conspiracy theories about Biden ahead of the debate.”
Once the public found out, the media was ready to tell the story when there was no longer any advance or ability to deny it. Articles began to appear with the same realization of “Oh you meant THAT mental decline. Well sure.”
It was the same belated acknowledgment that came, after the election, with Hunter Biden’s laptop. The media just moved on with a shrug and a collective “our bad” concession.
As for the President himself, the one moment of clarity in the interview may have been his most incriminating line. When asked why he removed classified material on Afghanistan, Biden admitted “I guess I wanted to hang on to it for posterity’s sake.”
That is precisely what critics on CNN and MSNBC accused Trump of doing: removing material as types of keepsakes or trophies.
One president was indicted for that and one was sent along his way to a second term in office.
The real indictment that comes out of these tapes is a type of political racketeering enterprise by the Washington establishment. It took a total team effort from Democratic politicians to the White House staff to the media to hide the fact that the President of the United States was mentally diminished. If there were a political RICO crime, half of Washington would be frog-marched to the nearest federal courthouse.
Of course, none of this complicity in the cover-up is an actual crime. It is part of the Washington racket.
After all, this is Washington, where such duplicity results not in plea deals but book deals.
May 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | United States |
Leave a comment
A National Institutes of Health (NIH) program that health officials claimed reduced the number of infants who died suddenly in their sleep fell victim late last month to budget cuts, triggering an outcry from some experts and mainstream media.
The 30-year-old “Safe to Sleep” campaign was overseen by the NIH communications office at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The program cut was part of the ongoing reorganization and streamlining of the NIH.
The program, which includes TV advertisements, was created to provide guidance to parents about safe sleeping practices for infants. It advises parents to place babies on their back to sleep, use a flat firm sleeping surface, keep the sleeping area clear, use a pacifier, and breastfeed, among other lifestyle interventions. That information will remain available on the website.
North Country Public Radio, Mother Jones and other mainstream media decried the program’s cancellation.
In an article published May 5, Mother Jones claimed “Safe to Sleep” was responsible for “years of progress in reducing the number of babies that succumb to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).”
The article smeared Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and others who suggest that the sudden and unexplained death of thousands of infants each year, often within a few days of vaccination, may in some cases be linked to vaccines rather than to sleep hygiene.
However, the plausible association between vaccines and SIDS has been reported in peer-reviewed literature for decades.
And research published in top journals has long shown that claims about the success of the “Safe to Sleep” campaign are mistaken. SIDS deaths didn’t go down after the campaign was launched in the 1990s. The deaths were simply categorized differently because of a change to the codes used by medical examiners.
A short history of SIDS in the U.S.
A SIDS diagnosis is given when an infant under age 1 dies suddenly, typically during sleep, and an investigation into the death fails to yield a cause. However, 95% of SIDS deaths occur in the first six months of life, peaking at ages 2-4 months.
Each year, the U.S. records more than five infant deaths per 1,000 live births, far exceeding the rates in other high-income countries.
After birth defects and prematurity, SIDS is the third leading cause of death among infants. Yet the medical industry claims to remain puzzled about the cause — similar to how health officials say they don’t know what causes autism.
The SIDS diagnosis didn’t exist until the late 1960s, when the category was created in response to a rise in sudden unexplained infant deaths. In 1971, the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) assigned a code to SIDS.
The ICD is the list of about 130 categories that coroners globally use to assign the cause of death when a baby dies.
In a 2021 article in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology Reports, vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller provides a history of the SIDS diagnosis, noting that the rise of SIDS coincided with the first mass immunization campaigns.
In the early 1960s, the number of vaccines administered to most U.S. infants took off. The federal government began appropriating money so the CDC could work with local health departments to vaccinate all children. The agency established the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes the recommendations for vaccines to be listed on the childhood immunization schedule.
By the end of the decade, most U.S. infants were receiving the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT), polio and measles vaccines, and mumps and rubella vaccines also became available.
As SIDS rates rose, so did parental concern that SIDS was connected to vaccination, but authorities assured parents that unexplained death following vaccination was “merely coincidental,” Miller wrote.
He also said that before 1979, the ICD included cause-of-death classifications associated with “prophylactic vaccination” as an official cause of death. As a result, “medical examiners are compelled to misclassify and conceal vaccine-related fatalities under alternate cause-of-death classifications.”
Instead of examining the link between vaccines and SIDS, public health researchers developed a “triple-risk model” for explaining SIDS. That model says SIDS occurs when a baby has an unknown medical condition, it is going through an important period of development where the body changes quickly, and it encounters an outside stressor, such as sleeping on its stomach.
Enter the ‘back to sleep’ campaign
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1992 launched a national “Back to Sleep” campaign to inform parents to have children sleep on their backs rather than on their stomachs.
In 1994, the NIH’s National Institute of Child Health and Human Development institutionalized the campaign within the agency, in partnership with organizations like the AAP, and later, companies including Johnson & Johnson and Gerber — both of which have been sued for poisoning children with their products.
NIH renamed the campaign “Safe to Sleep” in 2012.
Between 1992, when the program was started, and 2001, SIDS deaths reportedly declined a whopping 55% — a number touted in every article celebrating the program, making it appear that babies sleeping on their stomachs was the cause of SIDS, not vaccines.
However, at the same time deaths from SIDS decreased, the rate of mortality from “suffocation in bed,” “suffocation other,” “unknown and unspecified causes,” and “intent unknown” all increased significantly.
What had happened was that the classification system had changed. SIDS deaths were being reclassified by medical certifiers, usually coroners, as one of the other similar categories, Miller reported.
Research published in the journal Pediatrics — the flagship journal of the AAP — concluded that deaths previously certified as SIDs were simply being certified as other non-SIDS causes, such as suffocation, that were still essentially SIDS deaths.
That change in classification accounted for more than 90% of the drop in SIDS rates.
The Pediatrics paper showed there was no decline in overall postneonatal mortality, despite the program’s — and the AAP’s — claims to the contrary.
Others verified the Pediatrics paper’s findings, and the trend continued, as reported by multiple studies in top journals. Miller reported that, for example, “From 1999 through 2015, the U.S. SIDS rate declined 35.8 % while infant deaths due to accidental suffocation increased 183.8%.”
In 2020, infant deaths from Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) — an umbrella category that accounts for both SIDS and other unknown causes began to rise even higher, according to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
No codes for vaccine-related sudden deaths
Dr. Paul Thomas, pediatrician and author of “Vax Facts: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & Stages of Life,” told The Defender in an interview last year that extensive evidence links SIDS to vaccination.
Thomas said that because there are no ICD codes for vaccination, the deaths are typically recorded as something else.
“When an infant dies, no matter how soon after vaccination, coroners and pathologists do not have any codes for vaccine-related death available as options, so these deaths are generally coded as SIDS, unknown, or suffocation.”
80% of infant deaths reported VAERS between 1990-2019 happened within 7 days of vaccination
Thomas said pediatricians are not educated about the link, so even when it clearly occurs, they don’t recognize it.
“I was taught that SIDS was due to parents smoking in the room, the room being too hot, babies co-sleeping or sleeping on surfaces that were too soft, or moms smothering their babies while nursing,” he wrote, sharing insights from his new book. “While all these factors may plausibly contribute, the primary cause has been right under our noses for decades. The vaccines!”
Miller’s analysis of sudden infant deaths in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed that nearly 80% of those deaths reported to the system between 1990 and 2019 happened within seven days of vaccination.
A recent peer-reviewed study found a positive statistical correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses received by babies — confirming findings made by the same researchers a decade ago.
The 2018 Health Affairs study reported that the bifurcation of the U.S. mortality rates from those of other wealthy countries began in the 1980s — the same time the country saw a major uptick in childhood vaccination.
A 2023 study published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science found that the developed nations requiring the most neonatal vaccine doses tend to have the worst childhood mortality rates.
The CDC currently recommends 76 doses of 18 different vaccines for children ages 0-18.
Child mortality researchers have also noted that sudden unexplained childhood deaths in children over 1 year old are often underestimated, and many such child deaths remain unexplained due to failure to understand or investigate causes.
A recent study in JAMA Pediatrics found that hospitalized preterm infants had a 170% higher incidence of apnea within 48 hours of receiving their routine 2-month vaccinations compared to unvaccinated babies, according to the data in a new study.
Higher infant mortality has also been linked to poor maternal health or other perinatal issues, including premature birth.
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.
May 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | SIDS |
Leave a comment
The “cover up” of former US President Joe Biden’s poor mental and physical health has led to a decline of public trust in “legacy media”, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has claimed.
Throughout Biden’s time in office, Donald Trump and his allies repeatedly argued that he was unfit for the job – claims the Biden administration and US media vociferously denied. Biden only withdrew from the presidential race when he faced pressure from within the Democratic Party and major campaign donors after a disastrous debate performance against Trump last June, in which he appeared confused and struggled to finish his sentences.
“Millions of Americans watched our mentally incompetent president [Biden] struggle with his day-to-day duties of this office. We watched our country be run into the ground as a result. And nobody in the media wanted to write about that,” Leavitt said during a White House briefing on Monday.
The spokeswoman recalled how during Trump’s campaign her warnings about Biden’s “clear mental incompetence” led to her being “accused by people in this room [journalists] of manufacturing deepfake videos trying to persuade the public into not believing what they saw with their own eyes for many years.”
“I think it is about time the legacy media finally admits that was one of the greatest cover-ups and scandals that ever took place in American history,” she insisted.
Leavitt said that the reluctance to report on Biden’s actual physical and mental condition “certainly did contribute to the decline in the trust that Americans have for the legacy media.”
A poll by Gallup earlier this year suggested that confidence in fair reporting of the news by US media has dropped to its lowest point in five decades. Only 31% of those surveyed said they trust the mainstream media “a great deal” or “a fair amount,” while 36% said they do not trust it “at all.”
April 30, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | United States |
1 Comment
I can’t believe I have to call out my old editors at the New York Times for running blatantly dishonest journalism for the second day in a row.
But I do, so here goes.
Yesterday, just past noon local time, the electric systems in Spain and Portugal failed without warning.
Power remained out across both countries for much of the day and wasn’t fully restored until today. The disruption was profound. Subway riders evacuated stalled trains in darkened tunnels. Cellular service (which, unlike landlines, does not have backup batteries) went down. Elevators were stuck. ATMs and traffic lights went out.
Not across a city, or a state, but two nations that together have almost 60 million people. (Small parts of southern France were also affected.)
The outage attracted worldwide attention — and legacy media headscratching.
The usual explanations for blackouts were nowhere in sight. No earthquakes hit, no hurricanes or forest fires were raging. Even climate change, the usual media bugaboo for all disasters natural and manmade, couldn’t be blamed. It’s April, not July, and the weather was mild across the Iberian peninsula, in the 70s from Lisbon to Barcelona, 700 miles northeast. Nor was demand for power particularly high yesterday.
Just after the outage, Portugal’s electric network operator supposedly blamed “extreme temperature variations” in Spain for “induced atmospheric vibration.” Those led to “oscillations” on high voltage lines, according to several newspapers, including England’s Guardian.
“Millions without power in Spain, Portugal after ‘induced atmospheric vibration’,” a USA Today headline incoherently but confidently explained.
Of course. Induced atmospheric vibration. If that sounds like gobbledygook, it’s because it is. By Tuesday morning, the Guardian had disappeared those words, claiming the Portuguese company “said the statement was falsely attributed to it.”
Oh. Other unlikely explanations included cyber attacks and solar flares, eruptions of radiation from the sun that can disrupt powerlines. But solar flares are hard to miss, and none were a problem on Monday.
But even as the legacy media offered bizarre theories, power industry analysts and energy experts on X proposed a far simpler, more plausible explanation: Spain’s near-total reliance on green energy had left it very vulnerable to cascading blackouts.
For all its magic, electricity is actually relatively easy to understand at the theoretical level; it is the flow of electrons — negatively charged particles — that carry energy. Scientists began to understand this fact in the 1700s. A century later they had realized that swinging magnets along coils of wire would produce usable current. The energy to swing the magnets comes from steam heated in coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear plants, or directly from the flow of water in hydropower dams. (I remember the basics from AP Physics, and Google confirms them.)
After the electricity is produced, grids of wires carry it to homes and businesses, where it makes lights, computers, and motors run. Here, the engineering gets complicated. Electric plants produce “alternating” current, because of the way the magnets spin, and most household devices run on it. Demand for electricity fluctuates by the second, and supply must exactly match demand to keep the grid functioning properly. Traditional power plants have several different ways to manage this task. Their success in doing so is a key reason that modern, wealthy countries almost never have widespread blackouts.
But solar plants produce direct current, which must be “inverted” into alternating current before it is added to the grid. Wind turbines have their own hurdles adding power. As a result, wind and solar plants cannot manage unexpected changes in frequency nearly as well as older sources.
This risk is not a secret to power companies — or renewable energy suppliers. In 2022, the consortium of companies that runs Europe’s electricity network released a 63-page report on the issue.
It is highly technical and obscure (perhaps deliberately so), but it notes that older plants “have traditionally provided various ‘inherent’ capabilities to the system critical to ensure the stable operation of the power systems…” and that wind and solar power have a “lack of these system capabilities.”
But in the rush last decade to pacify climate change activists and decarbonize the world (except, of course, for India and China), niceties like the realities of physics seem to have been overlooked. European countries have moved quickly away from boring, reliable sources of power generation and towards solar and wind.
No country has moved faster than Spain, which has sol to spare. In mid-April, Spain ran its electricity grid fully on renewable energy on a weekday for the first time.
Oh well. Renewable energy was fun while it lasted. Heck, I’ve got panels on my roof (the tax credit didn’t hurt).
But well-defined theoretical risks that are ignored for political reasons have a strange way of coming true. The strong consensus on X is that the lack of simple, reliable, fossil fuel or nuclear-powered baseload generation with high “inertia,” as the engineers say, is a big reason that Spain’s grid failed so fast and took nearly a day to reboot fully.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media keeps scratching its head and staring into the sun for solar flares. “The cause of the outage remained unclear,” the Times’s current headline explains helpfully.
If this were 2021, the Biden Administration would no doubt call blaming renewables “misinformation” and Twitter and Facebook would be censoring articles like this one as Russian propaganda or whatever. At least now the skeptics can call the media out without fear of being banned.
Progress, I suppose.
Though it doesn’t fix the underlying problem. After two decades of putting up solar and wind farms at massive taxpayer expense, Europe has turned electricity from cheap and reliable to the reverse. If the sun shines too brightly, the lights go out.
Congrats, Greta Thunberg!
April 29, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | European Union, New York Times |
1 Comment
The US has made no offer to Russia regarding the future of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told CBS. The diplomat’s remarks followed media reports about Washington’s alleged plans vis-a-vis the installation.
The energy facility, which is Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, has been under Russian control since March 2022. Later that year, Zaporozhye Region’s residents voted to join Russia in a referendum, which Ukraine dismissed as a sham.
When asked during an interview with CBS on Sunday whether US President Donald Trump had approached Moscow over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, Lavrov said that “we never received such an offer.” He added that “if we do, we would explain that the power station… is run by the Russian Federation state corporation called Rosatom.”
“It is in very good hands,” the diplomat added, noting that the facility is “being monitored by IAEA personnel permanently stationed at the site.”
“If not for the Ukrainian regular attempts to attack the power plant, and to create a nuclear disaster for Europe and for Ukraine as well, the safety requirements are fully implemented,” Lavrov asserted.
Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US — LavrovREAD MORE: Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US — Lavrov
When further pressed on the issue, the minister reiterated that “I don’t think any change [to the facility’s status] is conceivable.”
“We cannot speculate on something which is really not being mentioned during the negotiations,” he concluded.
On Tuesday, Axios, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, reported that American officials had presented Kiev’s representatives with President Trump’s “final offer” to end the Ukraine conflict during talks in Paris last week.
According to the outlet, the proposal includes designating the area around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant as neutral territory under US administration.
Last Sunday, the Wall Street Journal carried a similar report, citing anonymous sources.
In March, Trump claimed that Vladimir Zelensky had proposed that the US assume ownership of his country’s nuclear power plants. The Ukrainian leader, however, refuted this assertion, stating that he and Trump had only discussed potential US investments in the Zaporozhye NPP.
April 27, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Russia, Ukraine, United States |
1 Comment
Aletho News 