Suspected Pentagon documents leaker Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old Dighton, Massachusetts Air National Guardsman, allegedly released classified documents without permission about the sobering U.S. intelligence assessment of Ukraine’s prospects in the Russo-Ukrainian War (i.e., Ukraine can’t win, despite public official pronouncements about their imminent battlefield victories). Those documents he allegedly leaked also revealed several dozen U.S. soldiers were operating in the war zone (the equivalent of two special ops teams), despite official denials, along with CIA operatives already known to be calling missile and artillery strikes in the war.
What does Teixeira’s high school disciplinary record have to do with his revelations about official lies and secrets about America’s involvement in a war with the world’s other nuclear superpower?
Nothing at all. Zip. Zero. Nada. A whole number between -1 and 1.
There’s no journalistic value in the story that Teixeira was suspended in high school for “threatening” language (he said he was describing a video game at the time). It has no relationship to the story about Ukrainian war lies, and has as much journalistic value as my own high school disciplinary record (or yours). Such dirty laundry in decades past used to be relegated to discussions of celebrity divorces in supermarket tabloids.
But it has a lot of value if your goal is to engage in a general character-assassination using compliant media.
So it brings up a couple of questions: Why is the news media reporting this? And how did they get this information?
The second question is the easiest to answer: The U.S. government’s executive branch careerists gave it directly to them. It was part of the official filing by (now former) U.S. Attorney Rachael S. Rollins asking the federal district court to keep Teixeira in jail until trial.
And one must wonder how that made it into the official filing. How is this relevant to the legal need to deny Teixeira bail and keep him in jail until trial, if the worry was that he wouldn’t return to court for his trial or would publicly reveal more official state secrets?
Again, it doesn’t. At all.
The purpose of including Teixeira’s high school disciplinary record—one that was confidential and which could only be obtained through court warrants or Intelligence Community (IC) surveillance—in the filing was to engage in a deliberate and planned public character-assassination of Teixeira through compliant media organs.
Rollins—or more likely, her handlers in Washington—wanted to destroy this young man publicly by unnecessarily releasing his private sins to the press in an attempt to distract the media from exposing the official lies that Ukraine can win its war against Russia and that U.S. combat troops are not present on the ground. Plus, as a bonus, it serves the double-purpose of poisoning the available pool of unbiased jurors in advance of trial and making a public example to deter future whistle-blowers.
Say what you will about Rollins, the Feds assigned this role to someone who has hands-on experience in this specific task. Rollins resigned Friday, May 19 from her role as U.S. District Attorney for Massachusetts because an Inspector-General Report by the U.S. Department of Justice revealed she’d done the same thing to a candidate for Suffolk County District Attorney (an elected state position).According to the Inspector General report on Rollins, “Rollins assisted a candidate in a partisan political election and sought to influence the election by, among other things, disclosing non-public, sensitive DOJ information to the press.”
In other words, she conspired to engage in a media smear of a public person using confidential, non-public information.
Sound familiar?
But there’s an important difference between both the Teixeira case (and the Trump-Russia collusion hoax) and the local candidate Rollins was accused of smearing. Disclosing private information to defame a candidate in a local election is a no-no, unless he is an enemy of the Deep State. But if the Deep State wants to character-assassinate someone, whether holder of the highest office in the land or all the way down to some lowly Air National Guard private, then that’s just spiffy.
Rollins suffered no negative consequences from smearing Teixeira. Only when smearing someone who wasn’t an enemy of the Deep State did she face an inquiry.
Now back to the original question about CBS-Boston and other media reporting that Teixeira was suspended during high school. Why are they reporting something that has no news value? Because word was put out to destroy his character in order to distract from his revelations about the Russo-Ukrainian War, and they used compliant media networks to do just that.
Some time after the defection of Soviet spy Anatoliy Golitsyn in 1962, the former KGB officer suggested to his CIA handler that National Review founder and syndicated columnist William F. Buckley help edit the book he was working on, and that it be serialized in Reader’s Digest. It was a logical request. Conservative icon Buckley was known to be a CIA veteran (and had formed National Review around his Langley friends), andwith circulation in the millions Reader’s Digest was probably the highest circulation periodical with CIA assets on staff. The late 1960s and early 1970s were the height of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, where agents infiltrated and controlled hundreds of media corporations and journalists, respectively, toward the CIA’s stated goals of fighting the Cold War against the Soviet empire. Operation Mockingbird is a campaign still officially denied by the CIA, so its activities can be said to have never been completely shut down, even if they were suspended for a few years.
The reforms of the 1970s imposed some nominal restraints via executive order upon the rogue CIA (along with the FBI) in the reforms of the post-Vietnam era. After the contentious Church and Pike Committee hearings, CIA officials publicly promised they weren’t infiltrating media and poaching journalists as spies and influence-peddlers. But even by the mid-1980s, CIA chiefs were publicly stating they might have to do so again in the future.
The restraints came off the IC (“Intelligence Community”) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks with Congress passing the USA PATRIOT Act. It’s hard to say when the IC began to focus more upon the U.S. domestic media than foreign media, but it’s safe to say it was having a measurable impact upon domestic media by the early 2010s. It was at that point even media traditionally antagonistic to government power had been transformed from watchdogs into Deep State lapdogs.
The “Deep State” can be loosely defined as executive branch careerist bureaucrats and their nominally private sector but government-funded “NGO” contractors who don’t have to face elections or the voters, and who make policy outside of directives from elected officials in the legislative branch and the president.
During the Cold War, the U.S. government used to curate a list of the “Captive Nations” who were under the thrall of the Soviet empire based upon subservience to the Soviet imperial interests. Today, much of the U.S. corporate media is obviously captive to the American empire’s intelligence behemoth in its recent expansion of Operation Mockingbird. I’ve come to call it the “captive media,” in homage to the Cold War-era “Captive Nations” terminology.
The last hurrah of journalistic independence and antagonism to power for TheWashington Post was the Edward Snowden affair in 2013. After Snowden’s revelations, the Post never seriously challenged the Deep State again, including its Big Pharma subsidiary, nor have they engaged in any significant actions against the government’s other alliances with giant corporations. TheNew York Times had been captured by the Deep State as early as 2002 when Judith Miller was acting as stenographer for lies about Iraqi WMDs. The Times and Post both became de facto state assets, along with the five giant U.S. media conglomerates (ABC-Disney, NBC-Comcast, CBS-Viacom, CNN-TimeWarner and Fox-Newscorp), and all today routinely condemn enemies of the national security state and Big Pharma rather than expose the excesses of those powerful special interest groups within the executive branch of government. Likewise, many social media and tech corporations have been revealed by the #TwitterFiles to be adjuncts of what journalist Matt Taibbi accurately labels the “Censorship Industrial Complex.”
One key “tell,” to use a poker term, to identify a likely captive media organ is to observe media character-assassination of a person threatening the primacy of the military-industrial complex. This label of captive media is all the more likely to be accurate when the character assassination doesn’t even address the newsworthy revelations or political positions of that person, and when all the other captive media organs are chiming in chorus with the same condemnation.
The Teixeira case is instructive on the Deep State’s penetration of U.S. media. The modus operandi of the Deep State is to distract from their own corruption by smearing anyone who exposes them or opposes them, and to publicly ruin someone in a key government position who expresses intolerable levels of heterodoxy from the official narrative. The latter was the reason for smearing presidential candidate Donald Trump with the gamut of their arsenal: he was an apex-level racist, a Russian asset, probably an anti-Semite, a threat to democracy, etc.
All this is not to say that Donald Trump was a good president. He wasn’t, and his politics were seriously deficient from a libertarian perspective on many fronts. But he wasn’t enough on “Team Deep State” to avoid the careerists in the executive branch conspiring with the Hillary Clinton campaign to bring him down with multiple lies, as the Durham Report makes eminently clear.
None of the Russia-collusion hoax lies against Trump were true, but truth—like the words coming out of Trump’s own mouth—was immaterial to the issue. One of my favorite podcasts used to be Unfilter, and one of the libertarian hosts revealingly noted back before the podcast went dark, “Trump is not a liar. He’s a bullshitter.” This distinction is highly significant. A liar expects you to believe his lies, but to a bullshitter both the truth and your level of belief in his lies are irrelevant. A bullshitter doesn’t care if you believe him; the only important thing is how you react to his lies. Trump was—and remains—an expert-level bullshitter. He can trigger the corporate media into giving him free press coverage constantly; the CNN Town Hall spectacle with Trump serves as the most recent hilarious example. Everything he says is to get a reaction, not to reveal some truth.
That’s the Deep State’s working model right now. They don’t care if you believe them. All that matters is your emotional reaction: to hate Donald Trump, to hate Jack Teixeira, and to hate anyone else they believe is a threat to their power and their agenda. They’re confident they can dig up dirt on every person with their surveillance panopticon, and can find enough sin on anyone to ruin any heterodox person publicly. They’ve taken the Orwellian “two minutes of hate” and perfected it, treating Nineteen Eighty-Four as a roadmap rather than a warning.
That’s why my working thesis on media corporations is that any company which focuses upon personal attacks rather than the relevant issues to journalism and public policy, especially if the personal attacks coincide with the official Deep State narrative (and they usually do), they’re likely among the captive media.
This also works to some degree for individuals, even if they’re not explicit agents of the Deep State. Anyone who hates a political figure—whether Donald Trump, Ron Paul, or Joe Biden—based upon personal characteristics rather than public positions and routinely resorts to baseless smears of being a racist, an anti-Semite or a foreign agent is probably compromised (or at the very least, a toxic person) whose opinions are worth ignoring entirely.
It should go without saying Americans can’t trust the captive media, of whom it could be accurately said that truth and factual accuracy are irrelevant. The long-running Russia-collusion hoax is but the latest example exposed. There’s a long list of official lies: cloth masks stop transmission of COVID-19, the vaccine stops transmission of the virus, gas attacks in Syria, Ghaddafi’s imminent genocide in Libya, all the way back to Judith Miller. And those are just a handful of hundreds of examples.
The good news is that TheNew York Times and Washington Post‘s circulation reach new lows every month, as do the ratings of CNN, Fox and MSNBC. CNN’s ratings hilariously fell below NewsMax last week.
Lies don’t sell well.
So look for the Deep State to infiltrate ever-more media outlets in the future as their lies and captive media platforms lose audience and, as a result, the impact of the captive legacy media wanes. Those of us opposing the surveillance panopticon and the perpetual warfare state will need to use both the patterns described above and leaked truths to reveal the captive media, as they are taken over.
The Jack Teixeira and #TwitterFiles revelations are but the latest in a line of exposures of official lies beginning with Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Reality Winner. There will be others.
It’s also encouraging to hear the U.S. House of Representatives is holding at least some tentative hearings on the weaponization of the executive branch in the election cycle. Liberty-loving individuals need to encourage more of those hearings, and a much deeper-dive into revealing their secrets, followed by legislation that would (if not outright abolish) at least re-impose some limits upon the “Intelligence Community.”
Thomas R. Eddlem is a freelance writer published in more than twenty periodicals, holds a master degree in economics from Boston College and is communications director for the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts.
Henry Kissinger, the foreign policy eminence grise who has advised half a dozen presidents, has caused the deaths of over 3 million people, according to an Intercept report published Tuesday in observation of the realpolitik strategist’s 100th birthday.
While critics of the Nixon-era secretary of state and national security adviser often describe him as a war criminal for his pivotal role in numerous US-backed genocides and coups, the report argues Kissinger’s body count has been widely underestimated, particularly regarding the secretive, highly illegal expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia in the 1970s.
Between the genocides he sponsored in East Timor and Bangladesh, the continent-wide terrorism, coups and death squads of Operation Condor in Latin America, the fomenting of civil wars in Southern Africa, and his carpet-bombing of Cambodia and Laos under the guise of chasing the Vietnamese, Kissinger is believed to be responsible for over 3 million civilian deaths – more if one counts the casualties that have resulted from advice he gave the private sector.
Kissinger has ‘only’ acknowledged that his actions caused the deaths of 50,000 Cambodians and blames the Vietnamese, the supposed targets of the US’ bombing campaign (the coordinates of which were logged incorrectly so as to be recorded as legal strikes within Vietnam). Intercept reporter Nick Truse argues the number is closer to 150,000, pointing to numerous documented examples of egregious and deliberate undercounting of civilian casualties. The figure represents more than six times more civilians than the US has killed in airstrikes since 9/11.
Transcripts from the Intercept’s “exclusive archive” of declassified US military documents from a secret Pentagon war crimes task force reveal it was Kissinger’s decision to relay then-president Richard Nixon’s drunk, belligerent trash talk about Cambodia into coherent instructions to the Pentagon to begin a “massive bombing campaign” in the country in 1970.
Kissinger’s now-infamous directive to shoot “anything that flies on anything that moves” exploded the secret war, tripling the number of bombings by the end of the year. He allegedly approved all 3,875 individual bombings of the war, and the bombers dropped over 257,000 tonnes of explosives on Cambodia in 1973 alone.
The Intercept’s archive also revealed numerous brutal ground raids on Cambodian villages that have since been all but memory-holed; Truse confirmed via interviews with survivors that the raids were far deadlier than reported. While the airstrikes were frequently hushed up as “pilot error” – “errors” that were nevertheless repeated thousands of times – the US Army, in an internal investigation, actually blamed its press corps when ground troops were caught looting a village they had just raided.
Kissinger’s carpet-bombing of Cambodia paved the way for the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal dictatorship that killed 2 million Cambodians – 20% of the country’s population – which he privately (and approvingly) referred to as “murderous thugs” while helping them secure regional allies.
Kissinger has never been prosecuted – or even officially charged – with war crimes, nor has the US military made any systemic efforts to hold accountable the troops who actually did the killing.
Let’s make it simple, since now there are rumors flying around that he tried to blackmail Bill Gates regarding an affair he might — or might not — have had with a young but of legal age woman who was very good at playing chess.
Nobody has explained how Epstein made his money. He had a lot of it; you don’t buy an island and outfit it, never mind a nice big jet aircraft which is expensive to buy and also very expensive to maintain, fuel and staff without some source of income.
We all know, for example, how Elon Musk got his money. And Bernie Ebbers. And Ken Lay. And any one of myriad other very wealthy people. Whether ultimately it was discovered they were doing foul things or not the fact is that it was trivially easy to know exactly how they made their money, in the main.
Except for Epstein.
Therefore, by simple deduction, Epstein got his money because someone, or a group, were paying him and had the means to hide it from ordinary, routine surveillance that “outs” everyone else.
That in turn means one or more governments were doing it and none of them who had actual knowledge were adversarial to the others.
How do we know this?
Because it would have been to the adversary’s tremendous advantage, and a nation-state is immune to “mere arrest” for some trumped-up offense, to blow the lid off of it had that been the case.
Therefore it wasn’t.
Since the activities took place in and around the United States it is also therefore clear that one of the funding conduits was one or more agencies of and in the United States. There may be others but our government was one of them.
That is conclusive.
What is also conclusive is that all of the 535 members of Congress know this and none of them have done anything about it.
That includes your Congressperson and both of your Senators, in each and every case.
To restate just in case your IQ is smaller than your shoe size: One or more of our agencies suborned and used the sexual abuse of underage girls, along with the sexual coercion of women who had reached the age of consent, for reasons we do not have knowledge of but which can be reasonably believed to be underhanded, illegal or likely both. Such acts are criminal felonies even if the government performs them; there is no immunity for a US Government agency or instrumentality to fund activity leading to the rape of children.
This clearly did occur.
Whatever other gripes you may have with our government we, the people, clearly are willing to permit this to stand.
Today’s Los Angeles Times contains a letter to the editor from a North Hollywood person named Dave Simon, which states in part the following: “To this day, I have no regret that President Harry Truman saved many American lives as well of thousands of others all across the globe by ordering the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Simon’s sentiment has always been the popular justification for the U.S. atomic bombings of the people in those two Japanese cities. The idea has been that without the bombings, it would have been necessary for the U.S. to have invaded Japan to secure its defeat, which would have necessarily entailed the deaths and injuries of thousands of U.S. soldiers.
Therefore, the argument goes, by killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with the atomic bombings, and, equally important, implicitly threatening to continue doing so against other Japanese cities, the Japanese government was forced to surrender, thereby bringing a quicker end to the war, which thereby saved the lives of U.S. soldiers.
I have always opposed that reasoning. Targeting civilians is a war crime. That’s why Army Lt. William Calley, Jr., was charged with a war crime after he and his troops massacred civilians during the Vietnam War. Targeting civilians with an atomic bomb is no different from shooting them with an M-16. The bombing simply kills more people.
Would thousands of U.S. soldiers have died in an invasion of Japan? Of course. But that’s the nature of war. Soldiers die in war. To say that it is legitimate to kill women, children, and seniors in order to protect soldiers is highly illegitimate, from both a moral and a legal standpoint.
But as many people have pointed out, Japan was ready to surrender anyway. All that Japanese officials needed was an assurance that their emperor would not be executed, tortured, or abused. The U.S. refused to provide that assurance, pursuant to President Roosevelt’s policy that demanded “unconditional surrender.” It was a ridiculous policy, especially since after Japan’s surrender, the U.S. did not execute, torture, or abuse the emperor anyway.
Moreover, there are commentators who make a persuasive case that the real reason that President Truman ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to send a message to the Soviet Union, which was already being converted from WW2 partner and ally to the new official enemy of the United States.
There are also commentators who argue that Japan surrendered to the United States not because of the atomic bombings but rather to prevent the Soviet communists from taking control of Japan.
In any event, let’s jump forward to the current war between Russia and Ukraine or, as some contend, the current war between NATO and Russia.
Let’s assume that Russia is familiar with the popular U.S. justification for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki — the justification that Dave Simon sets forth in his letter to the LA Times. Let’s assume that Russia drops an atomic bomb on Kiev, the capital and the most populous city of Ukraine, in order to shorten the war by securing Ukraine’s immediate surrender. By shortening the war, the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers would then be saved.
What would Simon and other supporters of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including U.S. officials, say then? Would they defend Russia’s dropping an atomic bomb on Kiev on the same basis that they defend the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or would they declare that Russia’s atomic bombing of Kiev constituted a grave war crime for targeting and killing civilians, even while continuing to justify the U.S. targeting and killing the civilian populace in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The US claims that the weapons sent to Ukraine are only used within the borders of the conflict zone, but it is increasingly clear that this equipment is being used by Ukrainian forces to carry out terrorist attacks in the undisputed Russian territory. Photos and videos shared on the internet show that US armored vehicles were used by pro-Kiev forces to attack Belgorod during recent terrorist hostilities. As expected, US officials are denying their involvement and suggesting the images are fake. Now, Washington needs to find a “justification” for the undeniable fact that its proxy regime is inappropriately and illegally using military aid provided by NATO.
The images are being published by Russian war correspondents who covered hostilities in Belgorod. It is possible to find among the equipment captured by the Russian forces several American-made weapons, including some armored vehicles such as M1151A1 Humvees and MaxxPro MRAP. The vehicles were mostly destroyed by Russian artillery or left behind by enemy soldiers as they tried to evade Russian fire.
Reacting to the case, the US authorities argued that there is not enough evidence to confirm the veracity of the photos and videos circulating on the networks. Speaking during a press conference, US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller emphatically expressed his skepticism about the veracity of the images, indicating that they could be some “fake” deliberately spread by the Russians to accuse the Americans. He made it clear that an official statement by Washington will only occur after the images are analyzed and there is absolute confidence on their accuracy.
“We’ve seen some of the reports circulating on social media and elsewhere making claims that US-supplied weapons were used in these attacks (…) I will say that we’re skeptical at this time of the veracity of these reports (…) We’ve seen a lot of reports on social media and fuzzy pictures on social media and a lot of kind of armchair intelligence analysts making claims (…) We’re skeptical that they’re accurate (…) We don’t have perfect clarity on the information (…) We’re looking at the same pictures you see, the same fuzzy images, and at this time, we are skeptical of their veracity”, Matthew Miller told journalists during a press conference.
Miller’s argument is vague and weak. Confirmation on the veracity of the images can be obtained in a short time through an expert analysis, which is enough to eliminate any doubts about the case. What Miller seems to be doing is avoiding giving a verdict on the subject, postponing the final assessment to a future that may take a long time or not even happen. With this, the US avoids giving a public response about the participation of its weapons in an illegal attack against Russia.
Some other American officials, however, are already using another argument. In an interview with journalists, the Pentagon’s press secretary, Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder, stated that his country has not approved any transfer of weapons to “paramilitary groups” outside the Ukrainian armed forces.
“So we’ve seen those reports [on images], something that we obviously continue to monitor very closely. I will say that we can confirm that the U.S. government has not approved any third party transfers of equipment to paramilitary organizations outside the Ukrainian Armed Forces, nor has the Ukrainian government requested any such transfers. So again, it’s something we’ll keep a close eye on”, he said.
His words come amid the current discussion about who really carried out the attack on Belgorod. Kiev alleges that those responsible for the attack were exclusively the neo-Nazi groups ‘Freedom of Russia Legion’ and ‘Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK)’, which are militias formed by expatriate Russian-born mercenaries.
The Ukrainian government believes it has no responsibility in the case, as it was not its regular troops who operated the attack. Consequently, the American government wants to avoid any accusation of co-participation due to the use of its weapons, claiming that Washington delivers this equipment only to Kiev, not being responsible in case of use by paramilitary groups.
However, these arguments are inconsistent with reality and international law. These paramilitary groups are at the service of Kiev and directly obey the Ukrainian state, regardless of whether their legal status is one of regular troops or not. These militias are excluded from the norms of humanitarian law, but it means nothing regarding their affiliation with Ukraine, which is why Kiev must be seen as directly responsible for the Belgorod attack.
Accordingly, Kiev’s sponsors are also co-participants in the crime. If pro-Ukrainian terrorists use US weapons to attack Russian civilians in demilitarized territory it is because Washington gives such weapons to Kiev even though the US knows that there are terrorists working for that regime. So, as much as they want to deny it, the US and NATO are in fact co-authors of the attacks on Russia.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
“Is modern medicine helping us live longer and healthier?” Or is a “darker, more sinister agenda” creating “a longer but sicker life?”
Journalist James Li explored this question on a recent episode of “Breaking Points,” where he discussed how “Big Pharma, Big Food, mainstream media, medical professionals, [and] the government” collaborate to make us sick.
Li showed a “60 Minutes” clip about the obesity epidemic ravaging the U.S., in which Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, obesity medicine physician-scientist and associate professor at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, explained why common beliefs about obesity are wrong.
“The number one cause of obesity is genetics,” she said. “That means if you are born to parents that have obesity you have a 50 to 85% likelihood of having the disease yourself even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management and stress management.”
“So the message from the mainstream media is pretty simple,” Li said. “Obesity is a disease, take a drug.” But that’s not the whole story, he said.
Obesity in the U.S. has gone from “almost nonexistent” in the 1950s to a projected 50% of the population by 2030. So, “unless the human race experienced some kind of quantum leap in genetics, there must be something else we’re doing that is destroying our metabolic health,” Li said.
Drawing on recent work by pharma consultant-turned-whistleblower Calley Means, Li pointed to two major issues in the U.S. food system — too much sugar and a lack of fiber.
The average child eats 100 times more sugar — which is more addictive than cocaine — per day today than 100 years ago — and the sugar hides in processed foods, Li said.
Knowing that sugar is addictive creates an incentive for processed food producers to keep adding more of it to our food.
Li told viewers:
“If you are a food industry executive — bonus is on the line, shareholders demanding astronomical growth quarter after quarter — what do you do to get a leg up on your competitor?
“Well, you add sugar to your products to make them more addictive so people buy yours and not your competitors’ and then they try to one-up you and all of a sudden sugar is everywhere.”
Fiber, which according to the Mayo Clinic helps “maintain a healthy weight and lowers your risk of diabetes, heart disease and some types of cancer” has almost completely disappeared in a lot of our most popular food products.
In fact, Li said, according to the National Institutes of Health, only 5% of people consume the recommended daily target of fiber.
Li quoted Nicole Avena, Ph.D., who told Newsweek that many ultra-processed foods are “almost pre-chewed” for us:
“They melt in your mouth immediately. There’s no protein. There’s no water. There’s no fiber slowing them down. It’s going to hit your taste buds and light up your reward and motivation centers of the brain immediately. Then there’s a secondary hit of dopamine when it gets absorbed into the body.”
Li said, “These food companies have morphed into narcotics laboratories. They’ve found a way to hack our brains and make a killing both figuratively and literally.”
The healthcare system, he said, then comes in as a hero to treat these illnesses and makes skyrocketing profits doing so. Li cited Means to say that the healthcare system doesn’t focus on health or prevention. It only makes money when people are sick.
“Every single institution is incentivized for more Americans to be sicker for longer periods of time,” Li said.
FAIR reported that every doctor interviewed by “60 Minutes” for its segment on obesity had received money from Novo Nordisk, maker of the drugs effectively being advertised on the show.
None of the doctors mentioned the serious side effects associated with the drugs, Novo Nordisk’s massive profits from the drugs or the lobbying the drugmaker is doing to get insurance to pay for weight-loss drugs.
This is how the “obesity industrial complex” works, Li said:
“The food industry makes billions of dollars selling food that’s known to be toxic and poisonous, making millions of Americans sick in the process. The healthcare industry in this case gets to play hero while also pocketing billions of dollars selling a supposed miracle drug to millions of adults and children.
“Both of these industries have worked out a little deal with the federal government, Congress with lobbying money with funding for the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] so that they can rewrite science and continue to sell food that is known to be toxic and poisonous.”
But, he said, despite the fact that the entire system is organized to profit from making people sick, there are some “no-brainer” solutions Means proposed that Li puts forward.
First, the FDA ought to revise the “recommended” added sugar in children’s diet per day from 50 grams, based on a 2,000-calorie diet, to zero.
Second, he said, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “food stamps,” functions as a subsidy to the processed food industry because most SNAP benefits are expended on cheap, processed food. Reforming that program, he said, could end those subsidies.
Li concluded by asking the audience:
“All the technological advancements in public policy decisions of the last half century, have they contributed to promoting a longer and healthier life? Or a longer and sicker life?”
Watch here:
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.
When the Covid-19 vaccines rolled out, public health officials took great pains to downplay how the vaccines spread from the injection site. Articles with language like this were common: “Most of the mRNA vaccine stayed in the injection site muscle—where you get the shot.”
We now know the truth. The lipid nanoparticles, or LNPs, travel widely throughout the body. These LNPs carry the Frankenstein mRNA that causes the cells to produce spike proteins.
We initially got tissue biodistribution data from Japan which showed that significant lipid concentrations were found in the adrenal glands, bone marrow, liver, ovaries, spleen (and more) for at least 48 hours after injection.
And from the lawsuit that we brought against the FDA demanding the release of the Pfizer documents, we now know that this same data was also provided to the FDA. What is really troubling, however, is that this document was dated November 9, 2020—meaning, prior to any Emergency Use Authorization or public use of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Having LNPs release their cargo into the cells of critical organs is very concerning. This is because many scientists will tell you that the spike protein produces an immune response, including inflammation. It is one thing to have inflammation in one’s bicep, but it is quite another to have it in your heart muscle, liver, ovaries, etc.
This is again why the government should not be in the business of promoting, let alone mandating, any product. It becomes impossible to acknowledge safety issues without self-incrimination. How often do you hear the government say, “Oops, you know that thing we told every American to inject into their body? Well, it actually can cause serious harm to a lot of people—our bad!” No. That rarely happens.
CONCLUDING REMARK
As I have written in the past, the lack of respect for individual and civil rights has wrought more harm on humanity than anything else. The American experiment was a rebellion against the idea that you must cede your rights to some overseers who know better and will make decisions on your behalf.
To that end, as I also often repeat, please send the following proposed legislation to your legislative representatives:
No law may require or coerce a person to receive or use a medical product, or impose a penalty or deprive a benefit for refusing a medical product or refusing to disclose whether a person has received a medical product.
Medical freedom is freedom. If you cannot get a job, go to school, or otherwise participate in civil society because you refuse a medical product, you are not free. What good are your rights if you can only exercise them at home by yourself? That is why medical freedom is a fundamental right that must be permanently fixed into the law of every civilized nation.
We are, as provided in the Declaration of Independence, indeed “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and to safeguard those rights “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” We must never yield to the tyranny of permitting others to dictate what can or must be placed, administered, or injected onto or into our bodies. For once that right is ceded, none truly remain.
As we enjoy our lives within the neocon utopia that’s been carefully crafted for us, let us set aside, for a moment, all basic morality and the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Surely, if we put on the same hegemonic blinders worn by the likes of John Kirby, Victoria Nuland, Lindsey Graham and the rest, their plans in Ukraine will make perfect sense.
In his February 2022 speech concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden said, “Today, I’m authorizing additional strong sanctions and new limitations on what can be exported to Russia. This is going to impose severe costs on the Russian economy, both immediately and over time.” In an April 2022 speech to reporters in Kiev, Defense Secretary Austin expanded on this sentiment, explaining, “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.”
Essentially, the U.S. government’s goal has been to drain Russia of personnel, financial and military resources, the end result being preservation of the unipolar world. Doesn’t seem like a bad plan—as long as you ignore the human toll. However, there are multiple historical precedents that provide insight into whether or not this plan can work.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non Aggression Pact was hashed out in summer 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany, wherein secret protocols allowed both sides to dominate eastern Europe without fear of reprisal from each other. Not long after, of course, Germany invaded Poland from the west, followed by the Soviet invasion from the east.
Stalin knew he couldn’t trust Hitler, and became increasingly concerned that Finland may be used as a base to launch an attack. But the Soviets were unprepared for such an assault. Due mostly to the Bolshevik collectivization of agriculture, an extensive famine began in 1930, which included the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. The result would be upwards of 5 million deaths in Ukraine and 8 million overall. Just a few years later, Stalin would begin the Great Purge, killing somewhere in the range of one million of his own people. This didn’t just include religious leaders, Trotsky supporters, and Kulaks (landowning farmers), but the majority of marshals, commanders, and admirals in the Red Army.
After failed negotiations with Finland—due to unreasonable requests which would have undermined their sovereignty—Stalin invaded, kicking off the Winter War in November 1939. Although a spring offensive may have fared better, Stalin was worried about possible threats to his defense industry, of which 30-35 percent was housed in Leningrad, the second Soviet capital near the Finnish border. He felt they couldn’t wait, stating in an April 1940 debriefing, “It would be great stupidity, political short-sightedness to miss the moment and not try as soon as possible, while there is a war going on in the West, to raise and resolve the issue of Leningrad’s security.”
The end result of Stalin’s missteps were three months of humiliation and more than 320,000 casualties compared to Finland’s 70,000. Although they gained more concessions than originally requested, the damage to the Soviet reputation was immense. This demonstrated weakness contributed to Adolf Hitler’s decision to execute Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 and invade the Russian motherland.
Following a famine most of us could never comprehend, a purge of political opponents that makes Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre look like a seasonal layoff, and a three month skirmish that took more young lives than U.S. troops lost in every conflict since Korea combined, the USSR was still able to become “the main engine of Nazism’s destruction,” according to historian Max Hastings. Three quarters of German losses were at the hands of the Red Army.
The USSR spent nearly 27 million lives to retain their place in the pecking order and expel the Wehrmacht from their borders. What better time for the United States to put them out of business for good? It would, however, take 46 more years of technological one-upsmanship, nuclear brinksmanship, and back and forth proxy wars of attrition between the U.S. and USSR before an open dialogue between leaders would finally break up the Communist Bloc.
Contrarians and critics may point out that today’s Russian Federation is no Soviet Union. By population alone there is a significant difference. The 1939 Soviet population was near 170 million while current Russian estimates hover around 143 million and dropping, due in part to negative birth rates (which is the case for most of the developed world). The loss of tens of millions of Russian lives, or even a humiliating defeat to a smaller nation, would certainly pose an “existential threat.” But “existential threats” aren’t what they used to be. The key difference being that Stalin didn’t possess nuclear weapons until 1949, while Putin has nearly 6,000 at his disposal and a reluctant willingness to use them.
The economic security of Russia also comes into question, with an overreliance on natural resources where oil, natural gas, and coal account for more than 50% of their exports. However, this would only be a valid concern if we ignore the importance of these fuel supplies to the economies of the importing nations. Not only is affordable fuel a key factor for developing countries as they lift their people out of poverty, but it remains essential to emerging superpowers like China and India. Russia’s exports of crude oil to these countries have only increased since their invasion of Ukraine, becoming the leader in both markets.
Since their switch to an oligarchical, mixed-market economy, a mirror of the United States, Russia has maintained their place of geopolitical importance with an increase in the standard of living for Russian citizens. These are a resilient people. I know my fellow Americans, and I’m not convinced most of us could handle anything like what the Russians have seen in the last century. And I don’t believe our benevolent leaders, pushing and extending this provoked war, know so little about history that they actually envision a permanently weakened Russia by way of Ukrainian lives. This has always been about regime change, because a nationalist like Vladimir Putin will never kowtow to Washington’s demands, and for them, this is unacceptable.
I understand why neocons on both sides of the aisle are foaming at the mouth. Smedley Butler said it best:
“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
What’s troubling is all the sycophantic drones, all too eager to trust the same people who lie with every exhale; those who picture a day when a nation with the largest nuclear arsenal will submit; those who actually think it’s in their best interest to consolidate and centralize power. The same people who will speak out against monopolies in business but clamor for monopoly in governance.
With the coming collapse of the U.S. dollar, an absurd debt-to-GDP ratio, unbridled intelligence agencies, politically motivated investigations into opposition parties, social discord and division, depleted military stockpiles, and entangling alliances across the globe, it is the United States, not Russia, with the earmarks of an imperial collapse. When it all comes down, Joe Biden or Mitch McConnell or whichever other mediocre “elites” take their place will be standing on the rubble with a solution, in front of a welcoming crowd of uninformed and disjointed citizens. Let’s just hope there’s an “encouraged and braced up” remnant ready to pick up the torch of liberty and rebuild.
Covid pandemic disinformation; Covid conspiracy doctor claimed he was ‘poisoned after interview’ just days before death; IMO, I don’t put anything past the ‘dark unseen hand’, those behind COVID fraud.
‘A notorious conspiracy theorist doctor, known for his wild takes on the Coronavirus pandemic, claimed he had been poisoned just a few days before he died.
Dr Rashid Buttar, who was part of the group nicknamed the “Disinformation dozen”, died suddenly yesterday (Saturday, May 20) at the age of 57.
He was known for being a huge anti-vaxxer and became a cult figure during the pandemic.’
‘The medical community is mourning the loss of Dr. Rashid Buttar, a respected doctor known for his views on COVID-19 and vaccines.
He was named as one of the “Disinformation Dozen” by the far-left media along with Democrat presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Dr. Buttar, 57, a licensed physician and a retired Major in the US Army who served in special forces, died on Thursday at his home, while spending time with his family, according to an email sent by his family.’
“Every single one of you, independently, is a beacon of light for those around you. So set the example, stand up, continue to fight … let your children see what it means to be free.” — Dr. Rashid Buttar
The entire Children’s Health Defense (CHD) team is saddened to learn of the May 18 passing of renowned physician, humanitarian and children’s health advocate Dr. Rashid Buttar.
Dr. Buttar was born in England in 1966. He moved to the U.S. with his family when he was 10 years old. He graduated from Washington University with a double major in biology and theology, later obtaining a doctor of osteopathic medicine degree from the University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery in Des Moines, Iowa.
Dr. Buttar trained in general surgery and emergency medicine and served as brigade surgeon and chief of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Moncrief Army Community Hospital at Ft. Jackson in Columbia, South Carolina, during his time with the U.S. Army.
He was board certified in clinical metal toxicology and was the medical director for Advanced Concepts in Medicine in North Carolina and California clinics specializing in alternative treatments for patients with cancer, heart disease and autism.
Dr. Buttar distinguished himself among the families of children diagnosed with autism for his compassion and willingness to think outside the box in terms of treatment — even when his methodologies went against the grain of mainstream medicine.
He became an advocate for children who were injured by vaccines, testifying in 2004 before the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform on the topic of “Revolutionary New Treatment of Neurodevelopmental Diseases.”
Commenting on Dr. Buttar’s death, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD founder and chairman on leave, said:
“Rashid was an irreplaceable leader in the medical freedom movement. He was also my friend and physician. His early and courageous stand for his patients, for medical integrity and for evidence-based medicine cost him his career, relationships, income and his standing in his community and made him a pariah among his physician colleagues for decades.
“Rashid rarely spoke of his own sacrifices. His consuming focus was on healing the sick, comforting the afflicted and consoling the grief-stricken. I’ll always be grateful to him for the miraculous relief he provided me from mercury toxicity. He gave similar gifts to thousands. I’m grateful to God for giving me such a friend.”
A stalwart pioneer in innovative treatments for autism and other conditions, Dr. Buttar was considered a medical maverick by both his peers and his patients.
In 2010, he wrote the popular book, “The 9 Steps to Keep the Doctor Away: Simple Actions to Shift Your Body and Mind to Optimum Health for Greater Longevity.”
“Our community has lost a dear colleague, a caring physician and a steadfast friend,” said Laura Bono, acting president of CHD.
Bono added:
“Dr. Buttar treated my son’s environmental toxicity and heavy metal poisoning for many years. We drove four hours, round-trip, to his office three days a week. He listened to our views regarding our son’s needs and altered treatments as needed based on our input, a real rarity in medicine today.
“Dr. Buttar never doubted my son’s history of regression into autism after vaccines. After all, it was a story he had heard many times before. The key to his success in treating patients was that he listened to and trusted the parents.
“We can only hope that Dr. Buttar’s example of treating patients’ illnesses with individualized, effective protocols will become the standard for all physicians.”
Dr. Buttar applied the spirit of his experiences on the battlefield to his tireless work for truth and freedom on behalf of neurodevelopmentally injured children despite well-financed censorship of his efforts.
“The many people impacted by Dr. Buttar’s courage and determination will carry on his legacy by continuing to speak truth to power, even when the deck is so heavily stacked against them,” said Bono. “Our collective voices will ensure that truth triumphs in the end.”
American military-industrial complex firms are guilty of “price gouging,” amidst the exponentially rising demand for weapons systems to both bolster Taiwan as a counter to Beijing and support NATO’s proxy Kiev during its war with Russia, former Pentagon insiders told Newsweek.
The Ukraine policy of providing massive quantities of arms “no matter the expense,” in particular, is weakening America’s national security and combat readiness by depleting stocks which cannot be easily replenished due to the weapons firms’ skyrocketing prices, according to the former officials.
For four decades, Shay Assad worked as a contract negotiator at the Defense Department. He recently sounded off about these “astronomical price increases” and the resultant detrimental effect on the military, during a recent report on 60 Minutes, the CBS news program.
“The gouging that takes place is unconscionable,” Assad said. “There’s no doubt about it,” he continued, “You just can only buy so much, because you only have so much money. And that’s why I say, is it really any different than not giving a Marine enough bullets to put in his clip? It’s the same thing.” Assad previously worked for Raytheon as well, the arms industry giant on whose board Lloyd Austin sat before becoming the Pentagon chief.
According to Assad, the DOD overpays for “for radar and missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.” The report highlighted the fact that a shoulder-fired Stinger missile, produced by Raytheon, which cost $25,000 in 1991 is now priced at more than $400,000. Newsweek described the price rise as an “eye-watering increase,” even when taking inflation into account as well as interim technological advancements.
He went on to explain the Pentagon’s accountability system, such as it is, is completely “broken.” Assad said, “No matter who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be held accountable. And right now that accountability system is broken in the Department of Defense.” Moreover, Assad cited two more instances of gouging on the part of arms industry behemoths Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.
Lockheed and Boeing were found to have yielded an over 40 percent profit on sales of PAC-3 surface to air missiles to Washington and its allies. Assad explained the companies saw a windfall of hundreds of millions on the deals over seven years, and “based on what they actually made, we would’ve received an entire year’s worth of missiles for free.” Lockheed protested to 60 Minutes that the deals had been negotiated “in good faith.”
Both by overstating the cost and time needed to produce the radar equipment, Raytheon was also alleged to have taken obscene profits from the Patriot air defense system. The reporters were told by a company spokesman that Raytheon was working to “equitably resolve” the dispute. It is also noted that, in 2021, CEO Greg Hayes notified his investors that Raytheon schemed to put aside nearly $300 million for probable liability.
Assad demonstrated to the 60 Minutes host that an oil pressure switch was selling for over $10,000, when he claimed the switch should cost $328. The host asked Assad a question regarding the huge discrepancy, to which the former official responded “Gouging. What else can account for it?”
Assad went on to say that this widespread practice shows arms firms are hoodwinking and taking advantage of the American taxpayer. “We have to have a financially healthy defense industrial base. We all want that. But what we don’t want to do is get taken advantage of and hoodwinked […] We have nowhere else to go. For many of these weapons that are being sent over to Ukraine right now, there’s only one supplier. And the companies know it.”
Retired Air Force Lieutenant Gen. Chris Bogdan, who oversaw weapons purchases during his time in the military, further explained his concerns over the fact that when companies sell their weapons to the DOD, they retain the proprietary information required to fix the systems themselves, precluding the Pentagon, in some cases, from doing its own repairs.
“It’s not really a true capitalistic market because one company is telling you what’s going to happen. [It’s a] monopoly,” retired DOD auditor Mark Owen told CBS.
These reports come as tensions between Washington and Russia as well as China are growing at a rapid clip. The US is planning on fighting a hot war with China. Concurrently, the White House is committing billions of dollars in unprecedented military aid to Taipei, some of which is being drawn from the same dwindling DOD stocks used to prop up Kiev’s war against Moscow via the “Presidential Drawdown Authority.”
Since 2018, the Pentagon has been shifting its focus away from counterterrorism in the Middle East and North Africa, to focus primarily on so-called “great power competition” with China and Russia, pegged respectively as the number one and number two targets.
This has been reaffirmed in subsequent national defense strategies, as the shift in 2018 was codifying renewed Cold Wars against Russia and China launched by the US years and, in the case of Moscow, decades prior to the officially adopted national defense strategy.
It is also critical to note, that as the new Cold Wars get hotter, the nominal Pentagon budget is nearing a whopping $900 billion and will soon surpass the previously unthinkable $1 trillion mark. However, a closer look reveals the real national security state budget is already fast approaching $1.5 trillion.
This larger figure includes not only the mammoth War Department’s budget but – among a plethora of other expenses – the Department of Veterans Affairs, interest on the warfighting share of the national debt, nuclear weapons, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Congress recently simulated a Chinese attack on Taiwan and came to the conclusion that Taipei should thus be armed “to the teeth” by Washington. Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the ultra-hawkish think tank which has members and associates planted throughout the Joe Biden administration, carried out the exercise with the lawmakers on the House Select Committee on China.
CNAS is funded by Taiwan via the island’s de facto embassy in the United States, as well as the Pentagon, the State Department, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. In August 2021, investigative journalist Dan Cohen reported CNAS “has taken more money from weapons companies over the last several years than any other think tank in Washington… At least 16 CNAS alumni are now in key positions in the Biden Pentagon and State Department.”
At the height of the McCarthy era and the inception of the Cold War, the great journalist I.F. Stone released The Hidden History of the Korean War, a courageous work of investigative journalism that demolished the official story about America’s so-called “forgotten war.” As the war spiraled to its conclusion, Stone closely analyzed openly available U.S. intelligence narratives on the war’s official start, and the actions of key players like John Foster Dulles, General Douglas MacArthur, and Chiang Kai-shek. The result of his investigations was a controversial book that raised questions about the origin of the war, showed that the U.S. government had manipulated the United Nations, and gave evidence that the U.S. military and South Korean oligarchy dragged out the war by sabotaging peace talks. Stone made a strong case that there were those in the U.S. government and military who saw instability in the region as in the U.S. national interest.
Today, proxy wars are openly practiced for the sake of securing economic dominance — but when it came to news coverage of the Korean War, the story was purposefully buried at the very instant the war set the stage for relations with East Asia. When it was first published in 1952, The Hidden History of the Korean War met with a near-total press blackout and boycott—never receiving a single rebuttal, or answer, from official U.S. sources. First circulated during the long years of the Korean War, and then republished during the Vietnam War, much of what Stone wrote in The Hidden History of the Korean War was further validated forty years after its publication, when declassified documents from U.S., Soviet and Chinese archives illuminated this controversial period in history. With a new introduction by Tim Beal and Gregory Elich, 70 years after its initial publication The Hidden History of the Korean War remains a powerful dissemination of the ‘hidden history’ behind the dominant historical narrative. As we revisit I.F. Stone today, it further dawns on us that the tangled sequence of events leading to the Korean War were obfuscated in plain sight in order to prep the ground for a never-ending Cold War which aims to secure enduring American hegemony in East Asia, above all else.
What people say about The Hidden History of the Korean War
I.F. Stone’s Hidden History of the Korean War is investigative journalism at its best. While the war was raging, Stone drew on official government documents as well as newspaper reports to produce a devastating critique of US pronouncements about the origins and aims of the war. But the book is of more than historical importance. Stone’s investigation into US policy makers’ machinations also offers insights that help explain current US policy towards Korea. As a bonus, this edition includes a valuable new introduction by two Korea scholars who discuss Stone’s journalism and the continuing geopolitical ramifications of the Korean War. — MARTIN HART-LANDSBERG, author of Korea: Division, Reunification and US Foreign Policy
… highly explosive arguments and observations.—PARK SANG-SEEK, diplomat (1973)
This book-length feat of journalism… is a testament to Stone’s search for a way to strengthen his readers to think for themselves, rather than be overwhelmed by official stories and war propaganda.—JAY HAUBEN, Columbia University
Isidor Feinstein Stone (1907–1989), better known as I.F. Stone or Izzy Stone, published more than a dozen books and was considered one of the most influential investigative journalists of the postwar period. He was best known for his self-published journal, I.F. Stone’s Weekly, which in 1999 was ranked second in a poll of his fellow journalists of “The Top 100 Works of Journalism in the United States in the 20th Century.” He started the weekly after working at the New York Post, The Nation (as editor from 1940 to 1946), and the newspaper PM, covering the New Deal, McCarthyism, the birth of Israel, and the Vietnam War. Tim Beal is a retired New Zealand academic with a special interest in U.S. imperialism mainly, but not exclusively, in respect of Asia. He first read Izzy Stone’s book as an undergraduate at Edinburgh University in 1970. Enthused, he wrote a long undergraduate essay based on it. Though not well-received at the time, the process initiated a journey of discovery that has resulted in two books and numerous articles on Korea and imperialism. Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute board member and also on the board of directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute. He is a contributor to the collection, Sanctions as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-Economic Strategy.
By GARETH PORTER | CounterPunch | February 27, 2013
“Going to Tehran” arguably represents the most important work on the subject of U.S.-Iran relations to be published thus far.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett tackle not only U.S. policy toward Iran but the broader context of Middle East policy with a systematic analytical perspective informed by personal experience, as well as very extensive documentation.
More importantly, however, their exposé required a degree of courage that may be unparalleled in the writing of former U.S. national security officials about issues on which they worked. They have chosen not just to criticise U.S. policy toward Iran but to analyse that policy as a problem of U.S. hegemony. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 