Everyone knows – well, everyone has heard – that EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeeeee are the vehicles for solving what is said to be the “climate crisis” – which is an interesting thing to say, given the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeees being produced are much more powerful than they need to be to get people from A to B. That requires huge batteries, to store all the electricity needed to make them go very fast, very quickly.
You’d think that would be discouraged – even banned – if there is a “crisis” looming that is being caused by the “emission” of carbon dioxide. After all, more of the latter is being “emitted” than necessary by the utility plants that generate almost all of the electricity that powers over-powered EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeees.
Does anyone need to get 60 in 2.9 seconds? Or even six? If there is a “crisis,” that is. Yet practically every EeeeeeeVeeeeee on the market is designed specifically to use up more power than is needed for bare-minimum or even economy-car-equivalent basic transportation needs.
This tells you something about the true nature of the “crisis” – and those who say it is one. If a ship on the open sea has sprung a leak and is sinking, do you open more holes below the waterline?
There are some other things about EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeees they aren’t telling you about as well.
You can’t “fast” charge an EeeeeeeeeVeeeeee at home –
Practically every article gushing about EeeeeeeVeeeeeees will report on the fact that it is possible to “fast”charge an EeeeeeeeeeeVeeee in about 30 minutes. Some will gushingly report that – soon! – you’ll be able to do it in less than 15 minutes. What they never tell you is that you cannot do this at home. Because private homes do not have the capability to “fast” charge an EeeeeeVeeeee. The very “fastest” you can charge an EeeeeeeeeeVeeee at a private home is in around eight-nine hours, on a 240 volt (dryer-type) outlet.
You will never be able to “fast” charge an EeeeeeeeeVeeeee at home. Not without completely rewiring the home to commercial-grade capacity. This means you will always have to drive to wherever the “fast” charger is – and wait there. This means spending time getting to (and from) the “fast” charger. Which means spending more time “fast” charging. Thirty minutes to “fast” charge” ends up being that plus however long it took to drive there, plus the wait there.
And that “15 minutes” – soon! – they also gush about? They do not tell you that while it might be “faster” it is less. As in, not a full recharge. Just enough to get going again. But not very far – before you’ll need to stop (and wait) again.
Speaking of which . . .
A “fast” charge is never a full charge –
Whenever you read an article gushing about EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeees and the miracle of taking at least five times as long to “fast” charge it vs. the five minutes it takes to refuel a non-EeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeee, you will never encounter the disclaimer that the “fast” charge is only 80 percent charged. In other words, you end up with 20 percent less charge than a full charge, which means 20 percent less range . . . which means having to stop (again) 20 percent sooner.
The reason why you cannot – well, should not – “fast” charge an EeeeeeVeeeee to fully charged is because it is hard on the battery, which is the most expensive part of an EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee. There is also an increased fire risk. So EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees (and “fast” chargers) are set up to deliver 80 percent charge “fast” – and the rest, slow.
This 20 percent loss of charge-range – assuming you don’t have time to wait for a full (slow) charge – is probably not a huge big deal if you aren’t going far or have the time to stop and wait (again). But if you’re on a long trip, you’ll be stopping – and waiting – more than you’ve been led to believe you will be.
Speaking of that . . .
The farther you drive, the shorter the service life –
If you drive an EeeeeeeeVeeeeee to the limit of its range, you will have heavily discharged its battery pack. If you want the battery pack to last you should avoid doing this, because regularly discharging a battery is likely to reduce the life of the battery. Meaning, its capacity to hold the charge (and so, deliver the range) it advertised when new. This is why hybrid cars are designed to always keep the battery partially charged. Even so, a hybrid car’s battery pack eventually loses its capacity to hold charge and must be replaced.
But EeeeeeeeeVeeeeees have no gas engine on board to keep the battery from being heavily discharged. This presents a paradox: If you use the EeeeeeeeeVeeeeee’s advertised range you are reducing the battery pack’s service life. Put another way: The EeeeeeeeVeeeeeee’s advertised range is functionally about 30 percent less-than-advertised, if you want to avoid having to spend 30-50 percent as much as the EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee itself cost you on a replacement battery pack before it is time to replace the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee, itself.
You have probably not heard about this, either. But you really ought to know about it, if you’re thinking about buying an EeeeeeeeVeeeee.
There are some other things to know about EeeeeeeeVeeeees, too.
If you don’t have a garage, where will you plug in your EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee? Will you be able to run an extension cord from inside your house – or apartment – to wherever the EeeeeeeeVeeeeee is parked?
Did you know that leaving an EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee garaged outside – in the cold – will result in the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee’s range when you parked it being less when you get up the next day to drive it? This is because EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees burn power even when they aren’t being used – because EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees have powered heating (and cooling) systems that are always on – to keep the battery from getting too cold (or too hot). That means needing to keep the EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeee plugged in, to avoid loss of charge while it’s just sitting – especially if it is sitting outside, in the cold (or heat).
Finally – for those who are considering an EeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeee because they believe that they are thereby reducing their “carbon footprint”: You are probably increasing it. For two reasons.
One, EeeeeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees do not last as long as non-EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeees – because EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeee battery packs do not last as long as non-EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeees do and cost more than it’s worth to replace them when they can no longer power the EeeeeeeeVeeeee. That means a new EeeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeeeee sooner. Which means new raw materials (and carbon dioxide “emissions”) to make the new EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee – which will be just as prematurely disposable as the old EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeee.
Two, because EeeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeeees are energy hogs. Even the small ones like the Tesla 3 – which is a compact-sized car comparable to a Honda Civic sedan – has more than 1,000 pounds of battery pack, which it uses to deliver the speedy 0-60 times it touts. But that entails a probable doubling of the size of the battery pack that would otherwise be needed to deliver adequate (rather than “ludicrous”) speed – and also uses twice (or more) the power needed to keep it charged up. Almost all of that power – especially the commercial-grade power available at “fast” chargers – produced by combusting lots of natural gas, oil and coal. Resulting in lots of carbon dioxide “emissions.”
So, why aren’t the people hard-selling EeeeeeeeeeVeeeeeees telling people these things? Well, for the same reason the same people didn’t tell the people about the “vaccines” – until after they’d been injected with them.
The truth does not serve to bolster their position, so they just lean hard on lies.
Check out Rep. Brad Sherman here, trying to justify a law censoring the word “apartheid” from curriculum in Palestinian schools funded by the US or UN:
“I believe this amendment is accurate… There might be some who would say– or at least I have met a few people who would claim– that Israel is an apartheid state, and I want to rebut that extreme conclusion. We want a two state solution. That means that there will be one state for one people apart from another state for another people. That is not apartheid. Apartheid was a vicious system in Southern Africa that the entire world worked to destroy. So to call Israel an apartheid state is to call for a worldwide effort to destroy Israel. The fact is that there is a border between Israel and Egypt. So the Egyptian people are separated from Israel by a border. They live apart from Israel in Egypt.
That is no different from what we see in Europe. Nobody has called the Netherlands an apartheid state because it has a border with Germany. And the Dutch live predominantly on one side of the border and Germans tend to live on the other side of the border, and they both have different states for different people. And of course there are some Germans living in the Netherlands and some Dutch living in Germany and their rights are protected. So to say those who want a Jewish state living side by side with a Palestinian state are embracing the evils of apartheid is to say that virtually every international border constitutes a separateness, an apartheid, because it divides people into different countries. And I think that’s an extreme and ridiculous conclusion. We do want a two state solution. That is a majority sentiment in Israel and is the official position of the Israeli government. It’s almost the position of the Palestinian Authority. So to condemn Israel because it wants to be a Jewish state should be done right after we condemn the Netherlands because for wanting to be a predominantly Dutch state.”
As Phil Weiss comments, “There are many reasons I think this argument is nonsense. There is today only one state in the land, Israel, and the U.S. does all in its power to prevent Palestine’s efforts to be recognized as a state. The “borders” established by the international community in 1947 and again in 1949 are mere wishes; they have not been respected; Israel has occupied the land assigned to Palestine and moved 750,000 Jewish Israelis into that territory. Jews there are under a separate set of laws than the Palestinians, with separate roads and walls that cut through Palestinian villages, and the Palestinians are under military law.”
As Benjamin Netanyahu has said, there will only ever be one state between the river and the see, but it will most assuredly not be free:
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
We are entering the 4th Industrial revolution – that’s what the World Economic Forum is telling us. And, the target is you, humanity. The transhumanism push aims to merge humanity with artificial intelligence. Jefferey Jaxen breaks down the latest Executive Order signed by President Joe Biden to develop artificial intelligence that will ‘unlock the power of biological data,’ signaling a conceding alignment with the WEF’s agenda.
As public health messaging struggles to sell a new Omicron booster shot without human trials, the science and research community is now publishing weekly data and findings revealing major issues with the American Covid vaccination program.
In 2020, a high-level Brereton inquiry report found the unlawful killing of civilians by elite Australian commandos in Afghanistan during their operation between 2006 and 2015. The report revealed that senior officials instructed young commandos to execute detainees, which they described as “blooding” of young troops.
The 2nd Commando Regiment, a special forces unit of the Australian Army, has been captured in several videos showing them discussing killing unarmed civilians in cold blood in Afghanistan during their nine years of operations.
The elite forces can be heard discussing a “quota of 10” for each one to kill during the “War on Terror,” which was announced by the US following the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001.
The video obtained by ABC shows an entire unit happily discussing their “kill quota” ahead of an operation.
“We’ve got a quota of 10. The quota is 10,” one soldier tells the cameraman, while the second soldier replies, saying he will meet the “quota.”
They use the word “quota” at least a dozen times in the 90-second film captured by an Australian soldier in 2012.
Another video shows a soldier opening fire from his assault rifle from combat helicopter at what appear to be unarmed civilians.
The third video, also telecasted on ABC news, shows two Australian commandos detaining a “farmer,” Later, they watched while an Afghan soldier beat the civilian.
The ABC news said that some of these elite commandos are now under investigation by Australia’s war crimes agency.
Australian Defence Force has clarified, saying it does not use “enemy casualty numbers as a measure of performance, success or effectiveness, including during operations in Afghanistan.”
‘The publicly released version of the Afghanistan Inquiry report briefly mentions ‘catch and release, and the kill count’ as one of the factors the presence of which may have contributed to an environment in which deviant behavior [in the SAS] could take place and not be recognised,’ a spokesperson said.
US-led NATO forces pulled out from Afghanistan in August 2021 after 20 years of “War on Terror.”
“Position switching” is the basis of empathy. So I’ve been trying to put myself in the shoes of our adversaries to understand their world view. But the more I do this, the more alarmed I become. The mainstream position on the pandemic and vaccines is literally insane.
So this morning I got up and tried to jot down The Official Narrative — from the perspective of the people who believe it. The more I wrote, the more absurd and untenable it became. I posted it to Facebook and was promptly banned for 30 days for “violating community standards.” Again.
I’m not sure what part the Stasi objected to. I did not use the word vaccine. I said that Pharma Loves Us(TM). Apparently the Stasi are feeling raw and triggered because they are always wrong about everything and their friends now all have myocarditis.
Here’s the offending post:
The Narrative(TM)
I want to make sure that I understand The Narrative(TM) correctly so that I can remain a Respectable Citizen(TM) in Good Standing(TM) with mainstream society:
1. The pharmaceutical industry is all-knowing. They are the source of all that is good and true in the world including life itself. The pharmaceutical industry is infallible.
2. The fact that all of the major pharmaceutical companies are in fact felons is unimportant. What? Did that even happen? I don’t know. Why are we even talking about this? What matters now is injecting as many of their products as possible.
3. The 30,935 reports of death after the thing are A Coincidence(TM). The HHS report showing that this system undercounts harms by a factor of 100 is… What? I never heard of that. I think I saw a warning label about that on social media. Pharma and the government Love You(TM) and Would Never Hurt You(TM). One. That’s how many people died after the thing. And that’s less than 1 in a million. Because.
4. The fact that Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Lancet Commission on the origins of Covid, after reviewing all of the available evidence, has come to the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 came from a U.S. bioweapons lab is what? Why does anyone care where it came from? Everyone knows that the strange eating habits of the Chinese people are to blame. Nature: dangerous. Chinese peasants: guilty. Bioweapons labs: do they even exist? We need an international treaty to protect the pangolins or the bats or frozen food or whatever.
5. The first four xhots saved 20 million lives even though they have negative efficacy, fuel the evolution of variants, and cause antibody dependent enhancement that leaves one more vulnerable to infection. Miracles are like that — contradictory, paradoxical, and nonsensical. The important thing is just to believe.
6. Tony Fauci is perhaps the greatest American who ever lived — a cross between Jesus, the Buddha, and Einstein. The fact that he killed over 6 million people by funding gain-of-function research just proves his heroism.
7. During the AIDS epidemic, Fauci blocked access to Bactrim and funded the development of AZT that was expensive, toxic, and deadly. During Covid, Fauci blocked access to hcq and ivm and funded the development of Remdesivir and xhots that are expensive, toxic, and deadly. This proves that he loves us and is the world’s greatest scientist.
8. Authorizing the xhots for kids who already have natural immunity, are not at risk from the virus, and thus can only experience harms, is benevolent and kind. Why do kids exist? Do they even pay taxes? Robots could do a much better job. Dogs are so great. Do you follow my Instagram?
9. Bill Gates, who never finished college, once he acquired more money than he could ever spend in a lifetime, devoted his free time to hanging out with a pedophile sex trafficker. Clearly he is the best person to inform global health policy which is why he’s on CNN every Saturday night giving advice to an actual doctor, Sanjay Gupta.
10. The failures of the last two years are in fact an incredible success which is why the Biden administration is doubling down to create a Bioeconomy(TM) based on the failed genetic engineering strategies that caused the global pandemic. Only good things can come from this. We live in the best of all possible worlds.
The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) has taken a stand against what it refers to as “the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other healthcare professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media,” going so far as to recommend disciplinary action and state policy changes.
In a July 2021 press release, the FSMB warned physicians they could risk “disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”
And in a lengthier statement issued in April 2022, the nonprofit — which says it “serves as the voice for state medical boards” — appeared to advocate for laws like the one sitting on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk that would punish doctors who share COVID-19 “misinformation” with their patients, with language like this:
“Prohibitions on disseminating misinformation are already expressly written, or implied, in many state statutes regulating the practice of medicine. However, adopting a specific policy on misinformation is encouraged in light of the increased prevalence of, and harm caused by, physician-disseminated misinformation in this ongoing pandemic.”
In yet another show of support for cracking down on “misinformation,” FSMB President and CEO Dr. Humayun Chaudhry will speak next week on “Misinformation in Health Care: The Implications for Professionalism and the Public Trust” at the American Board of Medical Specialties annual conference.
In its July 2021 press release, the FSMB did not define what it meant by “misinformation or disinformation,” yet the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine subsequently issued a joint statement supporting the FSMB’s position.
According to its website, the FSMB says it “supports its member boards as they fulfill their mandate of protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare through the proper licensing, disciplining, and regulation of physicians and, in most jurisdictions, other health care professionals.”
It also issues guidelines that serve as the basis for model policies with the stated goal of positively impacting the health and safety of patients and the medical regulatory system.
But some critics of the FSMB’s aggressive “misinformation” policy questioned where the organization derives its authority and who’s really behind it.
What is the FSMB — and who funds it?
Created in 1912 at a “small annual gathering of state board executive officers with no permanent staff or headquarters,” the FSMB today has almost 200 employees and two national headquarters — one in Texas and another in Washington, D.C.
The private tax-exempt 501(c)(6) trade association says it supports “America’s state medical boards in licensing, disciplining and regulating physicians and other healthcare professionals” and works to “keep patients safe.”
Since its inception, the FSMB has been staffed with members who presently or previously held positions with other medical governing bodies.
According to IAMRA’s website, the IAMRA was formed when “FSMB, under contract with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), planned and hosted the 1st International Conference on Medical Regulation in Washington, D.C.”
FSMB and IAMRA share an office address in Texas. Their official phone numbers are nearly identical. And when a person calls the phone number listed on IAMRA’s website, the prerecorded welcome message tells the caller they’ve reached FSMB and IAMRA, in that order.
FSMB’s president and CEO, Chaudry, is also the secretary of the IAMRA. This overlapping of leadership positions extends beyond FSMB and IAMRA into medical councils in other countries.
For example, Dr. Emanuel Garcia, a psychiatrist living in New Zealand who publicly voiced concern about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, noted in an Aug. 22 article for Global Research that the chair-elect of the IAMRA, Joan Simeon, “just happens” to be the CEO of the Medical Council of New Zealand.
Garcia, who questioned whether the FSMB and IAMRA’s true motivations were ensuring safe medical practices, said:
“In casting an eye over the years since the dramatic introduction of the COVID pandemic, the near total shutdown of the world, the immense transfer of wealth from the middle and poorer classes upwards, the universal imposition of an inadequately tested so-called vaccine, and the vehement suppression of critical early treatment, one cannot but conclude that there is indeed an agenda beyond health and welfare.
“The FSMB and the IAMRA have shown by their actions that they are tools whose task is to further this agenda, and that this agenda is both anti-medical and inhumane.”
In addition to contracting with the U.S. government and IAMRA, the FSMB runs its own foundation that functions as a separate 501(c)(3) organization but is supported by a “generous seed endowment” from the FSMB.
Last April, the FSMB foundation celebrated its 10-year anniversary by hosting its annual fundraising luncheon. Its annual highbrow luncheons have raised thousands of dollars to support the organization’s activities, including “the study of state responses to the COVID-10 pandemic.”
The FSMB foundation’s website does not disclose its donors.
Commenting on the FSMB’s July 2021 statement, “Spreading COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation May Put Medical License at Risk,” Garcia said, “The outstanding question remains: Where does the FSMB derive its authority to regulate United States medical boards and, through its apparent international partner, the IAMRA, direct medical councils around the world to discipline doctors?”
So many questions …
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who had her medical license suspended in January for “spreading misinformation,” told The Defenderthe FSMB’s authoritative actions raise many questions.
Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, outlined the questions in an email:
Why would a nonprofit with no regulatory authority suddenly decide it was important to trash the First Amendment, the Nuremberg Code and other legal doctrines to push for punishing doctors who fail to tell the government’s story and use COVID-19 treatments the government doesn’t want used?
Why is the FSMB monitoring the states and collecting information on their attempts to investigate and/or punish doctors for doing their duty to act as learned intermediaries to their patients?
Why did the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics push identical policies in lockstep in mid-2021 that would destroy physician autonomy, when physicians are, one would think, their clients?
Why did the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists push for experimental vaccinations during all trimesters of pregnancy?
Nass suggested all of these questions should be investigated.
A history of ties to Big Pharma
Historically, there is evidence of Big Pharma funneling money to the FSMB.
For example, a decade ago, MedPage Today broke the story on how the FSMB turned to a pharmaceutical company with a $3.1 million request to underwrite the cost of producing and distributing a book about its opioid prescribing policy.
After the FSMB’s guidelines for the use of opioids to treat chronic pain patients were adopted as a model policy, the organization asked Purdue Pharmaceuticals for $100,000 to help pay for printing and distributing the policy to 700,000 practicing doctors.
The initial $100,000 was just a small downpayment on the $3.1 million the FSMB’s foundation estimated it would cost for its campaign to get out the word about the “safe” use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain, according to MedPage.
Dr. Christiane Northrup, a former board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist with more than 30 years of experience, told The Defender she intuitively sensed the FSMB had questionable associations and chose not to renew her medical license when it came up for renewal in 2015.
Northrup, who had shifted her professional activities away from directly seeing patients, said she asked herself, “Do I need this for what I’m doing now?” and concluded, “Let’s not renew this.”
Northrup pointed out the historical connection between pharmaceutical companies and the FSMB. She told The Defender that “what we’re talking about is a very carefully orchestrated attempt to control doctors.”
Many people who have been taught that “the doctor knows best,” Northrup said, cannot comprehend the “horror” of the implications of the FSMB’s actions.
The Defender reached out to the FSMB and the IAMRA for comment, but neither had responded at the time of this writing.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
Though Washington insists that it is not interested in a direct military conflict with Moscow, the latter claims that the US is, in fact, directly involved. But who is telling the truth?
On 8 September, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared in Kyiv on an unannounced visit. He carried with him pledges of yet another military and financial package of nearly $3 billion, mostly to Ukraine, but also to other Eastern European countries. According to a report published by The New York Times in May, US financial support for Ukraine has exceeded $54 billion.
Devex‘s funding platform states: “A relatively small percentage of that funding is humanitarian-focused.” The same source also indicates that the total amount of mostly military aid provided by the West to Ukraine between 24 February and 16 August has topped the $100 billion mark.
For such a massive military arsenal to operate, one can imagine the involvement of legions of military experts, trainers and engineers. Washington’s latest package includes hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, such as more High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS).
And more is coming. According to Blinken: “President Biden… will support the people of Ukraine as long as it takes.”
The Russians, however, have no illusions that US military support for Ukraine is confined to mere weapons shipments or limited to financial transactions. On 2 August, the Russian Defence Ministry accused the US of being “directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.” The ministry’s statement cited an admission by Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence, Vadym Skibitsky, who toldThe Telegraph: “Washington coordinates HIMARS missile strikes.”
This is not the first time Russia accuses the US of direct involvement in the war. As early as 25 March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West had declared “total war” on Russia. In this instance, Moscow’s top diplomat was referencing every aspect of this “real hybrid war”, including unprecedented sanctions that were meant to break the back of Russia’s economy and the will of its military forces. Since then, the US Western embargo on Russia has exceeded 10,000 sanctions, an unprecedented number in modern conflicts.
Also, since then, the nature of American involvement in the war has changed. The type of weapons first provided to Kyiv by Washington quickly transformed from weapons of defensive capabilities with limited outreach, to weapons of offensive capabilities with long-range artillery systems, including HIMARS and M270.
Much of the US involvement can be understood through common sense. Consider Politico‘s report on 29 August, alleging that: “Since the early days of the war, Kyiv has seized the initiative as missile strikes and mysterious explosions have wreaked havoc on the Russian fleet, sinking several vessels… and devastating its Crimea-based air wing in a dramatic attack this month.” If these details are accurate, it is hard to imagine that such success would have been carried out by, as described by Politico itself, a “small Ukrainian navy”.
When American weapons are provided and operated by American military experts, and when the movement of Russian forces is monitored by American satellite coordinates, one should easily conclude that the US is indeed involved in a direct war with Russia. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the US is utilising all of its expertise in economic warfare, used against Iraq, Cuba and others, to devastate the Russian economy.
But why does the US refuse to accept that it is engaged in a direct war against Russia?
Successive US administrations have perfected the art of engaging in military conflicts without making such a declaration. As the US fought its protracted war in Vietnam starting in the mid-1950s, it engaged in many other military conflicts that were mostly kept secret. These undeclared wars included the Nixon administration’s secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia, which resulted in the estimated deaths of 100,000 people.
To curtail the power of the president to conduct war without notifying Congress, the US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the War Powers Act. Despite a presidential veto, a two-thirds majority in Congress managed to pass the resolution into law. Still, successive administrations found ways around the law, including the US involvement in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and again in the US war on Libya in 2011.
In fact, it was in Libya that the phrase “leading from behind” was used in abundance. Americans seemed to have found a brilliant way of engaging in war while avoiding its costly political consequences. This way, former US President Barack Obama could be involved in several wars all at once without being called an interventionist or a war-mongering president.
To understand the extent of America’s ongoing, undeclared wars, marvel at this 1 July report by The Intercept, which obtained the data using the Freedom of Information Act. This was “the first official confirmation that at least 14” military operations – known as 127e programs – were active in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region in 2020, and that between 2017 and 2020, US commandos carried out 23 separate operations.
So, even if the US engages in direct combat against Russia, the chances of war being declared are almost nil. Therefore, the extent of US involvement can only be gleaned from evidence on the ground.
Call it “leading from behind”, “proxy war” or “hybrid war”, Washington is very much a party in the devastating war in Ukraine, which is paying a heavy price for Washington’s desire to remain the world’s only superpower.
The North Atlantic Alliance began its decades-long creep toward Russia’s borders in the late 1990s after walking out on commitments made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 and 1991 not to expand “one inch” east following German reunification. NATO expansion is one of the central causes of the current Ukrainian security crisis.
NATO began planning to increase its presence along its eastern flank “years” before Russia kicked off its special military operation in Ukraine, NATO Military Committee chairman Rob Bauer has revealed.
“Military leaders have a common frame of reference for both alliance-wide threats and regional threats, and that we enhance the speed and effectiveness of our rapid deployable forces. We’re talking about the biggest overhaul of our military structures since 1949. The planning for that started several years ago, but now we’re implementing it,” Bauer said, speaking to reporters at a press conference at the NATO Military Committee Conference in Tallinn, Estonia on Saturday.
NATO defense chiefs discussed the need to “sustain” and “increase” “allied support to Ukraine,” at Saturday’s meeting, Bauer said.
“The ammunition, equipment and training that allies and other nations are delivering are all making a real difference on the battlefield. With its successes on the ground and online, Ukraine has fundamentally changed modern warfare,” the officer said. “NATO will support Ukraine for as long as it takes,” he added.
Speaking alongside Bauer, Estonian Defense Forces chief Martin Herem said that NATO’s collective priority was to “deny Russia the possibility to change today’s rule-based international order,” including by stationing more troops along its border.
“Forward defense is not only about the number of allied boots on the eastern border. The entire chain must be in place. It means having the appropriate mix of national and allied in place forces, known reinforcements, advanced plans linked to assigned forces and assigned C2 [command and control],” Herem said.
Echoing Bauer’s comments on the need to “support” Kiev, Herem stressed that “it is critical to ensure cohesion and unity of allies. The winter will be difficult but [we] must stick together and stay committed” in the coming months.
Defense chiefs from Finland and Sweden joined Saturday’s discussions, and Bauer called their expected entry into the alliance at some point in the future “good news” for the bloc.
“We get extra territory to defend as an alliance, and we get a long border with Russia. But we get also Finland and Sweden’s armed forces, which are very capable, to help us defend that extra territory and to defend that longer border. Russia will have a longer border with NATO without getting extra troops. So I think the accession of Finland and Sweden is beneficial for the alliance and is creating more of a problem for Russia,” Bauer said.
The officer said the implementation of the agreements reached at the summit in Madrid in June on bulking up the bloc’s eastern border was “ongoing,” and that there are no problems to report on that front.
At the Madrid summit, NATO agreed to stand up four new battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, and to deploy “robust and combat-ready forces on the Alliance’s eastern flank.” For its part, the United States moved to establish a new ground base in Poland, about 280 km southwest of the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and beefed up its presence in Romania by 3,000 troops. Earlier, Washington also surged its military footprint in Europe by 20,000 troops, bringing the total number to 100,000. The US also deployed two additional squadrons of F-35 fighter jets to Britain, and sent two more destroyers to Naval Station Rota in Spain, bringing the total to six.
Ramping Up Tensions With Russia
NATO has undergone several waves of expansion between 1999 and 2020, swallowing up every former member of the defunct Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, three ex-Soviet republics and four republics from the former Yugoslavia. The expansion took place despite former US Secretary of State James Baker’s verbal promise to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 not to expand the alliance “one inch” east of the territory of the former East Germany following that country’s annexation by the Federal Republic.
In 2008, NATO recognized the aspirations of the pro-Western governments of Ukraine and Georgia to see their countries join the alliance, sparking serious security concerns from Moscow. Tensions between Russia and the West were exacerbated in 2014, after the Ukrainian government was overthrown in a coup d’état orchestrated by Washington, and the post-coup government in Kiev reiterated its ambitions join the European Union and NATO.
In late 2021, Russia presented NATO and the US with a twin set of proposed security agreements designed to dramatically ease tensions and improve relations between Moscow and the Western bloc. The draft treaties included the proposal of legally binding, written guarantees by Russia on one side and the US and NATO on the other not to deploy troops, aircraft, warships and missile systems in areas where they might be seen as a threat to other side’s national security. NATO was asked to pledge not to continue its eastward expansion, and to scrap plans to incorporate Ukraine and any other former Soviet republic into the bloc. The Western alliance was also asked not to deploy additional troops or weapons systems on the territory of those NATO members which joined the bloc after the end of the Cold War.
The US and NATO balked at Russia’s security guarantee proposals, with officials emphasizing that the Western bloc’s “open door” policy for membership would remain unchanged.
A lifetime of anti-Russian propaganda taught Americans that Russians are evil people who forever foment conflict. They are shocked to learn that American troops fought in Russia to overthrow its government in 1918. Tales of the American empire produced several short videos revealing an endless war with Russia by the British and American empires that continues to this day.
A former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre is arguing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted an overly simplistic approach to global warming and has ended up exaggerating the human contribution to recent climate change.
William Kininmonth argues that the warming of the planet is fastest in winter and in high latitudes near the poles. He argues that this is mostly due to increased heat transport from the tropical oceans.
However, the recent warming of the tropical oceans can’t be explained by the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide, because that effect is small in the humid tropical atmosphere. The most probable explanation is natural changes in ocean currents.
William Kininmonth says:
“The IPCC’s radiation balance approach is very simplistic, ignoring the fact that nowhere on the Earth’s surface is in radiation balance. Mainstream climate science may have led us all up a blind alley”.
GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review this paper, and to submit a response to be published as an appendix to it. No reply was received.
William Kininmonth joined the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 1960, and retired in 1998 as head of the National Climate Centre. He was a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology and participated in regional coordination and training programs. William Kininmonth is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard.
The US has prevented independent research into the origins of the Covid-19 virus, a report by the Lancet Commission has asserted.
Washington barred the researchers from accessing relevant laboratories and refused to disclose full information on American studies of the virus, the document, published in the British medical journal on Wednesday, outlined.
“Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses,” the report said while discussing the potential origins of the Covid-19 infection. Nor had they gained access to the research conducted at the Wuhan laboratory, which has been considered a possible place where the disease might have originated, the document added.
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) also “resisted disclosing the details” of the research conducted in America on SARS-CoV-related viruses, which the US government agency has been supporting, according to the report. Eventually, only an “extensively redacted” version of the relevant data was provided, the document said, adding that it contains only as much information that was required by the Freedom of Information act lawsuits.
The lack of the needed data on the virus origins still prevents the researchers from determining the origin of the virus, the paper admits, adding that virtually any hypothesis in this field remains plausible. In particular, it said that “two main possible pathways” of its emergence should still be considered: a natural spillover event, in which a person contracted it from an animal, and a “research-related” incident.
The second pathway particularly suggests that a researcher could have become “infected in the field or in the laboratory with a natural virus, or … in the laboratory with a genetically manipulated virus,” the document said.
“The search for the origins of the virus requires unbiased, independent, transparent, and rigorous work … supported by all governments,” the report noted. Washington has so far not commented on the Lancet Commission findings.
The exact origins of the Covid-19 virus have yet to be conclusively proven. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in February 2021 that it was most likely transmitted from an animal, possibly a bat, to humans.
Earlier in September, an Israeli study concluded that bats are likely not to blame for the Covid-19 pandemic since there is no compelling evidence proving a link between bats and the disease outbreak.
An amazing article from the least expected, mainstream source: Politico.
The title of the article was apparently edited in a hurry post-publication because Google News still lists it as “How Bill Gates and his partners took over the global Covid response”. Here’s the archive link to the original article with “Bill Gates” in the title — proving it was later edited in a hurry.
The article would be fascinating to read for people who were not previously aware of what most of us knew already — that the so-called “pandemic response” and global health are taken over by unaccountable private interest groups serving Bill Gates.
The story given by the article is incomplete but very interesting.
It mentions that the pandemic response was taken over by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, CEPI, and the Wellcome Trust. All four organizations pretend to be independent, but all were financed by Bill Gates.
They participated in Event 201, planning out the pandemic, in October 2019.
“What makes Bill Gates qualified to be giving advice and advising the U.S. government on where they should be putting the tremendous resources?” asked Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser for the Doctors Without Borders’ Access Campaign.
Several important items are glaringly missing from the article:
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the US government (Avril Haines representing the US intelligence community) and China CDC, planned out the pandemic in October of 2019 by means of an “exercise” called Event 201.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation financed the organization that developed Sars-Cov-2 (EcoHealth Alliance) via grant INV-002838, and possibly more.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation financed University of North Carolina, where Ralph Baric developed Sars-Cov-2 for EcoHealth Alliance, via 56 grants: INV-026327 INV-030330 INV-031704 INV-028991 INV-036494 INV-032887 INV-033909 INV-036560 OPP1192462 OPP1199232 OPP1201585 OPP1203327 OPP1195157 OPP1195363 OPP1191684 OPP1061107 OPP1090837 OPP1086528 OPP1108279 OPP1107923 OPP1235 OPP3436 OPP1142921 OPP38920 OPP38381 OPP23847 OPP17809 OPP1161858 OPP1158402 OPP1154943 OPP1172799 OPP1183027 OPP1181722 INV-006232 INV-001748 INV-005277 INV-016221 INV-019193 INV-016163 INV-003112 INV-001805 INV-003266 INV-002551 OPP1203712 OPP9404 OPP1014802 OPP1015539 OPP1024615 OPP1024664 OPP1015381 OPP1018000 OPP51976 OPP53107 OPP53450 OPP52037 OPP49260
Bill Gates had close ties with Jeffrey Epstein and visited him numerous times
Nevertheless, the mere publication of this article has huge importance. The things that most of us know and talk about, are appearing in the so-called “mainstream press” — after the damage was all done, of course.
The virus was released; millions died; over a billion young people were force-vaccinated under false pretenses. When it is too late to change anything, Politico is finally stating the obvious. Still, it is better than nothing.
Almost everything in the Politico article was known a year ago. Where was Politico then? Busy taking government covid vaccine advertising money.
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars. … 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
