Scott Ritter pointed out that Antony Blinken has facilitated the Ukraine conflict because “peace with Russia was never an option, only war.”
Outgoing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is “a war criminal in every sense of the word,” former American Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter wrote on X, commenting on Blinken’s video, in which he praised the Biden administration’s work.
Ritter accused Blinken of being “singularly responsible for the deaths of more than a million people” as a result of the conflict in Ukraine.
“You took advantage of a mentally diminished president to take our nation to the brink of nuclear war with Russia, violating the Constitution’s due process,” the ex-intelligence officer wrote, referring to the outgoing US President Joe Biden.
Ritter voiced hope that Blinken would be “investigated, charged, and found guilty of betraying” his country. “And I hope you are given the justice you so richly deserve,” the ex-intelligence officer concluded.
Blinken earlier told the New York Times that when it comes to the Biden administration, there’s allegedly “a very strong record of achievement, historic in many ways.”
These claims are clearly out of sync with Biden’s plummeting approval rating, which hit a new low in December, when just 34% of respondents OK’d his job as POTUS, according to a Marquette Law School national poll.
The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.
Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.
Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.
But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.
Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.
Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”
Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.
By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”
But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”
Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.
Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”
In the July 17, 1995 memorandum, Lake informed Clinton of a “hardening Russian opposition to NATO expansion.” In a section called “Intensifying Russian Opposition,” Lake said that “opposition to NATO enlargement appears to be hardening across the political spectrum among the Russian political elite.” He reported that key Russian officials insist “that NATO enlargement and NATO-Russia cooperation are incompatible.” He recognized that Yeltsin had “approved…a strategy for delaying and possibly derailing NATO enlargement.” Lake forecast little hope of the position softening because “Russia’s opposition is deep and profound.”
Though much has been made of William Burns’ important 2008 warning that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” it was not the first such warning.
In a 1991 appeal cited in M.E. Sarotte’s Not One Inch, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Robert Strauss warned that “the most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia may not be the collapse of Communism, but the loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.” An internal 1991 draft paper recommended leaving “the possibility of Ukraine joining the NATO liaison program” for “a later time.” Sarotte reports that Richard Holbrooke, who aggressively pushed expansion, called NATO in a briefing paper “an Alliance [Ukraine] can probably never enter.”
A secret/sensitive memorandum dated July 29, 1996 clearly states that Russia sought to “draw red lines around certain countries (e.g. the Baltics and Ukraine) to prevent their ever being considered for NATO membership.”
The declassified documents make it clear that, at the time of the decision to expand NATO east toward Russia, the Clinton administration knew that Russia vehemently opposed expansion and especially expansion to Ukraine. They also knew that crossing that red line could lead to trouble.
The July 29, 1996 memo shows, not only knowledge of Russian opposition, but understanding of it: “From a Russian perspective, they cannot (and probably should not ever want to) endorse formally NATO enlargement.”
An August 23, 1996 draft memorandum written by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot says, “The Russians are saying that they will not ‘negotiate’ on the issue of Baltic and Ukrainian eventual membership in NATO.” Using the language of conflict for, perhaps, the first time, Talbot says that “[t]his has the distinctly ominous implication of a warning to us…”
Remarkably, having recognized that Russia had drawn a red line at NATO expansion to Ukraine, the United States proceeded to invert that red line: “An important part of our job will be to make sure our red lines stick—and that the Russians’ <sic> don’t cross ours (i.e., trying to label UNACCEPTABLE Ukrainian and Baltic membership.”
Enlarging on the new language of conflict, the memo then says that if Russia’s “nasty implication [of a warning] becomes explicit, we should slam back hard…” This is the most prescient line in the declassified documents, forecasting a “hard” American response if Russia asserts its red line at NATO expansion to Ukraine.
And it is clear that the Clinton administration had no illusions about Russia’s serious concerns or about their resentment of Bill Clinton’s breaking the promise that was made to them at the end of the Cold War. In a memorandum to Strobe Talbot, Dennis Ross said that the Russians “see NATO expansion” as their being “humiliated,” but “worse,” that it confirms that “they will face potential threats closer to their borders.” Ross added that the Russians “feel they were snookered at the time of German unification” by the breaking of “[Secretary of State James] Baker’s promises on not extending NATO military presence into what was East Germany” which was “part of a perceived commitment not to expand the Alliance eastward.”
In an important meeting between Clinton and Yeltsin in Helsinki on March 21, 1997, Yeltsin’s frustration and anger are made clear. Discussing the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Yeltsin makes sure that Clinton knows that Russia’s “position has not changed. It remains a mistake for NATO to move eastward.” He then says, “But I need to take steps to alleviate the negative consequences of this for Russia. I am prepared to enter into an agreement with NATO not because I want to but because it is a forced step.”
Yeltsin then personally told Clinton, “But one thing is very important: enlargement should also not embrace the former Soviet republics. I cannot sign any agreement without such language. Especially Ukraine.”
Yeltsin implored Clinton that “[d]ecisions by NATO are not to be taken without taking into account the concerns or opinions of Russia.” He also demanded that “nuclear and conventional arms cannot move eastward into new member to the borders of Russia.” Clinton then promised Yeltsin “to make sure that we take account of Russia’s concerns as we move forward.” Another broken promise.
Interestingly, as an indication that the United States recognizes that objections to NATO expansion are not just Vladimir Putin’s objections but Russia’s, in a November 16, 2000 meeting, Talbot suggests that “the next round of NATO enlargement might be easier under Putin than it had been under Yeltsin.”
Reuniting the present with the context of its past is crucial—not for condoning Russia’s war against Ukraine, but for understanding it. More importantly, it will be crucial when it finally comes to resolving and ending it.
Human clinical trials are underway to use mosquitoes to vaccinate people against malaria, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough reported on his Substack.
McCullough cited a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in November reporting results from a double-blind, controlled clinical trial at two university medical centers in the Netherlands.
The trial evaluated the safety, side effects and efficacy of immunizing people via mosquito bites, using mosquitoes infected with a genetically engineered version of the parasite that causes malaria.
“It seems as if the world of vaccinology has ramped up to a feverish pitch with amplified research, massive funding, and no limit to the extent in which vaccines could be injected into humans,” McCullough wrote.
Researchers have been trying to develop a malaria vaccine since the 1960s, but they have been largely unsuccessful. It wasn’t until October 2021 that the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the first malaria vaccine, made by GSK, for children living in sub-Saharan Africa and other high-transmission regions.
The vaccines, given to small children in four doses, offer only modest and short-lived protection — 50-80% efficacy for less than a year — and are even less effective in infants in high endemic areas.
Malaria is caused by plasmodium parasites, which spread to humans through bites from infected mosquitoes.
Given the limited efficacy of existing vaccines, researchers continue researching alternative vaccination strategies, including using genetically modified versions of the malaria parasites to elicit an immune response.
“In a simplified view, the innovation may seem like a good idea,” Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender. “Malaria commonly afflicts those in poorer countries with limited access to healthcare. If we could make a change to the environment that improves the lives of all and diminishes the lives of none, in theory that would be progress.”
“The problem,” he said, “is that every detail of it looks like a bad idea.”
Researchers call results ‘promising,’ critics say research should be banned
The researchers, from two Dutch universities, previously engineered the “GA1” version of the parasite to stop developing 24 hours after being introduced into the human body.
Theoretically, these parasites wouldn’t cause malaria but would prime the immune system to recognize non-genetically modified pathogenic malarial parasites and trigger an immune response.
However, GA1 showed poor efficacy.
The NEJM study tested their next version of the genetically modified parasite, GA2, which halts development later — six days post-infection — when the parasite is replicating inside of human liver cells.
Jablonowski said this is not necessarily safe. The genetic modifications are intended to stop development in the liver stage before the parasite can proceed to the blood stage and become infective, he said. However, “The protozoa can still replicate, both sexually and asexually. This means the genetically modified protozoa can reproduce with wild-type to produce an infective genetically modified organism not bound by the original design.”
The study tested GA2 against GA1 and placebo in a small number of healthy adults 18 to 35 years old. The genetically modified parasites were injected into the human subjects via mosquito bites rather than through a shot like most vaccines currently available.
“The mosquitoes act like a vaccine syringe and then inject that modified parasite in the case of malaria into the human body,” McCullough explained in an interview on Substack.
In the first phase of the study, participants received either 15 or 50 bites from mosquitoes infected with GA2 to identify the highest dose without harmful side effects.
Next, researchers randomly assigned healthy adults who had not previously been infected with malaria to one of three groups. One was exposed to 50 bites from GA2, another to 50 bites from GA1, and the third to 50 bites from uninfected mosquitoes, the placebo group. There were nine participants in the GA2 group, eight in the GA1 group and three in the placebo group.
The researchers completed three sessions of 50 bites per session — to simulate a three-dose vaccine regimen. Three weeks later, all test subjects were exposed to five bites from mosquitoes carrying non-genetically engineered malarial parasites.
Before being exposed to the non-genetically engineered parasites, the researchers reported that the subjects in both GA1 and GA2 groups had some anti-malarial antibodies. They found that GA2 provided greater efficacy (89%) against malaria and induced a higher immune response than either GA1 or placebo. They also said the vaccine was “safe” with no significant difference in adverse events within the groups.
Adverse events included skin redness and itchiness from the bites, which most participants experienced and treated with antihistamines or topical corticosteroids. Some also reported muscle aches and pains and headaches.
Two participants had elevated troponin T levels, which indicates heart damage, or even a heart attack. However, investigators assessed these incidents as unrelated to the vaccination. One participant also showed elevated liver-function tests that researchers said were related to the antihistamines.
“The authors took a lot of liberties in identifying adverse events they considered related and unrelated to the experiment,” Jablonowski said. “When 40% of your trial group have abdominal pains, 45% have a headache, 50% have malaise and fatigue, and 60% have nausea and vomiting — these are not small relative numbers.”
The researchers concluded that the results were promising, but noted that more and larger studies would be necessary to understand the safety profile, the durability of protection and the efficacy against a greater variety of Plasmodium falciparum strains — the deadliest and most prevalent form of malaria — found in regions where malaria is endemic.
Last week, the same researchers published additional results in Nature Medicinefrom a second trial with the same GA2 genetically engineered parasite. In this trial, they exposed 10 research subjects to a single, “one-dose regimen” of the parasite.
That means the trial participants were exposed to one 50-bite session by mosquitoes infected with GA2. They reported that after six weeks, nine of the 10 subjects showed no breakthrough infections. They called the results “promising” and again called for further studies.
McCullough said he believes “there should be a moratorium, a ban, on all mosquito vector research right now for human conditions.”
He added, “No Institutional Review Board would agree to, you know, mass populating, mass vaccinating a population without their consent with mosquitoes.”
There would also be serious problems with tracking the effects of the vaccines themselves. “There would be no control on the dose or the inoculum, as an example. There would be no control over recognizing side effects,” McCullough said.
Jablonowski noted that 14 of the 75 originally assessed participants were excluded for medical reasons. If such a vaccine were released, “not only would a person not have foreknowledge of vaccination, they wouldn’t have after-knowledge of it either. If a medical condition arose, they would have no idea if they were infected with the genetically modified protozoan.”
He noted that in this study alone, 11 of the 75 persons initially assessed for participation declined to participate. “If this strategy is implemented, they won’t be asked if they wish to participate. Informed consent is the only power we have over our own medical autonomy,” he said. “Neither the mosquitoes nor the governments who use them are going to ask for consent.”
When British kings wanted to dispose of troublesome enemies — real or imagined — they often had them or their colleagues arrested on pretextual charges and then brutally tortured until confessions were extracted. The confessions were then read aloud during so-called trials; and, of course, the defendant was convicted of whatever crime was the subject of the confession.
All this was done in order to satisfy the political, and in many cases the personal, desires of the monarch by creating the impression of due process.
Often the torture occurred in remote places, so remote that there was no government there, and the king and his counselors could argue that the protections of the British traditions of fair play — the British do not have a written Constitution, but rather a set of traditions — was not violated because the torture occurred in a place where the traditions did not apply.
When one of the victims of this practice was an official who had previously engaged in perpetrating it, the House of Commons, many of whose members feared becoming victims of the monarch’s desires, adopted the principle of habeas corpus. That ancient right compelled the jailer of any person anywhere to bring the jailed person before a neutral magistrate and justify the confinement.
Due process has numerous definitions and aspects, but for constitutional purposes it basically means that all charged persons are presumed innocent and entitled to a written notice of the charges, a speedy and fair hearing before a neutral fact finder, a right to appeal; and the entire process imbued with fairness and a profound recognition of personal innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process also explicitly prohibits the use of torture.
In order to ensure that due process and habeas corpus would trump the whims of government officials — stated differently, to ensure that the British system of torture and confession and conviction did not occur here — James Madison and the Framers crafted protections in the Constitution to which all in government needed to swear allegiance and support.
Fast forward to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and you can see the constitutional system turned on its head.
This George W. Bush-crafted American Devil’s Island, which costs $500 million a year to operate, once held 780 prisoners, allegedly there due to their personal involvement in the war on terror against the United States. Not a single one of them has been convicted of 9/11-related crimes, and only one former detainee is currently serving time in an American federal prison.
Nearly all the prisoners were tortured, and most were captured by roving militias and sold to American forces for bounties. Last week, under cover of darkness, the Biden administration released 11 detainees, all of whom had been at Gitmo for 20-plus years and none of whom had been charged with a crime.
The best known of the remaining 15 prisoners is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the government claims was the mastermind of 9/11. Mohammed was scheduled for trial when the military judge in his case retired. The new judge — the fifth on the case — was confronted with the daunting task of reading 40,000 pages of transcripts and documents concerning the torture of Mohammed by U.S. personnel.
At the same time, a new team of military and civilian prosecutors was assigned to the case and the new prosecutors told their bosses in the Pentagon and the new military judge that unlike their predecessors — who sought to mitigate the 183 torture sessions U.S. personnel administered to Mohammed — they were prepared to acknowledge it and decline to use any evidence obtained from it in the courtroom.
This remarkable turnaround — one that rejected the premises upon which Gitmo came into being — resulted in the prosecutors commencing plea negotiations.
The Bush-inspired premises of Gitmo were that since it is located in Cuba, federal laws don’t apply, the Constitution doesn’t apply and federal judges can’t interfere. In five landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected all these premises, and the new team of prosecutors and the new judge recognized as much.
The prosecutors basically said that they cannot ethically defend torture, they will not offer evidence derived from it in the case, and the case is difficult to prove without evidence derived from torture. This is a remarkable lesson to be learned. Instead of cutting holes in the Constitution, follow it. Instead of using torture, use acceptable investigative techniques. Instead of crafting a Devil’s Island, use the systems in place that have basically worked.
The settlement negotiations produced an agreement for a guilty plea that removed the death penalty from the case, required Mohammed to answer truthfully all questions put to him under oath and in public by prosecutors, defense counsel and lawyers for 9/11 victims’ families, and life in prison at Gitmo; not America’s hellhole in Florence, Colorado.
The plea was approved in writing by all, including the retired general in the Pentagon in charge of Gitmo prosecutions — herself a former military appellate judge. When Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin learned of the plea agreement, he instructed the military prosecutors to move to vacate the agreement they had instigated. The trial judge denied this unique request. Last week, a military court of appeals upheld that denial. Mohammed’s courtroom plea will now take place before President Joe Biden leaves office.
None of this jurisprudential mess would have occurred if Bush had allowed the criminal justice structure to proceed unimpeded. The use of torture, rotating judges and prosecutors, and incarceration for 20 years without charges or trial are all hallmarks of an authoritarian government. If justice consists in convicting the guilty using established norms and fair procedures, Gitmo has been an unjust unhumanitarian disaster. But if justice consists in the king getting whatever he wants, then the Constitution is useless as a protector of freedom.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
This movie is free thanks to members and donors from ANC Report. If you found this informative consider sending a few shekels. This is the only way we can do films. NUMEC Map https://anti-neocon.myshopify.com/
The film exposes how terrorists took advantage of the massive weapons surplus following the end of WWII and created lucrative black-markets for illegal arms trafficking many of which went to the blood thirsty ethno-stater lunatics who created the state of Israel. The weapons theft would escalate to Highly Enriched Uranium for nuclear bombs and the assassination of a US president. The gun running routes doubled as human trafficking routes as the post war climates had created millions of refugees and nations of women with little or no opportunities who were easily exploited. This in turn gave rise to international forced prostitution and pedophile rings that targeted state figures and businessmen for blackmail. The press and policing agencies were forced to capitulate because challenging Zionist power right after the horrors of the Holocaust was political suicide. WWII’s own justification for nuking cities and murdering millions of civilians through bombing and starvation was the made for TV images of the Holocaust, even though Palestine had nothing to do with that, they paid the ultimate price. And by allowing Israeli power to grow out of control the US effectively lost its sovereignty. Especially in regards to foreign policy, Zionist partisans most recently the Neocons have thrown the US into one conflict after another against its own interests to further the personal interest of a criminal cabal. This film, like any Dawson film, names the names and gives the details and documents. The criminal networks of organized crime, sexual blackmailers, arms smugglers, financiers, and political cover up have all been mapped out, literally. Help us at the Anti-Neocon report reach our goal and once again put the establishment and donor class psychopaths under the spot light. The truth will set you free. But Freedom isn’t Free.
“By far the best production value ANC has ever created”- Pug
“When you think having your greatest ally attack you is the worst thing they have done, Dawson drops this bomb” – Oliver
“I think I wet my pants, but I had my underwear on so I couldn’t have raped that girl” -Alan Dershowitz did not say
“With an entire room full of people who have been drinking all night and done a 3 and a half hour conference with Ron Paul and eaten a big meal, not a single person fell asleep, that’s impressive” -Reed Coverdale
Whether it’s Greenland, Ukraine, West Africa or East Asia, rare earths are an element of the global geopolitical competition hiding just below the surface. What are the rare earth elements, where are they concentrated, and what are their major uses? Check out our explainer for a detailed breakdown.
Basic Facts
Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 silvery-white soft heavy metals, mostly consisting of the lanthanides, a family of 15 elements grouped together in the Periodic Table, plus scandium and yttrium, which have similar chemical properties and are often found in deposits alongside the others.
Despite their name, rare earths aren’t especially rare, with one of the rarest – lutetium, some 200 times more common than gold. Rather, what makes the resources rare is finding them in large, easy to find and mine clusters.
Rare Earths and Their Uses
Lanthanum (La): Used in nickel-metal hydride batteries for hybrid vehicles, lighting, camera lenses and other special glass, and as a catalyst for petroleum refining.
Cerium (Ce): Added to an array of alloys for increased strength and corrosion protection, magnets, for burn treatments, glass polishing agents, lightbulbs and household wares including ceramics.
Praseodymium (Pr): Key component for aircraft engine-grade high-strength alloys, powerful magnets (including for use in wind turbines), tough didymium glass, and fiberoptic cables.
Neodymium (Nd): Used for everything from magnetotherapy to magnetic motors, microwave communications, microphones, headphones, loudspeakers, hard drives, automotive electronics, fluorescent and energy-saving lamps and lasers.
Promethium (Pm): Key component for luminous paint, portable X-rays, and atomic batteries for critical electronics, from the military and aerospace to pacemakers.
Samarium (Sm): Active ingredient in a popular cancer-cell killing agent; used in combination with other elements in magnets, lasers and nuclear reactor control rods for neutron absorption.
Europium (Eu): Another excellent neutron absorber, as well as red phosphor for TVs, blue color in LEDs, and therapeutics tool.
Gadolinium (Gd): Active ingredient for MRI drugs. Also used in nuclear propulsion systems, metallurgy, microwave and magnetic refrigeration.
Terbium (Tb): Key tool for chemical screening; green phosphor for TVs and monitors, used in lighting, military grade sonar and other sensors.
Dysprosium (Dy): Used to make powerful permanent magnets, lasers and lighting, electric drive motors for EVs and wind turbines, transducers, resonators, and dosimeters for measuring ionizing radiation.
Holmium (Ho): Another neutron-absorber useful for radioimmunotherapy, magnets, as well as optics, microwave, medical, dental and laser surgery equipment.
Erbium (Er): Added to lasers and optics used in medicine, as well as optical communications, with strong neutron-absorbing qualities. Also useful for chemical analysis and crystal growth.
Thulium (Tm): Used in military and industrial-grade lasers, as a source of radiation for portable X-rays, for meteorology and high-temperature superconducting tools, and popular anti-counterfeiting agent.
Ytterbium (Yb): Key element in X-ray components, memory devices, tunable lasers, amps and displays; metal-strengthening component and burnable poison for controlling nuclear reactions.
Lutetium (Lu): Used in petroleum refining, polymerization, lithography, tomography, as a phosphor for some light bulbs. Also used for tumor treatment, and to build the world’s most accurate atomic clocks.
Scandium (Sc): Key ingredient for high-grade lightweight alloys for everything from military and commercial aircraft to sporting equipment, small arms, high intensity discharge lamps, dentistry, and as an oil refinery tracing agent.
Yttrium (Y): Another metal-strengthening alloy. Also used for high-temperature superconducting, a surprising array of medical applications (from drug labeling and cancer treatment to surgical needles) as deoxidizer and nodulizer, the red color in cathode ray tubes, radar and synthetic gems.
According to an article in the Washington Post, Gene Mills, a U.S. citizen who was one of the top amateur wrestlers in the world, stated, “He stole my life. That was my life. He took it away from me.”
Mills was referring to President Jimmy Carter, who recently passed away at the age of 100. It was Carter who ordered U.S. athletes to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, Russia. The reason? Carter used the boycott to protest the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There were two at least two big problems with Carter’s order, however.
One problem is that in a genuinely free society, people have the right to travel wherever they want and interact with anyone they want. If people want to compete in sporting events in foreign lands or just be spectators, that’s part of living the life of a free person. It’s none of the government’s business.
That wasn’t Carter’s mindset. His order reflected the reality of the American condition in modern times. In the United States, citizens no longer have the God-given, natural right of freedom of travel or freedom to interact with people in foreign lands. American citizens are subject to the orders, dictates, and edicts of their political masters. Once the president issued his order prohibiting them from competing in the Olympics, American citizens were expected to obey. I’ve sometimes wondered what U.S. officials would have done to U.S. athletes who decided to disobey Carter’s edict. No doubt Carter and his federal henchmen would have figured out ways to smash them.
Thus, the irony was that in issuing his boycott order to protest Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, Carter was demonstrating that the United States was now founded on at least one of the principles of the communist Soviet Union — that freedom of travel is not a fundamental, God-given right here in the United States any more than it is in communist, totalitarian nations.
Of course, things haven’t changed a bit. If American citizens travel to Cuba, for example, and spend money there without the official permission of their U.S. masters, they are immediately indicted upon their return to the U.S., prosecuted, convicted, fined, and sentenced to prison.
Another big problem is that it was Carter and his national-security establishment who intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in the first place. Yes, you read that right. While Carter pontificated about the evil Soviet empire’s invasion of Afghanistan — and used American athletes as pawns in his protest against the invasion — the fact is that Carter himself, as well as the U.S. national-security establishment, wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and, in fact, provoked them into doing so.
This evil little scheme was later confirmed by Carter’s national-security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. The scheme called for supporting Afghanistan opponents of Russia in the hopes of provoking the Soviets into invading the country. The scheme worked brilliantly. And when Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Carter, Brezinski, and other U.S, officials were as exultant as U.S. officials would be many years later when they succeeded in provoking Russia into invading Ukraine.
Why such exultation? As Brezinski put it, they had now given the Soviets their “own Vietnam.” In other words, Russia would now be bogged down in a war that would entail the killing of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, just like the 58,000 American soldiers that U.S. presidents, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA sacrificed in Vietnam for nothing. What a warped and perverted thing to be excited about.
Thus, here you had Carter protesting against the invasion of Afghanistan by those evil Russians when it was Carter himself who desired the invasion, provoked it, and was exultant about it when it happened. He then had the audacity to use innocent U.S. athletes, who had nothing to do with any of these machinations, as pawns to protest against the invasion that Carter wanted, provoked, and got. Is it really difficult to understand why so many people around the world, including here in the United States, hate the hypocrisy of the U.S. government so much?
From 2013: The specter of Operation Choke Point 2.0 has just been raised in a recent House Financial Services Committee meeting. But what was Operation Choke Point 1.0? And why should we be concerned about this latest attempt to debank “disfavoured individuals,” anyway? Find out all the details in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report podcast.
Pro-Israel Lobby contributions sourced from opensecrets.org. The numbers are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All the numbers are for all the election cycles since 1990 and based on Federal Election Commission data released on March 20, 2023.
In August 1914, when the fire of the First World War had already broken out in Europe, a now-forgotten event took place in Berlin. Max Bodenheimer, one of the leaders of the World Zionist Organization, paid a visit to officials of the German Empire. Bodenheimer proposed to Kaiser Wilhelm to create the so-called “League of Eastern European States”.
According to this project, after the occupation by German troops of part of the western lands of the Russian Empire, a new state was to appear on this territory. The Zionist leaders wanted to rule this land and its local population with the forceful support of Berlin (Baltic peoples, Poles, Russians, Belarusians and Jews lived in this territory). To put it bluntly, it was a plan of colonial occupation, fully developed by influential Zionist ideologues.
This project was not implemented because the Kaiser’s government questioned its effectiveness. However, for some time, Bodenheimer received support from both the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the military-political establishment.
What does this historical example say? That Zionism has always been a colonialist ideology. And the Zionists tried to spread their colonial ambitions not only in Palestine. During the First World War, they were ready to participate in joint expansionist actions with the German Empire, which then owned numerous colonies (for example, in Africa and New Guinea) and wanted to seize even more land.
And of course, this is not the only example of the close interaction of the ideologists of Zionism with the colonial powers in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. At the same time, the Zionists actively sought British assistance in obtaining colonial territories for them in Uganda, and negotiated with Portugal on a similar territorial acquisition in Angola.
This is not surprising. Since the Basel program, adopted in 1897 by the First Zionist Congress, territorial conquest has been the main goal of Zionist ideologues. It was in the Basel program that the Zionists directly put forward their claims to the territory of Palestine. They disregarded the fact that this land belonged to the Arab people, the indigenous population. They had already begun planning the occupation of Palestine. Unconcerned with whom they partnered in their colonial ambitions, some Zionist leaders, like Bodenheimer, cultivated relationships with Germany’s political elites, while others lobbied in London, engaging with the British government to advance their goals.
Every colonial policy has its own mythologemes. It is a complex of narratives and verbal manipulations by which colonialists justify their expansion. Belgium in the late 19th and early 20th century is a striking example of this phenomenon. During the seizure of the Congo, King Leopold II tried to justify his colonial conquests with a “civilizing mission”, and also promised to take care of the Congolese people and develop infrastructure, which he declared his “private domain”. In reality, this hypocritical myth of “beneficial colonial influence” turned into a brutal exploitation of the indigenous population of Congo. Not only had the Belgian administration plundered other people’s natural resources, but they also organized brutal persecution against the indigenous people (mass executions, torture, destruction of villages, forced labor).
Zionist colonialism has similar false mythologemes. One such idea is the claim that Zionism aimed to establish a national home for the Jewish people.
Let’s try to reason logically. What is a “national home”? This is a place where a particular nation can live, observing its traditions, culture, and religion, and speak its own language.
Let’s turn to history again. In 1934, the Soviet government created a new region in the Russian Far East. This region was named the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, with the administrative center in the city of Birobidzhan.
Yiddish was introduced as the official language in this region. The Jewish population has received the widest opportunities not only to move to a new area, but also to develop its culture, language, literature, and traditions. Many thousands of Jews moved to the new region, including from foreign countries.
It was a national Jewish autonomy. Jews were invited to live in their own autonomous region in the neighborhood of the rest of the country’s peoples. Preserving their culture, they could live and work in peace. They got their national home, which they talked about so much. However, the Zionists never supported this project and even opposed it.
What’s the matter? Why did the Zionist circles in every possible way prevent the resettlement of Jews to this autonomous region?
The answer lies in their goals. The Zionists were not interested in living peacefully within an autonomous region inside a larger country. They disregarded the fact that such autonomy could offer their people extensive opportunities for preserving and developing their national culture. Instead, their focus was directed elsewhere, driven by a different set of ambitions.
The Zionists initially wanted to create their own colonial center in Western Asia in order to further occupy the territories of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. They wanted domination over the Middle East and full control over the local rich natural resources.
Therefore, they considered any alternative project as a threat to their colonial ambitions. They needed hundreds of thousands of loyal supporters willing to participate in their Middle Eastern expansion as settlers and colonizers. Therefore, they were extremely afraid that Jews from different European countries might refuse to participate in the colonial invasion of Palestine.
Let’s recall historical examples again. The famous Jewish philosopher Abraham ibn Ezra, who lived in the 11th – 12th centuries, was born in the Muslim state of Taifa of Saragossa, located on the Iberian Peninsula. He wrote some of his works in Arabic, actively read the works of Muslim scholars, and had the opportunity to travel quietly to many cities, from Zaragoza and Cordoba to Damascus and Baghdad.
Even earlier, in the 10th – 11th centuries, the Jewish philosopher and poet Samuel ibn Nagrillah became a vizier at the court of the Emir of Granada, Qaboos al-Muzaffar.
Another famous Jewish philosopher and translator, Saadia Gaon, in the 9th – 10th centuries lived first in Egypt, then in the Iraqi city of Baghdad. He became famous especially for his translations and works written in Arabic.
What do the above examples reveal? That historically, since the earliest times, the Jewish population has lived peacefully and freely in Muslim countries, having the opportunity to preserve their customs and culture. In the 19th century in Palestine, according to the Ottoman censuses, 95 percent of the population were Arabs. This is a well-known fact. Palestine was, is, and will be an Arab land. However, a Jewish community also lived there, many of whom later actively opposed Zionism and settler colonialism.
The Arab inhabitants coexisted peacefully with the Jewish community, maintaining a harmonious and neighborly relationship. This harmony in Palestine was disrupted with the onset of Zionist expansion. It was the Zionists who began to systematically violate the rights of the indigenous Arab population, unlawfully seizing their land.
Zionism is inherently an aggressive and destructive ideology. We can also recall the campaigns that the Zionist regime staged in the middle of the 20th century against the Yiddish language (restricting the rights of the Jewish population to use this language in public life and literature). This is a typical example that shows that Zionist ideology is a form of racism (including linguistic), tyranny, and mass discrimination.
History confirms that the Palestinian Resistance is a national liberation movement against colonialist, misanthropic, barbaric, hypocritical, bloodthirsty Zionism. That’s why the battle for the freedom of Palestine is legitimate, just, and truly great in the context of historical development.
During the summer of 2024, horrifying details began to emerge of Israeli occupation forces raping Palestinians they had detained. While revelations from Sde Teiman prison stirred debates both in Israel and abroad, the use of rape and sexual violence against Palestinians can be traced back to 1948. Tel Aviv has used sexual violence to torture, coerce, intimidate and break Palestinians for generations. MEMO looks into the systematic use of rape by Israel against Palestinians.
Pregnancy is a time of joy, anticipation, and careful decision-making. As an expecting mother, your primary goal is to ensure the health and safety of your baby. However, amidst the abundance of information and recommendations, it’s important to understand the potential risks associated with vaccines during pregnancy. Despite assurances from health authorities, recent evidence and expert testimonies suggest that vaccines given during pregnancy pose a significant risk to both mother and baby.
Lack of Proper Testing for Pregnant Women
One of the most concerning aspects of vaccine recommendations for pregnant women is the lack of rigorous safety testing. During a 2023 FDA meeting, Dr. Meryl Nass highlighted the troubling fact that many vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy, including the COVID-19 vaccine, were not adequately tested in pregnant populations. The FDA admitted that its recommendations are based on limited or no data from controlled clinical trials involving pregnant women.
This absence of reliable data leaves many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of vaccines on both the developing fetus and the mother’s immune system. The decision to recommend vaccines without sufficient evidence undermines informed consent and raises serious ethical concerns.
Alarming Reports of Adverse Effects
Adverse events following vaccination during pregnancy are increasingly being reported. These include:
Miscarriages: Some studies and anecdotal reports have linked vaccines, particularly the COVID-19 vaccine, to an increase in pregnancy losses.
Preterm Births: Concerns have been raised about a potential connection between maternal vaccination and preterm deliveries.
Developmental Issues: Emerging evidence suggests the possibility of long-term developmental effects on the baby, though more research is urgently needed to confirm these findings.
Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified OB-GYN, has been vocal about the risks of vaccinating pregnant women, stating that the CDC’s recommendations lack robust scientific backing. Dr. Thorp and other experts argue that the precautionary principle should guide decisions regarding vaccines during pregnancy, especially when there are alternative ways to manage risks.
The Role of Adjuvants and Ingredients
Many vaccines contain adjuvants; these are substances added to enhance immune response. Aluminum-based adjuvants, for example, have raised concerns due to their neurotoxic effects. During pregnancy, the developing fetus is particularly vulnerable to toxins, and the accumulation of such substances may interfere with normal development.
The presence of viral DNA fragments and other contaminants in vaccines has also been flagged as a risk factor. These components are not fully studied in the context of pregnancy, further complicating the risk assessment.
Trusting Your Natural Immunity
God did not make a mistake, man did. Pregnancy is a time when the body’s immune system undergoes natural adjustments to protect both the mother and the baby. Our God-given immunity is remarkably capable of managing many potential threats without external interventions. Prioritizing a healthy diet, reducing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep can support your immune system during this critical time.
Steps to Protect Yourself and Your Baby
If you are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, here are some steps you can take to make informed decisions about vaccines:
Ask Questions: Before agreeing to any vaccination, ask your healthcare provider about the evidence supporting its safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Most doctors are blinded by the dangers of vaccines or choose to keep us in the dark due to kickbacks from Big Pharma.
Do Your Research: Explore independent studies and expert testimonies to gain a fuller understanding of potential risks. The research is out there, but you will have to dig deeper than a Google search.
Consider Alternatives: For certain infections, there may be natural or non-invasive ways to protect yourself without compromising your baby’s development. Boost your immune system with supplements instead of neurotoxic vaccines.
Seek Second Opinions: If you feel pressured by your provider, consult with another healthcare professional to discuss your concerns. Functional and Alternative medicine doctors are more likely to keep their oath to “do no harm.”
Prioritize Wellness: Focus on boosting your natural immunity through nutrition, hydration, and lifestyle choices.
A Call for Transparency and Caution
As an expecting mother, you deserve complete and honest information to make the best decisions for your baby. The current vaccine recommendations for pregnancy often lack the robust safety data needed to ensure their efficacy and safety. Until comprehensive studies are conducted and transparency is prioritized, the precautionary principle should guide decisions about vaccines during pregnancy.
By taking the time to educate yourself and trust your instincts, you can protect both your health and the health of your baby. Remember, it’s your right to make informed choices about your body and your baby’s future. For more information go to http://www.WarriorMom.com and http://www.AutismHealth.com.
By Miko Peled | MintPress News | September 20, 2021
One of the great tragedies of Palestine is that almost every day there is a commemoration of one massacre or another, the death of a child or destruction of a home or village, leading one to think that the Palestinian narrative is one of death and destruction, which is what Israel wants people to think. But the truth is that this is not the case. The Palestinian narrative is one of a glorious history with periods of great sadness and tragedy. It is the Zionist story that is full of killing, stealing and destruction and not, as they try to sell it, one of creation and growth.
September 16, 2021, marked 39 years since the massacres at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. As people remember and mourn the thousands of unarmed civilians who were butchered and the countless who survived suffering terrible injuries and emotional scars, we must also remember the man that stood behind this bloodbath.
This was a man whose complicity even the Israeli authorities could not ignore, the former general and renowned war criminal Ariel Sharon. And although he was momentarily penalized and banished from politics, he very quickly returned, and for a quarter of a century, he was the most powerful and influential man in Israeli politics. … 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.
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or download the MP3 AUDIO
Aletho News
Aletho News 