Believe nothing from duplicitous USA, especially from interventionist Blinken and others in charge of the Biden regime’s hostile geopolitical agenda.
Iran and other countries know that hegemon USA can never be trusted — its word virtually never its bond.
Promises by its ruling regimes aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Sooner or later they’re breached. It happens time and again.
Good faith diplomatic outreach to the US by independent countries is virtually never reciprocated in kind.
It’s an exercise in futility virtually always.
The Biden regime has no intention of rejoining the landmark JCPOA nuclear deal as affirmed by Security Council Res. 2231.
It wants the agreement hardened with provisions no responsible government would accept.
According to Politico, the Biden regime is “struggling just to get the Iranians to the table (sic).”
Getting there is as simple as observing SC Res. 2231 provisions, what its hardliners refuse to do.
Politico reported that Biden’s geopolitical team intends “ask(ing) Iran to halt some of its nuclear activities, such as work on advanced centrifuges and the enrichment of uranium to 20 percent purity, in exchange for some relief from US economic sanctions (sic).”
On Tuesday, Iran’s Press TV reported the following:
An unnamed “senior Iranian official has told Press TV that Tehran will not stop 20-percent uranium enrichment before the US sanctions are lifted.”
“20-percent uranium enrichment is in line with Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA and will be stopped only if the US lifts all the sanctions.”
“The Iranian official said the country will not stop any of its current nuclear activities before the removal of all sanctions.”
If the Biden regime fails to comply with its obligations under international law by lifting illegally imposed sanctions “soon, Iran will take the next steps, which will be further reduction of its JCPOA commitment” — as permitted by JCPOA Article 36.
What Press TV explained above came in response to Politico’s report about an alleged Biden regime proposal not released so far.
Time and again, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif stressed that his government rejects renegotiating what’s affirmed by SC Res. 2231.
In early March he tweeted: “JCPOA cannot be renegotiated—period.”
The US breached the landmark agreement, not Iran.
The violator must return to compliance. Otherwise the deal is gone.
Last week, Zarif tweeted:
“There has been an inordinate amount of spin about what needs to be done to resurrect the JCPOA, trying to reverse the victim and the culprits.
This fact sheet indisputably corrects the historical amnesia & sets the record straight.”
It’s lengthy but here it is in its entirety as compiled by Iran:
Fact Sheet on the JCPOA timeline from implementation to present
January 16, 2016, Implementation Day:
• The IAEA certifies that Iran is fully implementing the JCPOA. Key steps on the part of Iran include restrictions on its nuclear program and increased monitoring.
• The IAEA’s report on Implementation Day should have triggered effective sanctions lifting on the part of the US and the EU/E3. It did not.
January 17, 2016: The US Treasury Department imposes new sanctions on 11 individuals and entities involved with Iran’s ballistic missile programs.
This defensive program is not prohibited by the JCPOA, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 nor even its Annex B, which “calls upon” Iran not to develop missiles “designed to be capable” of delivering nuclear weapons.
Iranian missiles are not designed for weapons that Iran will never develop.
March 21, 2016: Candidate Trump delivers remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual conference, noting his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”
September 21, 2016:
• The US Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) grants Airbus and Boeing partial permission to sell planes to Iran.
• The licenses were issued after a 7-month delay, and only in response to a written warning by Iran on September 2, 2016 to invoke the DRM (Dispute Resolution Mechanism) under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA.
• Iran receives only 3 out of 117 Airbus passenger aircraft it ordered—and none of the Boeing aircraft.
December 1, 2016:
• Congress passes a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), in clear violation of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231.
• President Obama refuses to sign the legislation but fails to veto it, allowing it to become law on December 15.
December 16, 2016: Iran officially invokes the DRM under Paragraph 36 but does not take any remedial measures prescribed therein.
January 12, 2017: In his confirmation hearing for the position of Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis tells Congress that “when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
March 23, 2017: Senator Corker introduces Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, in clear violation of both the JCPOA and UNSCR 2231.
March 31, 2017: Former Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and six former Obama administration officials pen an op-ed in Foreign Policy outlining their opposition to the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017.
May 16, 2017: Ambassador Wendy Sherman, the lead US negotiator for the JCPOA, states her opposition to the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, noting its potential to undermine the nuclear accord.
July 10, 2017: White House Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders says that at the G20 summit, President Trump encouraged foreign leaders not to do business with Iran, a clear violation of both the JCPOA and UNSCR 2231.
July 17, 2017: The Trump (regime) reluctantly certifies Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, delaying the announcement for hours and issuing new non-nuclear sanctions on Iran the next day.
October 13, 2017: Trump declares—in violation of the JCPOA and UNSCR2231—that he will not certify Iranian compliance under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA). Trump encourages Congress to enact legislation against the JCPOA’s “sunset clauses”. Trump says if his concerns about the deal are not resolved, he will terminate the agreement.
October 16, 2017: Iran officially invokes the DRM under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA again, in response to the unlawful decertification by Trump, but does not take remedial measures under the same paragraph to give diplomacy a chance.
May 8, 2018:
• Trump announces that he is ceasing US participation in the JCPOA and signs a presidential memorandum to institute the “highest level” of economic sanctions on Iran.
• President Rouhani announces that Iran will give diplomacy a chance for a few weeks so that the other states in the agreement can try to continue the deal without the United States.
May 10, 2018: Iran writes letters to the UN Secretary General and the JCPOA Joint Commission Coordinator, officially invoking again the DRM under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA, but states that it will not take remedial measures immediately to allow diplomacy to work.
May 17, 2018: The European Commission meets in Sofia and announces that it will pursue a “blocking statute” to ban European companies and courts from complying with US sanctions against Iran.
However, EU allows all European companies to comply with US secondary sanctions and cease doing business with Iran.
July 6, 2018: A Ministerial Meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission (China, France, Iran, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union) is convened to consider Iran’s invocation of the DRM under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA.
Ministers issue a joint statement promising wider economic relations and preservation of effective financial channels with Iran; continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas condensate, petroleum products and petrochemicals; continuation of sea, land, air and rail relations; promotion of export credit; effective support for economic operators trading with Iran; encouragement of further investments in Iran; protection of companies from the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions, etc.
Not a single one of these promises have been realized to date.
August 6, 2018: In a joint statement, the French, German, and British foreign ministers as well as the EU say they “deeply regret the re-imposition of sanctions by the US” and note that they are “determined to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security Council resolution 2231.”
They reiterate that preserving the JCPOA is a “matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security.”
This had no actual effect on international business with Iran, which remains frozen to this day.
August 7, 2018: Certain sanctions measures reimposed by Trump on May 8 the same year come into full effect.
The measures include restricting Iran’s purchase of US dollars, trade in gold, precious metals, aluminum, steel, coal, software, and transactions related to sovereign debt and the automotive sector.
Licenses allowing certain foodstuffs to be exported to the United States and Iran to purchase commercial aircraft are also revoked.
September 24, 2018: The second Ministerial Meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission, convened to discuss Iran’s triggering of the DRM under Paragraph 36 “re-affirmed their continued commitment to the objectives mentioned in the statement of the Ministerial session of the Joint Commission of the JCPOA on 6 July 2018, in particular to pursue concrete and effective measures to secure payment channels with Iran, and the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas condensate, petroleum products and petrochemicals.”
Not a single effective measure has been taken to date.
October 3, 2018: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules unanimously that the United States must remove any impediments to the export of food, agricultural products, medicine, aircraft parts, and other humanitarian goods.
The Court concludes that Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions on Iran was unfounded given Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA.
November 5, 2018: The second round of sanctions on Iran following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA—targeting Iran’s banking, oil, shipping and ship-building sectors—come into effect.
In addition to redesignating entities removed from the SDN list under the JCPOA, the United States designates an additional 300 new entities.
November 6, 2018: Iran officially informs the EU, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom that having waited 6 months in vain for the EU/E3 to take measures promised following the US withdrawal, Iran will start taking remedial measures under Paragraph 36 and will “cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”
It continues, however, to fully observe the restrictions under the JCPOA for another 6 months.
November 8, 2018: Newsweek reports; “Mike Pompeo Says Iran Must Listen to US. ‘If They Want Their People to Eat.’”
November 22, 2018: The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments despite the US’ unlawful withdrawal and economic warfare.
February 13-14, 2019: The United States and Poland host a ministerial meeting on the Middle East in Warsaw where US Vice President Mike Pence explicitly calls on “our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.”
March 22, 2019: The US Treasury Department designates 31 Iranian entities and individuals for past involvement in Iran’s nuclear program.
April 8, 2019: The United States designates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
April 22, 2019: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces that the United States will not issue any additional sanctions waivers for states to continue importing Iranian oil on May 2.
May 8, 2019: Iran announces that it will no longer be bound by stockpiles limitations on enriched uranium and heavy water reserves in the JCPOA and could restart construction on its unfinished heavy water reactor at Arak and resume higher level enrichment in the future. Iran also declares that all its remedial measures are reversible upon the fullfilment of all JCPOA obligations by all sides.
May 31, 2019: IAEA reports for the 15th time (the 5th since Trump’s withdrawal) that Iran has continued to fully observe all of its obligations under JCPOA.
June 23, 2019: Trump says new sanctions are coming for Iran amid ongoing “economic war.”
June 24, 2019: The United States sanctions the Supreme Leader of Iran and his office.
July 1, 2019: IAEA reports for the first time that Iran has exceeded 300 Kg stock of enriched uranium—a full 14 months after Trump’s withdrawal and 8 months after Iran’s official notification of remedial measures under Paragraph 36.
July 31, 2019: The United States sanctions Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
September 3, 2019: The US Treasury sanctions the Iran Space Agency and two affiliated research
institutes.
September 20, 2019: The US Treasury imposes new sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and other entities.
September 25, 2019: The White House issues a proclamation suspending the entry of senior Iranian government officials to the United States.
January 2, 2020: President Trump officially claims responsibility for the targeted extra-judicial murder of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.
February 5, 2020: IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi tells reporters in Washington, DC that Iran has not taken further steps to breach the JCPOA, and that Iran continues to comply with its ‘safeguards’ obligations mandated by the deal.
April 30, 2020:
• US Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, discloses Trump administration’s plan to prevent the October 2020 expiration of UN restrictions on arms sales to and from Iran—written into UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
Hook says that the Trump administration is prepared to use “every diplomatic option available” to extend the restrictions, including by making a legal argument that the United States remains a participant of the nuclear deal in order to exercise a Security Council provision to instate the UN restrictions indefinitely.
• EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell says that “it’s quite clear for us that the US is no longer a participating member in this agreement.”
May 27, 2020: US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announces that the United States will terminate sanctions waivers that allow for nonproliferation cooperation projects to continue in Iran.
These waivers cover the conversion of the Arak reactor, the provision of enriched fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, and the export of Iran’s spent fuel.
This makes it impossible for Iran to continue to fullfil its commitments under the JCPOA.
June 25, 2020: The United States imposes additional sanctions on Iran targeted at the country’s metal industry.
July 3, 2020: EU Foreign Policy chief Josep Borrell announces that he has received a letter from Iran triggering the JCPOA’s DRM, citing concerns about the E3’s implementation of the agreement.
July 4, 2020: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweets that the country triggered again the JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism because of violations by the European members of the deal, in addition to outright U.S. violations.
Zarif notes that European members of the deal are failing to fulfill their JCPOA duties and have given in to U.S. “bullying.”
August 14, 2020:
• In a vote on a US resolution to extend UN arms restrictions against Iran, the United States is defeated with only 2 votes in favor, 2 votes against and 11 abstentions, falling drastically short of the nine votes needed for an extension.
• In an act of piracy on the high seas, the United States seizes cargo for the first time from Iranian fuel tankers bound for Venezuela.
August 20, 2020: US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo delivers a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General and to the President of the Security Council, invoking provisions of UNSCR 2231— which are only available to JCPOA participants—to re-instate revoked resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.
August 25, 2020: The United Nations Security Council dismisses the US effort to re-impose UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.
The President of the Security Council says the Council is “not in position to take further action” pursuant to the US request.
September 21, 2020: Speaking at a news conference, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo says, “no matter who you are, if you violate the UN arms embargo on Iran, you risk sanctions.”
Pompeo also announces new sanctions on Iran’s Ministry of Defense, Iran’s Defense Industries Organization, and its director.
November 17, 2020: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif states that if the United States adheres to its commitments under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, Iran will return to compliance with the restrictions under the JCPOA.
He further reiterates that this can be done without negotiations.
November 27, 2020: Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is assassinated near Tehran.
December 1, 2020: The Iranian Parliament responds to the assassination by requiring the Government to take further and more drastic remedial measures under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA if US unilateral sanctions are not lifted by February 23, 2021.
January 5, 2021: The US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control imposes a new round of sanctions on Iran’s steel industry.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says in a statement that “the Trump administration remains committed to denying revenue flowing to the Iranian regime.”
February 21, 2021: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi travels to Tehran to meet with Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as well as Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.
They discuss Iran’s planned Feb. 23 suspension of the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement and together reach an arrangement whereby the IAEA will continue its necessary verification activities for up to 3 months.
March 25, 2021:
• Despite promises made by incoming US President Joe Biden, his (regime) has yet to take any steps to abide by either the JCPOA or UNSCR 2231—a resolution the US itself co-sponsored.
• Iran, as evidenced by the above timeline, has shown maximum restraint in the face of “maximum pressure”, “economic war”, bullying, assassinations, cruelty and collective punishment of its
people.
• Today, the ball is firmly in the US court.
If it claims interest in the JCPOA, it must abandon its unlawful violations and verifiably remove all sanctions imposed, re-imposed and re-labeled since January 20, 2017.
• Iran will stop all of its remedial measures upon verification of a US return to compliance.
The detailed account above shows why the US can never be trusted — why it’s a waste of time dealing with its duplicitous regimes.
Nonbelligerent Iran threatens no one.
Yet it’s been wrongfully vilified, lied about, and targeted by the US for regime change for over 40 years — because it won’t be subservient to its interests at the expense of its own.
Looking ahead, there’s virtually no chance that Biden regime hardliners will soften their agenda toward Iran — nor against other countries free from US control.
Whatever proposal Biden’s geopolitical team may make to Iran will no doubt be rejected unless it includes lifting all illegally imposed sanctions — and not reimposing any.
Chances for this to happen are virtually nil.
Whatever the US says publicly or proposes, its hostility toward Iran remains unchanged.
The JCPOA will likely dissolve ahead because the US won’t observe its provisions.
Nor will colonized Britain, France and Germany — going along with their US [or Israeli] master even when harming their own interests.
WHO’s authoritarian recommendations were adopted in rapid fashion by almost every government on Earth.
The behavioral controls and livelihood restrictions imposed by WHO have no basis in immune system health, mental health, or general well being.
WHO operates like a global oligarchy, forcing all member states to carry out their orders. In 2020 and beyond, WHO has ordered populations into isolation, avoidance, and unlawful quarantines.
WHO has forced perpetual oxygen restrictions, coercive DNA harvesting, and mRNA vaccines experiments, while instructing governments around the world to quash civil liberties and promote medical martial law.
This dictatorship is giving rise to a medical apartheid – a system of segregation that punishes healthy people for not complying.
GAVI was formed in 2000 and set up as an international institution in Switzerland. GAVI operates tax free and enjoys blanket immunity against criminal sanctions.
Bill Gates leveraged GAVI and bought his influence into the WHO. He even asked to become a member state in 2017, with the privilege of being on WHO’s executive board.
Bill Gates now controls Swissmedic, the FDA of Switzerland, due to a three-way vaccine distribution contract agreement reached by Gates, WHO, and the Swiss regulatory agency.
By controlling WHO, Gates funnels tens of billions of dollars through his GAVI Vaccine Alliance, with the ultimate power of controlling member states.
As the controller of information and the arbiter of science, Gates and the vaccine industry has the power to suppress prophylactics, treatments, phytonutrients, adaptogens, and antivirals.
Bill Gates and GAVI is the source of terror behind WHO, the lock downs, restrictions, and authoritarian medical edicts that are compelling vaccination experiments.
Stuckelberger is an international expert who evaluates scientific research and advises policymakers.
She has written more than 180 scientific articles, policy papers and governmental reports. She admits that this research is conducted to support political agendas and to justify government policy.
Since 2009, she managed WHO’s international health regulations, which were primarily used to prepare member states to act in unison during a future pandemic. At the center of this world government plandemic is Bill Gates and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance.
GAVI And WHO Control Governments Around The World Now, Threaten Populations
Bill Gates has more power and influence over WHO than entire nations. The United Nations originally established WHO, but has repeatedly refused to rein in their dictatorial powers, illegal quarantine procedures, coercive vaccine passports, and undemocratic power grabs.
Justus Hoffmann, Ph.D., one of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee members, pointed out that GAVI has no political power but enjoys “qualified diplomatic immunity.”
GAVI is immune from all criminal business dealing, as well, whether their potential criminal actions are intentional or inadvertent.
“They can do whatever they want,” Stuckelberger confirmed, and they answer to no authority. No law enforcement is allowed to investigate GAVI, even if the Vaccine Alliance was implicated in a criminal conspiracy to defraud or coerce people.
“Stuckelberger, who worked four years on the ethics committee for the WHO, said its “disturbing” that GAVI enjoys blanket immunity especially when GAVI is “directing, as a corporate entity, the WHO.”
The director general of WHO forces all member states to follow GAVI’s orders, from the type of diagnostic tests, to the type of treatments allowed, to top-down population controls, pandemic messaging, and most importantly, vaccine experimentation.
The WHO has been set up over the years to assume dictatorial power over world governments and GAVI is the source of their authoritarianism, terror, and coercive vaccination push.
This medical fraud will not stop the wave of hospital dependence, ventilator-associated pneumonia, lung infections, stress induced heart disease, drug overdoses, severe mental illness, and vaccine injury that is now taking hold of the world.
In an unusual turn of events in Syria, militants once backed by the US have seized a shipment of US-made missiles that was heading to fighters currently backed by the US.
The missiles, US-made TOWs, were seized on March 28 by the Syrian Task Force, a joint force of the Turkish Police, Counterterrorism Unit and the National Syrian Army (SNA), near the Turkish-occupied town of Azaz in the northern Aleppo countryside.
According to the Turkish Ministry of Interior, the smugglers confessed that they had been trying to transfer weapons to the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the town of Manbij in the northeastern countryside of Aleppo.
Beside two TOW anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), the weapons shipment included 24 AK-type assault rifles, a designated marksman rifle, two gun tubes and ammunition.
Most SNA factions were once backed by the US, which supplied them with TOW ATGMs until late 2017. The YPG and the PKK, one the other hand, are the core of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which still receive US support.
Between 2012 and 2017, the US shipped loads of weapons and ammunition to rebels in Syria in an attempt to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon led these efforts to arm the Syrian rebels with a direct support from US allies in the Middle East, first and foremost Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
US efforts didn’t only fail to topple the Damascus government, but also ended up turning Syria into a large black market for advanced weapons. Many of the weapons supplied by the US and its allies found their way to the hands of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. Some of these weapons were found in Iraq and even Lebanon.
Today, weapons like TOW ATGMs, are being used by militants once supported by the US against Washington’s current proxies in Syria and vice versa.
The US plans to arm Syrian rebels inflamed the war, threatened neighboring countries and even ended up turning Washington’s tools against each other. Some not very tolerant social media users would call these great achievements a brilliant example of “clusterfuck.”
Dr. Paul Marik Discusses Ivermectin and Vitamin D. Wikipedia tells us Dr Marik is “a professor of medicine and serves as Chief, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. He is known for the vitamin C sepsis cocktail, which is under active multicenter clinical trial.”
Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance” meaning that the article did “not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19”.
The Democrats and the mainstream media have successfully branded the January 6th melee as an “armed insurrection” even though nobody was armed.
In reality, the only people who had loaded guns were the Capitol Police. And as a result, one unarmed Trump supporter by the name of Ashli Babbit was shot and killed — and sadly, nearly four months later, her death still remains a mystery.
The January 6th event was a mixed bag of goodies. Many different types of people showed up for a lot of different reasons. Fed-up Americans who believed their votes were stolen were there to let their voices be heard. Rowdy patriots showed up ready to take back the government and drain the swamp.
Left-wing agitators and reporters were on sight to stoke the fires of “revolution,” and good-hearted MAGA “grandma and grandpas” who just wanted to support President Trump were innocently meandering around as well.
Some agitators fought with police in front of the cameras, while other groups were quietly ushered into the Capitol building by DC officials who looked more like friendly tour guides than law enforcement.
What happened on January 6th was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, it was a jumbled assortment of protest and political theater that was cleverly molded by Dems and the media to form a “domestic terrorism” narrative.
But unbeknownst to most Americans, there actually was an “insurrection” that took place at the Capitol — however, it didn’t happen on January 6th. It took place on January 8th and it was carried out by Nancy Pelosi.
Two days after the Capitol melee, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made an ominous phone call that could change the entire game.
On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi picked up her phone and bypassed the military chain of command by making a jaw-dropping direct appeal to Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.
Nancy Pelosi asked General Mark Milley to take action against President Trump.
Think about that for a minute: a politician who has no place whatsoever within the national security chain of command went around the already-established chain of command channels and used her power and position to try and give direct orders to the nation’s top military officer.
Unbelievable.
What Nancy Pelosi did when she made that phone call was as close to an “insurrection” that you can get, and it was far more menacing and dangerous than anything “politically motivated” that went down at the Capitol on January 6th.
And Pelosi knows it.
That’s why now, both the Pentagon and Pelosi are trying to cover up that very phone call.
However, Judicial Watch is all over the case — and they’re now suing to get their hands on that damning phone call.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January phone call with U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — in which Pelosi raised concerns about what she described as an ‘unhinged’ President Trump — is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. Watchdog group Judicial Watch announced its legal action this week, saying the call between the House speaker and the nation’s top military officer – regarding the powers of a sitting president – set a “dangerous precedent” that could affect future presidencies. The group said its Jan. 11 request for information regarding the Jan. 8 call between Pelosi and Milley received no response from the Department of Defense. [Fox News]
Below is a tweet thread from Judicial Watch discussing the FOIA request in more detail:
BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced that it has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOD for records about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 8, 2021, telephone call with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley (1/3). https://t.co/yfWSaGIkNU
In addition, Nancy Pelosi foolishly documented her conversation with General Milley in a letter to her Democrat colleagues. Here’s some of what she said:
This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike… The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.
Later, she added:
As you know, there is growing momentum around the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which would allow the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to remove the President for his incitement of insurrection and the danger he still poses… Yesterday, Leader Schumer and I placed a call with Vice President Pence, and we still hope to hear from him as soon as possible with a positive answer as to whether he and the Cabinet will honor their oath to the Constitution and the American people. [CNS News]
Based on Pelosi’s own description of the phone call in that letter, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is convinced that the Speaker of the House stepped way, way over the line.
Fitton said Pelosi has set a “dangerous precedent that could undermine the president’s role as commander in chief and the separation of powers.”
Indeed. However, what Pelosi did was even scarier and crazier than that. This woman tried to push the US military into taking “action” in a national domestic incident.
Insanity.
The only question now is — once her call is made public will Republicans pounce and use Pelosi’s power-crazed move to flip the false “insurrection narrative” on its ear, or will they let another golden opportunity to blow up the Dems’ narrative quietly slip away?
“Our models are MICKEY-MOUSE mockeries of the real world”
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.
He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.
There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.
Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.
Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).
Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.
DATA FALSIFICATION
When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).
But now we have Nakamura.
The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.
Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”
The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”
Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.
The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.
As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.
The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.
NAKAMURA ON CO2
He writes: “The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”
Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.
“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”
You can read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle. Arm yourself with the facts, and then spread them — facts such as those highlighted below (all lifted from the book):
“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”
“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”
“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”
SOLAR FORCING
Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.
As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:
“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Furthermore, we can’t ignore the slew of new scientific papers stating the immense impact The Beaufort Gyre could have on the Gulf Stream, and therefore the climate overall.
We are constantly being warned by activists, politicians, and some climate scientists that we face a climate crisis; that if humanity collectively doesn’t alter its lifestyle and consumption patterns now, the world will end in 10 years, 12 years, 50 years—pick your number.
This is a lie, and I suspect most of the people making these apocalyptic prophesies know it. For them, it’s the modern-day equivalent of Plato’s noble lie—lying to people to get them to act in ways they don’t realize are in their own best interest.
Not coincidentally, those telling the lie profit from it in terms of influence, money, and/or power.
This lie is not in fact noble, nor is it based upon sound science. Rather, it is perpetrated through the regular suppression of inconvenient scientific data: data altered, suppressed, or scrubbed from journals and textbooks, which put the lie to insupportable claims made by politically connected climate scientists that an anthropogenic climate apocalypse is in the offing.
The big lie is built on a faulty premise that science can realistically trace the cause of modest recent warming of the Earth primarily to human greenhouse gas emissions, and that from this we can confidently predict what the world will look like 50, 100, and 300 years from now.
Award-winning climate scientist Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., described the big lie this way:
“One problem with conveying our message is the difficulty people have in recognizing the absurdity of the alarmist climate message. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist of simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 98.7F rather than 98.6F, you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for the climate is considered ‘settled science.”
Among the most egregious attempts to suppress inconvenient climate science came in 2001 when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to replace established climate history with the “hockey stick” graph.
The hockey stick dispensed with the long-recognized Medieval Warm Period from approximately 950 AD to 1250 AD, and the Little Ice Age, which ran from approximately 1350 AD through 1850 AD.
Its originators postulated global temperatures had been fairly stable over the past millennium, until the twentieth century when they began to rise sharply, due to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
Then came Climategate, in which a treasure trove of inconvenient email exchanges between IPCC-connected climate scientists was hacked and leaked.
These emails detailed the scientists hiding data that indicated the recent warming trend was not historically unusual and censoring scientific research that undermined claims of apocalyptic warming.
The Surface Station Project exposed the dirty little secret that temperature readings from the vast majority of the ground-based temperature stations were compromised by urban growth, skewing temperature readings higher.
Indeed, the research found 89 percent of surface stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial source of heat.
Additional scientific misconduct comes in the form of temperature monitoring agencies “adjusting” raw temperature recordings from unbiased, isolated temperature stations and reporting them in a way that indicates past temperatures were colder than were actually measured and recent temperatures have been warmer than actually measured.
This action produces an artificially steep temperature trend, making recent warming appear larger than it has been. In some instances, when these nefarious actions were exposed, the government agencies involved tried to scrub the official records of past temperatures.
Fortunately, in the age of the internet, where data once posted is forever, these Orwellian attempts to rewrite climate history have largely failed.
When global warming went on a 15-year hiatus, with temperatures flat-lining despite a steady rise in carbon dioxide emissions, a team of climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) altered how ocean temperatures were measured.
Voilà, like magic, the hiatus disappeared. As David Rose wrote for the Daily Mail, describing the incident “[NOAA researchers] took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations … even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.”
Most recently, some of the same characters that brought the world the “hockey stick” have now published a widely publicized paper that claims a long-recognized ocean circulation pattern, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which impacts climate, never existed at all but was an artifact of volcanic pulses.
Commenting on this paper, climate scientist Judith Curry, Ph.D., writes:
“Wow. In one fell swoop, the pesky problems of the ‘grand hiatus’ in the mid 20th century, debates over the attribution of 20th-century warming and the role of multidecadal internal variability, and the difficulty of attributing the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity to AGW, all go away. Brilliant! Almost as ‘brilliant’ as the Hockey Stick.”
There is little doubt the Earth is warming, but the list of breaches of the scientific method and ethics by researchers whose careers are intimately tied to the “truth” of climate alarmism provides more than enough reason to doubt the claim that the science is settled and the Earth is doomed, absent giving government authoritarian control over all aspects of peoples’ lives.
Geert Vanden Bossche has made a splash by coming out against the current COVID-19 vaccinations — but is he genuine, or revealing the next leg of the agenda? Either way, his explicit warning about the enhanced risk of zoonotic spread is worth discussing.
Dr. Yeadon is cynical about the vaccine, especially for women of child-bearing years. He believes there was no need for a vaccine at all. As he was Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory we should probably listen to him. This is what he said this week. Obviously, he is being painted as a lunatic. But given his pedigree I stop to listen when he speaks.
If you want to listen to an amazing podcast with Dr Yeadon go here to my friend James Delingpole’s podcast. James has an informal technique so you may have to hang on for a few minutes while they get the chit-chat out of the way (although it’s interesting if you like cool facts about WWII!)
A couple of posts ago, I mentioned that I intended to read Robert English’s book Russia and the Idea of the West, which examines how Westernizing ideas gradually took hold of an element of the Soviet intelligentsia from the 1950s onwards. I’m now about halfway through, and on page 125 I came across a passage that I thought was very appropriate for today. Here English writes the following:
The steady growth of reformist, anti-isolationist thought [in the USSR] was also aided by two other developments. The first was a sharp deterioration in relations with China, to the point of armed conflict; this forced a deeper rethinking of the two-camp outlook … Second, and more important, was the rise of détente with the West; though accompanied by a tightening of ideological orthodoxy at home, détente provided specialists their broadest access to the West in 50 years… [As a result] the early-mid 1970s saw many calling not just for expanded intercourse with the West, but also for more radical changes that would move their country toward broader integration with the liberal international community.
Détente was a brief effort in the 1960s and 70s to lessen East-West tensions by negotiating arms control settlements, increasing trade, and carrying out cultural exchanges. Eventually it was abandoned by the United States once Ronald Reagan became president, on the grounds that it had emboldened Soviet aggression. But English argues that rather than promote aggression, détente had a positive effect (from a Western perspective) by encouraging pro-Western sentiment in the Soviet foreign policy community.
Today, it seems to me, we’re moving, or perhaps have already irrevocably moved, in the opposite direction. Russia-China relations have never been stronger, and we have entered an era of anti-détente. In this, the West is cutting relations with Russia via sanctions, and is also shredding what remains of the old arms control system. Somehow, this is meant to induce Russia to change in what the West considers a positive direction, i.e. to make it more ‘liberal’ and more friendly. Yet, if English is right, then one might expect it to have the opposite result.
Of course, historical parallels are never 100% valid. Circumstances are very different now compared to 1970s. Back then, opening up the West to the Soviets enabled the West to flex its soft power, by exposing Soviet intellectuals to Western ideas as well as to the obvious superiority of the capitalist economic system in terms of wealth production. This is a strategy that can’t be repeated today because Russians are already very well acquainted with the West. As I’ve pointed out before, cultural exchanges don’t have the ‘wow’ factor they once did.
That said, English points out other ways in which détente encouraged liberal, pro-Western thinking in sections of the Soviet elite. Arms control created strong personal ties between Soviet and US diplomats. After months of working together and then reaching agreement, the former came to respect and admire the later, and with it also came to reject ideas of the necessity of East-West conflict. In the process, détente created its own bureaucratic momentum. This is the way of things; to do something, you have to create institutions and cadres dedicated to it, who in due course become committed to doing more of it, in part out of genuine belief but in part because out of bureaucratic interest and inertia.
And so it was within the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, elements of which became decidedly more ‘liberal’, if that is an appropriate word, than the regime as a whole. English thus describes how liberal-minded diplomats, notably Lev Mendelevich and Anatoly Kovalev, slipped the Helsinki Final Act, with its commitments to human rights, past Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, who ‘signed the Final Act “without really reading it through”.’ The diplomats hoped, thereby, ‘to encourage domestic reforms, a gradual liberalization of the Communist system, and a humanization of Soviet society.’
One might wonder why diplomats thought that such domestic issues were their concern, but that’s by the by. The point is that détente helped to develop a liberally-inclined, pro-Western element within the Soviet diplomatic service, which used its position to, let’s put it somewhat crudely, undermine the Soviet Union from within. (I’m sure that wasn’t that element’s intent, but it was the effect.)
English describes the intellectual process that took place in the Soviet Union as a gradual abandonment of the isolationist outlook. Compare this to today: the Western policy of endlessly piling up the pressure on Russia, with what seems like a new round of sanctions every month, is having the opposite effect. I can’t say that I follow the readings of the Russian foreign policy community in huge detail, but insofar as I do, I get the strong impression that it’s becoming more and more inclined to the view that it’s pointless to make any concessions to the West because the latter is incapable of responding in kind.
One can see this even among what I call ‘establishment Westernizers’, such as, say, Dmitry Trenin. Particularly striking are some recent articles by one of Russia’s leading foreign policy experts Fyodor Lukyanov, who is now arguing that Russia and the West need to go their own ways and have as little to do with each other as possible. ‘External interactions’ with the USA should be reduced to the ‘absolutely essential’, writes Lukyanov. The two countries should ‘keep out of each others’ way’, he adds. It’s quite a contrast to the kind of thinking that English describes as having developed in the Soviet Union in the era of détente.
I suspect that the more the West tries to isolate Russia, the stronger this tendency in Russian thinking is likely to become. If nothing else, there will be subtle shifts within the Russian foreign policy bureaucracy. Fewer and fewer people will be involved in arms control, trade and other negotiations with Western partners. Meanwhile, more and more will be dealing with China and other parts of the world. With that, the power that the West exerts on Russian foreign policy thinking will inevitably diminish.
As far as the West is concerned, this is very much a self-inflicted wound. The way you influence people is by having contact with them, and reaching agreements with them. It is something that we once at least partially understood. I fear that we do so no longer.
11. Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID‐19: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/…
About a year ago, my 85-year-old mother was kidnapped by a gang of charlatans and dragged off to Coronavirus Neverland – whence, on her captors’ instructions, she’s been making frightened phone calls to me and other relatives ever since.
What did she say, you ask? Well, in one of the first of those calls, she warned me that I was never to bring my shoes inside my apartment. If I did, according to her kidnappers, something terrible would happen – to me, if not to her.
She also cautioned me against bringing my clothes inside the apartment once I had been exposed to the outside world. Instead, I was to shower and change after each walk or shopping trip. The kidnappers insisted, further, that I was to disinfect all my apartment’s walls and floors at least once each day. (I didn’t tell my mother that the drug store and supermarket shelves were practically bare of cleaning fluids in those days, as panicked shoppers grabbed everything they could carry for daily orgies of sterilization. Apparently, she wasn’t the only kidnap victim.)
As for my hands – well, they had to be scrubbed carefully every few hours, no matter how blistered they might already be from a day spent soaping, showering, sanitizing, mopping, shampooing and sterilizing everything in sight with whatever cocktail of disinfectants my mother’s captors had told her about the previous evening.
All this came garnished with a threat: if my mother and her family didn’t obey all of the kidnappers’ commands, no matter how absurd, we might never see her again.
That was a year ago.
Now things are even worse.
Recently, my mother’s kidnappers have bullied her into submitting to the injection of an experimental drug for which the manufacturer bears no liability, for which there is absolutely no medical necessity, and which our government refuses to subject to the same testing regimen it applies to contraceptive pills or routine antibiotics.
That’s the crime. Now, can’t someone be punished for this?
Yes, I know my mother isn’t the only one being tortured – forgive me if I seem to be minimizing the scope of the rights-busting, society-destroying coup that is abusing us all.
But there is a certain justice in singling out the crime committed against my mother. Haven’t the lockdown-lovers singled her out already, making harmless old people the prime targets of their toxic benefactions?
Bad as the whole coronavirus charade certainly is, it’s hard to find a parallel for the sheer perversity of the propagandists’ abuse of the aged. The “experts” are never more self-righteous than when they thunder at us that the smallest deviation from their New Normal prescriptions amounts to killing off our elders. But no one has ever treated the old with more cynical cruelty – or with less justification.
Think of the title of an article published by one Rabbi Shai Held in the Atlantic – one of the most relentless purveyors of coronavirus propaganda – a year ago:
The Staggering, Heartless Cruelty Toward the Elderly.”
When I first saw those words, I thought the Atlantic editors had suddenly seen the light and wanted their readers to know about the evils of the harsh nursing home confinements recently ordered by governors-turned-dictators in states like New York and New Jersey.
But no. The Atlantic was only showcasing a spiteful sermon from the rabbi about some obnoxious people – Trump supporters or similar unworthies, I assume – who, it was said, were claiming that COVID19 wasn’t really so bad if it only killed old people, who after all were going to die soon anyway.
I don’t know of any real people who said such things – not that facts would have mattered to the Atlantic. What I do know – and what the Atlantic’s Rabbi Held never mentioned – is that officials like Governor Andrew Cuomo, to the applause of the propagandists, forced old people into crowded nursing homes where they were isolated from friends and relatives, forbidden to leave, told they were surrounded by a deadly disease they could not escape, and otherwise either neglected or “helped” by terrified attendants dressed in space suits – a grotesque scenario that could only have added to their sense of danger and hopelessness.
Not surprisingly, many of those inmates died.
Now that’s cruelty.
I’m still hearing stories of people who have not been allowed to visit elderly relatives for months on end; many of us have friends or acquaintances who were prevented from saying goodbye to a dying friend or cousin or grandparent or uncle. This is taken almost for granted nowadays.
Some of the stories I hear are even worse. One man reports being told that his aged mother, a patient last spring at a crowded New York hospital, would not be treated for her COVID19 infection as a matter of “hospital policy” because she had signed a “do not resuscitate” order: since the hospital staff didn’t know how to treat COVID19, a nurse told him, they were treating her illness as terminal.
In other words, they would let the old woman die even if they believed that giving her oxygen could save her life.
A policy like that – if indeed it existed – violated New York law. And when propagandists point to the high death rates at those New York hospitals in March and April as “proof” of the dangers of the coronavirus, I can only wonder how many of the patients they have in mind were killed not by an infection but by medical malpractice.
And what about reports – this time not from patients’ relatives but from a medical professional with first-hand experience – that another New York “hospital policy” involved excessive use of ventilators, likely resulting in damage to the patients’ lungs and possibly hastening their deaths?
The propagandists never mention this; such things, too, are taken for granted.
And these people have the nerve to complain about “cruelty toward the elderly”? If you ask me, they should be giving lessons on the subject.
I’ll say it again: I know that lots of younger people are being tortured too. If you want evidence of how bad things really are – and from the horse’s mouth – take a look at this sadistic effusion in the Atlantic’s February 4 issue, from a woman who watched her husband suffer:
At about 2am on Thursday morning, I woke to find my husband shivering beside me. For hours, he had been tossing in bed, exhausted but unable to sleep, nursing chills, a fever, and an agonizingly sore left arm. His teeth chattered. His forehead was freckled with sweat.
A cautionary tale about the ravages of the “deadly virus”? That’s what it would have been if the poor man had tested positive for COVID19 six months earlier. But now her spouse’s torment is the cue for a flood of joyous propaganda:
[A]s I lay next to him, cinching blanket after blanket around his arms, I felt an immense sense of relief. All this misery was a sign that the immune cells in his body had been riled up by the second shot of a COVID-19 vaccine, and were well on their way to guarding him from future disease.
Ah, the innocence of ideological purity! For the Atlantic apparatchik, her husband’s “misery” meant “an immense sense of relief,” just as being burned alive in a bombed building in 1941 moved a British Communist Party member to bless Joe Stalin (as related years later by her friend Teddy Prager):
My feet, she screamed, it’s burning my feet, and I kept chopping at the beam [that trapped her], but nothing moved. Poor Freddie…. It’s no good, she was now crying, I’m done for. And then, as I wept with desperation and smoke, too exhausted to lift the axe any longer, she cried out: Long live the Party, long live Stalin…Long live Stalin, she cried out, and Goodbye boys, goodbye Teddy.
Isn’t it nice to know that indoctrination still works? Long live Pfizer! Long live experimental drugs and human guinea pigs! Hurray for Joe Biden! Who cares what happens to my husband, so long as the corporate bosses and mask-maniacs and police-state enthusiasts get everything they want?
So yes, every detail of this sinister farce is ugly. But the lockdown-lovers have always claimed to be driven by particular solicitude for the aged. And so it is especially disgusting to watch them lie to old ladies in order to make them submit to dangerous drugs, after terrorizing them for a solid year with fictions intended to leave them more vulnerable to the next round of fraud.
And let’s not mince words: fraud is the right name for what they’ve done to my mother (and so many others). The evidence of all-cause mortality figures in the US (and elsewhere) demonstrates clearly enough that COVID19 has had no significant impact on medical death rates, at least since last summer.
On top of that, a study conducted by several prestigious scientists, chaired by the estimable John Ioannidis, recently concluded that the drastic lockdowns imposed in 2020 did not stem the spread of the virus any better than far milder measures would have done. There is no COVID19 emergency – and if there ever was, which is doubtful, the hysterical official response did more harm than good.
And yet most of the United States still languishes – illegally – under quasi-dictatorial rule, with the acquiescence of mainstream media, which apparently never thought ordinary people should be allowed to control their own lives in the first place. One result of this coup (the only accurate word for it) was the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, engineered in significant part through dishonest COVID19 reporting, and spurred by mail-in voting procedures that almost certainly would not have been approved by the legislative processes required by the relevant state constitutions.
But don’t expect any outrage about this political chicanery from the people who regularly denounce illiberal government in places like China or Venezuela. Representative democracy was largely scrapped in the US a year ago, so it just doesn’t matter that the presidential voting system was illegally altered in order to promote a Democratic victory – just as it doesn’t matter that the mainstream media produced a torrent of worthless claims about Trump’s “mishandling” of the virus in order to make voters blame him for 200,000 deaths as they cast their ballots.
Mention these facts and you are a “conspiracy theorist.” Pretend not to know them and you are “following the science.”
And what if you happen to care about the welfare of elderly people – or of children, whose vulnerability has always been supposed to entitle them to special consideration? Well, if you take your cues from coronavirus propaganda, there’s only one right way to treat both groups: cynically exploit them so as to spread the fear porn as thickly as possible.
Consider, for example, a bizarre January “news” story in which children in California were described making tearful apologies to their grandparents as the latter died, allegedly from COVID19, in off-limits hospital rooms.
The “experts” and the reporter just knew those kids must have infected their elders after attending a Thanksgiving or Christmas party. True, there’s little real evidence that children function as contagious carriers of COVID19, let alone that any have actually passed the infection to an elderly relative. But why let facts get in the way of cruelty? The kids had to learn a lesson: enjoying an innocent holiday celebration meant killing off Granny.
No one in mainstream media challenged that piece of cynical sadism, as far as I know – just as no one challenged the claims of California “health” officials during the same period that the state was experiencing death tolls from COVID19 of over 400 per day. (In fact, for the week ending January 9, the putative daily death tolls for the state edged closer to 500.)
But was that even true?
According to the all-cause mortality figures shown on the CDC website, during the weeks ending January 2 and January 9 there was a total of 8,958 deaths in California, as compared with a total of 11,761 deaths during the same period a year earlier, before any “pandemic” was declared.
In other words, during the same period when California “experts” were screaming about 400-500 extra deaths each day from a disease that presumably wasn’t killing anyone the previous January, the total number of deaths actually decreased by an average rate of 200 per day as compared with the same period a year earlier.
To square California’s claimed coronavirus deaths with those facts, we would probably have to suppose that heart disease, cancer, traffic deaths, diabetes and so on were all so drastically reduced in California that their daily death tolls diminished by more than 600 per day since the previous year.
Yes, miracles do happen, as Forrest Gump reminded us. But the more reasonable interpretation is that the COVID19 horror story California “health” officials were telling us in January was a fiction made out of numbers-juggling. Which is pretty much what the whole “deadly plague” story has been from the start – a combination of alarmist and unscientific “projections,” unreliable and over-used tests, arbitrary diagnoses, fear-mongering and politically-driven cause-of-death classifications, which were then fanned to hysteria by power-hungry politicians and a compliant “news” media, not to mention corporate behemoths that stood to gain from the panic.
So I return to my mother – now 86 – and her psychological kidnapping by a bunch of frauds and fear-porn peddlers pretending to be “experts.” Since no one in a position of authority will help, what can I do for her?
Well, one thing I can’t do is to remain silent.
Our country – hers and mine – is being torn apart by measures that the public and its elected representatives have never been permitted to debate, let alone to approve. Maybe I can’t persuade my mother that she’s being lied to. But at least I don’t have to lie myself. Maybe, one of these days, something I say will help her – or if not her, then someone else’s mother who has fallen into the clutches of the same captors.
Can I preserve the principles of civil rights in an era when the very notion of freedom is scoffed at from the headlines of every “liberal” newspaper in the West? I don’t know. But I can do my best to ensure that it won’t happen with my consent, that I won’t be an accomplice in my own victimization – or my mother’s.
And I’m confident of one thing: that when I am 86 years old, I will not be telling my grandchildren that when the chips were down I was too busy washing my hands and marching to the police state’s every command to speak up against the destruction of everything I believe in.
The crimes against us all may continue. I will not contribute to them.
Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. His latest nonfiction book is Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities (McFarland & Co., 2014).<
International Humanitarian Law prohibits the attack, destruction, or rendering useless of objects indispensable to civilian survival.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | June 10, 2026
… During the first Gulf War, the United States “deliberately bombed Iraq’s water system,” Thomas J. Nagy, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in September, 2001. The Bush administration, “with malice aforethought,” “destroyed, removed, or rendered useless” Iraq’s ‘drinking water installations and supplies’… They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA’s own words, ‘fully degrade’ Iraq’s water sources.”
Nagy found declassified documents at the website of the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses that detailed the effort to degrade Iraq’s water supply and commit a serious violation of humanitarian law. The documents included “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerability,” “Disease Information,” “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq,” “Medical Problems in Iraq,” “Status of Disease at Refugee Camps,” “Health Conditions in Iraq,” and “Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities.”
Then Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia (subsequently removed from Congress), referred to the Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities document, and said, “Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations.” … Read full article
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
Aletho News 