The UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission has revealed that on average one individual dies every week after having contact with the British police. More details in this report.
In the heat of the 2008 presidential election, an obscure nonprofit group called the Clarion Fund made national news by distributing millions of DVDs about radical Islam in newspaper inserts in swing states.
The DVDs, 28 million in all, were a boost to Republican candidates who were trying to paint Democrats as weak on terrorism — and they arguably helped fuel the anti-Muslim sentiment that boiled over in the “ground zero mosque” fight last summer. The film, “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War With the West,” was widely criticized for its cartoonish portrayal of Muslims as modern-day Nazis.
But who put up the money to send out all those millions of DVDs?
Clarion, which has strong links to the right-wing Israeli group Aish HaTorah and is listed in government records as a foreign nonprofit, would never say. … Justin Elliot has the answer at Salon
Here is the trailer for Clarion’s new film, “Iranium.” It will be interesting to see if any donor steps forward to pay for wider distribution.
TRANSCRIPT: This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.
Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.
Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.
Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.
Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.
Of course, the alarmists continue to argue—as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal—that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.
Like the UK parliamentary committee, which issued a report claiming that Phil Jones and the CRU’s scientific credibility remained intact after a rigorous one day hearing which featured no testimony from any skeptic or dissenting voice. After the release of the report, the committee stressed that the report did not address all of the issues raised by climategate and Phil Willis, the committee chairman admitted that the committee had rushed to put out a report before the British election.
Or the Oxburgh inquiry, chaired by Lord Ron Oxburgh, the UK Vice Chair of Globe International, an NGO-funded climate change legislation lobby group. The Oxburgh inquiry released a five page report after having reviewed 11 scientific papers unrelated to the climategate scandal that had been hand-picked by Phil Jones himself. It heard no testimony or evidence from anyone critical of the CRU. Unsurprisingly, it found the climategaters not guilty of academic misconduct.
Regardless of what one thinks of the veracity or independence of these so-called investigations into the climategate scandal itself, what has followed has been a catastrophic meltdown of the supposedly united front of scientific opinion that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.
In December of that year, the UN’s Copenhagen climate talks broke down when a negotiating document was leaked showing that–contrary to all prÑit would be the third world nations bearing the brunt of a new international climate treaty, with punishing restrictions on carbon emissions that would prevent them from ever industrializing. The document, written by industrialized nations, allowed the first world to emit twice as much carbon per person as the third world, and was widely seen as an implementation of a eugenical austerity program under a “green” cover. This agenda was further exposed by the influential Optimum Population Trust in the UK, which began arguing that same month that rich westerners offset their carbon footprints by funding programs to stop black people from breeding.
In January 2010, the United Nations’ much-lauded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began to fall apart as error after error began to emerge in this supposedly unassailable peer-reviewed, scientific document asserting human causation of catastrophic climate change. That month it was revealed that a passing comment to a journalist from an Indian climatologist that the Himalayan glaciers could melt within 40 years found its way into the much-touted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report on climate change via a World Wildlife Fund fundraising pamphlet. When IPCC defenders tried to pass the universally derided prediction off as a legitimate mistake, the coordinating lead author of that section of the report admitted that the IPCC knew that the report was based on baseless speculation in a non-peer reviewed work, but included it because “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
Later that month, doubt was cast on another claim in the IPCC report, this one that 40% of the Amazon rainforest was in danger of disappearing due to manmade global warming. These doubts were confirmed in July when the claim was sourced back to pure, unverified speculation on the now-defunct website of a Brazilian environmental advocacy group. Just this month, the exact opposite of the original claim was shown to be the case when a new study appeared in Science demonstrating that forests in past warming periods were not decimated but in fact blooming with life, experiencing a “rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates.”
Also in January, the UK Information Commissioner ruled that researchers at the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with Freedom of Information requests, but that no criminal prosecution would follow because of a statute of limitations on prosecuting the illegal activity.
In February, the UK Guardian revealed that a key study co-authored by Phil Jones that purported to show there was no such thing as the well-researched Urban Heat Island effect was found to have relied on seriously flawed data. This, according to the Guardian, led to “apparent attempts to cover up problems with [the] temperature data.”
In September, John Holdren, the man who had previously advocated adding sterilizing agents to the water supply to combat the overpopulation problem which he thought would ravage the Earth by the year 2000, and who currently is the Science czar in the Obama White House, advocated a name change for global warming to “climate disruption,” further affirming the theory’s non-scientific status as an unfalsifiable prediction that anything that ever is due to manmade carbon dioxide.
Later that month, Britain’s prestigious Royal Society rewrote its climate change summary to admit that the science was infused with uncertainties and that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future…”
In October, a carbon reduction advocacy group called 10:10 released a video to promote its campaign in which those skeptical about participating in the program are literally blown up.
And just this month, Scientific American, a publication that has been noted for publishing increasingly alarmist reports about the reality and the dangers of manmade-2 induced global warming, a poll of its own readers that found over 77 believe natural processes to be the cause of climate change and almost 80 responded that they would not be willing to pay a single penny on schemes to “forestall” the supposed effects of supposedly-manmade global warming (warming that even climategate scientist Phil Jones now admits is no longer taking place).
And this is only the briefest of overviews of the range of information that Climategate.tv has been tracking over the past year. The reports undermine the data, its sources, the scientific processes used, the scientists themselves, and their conclusions. It shows that the main temperature records that are used to determine the highly-problematic concept of the global mean temperature are in fact in the hands of scientists like Phil Jones and James Hansen with a direct stake in the continuation of the alarmist scare. When these scientists are questioned on the sources of their data they advocate deleting emails and even deleting data itself. They admit that key data underlying their calculations has already been deleted.
And yet, with all of this, they have the audacity to continue to suggest that there is overwhelming concensus on the “science” of global warming. They call for public debates with skeptics who they invariably accuse of being funded by Big Oil, and then, when those debates are actually organized, they then back out of those debates. They then continue to call for the imprisonment of anyone who dares to question this supposed iron-clad .
And now, they are preparing to meet once again.
Next month, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will descend on Cancun, Mexico, to once again try to hammer out a globally-binding agreement on the restriction of carbon emissions. They will once again act as if carbon dioxide is a vile poison and not one of the essential ingredients of life on this planet. They will once again pretend that a causal link between carbon dioxide and catastrophic or unprecedented warming has been established. They will once again pretend that inflicting severe austerity on the third world in the name of greening the earth is anything other than eugenics by another name.
This year, though, there will be a difference. The public at large is another year older, another year wiser, and less prepared than ever to accept unquestioned the dire assertions of grandstanding politicians and the scientists they fund that the world is on the brink of imminent destruction. When they say the science is certain and settled, we will know better. When they say that this is humanity’s last chance, we will see them for the Chicken Little’s they have always been.
This is not a call for complacency. In fact, now that the public is more skeptical than ever about the climategaters and others of their ilk, the danger of binding international agreements enacted by unelected institutions and empowering global taxation is at an all-time high. They are hoping to ram through an agreement that will put the final nail in the coffin of climate realism before the corpse of the global warming hoax even has the chance to rot.
We have to speak out against this fraud now, and more loudly than ever. We must make our voices heard when we assert that science is about honesty, about openness, about the search for the truth, and that those who reject those principles will no longer be heeded by a public that has been stretched long past the point of credulity.
Once again the UN-funded scientists and politicians are telling us that the hour is nigh, and perhaps, for once, they are right. The end is almost here for those who are trying to establish their global governance in the name of a scientific fraud. If we continue to speak out on this issue, perhaps there will be no UNFCCC conference next year after all.
For if climategate has taught us anything, it is that just one year can make all the difference.
Miracle of miracles, memories of an even younger, crusading Rivera talking on his show, Geraldo at Large on Fox News about the “Building What?” TV ad campaign!
Geraldo began with the standard reference to all those edgy protestors who rallied in front of Larry Silverstein’s new Building 7, shouting “9/11 was an inside job.” He added “c’mon, get a life.” But then, lo, he turned the phrase to say perhaps these protestors weren’t so nutty after all.
Now, he said, there was evidence that Building 7 was taken down in a classic internal demolition. He then introduced his panel, Bob McIlvaine (who looked ready to jump out of his skin). Bob had lost a son in Tower 1 and still carried a deep grief that often, understandably turned to anger. Geraldo treated him with all due respect. He also introduced engineer Tony Szamboti to explain the technical aspect of the internal demolition. It was good to see Rivera willing to help explain the technical talk in TV speak to his audience.
The first was that “Building What?” had been the response of Justice Edward Lehner, who did not know about Tower 7 not being hit by airliner but being “pulled” instead at the request of its owner, Larry Silverstein, at 3 PM on 9/11/2001. See Silverstein’s YouTube film with his exact words, ending with we (the firemen and he) had decided to “pull it.” The truth is that the fires caused by any falling debris from Tower 1 were out. But the “pull it,” or internal demolition Silverstein was asking for occurred only two hours and 20 minutes later at 5:20 PM on 9/11. Experts claimed it was impossible to create an internal demolition like Tower 7’s in two hours and 20 minutes. You’d need more like two and a half months. So it clearly implies there was extended pre-planning before for the tragedy of 9/11.
The occasion for Justice Lehner making his “Tower What?” statement was his denial to a proposal from NYCCAN for a ballot initiative to ask NYC voters if they wanted a new investigation of 9/11’s events (beyond the 9/11 Commission of Omission Report, which did not even mention Tower 7). NYCCAN had delivered 81,000 signatures, more than originally required, which had been checked for accuracy, yet rejected by Justice Lehner because he felt the voting booth was not the venue for making the request. Either that or the authorities were frightened out of their wits that so many people had responded.
In fact, the affiliated organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, led by architect Richard Gage, had gathered some 1300 plus signatures of engineers and architects from around the US and the world, and sent it with a signed petition for a new investigation to the United States Congress.
Cynics of course will argue that 81,000 out of 8 million New Yorkers (even discounting infants, children, teens, the infirm and non-voters) was a small percentage of the electorate. But considering that a working New York justice did not know what Tower 7 stood for was indicative of the huge gap in 9/11 knowledge, a gap that crossed the spectrum of class, age, education, profession, ethnicity, race, religion, and political parties. This general gap of hard data on what happened on 9/11 has largely been due to the lack of mass media presentation. This makes Rivera’s coverage, short as it was, more laudable and courageous.
The 30-second “Building What?!”TV spot goes a long way to triggering the interest of all those who need to need to know more. Tower 7’s takedown is the smoking gun, the paradigm for the internal and external explosions that had taken down Towers 1 and 2. See the TV spot here.
Of course, with the help of Szamboti, Rivera explained to the Fox audience that this internal demolition couldn’t have been set up in such a short time but more likely in advance. And now there was a TV commercial that had been produced with quick cuts of four victim family members, including McIlvaine and Manny Badillo, then a woman who lost a nephew, another woman who lost her son, continuing the narrative. The commercial then cut to Tower 7’s top floors as they literally plummeted downward in two seconds, the entire 47-floor, steel-frame building going down into its footprint in 6.5 seconds. The visual was repeated several times.
Of Course, Silverstein received $500 million in insurance to rebuild a taller, wider Tower 7, the only completed WTC building in sight nine years later.
Rivera was helpful too in framing questions to MacIlvane and Szamboti that almost answered themselves, though the responses of his guests added to what he said. When he asked MacIlvane if he thought 9/11 was an inside job, Bob pushed the question aside and said, “I’m interested in finding out who murdered my son.” Both guests acknowledged that time constraints of TV sound-bite news did not allow for fuller explanations. But the visual that Building 7 went down as described was right there in the commercial for anyone to see. As a result, Geraldo admitted he believed there was more to 9/11 than had met his previous experience.
Now take a look at the full Geraldo At Large Segment, Note: the “Building What?” TV campaign is presently running and needs your support to keep running. It’s as worthwhile a contribution as you can possibly make to the well-being of New York City, America and the world, since 9/11 was the inciting incident for George Bush’s War on Terror. All the pain, death, and cost in blood and money, rest on understanding this keystone event and its true perpetrators.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Panel discussion. Glenn speaks at 30 minutes into the discussion.
Glenn Greenwald:
At roughly 53:00, the Q-and-A session with the audience began, and the first questioner was NPR’s national security reporter Dina Temple-Raston, whose Awlaki reporting I had criticized just a couple days earlier for uncritically repeating claims told to her by anonymous Pentagon officials. She directed her rather critical multi-part question to me, claiming, among other things, that she had seen evidence of Awlaki’s guilt as a Terrorist (which she had not previously reported or described in any detail), and that led to a rather contentious — and, in my view, quite revealing — exchange about the role of journalists and how Awlaki can and should be punished if he is, in fact, guilty of any actual crime:
While Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) may have claimed responsibility for the parcel bomb plot, it’s worth considering how this latest Yemen-linked terror scare has been a gift to their avowed enemies.
A mere two weeks before the discovery of mail bombs addressed to “two places of Jewish worship in Chicago,” Rupert Murdoch sounded prescient as he received an award from the Anti-Defamation League for his support of Israel. “The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world,” declared the media mogul in his acceptance speech. “But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.” Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, the Fox News owner smeared the growing worldwide condemnation of Israel’s rogue behaviour as an “ongoing war against the Jews.” … continue
Lecture that Ali Abunimah gave at Stanford on Wednesday, November 3rd 2010 entitled “What is the alternative to peace talks to nowhere?” Sponsored by Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI).
Farooque Ahmed, a naturalized US citizen, born in Pakistan, living in Virginia, has been arrested for allegedly plotting attacks on Washington D.C. area metro stations. But the people he interacted with, that he believed were Al Qaeda members, were working for the FBI. Independent Journalist Petra Bartosiewicz, explains if this is entrapment.
[Kashmir] has never been an integral part of India and the Indian government recognised it as a disputed territory and took it to the UN on its own accord. In 1947 we were told that India became a sovereign democracy. But it became a country as per the imagination of its colonizer, and continued to be a colonizer even after the British left the country. Indian state forcibly or deceitfully annexed the North-East, Goa, Junagarh, Telangana, etc… the Indian state has waged a protracted war against the people which it calls its own. Who are the people it has waged war against? The people of North-East, Kashmir, Punjab, etc. This is an upper caste Hindu state waging a continuing struggle against the people.
… a convention of this kind was historic in the capital city of this hollow superpower that is India… The British colonial empire too once considered Indians to be unfit for self-rule. The same argument is being used today by the powers-that-be to deny azadi to Kashmir. It is the same Indian ruling class which once preached non-alignment, but is now bowing before US imperialism and the MNCs [Multi-National Corporations]. We need to continue this exercise of debate, and at the same time be aware that we are up against a serious adversary. We must realize that the bows and arrows in the hands of the adivasis or stones of the Kashmiris alone are not enough. We need to make serious and meaningful alliances. There has to be an alliance between all the struggling people and what will connect them will be the idea of justice. We need to be aware of the fact that not every movement or slogan is for justice.
…many of the stories of atrocities on [Kashmiri Hindu] pundits have been concocted to sow misunderstanding and distrust among people, though what happened to some of them is tragic and unfortunate. Justice is to be fought and upheld for everybody, whether a minority of religion, caste, or nationality. It is not enough to ask for justice if the next person does not have it. People in Kashmir have said that Kashmiri pundits are welcome back, and this is a commendable gesture.
Arundhati acknowledged the resistance of “young people, women, children who are out on the streets facing the brutal Indian army” and crucially mentioned that:
the first great art which the Indian state has mastered is to wait and wait and hope that people’s energies will go down. Killing them is the next. It is up to the people of Kashmir to take their struggle further in solidarity with other people’s movements. At the same time, the people in Nagaland must reflect on themselves why is it that a Naga Battalion is sent to kill people in Kashmir and Chhattisgarh. A direct confrontation with the state is not enough. It is necessary to know one’s enemy and make alliances locally, as well as internationally.
(Please find complete minutes of the seminar here.)
Listen to an overbearing gatekeeper, Jon Faine, attempt to rubbish the genuine concerns of Australian Trades Union President, Kevin Bracken, in an attempt to stifle any debate about the many anomalies in the official 9/11 story.
To many, the name Kevin Bracken is a new one as regards 9/11 Truth. The reality is that Kevin has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth cause since 2006 by disseminating information throughout the Victorian Union Movement and the Maritime Workers Union of Australia. He has distributed DVD’s, shown films and shared information regularly with his associates and the people of Melbourne and he achieved motions calling for a new investigation from both the Victorian Trades Hall Council where he is the President and the Victorian branch of the Maritime Union of Australia of which he heads as Secretary. Kevin has also attended numerous conferences on 9/11 and has been the facilitator of such in Melbourne, Australia. Over the years Kevin and I have developed a close working relationship, both striving for the truth 9/11 to come out to bring end to the wars and to get our rights back that have been eroded since 9/11!
This is the motion passed on the 28th of March of 2008 at the VTHC:
“This meeting of the VTHC Executive Council calls for a thorough, independent inquiry into the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11. The events of that day have been used to start pre-emptive wars ‘that will not end in our lifetime.’ They have been used to attack civil liberties and legal principles that have been the cornerstone of civilized communities. There is an urgent need to reassess the way we view the world after September 11 and we call for a proper investigation into the events of that day.”
On the 20th of October 2010 Kevin was asked to ring into ABC 774 Mornings with John Faine, although Faine disputes this. This was following an email that was sent to Faine by Kevin questioning 9/11 in the context of Australia’s ongoing support of the Afghanistan occupation. After the recent Australian election it was demanded by the Australian Greens in a “balance of power” deal that the Australian involvement in the Afghan War be debated in Parliament in it’s first sitting. This debate had been going on this week and it was the first time any such debate had happened since 9/11, which is simply outrageous.
This interview by Faine was possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Son of Miriam Faine quoted as saying:
“The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian”
Bracken’s questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. A reasonable explanation of what happened, with attached audio, can be found here. The story titled “Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken Stands by his 9/11 Conspiracy” has been reported all around the world and included a poll asking if Kevin’s questions about 9/11 were “reasonable”, which started off running at around 50/50 but has continued to move in his favour. At the time of this writing the poll results are 75% in favour of Bracken.
Kevin has received literally thousands of thank yous from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after having been directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, who said he was “stupid and wrong”, and having seen his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees in the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin, with his chin in the air, has reiterated his position, defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual, all media “presstitutes” have refused, as there is obviously “no debate to have”. It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called “journalists” dare to tread such a path.
Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swampedby 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breaching their charter and broadcast policy.
The battle for 9/11 Truth is far from over and as long as the fools in power maintain their policy of occupation of Afghanistan they will remain exposed and at risk of criminal prosecution due to the lies of 9/11. Lets hope it comes soon or they realize and stop the bloodshed.
By James W. Carden | The Realist Review | June 14, 2026
Joe Biden’s presidency may ultimately come to be seen as a cautionary tale. Here was a president who showed little interest in entertaining arguments that might have contradicted his most deeply held assumptions.[1] And there were precious few within the upper ranks of the administration who might have attempted to do so, after all, only policy hands and political operatives who had come up through the ranks of the Clinton and Obama administrations or had longstanding ties to the citadels of the foreign policy community were invited into the fold. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 