Impaired by dementia, Biden is cognitively unfit and unable to fulfill duties of the office he holds.
His condition will likely worsen to Alzheimer’s Disease, entirely incapacitating him cognitively.
Psychology explained dementia as follows:
It’s “a progressive loss of cognitive function, marked by memory problems, trouble communicating, impaired judgment, and confused thinking.”
“Dementia most often occurs around age 65 and older but is a more severe form of decline than normal aging.”
“People who develop dementia may lose the ability to regulate their emotions, especially anger, and their personalities may change.”
Up to 80% of cognitively impaired individuals with dementia develop Alzheimer’s Disease, about five million Americans affected.
Biden has been declining cognitively for some time. The condition steadily worsens over time.
He can’t perform his duties. Yet establishment media conceal his deteriorated state.
Rare exceptions like the Boston Herald prove the rule.
In mid-February, it headlined “Biden’s babbles continue,” saying:
He “seldom makes much sense when he speaks.”
On Valentine’s Day, he made a “semi-coherent remark,” saying:
“Valentine’s Day is a big. Jill’s favorite day. For real.”
Biden’s White House is “little more than an assisted-living facility (for the nation’s) doddering First Senior Citizen.”
Some of his recent mumbling and bumbling was as follows — read from a teleprompter or notes:
“From 400 million ordered to 600 million this is enough vaccine to fully vaccinate 300 Americans by end of summer, the beginning of fall.”
“But we wanna make look that’s I wanna me-peat it’ll be enough to fully vaccinate 300 Americans.”
He called climate change a “sexessential threat to the planet.”
He identified war secretary Lloyd Austin as “senator Austin.”
He referred to sorties as “sortays.”
He said “Saudi Arabia has released a prominent human rights activist, Loujain al-Hathlou — loul — excuse me, l-o-u-l, uh, from prison.”
He vowed to “never, ever dishonest you.”
He said “(i)magine the incredible love it must have taken for the proud Tuskee-kee, Tus-kay-gee airmen.”
He claimed that he “work(s) with Congress to make far-reaching investments in research and development of transformendale and transformidible technologies.”
He said “(l)ike the previous (regime), we’ll start to properly manage unlike it we’ll start to properly manage lands and waterways.”
He mumbled and bumbled that “(o)ne uh congressman pointed out I I could uh I I ah uh I he used a very anyway colorful term to say wearing a mask I tell him to kiss my ear I’m not gonna wear a mask well guess what not very American.”
He said “(i)t’s hard, the hard-hit areas, like cancer alleys in Louisiana, cancer alleys in Louisiana.”
He doesn’t know or understand what’s in dozens of executive orders he signed.
He said “(u)h uh the second uh order I’m gonna be signing also changes what the president has done – pres, the president – what the former president uh has done and it’s uh a memorandum to reverse the my predecessor’s attacks on women’s health.”
After coughing, he added: “Excuse me, health access.”
He’s especially focused on when the next meal will arrive.
They’re all that nursing home and assisted living facility residents look forward to — except for visits when occurring by family and/or friends if still able to recognize them.
During last year’s campaign, Biden said “China is going to eat our lunch?”
“Come on man! They can’t even figure out how to deal with the the the fact the that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east I mean in the west.”
Separately, he said “(b)ut you know, we don’t get goin’, they’re gonna eat our lunch!”
In remarks about seasonal flu-renamed covid, he said:
“You’ve all hold. You can hold a second.”
“You all you’ve all heard about the strain the the the British strain, the Brazilian strain, the South African strain and they are they seem to be more transmittable more easily.”
Does any of the above sound like a coherent, effectively functioning head of state?
How long will the charade continue before Biden is replaced by president-in-waiting Harris?
Isn’t this what was planned all along, most of the public none the wiser.
A Final Comment
Because Biden is too cognitively impaired to speak more that a few lines at most in public, a look-alike double represents him when delivering public remarks of any length, including addresses.
According to breaking news reports, including by Reuters, [proclaimed] President Biden has ordered and the Pentagon has carried out military airstrikes on Syria, attacking a structure inside the country that the US government claims houses “Iranian-backed” militia.
US missiles struck tonight near the Syrian town of Al-Bukamal, on the Iraqi border. The strike is said to be in retaliation for recent rocket attacks against US facilities in Iraq. After another rocket attack earlier this month, the US State Department pointed the finger at Iran and threatened a US military response.
The Iraqi parliament voted in January, 2020, to expel US troops from the country after then-President Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The US government ignored the vote of the democratically-elected Iraqi parliament, however Trump later announced his decision to pull US troops out of Iraq.
President Biden wasted no time in reversing Trump’s disengagement strategy for the Middle East. After just over a month in office, President Biden is re-igniting the failed US intervention launched in 2014 against Syria under the Obama Administration.
Earlier this month it was reported that the US was building a new military base in Syria, near the Iraq and Turkey borders. New military bases carry with them new missions, so there is plenty of reason to believe that Biden plans to return the US to the “Assad must go” policy of his former boss.
Biden coming out of the gate with bombs blazing should be of little surprise to those who have watched his early foreign policy appointments. For example, he tapped noted neocon and aggressive interventionist Dana Stroul to head his Middle East Desk at the Pentagon and no doubt this airstrike at least indirectly reflects her influence and that of many others like her who have taken up positions in the Biden Administration.
Stroul hails from the AIPAC-founded “think tank,” the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), where, as former CIA official Phil Giradi writes, “she has been the Shelly and Michael Kassen Fellow in the Institute’s Beth and David Geduld Program on Arab Politics.” She is an extreme Iran hawk and has advocated and worked for regime change in Syria and US retention of large areas of Syrian territory.
So within a month of assuming office, President Biden looks to be on the cusp of launching a new Middle East war.
In his first major foreign policy speech, the newly elected US president made it clear that the era of US’ traditional interventionist and confrontationist policy is going to take over Donald Trump’s “America First”, a controversial policy that emphasized economic nationalism and a reduced US involvement in conflicts. In his last speech as president, Trump took a lot of pride in the fact that he is the first president in last many decades who completed his tenure without starting a new war. Biden’s approach, however, shows that US interventionism and the bid to re-establish US supremacy are going to be the new cornerstones of US global politics. Anti-China and anti-Russia elements within the US establishment see Trump’s “America First” as one primary reason that allowed US rivals to take advantage of US political retreat and project themselves in many crucial regions including the Middle East and Europe, which were under US exclusive influence until a few years ago. Therefore, the foremost goal of the Joe Biden administration is going to be reclaiming the lost US supremacy. As it stands, the new administration is already projecting this policy without mincing any words, calling it a ‘great reset.’
Biden’s speech was unambiguous when he addressed Russia, saying,
“I made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions — interfering with our elections, cyberattacks, poisoning its citizens — are over. We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interests and our people. And we will be more effective in dealing with Russia when we work in coalition and coordination with other like-minded partners.”
Outlining his confrontation with China, Biden said,
“And we’ll also take on directly the challenges posed by our prosperity, security, and democratic values by our most serious competitor, China. We’ll confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.”
Of course, these “warnings” are a part of Biden’s policy to re-build American supremacy. As he said,
“It’s going to take time to rebuild what has been so badly damaged. But that’s precisely what we’re going to do.”
The Joe Biden administration, as it stands, is being facilitated by the presence of hawks in the broader US-led defense establishment including NATO. A recent paper written by an anonymous author for the NATO-funded think-tank, The Atlantic Council, said that “The single most important challenge facing the United States and the democratic world in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian and aggressive China under Xi Jinping.” What the US needs to do is, the author argues, compel China’s “ruling elites to conclude that it is in China’s best interests to continue operating within the US-led liberal international order rather than building a rival order, and that it is in the Chinese Communist Party’s best interests to not attempt to expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores.”
This policy stands in complete contrast to what China’s Xi had only recently said in his World Economic Forum speech. To quote him, “To build small circles or start a new Cold War, to reject, threaten or intimidate others, to willfully impose decoupling, supply disruptions or sanctions, and to create isolation or estrangement will only push the world into division and even confrontation,” Xi stressed, adding that, “We cannot tackle common challenges in a divided world, and confrontation will lead us to a dead end.”
Russia’s Putin in his address to the same forum outlined an identical approach, signifying how a de-facto Russia-China alliance exists with a primary aim to counter US unilateralism and supremacy.
Putin clearly foresaw Biden’s approach when he said, “We can expect the nature of practical actions to also become more aggressive, including pressure on the countries that do not agree with a role of obedient controlled satellites, use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and cyber spheres. Such a game with no rules critically increases the risk of unilateral use of military force.”
Pre-empting Biden’s aggressive drive towards US unilateralism, Putin pointed out, “… the era linked with attempts to build a centralised and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilisation’s cultural and historical diversity.”
While the win-win and multipolar vision given by Russia-China shows their resolve to resist US unilateralism and build a more inclusive global political system, it also underscores the fact that the centre of global political and economic gravity has significantly shifted to Asia. An increasing number of countries are subscribing to the logic of win-win, rejecting the zero-sum competition that hawks in the US espouse, cherish and aim to impose on the whole world.
A “war of narratives”, with win-win and zero-sum competition as its two faces, has therefore begun with full force.
And, in this war, the US is not just resisting China and Russia; it is primarily resisting its own inevitable downfall both internally and externally. The events leading to the virtual occupation of the US Congress by Trump’s supporters signifies how the US democracy, internally divided and deeply polarized between the so-called liberals and white supremacists, is no longer a “role model” for the rest of the world. On the external front, China and Russia signify how a US led global economic system is not the only path to global salvation.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
This week, statewide mask mandates terminated in two states — Iowa and Montana.
While state governments were giving the OK for ditching masks, President Joe Biden was telling reporters Thursday at the National Institutes of Health that people should keep wearing masks until at least next year, claiming that doing so “can save lives, a significant number of lives.”
This declaration came in muffled words and heavy breathing through at least two masks while Biden, standing behind a podium, acknowledged he was more than ten feet from anyone.
Biden made this claim of masks’ life-saving ability despite the facts that regular mask wearing does have negative health consequences and that it has not been established that mask wearing provides any net protection against coronavirus infection.
And the plan is for these US government mask mandates to be enforced harshly. As James Bovard wrote in a recent article, for example, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) policy calls for monitoring both if people are wearing masks and if people are wearing the right kinds of masks in the right way, with fines of up to 1,500 dollars imposed on individuals who TSA determines have not adequately complied.
It looks like Americans are set to suffer tag team mask tyranny. As state governments remove authoritarian mask mandates, the US government is stepping in to ensure freedom remains suppressed.
When does a free state become a police state? Is it when government declares itself “essential” but religious worship “selfish”? Or when making a living becomes a crime? Or when free speech rights are afforded only to those who say “correct” things? Or maybe when tens of millions of Americans find themselves unexpectedly labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the military-media complex overnight?
Perhaps the telltale sign is this: simply asking why becomes subversive. Questions become bigger threats than foreign missiles. Words are regarded as weapons legally possessed only by those in power. For all else, they are rendered contraband.
If Congress were transparent, rather than vindictive, and if its members worried more about finding truth than burying it, then lawmakers in D.C. would have spent the last few months quelling doubts about the 2020 election instead of intensifying those doubts with a second, inflammatory impeachment. Alas, we’re ruled by unserious people who take their power very seriously.
Consider the following contraband questions Congress will never answer:
Why should the 2020 election be viewed as legitimate if the outcome depended entirely upon the unprecedented use of mass mail-in balloting implemented, in some cases, against state law?
Why is Congress not interested in knowing how many mail-in ballots were counted in battleground states that were either received after legal deadlines or in violation of signature-matching requirements or other safeguards for authenticating voter identity?
Why is Congress so incurious about the reality that Donald Trump won nearly every bellwether county from coast to coast by double-digits on his way to losing the election?
Why is Congress so incurious about how an incumbent president could expand his support by over ten million new voters and increase his share of the minority vote, yet still come up short against an opponent with historically low levels of enthusiasm among his own base?
Why is Congress so incurious about the conspiracy between corporate news and social media to censor negative stories about Joe Biden during the campaign while aggressively deplatforming conservative commentary and online social networks of Trump-supporters for years before the 2020 election?
Why is Congress so incurious about a “secret cabal of wealthy and politically connected elites” who conspired “to manipulate the rules and laws of an election in order to win”?
Why does Congress deem such reasonable questions so threatening?
Why do lawmakers insist on threatening American citizens for thinking critically just because Congress itself abandoned critical thinking long ago?
All of these questions are now too dangerous or too inconvenient for the U.S. government to abide. They are too dangerous or too inconvenient for Google, Facebook, and Twitter to tolerate on their “free speech” platforms. They are too dangerous or inconvenient for our domestic intelligence services to permit a private citizen to say out loud. So spurious criminal charges are leveled at ordinary citizens just as they have been leveled at the president of the United States.
When it becomes natural for politicians to flex the muscles of government with the intent of intimidating citizens, and when governing institutions become more concerned with their own survival than with the security and protection of those for whom they were created, then free speech is always the first liberty summarily executed by those in power.
Benjamin Franklin, though only sixteen years old at the time, said it best: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
Look how fast questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election became a state offense. In November, doing so was mocked as mere “conspiracy-mongering.” In December, it had become a “threat to democracy.” By January, it was “insurrectionist.” And by February, Congress is holding a Soviet show trial to punish the president; the FBI is busy arresting his supporters; the military is purging MAGA troops from its ranks; and prominent media personalities openly suggest drone strikes against American citizens.
This is not normal in a free country, and it is important to say so. Free people neither fear nor punish debate; open and continuous disagreement is, in fact, a hallmark of all free societies. Anybody who claims that political speech should be punished as criminal incitement is no friend to freedom. Anybody who pretends that words are violence is only looking to police thought.
And make no mistake: everything from the second public inquisition of President Trump to the Department of Justice’s decision to stigmatize freedom-minded Americans as terrorists for questioning the 2020 election is entirely about policing thought — not preventing or punishing statutory crimes.
When Representative Cheney impugns President Trump as being the subject of a “massive criminal investigation,” she throws “innocent until proven guilty” out the window. When Representative Raskin says President Trump’s refusal to testify at these Star Chamber proceedings should be cited as evidence of his own guilt, Raskin torches Americans’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the process. Surely, anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats who find it expedient to discard constitutional rights in order to settle scores and silence critics should never be trusted in positions of power, and surely, any congressperson who seeks to justify the criminalization of speech by appealing to national unity has no intention of governing other than as a tyrant.
What Congress is doing by labeling President Trump’s political speech as treasonous is a far greater threat to the country’s survival than anything China has in mind for our future. However else this spectacle of a witch trial against the president unfolds, the “greatest deliberative body in the world” proves that it is neither great nor deliberative.
If the former “leader of the free world” can be labeled a “premeditated murderer” and “domestic enemy” for asking questions out loud, ordinary people learn pretty quickly that question marks are too dangerous except when whispered far from prying ears.
So we have two worlds now — the real world that everyone knows is true but must pretend is false and the political world that everyone knows is false but must pretend is true. We have become a country of dissidents trapped within a prison of lies.
When “a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else his own.” Franklin said that, too. And when that is the case, a police state has taken over.
There is a wonderful corollary, however: when the greatest threat to a state’s survival becomes questioning its monopoly on truth, then ordinary people become extraordinarily powerful simply by asking questions.
The most dangerous thing to any police state is a person capable of thinking clearly.
The United States is returning to a level of activity in the Middle East unseen in nearly 4 years. This development has become obvious over the weeks since Joe Biden became US President, firstly with a large deployment into Syria, and subsequently with smaller ones.
On February 9th, the Pentagon said that it was no longer in Syria to protect and exploit oil fields.
It is now back to hunting ISIS. Back to the square one of 2014 and the Obama era. ISIS somehow obliged by ramping up their activities throughout Syria.
It is a mystery that they were able to make such a sharp and sudden resurgence. It should also be noted that the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces allegedly have about 10,000 ISIS terrorists imprisoned.
This statement of intent denotes a massive shift in posture for the US. When defending the oil fields the US troops were mostly static, when hunting ISIS they can, once again, roam around and carry out various operations.
It appears likely that Idlib is now also in focus – US combat drones were observed surveying Greater Idlib. Idlib is a mixed bag – it has Turkish troops, Russians, the Syrian Arab Army along with terrorists and the moderate opposition, although confusing these two groups can be forgiven. The newest, future, US ally is there – the soon-to-be-rebranded Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham.
An indication of expected escalations and attacks are the Russian and Syrian military drills being carried out near Aleppo during effective wartime. Russia, separately, carried out a naval drill near Tartus.
And, as if by design, long-range missiles attempted to strike Russia’s forces at the Hmeimim Air Base. Drones occasionally attempt to infiltrate its airspace, but missiles are a rare sight.
Meanwhile in Western Daraa, the rebel leaders submitted to Damascus, likely fearing the upcoming chaos and wanting to choose a side.
Finally, the Biden administration is also working to secure Israeli support. The State Department said it doesn’t endorse Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, but doesn’t oppose it. It also provided a $9bn weapon sale as consolation. Tel Aviv is likely to use these weapons to counter its nemesis – Iran. It does so by targeting alleged Iranian interests in Syria.
Syria remains the lynchpin of US Middle East policy but the US posture in Iraq and Afghanistan has also changed. Withdrawing from the region is now out of the question – ISIS is making a resurgence, and there are other groups targeting American forces and convoys.
In Afghanistan, specifically, if the withdrawal does not move forward, the Taliban are also likely to begin targeting the US again.
The democrats are back in control and back to spreading democracy in the Middle East.
The Biden administration just issued an edict that will spur endless pointless conflicts for Americans seeking to peacefully enjoy hundreds of national parks. On Groundhog Day, the National Park Service (NPS) mandated wearing face masks on all National Park Service lands “when physical distancing cannot be maintained, including “narrow or busy trails, overlooks and historic homes.”
Probably 95% of the Park Service’s 800+ million acres is uncrowded 95% of the time. But the new mandate is an entitlement program for anyone who wants to harass anyone on federal land who is not wearing a mask, regardless of social distancing, wide open spaces, or trails wide enough for 18-wheel trucks.
As the Idaho Statesman noted, “It’s unclear how park officials will enforce Biden’s federal mask mandate.” The Outdoor Society hailed the new regulation: “It is straight forward and very simple to follow, helping to keep everyone safe.” That organization insisted that the policy “is not going to be invasive” but told readers: “If you see violations of the mask requirement: Find the closest ranger or volunteer in the area and let them know.”
Captain Sara Newman, NPS director of Office of Public Health declared, “Getting outside and enjoying our public lands is essential to improving mental and physical health, but we all need to work together to recreate responsibly.” But the latest mask rule will empower legions of zealots to accost, harass, and possibly assault people for failing to obey the latest Pandemic Security Theater mandate.
Mask controversies have already spurred plenty of idiocy in National Parks and other parks:
*At Acadia National Park in Maine, a family complained that a stranger “who may be from Massachusetts intentionally coughed on them for not wearing masks while they were socially distancing during a quaint wedding.”
* In a state park in Massachusetts, at the Hudson Overlook on the Midstate Trail (Ashburnham?), a man spit at two female hikers who were not wearing masks. Police reported: “He explained to them that it was the ‘law’ and that they were selfish. He aggressively turned towards them and stated, ‘I have Covid’ and began spitting at the young females.”
I lead hikes most weekends, usually on the C & O Canal Towpath in Maryland. I tell attendees that masks are optional but kvetching about other hikers wearing or not wearing masks is prohibited. The Towpath – formerly used by mules dragging along barges – is at least 10 feet wide in most places.
Since the hikes are in the Washington area, there is no shortage of people outraged when anyone fails to comply with any government recommendation – even though the trail isn’t narrow. Many zealots follow a simple standard for maskless hikers: “If you see them, scream at them.”
Recently as our hiking group neared a wooden bridge, a 50ish guy coming from the other direction suddenly stopped and looked as horrified as a vampire who had spotted a crucifix.
He lifted his shirt up over his face to provide double protection along with his facial covering, and shouted, “YOU’RE NOT WEARING MASKS!”
“We’re outside. It’s sunny. The wind is blowing,” I replied. The dude was perhaps unaware that Covid transmission hinges on “viral load,” which wasn’t happening on that hike.
“You’re violating the rules!” he proclaimed.
We just kept walking past him.
He turned and shouted at me: “So what—is your beard supposed to be your mask!?!”
I kept going.
And then he hollered: “Your beard is ugly!”
Damn! Me and Rodney Dangerfield – no respect. This learned gentleman was apparently unfamiliar with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance warning that beards make tight masks ineffective. Bummed that the dude didn’t offer me a free razor.
Things got worse after Biden issued an executive order on January 20 that people had to wear masks any time they were on federal property. The edict had an unwritten exemption for Great Leaders – when Biden went to the Lincoln Memorial a few hours after signing the order, he posed by the statue of Abraham Lincoln; neither Lincoln nor Biden were wearing a mask. At a daily press briefing, Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki scoffed at a reporter’s concern over the apparent crime: “He was celebrating a historic day in our country…. We have bigger things to worry about.”
Regardless, Biden’s order is inflaming legions of junior Stasi across the land. Leading a hike ten days later (and shortly before the NPS mandate), we exited the Towpath and crossed under a bridge where two middle-aged women were standing on an embankment 25 feet away. One of them began shouting and waving her arms.
I looked at her but had no idea what she was saying.
She screamed louder and became even more distraught.
“I can’t understand you,” I hollered at her.
She waved her arms up and down.
I shrugged.
She pulled down her mask: “You’re not wearing masks!”
“We’re outside, it’s windy,” I replied.
“It’s the law! You have to wear a mask on federal property!” she proclaimed.
“It’s an executive order, it’s not a law,” I replied. “Biden didn’t obey it himself.”
When she repeated her denunciation, I refrained from pointing out that she was violating the order because she lowered her mask to berate us.
She tried to buttonhole two other hikers who were bringing up the rear.
“Group? What group? We’re not with a group,” a laggard hiker wisely responded.
Maybe the same woman will be ready with multiple surveillance cameras and a couple of drones to capture video from different angles in case she sees our group again.
Maybe it’s too bad policies for hiking trails on federal land aren’t being set by Rachel Levine, Biden’s designee to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and the first openly transgender federal official to be nominated. Levine made waves when the Pennsylvania Department of Health she headed offered “best practices” advice to people who “attend a large gathering where youmight end up having sex.” Unfortunately, the new NPS rules for hikers are much more restrictive than what Levine recommended for Pennsylvania orgies.
The new mask mandate is sanctified with the usual invocations. NPS Deputy Director Shawn Benge declared, “Working with public health officials and following the latest science and guidance, we can make national parks safer for employees, visitors and partners.” But NPS has no data on how many hikers have contracted Covid from passing within shouting distance of other people. If Covid was so contagious that momentary exposure from passing individuals could spread the virus, then almost all the nation’s grocery store clerks would have been struck down early in the pandemic.
But the only “evidence” necessary for this mandate is that many Biden supporters are frightened when they see anyone outside not wearing a mask. The new regulation encourages viewing people not wearing masks as physical assailants who pose an immediate deadly peril to anyone within eyesight. One Twitter user responded to my article on hysterical Covid complaints by warning: “If you approach me without a mask, I’m free to do whatever I need to do in self defense.” That dude had nothing to fear since I go out of my way to avoid frenzied people.
Where does the mask mania mindset lead? Last month, in Glendale, California, a 38-year-old shirtless jogger was arrested for “spitting on random people outdoors, primarily for not wearing a face mask…. Victims of his assaults ranged in age from 13 to 78 years old. In some incidents, the suspect taunted and used racial slurs towards the victims during the assault,” a police statement said. He was charged with “battery, elder abuse and committing a hate crime.”
If Biden has a right to compel everyone to wear a mask in the National Park Service, he would also have the right to dictate that people wear two masks – a policy endorsed by Covid Czar Anthony Fauci on Tuesdays and Thursdays but not on other days of the week. And if Biden has the right to mandate multiple masks, then would he also have the right to dictate that no one can enter a national park unless they prove they have received a Covid vaccine?
A more likely policy is that national parks could simply be shut down as part of a future lockdown strategy. Parking lots at the C & O Towpath were blocked early in the pandemic and there is no reason to presume that could not happen again. What if the Biden administration chooses to “go big” with a nationwide dictate modeled after the Los Angeles edict that banned almost all walking and bicycling in the city, ordering four million people to “to remain in their homes?” That utterly failed to stop the increase in local Covid cases but the media still cheers dramatic gestures, sort of like how the Italian press treated Mussolini.
Americans hiking in national parks and elsewhere should strive to be courteous and stay as far away as possible from people tormented by Covid dread. There are unseen perils when federal policy seeks to placate mass fears rather than protect public safety. Plenty of Americans need to heed the warning a British publication gave to its readers: “Is constantly monitoring COVID rulebreakers wrecking your mental health?”
CRISPR gene-editing expert Eric Lander, Biden’s director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is awaiting Senate confirmation to serve in a new Cabinet-level position in the Biden administration. Jeffrey Epstein, the eugenicist pedophile and sex trafficker, bragged about funding Lander’s research and was photographed taking part in at least one meeting with him.
Shortly before he took office, [proclaimed] President Joe Biden announced that he would be elevating the director Office of Science and Technology Policy to a cabinet-level position, meaning that his nominee to lead that office, geneticist Eric Lander, would require confirmation by the US Senate. Lander is currently serving as director of that office, but has yet to serve in cabinet-level capacity as he awaits confirmation.
Mainstream media reports described Biden’s move to place Lander in his cabinet as “meant to highlight his commitment to science,” which has been used to contrast his approach with that of Trump, who was accused of second-guessing “authoritative” voices from academia and the medical establishment. Lander is deemed to be one such “authoritative” voice, having previously served as external co-chair on former President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
However, Biden placing Lander in this role begs the question of exactly what type of science he will promote in his new position, as eugenicist and intelligence-linked pedophile Jeffrey Epstein bragged on his website about having “had the priviledge [sic] of sponsoring” Lander’s research via the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. Lander’s spokesperson told the New York Times in 2019 that “Mr. Epstein appears to have made up lots of things and this seems to be among them,” regarding whether or not Lander had indeed received funding from Epstein.
In addition to the issue of funding from Epstein, Lander, who is also a biology professor at MIT, is known to have met with Epstein at least once, as he was pictured taking part in a 2012 meeting with Epstein at the office of Harvard’s Martin Nowak, a mathematical biologist who received millions in funding from Epstein. After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, Lander claimed that he had been invited to the meeting by Nowak and had been unaware of who was set to attend the event. He additionally stated that he “later learned about [Epstein’s] more sordid history” and denied having had a relationship with Epstein.
Yet, there remains the issue that Epstein himself included Lander in a list of scientists he sponsored, with the other scientists on that list having indeed been supported by Epstein in some fashion. If we are to believe Lander, it remains unclear why Epstein, before he became so infamous, would falsely claim to fund Lander and why Lander would wait to deny any association until only after Epstein’s arrest. Given that the other scientists listed alongside Lander on Epstein’s website did receive funding from his foundation, it seems unlikely that Epstein would deceptively throw in Lander’s name among a list of several other scientists he was funding at a time, particularly when he was not yet publicly controversial and did not present such a grave risk to his associates’ reputations.
However, Lander’s denials seem to have been more than sufficient for some mainstream media outlets following his nomination to serve in the Biden administration, with some outlets now claiming that Lander was not reported to have received funding from Epstein, despite Epstein’s own claims to the contrary. For instance, BuzzFeed wrote on January 19, 2021 that Lander “has not been reported to have received any money from Epstein”.
The Broad Institute, Silicon Valley and Intelligence
Despite Lander’s denials of a personal relationship, Epstein also had very close ties to Lander’s employer, MIT. Epstein donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the institution and Epstein was also used as a channel for making donations to MIT by billionaire Bill Gates. Gates has yet to explain why he would funnel his donations through Epstein as opposed to publicly donating via his well-known “philanthropic” foundation. Epstein’s funding of the MIT Media Lab in particular led to the resignation of its former director Joi Ito in September 2019 following Epstein’s arrest and subsequent “suicide.”
In addition, Epstein was particularly close to one of the biggest names at MIT, the late artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky. Minsky once organized a two-day symposium on artificial intelligence at Epstein’s private island in 2002 and Epstein victims have alleged that they were forced by Epstein to engage in sex acts with Minsky. Both Minsky and Eric Lander were corporate fellows of the Thinking Machines corporation, a DARPA contractor that made supercomputers in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That company’s various components were acquired by a web of intelligence-linked companies like CIA-linked Oracle and IBM while many of its former engineers left for Sun Microsystems, where future Google CEO Eric Schmidt was then serving as Chief Technology Officer.
Lander, more recently, has again become closely associated with tech companies deeply tied to the US national security state as the founding director of the Broad Institute, an independent genomic research institution partnered with both MIT and Harvard. Incidentally, MIT and Harvard are the two academic institutions most closely linked to Epstein’s “philanthropy,” particularly in the field in which the Broad Institute specializes.
The Broad Institute depends heavily on “private philanthropy” according to its website and its board of directors includes Apple chairman, Arthur Levinson; chairman of the McKinsey Global Institute, James Manyika; current chairman and former CEO of IBM, Louis Gerstner Jr; and former Google CEO and current chair of the National Security Commission on AI, Eric Schmidt. Also on the board is Seth Klarman, owner of the Times of Israel and a major donor to the DNC in the last election cycle. Klarman’s family foundation has donated heavily to the Broad Institute. In addition, Klarman announced his rejection of former President Trump in a coordinated PR push alongside Leslie Wexner, Epstein’s main backer who was integral to his intelligence activities and sex trafficking operation, in 2018. More recently, he was outed as the main financing source for the dysfunctional Iowa Caucus app in the most recent DNC primaries.
Right before Lander joined the Biden administration, the Broad Institute announced a new partnership with tech giants Microsoft and Google subsidiary Verily, further reflecting the Broad Institute’s ties to Silicon Valley. As part of that partnership, Microsoft and Google will share the companies’ cloud data and AI technologies with a “global network of more than 168,000 health and life sciences partners” to accelerate the Terra platform. Terra, originally developed by the Broad Institute and Google’s Verily, is an “open data ecosystem” focused on biomedical research, specifically the fields of cancer genomics, population genetics, and viral genomics. The biomedical dataTerra amasses includes not only genetic data but also medical-imaging, biometric signals, and electronic health records.
In the case of Google, the data accessed via this partnership will likely inform their obvious AI healthcare ambitions, some of which are being pursued in partnership with the US military. Google recently announced a partnership with the Pentagon to “predictively diagnose” cancer and COVID-19 using AI. Google’s ties to the US military have become overt in recent years and the company is well represented on the National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI), which is chaired by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. In the case of Microsoft, the company was recently awarded the massive JEDI cloud contract by the Pentagon, though litigation may soon change that. Microsoft also recently launched a new “secret” cloud service for US intelligence and classified government data systems and, like Google, are also well represented on the NSCAI.
In addition, Microsoft as well as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have ties to Israeli intelligence, particularly Israel’s Unit 8200. Microsoft’s ties to Start-Up Nation Central, Unit 8200 fronts, and Isabel Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell’s sister) have been discussed at length in previous articles. Eric Schmidt, among other connections, helped finance and launch Team8, the start-up accelerator for Unit 8200 alumni set up by the unit’s former commander Nadiv Zafrir. Team8 controversially hired Mike Rogers, former director of the US intelligence agency the NSA, and is also associated with the private company IronNet Security of another former NSA director, Keith Alexander.
These US-Israel intelligence ties are notable given the Epstein connections explored earlier in this article, as many of Epstein’s activities – from sex trafficking and sexual blackmail to money laundering – were done on behalf of both US and Israeli intelligence agencies, specifically factions within both intelligence communities that share ties to the same organized crime syndicate.
Those same factions are as intimately involved in the activities of Silicon Valley, making it no coincidence that, following his first arrest in 2007, Epstein attempted to rebrand as a hi-tech investor and patron of “transhumanist”-related sciences, showing that the interest of his benefactors had moved from sexual blackmail and human trafficking to the electronic forms of blackmail and the trafficking of data.
Just months before his 2019 arrest, Epstein would brag about having blackmail on prominent Silicon Valley figures and is known to have entertained LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Epstein’s close associate Ghislaine Maxwell had similarly directed her attention at Silicon Valley following Epstein’s first arrest and her sisters, Isabel and Christine, have been intimately involved in Silicon Valley and hi-tech contractors for US intelligence for decades.
Praising Eugenicists for “pushing the frontiers of science”
Aside from the intelligence connections via Silicon Valley and Jeffrey Epstein, Lander has also courted controversy for a controversial toast he led in honor of eugenicist James Watson in 2018. On Watson’s 90th birthday, Lander praised Watson for “inspiring all of us to push the frontiers of science to benefit humankind.” Watson, though best remembered as the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix structure, was also a notorious eugenicist who stated his belief that people of African descent have genetically inferior intelligence on numerous occasions. Watson first began to retreat from public life in 2007, when he told the BBC that Western government projects in Africa were likely to fail because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really”.
After offering the toast, Lander was later forced to apologize for his public praise of James Watson. Yet, since his nomination to serve in the “diversity-focused” Biden administration, some former critics of Lander’s praise of Watson have now warmed up to the MIT geneticist, citing the fact that his deputy, Alondra Nelson, is an African American woman.
Lander’s relationship with James Watson goes back to Lander’s extensive work as part of the Human Genome Project, a project in which Watson was also intimately involved. Though the Human Genome Project is normally credited to three scientists that “independently” all had the same idea in 1990, the original call for the Human Genome Project was first published in 1986 by geneticist Walter Bodmer. Bodmer joined the Eugenics Society, today called the Galton Institute, as a young man back in the 1960s and soon after went to work with Stanford biologist/geneticist Joshua Lederberg. Lederberg was a key scientific advisor to US presidents and the US military during the course of his decades-long career. Bodmer then served as the Eugenics Society/Galton Institute president from 2008 to 2014. One of the organization’s current officers, David J. Galton, wrote that the Human Genome Project that Bodmer originally proposed had “enormously increased . . . the scope for eugenics . . . because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.”
Once the Human Genome Project was underway, James Watson was placed in charge of the US government-funded effort backing the project, via National Center for Human Genome Research. Watson would use that position to fund seven genome centers involved in large-scale gene mapping projects, including at MIT. Much of the sequencing for the Human Genome Project was done by the MIT-affiliated Whitehead Institute, where Lander worked on the gene sequencing project and other projects up until the Broad Institute was spun off from the Whitehead Institute’s Center for Genome Research and formally launched in 2004.
The Whitehead Institute was co-founded by David Baltimore, who served as its founding director and went on to be President of Rockefeller University. Baltimore is currently on Lander’s Broad Institute. As an aside, Joshua Lederberg was another past President of Rockefeller University and Jeffrey Epstein had previously served on the university’s board after being personally appointed by David Rockefeller. The Rockefeller family’s ties to eugenics are discussed at length in this documentary and Epstein’s obsession with eugenics has been detailed in several reports since his 2019 arrest and “suicide”.
Given the associations with eugenicists like Jeffrey Epstein and James Watson, it is essential to spread awareness of these ties as Lander awaits Senate confirmation, as the Senate could be pressured by the public to raise these issues at Lander’s upcoming confirmation hearing. Yet, the fact that Lander was even nominated for this position at all, particularly following the Epstein scandal, is stunning as he should have been investigated and, at minimum, blacklisted from serving in public office. Lander’s nomination to such a prominent post is unsettling confirmation of the continued influence and power of the network that not only created Jeffrey Epstein, but financed and protected his nefarious activities, for decades.
Some call it the New World Order, others call it ‘the liberal international order’ or Globalism. Whatever they call it, the idea is real and it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a plan that has been pushed by the establishment to rule the world for quite some time. Several politicians including former US President George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger to banking moguls such as David Rockefeller to the mainstream-media all have said at one time or another that the New World Order is inevitable. Last November, The New York Times published an opinion piece ‘The New World Order That President Biden Will Inherit’ concluded that the idea of a new world order will return to the White House with Biden at the helm, “President-elect Biden has signaled that he intends to lead America back into the international arena, and whatever their qualms or doubts, America’s friends and allies should not wait to join forces in tackling the business of the day — a global pandemic and the future of the planet, to name just two items on the agenda.”
In 2017, as vice-president under then-President Obama, Biden gave his last speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on the accomplishments of the New World Order led by the US and its European allies, “For the past seven decades, the choices we have made—particularly the United States and our Allies in Europe—have steered our world down a clear path” he said. Biden claimed that the world actually “enjoyed” what he termed the “liberal international order”, “Our careful attention to building and sustaining a liberal international order—with the United States and Europe at its core—was the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th Century.” He said that it was the US together with Europe who has pushed the world into a “just direction”, “After World War II, we drew a line under centuries of conflict and took steps to bend the arc of history in a more just direction.” However, since 1945, the US has bombed numerous countries including Korea (1950-53),Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (1955-75), Yugoslavia–Serbia (1999), Iraq (1997-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), Libya (2011) and Syria (2014-present) and many other nations since the end of World War II including US-backed coups, imposing harsh economic sanctions and assassinating political leaders. Yet, Biden said the world is much safer than ever before with the US and its European allies in charge of the order, “If you look at the long sweep of history, or even just the trend lines in wars and other incidents of large-scale violence over the past 50, 60, 70 years—as a practical matter, we are probably safer than ever, But it doesn’t feel that way” he says. Yes, it does not feel that way because the US and its allies have created chaos and destruction with their regime change policies and interventions around the world since the end of WWII. “Daily images of violence and unrest from all over the world are shared directly on our televisions and smart phones—images we rarely would have seen in a pre-digital age.” Here is where his hypocrisy shines “It’s fostered a feeling of perpetual chaos—of being overrun by outside forces.” The “outside forces” he claimed that were responsible for creating “perpetual chaos” were mostly conducted by his own CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex.
In 1992, The Wall Street Journal tapped then Senator Joseph Biden to write an article ‘How I Learned to Love the New World Order’ where he said that “Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism.” Biden was referring to Patrick Buchanan, a long-time anti-globalist who worked as a senior advisor to three presidents and was a two-time presidential nominee for the Republican Party and a presidential nominee for the reform party in 2000. He is a journalist and has authored numerous books including ‘A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America’s Destiny‘ An interesting article from 2013 on Buchanan’s website http://www.buchanan.org ‘ titled ‘Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring’ quotes what Buchanan thought about globalism or the New World Order, “Neo-isolationism is the direct product of foolish globalism. … Compared to people who thought they could run the universe, or at least the globe, I am neo-isolationist and proud of it.” Buchanan is clearly adamant about ending the US empire:
The roots of the new isolationism are not difficult to discern. There is, first, the end of the Cold War, the liberation of the captive nations of Europe, the dissolution of our great adversary, the Soviet Empire, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Cold War, our war, was over. Time to come home. The Bushes and Bill Clinton said no. So we let the New World Order crowd have its run in the yard. We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.
Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya. Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:
A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria
Biden basically mocked Buchanan’s ideas of being an isolationist at the time. Many people in Washington, D.C. did not agree with Buchanan’s assessment of ending the US empire around the world. Biden is the complete opposite, he wrote “Believing that the Pentagon’s new strategy-America as globo-cop-could render the United States a hollow superpower.” He continued “all agree we need the military to defend our vital interests-by ourselves when need be, The question is grand strategy. With the journal’s endorsement, the pentagon has called for a Pax-Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.” As Biden continued his argument for a US-led world order, he rejected Buchanan’s “America First” isolationist policy:
Pat Buchanan’s “America First” preaches martyrdom: We’ve been suckered into fighting “other” people’s battles and defending “other” people’s interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.
But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions
Biden said that being a “globocop” comes with the ability to use its economic influence as a diplomatic tool and by using NATO’s containment policy as a strategy. Biden asked the question, “What about America as globocop?” he continued ” First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.” Biden also called for an aggressive foreign policy against those who are considered rogue states or simply put, those who don’t follow the rules:
Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let’s prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.
The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail’s pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise
Biden’s conclusion on how the U.S. and its allies can succeed in establishing a world order through a revised United Nations charter:
Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.
Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.
If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security
During the George W. Bush administration, then Senator Joe Biden was the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that granted President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The war in Iraq has killed more than a million Iraqis with millions more injured including those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the horrors of war. There are over 4,800 US military deaths and 10s of thousands more seriously injured. Many US soldiers also suffer from PTSD who eventually end up committing suicide. Biden also supported the wars against Serbia in 1999 followed by his support for the wars in Libya and then Syria.
In his Wall Street Journal piece, President Biden said that the liberal international order establishment faces many obstacles including security threats such as the proliferation of high-tech weaponry, the environment, overpopulation, immigration issues on south of the US border and drug trafficking, all “require global solutions.” One of his main issues he spoke about was overpopulation. CNN recently reported with enthusiasm ‘Biden signs memorandum reversing Trump abortion access restrictions’ said that “President Joe Biden signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday to reverse restrictions on abortion access domestically and abroad imposed and expanded by the Trump administration.”
According to the report:
“The memorandum will “reverse my predecessor’s attack on women’s health access” and that it “relates to protecting women’s health at home and abroad, and it reinstates the changes that were made to Title X and other things making it harder for women to have access to affordable health care as it relates to their reproductive rights.” The memorandum reverses the Mexico City Policy which is “a ban on US government funding for foreign nonprofits that perform or promote abortions.”
Obviously, abortions reduce population growth and that’s a goal of the establishment because with less people on the planet, it is much easier to control the remaining population. A dream come true for the establishment.
Who knows how long Biden has in office since his mental capabilities are in decline, but it is certain that he will introduce many aspects of his liberal international order while he’s still in office. Rest assured, Biden, Kamala Harris or whoever takes his position will continue to implement policies that will complement the establishment who seeks to rule the world by coercion or even by force, if needed.
References:
*Joe Biden Calls For A New World Order At The 2014 U S Air Force Academy Graduation May 29, 2014
An Iraqi lawmaker has stressed the need for the implementation of a resolution adopted by Iraq’s parliament concerning the expulsion of US-led foreign forces from the Arab country, saying that the Iraqi nation will resort to resistance in case the Pentagon refuses to abide by the decision.
“The decision to remove foreign troops from Iraq is an Iraqi matter. If the Iraqi government’s political solutions for the withdrawal of foreign forces do not succeed, we will then resort to resistance to attain the objective,” Mohammed al-Baldawi, a member of the Iraqi Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee, told the Arabic-language Baghdad Today news agency on Thursday.
He made the remarks as the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that authorities in Washington are counting on reconsidering the decision of former US president Donald Trump’s administration to reduce the number of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The newspaper quoted Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby as saying that the official decision to review the number of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has not yet been taken.
He asserted, however, that the current US [proclaimed] President Joe Biden’s administration “is counting on a better understanding of the current situation with regard to operations in both countries.”
Baldawi added, “The decision to expel foreign troops from Iraq has been finalized and it is irreversible. Foreign troops have no option but to withdraw. We are working with the government to implement the [parliamentary] resolution.”
“The presence of US-led foreign troops in Iraq poses a dangerous threat to the security and stability of the country as well as the region, because the United States wants to plunge Iraq into turmoil. This is completely rejected,” the Iraqi legislator concluded.
Anti-US sentiment has been running high in Iraq since the assassination of top Iranian anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and his Iraqi trenchmate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Units, along with their companions in a US terror drone strike authorized by Trump near Baghdad International Airport on January 3 last year.
Iraqi lawmakers approved a bill two days later, demanding the expulsion of all foreign military forces led by the United States from the Arab country.
What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the recently “elected” administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.
1. VACCINATION PASSPORTS
I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity passes or the like) was just a “conspiracy theory”, the paranoid fantasy of fringe “covidiots”. All the way back in December, when they were getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can’t do basic maths.
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic versions of ICVPs.
2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS
Biden’s cabinet is praised as the “most diverse” in history, but will hiring a few non-white people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn’t look like it.
His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland, a neocon warmonger and one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan, another neocon warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is also an inveterate US Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria.
Biden’s pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of “progressive” voice in his cabinet. He’s a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the board of Raytheon Technologies, an arms manufacturer and military contractor.
As “diverse” as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender… there is most certainly no “diversity” of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.
So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that’s already been displayed in…
3. IRAQ…
Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump’s more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse that decision.
The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to take its military off their soil, so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them before.
4. … AFGHANISTAN…
Turns out the US can’t withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.
Joe Biden has already committed to “reviewing” this deal. Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden’s admin wanted:
“to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place”.
As a great man once said, nothing someone says before the word “but” really counts. The US will not be withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist attacks.
5. … AND SYRIA
Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden’s “diverse” team will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.
Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United States, unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.
We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the President, telling Trump they had followed his orders… but not withdrawing a single man. This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a joke in the media when it was finally revealed.
There will be no need for any such duplicity now that Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a vocal critic of the decision to withdraw, claiming it gave ISIS a “new lease of life”. Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was seen entering Syria from Iraq.
6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM
We called this before the inauguration. They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned from Nancy Pelosi’s desk it was clear where it was all going.
Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.
That last part is key. The “crack down on social media” part, because the anti-Domestic Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called “misinformation”.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to “rein in” the media:
We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,”
And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:
.@JohnBrennan: Biden intel community “are moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about” the pro-Trump “insurgency” that harbors “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians” pic.twitter.com/SjVXWhPhR8
They’re casting a wide net. Expect “extremist”, “bigot” and “racist” to be just a few of the words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. “Conspiracy theorist” will be used a lot, too.
Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the “anyone who disagrees with us is literally insane” model. With many articles actually talking about “de-programming” Trump voters. The Atlantic suggests “mental hygiene” would cure the MAGA problem.
Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that “de-radicalise” “conspiracy theorists” who are on the “spectrum of radicalisation”.
*
As I said at the beginning, it’s been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent and strict clampdowns on “misinformation”.
An Iraqi legislator has warned against the Unites States’ attempts to disrupt peace and security in the Middle East through supporting terrorism, saying Washington is even ready to set entire Iraq on fire so it can keep its military forces in the Arab country.
Karim Alaiwi, a legislator from the Fatah (Conquest) alliance and a member of the Security and Defense Committee in the Iraqi legislature, told Arabic-language Baghdad Today warned against the policies of new US President Joe Biden towards Iraq, reminding the government that Daesh terrorists started their activities during the reign of Democrats.
“The Daesh terror group became active during the former and current presidencies of the [US] Democratic Party. Washington’s policy is to disrupt security and stability in the Middle East, especially in Iraq,” Alaiwi said.
He added, “The United States has supported and financially sponsored most of terrorist operations in Iraq, and has protected leaders of the Daesh terrorist group in many parts of the country.”
The Iraqi lawmaker highlighted that there are areas in Iraq where Daesh is still active, saying Washington is preventing military flights over those regions.
Washington, he said, is ready to “burn” all of Iraq so it will have a pretext to prolong its military presence in the Arab country.
Daesh has claimed responsibility for a rare twin bombing attack that tore through a busy area of central Baghdad on January 21, killing at least 32 people and wounding 110 others.
Yahya Rasool, the spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, said one of the two bombers lured a crowd of people towards him in a market in the central Tayaran Square by feigning illness, only to detonate his explosives.
The second bomber struck as people helped victims of the first attack, Rasool added.
Iraq declared victory over Daesh in December 2017 after a three-year counter-terrorism military campaign.
The terror outfit’s remnants, though, keep staging sporadic attacks across Iraq, attempting to regroup and unleash a new era of violence.
Daesh has intensified its terrorist attacks in Iraq since January 2020, when the United States assassinated top Iranian anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), along with their companions in a drone strike authorized by former US president Donald Trump near Baghdad International Airport.
Following the assassinations, the Iraqi parliament approved a bill demanding the withdrawal of all foreign military forces led by the United States from the country.
The US began the drawdown under the administration of ex-president Donald Trump, but it has said a number of troops will remain in the Arab country.
By GARETH PORTER | CounterPunch | February 27, 2013
“Going to Tehran” arguably represents the most important work on the subject of U.S.-Iran relations to be published thus far.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett tackle not only U.S. policy toward Iran but the broader context of Middle East policy with a systematic analytical perspective informed by personal experience, as well as very extensive documentation.
More importantly, however, their exposé required a degree of courage that may be unparalleled in the writing of former U.S. national security officials about issues on which they worked. They have chosen not just to criticise U.S. policy toward Iran but to analyse that policy as a problem of U.S. hegemony. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.