Trump Issues Executive Order Aimed At Deporting Anti-Israel Protesters
By blueapples | ZeroHedge | January 31, 2025
Last spring, a wave of protests across college campuses nationwide against Israel’s war in Gaza became the focal point of the growing cultural schism further dividing American society. The dichotomy between supporters and opponents of those protests immediately parlayed into the 2024 election cycle, with rightwing politicians seizing upon the opportunity to use the chaos in order to chip away at the crumbling foundation that the Biden administration’s re-election hopes rested upon. Smelling blood in the water, Biden’s opponents used the protests as evidence of the incumbent’s anti-American ideals manifesting on the nation’s soil and vowed to take swift action against the participants.
As is often the case, the right inextricably tied the interests of the US to those of Israel by categorizing the protesters critical of the genocidal war effort led by the Netanyahu regime as terrorists who were able to find safe haven in the US due to policies of the Biden administration like DEI and open borders that were rooted in Cultural Marxism. Proposed legislation aimed at purging students on visas involved in the protests due to their political leanings gained momentum but ultimately did not achieve any impact. However, an Executive Order signed by the Trump Administration realizes the goal of that reactionary response to those protests and carries the same concerns about its constitutionality and the chaos that enveloped the country across college campuses last spring being used as a catalyst to infringe upon the right to free speech.
On Wednesday, Trump signed an Executive Order titled Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism into effect that fulfilled the promise he made to “get rid of the Jew haters” in the US during his presidential campaign last year. The Executive Order reaffirms another one that Trump signed during his first term that served this same interest. That previous order is Executive Order 13899, which Trump executed in 2019. The 2025 iteration of Executive Order 13899 dictates that the heads of each executive department offer reports on pending civil and criminal action taken under their respective jurisdictions in relation to the “wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses.” The Executive Order ultimately aims to provide the framework necessary to deport non-citizen college students who took place in last year’s protests against Israel from the United States.
The fact sheet accompanying the Executive Order minced no words, concluding by saying “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” That language echoed the promises Trump made on the campaign trail set by the rising tide represented by the protests that he compared to the cultural landscape that preceded the Holocaust. When making that comparison between the college protests to demonstrations across the Third Reich, Trump stated “If you look, it’s the same thing.”
Since Trump has taken office, his blitzrkrieg of Executive Orders have defeated many doubts about his ability to live up to the promises he made in the hopes of being re-elected. Criticisms of those who point out how he never took action to lock up Hillary Clinton during his first term as a portent of a similarly disappointing second tenure in the White House have largely been assuaged as Trump has already made good on his commitments to do things like offer pardons to the multitudes of January 6th protesters and to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the Silk Road who was serving a life sentence behind bars. Those Executive Orders honored the commitments Trump made to his base of supporters as well as the Libertarian voters whose support he hoped to garner to aid his re-election hopes.
With those promises fulfilled, Trump’s swift executive actions now appear to have turned to serve the interests of his largest political donor, Miriam Adelson, whose $100 million donation to Trump’s re-election campaign ensured that any return to the Oval Office would serve the interests of Israel.
While Trump’s triumphant return to the White House has largely been celebrated, one unwavering criticism he continues to face is the paradox that exists between the overarching interests of Israel being held as paramount by a supposed “America First” political platform. Appeasing Israel’s interests has continued to be the exception to every rule as each of Trump’s cabinet nominations that expressed their unconditional support for the Jewish state, echoing the president’s own long-held position. Trump’s latest Executive Order highlights the continued prevalence of that contradictory dynamic within the “America First” movement of putting Israel’s interests above that of America’s.
Supporters of Trump’s effort to deport anti-Israel protesters on student visas have attempted to dispel concerns over the infringement of the First Amendment it poses by highlighting how those being targeted by it are not US citizens. That criticism isn’t just myopic, it illustrates an absence of civic engagement that would belong to any dutiful American who believes in the supreme importance of upholding the constitution. That hollow argument is entirely ignorant of even a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law that has extended civil rights protections to non-citizens for nearly a sesquicentennial.
In 1886, The United States Supreme Court set that precedent when it issued its decision in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. The case was brought to the SCOTUS by Lee Yick, a Chinese immigrant who moved to San Francisco in 1861 and ran a laundromat named Yick Wo for over 22 years. When Yick sought to renew the license they needed to operate the laundromat, they were denied on the basis of safety concerns. Before Yick sought to renew their license, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance making it illegal to operate a laundromat in a wooden building without a permit from the Board, a permit that the business owner was not granted. Despite not being granted the permit, Yick continued to operate the laundromat and was eventually imprisoned for not paying the fine they received for violating the ordinance.
After being imprisoned, Yick petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Yick’s legal counsel argued that of the 320 laundromats that applied for the permit to operate in a wooden building, only 1 of the 200 Chinese applicants was approved. Comparatively, all 120 of the non-Chinese applicants had their permit applications approved. Yick’s counsel argued that this constituted de facto discrimination against the Chinese, an argument that the SCOTUS upheld. When examining the issue of Yick not being a citizen, the court held that the plain meaning of the text of the 14th Amendment extends the right to protection under the law to “all persons” who have action taken against them in the United States, regardless of citizenship.
The longstanding precedent set by the SCOTUS through Yick Wo v. Hopkins serves as the bedrock for criticism of Trump’s Executive Order aimed at deporting non-citizens on student visas for participating in protests against Israel. “The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States, including foreign citizens studying at American universities,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which became the epicenter of anti-Israel protests last spring. DeCell concluded that “Deporting non-citizens on the basis of their political speech would be unconstitutional.”
The culture war that continues to be waged across the US creates a landscape in which its opponents have lost sight of the forest through the trees. Championing unconstitutional efforts to defeat opposition runs the risk of winning the battle only to lose the war, as the implications of empowering the state to infringe upon free speech would ultimately befall upon the fate of its citizens. This concern was prominent in the wake of the spring 2024 anti-Israel college protests when the Antisemitism Awareness Act was proposed. That proposed legislation highlighted how opportunistic Congress was in exploiting the chaos of those protests to make sweeping attacks against the right to free speech under the guise of combating antisemitism. President Trump’s latest Executive Order highlights how that threat to free speech has emerged yet again, illustrating the dire need for the continued resolve necessary to uphold the most sacrosanct of American virtues.
This One Question at RFK Jr.’s Confirmation Hearing Is Everything Wrong with Our Congress
Truthstream Media | January 30, 2025
Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net
Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame
Site: TruthstreamMedia.com
X: @TruthstreamNews
Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX
Trump’s call for Palestinians’ relocation will threaten regional peace, Arab nations warn
Press TV – February 1, 2025
Major Arab nations have expressed their opposition to US President Donald Trump’s proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza and the occupied West Bank to neighboring Egypt and Jordan under any circumstances.
In a joint statement following a meeting in Cairo, the foreign ministers and officials from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League presented a unified stance against the US president.
They warned that such a move would threaten regional stability, risk spreading the conflict, and undermine prospects for peace and coexistence among its peoples.
“We affirm our rejection of [any attempts] to compromise Palestinians’ unalienable rights, whether through settlement activities, or evictions or annex of land or through vacating the land from its owners… in any form or under any circumstances or justifications,” the statement read.
The top diplomats emphasized that they were looking forward to working with Trump’s administration to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region, it noted.
Trump said last week that he had spoken with the king of Jordan about potentially building housing and moving more than 1 million Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries.
The US president added that he would like both Jordan and Egypt — which borders the battered enclave — to house the Palestinians displaced by 15 months of the Israeli regime’s genocidal war.
However, critics said that Trump’s suggestion would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Wednesday opposed the idea that his country would facilitate the displacement of Gazans and said Egyptians would take to the streets to express their disapproval.
Trump on Thursday insisted that Egypt and Jordan would accept displaced Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, despite the two nations having dismissed his plan to relocate Gazans there.
Jordan is already home to several million Palestinians, while tens of thousands live in Egypt. The foreign ministries of Egypt and Jordan have both rejected Trump’s suggestion in recent days.
Ex-US Colonel: Mounting US Merc Deaths Signal Impending Collapse of Ukraine’s War Machine
Sputnik – 01.02.2025
Having lost tens of thousands of its best and most experienced troops in foolhardy attacks, Ukraine has become increasingly reliant on mercenaries to make up for this shortage in troops, Ret. Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen tells Sputnik.
Thus, an increase in casualties among these mercenaries is a “natural occurrence” that serves as “an indication of a slow and actually increasing collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”
Unlike its senile predecessor and his cohorts, the Trump administration seems to be gaining a “sense of realism” regarding the way the Ukrainian conflict is going, veteran international consultant Ret. Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen tells Sputnik.
Western media narrative has now shifted from celebrating virtually everything Kiev does to a sobering assessment of the growing casualty and desertion rates in the Ukrainian military.
This may be an attempt to shape the public opinion as the US could be mulling either abandoning the Ukraine completely or passing the burden of supporting Kiev to someone else.
“Maybe try to shut it down or perhaps just pass the Ukraine project over to Europe and say, you take care of it, it’s your problem. So I think the US is trying to to extricate themselves out of the situation potentially.”
Why is the top US spy alliance afraid of Trump?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 01.02.2025
America’s Five Eyes partners – Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand – fear that US President Donald Trump’s deep state crackdown and spy apparatus overhaul could destabilize their intelligence network, reports The Wall Street Journal.
What’s driving their concerns?
Free Riders
- Trump may see Five Eyes as a bloated racket exploiting US resources, per the WSJ. The US spends nearly $100 billion on intelligence – 10 times more than the other four combined.
Russia Collusion Hoax
- Five Eyes were entangled in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, largely pushed by US intelligence.
- The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe, later debunked, was triggered by an Australian tip in 2016.
- Britain’s GCHQ may have wiretapped Trump during his 2016 campaign, as the White House suggested in 2017.
- Trump hasn’t directly targeted Five Eyes lately, but their unease suggests they have plenty to hide.
What Triggered the Panic?
- The “world’s most powerful spy alliance” sounded the alarm as Trump’s intelligence picks, Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, near confirmation in Congress.
- Gabbard, nominated for director of National Intelligence, vowed to fight weaponized intelligence, citing Iraq War lies and the Russia collusion hoax.
- Patel, set to lead the FBI, pledged to curb overseas operations and increase transparency.
Did the US Declare the End of the Unipolar World Order?
By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 31, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview with Megyn Kelly on 30 January 2025 which could signal the beginning of the end of America’s hegemonic security strategy. Rubio recognised that unipolarity, having one centre of power in the world, was a temporary phenomenon that has now passed:
“it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.
Rubio suggested that the hegemonic position of the US resulted in a weakening of the Westphalian system based on sovereign states, and replaced it with a globalist system where the US claimed the role of a world policeman:
“And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem”.
Rubio is referring to the end of the unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War, and the need for the US to adjust to multipolar realities.
What is multipolarity?
If unipolarity is over, what is the multipolar system that is returning? The modern world order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 has been based on the principle of multipolarity and a balance of power to constrain expansionist and hegemonic ambitions of states. A multipolar distribution of power dictates what produces security and the purpose of diplomacy.
Security when there are many centres of power entails managing the security competition between states. Conflicts derive from security competition as the efforts by one state to enhance its own security by for example expanding its military power, will reduce the security of other states. “Indivisible security” is therefore the key principle in a multipolar system, which suggests that security cannot be divided – either it is security for all or there will be security for none. Any effort by a state to become dominant will therefore trigger great power conflicts as it compels other powers to collectively balance the aspiring hegemon.
Diplomacy in a multipolar system aims to enhance mutual understanding about competing security interests and reach a compromise that elevates the security of all states. It is imperative to put oneself in the opponent’s shoes and recognise that if the opponent’s security concerns are resolved, then that also enhances one’s own security.
Unipolarity
Unipolarity was celebrated after the Cold War as it was premised on some good intentions. The idea was that great powers would not engage in rivalry and security competition if the benign hegemon of the US could not be contested. US security strategy was based on global primacy, and it was expected that there was no possibility and need to compete with the benign hegemony of the US. Furthermore, US global primacy would also ensure that liberal democratic values would be elevated. Yet, unipolarity would depend on keeping down rising powers that would therefore have an interest to collectively balance the US. Liberal democratic values would be corrupted as they would be used to legitimise the sovereign inequality required to interfere in every corner of the world. Even Charles Krauthammer who coined and celebrated the term “unipolar moment”, recognised it was a temporary phenomenon that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Security under the unipolar system did not entail managing the security competition. On the contrary, security was dependent on dominating to such an extent that no rivals could even aspire to challenge the US. In 2002, the US Security Strategy explicitly outlined that global dominance would “dissuade future military competition” and that the US therefore had to perpetuate “the unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence”. The hegemonic strategy is why the West abandoned all agreements for an inclusive pan-European security architecture with Russia, and instead returned to bloc politics by expanding NATO toward Russian borders. It would threaten Russian security, but there would be no security competition as Russia would be too weak. The sentiment was that Russia would have to adjust to new realities or be confronted by NATO that had encircled it.
Diplomacy under unipolarity also came to an end. Diplomacy no longer meant to recognise mutual security concerns to find solutions for indivisible security. Rather, diplomacy was replaced with the language of ultimatums and threats as other states would have to accept unilateral concessions. In the past, Western politicians and media would discuss the security concerns of adversaries to mitigate security competition. After the Cold War, Western politicians and media largely stopped discussing the security concerns of adversaries, as there was no desire to “legitimise” the notion that Western hegemony as a “force for good” could be considered a threat. When the West placed its military forces on the borders of other countries, it was claimed to bring democracy, stability and peace. Furthermore, conflicts could not be resolved by diplomacy if they challenged the dominance of the West. For example, taking into account Russian security concerns about NATO’s incursion into Ukraine would represent a rejection of the hegemonic system. While NATO rejected diplomacy for three years as hundreds of thousands of men died on the front line, Rubio now suggests that diplomacy and negotiations must start as “We just have to be realistic about the fact that Ukraine has lost”.
A reason for optimism
In the late 1920s, Antonio Gramsci wrote about the troubling times as a period of interregnum. Gramsci wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”.
The great power conflicts in the world today are largely a result of the world being in a transition between unipolarity and multipolarity. The West attempts to defeat its rivals to restore the unipolarity of the 1990s, while the vast majority of the world seeks to complete the transition to multipolarity. As the US worries about unsustainable debt, the collective balancing by adversaries and the rising possibility of nuclear war – it appears that there is a growing willingness to retire the temporary project of unipolarity.
The 99th Congress That Called Vaccines “Unavoidably Unsafe”
By Ginger Taylor | Brownstone Institute | January 28, 2025
Meet the original “Conspiracy Theorists,” Ronald Reagan and the members of the 99th Congress, who, in 1986, passed into law the “medical misinformation” that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” and potentially caused autism.
Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, a scathing letter accusing him of, among other things, “dangerous views on vaccine safety” and “false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” The letter included 175 questions that she said he should be prepared to answer at his Senate confirmation hearings. But in her letter, she exposes her own ignorance of federal vaccine policy and the laws passed by her own legislative branch.
In 1986 the House of Representatives passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) by a voice vote. Senator Warren should know that her current Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was, at the time, a member of the House and should presumably know that the bill that was passed to give vaccine makers liability protection from civil claims when a child was killed or seriously injured by a vaccine, and placed all vaccines administered to children in the legal category of “unavoidably unsafe” medical products, which means a product that cannot be made safe for its intended use.
In 2018, Mary Holland, JD, then the Director of the Graduate Legal studies program at New York University School of Law, and now Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Health Defense, a non-profit organization founded by Kennedy, remarked on the legal standing of the safety of vaccines:
The key language about “unavoidable” side effects comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 USC 300aa-22, re manufacturer responsibility (see bold text below).
That language was based on language from the Second Restatement of Torts (a legal treatise by tort scholars), adopted by most state courts in the mid-1960’s, that considered all vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe” products. The Restatement opined that such products, “properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warnings, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”
Further the 2011 SCOTUS ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case interpreted the highlighted text below from the National Vaccine Injury Act to find that it did not permit design defect litigation – that issue had been unclear since 1986, and different state high courts and federal circuits had decided the issue differently. So, [it] is correct that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) never decided that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” directly, but it acknowledged that Congress considers them to be so.
Sec. 300aa-22. Standards of responsibility
(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-supreme-court-did-not-deem-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe-congress-did.html
What few know, even among their own memberships and supporters, is that the following medical authorities consider vaccines unsafe:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”)
The American Medical Association (“AMA”)
The American Academy of Family Physicians (“AAFP”)
The American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (“ACOP”)
The American College of Preventive Medicine (“ACPM”)
The American Public Health Association (“APHA”)
The Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Officials (“ASTHO“)
The Center for Vaccine Awareness and Research at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston
Every Child By Two, Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunization (“ECBT”)
Immunization Action Coalition (“IAC”)
Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”)
The March of Dimes Foundation
Meningitis Angels
The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (“NAPNAP”)
The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases
The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
The National Meningitis Association, Inc. (“NMA”)
Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (“PKIDs”)
The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (“PIDS”)
The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (“SAHM”)
The Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”)
When the family of Hannah Bruesewitz, a child injured by Wyeth’s Tri-Immunol DTP vaccine, challenged the 1986 Act in the Supreme Court for the right to sue Wyeth for Hannah’s severely disabling vaccine-adverse event, these organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Wyeth, asking the court to uphold the law that protects vaccine makers from liability for injury or death arising from any vaccine licensed by the FDA and recommended for children by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”). They even went as far as to argue against the idea that each vaccine should be individually evaluated for the “unavoidably unsafe” status, stating in their brief
Case-by-case consideration of whether vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, on the other hand, would “undoubtedly increase the costs and risks associated with litigation and would undermine a manufacturer’s efforts to estimate and control costs.”(citing Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 249 (3d Cir. 2009).
Brief Amici Curiae Of The American Academy Of Pediatrics and 21 Other Physicians and Public Health Organizations In Support Of Respondent [Wyeth LLC], at 25.
The organizations’ position that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe taken before the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government has caused consternation in parents and vaccine safety and choice advocates for decades, because many of these same organizations argue the exact opposite – that vaccines are safe – when they appear before state legislatures in support of school vaccine mandates and in opposition to vaccine exemptions.
A lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry may argue over breakfast in Washington, DC that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and then drive to Annapolis at lunchtime and testify that Maryland should remove religious exemptions to vaccines required for school entry because “vaccines are safe.”
Attempts to have these organizations explain their conflicting positions met with stonewalling.
In 2015, the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for the removal of and/or restrictions to the religious and conscientious objections to mandated childhood vaccines. The Executive Director of the Maine AAP, Dee Kerry deHaas, testified in writing that this should be done because “vaccines are safe,” but when testifying in person, said that vaccines are “mostly safe.” In my response to her, as the then Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, I asked several questions arising from her testimony, including the following questions:
How can the AAP argue that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” in the Supreme Court in order to convince the federal government to grant you liability protection from vaccine injury, and then argue that, “vaccines are safe,” and “vaccines are mostly safe,” before this committee in order to convince the State of Maine to mandate that families receive counseling/buy vaccines from you?
Are vaccines, “safe,” “mostly safe,” or “unavoidably unsafe?”
How do such widely contradictory statements engender trust in vaccines and in pediatricians?
Her response to my questions:
Ms. Taylor,
On behalf of the Maine AAP, I acknowledge receipt of your email and list of questions. I understand that our organizations have different perspectives in the vaccine debate. Each perspective has been aired in the legislative hearings and sessions with regard to these vaccine bills in the First Regular Session of the 127th Maine Legislature.
I respectfully decline to respond to your list of proposed questions or to continue the debate with you through electronic correspondence or social media.
Dee deHaas
Executive Director
American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter
Those advocating under this nonsensical construct quip that vaccines are unsafe, but only in DC.
Parent of a vaccine-injured son, Kim Spencer of The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, noted of the vaccine industry, “their claim that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’ won them liability protection, their claim that ‘vaccines are safe’ won them school and work mandates, but their claim that both are true has won them the distrust and contempt of parents.”
Senator Warren also accuses Mr. Kennedy of having, “spread false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” But Kennedy has only done what Warren’s Congressional colleagues did 20 years before he began in vaccine safety advocacy; promote research into the vaccine-autism link and any link between vaccines and other childhood disorders.
Congress, while giving liability protection to vaccine makers with the 1986 Act, also ordered HHS to study links between the pertussis vaccine and more than a dozen conditions, including autism:
SEC. 312. RELATED STUDIES.
(a) REVIEW OF PERTUSSIS VACCINES AND RELATED ILLNESSES AND CONDITIONS.—Not later than 3 years after the effective date of this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information (including information obtained from the studies required under subsection (e)) on the nature, circumstances, and extent of the relationship, if any, between vaccines containing pertussis (including whole cell, extracts, and specific antigens) and the following illnesses and conditions:
(1) Hemolytic anemia.
(2) Hypsarrhythmia.
(3) Infantile spasms.
(4) Reye’s syndrome.
(5) Peripheral mononeuropathy.
(6) Deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome.
(7) Aseptic meningitis.
(8) Juvenile diabetes.
(9) Autism.
(10) Learning disabilities.
(11) Hyperactivity.
(12) Such other illnesses and conditions as the Secretary may choose to review or as the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines established under section 2119 of the Public Health Service Act recommends for inclusion in such review. (Ante, p. 3771).
PUBLIC LAW 99–2660—NOV. 14, 1986 100 STAT. 3755
The pertussis vaccine injury inquiry ordered by law in 1986 was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health, carried out by the Institute of Medicine, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, and edited by, among others, none other than Harvard’s Harvey Fineberg, who chaired the Committee to review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. PubMed (a database maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health) gave the following summary of the final report, titled Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella
Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines:
Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness. This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines: The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome. The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura. The volume, which includes a description of the committee’s methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25121241/ (emphasis added).
The report’s cursory summary on autism was this: The report’s cursory summary on autism was this:
No data were identified that address the question of a relation between vaccination with DPT or its pertussis component and autism. There are no experimental data bearing on a possible biologic mechanism. (p. 152.)
In other words, we don’t know; no one has ever looked.
But since there was no data to prove a link, because there was no data, they decided to reject the hypothesis and conclude:
There is no evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine or the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and autism. (Id.)
Today there is a great deal more data than there was in 1991. This report was published before the dramatic rise in autism rates in the 1990s following the rapid expansion of the number of vaccines given to children once the industry had liability protection from vaccine-induced injuries.
Now, more than 200 papers showing multiple vaccine-autism links exist. You can review those papers at https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/.
Senator Warren and all those skeptical of Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine critique must understand that he is more informed on vaccine law than the legislators questioning him. The political talking point that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a “conspiracy theorist” if perpetuated, must now extend to the entire Legislative branch of the US Government starting with Democrats like former Congressman Henry Waxman, who wrote and introduced the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Senator Warren might also consult with other current members of the US Congress who held seats when the 1986 Act was passed, such as Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Hal Rogers (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chris Smith (R-NJ, who also sponsored the Combating Autism Act of 2006), and most notably, her own fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey. Warren, like most politicians and doctors, does not understand that the presumption at the foundation of American vaccine policy, and the landmark law that has underpinned that policy for 39 years, is that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. does.
Ginger Taylor is an author, speaker, writer and activist. She writes on the politics of health, vaccination, informed consent and both corporate and government corruption from a biblical perspective.
MY LETTER TO SEN BILL CASSIDY, MD
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 31, 2025
Del has a message for Senator Bill Cassidy, who headed the second of two fiery hearings of RFK Jr. for head of HHS.
WhatsApp accuses Israeli spyware firm of targeting journalists, civil society members
RT | January 31, 2025
Meta’s popular messaging platform WhatsApp has alerted nearly 100 journalists and civil society members to potential device breaches involving spyware from Israeli firm Paragon Solutions, a company official told Reuters on Friday.
These individuals have likely been compromised through a zero-click attack, possibly initiated via a malicious PDF sent in group chats, according to WhatsApp.
The identity of the attackers remains unknown, though Paragon’s software is typically used by government clients. After detecting and disrupting the hacking effort, WhatsApp issued a cease-and-desist letter to Paragon. The incident has been reported to law enforcement and Citizen Lab, a Canadian internet watchdog.
Paragon declined to comment on the accusations, according to Reuters.
Citizen Lab researcher John Scott-Railton told the outlet that the incident “is a reminder that mercenary spyware continues to proliferate and as it does, so we continue to see familiar patterns of problematic use.”
Paragon’s website advertises “ethically based tools, teams, and insights to disrupt intractable threats,” and claims to only sell to governments in stable democratic countries. The company’s products include Graphite, spyware that allows total phone access.
Despite Paragon’s claims of ethical practices, WhatsApp’s findings suggest otherwise, Natalia Krapiva, senior tech-legal counsel at Access Now, told Reuters. She emphasized that such abuses are not isolated incidents, saying, “This is not just a question of some bad apples – these types of abuses (are) a feature of the commercial spyware industry.”
This incident follows a series of legal challenges against Israeli spyware firms. In December 2024, a US judge ruled that NSO Group, the maker of Pegasus spyware, was liable for hacking the phones of 1,400 individuals through WhatsApp in May 2019, violating US state and federal hacking laws, and WhatsApp’s terms of service. A separate trial in March will determine what damages NSO Group owes WhatsApp.
Legal documents from ongoing US litigation between NSO Group and WhatsApp have revealed that it is the Israeli cyberweapons maker NSO Group, not its government clients, that installs and extracts information using its spyware. This disclosure contradicts NSO’s prior claim that only clients operate the system without NSO’s direct involvement.
FBI Acted Like Modern-Day Gestapo
Sputnik – 31.01.2025
US President Donald Trump’s purge of the FBI’s leadership comes as no surprise – the agency has been acting more like a political enforcer than a law enforcement body.
Here are just a few examples of its (mis)conduct:
- August 2022 – The FBI stormed Trump’s Mar-a-Lago to seize classified documents while Biden faced zero consequences for doing the same.
- 2020 – The FBI actively suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, labeling it “Russian disinformation”, despite knowing it was real.
- August 2024 – FBI agents raided the homes of ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and journalist Dimitri Simes without announcing charges. Their crime? Challenging the official US narrative.
- 2024 – The House Judiciary Committee exposed the FBI for spying on Americans’ private transactions, targeting conservatives rather than criminals.
- 2022 – Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson revealed the FBI has been investigating parents critical of their local school boards, using threat tag employed by the agency’s counterterrorism division.
- 2016 – The FBI used the debunked Steele dossier as a pretext to spy on Trump’s election campaign, despite knowing the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion were false.
Trump’s crackdown on the agency was inevitable – the real question is how deep the rot goes.
A Republic of Spies
By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | January 30, 2025
In 2021, to his credit, President Joe Biden warned the American public against the dangers of zero-click spyware manufactured by an Israeli corporation. Zero-click is unwanted software that can expose the entire contents of one’s mobile or desktop device to prying eyes without tricking one into clicking on to a link. Biden banned its importation and use in the United States.
Last week, as an inducement to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the Israel/Hamas ceasefire agreement, President Donald Trump secretly agreed to lift the embargo on zero-click.
Here is the backstory.
Though America has employed spies since the Revolutionary War, until the modern era, spying was largely limited to wartime. That changed when America became a surveillance state in 1947 with the public establishment of the Central Intelligence Agency and the secret creation of its counterparts.
The CIA’s stated public task at its inception was to spy on the Soviet Union and its satellite countries so that American officials could prepare for any adverse actions by them. This was the time of the Red Scare, in which both Republicans and Democrats fostered the Orwellian belief that America needed a foreign adversary.
We had just helped the Russians defeat Germany in World War II, and our Russian ally — which was bankrupt and had just lost 27 million troops and civilians — suddenly became so strong it needed to be kept in check. The opening salvo in this absurd argument was fired by President Harry Truman in August 1945 when he used nuclear bombs intentionally to target civilians of an already defeated Japan. One of his targets was a Roman Catholic cathedral.
But his real target — so to speak — was his new friend, Joe Stalin.
When Truman signed the National Security Act into law in 1947, he also had Stalin in mind. That statute, which established the CIA, expressly stated that it shall have no internal intelligence or law enforcement functions and all its collections of intelligence shall come from sources outside the United States.
These limiting clauses were vital to passage of the statute, as members of Congress who crafted it feared the U.S. was creating the type of internal surveillance monster that we had just confronted in Germany.
Of course, no senior official in presidential administrations from Truman to Trump has taken these limitations seriously. As recently as the Obama administration, the CIA boasted that it had the capability of receiving data from all computer chips in the homes of Americans — such as in your microwave or dishwasher.
As well as its presence in your kitchen, the CIA is physically present in all 50 state houses in America. What is it doing there?
The feds admit to funding and empowering 18 domestic intelligence agencies — spies next door. The most notorious of these is the National Security Agency, which, when it last reported, employs 60,000+ persons, mostly civilians, with military leadership.
What do they do? They spy on Americans. We know this thanks to the personal courage of Edward Snowden and others who chose to honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution. NSA spying has produced so much data that the NSA built the second-largest building in the U.S. — after the Pentagon — for use as a storage facility of the data it has collected, and it is running out of room.
What has it collected? Quite simply, everything it can get its hands on. These domestic spies have access to every keystroke and all data on every digital device everywhere in the United States, without a warrant. This is computer hacking, a federal crime; but the feds don’t prosecute the spies they have hired to spy on us.
It also represents an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to privacy of all persons. The operative language is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
The law defines all searches and seizures conducted without a warrant as unreasonable and thus violative of not only this amendment but also the uniquely American value it was enacted to protect — the right to be left alone. Surely the computer chip in every desktop, mobile device, dishwasher and microwave is an “effect” protected by the Constitution.
The spies and, sadly, the presidents for whom they have worked don’t see it that way. They have claimed in federal courts and elsewhere that the Fourth Amendment does not pertain to them because they are not law enforcement and because they work directly for the president, who, when he is operating as the commander in chief, is free to employ government assets as he wishes, without constitutional constraints.
This argument has been used to justify the CIA’s violent killings of Americans and others in foreign lands using drones and its agents dressed as military. It has justified the brutal torture of foreign nationals, even those whom the CIA deemed were being truthful during their interrogations. And, of course, it has justified ignoring the Constitution and the rights it protects and the values that underlie it.
This argument was also used to justify foreign and federal spying on Trump. Now he wants to make it easier for America’s spies to spy on the rest of us.
Spying belies the very purpose of the Constitution — to keep the government off the people’s backs. Of course, when the late Justice William O. Douglas coined that phrase, there were no computer chips, the CIA was thought to be law-abiding and the NSA didn’t exist.
So, we can see how desirous of secrecy the Trump administration was last week when it agreed to lift the zero-click embargo.
We can try to avoid commercial spyware, but how can we avoid a totalitarian government that spies on everyone?
According to the Declaration of Independence, we can do so by altering or abolishing it.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Why the Mainstream Media Is in Trouble
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 31, 2025
As most everyone knows, the mainstream media is hurting, big time. For many years, subscriptions and advertising revenue have been plummeting. Some of the big papers have been able to survive only by having some multimillionaire bail them out with his own money and be willing to absorb the ongoing financial losses.
Why is this? I submit that one big reason is that most Americans simply do not trust the media. They have come to see the media as just an unofficial mouthpiece for the federal government, especially the national-security branch of the government, the branch that rules the roost.
A good example of this phenomenon relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The official narrative is that the invasion was an unprovoked war of aggression, much like the U.S. government’s unprovoked invasion of and war of aggression against Iraq.
But the undisputed evidence establishes beyond any doubt whatsoever the contrary. The evidence establishes that after the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO remained in existence, which was quite unusual, to say the least. That’s because the ostensible reason that NATO was brought into existence was to supposedly protect Western Europe from an attack by the Soviets.
Even worse, NATO began moving eastward, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact, and moving inexorably in the direction of Russia’s border. And this occurred in violation of promises made by U.S. officials to Russian officials that that would never happen.
Throughout the absorption process, Russian officials continually stated, “Stop it. Stop bringing your missiles, troops, weapons, tanks, and military bases closer to our border.” But U.S. officials, operating through NATO, refused to stop it. They just kept moving eastward until they finally threatened to absorb Ukraine.
As they proceeded with their absorption campaign, U.S. officials knew exactly what Russia’s reaction would be. It would be the same reaction that the U.S. had when the Soviets installed their nuclear weapons in Cuba. If the Soviets had refused to remove those nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have invaded Cuba, just as the Russians invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from being absorbed into NATO.
How in the world can NATO’s absorption campaign not be considered a provocation? If that’s not a provocation, I don’t know what is. And let’s not forget: The U.S. government did much the same thing in 1979, when it provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, with the aim of giving them “their own Vietnam.” National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confessed that they did that. Thus, when tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were dying on the Afghan battlefield, U.S. officials were exultant, just as they are exultant over the “degrading” of Russia’s army in Ukraine through the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.
Yet, in account after account in the mainstream media, one continues to find the official narrative about Russia’s supposed “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine. Given such, why would anyone trust any newspaper that continues to repeat that official narrative rather than printing only the truth about what the U.S. government and NATO did to provoke the invasion and, at the same time, condemning the official narrative?
Consider, for example, the New York Times. On January 14, 2025, it published an op-ed by Lloyd J. Austin III, the secretary of defense, and Anthony J. Blinken, secretary of state, stating: “President Vladimir Putin of Russia appalled the world with his full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago. He planned to topple Ukraine’s democratically elected government, install a Kremlin puppet regime and expose the West as weak, divided and diminished…. The United States and its allies and partners must continue to stand by Ukraine and strengthen its hand for the negotiations that will someday bring Mr. Putin’s war of aggression to an end.”
Not one word about what the U.S. and NATO did to provoke the invasion with their absorption campaign.
Yesterday, January 30, the Times published this comment by longtime columnist Nicholas Kristof about Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing: “Asked who she blames for the Ukraine war, Gabbard said bluntly, ‘Putin started the war in Ukraine.’ After her past blather about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and in a hearing full of her evasions, that was a reassuring acknowledgment of a reality that should be obvious to all.” [Links in original.]
So, Gabbard’s pointing to Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” regarding having U.S. nuclear weapons, troops, and tanks on its border is nothing more than “blather.” I’m willing to bet that Kristof and the Times would not call the U.S. government’s “legitimate security concerns” during the Cuban Missile Crisis “blather.”
Also yesterday, the Times posted a news story about Gabbard’s confirmation hearing, stating, “Russia experts and intelligence experts have frequently remarked on Ms. Gabbard’s history of taking positions that defend Russian interests or cast the United States as a villain. She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for provoking Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago by failing to respect ‘Russia’s legitimate security concerns.’” [Links in original.]
So, pointing out the truth about the U.S. government’s wrongful conduct equates to “defending Russian interests.” Also, notice how the Times conflates the United States and the U.S. government, as if they were one and the same thing. The fact is that the U.S. government sometimes is a villain. Example: The unprovoked U.S. invasion of and undeclared war of aggression against Iraq. Does pointing out that villainous conduct constitute “defending Russian interests.” Moreover, notice how the reporter implicitly disparages Gabbard for pointing out what NATO did to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Of course, the distrust of the mainstream media didn’t start with its repetition of the official narrative about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It goes back much further — for example, to Operation Mockingbird, when much of the mainstream press was willingly and eagerly becoming assets of the CIA in an effort to save America from the Russians and the “godless communists” who were supposedly coming to get us.
And it also stretches back to the Kennedy assassination, when the mainstream media blindly accepted the ludicrous lone-nut official narrative and refused to conduct any serious investigation that would contradict that narrative.
Consider, for example, when the Assassination Records Review Board discovered in the 1990s that there had been two brain examinations as part of the JFK autopsy, the second of which could not possibly have been JFK’s brain. Wouldn’t you think that that would be something that the mainstream press would want to investigate, even if just a little bit? Nope. Nothing here, folks. Let’s move on. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.
Or consider the enlisted men who were released from vows of secrecy during the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s. They stated that they secretly carried the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue in a cheap shipping casket more than an hour before the official entry time of the Dallas casket into which the president’s body had been placed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.
Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream newspaper would want to investigate that? After all, why would enlisted men make up such a story? Nope. Let’s move on, folks. Nothing to see here. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.
The Internet, obviously, has been the mainstream media’s worst enemy. That’s because people were now able to discover websites, podcasts, videos, and other such things that were willing to tell them the truth about the villainy of their own government. The mainstream media has been having trouble ever since.
Featured Video
House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel’s recurring use of terror on civilians
By Bob Finch | January 26, 2009
Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump
- ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran
- “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
- NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
- Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
- Iran sets one-month deadline for end to US-Israeli war, blockade: Report
- At the edge of the Strait: A superpower in a narrow sea
- Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit
- House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
- Ceasefire no longer viable after 200 days of Israeli violations: Hamas
- If Americans Knew
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- No Tricks Zone
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
Aletho News 