US president-elect Donald Trump will have his hands full fixing the mess in foreign and domestic policy left by incumbent leader Joe Biden’s administration, according to Dennis Kucinich, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and retired eight-term US congressman.
In an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi broadcast on RT on Saturday, Kucinich said that the success of Trump’s presidency will depend on his ability to shift the focus of US politics from the “globalist aspirations of the State Department” to problems at home.
The veteran politician welcomed Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in this week’s election, saying that it represents a “historic shift” in US politics towards “populism.”
“[The US] has come through a very dark period where the government put this country to the edge of World War III, and people don’t want that,” Kucinich stated, noting that ordinary Americans worry about simple things like paying bills and generally “making ends meet,” which he called “very practical aspirations they have in common with people around the world.” He said Trump’s presidency “will depend on not getting further involved in foreign entanglements.”
“This economy is shaking, the dollar is not in the same position it was in four years ago… the previous administration has not been successful in reviving the economy with all this money for Wall Street but not enough for main street,” he stated. Kucinich added that this happened “precisely” because the Biden administration poured billions into wars “that are not necessary.”
There’s a lot of work Trump will need to do, he is going to be faced with some serious decisions about scaling back the US position in Europe and the Middle East and to try to find a way that we can move past the events that the Biden administration embroiled America in.
Kucinich noted that he expects Trump to be able to extricate the US from global conflicts through his “deal-making finesse.”
“Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way,” he stated.
Kucinich also suggested that Trump would be wise to lead the US towards cooperation with the “new world” that is “taking shape in response to disastrous sanctions and wars,” citing BRICS as one of the alignments that the US should consider working with.
Iran has denied US accusations that it attempted to orchestrate a plot to assassinate President-elect Donald Trump before the November election. It has dismissed the allegations as a hoax orchestrated by pro-Israel actors in a bid to exacerbate tensions between Washington and Tehran.
On Friday, the US Department of Justice claimed that Iranian officials had asked a man named Farhad Shakeri to “provide a plan” to kill Trump, adding that he was also tasked with carrying out assassinations of US and Israeli citizens inside the US. Shakeri was described as an Afghan national residing in Tehran after being deported from the US in 2008 following a lengthy prison sentence for robbery.
The indictment also implicated two American citizens, Carlisle Rivera and Jonathan Loadholt, who were accused of helping Tehran track a US citizen of Iranian origin. “The charges announced today expose Iran’s continued brazen attempts to target US citizens, including President-elect Donald Trump, other government leaders and dissidents who criticize the regime in Tehran,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a statement.
On Saturday, the spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, categorically rejected the accusations, calling them “completely baseless.” “Such claims at this juncture [are] a malicious conspiracy orchestrated by Zionist and anti-Iranian circles, aimed at further complicating the issues between the US and Iran,” he added.
Baghaei also recalled that Iran had denied similar “false” allegations in the past. He was apparently referring to an indictment by the US Department of Justice from August in which a Pakistani national was accused of being sent to the US by Iran to carry out murders. One of the planned attacks was allegedly aimed at Trump.
Trump was the target of two assassination attempts this year prior to the election. The first one occurred in July when Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on him at a Pennsylvania rally, with one bullet grazing Trump’s ear. The would-be assassin was killed on the spot by the Secret Service.
The second incident took place in September, when a suspect identified as Ryan Wesley Routh allegedly tried to assassinate Trump at his Florida golf course but was intercepted by security.
Billionaire hedge fund shark-turned liberal ‘philanthropist’ George Soros’ financial interests and political projects may be in trouble when Donald Trump returns to the Oval Office, with tens of millions in campaign funding, smear jobs and even involvement in the Trump prosecutions failing to stop the former president from making a comeback.
Bloomberg reported on Friday that Soros Fund Management plans to shut down its Hong Kong office as part of a surprise “administrative reorganization” after 14 years of operations.
The move may signal preparations by the Soros family to make major changes in the way their soft power empire operates with Trump back in power.
The campaign by the elder Soros and his son and heir apparent Alex to keep a Democrat in the White House has failed to pay dividends, despite the Soros’ Fund for Policy Reform’s transfer of $60 mln to Future Forward, a pro-Democrat dark money super PAC. That’s on top of a $15 mln donation by an Open Society Foundations subsidiary in 2023.
Along with money, the Soros family invested significant personal capital into the campaign against “MAGA-style Republicans” in 2024. In the spring of 2023, Alex Soros announced a dramatic scaling back of OSF’s operations in Western Europe to focus on Ukraine, Moldova, the Western Balkans, and the United States, with the effort to stop Trump becoming a top priority.
George Soros first sounded the alarm over Trump’s “America First” foreign policy in 2016, when he pumped millions into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign but failed to see his preferred candidate elected. After Trump won, Soros funded an anti-Trump “resistance movement,” manifesting itself in street protests, court challenges to his domestic agenda, secret lobbying of members of his administration, support for lawmakers promoting a neoliberal foreign policy, and even $1 mln in cash spent on the infamous debunked ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ dossier.
During Trump’s first term, Soros lobbied tech giants to regulate social media, funded a campaign to support dozens, if not hundreds, of liberal prosecutors and judges, gubernatorial candidates, congressional hopefuls, and other state and local officials in 2018 and 2020.
Soros and the OSF’s noticeable shift away from meddling abroad to interfering in US domestic politics earned the ire of Trump backers, who sought to declare him a “domestic terrorist,” strip him of his assets, and expel the Hungarian-born billionaire from the country.
When Joe Biden won in 2020, a Soros-linked think tank lobbied his administration to support policies favoring OSF principles in nearly two dozen different policy areas, and laid out $20 mln to create ‘grass roots organizations’ to sell Biden’s $1.2 trln infrastructure bill.
In 2022, Soros channeled $125 mln into a ‘Democracy PAC’ to support anti-MAGA candidates in the midterms.
In 2023, as criminal indictments began to come down on Trump, the former president immediately linked the political “witch hunt” against him to Soros and his “hand-picked and funded” Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, to whose 2021 campaign Soros is known to have donated at least $1 mln.
“I expect that Trump will be found guilty at least in some cases, and will be in jail by election day in November 2024,” Soros said in an August 2023 interview. “If I am right, he is unlikely to win the election. But if I am wrong, the US will face a constitutional crisis that is likely to bring on an economic crisis as well.”
Something seems to have gone terribly wrong in the billionaire’s calculations, with Soros’ ex-money manager, Stan Druckenmiller, warning in mid-October that the markets were “very convinced” that Trump would win.
With the Soros family dealt a major blow in Tuesday’s election and set back to where it started in 2016, only time will tell whether the OSF empire will restart its anti-Trump “resistance” movement, and if the president-elect’s inner circle – steeled by over eight years of efforts to sabotage Trump and undermine his ability to govern – will tolerate Soros-style attacks on the US political system and constitutional order.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This old saying, usually (mis)attributed to Albert Einstein, perfectly encompasses two very prominent mental health conditions of our time – the infamous Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and Russia Derangement Syndrome (RDS). Symptoms of either of these can be disastrous if left unchecked. However, when combined in a single person or an organization, the consequences of TDS and RDS are virtually guaranteed to be catastrophic. The absolute failure of the DNC has left it without both the presidency and US Congress, giving the Republicans an unprecedented political advantage.
Thus, they simply won’t stop talking about the “evil hand of the Kremlin” and its alleged “role in electing Trump”. The sheer disparity between their various ludicrous propaganda narratives concerning Russia is truly mind-boggling. Namely, the Democrat-run mainstream propaganda machine has spent the last well over two and a half years trying to convince everyone that Moscow is “losing in Ukraine”, while simultaneously claiming that Russia is “so powerful” it can actually “elect” US presidents (including “through Facebook ads”, of all things). This doesn’t strike the DNC as completely illogical. Quite the contrary, to them, it’s not only “completely sensible”, but the “only explanation” on how they could’ve lost.
CNN, the neoliberal mouthpiece infamous for its pathological hatred for Trump, couldn’t wait a single day after the election and immediately (re)launched the so-called “Russiagate” conspiracy theory. To that end, it invited Bob Woodward, a Deep State-controlled “investigative journalist” who is usually cited as the “man who uncovered the Watergate scandal”. Woodward himself immediately proved that he’s a Deep State asset by claiming that “Putin might be blackmailing Trump”. He failed to explain how exactly the Russian president is doing that, but alas – the narrative simply needs to be kept alive somehow. The DNC has been fighting tooth and nail to push “Russiagate” for nearly a decade at this point.
It seems that this remains its flagship “strategy” in fighting Trump and the Deep State is entirely in line with it. However, the majority of the American people remain unconvinced. In fact, it can even be argued that the narrative has become a meme of sorts, as virtually anything can be “blamed” on those “evil Russians”. The Democrats also seem to think it can be a good way to shift attention away from their numerous corruption and financial scandals, the latest of which involves a $20 million debt they managed to accrue during their failed election campaign. According to multiple sources, the Kamala Harris campaign burned through over a billion dollars, even leaving the aforementioned $20 million in debt.
According to Politico’s Christopher Cadelago, “after raising over $1 billion and left with $118 million in the bank as of October 16, the Harris campaign ended the 2024 election season with at least $20 million in debt”. Cadelago, the California bureau chief for Politico, shared the information on X, citing “two separate sources familiar with the situation”. Breitbart CEO Matt Boyle confirmed this, adding that “a Kamala campaign staffer said there is a massive scandal here worthy of an audit” and that Jen O’Malley Dillon, the Harris campaign chair, “blew through a billion dollars in a few months”. It seems the largest amount of that money was wasted on celebrity concerts organized precisely by O’Malley Dillon.
According to Zero Hedge, which cites data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Harris campaign received over a billion dollars up until October 16, including when the incumbent Joe Biden was still campaigning for reelection. Over the same period, the Trump campaign got $392 million and spent $345 million, meaning that it managed to save nearly $50 million and also win the election. In addition, the Democrats wasted another $1.1 billion on “aired advertising and associated reservations”, according to AdImpact – a website that monitors the cost and content of ads. The DNC’s financial appetites are very well known, as evidenced by numerous scandals involving the funneling of the so-called “Ukraine aid”.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Jefferey Jaxen’s reporting last week on the historical EPA ruling on fluoride in drinking water made its way into corporate media with a slurry of misinformation to help sway the election. At the same time, governments worldwide continue to use the term misinformation as a way to control free speech.
The administration of outgoing President Joe Biden has lifted a de facto ban on deploying US defense contractors in Ukraine to repair American-made armaments, Reuters and CNN reported on Friday, citing anonymous Pentagon officials.
This reversal of previous US policy comes just as vocal Ukraine conflict skeptic Donald Trump won the popular vote and secured his second term in the White House. While it is unclear whether Trump would have continued the prior policy, he has repeatedly promised not to put American lives at risk and to rapidly conclude the conflict once in office again.
The potential American presence on the ground will be “small” and located “far” from the front lines, and they are not expected to engage in combat, Reuters wrote on Friday, citing an anonymous US official. As the US and its NATO partners have provided Kiev with increasingly sophisticated American-made armaments, such as F-16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense systems, restrictions have slowed repairs and proven increasingly challenging. Much of the equipment has been damaged beyond repair by Kiev’s own specialists.
The policy change aligns the Pentagon more closely with the US State Department and USAID, which already have contractors in Ukraine, according to another official.
“These contractors will help the Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can quickly return to the front lines,” CNN wrote on Friday, citing a defense official. Specifically, F-16 jets and Patriot batteries “require specific technical expertise to maintain,” they said.
Allowing US contractors to work in Ukraine will provide a faster alternative to the current method of transporting equipment to NATO countries like Poland and Romania for repairs, CNN noted.
Meanwhile the risks of being killed by Russian strikes will fall on the companies bidding for the Pentagon contracts.
“Each US contractor, organization, or company will be responsible for the safety and security of their employees and will be required to include risk mitigation plans as part of their bids,” CNN cited a defense official as saying.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously stated that Moscow is aware of the “direct involvement of NATO troops in this conflict.” He pointed out that several high-tech systems the US and its allies have provided to Kiev, such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, require the involvement of Western officers to operate them.
The Russian Defense Ministry regularly reports airstrikes on repair facilities in Ukraine. This week alone, the Russian military carried out at least 38 strikes on Kiev’s military-industrial complex facilities, as well as supporting energy and military infrastructure, according to the latest report on Friday.
The thimerosal-free HibTITER pediatric vaccine marketed by Wyeth from 2003 through 2007 was associated with 19 different medical conditions, according to a study published Tuesday in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine.
The conditions include life-threatening side effects at rates “significantly higher” than other Hib vaccines.
The study, by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) researcher Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD chief scientific officer, compared adverse events among children who received HibTITER to those among children who received other Hib vaccines.
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) is a bacterium that can cause illnesses ranging from ear infections to pneumonia to meningitis. Vaccines for Hib in young children were first licensed in 1987. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends Hib vaccines for infants at age 2 months.
Wyeth, now Pfizer, sold HibTITER from the time it was licensed in 1990 until 2007. In 2003, the company reformulated the vaccine to remove thimerosal, a type of mercury, after public outcry over the dangers of mercury in vaccines.
In 2007, Pfizer “quietly” pulled the reformulated HibTITER vaccine off the market, Hooker told The Defender — a move he said was concerning, in light of the vaccine’s “relationship to many adverse events in children.”
To assess those adverse events, Jablonowski and Hooker analyzed data from 277,484 children between 2003-2007 — when the thimerosal-free HibTiTER was available — using the publicly available Florida Medicaid database.
They corroborated their findings by analyzing data for the vaccine from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive public reporting system jointly administered by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The researchers identified medical conditions for infants vaccinated with any Hib vaccine within 30 days of the shot. The Medicaid data revealed 19 different diagnoses associated with HibTITER at frequencies significantly higher than those associated with other Hib vaccines. They also verified 14 of those diagnoses in VAERS.
The adverse events, ranging from mild to life-threatening, included respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatologic and generalized infections; ear, nose and throat medical contitions; and other conditions.
None of the serious or even life-threatening conditions identified were listed as possible adverse events on the package insert for HibTITER.
The authors’ findings “have profound medical implications for the estimated 35 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 33 who received the vaccine,” they wrote.
VAERS ‘screaming’ problem with HibTITER for decades
The first Hib conjugate vaccine, which combines a weak antigen with a stronger one to elicit a more robust immune response to the weak antigen, was licensed in 1987 for children 18 months and older, and in 1990 for infants 2 months and older.
Following the approval of the first Hib conjugates, rates of Hib disease in young children dropped dramatically — 92%, from 37 per 100,000 in 1989 to 3 per 100,000 by 2008.
The clinical trial used to declare the vaccine’s safety consisted of investigators calling families 72 hours after vaccination to see how the infants were doing. On that basis, they concluded the vaccine was “safe and effective,” the authors wrote.
“Since VAERS first went live in July of 1990 the data started screaming that something was wrong with HibTITER,” Jablonowski told The Defender. “In VAERS’ first six months of existence, 30% of mortalities reported in children 6 months old or younger were HibTITER recipients.”
HibTITER dominated the Hib vaccine market between 1991 and 1994 when it began to share the market with other FDA-approved vaccines.
The license expired just after the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee published its 2001 safety review of thimerosal-containing vaccines and their link to neurodevelopmental disorders.
In that report, the Institute of Medicine found insufficient data to confirm or deny the link, yet the CDC recommended removing thimerosal from vaccines “as soon as possible.”
However, even when Wyeth began selling a reformulated non-thimerosal version of HibTITER in 2003, adverse events continued to occur at high rates.
“In the subsequent years, HibTITER accounted for a disproportionately larger number of emergency room visits, serious reports and reports of death,” Jablonowski said. “The FDA and CDC took no known action, and instead allowed the manufacturer, Wyeth, to choose to end production.”
The researchers estimated that approximately 35 million Americans received the HibTITER vaccine during its time on the market.
In 2011, vaccine maker Nuron Biotech Inc. acquired the HibTITER rights from Wyeth/Pfizer and announced it was preparing to rerelease the vaccine in the U.S. and some Asian markets.
However, the shot was never reintroduced to the U.S. market and the company no longer exists.
‘We were stunned at what the data revealed’
The investigators compared the frequencies of new diseases identified within 30 days of vaccination among 152,269 infants who received the thimerosal-free HibTITER to 125,215 infants who received any other Hib vaccine.
They employed the Fisher’s Exact Test statistical model to compare disease frequency in each cohort and used Bonferroni correction, a powerful statistical tool, to eliminate random results. They also set a high bar for statistical significance.
They identified 19 adverse outcomes with the “most prolific, significant signals” for infectious diseases, such as pulmonary tuberculosis, where 99.03% of diagnoses were among HibTITER recipients.
Other respiratory illnesses occurring within 30 days of HibTITER vaccination included asthma, acute upper respiratory infections, influenza and acute bronchiolitis. Additional diseases included laryngopharyngitis, common cold, colitis, enteritis and gastroenteritis.
Of the 19 adverse effects they identified, the most recent package insert for HibTITER named only two: fever and rash. Infectious diseases accounted for nine of the 19 adverse effects.
Jablonowski explained that the HibTITER doesn’t directly cause infections but can create conditions that facilitate them. The presence of so many infections “implicates significant and rapid immunological defense impairment,” he said.
Jablonowski added:
“While we had heard anecdotally of many adverse reactions to the HibTITER vaccine, we were stunned at what the data revealed.
“This vaccine should have been studied much more intensively before being allowed on the market. In fact, it shouldn’t have ever been allowed to be injected into infants in the absence of rigorous studies to support its safety.”
He said analyzing the adverse outcomes was “simple — high-school level math and basic database/programming skills kind-of-simple. There are literally millions of people in this country who could have performed the data science portion of this study, and none of them apparently work for the FDA or CDC.”
No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.
Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.
It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.
Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.
Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.
The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”
“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”
By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.
The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”
In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.
Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”
This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.
The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are“physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.
The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.
From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”
Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.
Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”
The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.
These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”
The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:
“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”
Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:
Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows:
“While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”
(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)
In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.
Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.
Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a formal demarche to the Canadian embassy in Moscow over what it called “false accusations regarding alleged plans of ‘Russian sabotage’ against NATO nations.”
The diplomatic rebuke on Friday came in the context of media reports about investigations into packages which caught fire in July at DHL parcel sorting facilities in Leipzig, Germany and Birmingham, England. The devices were reportedly meant to be flown to the US and Canada in cargo planes.
Western officials have claimed that the Russian military intelligence service GRU may be behind them, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week citing anonymous sources. Moscow has dismissed the story, calling it an unsubstantiated piece of “fake news.”
Ottawa said it was “aware of and deeply concerned with Russia’s intensifying campaign, from cyber incidents and disinformation operations to sabotage activities,” when asked for comments.
”Canada has expressed this concern directly to Russian officials and unequivocally stated that any threat to the safety and security of Canadians is unacceptable,” government spokesperson Tim Warmington said on Tuesday.
Moscow notified the Canadian deputy ambassador on Friday that the “speculations, which are being disseminated [on] command from the US and its satellites” are part of hybrid warfare against Russia in the context of the Ukraine conflict and may indicate an upcoming “anti-Russian provocation.”
“If such a plan is realized, for instance, in the form of a false flag operation, the responsibility for it will fully fall on the nations that make such unacceptable accusations against Russia, including Canada,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
Any hostile actions against Russia will “not be left without a response, just as was the case in the past” the statement warned.
Houthi fighters have reportedly shot down another MQ-9 Reaper drone, this one over al-Jawf province in Yemen’s north, with footage posted to social media early Friday morning showing flaming wreckage falling out of the sky and starting a large fire on the ground in the dead of night as onlookers inspect the unmanned aerial vehicle’s remains.
The US military acknowledged to the Associated Press that it had seen the footage, and said it was investigating the incident, without offering any further details.
The Houthis have now shot down as many as ten of the $32 mln apiece US reconnaissance and strike drones since November 2023, or thirteen if counting US losses going back to 2017.
The militia has a surprisingly large array of air defense systems at their disposal, including upgrades to Soviet-era Kub, Dvina, Neva/Pechora and Strela-1 SAMs, and allegedly, derivatives of Iranian-designed systems.
Separately Friday, a source told Sputnik that the Houthis had launched a “hypersonic ballistic missile from Yemen at a vital target in the Negev Desert in southern Israel.”
The source did not elaborate on the missile’s characteristics or its target, but the Negev is known to be the home to some of Israel’s most important airbases, including Nevatim, which hosts the country’s fleet of F-35I jets, and Hatzerim, home to F-15I series aircraft. The United States military is also known to host a top-secret radar facility atop Mount Har Qeren in the Negev known as Site 512.
The Houthis unveiled what they said was a two-stage, solid-fuel hypersonic missile with a range of 2,150 km known as the Palestine-2 in September, saying the weapon can reach speeds up to Mach 16, and features stealth technology. Multiple Houthi missiles and drones have pierced Israel’s powerful air defenses since the militia began its campaign against Tel Aviv last year. US, British and Israeli air and naval forces regularly deployed to try to “degrade” the militia’s capabilities have so far failed to do so, with the US alone spending over $2.5 billion on operations against the group since January.
A fascinating situation has now developed between President-elect Donald Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment with respect to the long-secret JKF-assassination-related records that the CIA has succeeded in keeping secret for more than 60 years. Despite Trump’s campaign vow to release those records, it’s not at all clear how this matter is going to be resolved. I will give my prediction at the end of this article.
There are three major factors at play:
1. During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed that this time around he is definitely going to order the National Archives to release those 60-year-old secret CIA records. Moreover, as he told Joe Rogan, he is going to do it “immediately.” See “Trump to Rogan: If Elected, I’ll Open Remaining JFK Files ‘Immediately’” by Jefferson Morley.
Let’s place this first factor in a historical context.
The JFK Records Act, which was enacted in 1992, ordered the national-security establishment and all other federal agencies to disclose their JFK-assassination-related records to the public.
However, the law gave federal officials an out. If they claimed that the release of certain records might jeopardize “national security” in various ways, they could keep them secret for another 25 years. Yes, 25 additional years of secrecy, on top of the secrecy from 1963 to the 1990s! Taking advantage of that out, the national-security establishment, especially the CIA, continued keeping thousands of its assassination-related records secret.
That 25-year-period ran out during Trump’s first term as president. At first, Trump declared valiantly that he was going to comply with the law and permit the National Archives to release and disclose the records.
But then just before the deadline arrived, Trump was visited by the CIA, who insisted on continued secrecy of its assassination-related records.
Trump immediately buckled. While allowing some records to be released, he did what the CIA wanted him to do and ordered that thousands of other records continue to be kept secret for another few years.
When the new deadline occurred under President Biden, the CIA convinced Biden to continue the secrecy of the records into perpetuity. Thus, the CIA felt it could now sleep easy, knowing that its long-secret assassination-related records would never see the light of day.
2. There is no doubt that the CIA does not want people to see its assassination-related records that it has succeeded in keeping secret for more than 60 years. That’s undoubtedly because the records contain incriminating material — that is, evidence that points further in the direction of a national-security-state regime-change operation against President Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas in November 1963.
No, I’m not suggesting that there is some sort of “smoking gun” in those records, like a confession that states “We orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy.” That would be a ridiculous notion especially because the CIA’s policy was to never put any reference to a state-sponsored assassination into writing. Moreover, the CIA would never have turned over such a “smoking-gun” record to the National Archives in the first place, even if it wouldn’t be released for another 25 years.
Instead, it is a virtual certainty that the secret records contain bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence that further fill out the mosaic of a regime-change operation. The CIA knows that assassination researchers are an extremely sharp and competent group of individuals and that they will scour those remaining records with a fine-tooth analytical comb. They know that if there is incriminating evidence, the researchers will find it.
When the CIA prevailed on Trump and Biden to maintain the secrecy of its assassination-related records, it knew that it was a virtual certainty that people would accuse it of a continued cover-up of its state-sponsored assassination of Kennedy. The CIA was obviously willing to pay that price, which indicates how important it is to the CIA that those those records never ever be released.
3. Longtime readers of my blog know that I steadfastly maintain that it is not the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court that run the federal government. Instead, it is the national-security branch of the federal government — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. This is a notion that I would say most Americans simply do not want to confront because it is so discomforting.
In other words, the quaint notion is that the United States is a civilian-run government in which the military is subordinate to the civilian control. The truth is that once the federal government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state in the late 1940s, the national-security establishment became in charge of the federal government, just like it is in countries like Egypt and Pakistan.
But here is the kicker: to ensure that the American people never come to the realization of what that conversion did to their federal governmental structure, the national-security branch has always permitted the other three branches to maintain the veneer or the appearance of being in charge. The national-security branch doesn’t care about appearances or veneers. It just cares about being in charge.
For a great book on this subject, one that convinced me of the validity of this thesis, I have long highly recommended National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon, professor of law at Tufts University and former counsel to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
That’s how the CIA got Trump to change his mind about releasing the JFK records when he was president. The CIA is in charge. Trump, as president, answers to the CIA, not the other way around.
So, now what? You have these three factors at play: (1) Trump’s vow to immediately order a release of the records as soon as he is sworn in as president; (2) The CIA’s obvious desire that those records never see the light of day; and (3) If the CIA pulls rank and orders Trump to cease and desist and to violate his vow, it will be confirming my thesis (and Glennon’s thesis) that it is the national-security branch that is running the federal government, something that they do not want the American people to realize.
Therefore, to ensure that Trump retains the veneer of being in charge, the CIA might simply permit him to release the records, something it was not willing to do the last time that Trump was president. But that obviously means releasing assassination-related records that the CIA clearly does not want to be released.
My prediction: The CIA is going to order Trump not to release the records and Trump is going to comply with the order by engaging in another buckle, just like the last time he was president. Like the first time around, I predict that he will declare that “national security” is still at stake and order a partial release of some irrelevant records and make a big deal of it, while continuing to keep the rest of the records — i.e., the incriminating ones — secret. Of course, this option would continue to keep the CIA’s records secret and therefore advance the cover-up of the national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy, but, at the same, time would confirm my thesis (and Glennon’s thesis) that the national-security branch runs the federal government and the other three branches, including the executive branch, defer to its rule.
Liberalism in the West has devolved into an aggressive and intolerant ideology in which freedom, democracy, and human rights take a back seat to power, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
His remarks were part of a keynote address at the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on Thursday.
“Today’s Western liberalism, in my opinion, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative, towards any sovereign and independent thought, and now justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even mass genocide of the civilian population,” Putin said.
Moscow has traditionally considered the “collective West” to consist of the US and its allies in North America, Europe, Australia and East Asia. Their once-liberal governments have transformed their guiding ideology into something “totalitarian in essence,” the Russian president argued.
“Democracy is increasingly being interpreted as minority rule rather than rule of the majority, and traditional democracy is even being put at odds with some abstract freedom, for the sake of which – as some believe – democratic procedures, elections, the opinion of the majority, freedom of speech and impartiality of the media can be disregarded, or even sacrificed,” said Putin.
The Russian president called this trend towards tyranny as one of the biggest threats to the emerging multipolar world order.
The plenary session at which Putin spoke was titled ‘Security for Everyone. Together – Into a New World’. This year’s Valdai meeting is taking place under the motto ‘A Lasting Peace – On What Basis? Universal Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century’.
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
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.