Tehran rejects ‘baseless’ US accusations of meddling in presidential election
Press TV – October 4, 2024
Iran has rejected “baseless” US accusations that it is attempting to influence the upcoming presidential election, saying Washington, with a record of interference in other countries’ affairs, is “in no position” to make such claims against Tehran.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks on Friday, two days after an annual assessment by the Department of Homeland Security alleged that Iran, Russia and China are trying to influence the November vote, including by employing artificial intelligence to disseminate fake or divisive information.
Baghaei said, “These repeated and baseless claims, which have been made by some US officials and institutions for some time, are politically-motivated and serve domestic political purposes.”
“The US government, which has a long history of illegal interference in the internal affairs of other countries, is in no position to level such accusations at other states.”
Back in August, the campaign of US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that it had been hacked, pinning the blame on Iran without providing evidence.
Meanwhile, the FBI and other US agencies alleged that Iranian hackers had sought to interest President Joe Biden’s campaign in information stolen from Trump’s campaign, sending unsolicited emails to people associated with the then-Democratic candidate.
The Islamic Republic said it does not accord any credence to the accusations, emphasizing that it has no intent or motive to meddle in the American election.
Iran’s oil production nears pre-sanctions levels: Report
The Cradle | October 4, 2024
Iran’s oil production is running at almost full capacity despite US sanctions, amid Israeli threats to target Tehran’s oil infrastructure in an expanded regional war, Bloomberg reported on 4 October.
The Islamic Republic’s oil output has reached 3.4 million barrels per day, just a few hundred thousand barrels below a previous high of 3.9 million.
After US President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran’s production dropped as low as two million barrels per day.
Iran now sells much of its oil to China at reduced prices, as Beijing has been willing to ignore US sanctions seeking to block the sales.
“Iran is having success exporting thanks to a willing customer in China, the increased sophistication of illicit transportation channels, and the relatively low interest in the US to take action,” said Henning Gloystein and Greg Brew, analysts at Eurasia Group. “There’s a risk that Israel strikes Iranian oil facilities.”
According to Bloomberg, Tehran’s increased sales to China have taken place with the “tacit approval” of the White House, as US President Joe Biden and his advisors have eased sanctions enforcement to keep gasoline prices low.
In August 2023, before the wars in Gaza and Lebanon began, Bloomberg reported that “months of secretive diplomacy” between the US and Iran “have yielded progress on prisoner exchanges, the unblocking of frozen assets, and possibly even Iran’s enrichment of uranium. They also seem to have produced an informal arrangement on oil flows.”
Israel reportedly threatened to bomb Iran’s nuclear or oil facilities following Tehran’s large-scale missile attack on Israel.
Iran fired as many as 400 ballistic missiles at Israel on 1 October in retaliation for its killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut on 27 September.
In an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter, Biden said that his administration has been “discussing” possible Israeli plans to attack Iran’s oil industry in retaliation for the Iranian attack.
Bloomberg added that world oil prices jumped five percent on Thursday after Biden’s comment.
Russia eyeing record energy profits – think tank
RT | October 4, 2024
Russia’s energy revenues may reach record levels this year, buoyed by high export oil prices, according to independent economic think tank the Institute for Energy and Finance Foundation (FIEF).
Oil and gas profits have increased sharply this year, FIEF Director of Research Aleksey Belogoriev told the Far Eastern Energy Forum “Oil and Gas of Sakhalin” on Friday.
Income from oil exports jumped by 63% in January-July this year compared to the same period in 2023, totaling 6.4 trillion rubles ($67.5 billion), the researcher said during the session on the future of Russian energy exports. Gas revenues increased by 13% to 1.2 trillion rubles ($12.6 billion), he added.
“This year’s [oil and gas] revenues will be lower than in the record 2022, becoming the second highest in history,” said Belogoriev.
The expert cited an increase in the average export price of oil, and the relatively low revenue posted in the first half of 2023.
In January, one barrel of Russia’s flagship Urals blend of crude cost an average of $60 per barrel, but prices then gained steadily, reaching $84 in April. In July, Russian crude traded at around $80 per barrel.
The increase comes despite a barrage of sanctions imposed on Russia by the US, the EU and their allies since tensions between Moscow and Kiev escalated to its military operation in Ukraine in 2022.
The restrictions included an embargo on seaborne Russian oil, along with a $60-per-barrel price cap on other types of crude.
EU countries fell short of sanctioning Russian natural gas but started shunning it instead. In response, Moscow redirected its energy supplies to Asia, particularly to India and China, to compensate for the loss of some of the Western customers.
According to the latest data from the Finance Ministry released on Thursday, oil and gas revenues of the Russian budget grew by 49.4% in January-September year-on-year. The ministry is expecting oil and gas earnings to reach 10.99 trillion rubles ($116 billion) this year. In 2022 the Russian budget received 11.586 trillion rubles ($165 billion at the exchange rate at the time) from energy exports.
Russia Boosts Gas Deliveries to Europe, Outpacing US as Energy Crisis Deepens
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 04.10.2024
Disruption of Russian gas supplies due to Western sanctions on Moscow over Ukraine have left Europe grappling with spiraling inflation and surging energy bills.
Russia has once again overtaken the US in terms of gas supplies to the EU in the third quarter, while taking the highest market share in nine quarters, according to Sputnik’s analysis of data from the Bruegel think tank that specializes in economics.
Over the past three months, Russia has delivered 13.3 billion cubic meters of gas to the European market, compared to 13 billion the country supplied there in the second quarter and 11.5 billion, delivered in 2023 within the same period.
As a result, the share of Russian companies in the EU’s energy imports increased to 19.4% from 17.2% in April-June, reaching a maximum since the second quarter of 2022, the analysis showed.
Russia’s quarterly and annual pipeline gas deliveries to Europe grew by 8% and almost 13%, respectively, while the volume of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in the last quarter stood at 4.7 billion cubic meters, a 21% increase as compared to the third quarter of 2023.
The US has reduced its LNG deliveries to Europe to 9.5 billion cubic meters, becoming the third-largest LNG supplier after Russia.
Sputnik’s previous review of Eurostat data discovered that EU countries had to pay some €185 billion ($204 billion) extra on natural gas over the past 20 months after cutting themselves off from cheap, Russian pipeline gas amid Western sanctions that were introduced shortly after Moscow began a special military operation in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the EU’s “suicidal” and “absolutely political” decision to halt the purchase of Russian energy supplies would come back to bite the bloc.
Zelensky’s laughable ‘victory plan’ seems to be ‘working’ – he already got $8 billion
By Drago Bosnic | October 4, 2024
In the last two and a half years, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky pitched a number of “peace” plans, formulas, platforms and whatnot. Last year, the so-called Crimea Platform was all the rage, with the United States pressuring numerous countries to join this effectively void initiative. Then came the so-called “peace summits” in Switzerland, with Zelensky insisting everyone should come except the one country that actually matters – Russia. Supported by the US/EU/NATO, he kept pushing until many countries started signaling that such events are pointless and a waste of everyone’s time. By mid-July, the Kiev regime realized it would lose even the formal “support” that Washington DC and Brussels gathered through “diplomacy” (i.e. blackmail, coercion and arm-twisting). As the battlefield situation kept deteriorating, Zelensky suddenly became “open to the idea” of Russia attending the next “peace summit”.
However, the Kremlin was on the verge of laughing in the face of those who suggested this, refusing to take part in the political West’s ludicrous games. The “peace plan” that was offered to Moscow effectively boiled down to capitulation at a time when its forces were already making steady gains across the frontline, but particularly in the Donbass, by far the most heavily contested region in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Thus, in order to shift attention away from its collapsing defenses, the Neo-Nazi junta resorted to the most daring PR stunt yet – the Kursk oblast (region) incursion. Expectedly, this also turned out to be a disaster, with the political West itself frustrated by the way the Kiev regime forces were wasting precious resources while the defenses in the Donbass failed to stop the Russian advance. Zelensky’s PR team was now essentially out of new phrases/tropes and realized there won’t be any “peace summits” with Russia.
That was when the Neo-Nazi junta finally decided to recycle the old one – “winning the war”. All of a sudden, the word “peace” was replaced and now we got a “victory plan” once again. Obviously, such “grand schemes” require more money, so Zelensky traveled to the US and spent around a week there in late September, formally pitching the latest “victory plan” to the troubled Biden administration. Many pro-Trump Americans were frustrated by this and even argued that Zelensky was engaged in election meddling, as he visited Pennsylvania, the top swing state. On September 26, the White House hosted Zelensky, where he and Biden happily announced that the Kiev regime would immediately get $400 million, while the US pledged another $8 billion in so-called “aid”. Apparently, Zelensky was frustrated as Washington DC refused to allow the use of NATO-sourced long-range weapons, so he was given all those billions to “lighten up”.
The Neo-Nazi junta frontman officially presented his “victory plan” to the troubled Biden administration, prompting the Trump campaign to call Zelensky “the greatest salesman on Earth“. Obviously, anyone familiar with the way this works knows that the so-called “Ukraine aid” is just another way to get more taxpayer’s dollars back into the US and straight into the coffers of the DNC and Biden crime family. The latest revelations about this scheme show that the warmongering oligarchy in Washington DC initiated the Ukrainian crisis over a decade ago precisely for this reason. However, at least part of these promised funds will surely end in Ukraine, where they’ll be used to bribe numerous Kiev regime officials, but also prolong the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. The unfortunate populace of the NATO-occupied country is paying the price, while the rest of us get to live in fear of uncontrollable thermonuclear escalation.
This still leaves the obvious question – what is this “victory plan” about? It wouldn’t be the first time that the Neo-Nazi junta is claiming that it can “win”, but it “just needs this one game changer”. So far, only nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers haven’t been delivered to its forces. However, nothing worked, so how would this new “plan” turn the tide? Russian offensive capabilities only keep growing, with a deadly combination of artillery dominance and air superiority aided by unrivaled long-range strike systems. Not even NATO itself can match that, let alone the battered Kiev regime forces. The latest assessments only confirmed previous findings about their atrocious casualty ratio, which is why the Russian military is advancing much faster across the frontlines. The Neo-Nazi junta simply doesn’t have the manpower and equipment to prevent this, forcing it to continuously pull back to new defensive positions.
Thus, Zelensky’s “victory plan” effectively boils down to an over the top wishlist counting on a Russia-NATO escalation. In simpler terms, the political West needs to go to war with Moscow to prevent the Kiev regime’s complete defeat. Unsurprisingly, many in Washington DC aren’t really happy about this, as going to war with nuclear-armed Russia would mean the end of America itself, particularly as Moscow has an advantage in terms of both quality and quantity. Its strategic arsenal is second to none and the Pentagon is surely aware of this.
Zelensky’s “victory plan” is yet to be publicly revealed, but senior US officials who have seen it say there’s nothing original or innovative in it. On September 25, The Wall Street Journal quoted one who said that he’s “unimpressed”, as “there’s not much new there”. It can only be concluded that the Neo-Nazi junta and its overlords simply want to keep the NATO-orchestrated war going for as long as possible.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
India does not share Japan’s vision of NATO-like alliance in Asia: FM
By Ahmed Adel | October 4, 2024
Japan’s new Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, on October 1 stressed the need to seek deeper ties with allied nations, especially to create a NATO-like organisation in Asia. However, this pursuit is not shared by India, the second most powerful military in Asia, which is also projected to overtake Japan economically in the next few years.
Ishiba has repeatedly called for a more balanced relationship with Washington, including greater oversight of bases in Japan used by the US military, but he has also proposed creating an Asian version of NATO’s collective security group to deter China, an idea that could draw Beijing’s ire and has already been dismissed by a senior US official as hasty, Reuters reported.
On the same day, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said he does not share Ishiba’s vision of an “Asian NATO.” Jaishankar said at an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington that, unlike Japan, India has never been a treaty ally of another country.
“We don’t have that kind of strategic architecture in mind. We have … a different history and different way of approaching,” Jaishankar said when asked about Ishiba’s call.
In addition to the creation of a NATO-like organisation in Asia, the new premier has called for the stationing of Japanese troops on US soil and even shared control of Washington’s nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Japan’s nuclear-armed neighbours, namely China, Russia and North Korea.
“In his victory speech [on September 28], he spoke about the need to beef up Japan’s security after recent territorial incursions by Chinese and Russian military vessels,” Reuters reported.
Since a so-called Asian NATO would also target Russia, India clearly wants to distance itself from any notion of being involved, considering the burgeoning relations the two countries share, which are only growing stronger.
In his address at the 79th United Nations General Assembly on September 28, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed his country’s support for India’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, stressing that a “fairer world order” requires the expansion of the representation of the Global South.
“A fairer world order undoubtedly requires the expansion of the representation of the Global South in the UN Security Council. We support our position in favour of the candidacies of Brazil and India, while at the same time taking a positive decision on the well-known initiatives of the African Union,” Lavrov said.
Meanwhile, during his appearance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jaishankar answered a question about helping Russia and Ukraine resolve their differences: “I’m glad you used the word communication because I think at the moment perhaps (it) is the best description for what we are currently.”
At the same time, Russia was again the largest crude supplier to India in September, registering an increase of 11.5% to 1.79 million barrels per day against 1.61 million barrels per day in August, data from Vortexa showed. This comes as the two countries continue efforts to conduct trade in their respective currencies rather than the US dollar.
Given New Delhi’s traditional and long-held ties with Moscow, it is little surprise that Jaishankar has announced his reservations about Japan’s idea to establish a NATO-like alliance in Asia, which would target not only China but also Russia.
With the US expressing scepticism and India, as Asia’s second power, creating distance, Tokyo has humiliatingly backtracked from immediately pursuing Ishiba’s vision.
Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya on October 2 described Ishiba’s proposal for a NATO-like alliance in Asia as a “future vision” for longer-term consideration, downplaying the idea to avoid provoking China and Russia.
“It is quite difficult to immediately set up an organisation that would impose mutual defence obligations in Asia,” the 67-year-old former defence minister said during a press conference after Ishiba formed his Cabinet a day before.
“This is an issue to consider in the medium- to long-term, spending some time,” he added.
In an attempt to avoid backlash from Beijing and Moscow, Iwaya claimed that the Asian NATO idea is “not something directed toward any particular country.” However, the Chinese and Russians obviously would not believe this for a moment.
Although some regional states, such as South Korea, would obviously support the formation of such an alliance to oppose China, Ishiba’s idea was put to bed the moment the US and India expressed scepticism. However, the US is highly occupied by events in Ukraine and the Middle East and can very well activate Ishiba’s proposal once these other fronts have been pacified. This would leave India as the only major power without a stake in opposing a NATO-like alliance in Asia.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
New York City Health Officials to Hold Bird Flu Tabletop Exercise
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 3, 2024
New York City officials are planning a tabletop simulation later this month to prepare for a hypothetical bird flu outbreak, a city health official revealed at the International Bird Flu Summit, taking place this week in Fairfax, Virginia.
The summit is sponsored by Gingko Biosecurity, which says it is “building and deploying the next-generation infrastructure and technologies that global leaders need to predict, detect, and respond to a wide variety of biological threats.”
Public health officials, doctors, scientists, researchers and pharmaceutical company representatives convened at the summit amid more reports of bird flu hotspots, including a cluster of eight possible bird flu cases in Missouri.
According to U.S. News & World Report, the Missouri cases “could be the first cases of bird flu spreading between humans in the United States.”
Italy and Hungary recently announced they detected bird flu outbreaks at farms, Reuters reported. According to CBS News, bird flu killed 47 tigers, three lions and a panther at zoos in Vietnam.
Epidemiologist Nicholas Hulscher told The Defender that the Missouri and other global outbreaks are not concerning.
“The current outbreaks of H5N1 among animal populations have not resulted in mass mortality with the exception of government-mandated culling,” Hulscher said. “Genotype B3.13, the currently circulating strain in U.S. cattle, is currently a very mild illness for humans. There has never been a reported human H5N1 death in the U.S.”
Dr. Clayton J. Baker, an internal medicine physician, told The Defender the latest news reports strike him “as classic ‘fear porn.’” He noted that before the U.S. News & World Report story, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report stating that only one H5N1 case in humans had been detected in Missouri.
Journalist and author John Leake is attending the Bird Flu Summit. He told The Defender that while mainstream media reports are hyping purported bird flu outbreaks, the atmosphere at the summit is subdued, albeit aligned with the prevailing narrative.
“They’re following, I’d say, the narrative that we’ve been treated to all year, that this new H5N1 is jumping from birds into mammals — for example, dairy cattle, marine mammals, which are genetically, genomically far closer to humans,” Leake said.
“So, the prevailing orthodoxy is that this pathogenic avian influenza is getting closer to making the evolutionary jump from animals into humans. And if that happens, it’s going to place a big burden on human health and the public healthcare system,” Leake added.
As for the Missouri outbreak, Leake said it’s been a topic of discussion at the summit — but no evidence has been presented to confirm that human-to-human bird flu transmission has occurred.
In addition to the news about New York City’s planned bird flu simulation, the topic of gain-of-function research involving the H5N1 virus came up, with some attendees speculating that the current predominant H5N1 strain may be a product of such research.
Simulation of bird flu outbreak ‘cause for tremendous concern’
According to Leake, Syra Madad, senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at NYC Health + Hospitals, told summitt attendees that her agency is planning a “full pandemic tabletop exercise” on Oct. 21.
Noting the similarities with similar simulations that took place shortly before the COVID-19 and monkeypox outbreaks in 2019 and 2022, respectively, Leake said, “In my experience, once these guys start doing this kind of thing, they’re signaling that they think it’s for real.”
Baker said news of the tabletop simulation “is cause for tremendous concern.” He called the timing of the COVID-19 tabletop exercise, Event 201, which took place in October 2019, “in retrospect, ‘suspicious in the extreme.’”
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation organized the 2019 simulation of a coronavirus outbreak.
In March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in conjunction with the Munich Security Conference, organized a “tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats,” based on a hypothetical global monkeypox outbreak in May 2022.
The simulation preceded the May 2022 monkeypox outbreak.
“Any full-scale exercises for a pathogen should raise concerns about possible pre-planned release,” Hulscher said. “Event 201 should remind us that ‘drills’ are usually held before the real event.”
Hulscher suggested a bird flu outbreak could be weaponized to disrupt this year’s U.S. presidential election or the next administration.
“Peter Hotez, Bill Gates and Robert Redfield have warned of future pandemics worse than SARS-CoV-2 with high confidence that it will be avian influenza,” Hulscher said. “Many groups would benefit from disrupting the 2024 election and/or society in general. Thus, I think there’s a high probability of another intentional laboratory leak.”
‘Abundant evidence’ current bird flu strain a product of gain-of-function research
According to Baker, the H5N1 bird flu virus is the subject of gain-of-function research by several scientists and laboratories, including Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Ph.D., at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Ron Fouchier, Ph.D., at Erasmus University in the Netherlands; and the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Georgia.
Leake said Kawaoka and Fouchier “have published papers in which they have proclaimed that they have successfully created an H5N1 variant that is transmissible by aerosolized droplets amongst ferrets,” noting that “the pulmonary tract or the respiratory tract of Ferrets is considered very almost eerily close to that of humans.”
According to Hulscher, “There is abundant evidence that the current circulating strain of H5N1 in the United States — Genotype B3.13 Clade 2.3.4.4b — is a consequence of serial passage gain-of-function research being conducted at SEPRL.”
“The accelerated evolution of H5N1 via serial passage in mallard ducks may be the reason behind the adaptations to new species,” Hulscher said, referring to a preprint study he co-authored with Leake and cardiologist Peter McCullough, which Hulscher said “provides the entire rationale for a possible laboratory leak.”
The preprint has been accepted by a journal and is awaiting publication, Hulscher said.
According to Baker, “It’s a documented fact that gain-of-function manipulation of bird flu has been going on for many years. There is no legitimate reason to perform this type of research, other than to weaponize these viruses.”
Writing for the Brownstone Institute, Baker said there are at least five laboratories in the U.S. conducting gain-of-function research on H5N1, in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1975.
In a recent post on Substack, Leake said that the “Pandemic Flu Industry will likely need lab assistance to amplify human-to-human transmission and virulence.”
Baker said, “All a malicious group of people would have to do is have their meeting, ‘get their ducks in a row,’ so to speak, then release those gain-of-function-infected ducks into the environment. Or use whatever vector of spread they choose.”
Leake told The Defender that during the Bird Flu Summit, he asked Karen Murphy, senior director of biosecurity for Gingko Biosecurity, if the company is “doing any kind of surveillance of this pathogen being manipulated and released from a lab.”
In her response, Murphy confirmed that her company has developed a product that can detect whether a pathogen developed organically or is man-made — but that this product is only being made available to government and intelligence agencies.
She said:
“When we think about biosecurity surveillance at large, we’re thinking about things that develop organically.
“We actually do have a product on the market today. It’s called NR, and NR will help — It is mostly for government organizations and the intelligence community, but the concept behind NR is to help understand if something has been man-made or female-made or if it’s organic.”
Remarking on Murphy’s response, Leake said “We’re once again left with these national security state assurances.”
“How are we the citizens going to know if it’s another example of what we saw coming out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Leake asked, referring to the likelihood that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked out of that facility.
Leake said companies like Gingko Biosecurity are “well within the biopharmaceutical complex,” adding that they represent “commercial interests that seem pretty revved up about pandemics, when the money flows.”
“Until we outlaw gain-of-function research entirely and enforce the Biological Weapons Convention, which is being flouted by gain-of-function researchers, we’ll have this sword of Damocles hanging over our heads forever,” Baker said.
Several key scientists and researchers, including Redfield, former director of the CDC, have called for a moratorium on gain-of-function research or for the total cessation of such research.
Last month, the U.S. Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed S.4667, the Risky Research Review Act, out of committee, sending the bill to the full Senate. If passed, the bill will subject research involving risky pathogens, including gain-of-function research, to strict oversight.
NYC plan includes isolating bird flu patients, administering Tamiflu
Leake said there has been only limited discussion of bird flu vaccines so far during the summit.
“We were excited to attend a vaccine talk that was in the published program … but when we got our updated program electronically at the conference, that vaccine presentation had apparently been removed,” Leake said.
In contrast, Leake said that there was plenty of discussion around pandemic preparedness and response during this week’s Bird Flu Summit.
According to Leake, Madad, an infectious disease epidemiologist, said New York City hospitals are preparing a bird flu outbreak preparedness plan focused on isolating people suspected of infection and administering antiviral medications.
“She really didn’t offer a satisfactory answer at all,” Leake said. “She said, ‘We have got an idea or a concept for isolation [and] we’ve got antivirals like Tamiflu.’”
“Antivirals administered in the hospital setting to an acutely ill patient? It’s too late by then,” Leake said. “Based on her testimony, they don’t have a hospital treatment plan. Instead, vague talk of isolating the patient, which of course is cold comfort if you’re severely ill, if you can’t breathe in a hospital.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Adam Schiff and Other Democrats Demand Social Media Censor “Misinformation” and “Disinformation” This Month

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 2, 2024
In the US, the Democrats continue with their sustained efforts to pressure major social media platforms, now about a month ahead of the presidential election.
The Twitter Files give some idea about what may be happening behind closed doors (if previous campaigns/elections are any indication), but this is about public pressure. This time, Congressman Adam Schiff’s turn is to “demand action” from companies behind social media.
Meta (Instagram separately), X, Google (and YouTube separately), TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and Microsoft are the recipients of a letter Schiff signed along with seven fellow members of the House of Representatives (four of them, like Schiff, California Democrats).
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
The demand is this: disclose what plans these companies with the most influence and reach in the online space have to counter what the congressman and his colleagues consider to be the spread of mis- and dis- information – but also, “potential incitement of violence on their platforms in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.”
Schiff’s letter doesn’t clarify if (repeated) attempts to assassinate a candidate count as “incitement of violence,” or really, what kind of violence he has in mind – but he does mention “attacks on our democracy.”
Yet, the companies are supposed to let him know what they are doing to stop it. Along the way, the assertion is made that they have all “rolled back” their previous election policies.
“This almost universal reversion on the issue of combating election mis- and disinformation is incredibly troubling,” the letter reads.
Meta, Google, X, etc. are also asked, among other things, “Will your company commit to sharing data and metrics on the effectiveness of your enforcement systems in relation to US elections and political speech?”
On the other side of this political maelstrom, Republicans – notably the House Judiciary Committee – continue trying to shed light on how the White House and government agencies pressured and then colluded with major social platforms during previous campaigns and elections, all in the name of supposedly combating “misinformation.”
This has produced some visible, public results – like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg writing to the committee to apologize for succumbing to that pressure on issues like Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression.
The revelations that the government and Big Tech colluded to usher in unprecedented levels of censorship in the past continues to be tested in the courts as well.
Deal or No Deal?

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | October 3, 2024
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
–Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)
The case of the Gitmo plea agreement keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.
A few weeks ago, we learned that a plea agreement had been entered into by way of a signed contract between the retired general in the Pentagon who is supervising all Gitmo prosecutions, the Gitmo defendants and defense counsel, and the military prosecutors. The agreement, as we understand it from sources who have seen it, provides that in return for a guilty plea, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others will serve life terms at Gitmo, rather than be exposed at trial to the death penalty. The guilty plea is to include a public and detailed recitation of guilt.
Stated differently, Mohammed agreed to reveal under oath the nature and extent of the conspiracy that resulted in the crimes of 9/11.
So far, this is straightforward. While the trial judge may have given his nod of approval to the terms of the agreement, under the federal rules of criminal procedure, the agreement is not final until the judge hears the defendants actually admit guilt under oath in a public courtroom and then accepts the plea in a written order.
That admission has not yet taken place because the Secretary of Defense, who learned of the plea agreement while traveling in Europe, removed the authority of the retired general supervising the prosecution to enter into plea agreements without his express approval.
Thereupon, defense counsel asked the court to enforce the agreement anyway since it is a signed contract, and schedule the plea hearing at which Mohammed and others will presumably comply with their obligations to spill the beans on this 23-year-old case.
The military prosecutors — who initiated the plea negotiations because they recognized that they cannot ethically defend the George W. Bush administration’s torture of these defendants — have been ordered by the Pentagon to ask the judge to reject the plea.
Thus, we have a tangled web, tangled because the government deceived the American public and federal judges about its own criminal behavior — the Bush torture regime. The signed contract was initiated and drafted by the same military prosecutors who have been ordered — against their professional judgement — to ask the trial judge to repudiate it.
Those who have seen it have revealed that the agreement contains a poison pill — a clause that survives the agreement even if it is nullified.
That poison pill removes the death penalty from the case, should the case go to trial.
This was apparently made a part of the agreement in case the political winds blow against the government and it gets cold feet. That is probably what happened.
When Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin — who is not a lawyer — was asked why he ordered the agreement rescinded, he stated that the American public has a right to learn “all” the evidence in the case. He must have made that comment while ignorant of the terms of the plea agreement, as the agreement requires a full recitation by the defendants of their knowledge of the events leading up to 9/11; and nothing prevents prosecutors from revealing whatever evidence they choose to reveal.
Moreover, the Pentagon’s own team of prosecutors have warned against the public revelation of “all” the evidence in the case because the evidence of stomach-churning torture will expose war crimes for which there is no statute of limitations.
Stated differently, if this case is tried in the traditional way as opposed to the entry of a plea agreement with the defendants’ recitation under oath of their knowledge of the crimes, George W. Bush himself and others in his administration, in the CIA and in the military could be indicted and tried in foreign countries for war crimes.
As well, there will be blowback against American troops now stationed abroad, most of whom were not born when Bush ordered torture and deception and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. His “don’t mess with Texas” presidential style continues to haunt today. He failed to understand that the problem of searching the world for monsters to slay is that the monsters you find will follow you home.
Adding to the jurisprudential oddities here is the intrusion of Congress. When President Barack Obama revealed his intention to close Gitmo — it costs half a billion dollars a year to operate — Congress enacted a statute that prohibited the removal of the defendants from Gitmo to the American mainland for any reason, including the infliction of capital punishment. That statute is probably unconstitutional as violative of the separation of powers. Just as the president cannot tell Congress when and how to vote, Congress cannot tell the president how to manage federal prisons or prosecutions.
Gitmo was a Devil’s Island, flawed from its inception. More than 100 years ago, the U.S. leased the land on which Gitmo is located from Cuba. When the lease ran out, the U.S. refused to leave. Bush’s lawyers advised him that if he tortured and prosecuted in Cuba, federal laws didn’t apply, the Constitution wouldn’t restrain him and, best of all, those pesky federal judges couldn’t interfere with him.
In five cases, the Supreme Court rejected Bush’s arguments for evading the Constitution. Bush has visited upon all of his successors a nearly insoluble jurisprudential mess. A mess born out of antipathy to the Constitution he swore to uphold and the knee-jerk bravado apparently integral to his persona.
Gitmo is a tragic example of what happens when the American public entrusts the preservation of constitutional norms into the hands of those unworthy of that trust and quick to cut constitutional corners in order to persecute unpopular defendants. The Constitution itself was written in large measure to assure that these things can’t happen here. But they do.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Now it’s oil: China, BRICS and OPEC+ build new trading system, locking out US suppliers and banks
Inside China Business | September 27, 2024
China and Iran developed a comprehensive energy market, involving shadow fleets of tankers and a system of rebranding oil for domestic use, or for further export to other Asian countries. Russia has since joined, after sanctions were placed on oil producers and banks there. The result is a parallel economy that now totals millions of barrels per day in shipments to China by OPEC+ countries, and a sharp decline in global demand from Western suppliers. The implications for US and European oil suppliers are very negative, as global crude prices are now far below profit breakeven levels. Already, US oil majors are shelving oilfield development projects, and reducing active rig count. Resources and links: Barrons, BP Says Oil Demand Is Falling, While OPEC Says It’s Rising.
What Gives? https://www.barrons.com/articles/bp-s…
Rigzone, JP Morgan Talks Global Oil Demand https://www.rigzone.com/news/jp_morga…
S&P, Barclays lowers 2024 Brent oil price forecast to $93/b on demand concerns https://www.spglobal.com/commodityins…
Oil Prices Poised To Climb in 2024 Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty https://www.investopedia.com/oil-pric…
CNBC, OPEC is highly bullish on long-term oil demand growth. Not everyone agrees https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/24/opec-…
NPR, Oil prices plunge as demand from China falls https://www.npr.org/2024/09/14/nx-s1-…
Zerohedge, What Sanctions? China Imports Record Amount Of Iranian Oil https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/what…
The axis of evasion: Behind China’s oil trade with Iran and Russia https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs…
Oil price charts from finviz.com/futures and Bloomberg https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ash…
US drillers cut oil and gas rigs for fifth week in six, Baker Hughes says https://www.xm.com/se/research/market…
Average WTI price needed for U.S. oil and gas producers to stay profitable by well status in selected U.S. oilfields as of 2024 https://www.statista.com/statistics/7…
Capital Expenditure (CapEx) Definition, Formula, and Examples https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/…
Economic Collapse & the Post-American World
By Glenn Diesen | October 2, 2024
Washington’s declining fiscal responsibility was not resolved after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09 as the US instead kicked the can down the road. The problem has subsequently grown in magnitude as the banking crisis caused by too much borrowing and spending was overcome by borrowing and spending even more to get the economy restarted.
More than 15 years of low interest rates have fueled many asset bubbles, caused malinvestments, ballooned the debt, and laid the foundation for another banking crisis. The US public is deeply indebted, the middle class is shrinking, and the national debt stands at 35,5 trillion dollars. The US now pays 1 trillion dollars a year in interest on this debt.
The contradictions in the economy are evident as the stock market continues a prolonged strong performance as new money is recklessly introduced into the system, while the real economy goes from bad to worse.
The next banking crisis will likely cause a dollar crisis as the US cannot significantly increase the interest rate to save the dollar without sinking the economy, and it cannot significantly reduce the interest rate to save the economy without destroying the dollar. The US simply lacks the tools to deal with the coming economic crisis.
Reversing the Decline Without Addressing the Underlying Problems
The US attempts to revive its economic competitiveness by subsidizing its industries, demanding geoeconomic loyalty from allies, and sabotaging the industries of rivals. Subsidies are financed by debt and there is subsequently a risk that the US will exacerbate the basic problems. The generous subsidies for its industries under the Inflation Reduction Act have encouraged German and other European industries to relocate to the US. Furthermore, disconnecting Europe from cheap Russian energy with sanctions and the destruction of Nord Stream also incentivised energy-intensive European industries to move across the Atlantic. As the war in Ukraine continues and the sense of insecurity in Europe grows, the US can convert European security dependence into geoeconomic loyalty as Europe is also told to decouple from Chinese technologies.
With the future of NATO at risk as the US sets its eyes on Asia, the Europeans attempt to increase their value to Washington by abandoning former ambitions to pursue strategic autonomy and “European sovereignty”, and instead subordinate national interests to the whims of Washington. The gains of Washington’s renewed influence on the old continent will come at a cost as Europe becomes weakened and less relevant, while political alternatives in Europe are increasingly winning elections by challenging Washington and Brussels.
The economic coercion against China to roll back its technological and economic development is failing. The disruptions to supply chains by for example banning the export of computer chips to China resulted in American tech giants such as Intel taking huge losses in terms of revenue and losing thousands of employees as their main customer was China. While the US cannot diversify away from China, China can diversify away from the US by enhancing its technological sovereignty and establishing new technological partnerships. This has striking similarities to the EU’s failure to sever its economic ties with Russia. Russia could diversify away from Europe by reorienting its economy to the East, while Europe could not diversify away from Russia as evidenced by Europe’s economic problems.
American efforts to reshore its production are also disrupted by Chinese counter-sanctions on for example rare earth elements. The US has also discovered that tearing up the supply chains developed over decades creates problems as new competitive supply chains will take many years to establish. The old house is demolished before the new house has been built.
Efforts of “friendshoring” by sourcing supplies from friendly countries such as India also have limited success. India responds to the increased demand by sourcing more materials and technologies from China, which increases the costs to the US and further intensifies India-China economic integration in BRICS. This also has similarities to the EU’s economic coercion against Russia, as the Europeans buy Russian natural resources at a higher cost through third parties. Russia sells some of its resources at a discounted price to its economic partners to make up for the risks of secondary sanctions, and this discount only further increases the competitiveness of Asia vis-à-vis the West.
The US is also unlikely to recover its industrial might due to the heavy financialization of its economy as rent-seeking activities in the economy make it impossible to compete with industrial economies such as China. While China built infrastructure to enhance the economic competitiveness of its companies, the US burdens its companies with many costs that do not contribute to the production process.
US competitiveness worsens as China continues to increase its competitiveness in high-tech, and the profits from the positive trade gap are reinvested in the form of subsidies. The industrial might of China enables innovations, while the growth of patents increases rapidly. These developments are also seen in the education sector as Chinese universities are becoming more competitive and many Chinese researchers in the US even return to China. While American universities still dominate in areas such as finance, law, psychology and marketing, Chinese universities have begun taking the lead for the real economy and thus attract foreign students. The US economy will likely face growing structural problems as an economy cannot be built on the financial activities from growing debt, suing each other, and treating the growing mental disorders.
Finding Solutions
Many of America’s problems derive from imperial overstretch as its economy cannot sustain its military and strategic commitments around the world. Resources are transferred from the core to the periphery, resulting in the degradation of infrastructure, growing economic inequality, social instability, and political polarisation and decline. The US economy, society and political system are exhausted and need deep restructuring and adjustment to the multipolar realities on the ground. The US is unlikely to make the necessary changes due to the prevailing ideology, demonisation of adversaries, crushing of dissent, and lack of political imagination for alternatives. The US will either default on its debt or pay back in devalued dollars by printing its way out of trouble.
There are no simple solutions to America’s economic problems, and we live in a time when political leaders respond to socio-economic complexities with ideological sloganeering and simplistic solutions. The US could have restructured its economy with for example ambitious industrial policies and restoring fiscal responsibility, without an aggressive economic war with China. However, this solution would have required the US to give up on its objective to preserve global primacy.
Too many economic disputes are instead militarised, and the expensive US military is itself overburdened with responsibilities around the world. As the US military transitions to confronting great powers, rival powers have another reason for why they should not invest in US Treasuries or use the dollar as this entails financing their own military containment. The attacks on China’s tech sector and the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds have sent shock-waves throughout the international system as all rules are seemingly suspended under the so-called international rules-based order.
A Post-American World
The rest of the non-Western world can see the coming disaster and is getting out of the splash zone. This is done by constructing a parallel international economic system with new supply chains, tech hubs, energy pipelines, a grain corridor, new commodity exchanges, new bimodal transportation corridors, development banks, digital currencies, payment systems, insurance systems and other important components of the international economy.
Much of the decoupling from the US, including de-dollarisation, is being facilitated by BRICS which creates the economic institutions for a multipolar world order. Historically, liberal international economic systems and free trade occur under an economic hegemony such as with Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th century as it creates incentives for the dominant state to embrace liberal economics to organise the world economy under its administration, which cements its economic and political power. BRICS attempts to form a vastly different economic system by accommodating a multipolar system through a “balance of dependence”, in which a multivector foreign policy and economic diversification enable states to avoid excessive dependence on any one state or region. It remains to be seen if BRICS can create a more benign international economic system that harmonises the interests of rival economies, or if it will descend into neo-mercantilism. Either way, the world is making arrangements for the post-American world.
