Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Did the US Declare the End of the Unipolar World Order?

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 31, 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview with Megyn Kelly on 30 January 2025 which could signal the beginning of the end of America’s hegemonic security strategy. Rubio recognised that unipolarity, having one centre of power in the world, was a temporary phenomenon that has now passed:

“it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.

Rubio suggested that the hegemonic position of the US resulted in a weakening of the Westphalian system based on sovereign states, and replaced it with a globalist system where the US claimed the role of a world policeman:

“And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem”.

Rubio is referring to the end of the unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War, and the need for the US to adjust to multipolar realities.

What is multipolarity?

If unipolarity is over, what is the multipolar system that is returning? The modern world order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 has been based on the principle of multipolarity and a balance of power to constrain expansionist and hegemonic ambitions of states. A multipolar distribution of power dictates what produces security and the purpose of diplomacy.

Security when there are many centres of power entails managing the security competition between states. Conflicts derive from security competition as the efforts by one state to enhance its own security by for example expanding its military power, will reduce the security of other states. “Indivisible security” is therefore the key principle in a multipolar system, which suggests that security cannot be divided – either it is security for all or there will be security for none. Any effort by a state to become dominant will therefore trigger great power conflicts as it compels other powers to collectively balance the aspiring hegemon.

Diplomacy in a multipolar system aims to enhance mutual understanding about competing security interests and reach a compromise that elevates the security of all states. It is imperative to put oneself in the opponent’s shoes and recognise that if the opponent’s security concerns are resolved, then that also enhances one’s own security.

Unipolarity

Unipolarity was celebrated after the Cold War as it was premised on some good intentions. The idea was that great powers would not engage in rivalry and security competition if the benign hegemon of the US could not be contested. US security strategy was based on global primacy, and it was expected that there was no possibility and need to compete with the benign hegemony of the US. Furthermore, US global primacy would also ensure that liberal democratic values would be elevated. Yet, unipolarity would depend on keeping down rising powers that would therefore have an interest to collectively balance the US. Liberal democratic values would be corrupted as they would be used to legitimise the sovereign inequality required to interfere in every corner of the world. Even Charles Krauthammer who coined and celebrated the term “unipolar moment”, recognised it was a temporary phenomenon that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Security under the unipolar system did not entail managing the security competition. On the contrary, security was dependent on dominating to such an extent that no rivals could even aspire to challenge the US. In 2002, the US Security Strategy explicitly outlined that global dominance would “dissuade future military competition” and that the US therefore had to perpetuate “the unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence”. The hegemonic strategy is why the West abandoned all agreements for an inclusive pan-European security architecture with Russia, and instead returned to bloc politics by expanding NATO toward Russian borders. It would threaten Russian security, but there would be no security competition as Russia would be too weak. The sentiment was that Russia would have to adjust to new realities or be confronted by NATO that had encircled it.

Diplomacy under unipolarity also came to an end. Diplomacy no longer meant to recognise mutual security concerns to find solutions for indivisible security. Rather, diplomacy was replaced with the language of ultimatums and threats as other states would have to accept unilateral concessions. In the past, Western politicians and media would discuss the security concerns of adversaries to mitigate security competition. After the Cold War, Western politicians and media largely stopped discussing the security concerns of adversaries, as there was no desire to “legitimise” the notion that Western hegemony as a “force for good” could be considered a threat. When the West placed its military forces on the borders of other countries, it was claimed to bring democracy, stability and peace. Furthermore, conflicts could not be resolved by diplomacy if they challenged the dominance of the West. For example, taking into account Russian security concerns about NATO’s incursion into Ukraine would represent a rejection of the hegemonic system. While NATO rejected diplomacy for three years as hundreds of thousands of men died on the front line, Rubio now suggests that diplomacy and negotiations must start as “We just have to be realistic about the fact that Ukraine has lost”.

A reason for optimism

In the late 1920s, Antonio Gramsci wrote about the troubling times as a period of interregnum. Gramsci wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”.

The great power conflicts in the world today are largely a result of the world being in a transition between unipolarity and multipolarity. The West attempts to defeat its rivals to restore the unipolarity of the 1990s, while the vast majority of the world seeks to complete the transition to multipolarity. As the US worries about unsustainable debt, the collective balancing by adversaries and the rising possibility of nuclear war – it appears that there is a growing willingness to retire the temporary project of unipolarity.

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The 99th Congress That Called Vaccines “Unavoidably Unsafe”

By Ginger Taylor | Brownstone Institute | January 28, 2025

Meet the original “Conspiracy Theorists,” Ronald Reagan and the members of the 99th Congress, who, in 1986, passed into law the “medical misinformation” that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” and potentially caused autism.

Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, a scathing letter accusing him of, among other things, “dangerous views on vaccine safety” and “false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” The letter included 175 questions that she said he should be prepared to answer at his Senate confirmation hearings. But in her letter, she exposes her own ignorance of federal vaccine policy and the laws passed by her own legislative branch.

In 1986 the House of Representatives passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) by a voice vote. Senator Warren should know that her current Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was, at the time, a member of the House and should presumably know that the bill that was passed to give vaccine makers liability protection from civil claims when a child was killed or seriously injured by a vaccine, and placed all vaccines administered to children in the legal category of “unavoidably unsafe” medical products, which means a product that cannot be made safe for its intended use.

In 2018, Mary Holland, JD, then the Director of the Graduate Legal studies program at New York University School of Law, and now Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Health Defense, a non-profit organization founded by Kennedy, remarked on the legal standing of the safety of vaccines:

The key language about “unavoidable” side effects comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 USC 300aa-22, re manufacturer responsibility (see bold text below).

That language was based on language from the Second Restatement of Torts (a legal treatise by tort scholars), adopted by most state courts in the mid-1960’s, that considered all vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe” products. The Restatement opined that such products, “properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warnings, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”

Further the 2011 SCOTUS ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case interpreted the highlighted text below from the National Vaccine Injury Act to find that it did not permit design defect litigation – that issue had been unclear since 1986, and different state high courts and federal circuits had decided the issue differently. So, [it] is correct that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) never decided that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” directly, but it acknowledged that Congress considers them to be so.

Sec. 300aa-22. Standards of responsibility

(a) General rule

Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.

(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings

(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-supreme-court-did-not-deem-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe-congress-did.html

What few know, even among their own memberships and supporters, is that the following medical authorities consider vaccines unsafe:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”)

The American Medical Association (“AMA”)

The American Academy of Family Physicians (“AAFP”)

The American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (“ACOP”)

The American College of Preventive Medicine (“ACPM”)

The American Public Health Association (“APHA”)

The Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Officials (“ASTHO“)

The Center for Vaccine Awareness and Research at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston

Every Child By Two, Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunization (“ECBT”)

Immunization Action Coalition (“IAC”)

Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”)

The March of Dimes Foundation

Meningitis Angels

The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (“NAPNAP”)

The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases

The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition

The National Meningitis Association, Inc. (“NMA”)

Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (“PKIDs”)

The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (“PIDS”)

The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (“SAHM”)

The Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”)

When the family of Hannah Bruesewitz, a child injured by Wyeth’s Tri-Immunol DTP vaccine, challenged the 1986 Act in the Supreme Court for the right to sue Wyeth for Hannah’s severely disabling vaccine-adverse event, these organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Wyeth, asking the court to uphold the law that protects vaccine makers from liability for injury or death arising from any vaccine licensed by the FDA and recommended for children by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”). They even went as far as to argue against the idea that each vaccine should be individually evaluated for the “unavoidably unsafe” status, stating in their brief

Case-by-case consideration of whether vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, on the other hand, would “undoubtedly increase the costs and risks associated with litigation and would undermine a manufacturer’s efforts to estimate and control costs.”(citing Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 249 (3d Cir. 2009).

Brief Amici Curiae Of The American Academy Of Pediatrics and 21 Other Physicians and Public Health Organizations In Support Of Respondent [Wyeth LLC], at 25.

The organizations’ position that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe taken before the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government has caused consternation in parents and vaccine safety and choice advocates for decades, because many of these same organizations argue the exact opposite – that vaccines are safe – when they appear before state legislatures in support of school vaccine mandates and in opposition to vaccine exemptions.

A lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry may argue over breakfast in Washington, DC that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and then drive to Annapolis at lunchtime and testify that Maryland should remove religious exemptions to vaccines required for school entry because “vaccines are safe.”

Attempts to have these organizations explain their conflicting positions met with stonewalling.

In 2015, the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for the removal of and/or restrictions to the religious and conscientious objections to mandated childhood vaccines. The Executive Director of the Maine AAP, Dee Kerry deHaas, testified in writing that this should be done because “vaccines are safe,” but when testifying in person, said that vaccines are “mostly safe.” In my response to her, as the then Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, I asked several questions arising from her testimony, including the following questions:

How can the AAP argue that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” in the Supreme Court in order to convince the federal government to grant you liability protection from vaccine injury, and then argue that, “vaccines are safe,” and “vaccines are mostly safe,” before this committee in order to convince the State of Maine to mandate that families receive counseling/buy vaccines from you?

Are vaccines, “safe,” “mostly safe,” or “unavoidably unsafe?”

How do such widely contradictory statements engender trust in vaccines and in pediatricians?

Her response to my questions:

Ms. Taylor,

On behalf of the Maine AAP, I acknowledge receipt of your email and list of questions. I understand that our organizations have different perspectives in the vaccine debate. Each perspective has been aired in the legislative hearings and sessions with regard to these vaccine bills in the First Regular Session of the 127th Maine Legislature.

I respectfully decline to respond to your list of proposed questions or to continue the debate with you through electronic correspondence or social media.

Dee deHaas
Executive Director
American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter

Those advocating under this nonsensical construct quip that vaccines are unsafe, but only in DC.

Parent of a vaccine-injured son, Kim Spencer of The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, noted of the vaccine industry, “their claim that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’ won them liability protection, their claim that ‘vaccines are safe’ won them school and work mandates, but their claim that both are true has won them the distrust and contempt of parents.”

Senator Warren also accuses Mr. Kennedy of having, “spread false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” But Kennedy has only done what Warren’s Congressional colleagues did 20 years before he began in vaccine safety advocacy; promote research into the vaccine-autism link and any link between vaccines and other childhood disorders.

Congress, while giving liability protection to vaccine makers with the 1986 Act, also ordered HHS to study links between the pertussis vaccine and more than a dozen conditions, including autism:

SEC. 312. RELATED STUDIES.

(a) REVIEW OF PERTUSSIS VACCINES AND RELATED ILLNESSES AND CONDITIONS.—Not later than 3 years after the effective date of this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information (including information obtained from the studies required under subsection (e)) on the nature, circumstances, and extent of the relationship, if any, between vaccines containing pertussis (including whole cell, extracts, and specific antigens) and the following illnesses and conditions:

(1) Hemolytic anemia.

(2) Hypsarrhythmia.

(3) Infantile spasms.

(4) Reye’s syndrome.

(5) Peripheral mononeuropathy.

(6) Deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome.

(7) Aseptic meningitis.

(8) Juvenile diabetes.

(9) Autism.

(10) Learning disabilities.

(11) Hyperactivity.

(12) Such other illnesses and conditions as the Secretary may choose to review or as the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines established under section 2119 of the Public Health Service Act recommends for inclusion in such review. (Ante, p. 3771).

PUBLIC LAW 99–2660—NOV. 14, 1986 100 STAT. 3755

The pertussis vaccine injury inquiry ordered by law in 1986 was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health, carried out by the Institute of Medicine, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, and edited by, among others, none other than Harvard’s Harvey Fineberg, who chaired the Committee to review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. PubMed (a database maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health) gave the following summary of the final report, titled Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella

Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines:

Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness. This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines: The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome. The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura. The volume, which includes a description of the committee’s methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25121241/ (emphasis added).

The report’s cursory summary on autism was this: The report’s cursory summary on autism was this:

No data were identified that address the question of a relation between vaccination with DPT or its pertussis component and autism. There are no experimental data bearing on a possible biologic mechanism. (p. 152.)

In other words, we don’t know; no one has ever looked.

But since there was no data to prove a link, because there was no data, they decided to reject the hypothesis and conclude:

There is no evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine or the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and autism. (Id.)

Today there is a great deal more data than there was in 1991. This report was published before the dramatic rise in autism rates in the 1990s following the rapid expansion of the number of vaccines given to children once the industry had liability protection from vaccine-induced injuries.

Now, more than 200 papers showing multiple vaccine-autism links exist. You can review those papers at https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/.

Senator Warren and all those skeptical of Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine critique must understand that he is more informed on vaccine law than the legislators questioning him. The political talking point that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a “conspiracy theorist” if perpetuated, must now extend to the entire Legislative branch of the US Government starting with Democrats like former Congressman Henry Waxman, who wrote and introduced the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Senator Warren might also consult with other current members of the US Congress who held seats when the 1986 Act was passed, such as Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Hal Rogers (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chris Smith (R-NJ, who also sponsored the Combating Autism Act of 2006), and most notably, her own fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey. Warren, like most politicians and doctors, does not understand that the presumption at the foundation of American vaccine policy, and the landmark law that has underpinned that policy for 39 years, is that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. does.

Ginger Taylor is an author, speaker, writer and activist. She writes on the politics of health, vaccination, informed consent and both corporate and government corruption from a biblical perspective.

February 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

MY LETTER TO SEN BILL CASSIDY, MD

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 31, 2025

Del has a message for Senator Bill Cassidy, who headed the second of two fiery hearings of RFK Jr. for head of HHS.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

WhatsApp accuses Israeli spyware firm of targeting journalists, civil society members

RT | January 31, 2025

Meta’s popular messaging platform WhatsApp has alerted nearly 100 journalists and civil society members to potential device breaches involving spyware from Israeli firm Paragon Solutions, a company official told Reuters on Friday.

These individuals have likely been compromised through a zero-click attack, possibly initiated via a malicious PDF sent in group chats, according to WhatsApp.

The identity of the attackers remains unknown, though Paragon’s software is typically used by government clients. After detecting and disrupting the hacking effort, WhatsApp issued a cease-and-desist letter to Paragon. The incident has been reported to law enforcement and Citizen Lab, a Canadian internet watchdog.

Paragon declined to comment on the accusations, according to Reuters.

Citizen Lab researcher John Scott-Railton told the outlet that the incident “is a reminder that mercenary spyware continues to proliferate and as it does, so we continue to see familiar patterns of problematic use.”

Paragon’s website advertises “ethically based tools, teams, and insights to disrupt intractable threats,” and claims to only sell to governments in stable democratic countries. The company’s products include Graphite, spyware that allows total phone access.

Despite Paragon’s claims of ethical practices, WhatsApp’s findings suggest otherwise, Natalia Krapiva, senior tech-legal counsel at Access Now, told Reuters. She emphasized that such abuses are not isolated incidents, saying, “This is not just a question of some bad apples – these types of abuses (are) a feature of the commercial spyware industry.”

This incident follows a series of legal challenges against Israeli spyware firms. In December 2024, a US judge ruled that NSO Group, the maker of Pegasus spyware, was liable for hacking the phones of 1,400 individuals through WhatsApp in May 2019, violating US state and federal hacking laws, and WhatsApp’s terms of service. A separate trial in March will determine what damages NSO Group owes WhatsApp.

Legal documents from ongoing US litigation between NSO Group and WhatsApp have revealed that it is the Israeli cyberweapons maker NSO Group, not its government clients, that installs and extracts information using its spyware. This disclosure contradicts NSO’s prior claim that only clients operate the system without NSO’s direct involvement.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

FBI Acted Like Modern-Day Gestapo

Sputnik – 31.01.2025

US President Donald Trump’s purge of the FBI’s leadership comes as no surprise – the agency has been acting more like a political enforcer than a law enforcement body.

Here are just a few examples of its (mis)conduct:

  • August 2022 – The FBI stormed Trump’s Mar-a-Lago to seize classified documents while Biden faced zero consequences for doing the same.
  • 2020 – The FBI actively suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, labeling it “Russian disinformation”, despite knowing it was real.
  • August 2024 – FBI agents raided the homes of ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and journalist Dimitri Simes without announcing charges. Their crime? Challenging the official US narrative.
  • 2024 – The House Judiciary Committee exposed the FBI for spying on Americans’ private transactions, targeting conservatives rather than criminals.
  • 2022 – Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson revealed the FBI has been investigating parents critical of their local school boards, using threat tag employed by the agency’s counterterrorism division.
  • 2016 – The FBI used the debunked Steele dossier as a pretext to spy on Trump’s election campaign, despite knowing the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion were false.

Trump’s crackdown on the agency was inevitable – the real question is how deep the rot goes.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

A Republic of Spies

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | January 30, 2025

In 2021, to his credit, President Joe Biden warned the American public against the dangers of zero-click spyware manufactured by an Israeli corporation. Zero-click is unwanted software that can expose the entire contents of one’s mobile or desktop device to prying eyes without tricking one into clicking on to a link. Biden banned its importation and use in the United States.

Last week, as an inducement to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the Israel/Hamas ceasefire agreement, President Donald Trump secretly agreed to lift the embargo on zero-click.

Here is the backstory.

Though America has employed spies since the Revolutionary War, until the modern era, spying was largely limited to wartime. That changed when America became a surveillance state in 1947 with the public establishment of the Central Intelligence Agency and the secret creation of its counterparts.

The CIA’s stated public task at its inception was to spy on the Soviet Union and its satellite countries so that American officials could prepare for any adverse actions by them. This was the time of the Red Scare, in which both Republicans and Democrats fostered the Orwellian belief that America needed a foreign adversary.

We had just helped the Russians defeat Germany in World War II, and our Russian ally — which was bankrupt and had just lost 27 million troops and civilians — suddenly became so strong it needed to be kept in check. The opening salvo in this absurd argument was fired by President Harry Truman in August 1945 when he used nuclear bombs intentionally to target civilians of an already defeated Japan. One of his targets was a Roman Catholic cathedral.

But his real target — so to speak — was his new friend, Joe Stalin.

When Truman signed the National Security Act into law in 1947, he also had Stalin in mind. That statute, which established the CIA, expressly stated that it shall have no internal intelligence or law enforcement functions and all its collections of intelligence shall come from sources outside the United States.

These limiting clauses were vital to passage of the statute, as members of Congress who crafted it feared the U.S. was creating the type of internal surveillance monster that we had just confronted in Germany.

Of course, no senior official in presidential administrations from Truman to Trump has taken these limitations seriously. As recently as the Obama administration, the CIA boasted that it had the capability of receiving data from all computer chips in the homes of Americans — such as in your microwave or dishwasher.

As well as its presence in your kitchen, the CIA is physically present in all 50 state houses in America. What is it doing there?

The feds admit to funding and empowering 18 domestic intelligence agencies — spies next door. The most notorious of these is the National Security Agency, which, when it last reported, employs 60,000+ persons, mostly civilians, with military leadership.

What do they do? They spy on Americans. We know this thanks to the personal courage of Edward Snowden and others who chose to honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution. NSA spying has produced so much data that the NSA built the second-largest building in the U.S. — after the Pentagon — for use as a storage facility of the data it has collected, and it is running out of room.

What has it collected? Quite simply, everything it can get its hands on. These domestic spies have access to every keystroke and all data on every digital device everywhere in the United States, without a warrant. This is computer hacking, a federal crime; but the feds don’t prosecute the spies they have hired to spy on us.

It also represents an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to privacy of all persons. The operative language is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

The law defines all searches and seizures conducted without a warrant as unreasonable and thus violative of not only this amendment but also the uniquely American value it was enacted to protect — the right to be left alone. Surely the computer chip in every desktop, mobile device, dishwasher and microwave is an “effect” protected by the Constitution.

The spies and, sadly, the presidents for whom they have worked don’t see it that way. They have claimed in federal courts and elsewhere that the Fourth Amendment does not pertain to them because they are not law enforcement and because they work directly for the president, who, when he is operating as the commander in chief, is free to employ government assets as he wishes, without constitutional constraints.

This argument has been used to justify the CIA’s violent killings of Americans and others in foreign lands using drones and its agents dressed as military. It has justified the brutal torture of foreign nationals, even those whom the CIA deemed were being truthful during their interrogations. And, of course, it has justified ignoring the Constitution and the rights it protects and the values that underlie it.

This argument was also used to justify foreign and federal spying on Trump. Now he wants to make it easier for America’s spies to spy on the rest of us.

Spying belies the very purpose of the Constitution — to keep the government off the people’s backs. Of course, when the late Justice William O. Douglas coined that phrase, there were no computer chips, the CIA was thought to be law-abiding and the NSA didn’t exist.

So, we can see how desirous of secrecy the Trump administration was last week when it agreed to lift the zero-click embargo.

We can try to avoid commercial spyware, but how can we avoid a totalitarian government that spies on everyone?

According to the Declaration of Independence, we can do so by altering or abolishing it.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why the Mainstream Media Is in Trouble

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 31, 2025

As most everyone knows, the mainstream media is hurting, big time. For many years, subscriptions and advertising revenue have been plummeting. Some of the big papers have been able to survive only by having some multimillionaire bail them out with his own money and be willing to absorb the ongoing financial losses.

Why is this? I submit that one big reason is that most Americans simply do not trust the media. They have come to see the media as just an unofficial mouthpiece for the federal government, especially the national-security branch of the government, the branch that rules the roost.

A good example of this phenomenon relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The official narrative is that the invasion was an unprovoked war of aggression, much like the U.S. government’s unprovoked invasion of and war of aggression against Iraq.

But the undisputed evidence establishes beyond any doubt whatsoever the contrary. The evidence establishes that after the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO remained in existence, which was quite unusual, to say the least. That’s because the ostensible reason that NATO was brought into existence was to supposedly protect Western Europe from an attack by the Soviets.

Even worse, NATO began moving eastward, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact, and moving inexorably in the direction of Russia’s border. And this occurred in violation of promises made by U.S. officials to Russian officials that that would never happen.

Throughout the absorption process, Russian officials continually stated, “Stop it. Stop bringing your missiles, troops, weapons, tanks, and military bases closer to our border.” But U.S. officials, operating through NATO, refused to stop it. They just kept moving eastward until they finally threatened to absorb Ukraine.

As they proceeded with their absorption campaign, U.S. officials knew exactly what Russia’s reaction would be. It would be the same reaction that the U.S. had when the Soviets installed their nuclear weapons in Cuba. If the Soviets had refused to remove those nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have invaded Cuba, just as the Russians invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from being absorbed into NATO.

How in the world can NATO’s absorption campaign not be considered a provocation? If that’s not a provocation, I don’t know what is. And let’s not forget: The U.S. government did much the same thing in 1979, when it provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, with the aim of giving them “their own Vietnam.” National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudly confessed that they did that. Thus, when tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were dying on the Afghan battlefield, U.S. officials were exultant, just as they are exultant over the “degrading” of Russia’s army in Ukraine through the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.

Yet, in account after account in the mainstream media, one continues to find the official narrative about Russia’s supposed “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine. Given such, why would anyone trust any newspaper that continues to repeat that official narrative rather than printing only the truth about what the U.S. government and NATO did to provoke the invasion and, at the same time, condemning the official narrative?

Consider, for example, the New York Times. On January 14, 2025, it published an op-ed by Lloyd J. Austin III, the secretary of defense, and Anthony J. Blinken, secretary of state, stating: “President Vladimir Putin of Russia appalled the world with his full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago. He planned to topple Ukraine’s democratically elected government, install a Kremlin puppet regime and expose the West as weak, divided and diminished…. The United States and its allies and partners must continue to stand by Ukraine and strengthen its hand for the negotiations that will someday bring Mr. Putin’s war of aggression to an end.”

Not one word about what the U.S. and NATO did to provoke the invasion with their absorption campaign.

Yesterday, January 30, the Times published this comment by longtime columnist Nicholas Kristof about Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing: “Asked who she blames for the Ukraine war, Gabbard said bluntly, ‘Putin started the war in Ukraine.’ After her past blather about Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and in a hearing full of her evasions, that was a reassuring acknowledgment of a reality that should be obvious to all.” [Links in original.]

So, Gabbard’s pointing to Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” regarding  having U.S. nuclear weapons, troops, and tanks on its border is nothing more than “blather.” I’m willing to bet that Kristof and the Times would not call the U.S. government’s “legitimate security concerns” during the Cuban Missile Crisis “blather.”

Also yesterday, the Times posted a news story about Gabbard’s confirmation hearing, stating, “Russia experts and intelligence experts have frequently remarked on Ms. Gabbard’s history of taking positions that defend Russian interests or cast the United States as a villain. She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for provoking Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago by failing to respect ‘Russia’s legitimate security concerns.’” [Links in original.]

So, pointing out the truth about the U.S. government’s wrongful conduct equates to “defending Russian interests.” Also, notice how the Times conflates the United States and the U.S. government, as if they were one and the same thing. The fact is that the U.S. government sometimes is a villain. Example: The unprovoked U.S. invasion of and undeclared war of aggression against Iraq. Does pointing out that villainous conduct constitute “defending Russian interests.” Moreover, notice how the reporter implicitly disparages Gabbard for pointing out what NATO did to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Of course, the distrust of the mainstream media didn’t start with its repetition of the official narrative about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It goes back much further — for example, to Operation Mockingbird, when much of the mainstream press was willingly and eagerly becoming assets of the CIA in an effort to save America from the Russians and the “godless communists” who were supposedly coming to get us.

And it also stretches back to the Kennedy assassination, when the mainstream media blindly accepted the ludicrous lone-nut official narrative and refused to conduct any serious investigation that would contradict that narrative.

Consider, for example, when the Assassination Records Review Board discovered in the 1990s that there had been two brain examinations as part of the JFK autopsy, the second of which could not possibly have been JFK’s brain. Wouldn’t you think that that would be something that the mainstream press would want to investigate, even if just a little bit? Nope. Nothing here, folks. Let’s move on. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.

Or consider the enlisted men who were released from vows of secrecy during the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s. They stated that they secretly carried the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue in a cheap shipping casket more than an hour before the official entry time of the Dallas casket into which the president’s body had been placed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.

Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream newspaper would want to investigate that? After all, why would enlisted men make up such a story? Nope. Let’s move on, folks. Nothing to see here. A lone-nut did it. That’s all you need to know.

The Internet, obviously, has been the mainstream media’s worst enemy. That’s because people were now able to discover websites, podcasts, videos, and other such things that were willing to tell them the truth about the villainy of their own government. The mainstream media has been having trouble ever since.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Leading War Criminal Benjamin Netanyahu Will Visit Donald Trump

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • January 30, 2025

President Donald Trump has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with him at the White House on Tuesday February 4th. Netanyahu will be the first foreign head of state to visit America’s new president at the White House and the message being sent by virtue of that fact would seem inescapable, i.e. that Israel is in the minds of the country’s powerbrokers and media indeed America’s “best friend” and “closest ally.” Or is it? It is possible, though admittedly less likely, that Trump, he of the enormous ego, might well take the opportunity to suppress any thoughts that the Israeli leader is basically dictating the course of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Trump just might want to make it clear in the face-to-face that he is the one who is in charge.

I must admit that when the story broke my first thought was that Netanyahu might possibly discover that he has been lured to Washington. When his plane lands at Dulles International or Andrews AFB, I even hoped there would be an international police contingent waiting for him to show him the warrant for his arrest, read him his rights, shackle him, and send him off to The Hague to be tried for his numerous war crimes and his involvement in genocide. Hopefully, Joe Biden and Tony Blinken would be treated similarly and sent off on the same plane. But my dream outcome for the visit faded as reality set in and I came to accept that Bibi will be more likely feted as royalty by the neocons and other not-quite-human trash that now infests the US government.

There is however admittedly a distinct possibility that Trump will assert himself as he apparently did recently when a video was posted by him on the Trump social media site Truth Social. The video featured Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs bad mouthing Bibi, saying “Netanyahu had from 1995 onward the theory that the only way we’re gonna get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That’s Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. And the guy’s nothing if not obsessive. And he’s still trying to get us to fight Iran this day, this week. He’s a deep dark sonofabitch, sorry to tell you. ’Cause he’s gotten us into endless wars, and because of the power of all of this in the US politics, he’s gotten his way.”

Or, alternatively, Trump could easily continue the Middle East policy that prevailed in his first term as president, which was, like Genocide Joe Biden, to defer to Israel on nearly everything. Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and violated international law by declaring the city to be the true legal Israeli capital; he endorsed the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights by Israel; he chose to ignore atrocities committed by Israeli settlers and soldiers directed against the Palestinians living on the West Bank; and he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement to monitor and limit a possible Iranian nuclear program. Also regarding Iran, he ordered that country’s Quds Force commander Qassim Soleimani assassinated in January 2020 while Soleimani was on a peace mission to Baghdad.

Iran continues to be the target of both the US and Israel. Lest anyone should think that the JCPOA move was motivated to encourage Iran to develop a weapon, Trump’s argument was that the program was flawed because it did not go far enough in penetrating and investigating Iranian military sites and labs. It also created a national security pretext permitting Israel to insist that Iran was hiding a secret nuke program, an excuse for a preemptive attack on it jointly launched by Israel and the United States. Interestingly, outgoing CIA Director William Burns now claims that the Iranians have no nukes and have no capability to quickly produce one. He also maintains that there is no evidence that they even have any desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, a reality that clearly contradicts the Israeli propaganda regarding an “Iranian nuclear threat.”

Nevertheless, it is regularly reported by Israel and the neocon dominated media in the US that Team Trump and the Israeli security council have been discussing a preemptive strike on the Iranians. But perhaps contrary to that assessment Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy and the man who pressured Netanyahu into agreeing to a ceasefire with Hamas, has since the inauguration been given the portfolio for dealing with the Middle East including responsibility for Iran negotiations. The previous Trump appointee who had that responsibility was Brian Hook, who was a hardliner who believed in applying “maximum pressure” on the Iranians and has now been replaced.

Witkoff is also reported to be continuing to meet with and pressure Netanyahu to complete all three phases of the Gaza agreement, something which is contradicted by Israeli media reporting which suggests that Netanyahu believes that he can resume his military offensive with US support after the six weeks of phase one. In addition to Witkoff, another more recent appointment might give one hope for a gradual reversal of policy in line with Trump’s apparent belief that American involvement in the Middle East has been expensive, destructive, and contrary to the American national interest. Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst and Department of Defense veteran, is the Trump pick to be deputy assistant secretary of defense with responsibility for the Middle East operations. DiMino is facing fierce Israel Lobby opposition to his appointment, but he continues to maintain very clearly that, in his opinion, Iranian conventional forces do not pose a threat to the US, meaning that war with Tehran should not be viewed as an option.

Some observers think that Trump’s intentions might be most clearly reflected in his choices as US Ambassadors to Israel. His first term produced David Friedman, Trump’s personal lawyer and a passionate Zionist. Friedman functioned more as a cheerleader for Israel and all its works than a promoter or defender of any actual US interest. The new ambassador Evangelical Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee might prove to be even worse than Friedman, which is saying a lot. When making the appointment, Trump said in a statement regarding Huckabee that “Mike has been a great public servant, Governor, and Leader in Faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about Peace in the Middle East!”

Huckabee’s vision of “peace” will likely be based on a mountain of dead and dispossessed Palestinians. He believes God gave historic Palestine to the modern state of Israel, and is an outspoken advocate of Israel’s planned expansion in the occupied West Bank. While visiting an Israeli West Bank settlement in in 2017, Huckabee claimed the land was not Israeli occupied. “I think Israel has title deed to Judea and Samaria. There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement… There’s no such thing as an occupation.” In 2008, during his own presidential campaign, Huckabee said there was “really no such thing as a Palestinian.”

Those concerned that Trump might be moving to favor Israel above all nations note that the administration’s directive to halt all spending on foreign assistance programs, which included Ukraine, exempted Israel and also Egypt, where Trump is hoping to dump upwards of a million Palestinians in the Sinai Desert to “clean up” the mess in Gaza. Trump has also approved the sale to Israel of 1800 M-84 2000 pound bombs which are used primarily to destroy large buildings and kill large numbers of people. The transfer of the weapons to Israel had been suspended by the Biden Administration but Trump announced that “A lot of things that were ordered and paid for by Israel, but have not been sent by Biden, are now on their way!” He did not mention that US weapons “sold” to Israel are often paid for by the US taxpayer as part of military aid. The sale of a large number of dual-use armored Caterpillar bulldozers to Israel, useful for knocking down whatever habitable spaces remain in Gaza, has also received the green light from the administration. Trump has also blocked the Biden-imposed sanctions on extremist settler groups that have been harassing, beating, and killing the Palestinians who are trying to survive on the West Bank. Finally, Trump has issued an executive order that will require American universities to monitor the political activities of foreign students in a bid to reduce antisemitism. Those who have gotten involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus could have their visas canceled and they will be subject to deportation.

That is quite a bit of pro-Israel movement for Donald Trump’s first week in office, don’t you think? Those who believe that Trump might be preparing to lay down the law with Netanyahu must understand that he will also have to contend with the hopelessly Zionist Congress, which gave the monstrous Netanyahu 56 standing ovations when last he appeared in Washington. We will know soon enough what the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump in the White House was all about and we shall also find out whether the bilateral relationship will continue to consist of Israel cracking the whip and the United States government performing. If Trump dares to challenge the status quo it could set the stage for a major conflict between the new president and the immensely powerful Israel Lobby. As Trump is a very stubborn man with a huge ego, that interplay could be very interesting to watch, particularly as it could lead to the United States finally freeing itself from the country that has been pulling its foreign and national security policy strings for so many years.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Rebuffing US resettlement bid, Russia affirms Palestinians’ right to Gaza

MEMO | January 31, 2025

The Palestinian people, including those in Gaza, have an indisputable right to live on their land, the Kremlin said on Friday in response to US President Donald Trump suggesting the resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan, Anadolu Agency reports.

“The Gaza Strip is an integral part of the territory of the future Palestinian State, along with East Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River. The right of the people of Palestine includes the right of the people of Gaza to live on their land, it is indisputable, it should not be questioned,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, told a press briefing in Saransk, Russia, taking a question from Anadolu.

She reaffirmed that Russia’s position on Gaza and its inhabitants remains firm and unchanged.

“We support a comprehensive political resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on internationally recognised legal frameworks, including UN General Assembly decisions, UN Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The outcome should be the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within the “1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting peacefully and securely alongside Israel,” she said.

This approach, rooted in international law and historical justice, is supported by the vast majority of countries, including Arab nations, she said.

“We firmly believe that only implementation of a two-state solution can ensure lasting peace in the Middle East,” she added.

Trump had earlier suggested that Jordan and Egypt, both of which border Gaza, should house displaced Palestinians. “You’re talking about a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,” he said.

The suggestion drew widespread condemnation.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The US Is Reeking the Smell of Fear

By Hua Bin | January 31, 2025

DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has sent a shockwave through the US tech industry and Wall Street in the last week.

Its LLM R1, trained under $6 million and 2 months, has outperformed the latest offerings from OpenAI, Meta, Google and Microsoft, who have spent tens of billions and years on their models.

The DeepSeek AI app has topped download charts in the US and China, replacing ChatGPT as the No. 1 AI productivity tool.

Due to its breakthrough technology that shows powerful AI can be developed with very limited investment in compute, DeepSeek’s emergency has sent Nvidia stock reeling, losing as much as 17% on Monday and wiping out $600 billion in market cap.

Interestingly, as we speak, barely a few days after the shockwave on Wall Street, DeepSeek is experiencing a massive denial of service (DoS) attacks from the US on its servers, affecting new registrations.

The US government, including the US Navy, has banned the use of DeepSeek for its personnel. And the congress is already discussing ways to slow down and disrupt DeepSeek.

This episode is eerily reminiscent of the Huawei ban, the TikTok ban, the chip ban, and the EV tariffs. The US regime has fully adopted the Tonya Harding school of how to win by breaking the leg of her competitor. Ask Nancy Kerrigan about it.

As thoughtful people put all these panic-ridden actions in context, the most obvious conclusion emerges – the US regime is not acting from any position of strength. It is behaving like a chicken little who cannot compete, win honestly, and is running scared.

The list of anti-China activities out of successive US regimes is long and varied –

– Trump started to impose 60% tariff on Chinese imports since 2017, a policy the Biden regime continued.

– The Biden regime imposed 100% tax on Chinese EVs, which have not yet even entered the US market. But the competitiveness of Chinese EVs is enough to get Biden to enact pre-emptive tariffs.

– Biden regime imposed dozens of export controls on China, often using coercion against its own “allies” to follow suit such as Holland’s ASML and South Korea’s Hynix and Samsung.

– Biden regime put thousands of Chinese companies on the US entity list with all sorts of made-up justifications in hope of disrupting these companies’ operations.

– Trump is again making noises to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports. He is going further to threaten invading Panama and Greenland to contain China.

– The FBI launched the infamous China Initiative to prosecute Chinese scientists working in the US, yielding zero prosecutable case after ruining the lives of numerous scholars and scientists.

McCarthyism is alive and well in the “land of the free”. J Edgar Hoover, the cross dresser, would be proud of the viciousness of the criminal organization he founded.

– The US regime has also harassed the hundreds of thousands Chinese students in the US, who are contributing $150 billion a year to the US economy. It is attempting to prevent Chinese students from studying in advanced technical fields. Anyone studying the defunct neoliberal economics or neoconservative politics and faux democracy is welcome.

– The congress passed a $1.6 billion smear fund in a so-called “anti-CCP propaganda” campaign. The best to counter other’s so-called propaganda is of course to launch a bigger one of your own.

– Every political appointee, as well as elected official, must espouse a fervent anti-China rhetoric in confirmation hearings, TV interviews, and corporate media op-eds. If you are not a China hawk, you have no place in the US power elite.

– Every Pentagon official and military industrial complex funded “think tanker” is expected to sound tough about the coming China US war. They come up with frightening concepts like the “unmanned Hellscape” strategy in the Taiwan Strait, seemingly unaware that China is years ahead in drone tech and production.

– The US has tried to mobilize its vassals from Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and India into anti-China military alliances. It has formed fearsome-sounding acronyms like AUKUS and QUAD, which are looked upon in awe only by itself.

The “most powerful country in the history of the world” (as self-claimed by multiple US regimes) seems unconfident to take on China on its own.

On the other hand, China is playing its own game. There is no political figure or “expert” jumping up and down on national or local TV to shout against the US. There is little attention paid to the theatrics in Washington and its client states.

China is focused on overcoming the difficulties posed by the aggressive US actions, reducing dependencies, and developing its indigenous capabilities.

– China has diversified its trades. Trading with emerging markets now account for more than 50% of China’s total trade. Trade with the US is less than 3% of its GDP as of 2024.

– Huawei has revived its mobile business and dethroned Apple to return to market leadership in China. Its leadership is more entrenched in the core telecom technology area. It is more vertically integrated with its own chip design and manufacturing supply chain.

Huawei has expanded its product offerings to include mobile operating systems (Harmony OS NEXT), electric vehicles, streaming services, and autonomous driving.

– In AI, Chinese companies are making rapid progress. In addition to DeepSeek, ByteDance, Baidu, Alibaba, 01.ai have all developed sophisticated LLM models.

– China leads in industrial AI applications from robotics, drones to autonomous driving. Companies such as Unitree, DJI, BYD, Xiaomi are integrating AI technologies into multiple areas of practical applications beyond generative AI.

China is also translating its industrial, technological and economic power into military power.

It has recently launched the world’s first 6th generation fighter prototypes (not one but two at the same time), the world’s first drone-carrier, the first hypersonic stealth unmanned airplanes for strike and reconnaissance, the first stealth unmanned warship, and the most powerful long-range air defence systems.

It is progressing rapidly in directed energy weapons, military 5G, atomic timing, and space warfare systems.

All these military technological breakthroughs were unveiled in the last 3 months.

While US politicians and military figures seem to conflate theatrics with reality, China is quietly amassing the capability to overwhelm its opponent in raw military might, industrial might and economic might.

As we watch with amusement the clownish performance of the US elite, the stinking odor of fear reeks so much you can smell it from across the Pacific.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

RFK Jr. Pushes Back on Chronic Disease, Autism and Agency Corruption

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 30, 2025

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hit back at Congress members who attacked his stance on vaccines and the chronic disease epidemic, suggesting today during his second U.S. Senate hearing to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that several members have accepted donations from Big Pharma.

One day after his first confirmation hearing in the Senate Finance Committee, which included an exchange with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) about onesies sold on the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) website, Kennedy testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, for which Sanders is a ranking member.

During an exchange with Sanders, Kennedy said, “Corruption is not just in the federal agencies, it is in Congress too. Almost all the members of this panel … including yourself, are accepting millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry.”

This was one of several contentious moments during today’s meeting, which also focused on vaccine safety, the chronic disease epidemic and conflicts of interest in scientific research.

Kennedy frequently questioned the effectiveness of U.S. public health agencies in addressing the chronic health epidemic, which he said has come at a great cost both in terms of fatalities and the epidemic’s economic burden.

“The focus is on infectious disease, and we almost altogether ignore chronic disease, which causes 92% of the deaths in this country,” Kennedy said. Noting that the U.S. had a disproportionate percentage of COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic, Kennedy said it is because “we are the sickest people on earth.”

Kennedy pledged to reverse this trend, if confirmed as HHS secretary, by emphasizing transparency and “good science.”

‘I’m pro-good science’

Unlike yesterday’s hearing, today’s hearing focused extensively on Kennedy’s views on vaccines and vaccine safety. Kennedy responded to claims he is “anti-vaccine” and “anti-industry.”

“I’m neither. I’m pro-safety. I’m pro-good science,” Kennedy said. “We should always follow the evidence no matter what it says.” Kennedy said he wouldn’t “impose” his opinions on HHS scientists. Instead, he would support examining “all the data” by empowering HHS scientists to do their job.

“We will have the best vaccine standards, with safety studies,” Kennedy said.

Much of the discussion about vaccines centered on rising autism rates, with Kennedy noting that they have increased from 1 in 10,000 to as high as 1 in 34, calling this an “explosion” that public health agencies have long overlooked.

Kennedy referred to a recent peer-reviewed study of 47,000 9-year-olds to respond to claims by members of the committee that the link between autism and vaccines has been definitively debunked. The study found that autism rates were higher among vaccinated children and increased as the number of vaccinations grew.

“Why don’t we know what’s causing this epidemic?” Kennedy asked. “Why hasn’t CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] been looking at other hypotheses to determine the etiology of why we’ve had this dramatic 1,000% increase in this disease that is destroying our kids?”

Several members of the committee openly agreed with Kennedy’s stance on autism.

“1-in-36. If that’s not a pandemic, then what is?” asked Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.). “Can any of you guys with a straight face say that we shouldn’t look at every aspect to what we’re putting in our kids, be it from the food to the vaccines?”

“I just want to follow the science where it leads, without presupposition,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

‘We need a trustworthy government’

Kennedy also addressed the COVID-19 vaccines, stating that mandates and a lack of public trust in their safety have contributed to waning vaccination rates.

“If we want uptake of vaccines, we need a trustworthy government,” Kennedy said. “That’s what I want to restore to the American people and the vaccine program. I want people to know if the government says something, it’s true. It’s not manipulative.”

Kennedy responded to claims by some committee members that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives, pointing out that this statement can’t be made definitively because public health agencies “don’t have a good surveillance system.”

Kennedy cited a 2021 lawsuit he filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, as an example of deficiencies in the safety testing by public health agencies.

“I filed that lawsuit after CDC recommended the vaccine for 6-year-old children without any evidence that it would benefit them and without testing,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy said he would “support the vaccine program” — but by ensuring “that we have gold-standard, evidence-based science.”

‘A generation of kids’ has been ‘written off’

Kennedy suggested that agency capture and the entanglement of Big Pharma with drug regulation and safety, have adversely affected Americans’ health outcomes.

“Prescription drugs are now the third-largest cause of death in our country … Americans are getting less and less healthy. Seventy percent of pharmaceutical profits globally come from our country, which has 4.2% of the world’s population. We’re the only country that allows full-scale pharmaceutical ads on TV,” Kennedy said.

“A generation of kids” has been “written off” as a result of factors such as “misplaced institutional loyalty” and “entanglements with the drug companies,” Kennedy said.

“Our country will sink beneath a sea of desperation and debt if we don’t change course and ask the fundamental question, ‘Why are healthcare costs so high in the first place?’ The obvious answer to that question is chronic disease,” Kennedy said.

According to Kennedy, “a very little, low percentage” of the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is devoted to studying chronic disease — and the toxins that cause them. He vowed to change this if confirmed.

“We are allowing these companies — because of their influence over this body, over our regulatory agencies, to mass-poison American children. And that’s wrong. It needs to end,” Kennedy said. “The president’s pledge is not to make some Americans healthy again, but to make all Americans healthy again.”

Kennedy’s message drew the support of some of the committee’s members including Paul, who in a post on X said, “RFK Jr. has my vote.” Despite his contentious series of exchanges with Kennedy, Sanders also expressed support for Kennedy’s agenda to “Make America Healthy Again.”

According to Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD, today’s hearing was “a courtesy hearing.” Yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Finance Committee “is the decisive vote that will take the final vote to the Senate floor.”

Kennedy will then require a simple majority vote in the Senate to be confirmed as HHS secretary. If confirmed, Kennedy will lead a department that oversees 13 public health agencies, including the CDC, FDA and NIH.

Related articles in The Defender

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.

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

New York’s Speech Crackdown Shields ISRAEL From Public Criticism

21st Century Wire | January 29, 2025

Recently, under intense pressure from the Israel Lobby, Harvard University capitulated to Zionist billionaires and media pressure by dramatically expanding its “guidance” for applying so-called Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Policies and Procedures – specifying protections for Zionists and alleged victims of so-called “antisemitic” speech. This has already caused chilling effect on political speech and political protests on university campuses across the United States. These are some of the most draconian and arbitrary bylaws ever seen, and will almost certainly fall foul of the U.S. First Amendment once a challenge makes it to the high court.

In addition, the New York State legislature has also succumb to pressure from the Israel Lobby and pushed through a new law designed to shield Israel and Zionism exclusively – from public criticism or acts of protest.

American journalist and media critic Glenn Greenwald breaks down this fundamental problem now facing America and Europe. Watch: 

January 30, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »