Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

What? 3 police snipers were staged inside the building from which Crook took his shots.

By Meryl Nass | July 16, 2024

Consider JFK, RFK assassinations: there was a patsy and there were the real shooters. The Deep State does not rely on its patsy to do the job. It relies on at least 2 distance shooters or a point blank hit. Because it cannot afford to fail.

And yet it just did. Thanks to Providence. Look at the freefall the Democrats are now experiencing. Because the whole world knows who did this. After all the attacks during Trump’s earlier Presidency, the extraordinary lawfare attacks during his campaign, and now this attempted assassination, it does not take a rocket scientist to say Qui Bono (who benefits?).

And Biden, cool as another cuke, gives himself a pass over his inflammatory language 5 days before the hit: “I didn’t say crosshairs, I said bullseye!” in interview with Lester Holt.

I dredged up this interesting quote from February 2020:

Now for the claims about another shooter, etc.

Jeff Childers:

The FBI may say the investigation is over and Matthew Crooks acted utterly alone, just another lone gunman, but everybody else seems to be ignoring the ailing law enforcement agency. CBS ran a live update yesterday headlined, “Three snipers were stationed inside building used in Trump assassination attempt.”  In a story broken by the local Beaver County paper, we learned yesterday that three local Beaver County sharpshooters who should have been stationed on the building, were instead inside the building, and it gets worse.

Snipering usually works much better from an elevated position, and isn’t super effective from the ground. I’m not an expert, but it seems obvious.

Anyway, the cops spotted assassin Crooks, several times. Each time Crooks was acting incredibly sketchy and even once used a rangefinder. The Beaver County police stayed put, but called it in to the command post — all while Crooks continued prowling around on the ground. They knew exactly where he was —well before he took the shot— called it in more than once, and even took pictures of him, but still didn’t stop the shooting. CBS:

image 2.png

image 5.png

Whatever reason. Another unconfirmed wrinkle developed yesterday on social media, with no mention in any of the confirmed reporting. They could just be confused by the fog of war, but at least two witnesses interviewed by local reporters claimed there was a second shooter on the water tower.

image 3.png

Here is witness clip one. And here is witness clip two.

Here is a top-down map showing the potential shooting angles.

image 4.png

Who knows? It’s much too early to rule anything in or out. But even though the FBI is wrapping up its “thorough” research, multiple other investigations are already underway. You can expect this thing will get a lot of attention. For instance, in its article, the BBC reported that the House Oversight Committee has already confirmed Secret Service Directory Kimberly Cheatle to testify and requested all the rally records:

image 6.png

Finally, the New York Post interviewed a trained Canadian sniper who holds the current record for the longest kill. I was especially gratified that a professional, military-trained sniper agreed with C&C’s assessment: it seems unlikely unemployed drifter Crooks could possibly have planned and executed the sophisticated operation without some help, regardless of what the FBI says:

image 7.png

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — who oversees the Secret Service — conceded on “Good Morning America” yesterday that “a direct line of sight like that to the former president” should never have been possible. “That’s why President Biden directed an independent review of the incident,” Mayorkas quipped. By “independent,” the impeached Secretary meant a totally controlled internal FBI whitewash by the same field office that “debunked” the Hunter Biden laptop.

July 16, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Cyberattacks: A New False Flag Frontier

BY KIT KLARENBERG | JULY 15, 2024

At the start of June, Admiral Robert Bauer, head of NATO’s military committee, announced that the military alliance had finalised plans to recognise state-backed cyberattacks on its members as a dedicated pretext for activating Article 5. Reportedly “a joint decision of all allies,” from now on, foreign hacking blitzes can be countered with a collective NATO response, up to and including military measures. Bauer’s disclosure passed the media by entirely – but this is a seismic development, heralding a modern, digital form of ‘false flag’.

Article 5, which provides for collective defence in the event a NATO member is attacked, was a core component of the military alliance’s founding treaty. While it has been invoked just once – by the US, in the wake of 9/11, to invade Afghanistan – there have been efforts to spark it before and since. Most recently, in November 2022, the government of Ukraine falsely declared a missile fired by Kiev that struck Poland, killing two people, was Russian in origin.

The purpose of this deceit was undoubtedly to embroil NATO formally and directly in the proxy war. Wise to the ruse, US officials harshly rebuked President Volodmoyr Zelensky publicly for the World War-threatening fraud. Such incidents amply underline Article 5’s susceptibility to abuse. Yet apparently, military alliance chiefs – and the bloc’s members – are keen to ever-expand its terms, well-beyond its initial remit. Adding cyberattacks to the roster of grounds for collective response is a long-standing objective.

In August 2019, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg authored a bombastic op-ed declaring the military alliance would “guard its cyber domain and invoke collective defence if required.” A “serious cyberattack” on one member state could be “treated as an attack against us all,” he wrote, triggering Article 5 in the process. Fast forward two years, and Keith Alexander, US National Security Agency director 2005 – 2014, called on the ‘Five Eyes’ global spying network to construct a global unified cyberattack “radar”:

“Imagine if we built a radar picture for cyber that covered not only what impacts Australia, but what impacts other countries, and we could share, in real time, threats that are hitting our countries… What we can do is share information and work together… Cyber is going to be hugely important for our future. It’s the one area where adversaries can attack Australia and the US without trying to cross the oceans… We have this anomaly: how are you gonna defend that which you can’t see?”

Alexander, who lied brazenly to the public about his agency’s spying capabilities – including while while testifying under oath to Congress – during his time as NSA chief, suggested this worldwide dragnet would contribute significantly to collective defence, in the obvious spirit of NATO’s Article 5. Given “proposals” for Orwellian, futuristic resources from Western politicians and military and intelligence officials almost invariably presage their real-world rollout, we can only assume in light of Bauer’s announcement such a “radar” is incoming.

‘Security Failures’

This interpretation is reinforced by Bauer observing how invoking Article 5 could only happen once it was confirmed a cyberattack was carried out by a state actor, not a private person or structure. “In that case, it would not be clear who to go to war with,” he added. It’s certainly a source of some relief that NATO is committed to securing clarity on “who to go to war with”, before launching a military “response” to a cyberattack.

However, these comments illuminate a very obvious, grave problem with adding cyberattacks to Article 5’s ambit. Identifying who or what is responsible for them to an absolute certainty is extremely difficult. This task is further complicated by a frequent lack of certainty over whether hackers operating from a particular state are doing so at the behest of authorities. For example, much has been made in Britain recently of  Russian hacking group Qilin, which supposedly infiltrated NHS servers.

Mainstream media reports have universally framed Qilin as a malign instrument of the Kremlin, although whether Russian officials command the group, let alone even know of its existence, is far from clear. A representative iNews article refers to Qilin as “a syndicate made up of more than 100 groups…not believed to be under the direct control [emphasis added] of the Russian government.” Instead, Qilin is claimed to be “a useful tool of global disruption the Kremlin is happy to turn a blind eye to.”

Further muddying the picture, it has been confirmed that Western intelligence services can falsely attribute cyberattacks, with devastating effect. In 2017, CIA files published by WikiLeaks revealed how the Agency masks its hacking exploits, to make it appear another state actor was responsible. Dubbed ‘Marble Framework’, among other things the resource inserts foreign-language text into malware source codes to misdirect security analysts. The Framework can obfuscate in this manner via Arabic, Chinese, English, Farsi, Korean, and Russian.

Excerpt from leaked Marble Framework files

Moreover, CIA hackers employ crafty tricks and double bluffs to reinforce these bogus attributions, such as creating the appearance of attempts to conceal foreign-language text. Thus, forensic investigators are successfully conned into concluding even more strongly that the country framed by Langley is responsible. Unbelievably, this seismic disclosure prompted no Western journalist to reappraise the widely received narrative that Moscow’s GRU was responsible for the hack and leak of damaging Democratic National Committee emails in 2016.

That conclusion, universally reinforced by the Western media, was initially peddled by Matt Tait, a former GCHQ spy. He didn’t base his conclusions on anything technical, but “basic operational security failures” he detected on the part of the individual(s) who released the communications, including their computer username referencing the founder of the Soviet Union’s secret police, and “ham-fisted” attempts to pose as Romanian. Which is, of course, precisely how the CIA would cover its own tracks via Marble Framework.

‘Irrevocable Proof’

There has similarly been no mainstream discussion of why the Agency would seek to acquire and maintain this capability in the first place. Now that NATO considers cyberattacks an Article 5 matter, this question has never been a more urgent question, given the CIA’s extensive and deplorable history of false-flag operations to overthrow governments, and kickstart conflicts.

For example, in April 1953, the CIA and MI6 launched a welter of covert actions to undermine Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, in order to lay the foundations of his ouster. One key tactic in which the pair engaged was bombing mosques, and homes of prominent Muslim figures by operatives posing as members of Tehran’s Communist Party. A subsequent internal review of the coup noted that this incendiary activity mobilised Mullahs to take action against Mosaddegh.

These efforts were judged to have contributed to the “positive outcome” of the wider coup effort. Such a glowing appraisal of these false flag manoeuvres may have informed the dimensions of Operation Northwoods, a daring set of proposals under which the CIA would stage and commit acts of terrorism against US military and civilian targets. These could then be blamed on the government of Fidel Castro, precipitating all-out war with Cuba.

Potential false-flag actions outlined in extraordinary declassified documents include assassinating of Cuban immigrants on US soil, sinking boats ferrying Cuban refugees to Florida, shooting down US civilian airlines, blowing up US ships, and more. One specific element of Operation Northwoods is particularly relevant to consider in light of alleged state cyberattacks becoming Article 5 worthy. If the 1962 Mercury launch – the first US orbital spaceflight – went awry, Castro would be blamed by concocting:

“Irrevocable proof… the fault lies with the Communists… this to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.”

While Northwoods was ultimately rejected by President John F. Kennedy, the US military and intelligence community continued constructing false-flag blueprints thereafter. In 1963, a Pentagon policy paper advocated making it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS), justifying US retaliation:

“A contrived ‘Cuban’ attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the US and OAS.”

Langley’s cyberattack connivances have surely only grown more sophisticated, and more complex to unravel, in the years since Marble Framework was publicly exposed. Pinning blame on a foreign country for a cyberattack it didn’t actually commit is no doubt even easier and more effective today. Resultantly, a false flag tripwire for Beijing, Moscow, or any other Washington-mandated ‘enemy’ state to unwittingly and unwillingly stumble over, triggering the outbreak of global war, has now been forged by NATO.

July 16, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

They Think We Are Stupid, Volume 9

By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | July 15, 2024

The media bent over backwards to avoid saying that the assassination attempt against former President Trump was an assassination attempt — not just in the moment but the next day when facts were clear.

In the same vein, Elon Musk posted this parody…


July 15, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Will the US-Japan military alliance make any difference?

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 15.07.2024

The ongoing upgrades to the US-Japan military cooperation signals new regional developments. In reality, however, this upgrade is a continuation of the US strategy in the Pacific to build military outposts so that China can be deterred and tackled. On the one hand, it is militarizing Japan. On the other hand, the sale of weapons keeps bringing money to the US military-industrial complex. Ultimately, this alliance will do little to serve the purpose of ‘containing’ China. Most of the equipment the US is providing is outdated, basically getting rid of the scrap. The modern equipment, on the other hand, is unreliable. Still, Trump’s arrival in the White House could change the dynamics of military cooperation, making things worse.

The Upgrades:

Following the announcements made during the Biden-Kishida summit in April regarding big upgrades to the US-Japan alliance, the upgrade has finally arrived. On the 3rd of July, the Pentagon announced that the US was going to upgrade “tactical aircraft laydown across multiple military installations in Japan”. This so-called “modernization plan” is worth US$ 10 billion that will “bolster regional deterrence, and strengthen peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region”. According to the announcement, the US will replace 48 F-15C/D with 36 F-15EX fighters at Kadena Air Base. The US Air Force will also replace 36 F-16 aircraft with 48 F-35A aircraft at Misawa Air Base. Overall, the plan to “station the Joint Force’s most advanced tactical aircraft in Japan demonstrates the ironclad U.S. commitment to the defence of Japan and both countries’ shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region”. In addition to these new deployments, NATO is also in the middle of releasing its new policy documents outlining its new lines of cooperation with countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. There seems to be momentum, but it will soon run into problems that it may not be able to recover from.

Can US-Japan-NATO Counter China?

While the F-15EX seems like a significant upgrade from the outdated F-15C/Ds, they are still no match against China’s growing fleet of stealth fighter jets. It means that were Japan to use these fighters in an offensive against China, they would prove useless since they lack stealth features and would be unable to penetrate a heavily guarded airspace.

While the deployment of F-35 jets does mark a significant upgrade, there are serious questions about its operational and logistic utility, compromising its ability to tackle China’s J-20s. In 2023, according to one estimate, China produced 100 J-20. If China can maintain the same rate, it will have 1,000 J-20s by 2035. The US has less than F-22s, and its F-35 programme continues to run into problems.

The 2023 Annual Report by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation made some startling observations, saying,

The F-35 program development cycle continues to experience delays due to immature and deficient Block 4 mission systems software and avionics stability problems with the new Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware going into Lot 15 production aircraft. As a result, deliveries of production Lot 15 aircraft in the TR-3 configuration are on hold until more testing can be completed and the avionics issues resolved. Additionally, these delays prevented the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) from adequately planning and programming for hardware modifications for OT of the upgraded hardware configuration”.

As a result of these delays and difficulties, only 32 out of 205 baseline DT flights were conductedThe US is now stationing the F-35s in Japan, which basically relies on the assumption that these delays will ultimately be resolved and that Washington will not have to move these F-35s to a different location to meet the recurring shortages. But the reality is that, as the report concludes, “The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains below Service expectations and requirements”, which means that, according to the report, out of 628 aircraft produced until now, a majority of them remain “unavailable” for active service throughout most of the year.  In fact, 2023 had fewer available aircraft than 2022. What this ‘upgrade’ will do to Japan’s security is, therefore, not hard to imagine. In the end, other than creating a false sense of security, it might not add any value to Japan’s offensive and defensive capabilities, compromising the politics of ‘China containment’.

The Trump Factor

Former US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House next year is already making Washington’s European allies extremely uneasy. Whereas Trump has thus far signalled that his administration will ideally continue to follow the Biden administration’s policy towards Japan and China, Trump has also assured his voters of the continuation of his “America First” and “Make America Great Again” policies, which also involve, among other things, military disengagements.

Therefore, the existing rhetoric of reassurance notwithstanding, Trump’s politics and/or his geopolitical vision has not seen any change in the recent past. Reports in the US media indicate that “a second Trump administration is likely to be far more disruptive for Asia than the first one was”. What it implies is that, with Trump forcing the US military footprint to reduce worldwide, countries like Japan will need to find ways to become self-reliant. So, instead of depending upon the actual supply and availability of otherwise “unavailable” fifth-generation jets, Tokyo will need to develop an alternative, more reliable strategy – a strategy that should not exclude the possibility of dialogue with China to sort out any existing issues without any external interference.

In fact, since Trump is likely to target China and push the US away from Japan’s military build-up, he is likely to antagonise both states. There is, therefore, an incentive for both Asian giants to collaborate and find peace.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

July 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Trump classified documents case dismissed

RT | July 15, 2024

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former US President Donald Trump over the alleged mishandling of classified documents has been thrown out, on grounds that Smith’s appointment was not legal.

Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump for supposedly keeping classified documents at his Florida home after leaving the White House, as well as probing an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.

“None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment gives the attorney general broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith,” Judge Aileen Cannon wrote.

The “strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority” by Smith have not persuaded the court otherwise, Cannon added.

The FBI raided Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago, Florida in August 2022, confiscating several boxes of documents. According to the Washington Post, some of the materials related to US nuclear secrets, Iran’s missile program, and Washington’s intelligence activities in China.

A federal grand jury in Miami, Florida indicted Trump for mishandling the documents in September 2023. Trump pleaded not guilty and argued that he had done nothing wrong, since he was the ultimate declassification authority.

Court documents unsealed in May this year showed that the Department of Justice had authorized the use of “deadly force when necessary” during the raid.

President Joe Biden also faced an investigation over taking classified documents with him after leaving the White House in 2017. As Barack Obama’s vice president, he did not actually have the authority to possess the files. However, Special Counsel Robert Hur said in February that he would not prosecute the case, as a Washington jury would probably not convict Biden as he seemed like an “elderly man with a poor memory.”

Last month, the US Supreme Court affirmed that presidents had absolute immunity from prosecution for any official actions, that they were still liable for unofficial conduct, but that courts could not speculate about motivation when making that determination.

Smith’s other case against Trump in the Washington, DC federal court remains open for now.

July 15, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Russia could challenge NATO’s historical air dominance – media

By Ahmed Adel | July 15, 2024

Business Insider reported that NATO had never faced an adversary of Russia’s calibre after World War II, and it would have been difficult for the alliance to establish air superiority over Russian forces. The warning comes as experts have explained the sombre reality that the F-16 fighter jets, a key aircraft in many NATO air force fleets, provided to Kiev will not be a “magic bullet” that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his Western allies expect them to be.

“Russia could challenge NATO’s historical air dominance,” reported the media on July 13 after explaining that this is a change from the scenario that emerged after the Cold War when the West had a clear advantage. “Russia would be a very different opponent. It has the territory and industry to build and field massive and sophisticated air defenses that an opponent may struggle to destroy.”

“The US and its allies, even with fleets of fifth-generation stealth fighter jets, likely would find it difficult to establish the same level of air dominance they’ve largely had since the end of World War II,” the New York-based outlet said.

According to experts cited by the portal, Western aviation has never had the experience of combating air defence systems at a level similar to that of Russia’s. During the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian military proved that it could establish extremely difficult air defence areas for the enemy with powerful radars, electronic warfare systems and missiles.

“The Russians could attempt a surprising and impactful opening attack,” the article warned. “For example, the Russians could target vulnerabilities like satellites to try to disrupt the space-based communications and navigation NATO airpower depends upon.”

The worry that Russia could establish air superiority over NATO, particularly over the bloc’s 30 European members, became a more serious consideration after Russian forces methodically obliterated Ukraine’s air force. Russia so impressively dismantled the Ukrainian air force that the Kiev regime is desperately seeking F-16 fighter jets from Western allies to replenish its fleet, even though experts are saying that the aircraft is now obsolete and unlikely to survive the conflict.

“As soon as the Ukrainians encountered Russian-controlled air space, the F-16’s value would diminish markedly, as would its likelihood of survival,” Harrison Kass wrote for the National Interest. “In a conflict with a great power, China for example, the F-16 would remain on the backbench.”

This is a telling revelation considering the US still uses over 900 F-16s, NATO members, including Turkey, Greece, Poland, and Romania, use hundreds more, as well as US non-NATO allies Israel, Taiwan and South Korea. In effect, the F-16 would be rendered almost useless against Russia given that the Eastern European country’s military is ranked second, one above China, according to the 2024 PowerIndex.

Kass warns Kiev that the good performance of the F-16 fighter jets in Iraq and Afghanistan does not say anything about their capabilities against Russian air defences.

After stressing that “the F-16 fighting falcon era is coming to a rapid end,” Kass concludes that the US-made fighter jet “will not offer a magic bullet for Zelensky” and will merely “buy a little more time.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the F-16s supplied to Kiev will be destroyed just like other Western military equipment. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also warned that their appearance in Ukraine will not change anything on the front and that they will be destroyed in the same way as other types of weapons.

Nonetheless, in 2023, several NATO states agreed to supply the Ukrainian armed forces with the fighter jets and launched training programs for Ukrainian pilots. On July 10, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US and its allies are “underway” in sending the promised F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.

As Europe and the US are not interested in a viable, pragmatic, and lasting peace agreement in Ukraine which recognises Russian interests in the region and establishes a lasting solution, they are actively prolonging the fighting despite not only the humanitarian consequences but even the weakening of their own military. Whilst NATO members are distracted with training Ukrainian pilots to use fighter jets that are effectively obsolete in any combat with a great power, Russia, as Business Insider has acknowledged, has successfully challenged the air dominance NATO largely enjoyed since the start of the Cold War despite the introduction of fifth-generation fighter jets.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

July 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

A Permanent Subsidy? Nuclear Power’s Price-Anderson Act (5 Extensions, 89 years)

By Robert Bradley Jr. | Master Resource | July 10, 2024

“The infant industry argument is a smoke screen,” wrote Milton and Rose Friedman in their 1979 classic, Free to Choose. “The so-called infants never grow up.” And several years later, the two wrote: “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” [1]

Previous posts have documented the “permanent subsidies” of industrial wind power (14 extensions) and of solar power (15 extensions). [2] Add nuclear liability protection to this list, although the technology has long been declared safe by the industry and its proponents.

The Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957 became law as Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. It was supposed to be a ten-year window to allow commercial nuclear power to prove its economy and safety. But the so-called Price-Anderson Act–capping damage claims “to protect the public and to encourage the development of the atomic energy industry”–is still with us, some two-thirds of a century later.

The 1957 law’s limit of $60 million per plant (about 10x in today’s dollars) was joined by an up-to-$500 million indemnification guarantee per accident. These provisions, vetted among the beneficiaries, was just enough to remove a major barrier to the commercialization of nuclear power for electric utilities sponsors and for builders Westinghouse, GE, and others. Rate base incentives for utilities was also crucial for the new energy industry to compete against coal and hydro for electrical generation.

No payouts resulted in the ten-year period, but the private sector was not ready to stand on its own. The involved parties lobbied for $100 million per accident, which became $74 million in a 10-year extension in 1966, a small increase in real terms. This first extension would not be the last…

Subsidy enough? Nope, the second extension came in 1975 (for 12 years); the third in 1988 (20 years, with the cap increased from $500 million to $9.43 billion); the fourth in 2005 (20 years); and fifth in 2024 (40 years, to 2066)[3]

Surely, nearly 70 years after the initial “temporary” law, the nuclear industry could have repealed Price-Anderson and let the private insurance market sort things out. Commercial nuclear power is safe, right? Claims under Price-Anderson have been small or none. The collected $13 billion would ensure a smooth transition to the private market. Safer units should not subsidize the less safe, right?

Wrong! The nuclear industry needed to remove 2025, and last year the talk was for a decade, maybe 20 years. And the industry got more under favorable political circumstances. The result: 40 years–to 2065.

“Congress’s 40-year extension of a law limiting how much money nuclear power companies are on the hook for prompted sighs of relief from the industry and supporters of the measure,” The Hill reported, “who say the liability limit provides certainty for insurers and investors in the carbon-free power source.” To critics, the sweetheart subsidy was done in darkness.

————

[1] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, p. 49; Tyranny of the Status Quo, p. 115.

[2] The tax credit for wind temporarily expired (without retroactive true-up) for a brief period in 1992.

[3] The extensions of the Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-256, 71 Stat. 576) have been:

Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-645, 80 Stat. 891)

Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-197, 89 Stat 1111)

Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-408, 102 Stat. 1066)

Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594)

Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024S.870.

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The Pandemic Excuse for a Corporatist Coup

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownstone Institute | July 11, 2024

We’ve just come across a document hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, posted March 2023, but written in 2007, that amounts to a full-blown corporatist imposition on the US, abolishing anything remotely resembling the Bill of Rights and Constitutional law. It is right there in plain sight for anyone curious enough to dig.

There is nothing in it that you haven’t already experienced with lockdowns. What makes it interesting are the participants in the forging of the plan, which is pretty much the whole of corporate America as it stood in 2007. It was a George W. Bush initiative. The conclusions are startling.

“Quarantine is a legally enforceable declaration that a government body may institute over individuals potentially exposed to a disease, but who are not symptomatic. If enacted, Federal quarantine laws will be coordinated between CDC and State and local public health officials, and, if necessary, law enforcement personnel…The government may also enact travel restrictions to limit the movement of people and products between geographic areas in an effort to limit disease transmission and spread. Authorities are currently reviewing possible plans to curtail international travel upon a pandemic’s emergence overseas.

“Limiting public assembly opportunities also helps limit the spread of disease. Concert halls, movie theaters, sports arenas, shopping malls, and other large public gathering places might close indefinitely during a pandemic—whether because of voluntary closures or government-imposed closures. Similarly, officials may close schools and non-essential businesses during pandemic waves in an effort to significantly slow disease transmission rates. These strategies aim to prevent the close interaction of individuals, the primary conduit of spreading the influenza virus. Even taking steps such as limiting person-to-person interactions within a distance of three feet or avoiding instances of casual close contact, such as shaking hands, will help limit disease spread.”

There we have it: the pandemic plans. They once seemed abstract. In 2020, they became very real. Your rights were deleted. No more freedom even to have house guests. In those days, the rule was to enforce only three feet of distance rather than six feet of distance, neither of which had any basis in science. Indeed, the actual scientific literature even at that time recommended against any physical interventions designed to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. They were known not to work. The entire profession of public health accepted that.

Therefore, for many years before lockdowns wrecked economic functioning, there had been two parallel tracks in operation, one intellectual/academic and one imposed by state/corporate managers. They had nothing to do with each other. This situation persisted for the better part of 15 years. Suddenly in 2020, there was a reckoning, and the state/corporate managers won it. Seemingly out of nowhere, liberty as we have long known it was gone.

Back in 2005, I first came across a Bush administration scheme, an early draft of the above, that would have ended freedom as we know it. It was a scheme for combating the bird flu, which officials back then imagined would involve universal quarantines, business and event closures, travel restrictions, and more.

wrote: “Even if the flu does come, and taxpayers have coughed up, the government will surely have a ball imposing travel restrictions, shutting down schools and businesses, quarantining cities, and banning public gatherings…It is a serious matter when the government purports to plan to abolish all liberty and nationalize all economic life and put every business under the control of the military, especially in the name of a bug that seems largely restricted to the bird population. Perhaps we should pay more attention. Perhaps such plans for the total state ought to even ruffle our feathers a bit.”

For years I wrote about this topic, trying to get others interested. It was all there in black and white. At the drop of a hat, under the guise of a pandemic that only state managers can declare, real or drummed up, freedom itself could be abolished. These plans were never legislated, debated, or publicly discussed. They were simply posted as the result of various consultations with experts, who worked out their totalitarian fantasies as if scripting a Hollywood film.

The 2007 blueprint is more explicit than anything I’ve seen. It comes from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which “includes executive leaders from the private sector and state/local government who advise the White House on how to reduce physical and cyber risks and improve the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC is administered on behalf of the President in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act under the authority of the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security.”

And who sat on this committee in 2007 that decided that governments “may close schools and non-essential businesses”? Let us see.

  • Mr. Edmund G. Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities
  • Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, Chairman and CEO, Pipeline Trading Group, LLC, and former President and Vice Chairman of NASDAQ
  • Chief Rebecca F. Denlinger, Fire Chief, Cobb County (Ga.) Fire and Emergency Services
  • Chief Gilbert G. Gallegos, Police Chief (ret.), City of Albuquerque, N.M. Police Department
  • Ms. Martha H. Marsh, President and CEO, Stanford Hospital and Clinics
  • Mr. James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemical, Inc.
  • Mr. Erle A. Nye, Chairman Emeritus, TXU Corp., NIAC Chairman
  • Mr. Bruce A. Rohde, Chairman and CEO Emeritus, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
  • Mr. John W. Thompson, Chairman and CEO, Symantec Corporation
  • Mr. Brent Baglien, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
  • Mr. David Barron, Bell South
  • Mr. Dan Bart, TIA
  • Mr. Scott Blanchette, Healthways
  • Ms. Donna Burns, Georgia Emergency Management Agency
  • Mr. Rob Clyde, Symantec Corporation
  • Mr. Scott Culp, Microsoft
  • Mr. Clay Detlefsen, International Dairy Foods Association
  • Mr. Dave Engaldo, The Options Clearing Corporation
  • Ms. Courtenay Enright, Symantec Corporation
  • Mr. Gary Gardner, American Gas Association
  • Mr. Bob Garfield, American Frozen Foods Institute
  • Ms. Joan Gehrke, PVS Chemical, Inc.
  • Ms. Sarah Gordon, Symantec
  • Mr. Mike Hickey, Verizon
  • Mr. Ron Hicks, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
  • Mr. George Hender, The Options Clearing Corporation
  • Mr. James Hunter, City of Albuquerque, NM Emergency Management
  • Mr. Stan Johnson, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
  • Mr. David Jones, El Paso Corporation
  • Inspector Jay Kopstein, Operations Division, New York City Police Department (NYPD)
  • Ms. Tiffany Jones, Symantec Corporation
  • Mr. Bruce Larson, American Water
  • Mr. Charlie Lathram, Business Executives for National Security (BENS)/BellSouth
  • Mr. Turner Madden, Madden & Patton
  • Chief Mary Beth Michos, Prince William County (Va.) Fire and Rescue
  • Mr. Bill Muston, TXU Corp.
  • Mr. Vijay Nilekani, Nuclear Energy Institute
  • Mr. Phil Reitinger, Microsoft
  • Mr. Rob Rolfsen, Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Mr. Tim Roxey, Constellation
  • Ms. Charyl Sarber, Symantec
  • Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Pacific Gas and Electric,
  • Ms. Diane VanDeHei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
  • Ms. Susan Vismor, Mellon Financial Corporation
  • Mr. Ken Watson, Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Mr. Greg Wells, Southwest Airlines
  • Mr. Gino Zucca, Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Resources
  • Dr. Bruce Gellin, Rockefeller Foundation
  • Dr. Mary Mazanec
  • Dr. Stuart Nightingale, CDC
  • Ms. Julie Schafer
  • Dr. Ben Schwartz, CDC
  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Resources
  • Mr. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure Partnerships Division
  • Ms. Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
  • Ms. Jenny Menna, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
  • Dr. Til Jolly
  • Mr. Jon MacLaren
  • Ms. Laverne Madison
  • Ms. Kathie McCracken
  • Mr. Bucky Owens
  • Mr. Dale Brown, Contractor
  • Mr. John Dragseth, IP attorney, Contractor
  • Mr. Jeff Green, Contractor
  • Mr. Tim McCabe, Contractor
  • Mr. William B. Anderson, ITS America
  • Mr. Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
  • Mr. Chad Callaghan, Marriott Corporation
  • Mr. Ted Cromwell, American Chemistry Council (ACC)
  • Ms. Jeanne Dumas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
  • Ms. Joan Harris, US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary
  • Mr. Greg Hull, American Public Transportation Association
  • Mr. Joe LaRocca, National Retail Federation
  • Mr. Jack McKlveen, United Parcel Service (UPS)
  • Ms. Beth Montgomery, Wal-Mart
  • Dr. J. Patrick O’Neal, Georgia Office of EMS/Trauma/EP
  • Mr. Roger Platt, The Real Estate Roundtable
  • Mr. Martin Rojas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
  • Mr. Timothy Sargent, Senior Chief, Economic Analysis and Forecasting Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Finance Canada

In other words, big everything: food, energy, retail, computers, water, and you name it. It’s a corporatist dream team.

Consider ConAgra itself. What is that? It is Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher’s, Reddi-Wip, Slim Jim, Hunt’s Peter Pan Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, Marie Callender’s, P.F. Chang’s, Ranch Style Beans, Ro*Tel, Wolf Brand Chili, Angie’s, Duke’s, Gardein, Frontera, Bertolli, among many other seemingly independent brands that are all actually one company.

Now, ask yourself: why might all these companies favor a plan for lockdowns? Why might WalMart, for example? It stands to reason. Lockdowns are a massive interference with competitive capitalism. They provide the best possible subsidy to big business while shutting down independent small businesses and putting them at a huge disadvantage once the opening up happens.

In other words, it is an industrial racket, very much akin to interwar-style fascism, a corporatist combination of big business and big government. Throw pharma into the mix and you see exactly what came to pass in 2020, which amounted to the largest transfer of wealth from small and medium-sized business plus the middle class to wealthy industrialists in the history of humanity.

The document is open even about managing information flows: “The public and private sectors should align their communications, exercises, investments, and support activities absolutely with both the plan and priorities during a pandemic influenza event. Continue data gathering, analysis, reporting, and open review.”

There is nothing in any of this that fits with any Western tradition of law and liberty. Nothing. It was never approved by any democratic means. It was never part of any political campaign. It has never been the subject of any serious media examination. No think tank has ever pushed back on such plans in any systematic way.

The last serious attempt to debunk this whole apparatus was from D.H. Henderson in 2006. His two co-authors on that paper eventually came around to going along with lockdowns of 2020. Henderson died in 2016. One of the co-authors of the original article told me that if Dr. Henderson had been around, instead of Dr. Fauci, the lockdowns would never have taken place.

Here we are four years following the deployment of this lockdown machinery, and we are witness to what it destroys. It would be nice to say that the entire apparatus and theory behind it have been fully discredited.

But that is not correct. All the plans are still in place. There have been no changes in federal law. Not one effort has been made to dismantle the corporatist/biosecurity planning state that made all this possible. Every bit of it is in place for the next go-around.

Much of the authority for this whole coup traces to the Public Health Services Act of 1944, which was passed in wartime. For the first time in US history, it gave the federal government the power to quarantine. Even when the Biden administration was looking for some basis to justify its transportation mask mandate, it fell back to this one piece of legislation.

If anyone really wants to get to the root of this problem, there are decisive steps that need to be taken. The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. The court precedent of forced shots in Jacobson needs to be overthrown. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944. That is the root of the problem. Freedom will not be safe until it is uprooted.

As it stands right now, everything that unfolded in 2020 and 2021 can happen again. Indeed, the plans are in place for exactly that.

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Colombia Professor Faces Firing After Pro-Israel Social Media Pile-On

By John Miles – Sputnik – 14.07.2024

Pro-Israel lawmakers and Zionist accounts on social media caused a firestorm after law professor Katherine Franke questioned the conduct of ex-IDF members on Columbia’s New York City campus.

A tenured professor at New York’s Columbia University faces firing after a pro-Israel online campaign criticizing comments the academic made on behalf of pro-Palestine demonstrators at the Ivy League school.

“There’s a very good chance that they will fire me,” said law professor Katherine Franke after being subjected to questioning she characterized as hostile as a part of Columbia’s investigation into the incident.

The controversy stems from an interview Franke granted to Democracy Now! on January 25. The professor sharply criticized Columbia’s response to an incident in which pro-Palestine protesters were sprayed with an unknown chemical substance by two alleged veterans of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

University administrators initially blamed the students for conducting an “unsanctioned” protest before finally banning the perpetrators from campus while police conducted an investigation of the incident.

“Columbia has a program, It’s a graduate relationship with older students from other countries, including Israel,” Franke noted on the radio program. “It’s something that many of us were concerned about because so many of those Israeli students who then come to the Columbia campus are coming right out of their military service. And they’ve been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus, and it’s something the university has not taken seriously in the past.”

“The university waited three or four days to actually even say anything about it,” she added. “They have not reached out to the students who were sick… some of whom are still in the hospital.”

The comment was subsequently mischaracterized by pro-Israel accounts on social media, who alleged that Franke advocated banning Israeli citizens from the Columbia campus.

“This @Columbia professor has a problem with former IDF soldiers being on campus,” read one post typical of the outrage, shared by Columbia Business School professor Shai Davidai, who identifies on the X platform as “Jewish Israeli” and “Zionist.”

“She doesn’t have a problem with ex-soldiers from any other place,” he complained. “Her only problem is with Israelis. @ProfKFranke – I served in the IDF. Do you think I also shouldn’t be allowed on campus?”

Davidai publicly criticized a wave of pro-Palestine protest on US college campuses earlier this year, calling the students “Nazis” and “terrorists” and calling for the National Guard to be deployed to break up the demonstrations. The demand implies a deadly threat against protesters in the United States, where National Guard troops shot and killed several antiwar demonstrators at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970.

The business professor’s comments have been shared by official Israeli government accounts online as the country has invested significant effort in defending its cause on social media. It emerged last month that Israel has set up fake accounts online to lobby US lawmakers to continue supporting its military operation in the besieged Gaza Strip, which a study recently claimed could kill as many as 186,000. In 2013 it was revealed the country pays students to defend it on Facebook and Twitter.

Columbia administration released a statement defending Israeli students in response to the firestorm, which was championed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The following month Franke was informed a complaint had been lodged against her by two Columbia law professors for “discrimination,” and in April Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik called for disciplinary action against her during a House hearing with controversial Columbia University President Minouche Shafik.

A number of college professors and other faculty have been fired or faced disciplinary action in the United States for expressing pro-Palestine sentiments. Dr. Ameer Loggins is filing a defamation suit against California’s Stanford University after being fired for giving a lecture that discussed Israel in the context of historical acts of settler colonialism.

“What’s of greatest concern is not really my 20-year-plus career at Columbia, but what this says about peaceful protest on our campuses around the lives and dignity of Palestinians,” Franke said about the investigation into her comments, which remains ongoing. “What’s happening to me is happening to our students, it’s happened to people on many other campuses.” … Full article

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Was Trump ‘Put in a Bullseye’?

Sputnik – 14.07.2024

US presidential candidate Donald Trump was hit in the ear when a gunman opened fire at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. One spectator was killed and two were critically injured during this apparent attempt on Trump’s life.

“The constant comparisons of [former] President Trump to Hitler and the repeated calls over the last several years for stabbing, killing, poisoning, decapitating or shooting [former] President Trump serve as dog whistles to provoke and incite violence and very well may have fueled this assassination attempt,” GOP House Representative Paul Gosar told Sputnik.

“We do know that in a widely reported call to hundreds of donors last week, Joe Biden boasted, ‘I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump… it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye’,” Gosar recalled.

“Let me be perfectly clear: there is absolutely no place for this sort of incendiary rhetoric and calls for violence in politics today and everyone must condemn it,” the congressman stressed.

Gosar also pointed out that congressional Democrats, led by liberal Representative Bennie Thompson, even introduced legislation that would have stripped Trump of the Secret Service protection afforded to him by his status as a former president.

The multiple reports about Trump’s security detail “asking for beefed up protection and resources for weeks” but getting “rebuffed time and again by Biden’s DHS [Department of Homeland Security],” if true, hint at “criminal” disregard for Trump’s safety, he warned.

Meanwhile, former military intelligence and CIA Operations Officer Philip Giraldi argued that the less-than-stellar performance of US Secret Service agents during the assassination attempt on Donald Trump was somewhat of a surprise.

“For more than twenty years I have observed the work of the Secret Service on protection details close up in embassies and during visits of congressmen and other senior officials, which has been excellent,” Giraldi explains. “So this time I am surprised that they did not have a rooftop 200 meters away from the speaker’s stand with a clear shot at it covered with someone stationed on it to close it off.”

According to him, failure to do so was “either negligence in planning or in execution and someone will likely have to answer some hard questions regarding what was not done.”

Giraldi also notes that he has no information about whether any more shooters were involved in the attempt, and that both of the US political parties “are guilty of incitement because of the violent-laced language they have been using when speaking of their opponents.”

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

‘Eliminate Him’: A look at the violent rhetoric against Donald Trump

RT | July 14, 2024

While the attempted assassination of Donald Trump has been roundly condemned by his political opponents, liberal politicians and pundits have – implicitly and explicitly – called for his death before.

Trump narrowly avoided death at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, when an assassin’s bullet apparently clipped his ear as it whizzed past his head. The shooter – named by the FBI as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks – killed one spectator at the rally and wounded two others before he was shot dead by Secret Service agents.

US President Joe Biden decried the attempt on Trump’s life, declaring that “there’s no place for this kind of violence in America.” Ever since Trump won the 2016 election, however, he has faced a steady stream of threats from members of Biden’s party and their allies in the media.

Off with his head

Hollywood celebrities reacted with outrage to Trump’s shock defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016. 80s pop icon Madonna spoke of wanting to “blow up the White House;” actor and activist Peter Fonda called for the president’s youngest son, Barron, to be “put in a cage with pedophiles;” and comedienne Kathy Griffin grabbed headlines when she posed for a photoshoot holding a mockup of Trump’s bloodied and severed head.

Addressing the audience at Britain’s Glastonbury Festival in 2018, Johnny Depp wondered “when was the last time an actor assassinated a president?,” adding “maybe it’s time.” This reference to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was echoed by Broadway star Carole Cook several months later, when she asked a photographer “where’s John Wilkes Booth when you need him?”

Take him out

Speaking to MSNBC after Trump formally announced his presidential campaign last year, Representative Dan Goldman declared that his fellow New Yorker cannot be allowed to “see public office again.”

“He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be, he has to be eliminated,” Goldman proclaimed.

While Goldman later apologized for his choice of words, he is not the only Democrat lawmaker to apparently threaten Trump’s life. Michigan State Representative Cynthia Johnson was stripped of her committee assignments in 2020 when she warned Trump and his “trumpers” to “walk lightly,” or else her “soldiers” would “make them pay.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used similar rhetoric last week when she declared that the upcoming presidential election “is not a normal election,” and that Trump “must be stopped. He cannot be president.”

Two weeks before the shooting, BBC reporter David Aaronovitch wrote on X that if he were President “Biden, I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security.” On Sunday morning, Aaronovitch said that he had deleted the tweet, claiming that his words were “clearly satirical.”

A threat to democracy

Biden’s response to Saturday’s shooting was one of unequivocal condemnation. The president, who will face off against Trump in this November’s election, said that he was “praying for” his political opponent, and that “we must unite as one nation to condemn” political violence.

In a post on social media less than a month earlier, however, Biden’s team described Trump as “a genuine threat to this nation.”

“He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He’s literally a threat to everything America stands for,” they posted on the president’s social media accounts.

While Biden has never explicitly wished physical harm on his opponent, at least one would-be assassin has used similar words to justify his plans to kill Trump. 77-year-old Thomas Welnicki was arrested for phoning US Capitol Police in 2020 threatening to “take down” then-President Trump. His lawyer later told prosecutors in New York that Welnicki was distraught at “the threats to our democracy posed by former President Trump.”

Stripped of protection

Had Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson got his way, Trump would have had no Secret Service protection at Saturday’s rally. Earlier this year, Thompson proposed legislation that would strip this protection from former presidents convicted of felonies, as Trump was in May. The act was explicitly tailored to target Trump, Thompson’s office said, explaining that the former president’s criminal charges “have created a new exigency that Congress must address.”

Immediately following Saturday’s shooting, one of Thompson’s staffers wrote on Facebook that the shooter should “get some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time.” She deleted the post – which Mississippi Republicans called “despicable” – shortly afterwards.

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

America Was Less Than An Inch Away From Socio-Political Disaster

By Andrew Korybko | July 14, 2024

Former President and impending Republican Nominee Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt at an outdoor rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday days before his party’s national convention after suddenly turning his head at the last second and thus miraculously dodging a bullet that only ended up grazing his ear. The shooter was killed by the Secret Service, but an eyewitness told the media that he warned the police about a man crawling on the roof a few minutes earlier, though no action was taken.

This security lapse is suspicious and prompts speculation that at least one member of the Secret Service might have purposely waited until after the shooter took his shot before neutralizing him, whether out of sympathy for his cause or perhaps because they were in on some sort of plot. About the shooter, he’s been identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, a registered Republican. It remains unclear at the time of writing what his online history was and whether there’s more to his party affiliation than meets the eye.

At the very least, there’s no doubt that the Democrats’ and their allied “Never Trumpers’” hatemongering played a role in radicalizing the suspect. Had he succeeded in assassinating Trump, then the US would have certainly plunged into socio-political disaster, which it literally missed by less than an inch. Many expect that powerful Democrat donors might soon force Biden to drop out of the race, thus leading to the party selecting their nominee outside of the notionally democratic primary process.

Their Republican counterparts would have done the same on their side of the aisle, especially since Trump hadn’t yet announced his Vice-Presidential pick by the time of his attempted assassination. Both parties would therefore have likely chosen nominees that didn’t complete their respective primary processes, thus blatantly disenfranchising Americans even more than they already are in reality. In theory, the elections could be delayed to re-run the primaries, but Congress might not agree to it.

Even if they did, the aforementioned hyperlinked article reminded readers that the 20th Amendment mandates the end of the President and Vice-President’s four-year terms at noon on 20 January, thus leading to (replacement) President Harris being forced to step down before a new one is elected. Her Vice-Presidential replacement could only be speculated upon in that scenario since the 25th Amendment stipulates that they’d have to be confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whether or not the elections would be delayed, the US would continue to be ruled by the “governing oligarchy” that Axios reported late last month is the real power behind Biden. This analysis here that was coincidentally published earlier that same day noted that “The country is being ruled by a shadowy network of transnational and domestic elites that are united by their radical liberal-globalist ideology.” This group simply exploits Biden as their placeholder to publicly legitimize all of their decisions.

They’d remain in power if the Democrats keep the White House or if a “Republican In Name Only” (RINO) replaced Trump had he been assassinated. The former President promised supporters that he’d make good on his former pledge to “drain the swamp” if he’s re-elected, and while precedent suggests that he might once again fail, there’s still a chance that he might partially succeed. At the very least, his return could create the conditions for some replacements, who might be conservative-nationalists.

This insight sheds light on those forces who’d be pleased had he been assassinated, namely the liberalglobalist clique that secretly controls American policy, and they’d also have been delighted that Trump wouldn’t get the opportunity to end their latest “forever war” in Ukraine like he sought to do. His potential Republican successor could try to follow in his planned footsteps, but they also might not be interested in doing so if they’re a RINO, hence why taking Trump out could have been a game-changer.

On the home front, there’s no doubt that “shitlibs” would have plastered pictures of Trump’s blown-out brains all over social media and their cities in order to incite his supporters to violence, and some of them would have predictably obliged after being endlessly provoked with such images. The ruling liberal-globalists have wanted to radicalize MAGA members for a while already in order to further discredit their movement and create a compelling pretext for cracking down more forcefully upon them all.

It also can’t be ruled out that some of these newly radicalized supporters of his might have carried out “retributive violence” by targeting Democrat officials from the federal level on down to the local one if they blamed them for his assassination. Infamous anti-Trump celebrities and influencers could also have been caught up in this bloody campaign, which might have led to martial law in parts of the country like Trump should have imposed during the Democrats’ spree of urban terrorism in summer 2020.

America’s socio-political fabric could therefore have very easily been torn to shreds had Trump not suddenly turned his head at the last minute and thus miraculously averted this worst-case scenario by less than an inch. There’s no guarantee that this won’t happen again, however, which is why it’s imperative that Trump immediately announce his Vice-Presidential pick and ideally choose someone who the ruling liberal-globalist elite is also afraid of in order to reduce the chances of him being killed.

Regardless of whatever happens, America just got a reality check about how close it is to descending into chaos, which shows how much it’s changed for the worse since 2016. Partisan radicalization and elite scheming have always been around, but they reached an unprecedented level after Trump became the Republican Nominee back then. He’s an imperfect candidate with a lot of personal flaws, but his re-election is the last chance to save America from itself if he succeeds in implementing his lofty plans.

July 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment