Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israel Lobby Cash Dominates and Perverts American Elections

Where is the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 when you really need it?

 BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JUNE 28, 2024

Once upon a time the United States of America was a constitutional republic that was by design constructed with checks and balances to limit corruption and constrain the ability of any branch of government to initiate certain potentially harmful actions, like going to war, which required approval by both Congress and the Executive Branch. Of course, that was 261 years ago and things change over time. Today’s America, what claims to be both a democracy and the issuer plus enforcer of international rules and norms, is arguably one of the most corrupt as well as most disliked countries on earth, with a political system that is exceptionally vulnerable to those who have deep pockets and a willingness to spend freely to obtain favors from the professional politicians and bureaucrats who now proliferate throughout the system.

If one measures the consequences arising from all the corruption, there is no better example than the heavily lopsided relationship with Israel, which has been produced through the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars coming primarily from Jewish billionaire and corporate sources. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson famously gifted Donald Trump with $100 million and in return received what he demanded, i.e. a United States decision to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and a recognition that Jerusalem would be recognized as the country’s capital, which was illegal under international law. Additionally, Trump’s team headed by Israeli apologist Ambassador David Friedman, brought about the recognition of the Jewish state’s annexation of the occupied formerly Syrian Golan Heights, also an illegal concession, and the de facto granting of a free hand to Israel for dealing with the Palestinians as it sees fit, which is playing out currently. Trump also was in the business of canceling a nuclear monitoring agreement with Iran, which was very much in the US interest, and the assassination senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qassim Soleimani, a war crime.

The heavily pro-Israel policies have not developed in the US because of some actual affinity between the two nations but rather because of great dollops of Jewish money liberally applied to politicians and journalists to create a myth of an actual beneficial alliance between the two to produce a narrative that the US public would be inclined to accept. In this massive coordinated effort by what is euphemistically referred to as the Israel Lobby there is no more active entity than the basically illegal American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its conjoined AIPAC-Political Action Committee, which delivers the cash and also the intimidation of political candidates who do not embrace the Jewish state with enthusiasm. Such dissidents are marked for removal through the surfacing of opposing prospective candidates who are particularly well-funded and sure to receive exceptionally favorable press. In the current round of primaries just concluded, AIPAC-Pac has boasted that it has achieved 100% success as “an AIPAC-endorsed candidate has won in every district (224 races) where an endorsee was on the ballot. All 90 AIPAC-backed Democrats who have had their primary races in 2024 have won. These Democrats are strong pro-Israel voices. 134 AIPAC-backed Republicans have [also]won their elections. Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics.”

How does it work? As international lawyer John Whitbeck has described the process “the primary reasons why virtually all members of the US Congress prioritize the desires of the Israeli government over the interests of the American people are money and fear — and particularly the fear of all the money that Israel-Firsters will devote to ending your political career, most notably through primary elections, if you manifest anything less than unconditional support and/or abject subservience to Israel.” In the most recent primary in New York state, AIPAC boasts over having devoted a record $15 million, a record amount spent on a primary election, to delivering exemplary punishment to end the political career of Representative Jamaal Bowman, a rare progressive in Congress who has been an outspoken critic of Israeli apartheid and genocide. Among other damnation of Bowman’s record, he was inevitably accused of “antisemitism.” Only a single such example every few years has proven to be enough to keep virtually all members of Congress in line. One might ask former Congressmen like Cynthia McKinney and others in a long line who felt the wrath of AIPAC and its sister organizations. That would include now deceased Senators William Fulbright, Charles Percy and James Abourezk and Congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey and Jim Traficant.

It has recently been revealed that nearly all congressional candidates are routinely and openly approached by AIPAC representatives who ask in advance their views on Israel. If they are cooperative, sometimes requiring a written statement of intent, they are given a pass and can count on financial support and favorable media. If they are not, they are marked for removal. And one can even sympathize with members of Congress who are self-defined careerists in politics, as, again per Whitbeck, “what is the point, when all around you are groveling flat-out- prone in subservience to Israel, in raising your head on a matter of principle? Your head will simply be cut off, and nothing will change for the better as a result of your sacrifice. There is really no rational choice but to faithfully follow the orders of your ‘AIPAC babysitter.’” The “babysitter” is an AIPAC endorsed staffer placed in nearly every congressional office to monitor and report on Israel issues, a development which has recently been revealed by Congressman Tom Massie while being interviewed by Tucker Carlson.

So how do we limit the ability of Israel to corrupt America’s political system to such an extent that many now believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu controls US foreign policy while his domestic lobby creatures at the same time influence as well many other aspects of how the government operates at state and national levels? And why do I refer to the actions of AIPAC and other groups as illegal? Israel is able to act with impunity because of the undeniable powerful influence of its domestic US lobby coupled with its skill at being able to hide what it is up to. The Lobby also has a free hand because the federal government does not enforce its own laws when it comes to the illegally nuclear armed Jewish state. AIPAC, not to mention groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), are actually acting as directed agents of the Israeli government and therefore subject to the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 which requires organizations that take foreign direction regarding their activities to open up their books and records to scrutiny. It also requires some transparency vis-à-vis their contacts and relationships with the Israeli Embassy and the country’s Foreign Ministry and intelligence and security agencies.

The Act is usually referred to as FARA and was originally intended to monitor groups acting on behalf of the German and Italian governments prior to World War 2. It has since been used to limit the activity of Russian and other entities that have operated in the US but has never been applied against Israel, in itself yet another indication of the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to suppress any exposure of its activities. Journalist and lawyer Isaiah Kenen had founded the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA) as a lobbying division of the American Zionist Council in 1953 but it soon separated from AZC and became AIPAC in 1954. Kenen, an actual lobbyist for the Israeli government, had earlier worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. AIPAC is today generally considered the most powerful and wealthiest Israeli lobby in the United States. President John F. Kennedy and his brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy understood the threat that it represented and sought to compel both AZC and AIPAC to register under FARA but JFK was assassinated shortly thereafter, which have led many to believe that the killing was a Mossad job. Registration under FARA would have inter alia blocked any funding of US political parties and politicians by those groups acting in support of Israeli interests. It would with one stroke take away much of Israel’s ability to corrupt America’s political system in its favor.

In comments to my articles I am often asked what can we ordinary Americans do to bring the Israeli influencers in this country under control. Well, after recognizing that there is a problem, a partial answer is there by enforcing FARA. One needs to put pressure on individual congressmen and the White House through the media to register AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups. Corrupting money is the key to their power and if the spigot of cash is shut off to the politicians and parties their influence will be greatly diminished. And don’t be surprised if there will be many politicians who are privately ashamed at what has been going on who will suddenly become supporters of control over the Jewish groups. The Lobby has been bad for America and not even particularly good for Israel as “sacrosanct” US support for Israel, as Joe Biden puts it, has freed folks like Netanyahu to engage in very dangerous enterprises for his own country as in Gaza and also against its neighbors and for so-called allies like the US. Time to put an end to the status quo.

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.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate

By Jonathan Turley | June 28, 2024

The presidential debate last night was chilling to watch as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to retain his focus and, at points, seemed hopelessly confused. The winner was clear: Special Counsel Robert Hur. For months, Democrats in Congress and the media have attacked Hur for his report that the president came across as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur concluded that prosecuting Biden would be difficult because a jury would view him as a sympathetic figure of a man with declining mental capabilities. That was evident last night and the question is whether a man who was too diminished to be a criminal defendant can still be a president for four more years.

Hur laid out evidence that President Biden had unlawfully retained and mishandled classified evidence for decades. However, he also concluded that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” He found that “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

What has followed is the usual pile-on in the media with legal analysts, press, and pundits denouncing Hur for his findings.

Hur likely does not anticipate any apologies even as commentators on CNN and MSNBC admit that there are now unavoidable questions of Biden’s ability to be the nominee.

Democrats have repeatedly insisted that Hur did not find Biden diminished and that he actually was impressed by his memory and mental acuity. Hur contradicted that in his own testimony before Congress.

Indeed, the denial campaign took on a bizarre character, particularly when Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) insisted that Hur “exonerated” Biden. Hur pushed back: “I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, ‘exoneration.’ That is not a word that is used in my report and that is not a part of my task as a prosecutor.”

Jayapal shot back, “You exonerated him.”

Hur responded, “I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report.”

The debate also further undermines the ridiculous effort of the Biden Administration to continue to withhold the audiotape of the Hur interview as privileged (despite saying that the transcript is not privileged).

The debate showed not only what Hur saw but why the Justice Department is making a clearly laughable privilege claim to delay any release of the audiotape until after the election.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

‘Epic Waste of $500 Million’: Scientists Slam HHS Funding for ‘Next-Gen’ COVID Oral and Nasal Vaccine Trials

By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | June 24, 2024

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced up to $500 million in funding for clinical trials of three next-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including two nasal sprays and an oral pill.

The initiative, part of the $5 billion Project NextGen, aims to develop innovative vaccines that are easier to administer and provide improved protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The funding, awarded through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) under HHS’ Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), will support Phase 2b clinical trials for Vaxart‘s oral pill vaccine (up to $453 million) and CyanVac’s (up to $40 million) and Castlevax’s ($34 million) intranasal vaccines.

Each company’s phase 2b trials will recruit 10,000 volunteers to compare the safety and efficacy of the investigational vaccine against the existing mRNA vaccines.

ASPR Assistant Secretary Dawn O’Connell said in a news release that the new vaccines “may … be easier to administer through intranasal or oral delivery.” The announcement suggests the delivery methods have the “potential to improve vaccine access.”

However, the new delivery methods also raise unique concerns, especially the nasal vaccines, which use modified viruses as vectors.

Vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender that she’s concerned about vaccine shedding and the possibility of pharmaceutical companies aerosolizing their products and administering them “without public knowledge as part of a ‘vaccination’ run.”

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer, echoed Rose’s concern about potential vaccine shedding, calling it a “nightmare like other live-virus vaccine formulations.”

Hooker told The Defender that because COVID-19 mutates rapidly, “immunity will still wane precipitously” for the new vaccine candidates, just as it did with the existing mRNA vaccines.

The new vaccines are “just more ‘me too’ technologies that are late to the party for COVID-19,” he said.

UGA spins off nasal vax biotech firm

University of Georgia (UGA) vaccine development spinoff CyanVac (an affiliate of Blue Lake Biotechnology) is set to begin phase 2b clinical trials for a new nasal COVID-19 vaccine, CVXGA. The study will be conducted through BARDA’s clinical studies network.

CyanVac founder Dr. Biao He, chair of veterinary medicine at UGA, leads the team behind CVXGA. He served on a White House panel in July 2022 advising on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, where he specifically promoted nasal vaccines.

CVXGA is a Parainfluenza virus 5 (PIV5)-based vaccine that encodes the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.

Formally known as simian virus 5, PIV5 is often referred to as canine parainfluenza virus in the veterinary field, where it is a contributing factor to kennel cough in dogs. PIV5-based vaccines have been used to prevent kennel cough, reportedly without any safety concerns.

“PIV5 is a novel intranasal vaccine vector that has been shown to replicate safely in humans in clinical trials and stimulates all three pillars of immunity — cellular, mucosal, and humoral — with minimal uncomfortable side effects,” Dr. He said in the company’s press release.

Rose cautioned that some studies (here, here and here) have associated PIV5 with human diseases such as Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease and multiple sclerosis, but noted that later research was unable to confirm PIV5 as the cause. “More research needs to be done before this is used as a viral vector in humans,” she said.

Currently, there are no licensed vaccines for humans that contain PIV5. However, besides the CVGXA COVID-19 vaccine, PIV5 is under development for vaccines targeting various human and animal infectious diseases, including Lyme disease, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza, rabies, tuberculosis and MERS-CoV.

Castlevax promises ‘game-changing’ spike protein vax

BARDA provided Castlevax, in collaboration with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, $34 million for its phase 2b trial of its intranasal vaccine candidate CVAX-01 beginning in Q4 2024.

The company is projected to receive as much as $338 million from BARDA for its COVID-19 “booster” vaccine.

Castlevax calls its vaccine “a next-generation COVID-19 vaccine with game-changing potential” with a design that “holds spike protein firmly in pre-fusion conformation, leading to more efficient induction of neutralizing antibodies.” It promises to “deliver reduced rates of breakthrough infections.”

Its vaccine, NDV-HXP-S, uses a recombinant Newcastle disease virus (NDV) that expresses the spike protein. The spike protein has been modified to contain six mutations by the HexaPro (HXP) technology developed at a University of Texas (UT), Austin laboratory.

HXP promises to make the spike protein more stable compared to older mRNA vaccines, which only contain two mutations. “Human antibodies recognize and respond to Hexapro better since the spike protein is less prone to shifting shapes,” according to a UT lab researcher.

The vaccine is grown in chicken eggs, a method commonly used to produce flu vaccines.

Castlevax boasts of having “multiple COVID-19 products in Phase 2 through Emergency Use Authorization, while we’re simultaneously developing a bivalent mucosal RSV+HMPV [human metapneumovirus] vaccine and a mucosal Norovirus vaccine.”

Promises and dangers of nasal vaccines

Hooker noted that nasal vaccines can be effective. “Mucosal immunity provides defenses at the mucous membrane level through a type of antibody called secretory IgA [immunoglobin A] along with humoral IgG and IgM antibodies,” he said.

But he cautioned that due to the observed rapid mutation in SARS-CoV-2 variants, “Long-term efficacy will be nil” for these vaccines.

Live virus nasal vaccines have been used for flu for years, he said, suggesting these latest entries are “looking for entry into the ‘annual’ COVID-19 vaccination market opportunity.”

Rose pointed out that EcoHealth Alliance’s 2018 DEFUSE proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) included a plan to aerosolize bat vaccines and deliver them at the mouths of caves in China.

“They hired an aerosol tech company to find the best way to administer their products,” she said.

When she saw this part of the proposal, Rose speculated the technique could readily be used to vaccinate people without their consent. “Given that everything they’ve done so far has been from questionable to illegal, I really have to wonder.”

Hooker added that the three BARDA-funded projects use live-virus vaccines that are “notoriously bad for pregnant women.”

Oral pill targets epithelial cells

Vaxart will receive up to $453 million from BARDA to develop an oral pill vaccine, which is also just entering phase 2b clinical trials.

“Vaccine delivery has relied primarily on injection for more than 150 years,” said Steven Lo, Vaxart’s CEO in the press release. “This funding from BARDA will assist us in determining whether we can bring a transformational, next-generation approach to global vaccination.”

Vaxart’s pill, VXA-CoV2-1, uses an adenovirus vector to infect epithelial cells in the lower small intestine. The vaccine delivers the genetic material to create the spike protein. The company boasts that a special coating allows the oral pill to survive the low pH in the stomach.

Adenovirus vaccines reportedly cannot make you sick, and cannot replicate or be integrated into the host body’s DNA.

Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) and AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccines also used adenovirus vectors.

The use of J&J’s vaccine was paused in April 2021 due to reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a severe blood clotting disorder. In July 2021, the FDA warned about the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome with the J&J vaccine after approximately 100 cases were reported among 12.8 million vaccine recipients. With existing doses of the J&J vaccine having expired in May 2023, the vaccine is no longer in use.

AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine also caused blood clots, resulting in temporary pauses in its use in several countries. With declining demand, it was also removed from the market in May 2023.

Trials set ‘a horribly low bar’

The two nasal and one oral vaccine candidates are all entering phase 2b trials where their safety and efficacy will be compared to the available FDA-approved mRNA vaccines.

Hooker said that this sets “a horribly low bar for comparison given that the ‘control’ group is now subjected to the vaccine that has the worst safety profile in history.”

He underscored that the mRNA vaccines offer “extremely limited and sometimes negative efficacy, and no utility in terms of prevention of transmission,” and argued that using them as comparators for the candidate vaccines would be next to useless.

“Basically, almost anything short of a vial of arsenic would perform comparably,” he said.

“Given the low morbidity/mortality of the currently circulating COVID-19 strains, this is an epic waste of $500 million,” he said. “Their ROI [return on investment] will essentially be a bunch of sick people with vaccine injuries.”

Rose said that long-term efficacy cannot be guaranteed “based on failure of maintained efficacy in COVID-19 product prototypes. This is precisely why they keep pushing ‘boosters.’”

Hooker also questioned the review and approval process for the new vaccines. He said:

“As far as independence, safeguards and transparency, those are now gone. Not because of this particular clinical trial entry, but because of the shamfest that FDA was and still is with the EUA [emergency use authorization] and approvals granted during the plandemic.

“All the tricks that they (Dr. Peter Marks and company) pulled like trying to prevent the release of clinical trial documents, approving without human trials, the joke that is CICP [Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program], etc., really spell death for any integrity in the approvals process.”

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.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

If the war expands, will western facilities become the new target banks?

The Cradle | June 28, 2024

Israel’s brutal, nine-month military assault on Gaza has full support from several western-allied states, not only in supplying the occupation army’s war machine with a broad range of armaments and ammunition but also through direct military participation. The United States and Britain, for example, have provided vital reconnaissance and intelligence data and have sent their special forces to assist Israel in military operations.

An 8 June New York Times report revealed that US forces assisted the Israelis in retrieving four Israeli captives from Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp, killing at least 274 Palestinian civilians and three additional captives and leaving over 698 wounded. According to the paper’s Israeli sources, the US and UK provided intelligence from the air and cyberspace that Israel could not obtain on its own.

On 29 May, the Declassified UK media project reported that London authorized an unprecedented 60 Israel-bound flights using cargo planes that took off from the UK’s RAF Akrotiri air base in Cyprus, a facility covertly used by the US Air Force to move weapons to Israel.

The British government has not revealed the content of the air cargo transported – and maintains that no “lethal aid” is included. London instead claims that RAF flights to the occupation state are used to support its “diplomatic engagement” with Tel Aviv and repatriate British subjects – an odd use of military aircraft when Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport is still operational for regular passenger travel.

London has vigorously invoked its D-Notice since just after the war’s onset, a military and security directive aimed at preventing media outlets from publishing information that could harm national security, specifically relating to British airborne Special Forces (SAS) operations in Gaza. No further information has been revealed since the directive was issued on 28 October 2023.

How western intel penetrates West Asia

But all those concealment efforts were cracked open during Israel’s disproportionate military operation to secure the release of captives during the recent Nuseirat camp fiasco. Trending videos appeared of an Israeli helicopter landing next to the recently-installed $320 million US’ aid pier’ and of ‘aid trucks’ carrying special ops teams that were flanked by armored vehicles during the operation.

Media then reported that dozens of US and UK drones assisted in the Nuseirat camp assault, ostensibly by providing reconnaissance services to the Israeli military.

These incidents highlight not only direct western military participation in the war on Gaza but also the brazen exploitation of diplomatic cover or humanitarian work to prepare and carry out military actions that have led to mass civilian casualties and war crimes, as described by many United Nations institutions.

The question now is whether western facilities and troops will come under target as the war expands, potentially to Lebanon, given the evident collusion of western states in Israel’s aggressions – especially those in flagrant violation of international norms and law.

Although the use of embassies and civilian institutions – in the modern sense – as bases for intelligence gathering and launching special missions is not a new practice and dates back to at least the nineteenth century, current developments in technology and computing have enabled these facilities to act as spying and eavesdropping centers, monitoring and storing information for an entire country.

What was previously impossible has become reality through wireless communication and the Internet. Signal intelligence formerly gained by planting eavesdropping and listening devices can now be accessed via the common smartphone – with data funneled to these centers inside sovereign states.

Aerial view of the US embassy complex, northern Beirut.

‘Second-biggest US Embassy in the world’

Spawling approximately 174 thousand square meters, around 13 kilometers from the Lebanese capital of Beirut, lies the second largest embassy in West Asia – and the world. The new US Embassy in Beirut is surpassed in size only by its counterpart in Baghdad’s “Green Zone.”

Subtracting from the massive size of the embassy and its cost of nearly a billion dollars, there are many questions about the need for such facilities and what they contain.

The computer-generated images published by the embassy show a complex featuring multi-story buildings with tall glass windows, entertainment areas, a swimming pool surrounded by greenery, and views of the Lebanese capital. According to the project website, the complex includes an office, representative housing for employees, community facilities, and associated support facilities.

In May 2023, the Intelligence Online website reported that the massive billion-dollar complex will include a data collection facility, preparing the site as the new regional headquarters for US intelligence. The report says that because of its proximity to Syria, “Lebanon is considered a safe and strategic location for the deployment of intelligence agents already in the region as well as new personnel, who are selected directly from Washington-based agencies.”

Construction of the new US embassy, 13 kilometers north of the Lebanese capital of Beirut.

Although it is not possible to obtain precise information about the design of this embassy, the excavations below surface level, the use of reinforced concrete in the structure, and its fortified location on top of a hill suggest that there is more to its operations, especially since several precedents of the US Beirut diplomatic mission being implicated in the work of intelligence services exist.

The 1983 bombing of the American Embassy revealed a high CIA death toll, with eight killed, including the CIA’s chief West Asia analyst and Near East director, Robert Ames, station chief Kenneth Haass, James Lewis, and most of the CIA’s Beirut employees.

The embassy was not only used as a CIA hub but also as a key regional intelligence base due to Lebanon’s proximity to both the sea and two British NATO bases in southern Cyprus, Dhekelia and Akrotiri, from which reinforcements or helicopter transfers can arrive rapidly onto Lebanese soil. A recent example, in 2020, is Washington’s smuggling of its agent Amer al-Fakhouri from the US embassy using an Osprey helicopter.

British Watchtowers on Lebanon’s borders

On 3 May, Lebanon announced the visit of an official delegation and a senior British intelligence officer the previous month to discuss the construction of new UK-built watchtowers. These are in addition to the more than three dozen watchtowers built by Britain during the Syrian war along the sensitive border between Lebanon and Syria.

According to leaks reported by Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the British delegation had asked the Lebanese army “to approve a plan to establish watchtowers along the border with occupied Palestine, similar to those existing on the eastern and northern borders with Syria.”

Following the low-profile visit, Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati disclosed: “Establishing the towers and taking measures along the border are Israel’s conditions for stopping the war with Lebanon.”

Last February, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry received an official Syrian protest note classifying the British watchtowers as a threat to Syrian national security on several levels. The main threat is the tower systems’ sensitive intelligence and espionage equipment, which “shines deep into Syrian territory and collects information about the Syrian interior.”

According to Al-Akhbar’s report, “the information output from this equipment reaches the hands of the British, and the Israeli enemy benefits from the output to target Syrian territory and carry out strikes deep inside Syria.” The Syrian memorandum also refers to “the presence of some British officers at the towers.”

 A 30-foot British watchtower near the Lebanese-Syrian border

Security cameras monitor the surrounding area at a border point on Lebanon’s border with Syria (Photo by the Lebanese Army Command, Orientation Directorate)

The 38 British watchtowers that claim to assist Lebanese authorities in “combating smuggling” raise many questions instead, among them the reasoning behind the erection of such a large number of these structures. Why, too, do the towers contain thermal monitoring, eavesdropping, signal intelligence, and communications equipment – especially in light of the close relationship between Tel Aviv and London and the periodic presence of British officers in these towers under the pretext of training the Lebanese army?

A commanding officer of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), interviewed at length by The Cradle in August 2021, contradicts London’s public claims about the towers, saying: “The aim of the towers today is to monitor the movements of Hezbollah and the Syrians.”

Dutch special forces in Dahiyeh

In March, Hezbollah captured several Dutch military forces operating covertly in Dahiyeh, the southern suburb of Beirut, which hosts several offices of the Lebanese Resistance. The detainees claimed they were operating under cover of the Dutch Embassy in Lebanon and were found with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of military equipment and advanced communications devices on their persons and in their vehicles.

During investigations, the Dutchmen claimed they had entered the southern suburb as part of a training exercise for evacuating Dutch citizens and diplomats in the event of a war. However, no Dutch nationals of the embassy resided in that area. It was also found that the servicemen had not communicated about their mission with the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Lebanese security services, or their country’s embassy.

That same month, a Spanish citizen was arrested for filming inside the same southern suburb of Beirut, only to discover later that he had a diplomatic passport and that his phone contained advanced software that prevented access to its data.

These events and a myriad of other examples show that some western governments continuously use western diplomatic and civilian facilities to gather intelligence or conduct special missions training in sovereign Lebanon.

These actions constitute a clear violation of the Vienna Convention on International Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which prohibit embassy diplomats from carrying out espionage activities. These actions don’t only place civilian populations in danger but also the thousands of professional diplomats in the country, all diplomatic missions, and the civilian facilities used as cover for illicit operations. They also drag otherwise immune diplomatic facilities into the legal framework of “hostilities,” intentionally or accidentally.

This danger is reinforced by Israel’s repeated violations of diplomatic and international norms, which are either ignored or protected by western allied states. Israel’s unprecedented military strikes against Iran’s consulate building in Damascus in April, for instance, did not receive the deserved condemnation from most western capitals, which helped it avoid the requisite UN Security Council censure.

Since the basic value of international norms is the precedent and event on which this law is built, the possibility increases that such western-supported attacks will backfire wildly and lead to the retaliatory targeting of western facilities and embassies – all in the context of new legal precedents and customs created that no longer prohibit strikes on suspect non-military facilities.

It is yet unknown to what extent western governments can expect to maintain their double standards in the application of international law and customs, especially if the Gaza war they are materially supporting expands to Lebanon or other West Asian regions.

The Resistance Axis, which has, in the past nine months, normalized military strikes on Israel, missile attacks on Israel-destined shipping vessels, and weekly strikes on US and UK naval fleets, are but one escalation away – as in, a declared war on Lebanon – to create a new set of target banks that surpass their last ones.

Does that then include the US embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the region – and the world – hosting 10 thousand American employees and troops, or, closer to home, the second largest embassy in West Asia, the US embassy in Beirut?

It is difficult to imagine that such facilities will remain immune if western involvement remains apparent, which we already know to be a constant, daily flow of armaments to fuel Israel’s war machinery and provide Tel Aviv with military intelligence and target banks.

It will be even harder to protect diplomatic missions if they reveal themselves to essentially act as military command centers or intelligence hubs during the conduct of war. Targeting these facilities – which are already in breach of the Vienna Convention – can easily fall within the framework of self-defense and reciprocity as long as western states and Israel continue to normalize these illicit activities.

If the Gaza war established entirely new rules of engagement throughout the region, do Israel’s western allies expect to escape unscathed in an expanded war? How do they think they can arm military aggression against a country and yet remain safely in its capital city?

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Over 80 UK war planes deployed from Cyprus to Lebanon since 7 Oct: Report

The Cradle | June 28, 2024

The UK has sent over 80 military transport planes to the Lebanese capital of Beirut since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza nine months ago, Declassified UK reported on 28 June.

All the flights have gone from the UK’s massive Akrotiri airbase on the nearby island of Cyprus, long a staging post for UK bombing missions in West Asia.

Declassified UK notes that the number of UK military flights to Beirut has risen dramatically in recent months. The group tracked 25 flights in April and May and 14 so far in June.

Flights from the UK base take around 45 minutes to reach Beirut, which Israel has increasingly threatened to bomb in a possible full-scale war with the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah.

The Ministry of Defense declined to disclose the number of UK military flights to Lebanon since the start of the war on 7 October or their purpose.

A defense source told Declassified UK that the flights “have been primarily for the purpose of facilitating senior military engagement” with the Lebanese army.

But it is widely assumed the planes are carrying weapons to Beirut to arm anti-Hezbollah militias. The US, UK, and Israel would presumably use these militias to attack Hezbollah from within the country in the case of an Israeli invasion from the south.

Declassified UK notes that nearly every Royal Air Force flight to Lebanon has been the Voyager KC mark 2, which can carry a payload of 45 tons and 291 personnel or provide air-to-air refueling. Another flight involved a vast C-17 cargo plane.

Israeli threats to invade Lebanon have accelerated in tandem with the increase in flights.

Israeli military leaders have increasingly warned of a Lebanon campaign to push Hezbollah away from the border and past the Litani River.

Last week, the Israeli army approved “operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon,” and the US pledged to support Israel with weapons if a full-scale war breaks out.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned the resistance movement will use its massive rocket and missile arsenal to hit targets across Israel in a “total war” if Tel Aviv decides to launch an invasion.

Nasrallah also threatened Cyprus, noting its role as a US, UK, and Israeli staging ground.

“The Cypriot government must be warned that opening Cypriot airports and bases for the Israeli enemy to target Lebanon means that the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance [Hezbollah] will deal with it as part of the war,” he said.

Nasrallah’s threat appeared to include the Akrotiri base, which lies in territory retained by the UK when Cyprus gained independence in 1960. The territory now hosts vast military and intelligence hubs for Britain and the US, Declassified UK notes.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

These are the craziest ‘pro-Israel’ votes on the Hill today

BY BLAISE MALLEY | RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT | JUNE 27, 2024

In the more than seven months since Israel’s war on Gaza began, the Biden administration has been almost entirely deferential to the war effort, providing Tel Aviv with $6.5 billion worth of weapons, offering rhetorical and diplomatic cover, and holding Hamas wholly responsible for the inability to strike a ceasefire deal.

To some members of Congress — mostly Republicans — this level of support for Israel does not go nearly far enough.

This week, the House of Representatives will be voting on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations legislation. Among the 75 amendments to the bill that were made in order and will be voted on are a series of anti-Palestinian proposals that seek to eliminate any appearance of balance in the United States’ approach to the war.

Two of the amendments seek to “prohibit funds” appropriated in the bill from being spent on holding Israel accountable for any violations of U.S. law.

One, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) “Prohibits funds from enforcing Executive Order 14115,” which Biden announced in February of this year as a way to sanction individuals or groups who the administration deemed “undermining peace, security and stability” in the West Bank. The effort was widely seen as an effort to punish extreme Israeli settlers — as of March, nine Israelis have been sanctioned under the law — but in June the U.S. also sanctioned a Palestinian armed group.

The other, introduced by Reps. Andy Ogles (R-TN) and Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), would block “the use of funds from being used to administer or enforce National Security Memorandum 20.” NSM-20 is the memo issued by Biden in February that required the administration to receive written assurances that recipients of American military aid were complying with international law — in essence, ensuring that no one is using our weapons while committing atrocities, including blocking aid and medicine from getting to civilians.

The first report issued to Congress under this memorandum found that Israel had not violated the law in war conduct or in the distribution of international law. The directive would require the State Department to issue a new report each fiscal year.

Both Executive Order 14115 and NSM-20 call on Israel to do the bare minimum to comply with U.S. law, and critics, including in Congress, have argued that the administration has not gone nearly far enough in administering them.

How exactly Congress could “defund” either of these operations is not exactly clear, but both of these are likely intended as symbolic messages that the United States should not do anything that could in any way constrain Israel as it carries out its war.

Two other proposed amendments are aimed at ensuring that Americans are not aware of the scale of suffering in Gaza nor capable of alleviating it.

A bipartisan group of five representatives, led by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) introduced an amendment that would prohibit “funds appropriated by this act to be made available for the State Department to cite statistics obtained from the Gaza Health Ministry.”

Given that the Health Ministry — which estimates that more than 37,000 Palestinians have died since October — is the only official source for casualties in the Strip, members seem to think the amendment will preclude the State Department from using the statistics. If so, officially, the U.S. would be ignoring the true scale of destruction in Gaza if this amendment is adopted.

Supporters of Israel have used the fact that Hamas runs the outfit as a way to undermine the death count for public perception, though the figures offered by the ministry have in the past been corroborated by international organizations and the Israeli government.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian pier — the Biden’s administration’s military plan for getting aid into Gaza — has been a failure. Operations have stopped and started intermittently due to the weather, the amount of aid entering Gaza through the pier is wholly inadequate, and even the supplies that have reached the Strip have not made their way to Gazans due to aid workers’ safety concerns. But aside from air drops, absent a ceasefire or the Biden administration putting real pressure on the Israelis, the pier remains the only way that Washington is currently sending assistance.

Nevertheless, Reps. Michael Waltz (R-Fla), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) have put forth an amendment to cut off funding for the project.

Taken together with an earlier ban on funding UNRWA, the largest provider of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, and an amendment to the NDAA that prohibited Washington from funding the reconstruction of the strip, it is clear that some in Congress want to play no role in helping Gazans who have suffered during this brutal war.

Debate over the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill began on Wednesday evening before being adjourned, with votes on these and a number of other amendments carrying over into Thursday morning.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Zelensky won’t be able to negotiate peace himself

The way out is to transcend bilateral talks to include moves toward a new, inclusive European security architecture

BY TED SNIDER | RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT | JUNE 4, 2024

The war has escalated into a nightmare for the people of Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of their soldiers have been killed or wounded, infrastructure and environment have been devastated. Ukraine’s chances of achieving any of its hoped for goals are receding and more land is being lost every day.

Furthermore, many of the dynamics that led to the start and the continuation of the war are making it especially difficult to get out of it.

Having nourished the people of Ukraine during the war with promises of maximalist achievements, it will be very hard for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiate an end to the war with less than maximalist success.

Having led Ukraine through the war, Zelensky may be unable to lead them out. To encourage both Ukrainians and Ukraine’s allies, Zelensky promised not only that Ukraine would win back territory up to its prewar borders, but that it would recapture all of its territory to 2014 borders, including the Donbas and Crimea. To negotiate an end to the war without reclaiming that territory but having lost even more would be difficult for Zelensky.

Worse, it would be difficult for Zelensky to even attempt to negotiate an end to the war having decreed that Ukraine would not negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And even if Zelensky were to regroup and rescind the ban on negotiating and preserve the best case scenario for Ukraine, he would be dissuaded by the same ultra-right nationalists who persuaded him off his campaign peace platform prior to the war.

Zelensky defeated Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory in 2019 largely because of a promise to implement the Minsk Agreement and start to move toward peace with Russia. But he was pushed off that platform by a backlash in Ukraine and lack of support in the political West.

Ultranationalist leaders defied Zelensky and warned that a ceasefire and fulfillment of his campaign promises would lead to protests and riots. More seriously, they threatened his life. Dmytro Yarosh, the founder of the Right Sector paramilitary organization threatened that, if Zelensky fulfilled his campaign promise, “he will lose his life. He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk boulevard if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War. And it is very important that he understand this.”

During a presentation announcing Zelensky’s creation of a National Platform for Reconciliation and Unity on March 12, 2020, Zelensky advisor Sergei Sivokho was thrown to the ground by a large gang from the Azov battalion.

Were Zelensky to return to his prewar platform after the death and devastation of the war, he could face the same resistance from the same groups now magnified by that devastation.

Zelensky could be replaced by a peacetime president with less baggage. But elections are prohibited by Ukrainian law during martial law, which is still in effect. Zelensky has ruled out holding them. Battlefield conditions would make it difficult, and many Ukrainians have already fled the country. Furthermore, a survey conducted in February 2024 found that 49% of Ukrainians definitely oppose elections right now and 18% rather oppose it, though the poll suffers from the methodological problem that it likely excludes those in the Eastern regions and those who have left Ukraine.

Bottom line: Zelensky isn’t going anywhere right now, but would struggle to negotiate an end to the war without help. Such assistance could come, however, from the U.S. and its partners in the West. Though Zelensky may not have the political strength to realistically reverse his maximalist promises nor to survive ultranationalist retribution, he would have a better chance of selling it if he could say that the Western powers who promised to support the pursuit of those goals for as long as it takes were pressuring him to negotiate an end of the war. Responsibility could be shifted to the United States.

But would the U.S. shoulder that responsibility? U.S. President Joe Biden, from the beginning, has framed the war in Ukraine as “the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy.” The U.S. has insisted on supporting the war against Russia in defense of “core principles,” including that each country has “a sovereign right to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances, its partnerships.”

It may be perceived as a blow to Biden’s credibility, to U.S. hegemony, and to NATO to concede the inability to push Russia out of Ukraine and to defend NATO’s right to expand and Ukraine’s right to join.

Negotiations to end the war would be a desirable path out of Ukraine. Diplomatic talks are possible as proven by the nearly successful negotiations in Istanbul in the early weeks of the war. The existence of the signed draft treaty that those talks produced has been confirmed by independent sources who have seen it, including The Wall Street Journal, Die Welt and Samuel Charap of RAND and Sergey Radchenko of John Hopkins University.

Those talks “almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war,” according to Charap and Radchenko’s analysis of the text of the treaty. “Kyiv and Moscow largely agreed on conditions for an end to the war,” Die Welt reports. “Only a few points remained open.”

Oleksiy Arestovych, who was a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team in Istanbul, says the talks in Istanbul were successful and could have worked. He says that the Istanbul agreement was 90% prepared. “We opened the champagne bottle,” he said.

But it is the very success of the diplomatic talks that makes future negotiations difficult. It will be very difficult for Ukraine — and the United States — after over two years of war, death, destruction, disruption of lives, and loss of land to agree to terms that are essentially the same as the terms they had won before the war.

But there is another way that surmounts many of these obstacles by transcending them. The diplomatic negotiations could be broader than just negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

While several aspects of any diplomatic solution must address Russian-Ukrainian issues, like territory, caps on the Ukrainian armed forces and protection of ethnic minorities in both countries, significant parts could, instead, be addressed in a wider global solution. Putin has recently suggested that future talks encompass, not just a Ukraine-Russia security arrangement, but a comprehensive European security structure.

“We are open to a dialogue on Ukraine,” Putin said in May, “but such negotiations must take into account the interests of all countries involved in the conflict, including Russia’s. They must also involve a substantive discussion on global stability and security guarantees for Russia’s opponents and, naturally, for Russia itself.”

Instead, the expansion of a U.S. led military alliance hostile to Russia appears to be moving to engulf Europe right up to Russia’s doorstep. The insistence on defending that exclusive security structure contributed to the war in Ukraine. Addressing it could provide a more workable and lasting way out of it.

Instead of building a bigger NATO that expands to Russia’s borders and excludes and competes with it in conflict, the diplomatic energy could go into building a new inclusive European security structure that includes Russia in cooperation.

This new structure could eliminate the need for Ukraine to join NATO and for Ukraine and the U.S. to concede the right to join NATO. It could eliminate the need for the U.S. to commit to bilateral security guarantees that it is reluctant to sign with Ukraine because they could draw the U.S. into a war with Russia should Russia again attack Ukraine. It could, at last, bring the hope of peace to Europe and of better relations across the Atlantic.

Such global talks could relieve Zelensky of personal responsibility. They could bring sufficient force to defend against ultranationalist objections. They could truthfully be presented as a victory by the U.S. and not a surrender of “core principles.” And they could avoid competition and comparison with the earlier talks in Istanbul by transcending them.

How we get there is the hard part. But perhaps there is a way offered out of the war in Ukraine that delivers to each of Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and Europe what it wants. Perhaps the way out is to transcend negotiations on the Russia-Ukraine war with talks that include that but expand to include an inclusive global security architecture.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Does Biden’s Degraded Mental State Matter?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 28, 2024

Most everyone, especially Democrats, is expressing alarm over President Biden’s mental state after his debate performance last night. Biden, who later said that he was suffering from a cold, displayed attributes of severe mental decline. Many Democrats are even saying that Biden needs to drop out of the presidential race now so that the Democrats have plenty of time to promote a new candidate before the November election.

While critics are focusing on the political ramifications of Biden’s apparent mental decline, the real issue is the fact that he will still be president for the next five months. This is especially important given the proxy war that the U.S. is waging against Russia in Ukraine. That’s a war that could easily turn nuclear, especially if Biden inadvertently engages in actions that trigger a severe Russian response.

However, it isn’t Biden who is in charge of running the U.S. proxy war against Russia. That’s the good news. As I have long argued, the people who are in charge of that operation are the ones inside the U.S. national-security establishment — the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. That’s the bad news.

Longtime readers of my work know that I have long recommended an excellent book by a man named Michael J. Glennon entitled National Security and Double Government. Glennon’s thesis, to which I subscribe, is that it is the U.S. national-security part of the federal government that is actually running the show, especially in foreign affairs. They permit the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court to maintain the veneer of being in charge, so as to keep people tranquil and pacified. What matters is that they wield the real power over the federal government.

Glennon is not some sort of crackpot. He is a professor of law at Tufts University and a former counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Read his bio here. His thesis deserves to be taken seriously. If every American were to read Glennon’s book, I have no doubts that most of them would end up agreeing with his thesis.

The big problem we have with the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA is that we are dealing with people with military mindsets. It’s all black and white with these people. Russia, bad. China, bad. Iran, bad. North Korea, bad. Syria, bad. Gaza, bad. Cuba, bad. Vietnam, bad, now good. In their minds, the purpose of a massive military establishment is to put bad regimes down by whatever means possible.

As most everyone now realizes, the national-security establishment’s goal since 1945 has been to bring Russia to heel — and make it a full-fledged loyal lapdog of the U.S. Empire, much like Great Britain is. That necessarily means regime change, just like the regime changes that the Pentagon and the CIA have brought to so many other nations.

For a while, it appeared that the quest to bring down Russia ended with the end of the Cold War. Not so. That was just a temporary interlude. Almost immediately the Pentagon and the CIA embarked on a quest to use NATO, an old Cold War bureaucratic dinosaur, to begin absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact, with the ultimate aim of absorbing Ukraine, which would enable U.S. officials to place their nuclear missiles, troops, armaments, planes, and tanks right on Russia’s border, all of which, it was hoped, would end up bringing the goal of regime change in Russia closer to fruition.

Throughout this process, and knowing that Russia would never permit Ukraine to join NATO, U.S. officials were training the Ukrainian military to fight a defensive war, once NATO succeeded in provoking Russia into invading Ukraine. The idea was that a Ukrainian victory would almost certainly result in the ouster of Russian President Vladimir Putin, at which point he would, it was hoped, be replaced with a loyal U.S. lapdog.

The scheme has not worked, and it has become painfully clear that the United States cannot win this war. The only real question is what a Russian victory will ultimately look like.

And that’s where the danger of the military mindset comes into play. The national-security establishment cannot bear the thought of the U.S. losing to Russia, even if it’s a proxy war with Russia rather than a direct war.

Rather than simply acknowledging that they should never have started this war and simply withdraw from the conflict, the military and the CIA are doubling down. The risk is that they will do whatever is necessary to prevent a Russian defeat of the United States in Ukraine. That’s why they are now talking about putting NATO troops and armaments into Ukraine in the hopes of staving off defeat. And that’s where the very real prospect of nuclear war comes into play.

Would the United States be better off with a president who suffers from a severe downgrade in mental faculties being in charge rather than with generals and CIA officials being in charge? The question is irrelevant because the reality is that it’s the military-intelligence establishment that is actually in charge. And that’s why we are getting ever closer to the prospect of a life-ending nuclear war.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Debate Debacle: Democrats Need to Find New Candidate ASAP – Wall Street Analyst

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 28.06.2024

The first debate between incumbent President Joe Biden and Republican front-runner Donald Trump turned out to be worse for the Democratic Party than the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, according to Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel.

“Debate night was a fiasco for Team Biden and for the conspirators in media and elsewhere who have ceaselessly sold Biden disasters on many fronts as ‘successes’,” Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik.

With just a few months until Election Day, the Democratic leadership must now “push Biden and Harris both out and try to find a more credible team to fight the already well-funded and fiercely energized Trump juggernaut,” the analyst said.

“This is a very heavy lift as the Democrat bench is light and marginalized by primary cycles of 2020 and 2024 that installed a serial liar and diminished clod into the White House where he fails on all fronts,” Ortel said. “Whether it is the demolished pier in Gaza, the wreckage across the Middle East and Afghanistan, the horrific meat grinder in Ukraine, or the lawlessness and failures in Democrat run states and cities, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris stand revealed as incompetent losers.”

A week ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh called attention to growing concerns among top Democrats and their wealthy donors about Biden’s ability to overcome Trump in the November election. After saying that Biden’s debate performance would be “a major touchstone,” Hersh quoted political insiders as suggesting that if the first showdown with Trump goes badly for the incumbent president, the Democratic convention in Chicago would replace Joe with another, more dynamic candidate in August.

That scenario seems likely after the debate, according to Ortel.

“One theoretical approach might be to field an all-female historic ticket, seeking to exploit perceived weaknesses for Republicans over stances on abortion and gender insensitivity. Here, a Michelle Obama ticket with, perhaps, Hillary Clinton might gel. But who gets the top billing and who is second?” the Wall Street analyst remarked.

“Thursday’s nightmare will look even worse on Friday morning for Democrats. The Biden and Harris ‘brands’ are unsaleable,” Ortel concluded.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian conflict profitable for corrupts both in the West and Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | June 28, 2024

There are many reasons why the West wants to continue the conflict in Ukraine. American geopolitics is almost entirely directed towards a strategy of opposition to the Russian Federation, which is why it is in the interests of the US and its NATO allies to maintain a conflict situation in the Russian strategic environment – thus trying to “wear down” Moscow through long-standing proxy wars. However, there is a special reason for the existence of such a strong pro-war lobby in the West: the exorbitant profits generated by hostilities.

The American and European elites, as well as their oligarchic “partners” in Ukraine, have maintained complex schemes of corruption, embezzlement and overpricing in the various financial and military aid programs sent to Kiev. Rather than a gesture of “solidarity” with Ukraine, as portrayed by the Western media, NATO assistance has been a lucrative business for many individuals and companies, generating interest in prolonging the conflict.

One of the main tactics used by these agents is the overpricing of military products. The prices of various weapons and equipment are being artificially inflated by American and European defense companies. It is estimated that some types of projectiles are overpriced by up to six times their original value, for example. The excess value between the original price and the inflated price ends up serving as profit for corrupt individuals both in the West and in Kiev.

Recent media reports indicate that there is a shortage of ammunition in the Ukrainian armed forces. Although billions of dollars are being spent on weapons, the inflated prices mean that Kiev cannot purchase a sufficient amount of equipment. Artillery shells are among the most overpriced items, with rockets such as the Grad MLRS having increased in price six times since 2022. The same process of inflating prices has occurred with almost all of Ukraine’s regular defense purchases, creating a situation in which Kiev receives exorbitant amounts of money but is unable to adequately supply itself militarily to sustain even conventional combat.

Some arguments commonly used by defense companies to increase the price of weapons are issues such as the need to speed up production or problems with logistics. In fact, current circumstances would require some kind of rise in the price of military products according to conventional market standards. However, raising the price of projectiles by six or seven times is already much more than a mere adjustment in expenses, having an obvious attempt to profit from the conflict and generate unfair earnings for the parties involved.

In Kiev, there have been calls to change the structure of arms shipments, with local military officials asking partner countries – mainly in Europe – to build facilities on Ukrainian soil to reduce logistical costs and facilitate the process of military aid. Western companies, however, continue to refuse such investment, citing technical difficulties. Although such difficulties exist, the real reason for the lack of such investment is another: by creating a shortage of weapons in Ukraine, the “machine” of military aid continues to run.

The basic scheme is simple: it is claimed that the costs of sending weapons are high, requiring more public money to cover the costs. Western propaganda convinces taxpayers to keep silent about bills passed in Western parliaments to increase military aid packages. Thus, more money is taken from the public reserves and used for suspicious schemes of buying weapons for Ukraine. Ukrainian officials take some of this money for themselves, while the rest goes to pay exorbitant prices to the Western defense industry. Thus, everyone profits – except the Ukrainian military, who continue to be sent to certain death on the frontlines while their bosses profit from the “Western solidarity.”

Long ago, the official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, formally accused the US of profiting from the conflict. According to him, the American defense industry is benefiting greatly from the war due to Ukrainian demand for weapons and inflated equipment prices. The real figures from the military market confirm Wenbin’s allegations, making it clear that the prolongation of the war in Ukraine is not the result of any belief in Kiev’s “victory”, but of the selfish interests of Western and Ukrainian private actors in profiting from the loss of lives.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.

June 28, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Punts on Technicalities and the Censorship Leviathan Soldiers On

In a disappointing 6-3 ruling the court found that the states and individual plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction against the government

By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | June 26, 2024

The Supreme Court issued a very disappointing ruling today in our Murthy v. Missouri case. Note that this is not a final ruling, but only a ruling on the preliminary injunction. The case will continue. The key takeaway from the Court was this finding:

Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.

The Supreme Court punted here, refusing to opine on the merits of the case. The standing finding rests on technicalities that I will do my best to explain. To clarify, this ruling that we lack standing on the preliminary injunction does not mean we lack standing to bring the case to the trial. The case will move to the trial phase at the District Court now, where we will seek additional discovery and continue to expose the government’s elaborate censorship machinery. I hope we can uncover sufficient evidence for the Supreme Court not to continue to look the other way when it comes to a final ruling.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explains:

Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.

But this is manifestly untrue: it was the platforms actions done at the behest of the government. The whole Constitutional problem is one of joint action, where the state forced third parties to censor. I don’t see how the Court could miss this obvious fact, given the evidence we presented. The ruling continues:

The plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.

Apparently, the fact that we are still being censored on several platforms is insufficient to establish this? A related issue is one of traceability: the Court insists that we show that particular instances of censorship are directly linked to particular government actions. But this traceability standard presents an impossibly high burden for plaintiffs’—any plaintiffs—to meet. The government conducts its communications with social media companies in secrecy, and subpoenaed documents tell only a small part of the story—they can’t capture phone conversations or private meetings, for example.

On this standard, so long as the government does not name names of individuals in writing that it wants censored, then the government can exercise broad censorship powers and no one who is directly or indirectly harmed can have any recourse to legal redress. For example, the government could order Facebook and YouTube to censor anyone favorable towards the Great Barrington Declaration, a document critiquing our pandemic response written by my co-plaintiffs Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff. So long as those censored were not specifically named by the government, any person on the receiving end of this censorship would not be able to definitively establish in court that their censorship was government-driven.

The upshot is the government can continue to censor so long as the targets are ideas, topics, themes, and not specifically named individuals. In other words, it can do precisely what the First Amendment forbids: content-based censorship.

Try, if you can, to follow the byzantine logic of this judicial reasoning:

The plaintiffs suggest that the platforms continue to suppress their speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure. But the plaintiffs have a redressability problem. Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion. And the available evidence indicates that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against COVID–19 misinformation even as the Federal Government has wound down its own pandemic response measures. Enjoining the Government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms’ content-moderation decisions.

Translation: even if the government coerced platforms to censor you in the past, and platforms continue to censor you according to these same policies—and without any evidence (just taking the government’s word for it) that the government is not coercing platforms anymore—plaintiffs cannot prove that they will likely be harmed in the future, which is one of the necessary criteria for a preliminary injunction. Translation: they got away with it in the past, and we trust they won’t do it again in the future. Or if they do, you won’t be able to prove they were targeting you by name.

Let me try an analogy here: the government placed its boot on the platforms’ face, and the platforms tried to resist but eventually complied, however reluctantly, as the record in our case showed. Now the government claims it’s no longer stomping on the platforms’ face, which means the platform is free to go against the government’s directives now if they so choose. Forgive me if I think this strains all plausibility.

Finally, for purposes of the injunction at least, the Court rejected our argument, grounded in prior First Amendment cases, that free speech protects the rights of the listener and not just the speaker.

The plaintiffs next assert a “right to listen” theory of standing. The individual plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment protects their interest in reading and engaging with the content of other speakers on social media. This theory is startlingly broad, as it would grant all social-media users the right to sue over someone else’s censorship—at least so long as they claim an interest in that person’s speech. While the Court has recognized a “First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,” the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762. Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiffs emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and activists. But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560. The state plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media, but they have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.

Again, try to follow the logic here: plaintiffs “do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm” and the two states “have not not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.” But wait a minute. Those instances are not available for us to find precisely because the information was censored, which means we cannot access it! That information went down the digital censorship memory hole incinerator—it was effectively destroyed by being removed—so how can we possibly present it to the court? The crime itself made the evidence disappear. Under this impossible burden of proof, how can any Americans possibly assert their First Amendment rights?

Justice Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote a blistering dissent to this ruling. I’ll post more on that later. It is disappointing that we only have three justices of the Supreme Court who seem to understand what is at stake in this case.

In the meantime, rest assured that we will continue to fight the government’s censorship leviathan in court. As the case goes back to the District Court for trial we anticipate more discovery, which will allow us to continue to shine a light on the government’s unconstitutional behavior. Perhaps we will uncover communications that even meet the Supreme Court’s impossibly high traceability standard. Some individuals were specifically named and targeted in the government’s missives to social media companies, and at least one of them—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—has filed an analogous case already. Maybe a Presidential candidate will fare better on the standing issue than we did.

This is not the end, my friends. Just one battle in what will prove to be a long war. Onwards!

June 27, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Free Speech Legislation Gains Attention Following Supreme Court Siding with Biden in Social Media Censorship Case

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2024

US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reacted to Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Murthy v. Missouri case, to call for new legislation that would, going forward, reinforce the rules, already contained in the First Amendment, meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship.

Jordan, whose Committee is probing alleged government-Big Tech collusion in violation of the First Amendment through the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, noted that the US Constitution’s First Amendment is “first for a reason.”

According to the Republican congressman, free speech that this amendment protects (from government intervention) should extend to any government infringement – be it in Congress, or online.

Jordan said that while respectfully disagreeing with the SCOTUS ruling the Committee’s own oversight “has shown the need for legislative reforms.”

“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex,” Jordan wrote in a statement.

In other words, the increasingly pressing issue of how the government “interacts” with social platforms (because of their massive reach and therefore influence among the electorate) should be put into the hands of courts and their interpretations based on new and clear legislation to guide those decisions.

The Judiciary Committee chairman mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act – a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech.

Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee’s “important work will continue” – stating that the Subcommittee thus far has “uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.”

Murthy v. Missouri – which sought to give the plaintiffs the right to pursue their legal case against the government, alleging it pressured social media to censor online user content, was thrown out by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling as “lacking standing to sue.”

At the same time, the court canceled – at a particularly sensitive time, mere months before the upcoming US presidential election – an injunction that limited the way the government can “interact” with social platforms regarding a range of issues.

The collusion allegations for the most part refer to activities and communications between the government and Big Tech in the context of the previous vote that resulted in the installment of the current US administration.

June 27, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »