Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Routine Infant Hepatitis B Vaccination Fails to Protect Into Young Adulthood

Parents Should Not Expect a Long-Term Benefit

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse™ | August 12, 2024

In 1991, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) first recommended that all infants in the United States receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth or within 1–2 months of age. The goal was to prevent maternal transmission of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and reduce the incidence of infections in babies. Many healthy mothers without hepatitis B or risk factors such as IV drug abuse with normal infants ask what is the benefit in their babies?

The CDC recommends that children receive three doses of the hepatitis B vaccine as part of their routine childhood vaccine schedule:

  • First dose: Within 24 hours of birth
  • Second dose: Between 1–2 months of age
  • Third dose: Between 6–18 months of age

What happens later in life when young people go into the medical field and are potentially exposed to hepatitis B in sick patients? Posuwan et al evaluated a prospective cohort of young people (mean age 18 years) going into medicine and evaluated their antibody titers as a proxy of enduring immunity to hepatitis B.

Posuwan N, Vorayingyong A, Jaroonvanichkul V, Wasitthankasem R, Wanlapakorn N, Vongpunsawad S, Poovorawan Y. Implementation of hepatitis B vaccine in high-risk young adults with waning immunity. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 20;13(8):e0202637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202637. PMID: 30125298; PMCID: PMC6101408.

The investigators were disappointed to find that only 6.9% had long-lasting immunity to hepatitis B, and thus underwent booster doses upon entering medical school. It is unclear when immunity is lost in this cohort. The results are important for parents to understand that the hepatitis B shots given at birth are only applicable if the mother has hepatitis B or serious risks for carrying it including active IV drug abuse. Otherwise the vaccine schedule for this illness has little value at that age.

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Bibi’s War of Terror Agenda

By W.M. Peterson | Truth Blitzkrieg | August 5, 2024

Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul once asserted, “There’s no history to show that Iranians are aggressive people. When is the last time they invaded a country? Over 200 years ago!”

As with many other important matters, Congressman Paul was absolutely correct; Iran has never been a warmongering state, unlike adversarial belligerents Israel and the USA.

Despite deep state meddling in the Persian nation’s affairs (e.g., the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and the 2020 murder of Major General Qasem Soleimani), Iran has never posed the slightest threat to America. Why, then, are we being maneuvered into war when there is absolutely no national interest at stake?

It’s somewhat of a rhetorical question, I admit, since by now most people who aren’t cognitively impaired understand that Israel is trying like hell to steer America’s military into the Middle East to shed more blood on its behalf. The recent provocations towards Iran are but the latest installments in an ongoing saga we’ve witnessed play out repeatedly since 2001.

Americans should know by now what to expect. After having been led by the nose into 20 years of costly wars primarily for the enrichment and comfort of Jewish intruders squatting in the Holy Land, you’d think we might have learned a thing or two about international Zionist statecraft. It’s not as if their methods of fomenting a climate of war have changed. It’s not as if we weren’t told what to expect.

In fact we were told, by none other than former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark.

During a 2007 interview on Amy Goodman’s political talk show Democracy Now, General Clark spoke about a detailed war agenda that was revealed to him by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he visited the Pentagon just ten days after 9/11:

“One of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second… We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know…I guess they don’t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no…there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq…I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.’ And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

A few weeks later, Clark returned to the Pentagon and met with the same man, recalling:

“I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over his desk. He picked up a piece of paper and he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it classified?’ He said, ‘Yes sir.’ I said, ‘Well don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, ‘You remember that?’ He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you.’”

General Clark was having these conversations at a time when the Pentagon was entirely under the thumb of Zionist Jews who had been plotting and preparing for a global war on terror for many years prior to 2001. The battle plan disclosed to Clark is not of American provenance; it is an Israeli war stratagem smuggled into our foreign policy by duplicitous foreign agents. You’ll notice that almost every country named by the general has been ‘dealt with’ militarily in one form or another in the years following 9/11, Iran being the lone exception. That status is likely to change real soon as Israel continues to escalate tensions in the region. AIPAC control over U.S. politicians ensures there won’t be so much as a whimper of protest from the ‘American Colossus’ in response to Zionist saber-rattling and increased provocations. And, rest assured, America will defend Israel to the death when the situation in the Middle East reaches critical mass. American citizens, and especially ‘conservatives,’ need to understand how they’re being emotionally manipulated into supporting yet another war that is entirely at variance with our interests and could only spell doom for our already beleaguered nation.

Netanyahu’s War on Terror

On July 24th, Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu swaggered into the U.S. Capitol to address a joint session of Congress and to cultivate material and emotional support for his upcoming war with Iran. During the course of his nagging hour-long harangue, the Israeli prime minister received 58 standing ovations from submissive stooges on both sides of the aisle, proving once more that Pat Buchanan’s description of Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory” is as true today as it was 30 years ago.

The AIPAC-funded adulation shown this Hebrew war criminal was a sickening sight to behold. Former US Marine and United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter summed it up nicely:

“Israel has bragged about buying the US Congress. And this is the result, where a war    criminal—a man who has been accused of genocide, who has arrest warrants being prepared for him by the International Court of Justice, a man who heads a State that has been defined legally as an “apartheid state,” carrying out an illegal and unjust occupation and, again, genocide of the Palestinian people—has demanded an audience to the Congress that he has bought and paid for. That’s what’s happening here. We must see it in that perspective. This isn’t an honor being given to Netanyahu by the US Congress. This is the US Congress obeying the commands of the man who leads the nation that owns the US Congress.”

In one of his most memorable lines of the day, Netanyahu affirmed with a straight face, “there is no place for political violence in democracies!” (He made the comment while referring to the recent shooting at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania.) Within one week, however, Israel had assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran; Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut; and Al Jazeera journalist Ismail al-Ghoul in Gaza. The recent killing spree occurred only three months after IDF jets bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria killing 16 people, including seven diplomats. “There is no place for political violence in democracies!” quoth the mass-murdering psychopathic Jew, who once attended a two-day anniversary celebration commemorating the Irgun’s 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel.

Bibi the Butcher, that distinguished darling of America’s political class, has spent his entire adult life promoting Israel’s War on Terror.

In 1979, he and his father Benzion partnered with Irgun terrorist-turned-prime minister Menachem Begin to organize the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism, a three-day event intended to “launch an international propaganda offensive to promote and exploit the issue of international terrorism,” as Philip Paull explains in his 1982 book, International Terrorism: The Propaganda War. The event was held at the Yonatan Institute, named after Netanyahu’s deceased older brother, and its purpose was to bring Western political leaders together to discuss international terrorism and the possibility of manipulating America’s military into the Middle East to wage a war on terror. The elder Netanyahu (born Mileikowsky) said in his opening address, “This conference was called to serve as a beginning of a new process — the purpose of rallying democracies of the world to a struggle against terrorism and the dangers it represents.” (George H.W. Bush spoke on the last day of the event.)

From that point on, the Western media dutifully disseminated the propaganda of the Jerusalem Conference and Benjamin Netanyahu would produce a number of books, articles and speeches throughout the 1980s and 90s promoting the doctrine of a global War on Terror. As Philip Paull wrote in 1982, “This ‘anti-terrorist’ propaganda campaign was and is being conducted in a style reminiscent of war-time ‘psychological warfare’ by journalists serving as conduits and spreaders of misinformation originating in Jerusalem.”<

Forecasting War

Netanyahu’s plan to haul America’s military into the Middle East to wage war on Israel’s enemies became a reality after September 11, 2001, a day he claimed was “very good” for Israel. (Source: New York Times, Sept. 12, 2001)

Many Americans still believe the War on Terror was launched in response to the 9/11 attacks. The fact is, however, the War on Terror was conceived many years before 2001, and the atrocities perpetrated in New York City and Washington D.C. were merely the excuse to make the war agenda operational.

In February 1982, the World Zionist Organization published ‘The Yinon Plan: A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’ The document was published in Hebrew but was later translated into English by the eminent professor Israel Shahak of Hebrew University. It was written by military strategist Oded Yinon and detailed a plan to break up large Arab nations like Iraq and Syria and transform them into tiny ethnic statelets that would be incapable of defending themselves against Israel’s superior military might. Yinon wrote:

“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas… is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.”

Yinon’s vision for Iraq came to fruition following the illegal American invasion, launched on the Jewish revenge holiday Purim, in 2003. Almost immediately, America’s conquering forces disbanded Iraq’s military and the entire country soon descended into civil war between competing factions of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Prior to the invasion, Iraq had been a significant impediment to Israeli domination of the Middle East, which is why the Jews in control of America’s foreign policy selected it for annihilation. And, as an added bonus, there were the financial spoils of war to acquire as well. Oded Yinon: “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand…is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria.”

What Yinon described in 1982 is the Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel) project that Americans have been fighting and dying for since 2001. America’s military is not fighting terrorism; it is reorganizing the Middle East to conform with Israel’s whims and Iran is the crown jewel. This war agenda has already bankrupted America morally and financially and has destroyed the erstwhile superpower’s standing on the world stage. As noted Middle East expert Linda S. Heard wrote in an article for Counterpunch (April 25, 2006), “Oded Yinon’s 1982 ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’ is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternately, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interest.”

A Clean Break and PNAC

An updated version of The Yinon Plan was drafted for Netanyahu in 1996 during his first year as Israel’s prime minister. Titled ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,’ the document was assembled for Netanyahu by neocon hawks Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. It specifically called for the removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Bashar al-Assad in Syria and recommended military confrontations with both countries as well as with Lebanon and Iran. One year later, Perle, Feith and Wurmser would all join the newly-founded Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and continue their strategizing for Netanyahu’s War on Terror.

PNAC was an elite neoconservative think-tank founded in 1997 by influential Zionists William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The majority of the group’s membership was comprised of fanatical Jews with deep ties to the state of Israel, many of whom came to power just prior to 9/11 within the administration of George W. Bush. These include: Dov Zakheim, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, David Frum, Robert Zoellick, David Wurmser, and the convicted felon Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby.

The overarching philosophy of PNAC was based on the ideology of Jewish intellectual Leo Strauss. Like many of today’s neoconservatives, Strauss was an ex-Trotskyite who promoted Machiavellian tactics and the use of lies as necessary political tools while a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Significantly, he was also a dedicated Zionist and a follower of the terrorist Ze’ev Jabotinsky. On the surface these ideological alignments appear to be contradictory, unless some understanding of the overwhelming Jewish role in both Zionism and Communism can be apprehended. Both were pioneered by the same man, Moses Hess, and both are Jewish revolutionary movements whose sole aim is to do whatever is best for Jewish interests even if it means employing seemingly opposing methods. Far-right Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and far-left Communism (Jewish internationalism) are two sides of the same shekel working in tandem as a lethal pincer for global hegemony. Attempting to explain these amorphous tendencies, Jewish historian and political theorist Murray Rothbard once noted that neoconservatives “moved from cafeteria Trotskyites to apologists for the US warfare state without missing a beat.”

In September 2000, PNAC published a 90-page document titled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.’ The document, co-authored by Rabbi Dov Zakheim, called for America to initiate a series of regime change wars in the Middle East and North Africa with an emphasis on Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran. The authors of the report emphasized the importance for America to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” but acknowledged that “the process of change is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.” One year to the month of the document’s publication America got what George W. Bush referred to at the time as ‘our Pearl Harbor.’

Conclusion

And so America teeters once again on the brink of war due to our fatal attraction to the Zionist state. The man who claims “there is no place for political violence in democracies” presides over a country that has made political assassinations its stock-and-trade and is undoubtedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks which activated its long-held War on Terror scheme. Speaking to an audience at Bar Ilan University in 2008, the war criminal recipient of 58 standing ovations from the US Congress reiterated his belief that the 9/11 attacks were in fact good for Israel: “We are benefitting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” (Source: Ha’aretz, April 16, 2008)

*Nota bene: Netanyahu listed three things, not one, but to the mind of an architect of the War on Terror, all three blend seamlessly together.*

The Israeli prime minister and his minions have nothing but contempt for America. That won’t change regardless of how many standing ovations he receives from a goyische congress or how many US dollars flow into his over-stuffed war chest. In 2001, he was filmed having a conversation with Israeli settlers about ways in which he intended to undermine the US-led Oslo Peace Accords that had been signed in 1993 and 1995. During one such conversation, he crowed: “I know what America is… America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.” He goes on to boast about his ability to manipulate the US in the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian peace process, saying, according to the Washington Post (July 16, 2010), “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo Accords]… I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”

Benjamin Netanyahu ladies and gentleman. A man whose military has killed upwards of over 186,000 Palestinians this year alone and has bombed hospitals, schools, churches, aid convoys and refugee camps; a man who sanctions the anal rape of prisoners; a man American politicians hail as a conquering hero; a man millions of evangelical ‘Christians’ believe we should sacrifice more of our children’s blood for.

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Ukraine’s ‘Suicidal’ Kursk Attack Part of US Establishment’s Desperate Effort to Win in 2024?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 15.08.2024

Ukraine’s ill-fated Kursk terror attack could be part of the US Democratic establishment’s effort to prop up their candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, in the 2024 presidential election, according to Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel.

Despite the US State Department and Pentagon denying any involvement in the Kiev regime’s Kursk aggression, it has all the earmarks of US-NATO management and planning, according to Major General Apti Alaudinov, deputy head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Military-Political Directorate and Alexander Bortnikov, director of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB).

“At this stage, nothing likely happens in Ukraine and vis-a-vis Russia unless approved in advance by someone in the US,” Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik. “Relevant questions include: exactly who approved these offensive operations and what debate, if any, occurred in Congress before these raids happened?”

Ortel called the Kursk attack a “wag the dog 2.0” operation, saying that it “seems a reprise” of then-US President Bill Clinton’s assault on one of Sudan’s biggest pharmaceutical factories in Khartoum in 1998. The US attack based on faulty intelligence was presented as retaliation to Al-Qaeda bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

However, some analysts noted at the time that the US bombing came as investigations into Clinton’s lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky intensified. Dubbing the case a “wag the dog” situation, they suggested that Clinton urgently authorized the strike as a distraction, with the backing of many Democratic lawmakers including then-Senator Joe Biden.

The Kursk aggression appears to be as dubious in terms of military planning and strategic value as the senseless bombing of the Al Shifa factory. US Congressman Paul Gosar called Ukraine’s border incursion “suicidal” in an interview with Sputnik, while retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski wondered whether Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had a hand in the Kursk aggression planning.

Earlier, on August 8, CNN quoted Ukrainian officials as saying that the Kursk attack was aimed at demoralizing Russian forces and diverting them away from other parts of the front. However, as of August 12, the Ukrainian military told the New York Times and Financial Times (FT) that the Russian Armed Forces’ advance in Donbass, including near strategically important Chasov Yar and Torestk, is continuing unabated.

To complicate matters further for Kiev, at least six Ukrainian brigades that previously fought near Kharkov, Sumy, Chasov Yar and Toretsk were redirected to participate in the Kursk aggression, according to FT. The newspaper cited Ukrainian soldiers’ worries about leaving positions in Donbass to take part in the Kursk gamble.

On August 15, Russia’s Tsentr Battlegroup destroyed a Ukrainian military stronghold in the Avdeyyevka direction in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). On August 12, the Russian military liberated the settlement of Lisichnoye; earlier, Timofeyevka and Veseloye were retaken from the enemy. Russia liberated a total of 19 settlements of the DPR in July, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Harris and Walz’s ‘Illusionary’ Campaign Doomed to be Busted

One might ask why the US Democratic establishment would need any “prop-up” of their presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, given that the two are currently enjoying a surge in the polls.

According to Ortel, the surge appears to be short-lived and most likely artificial and made-up by the US corporate press, especially given that Harris’ poll numbers as Biden’s veep had been disastrous. For instance, the Wall Street analyst referred to a recent survey published by the Hill that claimed that more voters trust Harris than Donald Trump on the economy as completely detached from reality.

“The corporate-owned press, including Fox, has lost all credibility which explains their financial losses and the rise of Twitter spaces, Tucker Carlson and alternative truth-tellers that thrive,” Ortel said. “Traditional actors are resolved to sell fiction as fact to promote a singularly unaccomplished airhead to lead America out of the messes she helped create.”

Indeed, US conservative commentators and pundits have recently thrown Harris’ poll numbers, campaign performance and unwillingness to make one-on-one interviews into question.

“[The media] are so in the tank for Harris that they are defending her decision not to talk to them,” remarked US investigative journalist and author Michael Shellenberg on X on August 14. Earlier, the journalist drew attention to the fact that, for some strange reason, Harris has not put a policy agenda on her website.

Former White House Political Director Matt Schlapp tweeted that there is nothing short of a “push by the national media and Democratic National Committee (DNC) to legitimize Kamala Harris,” adding that she is not giving interviews to evade criticism over her vice presidency.

Similarly, Fox News host Sean Hannity recently called Harris “an illusion, built on a mountain of lies” on X.

Rogan O’Handley, a former entertainment lawyer, claimed on X on August 7 that the Harris campaign was caught offering Instagram influencers money to post personal stories about how the Biden-Harris administration helped them.

Axios reported on August 13 that it found that Harris’ campaign was editing news headlines and descriptions within Google search ads to “make it appear as if the Guardian, Reuters, CBS News and other major publishers are on her side.” The news outlet noted that while such activity is in line with the Google rules, the tech giant admitted there was a “glitch” that removed a disclaimer “sponsored” near the news headlines touting Harris.

US conservative journalist Kyle Becker also alleged on X that pollsters are “oversampling” Democrats for no reason “except deceiving the voters.” Becker believes that the reports that Harris is leading her Republican competitor in key battleground states are made up to justify her future win. “It is all designed to try to keep Harris within the margin of cheating,” tweeted Becker. In 2020, Biden won the presidential election after outperforming Trump by a razor-thin margin in crucial swing states. Many Republicans believe voting procedures were rigged there.

According to Ortel, the Harris-Walz campaign “honeymoon” may end as abruptly as it started.

“The true mud-slinging will start after Labor Day [September 2] and continue thereafter. No one yet has vetted Harris or Walz and I suspect their reputations will be gutted, fairly, well before November 5, 2024. Moreover, neither are effective, battle-hardened debaters, campaigners or leaders,” Ortel said.

Looming Crises Won’t Allow Harris-Walz to Fool Voters

While the Harris-Walz campaign needs good news, be it record-high poll numbers, Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, or their proxy Zelensky claiming victories, the problem is that the “looming crises and worsening economic prospects” won’t let “conflicted grifters” in the US establishment fool American voters again, according to Ortel.

As Ukrainian forces continue to lose ground on the battlefield, the Biden administration is still struggling to reach a ceasefire agreement amid Israel’s war in Gaza, fuelling discontent with the Democratic Party among Palestine supporters. According to the New York Post, an August 14 rally supporting Vice President Harris in the New York City descended into chaos after pro-Palestinian protesters infiltrated the gathering and later started to clash with the police.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg experts warn the US economy is expected to slow down under the Biden-Harris administration, casting an additional shadow on the Harris-Walz campaign.
Commenting on the Democratic administration’s chaotic domestic and foreign policies, Ortel noted:

“The period 1991 to present stands already as a rare epoch during which too many leaders combined arrogance and ignorance into a toxic cocktail, gulling voters with effective lies into bullied serfs, grateful for gruel as the donor class and their paid stooges seemingly prospered,” the pundit said. “‘What could have been’ from 1991 forward unburdened by Harris, Walz and other incompetent, conflicted has-beens is truly a marvel to contemplate! Let’s see whether the American election is free and fair and let’s see who actually wins.”

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Why Western Media Suddenly Found Ukrainian Connection in Nord Stream Bombing

By Andrei Dergalin – Sputnik – 15.08.2024

Media outlets such as the WSJ recently started to peddle a narrative that the Nord Stream pipeline destruction in 2022 was allegedly orchestrated by a group of high-ranking Ukrainian officers led by Gen. Valery Zaluzhny.

Despite Western media efforts to implicate Ukraine, the United States still looks like the “main beneficiary and customer of the sabotage of the Nord Stream  pipeline,” says German political analyst and independent journalist Dr. Gregor Spitzen.

“This has been clear from the very beginning, both in terms of the basic Roman law principle of ‘Cui bono?’ [who benefits?] and the statements by President Joe Biden and Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland that the US would not allow the pipeline to go into operation,” he tells Sputnik.

Efforts by German politicians and media to draw the attention away from the US by “throwing new and implausible versions into the information field,” while understandable – “if the US is found guilty of an act of state terrorism on the object of German property, the whole architecture of European security will collapse” – are still no less outrageous, Dr. Spitzen remarks.

“Germany’s attempts to pin the blame on Ukrainian saboteurs who acted without a clear mandate from their government, while at the same time taking President Zelensky out of harm’s way, looks legally flawless, but completely implausible,” Dr. Spitzen elaborates. “It can be predicted that the specific Ukrainians accused of sabotage will never be found. Either they will be found to have died of natural causes under suspicious circumstances, or they will have committed suicide.”

“This would be the best solution to the Nord Stream sabotage case. The pipeline is destroyed, US guilt is not proven, German politicians’ reputations are saved, Ukrainian political leaders are exonerated, and the specific perpetrators, who acted on their own initiative, are dead or missing,” he adds.

Former CIA operations officer Philip Giraldi also branded media efforts to pin the blame on Ukraine as a “cover story,” arguing that Kiev simply lacked the resources to carry out the Nord Stream bombing.

“The US did and had even stated its intention in advance to destroy the pipeline if Russia were to invade Ukraine. And there is also the involvement of Norway which is not plausible if it were a Ukrainian operation,” he said.

Both Spitzen and Giraldi suggested that the fact that the story about Ukraine’s alleged role in the Nord Stream bombing surfaced simultaneously in the US and German media hints at the likelihood of a coordinated effort to craft “an acceptable narrative regarding what took place,” as Giraldi put it.

“It suggests to me that they are coordinating some new approach in dealing with Ukraine and Zelensky though I am not sure what that might be,” Giraldi added.

August 15, 2024 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky aide denies Kiev’s involvement in Nord Stream attack

RT | August 15, 2024

Kiev had nothing to do with the explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, Mikhail Podoliak, a top adviser to Ukrainian leader, Vladimir Zelensky, has said.

Podoliak made the statement to Reuters on Thursday in response to a report by the Wall Street Journal, claiming that Zelensky authorized the September 2022 attack which ruptured the key energy infrastructure built to deliver Russian gas to Germany and the rest of Europe.

According to the US outlet’s sources, which included officers allegedly involved in the operation, Zelensky initially approved the attack on Nord Stream. He later tried to call it off under pressure from the CIA, but then Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny told him it could not be done as the sabotage group had already been dispatched and there was no way to contact it.

“Such an act can only be carried out with extensive technical and financial resources… and who possessed all this at the time of the bombing? Only Russia,” Podoliak told the agency.

Russia has ridiculed claims that it would destroy its own pipelines, which provided it with steady revenue. Top officials in Moscow, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have previously pointed the finger at Washington, arguing that it stood to gain the most from the disruption of Russian gas supplies to the EU.

“Ukraine has nothing to do with the Nord Stream explosions,” Podolyak insisted, adding that Kiev did not gain any strategic or tactical advantage from the sabotage.

The report by the WSJ claimed that “a handful of senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen” came up with the idea of blowing up the pipelines during a drinking party in May 2022, a few months after the outbreak of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. The plotters believed that it would reduce Russia’s energy profits and make the EU less dependent on Moscow, it said.

Zaluzhny, who is now Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, told the outlet that claims of his – or Kiev’s – involvement in the destruction of Nord Stream were a “mere provocation.” A senior official in the Security Service of Ukraine, the SBU, also denied the report, insisting that Zelensky in particular “did not approve the implementation of any such actions on the territory of third countries and did not issue relevant orders.”

The WSJ said its reporting is partially corroborated by the findings of the German police investigation into the Nord Stream explosions. The German Federal Public Prosecutor issued a first arrest warrant in connection with the sabotage this week, according to local reports. The suspect is believed to be a Ukrainian citizen identified as ‘Vladimir Z’.

The newspaper suggested that the police investigation could “upend” relations between Kiev and Berlin, which has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the EU amid the conflict with Russia.

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Leave a comment

The FBI ‘Visits’ Scott Ritter

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | August 15, 2024

Among the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The wall was intended to prevent law enforcement from accessing and using data gathered by America’s domestic spying agencies.

Government spying is rampant in the US, and the feds regularly engage in it as part of law enforcement’s well-known antipathy to the Fourth Amendment. Last week, the FBI admitted as much when it raided the home of former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. Scott is a courageous and gifted former Marine. He is also a fierce and articulate antiwar warrior.

Here is the backstory.

After President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress investigated his use of the FBI and CIA as domestic spying agencies. Some of the spying was on political dissenters and some on political opponents. None of it was lawful.

What is lawful spying? The modern Supreme Court has made it clear that domestic spying is a “search” and the acquisition of data from a search is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime presented under oath to the judge for a search or seizure to be lawful. The amendment also requires that all search warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

The language in the Fourth Amendment is the most precise in the Constitution because of the colonial disgust with British general warrants. A general warrant was issued to British agents by a secret court in London. General warrants did not require probable cause, only “governmental needs.” That, of course, was no standard whatsoever, as whatever the government wants it will claim that it needs.

General warrants authorized government agents to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found — stated differently, to engage in fishing expeditions.

FISA required that all domestic spying be authorized by the new and secret FISA Court. Congress then unconstitutionally lowered the probable cause of crime standard for the FISA Court to probable cause of speaking to a foreign agent, and it permitted the FISA Court to issue general warrants.

Yet, the FISA compromise that was engineered in order to attract congressional votes was the wall. The wall prohibited whatever data was acquired from surveillance conducted pursuant to a FISA warrant to be shared with law enforcement.

So, if a janitor in the Russian embassy was really an intelligence agent who was distributing illegal drugs as lures to get Americans to spy for him, any telephonic evidence of his drug dealing could not be given to the FBI.

The purpose of the wall was not to protect foreign agents from domestic criminal prosecutions; it was to prevent American law enforcement from violating personal privacy by spying on Americans without search warrants.

Fast forward to the weeks after 9/11 when, with no serious debate, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. It removed the wall between law enforcement and spying. And by 2001, the FISA Court had on its own lowered the standard for issuing a search warrant from probable cause of speaking to a foreign agent to probable cause of speaking to a foreign person. This, too, was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The language removing the wall sounds benign, as it requires that the purpose of the spying must be national security and the discovered criminal evidence — if any — must be accidental or inadvertent. In January 2023, the FBI admitted that it intentionally uses the CIA and the NSA to spy on Americans as to whom it has neither probable cause of crime nor even articulable suspicion of criminal behavior.

Articulable suspicion is the linchpin of commencing all criminal investigations. Without requiring suspicion, we are back to fishing expeditions.

The FBI’s admission that it uses the CIA and the NSA to spy for it came in the form of a 906-page FBI rulebook written during the Trump administration, disseminated to federal agents in 2021 and made known to Congress last year.

Last week, when FBI agents searched Ritter’s home in upstate New York, in addition to trucks, guns, a SWAT team and a bomb squad, they arrived with printed copies of two years’ of Ritter’s emails and texts that they obtained without a search warrant. To do this, they either hacked into Ritter’s electronic devices — a felony — or they relied on their cousins, the CIA and the NSA, to do so, also a felony.

But the CIA charter prohibits its employees from engaging in domestic surveillance and law enforcement. Nevertheless, we know the CIA is physically or virtually present in all of the 50 US statehouses. And the NSA is required to go to the FISA Court when it wants to spy. We know that this, too, is a charade, as the NSA regularly captures every keystroke triggered on every mobile device and desktop computer in the US, 24/7, without warrants.

The search warrant for Ritter’s home specified only electronic devices, of which he had three. Yet, the 40 FBI agents there stole a truckload of materials from him, including his notes from his U.N. inspector years in the 2000s, a draft of a book he is in the midst of writing and some of his wife’s personal property.

The invasion of Scott Ritter’s home was a perversion of the Fourth Amendment, a criminal theft of his private property and an effort to chill his free speech. But it was not surprising. This is what has become of federal law enforcement today. The folks we have hired to protect the Constitution are destroying it.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Academic Whistleblower

A Human Sacrifice Worth Making?

By Lisa Hutchinson | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | August 14, 2024

Recently, I listened to an interview with Dr Carl Elliott based on his published book released in June 2024 titled “The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No”. Dr Elliott is a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota who was trained in medicine as well as philosophy. For years, he fought for an independent inquiry into a case of corruption at a psychiatric research study at his own university in which sadly an especially vulnerable patient lost his life. Carl experienced first hand what it is like to be an academic whistleblower, and endured a terrible experience. His own efforts resulted in him being shunned by his friends and colleagues and impeded by his own university, who denied any wrongdoing, until an independent state investigation finally vindicated his claims after a 7-year-long battle.

Carl posits that As mentioned, his foray into this is very sad and disturbing. He detailed the extraordinary case of a mentally vulnerable man, Dan Markingson, who was admitted to a psychiatric unit after experiencing a series of psychotic episodes. Despite being a danger to himself and others, he was enrolled on a clinical trial of a new multi-drug regimen. Dan was coerced into following the treatment decisions of his psychiatrist, but against the strong objections of his concerned mother, he entered the study because he gave his “consent”. Worried for his safety, Dan’s mother spent several months trying to get him out of the study, after his behaviour dramatically worsened. She wrote to the study centre and study coordinator to ask to remove her son from the study. Despite her justified concerns, she was ignored. Tragically, several months later in the Spring of 2004, Dan killed himself in extreme circumstances.

Carl discussed several stories of how participants of medical research can be deceived into taking part in experimental programmes they do not understand, even in circumstances when the mortality risks are high. Many patients are coerced into studies with blatant financial conflicts of interest or industry funding. When Carl learned of Dan’s case and raised concerns he could not get anyone to take him seriously, so he decided to do his own research and publish a book. By bringing this issue to a broader audience, Carl hoped it would prompt the university into doing something, but this failed spectacularly, and he became a despised figure in his own academic centre.

After learning of Dan’s case in 2008, Carl spent 7 years trying to get Dan’s death investigated. His efforts included creating petitions, writing to the University Alumni, writing to the FDA and federal government. Eventually, he got a state investigation, and although the ruling was positive and vindicated everything he and other critics raised, the follow up was non-existent. His efforts accomplished very little – there was no apology from the academic university, no compensation to victims, no reform, or sanctions for the wrongdoers or efforts to learn from the devastating situation. This was a demoralising ending after such a long struggle.

Ethical standards and integrity have been gradually compromised for several decades. It is unclear why there is pressure to violate ethical rules in the medical research domain. Some of the reasons are financial, but perhaps a bigger issue is the pursuit of glory for some academic clinicians. In psychiatry, balancing the interests of individual participants in trials versus the pursuit of scientific answers is compromised. In 90% of the scandals Carl teaches about at the University of Minnesota, trial participants are mentally ill, disabled, have low socioeconomic status, are vulnerable, and cannot look out for themselves – collective traits that are exploited. As he describes it, the ‘honour code’ in medicine should safeguard and offer protections for such patient groups.

Many whistle-blower stories in the 1970s and 1980s predate the rise of the Big Pharma trials of today. Among clinicians and academics there is a race for glory, status, academic promotion, awards, and prizes. In the 1990s, the financial status changed unrecognisably with recent scandals having huge money stakes, absent from earlier corruption cases. In the past 20-30 years, academic research is less about patient care and more about research funding, which is a toxic situation. Sectors outside medicine have a regulatory system, which is absent in medical research. Instead, an ‘honour’ system exists in which professionals are trusted to behave honestly. Ultimately, there is a quasi regulatory responsibility by industry for overseeing integrity in its multi-billion dollar sector. Coupled with medical arrogance, bioethics within academic centres is now funded by the same industry players funding the studies. Thus, bioethics has been absorbed into academic health centres, relocating ethics to the belly of the beast!

There is a huge difficulty in maintaining independence and not being ‘captured’ by academic medicine. When research funding for academic salaries or tenure is through government-led institutions combined with the pressure to publish findings in high-profile medical journals, this creates a dangerous authoritarian culture. Such an environment has sometimes led to the dehumanisation of the patient, and maintaining ethical standards is a challenge. In a fee-for-service culture where high financial incentives exist, dismissing adverse effects of experimental treatments and lowering the inclusion criteria threshold are all too pervasive. There are of course well-intentioned medical professionals, but corporate overlords, dependence on practice guidelines coupled with the tremendous academic workload, stymies patient safeguarding and forges academic burnout.

What do whistleblowers have in common? They are motivated by honour, integrity, and moral concerns. They have no expectation for financial gain and they do not derive any personal advantages for themselves; in fact, they usually have everything to lose, such as financial stability and reputational damage, yet they still speak out. The reason many whistleblowers persisted in what they felt was a near futile struggle for years or even decades before resolution, was they were tenacious and refused to give up. Notably, cases known to the public are only examples in which a ‘resolution’ was achieved, even though the whistleblowers had reputational damage and no apology or financial compensation for victims was provided. So the situation is likely worse in terms of the treacherous path travelled by many whistleblowers, as we only hear of the most ‘successful’ cases.

Whistleblowers who worked for the public health sector often got nowhere. All whistleblowers had a common metaphor – if they were to look in the mirror, could they live with themselves if they did not do something? Many experience a form of PTSD and none experience improved lives following their exposure. Does disillusionment occur prior to whistleblowing, or when attempts or reports are ignored? Sadly, it seems there is a slow descent into nihilism. Most whistleblowers believe that if the outside world knew what they knew, this would encourage people to defend or change the corruption – notably this never happens. They also hope that close friends or relatives will stand by them, but in its absence, an existential break occurs.

Some whistleblowers feel a sense of guilt because of their complicity in their own industry. Others feel guilt out of a sense of disloyalty to their peers or not wanting to expose an entire institution into disrepute. The notion that whistleblowers are heroic victorious figures that embark on a ‘David versus Goliath’ image is a falsehood! Perhaps the whistleblower is a rare breed; many who are concerned might be more realistic or disillusioned to begin with, so have a lower expectation in terms of likely justice. Possible reasons there are not more whistleblowers is because they know their action would be futile, they could get disciplined, they did not want to snitch on friends or colleagues, or they had a (misplaced) loyalty to their institution. Indeed, a recent BMA survey reported that 61% of doctors polled about patient safety concerns would not raise concerns because of fears that they or their colleagues might be “unfairly blamed or suffer adverse consequences”.

Organisational loyalty is puzzling because an institution intrinsically seems to instil loyalty, but fighting something that undermines it, ironically goes against those who expose it. One way to address this would be to establish independent organisations to investigate such cases. Although many are aware bad behaviour exists, those in senior leadership positions do not ask, so the corruption remains under the radar. One example was at the Karolinska Institute over lethal synthetic trachea transplants, in which a surgeon had falsified results and misled the hospital about the health of those who received the transplants. While the surgeon involved, Paolo Macchiarini, received a prison conviction, the Swedish legal authorities and Karolinska Institute did not apologise to whistleblowers or compensate the victims. This high-profile case did not tarnish the institute’s reputation; in fact, it is rare for institutions to suffer in medical corruption cases. Leaders at academic institutions worry that if problems are exposed, it will deleteriously impact them, so silence or internal handling is considered the best policy.

One would think it would be better to come clean so that things can be remedied, and the error not repeated, in the hope wrongdoers are punished and institutions reformed. However, in his research and experience, Carl has never come across an institution that took positive resolution steps. Academic organisations still attack anyone who threatens their reputation. Often the senior figures in such scandals, such as Deans, Presidents or Directors, have left by the time a scandal is exposed, which one might think would help reduce any reputational damage. Although no one currently employed would be implicated in such scandals if the culprits have departed, the corrupt behaviour remains unchanged, so it is hard to offer an explanation.

The general public has a high opinion of doctors, believing medical professionals have strong ethics and want to help people and save lives. While this is true for many doctors, modern medicine has become big business financially. Patients are nowadays consumers, which is an inevitable slide into corruption. The marketing of medical devices and drugs has become more covert, such as  bribes given to doctors. The scandals involved to preserve the illusion of integrity internally and externally are egregious. Carl is sceptical that a greater awareness of Big Pharma and how their marketing efforts operate would result in a more-positive outcome.

Ultimately, drug representatives are salesmen: they try to get doctors to prescribe their drugs. For many years, the vast majority of marketing was aimed at doctors not patients, although direct-to-consumer advertising is now ubiquitous. Huge financial sums are at stake, and most doctors do not like to imagine their prescription decisions are influenced by Big Pharma. Drug representatives have developed relationships with doctors – they are mercenaries. In the blockbuster drug era, especially in the USA, it is possible to make billion dollar drug sales for chronic illnesses, and doctors can be exploited to earn millions. Other than consultancy, doctors can receive lavish gifts, such as expensive dinners or premium tickets to expensive events. In the 1990s, the development of script tracking enabled the ability to measure in real time how marketing efforts affected doctors script sales. All drug representatives have access to the same data, so they compete for doctors with highest prescriber practices.

Ultimately, all the systems follow the same money trail. People who run the hospitals are worse, and according to Carl, those getting most from industry have the largest bribes. This farce is omnipresent; alarmingly, many bioethicists are not averse to taking industry money, highlighting that we are falling off the bioethics cliff. It is striking how universal and commonplace the language of medicine has become to describe the human experience. People define themselves on the basis of a medical diagnosis, illustrating how marketing has infiltrated our lives. For instance, people describe medical interventions as the person they are inside and how this fulfils their authentic self. It is an illusion that an intervention helps you become who you really are on the inside. Carl suggests pressure exists either to fit in or to stand out, which are two sides of the same coin.

Does bioethics have a rescue philosophy? In general, bioethics is a huge disappointment, with the status quo unchanged since the 1980s. Bioethics has taken up residence in academic health centres and is controlled by the same corrupt forces. It is sobering that not a single medical research scandal exists, whether patient care, sexual abuse, or research misconduct, in which a bioethicist has criticized their own institution. They know how unwelcome it would be, so they keep quiet! The conclusions of Carl’s book and interview are disheartening: being a whistleblower is not worth the hassle or personal devastation involved for the noble individuals who speak out. Since the Covid era, whistleblowers have become more prolific as many no longer accept the associated injustice. Let’s hope this seeds change and a much-needed new cultural shift to inspire and support future academic whistleblowers rather than deter them. The brave but solitary path of the academic whistleblower must be a human sacrifice worth taking!

August 15, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

White House Suppressed Docs Showing Hunter Sought State Dept Help for Burisma

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 14, 2024

Newly released documents show that Hunter Biden sought to inappropriately benefit the Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father was vice president. The records were suppressed by the White House.

The files, obtained by the New York Times and reported on Tuesday, show Hunter sent a letter to the US ambassador in Italy in 2016 requesting assistance for Burisma. At the time, Hunter was making tens of thousands of dollars per month as a board member of the Ukrainian energy company, a position he was handed in 2014.

The diplomatic staff in Italy felt the request was not appropriate. “I want to be careful about promising too much,” an official based at the US Embassy in Rome wrote. “This is a Ukrainian company and, purely to protect ourselves, [the US government] should not be actively advocating with the government of Italy without the company going through the [Department of Commerce] Advocacy Center.”

While the Times received records from the State Department, the outlet was not provided with the full text of the letter. The paper suggested the State Department may have more records related to Hunter Biden that it is withholding, also noting the documents it obtained were only released “after President Biden dropped his re-election bid.”

Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Hunter, claimed nothing untoward took place, maintaining he merely “asked various people” to arrange a meeting with the governor of Italy’s Tuscany region, where Burisma was “pursuing a geothermal project.” The White House claims President Biden was “not aware” of Hunter’s outreach to the embassy in Italy at the time, according to the Times.

As Joe Biden campaigned for the White House in 2020, questions arose about his son’s ties to Burisma – a major gas firm founded by Ukrainian oligarch and ex-environment minister Mykola Zlochevsky. At the time, Hunter sat on the company’s board and raked in between $50,000 and $83,000 each month, despite having no prior experience in the energy sector or in Ukraine more broadly. Then VP under the Obama administration, the elder Biden was directing US policy in Ukraine when Hunter got the job. The country was in a state of instability and civil war following a US-backed coup in 2014.

The Biden campaign and White House have attempted to dismiss charges that Hunter acted inappropriately and exploited his father’s political influence, deeming the claims Russian disinformation.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Russia steps in to quell tensions between US proxies and Syrian tribes

The Cradle | August 14, 2024

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) ended on 13 August the siege it had imposed on the northern Syrian cities of Hasakah and Qamishli for the past week, thanks to the mediation of the Russian army.

“All roads that were closed to civilian movement have been opened, with the start of the entry of water, fuel, flour and food tankers into the centers of the cities of Al-Hasakah and Qamishli. Things have returned to how they were before the siege,” Hasakah governor Louay Sayyouh told Al Mayadeen on Tuesday.

Russian military officials held talks with SDF and Syrian army representatives in Qamishli on 13 August, Al Mayadeen and Sputnik reported.

Sputnik’s correspondent said “intensive Russian efforts” took place during the meeting between the commander of Russian forces in Syria and the head of the SDF, Mazloum Abdi, aimed at lifting the SDF siege and de-escalating tensions in the eastern Deir Ezzor governorate, where a large Arab tribal rebellion against Washington’s Kurdish proxy is ongoing.

“There was an initial agreement on the necessity of releasing all detainees in the Syrian army held by the SDF in the cities of Qamishli and Hasakah, along with the necessity of lifting the siege imposed by the SDF on the neighborhoods under the control of the Syrian Arab Army in the cities of Hasakah and Qamishli,” the Sputnik correspondent said.

The SDF siege on Damascus-held areas of Hasakah and Qamishli had been ongoing for the past seven days and was imposed in response to the Arab tribal offensive against the Kurdish militant group last week.

Prior to the Russian visit to Qamishli, which began last week, SDF leaders had “rejected mediation and insisted on continuing the siege,” according to Syrian journalist and TV presenter Haidar Mustafa.

Mustafa added that the SDF siege tactic will not “deter the tribal ‘resistance’ from continuing its project aimed at pressuring the US occupation and its Kurdish militias.”

The Russian mediation came as US forces continued attacks on Syrian army positions in the countryside of Deir Ezzor in support of its SDF allies, who are engaged in clashes with a coalition of Arab tribesmen said to be receiving support from Damascus. SDF forces have also been targeting Syrian military positions with artillery in recent days.

“US Army forces launched a violent attack using heavy artillery and drones on positions of the Syrian army’s auxiliary forces in the villages and towns of Khasham, Marat and Hawijat Sakr in the northeastern countryside of Deir Ezzor,” Sputnik’s correspondent reported during the early hours of 14 August.

The source of the US fire was Washington’s illegal military base in the Conoco oilfield.

On Sunday, several Syrian army soldiers were killed and others wounded in an airstrike targeting a vehicle near Syria’s eastern city of Al-Bukamal on the Syrian–Iraqi border. The strike was widely believed to have been carried out by US forces that had attacked Syria several times since last week’s tribal assault.

A coalition of Syrian Arab tribes launched a massive offensive against the SDF in Deir Ezzor’s countryside on 7 August as part of a rebellion launched against the US-backed militants last year.

The tribal fighters have since lost some of the towns and positions they managed to capture as a result of US air cover provided to the SDF.

The SDF helps oversee oilfields occupied by the US army in Syria and is complicit in Washington’s theft of the country’s natural resources.

It has also released hundreds of ISIS fighters held in its prisons across northern Syria – who have then gone on to attack Syrian troops and civilians.

The rebellion against the Kurdish militants represents a broader rejection of US occupation in Syria.

“The events unfolding today in Syria’s eastern region are a result of the repercussions of the Palestinian resistance’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the broader spillover of conflicts across West Asia … while some may view the recent developments as a local conflict – either between Arab clans or between Arab clans and Kurds – the reality suggests otherwise, as the clans find common cause and common targets with the Axis of Resistance,” political affairs writer and researcher Dr Ahmed al-Druze told The Cradle on 12 August.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

US, South Korea Preparing to Begin Provocative War Games

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 13, 2024

The US and South Korea are preparing to kick off large-scale war games later this month. The summertime joint military drills are viewed by Pyongyang as an annual rehearsal for invading North Korea.

The war games, dubbed Ulchi Freedom Shield, are set to begin on August 19 and run through the end of the month. At least 19,000 Korean soldiers will participate. The Pentagon has not released the number of American troops that will be involved. The drills will include computer simulations and live-fire operations.

“This exercise will reflect realistic threats across all domains such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s missile threats and we will take in lessons learned from recent armed conflicts,” Ryan Donald, spokesperson of US Forces Korea, said when describing the drills. “ROK and US units will execute combined field training exercises across all domains. Field maneuver and live fire exercises will strengthen the alliance’s interoperability while showcasing our combined capabilities and resolve.”

Ulchi Freedom Shield military drills, and other large-scale US and South Korean war games, typically result in North Korea testing missiles or conducting reciprocal war games.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have heightened under President Joe Biden. Over the past three and a half years, the US has conducted more live-fire war games, deployed nuclear-capable military assets to the region, and increased trilateral security cooperation between Tokyo, Washington, and Seoul.

North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un has reacted sharply to Biden’s militarism, compared to the diplomacy offered by Donald Trump. Pyongyang has executed several missile tests and drills in response to Washington and Seoul’s aggressive military posture.

Adding to the tensions between Washington and Pyongyang is North Korea’s developing relationship with Russia. After the Kremlin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, the White House attempted to isolate Russia from the rest of the world. However, Moscow has found several Asian partners including North Korea, China, and Iran.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

PM Kishida Who Militarized Japan at US’ Behest to Resign

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 14.08.2024

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has announced he will quit as leader of the country’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), amid his sinking approval rating resulting from the LDP-related corruption scandal, rising living costs, and a slumping yen.

Under Kishida, Japan pledged to double its defense spending up to the NATO standard of two percent of gross domestic product by 2027, in a US-encouraged U-turn from decades of strict pacifism.

Public support for Fumio Kishida’s Cabinet plummeted to 15.5% last month, another low since the LDP returned to power in Japan in December 2012.

Apart from his poor domestic strategy, what developments have marked Kishida’s foreign policy?

  • Japan under Kishida has fueled the Ukrainian conflict by providing more than $12 billion of financial and other aid to the Kiev regime since 2022, per the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
  • Japan embarked on the path of militarization, issuing in 2022 a new national security doctrine aimed at doubling the country’s defense spending within the next five years.
  • The same year, Japan’s parliament did not think twice before approving a deal to spend $8.6 billion over five years to host American military personnel on Japanese soil.
  • Tokyo continues to take part in the annual US-led RIMPAC, the world’s largest maritime military drills described by Chinese experts as “demonstration of America’s hegemony” in the region.
  • The US currently has about 56,000 active-duty service members in Japan, more than in any other country, according to Pentagon data.
  • Last month, Japan agreed on establishing a Joint Operations Command (JJOC) with the US on its territory by next March.
  • What’s more, Tokyo and Washington reportedly discussed “extended deterrence”, which stipulated for the use of nuclear weapons in US protection of Japan.
  • The US is now pushing for Japan to be included in Pillar II of the AUKUS agreement. China has repeatedly castigated the arrangement as part of America’s “new Cold War” antagonism aimed at containing Beijing by fueling the militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.

August 14, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Major US academic group approves boycott of Israel in a historic U-turn

MEMO | August 13, 2024

In a major U-turn, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has reversed its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts in the wake of last month’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that accused Israel of practicing apartheid. The ICJ’s decision, coupled with its ongoing investigation into allegations of genocide by Israel in Gaza and the potential for Israeli leaders to face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC), appears to have prompted the AAUP to reconsider its long-standing position on academic boycotts.

The AAUP, a union dedicated to safeguarding academic freedom with 500 chapters on campuses across the US, approved a new statement marking a departure from the organisation’s previous stance articulated in its 2006 report “On Academic Boycotts”. Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities.

AAUP’s new policy acknowledges that academic boycotts can be legitimate responses to certain circumstances. The statement reads, “Academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom; rather, they can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.”

Crucially, the AAUP now holds that “individual faculty members and students should be free to weigh, assess, and debate the specific circumstances giving rise to calls for systematic academic boycotts and to make their own choices regarding their participation in them.” The organisation argues that to do otherwise would contravene academic freedom.

The statement is careful to delineate the boundaries of acceptable boycott practices. It explicitly states that academic boycotts should not involve political or religious litmus tests, nor should they target individual scholars engaged in ordinary academic practices. Instead, boycotts should “target only institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.”

While the AAUP’s statement does not specifically mention Israel, the timing of this policy change, coming after the ICJ’s ruling and amidst multiple investigations into Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has killed nearly 40,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, strongly suggests that the situation in the besieged enclave has played a major role in prompting this reconsideration.

This policy shift by the AAUP aligns more closely with actions taken by other academic associations in recent years. For instance, the American Studies Association approved measures to boycott Israeli universities a decade ago, and the American Anthropological Association followed suit last year.

August 13, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »