Several groups that have been blocking humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza have received financial support from donors in the US and Israel, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
The three organizations described as ‘far-right’ have reportedly slowed down aid supplies by either blocking trucks on their way to Gaza, or by causing traffic jams and even standing in front of Kerem Shalom, the main crossing into the Palestinian enclave.
According to inquiries into crowdfunding websites and other public records conducted by the news agency and the Israeli investigative site Shomrim, three groups, including one accused of looting or destroying supplies, have raised over $200,000 via contributions from the US and Israel.
Mother’s March has reportedly raised the equivalent of over $125,000 through the Israeli crowdfunding site Givechack, the AP and Shomrim found. The group also raised some $13,000 via JGive, a US and Israeli crowdfunding site.
The report claims that the organization doesn’t not raise money directly, but works via an allied group called Torat Lechima, which says its goal is to “strengthen the Jewish identity and fighting spirit” among Israeli soldiers. A third group, Tzav 9, raised over $85,000 from just under 1,500 donors in the US and Israel via JGive.
The report alleges that the donations have been incentivized by making them tax-deductible. It noted that practices of this kind contradict a pledge by the US and Israel to allow unlimited flows of food and medicine into war-ravaged Gaza. Donations continued even after Washington introduced sanctions against Tzav 9.
“If you’re on the one hand saying you’re allowing aid in but then also facilitating the actions of groups that are blocking it, can you really say you’re facilitating aid?” Tania Hary, executive director of Israeli nonprofit Gisha, told AP. She said Israel has shown a “lack of coherence” in its Gaza aid policy.
Сommenting on the report, the US State Department told the news agency that Washington was committed to ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Neither US nor Israeli officials commented on the fundraising efforts by the far-right groups.
Nine months into the war in Gaza, the issue of humanitarian aid deliveries to the territory is of increasing importance. Earlier this month, a group of independent UN human rights experts accused Israel of conducting a “targeted starvation campaign,” saying that 34 people, most of them children, had died of malnutrition in the enclave since October 7.
The Israeli mission to the UN in Geneva slammed the reports as “misinformation,” saying Israel had helped to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. The diplomats claimed that members of Hamas “intentionally steal and hide aid from civilians.”
US Senator Bob Menendez has been convicted of bribery, fraud, and of acting as a foreign agent, in a ruling that will see the New Jersey Democrat potentially serve decades behind bars.
A jury in New York on Tuesday found Menendez guilty on all 16 counts of bribery, wire fraud, extortion, acting as a foreign agent, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Two New Jersey businessmen – Wael Hana and Fred Daibes –were also convicted on multiple charges, while a third – Jose Uribe – already pleaded guilty and testified against the Senator during the trial.
Menendez’ wife, Nadine Menendez, was indicted alongside her husband last year, and will be tried once she finishes breast cancer treatment.
Prosecutors accused Menendez and his wife of accepting “hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using Menendez’s power and influence as Senator to serve the interests of a foreign state actor (Egypt) from at least 2018 to 2022.” In a deal brokered by the New Jersey businessmen, the couple received envelopes of cash, gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz convertible, and a no-show job for Nadine.
In exchange, Menendez used his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to end a “hold” on US military aid to Egypt, to pass sensitive government information to Daibes, and to pressure prosecutors into investigating several of Hana’s competitors in the Halal meat business.
“It wasn’t enough for him to be one of the most powerful people in Washington,” federal prosecutor Paul Monteleoni said during his closing argument earlier this month. “Robert Menendez wanted all that power and he also wanted to use it to pile up riches for himself and his wife.”
Menendez did not testify in his own defense. His lawyers argued that the government could not prove that the Senator aided Egypt as a direct result of receiving the cash, gold, and gifts, and that he was acting in the interests of his constituents by aiding Hana and Daibes.
Menendez is the first sitting member of Congress to be charged with acting as a foreign agent. After his verdict was read out, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called on his fellow Democrat to “do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign.”
Menendez has represented New Jersey since 2006, and is up for reelection this November. However, he announced in June that he would not seek the Democratic Party’s support, and would run as an independent.
His political future hinges on the outcome of a sentencing hearing in October. Menendez faces a potential prison term of 20 years for each charge of extortion and wire fraud, and a total of 222 years in the unlikely event that the maximum sentence for all 16 counts is applied consecutively.
Volodymyr Zelensky and his backers in the Biden administration would do whatever it takes to destroy those advocating a peaceful settlement in Ukraine, the Other Ukraine movement’s Council Chair Viktor Medvedchuk warned Trump.
Attacks on politicians advocating negotiations and peace in Ukraine have become a worrisome trend, Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian opposition politician and chairman of the council of the Other Ukraine movement, wrote in an open letter to Donald Trump, the US Republican frontrunner.
“The terrorist [shooter of Trump], whoever he is, was clearly not a lone wolf,” Medvedchuk noted. “On the campaign trail, you [Trump] have repeatedly stated that you will be able to bring peace to the long-suffering Ukrainian land. But this peace means the loss of power by the [Volodymyr] Zelensky [neo-] Nazi regime and its American handlers in the Biden administration.”
“It is because of this, dear Mr. Trump, that you have become a personal enemy of Ukrainian neo-Nazi Zelensky, this scoundrel would do whatever it takes to prevent you from winning the presidential election. I think that a Ukrainian trace will appear in the attempted murder case.”
Medvedchuk drew attention to the fact that a day before the assassination attempt, the chief of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence Kyrylo Budanov bragged to the Ukrainian press that there had been several attempts, “albeit unsuccessful so far,” to kill Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In May 2023 in one of his interviews, Budanov acknowledged that the Ukrainian intelligence had been involved in terrorist attacks against a number of Russian public and media figures. However, he did not name the victims and refused to answer clarifying questions.
Prior to that, Russian military blogger Maxim Fomin, known to the public by his nom de guerre Vladlen Tatarsky, was killed in April 2023. In August 2022, a Ukrainian sabotage group used a car bomb to kill Daria Dugina, the daughter of Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, as per Russia’s National Anti-Terrorism Committee.
Medvedchuk didn’t rule out that the May attempted murder of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who ardently advocated halting the flow of EU weapons to Ukraine, was carried out by “another supporter of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime.”
“The struggle for peace in Ukraine is increasingly causing open aggression on the part of war supporters and is becoming more and more dangerous,” Medvedchuk stressed.
“Former President of Ukraine and Supreme Commander-in-Chief Zelensky has lost his legitimacy since May 21, 2024; the power has been usurped by a group of conspirators; fundamental human rights have been violated by the incumbent criminal regime; the rule of law and political pluralism have been completely destroyed,” the Ukrainian politician continued.
Zelensky’s personal interest in prolonging hostilities in Ukraine in order to stay in power could lead to an aggravation of the conflict and create a threat to the entire world, concluded Medvedchuk.
US presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr has apologized after his son posted a video recording of a recent phone call with his Republican challenger, Donald Trump. During the call, Trump sought RFK Jr’s endorsement and said that he shared the independent’s concerns about vaccinating children.
An excerpt of the call, which took place on Sunday, was posted to X on Tuesday by Bobby Kennedy III, before it was deleted shortly afterwards. According to screenshots of the post, the younger Kennedy posted the video as he felt “these sorts of conversations should be had in public.”
In the video, Trump told the elder Kennedy that “clearly something’s wrong” with the US’ childhood vaccination program.
“I said I want to do small doses,” Trump told Kennedy Jr, who was listening on his phone’s speaker. Trump complained that children are given a “vaccination that’s like 38 different vaccines, and it looks like it’s meant for a horse, not a ten-pound or twenty-pound baby. And then you see the baby all of a sudden starting to change…and then you hear that doesn’t have an impact.”
“You and I talked about that a long time ago,” Trump added.
Kennedy Jr has railed against vaccinating children since before the Covid-19 pandemic, and Trump – whose administration funded the development of Covid vaccines – at one point publicly shared his views. “My theory,” he told reporters in 2007, “is the shots” are responsible for causing autism. “We’re giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”
Within hours of the video being posted, Kennedy Jr apologized for the leak. “When President Trump called me I was taping with an in-house videographer,” he explained in a post on X. “I should have ordered the videographer to stop recording immediately. I am mortified that this was posted. I apologize to the president.”
Kennedy Jr did not speak during the section of the call posted online. After laying out his views on vaccines, Trump appeared to ask for the independent candidate’s endorsement, telling him “it would be so good for you.”
Trump met with Kennedy Jr the day after the phone call to discuss his possibly suspending his bid for the White House and joining the Republican’s campaign, Politico reported on Monday. The Kennedy campaign acknowledged that the meeting took place but said that the two discussed “national unity,” and that Kennedy Jr would remain in the race.
Recent polls show Kenendy Jr winning around 10% of the national vote in a hypothetical race that includes the Green Party’s Jill Stein and the Justice for All Party’s Cornel West. These same polls show Trump leading President Joe Biden by between one and six points.
Consider JFK, RFK assassinations: there was a patsy and there were the real shooters. The Deep State does not rely on its patsy to do the job. It relies on at least 2 distance shooters or a point blank hit. Because it cannot afford to fail.
And yet it just did. Thanks to Providence. Look at the freefall the Democrats are now experiencing. Because the whole world knows who did this. After all the attacks during Trump’s earlier Presidency, the extraordinary lawfare attacks during his campaign, and now this attempted assassination, it does not take a rocket scientist to say Qui Bono (who benefits?).
And Biden, cool as another cuke, gives himself a pass over his inflammatory language 5 days before the hit: “I didn’t say crosshairs, I said bullseye!” in interview with Lester Holt.
I dredged up this interesting quote from February 2020:
The FBI may say the investigation is over and Matthew Crooks acted utterly alone, just another lone gunman, but everybody else seems to be ignoring the ailing law enforcement agency. CBS ran a live update yesterday headlined, “Three snipers were stationed inside building used in Trump assassination attempt.” In a story broken by the local Beaver County paper, we learned yesterday that three local Beaver County sharpshooters who should have been stationed on the building, were instead inside the building, and it gets worse.
Snipering usually works much better from an elevated position, and isn’t super effective from the ground. I’m not an expert, but it seems obvious.
Anyway, the cops spotted assassin Crooks, several times. Each time Crooks was acting incredibly sketchy and even once used arangefinder. The Beaver County police stayed put, but called it in to the command post — all while Crooks continued prowling around on the ground. They knew exactly where he was —well before he took the shot— called it in more than once, and even took pictures of him, but still didn’t stop the shooting. CBS:
Not only that, but they knew the building was a good spot for shooting presidents. Citing NBC’s sources, the BBC reported yesterday that the rooftop was a “known vulnerability,” and Secret Service had assigned local police to secure the building.
Whatever reason. Another unconfirmed wrinkle developed yesterday on social media, with no mention in any of the confirmed reporting. They could just be confused by the fog of war, but at least two witnesses interviewed by local reporters claimed there was a second shooter on the water tower.
Here is a top-down map showing the potential shooting angles.
Who knows? It’s much too early to rule anything in or out. But even though the FBI is wrapping up its “thorough” research, multiple other investigations are already underway. You can expect this thing will get a lot of attention. For instance, in its article, the BBC reported that the House Oversight Committee has already confirmed Secret Service Directory Kimberly Cheatle to testify and requested all the rally records:
Finally, the New York Post interviewed a trained Canadian sniper who holds the current record for the longest kill. I was especially gratified that a professional, military-trained sniper agreed with C&C’s assessment: it seems unlikely unemployed drifter Crooks could possibly have planned and executed the sophisticated operation without some help, regardless of what the FBI says:
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — who oversees the Secret Service — conceded on “Good Morning America” yesterday that “a direct line of sight like that to the former president” should never have been possible. “That’s why President Biden directed an independent review of the incident,” Mayorkas quipped. By “independent,” the impeached Secretary meant a totally controlled internal FBI whitewash by the same field office that “debunked” the Hunter Biden laptop.
At the start of June, Admiral Robert Bauer, head of NATO’s military committee, announced that the military alliance had finalised plans to recognise state-backed cyberattacks on its members as a dedicated pretext for activating Article 5. Reportedly “a joint decision of all allies,” from now on, foreign hacking blitzes can be countered with a collective NATO response, up to and including military measures. Bauer’s disclosure passed the media by entirely – but this is a seismic development, heralding a modern, digital form of ‘false flag’.
Article 5, which provides for collective defence in the event a NATO member is attacked, was a core component of the military alliance’s founding treaty. While it has been invoked just once – by the US, in the wake of 9/11, to invade Afghanistan – there have been efforts to spark it before and since. Most recently, in November 2022, the government of Ukraine falsely declared a missile fired by Kiev that struck Poland, killing two people, was Russian in origin.
The purpose of this deceit was undoubtedly to embroil NATO formally and directly in the proxy war. Wise to the ruse, US officials harshly rebuked President Volodmoyr Zelensky publicly for the World War-threatening fraud. Such incidents amply underline Article 5’s susceptibility to abuse. Yet apparently, military alliance chiefs – and the bloc’s members – are keen to ever-expand its terms, well-beyond its initial remit. Adding cyberattacks to the roster of grounds for collective response is a long-standing objective.
In August 2019, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg authored a bombastic op-ed declaring the military alliance would “guard its cyber domain and invoke collective defence if required.” A “serious cyberattack” on one member state could be “treated as an attack against us all,” he wrote, triggering Article 5 in the process. Fast forward two years, and Keith Alexander, US National Security Agency director 2005 – 2014, called on the ‘Five Eyes’ global spying network to construct a global unified cyberattack “radar”:
“Imagine if we built a radar picture for cyber that covered not only what impacts Australia, but what impacts other countries, and we could share, in real time, threats that are hitting our countries… What we can do is share information and work together… Cyber is going to be hugely important for our future. It’s the one area where adversaries can attack Australia and the US without trying to cross the oceans… We have this anomaly: how are you gonna defend that which you can’t see?”
Alexander, who lied brazenly to the public about his agency’s spying capabilities – including while while testifying under oath to Congress – during his time as NSA chief, suggested this worldwide dragnet would contribute significantly to collective defence, in the obvious spirit of NATO’s Article 5. Given “proposals” for Orwellian, futuristic resources from Western politicians and military and intelligence officials almost invariably presage their real-world rollout, we can only assume in light of Bauer’s announcement such a “radar” is incoming.
‘Security Failures’
This interpretation is reinforced by Bauer observing how invoking Article 5 could only happen once it was confirmed a cyberattack was carried out by a state actor, not a private person or structure. “In that case, it would not be clear who to go to war with,” he added. It’s certainly a source of some relief that NATO is committed to securing clarity on “who to go to war with”, before launching a military “response” to a cyberattack.
However, these comments illuminate a very obvious, grave problem with adding cyberattacks to Article 5’s ambit. Identifying who or what is responsible for them to an absolute certainty is extremely difficult. This task is further complicated by a frequent lack of certainty over whether hackers operating from a particular state are doing so at the behest of authorities. For example, much has been made in Britain recently of Russian hacking group Qilin, which supposedly infiltrated NHS servers.
Mainstream media reports have universally framed Qilin as a malign instrument of the Kremlin, although whether Russian officials command the group, let alone even know of its existence, is far from clear. A representative iNews article refers to Qilin as “a syndicate made up of more than 100 groups…not believed to be under the direct control [emphasis added] of the Russian government.” Instead, Qilin is claimed to be “a useful tool of global disruption the Kremlin is happy to turn a blind eye to.”
Further muddying the picture, it has been confirmed that Western intelligence services can falsely attribute cyberattacks, with devastating effect. In 2017, CIA files published by WikiLeaks revealed how the Agency masks its hacking exploits, to make it appear another state actor was responsible. Dubbed ‘Marble Framework’, among other things the resource inserts foreign-language text into malware source codes to misdirect security analysts. The Framework can obfuscate in this manner via Arabic, Chinese, English, Farsi, Korean, and Russian.
Excerpt from leaked Marble Framework files
Moreover, CIA hackers employ crafty tricks and double bluffs to reinforce these bogus attributions, such as creating the appearance of attempts to conceal foreign-language text. Thus, forensic investigators are successfully conned into concluding even more strongly that the country framed by Langley is responsible. Unbelievably, this seismic disclosure prompted no Western journalist to reappraise the widely received narrative that Moscow’s GRU was responsible for the hack and leak of damaging Democratic National Committee emails in 2016.
That conclusion, universally reinforced by the Western media, was initially peddled by Matt Tait, a former GCHQ spy. He didn’t base his conclusions on anything technical, but “basic operational security failures” he detected on the part of the individual(s) who released the communications, including their computer username referencing the founder of the Soviet Union’s secret police, and “ham-fisted” attempts to pose as Romanian. Which is, of course, precisely how the CIA would cover its own tracks via Marble Framework.
‘Irrevocable Proof’
There has similarly been no mainstream discussion of why the Agency would seek to acquire and maintain this capability in the first place. Now that NATO considers cyberattacks an Article 5 matter, this question has never been a more urgent question, given the CIA’s extensive and deplorable history of false-flag operations to overthrow governments, and kickstart conflicts.
For example, in April 1953, the CIA and MI6 launched a welter of covert actions to undermine Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, in order to lay the foundations of his ouster. One key tactic in which the pair engaged was bombing mosques, and homes of prominent Muslim figures by operatives posing as members of Tehran’s Communist Party. A subsequent internal review of the coup noted that this incendiary activity mobilised Mullahs to take action against Mosaddegh.
These efforts were judged to have contributed to the “positive outcome” of the wider coup effort. Such a glowing appraisal of these false flag manoeuvres may have informed the dimensions of Operation Northwoods, a daring set of proposals under which the CIA would stage and commit acts of terrorism against US military and civilian targets. These could then be blamed on the government of Fidel Castro, precipitating all-out war with Cuba.
Potential false-flag actions outlined in extraordinary declassified documents include assassinating of Cuban immigrants on US soil, sinking boats ferrying Cuban refugees to Florida, shooting down US civilian airlines, blowing up US ships, and more. One specific element of Operation Northwoods is particularly relevant to consider in light of alleged state cyberattacks becoming Article 5 worthy. If the 1962 Mercury launch – the first US orbital spaceflight – went awry, Castro would be blamed by concocting:
“Irrevocable proof… the fault lies with the Communists… this to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.”
While Northwoods was ultimately rejected by President John F. Kennedy, the US military and intelligence community continued constructing false-flag blueprints thereafter. In 1963, a Pentagon policy paper advocated making it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS), justifying US retaliation:
“A contrived ‘Cuban’ attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the US and OAS.”
Langley’s cyberattack connivances have surely only grown more sophisticated, and more complex to unravel, in the years since Marble Framework was publicly exposed. Pinning blame on a foreign country for a cyberattack it didn’t actually commit is no doubt even easier and more effective today. Resultantly, a false flag tripwire for Beijing, Moscow, or any other Washington-mandated ‘enemy’ state to unwittingly and unwillingly stumble over, triggering the outbreak of global war, has now been forged by NATO.
The media bent over backwards to avoid saying that the assassination attempt against former President Trump was an assassination attempt — not just in the moment but the next day when facts were clear.
The ongoing upgrades to the US-Japan military cooperation signals new regional developments. In reality, however, this upgrade is a continuation of the US strategy in the Pacific to build military outposts so that China can be deterred and tackled. On the one hand, it is militarizing Japan. On the other hand, the sale of weapons keeps bringing money to the US military-industrial complex. Ultimately, this alliance will do little to serve the purpose of ‘containing’ China. Most of the equipment the US is providing is outdated, basically getting rid of the scrap. The modern equipment, on the other hand, is unreliable. Still, Trump’s arrival in the White House could change the dynamics of military cooperation, making things worse.
The Upgrades:
Following the announcements made during the Biden-Kishida summit in April regarding big upgrades to the US-Japan alliance, the upgrade has finally arrived. On the 3rd of July, the Pentagon announced that the US was going to upgrade “tactical aircraft laydown across multiple military installations in Japan”. This so-called “modernization plan” is worth US$ 10 billion that will “bolster regional deterrence, and strengthen peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region”. According to the announcement, the US will replace 48 F-15C/D with 36 F-15EX fighters at Kadena Air Base. The US Air Force will also replace 36 F-16 aircraft with 48 F-35A aircraft at Misawa Air Base. Overall, the plan to “station the Joint Force’s most advanced tactical aircraft in Japan demonstrates the ironclad U.S. commitment to the defence of Japan and both countries’ shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region”. In addition to these new deployments, NATO is also in the middle of releasing its new policy documents outlining its new lines of cooperation with countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. There seems to be momentum, but it will soon run into problems that it may not be able to recover from.
Can US-Japan-NATO Counter China?
While the F-15EX seems like a significant upgrade from the outdated F-15C/Ds, they are still no match against China’s growing fleet of stealth fighter jets. It means that were Japan to use these fighters in an offensive against China, they would prove useless since they lack stealth features and would be unable to penetrate a heavily guarded airspace.
While the deployment of F-35 jets does mark a significant upgrade, there are serious questions about its operational and logistic utility, compromising its ability to tackle China’s J-20s. In 2023, according to one estimate, China produced 100 J-20. If China can maintain the same rate, it will have 1,000 J-20s by 2035. The US has less than F-22s, and its F-35 programme continues to run into problems.
The 2023 Annual Report by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation made some startling observations, saying,
“The F-35 program development cycle continues to experience delays due to immature and deficient Block 4 mission systems software and avionics stability problems with the new Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware going into Lot 15 production aircraft. As a result, deliveries of production Lot 15 aircraft in the TR-3 configuration are on hold until more testing can be completed and the avionics issues resolved. Additionally, these delays prevented the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) from adequately planning and programming for hardware modifications for OT of the upgraded hardware configuration”.
As a result of these delays and difficulties, only 32 out of 205 baseline DT flights were conducted. The US is now stationing the F-35s in Japan, which basically relies on the assumption that these delays will ultimately be resolved and that Washington will not have to move these F-35s to a different location to meet the recurring shortages. But the reality is that, as the report concludes, “The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains below Service expectations and requirements”, which means that, according to the report, out of 628 aircraft produced until now, a majority of them remain “unavailable” for active service throughout most of the year. In fact, 2023 had fewer available aircraft than 2022. What this ‘upgrade’ will do to Japan’s security is, therefore, not hard to imagine. In the end, other than creating a false sense of security, it might not add any value to Japan’s offensive and defensive capabilities, compromising the politics of ‘China containment’.
The Trump Factor
Former US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House next year is already making Washington’s European allies extremely uneasy. Whereas Trump has thus far signalled that his administration will ideally continue to follow the Biden administration’s policy towards Japan and China, Trump has also assured his voters of the continuation of his “America First” and “Make America Great Again” policies, which also involve, among other things, military disengagements.
Therefore, the existing rhetoric of reassurance notwithstanding, Trump’s politics and/or his geopolitical vision has not seen any change in the recent past. Reports in the US media indicate that “a second Trump administration is likely to be far more disruptive for Asia than the first one was”. What it implies is that, with Trump forcing the US military footprint to reduce worldwide, countries like Japan will need to find ways to become self-reliant. So, instead of depending upon the actual supply and availability of otherwise “unavailable” fifth-generation jets, Tokyo will need to develop an alternative, more reliable strategy – a strategy that should not exclude the possibility of dialogue with China to sort out any existing issues without any external interference.
In fact, since Trump is likely to target China and push the US away from Japan’s military build-up, he is likely to antagonise both states. There is, therefore, an incentive for both Asian giants to collaborate and find peace.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former US President Donald Trump over the alleged mishandling of classified documents has been thrown out, on grounds that Smith’s appointment was not legal.
Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump for supposedly keeping classified documents at his Florida home after leaving the White House, as well as probing an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
“None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment gives the attorney general broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith,” Judge Aileen Cannon wrote.
The “strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority” by Smith have not persuaded the court otherwise, Cannon added.
The FBI raided Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago, Florida in August 2022, confiscating several boxes of documents. According to the Washington Post, some of the materials related to US nuclear secrets, Iran’s missile program, and Washington’s intelligence activities in China.
A federal grand jury in Miami, Florida indicted Trump for mishandling the documents in September 2023. Trump pleaded not guilty and argued that he had done nothing wrong, since he was the ultimate declassification authority.
Court documents unsealed in May this year showed that the Department of Justice had authorized the use of “deadly force when necessary” during the raid.
President Joe Biden also faced an investigation over taking classified documents with him after leaving the White House in 2017. As Barack Obama’s vice president, he did not actually have the authority to possess the files. However, Special Counsel Robert Hur said in February that he would not prosecute the case, as a Washington jury would probably not convict Biden as he seemed like an “elderly man with a poor memory.”
Last month, the US Supreme Court affirmed that presidents had absolute immunity from prosecution for any official actions, that they were still liable for unofficial conduct, but that courts could not speculate about motivation when making that determination.
Smith’s other case against Trump in the Washington, DC federal court remains open for now.
Business Insider reported that NATO had never faced an adversary of Russia’s calibre after World War II, and it would have been difficult for the alliance to establish air superiority over Russian forces. The warning comes as experts have explained the sombre reality that the F-16 fighter jets, a key aircraft in many NATO air force fleets, provided to Kiev will not be a “magic bullet” that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his Western allies expect them to be.
“Russia could challenge NATO’s historical air dominance,” reported the media on July 13 after explaining that this is a change from the scenario that emerged after the Cold War when the West had a clear advantage. “Russia would be a very different opponent. It has the territory and industry to build and field massive and sophisticated air defenses that an opponent may struggle to destroy.”
“The US and its allies, even with fleets of fifth-generation stealth fighter jets, likely would find it difficult to establish the same level of air dominance they’ve largely had since the end of World War II,” the New York-based outlet said.
According to experts cited by the portal, Western aviation has never had the experience of combating air defence systems at a level similar to that of Russia’s. During the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian military proved that it could establish extremely difficult air defence areas for the enemy with powerful radars, electronic warfare systems and missiles.
“The Russians could attempt a surprising and impactful opening attack,” the article warned. “For example, the Russians could target vulnerabilities like satellites to try to disrupt the space-based communications and navigation NATO airpower depends upon.”
The worry that Russia could establish air superiority over NATO, particularly over the bloc’s 30 European members, became a more serious consideration after Russian forces methodically obliterated Ukraine’s air force. Russia so impressively dismantled the Ukrainian air force that the Kiev regime is desperately seeking F-16 fighter jets from Western allies to replenish its fleet, even though experts are saying that the aircraft is now obsolete and unlikely to survive the conflict.
“As soon as the Ukrainians encountered Russian-controlled air space, the F-16’s value would diminish markedly, as would its likelihood of survival,” Harrison Kass wrote for the National Interest. “In a conflict with a great power, China for example, the F-16 would remain on the backbench.”
This is a telling revelation considering the US still uses over 900 F-16s, NATO members, including Turkey, Greece, Poland, and Romania, use hundreds more, as well as US non-NATO allies Israel, Taiwan and South Korea. In effect, the F-16 would be rendered almost useless against Russia given that the Eastern European country’s military is ranked second, one above China, according to the 2024 PowerIndex.
Kass warns Kiev that the good performance of the F-16 fighter jets in Iraq and Afghanistan does not say anything about their capabilities against Russian air defences.
After stressing that “the F-16 fighting falcon era is coming to a rapid end,” Kass concludes that the US-made fighter jet “will not offer a magic bullet for Zelensky” and will merely “buy a little more time.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the F-16s supplied to Kiev will be destroyed just like other Western military equipment. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also warned that their appearance in Ukraine will not change anything on the front and that they will be destroyed in the same way as other types of weapons.
Nonetheless, in 2023, several NATO states agreed to supply the Ukrainian armed forces with the fighter jets and launched training programs for Ukrainian pilots. On July 10, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US and its allies are “underway” in sending the promised F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.
As Europe and the US are not interested in a viable, pragmatic, and lasting peace agreement in Ukraine which recognises Russian interests in the region and establishes a lasting solution, they are actively prolonging the fighting despite not only the humanitarian consequences but even the weakening of their own military. Whilst NATO members are distracted with training Ukrainian pilots to use fighter jets that are effectively obsolete in any combat with a great power, Russia, as Business Insider has acknowledged, has successfully challenged the air dominance NATO largely enjoyed since the start of the Cold War despite the introduction of fifth-generation fighter jets.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
“The infant industry argument is a smoke screen,” wrote Milton and Rose Friedman in their 1979 classic, Free to Choose. “The so-called infants never grow up.” And several years later, the two wrote: “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” [1]
Previous posts have documented the “permanent subsidies” of industrial wind power (14 extensions) and of solar power (15 extensions). [2] Add nuclear liability protection to this list, although the technology has long been declared safe by the industry and its proponents.
The Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957 became law as Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. It was supposed to be a ten-year window to allow commercial nuclear power to prove its economy and safety. But the so-called Price-Anderson Act–capping damage claims “to protect the public and to encourage the development of the atomic energy industry”–is still with us, some two-thirds of a century later.
The 1957 law’s limit of $60 million per plant (about 10x in today’s dollars) was joined by an up-to-$500 million indemnification guarantee per accident. These provisions, vetted among the beneficiaries, was just enough to remove a major barrier to the commercialization of nuclear power for electric utilities sponsors and for builders Westinghouse, GE, and others. Rate base incentives for utilities was also crucial for the new energy industry to compete against coal and hydro for electrical generation.
No payouts resulted in the ten-year period, but the private sector was not ready to stand on its own. The involved parties lobbied for $100 million per accident, which became $74 million in a 10-year extension in 1966, a small increase in real terms. This first extension would not be the last…
Subsidy enough? Nope, the second extension came in 1975 (for 12 years); the third in 1988 (20 years, with the cap increased from $500 million to $9.43 billion); the fourth in 2005 (20 years); and fifth in 2024 (40 years, to 2066). [3]
Surely, nearly 70 years after the initial “temporary” law, the nuclear industry could have repealed Price-Anderson and let the private insurance market sort things out. Commercial nuclear power is safe, right? Claims under Price-Anderson have been small or none. The collected $13 billion would ensure a smooth transition to the private market. Safer units should not subsidize the less safe, right?
Wrong! The nuclear industry needed to remove 2025, and last year the talk was for a decade, maybe 20 years. And the industry got more under favorable political circumstances. The result: 40 years–to 2065.
“Congress’s 40-year extension of a law limiting how much money nuclear power companies are on the hook for prompted sighs of relief from the industry and supporters of the measure,” The Hillreported, “who say the liability limit provides certainty for insurers and investors in the carbon-free power source.” To critics, the sweetheart subsidy was done in darkness.
————
[1] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, p. 49; Tyranny of the Status Quo, p. 115.
[2] The tax credit for wind temporarily expired (without retroactive true-up) for a brief period in 1992.
We’ve just come across a document hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, posted March 2023, but written in 2007, that amounts to a full-blown corporatist imposition on the US, abolishing anything remotely resembling the Bill of Rights and Constitutional law. It is right there in plain sight for anyone curious enough to dig.
There is nothing in it that you haven’t already experienced with lockdowns. What makes it interesting are the participants in the forging of the plan, which is pretty much the whole of corporate America as it stood in 2007. It was a George W. Bush initiative. The conclusions are startling.
“Quarantine is a legally enforceable declaration that a government body may institute over individuals potentially exposed to a disease, but who are not symptomatic. If enacted, Federal quarantine laws will be coordinated between CDC and State and local public health officials, and, if necessary, law enforcement personnel…The government may also enact travel restrictions to limit the movement of people and products between geographic areas in an effort to limit disease transmission and spread. Authorities are currently reviewing possible plans to curtail international travel upon a pandemic’s emergence overseas.
“Limiting public assembly opportunities also helps limit the spread of disease. Concert halls, movie theaters, sports arenas, shopping malls, and other large public gathering places might close indefinitely during a pandemic—whether because of voluntary closures or government-imposed closures. Similarly, officials may close schools and non-essential businesses during pandemic waves in an effort to significantly slow disease transmission rates. These strategies aim to prevent the close interaction of individuals, the primary conduit of spreading the influenza virus. Even taking steps such as limiting person-to-person interactions within a distance of three feet or avoiding instances of casual close contact, such as shaking hands, will help limit disease spread.”
There we have it: the pandemic plans. They once seemed abstract. In 2020, they became very real. Your rights were deleted. No more freedom even to have house guests. In those days, the rule was to enforce only three feet of distance rather than six feet of distance, neither of which had any basis in science. Indeed, the actual scientific literature even at that time recommended against any physical interventions designed to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. They were known not to work. The entire profession of public health accepted that.
Therefore, for many years before lockdowns wrecked economic functioning, there had been two parallel tracks in operation, one intellectual/academic and one imposed by state/corporate managers. They had nothing to do with each other. This situation persisted for the better part of 15 years. Suddenly in 2020, there was a reckoning, and the state/corporate managers won it. Seemingly out of nowhere, liberty as we have long known it was gone.
Back in 2005, I first came across a Bush administration scheme, an early draft of the above, that would have ended freedom as we know it. It was a scheme for combating the bird flu, which officials back then imagined would involve universal quarantines, business and event closures, travel restrictions, and more.
I wrote: “Even if the flu does come, and taxpayers have coughed up, the government will surely have a ball imposing travel restrictions, shutting down schools and businesses, quarantining cities, and banning public gatherings…It is a serious matter when the government purports to plan to abolish all liberty and nationalize all economic life and put every business under the control of the military, especially in the name of a bug that seems largely restricted to the bird population. Perhaps we should pay more attention. Perhaps such plans for the total state ought to even ruffle our feathers a bit.”
For years I wrote about this topic, trying to get others interested. It was all there in black and white. At the drop of a hat, under the guise of a pandemic that only state managers can declare, real or drummed up, freedom itself could be abolished. These plans were never legislated, debated, or publicly discussed. They were simply posted as the result of various consultations with experts, who worked out their totalitarian fantasies as if scripting a Hollywood film.
The 2007 blueprint is more explicit than anything I’ve seen. It comes from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which “includes executive leaders from the private sector and state/local government who advise the White House on how to reduce physical and cyber risks and improve the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC is administered on behalf of the President in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act under the authority of the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security.”
And who sat on this committee in 2007 that decided that governments “may close schools and non-essential businesses”? Let us see.
Mr. Edmund G. Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities
Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, Chairman and CEO, Pipeline Trading Group, LLC, and former President and Vice Chairman of NASDAQ
Chief Rebecca F. Denlinger, Fire Chief, Cobb County (Ga.) Fire and Emergency Services
Chief Gilbert G. Gallegos, Police Chief (ret.), City of Albuquerque, N.M. Police Department
Ms. Martha H. Marsh, President and CEO, Stanford Hospital and Clinics
Mr. James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemical, Inc.
Mr. Erle A. Nye, Chairman Emeritus, TXU Corp., NIAC Chairman
Mr. Bruce A. Rohde, Chairman and CEO Emeritus, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
Mr. John W. Thompson, Chairman and CEO, Symantec Corporation
Mr. Brent Baglien, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
Mr. David Barron, Bell South
Mr. Dan Bart, TIA
Mr. Scott Blanchette, Healthways
Ms. Donna Burns, Georgia Emergency Management Agency
Mr. Rob Clyde, Symantec Corporation
Mr. Scott Culp, Microsoft
Mr. Clay Detlefsen, International Dairy Foods Association
Mr. Dave Engaldo, The Options Clearing Corporation
Ms. Courtenay Enright, Symantec Corporation
Mr. Gary Gardner, American Gas Association
Mr. Bob Garfield, American Frozen Foods Institute
Ms. Joan Gehrke, PVS Chemical, Inc.
Ms. Sarah Gordon, Symantec
Mr. Mike Hickey, Verizon
Mr. Ron Hicks, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Mr. George Hender, The Options Clearing Corporation
Mr. James Hunter, City of Albuquerque, NM Emergency Management
Mr. Stan Johnson, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
Mr. David Jones, El Paso Corporation
Inspector Jay Kopstein, Operations Division, New York City Police Department (NYPD)
Ms. Tiffany Jones, Symantec Corporation
Mr. Bruce Larson, American Water
Mr. Charlie Lathram, Business Executives for National Security (BENS)/BellSouth
Mr. Turner Madden, Madden & Patton
Chief Mary Beth Michos, Prince William County (Va.) Fire and Rescue
Mr. Bill Muston, TXU Corp.
Mr. Vijay Nilekani, Nuclear Energy Institute
Mr. Phil Reitinger, Microsoft
Mr. Rob Rolfsen, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mr. Tim Roxey, Constellation
Ms. Charyl Sarber, Symantec
Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Pacific Gas and Electric,
Ms. Diane VanDeHei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
Ms. Susan Vismor, Mellon Financial Corporation
Mr. Ken Watson, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mr. Greg Wells, Southwest Airlines
Mr. Gino Zucca, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Resources
Dr. Bruce Gellin, Rockefeller Foundation
Dr. Mary Mazanec
Dr. Stuart Nightingale, CDC
Ms. Julie Schafer
Dr. Ben Schwartz, CDC
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Resources
Mr. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure Partnerships Division
Ms. Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
Ms. Jenny Menna, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
Dr. Til Jolly
Mr. Jon MacLaren
Ms. Laverne Madison
Ms. Kathie McCracken
Mr. Bucky Owens
Mr. Dale Brown, Contractor
Mr. John Dragseth, IP attorney, Contractor
Mr. Jeff Green, Contractor
Mr. Tim McCabe, Contractor
Mr. William B. Anderson, ITS America
Mr. Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
Mr. Chad Callaghan, Marriott Corporation
Mr. Ted Cromwell, American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Ms. Jeanne Dumas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
Ms. Joan Harris, US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary
Mr. Greg Hull, American Public Transportation Association
Mr. Joe LaRocca, National Retail Federation
Mr. Jack McKlveen, United Parcel Service (UPS)
Ms. Beth Montgomery, Wal-Mart
Dr. J. Patrick O’Neal, Georgia Office of EMS/Trauma/EP
Mr. Roger Platt, The Real Estate Roundtable
Mr. Martin Rojas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
Mr. Timothy Sargent, Senior Chief, Economic Analysis and Forecasting Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Finance Canada
In other words, big everything: food, energy, retail, computers, water, and you name it. It’s a corporatist dream team.
Consider ConAgra itself. What is that? It is Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher’s, Reddi-Wip, Slim Jim, Hunt’s Peter Pan Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, Marie Callender’s, P.F. Chang’s, Ranch Style Beans, Ro*Tel, Wolf Brand Chili, Angie’s, Duke’s, Gardein, Frontera, Bertolli, among many other seemingly independent brands that are all actually one company.
Now, ask yourself: why might all these companies favor a plan for lockdowns? Why might WalMart, for example? It stands to reason. Lockdowns are a massive interference with competitive capitalism. They provide the best possible subsidy to big business while shutting down independent small businesses and putting them at a huge disadvantage once the opening up happens.
In other words, it is an industrial racket, very much akin to interwar-style fascism, a corporatist combination of big business and big government. Throw pharma into the mix and you see exactly what came to pass in 2020, which amounted to the largest transfer of wealth from small and medium-sized business plus the middle class to wealthy industrialists in the history of humanity.
The document is open even about managing information flows: “The public and private sectors should align their communications, exercises, investments, and support activities absolutely with both the plan and priorities during a pandemic influenza event. Continue data gathering, analysis, reporting, and open review.”
There is nothing in any of this that fits with any Western tradition of law and liberty. Nothing. It was never approved by any democratic means. It was never part of any political campaign. It has never been the subject of any serious media examination. No think tank has ever pushed back on such plans in any systematic way.
The last serious attempt to debunk this whole apparatus was from D.H. Henderson in 2006. His two co-authors on that paper eventually came around to going along with lockdowns of 2020. Henderson died in 2016. One of the co-authors of the original article told me that if Dr. Henderson had been around, instead of Dr. Fauci, the lockdowns would never have taken place.
Here we are four years following the deployment of this lockdown machinery, and we are witness to what it destroys. It would be nice to say that the entire apparatus and theory behind it have been fully discredited.
But that is not correct. All the plans are still in place. There have been no changes in federal law. Not one effort has been made to dismantle the corporatist/biosecurity planning state that made all this possible. Every bit of it is in place for the next go-around.
Much of the authority for this whole coup traces to the Public Health Services Act of 1944, which was passed in wartime. For the first time in US history, it gave the federal government the power to quarantine. Even when the Biden administration was looking for some basis to justify its transportation mask mandate, it fell back to this one piece of legislation.
If anyone really wants to get to the root of this problem, there are decisive steps that need to be taken. The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. The court precedent of forced shots in Jacobson needs to be overthrown. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944. That is the root of the problem. Freedom will not be safe until it is uprooted.
As it stands right now, everything that unfolded in 2020 and 2021 can happen again. Indeed, the plans are in place for exactly that.
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | July 8, 2021
Gene research companies tend to come and go. They start out banging and popping like fireworks in the sky, and then they fade out—selling themselves to larger outfits who’ve hired better liars…
Once upon a time, it sounded easy. Start with a disease, find the gene responsible for the disease, and correct the problem.
Then, researchers wondered, was disease the result of one gene or a group of genes acting together?
Either way, the proof would be in devising cures for diseases using gene therapy. “Not yet, but soon…”
And regardless, the major need was: money. Lots and lots of money.
This need required good PR people. “We have to pump up the idea that we’re on the edge of tremendous breakthroughs. We’re always on that edge…”
This hype also needed to obscure the fact that there wasn’t (and isn’t) ANY gene cure for ANY disease. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.