Biden demands uninterrupted cash flow to Ukraine
RT | October 1, 2023
President Joe Biden has welcomed a bipartisan short-term budget deal that will keep the US government open for the next 45 days, but was disappointed that none of the billions of dollars in aid to Kiev that he had requested made it to the final bill.
“We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted,” Biden said in a brief statement on Saturday night, shortly after Congress passed the measure.
Biden had requested an additional $24 billion for Ukraine, but critics argued that Washington has more important priorities and should have stronger safeguards against the misappropriation of the funds and supplies it sends to Kiev.
The US leader, however, blamed “extreme House Republicans” for causing a “manufactured crisis” and “demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans.”
“I fully expect the Speaker will keep his commitment to the people of Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this critical moment,” the US president added.
Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had to rely on Democrats in order to pass the bill and avert a government shutdown, as 90 Republicans opposed any short-term funding measures, denying him the much-needed votes. As a part of the deal, McCarthy increased federal disaster assistance by $16 billion, but had to forgo the border security provisions sought by the GOP.
After no new aid to Ukraine made it to the final bill, the House Democratic leadership said in a statement on Saturday that they expect McCarthy to bring a separate Ukraine aid package to vote when the House returns.
The Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also welcomed the bill passing, but called on the Congress to “live up to America’s commitment to provide urgently-needed assistance” to Kiev. “America must live up to its word and continue to lead,” he added in a statement published on Saturday.
MRNA vaccines must be banned once and for all
By Angus Dalgleish | TCW Defending Freedom | September 29, 2023
Those of us who knew from the beginning that the sequence of CoV-SARS-2 contained inserts which could not have possibly occurred naturally, and were similar to ones that had already been published from the Wuhan laboratory, have had to endure unbelievable scorn, scientific ostracism and the ignominy of being ‘cancelled’ by the MSM as well as by professional colleagues for nearly three years now.
In the summer of 2020 a paper I co-authored, describing the findings of an Anglo-Norwegian team of scientists who had demonstrated unique ‘fingerprints’ of laboratory manipulation in the Covid virus, was suppressed in both the US and UK. This was at the time that the World Health Organization, leading science journals and others were going to huge lengths to persuade us that Covid was a natural occurrence, and that we should spend a lot more money to fight any such future threats.
Only now does the Telegraph (uncritically) report that the US government is no longer going to fund the research it denied doing for nearly three years and the MSM sat on. Yet it has been an open secret for anyone who follows primary sources of information (the ones ignored by the MSM and the BBC specifically, reported as misinformation by Ofcom and targeted by the Orwellian Counter-Disinformation Cell of the UK government) that mRNA vaccines did not do what it says on the vial, as it were.
First the ‘vaccine’ did not stay at the site of injection as promised but travelled throughout the body and were found at post-mortems to be everywhere.
Accusations of dramatic variations in batch-to-batch variability – an absolute ‘no no’ in vaccine manufacture protocols – which could explain why side effects were more common in some batches than others were denied but were borne out by definitive Danish research reported here. These alarming concerns seem to have been brushed off by the regulators when they should have immediately begun investigating them in depth.
All the while the regulatory authorities and politicians, parroting their ‘highest standards’ assurances, have repeatedly declared the mounting disturbing UK Yellow Card and US VAERS adverse event reports to be nothing to be worried about.
Last June, whistleblowers led by the scientists Sucharit Bhakdi and Kevin McKernan raised an entirely new issue of concern – that of serious levels of DNA contamination. Once again this was ignored by the MSM. Though quite happy to report the odd side effect from the vaccines as an excuse to point out that they are extremely rare, they have never addressed the increasingly problematic official ‘safe and effective’ mantra.
Finally there was a small breakthrough. An isolated but braver branch of the MSM in the form of the Spectator Australia has finally blown the lid on serious levels of contamination of both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid vaccines. The article describes how the genomics scientist Kevin McKernan from Boston used Pfizer and Moderna vials as controls in a study only to find that they contained highly significant DNA plasmid contamination. It reports that McKernan was alarmed to find the presence of an SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine vials, a sequence that is ‘used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies’ and that this is ‘something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines’. These SV40 promoters are also well recognised as being oncogenic or cancer-inducing.
Others have confirmed these findings. A German biologist whistleblower has found contamination rates of up to 354 times the recommended limit. All this has been reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is highly significant.
To put it bluntly, this means that they are not vaccines at all but Genetically Modified Organisms that should have been subject to totally different regulatory conditions and certainly not be classed as vaccines. This has been recognised by the Australian version of the FDA, the TGA, which has changed the picture so much that the Premier of Victoria Dan Andrews, who was the greatest proponent of the vaccine and of its mandatory use, has resigned – though at the time of writing the vaccine has not been mentioned as the reason for his resignation. (Paula Jardine reported in these pages in December 2021 on this regulatory sleight of hand in granting vaccine Emergency Use Authorisations for what were gene therapies.)
All this data, which is slowly breaking through into the public domain, comes hard on the heels of the latest findings that booster vaccines actually increase the chance of getting infected by 3.6 times. This is according to an in-depth study published by the Cleveland Clinic, one of the largest health care organisations in the world, who monitored their staff as well as patients.
It gets worse. Supporters of this technology have claimed that it can be adapted to chase new variants. But it can’t. The results of bivalent vaccines (with components against at least two variants) are seeing the same result. Authors of the Cleveland study say that ‘there is not a single study that has shown that the Covid-19 bivalent vaccine protects against severe disease or death caused by the XBB lineages of the Omicron variant. At least one prior study has failed to find a protective effect of the bivalent vaccine against the XBB lineages of SARS-CoV-2.’
In one study, all bivalent-vaccinated mice which were challenged with Covid became ill.
This was predicted by many of us as the SARS viruses are subject to immunological imprinting: that is, once they have seen a vaccine they will make the same response to any close variant (this is also known as ‘antigenic sin‘) making further vaccines not only useless but more dangerous as they induce antibodies that enhance infection (ADE antibodies), not cross reactivity as has been claimed by the manufacturers.
This is not the end of the issues with the mRNA ‘vaccines’. Several immunology studies have shown that the boosters induce an antibody switch from neutralising subtypes to tolerising subtypes as well as inducing significant T cell suppression, all of which will encourage new infections and suppress the immune response to cancer.
At the end of last year I reported that I was seeing melanoma patients who had been stable for years relapse after their first booster (their third injection). I was told it was merely a coincidence and to keep quiet about it, but it became impossible to do so. The number of my patients affected has been rising ever since. I saw two more cases of cancer relapse post booster vaccination in my patients just this last week.
Other oncologists have contacted me from all over the world including from Australia and the US. The consensus is that it is no longer confined to melanoma but that increased incidence of lymphomas, leukaemias and kidney cancers is being seen after booster injections. Additionally my colorectal cancer colleagues report an epidemic of explosive cancers (those presenting with multiple metastatic spread in the liver and elsewhere). All these cancers are occurring (with very few exceptions) in patients who have been forced to have a Covid booster whether they were keen or not, for many so they could travel.
So why are these cancers occurring? T cell suppression was my first likely explanation given that immunotherapy is so effective in these cancers. However we must also now consider DNA plasmid and SV40 integration in promoting cancer development, a feature made even more concerning by reports that mRNA spike protein binds p53 and other cancer suppressor genes. It is very clear and very frightening that these vaccines have several elements to cause a perfect storm in cancer development in those patients lucky enough to have avoided heart attacks, clots, strokes, autoimmune diseases and other common adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines.
To advise booster vaccines, as is the current case, is no more and no less than medical incompetence; to continue to do so with the above information is medical negligence which can carry a custodial sentence.
No ifs or buts any longer. All mRNA vaccines must be halted and banned now.
Family investigated for keeping teen home after school-based health center gave bag of unlabeled Zoloft to 17-year-old
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 28, 2023
A federally funded school-based health center (SBHC) in Maine reportedly gave prescription anti-depressant pills in a plastic baggy to a 17-year-old girl without her parents’ knowledge or consent, her father told The Maine Wire.
When the girl’s father, Eric Sack, found the pills — which his daughter told him were Zoloft — he complained to the school.
Zoloft carries a black box warning — which warns of possible serious adverse reactions — indicating the drug can cause suicidal ideation, particularly in people under age 24, when they first start taking the drug.
Sack kept his daughter home from school the following week to make appointments with a doctor and therapist — a decision that resulted in someone at the school or the health center reportedly contacting Child Protective Services, which investigated the family.
The recent push by the U.S. federal government to rapidly expand the number of SBHCs across the country to improve healthcare for children by offering “primary care, mental health care, and other health services in schools” — particularly in underserved communities — is raising red flags.
Critics say they’re concerned children might receive, or be pressured into receiving, unnecessary or unwanted medical interventions without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
Georgia attorney Nicole Johnson, co-director of Georgia Coalition for Vaccine Choice and a consultant to the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) legal team, told The Defender :
“This case in Maine really is everything we worried about. It is almost the worst-case scenario. A young person is getting a drug with a black box warning. They come home with it. It doesn’t even have any warning label on it. The parents haven’t been told, and the drug is in some plastic bag that anybody — any other child in the house, or their peers — could have access to. It could be a very dangerous situation.”
Maine goes all in on SBHCs
The Bulldog Health Center at Lawrence High School in Fairfield, Maine, which reportedly gave the Zoloft to Sack’s daughter, offers primary care services onsite to middle and high school students.
It is operated by Maine’s HealthReach Community Health Centers, a nonprofit funded largely by patient fees and grants. HealthReach reported it also received $4.8 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), although further grant details are not available.
HRSA also awarded approximately $25 million in 2022 to expand 125 SBHCs, including $81,728 to HealthReach. HRSA also awarded $5 million to 27 centers in 2021.
Those grants came in addition to $50 million in HHS grants authorized by the Biden administration and Congress in 2022 to states “for the purpose of implementing, enhancing, or expanding the provision” of healthcare assistance through SBHCs using Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, The Defender reported.
In Maine, the Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) announced in March 2022 plans to expand SBHCs across the state through the use of one-time federal American Rescue Plan funding for $2.4 million.
Funds are being distributed in two-year grants during 2021-24 to establish 12-15 new centers in Maine.
In 2022, there were at least 22 SBHCs in the state.
State funding covers startup costs plus costs for uninsured and underinsured students, for additional time needed during visits and for “confidential care that may not be billed to insurance,” according to a presentation by DHHS.
In the SBHC partnership, the school district acts as the “host,” coordinating enrollment in the SBHC program, parental consent and services. The healthcare provider is the “sponsor,” which receives the funding and provides the services.
A key justification for the expansion of the centers, in Maine and nationally, is an “increased need for mental health care.” The demand for mental health services for children and youth were at “an all-time high,” according to DHHS’ presentation, and the COVID-19 pandemic made disparities in access to healthcare more severe.
In the 2020-21 school year, 77% of the reported SBHC visits were for mental health services. DHHS also indicated that increased emergency department use by youth was driven by suicidal ideation among adolescent females.
‘I’m looking out for the best interests of my daughter’
The Maine Wire reported that when Sack found a zip-close bag containing small blue pills in his family home, his daughter told him she had been prescribed the pills by the Bulldog SBHC.
He said he was concerned the prescription given to his daughter violated his parental rights, but also that the center sent unlabeled drugs with no child-resistant container home with his daughter to a household where two younger children also lived.
Sack said he contacted Lawrence High School Principal Dan Bowers, who told him the clinic was a separate entity that he had no control over.
Sack also said a representative from the Bulldog Health Center told him they could legally prescribe the medication to his daughter without informing him. They did not comment on the lack of a label or safety container, he said.
Concerned, Sack pulled his daughter out of school the following week.
“I’m looking out for the best interests of my daughter. That’s why I pulled her out of school,” Sack told The Maine Wire. “Because I don’t think she really ought to be there if they’re going to start giving her pills, you know? Until I sit down with a doctor that I pick for my daughter, not through the school.”
The Maine Wire reported what happened next:
“On Thursday, an agent from Child Protective Services (CPS) called Sack and informed him that he would be arriving shortly to make a surprise visit to his home to conduct a child welfare investigation.
“‘They called and said it was an emergency situation at my house, that I was pretty near holding my daughter hostage, is what the gentleman that came yesterday told me,’ Sack said.
“‘He had information that only the school and Bulldog Health Center had,’ he said.”
Members of the family were questioned individually and as a group by CPS Agent Dylan Wood, who eventually indicated the complaint against him was unfounded, Sack said.
The Defender reached out to Sack, who said he is seeking legal counsel and declined to be interviewed at this time. The Bulldog Health Center and Bower did not respond to a request for comment.
SBHC consent forms may be confusing for parents
Sack told The Maine Wire that he or his wife may have signed a consent form at the start of the school year, but he still thought the incident violated his rights.
Justine Tanguay, an attorney with nearly 20 years of experience advocating for children in various areas of the law, told The Defender these consent forms are a key issue for parents to be aware of.
At the start of each school year, parents are given many forms to sign and they likely don’t realize they are signing away their rights over their children’s healthcare, she said.
Most parents, she said, tend to assume that school medical consent forms allow a school nurse to administer first aid, treatment for minor illnesses or emergency treatment.
“But that is not what this is,” Tanguay said. “It’s something much more nefarious.”
Unlike school nurses, SBHCs function as primary care clinics. By signing consent forms, parents may unknowingly give those who run the SBHC the legal authorization to provide “comprehensive healthcare.”
This could include — but may not be limited to — “the ability to provide preventative treatment, behavioral and mental health services, reproductive counseling, lab and prescription services, various medical screenings, immunizations and disease management,” Tanguay said.
She said parents should know:
“One form they may receive at the start of the school year is a blanket consent form, and if they sign it, they are basically abdicating their parental rights to make medical decisions for their kids.
“The school won’t need to reach out and ask, ‘Hey, can we test your child for whatever thing?’ No, they’ve signed the form, they’ve already said, ‘Do whatever you want.’”
But, she said, parents who signed such a form have the right to revoke it.
Tanguay added that consent forms can be difficult to understand and the forms are not all the same.
She suggested parents whose children go to schools with SBHCs should find out what the forms they are signing say and decide what they want to opt out of.
Tanguay also said Bower’s alleged statement that the clinic is not under his control is true. These clinics are inside of the school, but are separate entities not administered by the school, she said.
Yet, the school is responsible for obtaining signed consent forms from the parents, which generates confusion.
That means parents are not giving informed consent, Tanguay said.
“Did the father in this case know what he was signing? Was there a warning on the document that stated ‘You are abdicating your parental rights to make medical decisions’? So did he understand the implications of the form? I doubt it,” she said.
Teen mental health crisis spurred federal funding for SBHCs
At least since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and organizations have been sounding the alarm about a mental health crisis among children.
The American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) declared the children’s mental health crisis a national emergency in October 2021 and the surgeon general in May of this year issued a public advisory warning that social media can pose a “profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”
In fact, suicide rates, particularly among teenage girls, have been on the rise since 2008.
Those public announcements pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic, racism, and social media as the causes of higher rates of mental illness among teens.
But other experts, including Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, have cautioned against those assumed links, instead pointing to policies such as lockdowns and school closures that isolated kids and teens and forced them online for large periods of time, compromising their education and their social lives.
Groups like the AAP, a strong supporter of SBHCs, have used the mental health crisis to call on the Biden administration to fund expanded access to screening, diagnosing and treatment for children, arguing access to “school-based mental health care” should be a priority.
The administration responded with new policy measures, including the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — which made $11 billion available for mental health services — and the American Rescue Plan Act. Both offer funding explicitly for school-based mental health services for students, KFF Health News reported.
Many of these resources have funded the expansion of SBHCs.
Professional associations including the AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend antidepressants, often combined with therapy, to treat moderate-to-severe mental health issues in young people.
But the use of antidepressants for young people — one tool for addressing mental health issues by the healthcare industry — has been controversial, with many advocates arguing for decades that the “heavily-marketed mind-altering agents” are prescribed too frequently to children and the drugs’ effects are understudied.
A 2016 review of over 70 trials published in The BMJ found an increase in self-harm and aggression in children and adolescents taking antidepressants, but not in adults.
Because of these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put a black box warning on many antidepressants in 2004, warning that they increase the risk of suicidality (defined as serious thoughts about taking one’s own life or planning or attempting suicide) among children, adolescents and young adults.
Despite those concerns, there has been a steady increase in the last decade in the number of antidepressants prescribed to children.
Many medical researchers have called on the FDA to eliminate these warnings, alleging they led to a reduction in the number of young people who take antidepressants. Others have found these claims are based on “weak evidence.”
Advocates for children’s mental health, such as Tom Madders, director of campaigns at the U.K.-based YoungMinds, a children and young person’s mental health nonprofit, said antidepressants could play a role in some young people’s mental health, but that it is “crucial” they be coupled with other therapies and that they are not used as a substitute for other treatments.
Even those who strongly advocate for the use of antidepressants for children caution about side effects and the importance of parental education and informed consent.
A 2019 article in Current Psychiatry underscored that:
“It is important that clinicians and families be educated about possible adverse effects and their time course in order to anticipate difficulties, ensure adequate informed consent, and monitor appropriately.
“The black-box warning regarding treatment-emergent suicidal thoughts or behaviors must be discussed.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh in on State Laws to Prevent Tech Giants From Censoring Social Media Content
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 29, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court today said it will hear cases challenging Texas and Florida laws that prohibit social media companies from censoring content posted on their platforms, in what The New York Times said will lead to “a major ruling on how the First Amendment applies to powerful tech platforms.”
The two laws, both passed in 2021, and the Supreme Court’s decision to consider them, “could have nationwide repercussions for how social media — and all websites — display user-generated content,” CNN reported.
If upheld, the laws could open the door to more state legislation with similar obligations for social media sites.
Texas House Bill 20 (HB 20) and Florida Senate Bill 7072 (SB 7072) allow users to “sue social media platforms over allegations of political censorship” and “restrict companies from taking down or demoting certain kinds of content even when the platforms may decide it violates their terms of service,” according to CNN.
The laws also could make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is “misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material,” CNN added.
According to USA Today, the laws “limit” platforms’ ability to regulate content, “even if those posts spread a foreign government’s misinformation or provide false medical advice.”
Two tech industry trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, challenged the laws in 2021, saying that tech companies enjoy First Amendment protection which prevents the government from telling them “whether and how to disseminate speech,” the Times reported.
Both states’ laws were temporarily blocked by federal courts pending the completion of the appeals process.
According to The Associated Press (AP), the court’s announcement came three days before the start of its new term. A decision is expected in 2024, according to USA Today.
W. Scott McCollough, an Austin, Texas-based technology attorney, welcomed the news.
“I’m glad the Supreme Court picked up the case, because what both Texas and Florida were doing is, they required individualized protection — a consumer protection measure,” he said. “It required them to inform the parties that ‘we’ve done something to you.’”
McCollough added:
“The two states here recognize that these platforms have immense power. They purport to have the right to act unilaterally and subjectively to restrict posts as part of content moderation. So, the states are requiring them to give notice to the people they are censoring and tell them why they did it. This is reasonable at its face.
“If nothing else, I’ve always believed that these aspects of these two state statutes, in theory, should not have a First Amendment problem. States have forever engaged in consumer protection matters. Every state has consumer protection statutes.”
Laws intended to ‘combat Silicon Valley censorship’
Texas HB 20 regarding “censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages,” passed on Sept. 9, 2021, and was set to take effect on Dec. 2, 2021.
According to Politico, HB 20 “would allow both the state of Texas and individual Texans to sue companies if they ‘censor’ an individual based on their viewpoints or their geographic location by banning them or blocking, removing or otherwise discriminating against their posts.” It would apply to platforms with at least 50 million active users.
Florida SB 7072, Social Media Platforms, also known as the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, was to take effect July 1, 2021. It sought to regulate the content moderation policies of social media platforms, barring them from banning users based on their political ideology.
According to the Times, “The sites in question are largely barred from removing posts based on the viewpoints they express, with exceptions for the sexual exploitation of children, incitement of criminal activity and some threats of violence.”
Supporters of the Florida and Texas laws “argue that the measures are needed to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship,” including on issues like COVID-19 and claiming election fraud, the Times also reported.
Challenges to both laws resulted in conflicting rulings in federal courts.
In May 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction freezing enforcement of the Florida law.
Also in May 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked enforcement of the Texas law pending completion of the appeals process. However, in September 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed earlier court rulings that had blocked the law.
Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the 5th Circuit wrote, “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. The platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech.”
McCollough agreed, saying that prior legal precedent holding that “newspapers don’t have to post everybody’s letter to the editor” was based on the rationale that “there is not enough space in a newspaper to post everybody’s letter.”
The 5th Circuit is considering two other cases with First Amendment and free speech implications: Missouri et al. v. Biden et al. and Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al., in which Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is a plaintiff. The 5th Circuit heard oral arguments in Missouri et al. v. Biden et al. last month.
In July, the two cases were consolidated.
Legal experts said the consolidated case is likely headed to the Supreme Court after Associate Justice Samuel Alito earlier this month lifted an injunction that temporarily blocked certain Biden administration offices and officials from contact with social media giants.
The injunction, requested in the Missouri v. Biden case, on July 4 was granted by Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division and was later upheld under a Sept. 8 ruling by the 5th Circuit.
Justice Alito paused it after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted an emergency filing asking the Supreme Court to stay the injunction while the high court considers whether to hear the case.
The Supreme Court’s alignment in its 5-4 vote temporarily blocking the Texas law, was “unusual,” according to the AP, with liberal justice Elena Kagan joining three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — in the dissenting opinion that would have allowed the law to remain in effect.
In the dissent, Justice Alito wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD’s acting general counsel, highlighted the significance of the constitutional issues the Supreme Court will consider:
“We will be watching the two First Amendment cases out of Texas and Florida carefully. In these two cases, the social media companies are claiming their First Amendment rights are violated by these laws.
“In several cases in which CHD is involved, we argue that the social media platforms and the U.S. government violated the First Amendment rights of those posting to social media and the consumers of the posts.”
U.S. government claims First Amendment protects its ‘bully pulpit’
One of several legal matters at hand in the two cases pertains to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed in 1996, Section 230 gives internet providers legal protections for hosting, moderating and removing most user content.
According to the New York Post, Section 230 was designed to prevent internet companies from being treated as publishers by shielding them from lawsuits by anyone claiming to be wronged by content posted by another user — even though the platforms typically engage in moderation of user-posted content.
In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote, “It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”
Social media platforms have long argued that they are not publishers, in order to avoid legal liability for content posted by their users. However, in other instances, these same companies have claimed, in court, that they are publishers and have the right to exercise editorial control over content on their platforms.
For instance, Facebook’s parent company, Meta, recently argued that a subpoena from the District of Columbia’s attorney general interfered with its ability to exercise editorial control over content on its platform.
“Facebook has long had the same public response when questioned about its disruption of the news industry: it is a tech platform, not a publisher or a media company,” as the Guardian reported in 2018.
But in legal arguments, Facebook has repeatedly argued, it’s “a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the First Amendment.”
Social media platforms “claim that they are not publishers and that they should not be liable for the information that shows up on their platforms,” McCollough said.
“You’re either a publisher or you’re not a publisher, and they’ve always said they’re not publishers. So why are they saying they’re publishers now? Are they publishers for the First Amendment and not publishers for Section 230? Explain that one,” he added.
Social media platforms’ First Amendment rights are also at issue. In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court, the State of Texas argued that HB 20 does not affect social media platforms’ free speech rights because “no reasonable viewer could possibly attribute what a user says to the Platforms themselves.”
“Given the Platforms’ virtually unlimited capacity to carry content, requiring them to provide users equal access regardless of viewpoint will do nothing to crowd out the Platforms’ own speech,” the brief also stated.
According to McCollough, “the big sexy issue” in this case involves content moderation. “Can a state basically prohibit discrimination based on viewpoint? And it ultimately comes down to whether, when these platforms are engaging in so-called content moderation, whether that is them ‘speaking’ — if that is a form of speech,” he said.
“We have always contended that that is not speech. It’s conduct. It’s the consumer, the one who is doing the posting, that is engaging in speech. By taking down speech that the platform may not approve of, that is not speech by the platform,” he added.
A policy principle known as common carriage is also implicated. The Communications Act of 1934, for instance, classifies telephone companies as “common carriers,” requiring those companies to make their services available to the public at affordable rates and regardless of viewpoint or other factors.
In a previous legal brief, Texas argued that social media platforms are “the twenty-first century descendants of telegraph and telephone companies: that is, traditional common carriers” — that must generally accept all customers without viewpoint discrimination.
In 2021, Justice Thomas compared social media platforms to communication utilities that are regulated under common carrier laws, on the basis that concentration in the industry gives these companies “enormous control over speech.”
McCollough said, “When you hold out to indiscriminately serve the public on uniform terms and conditions — in other words, if you say I’ll cover it if you just accept my pre-published terms and conditions, then that basically makes you a common carrier.”
The federal government has also asserted its own purported First Amendment rights.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argues that lawsuits challenging government attempts to regulate social media content violate the First Amendment on the basis that the office of the president has a “bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans … to act in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Supreme Court asked the DOJ for its views regarding the Florida and Texas laws “as is typical in cases involving federal interests.” In a brief, Prelogar urged the court to hear the cases.
“When a social-media platform selects, edits and arranges third-party speech for presentation to the public, it engages in activity protected by the First Amendment,” she wrote, adding that “the act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users.”
Chris Marchese, litigation director for NetChoice, said “Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit.”
And Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said, “It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. … Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the court.”
Tech companies, government using variation of ‘too big to fail’ argument
McCollough told The Defender that what the parties will be briefing and arguing is whether the two state statutes’ content moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment — in other words, each state’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination and whether that violates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court will also hear arguments related to the “individualized explanation requirements” and the extent to which they “comply with the First Amendment.”
“What the solicitor general argued is that these platforms are just way too big,” McCollough said. “They have so many posts that it would be so burdensome on them to be reasonable with their consumers, and that this violates the First Amendment.”
McCollough called this “a variation of the ‘too big to fail’ argument … They’re too big, they do so much, that they just can’t be bothered with an individualized explanation.”
According to McCollough, the Supreme Court’s decision will have major implications for contemporary understandings of free speech and First Amendment rights.
“If you look at the position of the solicitor general and, therefore, the U.S. government, they are saying that the government has a right to free speech, the platforms have a right to free speech, but the people do not have a right to free speech.”
“From a policy perspective, what is the message being sent to Americans? Sit down, shut up, there’s nothing you can do about it, there’s nothing the state legislature can do about it,” he said. “And if they are right about the First Amendment, there’s nothing Congress can do about it.”
“Don’t sit down, don’t shut up, and yes, there is something you can do about it,” he said.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
US has close partnership with Takfiri terrorists in Syria, says President Assad
Press TV – September 30, 2023
President Bashar al-Assad says foreign-sponsored Takfiri terrorists are operating in areas of northeast Syria controlled by US occupation forces, stating that Washington has built up a close and strong partnership with militants wreaking havoc across the country.
Assad made the remarks in an exclusive interview with China’s state-run CGTN television news channel broadcast late on Friday.
“The northeastern sector of Syria is exactly the region, where terrorists are operating and Americans assert control over. The issue is not simply restricted to the looting of natural resources; but rather a partnership with terrorists to reap mutual benefits. This brings another problem, as a major power is in cahoots with terrorist. These are the facts on the ground in Syria,” he said.
Assad said the Syrian conflict is not over yet, and the Arab country is in the midst of a war.
“Syria, due to its geographical location, has historically endured numerous invasions. Anytime occupiers overran the country, they destroyed its cities and towns. Syria has, however, managed to recover. Syrian people will be able to rebuild their own country when the war ends and the siege is lifted.”
Assad said, “The current situation is certainly not good. It is, frankly speaking, difficult because livelihood woes and struggles are the main problems of the Syrian nation. I mean the financial miseries that they have to endure. Their pains and sufferings are increasing.”
“If reconstruction gets underway, Syria will have a very bright future. I am not speaking of assumptions, desires and expectations, but rather about the pre-war situation. Prior to the war, Syria’s growth was at its best rate of 7%, which was considered a very high ratio for a country with limited capacities.
“We had no foreign debts. We used to borrow and pay back our debts directly. We had enough wheat and used to export grains to other countries. We used to export vegetables and fruits, and were developing our industries in the early years of the crisis. Therefore, I can assuredly say that Syria will be much better than what it was before the war in case the war stops and reconstruction starts,” Assad added.
Kennedy to run as third-party presidential candidate – media
RT | September 29, 2023
US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has reportedly made plans to run as a third-party candidate, potentially shaking up the 2024 race for the White House by sapping Democrat votes away from President Joe Biden and boosting the odds of a Republican victory.
Kennedy, who is currently polling as the top challenger to Biden for the Democratic Party’s nomination, plans to announce his candidacy as an independent during an October 9 campaign event in Pennsylvania, Mediaite reported on Friday. Kennedy’s campaign will run commercials attacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to “pave the way” for the announcement, the media outlet said.
Kennedy has railed against the DNC for refusing to give him a fair opportunity to win the party’s nomination, and he has criticized Biden for declining to approve US Secret Service protection for him during the campaign, despite numerous death threats. He’s the son of 1968 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy Jr., both of whom were assassinated.
“Bobby feels that the DNC is changing the rules to exclude his candidacy, so an independent run is the only way to go,” Mediaite cited a Kennedy campaign insider as saying. The New York Times reported last week that Kennedy had met with the chairman of the Libertarian Party, suggesting that he was considering a run for president without winning the Democratic nomination.
A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this month showed that 57% of Democrats plan to vote for Biden in the party’s primary elections, compared with 25% who back Kennedy. The same survey found that 33% of Democrat voters will likely support Kennedy if he runs as a third-party candidate in the November 2024 general election against Biden and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.
Such an outcome would have cost Biden about 27 million votes in the 2020 election, which could have resulted in a landslide victory for then-President Trump. A strong third-party contender could have an impact similar to that of Texas billionaire Ross Perot, a fiscal conservative who drew votes away from then-President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Bush supporters have argued that he failed to win re-election because of Perot’s candidacy. Perot won 19.7 million votes.
Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who has spoken out against alleged dangers of vaccines, boasts the name recognition of a family that was long a Democratic Party dynasty. He has said that his top priority as president will be to “end the corrupt merger between state and corporate power.” Kennedy also has argued that Biden’s administration missed many opportunities to settle the Russia-Ukraine conflict peacefully, and its strategy of giving billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Kiev has been “terrible for the Ukrainian people.”
Five evidence-based early known Covid facts – ignored and censored
Highly acclaimed experts presented evidence-based facts on Covid-19 early in 2020, but were ignored and censored by authorities
BY THEO L. GLÜCK | FREEDOM RESEARCH | SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
The official narrative in the Covid crisis tried to persuade the public that various mandates and coercions, limiting people’s individual freedoms, were all based on science. The myth of this has visibly eroded, as it has been revealed how much of the strategies, influencing the lives of millions, was based on fear, pressure from media and political tactics. Reference to science was often enough used as a disguise.
Five evidence-based facts known already in 2020, but ignored by the authorities:
- The virus had spread much more widely and was far less dangerous than initially claimed by the authorities.
- The risk from Covid-19 differed by a factor of 1,000 for different age groups, and the risk was much higher for people with comorbidities (e.g. obesity, diabetes, anxiety disorders, etc.) and nutrition deficiencies.
- Those who had recovered from the disease had developed strong natural immunity, but this evidence-based fact was systematically ignored or downplayed by the authorities.
- Covid-19 vaccines received marketing authorisation without having been tested in clinical trials for virus transmission or infection.
- Covid-19 vaccines have considerable side effects that were already known during the clinical trials of the vaccines.
The closure of parks and playgrounds was part of lockdown policies, carried out with reference to science.
Already in 2020, there were a number of important and evidence-based facts about both Covid-19 and the response to the Covid crisis that were highlighted by many scientists and doctors. Consideration of these facts would have prevented the introduction of ill-considered and ineffective Covid measures and reduced the resulting harms.
The virus had spread much more widely and was much less dangerous than claimed
The SARS-Cov-2 virus was already much more widespread globally in early 2020 than official sources (including the World Health Organization, or WHO) claimed. Prof. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Eran Bendavid wrote on March 24, 2020, that fears of Covid-19 were based primarily on a miscalculated death toll reported by the WHO, which was vastly exaggerated as it did not take into account the actual rate of infection. This meant, in particular, that the mortality rate among those infected was much lower than initially claimed and the risk posed by Covid-19 to the vast majority of people, particularly those under 70, was many times lower.
A team led by professor John P. Ioannidis of Stanford University scientifically showed in a study published already in May 2020 that the risk of dying from Covid-19 for people under the age of 65, even in pandemic epicentres, was very low, and deaths amongst people under the age of 65 with no comorbidities were remarkably uncommon. They proposed that strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should have been considered in managing the pandemic.
On October 14, 2020, the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation published a study by prof J. P. Ioannidis, according to which the median rate of deaths among people infected with Covid-19 in autumn 2020 was 0.23-0.27%, with a rate of 0.05% among people under 70 years of age, which was tens of times lower than official (including the WHO’s) estimates in March and April 2020.
Even though such evidence-based data were known early on, the authorities in many countries and the WHO continued to scare the public about the particular danger of a novel viral disease, and imposed restrictions on millions of healthy people. Among other things, many countries restricted people from exercising, staying outdoors and playing sports, thereby compromising people’s overall health and increasing the risk of developing all the diseases (including Covid-19) more severely.
Thousand-fold difference in the risk from Covid-19
Harvard University Professor Martin Kulldorff had already stated in April 2020 that it was clear from the data from Wuhan early on in the crisis that there was a thousand-fold difference in the risk from Covid-19 across different age groups, and that failing to account for this difference was one of the major flaws in the public response to the Covid crisis.
Prof Martin Kulldorff was quick to point out the thousand-fold difference in risk from Covid-19 (Thérèse Soukar, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Among people exposed to Covid-19, people in their 70s had roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that was more than 3000 times higher than it was for children. According to Kulldorff, public authorities should have taken this wide variation between age groups into account when designing Covid interventions. Counter measures specifically targeting the elderly, the highest risk group, would have not only protected them but other groups as well. Age-specific measures had to be part of the strategy, otherwise unnecessary mortality, hospital burden and economic losses followed.
Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh also estimated early on that the elderly were 10,000 times more at risk from Covid-19 than those under 15. But it goes e ven further. It’s not just the elderly, it’s the elderly who are infirm, have comorbidities or are frail. These were the people who were particularly at risk, and the main target group that should have been addressed. In his view, this was also the most important and obvious reason why there were alternatives to social closures and other coercive state measures.
In addition, it was clear from quite early on that it were the people with serious comorbidities that would fall seriously ill. In one of Europe’s epicentres of the early outbreak, Italy, a report found as early as in March 20, 2020, that the median age of the 3200 deaths testing positive for Covid-19 was 78.5 years, and more than 95% of them had one or more comorbidities. A large-scale study in the US confirmed that over 95% of hospitalised adults were persons with at least one comorbidity condition and the main risks were obesity, anxiety and fear disorders and diabetes. However, it was also clear, for example, that the proportion of overweight people varied widely between countries, even within the same age groups. For example, obesity already affects 42% of the US population, but in Vietnam the same number is only 2%, in India 4% and <10% in most of the African countries.
The association of nutritional deficiencies with severe morbidity was also known before the Covid crisis. Vitamin D, for example, plays an important role in the immune system. Already in the first half and second half of 2020, studies showed a clear correlation between the low levels of vitamin D and the risk of severe Covid-19 disease. For that reason, many doctors and researchers stressed the need for adequate vitamin D intake in the autumn of 2020, ahead of the second wave, especially for older people at risk.
Although these facts were known early on, authoroties continued to scare the public by claiming, among other things, that the virus did not discriminate between infected people and could be fatal to anyone. Health authorities also failed to advise people to take important steps to support their general health, such as getting enough fresh air and sunshine, eating a healthy diet, controlling blood pressure and diabetes, losing weight, etc. On the contrary, authorities directed people indoors, in many countries penalised them for going outdoors, and just promoted vaccinations instead of various treatments and lifestyles.
In the UK, scary posters were used in large-scale campaigns to get people to follow the “rules”
Ignoring natural immunity
The importance of natural immunity was systematically downplayed by the health authorities, major vaccine manufacturers and the World Health Organisation (WHO). In some countries (such as the USA), it was not even taken into account in the implementation of Covid measures, while the authorities only reiterated the need to vaccinate as many people as possible.
At the same time, studies carried out before the vaccination campaigns started, i.e. by the end of 2020, clearly showed that recovery from the disease provides strong immunity for at least 8 months and most likely longer. By October 2021, at least 81 studies had already been published confirming immunity to Covid-19 conferred by recovery.
In addition, a number of studies at the beginning of the Covid crisis showed that a significant proportion of the population may have already had immunity to Covid-19, as SARS-Cov-2 was only one of several coronaviruses. Nearly half of the unaffected individuals had the corresponding T-cells, indicating the body’s previous exposure to coronaviruses and ability to cope with them.
Many doctors and scientists, including Dr. Robert W. Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Marty Makary, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Paul E. Alexander, Prof Norman Fenton, Prof Martin Neil and others found it puzzling that health officials chose to ignore the scientific fact that infection provided long-lasting and strong protection to millions of people who had recovered from Covid-19. Prof. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Prof. Martin Kulldorff have stressed that while natural infection may not have provided permanent infection-blocking immunity, it offered, in high likelihood, permanent anti-disease immunity against severe disease and death. However, scientists who during the Covid crisis stressed the importance of natural immunity and asked to take into account when divising public policies, were not only ignored but censored and cancelled.
Ignoring natural immunity has had serious consequences, including avoidable vaccine complications and harms, loss of lives, financial and other collateral damage, and loss of credibility of the public health authorities.
Vaccines were not tested for reduction of virus transmission or infection
Covid-19 vaccines, which were introduced at warp speed, were not tested in clinical trials to see if they reduced infection or transmission. Shortly before their vaccine was granted emergency marketing authorisation in the US (on 3 December 2020), this fact was admitted by the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, and later by a Pfizer official during an official hearing at the European Parliament, although the vaccine manufacturers gave the public an impression that the vaccines protected against infection and transmission.
To the experts who looked closely at the design and results of the Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials, the fact that the vaccines were not tested for reduction of virus transmission or infection was evident already in late 2020. For example, the editor of British Medical Journal (BMJ) Dr. Peter Doshi stated on October 21, 2020, that none of the vaccine clinical trials had been designed to detect the efficacy of these vaccines on reducing any serious outcomes such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Neither did they examine the efficacy of vaccines for their ability to interrupt transmission of the virus.
Dr Peter Doshi considers it wrong that primary data from clinical trials are not available (screenshot from Youtube)
Prof. William A. Haseltine drew attention to the serious shortcomings of these clinical trials on 23 September 2020, after Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson had published their vaccine trial protocols. According to him, the trials seemed to be designed to prove that their vaccines worked, even if the measured effects were minimal, as they mainly investigated only how well could the vaccines prevent mild Covid-19 symptoms. Haseltine pointed out that a closer look at the protocols made it clear that these trials did not provide confidence in vaccine efficacy in protecting against serious illness or in preventing an infection of Covid-19. It also appeared that these trials were intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. Haseltine concluded that these vaccines were not the “silver bullet” that would end the Covid crisis.
Yet tens of millions of people around the world were subjected to compulsory vaccination, and many lost their jobs because of non-compliance, severely restricting their individual freedoms and fundamental rights.
Ignoring the side effects of the vaccines
Data on the side effects of the vaccines were already available in documents published by the vaccine manufacturers on their clinical trails in late 2020, although few were able to or considered it important to look at them in depth. This was made considerably more difficult by the fact that vaccine manufacturers refused to publish the raw data needed for an objective assessment. Raw data from clinical trials have still not been fully disclosed.
For example, the Pfizer vaccine trial was designed, conducted, analysed and compiled by Pfizer staff and all the raw data belong to the company. The BMJ editorial board believes that refusing to disclose the original data is morally unacceptable for any clinical trials, but especially those involving major public health interventions. The BMJ has been calling on vaccine manufacturers for years to disclose the original data from clinical trials, since clinical trial data must be available for independent scrutiny.
Nevertheless, experts pointed out many inconsistencies and questionable findings in the Covid-19 vaccine trial reports already in early 2021, such as the facts that:
- higher-risk target groups (elderly and immuno-compromised individuals) were clearly under-represented in the trials,
- a number of subjects were withdrawn for unknown reasons,
- even the officially reported rate of adverse reactions was several times higher than it was, for example, for flu vaccines.
In addition, it has come to light that the vaccine manufacturer Pfizer was aware of several serious side effects amongst the vaccine participants in clinical trials in early 2021, but chose to conceal them, such as the case of 12-year-old Maddie De Garay, who became disabled in the trial and is now partially paralysed, requiring a wheelchair and feeding tube. None of her 35 adverse reactions were mentioned in the New England Journal of Medicine article reporting on the vaccine trial.
Regardless of all that, since the beginning of 2021, mass vaccination campaigns were launched in many countries of the world, which in a short period of time transformed from an attempt of vaccinating the vulnerable target groups (the elderly) into an increasingly massive effort to vaccinate as many people as possible, even up to with children and infants, providing no rational argument or evidence base to do so.
A new expert analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trial papers published in 2022 clearly found that participants in these clinical trials were more likely to experience a serious adverse reaction to vaccination than to be hospitalized for Covid-19.
Summary
As shown above, there is ample reason to argue that the evidence base for the decisions made in the greatest global health crisis of recent decades was severely deficient. Covid measures were determined not on the basis of evidence nor reasonable assumptions, but rather on the basis of emotional reactions and political tactics, fuelled by fear and media pressure. Societies were under constant pressure from global organisations (WHO, European Commission, etc.), authorities and the mass media – which included the increasingly loud rhetoric of maximizing lockdown, maximizing masking, maximizing vaccination etc.
However, there were also those in power who relied on knowledgeable experts (e.g. in the US, states such as South Dakota, Florida, Texas, etc.), as did some who were in charge of public health institutions (for example in Sweden), succeeding to resist irrational and unscientific pressures while enduring media bashing, vilification and unpopularity. At said places, the decision-makers generally avoided locking down the society and did not impose coercive state measures (compulsory mask mandates, compulsory vaccination, etc.). Thanks to their non-conformist and common sense approach, we now know much about which measures worked and which didn’t, the mistakes every society should avoid in future health crises, and how the slogan of ‘follow the science’ was often used as propaganda to subjugate societies to the dictates of a line of authority.
Crime and Impunity… One Year Lying About U.S.-Led NATO’s Nord Stream Terrorism Breeds More War
Strategic Culture Foundation | September 29, 2023
The sheer total impunity over the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipelines raises an appalling vista of the lawlessness and barbarity in today’s world.
The United States and its NATO accomplices are recklessly and callously pushing a war in Ukraine against Russia which has seen up to half a million Ukrainian soldiers slaughtered and is putting the world at risk of a nuclear conflagration. The criminal insanity stems from the lack of any legal accountability for the United States, which grotesquely declares itself the custodian of “rules-based order”.
One year ago this week, an outrageous crime against international peace was committed and yet the Western governments and media perform like the proverbial monkeys who incredibly refuse to see, hear or speak of any evil.
The profound moral and philosophical challenges are worthy of exploration in an epic novel akin to Dostoevsky’s classic Crime and Punishment.
But this is not fiction. They are cold facts of real life.
By far, the most credible explanation for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines is provided by the investigative reporting of veteran American journalist Seymour Hersh.
Many other independent observers concur with Hersh’s account that the gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea were blown up by a covert U.S. military operation in collusion with other NATO forces.
According to Hersh, the sabotage was ordered by President Joe Biden and his top White House aides.
The infrastructure intended to pump natural gas from Russia to Germany was owned by those two nations as well as several other European companies. It cost at least $20 billion to construct over a decade. On September 26, 2022, the pipes were rendered inoperable by a series of underwater explosions.
Biden had explicitly threatened in February 2022 to take out the gas pipes during a White House press conference accompanied by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
The motive for the Americans was to cut off Europe and Germany, in particular, from Russian energy fuel which was to be replaced by vastly more expensive U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas. Great for American business, absolutely detrimental for Europe, as the recession-hit European economies now attest.
The motive and means for carrying out the crime have been thoroughly described by Hersh and others.
And yet in an audacious act of collective denialism, the Western governments and media refuse to investigate this monumental crime. Official reports into the incident carried out by Denmark, Germany and Sweden have been suppressed with no conclusions published about the identity of the perpetrator.
Russia has been refused permission by European states to participate in a joint criminal investigation.
This week Moscow once again called on the United Nations Security Council to issue a condemnation of the sabotage and to launch an impartial probe into the extraordinary violation of international law. Previous appeals at the Security Council from Russia have been rebuffed by Western powers.
Laughably, Western media have feigned an agnosticism about the “mysterious explosions”. Such media have credulously indulged in blatant diversionary disinformation, for example, initially claiming that Russia carried out self-sabotage, and then later claiming that the sophisticated and highly complex military operation was the feat of “pro-Ukrainian militants” working off a yacht.
There is a pre-eminent reason for the Western silence. That is, to avoid the proverbial elephant in the room that this was a terrorist crime committed by the United States under the orders of its president.
To acknowledge this fact would of course bring the United States into fatal disrepute. It would be seen more than ever as a rogue terror state that presumes itself to be above the law.
Washington’s imperialist interests of dominating Europe and displacing Russia as an energy supplier are central to the reason for the war in Ukraine. This selfish and criminal agenda becomes evident if the Nord Stream act of terrorism is acknowledged and properly understood. The Western public would be up in arms over the false propaganda about the Ukraine war and the supposed “defense of democracy”.
Not only that but the European and NATO states would be seen as the criminal accomplices and pathetic vassals that they are. The United States sabotages European civilian infrastructure and the economies of its supposed allies – and yet those allies utter not a word of protest. Indeed, they have willingly and meekly participated in their self-harm.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and other European leaders should be prosecuted for complicity in international terrorism and treason against their national interests.
Ironically, this week, Joe Biden while in Arizona dared to tell American voters that they face a stark choice in the presidential elections coming next year. Biden said the choice would be for U.S. citizens to either “support democracy” under his continued leadership or “elect extremism” under Donald Trump or some other Republican candidate.
What could be more extreme than Biden ordering his military agencies to blow up gas pipelines owned by Russia and other European states?
The fact that Biden and the United States have been permitted to get away with the outrage of Nord Stream terrorism is why Washington and its NATO acolytes have continually escalated the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia over the past year.
The astounding impunity afforded to the U.S. and its NATO accomplices over the Nord Stream incident is consistent with the way these same imperialist powers have gotten away with mass murder and waging criminal wars for decades without any prosecutions. The U.S. establishment and its clandestine agencies are a criminal syndicate that also suffers from delusions of virtue.
Impunity breeds more criminality. The United States and its Western partners have rarely, if ever, been held to account for their historic crimes against the rest of the world. When such a transparent, brazen act of terrorism is perpetrated as in the Nord Stream sabotage and it is ignored then the world has shifted to an even more perilous situation where crimes have no punishment and even greater, more nefarious crimes can be engaged in.
The U.S. and its NATO henchmen, in particular Britain, are arming a Nazi regime in Kiev with tanks, cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells and longer-range missiles to strike Russia. The impunity that the Americans and their partners believe that they have acquired is shocking and hideous. There is no restraint.
For years, the NATO axis has been arming and training Nazi battalions in Ukraine to cynically take an imperialist war to Russia’s doorstep. Canada’s scandalous adulation of a Nazi war criminal in its parliament last week is a sign of the depraved times we live in. But we have reached this degeneration because, as the Nord Stream incident illustrates, the Western powers, primarily the executive American power, feel they are not just above the law but entitled to smash the law for whatever objective they deem desirable.
When those who profess to uphold the law, break the law, then there is no law. That is the frighteningly barbaric world we live in today.
Biden warned this week of fascism creeping up on the United States in the form of domestic political rivals. The reality is fascism, imperialist lawlessness and barbarity are already well-ensconced in this White House.
Rand Paul Issues Ultimatum: Withdraw Ukraine Billions Or Face Government Shutdown
By Steve Watson | Summit News | September 29, 2023
Senator Rand Paul declared that he will hold up a spending bill in the Senate and push toward a government shutdown unless $6 billion in aid to Ukraine is removed from the legislation.
Paul took to Twitter noting that he will only allow a vote on the spending stopgap before the Sept. 30 deadline for funding government if Senate leaders get rid of the massive amount of money earmarked for the war.
“If leadership insists on funding another country’s government at the expense of our own government, all blame rests with their intransigence,” Paul wrote.
Last week, Paul slammed the Ukrainian leadership as “corrupt” and blasting the visiting President Zelensky as “begging for more money.”
In the Senate, Paul asked “When will the aid requests end? When will the war end? Can someone explain what victory looks like?”
Paul also noted that Zelensky has cancelled Democracy in the country.
“They’ve cancelled the elections. What kind of democracy has no election?” he noted, adding “next year, Zelensky said he’s not going to have an election because it would be inconvenient during the war and would be expensive.”
He continued, “if you don’t have elections, who in the world will be supporting a country that’s not a democracy? They’ve banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests. So, no, it isn’t a democracy. It’s a corrupt regime.”
Meanwhile, Democratic Presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned on Thursday that the “next step of Ukraine War escalation” is stationing United States military advisers on the ground.
“Have they forgotten how we got embroiled in Vietnam?” RFK Jr. noted, linking to a recent article in Foreign Affairs calling for on-the-ground training:
‘Sixty Minutes’ holds up the mirror to the West: and the picture in the frame is ugly
By Gilbert Doctorow | September 28, 2023
Readers will note that I have very often made reference to what I learn watching talk shows on Russian state television Rossiya 1 directed at their domestic audience, namely Sixty Minutes and Evening with Vladimir Solovyov. Very often the expert panelists, whether leaders of the Duma parties and Duma committee chairmen or retired military officers, offer commentaries that are insightful and novel.
However, another aspect of these programs is perhaps still more useful to my professional work, and that is their putting on air each day digests of Western television broadcasting, and especially interviews or public speeches by well-known American and European politicians. The Western broadcasters which are featured most often on these Russian programs include CNN, ABC News, Fox News, the BBC and ZDF (Germany). The videos posted are not sound bites. On the contrary, they can be several minutes long each, and very often are clustered to show Western coverage of a given issue.
To be sure, some of the issues covered day after day are marginal. I have in mind transgender events and scandals such as the fight over multi-gender toilets being introduced in various American school systems or the fight over drag shows presented to the children of soldiers on U.S. military bases. The intent of the Russian newscasters is to highlight the degeneracy that now passes for progressive culture in the West. But the stories speak for themselves and the Russian news hosts are not thickening the paint. As they like to say on a frequently repeated Euronews segment: “No comment.”
But other issues are serious, geopolitical and entirely germane to the military confrontation with the West that Washington and Brussels have brought on. These Russian broadcasts allow Western politicians to utterly discredit themselves before any right-thinking person with a moral compass for a conscience.
Several such cases have come up in the past two days. One was an interview given by Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell in which he repeats nearly word for word what fellow Republican and the as yet unindicted war criminal, the senior Senator from the state of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, has been saying to reporters during and following his last visit to Kiev: that the war in Ukraine serves American objectives perfectly because it is hitting the Russian army hard while costing the United States not a single life of its men in uniform.
Of course, the assertion that no American servicemen have been killed in Ukraine is a lie. To be sure, the Poles have provided the largest contingent of NATO officers and soldiers to have been killed by the Russians in Ukraine. The Poles are close to Ukrainians in having a death wish by going up against The Bear. But American soldiers and officers are on the ground in Ukraine in their capacity as instructors and intelligence operatives, and the Russian missile strikes on concentrations of “foreign mercenaries” almost certainly have taken the lives of GIs.
But that one lie is the least of McConnell’s offenses against human decency. He has openly stated the most cynical logic to justify the deaths of at least 400,000 Ukrainian soldiers and officers as well as the permanent maiming of countless others. All for the sake of weakening Russia militarily and ensuring that not a single American pays the price? I put aside the question of whether the Russian armed forces have actually been weakened. I believe the contrary is true. Of course, Lindsey Graham took this narrative one step further than McConnell by expressing the hope that as many Russians will die as is possible. Sixty Minutes does not let anyone forget that, every few days showing Graham delivering these obscenities.
In presenting to their public statements that were duly recorded by American broadcasting companies, is Russia engaging in propaganda? Absolutely not. It is doing the job of normal journalism, informing its audience.
Sixty Minutes today also put on the screen the latest remarks by Donald Trump on how he would have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine: by bringing the market price of oil down to $40 and so drastically cutting the revenues available for Russia to stage its assault on Kiev. The presenters and panelists did comment on this one, saying flatly that Russia will be sure not to support Trump’s next bid for the White House if these idiotic remarks by The Donald are his much touted but till now closely held “peace plan.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also was given plenty of air time on Russian state television today. One video showed him standing by visiting Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Canadian parliament several days ago applauding the honors bestowed by the Speaker on a Ukrainian freedom fighter who settled in Canada after the end of the Second World War. The fact that this freedom fighter fought the Russians from within a Nazi SS Waffen unit that murdered civilians in Galicia became public after this ceremony and resulted in the Speaker’s resignation, in the Parliament adopting a resolution condemning the Nazis and in a public apology by Trudeau for the scandal. However, as Sixty Minutes highlighted in its coverage of Trudeau’s remarks on the subject, he left out of his list of victims of the SS Waffen and Nazi forces in general any mention of the deaths inflicted on Russians.
In case the audience did not quite understand the moral monster who today sullies the family name of Trudeau, Sixty Minutes also put on air a lengthy denunciation of Trudeau that appeared on Indian television in which inter alia he was called out as a cocaine addict whose plane on arrival in India for the G-20 gathering several weeks ago was found to be carrying illicit narcotics but was untouchable. The same Indian broadcast said that Trudeau missed the first day of the G-20 because he was busy taking drugs in his hotel room. Is this Russian propaganda? Or is it just airing dirty linen that others living in the “free world” have put out for their audiences? In any case, the point being made is that Justin Trudeau and fellow addict Zelensky have more in common than admiration for old Nazis.
Lastly, Sixty Minutes today did not ignore the former Secretary of State and presidential candidate of 2016, Hilary Clinton. They offered a clip from Clinton’s interview yesterday with CNN’s Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour in which she asserted that Vladimir Putin was himself responsible for the expansion of NATO. Here the temptation was too great and the panelists indulged their revulsion for the lady who was behind the whole fake Russia-gate story that did so much to bring us to the brink of WWIII. Was she fair game for their mocking and contemptuous words about her? Of course she was.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023
Featured Video
The Search for Truth: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination One Year Later
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
US murdering 1 million Iraqis is democracy, Iran giving yogurt to Iraq is “domination”
By Ali Salaam | American Herald Tribune | July 31, 2017
The New York Times, owned by the Zionist Jewish supremacist Ochs-Sulzberger family, has no problem with Iraqi suffering as long as Iran is not the one behind it.
The Iraq War was a genocide of the Iraqi people by Zionist supremacists in the Bush administration. Over 1 million innocent people were killed based on a lie. American soldiers died in an Israeli war and now an average of 22 soldiers commit suicide every day because their consciences cannot cope with the fact they committed crimes in an illegal war that served no purpose other than to benefit Israel, not America.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the Zionist regime, once said “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
Paul Wolfowitz had his sights on Iraq since his time in the first Bush administration. Former Israeli official and Bush administration official Richard Perle had his eyes on Iraq since at least his authorship of the Clean Break white paper. The Zionist regime had their eyes on Iraq since the 1980s when strategist Oded Yinon wrote his white paper in support of dividing the Arab-Muslim world along ethnic and sectarian lines. The global Zionist lobby has had their eyes on Iraq since Theodor Herzl stated that Eretz Israel’s true borders go from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Search for Truth: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination One Year Later
- ‘Harsh reality’: Iran says France seeks monopoly on power and intimidation, not peace for all
- When Will This White House Madness End?
- Huckabee aide goes to ‘unusual lengths’ to portray ‘Israel’ positively
- Trump Announces Diesel Supply Deal With Putin Following Phone Call
- MEP blasts ‘Euro-Gestapo’ for lecturing Russia on democracy
- Syria May Send Troops to Saudi Arabia Amid War with Ansar Allah
- UK whines about losing billions to ‘Putin tax’
- Baghaei to Rubio: Distorted narratives cannot erase US record of broken commitments
- Houthis Don’t Have to Conquer Saudi Arabia to Make It Pay
- If Americans Knew
- Gaza ceasefire exists in name only, say more than 100 organizations
- Nearly 2 Million in Gaza Need Urgent Shelter Assistance as Winter Looms: IOM Chief Warns
- Suppressing Palestinian resistance: US charity under fire for AI monitoring of Gaza classrooms
- Thousands Are Held in Israeli Torture Camps. This Is What Happens Inside
- Israel puts Gaza’s sick, injured, newborn in peril – Daily Update
- Report claimed Mark Levin used by Israeli government to influence Trump
- Over 2,000 Gazans have died awaiting medical evacuation amid Israel’s continued siege
- How a U.S. Diplomat Suppressed and Altered Reports Critical of Israel
- 5 Palestinians Die from Israeli Strikes in Gaza as Relentless Attacks Continue
- Report: Ceasefire Slows Killing but Leaves Devastation Intact
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
