Video game propaganda: ‘Six Days in Fallujah’ whitewashes US war crimes
By Shabbir Rizvi | Press TV | July 1, 2023
After over a decade of controversy, the US-made video game “Six Days in Fallujah”, based on the real-life combat between US Marines and Iraqis, was released on the streaming website Steam last week.
The video game puts players in the shoes of US Marines fighting in Fallujah, an Iraqi city located around 69 kilometers west of Baghdad, during the illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
For years, the video game was subject to intense criticism from peace and human rights activists for glorifying the illegal and ignominious war and whitewashing US war crimes and imperialism.
Some even called it an “Arab Murder Simulator” for openly glorifying the war after it barely ended.
To this day, Fallujah is still dealing with the cataclysmic effects of the war. The US military used depleted uranium shells in Fallujah (both in 1991 and 2003-2004), which caused severe pollution in the environment. They also admitted to using white phosphorus, which is considered a war crime.
The air in the city on the banks of the Euphrates is still considered toxic, and results in miscarriages, cancer, or babies born with severe abnormalities that are more than often life-threatening.
The video game developers claimed they did not want to make the game “political” but rather immerse the player in a real-life war environment.
Interestingly enough, some of the developers from the studio themselves participated in the war, and the studio itself is responsible for creating simulation technologies for the US Marines.
Peter Tamte, one of the developers, has been involved in military simulators for two decades. He was even CEO of Atomic Games, which published simulators used by the US Marine Corps and “training tools” for the world’s leading military and intelligence organizations.
But does Tamte really want to make an apolitical military simulation? Or is he complicit, knowingly or unknowingly, in the United States’ nearly century-long collaboration with war propaganda in the media?
And most importantly, would the US military indeed tolerate a video game that if it were not whitewashed, would display the horrific actions and brutality of the illegal invasion and occupation?
Certainly not – especially during a period where the military is struggling to meet its recruiting metrics.
The US military cannot afford a bad image of itself. It also understands video games are immensely popular, and would drive certain perceptions of the war if painted in a negative (or realistic) manner.
An apolitical video game would likely have a fictional story, fictional characters, and perhaps even fictional weapons all within a fictional conflict. But the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation was very real, especially to the nearly million dead Iraqis.
Not only was it painfully real, it was painfully horrific, unpopular (in hindsight to Americans), and above all illegal. Making a video game about one of its battles, particularly where unlawful chemical weapons like white phosphorus were used against Iraqi civilians, is a blatant attempt to whitewash and normalize the crimes and illegal invasion by the United States.
The Iraq War claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The illegal US invasion ushered in a destabilization that created a serious power vacuum that Daesh and Al-Qaeda gladly took advantage of, causing further unexplainable horrors.
But, even if Tamte wanted to make an “apolitical” military simulator – would it really be “apolitical” even if it used a fictional conflict and fictional antagonists? Due to Pentagon and other weapons contracts, the answer is no.
Take for example the critically acclaimed series “Call of Duty.” In the US, one does not even need to play the game to know what Call of Duty is.
The ads for the military shooter appear on TV, on energy drinks, and T-shirts. Some of the series are based on real conflicts like World War II or the Cold War. However, the later installments are based on fictional “modern” conflicts that immerse players in urban settings with advanced weapon technology.
The US Department of Defense and other military agencies know the popularity of these games, so it is no surprise they resort to recruiting soldiers directly from these games.
Young gamers are presented with a positive view of the US military, its missions, and its conduct, and the military then sends its recruiters to close the sales process and bring them in as real-life soldiers.
The video game industry also takes it a step further in its partnership with military enterprises. In order to use actual military hardware in the video game, the developers must obtain a license from the manufacturers themselves.
Thus, by using a Remington Shotgun in a SWAT video game (for example), the young video game player has directly played a role in supporting the military-industrial complex in the United States.
Each real weapon requires a real license, so profits made by video game companies benefit the same arms manufacturers that drop bombs on children across the globe.
Lastly, if a video game series is particularly successful (like Call of Duty), developers can then also be invited to American think tanks like The Atlantic Council.
Here they can participate in mapping out real-life invasion scenarios, protocols, and logistics – and then bring it back to the video game world should it not remain classified.
In this sense, the military genre of the video game industry is in direct collaboration with the military, its illegal adventures, and its track record of crimes.
Tamte and other video game developers can say that they wanted to create an “apolitical” experience. But there is no such thing as “apolitical”, especially not in the US military shooter genre, where the moment you pick up the controller is when you have contributed to a legacy of invasion and terror.
Shabbir Rizvi is a Chicago-based political analyst with a focus on US internal security and foreign policy.
US Lawmaker Files Amendments to Ban Kiev-Bound Shipments of F16s, Long-Range Missiles
Sputnik – 30.06.2023
WASHINGTON – US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said she filed amendments to the defense budget that would forbid the US from providing Ukraine with F-16 jets and long-range missiles and cut off all funding to Kiev until a diplomatic resolution to the conflict is found.
“We should be pushing for peace, not funding war. I filed amendments to the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that strip out all funding for Ukraine and prohibit providing them with F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles,” Greene said in a tweet on Friday.
“The death and destruction must stop, so in order to achieve peace, I also filed an amendment to prohibit any and all funding to Ukraine until a diplomatic solution to the war is reached.”
Earlier in the day, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley said he is not aware of any decisions with respect to sending the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to Ukraine, but noted that it is a “continuous, ongoing process.”
Citing officials with knowledge of the developments, American media reported on Thursday that the United States is close to agreeing to send ATACMS to Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s top aide earlier this week said Kiev still hoped to receive the first supply of F-16 fighter jets in aid from Western countries by the end of 2023. Last week, US media reported, citing Western officials, that Ukraine could receive its first F-16 fighter jets from Western sponsors in early 2024.
A former Pentagon official told outlets that the Netherlands and Denmark could be among the first suppliers, but no final decision had been made yet.
Russia has slammed the possible delivery of F-16 fighters to Ukraine, warning that the jets will become a legitimate military target for Russian forces. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine will be a further escalation because the jets have a modification that makes them nuclear-capable.
After five months of strained ties, US admits Chinese balloon did not collect information
Global Times | June 30, 2023
After repeated hyping of the so-called Chinese spy balloon incident for nearly five months, the Pentagon on Thursday admitted the airship did not collect any information, not to mention send any data back to China. This is an objective result that should be welcomed, but it came too late, as the incident has damaged mutual trust, totally changed the environment for communication between China and the US, and caused the two sides to miss a better time to restore relations, Chinese experts said.
Analysis of debris collected from a Chinese balloon drifting into the sky over the US and shot down by the latter in February showed that “it did not collect [any information] while it was transiting the US or over flying the US” despite that it “had intelligence collection capabilities,” Pentagon spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder told media on Thursday.
A Chinese balloon spent a week in February flying over the US and Canada before it was shot down by a fighter jet off the Atlantic coast, on orders from President Joe Biden. Although Chinese authorities reiterated that the balloon was a civilian weather balloon, some US media and hawkish politicians continued to hype it as a spy balloon, underscoring the increasing tensions between the world’s two largest economies.
In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a press conference on Friday that China has reiterated on many occasions that the Chinese civilian airship drifting into the sky over the US was an unintended, unexpected and isolated event caused by force majeure. Calling the airship a “spy balloon” and claiming it is used to collect intelligence is total slandering and smearing, Mao stressed.
Citing some anonymous officials, a Wall Street Journal report on Thursday claimed that the balloon was found to be carrying some American-made equipment helping it to collect photos, videos and other information. Ryder did not confirm the report on Thursday when he announced the result of the Pentagon’s analysis.
The Pentagon’s brief announcement on Thursday showed that the US, or at least the US’ defense department, is trying to close the chapter on the incident as it must have realized that the facts are slapping them in the face, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Friday.
“We should welcome the move, but I have to say that it is far from enough. The US hyping damaged the basic mutual trust between China and the US and set a bad precedent in dealing with a foreign country’s civilian facility by using the military to shoot down the balloon. They should express regret for the decision,” Lü said.
The balloon incident fundamentally changed the atmosphere between the two countries. Blinken postponed a reported visit to Beijing. This led to a delay in the progress of China-US interactions of about five months for no good reason, which is very unfavorable given the already high tension between the two countries, Lü noted.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was said to have been planning a diplomatic trip to China before the balloon incident, but reportedly postponed the plan soon after it occurred. The trip was rescheduled and Blinken visited Beijing in June.
However, the US Department of Defense’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency on Thursday approved new arms sales to Taiwan worth $440 million. The arms package is to include 30mm ammunition, spare parts for wheeled vehicles and other items, according to media reports. This is the 10th arms-sales package to Taiwan made under US President Joe Biden.
China urges the US to abide by the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US joint communiqués, stop selling weapons to Taiwan island, stop creating factors that lead to tensions in the Taiwan Straits and stop damaging the peace and stability in the region, Mao Ning said in response to the deal at the Friday press conference.
The US is building Taiwan island into a powder keg and ammunition depot. This is not “protecting” or “defending” the island but damaging and ruining it, the Taiwan Affairs Office of China’s State Council said Friday, slamming the deal.
Earlier this week, a US bipartisan congressional delegation led by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers landed in Taiwan for a three-day visit.
We must face the fact that US diplomacy will continue to show a character of being two-faced, as it views China as a main strategic opponent and will not change its strategy of containing China before it regains an absolute advantage over China, Lü said.
The Chinese central government must have become aware of this and is making adjustments in its strategy in the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea to maintain China’s practical control of the regions amid the US’ provocation, Lü pointed out, citing China’s firm actions in the Taiwan Straits since last year including large-scale military drills and the flying of fighter jets across the so-called median line of the Taiwan Straits, which the Chinese mainland had declared a non-existent concept.
Some experts expect more windows of opportunity in China-US relations to open after US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was reported to be planning a trip to China in early July, but they also warned that the window will not be open for long, so Washington needs to make sincere moves rather than create new trouble.
When asked is there still a window of opportunity to repair China-US ties before US elections, former Chinese Ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai told the Global Times on Thursday that it’s never too late if there is political will. “China has shown its political commitment to improving relations.”
CISA Was Behind the Attempt to Control Your Thoughts, Speech, and Life
Brownstone Institute | June 30, 2023
Keeping up with the corruption of the Covid regime feels like drinking from a firehose. The volume of the fraud, the pace of new discoveries, and the breadth of the operations are overwhelming. This makes it imperative for groups like Brownstone Institute to digest the onslaught of information and communicate salient themes and dispositive facts, particularly given the dereliction of mainstream media.
On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report on how the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “colluded with Big Tech and ‘disinformation’ partners to censor Americans,” adding to the informational firehose we work to imbibe.
The 36-page report raises three familiar issues: first, government actors worked with third parties to overturn the First Amendment; second, censors prioritized political narratives over truthfulness; and third, an unaccountable bureaucracy hijacked American society.
- CISA’s Collusion to Overturn the First Amendment
The House Report reveals that CISA, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, worked with social media platforms to censor posts it considered dis-, mis-, or malinformation. Brian Scully, the head of CISA’s censorship team, conceded that this process, known as “switchboarding,” would “trigger content moderation.”
Additionally, CISA funded the nonprofit EI-ISAC in 2020 to bolster its censorship operations. EI-ISAC worked to report and track “misinformation across all channels and platforms.” In launching the nonprofit, the government boasted that it “leverage[d] DHS CISA’s relationship with social media organizations to ensure priority treatment of misinformation reports.”
The switchboard programs directly contradict sworn testimony from CISA Director Jen Easterly. “We don’t censor anything… we don’t flag anything to social media organizations at all,” Esterly told Congress in March. “We don’t do any censorship.” Her statement was more than a lie; it omitted the institutionalization of the practice she denied. The agency’s initiatives relied on a collusive apparatus of private-public partnerships designed to suppress unapproved information.
This should sound familiar.
Alex Berenson gained access to thousands of Twitter communications that uncovered concrete evidence that government actors – including White House Covid Advisor Andy Slavitt – worked to censor him for criticizing Biden’s Covid policies.
White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty privately lobbied social media groups to remove a video of Tucker Carlson reporting the link between Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine and blood clots.
Facebook worked with the CDC to censor posts related to the Covid “lab-leak” hypothesis. Company employees later met with the Department of Health and Human Services to de-platform the “disinformation dozen,” a group including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
These were not cherry-picked examples – they were part of an institutional collusion to strip Americans of their First Amendment rights. Journalists Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi exposed the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” a collection of the world’s most powerful government agencies, NGOs, and private corporations that worked together to silence dissent.
The Supreme Court has held that it is “axiomatic” that the government cannot “induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Yet, CISA has joined the disturbing tendency of public-private partnerships designed to impede Americans’ right to information and freedom of speech.
- Political Operatives
Second, these programs were not idealistic attempts to promote the truth; they were calculated programs designed to quash inconvenient but truthful narratives.
The report outlines how CISA censored “malinformation – truthful information that, according to the government, may carry the potential to mislead.” Journalist Lee Fang later wrote that the malinformation campaign “highlights not only the broad authority that the federal government has to shape the political content available to the public, but also the toolkit that it relies upon to limit scrutiny in the regulation of speech.”
In this system, uncensored information has a tacit government approval, amounting to a system of widespread propaganda.
“State and local election officials used the CISA-funded EI-ISAC in an effort to silence criticism and political dissent,” the report notes. “For example, in August 2022, a Loudon County, Virginia, government official reported a Tweet featuring an unedited video of a county official ‘because it was posted as part of a larger campaign to discredit the word of’ that official. The Loudon County official’s remark that the account she flagged ‘is connected to Parents Against Critical Race Theory’ reveals that her ‘misinformation report’ was nothing more than a politically motivated censorship attempt.”
The officials supporting the operation remained unrepentant in their aim to advance political agendas. Dr. Kate Starbird, a member of CISA’s “Misinformation & Disinformation” subcommittee, lamented that many Americans seem to “accept malinformation as ‘speech’ and within democratic norms.”
Of course, the program explicitly violated the Constitution. The First Amendment does not discriminate based on the veracity of a statement. “Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation,” the Supreme Court’s controlling opinion held in United States v. Alvarez. But CISA – led by zealots like Dr. Starbird – appointed themselves the arbiters of truth and worked with the most powerful information companies in the world to purge dissent.
This was part of a larger political campaign.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, natural immunity, the lab-leak theory, and side effects of the vaccine were all censored at the government’s behest. The truth of the reports were not at issue; instead, they presented inconvenient narratives for Washington’s political class, who then used the Orwellian label of “malinformation” to lend cover to eviscerating the First Amendment.
- The Terror of the Administrative State
Third, the report exposes the increasing power of the administrative state. Federal bureaucrats rely on anonymity and unaccountability. Private industry employees could never oversee a disaster like the Covid response and maintain their jobs. It’d be like if BP’s head of safety for the Gulf of Mexico received a promotion after the oil spill.
But unelected officilals like CISA officials enjoy ever-increasing power over Americans’ lives without having to answer for their calamities. Suzanne Spaulding, a member of the Misinformation & Disinformation Subcommittee, warned that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”
Spaulding’s comment reflects the power that CISA wields and the benefit it derives from its lack of public exposure. Most Americans have never heard of CISA despite its overwhelming influence over lockdowns.
In March 2020, CISA divided the American workforce into categories of “essential” and “nonessential.” Within hours, California became the first state to issue a “stay at home” edict. This began a previously unimaginable assault on Americans’ civil liberties.
The House Report indicates that CISA was a central actor in censoring criticism of the Covid regime in the ensuing months and years. The agency is representative of the cabal of censorial and unaccountable officials engaged in public-private partnerships designed to keep us in the dark.
Kennedy Campaign Supporters Sound Like My Kind of People
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | June 30, 2023
Columnist Michelle Goldberg makes her disdain for presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. clear in her Friday New York Times editorial. She paints Kennedy as a dangerous “crank.” But, when Goldberg wrote in the editorial generally about supporters of Kennedy she encountered at a June campaign event in New Hampshire, her description seems to be closer to objective and is in line with what I have observed from afar.
Goldberg’s general description of the Kennedy supporters is also, in my view, quite positive. For Goldberg and many of her regular readers, though, her description is likely negative. The difference springs from differing views regarding the United States government and its expansive exercise of power.
Describing the people she encountered at a campaign speech by Kennedy in New Hampshire this month, Goldberg wrote:
The people I encountered believe that they are living under a deeply sinister regime that lies to them about almost everything that matters. And they believe that with the Kennedy campaign, we might be on the cusp of redemption.
This description of Kennedy supporters’ assessment of the situation Americans face makes me think they are my kind of people.
Also wrote Goldberg, “the movement around [Kennedy] represents a significant post-Covid social phenomenon: a coalition of the distrustful that cuts across divisions of right and left.”
That sounds like what America needs.
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
US, Turkish-backed militias in Syria boost number of child soldiers in their ranks: UN
The Cradle | June 30, 2023
According to a UN report released on 28 June, the US and Turkish-backed armed groups in Syria have been increasingly recruiting minors into their ranks.
The report claims that the number of children recruited by militant groups in the country has risen from around 800 to over 1,200 since 2020.
It adds that among those recruiting children are the US-backed Kurdish militia, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which oversee control of Syrian oilfields in collaboration with Washington’s occupation forces.
The UN claims that more than 600 of child recruitment cases in Syria are attributed to the SDF and associated Kurdish groups in the country. This is despite the fact that the SDF signed an agreement with the UN in 2019 to end minors’ enlistment.
Over 600 child recruitment cases have also been attributed to the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) coalition of militant groups, which has incorporated fighters from several extremist groups, including ISIS, over the years.
Additionally, the UN says that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly known as the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, has recruited over 380 minors into their ranks.
Twenty-five cases among Syrian government forces and allied militias have allegedly been recorded as well.
Bassam al-Ahmad, executive director of Syrians for Truth and Justice, said that in some cases, children are forcibly conscripted into the ranks of armed groups. He added that some join for religious or ideological beliefs, while others join for the salaries much needed by them or their families.
Ahmad claimed that some children are even sent out of the country to participate as mercenaries in foreign wars.
The enlistment of child soldiers has been an issue for much of the Syrian conflict.
During the recruitment efforts of the Nusra Front between 2013 and 2016, led mainly by Saudi cleric Abdullah al-Muhaysni, scores of teenagers were among the thousands enlisted to fight against the Syrian army. Many of these teenagers were sent on suicide missions.
In 2016, members of a US-backed armed group, the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement, were filmed beheading a 12-year-old boy named Abdullah Issa, who they claimed was a fighter in the pro-government Liwa al-Quds militia.
Liwa al-Quds released a statement at the time categorically denying that the boy was a fighter, claiming that he had been residing in an area of Aleppo under the control of armed groups.
In 2019, the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement was absorbed by the SNA after being defeated by HTS.
RFK Jr. Dismantles Doctor’s Pro-Vaccine Stance in Town Hall Meeting
By Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | June 29, 2023
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. Epistemologists ask the foundational question, “How do we know what we know?”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday appeared in a town hall meeting hosted by NewsNation and moderated by journalist Elizabeth Vargas.
The exchanges between Kennedy — chairman on leave from Children’s Health Defense — Vargas and Dr. Tariq Butt, a family medicine doctor in the audience, demonstrated the real quagmire the scientific community finds itself in.
Doctors and journalists cannot see the difference between believing and knowing. If we were in a rational world, there wouldn’t be the need for censorship and shadowbanning.
Nor would many of the vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule, as presently formulated and tested, have found their way into the arms of young human beings.
In 13 short minutes, Kennedy deftly demonstrated to the audience that our problem isn’t just a failure of epidemiology — it’s one of epistemology:
Vargas first framed the topic this way:
“The biggest controversy surrounding your candidacy is your stance on childhood vaccines. Nearly every scientific and medical organization including the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], the AMA [American Medical Association], the American Academy of Pediatrics, all say you’re wrong on this issue.”
Vargas opened the door for Kennedy to not only clarify his position — which he said has been distorted and misrepresented no matter how many times he has tried to set the record straight — but she also revealed how little thought and research she has done into the controversy.
Kennedy pointed out the reality of the situation. These are not organizations that have independently arrived at their conclusions. The AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics and “nearly all scientific and medical organizations” take information coming from the CDC and FDA as gospel.
In other words, if the CDC and the FDA are wrong, the entire medical establishment is wrong.
There’s a difference between consensus and herd mentality — a fact that never seemed to register with Vargas.
Kennedy is immensely knowledgeable about vaccine science and the regulatory process, as well as its corruption by Pharma interests. Moreover, he is a seasoned litigator and is not careless in his delivery. He correctly asks Vargas for clarification: “On what issue?”
Vargas first alludes to the possibility that vaccines could be the cause of autism and harm.
Kennedy immediately asks the obvious, “So you are saying that these organizations claim that vaccines NEVER damage kids?”
Vargas is forced to backpedal:
“I don’t think anyone is saying they never have. There may be a child here [or there], but overall vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives.”
Vargas is demonstrating the lack of understanding the public has about the issue. How can anyone claim that vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives if proper prospective studies with matched unvaccinated controls have never been conducted?
Kennedy makes this abundantly clear in his response to Dr. Butt, who asks Kennedy this question:
“Eradication of chicken pox and polio in the U.S. and in many parts of the world is a result of regular vaccination. MMR [measles, mumps, rubella] and many diseases are preventable. There is little evidence of these diseases in the vaccinated population. Your vaccine stance is dangerous to the health and well-being of millions. Medical experts are deeply concerned about your message. How can we help you come to the side of science?”
Kennedy admits there is evidence that vaccines have reduced the risk of mortality and morbidity from the diseases they target. However, he argued, without long-term prospective studies around all-cause mortality/morbidity in vaccinated populations nobody — no matter how educated or how big an organization you represent, he said — can claim there is an overall benefit.
Kennedy’s answer to the question dismantles the issue to the very core, catching Dr. Butt off guard. His methodical response should have proven to the audience that the family medicine doctor has very little grasp of all the available evidence.
Dr. Butt clearly wasn’t aware of analyses like this one that concluded that a “Mass varicella vaccination is expected to cause a major epidemic of herpes zoster, affecting more than 50% of those aged 10-44 years at the introduction of vaccination.”
Should studies like this guide public policy in the U.S.? They certainly do in the U.K., where health officials do not recommend universal vaccinations against chickenpox for precisely the reason Kennedy states.
Of all the preventable diseases out there, why would Dr. Butt use chickenpox as an example of how Kennedy’s vaccine stance is dangerous to the health and well-being of millions? Could it be that a doctor with a microphone was unaware of the science?
Was Dr. Butt aware of the enormous tragedy caused by the DTP (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine in Africa? After 30 years of observation, it was shown that children vaccinated with the DTP shot were dying of other causes at 10 times the rate of the unvaccinated. We would have never known about this if no one actually looked.
The devastation caused by the DTP vaccine is not limited to the continent of Africa. Kennedy informed the audience that the flurry of lawsuits against manufacturers of this vaccine led to the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which has protected vaccine manufacturers from any liability.
As a concession to the public, this law also created the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, to “protect” and warn the public of potential vaccine danger; a system that has been shown to underreport injuries as commonly as it gets ignored.
Though Kennedy did not discuss the MMR and polio vaccines, his point was clear: Unless proper, long-term, prelicensure placebo-controlled safety studies are done we cannot determine if more harm than good is being done.
Dr. Butt’s response to the likely damage caused by the varicella and DTP vaccines was all too predictable: “A person can take a medicine and then get involved in a motor vehicle accident.” In other words, correlation does not prove causation!
Dr. Butt has good intentions. He is also particularly skilled at picking the weakest examples to prove his point.
The issue with the varicella vaccine was the resulting increased risk of herpes zoster infection (shingles). The issue with the DTP vaccine was the increased risk of death from other prevalent diseases that proved to be more deadly for the kids who received the vaccine.
We are not talking about random traumatic injuries that have nothing to do with immune modulation.
Furthermore, was Dr. Butt aware that the “correlation does not equal causation” argument can be used to dismiss vaccine benefits as well?
This double standard is mindlessly applied by vaccine proponents. Trials don’t prove causation, only correlation. That goes for efficacy too. On what grounds can one say that a vaccine caused a decrease in the disease it targets while assuring us that it was only correlated with an increase in side effects?
Trials just measure the incidence of things in two (or more) groups of participants. It’s a mathematical comparison. No causation is ever proven.
Vargas took issue with Kennedy’s claim that not one vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule has been subjected to a prelicensured placebo-controlled trial.
Vargas: “Yes they have.”
Kennedy: “No.”
Vargas: “Yeah, they have!”
And later …
Vargas: “The FDA says, and in fact, on its website, you can clearly see vaccines go through three stages of testing against double-blind placebo. They already DO that testing.”
Kennedy: “Elizabeth, you can say that.”
Vargas: “I’m not saying that. The FDA is saying that.”
Kennedy: “The FDA is not saying that.”
Vargas: “Yes they do! They say that on their website!”
Kennedy: “They will not tell you that there’s a vaccine that has ever undergone a long-term placebo-controlled trial prior to licensing because it’s not true.”
The reason why this embarrassing (and mildly entertaining) spectacle is important to dissect is because of what it reveals about the stubbornness we have about being right. Did Vargas actually scour the FDA website prior to this public exchange?
She couldn’t have for the obvious reason that no such statement from them exists on their website as she maintained.
Why is she so sure that she is right? I would venture to say it is because someone whom she trusts more than Kennedy told her that.
But was she really listening to what Kennedy was saying? Kennedy demanded a citation from Dr. Anthony Fauci in a face-to-face meeting with him in 2016. Fauci couldn’t produce one but promised he would.
He never did — so Kennedy (and attorney Aaron Siri) sued him and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). After a year of litigation, they finally obtained a written statement from the HHS which still does not cite a single study but assures us that inert placebos are not required to demonstrate safety in childhood vaccines.
Of course, there is no reason Vargas should trust Kennedy if she has not visited the Children’s Health Defense website where the letter from the HHS is made available.
But at what point should she have paused and honestly asked herself about what she really knew and not just what she thought she did?
In this case, the spectacle arose not because Vargas was wrong, but because she was so sure she was right.
It’s also worthwhile to consider what was on the line for her, personally. Was she able to face the possibility that the vaccines we have been injecting into our own bodies and our children have never been tested against a placebo?
Her argumentative responses to Kennedy’s views, which he defended with several key citations off the top of his head, reflected the real impediments the public has toward seeing reality for what it is. What would it mean if Kennedy has been right all along?
As a veteran journalist for NewsNation and previously for Fox and A&E Networks, Vargas should have come prepared. Kennedy has previously made himself very clear that he is willing to change his mind. “Show me where I got it wrong.”
Kennedy asks Vargas to cite a single prelicensure, placebo-controlled vaccine study. She couldn’t because no one can. There aren’t any.
Kennedy pointed out the real issue: “We have a corrupt federal agency [FDA] that is lying to the AMA and all those agencies and all those doctors. But those agencies are controlled by Pharma. That is the problem.”
Without any studies to cite or any way to refute Kennedy’s damning allegations, Vargas chose to confront Kennedy with the fact that some of his family members disagree with his stance on vaccines.
Kennedy: “Does your family agree with everything that you say?”
Vargas: “Definitely not. You got me on that one.”
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
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.
Rogan’s RFK interview is full of vitally-important taboo info
BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 26, 2023
Yesterday, I spent several hours reading the transcript of the 3-hour interview RFK, Jr. recently did with Joe Rogan. The conversation was fascinating. Any U.S. citizen interested in more detailed information on Kennedy’s thoughts can simply watch this interview (a link to the Rogan episode and a transcript are included in this article which summarizes the interview).
I particularly recommend the final paragraphs of the CHD article, where Kennedy talks about the mothers of autistic children who finally convinced him to look into a possible connection between vaccines and autism.
Here are highlights that jumped out to me after reading transcripts of the entire interview:
- Kennedy said (again) that he’s NOT running on the “vaccine issue” and only talks about vaccines when specifically asked a question about them by an interviewer.
- However, he did say he’s not going to dodge a legitimate question when asked. He also said that he didn’t plan on doing any more in-depth interviews like this in the future, suggesting this conversation with Rogan should provide sufficient answers on why and how he got so interested in the vaccine issue … an intellectual quest which later informed his conviction that the entire public health establishment has become brazenly and shockingly corrupt and captured.
- Kennedy said alarms went off when he had a phone conversation with Dr. Paul Offit about mercury in vaccines and caught this extremely-influential vaccine booster in an obvious lie. Kennedy also noted that this man said he would get back to him with specific scientific studies that backed up his vaccine autism point (that there was bad “mercury” and “safe” mercury). Kennedy said this revered scientist never did provide the promised study(ies).
- Kennedy also recounts a similar conversation with Dr. Fauci, who told Kennedy that he would provide germane studies on some topic Kennedy had challenged Fauci on …. and Fauci never followed through.
One of Kennedy’s main points is that whenever he wanted to see the published peer-reviewed scientific studies backing different conclusions of the Science Establishment … the members of the Scientific Establishment couldn’t and didn’t do this.
Kennedy also notes he personally knows and had spoken to many leading authorities in the public health bureaucracies and he always got the impression these leaders had not read any of the scientific studies that Kennedy had read. They weren’t even familiar with these studies.
- Rogan talked a good bit about censorship and how he (Rogan) had been maligned and intentionally discredited for comments he’d made. Almost as an aside, Kennedy noted that he had been censored for “18 years” (!)
- … Kennedy also said that nobody has ever debated him on these topics, and cited examples of “debates” or events that were supposed to happen and never did.
- One such “debate” was supposed to be Kennedy vs. one of these alleged science authorities at a hearing in the Connecticut Senate (if memory serves, on the autism question).
- According to Kennedy, a Connecticut elected official asked Kennedy to participate in a hearing with this other authority. Later, Kennedy was told it would be him vs. two executives, then three, then four.
- Kennedy, as it turns out, would only get six minutes to make his points. Still, Kennedy said (paraphrasing): “This is not fair, but okay. I’ll be there.” The debate/testimony was later cancelled – after Kennedy had flown “on the red-eye” to Connecticut on his own dime to participate. Nobody told him why this hearing with him was cancelled. Kennedy just assumes someone told these people to NOT debate RFK, Jr. This scenario should sound very familiar today. (Think the “Hotez debate.”)
- I found Kennedy’s points about the explosion of autism to be very convincing. His main point is that nobody his age (or my age) grew up with anyone who had the severe autism that is common with many children today.Kennedy does note that observations such as this do NOT equal scientific “causation” or “correlation” … but when so many mothers of autistic children keep reaching the same conclusion, this should be enough anecdotal evidence to launch serious and real scientific studies and genuine scientific investigations, Kennedy argues.
- Kennedy’s points about VAERS picking up only a tiny fraction of vaccine injuries and deaths are very persuasive and important. (This is the topic of one of my next articles, which will highlight the fact Ed Dowd’s work on “all-cause excess” deaths is STILL being ignored by the mainstream media – 18 months after Dowd, among others, began to highlight this.)
- Regarding his book The Real Anthony Fauci, Kennedy notes that the book sold more than one million copies in its “first three months.” Oddly (to me), Kennedy said he doesn’t know how many copies this book sold after this because he hasn’t looked at the numbers.
- I’ve been curious about the book’s cumulative sales figure as every story I can find on the book says only that it “sold more than one million copies.”
- This is certainly a true statement, but I wonder if the book might have sold at least two million copies by now. Kennedy also points out that nobody at mainstream “news” organizations reviewed the book and very few “independent” book-sellers ever stocked the book in their stores (a point I made in a recent column.) Also, for some reason, lists of “best-selling” books often omitted The Real Anthony Fauci from these sales rankings.
- The above anecdotes should tell the public that most owners of book stores (and the “free press”) believe in banning certain books (more specifically, they don’t stock or mention books that question the prevailing orthodoxy).
- Question: How many copies of The Real Anthony Fauci would have been sold if this book had been available in bookstores all over the world (like other big best-sellers)? Would this have made a difference and perhaps saved lives?
Note: Joe Rogan said his entire thinking about vaccines, public health and Kennedy changed dramatically after he did read this book. Question: Think if Rogan had not read this book. He probably would have never had Kennedy on his show and Rogan probably would never have become one of the leading contrarian voices on the “authorized narrative.” This shows the power of the written word or of one book … and why such a book had to be censored.
- According to Kennedy, the vast majority of the book’s sales came from just one source – Amazon. (Authors like Naomi Wolf and many other skeptics of the official narratives have also published “taboo” Covid books. This question also occurs to me: How many additional copies of these books would have been sold if readers interested in these topics had seen them and been able to buy them if they had been available in local bookstore? (I guess this is another “unknown unknowable.”)
* Rogan made interesting points about how other podcasters are seemingly being bullied with the threat of “de-platforming” or “de-monetization” if the hosts of these shows invite contrarian Covid speakers onto their shows as guests (including Rogan himself).
* Rogan mentioned that he knows several comedian friends who think like he does, which he suggests helped him maintain his sanity in these New Normal Covid times. Kennedy later asked Rogan (paraphrasing), “Who are these people? I haven’t heard any stand-up comedians doing gigs where they poke fun of this Covid madness.” The Kimmels and Colberts of the world were (and still are) all singing from the same “authorized narrative” hymnal.
- Kennedy provides a good bit of detail about his life as an environmental lawyer and how he and his allies in his cause helped clean up the Hudson River waterways. It was his belief that mercury was getting into fish that later led him to believe that the same toxic mercury (far more dangerous than lead, according to Kennedy) was being injected into children with their mandatory vaccines.
- According to Kennedy, this was a point that mothers kept making to him at Kennedy’s speaking engagements. Finally, one of these mothers showed up at his house, dropped an 18-inch pile of documents on his door step and told Kennedy she wasn’t leaving until he read these documents.
- Kennedy read them … and the rest is … history … History that also explains why Robert Kennedy, Jr. is now the No. 1 threat to the Big Pharma/Medicine/Science establishment. It also explains how a once popular liberal environmental lawyer almost instantly became a pariah to the Establishment and a conspiracy-spreading, wacko kook.
- Kennedy notes that he has filed “hundreds” of lawsuits and every one of them deal with “science.” Regarding the narrative that everyone should “trust the science and the experts,” Kennedy makes a great point in his conversation with Rogan:
- Every lawsuit he has ever been a part of includes “experts” … from both sides. Kennedy gives an example of one big environmental lawsuit where the defendants called experts from prestigious academic institutions like Harvard, Stanford and Yale as witnesses. But the plaintiffs also called “expert” witnesses who were professors at the same colleges. So the obvious question is: What “experts” are more credible? This, Kennedy says, is for a jury to decide (and plenty of juries sided with Kennedy’s experts).
Kennedy also pointed out that almost all of the “new” vaccines since the late ’80s allegedly “protect” children from diseases that do not pose a real health risk to them. He gave the example of the Hepatitis B vaccine newborns get at the hospital. Kennedy pointed out this is a “vaccine” to allegedly provide “protection” against a disease that might affect only a few of these children 16 to 30 years later – if they became a prostitute or a needle drug user.
I thought Kennedy was also very persuasive, making his point that advancements in nutrition, sanitation and “engineering” almost completely explain the disappearance of most childhood or adult diseases in the last century or so (for example, refrigeration.)
This leads people like me to conclude that the Mother of All medical scams might be the one that tells us that “vaccines” are the wonder-drug of our times and have saved millions of lives. This is almost certainly a “false” or at least “dubious” narrative. (But a profitable one for Big Pharma).
Yet another fascinating segment was when Kennedy explains the “95 percent effective” canard. He points out that the best metric flowing from Pfizer’s limited safety trials should have been the conclusion that it takes 22,000 doses of Covid vaccine to (maybe) prevent one “Covid” death.
If this is the case (and it apparently is), “You better be sure that vaccine isn’t causing any deaths,” Kennedy states. As Kennedy points out, in the Pfizer trials only three people died from Covid in the ensuing six months – one person in the “vaccinated” group, and two in the “unvaccinated” group.
However, four or five more people in the “vaccinated” group later died from “all causes.” But identifying deaths from “any cause” was not a goal of the study. (It took a Freedom of Information request and a judge’s ruling to release this key information to the public … something Pfizer didn’t want to do for 75 years).
So trial participants had a much greater chance of dying (from any cause) if they’d received the Covid vaccine than if they had not been vaccinated. Question asked by Kennedy: Shouldn’t this data point/finding have been the big headline and enough to stop the vaccines?
Regarding the “vaccines-cause autism” theory, Kennedy does not definitively or categorically blame just vaccines. He seems to be saying many factors probably explain this – including vaccines.
Kennedy notes that when he was a child he received three childhood vaccines. Today, children MUST get 72 shots (from 16 vaccines). Kennedy also noted that five of his children suffer from food allergies, something that also was almost unheard of when Kennedy was growing up.
Kennedy also did a great job explaining how Big Pharma got immunity from vaccine lawsuits, per hugely-significant legislation passed in the Reagan administration in 1986. This gave Big Pharma a license to make “billions of dollars,” Kennedy argues.
All Pharma companies had to do was come up with a new “vaccine” and make sure this vaccine got placed on the childhood immunization schedule (which apparently was a sure-thing).
I also found it interesting that RFK, Jr. acknowledges that his own uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy – who was chairman of an important Senate Health Committee at the time – helped pass this world-changing legislation. That is, it wasn’t just President Reagan who made this possible; it was the Democrats in Congress too – including his own uncle.
Kennedy also debunks the accepted wisdom that vaccines are “safe” by pointing out the whole reason this legislation was passed into law was because vaccines are obviously not (always) safe. Vaccines are inherently unsafe – this is why the industry needed legal immunity from lawsuits to keep producing them, says Kennedy.
My main-take away from this in-depth interview is how well Kennedy knows this material. During this 3-hour interview, Kennedy didn’t refer to any notes. He cited study after study from memory. He had read these studies – critically – and quickly identified the holes and likely cover-ups in them.
I’m convinced this is the real reason no expert or authority will debate someone like Kennedy (or, for example, Steve Kirsch). They all know Kennedy knows this material better than they do. And they all know that they can’t answer Kennedy’s key questions.
Hopefully, more people will take the time to watch this 3-hour interview or read the transcripts. If they do, they’ll see that Kennedy is not some crazy “kook.” I also commend Joe Rogan for giving RFK, Jr. this 3-hour platform to express his views and more fully discuss these life-and-death public health issues.
Religious Exemption Form for Parents of School-Age Kids in D.C. ‘Intentionally Misleading and Unlawful’
The Defender | June 27, 2023
A form provided by the District of Columbia Department of Health for parents seeking a religious exemption for mandated vaccines on behalf of their minor children is “intentionally misleading and unlawful,” according to Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Staff Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst.
A letter from Hazlehurst and CHD Acting President Laura Bono to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and school and health department officials states there is “no legal basis or requirement” for parents to use the newly revised “2023 Religious Exemption Request Process for Families” posted on the DC Health website.
According to the health department, “In consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for eligible students, and the need to ensure all students in the District remain up to date with all necessary or required vaccinations to attend school,” health officials revised the religious exemption form “to include a section to document a strongly held religious belief opposing vaccination.”
Parents and guardians are instructed to request the form and return it directly to DC Health/Immunization Division after carefully reading and completing it in its entirety. “incomplete or non-compliant forms will be returned before being sent for review, the department said.
But the updated form contains at least two subsections that are “unlawful as written and applied,” Hazlehurst said.
In the first part of Section 2, parents and guardians are required to initial to acknowledge that “by not vaccinating their child for one or more of the listed vaccinations, they are placing their child at ‘increased risk,’ thus implying that they are unfit parents or guardians.”
And, according to the letter, the second part of Section 2 requires each parent or guardian to:
“Please provide a written statement on a) why you do not get vaccinations based on your sincerely held religious beliefs, b) the religious principles that guide your decision not to get vaccinated, and c) whether you are opposed to all vaccinations, and if not, d) the religious beliefs you follow that will not allow you to get the COVID-19 vaccination.”
In their letter, Bono and Hazlehurst said this language “intentionally misleads those parents or guardians seeking religious exemptions into believing they must comply with these instructions or their request will be denied.”
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” they wrote, adding that according to the law, Code of the District of Columbia §38-506, entitled “Exemption from Certification” states:
No certification of immunization shall be required for the admission to a school of a student:
(1) For whom the responsible person objects in good faith and in writing, to the chief official of the school, that immunization would violate his or her religious beliefs.
In other words, parents and guardians are not required to complete the updated form — they can simply write a letter to the chief official of the child’s school certifying that in accordance with the Code of the District of Columbia §38-506, they object in good faith that immunization(s) violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
If DC Health officials wanted to create a new process in which parents and guardians must comply to receive a religious exemption, the agency is required by law to promulgate the new rule by complying with the administration process and allowing the public the opportunity to respond — neither of which were done, Hazlehurst and Bono wrote.
D.C. Council weighs bill to remove COVID vaccine mandate for schools
Hazlehurst and Dr. Elizabeth Mumper last week submitted written testimony to D.C. Council members in support of Bill 25-0278, the School Student Vaccination Amendment Act of 2023, which would remove the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students attending D.C. schools.
Both commended the council members for introducing the amendment. In his written statement, Hazlehurst called on the council to expedite passage of the bill “to avoid parents unnecessarily getting their children the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend school.”
He also outlined his legal objections to the health department’s newly revised religious exemption form.
Mumper, a pediatrician, also showed support for the bill. In a lengthy written statement, she said:
“As a pediatrician with 43 years of experience in pediatrics and 24 years of experience identifying and treating children with vaccine injuries, I oppose giving COVID-19 vaccines to infants and children.
“Having carefully studied the risks and benefits, I conclude unequivocally that the risk of harm outweighs any potential benefit. Multiple sources of scientifically sound data support my position.”
In July 2022, The Washington Post said the district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for schoolchildren was “among the strictest in the nation.”
CHD last year represented a group of parents challenging the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Act, which would have allowed children as young as 11 to consent to vaccination without parental knowledge or consent.
CHD fought, and the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law and the district was forced to repeal it.
In his ruling, Judge Trevor N. McFadden said:
“States and the District are free to encourage individuals, including children, to get vaccines. But they cannot transgress on the Program Congress created. And they cannot trample the Constitution.”
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.
House Weaponization Committee Concludes DHS Agency Colluded With Big Tech To Facilitate Censorship
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 28, 2023
With the publishing of a new report, a House Judiciary subcommittee disclosed that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a division within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has been engaging in censoring online content and conducting domestic surveillance in conjunction with Big Tech companies and other private groups.
This report, released on Monday, is titled “The Weaponization of CISA: How a ‘Cybersecurity’ Agency Colluded With Big Tech and ‘Disinformation’ Partners to Censor Americans.”
CISA, founded in just 2018, was originally envisioned as an auxiliary agency focused on safeguarding critical infrastructure and fending off cybersecurity threats.
The report asserts that CISA morphed into “the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media” by 2020. It accuses CISA of systematically reporting social media posts that it believed disseminated “disinformation.”
Adding to the alarming developments, the report unveils that by 2021, CISA established a formal “Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation” (MDM) team. In the ensuing years, the agency faced escalating criticism from both public and private quarters, which led it to clandestinely downplay its activities by portraying itself as solely informational in nature.
The report particularly highlights an instance in which, following lawsuits from Missouri and Louisiana contesting CISA’s censorship tactics, the agency allegedly sidestepped the allegations by transferring its censorship undertakings to a non-profit organization, the Center for Internet Security (CIS), which it financially supported.
Further, the report divulges an email from a CISA advisory board member and former assistant general counsel for the CIA, Suzanne Spaulding, to her colleague, revealing concerns about the potential public discovery and scrutiny of their activities.
CISA has been accused of attempting to obscure its activities in response to growing scrutiny, such as erasing mentions of its domestic surveillance and censorship operations from its website.
The report argues that CISA’s focus on “malinformation” is worrisome. The agency defines malinformation as factual information used out of context to mislead or manipulate, but the subcommittee report challenges whose context is being used, and questions the government’s role in deciding this context.
Despite these allegations, CISA denies any involvement in censoring or facilitating censorship.
With the unveiling of this report, questions surrounding the extent of CISA’s involvement in domestic surveillance and online censorship have become central in a broader debate on the role of government agencies in relation to civil liberties and constitutional rights.
EU to renew Iran sanctions under defunct nuclear deal: Report
The Cradle | June 29, 2023
European officials recently informed Iran that they plan to renew EU ballistic missile sanctions set to expire in October, according to sources in the know that spoke with Reuters.
The renewal will be conducted under the parameters of the defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which officials say Iran “violated” by moving forward with developing its nuclear energy program after the US unilaterally exited the deal in 2018 and reimposed crushing sanctions.
Other reasons the EU is giving for renewing the sanctions are Russia’s use of Iranian drones in Ukraine and “the possibility of Iran transferring ballistic missiles to Moscow.”
“The Iranians have been told quite clearly [of plans to keep the sanctions], and now the question is what, if any, retaliatory steps the Iranians might take and [how] to anticipate that,” a western diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The decision to uphold the sanctions would be the first significant instance of the E3 group of nations — France, Germany, and the UK — not abiding by the terms of the nuclear deal.
EU mediator Enrique Mora, who co-ordinates talks to restore the 2015 deal, raised the issue of keeping the sanctions when he met Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani in Doha on 21 June, but the latter reportedly refused to discuss the matter, according to an unnamed Iranian official who spoke with Reuters.
“Maintaining sanctions, in any capacity and form, will not hinder Iran’s ongoing advancements,” the Iranian official is quoted as saying. “It serves as a reminder that the west cannot be relied upon and trusted.”
Since 2017, the Islamic Republic has significantly advanced with its ballistic missile and satellite launch programs. The country last month made waves by revealing a hypersonic missile with a potential 2,000-km range.
This progress, on top of Tehran’s enrichment of uranium at 60 percent purity and a China-brokered détente with Saudi Arabia, set off alarms in the west and pushed Washington to begin ‘de-escalation talks‘ with Iran.
Featured Video
The Failed Air War Over Vietnam
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
USS Liberty Massacre: A Pivotal Moment in the Hostile Takeover of America
By Kevin Barrett | Crescent | Dhu al-Qa’dah 24, 1445
In corporate America, hostile takeovers are commonplace. They occur when an aggressor—a larger corporation or rich individuals—seizes control of a smaller corporation without asking permission.
What few recognize is that the United States itself has been subjected to a hostile takeover. Since the aggressor, the illegitimate settler colony known as “Israel,” is much smaller than the US, the takeover has necessarily been surreptitious.
As of June, 2024, Israel’s gradual takeover of the US has become obvious and undeniable—a proverbial “elephant in the living room.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Yemeni Armed Forces Warn Airlines Against Using Saudi Airports, Exempt Mecca and Medina
- Iran security chief says powers greater than US tried to conquer Iran but ended in ‘dustbin of history’
- Europe’s mounting social chaos… chickens coming home to roost for proxy war against Russia
- US-Russia Diesel Deal Becomes Massive Defeat for Ukraine
- Hormuz and the Looming Economic Catastrophe
- Dhubab offensive, media blitz and the rapid unraveling of Saudi-backed coalition’s new gambit
- Putin Conveys to Trump Iran’s Vision on Possible Conflict Resolution – Kremlin
- 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?
- If Americans Knew
- For three years, Israel has killed a child in Gaza every 71 minutes – Daily Update
- Israeli forces kill another child in Gaza – Daily Update
- 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
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- 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
