Troubling news from Germany, Washington DC, and Washington state
By Steve Kirsch | January 16, 2022
Germany wants to ban Telegram. Washington DC requires you to be vaccinated to go to the bathroom. Washington state wants to put you in jail for a year if you don’t follow their health orders.
The authorities are ramping up the pressure even more to get us to comply with what they want us to do “so that they can keep us safe.”
How has the CDC guidance been working out? It’s obvious from this graph (which you won’t see on CNN):
So when something isn’t working, what do you do? Sane people listen would start to listen to qualified people with a different point of view. Insane people keep doing the same stuff over and over again and expect a different result.
In case you haven’t figured it out, we’re in the insanity category. It’s how we roll.
Naturally, the authorities will never blame the fact that cases are out of control it on their own dumb advice. They are going to blame the unvaccinated and anyone who isn’t complying with their advice.
So they will double down on their mandates and make it even harder for critical thinkers to live.
The more it becomes evident that the entire pandemic response has been a complete disaster, the harder people will push back. And the harder people resist, the harder governments will push back by locking down free speech and putting people in jail who refuse to comply with their mandates.
So things are going to get worse. A lot worse.
Check out the latest news headlines…
Germany wants to ban Telegram
A report in the German newspaper Die Welt suggests that the government there is considering taking action to shut down messaging app Telegram.
Why?
Because people opposed to COVID restrictions and lockdowns are using it to organize protests and share information! This is unacceptable to the German government. They require blind obedience.
Read the ZeroHedge article for more info or watch this video:
Fortunately for us, Telegram is a distributed organization that moves around and keeps their location secret. It’s a good thing for freedom of speech.
Washington state wants to put you in jail for a year if you don’t comply with their health orders, including requiring you to be vaccinated
Look at what’s happening in Washington state in America right now as an example.
Here’s an excerpt:
Under the RCWs cited “A person who violates or fails to comply with a health order issued under RCW 70.24.024 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable by confinement until the order has been complied with or terminated, up to a maximum period of three hundred sixty-four days.”
So if they want you to take a vaccine, any vaccine, you better comply or they will put you in jail. They can then repeat that again and again. So basically, you better take the vaccine they want to inject in you, or you will spend the rest of your life in jail.
That’s not a violation of the Nuremberg Code is it? (of course it is, but what do they care).
Washington DC now won’t let you go to the bathroom if you aren’t vaccinated
Even more spectacular is what just went into place today January 15 in Washington DC:
Unvaccinated and want to go to the bathroom? Good luck with that! You have to hold it until you get to Virginia.
However, hotels are not included in the mandate, and federal government buildings fall outside the city’s jurisdiction so that’s a relief (for the moment).
You can still go to grocery stores, pharmacies, and airports. But how long will that last? Another month?
San Jose forces all city employees to be vaccinated
More Nuremberg Code violations. San Jose, CA is requiring all 7,000 employees to be triple-vaccinated or lose their job. Wow. Pfizer and Moderna must love that!
And if you want to attend any large indoor event, you must show proof of either a booster shot or a negative COVID test before you can enter.
The policies were unanimously approved by the City Council.
The Mayor proclaimed that San Jose is leading the US with this measure.
Does he understand that they have to be vaccinated every 60 days as clearly shown by the Denmark study?
Take action
If you think the world is moving in the right direction, you don’t need to do anything. Sit back and relax.
If you are unhappy with how things are going, please subscribe to my newsletter and post this article to your social networks.
Defeat the mandates rally January 23, 2022
If you are near Washington DC, join our rally on Sunday, January 23. Or just make a donation. We’re expecting around 200,000 people.
Because hotel rooms are limited, it’s important that everyone in the Washington DC area show up on Sunday at 11:30am at the Washington Monument. There will be lots of great speakers.
Russian roulette: as croupier at this particular casino table, I invite you to place your bets
By Gilbert Doctorow | January 14, 2022
The Russia-US-NATO-OSCE meetings this week have come and gone. The Russian verdict was succinctly delivered by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Ryabkov, who explained even before the OSCE session was over that the talks have come to “a dead end” and it was unlikely the Russians will participate in any follow-on talks.
This opens the question to what comes next.
Official Washington feels certain that what comes next is a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which could come in the next few weeks and thereby fall within the timetable for such an operation suggested by State Department officials when they met with NATO allies ahead of Biden’s December 7 virtual summit with Putin. The logic put out then was that January-February would be very suitable for a land invasion given that the frozen ground would well support tank movements. One might add to that argument on timing, one further argument that was not adduced: in midwinter it is questionable how long the Russians would want to keep 100,000 soldiers camped in field conditions near the border; such stasis in these severe conditions is not conducive to maintaining morale.
In what I would call a rare show of failing confidence in the predictive powers of the Biden Administration, U.S. media admit to uncertainty over Russia’s next moves. However, they cleverly present this by pointing to the uncertainty of the analysts and commentators on the Russian side.
A featured article in The New York Times a couple of days ago by their Moscow correspondent Anton Troianovsky says it all in the title: Putin’s Next Move on Ukraine Is a Mystery. Just the Way He Likes It”
Indeed, all the best known Russian experts appear to be stymied, none more so than the ubiquitous Fyodor Lukyanov, host of the weekly television show “International Overview” and long time research director of the Valdai Discussion Club, where his peers in the front ranks of American international affairs specialists have gotten to know him. Lukyanov has in recent days humbly admitted he hasn’t a clue to what comes next. Another leading figure in the Russian foreign affairs think tank community, Andrei Kortunov, director of the Russian International Affairs Council, has shown in recent interviews that he is no better informed about what is going on in the Kremlin and what comes next.
Western experts are also shown by our media to be clueless. Today’s Financial Times article “Russia writes off security talks…” ends with a quote from Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace: “Nobody knows Putin’s next move. And we’ll all find out at the same time.”
By definition, ‘experts’ cannot declare they know nothing and be taken seriously. This reminds me of the saying of my boss for five years at ITT Europe in the 1980s, Georges Tsygalnitzky. Each time we sat down to prepare the annual Business Plan he told us that if we calculated the sales forecasts badly, we could be up to 100% off, but if we failed to deliver a Plan we would be “infinitely wrong.” The same rules apply to government defense planning.
No right-thinking person likes the idea of a major war coming to the middle of Europe, as the Ukrainians consider themselves to be. The United States has still more reason to worry about a looming war between Russia and Ukraine, because the outcome of total rout for the Kiev military forces equates to a bloody nose for Washington: its acknowledged 2.5 billion dollar investment in arming and training the Ukrainian military will have been in vain, and the loss would rival the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan in terms of American global prestige. The Biden administration would enter the midterm electoral period reeling from its losses in international relations.
Without wishing the Biden administration ill, I believe their scenario of a Russian invasion is wrong-headed and unimaginative. It fails to come to terms with the Russians’ imperatives on altering the security architecture in Europe as drivers of their current policies, not settling scores with Ukraine, or bringing them back to a common homeland, as Blinken & Company repeat ad nauseam.
So what comes next? In successive articles on this website, I have set out several scenarios, or algorithms. My most recent prognosis in yesterday’s piece was that Putin’s Plan B would likely be purely “military-technical” in the sense of roll-out of medium range nuclear capable missiles in Kaliningrad and Belarus, to place all of Europe under threat of attack with ultra-short warning times, such as Moscow finds unacceptable coming from U.S.-NATO encirclement of its territory.
At the same time, Moscow might announce the stationing off of the American East and West Coasts of its submarines and frigates carrying hypersonic missiles and the Poseidon deep sea nuclear capable drone, all to the same purpose, namely putting a pistol to the head of the U.S. leadership. And now there is even talk of Russia building military installations in Venezuela, likely to host Russian strategic bombers capable of swift attack on the Continental United States without having to fly half the world. And a Cuban delegation is reportedly in Moscow, no doubt talking about posssible installation of missiles there. This is all very reminiscent of the goings-on in 1962.
One reader of this essay has written in, saying that news of Russian submarines posted off the coast of New York and Los Angeles could sink the S&P. Yes, indeed, and this financial damage is an aspect of policy that the Russians have taken into account. The sensitivity of Wall Street to bad news was mentioned specifically by Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov earlier in the week in Q&A. The American middle classes may be indifferent to foreign affairs generally but they are very attentive and politically active when the value of their 401k pension fund is hit. It is not for nothing that wealth fund managers in the City of London, board members of leading U.S. banks and insurance companies are readers of my essays as reposted on my LinkedIn account.
I imagine that Russia’s Plan B could begin implementation in the next couple of weeks and would be given three or four weeks to take effect on Western public consciousness. If the United States and NATO still resisted coming to terms over changes to the Alliance that satisfy Russian demands, then I envision a Plan C which would indeed be kinetic warfare, but quite different from the invasion that figures in U.S. public statements and approaches to its allies.
Without putting a single soldier on the ground in Ukraine or contemplating direct overthrow of its regime and occupation, Russia could by “military-technical means,” such as missile and air attacks destroy the Ukraine’s command and control structure as well as “neutralize” the most radical nationalist militias and other hostile units now threatening Donbas. The destruction of Ukraine’s military infrastructure would by itself put an end to Washington’s plans for extensive war games there later in the year. We may assume that Russian forces will remain massed at the border till such operations are completed.
The clean-up of Ukraine, ending its potential to threaten Russian national security, would be a very strong signal to all of Europe to back off in practice even if no formal treaties are signed with Russia at present.
In an exchange with a close colleague in Washington this morning, we agreed a bet on whether my prediction holds. And in this casino of international politics, I invite readers to place their own bets on what comes next.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022
NATO Expansion: Blinken and Stoltenberg lie intentionally and the media let them
By Jan Oberg | The Transnational | January 13, 2022
To deceive, telling half-truths, or a complete lie is nothing new in politics, particularly security in politics. But until some 20-30 years ago, I would – perhaps naively – see it as an exception. Tragically – and perhaps to many readers’ surprise – it is now the rule. At least in U.S. and NATO circles, and that is particularly regrettably since The West professes to be a democratic system with specific values and even a moral leader to The Rest.
Lying systematically about facts – historical facts – and other countries and cultures should be incompatible with The West’s perception of itself. But, today, it isn’t.
Lies are widespread in so-called security politics when some militarist project doesn’t make any (common) sense to intelligent people, when the real motives have to be covered up and war is being prepared or when the sociological cancer called the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, and the elites it consists of, try to squeeze out even larger military expenditures from their taxpayers.
You lie to manufacture an enemy that can justify what you will do and enrich yourself. With 40+ years of experience in security politics in general and NATO/US policies in particular, I know too much – sorry for the arrogance – and have become too cynical to believe that what goes on goes on for the sake of self-defence, security or peace.
Some quick examples of gross empirically-revealed lying to the word – all the liars still at large:
• In the 1990s, Yugoslav President Milosevic was Europe’s new Hitler (Bill Clinton) and planned a genocide on the Albanians in Kosovo.
• Saddam Hussein’s soldiers threw babies out of their incubators in Kuwait City.
• Afghanistan had to be destroyed because of 9/11.
• Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
• The US-led Global War On Terror – GWOT – has been about reducing terrorism.
• The US/NATO orchestrated regime-change attempt in Syria from 2011 to 2016 was exclusively about Dictator al-Assad’s sudden sadist “killing of his own.”
• Gaddafi was just about to murder all who lived in Benghazi.
• The conflict around Ukraine was started by Putin’s “aggression” on Crimea, nothing preceded it.
• Iran has always plotted and lied to acquire nuclear weapons.
• There are only bad things to say about Russia and China and…
You may continue on your own.
A recent lie is particularly nasty because it is not about some limited event or pretext. It is a cynical attempt to rewrite contemporary history to justify (even further) NATO expansion and intimidate Russia.
The lie is this:
• The West’s leaders never promised Mikhail Gorbachev and his foreign minister Edvard Shevardnadze not to expand NATO eastward. They also did not state that they would take serious Soviet/Russian security interests around its borders. And that, therefore, each of the former Warsaw Pact countries has a right to join NATO if they decide to freely.
It is this lie I am going to deal with below, and you can hear these lies presented by Antony Blinken and Jens Stoltenberg – in slightly different versions – with crystal clarity in the following two videos.
Before I start, let me say that it has never been my style to focus on or attack individuals. I’ve always been more interested in structures and processes and in how they shape people. But there comes a time when leaders must be held accountable because they choose to lie repeatedly, although they do have the choice not to.
And because lies have often been war crimes in the making.
Antony Blinken
First, US Secretary-of-State, Antony Blinken on January 7, 2022 – scroll the video below to 38:30 where he begins to speak and distorts the Ukraine conflict history and then, at 43:00-45:00, continues to say that Russia is driving the false narrative that the West had given assurances to Russia/Gorbachev about not expanding NATO back in 1989-90. It wouldn’t and couldn’t, he says. And all the claims Russia makes are false and shall not permit “us” to be diverted from the main thing: Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.
Right after (45:40) comes another lie – Russia also invaded Georgia. Anyone who has studied the U.S. Congressional Research Service’s analysis of 2009, “Russia-Georgia Conflict in 2008: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests“, knows that this issue was vastly more complex and that it was Georgia – led by hotheaded U.S. friend Mikheil Saakashvili whose political life ever since has resembled a tragicomic farce – that had occupied the larger part of South Ossetia before Russia intervened massively. The responsibility for the war and violence can not seriously be placed on the Russian side alone.
And he continues his self-righteous accusations. Blinken’s list is long, and he reads his accusation list with a submachinegun speed, sometimes so stumbling and unclear that one must wonder whether he is uncomfortable because he is subconsciously aware that he lies, deceives and omits to make his psycho-political projections of the U.S.’s own dark sides sound intelligent, logical and truthful.
This U.S. Secretary of State can’t be bothered by facts or nuances. Neither could his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, who was proud to say that at the CIA, he directed “We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole. We had entire training courses…“. Mr Blinken continues reading his obsessive, hateful listing of all the sins of Russia. As if the US/NATO did not exist and, therefore, there was no conflict which normally takes a least two parties. In his comprehensive conflict illiteracy, this conflict has only one party: Russia.
The intellectual level is deplorable. NATO allies and mainstream media have no public opinion or critical views on any of it. One must assume that they agree and can make no better analyses themselves.
Now, take a look – at least at the sequences, I’ve mentioned above. Then, I show you how Mr Blinken is lying deliberately under the video.
If this link doens’t functionanymore, please use this. You may also see it on C-Span and YouTube here.
Now, how can Mr Blinken flatly deny that assurances were given to Gorbachev?
The only source I have been able to find is an article by Steven Pifer from 2014, which argues that Gorbachev himself denies that NATO expansion was ever discussed, “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” which refers to an interview with Gorbachev in Russia Beyond.
But this is a piece of citation fraud.
Steven Pifer quotes from it but stops right before the well-known statement in the interview article by then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch further east.” He also omits these words by Gorbachev himself:
“The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”
Can this really be interpreted to mean that Gorbachev says that no assurances were ever given?
We get a key to why Blinken uses a fake analysis: Because it fits his posturing as a paragon of truth and because Mr Pifer is a senior fellow at Brookings but also a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and adviser to one of the most hawkish think-tanks, Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.
A slight twist, omission or interpretative casuistry isn’t that important, is it? Well, if you are not yet convinced that Mr Blinken lies deliberately, I ask you to now go to the authoritative National Security Archive at George Washington University. It’s an incredible source of facts, and we should thank it for making the truth available through comprehensive documentation on so many security-related issues.
TFF has reproduced two essential pieces from that archive of irrefutable documentation that Gorbachev indeed was given such assurances – “cascades” of them! as is stated in the article – by all the most influential Western leaders at the end of 1989 and into 1990:
“NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev heard” – and
“NATO Expansion: The Budapest Blow Up 1994”
Read them, and you’ll be shocked.
You’ll find that they have lots of notes and, in sum, no less than 48 original historical documents. For instance, here is just one of the 48 informing us about then NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner’s view and statement:
“Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: “The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.“
Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion – “13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view” – and that he will speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries’ leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Woerner emphasizes that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.”
This is just one of the “cascades” of statements and assurances given to the Russians at the time. Over 30 years ago, 13 out of 16 members were against NATO expansion because they respected Russia’s crisis and legitimate security interests! Today – 2022 – NATO has 30 members.
Is the U.S. Secretary of State, his advisors and speechwriters unaware of the next-door National Security Archives and what is in them concerning one of contemporary history’s most important events: the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact? Are we really to believe that they have no clue about the conditions and dialogues at the end of the first Cold War? If so, they ought to resign or be fired for their unbelievable incompetence.
If not so – if they know the content of these historical documents – Mr Blinken, his advisors and speechwriters know that they lie.
Their words, therefore, should never be trusted. Neither should the media that avoid highlighting these lies and thereby become complicit. The task of a supposedly free press is to reveal the power abuse of democratically elected people who deliberately fill their constituencies with lies.
Simple as that.
Jens Stoltenberg
In this press conference video from January 7, 2022, NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg states some of the same rhetoric, distortions, simplifications and lies. Not to mention platitudes accompanied by an almost funny body language of bombastic gestures to compensate for his weak content, mantras and repetitions.
Listen at around 19:00 minutes how he maintains that NATO enlargement has been “extremely important for stability and peace and freedom and democracy in Europe” where it can indeed be argued that that enlargement is the main reason that Europe is now in a situation which can reasonably be called the 2nd Cold War.
Why else has NATO not created the desired and stipulated peace and stability since it was created in 1949? So, no, Mr Stoltenberg, you cannot continue – like your masters in Washington – to argue that the present war risks are caused by Russia and Russia alone? If that’s what they order you to say, you have the option to choose decency and resign.
The NATO Secretary-General repeats that each state has a sovereign right to decide its own course and choose its own security arrangements. And that NATO has not dragged in anybody, and they have all just decided democratically to become a member.
That is simply not true.
NATO as an alliance has enormous resources to influence opinions in potential member states. Contrary to his open door talk, NATO’s Charter speaks only about inviting new members, not about holding a door open for anyone who might want to join.
It should be well-known by now – but isn’t – that in the late 1990s, Vladimir Putin asked to join NATO – but it didn’t happen, did it, Mr Stoltenberg? And why not? Because Putin – Russia – wanted to be invited as an equal partner and not sit and wait till Montenegro had become a member, to put it bluntly. NATO decided to close the door at Putin’s request.
This – fantastic – story is told by a former NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson; there is no reason to assume that is not credible or just a rumour. Or, for that matter, that Putin was not serious.
And what an exciting thought: Russia in NATO! Who would Mr Stoltenberg and Mr Blinken – and all the rest of the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, then have to put all the blame on? How then legitimate NATO’s permanent armament and 12% higher military expenditures than Russia’s?
Mr Stoltenberg must know that he lies when saying NATO has an open door. It doesn’t for Russia. It doesn’t even have open ears for Russia’s security concerns (which each and every NATO member, the U.S. in particular, would consider reasonable if a Russian military alliance incrementally crept close to their borders).
And he must know that he lies when he acts as though he does not know that Russia has been against that very NATO enlargement that he fakes has been so positive for all of Europe during no less than 30 years.
Funnily, Stoltenberg first emphasises (around 19:30) that all new NATO members have freely decided to join. Then he boasts about all NATO does to train, help, support candidates and how important Ukraine is as a NATO partner while not a member. As he says, candidates need to carry through reforms to meet NATO standards. And NATO gives them “practical and political support” so they can – later – meet NATO standards and become members.
What an extraordinary altruism NATO radiates! Are we really to believe that NATO certainly drags in no one, as he maintains?
NATO set up an office in Kyiv, Ukraine, already in 1994, and here you can see how – incrementally – Ukraine has been dragged in, seduced, and promised a great Euro-Atlantic future in one document after the other.
And here you’ll see how Olga Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, standing at NATO’s H.Q. with Stoltenberg, consistently talks about NATO as Ukraine’s “allies,” expect all kinds of guarantees and – in Foreign Policy of course – argues that Ukraine Needs a Clear Path to NATO Membership in the face of Russian aggression.
And now, the integration process has probably gone so far that neither NATO nor Ukraine would be able to see any other alternative but full membership at some point. Being fiancées, why not marry through a formal membership – as has been said about Sweden?
In its Russia-humiliating policies, NATO has not even seen it coming: That with all the promises, structures and processes accumulating and creating expectations, the alliance would, at some point, run into serious conflict with Russia. If so, the entire alliance suffers from conflict illiteracy and a tremendous lack of foresight.
An that is why you have to construct Russia as a huge militarily aggressive state with an unsympathetic leader – one “we” can freely demonise and don’t even have to listen to.
Now, listen then to this Stoltenberg statement about the – real – importance of NATO’s help (20:45): “…It also makes the societies of Ukraine and Georgia stronger. So resilient, well-functioning societies are also less vulnerable from interference from Russia.”
Just a welcoming open NATO door to countries that decide freely and democratically that they want to knock on it?
It’s time for a reality check in NATO Realpolitik’s – outdated – world. If you do not manifestly want to provoke and increase war risks, you would do it completely differently every day since 1989.
The NATO expansion basis is obvious: Get as many as possible into NATO, demonise Russia and Putin and make it impossible for Russia to have any influence in Europe and on its future.
How strange, indeed, that Russia perceives the Alliance’s expansion right up to its borders as a deliberate military threat and a politically motivated undermining of its status and power!
How surprising that it thinks its security interests in its near-abroad should be respected, just because it has been invaded historically from the West and contained all along its borders since the Second World War in which, by the way, it lost some 24 million people!
It is tragic beyond words that the West has not a single politician today like Willy Brandt, Egon Bahr, Olof Palme or any of the real statesmen who gave Gorbachev cascades of assurance because they possessed two essentially important qualities: intellectual competence and empathy, a wish and ability to try to live themselves into the situation of “the other” and thereby think in terms of common security at lower military levels.
They were mature personalities basing their policies on analysis and consultations. They knew that you can only achieve security with and not against “the other”.
Instead, NATO has only anti-intellectual, self-centred and -aggrandising militarists running the self-defeating “know-everything-listen-to-nobody” show foolproven by history to lead to war.
And it is tragic beyond words that the peoples of Europe do not debate these issues and that all alternatives to militarism have been deprived of all their resources while NATO militarism costs trillions of dollars what are desperately needed in all other sectors of Western society.
In summary, the US/NATO world threw away the most significant and precious opportunity to create peace in Europe after 1945, when it decided to take advantage of Russia’s weakness. As suggested by Gorbachev and many security and peace intellectuals at the time, the members of the old blocs could have joined forces and created an entirely new all-European security and peace architecture.
We are now facing the tragic consequences of the arrogant winner-takes-it-all policy manifested by the US Clinton administration’s decision to ignore all the assurances and begin expanding NATO eastward in 1994, helped by submissive European allies that had neither the intellectual capacity nor political will to manifest their own interests.
That is why they have to lie to us today.
Notes
1. Over the years, TFF has published numerous analyses that can serve as supplements to this article. Several of them contain predictions and early warnings about the situation we are now facing:
TFF PressInfo # 390 – Ten articles on the new Cold War and a reflection (2016)
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev heard and how he was cheated (2017)Various on Ukraine
Jan Oberg’s blog: Maktspelet vid Rysslands gränser – Power games at the borders of Russia (2021) Containing also a series of highly relevant links
2. When you see the two videos above, note that all questions from the media are very understanding of the two speakers’ statements. Like – how will NATO ensure that it can react swiftly if Russia should invade Ukraine, etc. Press conferences have become carefully planned stage events with written statements being read allow and carefully selected pro-military media – critical questions a prior cancelled by organisers and reinforced by self-censorship. Where did we see that before? In the Soviet Union, but just done more clumsily.
3. The Guardian, January 12, 2022
Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today
A new book on this problem.
Schools Shouldn’t Mandate ‘Most Dangerous Vaccines in Human History’
The Defender | January 13, 2022
In late October and early November, the self-serving members of two committees advising the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) without a second thought endorsed experimental COVID vaccines for children as young as 5 years old.
Ignoring the 99.995% COVID survival rate for those age 17 and under, the 31 pharma-servile “experts” also appeared unconcerned by reams of damning data about COVID-vaccine-related disabilities and fatalities already occurring in the 12–17 age group — unnecessary tragedies being acknowledged that very instant in a panel discussion convened by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Predictably, adverse event data and urgent frontline healthcare provider testimony began pouring in almost immediately after the FDA-CDC go-ahead, with 5- to 11-year-olds experiencing the same kinds of “terrifying” vaccine reactions as adolescents — including blood clots, strokes and other brain and heart problems previously almost unheard-of in young people.
In the lead-up to the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization of experimental COVID jabs for younger children, state politicians and municipal school districts also started to grease the skids to mandate COVID injections for in-person school attendance.
To date, the number of states and school systems announcing or adopting coercive plans, either for K-12 students or students ages 12 or 16 and up, is still small. However, the symbolic weight of the “early adopters” is significant.
These include states like California and Louisiana (and soon New York); major cities like Washington, D.C. (and probably New York City); and large school districts such as those in Oakland, California, and Los Angeles.
In addition, the New York City and Washington, D.C. school districts, and some or all districts in California, Hawaii and Maryland, require students involved in sports and other extracurricular activities to get jabbed.
In what sounds like good news, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) confirmed 17 states — Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have enacted laws or issued executive orders that ban COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students.
However, most of the bans are limited to certain circumstances, with some applying only to higher education and some only to vaccines authorized under emergency use — meaning the ban would not apply to COVID vaccines that in the future gain full FDA approval for children.
Most dangerous ever
For decades, vaccines have been wreaking havoc on children’s health. For instance, consider the following:
- The 400 adverse events listed in the package inserts of licensed childhood vaccines
- The epidemic of chronic health problems in American children — including 1 in 16 boys with autism in California, the state with the highest autism rate in the nation
- The precipitous decline in sudden infant deaths that coincided with the disruption of “routine” vaccination during the 2020 lockdowns.
- The superior health of far less heavily vaccinated Japanese children.
So, when observers familiar with COVID injection data pronounce them “the most dangerous vaccines in human history,” that is saying something.
Dr. Joseph Mercola warned the COVID jabs are setting up children for “potentially lifelong health problems,” including serious heart problems resulting from myocarditis. As he wrote in early January:
“[T]he recent push to inject children with a genetic experiment may be one of the worst public health offenses perpetrated on a population of people who are unable to speak for themselves, do not have a legal voice and depend on adults to protect them.”
California ‘leads’
California spent the past half-dozen years systematically eliminating personal-belief vaccine exemptions and gutting medical exemptions.
Not content with those assaults on health freedom, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in early October — apparently reading the minds, weeks in advance, of the FDA and CDC committee members who subsequently rubber-stamped the COVID shots for 5- to 11-year-olds — that his state would impose a K-12 mandate in both public and private schools, making California the first state to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for in-person school attendance.
The mandate hinges on the vaccines “receiving full licensure from the FDA for children,” which the state expects in July 2022.
Seeking to normalize his COVID mandate, Newsom compared it to the existing school requirements for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination.
However, in light of the strong, statistically significant relationship between MMR vaccines and autism — and given California’s status as the state with the highest autism prevalence — Newsom’s comparison is scarcely reassuring.
Louisiana ignores
In mid-December, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards added COVID vaccines to the list of required school shots, overturning a bipartisan vote against such a mandate by the state’s House Health and Welfare Committee.
The push for the mandate originated with the Louisiana Department of Health. The House Health Committee then voted 13-2 to reject the department’s recommendation, stating that COVID vaccination “should be the parents’ decision,” a common-sense view shared by legislators and parents around the nation.
However, the governor vetoed the committee vote — and the wishes of citizens who packed the committee meeting to protest mandates — dismissively characterizing their objections as “overheated rhetoric.”
Louisiana’s governor and health officials also ignored remarks delivered at the health committee hearing by experienced Louisiana nurse Collette Martin, R.N. Martin provided testimony about serious adverse reactions in children and their widespread underreporting. She told the committee:
“We are not just seeing severe acute reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.”
Louisiana’s mandate, which goes into effect in fall 2022, currently applies only to students ages 16 and up, “but could expand as the vaccines get the highest level of approval” from the FDA.
School districts (try to) impose
In early January, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki asserted that decisions on school vaccine mandates “are up to local school districts.”
However, the U.S. Department of Education has been working with school districts, Psaki said, “to provide resources, connect school officials with testing providers, and set up vaccine clinics….”
Last September, Maryland’s health secretary disingenuously made similar comments, telling the press that the state prefers “not to be intentionally overbearing” or “interventionist” and instead encourages school systems “to take the lead in their individual jurisdictions.”
In California, school board members in several large school districts showed, as early as September, they were willing to “take the lead” in imposing mandates for in-person instruction.
The plans of school boards in Los Angeles (the nation’s second-largest school district), Oakland and San Diego have been undermined, however, by the large number of unvaccinated students and other apparently unforeseen pitfalls.
The Los Angeles school district, for example, pushed back its initial Jan. 10 deadline to the fall of 2022, because tens of thousands of uninjected students would have “overwhelmed the district’s independent study program.”
L.A. students ages 12 and up are supposed to upload proof of vaccination into a “Daily Pass” system. The L.A. district already requires students to undergo weekly testing (regardless of vaccination status) and subjects them to other measures such as “daily health checks,” masking and contact tracing and isolation of cases.
Three out of ten students failed to show up on the first day of school following winter break, “having tested positive for the coronavirus.”
Oakland’s school district will not enforce its mandate until Jan. 31, a month later than originally planned. When the school board voted (5-1-1) in favor of mandating COVID shots for in-person instruction for students 12 and up, it apparently did not bargain on nearly two-fifths of students in that age group (38%) remaining unvaccinated.
Casting the lone “no” vote, Oakland school board member Mike Hutchinson stated, “I don’t think we should be rolling out at midnight on a not very publicized meeting, talking about mandatory vaccinations when there’s nothing wrong with taking our due time to deliberate to make sure that we get it right.”
In December, however, Hutchinson indicated he would be comfortable deferring to the state-level mandate.
In late December in San Diego, a judge struck down the school district’s COVID vaccine mandate for students 16 and older, arguing the state legislature has not given individual school districts the authority to mandate vaccines for school attendance.
Not timid
An Oakland pediatrician who egged on her city’s school board to vote in favor of COVID mandates argued last fall, “This is not the time for timidity.”
However, as evidence accumulates about the injections’ outsized risks for children, it seems increasingly clear that a number of so-called public servants do not have a problem with timidity, having shown themselves perfectly willing to harm — and kill — children.
For former Pfizer executive Dr. Mike Yeadon, who has argued for months that the COVID injections “are toxic by design” and “were always going to harm people,” it seems obvious “criminal acts are being committed.”
Now is the time to push back against criminality and coercion — including COVID vaccine mandates and “vaccine passports” — in whatever ways we can. Our children’s lives, and our own lives, depend on it.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Children’s Health Defense Calling all Advocates to Show Up Strong in 2022
Children’s Health Defense
Show up at your statehouse on the first day of legislative session. People around the globe are showing up in protest of tyrannical government overreach and unconstitutional mandates to demand that lawmakers defend freedom.
Our Defenders around the globe worked hard in 2021 using their voices and presence to stand against tyranny, discrimination, coercion and unconstitutional mandates. This unique time in history calls for consistent daily action and ongoing peaceful non-compliance to preserve freedoms and return to democracy.
Constituents and legislators are being barred entry into their statehouses based on their vaccination status. In some states, legislators have surrendered their power to corrupt governors who are ruling by edict – they are removing freedoms instead of protecting them. Our elected officials need constant reminders that they work for the tax paying citizens of this country. On day one of the 2022 legislative session, they must see our faces, hear our voices and know that we will not go away quietly.
The tyranny ends when We the People stand up!
Children’s Health Defense is encouraging concerned citizens around the world to Show up Strong at their statehouse for the first day of the 2022 legislative session. In partnership with our state and international chapters, partners and affiliates, we are calling on all of humanity to come together and peacefully assemble to stand against mandates. They are coming for our children and the only thing that stands in their way is We the People.
Here’s how you can Show up Strong at your Statehouse in 2022:
- Find the date for the start of your state’s 2022 legislative session.
- Organize and invite local groups and community members to show up at your statehouse on that day. Encourage people to take a sick day and pull their kids from school. Band together to work with as many groups in your community concerned with freedom and our right to choose what goes on and in our bodies.
- Create promotional graphics for Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram with our free design templates to promote your event and get the word out!
- Be sure to share your rally with CHD to be featured on this Worldwide Walkouts page and our Community Calendar.
- Visit our Advocacy Hub to download, print and share educational flyers and postcards with your community and elected officials.
- Download, print and share our new stickers and “Stick to the Truth.” Look for high traffic, high-exposure public areas such as community bulletin boards and utility poles to share important truth based messages to counter the media brainwashing.
- Mark your calendar for January 23rd, 2022 for the “Defeat the Mandates” for a march at 11:30 am ET from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial followed by a rally. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. along with many others will be addressing the crowd. We are going to come together – black, white and hispanic; vaccinated and unvaccinated; Democrats and Republicans – to fight for freedom and to march on Washington in peace. The discrimination against the unvaccinated is an assault against the very fabric that makes us a free, democratic society. Go to www.defeatthemandatesdc.com to sign up and join us! #DoNotComply
Never has there been a more important time to fight back and protect our rights to stop this tyranny and government overreach.
Be a defender of truth, freedom and health. Join us in 2022 and SHOW UP STRONG!
“How Bad is my Batch” The story of my vaccine injury – Robert W Malone MD, MS
By Robert W Malone MD, MS | January 13, 2022
In fact, I do have a personal life. My wife of of 42 years and I are actually pretty private. Sharing personal history is not something I do everyday. However, as many of you know – I was vaccinated with Moderna twice and had a pretty significant vaccine injury. This was pretty early in the roll-out of the vaccines. It was long before the FOIA Japanese pre-clinical trial data that had so many red-flags and irregularities, long before we learned of all the issues with the clinical trials, and long before the VAERs and adverse events began to be known.
To write it, I have never been an “anti-vax” person. I have spent my career working with vaccines. I also know that some vaccines are “hot,” and are less safe. Usually these types of vaccines are reserved for extremely dangerous viruses like Ebola or Yellow fever. Where the goal is to make the vaccine 100% effective. Other vaccines, that are distributed widely, like the flu vaccines need to be very safe. The trade-off being that they are less effective. There is a whole science and art to crafting vaccines to appropriately respond to the “threat.” So, I know to read the literature, do my own due- diligence, etc before taking an experimental product or any vaccine. That is what I thought I did. The government assured us that these vaccines were very safe. I could never imagine that clinical data would be corrupted and even falsified – as we now know it was.
Anyway, back to my story. I knew in the beginning of April, 2021, that I had to travel overseas and the word on the street was that the European Union was going to require full vaccination before entering any EU country by summer (that actually never happened BTW). I knew that a full vaccination protocol was a process of weeks – and that i had better get started! Furthermore, there was a lot of buzz around the idea that vaccination would help with “long-COVID.” I had already had COVID, and just couldn’t shake a number of chronic issues that I had developed after getting the disease. Frankly, I should have done more homework on that one- because this idea really didn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Be that as it may, in April, 2021, I got vaccinated. It was early enough in the cycle, that I had no choice but to take the Moderna vaccine, as that was available in my area The vaccine was distributed at a local college, with the Army Reserves administering the program.
The first shot was fine. No issues.
The second shot almost did me in. As in I almost died.
After the injection, I had the usual fatigue, muscle-ache and then the palpitations started, as well as shortness of breath. Within a couple days, it got worse – I am not someone who goes to the doctor easily, but luckily for me, I happened to have a routine appointment with my physician. She cuffed me and my systolic blood pressure was through the roof. As she is also a cardiologist, she had more tests run, started me on high blood pressure meds and we got it under control. I kind of feel like I owe her my life. A call out to the fantastic Dr. C. Bove.
Fast forward to today.
One of the people who comments on my Substack articles, pointed me to this website:
This site matches up vaccine batch codes with information from the VAERS system, which is the event reporting system run by the CDC. This site matches the vaccine batches to adverse drug reactions, death, disability and life threatening illnesses from the VAERS system
According to the website above, the data reported in VAERS, reproduced on the site, show that adverse events triggered by Moderna batches have varied widely.
- 5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions
- Some Moderna batches are associated with 50 x the number of deaths and disabilities compared to other batches.
With that knowledge, I entered my batch code in the search box. The first injection had almost no significant adverse events associated with it. The second jab, frankly shocked me
Here are the results:
Now, I don’t know how many doses are in each batch. But I do know my batch was most definitely in the top 5%. So, not really a surprise in retrospect that I had such a serious adverse event profile.
I always felt I was lucky that I happened to be going to my physician that day, who is also a cardiologist (she is my internist – so I wasn’t seeing her for that specialty).
But just think- our government had this data way back when in the VAERs system -even last summer. This data is so compelling and yet… crickets. How many people could they have helped by releasing this data? People like me, who if I wasn’t a physician and hadn’t gone to my physician could have easily dropped dead.
What is wrong with our government that a site like this is not available from the CDC or the FDA?
If anyone has any doubts about adverse events from these vaccines, take a look at some of the peer reviewed research or look at the VAERS data for deaths in young adults and children.
People have the right to be given informed consent of risks and benefits of a medical procedure. Informed consent is not given, if the risks are hidden.
WHERE THERE IS RISK, THERE MUST BE CHOICE
Saturday Night Fights at the Pharmacy
BY PIERRE KORY | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JANUARY 13, 2022
I am exhausted: physically, emotionally, and morally. Although I am not sure moral exhaustion is “a thing,” the daily witnessing of masses of physicians and pharmacists abandoning their core responsibility of placing the welfare of the patient as their primary consideration is beyond wearying.
In the United States of Pharma, individual docs and pharmacists have been led so far astray, forgivably or unforgivably, due to the relentless barrage of dis-information targeted at them by the federal pharmaceutical regulators (further supported by relentless, daily propaganda appearing in both major media and medical journals).
Let us be clear about the rule and tradition. In the US, doctors are permitted to prescribe any medicine that has been approved by the FDA, even for indications the medicine was not originally approved for. Such “off-label” prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA.
Pharmacies are there to fill prescriptions, and in only rare circumstances and in only a handful of states do they have the right to refuse to fill a valid prescription. Otherwise, what medicines are deployed, for whom, and for what purpose, is a matter between patient and doctor. This is the long-standing rule.
This principle has been violated now for almost two years. It has created a labyrinth of confusion over basic and well-tested therapies for dealing with a virus that can be very serious for many.
It is no longer the case that any doctor can depend on any pharmacist to distribute safe and effective medicines. They are very likely now to say no and they do so as a result of having been been unfairly intimidated by the threatening memos issued by federal agencies and the state medical and pharmacy boards. These reprehensible actions are just the latest salvo in the pharmaceutical industry’s decades-long war on off-patent, repurposed medicines.
What prompts me to write this was my most recent failure (and the resulting distress that led to terrible sleep last night) over not being able to get a pharmacist to fill my orders in the hours prior to closing of pharmacies for an acutely ill COVID patient that had contacted me reporting high fevers, sore throat, and body aches.
I immediately wanted to start him on a short course combination regimen of three, old, safe, cheap generic medications, all with large clinical trials evidence bases showing high efficacy against COVID (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine). What is important to note is that, months ago I stopped trying to contact ANY pharmacy unless I KNEW they would fill my scripts for these off-patients medications because unless I knew a pharmacy was “safe”, I ran a high probability of entering an un-affordably time-wasting and ultimately losing argument with some smug, obstinate pharmacist.
As a result, we early treatment docs have long since been forced to build lists of “safe haven” pharmacies where we know we can easily get access to these medicines for our patients.
However, last night, I was inspired to make an attempt on a new, unknown pharmacy on behalf of my new patient as I had just read Steve Kirsch’s substack about my colleague and early COVID-treatment pioneer/expert Dr. Brian Tyson, in which was included the letter written by Dr. Brian Tyson’s attorney (also with the last name Tyson) that was used to “sway” a local pharmacy that had suddenly refused to fill.
The letter is thorough, deeply well-argued, and informs the pharmacists that they are; 1) violating the civil rights of patients, 2) interfering with a physician’s ability to practice medicine and 3) exhibiting behavior that constitutes the unlicensed and negligent practice of medicine.
Now, I had argued all these points before in previous “conflicts” with pharmacists, but never all at the same time, and rarely threatening a lawsuit. Duly and newly emboldened I made the call.
4:20 Pacific time (pharmacies close there at 6pm).
Transcript (from memory):
“Hi, I’d like to call in a prescription for a couple of patients.”
“OK, what’s the first patients name and date of birth?”
“Timothy Thomas (not his real name), born Nov. 6th, 1977.”
(pause, clacking of keyboard)
“OK, what does he need?”
(Wait for it)
“He needs ivermectin, 3 milligram tablets, I want him to take 15 each day as he is a big guy, and for 5 days with a refill. Then he needs, hydroxychloro…
“Doctor, I am sorry but I cannot fill the ivermectin. The owner has said we are not to fill for COVID, there is no evidence it works.”
“Listen, I don’t know who the owner is but you are the pharmacist on duty, and I am calling in a prescription to you, not the owner.”
“I, I, I am sorry but I can’t.”
I look at the letter, and then start spewing rapid fire arguments at him, “well unfortunately for you, my patient is an executive of a company and their lawyer is prepared to and will send a letter of intent to sue if it has not been filled because you are violating his civil rights, blocking my licensed ability to practice medicine and care for my sick patient, and you are clearly practicing medicine illegally and highly ignorantly. You should at least know what you are doing if you are going to do it without a license man.”
“But I am allowed to refuse, doctor.”
“That is what you think and what you have been told… But, I can promise you, that when you bring your arguments up in court as to why you refused, they will not hold up if any harm comes to my patient by your refusal. They will NOT HOLD UP, but you can try. The lawyer will serve the letter on Monday, I promise you, we are fed up out here and are fighting back, all of my fellow physicians being blocked by pharmacists are now using legal action (OK, so I overstated things a bit), I am sorry you are in the position you are in, but you have no rational or scientific evidence to support a refusal, but if you want to go to court to find out, we can make that happen for you”
“I, I feel intimidated.”
“Well, I am sorry for that, but you are hurting my patient and my ability to care for them. It is THEY who YOU are intimidating Sir. All you have to do is take my script, fill it, and we don’t have to go on like this. These medications are FDA approved, I am using them off-label based on a large body of evidence and experience in COVID, and off label prescribing is both legal and historically encouraged by the FDA. You are clearly practicing medicine and I promise that will be proven to you in a court of law. Please just fill it and you wont have to hear from me or my patient again.”
(Pause, silence)
“I cannot do it, I am not supposed to.”
“OK then, I will also remind you that you are legally required to provide me your name and license number as we will be pursuing legal action against you.”
“I am not giving you my name, I am not comfortable with that.”
“OK, so you think I can’t find it out? Fine, I am also documenting this refusal. Again, I am not interested in a contentious argument, I am asking you simply to fill the prescriptions for two sick patients who need my help, and if you do, you won’t have to hear from me or the patient’s lawyer.”
He whispers. “OK, tell me the rest of the prescriptions.”
I tell him the rest, then say, “my patient will be there by closing time, thank you and I apologize for my tone but I am just trying to do the best for my sick patients.”
Victory? Yes! Haven’t won one of these in months.
I finish telling him the rest of the scripts for my patient and his wife (I also needed to call in medicines for her so she could have some on hand and also begin ivermectin as a prophylactic agent given it ensures an easier course even if she is already or eventually becomes infected).
I then happily call the patient, tell him to get his wife to pick up the medicines along with the other over-the-counter compounds that have clinical trials supporting their use. And then I go to the couch to literally lay down (insane day of dozens of patient care requests, other zooms and phone calls, maybe 12+ hours on the phone).
30 minutes later… patients texts me… my wife went there and the pharmacist won’t fill.
Now, despite the fact that I co-wrote a document with Executive Director Kelly Bumann of the FLCCC and Unity Project Founder Jeff Hanson, called “Overcoming the Barriers to Access,” which is a document full of sound, pragmatic tactics and dialogue examples offered to patients (and docs) in order to help them navigate such pharmacist obstructions, they typically will not work when it is an hour before closing on a weekend.
So, here I am the next morning. Fortunately I was able to get two of the medicines filled through another pharmacy, with enough for his wife as she unsurprisingly fell ill overnight (omicron moves fast). Unfortunately, they will have to wait until tomorrow to get the third medicine from a “friendly” or “underground” pharmacy (not really underground but you get the analogy).
This is what it is like out here trying to fight for patients sick with COVID – widespread delays in care as blocking access to generic or “repurposed” medicines by ignorant/arrogant pharmacists is ubiquitous. The majority of pharmacists (not all!) have simply stopped thinking critically or devoting effort to review the evidence base, instead simply believing what they are told by their Boards (a.k.a. their “Ministries of Truth”). As if the insane numbers of ill omicron patients to care for is not challenging enough.
In the words of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, who went after his state’s Pharmacy Board when they tried to scare the states pharmacists away from prescribing ivermectin by sending them threatening letters, “it is shocking that pharmacists are suddenly developing a conscience after spending the last decade handing out opiates like they were M & M’s”.
Well said and tragically absurd.
This newfound conscience influencing such actions is likely further fueled by a sometime resident psychology of pharmacists who may feel “less than” a physician given their limited scope of patient care tasks.
Emboldened by a seemingly legal opportunity to assert superiority and control over physicians, many find these irresistible. Consequently, they seem to be “getting off” from telling the “stupid” doctors that the Ministry of Truth has done the research for them and the Ministry has found, that in the name of science, doctors should stop using “ineffective horse de-wormer” to treat COVID.
Just another day in the life of an early COVID treatment expert.
A version of this article appeared on the author’s substack.
Pierre Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist, Teacher/Researcher. He is also the President and Chief Medical Officer of the non-profit organization Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance whose mission is to develop the most effective, evidence/expertise-based COVID-19 treatment protocols.
Why Biden gets my vote as the worst President in US history
I believe history will judge President Biden as the worst President in US history. Here’s why.
By Steve Kirsch | January 13, 2022
Biden’s approval rating has dropped to a new low of 33%. I think it’s going to go even lower. I think history will eventually judge him as the worst President in US history. Sure, Biden didn’t create COVID. But by enabling Fauci instead of firing him, he has turned a bad situation (COVID) into a national and worldwide disaster.
A wise chief executive will always solicit opposing points of view on any important decision
The most important quality in a chief executive is his decision-making ability.
Take, for example, the question as to whether or not to mandate the vaccination of the entire population of the US with a vaccine which was never properly tested on animals (they never did the amount, duration, and distribution studies of the spike protein on non-human primates, for example, and still haven’t) and where the safety signals in VAERS are off the charts (and nobody can explain the reason for that other than using hand-waving arguments without any evidence).
You’d think he might solicit input from at least a dozen experts who hold differing viewpoints before making the decision. People like Robert F. Kennedy, Robert Malone, Byram Bridle, Geert Vanden Bossche, and Peter McCullough should be at the top of the invite list for a decision like this.
Nope, not going to happen. Biden is just going to listen to one side of the story (NIH, CDC, and FDA) and go with it. It’s a good bet that Biden never read RFK Jr.’s book on Fauci.
Biden made sure nobody else would hear the other side of the story too
Biden didn’t stop at just poor decision making. He went one step further. A step that as far as I know, no other US President has ever taken. He actually has a Disinformation Dozen list of people to censor. Not only doesn’t he want to listen to differing viewpoints, but he also wants to make sure you don’t hear differing viewpoints either.
The surveys I’ve done all show that nearly 100% of Americans believe it is wrong for an American President to have a censorship list. Yet, not a single member of Congress has voiced any objection to Biden’s censorship list. That’s stunning to me.
And government censorship is not limited to just the people on the Disinformation Dozen list. The censorship directive extends to anyone who disseminates information that differs from the official government narrative.
Do you think the social media companies are doing this censorship on their own? No way. They are being instructed to censor the information by the government. This is why none of the social media companies will discuss the science with us; the decision was made above their heads so any discussion of the facts are irrelevant.
The same is likely true of medical boards. As far as I know, all of them resolved to take away the livelihood of anyone who dares to speak in opposition to what the CDC says. They all decided to do this within about a week of each other. No evidence of patient harm is required. The bottom line is that in America today, your license to practice medicine can be revoked for what you say, even if there is no proof whatsoever that anyone has been harmed.
In fact, I just learned last night that Dr. Meryl Nass had her license to practice medicine revoked for speaking out. This sends a chilling message to all medical professionals: say anything we don’t agree with and we’ll destroy both your reputation and your ability to earn and income.
How does President Biden feel about the censorship? He likes it. He thinks we should do more of it.
Contrast Biden’s views with that one of America’s most beloved Presidents:
Biden is now promoting the use of an intervention which does nothing more than make people believe they are being protected
This is outrageous. Masks do not work. There are only two randomized trials for masks relative to COVID specifically (the Denmark and Bangladesh studies) and both proved masks did nothing. Nobody will debate any of us on this.
Now Biden is compounding the error by spreading misinformation that masks make a difference. This lulls people into a false sense of security they are being protected which makes the problem worse.
If Biden really wanted to stop COVID misinformation, he could solve it in a heartbeat: stop talking.
There are no debates either: nobody can get a debate
America isn’t allowed to hear both sides of the most important story of the decade. They are only allowed to hear the government narrative unchallenged.
I can’t get a recorded video debate with anyone from the CDC, NIH, or FDA. They all refuse to debate any members of our team.
Even TrialSiteNews called for a debate on vaccine safety and not a single qualified person responded.
Jake Tapper insulted RFK Jr, and RFK challenged him to a debate. Jake refused.
Ever see Robert Malone interviewed on CNN or in the The NY Times? Not going to happen. You aren’t allowed to hear any views that differ from the government narrative. Reminds me of how China and North Korea operate.
And there are Americans like Dr. Ben Rein of Stanford University and Taylor Nichols MD who both want to tighten things down even more. Nichols wants to revoke the medical license of anyone who says anything counter-narrative. Rein wants Malone censored. I asked Rein and Nichols if they would debate us. No answer from either.
None of the people promoting the myth that the vaccines are safe and effective is willing to be challenged on their assertions in a neutral public forum
It’s clear why:
It’s getting even worse… if you have differing views, they’ll lock you up
The impact of not soliciting divergent views: at least 150,000 dead Americans… maybe over 400,000
At least 150,000 Americans have been killed by the COVID vaccines. The benefit? We might save 10,000 deaths from COVID, but probably not that high since the virus mutated since the Phase 3 trials. We kill 15 people to maybe save 1 life. That’s insane.
Note that 150,000 is a minimum. The actual number is likely larger than that; probably larger than all the Americans who died in World War II.
In this case, these people died for nothing. They died because of a poor decision by a US President to deploy an unsafe and inadequately tested vaccine on America.
Mark my words, the immediate deaths and disability are just the tip of the iceberg. There are going to be very severe repercussions of these vaccine that will be felt for years to come including deaths from myocarditis, increasing cancer rates, prion diseases, lack of fertility, and negative vaccine efficacy causing us to be more vulnerable to diseases.
The decision to deploy and mandate these vaccines is going to go down in history as the worst mistake ever made by a US President.
President Biden is not going to correct it either, even after it is obvious that he’s now killing our kids.
Ernest Ramirez lost his only son, 16-years-old, just 5 days after the first shot. It was determined that the vaccine killed him. Did the CDC care? No. They ignored it, just like all the vaccine injuries and deaths. They still tell people that nobody has died from the vaccine. OK, fine, if nobody died from the vaccine then tell us what caused the death of his son?
How many kids do we have to kill or permanently disable (like Maddie de Garay) before Biden admits he screwed up?
Biden will never admit he made a mistake. Presidents never like to admit they were wrong. He’s never going to admit he’s killed 150,000 Americans. But we all know.
At best, he’ll drop the mandate. But even that is unlikely.
I’m not getting any more shots. My wife isn’t either. But two of our kids are still convinced that the vaccines are safe and effective. Their argument is typical, “Dad, none of my friends have died from the vaccine.” They are both adults and I can’t change their minds. Not only that, they are being forced to take the booster by their schools (Harvard and University of Rochester). They could end up dead or disabled.
I’m sure other parents are in similar situations.
So that’s why Biden has lost all my trust. Apparently, I’m not alone as his approval rating is at an all time low. I am certainly trying to do my part to drive his approval rating to zero.
Featured Video
Why the U.S. Should Pull Back From the First Island Chain
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
‘Why Fauci Must Rot in Prison’: A Tale of Two Diaries
By Jill Erzen | The Defender | October 13, 2026
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s private diary reveals a “mind-numbing” contradiction between what the former top U.S. infectious disease official knew about COVID-19 and what he told the public, senior White House adviser Peter Navarro, Ph.D., said last week on “American Thought Leaders.”
In his new book, “Why Fauci Must Rot in Prison,” due out Oct. 20, Navarro compares Fauci’s private entries to his own pandemic-era diary, and uses what he calls “a tale of two diaries” to argue that Fauci should face criminal prosecution.
“I show, actually, how a prosecution can and should happen … at the state level, most likely,” Navarro said. “He should wind up in prison, and we’ve got the receipts in this book to put him there.”
Navarro said Fauci repeatedly acknowledged important facts in private, then publicly pursued policies that contradicted those facts — with devastating consequences.
“What he says many times privately in his diary is so at odds with both his public behavior and public statements that it’s mind-numbing,” Navarro said.
Navarro examines the lasting damage caused by lockdowns and other pandemic policies, and the ongoing toll of long COVID.
His book also addresses questions about vaccine safety, including why healthy young people faced COVID-19 vaccination mandates despite concerns about myocarditis, and why women were not warned about miscarriage risks linked to the shots. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Jennifer Kavanagh: Why the U.S. Should Pull Back From the First Island Chain
- Yemen denounces international community’s silence on Saudi aggression, siege
- UAE and Saudi Arabia move toward renewed coordination against Sanaa
- How Iran’s two-week retaliatory strikes exposed cracks in US military architecture in Persian Gulf
- The mother of all propaganda: Why the hype over US MOAB strike against Iran is nothing but theater
- Iran says it possesses technology behind US 14-ton GBU bunker-buster
- Trump asks Iran not to retaliate after he strikes Pickaxe Mountain – w/ Prof. Marandi
- Vice President J.D. Vance’s Deceptive ‘Antiwar’ Campaign Speech
- Iran: Palestinians’ rights must not be compromised in Gaza’s future; US, Israel to blame for Hormuz situation
- Ongoing tales of Syrian chemical weapons
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli rabbi permits occupiers to steal Palestinian olive harvest in West Bank
- Netanyahu’s spin on latest settler attack is laughable – Daily Update
- Israeli soldiers debunk Israel’s talking points
- In West Bank, Israeli settlers are totally out of control – Daily Update
- NPR investigation finds evidence of widespread fraud at mall kiosks tied to Israeli skincare brand
- Tucker Carlson exposes Israeli Lies about the Oct 7th attack, Charlie Kirk, and the U.S.
- Israel has detained thousands of Palestinian children since Oct 7th – over half spent time in solitary, many uncharged
- Israeli Analysis: Is Netanyahu Planning an ‘October Surprise’ Attack Before Israel’s Election?
- Israeli settlers brutally attack Palestinians and Washington Post female photographer, 65
- Words Have Changed, Occupation Continues: The Reality of the Gaza Ceasefire
- No Tricks Zone
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Proifessor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- 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
