Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Dr Scott Jensen Announces Candidacy for Governor of Minnesota

21st Century Wire | March 10, 2021

Over the last 12 months, one of the leading voices opposing pandemic hysteria has been former Minnesota state senator Dr. Scott Jensen. According to a press release obtained by the Minnesota Reformer, Jensen is expected to announce his candidacy for governor of the state next week.

Dr. Jensen, 66, a qualified physician, gained global popularity after appearing on national TV and coming out challenging the government response to COVID-19 and explaining how reactionary policies are out of proportion in relation to the actual risk posed by this seasonal coronavirus. His popular testimonials have since been serialized in thousands of video presentations online.

Jensen also questioned his state’s Department of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines regarding how deaths from COVID-19 were being recorded.

He also took on the official ‘consensus’ of politicians and the medical community and exposed the scandal of how hospitals had a financial incentive in declaring a patient a COVID “case”, as well as financial incentives for hospitals to needlessly place people on ventilators – a dangerous procedure which many do not survive.


Based on the adversarial tone of the Reformer’s report, it seems that the political and medical establishment are afraid of Jensen: “His status as a physician could give him credibility to attack Walz on the governor’s COVID-19 response, except by the fall of 2022 the pandemic is likely to have evaporated. And, Jensen’s comments about the pandemic will likely face intense scrutiny.”

According to the their report, Dr. Jensen has confirmed the announcement with the headline “Jensen Announces Run for Minnesota Governor” had indeed been drafted, and is set to be released on March 16th.

Some of the text of the release includes:

“He will elevate thoughtful discourse, engage in difficult conversations, and will not allow pandering groupthink to impede the vital contributions science can provide,” the release reads. “Scott is excited to embark on this journey and looks forward to meeting with his fellow Minnesotans across the state and restoring their hope and freedom.”

Jensen, a Republican, would be the first candidate to run against first-term Democratic-Farmer-Labor Gov. Tim Walz.

March 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

US Marines in the Sandino War 1926-1933

Tales of the American Empire | March 4, 2021

During the 19th century, American leaders kept an eye on Nicaragua as a potential site for a transoceanic canal. US navy warships periodically arrived at Nicaraguan ports to protect American interests and fostered U.S. business investments under the strong-man rule of President José Santos Zelaya. When Zelaya began courting Europeans for the building of a canal and welcomed European business investments, American leaders called Zelaya a tyrannical, self-serving, brutal, and a greedy disturber of Central American peace. In December 1926, President Calvin Coolidge ordered warships and more US Marines to Nicaragua. He told Congress that “disturbances and conditions in Nicaragua seriously threaten American lives and property, [and] endanger the stability of all Central America.” This resulted in the Sandino War that cost the lives of an estimated 3000 Nicaraguans and 136 US Marines.

______________________

“Yankee Imperialism 1901-1934”; United States Foreign Policy; http://peacehistory-usfp.org/yankee-i…​

“The Sandino Rebellion 1927-1934”; photos from the US National Archives; http://www.sandinorebellion.com/Photo…​

“Life and Death of an Activist: ‘Wild’ Bill Grandall”; Stephan Braun; Los Angeles Times; April 13, 1991; https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-x…​

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

How Israel is Shaping Biden’s Iran Policy

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 09.03.2021

While Joe Biden the candidate wanted to quickly normalise relations with Iran and re-enter the JCPOA, Joe Biden the president has, as the developments that have happened so far, deviated from his stated course of action. To a large extent, Biden has appropriated Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy and has refused to lift sanctions on Iran and simply make the US a part of the Iran nuclear deal. To a significant extent, this dramatic change in policy, while not completely surprising for the Iranians, is a result of the way Israel is pushing the Biden administration away from reconciliation and normalisation. In fact, a crucial reason for Biden’s appropriation of Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy is the way the Israelis have very quickly implanted their own discourse vis-à-vis Iran in the mindset of the Biden administration. Echoing what the Israelis have been saying for years, Antony Blinken recently remarked that Iran was only “weeks” or “months” away from making a bomb. Although there is a huge difference between having the capacity to build a bomb and actually building and using a bomb, the US sees this [doubtful] proximity to building a bomb as a crucial factor that has made the Biden administration change its plans from re-joining the JCPOA to emphasising renegotiations. It has led it to refuse to lift sanctions.

The hard-line position that the Biden administration has taken feeds directly into the Israeli narrative. What Blinken said matches perfectly with what Israeli officials have also recently claimed. According to a recent assessment issued by Israel’s Militray Intelligence Directorate, “Iran may be up to two years away from making a nuclear weapon if it chooses to do so.” The report further says that Iran’s current enrichment level brings it closer to various “breakout” estimates about how quickly it could enrich uranium to 90%, and also begin to build better missiles and a weapons system that might lead to a nuclear weapon.

For Israel, therefore, it is of utmost importance that the US remains focused on the “violations” that Iran has committed by enriching uranium beyond the limits imposed by the JCPOA. A recent report of The Jerusalem Post thus sums Israel’s current approach. It says, “What is important for Israel is that the brinkmanship continue, and that Iran’s violations and Israel’s concerns continue to be recognized. For that to happen, it is also important for close US-Israel cooperation and discussion in order to prevent nuclear proliferation by the Tehran regime.”

The report refers to an IDF intelligence officer Maj.-Gen. Tamir Heiman who said in a briefing on the IDF assessment that Iran is at an unprecedented low point and is “battered, but on its feet,” following actions carried out by Israel and the US. Tehran is banking on the Biden administration for some breathing room. It is incumbent on the US – and Israel – to make sure that is not allowed to happen for nothing.”

Now, the fact that the Biden administration has refused to take a step back and lift its sanctions to pave the way for the US’ re-entry shows how closely the US and Israel are already coordinating their policies vis-à-vis Iran. The Biden administration’s announcement that the US would not re-join the agreement or even lift sanctions unless Iran halts enrichment dovetails perfectly with what Netanyahu had said just before the US elections. To quote him, “There can be no going back to the previous nuclear agreement. We must stick to an uncompromising policy of ensuring that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons.”

The Biden’s administration’s capitulation to Israel’s uncompromising policy vis-à-vis Iran has led Iran to stick to its own path. An official Iranian statement released on February 28 said that:

“the way forward is quite clear. The US must end its illegal and unilateral sanctions and return to its JCPOA commitments. This issue neither needs negotiation, nor a resolution by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to actions with action and just in the same way that it will return to its JCPOA commitments as sanctions are removed…”

The hardening of US and Iranian positions serves Israeli interests in the best possible way. An unresolved nuclear power tussle in the Middle East would keep Israel at the centre stage of regional politics. Given Israel’s recent rapprochement with the UAE and other Gulf states, tensions in the Gulf would not only reinforce Israel’s direct security ties with these Gulf states, but the scenario could very well make other Gulf states join The Abraham Accords. Tensions with Iran, therefore, could allow Israel to establish itself as the new regional hegemon.

Israel has already got supporters in the form of not only the UAE but Saudi Arabia as well. They have both stated that they would be open to a deal only if it went well beyond the previous one. According to them, any deal, in addition to putting limits on Iran’s nuclear program, must include provisions aimed at reversing Iran’s ballistic missile program, ending its “meddling” in other countries and the militias it supports in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.

Israel, as it stands, is already leading the Gulf states in lobbying the US for an agreement that not only limits Iran’s nuclear program, but also curtails its national power potential in many other ways. As some reports in the US mainstream media show, the Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, and a team of experts will soon travel to Washington to brief senior American officials about what they see as the threats still posed by Iran, hoping to persuade the US to hold out for harsher restrictions on Iran in any deal.

Iran, on the other hand, is unlikely to change its position vis-à-vis any new deal, especially the one that tends to force it into a virtual capitulation. China and Russia continue to support an unconditional US return to the JCPOA in exchange for Iran’s return to full compliance with the deal. An unconditional return “is the key to breaking the deadlock,” said Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China’s foreign ministry, in a recent news conference.

But “breaking the deadlock” is not what Israel and its allies in the Gulf are seeking to achieve. They are pushing the US to adopt a policy that keeps the deadlock alive unless Iran’s power and regional influence can be fully and permanently curtailed. For the Israelis, the path to Iran’s capitulation demands a US capitulation to Israel first so that they can shape the US policy in a way that best serves their interests. So far, the Israelis have been successful.

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin: Alleged US Plans to Stage Cyberattacks on Russian Networks Would Amount to Int’l Crime

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 09.03.2021

The Kremlin is seriously concerned over media reports about a possible US cyberattack against Russia, the Russian president’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday.

“This is alarming information because a rather influential American news outlet admits the possibility of such cyberattacks. Actually, this is nothing but international cybercrime and, of course, the fact that this news outlet acknowledges the possibility of the US being involved in this cybercrime is a reason for our extreme concern”, Peskov pointed out.

He also recalled that as far as Russia is concerned, it has never been involved in cybercrimes.

“In this context, it is important to recall that we have repeatedly stated and still insist that the Russian side, the Russian state has never had and has nothing to do with any manifestations of such cybercrime and cyberterrorism”, the Russian president’s spokesman underscored.

The remarks come after The New York Times quoted unnamed US government sources as saying that Washington plans to start retaliating for the alleged Russian hacking of American government agencies and corporations detected late last year.

“The first major move is expected over the next three weeks, with a series of clandestine actions across Russian networks that are intended to be evident to President Vladimir Putin and his intelligence services and military, but not to the wider world”, the sources argued.

This followed US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan telling CBS News in late February that the White House’s response to last year’s SolarWinds hack “will include a mix of tools seen and unseen”.

Sullivan pledged that “it will be weeks, not months” before the US prepares retaliatory measures against Moscow, adding that Washington will “ensure that Russia understands where the US draws the line on this kind of activity”.

SolarWinds Hack

In late December, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said that hackers, who used corrupted SolarWinds software to install malicious programmes, were “impacting enterprise networks across federal, state, and local governments, as well as critical infrastructure entities and other private sector organisations” in the country.

Early accusations quickly ran to Russia, with then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claiming that Russia was “pretty clearly” responsible and then-US President-elect Joe Biden saying that his forthcoming administration would consider sanctioning Moscow as punishment.

In response, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stressed that Russia had no part in the hacking operations and that the accusations were “unfounded” and the result of “blind Russophobia”.

Following the reports, US President Donald Trump, who was “fully briefed” on the matter, said the attacks were exaggerated by the “Fake News Media”, alleging that China could have been responsible for the hack, and suggesting alleged election fraud was a much bigger issue for the United States.

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Twitter sues Texas AG over state’s investigation into banning Trump, says it’s attempt to ‘intimidate’ & ‘harass’ company

RT | March 9, 2021

Twitter is attempting to stop Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s investigation into its moderation practices, calling the probe “retaliation” for its suspension of former president Donald Trump.

“Twitter seeks to stop AG Paxton from unlawfully abusing his authority as the highest law-enforcement officer of the State of Texas to intimidate, harass, and target Twitter in retaliation for Twitter’s exercise of its First Amendment rights,” Twitter said in its court filing on Monday.

Twitter said the investigation comes down to the platform making “editorial decisions” Paxton disagrees with, including suspending Trump’s account following the US Capitol riot on January 6.

On January 13, Paxton, a Republican, announced an investigation into the moderation practices of “Big Tech” companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter and Amazon.

“First Amendment rights and transparency must be maintained for a free online community to operate and thrive,” he said in a statement about the investigation, adding that the “seemingly coordinated de-platforming” of Trump and other leading conservative voices “not only chills free speech” but “wholly silences those whose speech and political beliefs do not align with leaders of Big Tech companies.”

Twitter has said the investigation requires them to hand over “volumes of highly confidential documents” related to their moderation policies, which they claim could compromise their moderation practices altogether.

The social media platform claimed in their filing that they tried compromising with Paxton and narrowing the scope of his broad investigation, but they could not come to an agreement.

“Instead, AG Paxton made clear that he will use the full weight of his office, including his expansive investigatory powers, to retaliate against Twitter for having made editorial decisions with which he disagrees,” they said in their suit, which was filed in Northern California.

Trump was permanently suspended from Twitter on January 8 due to multiple tweets being deemed by the company as possibly contributing to violence at the Capitol only two days before.

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

War Drums Beating Louder Under Biden Hardliners

By Stephen Lendman | March 9, 2021

On all things war related, Trump mainly focused on waging it all-out by other means on Iran, China, and other nations free from US control.

Early in his tenure, the rape and destruction of Raqqa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq were major exceptions.

For the most part, he was relatively quiet on the hot war front, notably launching no new ones during his time in office.

Biden and warmongers surrounding him are cut from a different cloth.

As US senator and vice president, Biden supported one preemptive US war after another on invented enemies — nonbelligerent states threatening no one.

Will the pattern repeat with him in the White House?

Is it just a matter of time before hardliners running his geopolitical agenda invent pretexts to escalate ongoing US wars and/or launch one or more new ones?

If past is prologue, greater US warmaking is highly likely.

In the Middle East, plans to escalate war in Syria may exist or are being prepared.

The same goes for neighboring Iraq. Its parliamentarians and ordinary people want their country back, US occupation ended once and for all.

Not if undemocratic Dems have their way. US forces came to Iraq to stay.

As in Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, permanent US occupation is planned — enforced through the barrel of a gun.

According to US war secretary Lloyd Austin on Sunday:

“We’ll strike, if that’s what we think we need to do, at a time and place of our own choosing. We demand the right to protect our troops (sic).”

In late February, hardliners in charge of Biden’s geopolitical agenda OK’d aggression against targets along the Iraqi/Syria border.

Is more of the same planned against both countries?

Is direct US confrontation with Iran coming ahead?

Are conflicts planned in Central Asia, North Africa and/or the Indo/Pacific?

According to Tom Dispatch in late January:

“Biden inherit(ed) (US) global war—and burgeoning new Cold War —spanning four continents and a military mired in active operations in dozens of countries, combat in some 14 of them, and bombing in at least seven.”

“That sort of scope has been standard fare for American presidents for almost two decades.”

What’s likely since Biden replaced Trump?

Will he escalate US wars of terror, not on it?

As senator and vice president, Biden cheerled US preemptive wars.

He’ll “surely escalate American adventurism abroad,” Tom Dispatch (TD) believes.

He’s been interventionist throughout his public life. He’ll likely at least maintain status quo belligerence.

TD: “Whether the issues are war, race, crime, or economics, Uncle Joe has made a career of bending with the prevailing political winds and it’s unlikely this old dog can truly learn any new tricks.”

He “filled his foreign policy squad with Obama-Clinton retreads, a number of whom were architects of—if not the initial Iraq and Afghan debacles.”

They followed with “disasters in Libya, Syria, West Africa, Yemen, and the Afghan surge of 2009.”

“Biden (put) former arsonists in charge of the forever-war fire brigade.”

At the same time, press agent media will likely “help (him)… make war more invisible… to Americans.”

History one day won’t likely “judge Biden the war president kindly.”

Since the run-up to WW I, Dems have been more belligerent than Republicans — Bush I, II, and Dick Cheney major exceptions.

So was Jack Kennedy going the other way, transforming himself from a warrior to peacemaker, one among other reasons why he was assassinated.

Jimmy Carter earlier said: During his time in office, “(w)e never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet.”

Dem presidents after his tenure were warriors, not peacemakers — notably Biden as senator, vice president, and now figurehead president, a disturbing record since the early 1970s.

Is escalated warmaking on his watch coming? His history of supporting wars on invented enemies and interventionist geopolitical team suggest more of the same ahead.

Terror-bombing targets along the Iraqi/Syrian border in late February perhaps was prelude for follow-up aggression.

Since taking office, increased numbers of Pentagon forces, heavy weapons, munitions and equipment were sent to Kurdish-controlled eastern Syria where most of the country’s oil is located.

Iran accused the Biden regime of reviving ISIS in Iran and Syria, Iranian Supreme National Security Council secretary Ali Shamkhani saying:

Recent US belligerence “strengthens and expands the activities of the terrorist Daesh (ISIS) in the region,” adding:

“The (late Feb.) attack on anti-terrorist resistance forces is the beginning of a new round of (US) organized terrorism.”

He vowed firm resistance to “confront the US plan to revive terrorism in the region.”

US aggression time and again signals more of the same coming — unjustifiably justified by invented pretexts. No legitimate ones exist.

The Pentagon reportedly deployed six long-range B-52 bombers to Diego Garcia.

It’s a location from which US airstrikes can hit targets in the Middle East and Indo/Pacific.

According to military.com, the US is “add(ing) roughly 10,000 personnel to… the Middle East.”

Southfront reported that Syrian forces are “prepar(ing) a decisive push on the Turkish-occupied areas” in the country’s north, adding:

“(S)oon-to-be-rebranded Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) terrorists are attempting to merge with the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation (NFL).”

“This proposed military council is clearly meant to provide a legitimate cover for the rebranded terrorist activities of HTS and other al-Qaeda factions in Greater Idlib.”

According to Deputy Head of the Russian Coordination Center in Syria, Adm. Alexander Karpov:

“There has been information on that Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists are getting ready to stage a new provocation in the de-escalation zone in Idleb which includes staging a false flag chemical attack.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry reported that labs in Idlib run by European trained experts are preparing CWs for use by jihadists to stage false flag attacks to be blamed on Damascus.

If one or more incidents occur, Syria will surely be wrongfully blamed for what it had nothing to do with — like many times before.

Will Biden hardliners use false flag CW incident(s) as a pretext for escalated aggression?

Separately, Southfront said (US armed and trained) Ukrainian forces escalated artillery strikes on Donbass.

“(C)lashes between pro-Kiev forces and (freedom-fighting) DPR/LPR self-defense units” followed, adding:

“(L)ocal sources report that the scale of violations by pro-Kiev forces are unprecedented for the recent months…”

Kiev “is deploying additional units of heavy weapons and military equipment to the contact line… confirmed by OSCE reports.”

All of the above are worrisome signs of what Biden hardliners may be planning — escalated aggression by US forces, their jihadist proxies and US installed regime in Kiev.

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Biden, Afghanistan and Forever Wars

By Binoy Kampmark | OffGuardian | March 9, 2021

The papers are full of suggestions on what US President Joe Biden should do about his country’s seemingly perennial involvement in Afghanistan.

None are particularly useful, in that they ignore the central premise that a nation state long mauled, molested and savaged should finally be left alone. Nonsense, say the media and political cognoscenti.

The Guardian claims that he is “trapped and has no good choices”. The Wall Street Journal opines that he is being “tested in Afghanistan” with his opposition to “forever wars”. The Washington Post more sensibly suggests that Biden take the loss and “add it to George W. Bush’s record.”

The Afghanistan imbroglio for US planners raises the usual problems. Liberals and Conservatives find themselves pillow fighting over similar issues, neither wishing to entirely leave the field. The imperium demands the same song sheet from choristers, whether they deliver it from the right side of the choir or the left.

The imperial feeling is that the tribes of a country most can barely name should be somehow kept within an orbit of security. To not do so would imperil allies, the US, and encourage a storm of danger that might cyclonically move towards other pockets of the globe.

It never occurs to the many dullard commentators that invading countries such as Afghanistan to begin with (throw Iraq into the mix) was itself an upending issue worthy of criminal prosecution, encouraged counter-insurgencies, theocratic aspirants and, for want of a better term, terrorist opportunists.

The long threaded argument made by the limpet committers has been consistent despite the disasters. Drum up the chaos scenario. Treat it as rebarbative. One example is to strain, drain and draw from reports such as that supplied by the World Bank.

Conflict is ongoing, and 2019 was the sixth year in a row when civilian casualties in Afghanistan exceeded 10,000. The displacement crisis persists, driven by intensified government and Taliban operations in the context of political negotiations.”

The report in question goes on to note the increase in IDPs (369,700 in 2018 to 462,803 in 2019) with “505,000 [additional] refugees returned to Afghanistan, mainly from Iran, during 2019.”

Then come remarks such as those from David von Drehle in the Washington Post. His commentary sits well with Austrian observations about Bosnia-Herzegovina during the latter part of the 19th century.

Nearly 20 years into the US effort to modernize and liberalize that notoriously difficult land, Taliban forces once more control the countryside, and they appear to be poised for a final spring offensive against the parts of the Afghan cities that remain under government control.”

The savages, in short, refuse to heel.

Von Drehle, to his credit, at least suggests that the US take leave of the place, admitting that Washington was unreservedly ignorant about the country. He quotes the words of retired L. General Douglas Lute: “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan.” Tellingly, the general admitted that, “We didn’t know what we were doing.”

Fears exist as to how the May 2021 deadline for withdrawing all US military forces looms. Anthony H. Cordesman is very much teasing his imperial masters in Washington as to what is best. “Writing off the Afghan government will probably mean some form of Taliban victory.”

This is hardly shocking, but Cordesman prepares the terrain for the hawks.

This will create increased risks in terms of extremism and terrorism, but it is far from clear that these risks will not be higher than the risks of supporting a failed Afghan government indefinitely into the future and failing to use the same resources in other countries to support partners that are more effective.”

This is the usual gilded rubbish that justifies the gold from a US taxpayer. But will it continue to stick?

A few clues can be gathered on future directions, though they remain floated suggestions rather than positions of merit. The Biden administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance waffles and speaks mightily about democracy (how refreshing it would be for him to refer to republicanism) which, in a document on national security, always suggests overstretch and overreach.

“They are those who argue that, given all the challenges we face, autocracy is the best way forward.” But he also inserts Trumpian lingo. “The United States should not, and will not, engage in ‘forever wars’ that have cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.”

Afghanistan comes in for special mention, and again, the language of the Trump administration is dragged out for repetition.

We will work to responsibly end America’s longest war in Afghanistan while ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists.”

Not much else besides, and certainly no express mention of grasping the nettle and cutting losses. And there is that troubling use of the word “responsibly”.

The default position remains the use of force, which the US “will never hesitate to” resort to “when required to defend our vital national interests. We will ensure our armed forces are equipped to deter our adversaries, defend our people, interests, and allies, and defeat the threats that emerge.” Again, the stretch is vast and imprecise.

Given that position, the withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 US troops in the country is bound to become a matter of delay, prevarication and consternation. Quiet American imperialism, at least a dusted down version of it, will stubbornly continue in its sheer, embarrassing futility. The imperial footprint will be merely recast, if in a smaller form.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Hypocritical Outrage over Khashoggi’s Assassination

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 9, 2021

The mainstream media is outraged over President Biden’s decision to not level sanctions on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his purported assassination of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, who was a prominent columnist for the Washington Post. The CIA concluded that bin Salman ordered the assassination but U.S. officials have sanctioned only lower-level Saudi officials, choosing to leave bin Salman untouched by U.S. sanctions.

The outrage is a model of the hypocrisy that pervades the mainstream media. After all, these people just block out of their minds that the U.S. national-security state is every bit as brutal as Saudi officials are. Moreover, when it comes to the number of state-sponsored assassinations carried out on an annual basis, bin Salman and Saudi Arabia don’t even come close to matching those carried out by the world’s assassination nation.

Just look at the state-sponsored assassinations that are carried out by the Pentagon and the CIA in the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan every month. They have become so normalized — so much a regular part of American life — that the mainstream press has become totally blasé about them. No moral outrage at all.

Of course, Pentagon and CIA officials, along with their acolytes in the mainstream press, would respond, “Jacob, we are only killing terrorists. The Saudis killed an innocent man.”

Oh? And who exactly is a “terrorist.” Is it someone who criticizes a regime? Or is it someone who actually commits a terrorist act? And who makes that determination? If bin Salman concluded that Khashoggi was a terrorist who was trying to bring down the Saudi regime, would the U.S. mainstream press be coming to his defense?

Let’s consider the U.S. assassinations of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman. Both of them were U.S. citizens, just as Khashoggi was a Saudi citizen. Where is the outrage among the mainstream press over those two assassinations of American citizens at the hands of their own government?

Oh yes, U.S. officials and their assets in the mainstream press would say that Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist. Really? What does that mean? Does it mean that he criticized the U.S. national-security state for its brutal imperialist policies? Or does it mean that he actually engaged in criminal acts of terrorism? If that is the case, who made that determination? I don’t recall there ever being criminal trial in which an American jury listened to evidence and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that al-Awlaki was guilty of some act of terrorism. All I recall was that U.S. officials concluded that al-Awlaki was a terrorist and, therefore, needed to have his life snuffed out. I also recall that the U.S. Supreme Court, in its customary deference to the authority of the national-security establishment, affirmed the decision to assassinate this American citizen, which snuffed out his life without any due process of law.

U.S. officials claim that 16-year-old Abdulhahman was the unfortunate collateral damage from the U.S. assassination of someone nearby. Even if that’s true — and it might not be — what was the justification for firing a missile at that person, especially knowing that it would end up killing everyone around him? Who died and made the Pentagon and the CIA the deciders of life and death of other people?

The fact is that U.S. and Saudi officials have no business assassinating anyone. The U.S. mainstream press is good at recognizing the wrongfulness of assassinating Khashoggi. Their loyalty to the Pentagon and the CIA, however, has given them a moral blindness that prevents them from recognizing the wrongfulness of state-sponsored assassinations carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment.

It’s also revealing that the mainstream press is calling for sanctions to be imposed on bin Salman but not calling for terminating the U.S. government’s armed sales to the Saudi regime. Yet, it’s those weapons that help the Saudi regime maintain its brutal tyranny over the Saudi people. And remember: the U.S. mainstream press is always calling for new gun-control measures — except when it comes to the U.S. government’s sales of guns to overseas pro-U.S. tyrants.

Notice also that the U.S. government continues to send U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid to brutal and tyrannical regimes, such as to Egypt’s tyrannical military dictatorship. That foreign aid helps to maintain the brutal tyranny that is enforced against the citizens under those regimes. No outrage there among the U.S. mainstream press. On the contrary, they continue to support foreign aid being sent to brutal and tyrannical pro-U.S. regimes.

It’s all just a valuable lesson in what can be called Hypocrisy 101.

March 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

The Sacking of Germany after World War II

By John Wear | Inconvenient History | December 14, 2020

The devastation of Germany by total warfare during World War II cast serious doubt on Germany’s postwar ability to survive. Never before in history had a nation’s life-sustaining resources been so thoroughly demolished. Returning from victory in Europe, Gen. Omar Bradley stated, “I can tell you that Germany has been destroyed utterly and completely.”[1]

Despite soothing words from Allied leaders at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, it soon became evident to the Germans that the Allies did not arrive as liberators. Instead, the Allies arrived as conquerors as vengeful, greedy and ruthless as any who had ever won a war. This article documents the plundering and destruction of Germany that continued after the end of World War II.

The Plunder of Germany

The Red Army began the plunder of Europe as soon as it entered Germany in 1944. Soviet looting in the Russian Zone became prodigious after the end of the war. Factories, refineries, processing mills, and other heavy industrial installations were taken apart and sent east to the Soviet Union to be reassembled. All secondary rail lines, electric and steam locomotives and their rolling stock were sent to the Soviet Union. The plants that were left in Germany were operated by Germans solely for the benefit of the Soviet Union.[2]

Red Army soldiers joined the Soviet government in pillaging Germany on a massive scale. A woman from Silesia wrote:

The Russians systematically cleared out everything that was for them of value, such as all sewing machines, pianos, grand-pianos, baths, water taps, electric plants, beds, mattresses, carpets, etc. They destroyed what they could not take away with them. Trucks often stood for days in the rain, with the most valuable carpets and articles of furniture in them, until everything was completely spoiled and ruined…

If fuel was required, then whole woods were generally felled, or window-frames and doors were torn out of the empty houses, broken up on the spot, and immediately used for making fire. The Russians and Poles even used the staircases and banisters as firewood. In the course of time, even the roofs of houses were removed and used for heating… Empty houses, open, without window-panes, overgrown with weeds and filth, rats and mice in uncanny numbers, unharvested fields, land which had been fertile, now completely overgrown with weeds and lying fallow. Not in a single village did one see a cow, a horse or a pig… The Russians had taken everything away to the east, or used it up.[3]

The Russians destroyed much of what was not looted. A German woman describes what she saw when she found her way home at the end of the war:

We have been warned by others who have witnessed signs of Russian occupancy to expect bedlam and to abandon our hopeless mission altogether. Thus, we expect the worst, but our idea of the worst has not prepared us sufficiently for reality. Shocked to the point of collapse, we survey a battlefield—heaps of refuse through which broken pieces of furniture rise like cliffs; stench gags us, almost driving us to retreat. Ragged remnants of clothes, crushed dishes, books, pictures torn from frames–rubble in every room. We can’t look into the dining room because it is locked. Above all, the nauseating stench that emanates from the largest and totally wrecked living room! Spoiled contents ooze from splintered canning jars, garbage of indefinable origin is mixed with unmistakable human excrement, and dried stain of urine discolors crumpled paper and rags. We wade into the dump with care and poke at some of all but unrecognizable belongings. Overcoming our revulsion, we penetrate to the lower layers and discover unharmed books, loose photographs, bundles of old letters, odd pieces of silverware, an occasional unbroken dish.[4]

Soviet soldiers were awed by the abundance of material goods in Germany. The great number of automobiles, tractors, motorcycles, bicycles, stoves, radios and other common goods were beyond the comprehension of many Soviet soldiers. One Russian soldier commented that there was more to be taken out of one house in Germany than in a typical village in the Soviet Union. Another Soviet soldier admitted: “All of us, officers and men, saw the riches and prosperity of a capitalist country and couldn’t believe our eyes. We had never believed there could be such an abundance of goods.” This German material abundance was either looted or destroyed by the Red Army.[5]

Even in its ruined state, Berlin was the paragon of wealth to the Russians. The Russians stole all of the bicycles they could find. Gramophones, wristwatches, light bulbs, and cigarette lighters were not only new to most Russian soldiers, but prized possessions to be collected. They also confiscated any liquor they could lay their hands on. Anything the Red Army did not steal they destroyed, including valuable antiques, musical instruments and elegant clothes.[6]

American soldiers also stole from the German people and let German children go hungry. American aviation hero Charles Lindbergh wrote:

At home our papers carry articles about how we “liberate” oppressed countries and peoples. Here, our soldiers use the word “liberate” to describe the method of obtaining loot. Anything taken from an enemy home or person is “liberated” in the language of the G.I. Leica cameras are “liberated” (probably the most desired item); guns, food, art. Anything taken without being paid for is “liberated.” A soldier who rapes a German woman has “liberated” her…

German children look in through the window. We have more food than we need, but regulations prevent giving it to them. It is difficult to look at them. I feel ashamed, of myself, of my people, as I eat and watch those children. They are not to blame for the war. They are hungry children. What right have we to stuff ourselves while they look on—well-fed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while hungry children look on?… There is an abundance of food in the American Army, and few men seem to care how hungry the German children are outside the door.[7]

Reporter William H. Stoneman of the Chicago Daily News was shocked by the vandalism and looting of American troops. Stoneman, who was stationed with the U.S. 3rd Army, wrote in May 1945:

I have been impressed by the careless manner in which the booty has been handled and the way in which great stocks of foodstuffs have been left to the reckless inroads of looters….

Millions of dollars worth of rare things varying from intricate Zeiss lenses to butter and cheese and costly automobiles are being destroyed because the Army has not organized a system for the recovery of valuable enemy material.

Frontline troops are rough and ready about enemy property. They naturally take what they find if it looks interesting, and, because they are in the frontlines, nobody says anything….

But what front-line troops take is nothing compared to the damage caused by wanton vandalism of some of the following troops. They seem to ruin everything, including the simplest personal belongings of the people in whose houses they are billeted.[8]

American Provost Marshal Lt. Col. Gerald F. Beane was assigned to deal with crimes committed by American soldiers. In an official report released in Berlin in late 1945, Beane stated that larceny and robbery were the crimes most-frequently committed by our soldiers. The Chicago Tribune commented on his report:

As to crimes committed against property, the explanation is fairly obvious. No effective steps were taken to discourage looting by the invading armies during the war. Officers and men alike committed this crime and for much the most part went unpunished. It was tolerated under some such euphemism as souvenir collecting. The habit of stealing, once formed, is difficult to break. The fault, of course, lies with the high command which permitted the abuse. Col. Beane’s pronouncement suggests that the army is tardily seeking to correct its error.[9]

Foreign workers and displaced persons also frequently plundered German property after the end of the war. Germans stood in fear as foreign workers “passed through the country looting, robbing and murdering.” Allied soldiers often looked on as foreign workers plundered German shops—something made easier when curfews were imposed on Germans but not on foreign workers. Displaced persons in Munich, who comprised 4% of the population, were held responsible for three-quarters of the crimes committed in the city. A priest in Görlitz wrote how after the war ended hordes of foreign workers had left the city littered with the debris from their looting.[10]

Theft in Germany after the war was not confined to petty larceny. Whole governments were involved in robbing Germany of anything of value. One Soviet priority was the seizure of important works of art found in Berlin and throughout Germany. This was a fully planned operation, with the artworks stolen by Soviet troops originally planned to be exhibited in a huge museum of war trophies. As world opinion changed against the Soviets after the war, they chose to conceal the artworks in special closed galleries throughout the Soviet Union. Many of the paintings remain hidden to this day.[11]

The British royal family also confiscated its share of German booty. For example, Hermann Göring’s yacht, the Karin II, ended up in the hands of the British royal family.[12] The British royal family commissioned Anthony Blunt, a Soviet spy, to travel to Hanover to take possession of the German crown jewels. Although the jewels later had to be returned to their rightful owners, some jewels were never recovered.[13]

While the United States did not take German plants and factories for itself, in partnership with Britain, it carried out a systematic campaign to root out all German contacts and assets located abroad. The plan was to eliminate German competition in world trade. Known as the “replacement program,” this campaign called for the forcible elimination of all accumulations of German capital abroad. The replacement program was designed to prevent Germany from ever again engaging in foreign commerce on an important scale.[14]

The United States also adopted the Safehaven Program, which denied to Germany the German capital investments located abroad when the war began. Pursuant to this program, the financial and corporate interests of German nationals located outside of Germany were either seized or subject to seizure. The external operation of the Safehaven Program forced Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and other countries to hand over to the United States their German-owned assets. The U.S. Justice Department also confiscated nearly a billion dollars’ worth of property in the United States believed to be owned by Germans, even though this property was held in the names of citizens of neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland.[15]

The Plunder of German Brains and Labor

Germany also experienced “mental dismantling” in that hundreds of German scientists were compelled to immigrate by the victors. One U.S. government agency quietly admitted that Operation Paperclip was the first time in history where conquerors had attempted to commandeer the inventive power of a nation. Life magazine added that the real gain in reparations of this war “was not in the confiscated factories, gold, or artworks, but in the German brains and in the German research results.”[16]

German chemist Otto Hahn wrote bitterly about the export of German scientists to foreign countries:

Most of the older professors leave Germany very unwillingly, because they feel that their place is here. Necessity compels them, because their livelihoods and working opportunities in their own country are taken away from them or else they are left in a constant state of fear of such an occurrence. All this, after our having experienced well enough what it means to replace competence with “politically irreproachable” dilettantes. But more depresses these men: the awareness that it is evidently not a matter of an honorable appointment to an independent American research institution or university of some rank but (at least according to the American press) forms a part of the “reparations.” Centuries ago, princes sent their countrymen away as plantation workers or soldiers. Today, scientists are exported.[17]

Bitterness is a word that appears frequently in the writings of German scientists after the war. Otto Hahn wrote in 1949: “It is certainly understandable that the factory dismantlings still taking place four years after the capitulation are being greeted with bitterness, particularly among the academic youth.”[18]

The Soviets also attempted to abduct or tempt away scientists and technicians who might be useful to them. The Nobel Prize-winning German physicist Gustav Hertz was taken to the Soviet Union to help the Soviets develop nuclear weapons. On October 21, 1945, a large number of skilled German workers, technicians and scientists were sent to the Soviet Union by train. The Western Allies made a weak protest, which the Russians simply ignored.[19]

Millions of Germans were also sent to the Soviet Union to be used as slave labor. The following report was published on June 29, 1945:

German prisoners in Russian hands are estimated to number from 4 to 5 million. When Berlin and Breslau surrendered, the long grey-green columns of prisoners were marched east downcast and fearful… toward huge depots near Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov, and Sevastopol. All fit men had to march some 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went in handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts… They will be made to rebuild the Russian towns and villages which they destroyed. They will not return home until the work is completed.[20]

Some crippled and ailing Germans who survived the Russian slave labor camps were returned to Berlin, where they were interviewed by American correspondents. German Red Cross women on September 10, 1946 met a 20-car trainload of returning forced laborers from the Soviet Union. A professional nurse told their story:

They had been in the train almost a week traveling about 60 miles from Frankfurt-on-Oder. There had been deaths from starvation, not from starvation just during the ride, but from the hardships of the trip after months of malnutrition in Russian labor camps. Almost all of the 800 or 900 in the train were sick or crippled. You might say they were all invalids. With 40 to 50 packed in each of those little boxcars, the sick had to sleep beside the dead on their homeward journey. I did not count them but I am sure we removed more than 25 corpses. Others had to be taken to hospitals. I asked several of the men whether the Russian guards or doctors had done anything on the trip to care for the sick. They said “No.”

I met only one alert, healthy man in the lot and I have seen him since. He was just a kid of 17. The boy told me that prisoners leaving Russian camps for Germany are searched to prevent any from smuggling mail for their comrades. Therefore, when one of them has been diagnosed as a hopeless invalid, in anticipation of discharge he will memorize the names and addresses of relatives to whom he can report for his fellow prisoners. He said only prisoners in special favor are able to mail postcards to their nearest of kin. This kid of 17 has memorized 80 names and addresses in Berlin of relatives of his prison friends. He found the buildings at most of the addresses in rubble, with the present whereabouts of the former occupants unknown, but he visited all 80 addresses in his first six days in Berlin.[21]

If prisoners released by the Russians as unfit for further forced labor managed to recuperate, they were generally sent back to the Soviet Union to resume their slavery. Able-bodied Germans released in the British or American Zones and returned to their homes in the Soviet Zone were also typically sent to the Soviet Union for slave labor. The slightest disobedience in Russian camps was penalized by such heavy work that a third of the disobeyers died within three weeks from exhaustion. German prisoners being turned over to the Russians often committed suicide or tried to incapacitate themselves in order to avoid being sent to the Soviet slave-labor camps.[22]

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), France had 680,000 former German soldiers slaving for her in August 1946. Of this number, 475,000 had been captured by the United States and turned over to the French for forced labor. After 320,000 German prisoners had been delivered, the French returned 2,474 of them to the United States because they were severely malnourished and unfit for work. Associated Press photographer Henry Griffin, who had taken pictures of the corpses piled in Buchenwald and Dachau, said of these returned Germans: “The only difference I can see between these men and those corpses is that here they are still breathing.”[23]

The ICRC reported that in August 1946, Great Britain was using 460,000 Germans as slave laborers; the United States 284,000; Yugoslavia 80,000; Belgium 48,000; Czechoslovakia 45,000; Luxembourg 4,000; and Holland 1,300. Keeping such large numbers of Germans away from their families (homes, livelihoods) was a direct attack against German homes and families, one by one. The ICRC condemned the Allied slave-labor system:

The United States, Britain, and France, nearly a year after peace, are violating International Red Cross agreements they solemnly signed in 1929.

Investigation at Geneva headquarters today disclosed that the transfer of German war prisoners captured by the American army to French and British authorities for forced labor is nowhere permitted in the statutes of the International Red Cross, which is the highest authority on the subject in the world.

Although thousands of the former German soldiers are being used in the hazardous work of clearing mine fields, sweeping sea mines, destroying surplus ammunition and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly forbids employing prisoners “in any dangerous labor or in the transport of any material used in warfare…”

“The American delivery of German prisoners to the French and British for forced labor already is being cited by the Russians as justification for them to retain German army captives for as long as they are able to work,” an International Red Cross official admitted. “The bartering of captured enemy soldiers by the victors throws the world back to the dark ages—when feudal barons raided adjoining duchies to replenish their human livestock.”[24]

Women, children and the aged also were forced by the Allies to perform labor. No job was too loathsome or degrading for the conquered Germans to be made to perform. Some work assignments were especially unpleasant, as one woman makes clear: “[A]s a result of the war damage… the toilets were stopped up and filthy. This filth we had to clear away with our hands, without any utensils to do so. The excrement was brought into the yard, shoveled into carts, which we had to bring to refuse pits. The awful part was that we got dirtied by the excrement which spurted up, but we could not clean ourselves.”[25]

Another German woman from the Soviet Zone added:

We had to build landing strips, and to break stones. In snow and rain, from six in the morning until nine at night, we were working along the roads. Any Russian who felt like it took us aside. In the morning and at night we received cold water and a piece of bread, and at noon soup of crushed, unpeeled potatoes, without salt. At night we slept on the floors of farmhouses or stables, dead tired, huddled together. But we woke up every so often, when a moaning and whimpering in the pitch-black room announced the presence of one of the guards.[26]

As this woman and others make clear, German women could be raped even when performing forced labor for the Allies. As one German woman who worked at planting potatoes said, “If they wanted a girl they just came in the field and got her.”[27]

Conclusion

U.S. President Harry Truman joined Gens. Eisenhower and Bradley on July 20, 1945 to watch the American flag officially being raised over the U.S. sector of Berlin. Speaking without notes, Truman told the American soldiers: “We are not fighting for conquest. There is not one piece of territory or one thing of a monetary nature that we want out of this war.”[28]

It is possible that President Truman believed these words when he spoke them. However, billions of dollars in gold, silver, currency, priceless paintings and art works were stolen from Germany and shipped to the United States. More-important, German patents and trademarks, complete drawings of German technological advances, and tons of secret documents were seized by the Allies. Hundreds of German scientists were compelled to immigrate to the United States. As one U.S. government agency admitted, “Operation Paper-Clip” was the first time in history wherein conquerors attempted to bleed dry the inventive power of an entire nation.[29]

Establishment historians claim that the American plunder of Germany was exonerated by the financial assistance the U.S. provided to Germany via the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan assistance, however, was mostly a loan, and Germany paid back this loan in full with interest in the succeeding years. By one estimate, the United States confiscated 10 times more German national wealth than the entire amount of Marshall Plan assistance.[30] James Bacque estimated that Americans took from Germany (permanently) at least 20 times the amount that Germans received (temporarily) under the Marshall Plan.[31] Marshall Plan assistance does not absolve the United States of the enormous crimes it committed against Germans after World War II.

Endnotes

[1] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 1.

[2] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, Sheridan, Colo.: Aberdeen Books, 2010, p. 280.

[3] Ibid., pp. 280-281.

[4] Shelton, Regina Maria, To Lose a War—Memories of a German Girl, Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982, p. 138.

[5] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, Sheridan, Colo.: Aberdeen Books, 2010, pp. 152-154.

[6] MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation, New York: Basic Books, 2007, pp. 96-98.

[7] Lindbergh, Charles, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1970, pp. 953, 960-961, 989-990.

[8] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 42-43.

[9] Ibid., pp. 43-44. Quoted from Chicago Sunday Tribune, Nov. 18, 1945, p. 22.

[10] Bessel, Richard, Germany 1945: From War to Peace, London: Harper Perennial, 2010, pp. 165-166.

[11] MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation, New York: Basic Books, 2007, p. 381.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Walsh, Michael, The Battle for Europe: Hidden Truths about the Second World War, East Sussex, United Kingdom: The Historical Review Press, 2012, p. 93.

[14] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 53.

[15] Ibid., p. 54.

[16] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, Sheridan, Colo.: Aberdeen Books, 2010, p. 282.

[17] Hentschel, Klaus, The Mental Aftermath: The Mentality of German Physicists, 1945-1949, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 81-82.

[18] Ibid., p. 81.

[19] MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation, New York: Basic Books, 2007, p. 391.

[20] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 19-20.

[21] Ibid., pp. 20-21.

[22] Ibid., pp. 21-22.

[23] Ibid., pp. 22-24.

[24] Ibid., pp. 25-28.

[25] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, Sheridan, Colo.: Aberdeen Books, 2010, pp. 297-298.

[26] Ibid., p. 298.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Beschloss, Michael R., The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1941-1945, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002, p. 257.

[29] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, Sheridan, Colo.: Aberdeen Books, 2010, p. 282.

[30] Schmidt, Hans, Hitler Boys in America: Re-Education Exposed, Pensacola, Fla.: Hans Schmidt Publications, 2003, pp. 266-267.

[31] Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, p. 167.

March 8, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

It’s Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination — Attorney Interview

By Spiro Skouras | Activist Post | March 7, 2021

In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.

Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico, but the emergency itself.

You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute below:

NM Stands Up!
https://nmstandsup.org

First case against mandatory vaccination filed in New Mexico: report
https://thehill.com/regulation/labor/541173-first-case-against-mandatory-vaccination-filed-in-new-mexico-dention-center?rl=1

Federal judge denies Doña Ana County employee’s request, for now, in mandatory vaccine lawsuit
https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2021/03/04/federal-judge-rules-restraining-order-dona-ana-county-new-mexico-mandatory-vaccine-lawsuit/4586480001/

EEOC Says Employers May Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations – Subject to Limitations
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-says-employers-may-mandate-covid-19-vaccinations-subject-to-limitations

Image credit: torstensimon 

Follow Spiro on BitChute, Parler and Gab.

March 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The curious case of a CIA contractor accused of terrorism in Venezuela who claims he was on a boating holiday

By Tom Secker | RT | March 7, 2021

This week, from the disturbing CIA operations file, comes the case of Matthew John Heath, an American and former Marine accused of sabotage, terrorism, trafficking illegal weapons and conspiracy.

You could be forgiven for thinking that an ex-Marine going on trial for terrorism charges in Venezuela might meet with the sort of US media coverage that the Amanda Knox story attained, but the start of Heath’s trial has warranted barely a whisper.

Heath was arrested last September alongside six Venezuelans, including some military personnel. The gang were apparently planning attacks on oil refineries, a major bridge and possibly military installations, and were caught at a roadblock with bricks of American currency, high explosives, a satellite phone and a grenade launcher.

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has accused Heath of being a spy and terrorist working for the US government, while his family maintains his innocence. One of several letters smuggled out of prison and sent to Heath’s relatives reads, “Don’t WORRY! Han Solo always wins!” His family have opined that he was either simply an American in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that the evidence was planted in order to frame him.

Seeking leverage or deafening silence?

So, what are we to make of this? Sean McFate of Georgetown University suggested that “A soldier like Heath, whether or not he’s guilty, is very attractive to authoritarian leaders like Maduro seeking leverage with the US.”

But the US government has had little or no contact with Heath, hasn’t moved to negotiate his release, and there is no sign of Maduro using ‘Han Solo’ as leverage, either with the Trump administration or with the new Biden White House.

Instead, the deafening silence of US officials and major media in response to Heath going on trial suggests that they want to keep a lid on the situation. This is likely due to the implication that this self-styled pilot of the Millennium Falcon was working as part of an ongoing disruption campaign being waged against Venezuela by the CIA.

Investigative journalist Alan Macleod pursued this angle in a recent expose, noting Heath’s widely reported background working not just for Marine Corps intelligence but also for the CIA, before he joined MVM – an intelligence services firm who contract almost exclusively for the US government.

Macleod’s article highlights, “Although MVM is technically a private company, it was founded by three former Secret Service agents and continues to work closely with Washington… The only clients listed on its website are American government agencies. “Need a secret agent?” begins its description of the company.”

The Bay of Piglets: Recycling the Cuba playbook

In May 2020, two former Green Berets led an amphibious assault on Venezuela with the aim of storming the presidential palace and installing Juan Guaido – the US’s preferred puppet leader of the country – as the new president. As Macleod points out, this event was quickly dubbed the ‘Bay of Piglets’ – a reference to the CIA botched coup attempt against the Castro government in Cuba in 1961.

In an interview with RT, he added, “That this could occur without at least the knowledge of the State Department seems unlikely, at best.”

Following the Bay of Pigs, the CIA embarked on an extensive program of black operations designed to destabilise the Castro government. One memo, titled ‘Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba’, details a string of ideas including industrial and military sabotage, economic warfare, and spreading misinformation and disinformation.

Operations were carried out to “create unrest and dissension among the Cuban people” and to encourage the view that Castro’s “value to the revolutionary cause has diminished to the point that plans are being made for his removal.” Plans were even made, under the codename Operation Dirty Trick, so that if the first manned spaceflight were to fail, they would manufacture evidence to “provide irrevocable proof… that the fault lies with the Communists.”

Fast forward to today, and it appears that the CIA have simply recycled their 60s playbook and used it as a manual for targeting the Venezuelan government and people. In between regular failed coup attempts, the US government is deploying regular economic warfare, sabotage and disinformation tactics to try to erode domestic support for Maduro and ‘soften’ the country’s resistance to the corporate empire.

Macleod summarised, “For two decades now, there has not been a day that has gone by that the US government was not working in some way to overthrow the government of Venezuela. They have tried organizing coups and protest movements as well as longer term strategies like funding political and social organizations, as well as levying sanctions on the country. There have also been many mysterious incidents in Venezuela that the government alleges were the work of unknown saboteurs.”

A blank space in a book

If Heath, a.k.a. ‘Han Solo’, was indeed working as part of a CIA black operation, which seems likely given the evidence compiled by MacLeod and the general pattern of events in Venezuela in recent years, then he is probably a NOC – a non-official cover operative.

As outlined by Al Pacino’s character in the film ‘The Recruit’ – which was originally written by the CIA’s Hollywood liaison – most CIA officers working out of embassies around the world enjoy official cover and diplomatic immunity, but some become NOCs.

Pacino’s character says: “The NOC is the truest practitioner of espionage – always out there, always alone, unprotected. If you are caught, you will most likely be tortured, shot, and/or hanged. And here’s the best part – no one will ever hear about it. You will become a star on a wall, a blank space in a book.”

Macleod commented on the increased contracting out of NOC activities, saying, “Much of Washington’s actual dirty work has been outsourced to third parties, however, through organizations like USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and the NED (National Endowment for Democracy).”

Back in the bad old days in Cuba, NOCs and other disposable assets came in the form of Cuban exiles and mafia lieutenants, but today, proxy war has been corporatised and NOCs work for three letter abbreviations like MVM, blowing up bridges and firing grenades at oil refiners. Or at least, trying to.

The world’s weirdest holiday?

The CIA has remained predictably silent about Heath, while the State Department’s only comment on the case came in the form of a tweet by a spokesman asking for a fair trial.

Neither the Trump nor Biden White Houses have had anything to say about Heath, suggesting that there is an official policy of not commenting on this politically controversial case.

If Heath is, as he claims, an innocent civilian with a military record and a penchant for ‘Star Wars’, who went to Venezuela during a global pandemic to gain“more boating experience,” then the State Department would be advocating for him. If this were the travesty of justice that Heath will no doubt make out it is when the trial moves to the defence phase, then the US media should be screaming blue murder.

Instead, the American government and major media response to this innocent man on the world’s weirdest holiday has been to politely ignore him, as though getting caught with high explosives, surveillance photos and machine guns is regular behaviour for Americans on nautical vacations.

Han Solo: A Matthew Heath story

As Joshua Goodman, an American journalist, observed, “Heath’s reputation for discretion, background in signals intelligence for the Marines and past work as a US government contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed straight out of a Tom Clancy novel.”

The Clancy parallels are apt, especially given the latest adaptation of his work – Amazon’s ‘Jack Ryan’ – focused its entire second season on glamourising an off-the-books CIA coup against the Venezuelan government, including storming the presidential palace. The show, which is supported by both the CIA and the Pentagon, went to great efforts to project Venezuela back into the public consciousness as a desperate threat to US national security and in need of extreme prejudice.

Macleod commented, “Unfortunately, many of the plot lines of shows like Jack Ryan have a tendency to come true. This is because the writers are in close contact with government agents who help them craft realistic scenarios for their plots based on actual events or plans.”

Despite this, I wouldn’t expect ‘Han Solo: A Matthew Heath Story’ to be coming to a theatre near you anytime soon.

Tom Secker is a British-based investigative journalist, author and podcaster. You can follow his work via his Spy Culture site and his podcast ClandesTime.

March 7, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment