Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Always Israel? Only One Country Matters to Congress and the Media

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 4, 2021

The job of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations must have some kind of curse on it as it seems to attract a type of woman who seeks to prove her suitability by running up a tally of how many wars she can start and how many people she can kill. One recalls fondly Bill Clinton’s monstrous Madeleine Albright, who famously declared the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as “worth it” due to the sanctions that Washington had imposed and enforced. And then there was Barack Obama’s darling Samantha Power, who was the spokesperson for the completely unnecessary slaughter of Syrians and Libyans to bring them democracy. And, most recently, we have had Nikki Haley, who didn’t start her own war but kept the ones ongoing during her watch on the boil while also taking on the task of being the most strident defender of Israel’s war crimes.

And now we have Honest Joe Biden’s nominee to be the U.N. ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield. She is predictably black and is a career diplomat who ended up as head of the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs. Upon retirement in 2017, she took a position, predictably, with the Albright Stonebridge Group in Washington. The Albright in the name comes from Madeleine and the Group is where many Democratic Party establishment foreign policy types wind up. Thomas-Greenfield might not be a drama queen like Nikki Haley or evil incarnate like Albright or Samantha Power, but she demonstrated in her confirmation hearing before the Senate that she knows the lines she has to speak as well as anyone in Washington.

Thomas-Greenfield dutifully spouted the usual cant relating to the Palestinians, which means that she did not mention them at all and is completely indifferent to the gross violations of their human rights by Israel. In response to several queries from legislators about how she would work to fend off international criticism against Israeli policies, she unleashed an attack against the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement which criticizes Israel’s human rights record and urges people to support Palestinian rights by pressuring Israel’s economy through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. It deliberately eschews violence or punishing ordinary Israelis for the actions of their government and it’s economic approach is a tactic that was used successfully against the apartheid South African regime in the 1980s.

One assumes that Thomas-Greenfield, as a black American diplomat who was active when South Africa adopted majority rule, is fully aware of the fact that Israeli apartheid backed by an army of occupation that does not hesitate to shoot to kill is more pervasive than the South African version ever was. She may even be aware that what Israel does is driven by racism and amounts to genocide. Nevertheless, she told the Senators “[B.D.S.] verges on anti-Semitic, and it’s important that they not be allowed to have a voice at the U.N., and I intend to work against that… I look forward to standing with Israel, standing against the unfair targeting of Israel, the relentless resolutions proposed against Israel unfairly.” In short, Thomas-Greenfield sounded more than a little like Nikki Haley, who used to amuse the U.N. General Assembly with her homilies in defense of the Jewish state that culminated in U.S. withdrawal from the Human Rights Council, refugee agency (UNRWA), and its cultural organization (UNESCO) over claims that they all had an anti-Israel bias.

There should be no question but that the friends of Israel constitute the most powerful foreign policy lobby. It’s ability to shift policy in its favor is unmatched by any other organization that promotes the interests of a foreign nation at the expense of the United States itself. No other nation comes close to having the power to actually write legislation that is then approved by Congress while also influencing decision making in the White House. No other country avoids accountability for its actions either among politicians or in the media to anywhere near the same extent as Israel. If anyone doubts that that is true, it is only necessary to review the recent confirmation hearings of Biden appointees, where foreign policy discussions are limited to bashing China and Russia followed almost immediately by the question “And what have you done for Israel lately?”

Politicians are quite aware that giving the wrong answer on Israel can be fatal for one’s career. In many congressional districts the training of lawmakers begins early, with representatives of the hundreds of Israel Lobby affiliates interviewing potential candidates on their views relating to the Jewish state. In many cases, attempts are made to get possible candidates to sign statements affirming that they hold the correct views on Israel versus its neighbors. The sensitivity towards Israeli and Jewish issues must continue after one is elected, resulting in questions in public fora like confirmation hearings. It never hurts to advertise one’s loyalty to Israel early and often.

Questions about Israel inevitably also came up in the Senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Blinken is Jewish, a confirmed Zionist, and now heads a State Department where his deputy and political affairs chief are both Jewish women hardliners who basically share his views. Biden, Blinken and company advocate policies in the Middle East that are definitely pleasing to the Israeli government, such as de facto continuing a hard line with Iran.

In a press statement last year Blinken confirmed the outlines of the Biden Administration relationship with Israel as follows: “You can count on Joe Biden to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself, to honor the bipartisanship traditions of U.S. support for Israel, to safeguard, not put at risk, Israel’s future as a Jewish, and democratic state. Joe Biden has spoken out strongly and stood strongly against the B.D.S. movement. He’s also been very clear that he would not tie military assistance to Israel to things like annexation or other decisions by the Israeli government with which we might disagree.”

In other words, Israel has a free hand to do whatever it wants and there will be no pushback from the Biden White House in terms of the only thing that matters – the billions of dollars in “military assistance” the Jewish state receives each year. Oh, and Blinken surely realizes that while Israel is Jewish by law it is ipso facto hardly democratic.

Blinken’s apparent first telephone call to a Foreign Secretary counterpart was to Gabi Ashkenazi of Israel. Their warm and fuzzy exchange was tweeted, with Blinken enthusing “Great speaking with @Gabi_Ashkenazi today to discuss the steadfast partnership between the U.S. and Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct, and I look forward to working with the Foreign Minister and others toward our common goals.” Ashkenazi replied “I had a warm call with @secBlinken & affirmed Israel’s commitment to the robust Israeli-US strategic partnership. I welcomed very much the POTUS commitment to IL security.”

The point is that pandering to Israel as part of the political process in the United States has become part of the DNA of both major parties. Trump was shameless in his gifts to the Jewish state all through his four years and Biden promises to deliver more of the same. But the really bad news for Americans is the fact that the wag the dog relationship with Israel ties the United States into failed policies in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. It is time for the federal government to stop focusing on doing favors for Israel and instead start talking about how the policies that mandate force projection in the Middle East to protect the Jewish state are not really working out very well for the American people. When that becomes clear to the public, change will come.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK COVID Conundrum: The Mysterious Case Of Disappearing Flu

By Banson Wilcot PhD | Principia Scientific | January 27, 2021

At the end of 2020 many statisticians, doctors and independent scientists noticed something amiss about this extraordinary year. The Office of National Statistics, Public Health England shows that the numbers for death from influenza and those from Covid-19 are askew.

Despite the media and government pandemic presentations, we need to step back and consider the larger picture.

Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees, but perhaps we have succumbed to seeing a single tree and ignoring the rest of the forest.

Is the fact that one virus has suddenly been given a name, Covid-19, (with wildly hyped media coverage) taken our focus off the overall reality of the annual flu season group of viruses? Has one name and media hype highjacked our lives?

With the 2019–2020 flu season, there have been a number of reports of Covid-19 illnesses in the UK and USA well before the end of 2019. Just today there was a report of Covid-19 illnesses in China as early as August, 2019. [1A]

Until the introduction of the PCR test for Covid-19 in late February, Covid-19 cases and deaths did not exist. This gives the impression that the virus appeared just then, while it was undoubtedly present much earlier as part of the flu season, from numerous anecdotal reports. Various reports indicate symptoms typical of Covid-19 in the U.S. as early as November–December, 2019 and likely even earlier.

With growing attention given to the virus and the increasing availability of PCR testing, we started receiving regular accounts of the number “cases” of the virus. Stepping back a bit and looking at general numbers and ignoring the contentious PCR accuracy regarding positive and negative cases, we see an overall pattern that is very similar to past flu seasons. Cases of flu-like illness generally start in October/November and last until March or April in the UK [1].

The observation can be made that this fairly well describes the 2019–2020 flu season, including Covid-19. The 2019–2020 Covid-19 death numbers appear as a spike because there was no PCR test until about the middle of the flu season, giving the impression that Covid-19 physically appeared late in the season. No, the test appeared late in the season. Despite the testing results, the UK government actually declared the pandemic over in March, but then, oddly, imposed a lockdown a week or two later.

The government declaration of the pandemic’s end can be considered innocently valid and devoid of politics. The advent of lockdowns and more could then be considered political. [So often, when an event occurs, the first observations prove to be the most honest, while the spin and changes come later.]

Much confusion has been generated by different accounting systems regarding illnesses and deaths. There are disparities in the cause of death, whether with the virus or without, and with an over reliance on the PCR test. In addition, many Covid-19 cases were diagnosed solely from symptoms, ignoring the fact that such symptoms are often seen during the flu season.

The observation that some people lose their sense of smell and taste with Covid-19 clearly ignores that these effects occur in every flu season, but now people are told that this is diagnostic for Covid-19. [Dogs are animals and can have spots, but all spotted animals are not dogs.]

We have always taken these symptoms in stride and happily waited until our senses returned. Suddenly, these symptoms are unique and diagnostic of Covid-19. It simply defies reality. If they suddenly reported that you could get a flesh-eating disease from a hang-nail, we would suddenly start considering every incipient hang-nail as a life-threatening event, when, in fact, they are not.

No careful lines have been defined to tell whether deaths have been due to a single virus, multiple viruses, comorbidities (conditions already burdening an individual’s health), or a virus with complications, such as pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia often has a chance to take hold when one’s lungs are compromised by a flu-type illness. [Note that subsequent pneumonia is not a comorbidity.] Curiously deaths from influenza in the US have recently dropped to about zero; more on this below. [2]

Making our understanding of illness and death in the UK and other regions more difficult are the inclusion of diagnoses determined solely by the PCR test and others solely by symptoms. It is very clear that the traditional symptoms of cold and influenza broadly overlap those of Covid-19, thus making definitive diagnoses very difficult. Add to this the purported rate of false positives from the PCR test (now +97% according to the WHO) [3] and accounting of nonlethal “cases” becomes what they call “problematic.”

To really eliminate the many possible confusions and conditions that can be placed on death rates and possible death causes, it is useful to step back and look at the overall death rate, from all causes, for a country or state. The focus here is on the UK, but the US also provides some guidance. [4]

First, the concept of a pandemic needs to be addressed. A pandemic is the  movement of a disease, bacterial or viral, that moves around the world and has a higher than normal damaging effect. Until recently this was described as a higher than normal mortality. The definition has been changed at WHO’s website such that the flu season is now a pandemic despite death rates being within a normal range. [5] (It is also curious that the definition of herd immunity originally included the benefits of natural and vaccinated immunity, but the definition now only includes vaccinated immunity. Very curious.)

Flu season viruses move around the world every year, largely deriving from farms in Southeast Asia where flu-type viruses are exchanged and hybridized between fish, pigs, and chickens and eventually transmitted to farmers, thus starting the next round of viruses for the annual newly-defined “pandemic.” From teaching Environmental Science, I learned that there has been an effort to break this chain of virus evolution by encouraging farmers to specialize in only one major livestock, thus decreasing viral exchanges between these species. This virus hybridization (mixing) is the source of the H#N# marker recombinations that vaccine labs try to detect early for each new flu season and then attempt to offer appropriate vaccines.

The flu season in the tropics is actually all year round and, because of the humidity, virus transmission is low but constant. However, in the more temperate regions, transmission blossoms when Fall arrives and people start spending more time indoors, in a relatively closed environment, and closer to each other.

It is a bit counter intuitive that humidity (which goes with warm temperatures) decreases transmission rates. It is a good deal in the tropics, sunlight on clear days kills viruses and humidity is always on the job. Small water droplets containing virus, from speaking, coughing, sneezing, and even breathing, tend to gain weight under humid conditions and fall to the ground more quickly than under dry conditions.

Flu season in the Southern hemisphere appears to mirror the Northern hemisphere, but flu viruses are likely introduced to the south by air travel during their summer and, thus, possibly starts and dilutes their six-month later flu season over a longer period.

For all of this, it is very difficult to see the forest for the tree (Covid-19, highlighted by the PCR test), but one statistic that sums up and ignores all the various causes of death and various biases in categories is the overall death rate of a country or state [4], such as the UK, which is a well-defined population with good reporting capabilities. [6]

There are some interesting aspects to death rates. Again, from Env. Sci. teaching, when a heat wave hits a city, as happened in Paris a number of years ago, the death rate rises as people succumb to the physiological burden of heat. However, after the heat wave is gone, the death rate tends to dip below normal for a time. This indicates that the heat wave took people who were already very frail and likely to die in the near future, in a couple of weeks or months, the old “one foot in the grave,” which is not an inaccurate description in many cases..

With cold snaps, there is also a spike in the death rate, but after it is over, there is no dip in the death rate, as it goes back to normal. This is because cold does not discriminate and kills all ages. Heat tends to impose a physiological burden on those already heavily burdened, but cold is a much simpler core temperature problem that is a critical problem for all ages.

That said, is there anything we can learn by comparing the death rates from the last year of “the Covid” and previous years? Focusing mainly on the UK as a single, well-defined population and putting aside all reporting bias and possible cause of death confusions, what do the overall death rates tell us?

It has been speculated, not unreasonably, that many more people died from Covid-19 at home, fearful, unwilling, unable to go to hospital, and thus not counted in the Covid death total. However, overall deaths in the UK in the last year would also include those who died at home. Overall deaths effectively eliminates all biased death factors and includes deaths not immediately reported.

The excess total deaths for the UK show a well-defined peak in the 2nd quarter of 2020, from mid-March to mid-May. Looking at the age break-down, it is clear that those over 45 and particularly over 65 were most susceptible to whatever virus or viruses of the flu season were making people ill. The rest of the year showed a low (normal) death rate that was low until Fall, when the new flu season arrived, which showed then a broader peak more similar to a flu season. [1]

It is a realism that every year more people have aged or developed infirmities that make them susceptible to a flu-like illness and/or complications. The fact that there is an annual peak does not indicate unusual illness or mortality; it’s the flu season that we have had for many years.

We need to resist the temptation to think that we are seeing something new in our world. By the same token, with a focus on flu-type infections and the elderly, it is easy to conclude just from the effective hyping of such deaths that many people are dying.

Elderly with complications die from complications all year round, just more in the flu season and this is very usual. It is curious that suddenly the public has been sensitized to the elderly death rate, as if it was a new thing. Suddenly, a virus is singling out the elderly, while, in fact, the elderly are always at risk, while the risk to other age groups varies from season to season.

It is also clear that the overall death rate in 2020 was exceeded by the five years of 1999-2003. [2] I need to define the death rate here, as it is based on the deaths per thousand people, which eliminates the fact that populations were lower in earlier years. It’s a given that larger population might have a higher death total from a given disease, but not a higher death rate. Diseases work on the susceptible individuals of a population and, thus, it is a proportion of the population that becomes ill or dies. [6]

That said, how does the death rate in the UK for 2020 compare to previous years? It is clear that the death rate in the UK for 2020 was not exceptional compared to previous years [4]. How can that be? If you have Covid-19 as well as influenza killing people, what is going on? An observation has been made that, for some mysterious reason, influenza, as of April in the US, dropped to zero and continues at zero in the latest flu season. [6]

In light of the apparent missing influenza, claims have been made that masking, distancing, and lockdowns were completely effective against influenza, but then there is no talk about its failure in stopping Covid-19, which is a virus of the same size and transmission mode.

Then, we are told that Covid is still around because people are not masking and such properly, which means influenza should also still be around in the US. Since these are infectious viruses, how can these restrictions be effective against one virus and not the other? It does not make sense.

It is also easy to find that US states with strict mandates have the same rates of PCR-positive cases as those who do not. The conjecture can be made that influenza cases are largely reported as Covid-19, based either on a positive PCR test result or on symptoms alone.

In the US, it is clear that there has been a monetary incentive for diagnosing the [Covid] disease and encouraging hospitalizations. The cessation of other medical procedures and tests during this period clearly is going to lead to increased overall deaths. The fact that there appears to be no excess of deaths despite this, indicates that the C-19 virus itself was not as lethal as they claim.

Overall, the death rate in the UK is not out of line with the normal death rates from other years and clearly not close to the highest in the last 22 years. [1] It is difficult to consider influenza deaths when there appears to be a bias toward categorizing influenza and other causes as Covid-19 deaths.

Every year and, for that matter, all year long, there is a population of health-critical individuals who may be overwhelmed by a flu-like illness and open to pneumonia complications. The questionable Covid-19 PCR test appears to be keeping the presence of Covid-19 alive, possibly detecting viruses of the current flu season.

The WHO is now admitting that that this test can be 97% false positives or more, with higher processing cycle numbers. [3] The argument could be made that we have an epidemic of testing.

A little exploration of the Office of National Statistics, Public Health England shows that the numbers for death from influenza and those from Covid-19 are askew. [7] They show 4649 cases mentioning influenza and only 380 with influenza only. This means 92% of these cases had other complicating conditions. However, the same week they report 6057 cases mentioning Covid-19 and 5387 mentioned only Covid-19, with 89% being Covid-19 only.

This defies logic. What happened to pneumonia? It is well-known that flu-like illnesses open one up to pneumonia but, according to the above numbers, 89% of deaths from this virus were ONLY from this virus. That does not correlate with the many reports of illnesses with complications and does not at all correlate with the US CDC’s report that only 6% of their Covid-19 related deaths were from Covid-19 only, which means 94% had comorbidities or complications, such as pneumonia.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of UK statistics. [8] However, the CDC is not that far off from the UK’s own death numbers, showing a small fraction of defined Covid-19 deaths, showing 13,844 deaths from Covid and 50,000 with Covid.  [9]

One could ask what happened to influenza. There appears to be a strong tendency to list illnesses as Covid-19 to make the situation appear more dire and possibly more profitable. In the US, there is a financial incentive to diagnose Covid-19 and encourage hospitalizations.

A sad fact is that unethical medical personnel can talk people into feeling sicker than they really are, particularly when they are primed by fears of a deadly virus. From multiple points of view, looking at the lack of a proper virus isolation and description, the highly variable Covid-19 symptoms, and the fact that a variety of viruses comprise the flu season, I believe that this undescribed virus is most likely not present anymore, but there is no way to show that it is or not because the only “evidence” is the poorly designed PCR test. It is very hard to prove a negative.

[1A] “More evidence of ‘suspicious activity’ at the Wuhan Institute of Virology emerges”

[https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6225724386001]

[1] Euromomo, Graphs and Maps

[https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/]

[2] “REPORT: Surge in COVID Coincides w/ Suspiciously Mild Flu Season”

[https://headlineusa.com/surge-covid-suspicious-flu-season/]

[3] “COVID-19: A Very Different Truth“

[https://thenaturaldoctor.org/article/covid-19-a-very-different-truth/

[4] “Beware Those Excess COVID-19 Death Analyses”

<https://principia-scientific.com/beware-those-excess-covid-19-death-analyses/&gt;

[5] “WHO exposed: How health body changed pandemic criteria to push agenda”

[https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1281081/who-world-health-organisation-coronavirus-latest-swine-flu-covid-19-europe-politics-spt]

[6] “Neither US Nor UK Have ANY Excess Deaths From COVID19” [

[https://principia-scientific.com/?s=neither]

[7] Weekly deaths for January 1–8, 2021

[https://www.ons.gov.uk]

[8] “How Many Americans Has Covid-19 Really Killed?”

[https://principia-scientific.com/?s=How+Many+Americans+Has+Covid-19+Really+Killed%3F]

[9] “Breaking: UK Govt’s OWN NUMBERS Expose Their COVID19 Fraud!”

[https://principia-scientific.com/breaking-uk-govts-own-numbers-exposes-their-covid19-fraud/]

About the author: Banson Wilcot PhD holds degrees in Marine Biology and Biochemistry, with a focus on dermatology and lipid biochemistry, and taught university courses for 12 years. Dr. Wilcot has been professionally editing and critiquing foreign-source research papers for publication and grant applications for 16 years (1000+ items). Being a generalist, he has edited papers ranging from coal-fire dynamics, nanotechnology, material science, electrochemistry, all areas of biochemistry and molecular biology, and organic applications as well as oceanography/marine biology and many marine research topics.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

CIA Counterterror Chief Suggests Going To War Against ‘Domestic Insurgents’

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 4, 2021

The former head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center has suggested that counterinsurgency tactics used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan should be applied to ‘domestic extremists’ inside the US.

NPR reports that Robert Grenier, who directed the CIA’s Counterterrorism program from 2004 to 2006, declared “We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen.”

In an op-ed for The New York Times last week, Grenier suggested that “extremists who seek a social apocalypse … are capable of producing endemic political violence of a sort not seen in this country since Reconstruction.”

Grenier, also a former CIA station chief in Pakistan and Afghanistan, grouped together “the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, ‘Christian’ national chauvinists, white supremacists and QAnon fantasists” and claimed they are all “committed to violent extremism.”

Grenier labeled dissenters an “insurgency” and called for them to be “defeated” like an enemy army.

In further comments to NPR, Grenier stated that “as in any insurgency situation, you have committed insurgents who are typically a relatively small proportion of the affected population. But what enables them to carry forward their program is a large number of people from whom they can draw tacit support.”

Grenier also stated that insurgents may emerge from groups who “believe that the election was stolen,” or those “who don’t trust NPR or The New York Times.”

“The most violent elements that we are concerned about right now see former President Trump as a broadly popular and charismatic symbol,” the CIA spook added, before comparing Trump to Saddam Hussein.

“You know, just as I saw in the Middle East that the air went out of violent demonstrations when [Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein was defeated and seen to be defeated, I think the same situation applies here,” he proclaimed.

Grenier suggested that Trump should be convicted at the upcoming impeachment trial as a ‘national security imperative’ because “So long as he is there and leading the resistance, if you will, which he shows every sign of intending to do, he is going to be an inspiration to very violent people.”

Grenier then compared Americans to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, noting that in Afghanistan “the thrust of our campaign there was, yes, to hunt down al-Qaida, but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to live and to flourish. And that meant fighting the Taliban.”

“I think that is the heart of what we need to deal with here,” he added.

Listen

Linking to Grenier’s comments, journalist Glenn Greenwald quipped that wedding guests throughout America should watch out for drone missiles.

The call to treat Americans as terrorist insurgents comes on the heels of a Department of Homeland Security warning that those dissatisfied with the election result may rise up and commit acts of terrorism in the coming weeks.

“Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” stated the bulletin issued last week through the DHS National Terrorist Advisory System — or NTAS.

The bulletin added that ‘extremists’ may be “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force.”

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s New 2020 Hate Map Is Fake News

By Eric Striker – National Justice – February 3, 2021

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) seems to be enjoying a small resurgence of attention from the mainstream media since the January 6th Capitol protests.

Various scandals, both financial and moral, have largely discredited the SPLC across the political spectrum. Most of its most competent and high profile members like Richard Cohen, Heidi Beirich and Rhonda Brownstein have left the organization, while their “hate group” designations are largely dismissed as meaningless outside of very small circles of Antifa activists and tech censors.

Recently, it updated its infamous “Hate Map” for 2020. The map claims that there are 838 active “hate groups” operating in the United States as we speak.

Despite all the mockery the SPLC has endured throughout the years, its clear that they are impervious to criticism, even from liberal groups, about their blatant lack of interest in facts and low professional standards.

The “Hate Groups” That Don’t Exist

Setting aside the debate over what constitutes a “hate group,” the vast majority of organizations listed state-by-state are either religious congregations, online publications and e-shops, or in hundreds of cases, non-existent and dishonestly catalogued.

For example, the SPLC claims the National Reformation Party is an active “white nationalist” group currently operating in seven states. The only sign that they even exist is a single website, which on the very front of its page clearly states “Race is a social construct having no biological basis” — an opinion that at minimum precludes them from being classed as “white nationalist.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. A skinhead crew called the Vinlander’s Social Club (VSC) and its supporter faction, Firm 22, are listed on the 2020 map as having 11 chapters altogether. A simple search on Wikipedia reveals that VSC was officially disbanded in 2007, with its founder publicly condemning “racism.”

Then there’s White Aryan Resistance, which has for decades been composed of a website that hosted Tom Metzger’s radio program. Metzger is deceased.

How about the American Identity Movement (AIM), which they say is currently engaging in “hate” in 10 states. The organization was officially shut down months ago and there is no sign it ever had much of a presence to begin with.

The Base (5), AtomWaffen Division (6), Micetrap Records (1), Soldiers of Odin (6), Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (6), and countless others are defunct, in some cases for years.

The most ridiculous entry on the list is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Just when we thought that the NSDAP was defeated in 1945, the SPLC reminds us that they in fact have a surviving chapter in Lincoln, Nebraska. Another page on the SPLC’s website claims the NSDAP’s Nebraska Gauleiter is Gary Lauck, who in truth runs a historical book store that sells translated writings by Third Reich authors. Lauck’s online shop itself is listed as a separate “hate group” in the state, just one county over.

The vast majority of non-religious groups on the map that do exist are book publishing houses like Arktos and Antelope Hill Books, personal blogs and podcasts belonging to individuals, or newspapers and news sites. The seemingly large, multi-state presence of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) and various Klan outfits should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

SPLC’s Lists Entire Religions as Hate Groups

The decision to include traditional interpretations of Catholicism, Protestantism, and folk religion is another trick used to pump numbers up.

According to the SPLC, traditionalist Catholics — nine entries overall (mostly just websites and publications) — are a hate group. If we take this logic at face value, every single Catholic who ever lived before the Second Vatican Council in 1962 was a member of a hate organization. Protestants who hold beliefs that dissent from modern “woke” factions are also included on the list.

A glaring double standard is evident in the decision to include adherents of British Israelism (Christian Identity) and Black Israelites on the list. These two groups believe they are the chosen people of the Old Testament, and live by a literal interpretation of its values. If blacks and whites are guilty of hate for preaching this doctrine, why aren’t adherents of Judaism also listed for hate?

Finally, the category of “Neo-Volkisch” is entered 32 times. The word appears to be a loaded, made up phrase to refer to those who pray to the old Gods or practice Asatru. The main culprit is the Asatru Folk Assembly, a 501(c)(3) religious organization that does not engage in political activity.

While other branded groups like the Nation of Islam engage in harsh discourse about white people, it isn’t any more extreme than what Charles Blow regularly writes in New York Times editorials or what SPLC’s more extreme employees believe. NOI’s main offense appears to be its stance on traditional family values and willingness to critique the supposed black-Jewish relationship.

The SPLC’s map is a low-effort piece of disinformation that is transparently and deliberately dishonest.

In spite of all the criticism they have received over their hate list, they are doubling down on a scam intended to provide ammo for leftist propaganda, as well as to extract donations from wealthy consumers of their fake news.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

The establishment wants a Reality Czar in order to crush dissent, not unite us around objective truth

By Michael McCaffrey | RT | February 3, 2021

The mainstream media and ruling elite really hate conspiracy theories and misinformation – except when they don’t.

On February 2, which ironically enough is Groundhog Day here in the US, the New York Times published an article titled ‘How The Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis’.

It seems a very bad sign that America is now relying on a geriatric Washington insider whose own perception of reality has been called in to question numerous times to solve a “reality crisis”.

One of the suggestions was that Biden should create a “Reality Czar” to oversee the dismantling of “disinformation” and the surveillance of “conspiracy theorists”.

In the article, writer Kevin Roose spoke with ‘experts’ who offered suggestions about how to unify Americans around “reality” by stamping out “conspiracy theories” and “misinformation”.

That sounds like a great idea – I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

The problem with a ‘reality czar’ is that America is a post-reality nation. Our culture has gone so far to the extreme with regard to embracing subjective experience over objective reality that some blowhard bureaucrat is not going to be able to tip the scales back towards the rational.

And, of course, that is the point. The Biden administration doesn’t want to return America to objective reality, they want Americans to embrace the establishment’s reality – and those are two very different things.

The establishment reality is the neo-liberal, corporate controlled, military-industrial-complex reality that loathes being held to account for its continuous misdeeds and misinformation.

The establishment reality demands we accept the absurdly incomplete official story regarding the spate of assassinations in the ’60s (JFK, MLK, RFK) while refusing to declassify and un-redact the millions of government files on those topics it won’t let us see.

The establishment reality lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and gave us the hell of the Vietnam War.

The establishment reality lied to us about Iran-Contra and the death squads in Latin America. It also lied about its complicity in the drug trade while it manufactured a War on Drugs.

The establishment reality refused to declassify documents about 9/11 and to investigate the funding for that attack. It also unleashed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s ‘Dark Side’, which included the War on Terror, torture, massive surveillance, Gitmo, rendition and the Patriot Act.

The establishment reality was the one that told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and gave us the Iraq War, and continues to give us the war in Yemen and the carnage in Libya and across the globe.

It is often said that daylight is the best disinfectant, but we are continuously kept in the dark, and the establishment, regardless of which party is in power, is a gangrenous limb whose lies and disinformation are much more toxic to America and the world than anything some QAnon clowns can conjure in their fever dreams.

It is pretty rich that the New York Times is running this article calling for a reality czar and bemoaning disinformation, as it has long aided and abetted the establishment in its concealing of truth and distorting of objective reality.

Whether it be Walter Duranty and his lies for Stalin, or Judith Miller and her lies for Bush, the Times has proven over and over again that it isn’t a news organisation, but a praetorian guard meant to protect the tyrants, oligarchs and aristocrats from the masses.

Am I the only one who remembers the Russiagate hysteria? Stories of dastardly Rooskies hacking into power grids and voting booths, and using microwave weapons to attack Americans have been commonplace in the Times and across the mainstream media, and yet those ‘conspiracy theories’ were not only accepted but embraced. The establishment’s hatred of conspiracy theories is particularly amusing in light of what transpired over the past four years.

Would the new Reality Czar hold the Times accountable for those idiotic stories? Would MSNBC be chastised for Rachel Maddow’s conspiratorial ramblings? Would CNN be reprimanded for its “mostly peaceful protests” disinformation?

Would the Reality Czar target the scientists and medical experts who publicly proclaimed that it was OK to gather in large groups during the pandemic to protest for Black Lives Matter but not to protest against lockdown?

How about those radical trans activists who distort and contort both science and reality?

Would the Reality Czar target the new White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, especially considering her laughably ridiculous press conference from 2015, at which, with a straight face, she stated that the US had a “long-standing” policy against backing coups?

Of course not.

Like a paranoid schizophrenic, our political and media elite is constantly trying to convince people that its own devious delusions are the one true reality.

The Reality Czar would not be required to actually quash misinformation and conspiracy theories – only the misinformation and conspiracy theories the establishment doesn’t like.

As Orwell told us, “Who controls the past, controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past.” The establishment wants to control the present, the past, the future and, most of all, you. And a Reality Czar is just the beginning.

The ‘reality is that the ruling elite are pushing the notion of rampant right-wing domestic terrorists and the danger of conspiracy theories in an attempt to conceal their crimes and stifle dissent, not to help objective “reality” flourish.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Jewish Organization Behind Tech Censorship Funded Study Saying It’s A Figment Of Your Imagination

By Eric Striker | National Justice | February 4, 2021

A New York University study released this week claiming that Twitter and Facebook do not censor the “political right” has been widely mocked and lambasted as a symbol of the conflict of interests and lack of credibility in American academia.

The most Orwellian aspect of this story is that the paper was financed by tech billionaire Craig Newmark, who is Jewish and a leading member of the Anti-Defamation League’s Silicon Valley speech suppression lobby, the Center for Technology and Society (CTS).

The CTS specializes in two things, the first is to aid eager-to-be-used Jewish tech moguls in their quest to censor ideas they perceive threatening to Jewish interests (preserving domestic liberalism and Israel against populist challenges are their main priorities), and the second is to intimidate those who don’t want to play ball, like former free speech advocate Jack Dorsey, into doing their bidding.

CTS concentrates Jewish legal, political, technological, financial and media to shut down dissent. Besides Newmark, its advisory board includes formidable figures such as Shawn Henry, a former assistant director at the FBI, Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, Guy Rosen, product VP at Facebook, and Eli Pariser, the president and co-founder of Democratic Party activist powerhouses MoveOn.org and Avaaz.org.

The tyrants at CTS have so far achieved impressive results. The ADL was the major force behind the banning of Donald Trump, the destruction of Parler, and the long-term project to radically transform the internet from its original mission to be a public square of free debate into an American version of North Korea’s internet.

In cases like Gab, who the ADL has been unable to shut down, they are diligently working to get the Department of Justice to put its defiant CEO Andrew Torba in prison.

The ADL’s campaign of repression is so extreme that authors in Jewish newspapers, who broadly support what they’re doing, are asking them to cool off, “So it’s hardly surprising that Greenblatt has already declared ADL’s support for impeaching Trump a second time. That’s a position a lot of Americans—and, no doubt, the majority of American Jews—agree with, and not all of them are partisan Democrats like Greenblatt. But the question here is: What in the world is a group whose purpose is to monitor and advocate against anti-Semitism doing involving itself in the debate about impeachment?”

As for Newmark, his total lack of respect for ethics, facts and scholarship don’t end at manufacturing fake studies. The organization social media companies have tasked with supposedly fact checking “disinformation,” the Poynter Institute, is also Newmark’s pet project.

In other words, when Tucker Carlson’s producers received an ominous email warning them to stop spreading “disinformation” attached to an NYU study claiming to debunk them, the Jews behind the tech censorship campaign paid for a bogus study claiming tech censorship doesn’t exist that the fact-checking think-tank they also fund will deem “disinformation” to disagree with.

The debate over free speech in America is worthless until people work up the courage to talk about the ADL and the Jewish community’s complete lack of respect for fundamental American principals and the rights of non-Jews.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Biden regime drops Trump-era lawsuit against Yale over discrimination against Asian & white applicants

RT | February 3, 2021

The US Department of Justice has dropped a lawsuit against Yale University for allegedly discriminating against Asian and white applicants, signaling the Biden administration’s intent to protect affirmative action programs.

The DOJ submitted a two-sentence filing in US District Court in Connecticut on Wednesday, notifying the judge in the case of its “voluntary dismissal of this action.” Federal court rules allowed the government to drop the case summarily because Yale hadn’t yet formally responded or sought dismissal of the lawsuit since it was filed in October, the DOJ said.

Former president Donald Trump’s administration had invested two years of investigative work, concluding that Yale had rejected “scores of Asian-American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit,” in favor of black students. Black applicants had four to 10 times the likelihood of being admitted to Yale as white or Asian students with the same academic credentials, the DOJ alleged.

The DOJ demanded in August that Yale stop using such criteria as skin color and national origin as factors in student admissions. After the Ivy League school refused, calling the allegations meritless, federal prosecutors followed through on their threat to sue in October. The case was seen possibly rising to the US Supreme Court, where it could have become a precedent, striking down affirmative action as unconstitutional.

It took President Joe Biden’s administration just two weeks in office to reverse course, dropping the lawsuit. Biden favors affirmative action – using attributes such as skin color, gender and religion as factors in admissions and hiring decisions to increase representation of certain types of people – and appointed a staunch and controversial activist, Kristen Clarke, to head the DOJ’s civil rights division.

Clarke has spoken out in favor of race-based discrimination against Asian students at least as recently as last year. She’s also been known to advocate even more controversial ideas. While she was president of the Black Students Association at Harvard University in 1994, Clarke opined in a letter to the student newspaper that “melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities.” She apparently didn’t attempt to reconcile that view with the argument that black students should be shown favoritism in admissions.

The Trump-era DOJ also had been investigating admissions practices at Harvard. Just as Ivy League schools worked to drive down Jewish student populations in the 1920s, they have been accused of trying to limit Asian admissions in the past generation.

One study by a Princeton University professor found that Asian students needed SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks (on a test with a maximum score of 1,600) to be admitted to elite US schools.

Even with such a disadvantage, Asian students make up about 23 percent of the student body at Harvard, but data released by the university in connection with a lawsuit showed that they would account for 43 percent if only academic qualifications were considered.

That lawsuit was filed by an advocacy group for fair admissions. A federal appeals court in Boston ruled last November that Harvard didn’t intentionally discriminate against Asian applicants

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | | Leave a comment

Study: CDC Broke Federal Law by Manipulating COVID Death Statistics

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | February 3, 2021

A study published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy & the Law recently claims that the CDC violated federal law by inflating COVID-19 fatality statistics.

The study is titled “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective.”

From the Abstract:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”

For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19.

More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis.

The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments.

These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate.

Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions.

Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?

Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity?

Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why? (Full study.)

Patrick Howley, writing for National File, reported:

The groundbreaking peer-reviewed research…asserts that the CDC willfully violated multiple federal laws including the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act at minimum. (Publishing Journal – Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge / Public Health Policy Initiative)

“Most notably, the CDC illegally enacted new rules for data collection and reporting exclusively for COVID-19 that resulted in a 1,600% inflation of current COVID-19 fatality totals,” the watchdog group All Concerned Citizens declared in a statement provided to NATIONAL FILE, referring to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge study.

The research demonstrates that the CDC failed to apply for mandatory federal oversight and failed to open a mandatory period for public scientific comment in both instances as is required by federal law before enacting new rules for data collection and reporting.

“The CDC is required to be in full compliance with all federal laws even during emergency situations. The research asserts that CDC willfully compromised the accuracy and integrity of all COVID-19 case and fatality data from the onset of this crisis in order to fraudulently inflate case and fatality data,” stated All Concerned Citizens.

On March 24th the CDC published the NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 document instructing medical examiners, coroners and physicians to deemphasize underlying causes of death, also referred to as pre-existing conditions or comorbidities, by recording them in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates as “…the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause of death more often than not.”

This was a major rule change for death certificate reporting from the CDC’s 2003 Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, which have instructed death reporting professionals nationwide to report underlying conditions in Part I for the previous 17 years.

This single change resulted in a significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines.

“The research draws attention to this key distinction as it has led to a significant inflation in COVID fatality totals. By the researcher’s estimates, COVID-19 recorded fatalities are inflated nationwide by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks,” stated All Concerned Citizens.

Then on April 14th, the CDC adopted additional rules exclusive for COVID-19 in violation of federal law by outsourcing data collection rule development to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), a non-profit entity, again without applying for oversight and opening opportunity for public scientific review.

On April 5th the CSTE published a position paper Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) listing 5 CDC employees as subject matter experts.

“This key document created new rules for counting probable cases as actual cases without definitive proof of infection (section VII.A1 – pages 4 & 5), new rules for contact tracing allowing contact tracers to practice medicine without a license (section VII.A3 – page 5), and yet refused to define new rules for ensuring that the same person could not be counted multiple times as a new case (section VII.B – page 7),” stated All Concerned Citizens.

By enacting these new rules exclusively for COVID-19 in violation of federal law, the research alleges that the CDC significantly inflated data that has been used by elected officials and public health officials, in conjunction with unproven projection models from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), to justify extended closures for schools, places of worship, entertainment, and small businesses leading to unprecedented emotional and economic hardships nationwide.

“A formal petition has been sent to the Department of Justice as well as all US Attorneys seeking an immediate grand jury investigation into these allegations,” All Concerned Citizens stated.

Read the full article here.

Where are the 2020-2021 Influenza Statistics? “Influenza has been renamed COVID” According to Epidemiologist

Epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski. Image source.

Daniel Payne, writing for Just the News, interviewed epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski regarding the disappearing flu statistics this year.

Dr. Knut Wittkowski is the former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University. He holds two doctorates in computer science and medical biometry, and one of his videos on YouTube last year had amassed over 1 million views before YouTube took it down, because he was critical of the lockdowns and its ineffectiveness on stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Just the News reports:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly influenza surveillance tracker reports that the cumulative positive influenza test rate from late September into the week of Dec. 19 stands at 0.2% as measured by clinical labs. That’s compared to a cumulative 8.7% from a year before.

The weekly comparisons are even starker: This week one year ago, the positive clinical rate was 22%, where now it stands at 0.1%.

Those low numbers continue trends observed earlier in the year in which flu rates have remained at near-zero levels. The trend is not limited to the U.S. Worldwide, health authorities have all reported sharply decreased influenza levels throughout what is normally peak flu season in the northern hemisphere. Rates in the southern hemisphere were also low this year.

Where have all the flu cases gone?

Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski thinks he can answer the riddle.

“Influenza has been renamed COVID in large part,” said the former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University.

“There may be quite a number of influenza cases included in the ‘presumed COVID’ category of people who have COVID symptoms (which Influenza symptoms can be mistaken for), but are not tested for SARS RNA,” Wittkowski told Just the News on Thursday.

Those patients, he argued, “also may have some SARS RNA sitting in their nose while being infected with Influenza, in which case the influenza would be ‘confirmed’ to be COVID.” (Read the full article.)

Is the CDC Hiding and Manipulating Data Regarding Overall Death Rates for 2020?

As we were nearing the end of 2020, we reported on some analysis projections for 2020 that were shaping up to have about as many total deaths for the year as previous years, based on the CDC’s own statistics. See:

Statistics Show that the Number of People who Died in the U.S. in 2020 will be the SAME as Previous Years, in Spite of COVID

A subscriber to Health Impact News recently sent me some screen shots that she allegedly saved at the end of December, 2020, from the CDC website, including a page that was reportedly available during most of 2020 tracking COVID deaths and deaths due to all causes (see above).

This page allegedly used to be at this URL: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/covid_weekly/index.htm

However, when you go this page now, you get this notice:

Resource Not Available

“The page you requested cannot be found at this time. It may be temporarily unavailable or it may have been removed or relocated.”

This is NOT the standard 404 error code which you get if you mistype a page address, because on the CDC website the 404 error code looks like this:

So this is a page that used to exist, and according to the screenshot that this user sent to me, on December 30, 2020 this page stated that the total deaths from all causes in 2020 was 2,902,664.

Here is a copy of page 9 of the National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 68, No. 6, June 24, 2019, which lists total deaths for 2016 and 2017:

There were 2,744,248 recorded deaths from all causes in 2016, and 2,813,503 recorded deaths from all causes in 2017, according to the CDC.

So if the alleged CDC numbers for deaths from all causes in the screen capture from December 30, 2020 is correct, with 2,902,664 on December 30th, it is right in line with what we would expect, without the additional deaths allegedly attributed to COVID-19.

The only way this number for total deaths could be accurate, along with the deaths attributed to COVID, would be if deaths due to all other causes that were not COVID, drastically decreased. Is it possible that deaths due to heart disease, cancer, etc. – all decreased so that the total deaths would be on par for what would be expected if there was no Coronavirus pandemic?

So what happened to this page on the CDC website?

What is the CDC now reporting as the total deaths for 2020 here in 2021?

If you go to: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm – and go down to Table 1, and click on “Yearly,” it will produce this chart showing 3,320,435 deaths for 2020:

So which version is correct?

Only the CDC would know the answer to that question, since they control all the data.

Is the CDC Trustworthy?

I have published this information in several articles the past few weeks, but it obviously bears repeating in this article, since the CDC is supposed to be supplying accurate information and statistics, especially now with regards to the new non-FDA approved experimental COVID mRNA injections.

The CDC is the largest purchaser of vaccines in the world, allocating over $5 BILLION in their budget (supplied by American taxpayers) each year to purchase and distribute vaccines from Big Pharma. See:

Should the CDC Oversee Vaccine Safety When They Purchase Over $5 Billion of Vaccines from Big Pharma?

Do you think this might be a conflict of interest?

Secondly, the CDC owns over 56 patents on vaccines, and many of their scientists earn royalties from the sale of vaccines. (Source.)

Do you think this might be a conflict of interest?

CDC Fraud Corruption

The CDC has a long history of corruption, and over the years many of their own scientists have tried to blow the whistle on this corruption only to be silenced. See some of our previous coverage on CDC corruption:

CDC Scientist Whisteblowers Confirm Corruption Within the CDC

CDC Whistleblower: CDC Covered Up MMR Vaccine Link to Autism in African American Boys

The CDC’s History of Research Fraud Regarding Vaccines and Autism

Can We Trust the CDC? British Medical Journal Reveals CDC Lies About Ties to Big Pharma

In addition, many of the directors running the CDC go on to work for Big Pharma after they complete their term at the CDC. See:

Former CDC Director that Approved Gardasil Vaccine and Became Head of Merck’s Vaccine Division Named “Woman of the Year”

Dr. Scott Gottlieb was the former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner. He joined the board of directors of Pfizer, Inc.—the world’s largest pharmaceutical company and second largest manufacturer of vaccines, in 2019 just shortly after he left the FDA. Pfizer, which posted total revenues of $53.7 billion in 2018, announced Dr. Gottlieb’s election to the board on June 27, 2019.

On July 22, 2020 President Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” project awarded $1.95 BILLION to Pfizer and BioNTech for 100 million doses of their mRNA-based COVID-19.

So what do you think? Can we trust the CDC and the FDA? Are they actually concerned about Public Health, or are they simply the marketing branches of Big Pharma trying to protect their products?

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

United Airlines CEO: MANDATORY Vaccines “Will Become What Most Companies Do”

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 3, 2021

In a speech to business leaders in Chicago, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that he expects business to demand employees be vaccinated, and that people will accept it just as they have accepted wearing masks.

Appearing at the Economic Club of Chicago on Tuesday, Kirby pushed mandatory vaccines for employees, saying “It will just become what is expected and what most companies do.”

“Once the ball gets rolling, it’s going to roll all the way to the bottom,” he declared, adding that “a big second wave” of companies will mandate vaccines in a snowball effect.

“I’m realistic enough, while I think it’s the right thing to do, to know United Airlines alone can’t do it and have it stick. There don’t have to be a ton of others, but there have to be others,” Kirby urged.

Kirby further pointed out that companies can require workers to get the vaccine under a ruling by The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Kirby also said he supports the introduction of vaccine passports not only for air travel, but for everyday activities such as attending concerts or going to the cinema.

“It gives people a pretty strong incentive, because that’s the way they can get their life back,” Kirby proclaimed, adding “We think it’s a key to opening not just international borders and aviation, but the economy.”

As we have highlighted, a barrage of travel industry and tourism insiders, have called for vaccine passports, with many countries setting about implementing the systems.

Globalists, such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have expressed concerns that there are too many disparate systems emerging, and have called for standardisation across the world.

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

The Impotence of the Supreme Court

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF |February 3, 2021

Imagine if the DEA established a torture and prison camp in, say, Odessa, Texas. Whenever DEA agents arrest someone suspected of violating America’s drug laws, the suspect is taken to the DEA camp, where he is tortured into giving up names of people involved in the drug trade. Prisoners are denied a trial for years, perhaps forever. If a trial is ever held, a tribunal of DEA officials determines guilt or innocence. Hearsay evidence is admitted at trial — the accused are not permitted to cross-examine witnesses against them. Attorney-client communications are monitored and supervised. Meanwhile, the DEA initiates an assassination program that brings swifter “justice” to drug-law violators. It enables DEA agents to simply kill drug suspects without any indictment or trial at all.

There is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would declare all of this unconstitutional. That is precisely the type of thing that our ancestors wished to avoid. That’s why they enacted the Bill of Rights. They weren’t satisfied with just the Constitution. They knew that the federal government would attract the type of people who would set up these types of camps. They wanted a Bill of Rights to specifically spell out express restrictions on the powers of federal officials.

Take the Fifth Amendment. It expressly states that no person shall “be deprived of life” without “due process of law.” Due process means formal notice of an accusation, such as a grand-jury indictment,” and a trial. That means no assassination because assassination involves killing someone without an indictment or trial.

Thus, if the DEA established an assassination program for drug suspects, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional.

Consider the Sixth Amendment. It states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….”

Why did our ancestors include that provision? Because they knew that without it, federal officials would jail people indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of their lives. They also knew that if they didn’t make it clear in the Bill of Rights, federal officials would use judges or tribunals, not juries, to decide guilt or innocence.

Thus, if the DEA established our hypothetical system, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional.

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees the right of an accused to confront witnesses against him. That entails the right to cross examine them. With the use of hearsay evidence, that right is destroyed. Thus, there is no doubt that the Supreme Court would declared the DEA’s “judicial” system unconstitutional.

Given that the Supreme Court would declare our hypothetical DEA torture and prison camp and “judicial” system unconstitutional, why hasn’t it done the same with the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s torture and prison camp at Guantanamo Bay?

After all, that camp has all the characteristics of our hypothetical DEA camp. Moreover, military and CIA officials are every much federal officials as DEA officials. As such, they are just as subject to the Bill of Rights as other federal officials, There is no exception in the Bill of Rights for the military or the CIA.

So, why the difference? Why do the Pentagon and the CIA get a pass on violating the Bill of Rights while the DEA doesn’t?

The answer is very simple: In a national security state, the military-intelligence establishment is sovereign and supreme. It runs the show. It permits the Supreme Court, along with the president and the Congress, to have the veneer of power but it is the ultimate decider of how the federal government is going to run.

It all turns on power. In the final analysis, government is force. It is through force and the threat of force that its commands and orders are carried out. The Supreme Court’s orders are enforced by U.S. Marshalls. Imagine a team of U.S. Marshalls appearing at the Pentagon and CIA headquarters with an order to shut down the torture and prison center at Gitmo. What do they do when the Pentagon and the CIA ignore them? They do nothing because the amount of force wielded by a team of U.S. Marshalls is minuscule compared to the military and intelligence force they are facing.

Everyone in the federal government fully understands this phenomenon. The national-security establishment is all-powerful within the federal government. Its powers are omnipotent. When it comes to enforcing the Bill of Rights against the omnipotent power of the Pentagon and the CIA, the Supreme Court knows full well that it is impotent.

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture | , , | Leave a comment

Beijing hopes Washington will follow China’s lead and invite WHO to the US in search for origin of Covid-19

RT | February 2, 2021

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has urged Washington to invite the WHO to conduct traceability testing in the US, citing the fact the American authorities found Covid-19 antibodies in blood donations as early as December 2019.

Speaking on Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters that Beijing has always maintained close communication and cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO) on Covid-19 traceability, and he said it was time the US followed suit.

“I hope that the United States will adopt a positive, scientific, and cooperative attitude on traceability issues, as well as maintain transparency, like China, and invite WHO experts to the United States to conduct traceability research and make positive contributions to international anti-epidemic cooperation and scientific traceability.” Wang said.

The spokesman told reporters that traceability testing was a very complex issue, with many clues, reports and studies needing to be taken into account.

“I will give you an example. According to a research report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were antibodies to the new coronavirus in some American blood donations in December 2019. This means that the new coronavirus may have appeared in the United States at that time, earlier than the official US report,” Wang stated, reinforcing Beijing’s call for Washington to invite the WHO to America.

Wang continued to point out that China has conducted multiple rounds of in-depth exchanges and shared a lot of information and research results with international partners, including the WHO.

WHO experts are currently in China investigating the source of Covid-19, and they visited a wet market in Wuhan on Sunday. It has been widely suggested that a Chinese wet market was the environment where Covid-19 first passed to humans.

Scientists are still exploring a number of theories relating to the origins of the virus.

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Armed conflict between Venezuela and Guyana will involve US forces

By Lucas Leiroz | February 3, 2021

A new focus of tensions is emerging in South America. Since the discovery of oil in Guyana, this country has been increasingly approaching Washington both as an economic partner and as a political ally. The Americans see the partnership with the Guyanese as an opportunity to fill the void left in the global oil market with the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela. But, in addition to a mere economic alliance, the ties between both countries are also rising to the military sphere, which is generating concerns in Caracas.

On January 21, regional tensions reached their peak. Guyanese fishing boats Nady Nayera and Sea Wolf were intercepted by Venezuela after an illegal incursion into Venezuelan territory. Caracas, not having authorized the entry of the vessels, interpreted the maneuver as dangerous to national security and kept the boats under its control. However, this Venezuelan version of the facts was denied by Georgetown, which claimed that the ships were detained within Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Some noteworthy factors preceded this escalation of tensions. On January 7, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro signed a decree that establishes the formation of a new maritime territory on the Atlantic coast. The decree includes part of the Essequibo region, in which there is a territorial dispute with Guyana. The so-called “Guyana Essequiba” refers to a territory currently under the rule of Guyana that previously belonged to Venezuela, having been transferred to Guyanese possession after an arbitrary sentence in an international court organized by the United Kingdom at the end of the 19th century.

Venezuela has since claimed sovereignty over Essequibo, but tensions have been mild most of the time. However, Guyana, since aligning with the US, has been adopting more aggressive measures in the region. The US armed forces recently began military exercises in Guyana and deployed several military ships along Essequibo’s 159,000 km². The territory is rich in oil and the American justification for the exercises is precisely to protect the oil extraction bases installed by the company ExxonMobil. In the midst of such circumstances, Venezuela has its national sovereignty violated and is therefore trying to establish minimum measures to guarantee its interests.

However, despite the rivalry having resumed an old territorial dispute, it is necessary to emphasize that there is an agreement in force on Essequibo that Guyana is directly violating. In 1966, Guyana and Venezuela signed the Geneva Agreement, mediated by the United Nations, which determined which activities would be permitted in which area of ​​Essequibo. In this document, oil exploration by foreign companies is not allowed. Since 2015, the Guyanese government has violated the pact, allowing multinationals to explore for oil there. In 2018, Venezuela had already intercepted ExxonMobil vessels that invaded its territory to explore oil. Now, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has determined the creation of a Special Strategic Zone to increase security over Essequibo because the tendency is for territorial violations to increase further, considering that regional diplomacy is already broken, and that Guyana has become a satellite nation of Washington’s interests – which publicly plans to overthrow Maduro. The Venezuelan decision was condemned by the president of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, which prompted Caracas to issue a statement saying that such positions suggested preparation for an armed confrontation.

The Guyanese attitude has not changed over time. Now, once again, ships have entered Venezuelan territory, leading to their capture by the Bolivarian forces. If that situation continues, the Venezuelan response to foreign incursions may become increasingly rigid and the armed forces are likely to start taking down invasive vessels, which will lead to Washington’s severe responses. Currently, we can no longer regard the South American scenario as “unlikely” for a war to arise. The security crisis is widespread and with Biden in power many experts suggest that American foreign policy will become more aggressive and interventionist. Guyana has a much weaker military apparatus than the Venezuelan State and cannot face the neighboring country with its own forces. It remains to be seen what Washington’s willingness to invest in a conflict in South America will be.

More than ever, a new international agreement is needed to establish a new regulation for the region. The agreement, however, must be impartial and try to favor both nations. In an ideal scenario, the other South American nations, being co-participants in the disputes, should mediate such an agreement. But, today, the political structure of South America is absolutely broken, and no nation has sufficient diplomatic strength to resolve a demand of this nature.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »