American Resistance To Empire

ISIS-K Is Just Another Product of CIA Afghan Assassin Network

[ISIS-K consists of mercenary “Islamists”, mostly ex-TTP, who have been hired by ISIS in Syria to create the impression of a growing worldwide “Caliphate”. Originally recruited from anti-Shiite/Hazara mass-murderers in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to come to Syria and continue their work there. After being run-out of Pakistan by Pak Zarb-i-Azb military offensive, the TTP, soon to be ISIS-K, were sheltered for several years in Afghanistan by local Pushtuns and the Afghan secret services until they became useful. The Afghan Govt supported a Khorasani offensive against the Afghan Taliban, until they were severely beaten by the Talib and thereafter kept penned-up in and around Nangarhar (Afghan Taliban Keep ISIS Penned-Up In The Wilderness of Nangarhar ). After the Taliban victory, Taliban found them useful, using them to attack the Americans and the airport, making new American media disinformation (Trusting the Taliban to Fight Islamic State ) seem probable, allowing the CIA to continue and to expand Afghan operations under the watchful Taliban eye.
Kabul explosion signals opening of jihadi civil war in Afghanistan

TTP Spokesman Confesses the Expected…Pak. Taliban Work For India, Afghanistan

The Islamic State in ‘Khorasan’: How it began and where it stands now in Nangarhar

Top US Gen. Admits That 70% of “ISIS” In Afghanistan Actually TTP, Pakistani Taliban

The top US commander in Afghanistan General John Nicholson has said roughly 70 per cent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terror group loyalists fighting in Afghanistan are the members of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.

“In the case of Islamic State Khorasan province, the majority of the members are from the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).”

Afghan Taliban Keep ISIS Penned-Up In The Wilderness of Nangarhar

United States Re-Packaged Al Qaeda As ‘Khorasan Group’ To Sell Attack (On Syria)

US Drone Strike In Khost Kills 3 TTP/ISIS Taliban, While Pak Army Hangs 2 More, Same Group

Manufacturing Justification for the NATO Takeover of Central Asia–(Part One)

Smashing Greater Central Asia—Part II  Risking the World

Smashing Greater Central Asia—Part III  Phantom Threats

Smashing Greater Central Asia – (Part IV)–Smashing Systematically

Kabul explosion signals opening of jihadi civil war in Afghanistan

Former State Department member says ISIS-K ‘tends to be about as far on the spectrum of evil as you can possibly be.’

The ISIS-K suicide bombing marked the deadliest day for American forces in Afghanistan since August 2011.

In an interview with Fox News, Christopher Harnisch, former deputy coordinator for counterterrorism at the U.S. State Department, broke down the terrorist group’s motivation for the attack amid the U.S. completing its withdrawal from the country.

“We in the West tend to think of the target being Americans,” Harnisch told Fox News. “The real purpose was to attract potential recruits into its ranks, and also to really launch a civil war against the Taliban and other groups fighting along the periphery.”
The group, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province or ISIS-K, is an Afghan affiliate of the group’s core leadership in Syria and Iraq. After the Islamic State lost its territory following a five-year military campaign by local and international forces, the caliphate increasingly turned to Afghanistan for its fighters.

ISIS-K was founded in 2015 by several hundred disillusioned Pakistani Taliban fighters. According to Harnisch, the goal of all ISIS factions is “to establish a global caliphate governed by the most extreme and oppressive interpretation of Sharia.”

“With the withdrawal from Afghanistan, ISIS-K sees an opportunity to fill a security vacuum and ultimately try to come to power,” he continued.

In order to gain control of the region, ISIS-K will have to fight the Taliban, which just toppled the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan after a 10-day blitz and currently sits at the helm of the country.

In addition to sparking a civil war with rival militant Islamist jihadi groups, another reason for the attack was to aid the terrorists group’s global recruitment effort.

“ISIS-K knows that in order to achieve success and achieve its vision of setting up a caliphate based in Afghanistan, it’s going to need manpower,” said Harnisch.

A United Nations report in June found that 8,000 to 10,000 jihadists from Central Asia, the North Caucasus region of Russia, Pakistan and the Xinjiang region in China have entered into Afghanistan in recent months. According to the report, most are associated with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, the report said, but others are allied with ISIS-K.

“ISIS-K’s objective was to undermine the credibility of the Taliban by showing Afghans and the world that the Taliban is incapable of providing security,” Harnisch claimed. “The attack was a huge propaganda victory,” he continued.  “Aspiring jihadists all over the world saw that and they’re saying, ‘ISIS is the one in charge here.’”

While ISIS-K’s estimated 1,500-2,000 members pale in comparison to the Taliban’s near 80,000, Harnisch said he believes the number of ISIS-K recruits entering into Afghanistan will increase over the coming months following Thursday’s attack.

When comparing ISIS-K with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Harnisch said “tactically speaking they’re very similar,” with all three engaging in “absolutely barbaric, evil terrorist attacks.”

However, he admitted that ISIS-K’s attacks “tend to be about as far on the spectrum of evil as you can possibly be.”

Harnisch specifically recalled an incident in 2020 in which ISIS-K targeted the maternity ward of a hospital in Kabul, killing 24 people including newborn babies and mothers.

“The Taliban and al-Qaida, though evil organizations and barbaric in their own right, haven’t gone that far in terms of their attacks,” he said.

Despite the Unites States’ desire to disengage from long, drawn-out international conflicts, Harnisch claimed, “the fight against terror, it will continue.”

The former Counterterrorism Director at the National Security Council criticized .U.S leadership for its false promise to “end forever wars.”

“We ended the war in Afghanistan, but I can tell you right now that the war against terror is not over,” he said. “It will continue because we just handed the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda, a major victory.”

Mullah Baradar…central terrorist leader at the center of CIA/ISI Psyop, deception operation

Mullah Baradar… (click on Baradar, 106 posts)

central terrorist leader at the center of CIA/ISI Psyop, deception operation

Arresting Taliban To Cover America’s Ass–(updated 1/29/19)

By:  Peter Chamberlin

The multitude of theories on the reasons for the arrests are divided between cooperation and confrontation theories, either it is explained by mutual interests or by rivalries.  In my opinion, it is both.

Researchers and analysts are banging their heads against many walls, searching for meaning in reports of multiple arrests of Taliban, by the Pakistani government.  Speculation is running rampant, that Pakistan has finally “seen the light,” that it represents a “split” within the Taliban, or that Pakistan has arrested Taliban who have been negotiating with Brits or Americans.  In my opinion, the arrests began as a clean-up operation to remove links to the intelligence being revealed in British courts, but it turned into a tit-for-tat series of paybacks between the ISI and the CIA.

The true meaning of the arrests can be ascertained from the timing of the events.  It may have been primarily an American/Pakistani operation to isolate Taliban leaders who had either negotiated with the British, or had been held at Guantanamo.  British courts had taken up the case of Binyam Mohamed and American officials publicly stated that disclosing classified information about US abuse of this detainee would damage intelligence cooperation between the agencies of the two nations.

The first arrest, of Taliban number two, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was on, or about  Feb. 7.  Multiple news reports have tied Baradar to ongoing negotiations to identify and isolate “reconcilable” Taliban.  These attempts at negotiating have all come from the British or Afghan sides, with the US supposedly prepared to take advantage of any breakthroughs.

On February 10, 2010:


A British court has ordered the government to disclose classified information about the treatment of a former Guantanamo Bay…It was released after judges at an appeals court on Wednesday rejected the UK government’s claim that disclosing the information would damage intelligence co-operation with US agencies.”

In the days that followed, the western media was abuzz with more reports that Pakistan had made multiple “arrests” of the Taliban’s leadership.  It is impossible to know how many of these names obtained from the Western media are correct, but some of them had also been tied to the British negotiations, while at least two of them were former inmates of Guantanamo.

Mullah Abdul Raouf. GUANTANAMO Taliban military chief for northern Afghanistan

Mullah Abdul Qayoum Zakir GUANTANAMO around 2006, then transferred to Afghanistan government custody in late 2007, eventually released around May 2008. American officials won’t say why he was let go and have not released a photograph of him.

Mullah Abdul Salam is unidentifiable, at this point, whether he is the governor of Kunduz, or the former Taliban who was involved with British diplomat Michael Semple and EU diplomat Mervyn Patterson, or still other candidates, such as former inmate of Guantanamo Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, or Mullah Abdul Salaam Rocketi.

Mullah Muhammad Hassan

Mullah Muhammad Younis.  who is also known as Akhunzada Popalzai

Mullah Ahmed Jan Akhunzada (could be Akhunzada Popalzai)

Maulavi Abdul Kabir, aka Mullah Abdul Kahir Osmani

Mohtasim Agha Jan, son-in-law of Mullah Omer


Do the arrests mean that Pakistan has embraced the American mission in the war on terror?

The following timetable relates the arrests to the rest of the unfolding understory.

1/28-  London conference

2/2-4-  India/Iran development conference, topic opening Afghan route

2/8-  Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar

2/13-  Operation Moshtarak offensive begins

2/17-  Mullah Abdul Salam

2/18-  Car-bomb targeting Mangal Bagh mosque, blamed on Berelvi  “Ansar al-Islam”

2/18-  Mohammed Haqqani killed in Predator attack

2/20-  Two Sipah e-Sahaba militants killed Faisalbad

2/20-  Pak Army adds 26 posts to border, Balochistan

2/23-  Rigi arrested

2/23-  Pak announces new naval base near Gwadar

2/24-  Qari Zafar killed Predator

2/25-  India/Pakistan talks

2/26-  Kabul bomb targets Indian doctors

2/26-  Khalid Khwaja petitions Lahore High Court to block deportation of Taliban.

2/27-  Intra-Sunni battles Faisalbad  (revival of Sipah e-Sahaba attacks on Berelvi)

2/27-  Hafiz Saeed, “India will have to fight if it will not talk.”  Silence on Taliban arrests

If you look at the timetable to understand whether or not Pakistan and the US are on the same page you see some clear evidence of a joint US/Pakistan mission to eliminate the Taliban leadership, but more than that, you see specific acts of resistance on Pakistan’s part.

There is one inescapable reality–the Pakistani Army will never truly turn on the Taliban, who represent their last line of defense, as well as their first option, in any contest with India.  The historical relationship between the military and the militants has been one where the government has used sectarian terror groups (and even created them) to keep the tribes, sects and political groups in line.  Keep these things in mind, as you consider the events.

In addition to the arrests, the timetable details American predator strikes which have eliminated some of the Army’s protected militants, in particular, Mohammed Haqqani and Qari Zafar.  In between those two American assassinations, you have the arrest of American asset against Iran, Abdolmalek Rigi, thanks to Pakistan’s ISI.  Between the Haqqani hit and the Rigi arrest, Pakistan set-up 26 border posts to block US hot pursuit into Balochistan.  Long dormant Sipah e-Sahaba started anti-Berelvi rioting in Faisalbad.  After the Rigi arrest, Pakistan announced plans for a new naval base near the Chinese-constructed port at Gawadar.

After the Predator killed Qari, the India/Pakistan talks started and quickly ended, followed by the bombing of the Indians living in Kabul.  This was followed by Khalid Khwaja (of Daniel Pearl fame) interceding at the Lahore High Court to block extradition of the Taliban.  But this does not leave us with a clear-cut case of Pakistan blocking American moves and supporting militants for political terrorism, but a record that speaks of both the United States and Pakistan together using militant Islamists and gangs for terrorism.

The Rigi case was a concrete example of the US supporting groups who are committing terror attacks, just like the case of Pakistan and the Taliban.  Pakistan handing him to Iran is a clear sign of resistance to American plans, but it should probably be understood as retribution for the killing of Mohammed Haqqani.  But in spite of all this, there have been new signs since all of this has transpired that points to a new direction for the CIA/ISI partnership that leads where all parties have always wanted to go—central Asia.

A new war drama has emerged in Baghlan province, the former domain of “shadow” governor, Mulla Mir Mohammad; there, the forces of ISI friend Gubuddin Hekmatyar (former CIA friend) have attacked the local Taliban who are hosting IMU terrorists (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan).  This marks a new direction for a joint CIA/ISI mission.  Together, Pakistan and the US will back Heckmatyar as the northern front is expanded (with the “discovery” of many new Uzbek militants) and moves to secure the new supply line.

Today’s news reports that Hekmatyar’s forces have surrendered to the Karzai (Northern Alliance) government.  This opens the door to Pakistani-backed militants becoming part of the “reconciliation” program.  This will allow the US to buy its way out of Afghanistan in such a way as to set-up the movement of US forces northward toward the hydrocarbon deposits of Central Asia.

Until this new level of cooperation was brought together, Pakistan and the US have been on a collision course over disagreements on the mission of the terror war, which began in the confrontations between Bush and Musharraf over the war in Waziristan.  That period was marked by US and British efforts to penetrate the veil of secrecy that shrouded South Waziristan, as well as the North.  One of the most effective of these intrusions was by the British through their agent Michael Semple and his efforts to find “reconcilables” and convert them to an anti-Taliban mission.

The Semple mission through Mansoor Dadullah penetrated the S. Waziristan cloak of secrecy, where it exposed another covert mission, a joint American/Israeli/Indian mission, known as the “Pakistani Taliban” (TTP), run by Mansoor’s big brother (Mullah Dadullah).  Upon this discovery, the British mission was exposed and shut down by the American government (SEE: Dissecting the Anti-Pakistan Psyop).

The TTP project continued to rain havoc upon Pakistan, forcing the Army to finally take action, even though the local tribes had opposed past military offensives.  The TTP would rain such hell down upon the heads of the innocent people of FATA and the NWFP that they would welcome the Army with open arms and even accept an American drone war in their midst.  Anything, as long as someone got rid of those pesky militants!

After the Obama Administration took over, CIA sources were tricked into targeting the head of the TTP, Baitullah Mehsud, despite countless attempts to avoid him in the past, because he had become such a thorn in Pakistan’s side.  His successor, Hakeemullah, was an even bigger pain, as he escalated the terror attacks upon both government and sectarian targets until he foolishly went too far, seeking revenge upon the CIA for Baitullah, leading to his own demise.

The killing of Hakeemullah’s mentor, Qari Zafar, and the subsequent elimination of the rest of the TTP leadership has eliminated the hierarchy that was carefully cultivated over many years by the consortium of spy agencies.   The same airborne strategy that has eliminated former American assets like the Mehsuds through a succession of decapitation strikes, was also responsible for elevating them into their leadership positions in the first place.

The tricks of the trade that have been utilized to develop and control agents of influence in S. Waziristan, like Baitullah and Tahir Yuldashev (and especially their former mentor, Guantanamo inmate Abdullah Mehsud) are from the CIA’s deepest bag of dirty tricks. From what we know today, these “high-value” militants were subjected to military mind-control science, as the agency and the military pulled-out all stops in breaking these guys at Guantanamo and Bagram.   Even more severe measures were used in Uzbekistan, where Yuldashev and others were persuaded to embrace our line of thinking.  In addition to the various modes of torture employed at Guantanamo, we can safely assume that darker methods like psychotropic drugs and electroshock were also used on these reconditioned “Islamist” leaders, when we have already used them on our own troops.

American attempts to block the British court ruling that would open the door to public discussion of the secret illegal methods used upon the inmates of Guantanamo is the reason for the breakdown of communications between CIA and MI6.  It would make perfect “Imperial” sense to have Pakistan round-up and hold all the Taliban leaders who possessed first-hand experiences of the Guantanamo brainwashing process or those who had been exposed to the British negotiations which uncovered the actions of some of the brainwashed leaders in S. Waziristan.

In S. Waziristan, around the town of Wana, the graduates of the various CIA/military torture/brainwashing programs convened to create both the TTP and Jundullah, Rigi’s group.  Abdullah Mehsud had come to Wana after leaving Gitmo, along with Tahir Yuldashev, forming the base of the “Pakistani Taliban.”  There they agitated and terrorized the tribal region to accept Wahabbi “Shariah.”   They were reinforced in 2007 by Mullah Dadullah Akhund, after he was released from his year studying at another American “Islamist university”, probably at Baghram.

Near Wana, the group hosted trainers from Lashkar e-taiba and Lashkar e-Jhangvi to turn-out the large number of TTP fighters who have plagued Pakistan’s Swat region.  To this deadly mix, a radical Wahabbi preacher named Haji Namdar was exported to Bara in Khyber, from Saudi Arabia, where he had been radicalizing for the previous six years.  Namdar was like all of the aforementioned Taliban leaders who had been taken earlier in the war and were in American hands in Guantanamo or Afghanistan for long periods of time, or they were indoctrinated in countries dominated by US forces, such as Saudi Arabia, in preparation for their return to Pakistan and the planned destabilization mission.

The same irregular warfare tactics that US forces and the CIA were employing in Pakistan were used in Afghanistan, as well.  The same pattern of aerial decapitation inspired leadership changes, involving former Guantanamo prisoners, was followed in Afghanistan.  Next in line to Mullah Omar, Mullah Akhtar Usmani, was killed by airstrike, after a phone call was intercepted by British drone.   He was replaced by Mullah Baradar, who allegedly may be replaced by possible Guantanamo alumnus Mullah Zakir, although some reports have listed him among the recently captured.  Zakir’s second in command is another Guantanamo parolee, Mullah Abdul Raouf.

The more we learn about the alleged “differences” between the missions of the Pakistani and the US military, the more we learn that they may not be that far apart on many issues.  Most of the drama we have become accustomed to has been no more than political theater, designed to alter the opinions of the people of both America and Pakistan so that they would embrace the never-ending war of terror.

When you look closely at the conflict that has been generated in S. Waziristan and NWFP by the TTP terrorist strikes, it becomes apparent that that was all just more consensual drama, as well—all designed to deceive the people into allowing it to happen in Pakistan and allowing it to spread forth from there, like a plague upon all mankind.


The Real War –vs– The Illusions

By Peter Chamberlin

In the complicated calculus of the men who would plan our destinies for us, if we would only let them, it is often hard to fathom which line of reasoning represents their dominant thinking on any strategic subject.  In Afghanistan and in Pakistan, it is getting harder to distinguish between the minimum acceptable goals for the Empire and less-desirable, though ultimately acceptable conditions for ending the war.  In particular, thinking of the “pipeline wars” (which American corporations seem to be losing, badly), if America is projected to fail miserably in its plans for Central and South Asia, then what secondary objectives is the Empire preparing for the region?

Could it be possible that the rationale for the US terror war is falling apart so quickly since the big production in Abbottabad, that the secondary objective of playing spoiler for the winners in the energy war is replacing the primary mission of Central Asian energy-looting as America’s military solution for economic salvation?  The war itself is unsustainable, absent the collective will of the American people to wage this war without a valid reason, or foreseeable end, the 911 attacks having been replaced long ago with whatever excuse Obama wanted to use as justification.  On top of this, the bin Laden psyop is having the unintended consequence of undermining support for continuing the war and increasing the public uproar to find an end to this war that now has no adversary, in the absence of a terrorist mastermind.  It is slowly winding-down to total defeat for the United States, absent another earth-shattering unifying, “Pearl Harbor-like event” in the near future.  What will the American administration do to sustain this unpopular war?  How far will they go to keep the Afghan/Pakistan war going?

The NATO side is currently still pursuing a policy of faking negotiations with old acquaintances of Mullah Omar, like Tayyab Aga, allegedly discussing reconciliation efforts for harmless “Taliban” (those who are not veteran Taliban fighters).  These fighters are expected to turn-in their weapons for cash, even though the actual Taliban spokesmen for Mullah Omar insist that there will be no negotiations as long as occupation forces remain in Afghanistan.  The US has staked-out the position that those who fought against the coalition government cannot be “reconciled,” meaning that all those who have fought against the American occupation have no other choices but to keep fighting until they die in combat, or turn themselves in for arrest.  The Taliban still insist that there is nothing to talk about as long as the occupation continues.  Mullah Omar has issued hand-written warning notes to local mosques stating that those who negotiate with the Americans are marked for death. There is no room for compromise there for either side.  So what good will it do for US/British negotiators to talk to second or third level Taliban who have no sway with high command?  It is more than likely that all of this reconciliation talk is merely for public entertainment purposes, maintaining popular support for the war and Obama, by pretending that Obama is getting it right and peace may be just around the corner.

It is becoming clear to those who care to look for the truth about the war, that the US never intended to leave Afghanistan, it has always planned to use Afghanistan and Pakistan as a military beachhead into Central Asia (SEE: Neutral Afghanistan serves regional stability).  Every American

spokesperson who has publicly denied these now obvious facts, has been consciously lying to the world, in order to advance this mass deception as far as possible before the American people wake-up.  Researchers and analysts are breaking through the carefully constructed wall of American deception to understand just how cynically American leaders have manipulated Pakistan and India, playing them off against one another in a dangerous game of brinkmanship designed to serve only Imperial ends.

Indian and Pakistani writers have to dig deeper to understand the psyops that are still playing-out along the Durand Line.  They must ask:  How deep does the American deception go, or is everything about this war a deception?  Only then can it become apparent the defensive actions that each nation must take, perhaps in a united action against the Imperial designs.

Indian writer M K Bhadrakumar reports on American attempts to sideline both Afghan and Pakistani governments from any negotiations with the Afghan Taliban (SEE:  CIA instigating mutiny in the Pakistani army), in order to buy time to force an American compromise.  His article offers the following novel explanation of why American leaders would intentionally engineer a risky potential “colonel’s coup” to unseat Gen. Kayani:

“The only way is to set the army’s house on fire so that the generals get distracted by the fire-dousing and the massive repair work and housecleaning that they will be called upon to undertake as top priority for months if not years to come.”

In the opinion of this former Indian diplomat, Washington was actively destabilizing Islamabad, and it was endangering the entire region in order to do it.  A destabilized nuclear sub-continent has always been the implied result of these American machinations.  It is only logical to ask whether this has always been the plan, and for what conceivable reasons?  Did they really believe that they could force both Afghans and Pakistanis to follow orders that would harm their own countrymen, or that their plans would succeed even if they got everything that they wanted from them?  What could American leaders hope to get out of this planned conflagration that they probably could have achieved by less violent, more honorable means?  There is nothing “honorable” about this ongoing thirty-year war.  Our “upstanding” national leaders have always planned to use American military muscle to protect their great redistribution of wealth (the exact opposite of the Marxist concept, the rich get everything), as they looted, raped and plundered the entire world, even our allies.  It is only now, in the end game, when these things are being made clear to all who care to see.

The plan has always been to use American military muscle to create for themselves the power to dictate a political/military solution to the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by sidelining all the valid neighborhood players, even the Afghan “straw man” government itself, much as it has already done for itself in Iraq.  They have even applied the same time-tested formula for destabilization which was used in Iraq, but without the same results.  The US is no more in position to dictate terms to Afghanistan today than it was ten years ago.  Unlike Iraq, where the “Anbar solution” of tribal militias was field-tested, there are no major differences between Afghans to exploit.  Iraq is nothing like Afghanistan or Pakistan.  Different solutions were required, even though Pentagon and CIA geniuses only knew the one song of divide and conquer.  That is why they have failed so miserably in the Far Eastern war theater.

Since they had only one song and dance routine, the CIA and their ISI counterparts have kept playing on the same theme, in their little war games, intended to hold the attention of  patriotic Americans and Pakistanis.  In Afghanistan, Western powers have manipulated the tribal and national differences by developing the Northern Alliance coalition of Hamid Karzai, which is mostly comprised of Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazara Shia, as a counterfoil to mostly Pashtun Taliban forces.  The anti-Taliban coalition efforts of a massive nationwide propaganda effort, supplemented with an equally massive program of enormous pay-offs, backed-up by NATO firepower have failed to buy or intimidate loyalty from local warlords or join their forces to the Karzai/Northern Alliance government.

Since Karzai’s reelection, the Western media, politicians and generals have been steadily undermining the support Karzai did have, undercutting his efforts to create a High Peace Council, probably well on their way to grooming his replacement, someone like former Afghan spymaster, Amrullah Saleh, who is already a long-term CIA asset, besides being Karzai’s exact opposite.  Saleh is one of those selected individuals, unfortunate enough to be native to a CIA-targeted country, who was sent to America before 2001, for specialized training by the CIA.  As a top junior aid to legendary Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, he was there in Takhar Province, serving as the CIA liason, when the “Lion of Panjshir” was assassinated on September 9, 2001.  He has been a favorite of the spooks since then, especially after the FBI forced him on Karzai as his new spy chief in Feb. 2004, coincidentally, just one month before Pakistani Taliban founder Abdullah Mehsud was released from two and one-half years at Guantanamo “brainwashing academy” into his custody as Afghan intelligence chief.  The story of the Tehreek e-Taliban Pakistan that he helped to inspire is a tale of grief and double-crossing.  They are the “poison” that was introduced into the Pakistani soil, which Saleh so colorfully described.

The Americans are hedging their bets in Afghanistan, like always, fronting two streams of the Afghan political spectrum at once.  The Karzai/Rabbani alliance is backing the reconciliation talks with the Taliban that could lead to the partitioning of Afghanistan, split between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in control of the south, in order to facilitate pipeline and development plans for the north.  This is the State Dept. best solution.  This position is allegedly unacceptable to Northern Alliance candidate Saleh, who advocates carpet-bombing Pakistan and night-time Special Forces decapitation raids all the way from Balochistan to Bajaur.  His position is that there can never be victory in the war against the Taliban until their support lines to the Pak Army are cut.  He represents the most radical factions of the CIA, who advocate total war with Pakistan.

In order to dissuade the Pak Army from continuing to support the Afghan Taliban, the CIA master-plotters have created their own versions of “lashkars,” such as the fake Pakistani Taliban, to battle and terrorize the Army and the people of Pakistan.  Since 2003, Musharraf’s generals have been helping him and his successor Gen. Kayani, to revive the defeated Taliban movement as a substitute for concerted, decisive military action against the remnants of “al-Qaeda” and the Afghan Taliban leadership, who had all been allowed to regroup in Waziristan and Balochistan by both the ISI and the CIA.  They originally relocated there from northern Afghanistan in the infamous “Kunduz airlift,” where they were spared from certain annihilation at the hands of Uzbek Gen. Dostum and the Northern Alliance forces.  Once they were flown there, they began to reoccupy the old CIA/ISI training camps there which had formerly been vacated after they were used to drive-out the Soviets.  The IMU terrorists of Tahir Yuldeshev, who were brought across the border with Abdullah Mehsud in his instant army of fake Taliban (composed of Northern Alliance fighters), ran the camps and shared their military expertise with the new Taliban recruits being readied to keep the Afghan conflict going.

Abdullah brought his Uzbek and Chechen fighters to Wana, where they joined-up with Nek Mohammed.  This was long before the Pakistani Taliban began their waves of Pakistani terrorism, when they still had the trust of the real Afghan Taliban.  Because of his trust for new militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, as well as his initial distrust of Abdullah Mehsud, because of the Guantanamo years, Mullah Omar sent his hand-picked emissary, celebrated veteran commander Mullah Dadullah, to bless the Pakistani Taliban union and name Baitullah as its head.  Dadullah oversaw the effort in S. Waziristan, where he had been working closely with Nek Mohammed and his successors, Abdullah and Baitullah Mehsud to develop a formidable new Taliban army of 20,000 fighters or more, including a suicide-bomber academy.  After Dadullah shepherded the Waziri Accord peace treaty between the Pakistani Taliban and the Army on orders from Mullah Omar himself, Dadullah was also targeted for drone assassination, just like Nek before him (even though British Special Forces claim the kill).

Under the command of Baitullah, the Pakistani Taliban (now called Tehreek e-Taliban Pakistan, TTP) unleashed a wave of terror upon tribal leaders, government forces and the mosques of the unbelievers.  At first, this terror was blamed upon the IMU terrorists who had been given shelter by the Mehsud leadership, providing an opening for the Pak Army to introduce a counter-insurgency, in the form of aggressive tribal lashkars of their own.

Local Ahmadzai Wazir militant leader Maulvi Nazir created a lashkar army of 900 heavily armed men, who proceeded to run the IMU terrorists out of his territory around Wana, S. Waziristan.  The Army then began to replicate the lashkar-building process in other towns, hoping to enlist the tribals in a massive show of force to evict the “bad Taliban” and those labeled as “al-Qaeda” from Pakistan.  Nothing much came from the effort, except for a bunch of dead lashkar militiamen.

Needing a concrete strategy to counter US destabilization plans and demands for total war in the Tribal Regions, Pakistan has continued to sell the “good/bad Taliban” theme as a path to eventual “reconciliation,” putting distance between the two groups, so that heavy force could then be used to eliminate the criminal Taliban in successive operations.  But each time that Pakistan made a little headway, lashkar leaders would be eliminated in car-bomb attacks, or by the occasional Predator drone.

Beginning with the massive drone assault in Bajaur, on October 30, 2006, which killed 80 religious students, drone attacks have become the favorite weapon for radicalizing locals and driving them into the eager arms of the Taliban.  This is one of the reasons for believing that American leaders have always secretly supported the formation of militant armies, in order to have someone to fight and to provide valid-seeming reasons for prolonging the war.  Everything they do creates more resistance.

The complex CIA schemes have forced Pakistan to develop its own ISI counter-schemes as a matter of self-defense against American demands to wreck the country and force the Pakistani people into open rebellion against their elected government.  The ten-year deception in Pakistan has gone through many stages, fronted by many separate players, all of them having some stake in the Empire winning the contest. Today in Afghanistan we have an ongoing war, fueled by a series of major deceptions.  The more obvious it becomes that the war is being lost, the more the deceptions will fall apart.  At some point, the lies will fall apart faster than they can be reconstructed in a new form.

In Pakistan, we see at least ten times the number of major deceptions which we can see unwinding across the border.  I guess that this is what they mean by an “intelligence driven war.”  Every interested great power has a game at play now in Pakistan; every interested great power is double-gaming someone else, partners are being made to be cashed-in later, when it will bring the greatest advantage.  Pakistan’s military, the “Establishment” and every one of the many “mafias” (land mafia, gas mafia, etc.) have their own separate games going on, all of them game off each other.  Seeing daylight through this morass of webs of intrigue is almost an impossibility.  It is not surprising that the game-players are having such a difficult time controlling the eventual outcome of this soon to be exploding psychological warfare experiment.

American mind-benders have playing their usual games and inventing a few new ones in their careful efforts to destabilize Pakistan without really upsetting the apple cart, losing control of the situation.  It suits CIA and American military purposes to give the ISI enough rope to hang itself.  This explains why they seem to go along with Pakistan’s generals, even when they are obviously lying or playing games to avoid causing a rupture in relations.  In their international media campaign to embarrass the Pak Army and government, the media-masters are careful to go just so far in slandering them, but not far enough to force negative international reactions.  US leaders understand the close relationship between the ISI and certain militant groups, but, until recently never charged the Army with supporting militants in public.  Since open psychological war broke-out between the two sides in 2008 (SEE:  US/Pakistan Showdown/Throwdown July12), they have maintained a love/hate relationship, creating difficult circumstances for fulfilling contracts and such.  As far as the United States is concerned, Pakistan has a contractual obligation to help eliminate the “al-Qaeda” militants that the US and Pakistan have created together.

For these reasons, the CIA lets the ISI have its Lashkars and its “strategic depth” militants, preferring to seize the opportunity to use the controlled media to weave stories about the Wana battles into tales of “al-Qaeda,” the mythical international terrorist network. Beginning with the story about Mullah Nazir and his battle against the IMU terrorists of Abdullah and Baitullah Mehsud, CIA-sponsored Pakistani and Western reporters have invented stories of “good Taliban” turning against “al-Qaeda.”  (The most reliable of these al-Qaeda story creators was Asia Times reporter Syed Saleem Shazad, the author of the Al-Qaeda/Taliban split story.  Syed worked tirelessly, over several years to weave a tapestry out of whole cloth about the “al-Qaeda” monolith that stood astride the Durand Line, threatening the entire world with “Islamist terrorism.”).

Since its inception, the concept of “good Taliban vs bad Taliban has been fully implemented by both sides, although neither side could agree on whether the “bad Taliban” were those who attacked only Pakistan, or those who attacked only Afghan coalition targets.  It seems that most of the time, there has been no Taliban who attacked both sides, except when the Pak Army gave in to American demands and turned its guns upon its friends.  By cultivating peace treaties and non-aggression agreements with individual tribal groups, Pakistan had developed an equilibrium with the militants, and for short intervals, terror attacks seemed to have almost come to an end—until the Predator assassination campaign began, ultimately destroying any trust, driving tribal fighters by the thousands into the arms of the Taliban.

American drones have consistently targeted those militant leaders and outfits that the Pak Army has chosen to protect under the wing of its “strategic depth” concept.  Both militant and lashkar leaders have fallen prey to drone missiles—the majority of them friends of the Army.  The CIA has intensified the drone attacks as the administration upped the ante, demanding more and more that Pakistan dare not give, since national suicide is out of the question.

The big question then becomes then:  Is Obama willing to accept a partial non-Haqqani offensive against the TTP, the mad dog killers of Col. Imam and Khalid Khawaja, in N. Waziristan, in place of an anti-Haqqani offensive?  Of all the militant groups, the criminal gangs who have attached themselves to the psychopathic killer Hakeemullah Mehsud, heir to all that Baitullah stood for, are by far the most dangerous.  The only explanation for such a grouping of monsters who have never attacked American or NATO troops, is that they consider them to be allies, or at least employers.  If the US would support the elimination of these killers first, as a favor to our struggling ally, then perhaps Pakistan’s influence upon such “Taliban” as Haqqani can help bring the Afghan war to a resolution, if that is what Obama really wants.

If events follow the time-tested patterns of previous Pakistani offensives, then an operation in N. Waziristan would mean another flushing of refugees onto the roadways  and trails of neighboring provinces (overwhelming limited social services wherever they come to rest, Pakistan already has more refugees than any other country).  This will once again demonstrate Pakistan’s basic inability to carry-out the total war actions that the US is demanding from them.  Pakistan doesn’t have either the manpower or the equipment needed to meet national disasters (just like most other nations), nor the capabilities required to eliminate an entrenched heavily armed insurgency.  Will Obama accept this excuse for doing half of what he has demanded, just as Bush eventually did in the past?

The basis of the new great Show seems to be the “Waziristan Accords,” agreements between the Army and the Ahmadzai Wazirs of Mullah Nazir of the South and Uthmanzai Waziris in the North, led by Gul Bahadur.  The agreement allegedly binds the tribes to police their own areas against Mehsuds or foreign terrorists.  The antecedent to this Wazir option is the creation of multiple lashkars amongst the other tribes, even among the Mehsuds, if that is possible, considering the fate of the previous anti-Mehsud Mehsud leader, Qari Zainuddin Mehsud, that might prove to be impossible.

Pak plans to rope in tribals to take on al-Qaeda, according to the Indian press.  If the plan really is to rebrand the Tehreek e-Taliban Pakistan as the new “al-Qaeda,” as the IMU Uzbeks once were, then this might put Pakistan’s generals and American generals on the same page.  Once the offensive actually gets underway it will become obvious exactly who is on what page.  Until then, we will have to get by on the delicious clues given us in Pakistan news leaks, or the latest militant attacks, to try to understand the mindset of the generals on both sides, who continue to run the show.

In light of recent events in S. Waziristan that are described below, it is possible to project the shape of the upcoming offensive: The Army goes after Hakeemullah Mehsud and the foreign terrorists under his protection, demanding from Haqqani lieutenant and local Wazir tribal leader Gul Bahadar that he fulfill his treaty commitments under the Waziristan Accords and actively suppress foreign terrorists, as well as the criminal Mehsuds, if they violate his territory, thus limiting the operating range of fleeing TTP militants (SEE:  Pakistan Using Wazir Tribe of Mullah Nazir to Set-Up Next Psyop):

“The alleged 2007 agreement referred to in [that] report, between Nazir and the govt., allows the Army to wash its hands of the Wana region, making the tribes responsible for keeping-out Uzbeks, Mehsuds, Al-Qaeda and other foreign militants, an impossible task for the outgunned tribes.”

But this plan too, is being undermined by the government leaks that “telegraph” their next moves to the militants, raising lashkars for what is coming next, giving their friends there plenty of time to either prepare or relocate.  It might be that the Army telegraphing its next moves gives Hakeemullah the same opportunity to flee the area before the battle, that it gives to Haqqani.  It is here where the Army will rely upon the new Kurram Treaty to bring Haqqani into action against Hakeemullah in Kurram and perhaps in Hangu, Hakeemullah’s home turf, as well.  We are already seeing an impending confrontation between the two groups over continued TTP attacks upon Shia, in spite of having signed the truce, thus endangering the fragile peace (SEE:  Kurram Agency: Haqqani warns Hakimullah not to ‘sabotage’ peace deal):

“Things have now reached a very awkward point … Haqqani has said some very strong words to Hakimullah: ‘Stop it yourself or my men will make you stop it’.”

It may be that Haqqani also has a personal grudge to settle with Mehsud, over the murder of Col. Imam and Khalid Khawaja, who was highly respected by his father Jalaluddin and by all Afghan Taliban, since Mehsud refused to spare the old jihadi teacher’s life.  If that is the case, then he may be more than willing to help-out the ISI clean-up the mess.

The timing of the events around Col. Tarar’s kidnapping and murder nearly one year later, help to confirm the “rogue” out of control status of Hakeemullah Mehsud, when compared to the Haqqanis.  Ignoring all Haqqani, ISI, or Afghan Taliban pleas, Hakeemullah Mehsud gave the order to kill Col. Imam, which can be seen on YouTube.

(SEE:  Taliban release video of killing of Col Imam).

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Taliban release video of killing of Col Imam, posted with vodpod

His body was then dumped in the Danday Darpakhel area of Miramshah on January 23, 2011.  This was clearly intended to serve as a challenge to Haqqani’s authority.  On Jan. 27, CIA agent Raymond Davis shot two ISI agents dead in Lahore.  The Haqqani-backed Kurram peace deal between the Turi tribe and Shia was struck ten days later, on February 3.

On Feb.7, 2010, top Taliban leaders were placed under protective custody (or arrest) in Pakistan, beginning with Taliban number two, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.  As far as can be ascertained, the Mullahs were arrested to stop the previous attempt to initiate secret American/Taliban negotiations—that time they were with Mullah Omar’s actual second in command.

On 2/26/2010, Khalid Khwaja petitioned the Lahore High Court to block US efforts to have the arrested Taliban extradited to Afghanistan and into US custody.

One month later, 03/25/2010, former ISI agent Khwaja was abducted, along with Col. Imam and the British journalist Asad Qureshi, in North Waziristan.  They were allegedly in Waziristan at the insistence of retired generals Beg and Gul, trying to interview Sirajuddin Haqqani and Wali-ur Rahman Mehsud.

The Asian Tiger organization… offered to release them in exchange for three important Afghan Taliban figures — Mulla Abdul Ghani Biradar, Mulla Abdul Kabir and Mansoor Dadullah — presently ‘in the custody of the Pakistan government’. The group didn’t even know that Kabir wasn’t, in fact, in detention in Pakistan.”

Khalid  Khwaja was found dead in Miranshah on April 30, 2010.  Qureshi was ransomed.

The Murder of Col Imam was a turning point for several parties, in many areas of their relationships. The fact that Hakeemullah ignored pleas from fellow Islamist Sirahuddin Haqqani, as well as the ISI, confirms the split between the Pakistani Taliban group and the ISI-supported Afghan Taliban.  Hakeemullah Mehsud and his TTP followers, especially the IMU Uzbeks and the just as radical Punjabi recruits of the Lashkar e-Jhangvi are a criminal/terrorist menace and must be eliminated from Pakistan.  The US military has no intention of helping the Pak Army with this formidable task, such as focusing drone attacks first upon this criminal network, even though it would be a simple task, even considered as an obligation to help an ally and old friend.  The American military is only interested in those fighters in Pakistan who wage war on NATO, not those who choose to fight against Pakistan.  Reciprocity might be the better choice over issuing demands and making ultimatums to Pakistan’s generals.

Col Imam was a bitter critic of the United States which, he said, had left the Afghan mujahideen in the lurch after the defeat of the Soviet forces in the late 1980s.  The CIA hated Imam and the Pakistani Taliban hated him.  When he went to N. Waziristan he was carrying a list of 14 Taliban leaders who worked for India and probably the US.  That list ended-up in Hakeemullah’s hands.  His name was alleged at the top of the list.  Perhaps that was why he had to die.

From the Pakistani press comes the claim that Col. Imam and Khalid Khawaja may have been killed by Ilyas Kashmiri, as revenge for his being tortured by the Army in 2003 for trying to kill Musharraf.  Other elements of the national press claim that the pair were killed for calling the Afghan Taliban mujahedeen and the Pakistani Taliban criminals.

If that was the case then it would justify Pakistan setting Kashmiri up for a drone kill in Wana on June 3.  Unlike the surreptitious drone whacking of Baitullah Mehsud (where ISI allegedly tricked the CIA into striking Baitullah), it appears that a potential joint effort to get Kashmiri may have been conceivable, considering Headley’s testimony about Kashmiri’s connections to the Mumbai attack, made Ilyas Kashmiri an embarrassment for both sides.  Like always, in this tortuously slow dance between Pakistani and American leaders, that has been grinding-on for decades now, at times it is impossible to tell whether the two sides are in almost perfect step with each other, whether they are hopelessly out of sync, or even at times, whether they are moving at all.  Judging by today’s deadly drone strike on Haqqani forces in Kurram, it seems like they might be at odds with each others plans.  Recent reports have revealed that the US is attempting to draw Ibrahim Haqqani into negotiations, even though US drones continue to strike Haqqani targets in Kurram Agency.

Can the Obama team accept Pakistan’s revised game plan and spin it in an effective manner, so that it will fool the yokels back home, even after all the yelling that they have done over North Waziristan?  Or is the great game suddenly no longer about maintaining the illusion?  Has the American/NATO position deteriorated so far down that they must force a “game-changer” upon us all?  Have run up against so many walls that we have given-up entirely upon the American vision for Afghanistan and Pakistan as the new international strategic corridor, the new “Silk Road” to Central Asia?  Is the new intent to simply so destabilize the region that no one else can reap the economic rewards?

There are many good questions here that no one wants to touch, or to see answered.  The questions will answer themselves in short order, whenever it becomes apparent whether Obama opts for Pakistan’s pacification or for its destabilization.  Will he maintain and escalate the state of confrontation until it leads to widespread violence between two old allies, or will he choose to calm things down in Pakistan, even as he risks revealing the American hand and long-term plans for moving into Central Asia?

Perhaps the most important part of this whole new (recycled) psyop is that the Tehreek e-Taliban Pakistan will now play the role of “Al-Qaeda” (SEE:  The CIA/ISI Soap Opera In South Waziristan) for the remainder of this drama.


When Epsilon/Lambda Variants Arrive Vaccinations May No Longer Matter

Virus Outbreak China

Early lab studies have shown that the Epsilon and Lambda variants have developed a resistance to vaccines. (Chinatopix via AP)AP

The Epsilon and Lambda variants of COVID-19 are “variants of interest,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and early studies show they have developed a resistance to vaccines.

Japanese researchers found the Lambda variant, which was initially discovered in Peru and is now spreading throughout South America, is highly transmissible and more resistant to vaccines than the initial COVID-19 strain.

The researchers warned in a paper posted July 28 that has yet to be peer reviewed that Lambda’s label as a “variant of interest” instead of a “variant of concern” might downplay the growing threat of the strain.

Meanwhile, the Epsilon variant that was initially discovered in California in 2020 is spreading in Pakistan and is proving to be resistant to vaccines, according to researchers.

Health authorities issued an alert after they discovered five cases of the Epsilon variant in Lahore, Pakistan. Medical experts there believe the vaccine-resistant strain is putting vaccinated people as well as unvaccinated people at risk, adding that the strain is just as transmissible as the Delta variant.

Despite these early studies, previous studies have shown vaccines, including those available in the United States, work against “variants of concern,” such as the Delta variant. The vaccines also prevent serious illness, hospitalization and death in most breakthrough cases where a fully vaccinated person tests positive for the coronavirus.

For example, a U.K. study published in May showed two doses of the Pfizer vaccine were 88% effective at preventing against symptomatic infection of the Delta variant and 96% effective against preventing hospitalization.

Katherine Rodriguez can be reached at Have a tip? Tell us at

Here’s all the proof Biden needs to conclude COVID-19 was leaked from a lab

Here’s all the proof Biden needs to conclude COVID-19 was leaked from a lab

This curious effort to lower expectations comes as our spy agencies are halfway through the 90-day review that Joe Biden loudly and publicly “ordered” them to conduct back on May 26.

May 26 was, as it happens, the very same day we learned that, a few weeks earlier, Biden had secretly canceled an investigation launched by the Trump administration into exactly the same question.

Damage control? You may draw your own conclusions.

In announcing the probe, the present occupant of the Oval Office tried to frame the “origins” issue by claiming that the virus “either emerged from human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident.”

President Joe Biden
President Joe Biden ordered US spy agencies in May to do a 90-day investigation into whether COVID-19 was released by a Chinese lab.Shawn Thew/UPI

Wrong, and wrong again. It wasn’t an innocent bat or a lab “accident” that produced the deadly virus, but highly classified gain-of-function research carried out under the direction of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The only thing that remains a mystery is how it made its way out of the lab. I was among the first to question China’s original cover story — that someone had gotten a bad bowl of bat soup in something called the Wuhan Wet Market — in my Post article of February 22, 2020.

In my article, “Don’t buy China’s story: The coronavirus may have leaked from a lab,” I marshaled several plausible pieces of evidence — all of which pointed to the lab:

Wuhan Institute of Virology
Scientists working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Barcroft Media via Getty Images

  • China had only one Level 4 lab that can “handle deadly coronaviruses,” and that lab just happened to be located in Wuhan at the very “epicenter of the epidemic.”
  • Underlining China’s shoddy lab-safety record, Xi Jinping himself had, in the early days of the crisis, warned about “lab safety” as a national-security priority.
  • Following Xi’s guidance, “the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled: ‘Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in ­microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.’ ”
  • As soon as the outbreak began, China’s military was put in charge, with the PLA’s top biowar expert, General Chen Wei, dispatched to Wuhan to deal with it.

Even at the time there was other evidence available, which likewise pointed to the lab — and to the PLA’s involvement:

  • The authorities ordered all of the early samples of the coronavirus collected by private and university labs in China — vital for tracing the origin and early spread of the disease — to be destroyed.
  • China’s civilian Center for Disease Control was completely shut out of the picture in favor of the PLA, suggesting a classified military program was involved.
  • Military academies and installations in and around Wuhan were closed around January 1, well before the Chinese public was notified that there was a problem.
  • China lied about human-to-human transmission, leaving the US and other countries unprepared for the rapid spread of the virus, ensuring that more lives would be lost.

The evidence was circumstantial, to be sure, but I was fairly certain by that point that I could have convinced a jury of China’s culpability. Even so, while I waited for more facts to surface, I was careful to call the “lab origin” just a possibility.

Facebook, however, didn’t wait. It quickly moved to suppress the column as “False Information,” refusing to unblock it until April 17. The mainstream media likewise piled on, slamming The Post for publishing the writings of a “conspiracy theorist.” Others who raised questions about the pandemic’s origins were heavily censored as well — if not “canceled” entirely.

 Security personnel keep watch outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Security personnel keep watch outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Thomas Peter/REUTERS

China locked down the Wuhan lab, and the US virology establishment closed ranks, both denying that gain-of-function research — or a PLA bioweapons research program — had anything to do with the pandemic.

It has taken over a year, but the attempted cover-ups on both sides of the Pacific have gradually unraveled.

During that time China has burned through a half-dozen increasingly implausible cover stories. After the collapse of the Wuhan Wet Market fable, China tried to pin the blame on a wild succession of animals — bats and pangolins and raccoon-dogs, oh my! — for harboring the virus. We seem now to be back to bats, and are being told that many years ago, in a cave far away from the Wuhan lab, minors fell ill from being peed upon, pooped upon, and even bitten by those same nasty, virus-harboring creatures.

But the wildest tale by far being bandied about by the Chinese authorities is that CoV-2 was a US bioweapon, created in the U. Army’s research labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland. As to how the “American Virus” — as they unabashedly call it — got to China, they have an answer for that too: it was secretly released on the unsuspecting Chinese population of Wuhan by the American soldier-athletes who participated in the October 2019 Military World Games in that city.

Biological science specialists, background, wear biosafety protective clothing for handling viral diseases at U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md.
Biological science specialists, background, wear biosafety protective clothing for handling viral diseases at US Army Medical Research and Development Command at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.
Andrew Harnik/AP

Who makes up such bat-sh*t crazy stories about secret bioweapons and superspreading soldiers? The same people, it seems, whose fever dream for decades has been to do exactly the same thing. There are numerous scientific publications that prove Chinese labs were engaged in dangerous gain-of-function research, along with new evidence that these techniques were being used in an active bioweapons program that included the Wuhan lab. As China defector Dr. Yan Limeng has taught us, the PLA itself isolated the original bat coronavirus that served as the “backbone” or “template” for CoV-2. Additional genetic material was then spliced into this virus to make it more infectious and deadly to humans. This is not speculation.

Those doing the splicing left “signatures” behind in the genome itself. To boost a virus’ lethality, for example, those doing gain-of-function research customarily insert a snippet of RNA that codes for two arginine amino acids. This snippet — called double CGG — has never been found in any other coronaviruses, but is present in CoV-2. Besides this damning evidence, there are other indications of tampering as well.

The dwindling ranks of lab “deniers” continue to insist that the vast laboratory of nature is capable of infinite surprises. Of course that’s true. And it’s also true that if you have enough monkeys typing the four DNA bases A, C, G, and T on enough computer keyboards they will eventually produce a complete and accurate copy of the human genome, which is 6.4 billion such bases long. But what are the odds?

And what are the odds that the virus passed naturally from animals to humans?

Volunteers in protective suits disinfect a factory with sanitizing equipment, as the country is hit by an outbreak of the novel coronavirus, in Huzhou, Zhejiang province, China February 18, 2020.
Volunteers in protective suits disinfect a factory with sanitizing equipment in China on Feb. 18, 2020.
China Daily via REUTERS

Dr. David Asher, who headed the now-canceled State Department investigation, put that very question to a biostatistician, and was told that the odds were roughly … 1 in 13 billion. In the face of that vanishingly small probability, Asher remarked, “to say this came out of a zoonotic situation is sort of ridiculous.”

What we do know, as former Deputy National Security Advisor (DNSA) Mathew Pottinger pointed out in a February interview, is that the PLA had been “doing secret classified animal experiments in that same laboratory [Wuhan Institute of Virology]” as early as 2017. While the Wuhan lab poses as a “civilian institution,” Pottinger said, US intelligence has determined that the lab has collaborated with China’s military on publications and secret bioweapons projects.

That’s David Asher’s opinion as well. “The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not the National Institute of Health,” he says. “It was operating a secret, classified program. In my view, and I’m just one person, my view is it was a biological weapons program.”

Dr. David Asher
Dr. David Asher believes the Wuhan Institute of Virology was running a biological weapons program.
Rod Lamkey/CNP

A Chinese book that recently fell into the hands of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) further confirms that Chinese military scientists have been focused on what they called the “new era of genetic weapons” since at least 2015. They begin by asserting that World War III would be fought with biological weapons, and go on to describe how viruses can be collected from nature and “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed.”

Sound familiar?

In fact, the scientists even singled out coronaviruses as a class of viruses that can be readily weaponized, and they suggest that the ideal candidate for a bioweapon would be something like the coronavirus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS. It is worth noting that the virus that causes COVID-19 is a type of SARS virus, which is why the World Health Organization insists that we call it SARS-CoV-2. As in, the “second” SARS virus.

Peter Jennings, the executive director of ASPI, said the new document “clearly shows that Chinese scientists were thinking about military application for different strains of the coronavirus and thinking about how it could be deployed. It begins to firm up the possibility that what we have here is the accidental release of a pathogen for military use.”

Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market before its closure in Hankou, Wuhan city, central China's Hubei province, 31 December 2019.
After the collapse of the Wuhan Wet Market fable, China tried to pin the blame on a wild succession of animals — bats and pangolin.

The document, he went on to say, is the closest thing to a “smoking gun as we’ve got.”

Is it really that surprising that the same murderous regime that has brought us forced abortion and sterilization, forced organ harvesting, and genocide in real time would also be developing deadly bioweapons to release upon the world?

China had both the intention and the capability to take a harmless bat virus, turn it into a deadly pathogen, and then release it upon the world. And the evidence suggests that it did just that.

More than half of all Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats — now believe the virus was made in a lab and released either accidentally or intentionally. Indeed, there has been a massive hardening of public opinion against the communist giant across the board, with 89 percent of adults now seeing the country as hostile or dangerous.

By killing 600,000 Americans, China has proven that it is both.

But whether the Biden administration makes China pay for its crimes is another question.

Steven W. Mosher is the author of the forthcoming “Politically Incorrect Guide to Pandemics” (Regnery Press).

Australia May Punish “Reckless” Mass Protests By Extending Lockdown

Australians may face longer lockdown after “reckless” mass protests

FILE PHOTO: A COVID-19 lockdown remains in place as outbreak of new cases affects Sydney

MELBOURNE (Reuters) -Australia’s New South Wales logged its second-highest daily increase of the year in locally acquired COVID-19 cases on Sunday amid fears of a wave of new infections after thousands of people joined an anti-lockdown protest.

“In relation to yesterday’s protests, can I say how absolutely disgusted I was. It broke my heart,” Gladys Berejiklian, the premier of the country’s most populous state, told reporters.

“I hope it won’t be a setback, but it could be,” she said.

There were 141 COVID-19 cases reported, down from 163 a day earlier. The outbreak, which began in June, is being driven by the highly contagious Delta variant of the virus, and has now infected 2,081 people in New South Wales. There are 43 people in intensive care, up from 37 a day earlier.

Under fire for a slow vaccine rollout, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said more vaccine supply was not going to ensure New South Wales gets out of lockdown, but what was needed was an effective, properly enforced lockdown.

“Let me be clear – there’s not an alternative to the lockdown in New South Wales to get this under control. There is no other magic bullet that’s going to do that,” Morrison told reporters at a televised media conference.

He called the anti-lockdown protests in Sydney reckless and self-defeating.

While Berejiklian and other state leaders have blamed Canberra for the slow vaccine rollout, critics have said NSW did not enforce its stay-at-home orders, which has led to Delta variant leaks to other states.

At least 38 of the new cases in NSW had spent time in the community while infectious, state health authorities said. Numbers of such cases have stayed stubbornly high even after four weeks of lockdown in Sydney, now expected to be extended beyond July 30.

The state reported two deaths overnight, including a woman in her 30s with no pre-existing conditions.

Despite its struggle with spikes of infections, Australia has managed to keep its epidemic largely under control with a total of about 32,600 cases and 918 deaths.

To help speed up vaccinations in Sydney, the government’s official adviser, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), on Saturday changed its advice on the AstraZeneca vaccine, urging anyone in the city under the age of 60 to strongly consider getting vaccinated with it.

ATAGI had previously advised against the AstraZeneca vaccine for people under 60 due to concerns about blood clots.

“In the context of the current risk of COVID-19 in NSW and with the ongoing constraints on Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine supplies, all adults in greater Sydney should strongly consider the benefits of earlier protection with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca rather than waiting for alternative vaccines,” ATAGI said in a statement.

Morrison said on Sunday the government has secured an additional 85 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, but they will only be delivered in 2022 and 2023.

“To have those booster shots pre-ordered means we can go into 2022 with confidence,” he said.

Australia’s Victoria state reported 11 locally acquired COVID-19 cases on Sunday, down from 12 a day earlier, raising hopes the state will end a hard lockdown imposed 10 days ago.

State Premier Daniel Andrews said it was too early to say whether restrictions will be eased on Tuesday, but: “At this stage, though, things are going well.”

All of the cases were linked to the current outbreak clusters and all of them were in isolation throughout their infectious period, the state’s health department said.

South Australia reported three new cases on Sunday.

(Reporting by Sonali Paul; Editing by Edwina Gibbs and Christian Schmollinger)

Fauci Video on Lifting Gain of Function

NIAID Advisory Council Meeting Jan. 2018 – Fauci on Lifting Gain of Function Pause ATTN: Rand Paul

Rand Paul has accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of lying in their latest back-and-forth about the...
Rand Paul has accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of lying in their latest back-and-forth about the coronavirus.(WAVE 3 News)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WAVE) – Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci are at it again.

Following Tuesday’s heated exchange during a Senate hearing over the origin of the coronavirus, Paul, the Republican U.S. senator from Kentucky, took his gripe onto FOX’s “Hannity” program with host Sean Hannity.

“I will be sending a letter to Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he has lied to Congress,” Paul told Hannity on the show Tuesday night. “We have scientists that were lined up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function,” the practice of enhancing a virus in a lab to study its potential impact in the real world, according to the Associated Press.

The AP reported Tuesday that Fauci denied Paul’s accusations that Fauci is lying, and turned the claims around on the senator.

“I have not lied before Congress,” Fauci said. “I have never lied. Certainly not before Congress. Case closed … Senator Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially. You do not know what you’re talking about.”

Paul said Fauci was “dancing around” the meaning of gain-of-function research in order to “obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic,” but added that he wasn’t trying to lay all the blame on Fauci, according to an article on

Texas Democrat Rebels Show Republicans Next Stage In Political War

Inspired by Texas Dems, Lindsey Graham urges Republicans to ‘leave town’ to stop $3.5 trillion budget package

Texas Democrats pledge not to return from D.C. until August

What’s in the $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure Agreement?

” The…$3.5 trillion Budget Committee agreement is expected to focus more on human infrastructure programs that expand Medicare funding and coverage, support affordable childcare and free college education initiatives, and create pathways for employment, as well as transform the country’s energy system to address climate change needs.”

Lindsey Graham threatens to deny quorum to prevent amnesty in infrastructure bill

‘The dumbest idea in all of Washington would be to grant amnesty in an infrastructure bill without first securing the border’

Democrats are pushing to include amnesty for illegal immigrants as part of $3.5 trillion infrastructure spending but Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told “Hannity” on Tuesday he won’t let the “dumbest idea” in Washington happen.

SEN. GRAHAM: If you have policies that incentivize illegal immigration, you’ll get more of it. If it’s policies that deter illegal immigration, you’ll get less. The dumbest idea in all of Washington would be to grant amnesty in an infrastructure bill without first securing the border. You would have an invasion beyond what you have today. If we legalized 100,000 people or a million people in the infrastructure bill, there would be a run on our border because everybody would get the message: They’re legalizing people in America. Let’s go and let’s go now. You have to secure the border before you grant one person legal status. If you don’t, you will lose control of America, of our sovereignty.

If they put amnesty into a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill — that’s got nothing to do with infrastructure, it’s big government, higher taxes — but if they put amnesty in that bill, I would try to deny them a quorum to pass that bill… To my Republican colleagues, what are we going to do if they load up the $3.5 trillion, really $5 trillion infrastructure bill with mail-in voting and with amnesty? What is our response? If you don’t like my idea, come up with one of your own. If we don’t fight back as hard as we can, they’re destroying the Senate as I speak. They’re going to lead to an illegal immigrant invasion like we’ve never seen in the history of the country. So my idea is do anything and everything possible to stop this before it happens. Let the Democrats know that if you put legalizing illegal immigrants in the reconciliation bill, then we as Republicans will use everything available to us, including denying your quorum. 

Were Colombian Mercs Patsies? Presidential Guard Comes Under Suspicion

[None of Moise’s security detail were wounded or injured, did the guards invite the Colombian mercenaries inside?  The President was allegedly already dead when the commandoes arrived, did the guards kill him? The Colombian squad was reportedly recruited for their mission to Haiti for an operation to protect Moise from the Mafia and the armed gangs, just as a previous squad of Colombians and Americans were arrested in 2019 after slipping into Haiti to protect the President’s embezzling of $80 million from the Petrocaribe investment fund.]

Jovenel Moise’s head of security traveled to South America before assassination

Dimitri Hérard, who is also being investigated for arms trafficking, made several trips with stops in Colombia and Ecuador.

Dimitri Hérard and Jean Laguel Civil, security officials of President Jovenel Moïse, under investigation


“I gave the Central Directorate of the Judicial Police (DCPJ) delegation of power to hear all the security agents close to President Jovenel Moïse. I also issued two invitations on Tuesday July 13 and Wednesday July 14 to hear the divisional commissioner Jean Laguel Civil, security coordinator of President Jovenel Moïse and Dimitri Hérard, head of the General Security Unit of the National Palace (USGPN ) ”, Confided Thursday to the Nouvelliste the commissioner of the government of Port-au-Prince, Me Bed-Ford Claude.

“They are responsible for the security of the president. With the justice of the peace, I spent a day in the president’s residence. I did not see any police victim, except the president and his wife. If you are responsible for the President’s security, where have you been? What did you do to avoid this fate for the president? ”, The government commissioner wants answers to these questions.

Me Bed-Ford Claude pointed out to Le Nouvelliste that during a visit to the President’s residence after the assassination, he found Commissioner Jean Laguel Civil on the scene. At that time, Dimitri Hérard was in front of the Pétion-Ville police station accompanied by some USGPN agents.

“Since yesterday (Editor’s note: Wednesday July 7, 2021), I asked Commissioner Jean Laguel Civil for the list of all the security agents present in the president’s residence. So far, he hasn’t sent it to me yet. I must have it. They must tell me where they were, ”demands the chief prosecutor of Port-au-Prince.

The prosecution of Port-au-Prince gave a delegation of power to the DCPJ for 15 days to investigate the assassination of President of the Republic Jovenel Moïse in his residence on the night of Tuesday July 6 to Wednesday July 7, 2021.

Me Bed-Ford also asked the Inspectorate General of the Police to make available to justice, on Tuesday July 13, Inspector Paul Eddy Amazan, head of the Cat Team, and Commissioner Léandre Pierre Osman, head of of the Palace Security Unit (USP).

“During the night from Tuesday to Wednesday, a commando burst into the private residence of the President of the Republic. The members of the commando opened fire and killed the President of the Republic. His wife was injured ”, according to Prime Minister ai Claude Joseph.

“According to the first elements of information, it is about a group of people who spoke in English and in Spanish armed with weapons of war which killed the President of the Republic”, confirmed the Prime Minister ai

Wall St. Journal Drops Political Bomb On Biden…Hunter’s Laptop Is A “Smoking Gun”

[Mainstream media exposing this explosive story after Joe Biden has been elected king of the Empire, after ignoring or suppressing it for so long, is HARD PROOF that there was political collusion, a.k.a., “A CONSPIRACY” among Democrats/mainstream media/intelligence hacks colluded to derail the 2020 election and hand the office to Biden.  This is the real plot to steal the election, NOT the many local voting discrepancies.  Biden must be removed from office and the election done over.]

The Hunter Biden Laptop Is Real

Our ‘newspapers of record’ become something else when they conspire to deny facts and hide truth.

WSJ Opinion: Media Ignores Escalating Biden Family News Story

The problem isn’t Hunter Biden—it’s Joe—as major media outlets may be discovering, sort of, with the White House’s absurd intervention in the younger Mr. Biden’s latest career as a budding Van Gogh.

In fact, the intervention smells like a scheme dreamed up by Hunter himself, designed to call attention to his connection to the president, advertise it and enable it, while pretending to do the opposite.

For details, see a long account on the front page of Friday’s Washington Post. Under the plan, a New York gallery will keep secret the identities of those paying up to $500,000 for his novice pieces, but of course this wouldn’t stop the buyer from letting Hunter know who just bought his art or from turning up later as Hunter’s guest at a White House event.

All of this is magnificently obvious on its own terms, but even more so in light of the ludicrously detailed, well-documented revelations from the Hunter Biden laptop published over the last nine months by the New York Post and Britain’s Daily Mail.

[Continue reading at WSJ]

CIA Think Tank Rand Corp. Reports Virus Shelter-In-Place Cost Lives


Shelter-in-place orders didn’t save lives during the pandemic, research paper concludes


Study suggests shutdowns cannot be the treatment of choice

In this file photo, a traffic information board advises drivers to keep their travel to local trips because of coronavirus Level 4 restrictions, as traffic moves along the M80 motorway near Banknock, Scotland, Tuesday Dec. 29, 2020.
– The Washington Times – Saturday, July 3, 2021

A little-noticed study says government orders to “shelter in place” during the COVID-19 fight did not save lives and spurred an uptick in excess deaths in some places, especially overseas.

Researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Southern California studied excess mortality from all causes, the virus or otherwise, in 43 countries and the 50 U.S. states that imposed shelter-in-place, or “SIP,” policies.

In short, the orders didn’t work.

“We fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases,” the researchers said in a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

The increase was statistically significant in other countries in the weeks following the imposition of shelter-in-place orders. In the U.S., excess deaths rose in the weeks following the order before subsiding 20 weeks later under the orders.

The findings undercut blue states that relied on stay-at-home methods as the treatment of choice throughout the pandemic, while providing a measure of vindication for GOP leaders who said they were harmful and that constituents could protect themselves.

Former President Trump told Americans to stay home to slow the spread in March 2020 but criticized ongoing shutdowns as counterproductive overreach throughout 2020.

Jovenel Moïse Alleged To Be Tool For Mafioso and Criminal Gangs

“Jovenel Moïse, as head of state, is not his own master. He cannot rule as he pleases, and must respond to the needs and demands of the mafioso ruling class. The eye of the mafia is far-sighted, and it exerts a great deal of power over the institutions and economy of the country. If Jovenel Moïse fails to manage political power effectively until the time comes to pass it to the next stooge designated by the mafia, he could see himself and his whole family disappear.”–Socialism or barbarism: where is Haiti going?

Under the pressure of the global economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, Haiti continues to slip further into a deep economic, political and social crisis. Economic and health crises have wreaked havoc around the world, helped in no small part by the indifferent greed of the capitalist class and the incompetence of their governments.

These crises have not only ravaged the dominated countries of the so-called developing world. The advanced capitalist countries, particularly the United States and Britain, have graphically revealed the inability of the capitalist system to deal with the situation.

The economic crisis is forcing the rapid dissolution of the old political framework of bourgeois rule in our country. The status quo is disintegrating under the increasing intensity of the class struggle. The capitalist class can no longer rule as they did in the past. This is why they and their representative, President Jovenel Moïse, are seeking novel ways to rule and to establish a new status quo. The façade of democracy in Haiti is disappearing as the capitalist class and their state reveal their true nature – that of a vicious mafia.

The continued crises in the country have led to a dangerous situation for the working class and the poor. Parliament was dissolved in January of this year after it was unable to approve the electoral law required for the holding of elections, which were supposed to take place in October 2019. Because these elections were never held, the mandates of one-third of the Senate and the entire Chamber of Deputies expired. Jovenel Moïse now rules by decree and has been viciously consolidating power through Haiti’s powerful gangs.

The parliament has been dysfunctional for years. The 119 seats in the Chamber of Deputies were divided among some 20 political parties. Corruption and bribery are rampant among the deputies, who really only represent the interests of the ruling elites. Moïse, a totally illegitimate president due to his fraudulent electoral victory and his involvement in the Petrocaribe scandal, has been incapable of forming a majority or building any sort of political unity in parliament.

Ominously, Moïse has said that he sees the dissolution of parliament and his rule by decree as an “opportunity to stop the permanent crisis”. He has publicly called for a new constitution, which naturally would concentrate even more power in his hands as president. Moïse is putting himself forward as the “strong man” that can protect the rule of capital in Haiti, and he has the support of the Haitian ruling class and the imperialists.

On 22 September, Moïse, on his own authority and against the opposition of the supreme court, installed a new Provisional Electoral Council. This new council, loyal to Moïse, has been mandated to organise the upcoming election and a referendum on a new constitution. Despite the fact these measures are all unconstitutional, he has the support of the United States, the Organisation of American States and the United Nations.

The gangs and assassinations

Seeing the end of its mandate approaching on 7 February 2021, the PHTK regime of Jovenel Moïse is even more determined to sow a climate of terror and criminality in the country. Moïse and the PHTK are leaning on the G9, a powerful union of gangs, to terrorise popular neighbourhoods.

All the latest events show the level of complicity of the regime with armed gangs to assassinate citizens. The Haitian state is the main producer of insecurity in the country. It is increasing its political crimes to intimidate the population; sowing fear so the people do not revolt against the state’s mismanagement.

The recent assassination of the head of the Port-au-Prince bar association, Monferrier Dorval, on the evening of 28 August at the entrance to his residence at Pèlerin 5, close to the president’s home in what is usually a highly secure area, is a heinous political crime showing the extremely high level of insecurity and the depth of the division between the ruling class and part of the political establishment.

On the evening of this murder, the police cars on daily duty in the neighborhood were not there. At the same time there was a momentary power cut and an eruption of fireworks, while the assassins shot their victim.

Just a few hours before his assassination, Mr. Dorval had given an interview to one of the radio stations in the capital, in which he clearly expressed his disagreement with the position put forward by Moïse, who wanted to set up the Provisional Electoral Council at all costs, against the will of the various sectors of the population. Mr. Dorval had refused the president’s request to send a representative of the bar association to this council, which the population and other sectors of the establishment and civil society were already opposed to.

Dorval severely criticised excesses of power and disrespect for the constitution. Two other assassinations followed that of Mr. Dorval that same weekend, including a journalist from Radio Télévision Caraïbes (RTVC), and the owner of a large restaurant in the Pétion-Ville area.

In other provincial towns, several additional victims have been identified, including a graduating student from the State University of Haiti’s Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, who was killed by police and mercenaries, supporting the powers that be, who were driving around in cars while he was in Saint Marc leaving a demonstration. People were killed and burned alive by armed gangs in the areas of Petite Rivière. State violence has continued unabated. Grégory Saint-Hilaire, a student at the State University of Haiti, was killed on 2 October during a demonstration where students demanded the implementation of an agreement, signed with the Ministry of Education, regarding their internship and appointment in public education institutions. Another demonstrator died during a demonstration on 5 October after being shot in the head.

Terror in working-class neighbourhoods

The wave of state crime in Haiti has reached a spectacular peak, sparing no one in the civilian population. People in poor, working-class neighborhoods are suffering tremendously on a daily basis under the constant fire of armed gangs.

The policies of the PHTK regime remain a total fiasco. They have been mainly aimed at the proliferation and politicisation of armed gangs in the different working-class neighborhoods and at turning the country’s police force into a group of mafioso gangsters, increasing criminal and repressive acts towards the people out on the streets demonstrating peacefully.

The formation of the gang G9 an Fanmi e Alye (G9 Family and Allies), who are terrorising working-class neighborhoods, is living proof of the perversion of the Haitian state: a radical expression of all its rot and inhumanity.

Several massacres have already been perpetrated in working-class neighborhoods, including the massacres in Carrefour-Feuilles, La Saline and Martissant. Again on 6 September, the same criminal gangs of the G9, equipped with police equipment and uniforms, and led by the criminal Jimmy Chérizier, a former police officer, attacked the Bel-Air neighbourhood near the National Palace. This operation took the lives of more than a dozen young men and women, injured several people and saw several houses set on fire. People deserted the area in droves to take refuge in the Champ-de-Mars to save their lives.

Three days later, on 9 September, several areas in Bas Delmas, Cité Soleil and Tabarre were thrown into chaos when shots from automatic weapons were fired during a confrontation between various gangs working on behalf of the government and the security forces.

The PTHK regime must be overthrown

The crises in Haiti are piling up, and the government has no credibility or legitimacy in the eyes of the population to redress the situation. On the contrary, all the conditions are increasingly ripe for the population to overthrow this government. Crime, theft and mismanagement are the norm in this country under the PHTK.

If at first these accusations seemed to be mere allegations, today all the investigative reports have clearly proven and confirmed that Jovenel Moïse and many others in positions of authority in his government are thieves and squanderers of public funds. This includes two reports of the Superior Court of Auditors and Administrative Disputes, made public on 31 May and June 2019, respectively, as well as the third part of the report released on 17 August 2020.

In addition, armed gangs regularly receive funds, automatic weapons and ammunition, even though Haiti does not manufacture weapons or ammunition and the country is under an arms embargo. There can be only one ultimate source for these funds and weapons: the PTHK regime of Jovenel Moïse.

We need to understand why the cannibalism and cynicism of the PHTK regime has managed to go so far. The mafia that Jovenel represents in Haiti is an organisation made up of conservative neo-Duvalierists, and members of the Haitian and foreign private business sector, subject to the control of American imperialism.

Two elements constitute the main motivations of this mafia: power and money. In reality, this mafia network has been able to enrich itself further in recent years and gain political power, which was about to fall under popular control at the beginning of Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s rise to power – that is, of course, before he became disoriented in terms of the real demands of the people.

Thus, the PHTK mafia managed to completely recover political power and radically destroy the other powers (legislative and judicial) by ignoring any legislation that could have prevented it from continuing the theft of public resources.

After Martelly, Jovenel was the one designated by this mafia to manage political power. In such a framework, Jovenel Moïse, as head of state, is not his own master. He cannot rule as he pleases, and must respond to the needs and demands of the mafioso ruling class. The eye of the mafia is far-sighted, and it exerts a great deal of power over the institutions and economy of the country. If Jovenel Moïse fails to manage political power effectively until the time comes to pass it to the next stooge designated by the mafia, he could see himself and his whole family disappear.

Thus, finding himself very close to being overthrown, he is willing to sacrifice everything, and get rid by any means of every obstacle in order to save his mandate; and thus also himself, not only from prison, but from punishment by his own mafia organisation. Jovenel Moïse sees his end approaching. Feeling the fire of popular anger, his cynicism and brutality towards the people is increasing in his desperation to hold onto his office.

Socialism or barbarism

With parliament dissolved and Moïse ruling by decree, it would appear that he is consolidating and increasing his power. This is true to a certain extent, but there is another process at work here as well. Moïse is in fact weakening himself at the same time.

Haiti socialism or barbarism 2 Image fair useThe state’s armed bodies of men play an important role in capitalist society, and Moïse is losing control over them / Image: fair use

Despite the fact that it was dysfunctional, Haiti’s parliament did play a certain role in legitimising Moïse’s rule – or at least, it provided legal and political cover for his rule. In any case, the persistent disunity and the political deadlock in parliament provided a constant distraction and diversion from the real political issues that need solving: the economic crisis and the rising costs of fuel and living in general, rising poverty and collapsing infrastructure, the Petrocaribe scandal and corruption, etc.

The state’s armed bodies of men play an important role in capitalist society. They provide the ideological and legal support for the rule of the capitalist class, but also act as a buffer between the ruling class and the people. With parliament dissolved, Moïse rules directly by decree. Having lost the confidence of the police, Moïse has lost control over them. He has also lost the support of other key pillars of bourgeois rule: the supreme court and numerous organisations of civil society (the Catholic Church, the Protestant Federation, private sector associations, presidents of universities and human rights advocates, etc.) This means that Moïse has lost the support of the most important buffers between himself and the ruling elite on behalf of whom he governs on the one side, and the masses on the other.

In this sense, with each step Moïse takes towards consolidating his personal power, towards establishing the naked dictatorship of the ruling class, he also takes one step closer to a confrontation with the popular movement and the masses.

Moïse is moving in the direction of bonapartist rule. But he is in an extraordinarily weak position. Naturally, Moïse has plenty of support from the imperialists and Haiti’s ruling class. He has bought an alliance with the G9 gangs, but outside of this he has very little support. Moïse has no base of support among the popular movement or the masses in general. This means that he will find it difficult to enforce his rule and the interests of the ruling class. Moïse has no room to manoeuvre between the classes, and hence it will be difficult for the state to raise itself above society to the degree that it can play the role of ultimate arbiter in the class struggle.

While the Moïse regime is very weak, the current situation is very dangerous for the working class and poor of Haiti. The popular movement in Haiti is under attack. However, it has not yet been defeated. In order to establish the naked dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, Moïse must first defeat the popular movement. This will be easier said than done.

While a slow descent into naked dictatorship is possible, there will be major turning points along the way. The masses will have opportunities to organise, to fight back, and to change the situation in their favour. The G9 gang alliance represents a well-armed and dangerous foe, but also reveals the isolation and weakness of the regime.

The popular movement must meet this threat head on. Bel-Air and other popular neighbourhoods that are threatened with attack should begin to organise neighbourhood defence committees, under the democratic control of labour and community organisations. This will be the only way to stop the attacks of the gangs.

The assassination of Mr. Dorval, the killing of students, and the murderous actions of the gangs have already led to significant protests and demonstrations around the country. The mass, insurrectionary movement that has flared up numerous times over the past several years against the cuts to the fuel subsidy, the fraudulent elections, corruption and the Petrocaribe scandal clearly show that the masses are prepared to fight. What is needed is a revolutionary leadership prepared to lead the way. The recent protests can be seen as a continuation of this movement of the masses, and we must do everything we can to ensure this movement continues and grows.

Shortly before he was assassinated, Monferrier Dorval said:

“The government is dysfunctional and that is why we are suffering. We must change the government and we must do this via the constitution… The objective should be to reorganise Haiti so we can regain the [national] pride that we lost long ago. We are constantly in crisis, relying on foreigners to tell us what to do. This country is not truly governed.”

This expresses, albeit in a legalistic way, the desire of the Haitian people for freedom from the rule of imperialism and for genuine democracy. However, these things cannot be achieved through the constitution, nor can they be achieved under capitalism. History itself shows that the Haitian ruling class is incapable of solving these problems or developing the country under its rule. The Constitution of 1987 solved nothing, why would another, similar endeavor be any different?

In Haiti, it is truly a question of socialism or barbarism. As long as the bourgeoisie rules Haiti, the country will be dominated by imperialism. The crushing poverty and all the ills of capitalism will persist. The Haitian people will never be free under these conditions. The only way forward will be for the masses themselves to overthrow the rotten ruling elite and reorganise Haiti, not in the interests of a tiny minority of exploiters or the imperialists, but in the interests of the masses themselves.


US Mercenaries + Colombian Death Squad Blamed For Haitian Presidential Assassination

[SEE: America’s Colombian Death Squads Still Active After All These Years]

Plan Colombia not over

Colombia’s Recovery from American-Inspired Death Squads

Colombia/Us Tip-Toeing Past that Whole Death Squads Thing

Two American ‘mercenaries’ arrested alongside 15 Colombians for ‘assassinating’ Haiti president Jovenel Moïse as cops hunt 8 suspects still on the run

  • Police say the gang that killed Haiti’s president included 26 Colombians and two Haitian Americans
  • Haitian police identified James Solages and Joseph Vincent as two US citizens suspected in assassination plot
  • Both are of Haitian descent and they are among 17 suspects detained in the killing of President Jovenel Moïse 
  • The rest of the detained, dead and at-large suspects, are Colombian nationals, according to police officials 
  • After saying seven died, police now say three other suspects were killed by cops and eight are on the run 
  • Solages is the president of the board of directors of Jacmel First, a charity founded in south Florida in 2019 
  • The charity focuses on ending childhood hunger in Haiti including through education, its website reads
  • Solages’ bio describes him as ex-guard for Canadian embassy in Haiti, and a ‘certified diplomatic agent’  
  • At least two of the men brought in alive were found hiding in bushes by a mob of civilians who attacked them
  • Moïse was shot 12 times in Wednesday’s early morning raid on his mansion in the hills above Port-au-Prince    

Haitian police now say that two US citizens are among 17 alleged ‘foreign mercenaries’ who have been arrested in the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.

James Solages, 35, and Joseph Vincent, both US citizens of Haitian descent, were arrested along with 15 Colombian nationals over Wednesday’s brazen raid on Moïse’s mansion in the hills above Port-au-Prince, according to Haitian police.

Solanges, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, is the president of a charity based in south Florida and claims to be a former bodyguard at Canada’s embassy in Haiti. Vincent lives in the Miami area. Both men were born in Haiti, officials said.

After earlier claiming seven suspects were killed, Léon Charles, chief of Haiti’s National Police, now claims that only three other suspects were killed by police, saying eight others are on the run and identifying all of the dead and at-large suspects as Colombian.

‘Foreigners came to our country to kill the president,’ Charles said. ‘There were … 26 Colombians, identified by their passports … and two Haitian Americans as well.’

‘We are going to bring them to justice,’ he said as the 17 suspects sat handcuffed on the floor during a press conference on Thursday night, where a variety of weapons and Colombian passports were arrayed on a table.

The U.S. State Department said it was aware of reports that Haitian Americans were in custody but could not confirm or comment.

Haitian authorities have still not revealed a motive for the killing, what evidence led them to the suspects, or who they believe masterminded the plot — and skepticism is growing among the Haitian public over the government’s account of the assassination.

Meanwhile, Interim President Claude Joseph tightened his grip on sole power in Haiti, despite the lack of legal framework for succession and a dispute with his replacement, whom Moïse named just a day before his assassination.

James Solages, 35, (left) and Joseph Vincent (right) are both US citizens of Haitian descent, and were arrested along with 15 Colombian nationals over Wednesday's brazen assassination of President Moïse's mansion in the hills above Port-au-Prince

James Solages, 35, (left) and Joseph Vincent (right) are both US citizens of Haitian descent, and were arrested along with 15 Colombian nationals over Wednesday’s brazen assassination of President Moïse’s mansion in the hills above Port-au-Prince

Interim President Claude Joseph, center, speaks to journalists during a press conference to show the captured suspects. Joseph tightened his grip on sole power in Haiti Thursday, despite the lack of legal framework for succession

Interim President Claude Joseph, center, speaks to journalists during a press conference to show the captured suspects. Joseph tightened his grip on sole power in Haiti Thursday, despite the lack of legal framework for succession

Police lined up the 17 assassination suspects, including two American citizens and 15 Columbians, behind a table displaying an array of firearms, machetes, sledgehammers and several Colombian passports

Police lined up the 17 assassination suspects, including two American citizens and 15 Columbians, behind a table displaying an array of firearms, machetes, sledgehammers and several Colombian passports

The motely assortment of weapons included rusty machetes, shotguns, high-powered rifles and handguns

The motely assortment of weapons included rusty machetes, shotguns, high-powered rifles and handguns

CDC Admits That Up To 4,100 Have Died After Covid Vax, Mainstream Media Still Promoting Lie of “No Deaths”

[AP analysis: Almost all US coronavirus deaths among unvaccinated]

  • 4,115 people have been hospitalized or died with Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated.
  • The total number of individuals who died after contracting Covid-19 despite vaccination is 750.
  • 76% of hospitalizations and deaths from breakthrough cases occurred in people over the age of 65.
U.S. Air Force 1st Lt. Allyson Black (R), a registered nurse, cares for COVID-19 patients in a makeshift ICU (Intensive Care Unit) at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center on January 21, 2021 in Torrance, California.
U.S. Air Force 1st Lt. Allyson Black (R), a registered nurse, cares for COVID-19 patients in a makeshift ICU (Intensive Care Unit) at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center on January 21, 2021 in Torrance, California.
Mario Tama | Getty Images

More than 4,100 people have been hospitalized or died with Covid-19 in the U.S. even though they’ve been fully vaccinated, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So far, at least 750 fully vaccinated people have died after contracting Covid, but the CDC noted that 142 of those fatalities were asymptomatic or unrelated to Covid-19, according to data as of Monday that was released Friday.

The CDC received 3,907 reports of people who have been hospitalized with breakthrough Covid infections, despite being fully vaccinated. Of those, more than 1,000 of those patients were asymptomatic or their hospitalizations weren’t related to Covid-19, the CDC said.

Former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb on delta variant concerns

“To be expected,” Dr. Paul Offit, a top advisor to the Food and Drug Administration on children’s vaccines told CNBC. “The vaccines aren’t 100% effective, even against severe disease. Very small percentage of the 600,000 deaths.”

Breakthrough cases are Covid-19 infections that bypass vaccine protection. They are very rare and many are asymptomatic. The vaccines are highly effective but don’t block every infection. Pfizer and Moderna’s phase three clinical studies found that their two-dose regimens were 95% and 94% effective at blocking Covid-19, respectively, while Johnson & Johnson’s one-shot vaccine was found to be 66% effective in its studies. All three, however, have been found to be extremely effective in preventing people from getting severely sick from Covid.

The CDC doesn’t count every breakthrough case. It stopped counting all breakthrough cases May 1 and now only tallies those that lead to hospitalization or death, a move the agency was criticized for by health experts.

Most Americans have received at least one shot of the two currently authorized mRNA vaccines. The U.S. has administered 178.3 million shots and fully vaccinated 46% of its population.

“You are just as likely to be killed by a meteorite as die from Covid after a vaccine,” Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease expert at the University of California San Francisco, told CNBC. “In the big scheme of things, the vaccines are tremendously powerful.”

Efficacy rates decrease slightly for variants like alpha and delta, with studies indicating 88% efficacy against the delta strain after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. It was unclear if any of the reported breakthrough cases were caused by variants.

In Israel and the United Kingdom, concerns about the delta variant are rising after growing reports of breakthrough infections.

Even with 80% of adults vaccinated, Chezy Levy, director-general of Israel’s Health Ministry, said the delta variant is responsible for 70% of new infections in the country. Levy also said that one-third of those new infections were in vaccinated individuals.

In the U.K., Public Health England released a report that found 26 out of 73 deaths caused by the delta variant occurred in fully vaccinated people from June 8 to June 14. Most of the deaths occurred in unvaccinated individuals.

“Determination of whether hospitalizations and deaths are more represented in immunocompromised patients and the type of vaccine received will be important for future guidance,” Chin-Hong said.

UCLA Epidemiology Professor Dr. Anne Rimoin on delta Covid variant

On June 7, the CDC received reports of 3,459 breakthrough cases that led to hospitalization or death. On June 18, that number was updated to 3,729, an increase of 270 cases. Today, the number stands at 4,115.

An overwhelming majority, 76%, of the hospitalizations and deaths from breakthrough cases occurred in people over the age of 65.

We do not have the years and years of data we have for vaccines against other airborne pathogens — and therefore it is really essential that the CDC provides up to date reporting on breakthrough cases,” David Edwards, aerosol scientist and Harvard University professor, told CNBC.

The CDC says its numbers are “likely an undercount” of all Covid infections in vaccinated people because the data relies on passive and voluntary reporting.

— CNBC’s Berkeley Lovelace Jr. contributed to this report.

Biden Rejects Basis of 2nd Amendment and Declaration of Independence

[The Declaration of Independence]

Biden touts new crime prevention strategy focused on gun control

He rejected the argument that the right to self-defense is needed to protect against potential government tyranny

Biden met with state and local leaders and law enforcement officials ahead of his remarks to talk crime prevention strategy, amid a surge in violence in cities across the U.S.

Both Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who spoke before him, pointed to a historic rise in crime in the summertime, and said that rise “may be more pronounced” as the nation comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The White House has insisted curbing gun violence is key to tamping down a “staggering” surge of crime across the U.S.

“Talk to most responsible gun owners they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine,” Biden said.

Biden also took aim at an argument used by Second Amendment advocates, that the right to self-defense needed to protect against potential government tyranny.

“Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said. “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

“We’re not changing the Constitution. We’re enforcing it,” the president continued.
Biden touted “zero tolerance” for gun dealers who willfully violate the law, and claimed that 90% of illegal guns found at crime scenes were traced back to 5% of gun dealers.

The “zero-tolerance” policy targets federally licensed firearms dealers who “willfully” transfer a weapon to someone prohibited from owning one or ignore a tracing request from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF would seek to revoke the dealer’s license after the first offense, a senior White House official said.

“If you willfully sell a gun to someone who’s prohibited from possessing it, if you willfully fail to run a background check, if you willfully falsify a record … my message to you is this: We’ll find you and we will seek your license to sell guns,” Biden said.

The National Rifle Association said the Biden initiative was an attempt to distract from the true causes of a rise in crime.

“This is a political red herring aimed at hiding the real and abysmal failures of the Biden administration,” NRS spokeswoman Amy Hunter told Fox News. “Crime rates are high because of the efforts to defund the police and a failure to prosecute career criminals. The simple fact is strict enforcement of existing laws – including gun laws – coupled with support of law enforcement and prosecutors to do their jobs would result in a dramatic decrease in crime. But, the president would rather play politics than make Americans safer.”

Biden also boasted of “historic funding for crime prevention” in the $350 billion for state and local governments, from the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, that can be used by cities to hire law enforcement officers, pay overtime, prosecute gun traffickers and invest in technology to make law enforcement more efficient. Officials said the Biden administration hoped cities would choose to use the money for alternatives to policing, too, and to invest in community policing models.

The administration has also taken aim at “ghost guns” and modified firearms, which are homemade firearms without serial numbers that can be used to trace them, making it difficult for law enforcement to determine where, by whom, or when they were manufactured and to whom they were sold.

The Justice Department’s ATF last month sought to update the legal definition of “firearm” in an effort to crack down on ghost guns.

Biden also pushed hiring programs to keep young people busy and off the streets during the summer months, as they’re often both the target and perpetrators of such violence. Biden said such programs encouraged youth to “pick up a paycheck instead of a pistol.”

The president said the DOJ has created five new “strike forces” to crack down on illegal gun trafficking cartels and called on the Senate to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, thereby closing the “boyfriend loophole” to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.

The Biden/Democrat Hunt For “Domestic Terrorists” and the Coming “Internet Purge”

[The White House on Tuesday released a report that designates the Jan. 6 Capitol riot a “domestic terrorist attack” and endorses an internet purge of “extremist” content–NY POST]

 “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”–pdf

Domestic terrorism – driven by hate, bigotry, and other forms of extremism— is a stain on the soul of America.  It goes against everything our country strives for and it poses a direct challenge to our national security, democracy, and unity.

To meet this serious and growing threat, on my first day in office I directed my national security team to confront the rise in domestic terrorism with the necessary resources and resolve.  Today, I am releasing the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.  It lays out a comprehensive approach to protecting our nation from domestic terrorism while safeguarding our bedrock civil rights and civil liberties – values that make us who we are as Americans.  We have to take both short-term steps to counter the very real threats of today and longer-term measures to diminish the drivers that will contribute to this ongoing challenge to our democracy.

This is a project that should unite all Americans.  Together we must affirm that domestic terrorism has no place in our society.  We must work to root out the hatreds that can too often drive violence.  And we must recommit to defending and protecting our basic freedoms, which belong to all Americans in equal measure, and which are not only the foundation of our democracy – they are our enduring advantage in the world.

Is “Magnetic Drug Delivery” The Source of Magnetic Shot Conspiracy Theory?

Hot New Conspiracy Theory: Vaccines Turn You Into a Magnet

Magnetic Drug Delivery: Where the Field Is Going

Paige M. Price1Waleed E. Mahmoud2Ahmed A. Al-Ghamdi2 and Lyudmila M. Bronstein1,2,3*
  • 1Department of Chemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States
  • 2Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
  • 3A.N. Nesmeyanov Institute of Organoelement Compounds, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Targeted delivery of anticancer drugs is considered to be one of the pillars of cancer treatment as it could allow for a better treatment efficiency and less adverse effects. A promising drug delivery approach is magnetic drug targeting which can be realized if a drug delivery vehicle possesses a strong magnetic moment. Here, we discuss different types of magnetic nanomaterials which can be used as magnetic drug delivery vehicles, approaches to magnetic targeted delivery as well as promising strategies for the enhancement of the imaging-guided delivery and the therapeutic action.


The majority of anticancer drugs are delivered intravenously and accumulated in tumors containing the abundance of leaking blood vessels. However, this affects healthy tissue and causes numerous side effects. The more efficient approach is realized when drug nanocarriers are functionalized with target molecules [for example, folate (FA) groups], which interact with specific receptors located in certain tumors, allowing for the attachment of the drug delivery vehicles solely to the tumor (Fernandez et al., 2018Rosiere et al., 2018Sun, Q. et al., 2018Sun, W. et al., 2018). This approach allows for a significant decrease of side effects caused by chemotherapy agents (Li et al., 2017Peng et al., 2017Sun, W. et al., 2018). Another drug delivery approach which can be used for many types of tumors is magnetic drug targeting which can be achieved if a drug delivery vehicle possesses a strong magnetic moment and can be manipulated by a magnetic field (Lee et al., 2017Luong et al., 2017Wei et al., 2017).

Magnetic drug delivery was first introduced in the 80’s (Widder et al., 1980Kost and Langer, 1986) but in the last decade the interest to magnetic targeting soared due to the development of stronger magnets and higher sophistication magnetic probes with multiple functions, i.e., theranostic probes (Nan et al., 2017Sun, Q. et al., 2018Tang et al., 2018). Such probes allow for a combination of diagnostics (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or magnetic particle imaging), and therapeutics, which could include hyperthermia and drug release as well as targeted drug delivery (for example, with an applied magnetic field).

A substantial number of reviews has been published on magnetic drug delivery (Kost and Langer, 1986Lubbe et al., 2001Duran et al., 2008Herrmann et al., 2009Williams et al., 2009Foy and Labhasetwar, 2011Tietze et al., 20122015Mody et al., 2014Lyer et al., 2015Mitra et al., 2015Shapiro et al., 2015), the latest of which appeared as recently as 2016–2017 (Ulbrich et al., 2016Grillone and Ciofani, 2017Kralj et al., 2017Mosayebi et al., 2017). However, the explosive development of this field in the last two years reveals the need in reviewing recent findings and better understanding of the major trends and shortcomings.

Development of Magnetic Drug Delivery Probes

Currently, there are many different types of magnetic bioprobes which are being explored for magnetic targeting. In this review, we will focus on the most promising bioprobes from the viewpoint of magnetic manipulation and loading/release of specific drugs.

Magnetic Nano/Microparticles

Magnetic microspheres were developed to overcome two major issues that are present with non-magnetic microcarriers: reticuloendothelial system clearance and poor site specificity (Kakar et al., 2013). One of the approaches is to develop porous or hollow/porous microspheres from magnetic spinel ferrites MxFe3−xO4 (M = Fe, Zn). Their high magnetism means the microspheres can be easily manipulated by a magnet within the vascular system and, more specifically, remain in the target organ capillaries. Chen et al. utilized a hollow nanoparticle (NP) with a mesoporous shell which creates a higher surface area and a large cavity where drug can be encapsulated in both the mesopores and the cavities (Chen et al., 2017). Additionally, MxFe3−xO4 (M = Fe, Zn) produce more heat under microwave irradiation which allows easier release of the loaded drug. However, doping of iron oxide causes the decrease of the saturation magnetization which diminishes the microsphere potential for magnetic targeting (Chen et al., 2017).

Another approach to synthesizing microspheres is the combination of a polymer with inorganic NPs. Wang et al. utilized poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) to encapsulate both Fe3O4 NPs and the anti-cancer drug, doxorubicin hydrochloride (DOX) (Wang, G. et al., 2018). The superparamagnetic composite microspheres showed a high drug loading and a quick magnetic response. The drug release was shown to be pH-sensitive with a high initial release and sustained release over many days.

Microparticles of dry powder chemotherapeutic containing iron oxide NPs (called nano-in-microparticles, NIMs) were used for magnetic delivery into lungs with an applied magnetic field (Price et al., 2017). Mice were endotracheally administered fluorescently labeled NIMs as a dry powder in the presence of an external magnet placed over one lung. It was demonstrated that in the magnetically activated lung, DOX loaded NIMs were therapeutically efficient, thus allowing for a targeted delivery.

Specific gene delivery has been realized with biomimetic magnetic microparticles (magnetosomes) synthesized utilizing magnetic nanocluster (MNC) core and Arg–Gly–Asp (RGD) decorated macrophage shell (Zhang et al., 2018). The magnetosome synthesis was accomplished via several steps including MNC preparation, azide-membrane engineering, electrostatic assembly, and click chemistry. This complex approach to magnetosomes is well-justified, allowing for high-performance siRNA delivery through a superior stealth effect, MRI, magnetic accumulation via an external magnetic field, RGD targeting, and favorable cytoplasm trafficking.

Drug-loaded microparticles prepared by layer-by-layer (LbL) deposition of polyelectrolytes with embedded magnetic NPs were attached to Escherichia coli bacteria, creating stochastic “microswimmers” which moved at average speeds of up to 22.5 μm/s (Park et al., 2017). These “microswimmers” displayed biased and directional motion under a chemoattractant gradient and a magnetic field, respectively. This work demonstrates that multifunctional bacteria-driven magnetic bioprobes can be used for targeted drug delivery with significantly enhanced drug transfer in comparison to passive microparticles. Another interesting example of “microswimmers” was reported in (Stanton et al., 2017). The non-pathogenic magnetotactic bacteria Magnetosopirrillum gryphiswalense (MSR-1) was combined with antibiotic loaded mesoporous silica microtubes for targeting an infectious biofilm. Combining magnetic guidance property and swimming power of the MSR-1 cells, the biocomposite particles have been delivered to the matured E. coli (E. coli) biofilm followed by the antibiotic release and the biofilm disruption, revealing a potential for antibiofilm applications.

Xu et al. reported the development of an unprecedented sperm-hybrid micromotor for targeted drug delivery (Xu et al., 2018). This micromotor consists of a motile sperm cell which is both a propulsion source and a drug carrier (Figure 1). The other component is a 3D-printed magnetic tubular microstructure (called “tetrapod”) made of a polymer and coated with 10 nm Fe and 2 nm Ti (to protect Fe from oxidation). The tetrapod contains four arms which release the sperm cell in situ when they are pushed into a tumor. A magnetic field allows for controllable magnetic guidance as well as release, allowing drug delivery to tumor cells without damaging the healthy tissue. This system combines high drug loading capacity, self-propulsion, in situ mechanical trigger release of the drug-loaded sperm, sperm penetration ability, and improved drug availability.


www.frontiersin.orgFigure 1. (A) SEM images of an array of printed tetrapod microstructures. (B) Schematic illustrating the mechanical release mechanism. (C) Track (red line) of a sperm-hybrid motor under magnetic guidance in the horizontal and vertical planes. (D) Image sequence of a sperm release process when the arms hit the corner of a polydimethylsiloxane wall. Blue arrows point at the sperm head. Time lapse in min:s (Xu et al., 2018). Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder [American Chemical Society].

In order to develop multifunctional NPs combining a near-infrared (NIR) plasmonic response with magnetic targeting, Tsai et al. deposited a double layer of Au/Ag alloy on the surface of truncated octahedral iron oxide NPs (Tsai et al., 2018). The rattle-shaped nanostructures exhibited a response for photothermal therapy (PTT) and magnetic guidance for hyperthermia and MRI as well as accumulation of the probes using an external magnetic field. The distance between the layers was controlled for maximum NIR absorption. These probes do not require a drug for chemotherapy as a dual action is already realized with PTT and hyperthermia.

Nanoparticle Clustering/Assembly

One of the primary issues with using superparamagnetic iron oxide NPs is that the individual NPs do not display high magnetization which is unfavorable for guiding them through the body (Kralj et al., 2017). A way to overcome this problem is clustering of NPs to increase their overall magnetic response. Zheng et al. synthesized copolymers of hyaluronic acid (HA) and C16 micelles using peptide formation followed by encapsulation of docetaxel (DTX, an anti-cancer agent) and NPs to develop multifunctional micelles (Zheng et al., 2018). HA is especially attractive because it binds to the CD-44 receptor which is overexpressed in various types of cancer in addition to its biocompatibility and biodegradability (Lee et al., 2012). Cellular uptake occurred via CD-44 receptor-mediated endocytosis and was enhanced by the presence of a magnetic field. This uptake method increases the amount of micelles in the tumor tissues compared to the normal tissues that creates a favorable contrast in MR images. Furthermore, drug release was triggered by NIR irradiation.

Assembly of iron oxide NPs on polydopamine (PDA) NPs allowed for an enhanced magnetic response and stimuli-controlled drug release for in vivo cancer theranostics (Ao et al., 2018). The high reactivity of the PDA surface furnishes a possibility for reduction-responsive prodrugs, while poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) chains allow for in vivo cancer therapy. Due to a combination of MRI/photoacoustic dual-modal tumor imaging and controlled magnetic drug targeting, the effective tumor obliteration was accomplished via synergy of NIR photothermal ablation (due to PDA) and anticancer drug magnetic delivery.

Iron oxide NPs with the grafted poly(styrene)-b-poly(acrylic acid) (PS-b-PAA) block copolymer were self-assembled into multilayer magneto-vesicles (MVs) and utilized for incorporation of drugs in the hollow cavity (Yang et al., 2018). High packing density of iron oxide NPs in MVs allowed for the high magnetization and transverse relaxivity rate (r2) in MRI. When injected, DOX-loaded MVs conjugated with RGD peptides were efficiently accumulated in tumor cells due to magnetic targeting.

Innovative magnetic drug delivery vehicles were developed based on magnetite NP clusters (Wang, Y. et al., 2018). Two shells were built on the NP cluster surface: an inner shell of PDA with attached triphenylphosphonium (TPP) and an outer shell of methoxy PEG (mPEG) linked to PDA by disulfide bonds. At the first stage of targeting, the magnetic NP clusters allow for the bioprobe accumulation at the tumor site using an external magnetic field. At the second stage, mitochondrial targeting takes place as the mPEG shell is removed from the NPs by a redox reaction to expose TPP. Upon NIR irradiation at the tumor site, a photothermal effect is produced from the PDA photosensitizer, resulting in a strong decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential. At the same time, DOX is released, leading to the damage of mitochondrial DNA and cell death. Thus, photothermal therapy and chemotherapy are combined with magnetic drug delivery resulting in an enhancement of the DOX performance.

Magnetic Microbubbles

Image-guided and targeted modulation of drug delivery by external physical triggers at the site of pathology has been promising for drug targeting (Vlaskou et al., 2010Cai et al., 2012). Magnetic microbubbles (MagMB) that are responsive to magnetic and acoustic field changes and visible to ultrasonography were suggested for magnetic drug targeting. Recently, MagMB were prepared by mixing the suspension of protamine-functionalized microbubbles (MB-Prot) with the suspension of the heparinized NPs (Chertok and Langer, 2018). MagMB were gathered in tumor by magnetic targeting and observed by ultrasonography. Using focused ultrasound, MagMB were collapsed when necessary to release a drug. The authors demonstrated drug delivery to tumors could be enhanced by optimizing magnetic and acoustic fields, using ultrasonographic monitoring of MagMB in real-time.

Tang et al. synthesized multifunctional MagMB utilizing poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), FA, perofluorohexane (PFH), Fe3O4, and DOX (Tang et al., 2018). These nanocomposites are able to move intravenously due to their initial nanometer-range size. However, when high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is used, PFH is transformed from the liquid to the gas phase due to an increase in temperature. The PFH gas forms microbubbles which enhance the ultrasound image. Fe3O4 allows for the nanocomposite to be efficiently targeted through MRI guidance. Additionally, the FA ligands on the surface of the nanocomposites specifically target the tumor cells via conjugation. The DOX release is triggered by HIFU exposure, and the release is accelerated due to the tumor-acidic microenvironment. Finally, Fe3O4 NPs enhance the sensitivity of the tumor via the hyperthermia effect (Moroz et al., 2001). This nanocomposite is an efficient and comprehensive theranostics probe.

Another multifunctional MagMB are based on magnetic liposomes (Liu et al., 2017a). Liposomes range in size from 50 to 1,000 nm and are biocompatible. Both water-soluble and water-insoluble drugs/NPs can be loaded into the core while maintaining high MRI contrast (Liu et al., 2017a). In magnetic liposomes synthesized by Yang et al. γ-Fe2O3 were encapsulated by liposomes doped with anethole ditholethione (Liu et al., 2017b). MR imaging was used to follow the accumulation of the magnetic liposomes in the tumor. Additionally, ultrasound was used to produce microbubbles (H2S) in order to ablate the tumor tissue via an increase in size (Liu et al., 2017b).

Magnetic Microcapsules

Magnetic multilayer microcapsules composed of poly(allylamine hydrochloride) and poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) and prepared by LbL deposition were utilized as magnetic delivery vehicles in vitro and in vivo (Voronin et al., 2017in vivo experiments performed on mesenteric vessels of white mongrel rats reveal that capsules can be successfully trapped by the magnetic field and even stay there after the magnetic field is turned off. This work validates the effective control of microcapsules in a blood flow, making them promising drug delivery systems with remote navigation by the external magnetic field.

Microcapsules called iMushbots and prepared from mesoporous mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) fragments coated with magnetite NPs showed promising properties for targeted delivery (Bhuyan et al., 2017). The magnetite NPs played two roles (i) helping to pH-induced chemotaxis via the heterogeneous catalytic decomposition of the peroxide fuel in the presence of iron oxide and (ii) allowing a remote magnetic control of the iMushbot movement. The iMushbots also demonstrated higher drug retaining ability inside alkaline pH regions (human blood) and easy drug release in acidic medium (cancerous tissue) (Figure 2).


www.frontiersin.orgFigure 2. Schematic representation of the iMushbot action (Bhuyan et al., 2017). It is being reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder [American Chemical Society].

Magnetic Fibers

Polyvinyl alcohol fibers filled with magnetite NPs were synthesized via infusion gyration and studied as biocompatible magnetically triggered drug delivery vehicles (Perera et al., 2018). The authors demonstrated that acetaminophen (model drug) uploaded via impregnation can be controllably released by magnetic actuation. Moreover, upon creating a magnetic field 90% cumulative release was observed in 15 min which was much higher than that without magnetic field. These results demonstrate a potential for remote delivery of drugs or other substances.

Drug Uptake/Release

Uptake of drugs in magnetic drug delivery vehicles is carried out similar to non-magnetic carriers via conjugation (Chaudhary et al., 2015Pourmanouchehri et al., 2018), hydrophobic interactions (Cho et al., 2018), absorption within porous structures (Kakar et al., 2013), etc. The drug release can be triggered by pH changes in the microenvironment (Wang et al., 2017Wei et al., 2017Wang, G. et al., 2018), by mechanical forces (Xu et al., 2018), NIR irradiation (Wang, Y. et al., 2018Zheng et al., 2018), chemical reduction (Ao et al., 2018), HIFU (Moroz et al., 2001), and magnetic hyperthermia (Cho et al., 2018).


Cytotoxity of DOX bearing magnetic bioprobes has been discussed in a number of publications both for cancer cells and for healthy tissues (Lee et al., 2017Ao et al., 2018Sun, Q. et al., 2018). Cytotoxicity toward healthy cells is limited because most systems are localized and made biocompatible. It is demonstrated that the bioprobes without DOX do not kill cancer cells (Ao et al., 2018), while efficacy of magnetic bioprobes with DOX is comparable to that of free DOX (Ao et al., 2018). Cytotoxicity also increases with increasing amounts of DOX and/or upon NIR irradiation (Sun, Q. et al., 2018).

Approaches to Magnetic Drug Targeting

External Magnetic Field

In the majority of cases, the magnetic drug targeting/delivery is realized upon the application of an external magnetic field from electromagnetic coils (Hoshiar et al., 2017) or various types of permanent magnets (Carenza et al., 2014Price et al., 2017Shaw et al., 2017Venugopal et al., 2017Voronin et al., 2017Shamsi et al., 2018). It was demonstrated that magnet geometry and tumor-magnet distance can be of crucial importance for the effective magnetic drug delivery (Shamsi et al., 2018Wang, X. et al., 2018).

Delivery Deep Inside the Body

Utilizing stationary external magnets to attract the magnetic drug carriers, it is difficult to target areas below 5 cm under the skin. A dynamic control of magnets to focus magnetic carriers to deep tissue targets has been proposed (Shapiro, 2009). Using first-principles magneto-statics and ferrofluid transport model, the author demonstrated that a sequence of actuations can push magnetic NPs through a center region, thus generating a focus at a deep target. In the other theoretical work, by rotating the magnet and setting a central axis to the target part, ferromagnetic drugs were accumulated in the target (Chuzawa et al., 2013). However, to the best of our knowledge no experimental studies have confirmed the conclusions of the theoretical work.

Magnetic Implants

Instead of using an external magnetic field which could be problematic in the case of delivery to some organs, magnetic implants seem to be a viable alternative. Ge et al. reported targeted drug delivery to a biocompatible magnetic implant scaffold made of a magnetite/poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanocomposite (Ge et al., 2017). In this case, a drug was attached to magnetic NPs to create a driving force for delivery. Such magnetic implants can be promising for a bone cancer, providing a precise cancer treatment. Magnetic implants can be imbedded in a fatty tissue to treat obesity (Saatchi et al., 2017) and in the inner ear to treat deafness (Le et al., 2017).

Summary and Outlook

In summary, we can identify several essential rules which need to be followed for the development of successful magnetic drug delivery vehicles. The magnetic bioprobes need to be sufficiently large to possess high magnetization for efficient magnetic targeting. They have to allow for controlled drug uptake and release mechanisms to make them efficient delivery systems. Finally, they have to possess theranostic features (both diagnostic and therapeutic) to enhance the delivery and the drug action. The other key feature of promising magnetic drug delivery vehicles is long-circulating, stealthy systems which will not be cleared by a phagocyte system (Zhang et al., 20172018). This can be realized by a combination of peptides and polymers in the particle outer shells. It is worth noting, however, that the degree of bioprobe sophistication is only warranted by the wealth of properties it delivers, as sometimes simpler systems can be quite satisfactory and less expensive.

It is worth noting that despite FDA approval and commercialization of iron oxide based bioprobes for MRI and hyperthermia, clinical trials of magnetic drug delivery received less attention. To the best of our knowledge, there were several small clinical trials (even in Phase III), but none resulted in FDA approval or commercialization (Wang et al., 2013Min et al., 2015Ulbrich et al., 2016).

We believe that the major unsolved problem in magnetic drug delivery is the absence of mechanisms for delivery into the depth of the body. The recent strategy of magnetic or magnetiziable implants seems to be promising but it requires a surgical intervention and in some cases cannot be implemented. Currently, efforts from physicists and engineers are required to move this field forward to real life applications.

Author Contributions

PP carried out analysis of the literature and wrote a part on magnetic bioprobe synthesis. WM collected the literature and wrote the rest of the discussion on magnetic bioprobes. AA-G wrote part on approaches to magnetic targeting. LB wrote all other sections and oversaw the project.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


Ao, L., Wu, C., Liu, K., Wang, W., Fang, L., Huang, L., et al. (2018). Polydopamine-derivated hierarchical nanoplatforms for efficient dual-modal imaging-guided combination in vivo cancer therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 12544–12552. doi: 10.1021/acsami.8b02973

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biden and Co-Conspirators Want 15% of the World’s Money For the U.N.

G7 backs Biden’s sweeping overhaul of global tax system

[Forcing a global tax of 15%, in addition to regular national income taxes…ask Biden (Who will ask Obama). ]

  • Under the agreement, G-7 nations will back a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15%, U.K. Finance Minister Rishi Sunak announced in a series of tweets.
  • The reforms will affect the largest companies in the world with profit margins of at least 10%.
  • U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is in London for the face-to-face meeting, hailed the move as significant and unprecedented.
Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak (from left), U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Managing Director of the IMF Kristalina Georgieva and Canada's Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland chatting on the first day of the Group of Seven Finance
Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak (from left), U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Managing Director of the IMF Kristalina Georgieva and Canada’s Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland chatting on the first day of the Group of Seven Finance Ministers Meeting at Lancaster House in London on June 4, 2021.
Stefan Rousseau | AFP | Getty Images
LONDON — The finance ministers of the most advanced economies, known as the Group of Seven, have backed a U.S. proposal that calls for corporations around the world to pay at least a 15% tax on earnings.

“G-7 finance ministers today, after years of discussions, have reached a historic agreement to reform the global tax system, to make it fit for the global digital age — and crucially to make sure that it’s fair so that the right companies pay the right tax in the right places,” U.K. Finance Minister Rishi Sunak announced in a video statement on Saturday.

If finalized, it would represent a significant development in global taxation. Members of the G-7, which include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S., will convene for a summit in Cornwall, U.K., next week.

An agreement among this group would provide needed momentum for upcoming talks planned with 135 countries in Paris. Finance ministers from the Group of 20 are also expected to meet in Venice in July.

“We commit to reaching an equitable solution on the allocation of taxing rights, with market countries awarded taxing rights on at least 20% of profit exceeding a 10% margin for the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises,” according to a statement from the G-7 finance ministers.

“We will provide for appropriate coordination between the application of the new international tax rules and the removal of all Digital Services Taxes, and other relevant similar measures, on all companies,” it said.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is in London for the face-to-face meeting, hailed the move as significant and unprecedented.

“That global minimum tax would end the race-to-the-bottom in corporate taxation, and ensure fairness for the middle class and working people in the U.S. and around the world,” she tweeted.

President Joe Biden and his administration had initially suggested a minimum global tax rate of 21% in an attempt to prevent countries luring international businesses with low or zero taxes. However, after tough negotiations, a compromise was reached to set the bar at 15%.

A global deal in this field would be good news for cash-strapped nations, who are trying to rebuild their economies after the coronavirus crisis.

But Biden’s idea had not been received with the same level of excitement across the world. The U.K., for example, did not immediately voice its support for the proposal.

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with a bipartisan group of members of Congress.
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with a bipartisan group of members of Congress.
Pool | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The issue can be contentious within the European Union as well, where various member states charge different corporate tax rates and can attract big-name firms by doing so. Ireland’s tax rate, for example, is 12.5%, while France’s can be as high as 31%.

Speaking in April, Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe said smaller nations should be allowed to have lower tax rates given that they don’t have the same capacity for scale as the larger economies do, the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper reported.

The world’s most powerful economies have been at odds over taxation for some time, in particular in the wake of plans to tax digital giants more.

The U.S., under former President Donald Trump, vehemently opposed digital tax initiatives in different countries and threatened to impose trade tariffs against countries that would plan on taxing U.S. tech companies.

Some major firms across the world reacted positively the agreement on Saturday. Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs at Facebook, wrote in a tweet that the company welcomed the G-7 tax rule.

“We want the international tax reform process to succeed and recognize this could mean Facebook paying more tax, and in different places,” Clegg wrote.

Google spokesman Jose Castaneda told CNBC in a statement that the company supports efforts to update international tax rules. “We hope countries continue to work together to ensure a balanced and durable agreement will be finalized soon,” he said.

White House and Media Block Serious Wuhan Investigations For Fear of Helping Trump

“That is an extraordinarily damning admission. Health experts who understood all along that it was entirely possible that the virus emerged from a lab simply refused to examine the hypothesis because it had become associated with the likes of Donald Trump.”
Photo: Ng Han Guan/AP/Shutterstock
As we sift through the lab-leak debacle, the good news is that the healthy antibodies in the system are still strong enough to overcome the groupthink that produced the original error. News media are investigating a hypothesis they once dismissed, and the government has announced an investigation to find the truth.

The bad news is that the problem is turning out to be worse than it initially seemed — and worse still, the source of the failure is not going away. The implications of this episode are much broader than understanding the source of the pandemic. It is a question about whether institutions like the media and government can withstand the pressure of ideological conformity.

A recent Washington Post story, looking back at the government’s response to virus’s origination, reported that many officials refused to explore the lab-leak hypothesis because it was associated with right-wing politics. “For some of the officials who were privately suspicious of the Wuhan lab, Trump’s and Navarro’s comments turned the lab-leak scenario into a fringe conspiracy theory,” the Post found, “It became nearly impossible to generate interest among health experts in a hypothesis that Trump had turned into a political weapon, they said.”

That is an extraordinarily damning admission. Health experts who understood all along that it was entirely possible that the virus emerged from a lab simply refused to examine the hypothesis because it had become associated with the likes of Donald Trump.

Katherine Eban, writing in Vanity Fair, has written a lengthy exposé drawing out the failure in detail. One State Department official wrote that his team was warned not to investigate the origins of the pandemic because it would “open a can of worms.” Miles Yu, the State Department’s principal China strategist, tells Eban, “Anyone who dares speak out would be ostracized.” After former CDC head Robert Redfield said he believed the virus originated in a lab, he tells Eban “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis.”

In retrospect, the error is clear enough all along. The origins of the pandemic were always murky, and the strongest reason to dismiss lab-leak out of hand — that the Wuhan lab supposedly had airtight security protocols — was more rumor than fact. What’s more, the notion that the theory was “racist” was always transparently dubious. A story in which the virus emerged from failed safety protocols at the Wuhan lab is not inherently more racist than a theory in which it emerged from a wet market. (If anything, blaming the pandemic on China’s people for eating bats lends itself much more easily to racism than blaming China’s government for lax security at its research labs.)

Journalists make mistakes, especially operating in a chaotic atmosphere dominated by the ceaseless jabberings of a pathological liar with a giant megaphone. What’s concerning is that, even faced with undeniable proof of the error, many people still refuse to concede it.

An article in Nature warns against a a “divisive” investigation into the virus’s origins. Remarkably enough, given that it comes from a scientific journal, the article does not directly question the possibility that COVID did escape from a lab. Instead, it warns that the investigation is “fueling online bullying of scientists and anti-Asian harassment in the United States, as well as offending researchers and authorities in China whose cooperation is needed.” One scientist who reports this “bullying” is Canadian virologist Angela Rasmussen, who in 2020 had developed a high-profile Twitter presence laced with confident dismissals of lab-leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory” that was “steeped in racist stereotypes.”

When scientists are openly arguing against the study of a scientific hypothesis, for non-scientific reasons, something has gone haywire. In this case, that something seems to be a hothouse atmosphere centered around social media, that has cultivated an ethos of moral fervor and political homogeneity.

“Personally I think that when a public figure is a known racist liar it’s fine to treat their evidence-free statements as racist lies,” insisted podcaster Michael Hobbes. “If David Duke gives a speech about rising urban crime rates it’s not the media’s job to report the most plausible version of his argument.” Writer and University of Minnesota Law School fellow Will Stancil called renewed attention to the lab-leak hypothesis “the latest example of hybridization between the right-wing fever swamps and the white guys who run journalism.”

The notable aspect of these statements is not the conclusion but the logic that produced it. That journalists dismissed a plausible theory, because they associated it with people who have noxious beliefs, does not strike them as a problem, but a correct epistemological model.


Jonathan Last, an apostate conservative writing for the Bulwark (a new magazine that serves as a kind of refuge for Republican and conservative intellectuals unable to stomach Donald Trump), recently made an observation about conservatives taunting the mainstream media for dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis. Yes, Last allowed, many outlets got the story wrong by describing the hypothesis that COVID-19 escaped from the lab in Wuhan, rather than the nearby wet market, as a false, racist conspiracy theory, when in truth they never really knew the virus’s origins. But most of those outlets have since corrected their error and treated the issue as a live scientific mystery. When has conservative media ever engaged in anything like this sort of self-correction? Is Fox News running self-flagellating segments questioning, say, the network’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine as a proven COVID treatment? The very thought is a punchline.

This asymmetry between the mainstream news media and the conservative media that was created to oppose it has long been a source of satisfaction for we liberals. Modern journalism, like think tanks and the bureaucracy, grew out of a Progressive Era belief in disinterested expertise. Guided by the principles of scientific inquiry, these institutions would follow the truth wherever it led.

The conservative movement built a counter-Establishment to oppose this network, but the alt-institutions of the right mimicked the hallowed liberal Establishment only in form. The Heritage Institution, the Washington Times, and Fox News were not mirror images of Brookings, the New York Times, and CBS News — they were parodies of them. Liberals had a phrase to describe this imbalance: the hack gap. The Republican Party had an army of partisans at its disposal, unburdened by any fealty to any scientific or professional norms save the advancement of the conservative movement. The liberal media might make mistakes, and bureaucracies may produce wrong conclusions, but at least they aspire to norms of fairness and impartiality that the right-wing counterparts merely sneer at.

Openness to evidence is the historical strength of American liberalism. This is why, for all the errors liberals have committed since the Progressive Era, a capacity for self-correction has given continued vitality to their — our — creed. The lab-leak fiasco ought to be a warning sign of what happens if the urge to not be defeated or manipulated by the right turns into an emulation of its methods. The only thing worse than having a hack gap would be not having one.

Bush/Romney Republicanism Must Go Away

[“W” is back from obscurity to defend the Old Boy’s Club, a.k.a., the “Democratic-Republican Party” to fight against the Old Republican Party which has been radicalized against the old bipartisan politics which has run and ruined this country since WWII.  Since Reagan inspired the New Republican right wing, giving life to their anti-Communist, anti-liberal cause, there has been civil war within the party.  The New Right came into existence to fight against both “political correctness” and the radical liberalism (Marxism) which brought it into being.  Trump was the first American president since Reagan willing to take a stand against the destructive policies of the Liberal Democrats and the national news media which clearly served their interests, while squelching the opposing views.

“W” was born and raised within the Good Old Boys network of his father, never straying from their domination.  As President, he followed policies which were no different from his Democrat predecessor or his successor.  For all intents and purposes, America has been and still is dominated by one “uniparty“, the same bipartisan clique, from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama…until Trump came along.  Little Bush thinks that he was reborn to take back the Republican Party and hand it to Biden.

He comes out preaching the religion of the redeeming immigrants (SEE: Camp of the Saints), while peddling his extremely primitive paintings of immigrants, hoping that his clumsy attempts to appear as a folksy “everyman” will allow him public space to again deceive the American people, while evading long overdue criticism of his countless mistakes as President.  Bush is guilty of killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, as well as Pakistanis.  Whatever else Trump did, he tried to wind down Bush and Obama’s wars, with plans to end Bush/Obama’s forever wars. ]


Bush Republicanism Must Go Away

The Democratic Party is actively trying to start a race war in the United States, and George Bush thinks it’s Republican voters who need lessons in humanity and fellowship.

Bush is on the media circuit these days pushing amnesty (while calling it anything but!) for millions of foreign nationals who have entered the country illegally; lecturing Republican voters on being “more respectful about the immigrant”; and trying desperately to reclaim the Republican Party as the slightly less socialist wing of the Uniparty where neoconservative, offshoring, job-destroying, globalist-advancing, Chamber of Commerce–approved, multinationals-funded, (secret) limousine liberal, military-adventuring, surveillance state, Big Government devotees who follow in the footsteps of Nelson Rockefeller while feigning allegiance to President Reagan’s “revolution” can offer Americans the opportunity of voting against Democratic Party by pushing a platform identical to the Democrats’ own policies ten years earlier.  Go Jeb!

“Isolationist,” “protectionist,” and “nativist” are the three adjectives Bush has for the energized and expanded Republican Party refashioned by the MAGA coalition of voters who finally found their voices after thirty years in the wilderness and a worthy champion in President Trump.

– “Isolationist” because American soldiers who were led into war twenty years ago under the guise of fighting Islamic terrorism, protecting American freedom at home, and seeking a little payback for 9/11 instead found themselves used as nation-builders, police forces for occupied territories, and political pawns sent to combat “extremism,” and many Republicans now question the wisdom of engaging in forever-wars without clear operational goals.

– “Protectionist” because once those soldiers returned home, they discovered that the ravages of NAFTA and trade normalization with China had crushed Middle America’s manufacturing and industrial workforces and condemned their hometowns to slow economic deaths.

– And “nativist” because the last thing paycheck-to-paycheck Americans needed while trying to support their own families was a constant flood of both legal (many coming as refugees from the same areas of the world where Americans have been engaged in combat for two decades) and illegal aliens competing for their jobs and balkanizing tens of thousands of small towns across the United States by transforming them from low-crime, highly integrated communities where people lived, worked, and prayed together as extended families into unrecognizable multicultural and multilingual enclaves upending town culture and destroying tight-knit generational bonds.

Imagine sending warriors off to fight and die overseas for causes that almost immediately became tragically politicized and undermined and then chastising the survivors and their families as being “nativist” for simply wanting to live and work in peace and choosing to prioritize America’s future over that of other nations.

What unbelievable nerve from a guy who can’t be bothered in retirement to fight the full-Marxist takeover of the government, the socialists’ racial indoctrination programs meant to brainwash children into hating America’s history and foundations, or the Democratic-Bolsheviks’ habitual, decades-long weaponization of racial divide-and-conquer tactics (including against the “Katrina” president himself) in their vulgar conquests to amass power and silence dissent.  Remaining quiet while the Democrats intentionally provoke racial tensions in America today is inexcusable.  Talk about the “soft bigotry of low expectations”!

Ordinary Republicans stood by “W” while Al Gore and Democrat operatives tried to steal his presidency in 2000 (back when it was both “necessary” and “patriotic” to audit the vote); they answered his call for warriors to stand up, say goodbye to their families and friends, grab their rifles, and head off to fight two simultaneous wars on the other side of the world in the aftermath of 9/11; and they defended Bush from the onslaught of a corporate media and Democratic Party tag team that relentlessly slandered him each day of his presidency while he did little to defend himself — and this is how the “compassionate conservative” thanks Republicans for their loyalty and service.

It’s the kind of nonchalant betrayal that makes me furious because it is so unbelievably common among the Republican Establishment Class while so unbelievably rare among actual Republican voters.  Democrats and the Democrat-controlled media spend all day long calling rank-and-file Republicans the most vile, insulting names possible.  They wound freedom-minded Americans by striking them repeatedly where it hurts most — their honor and virtue, sense of right and wrong, and respect for truth.  And each and every time the media propagandists finish slicing up Republican voters as no-good racists who deserve to be doxxed, threatened, and attacked, there’s always a George Bush or Liz Cheney or John Boehner or Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or Ben Sasse with a fistful of Epsom salt and a sadist desire to rub it in the wounds of the people he purportedly “represents.”

Bush can become best friends with Michelle Obama after her husband spent a decade blaming him for every problem in America; he can embrace “credibly accused” rapist Bill Clinton as a brother and “congenital liar” Hillary Clinton as a sister; but he is incapable of demonstrating empathy for the struggling, salt-of-the-earth Americans who not only elected him to office but also defended his presidency relentlessly.  What kind of twisted loyalty is that?

It’s sick and abusive.  Republican voters must stop pretending the Brahmin Class Republicans who spend more time bashing their own party’s faithful than fighting the evil authoritarianism in full bloom on the other side are anything other than double-agents trying to demoralize and fatigue the only Americans principled enough to resist.

My goodness, George, the Marxists have corrupted everything from kindergarten to the military.  They’re suckling the little ones on a steady diet of “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” while pushing “woke” trans troops as the future standard for American combat forces.  The Supreme Court is too contemptibly craven and compromised by the political left to protect Americans from the harms of lawless “sanctuary cities,” the unconstitutional mandates of municipal tyrants, or the repercussions of fraudulent elections.  The Federal Reserve has stolen Americans’ savings and entered into a suicide pact with the Treasury Department to spend the nation into financial collapse on “the road to serfdom.”  And most of the Republican Party’s top political consultants and conservative “intellectuals” for the past thirty years have “come out of the closet” to reveal — surprise, surprise! — that they’ve been, not just Democrats, but actual authoritarian socialists all along.

There is no American institution not directly or indirectly controlled by the same cabal of corporate fascists and Big Government disciples who daily insist on scapegoating patriotic grandparents and observant Christians as the nation’s true security threats.  There is nothing of institutional value left to “conserve.”  The only fight left is for liberty.  And if George Bush can’t see how hardened those battle lines now are, well, then he needs to get out of the damn bunker, cross the no-man’s-land to the Democrats’ side, and hide behind the Antifa and BLM shock troops hurling projectiles at police officers; intimidating juries; and already locking arms with Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi while pushing permanent one-party control!

At this point, anybody who believes that it is more important to save the Republican Party from the influences of President Trump than to save the United States from the influence of the Democrats is so out of touch with Americans’ disintegrating society and America’s escalating police state as to have become an entirely useless “useful idiot.”  And anybody who still thinks it wise to continue “democracy-building” abroad while America’s own health wanes is too blind to see reality, too lost to lead anybody to safety, or too brainwashed to be of any remaining service to our country.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Woke Mob vs. the Trump Mob: the Real Double Standard

The Woke Mob vs. the Trump Mob: the Real Double Standard

“There is a real double standard at work. It is a glaring one, not the one President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris claim exists but, rather, the one they want to gaslight us into accepting.”


The bar for calling something “racist” in the United States has apparently dropped so low that it is now okay to concoct an utterly topsy-turvy narrative in order to call out an allegedly racist double standard in the way the Capitol Riots vs. the #BLM riots have been treated by the powers-that-be.

Although I, like many of us by this point, have become so numb to the incoherent shrieks of “racism” echoing out in every direction that I am quite comfortable dismissing nearly all of them as vacuous posturing by celebrities and social media influencers, virtue-signaling by white elites and woke corporations, or cynical profiteering by the outrage-clickbait-peddling media, this one still threw me for a loop: I could hardly believe my ears when I heard President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, parroted by the usual organs of the mainstream media, cry racism in characterizing the reaction of authorities to incensed supporters of President Donald Trump storming the United States Capitol on January 6th.

“No one can tell me that if that had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol,” President-elect Biden said. “We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer. It’s simply unacceptable,” Vice President-elect Harris tweeted.

Yes, the law enforcement response to the Capitol Riots was unquestionably a failure on every level. But racism? All I could think was how dumb do these people think we are? Do they really think we have forgotten the actual events of this summer so soon?

Do they think those like me who witnessed the #BLM riots with their own eyes in New York City (or in the many other cities across the nation shaken by #BLM’s violence this summer) have already forgotten how roving bands of almost exclusively black teens and twenty-somethings rioted and looted, breaking into high-end SoHo boutiques and struggling small businesses already ravaged by the Coronavirus (COVID-19), absconding with millions in merchandise and causing billions in damage, while our spineless leaders stood by doing nothing and left those businesses to board up and fend for themselves for days on end?

Do they think we have forgotten how those few looters and rioters who were arrested were let go, with all charges against them dropped? Does anyone believe that the Capitol Rioters currently being identified and hunted down across the nation will be met with similar lenity?

Do they think we have forgotten how prominent #BLM leaders defended this summer’s looting or labeled it “reparations,” while establishment media outlets—the same ones that had no problem referring to the Trump supporters in Washington on January 6th as a “mob” of “rioters”—had continued to insist back in June, against the evidence of our own senses and the empirical findings showing a trail of violence across the country brought by the #BLM mob, that we were watching “peaceful protests”? NPR even gave a platform to someone hawking a book entitled In Defense of Looting.

CNN, New York Times and Washington Post online headlines on January 6th, when these outlets suddenly had no problem calling things by their true names.

Get Involved

Joining us in our mission to help rebuild civic life is open to all who believe it is a cause worth pursuing. Learn more at Club MW.



Do they think we have forgotten how newly woke corporations fearful of #BLM shakedowns donated to the cause, coming forward with statements of full-throated support and new diversity and hiring policies, while pretending that the hateful anti-cop, anti-white, anti-American rhetoric we were hearing (and the crude graffiti and retrograde violence we were seeing) in previously sacrosanct public spaces was somehow a progressive accomplishment, even as the media did its darndest to sell us on an empirically unsupportable narrative that the freak incident in which one bad cop in Minneapolis unjustifiably killed the career criminal George Floyd was a commonplace occurrence representative of ubiquitous “systemic racism”?

The graffiti defacing New York’s City Hall left untouched for weeks on end:

Do they think we have forgotten how the same Big Tech monopolies that were so quick to shut down President Trump’s social media accounts when his supporters came to riot had wholeheartedly embraced the #BLM cause and continued to let their platforms be used by #BLM and Antifa to organize disruptive protests, riots, and territorial occupations for weeks on end?

Do they think we have forgotten how people—from social media influencers to politicians like our incoming Vice President nominated for her race after #BLM—elevated their careers championing #BLM while, today, we are seeing people losing their jobs for joining (or persecuted for donating to) the pro-Trump assault on the Capitol?

No, we have not forgotten, and we will not forget. There is a real double standard at work. It is a glaring one, not the one President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris claim exists but, rather, the one they want to gaslight us into accepting. That double standard being perpetuated by all the organs of the elite media, Big Tech, woke capital, the celebrity class, and the political class is precisely what has led to so many of President Trump’s supporters resorting to violence; they and their concerns are not being heard. Their anger, like #BLM’s anger, is no excuse for violence. I believe in a single standard for everyone, and that those who break the law in the name of any cause should be held to account. For reasons I have previously explained, I voted for President Trump in 2020 despite his many flaws, and yet I think his behavior since the election has been childish, irresponsible, dangerous, and unbecoming of the Presidency. I will make no excuses for him or for his more intemperate supporters. But as long as one side of the equation—with its angry, racially divisive rhetoric and its violent actions to undermine law and order and shake America to its foundations—keeps getting a free pass, the other side of the equation will never add up, and the delicate balance between them will never amount to a functional democracy that works for everyone.

Alexander Zubatov is a lawyer in New York, as well as an essayist and poet. 

American Journalists Shielded China and Erased the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory

American Journalists Shielded China and Erased the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory


Why The Wuhan Lab Remains A Suspect In the Coronavirus Investigation

In February 2020, Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton asked a provocative question: Was there some relationship between COVID-19 emerging in the Chinese city of Wuhan and the fact that there’s a biochemical lab in the city that specializes in studying coronaviruses? Was it possible that this lab was studying an animal who carried the virus and failed to properly secure it?

“We don’t have evidence that this disease originated there,” Cotton said of the lab, “but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says, and China right now is not giving evidence on that question at all.”

Cotton’s comments were nuanced: He wasn’t certain that COVID-19 had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but he considered it to be a possibility, and he was troubled that the Chinese government was failing to offer the transparency necessary to prove it one way or another.

But how could the theory possibly have been debunked? There is no official consensus on where COVID-19 first emerged, and as Cotton pointed out, China’s government made it basically impossible for outside observers to investigate the origins of the virus.

Yet for most of the past year, the mainstream media’s consensus was that the lab leak hypothesis was just a fringe theory promoted by hawkish parts of the right. Facebook, which has increasingly appointed itself the arbiter of global speech, had a policy of taking down posts claiming that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured.

In recent weeks, that has slowly started to change. Top scientists are calling for a more serious probe into the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory. President Biden is ordering our intelligence agencies to do a 90-day investigation into the question of where the virus came from. And Facebook recently lifted its ban on posts that claim that COVID-19 was manufactured.

It appears that for the past year, our media seemed to lock arms in shielding the Chinese government from the scrutiny it deserved for failing to control COVID-19. Whether or not the lab leak hypothesis bears out, it is clear that our nation’s journalists did not approach this question with an open mind.

In a Tweet that she later deleted, Apoorva Mandavilli, a New York Times science reporter who has been on the coronavirus beat, offered a window into the mindset of much of the media: “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here,” she said.

Is it really supposed to be “racist” to consider the possibility that the Chinese government failed to prevent COVID-19 from escaping from a government lab? The other leading origin theory, that the virus emerged from China’s lightly regulated wet markets, would place more of blame on local culture than the lab leak hypothesis, which only directly implicates the government.

Perhaps Mandavilli’s revealing Tweet is emblematic of a wider mindset among American journalists, many of whom saw their mission as simply opposing any stance taken by the Trump administration—former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has long suspected that COVID-19 leaked from the lab in Wuhan—while also burnishing their anti-racist and anti-imperialist credentials by refusing to blame a foreign government for the pandemic.

Wuhan lab theory gains traction
Workers are seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, capital of China’s Hubei province, on February 23, 2017. – The P4 epidemiological laboratory was built in co-operation with French bio-industrial firm Institut Merieux and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. JOHANNES EISELE/AFP via Getty Images

But the goal of journalism shouldn’t be to craft the most culturally sensitive or partisan narrative. The goal of journalism is to seek the truth. The consequences of telling the truth should be secondary to getting the truth out there in the first place, even if it makes the Trump administration or Republican Senators look good or the Chinese government look bad.

To be clear, there have always been partisan or ideological journalists who openly take sides in social or political disputes. But until very recently, we could at least expect that the mainstream media would make a legitimate effort to seek the facts and report fairly, rather than dismissing stories that could make their favored political faction look unfavorable or boost the prospects of their political opponents.

Increasingly, the space for nonpartisan journalism that aggressively seeks the truth is shrinking.

It should hardly be a surprise that Americans are rapidly losing faith in the media. As the story of the lab leak hypothesis shows, too many in our current news media environment are quick to politicize their coverage and seek the truth only when it’s convenient for their faction. Ultimately, this will only continue to degrade the credibility of the American press, which may benefit forces like the Chinese Communist Party in more ways than one.

Zaid Jilani is a journalist who hails from Atlanta, Georgia. He has previously worked as a reporter-blogger for ThinkProgress, United Republic, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Alternet. He is the cohost of the podcast “Extremely Offline.”

Was the US complicit in China’s Covid research?

[The following post from Asia Times is actually old news, rehashing theories on Covid origin which were all over the Internet early last year, including this website, but due to social media and other sources of censorship, most of these reports have seemed to disappear.  Most every post on No Sunglasses pertaining to origin of Covid19, particularly concerning Ft. Detrick, 2019 Chinese Military Games and speculative posts on “patient zero” have been erased from ThereAreNoSunglasses.  Shocked to see the following report on scrubbing reports which openly seeks help to suppress reports on the China games which took place Oct. 2019 in Wuhan which speculated on “patient zero”, alleged to be an American bicyclist (SEE: Maatje Benassi Defamation Fund).]

Was the US complicit in China’s Covid research?

It’s time to put US collaboration with Chinese scientists on ‘gain of function’ coronavirus research under a microscope

Hazard suits at the high-security National Biosafety Laboratory in Wuhan. Photo: Wuhan Virology Institute

The Joe Biden administration closed the US State Department’s investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.

But as the pandemic recedes in the United States, there is renewed interest by the scientific and journalistic communities about the origins of the virus and whether it could have escaped from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). So, a day later, the president opened a new investigation.

The flip-flop came amid Senator Rand Paul’s claim at a Senate committee hearing on the Covid-19 pandemic that the US collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to make a more deadly, transmittable coronavirus. That’s putting the Chinese lab leak theory, which Beijing vigorously denies, back at the forefront of the Covid-19 origin debate.

Based on papers published by WIV on the scientific work of Dr Shi Zhengli, the US government investigators have some catching up to do. In 2015, Dr Shi – popularly known as the “bat lady” – published a paper entitled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses show potential for human emergence.”

Her colleagues on the study included American researchers associated with the University of North Carolina’s Department of Cell Biology and may be related to work funded by the US government.

It is possible, although we don’t know, that Dr Shi and her team successfully converted a coronavirus, specifically SARS-like virus SHCO14-CoV, from bats to other animals and not only mice. It is also possible, but not proven, that the new virus quickly spread to other animals and then to lab workers, three of whom became sick in November 2019, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report.

This is known as “gain of function” research, which is considered by the US to very dangerous. Between 2014 and 2017, gain of function research, which had been actively subsidized by The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies, was suspended in the US.

Slightly later, in 2019, the US temporarily closed some laboratories, including the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, over safety issues.

Personnel working inside the bio-level 4 lab at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. Photo: AFP/Olivier Douliery

Mistakes and errors in labs

According to the CDC: “The two breaches [at Fort Detrick] reported by USAMRIID to the CDC demonstrated a failure of the Army laboratory to ‘implement and maintain containment procedures sufficient to contain select agents or toxins’ that were made by operations in biosafety Level 3 and 4 laboratories …”

Level 4 is, in theory, the most secure type of laboratory known today; China’s WIV is also a Level 4 lab. But not all the Wuhan laboratory followed Level 4 standards and there are, as Fort Detrick shows, lapses that need to be accounted for.

In fact, the same kind of lapses that happened at Fort Detrick, which centered on waste treatment, also happened at the Wuhan lab.

Furthermore, Fort Detrick was working with other American and foreign labs, which may have included Chinese facilities. For example, Fort Detrick was connected to Canada’s National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, which was thoroughly penetrated by the Chinese, including at least one known member of China’s biowarfare community.

According to Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper: “One of the Chinese researchers, Feihu Yan, from the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Academy of Military Medical Sciences, worked for a period of time at the Winnipeg lab, a Level 4 facility equipped to handle some of the world’s deadliest diseases.”

There were at least seven Chinese scientists at the lab. Two of them, “Xiangguo Qiu and her biologist husband, Keding Cheng, were fired in January (2021) after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service … recommended that their security clearances be removed on national security grounds,” (allegedly for sending samples of deadly viruses to the Wuhan lab).

On at least one occasion, Qiu, and probably others, visited the Fort Detrick Laboratory. The details are not known, but it can be reasonably surmised that the Winnipeg Lab and Fort Detrick were cooperating, and this cooperation might have included Wuhan.

The National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada’s only level four lab. Photo: AFP / Michel Compte 

Was Canada a weak link?

Given Fort Detrick’s security level, further investigation is essential.

It also begs the question of Canada giving Chinese scientists, including at least one from the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences, top secret clearances.

The US and Canada, as part of the North American Defense Sharing Agreement, share classified information, which means there is a strong possibility that some classified American information made its way to Winnipeg and then to Wuhan or elsewhere in China.

Not only does WIV need further investigation, but so do American institutions including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the CDC and Fort Detrick.

In 2017 and 2018, the US did at least two inspections of the Wuhan Laboratory. That raises the question of why did a US inspection team gain entry multiple times to a sensitive Chinese laboratory?

The answer seems to be that the Americans had special status because of high-level, top-secret cooperation between the US, China and other partners (eg, Canada).

Top US infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci has said it would have been “almost a dereliction of our duty” if the NIH had not worked with China to study coronaviruses and “collaborate” with “very respectable Chinese scientists.”

“Respectable scientists” working for the Chinese government. That’s another avenue for investigation.

International collaboration suggests the US may have halted gain of function research because it was easier and less politically risky to let China do it. China has lower legal standards – try litigating in China if you have any doubt – and, as Fauci said, the US government funded Chinese labs and happily published papers by Chinese scientists.

Those papers today give us a partial record of what the Chinese with the CDC and NIH – and perhaps even the US Army – were up to.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper insisted Covid-19 was transmitted by animals. Photo: AFP / Brendan Smialowski 

The CIA changes course

The US intelligence community had to know all of this, and a lot more.

But the CIA and other senior American officials, including James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, insisted that Covid-19 did not come from the Wuhan Laboratory but was zoonotic, namely that it was transmitted in nature by animals.

Today the CIA appears to have tentatively reversed course as American scientists press for more information.

A proper investigation would have to ask why the US would trust China, knowing how sloppy the Chinese are about food and safety standards. The faulty ventilators, Covid-19 test kits and N-95 masks for physicians and health workers that were sent abroad by China after the outbreak of the epidemic illustrated this clearly for the world to see.

But beyond sloppiness, it seems the US decided to fund and shift dangerous research to Chinese labs run by the Chinese state. The Biden administration erred in closing the investigation and is right to have opened a new one.

Anti-Zionist American Jews Denounce Israeli Violence and Ethnic Cleansing

Jewish Americans are at a turning point with Israel

Coexistence in Israel’s ‘mixed cities’ was always an illusion

Attacks on synagogues and archeological sites inside Israel are rooted in Palestinian citizens’ experience of weaponized ‘development’ for Jews only.

Last weekend Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as “terrorists” those Palestinian citizens who have been protesting decades of state-sponsored discrimination. Vowing that “anyone who acts like a terrorist will be handled like one”, he said: “Arab law-breakers are attacking Jews, burning synagogues and Jewish homes.”

Netanyahu has been far from alone in his denunciations of nearly two weeks of protests inside Israel by the fifth of Israel’s population who are Palestinian by origin. They are the remnants of the Palestinian people, most of whom were ethnically cleansed at Israel’s founding in 1948.

Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, who is usually seen as far more moderate than Netanyahu, has called Palestinian protesters inside Israel a “bloodthirsty Arab mob” and described their actions as a “pogrom” against the Jewish community.

Both have remained largely silent about the wave of even greater violence against Israel’s Palestinian minority, both from the police and armed Jewish far-right gangs.

General strike

On Tuesday the Palestinian minority observed a general strike in protest at the wave of violence being directed at Palestinians in the region, most especially in Gaza. There, more than 200 people – and more than 60 children – have been killed by Israeli airstrikes.

At the same time, the minority’s main political body, the Follow-Up Committee, called on international organizations to protect Israel’s 1.8 million Palestinian citizens from the combined – and seemingly coordinated – backlash by Israel police and mob Jewish mobs.

Adalah, a leading legal organization for the minority, echoed the Follow-Up Committee, saying the Israeli government was “giving a free hand to racist and violent oppression… Arab citizens have been left with no alternative except to appeal to the nations of the world to force Israel to protect them”.

In the main sites of confrontation, in a handful of what Israel misleadingly terms “mixed cities”, it is Palestinian citizens who have been paying the steepest price.

These cities, several of them close to Tel Aviv, are historic Palestinian communities most of whose inhabitants were expelled in 1948. Even since, the small ghettoized Palestinian populations left behind have been aggressively “Judaized” – in what amounts to a long-term process of Jewish ethnic and religious gentrification to erase their presence.

Danger of pogroms

The first death from the clashes in the “mixed cities” was a Palestinian citizen who was shot in Lod, near Tel Aviv, by a group of Jewish residents. All the suspects in the murder are reported to have been released after the police minister, Amir Ohana, was among the senior politicians expressing outrage at the arrests.

Another early incident involved a Palestinian taxi driver being dragged from his car south of Tel Aviv by hordes of masked Jews who beat him savagely in front of Israeli TV cameras and hundreds of onlookers, with police nowhere in sight. Earlier, the same mob rampaged through the town of Bat Yam smashing any stores that looked like they were owned by Palestinian citizens.

Despite Netanyahu and Rivlin’s claims, it is Palestinian communities inside Israel that have been in far more danger of pogroms than the Jewish majority.

In the balance of power, the state’s security forces are tribally Jewish, the government and policy-makers are all Jews, a large proportion of the Jewish citizenry own weapons, and the media speaks for its Jewish population, not its 1.8 million Palestinians.

In a sign of the growing dangers, the Israeli media reported this week that applications for gun licenses – usually available only to Jewish citizens – had risen seven-fold.

Ohana, the police minister, has suggested Jewish citizens act as a “force multiplier” for the police – that is, they should be allowed to take the law into their own hands. And footage has shown police and armed far-right Jewish gangs cooperating in attacks on Palestinian communities in the mixed cities, even as those cities were supposed to be under curfew.

‘Reload the gun magazine’

Like Netanyahu, leading Israeli media figures have been openly inciting vigilante-style violence against Israel’s Palestinian minority.

In one example, a senior TV anchor, Dov Gil-Har, equated the protests by Palestinian citizens against state-sponsored discrimination with historic pogroms against Jews. Earlier, he had suggested to his Jewish viewers – 80 per cent of the country’s population – that the solution to the protests was to “reload the gun magazines”. When challenged by a Palestinian interviewee, he added that he might use his own weapon on the protesters.

The constant message to the Jewish majority has been the Palestinian public are a menace and that it may be necessary for Jews to take the law into their own hands.

And this has been happening just after the violent far-right – Jewish fascists – made unprecedented ground in March’s election, securing six seats in the 120-member parliament and possibly a place in government if Netanyahu can engineer a coalition.

Liberal incitement

But worrying as the direct incitement by Israeli politicians and the media against the Palestinian minority is, it is being strongly reinforced by a much more subtle “othering” by Israeli Jewish liberals. They have masked their own incitement in the more refined language of archeological preservation, Jewish-Arab coexistence, and religious tolerance.

In official Israeli discourse, the “mixed cities” – with Haifa the showroom – have long been presented as rare places where Jewish and Palestinian citizens live in close proximity, offering a potential model for greater understanding and cooperation between the two populations.

The flip side is less often highlighted: the “mixed cities” are just about the only communities where Jewish and Palestinian citizens have some sort of daily interaction.

In the rest of the country, Israel has imposed strict residential segregation. Palestinian citizens are confined to some 120 overcrowded, communities where they are starved of land, planning permits, industrial areas and classrooms for their children.

Herded together

But even in the “mixed cities”, there is no real mixing.

Before Israel’s creation on the ruins of the Palestinians’ homeland in 1948, cities like Haifa, Acre, Jaffa, Lod (Lydd), and Ramle were some of the most important in Palestine.

Israel’s leaders made it a priority to drive almost all of the Palestinian residents out of these cities during the Nakba and into exile, as part of a policy of making sure there was no educated, urban elite to organise political or diplomatic resistance to its ethnic cleansing campaign.

Today, most of the Palestinians in the “mixed cities” are descended not from the original families living there but from refugees who got trapped in them as they were trying to flee to safety in 1948. The Israeli army often herded the refugees together into the poorest areas of these historic Palestinian cities – neighborhoods Jews did not want to inhabit – while Israel decided what to do with them.

The descendants of the refugees still live in these deprived neighborhoods, typically renting from Amidar, a Israeli state-run property company. For decades, Amidar has denied them permission to renovate or improve their homes. It is usually only too ready to evict them if a state agency or Jewish investors decide these Palestinian families are in the way of a “Judaization” project.

No ‘Kristallnacht’

Which is the necessary background for understanding the way the Israeli media, including a respected liberal newspaper like Haaretz, has been engaging in its own covert incitement when covering the latest events in the “mixed cities”.

Much attention has been given to the torching by Palestinian protesters of synagogues and yeshivas, or Jewish seminaries. The sight of Torah scrolls being evacuated from charred buildings has encouraged the Jewish public to conclude that these attacks were driven by antisemitism – a variation of the fear that Palestinians want to push the Jews into the sea.

Preposterously, Lod’s mayor compared these scenes to Kristallnacht – the notorious night of Nazi pogroms against German Jews in 1938 – as if Israel’s Jewish majority were not protected by one of the strongest armies in the world.

But there are practical, far more mundane reasons why synagogues and yeshivas were among the first buildings attacked in Lod.

Settler outposts in Israel

Over the past three decades, Israel’s main effort to “Judaize” the “mixed cities” has been waged through a religious war of attrition. A section of the settler population has been encouraged to “redirect” their attention from the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel. They have slowly encroached into the “mixed cities” as local municipalities and state agencies have lured them with special funding for their extremist seminaries and synagogues.

Homes and land are being taken over in Palestinian neighborhoods to house these new fanatical outposts of the main West Bank settlements inside Israel.

Homes and land are being taken over in Palestinian neighborhoods to house these new fanatical outposts of the main West Bank settlements inside Israel.

That has had very damaging consequences. The religious  extremists have tried to whip up more nationalist sentiments among the local Jewish population of the mixed cities, increasing tensions with Palestinian neighbors. Just as is happening in East Jerusalem’s Old City, these Jewish religious fanatics are seeking to drive Palestinian families out of their own communities.

For years there has been especial anger in Jaffa about the takeover by Jewish religious extremists of the Palestinian parts of the city. That culminated weeks before the current clashes with an attack by two brothers on the head of a yeshiva there.

Even the Israeli court that examined the indictment against the brothers ultimately rejected police claims that the attack was antisemitic. Like many other families, the brothers have been fighting eviction from their home by a government agency. The attack reflected their anger that religious extremists are seeking out, and being offered, new properties in their neighborhood.

Following the incident, Palestinian families held a demonstration chanting: “Jaffa for Jaffans, settlers out.”

The huge resentment among Palestinians in the “mixed cities” towards these new religious occupiers can be explained by the urgent desire for self-preservation, not antisemitism.

‘Barbarians at the gate’

Similarly, the Israeli media have been aghast at the attacks on important archeological sites in places like Acre and Lod. The media’s barely veiled thesis is that these attacks have revealed Palestinian citizens to be, as Israeli Jews long suspected, barbarians at the gate. The impression has been cultivated that the minority’s behavior is little different from the Taliban blowing up the Buddhist Bamiyan statues.

Last week the Israel Antiquities Authority’s chief scientist, Gideon Avni, told Haaretz: “In Acre, an entire life’s work, meant to capture world attention through its archaeological value, went down the drain. In Lod, they [Palestinian residents] tried to destroy the attempt to empower and lift up the city as a center of antiquities.”

But again, there are good practical reasons why Palestinian residents of the “mixed cities”, especially in Lod and Acre, would be targeting archeological sites.

The Palestinian cities now defined as “mixed” are mostly located next to or over Roman, Crusader and Mumlak ruins.

Israel destroyed the Palestinian character of these communities from 1948 onward by expelling most of the Palestinian population, and then gradually Judaizing them as public spaces. Archeology, like religion, has been weaponized against the Palestinian inhabitants of the “mixed cities” to assist in their erasure.

Archeology theme parks

Israel’s politicization of archeology has focused on layers of history unrelated to, and meant to overshadow, its recent Arab Palestinian past. Further, archeological preservation and related tourism ventures have become the pretext for yet again ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their historic cities.

The clearest example has occurred in occupied East Jerusalem, where the Israel Antiquities Authority has allied with a settler organization, Elad. Together, using highly dubious archeological evidence, they have been creating a Disney-style “Kingdom of David” theme park within and below a Palestinian neighborhood called Silwan.

The City of David site has been expanding for more than three decades, aided by the government and Jerusalem municipality. Dozens of armed Jewish settler families have moved into the neighborhood in violation of international law.

In the latest development, Israel is preparing to evict many dozens of Palestinians in the coming weeks as it expands the City of David.

It was these moves that in part fueled the tensions that sparked the current Palestinian protests inside Israel and the rocket fire from Gaza.

Lod mosaic attacked

Watching Silwan’s long-running oppression through archeology, Palestinians in the “mixed cities” have seen a strong echo of their own experiences. The main difference is that the archeological assault inside Israel focuses not only on Jewish history but embraces any historical period that distracts from Palestinian heritage.

Israel has misleadingly sold these archeological projects as “tourism development” and “urban renewal”, often claiming they are designed to improve “Jewish-Arab relations”.

One of the targets of the current protests was a soon-to-be-opened museum for the Lod Mosaic, a world-renowned, almost complete  Roman mosaic found in 1996. It had been traveling the world until belated funding meant it could be housed in a poor Palestinian-majority neighborhood next to the old city where it was unearthed.

Although the mosaic was unharmed in last week’s attack, the new building’s glass frontage was smashed.

The residents’ resentment towards the new Lod Museum needs to be understood in two contexts: decades of obscuring the Palestinian heritage of Lod, as well as the visibility of its current Palestinian population; and the investment by Israeli authorities in projects to bring tourists to Lod, even as they continue to neglect local Palestinian residents, who suffer from high levels of poverty.

Lod’s old city was mostly destroyed in the 1950s to erase its Palestinian character. The streets, even in Palestinian neighborhoods, have been given Hebrew names.

Lod municipality recently unveiled plans to renovate another historic site, a Mamluk khan that was used as the city’s main market until 1948. Over the heads of the local population, it is due to be turned into a Judaized cultural space, housing cafes and arts and crafts shops.

And as with Silwan, Lod is developing local tour programs – sometimes in coordination with incoming settler populations – that highlight an ancient Jewish heritage and ignore the city’s Palestinian past and present.

Or as a report from Emek Shaveh, an Israeli organization of dissident archeologists, recently concluded: “The city of Lod thus erases once again the city’s glorious heritage and views its Arab residents as a nuisance.”

Families face eviction

In Acre, archeology has become an even more overt weapon to be used against the local Palestinian population. Since 1948, they have been largely confined to the seafront old city, where they were long ignored and mired in poverty.

But while the United Nations’ decision to designate the old city a World Heritage Site 20 years ago came to the rescue of the ancient buildings there, it did little to help the local inhabitants. In fact, their situation has become even more precarious as Israel, Jewish investors and foreign countries have poured money into the old city’s “development”.

Overseeing these projects are the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Acre Development Corporation, neither of which have consulted with the local or national Palestinian leaderships in Israel.

Gideon Avni, of the Antiquities Authority, told the Haaretz newspaper: “These symbols [in Acre] are being destroyed in front of our eyes.” Another unnamed expert echoed him: “Gangs of looters have systematically destroyed property after property.”

One of the main targets in Acre was the Antiquities Authority’s conservation center, supported by the Italian government.

The old city of Acre was built in the 18th century by a Palestinian ruler, Daher el-Omar, atop the ruins of an earlier Crusader city. But the Israeli authorities have been sidelining this important Palestinian layer – just as it has excluded the local Palestinian population – to encourage tourists to head into the underground, Crusader Acre.

Even when Palestinian heritage is being preserved in Acre, it has been repackaged as “Ottoman” – presented to Israeli Jews and tourists as a legacy of Turkish colonial influence rather than as the cultural and architectural artifacts of local Palestinians who lived under Ottoman rule.

One of the most visible Palestinian buildings is the well-preserved Khan al-Umdan, once the city’s main market, located in the harbor.

It has been sealed off for years as the Development Corporation has been finding investors to turn it into a luxury hotel. Palestinian families living in the warrens of alleys around the khan are facing eviction so as not to detract from the new ambience the Israeli authorities hope to create for tourists.

Disneyfication of Acre

Aiding this process have been wealthy Jewish investors, such as Uri Jeremias. They have been the driving force behind the gentrification of Acre’s old city above ground to take advantage of the new tourism. Jeremias’s small empire started with a fish restaurant on the seafront and has expanded to include a popular ice cream parlor and an ambitious hotel called the Efendi.

As the name suggests, the Efendi has contributed to the Disneyfication of Acre, remaking some of the old city’s most impressive Palestinian buildings into a hotel where tourists can experience generic “Ottoman” splendor, shielded from the poverty outside and from any trace of meaningful Palestinian heritage.

It is not surprising that Jeremias’s properties were also attacked, as was another hotel, the Arabesque.

In a fawning portrait in the Haaretz newspaper, Evan Fallenberg, owner of the Arabesque, was able to present his hotel as simply a site of cultural and economic renewal, and a symbol of “Jewish-Arab coexistence”. He called it “a labor of love shared by Muslims, Jews and Christians alike”.

Referring to his assumptions about Acre as a “model of successful coexistence”, Fallenberg added: “What gave me hope over the past few years is that this was some kind of microcosm of what could happen in this country, and it’s in danger of being lost now.”

Illusion of coexistence

But that coexistence model in the “mixed cities” was always an illusion, one that the protests finally served to smash. Coexistence worked for only one ethnic group only, Jews.

But that coexistence model in the “mixed cities” was always an illusion, one that the protests finally served to smash. Coexistence worked for only one ethnic group only, Jews. It was built on the continuing Judaization of these historic Palestinian communities to erase their Palestinian heritage and drive out their Palestinian populations.

Tourism and archeological preservation were simply more convenient, image-conscious ways to go about Judaization in the 21st century. They attracted less attention and international opposition than Israel’s ethnic cleansing operations and wholesale community demolitions of the previous century.

By stripping out this context – of Israel’s ongoing Judaization of Palestinian communities inside Israel – Israeli liberals have only deepened the incitement against Palestinian citizens. They have confirmed the picture presented by the right, whether it be President Rivlin’s “bloodthirsty mob”, Netanyahu’s “terrorists”, or the mayor of Lod’s “Kristallnacht”.

In doing so, Israeli liberals have offered their own form of legitimacy to the rationalizations by Jewish far-right gangs for their violence against Palestinian citizens: that they are protecting Jews and Jewish honor, that they are averting pogroms.

In defense of a non-existent coexistence, Israeli liberals have thrown their hand in with the far-right, exposing the Palestinian minority to the very real threat of Jewish pogroms.

Biden Forces Cease-Fire On Netanyahu, To Save Democrat Unity

My party still supports Israel,” Biden said. “Until the region says unequivocally they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as an independent Jewish state, there will be no peace.”

Biden insists that ‘my party still supports Israel’

Progressives furiously condemned the Jewish state as it attacked Hamas positions in Gaza

President Biden said that there has been “no shift” in his commitment to Israel and that the Democratic Party still supports the Jewish state, despite heated and sometimes vitriolic criticism of Israel over the past ten days by progressives.

Biden was asked in a news conference Friday with South Korean President Moon Jae-In what his “message to Democrats who want you to be more confrontational with Israel.”

“My party still supports Israel,” Biden said. “Until the region says unequivocally they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as an independent Jewish state, there will be no peace.”

He again called for a two-state solution in the region. “There is no shift in my commitment to the security of Israel. Period. No shift, not at all. But I’ll tell you what there is a shift in. The shift is that, we still need a two-state solution. It is the only answer. The only answer.”


Press secretary Jen Psaki had offered a similar sentiment hours earlier. She said the White House has “no plans” to alter security assistance to Israel, as progressives came down hard against a $735 million arms sale to the Jewish state and the billions allotted in foreign aid each year.

Biden recently approved the arms sale to Israel. He has repeatedly stressed Israel’s right to defend itself and reiterated that Hamas is a terrorist organization. But he has also pressured Israel to accept a cease-fire.

Israel and Hamas signed a cease-fire Thursday night after 11 days of fighting, where a dozen Israelis and over 230 Palestinians lost their lives.


Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced a resolution Thursday to force a vote on whether to block the weapons sale to Israel. Progressive “Squad” members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., introduced similar legislation in the House. “We must also take a hard look at nearly $4 billion a year in military aid to Israel,” Sanders wrote in a tweet.

Last Friday, 140 progressive groups, including Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement, MoveOn and the Working Families Party, released a joint statement condemning Israel’s bombing of Gaza.

Black Lives Matter declared “solidarity with Palestinians” this week.

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the group tweeted. “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation. ( always have. And always will be ). #freepalestine.”

The Democratic Socialists of America issued a statement of support for Palestinians last week, condemning the “ongoing ethnic cleansing” it suggests Israel is engaged in.

BLM Flips the Script On Biden, Putting Dems and Black Revolutionaries On Opposite Sides

Black Lives Matter ‘stands in solidarity’ with Palestinians, vows to fight for ‘Palestinian liberation’

Israel-Hamas battle had killed at least 12 Israelis and 213 Palestinians as of Tuesday

The leading Black Lives Matter organization declared “solidarity with Palestinians” Monday, a week after Hamas terrorists in Gaza began firing a relentless barrage of rockets into Israel, indiscriminately shelling civilian targets as well as dropping some missiles short and blowing up buildings within its territory.

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the group tweeted. “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation. ( always have. And always will be ). #freepalestine.”

The announcement prompted a “thank you” tweet from the controversial Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which has for years called for an economic embargo of Israel.

Israeli Iron Dome air defense system launches to intercept rockets fired from Gaza Strip, near Sderot, Israel, Thursday, May 13, 2021. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Israeli Iron Dome air defense system launches to intercept rockets fired from Gaza Strip, near Sderot, Israel, Thursday, May 13, 2021. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

“Thank you for your solidarity,” the left-wing group tweeted in response. “From Ferguson to Palestine, our struggles against racism, white supremacy and for a just world are united!”

The tweet came as pro-Palestinian protesters gathered in the U.S. and other Western countries to call for a cease-fire in the region.

A man is detained by police as Palestinian supporters gather during a demonstration near the United Nations headquarters Tuesday, May 18, 2021, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

A man is detained by police as Palestinian supporters gather during a demonstration near the United Nations headquarters Tuesday, May 18, 2021, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

Amid the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas militants, at least 12 Israelis and 213 Palestinians have been killed over the past eight days, including 61 children and 36 women. More than 100 Israelis and 1,400 Palestinians had been wounded as of Tuesday evening.


The military conflict escalated dramatically on May 10 when Hamas began firing rocket after rocket at Jerusalem following a violent clash between Israeli police and Palestinian protesters at the Al-Aqsa mosque, a sacred site for both Jews and Muslims. Despite hundreds of Israeli counterattacks and its Iron Dome defense system, the rockets have continued to fly.

But left-wing groups, and progressive lawmakers, have blamed Israel for the violence, describing it as an “apartheid state” committing “war crimes” and other atrocities on Palestinian civilians, who Hamas frequently treats like human shields, attracting airstrikes on high-rise buildings that share space with civilians.

The Israeli Defense Forces say they warn civilians ahead of strikes on such locations, giving them time to run for safety before leveling Hamas facilities.

“Israel fights to protect its civilians,” the IDF tweeted Tuesday. “Hamas uses civilians to protect itself.”

Palestinian Tenacity and Ingenuity Arms Hamas Despite Zionist Embargoes

[SEE: Hamas rockets passing through the Iron Dome? ]

Al-Jazeera Network Documentary About The Hamas Missile Industry:

Iran Sends Kornet, Fajr Missiles To Gaza;

Hamas Produces Missiles From Unexploded Israeli Munitions And Shells From Wrecked WWI Ships

September 25, 2020

On September 13, 2020, Al-Jazeera Network (Qatar) aired a documentary about the Hamas missile manufacturing industry. The reporter explained how Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades have been reclaiming unexploded Israeli munitions from 2014’s Operation Protective Edge, metal water pipes left behind by Israel when it withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and cannon shells from the wrecks of British warships that sank near Gaza during World War I. The documentary featured interviews with the commanders of the Al-Qassam Brigades’ Military Production Units, Engineering Corps, Artillery Corps, and Frogmen Unit, who described the process of reclaiming these munitions and turning them into functional missiles.

The report also showed exclusive footage of this process, including footage of divers retrieving underwater shells, of metals being processed, of explosives being prepared, and of missiles being tested. Furthermore, the reporter and the interviewees explained that Iran has been shipping Kornet anti-tank missiles and Fajr missiles to Gaza by land and by sea. Abu Ibrahim, the Commander of the Military Productions Unit, said that Hamas has hundreds of warheads, dozens of tons of explosives and propellants, and enough metal water pipes to produce thousands of rockets.

To view the clip of the Al-Jazeera documentary on MEMRI TV, click here or below.

“Various Types Of Weapons Have Arrived To Gaza From Iran… Other Countries, like Syria And Sudan, Have Also Played A Role In Arming The Resistance”

Narrator: “In this footage, which is being shown for the first time, members of the Al-Qassam Brigades can be seen reassembling the parts of a Fajr missile that arrived in a new shipment of long range Iranian missiles. The resistance in Gaza [received] them despite the tightening of the siege. In these exclusive images, Kornet anti-tank missiles can be seen.”

Abu Ibrahim, Commander from the Military Production Unit of the Al-Qassam Brigades: “The weapons came to us, by land and by sea, from hundreds and thousands of kilometers away.


“Various types of weapons have arrived to Gaza from Iran. The resistance fighters in Gaza were in dire need of these weapons, such as the Kornet and Fajr missiles, and many other types of modern weapons, which are still very much in use on the battlefield.

“Other countries, like Syria and Sudan, have also played a role in arming the resistance.”

“Under This Rubble, There Are Unexploded Israeli Missiles And Shells[;] They Have Become A New Source For The Weapons Of The Resistance”

Narrator: “Under this rubble, there are unexploded Israeli missiles and shells. They have become a new source for the weapons of the resistance. The Al-Qassam Brigades are revealing a multi-phase project to transform the remnants of the Israeli war into modern missiles.”

Abu Ibrahim: “At the beginning, we decided to collect those munitions from the ruined houses and fields, because they constituted a direct threat to the lives of the inhabitants and the farmers. During the process of removing [these duds], large and diverse quantities of munitions were accumulated by our brothers in the Engineering Corps.”

Abu Salman, Commander of the Engineering Corps of the Al-Qassam Brigades: “After the 2014 war, the Engineering Corps dealt with many munitions throughout the Gaza Strip: bombs, mines, explosive devices and 155mm Howitzer shells. There were also hundreds of MK 84 bombs, each of which contains 470 kilograms of tritonal, a highly explosive material that is more powerful than TNT.

“We started by surveying all the unexploded munitions. We established a committee of specialized engineers. Our strategy was to recycle these munitions and make optimal use of all their parts. Our idea was to turn this crisis into an opportunity.”

“We Dug Into The Ground And Pulled Out The Pipes, So That They Could Be Used In Our Military Industries”

Narrator: “The reclamation of the unexploded Israeli shells was not an easy task. There were several martyrs in this complicated production project. One of the pioneers and supervisors of this project, Ibrahim Abu Al-Naja, was one of the most prominent martyrs. While the plan to reuse the explosives in the Israeli shells was moving ahead, long water pipelines were found buried in the areas of the settlements from which Israel withdrew in 2005.

“This discovery turned out to be a qualitative leap. These pipes, which stretched from the liberated settlements in the west across the Israeli border to the east, had been hidden from the eye. For years, they served Israel in its theft of Palestinian water.”

Abu Ibrahim: “In the belly of the Earth, we found large quantities of thick metal pipes. It was part of a network that had been used to steal Gaza’s groundwater and pump it into the occupied lands. We discovered the plans for that network, and then we dug into the ground and pulled out the pipes, so that they could be used in our military industries.”

Narrator: “In this documentary, we obtained exclusive footage from one of the workshops producing the long range Qassam missiles. These missiles have made distinct developments in their range, precision, and destructive power. These images show modern missiles being produced by recycling the unexploded Israeli shells, as well as the explosives they contained and the water pipes that were found.”

Abu Ibrahim: “We managed to use these caches to double our missile force despite the siege. This enabled us to maintain continuous fire in keeping with the needs of the battle.”

Narrator: “The Al-Qassam Brigades reveal for the first time that this cluster of missiles that were launched toward Israeli targets in the round of escalation witnessed by Gaza in May 2019, had been missiles produced from the remnants of Israeli shells from the 2014 war.

Abu Saad: “The most salient usage of these missiles was in the May 2019 missile strike against the occupation’s security and military posts that were in and around the city of Ashkelon.”


“Al-Qassam Brigades’s Frogmen Unit Found The Wrecks Of Two [British] Warships That Sank In The Sea Of Gaza [During WWI)… They Found Large Quantities Of Sunken Shells”

Narrator: “The sea concealed in its depths what the resistance called ‘a precious military treasure.’ In an unexpected place, men from the Al-Qassam Brigades’ frogmen unit found the wrecks of two [British] warships that sank in the sea of Gaza [during WWI). It took a lot of effort, but they managed to get inside, where they found large quantities of sunken shells.”

Abu Musa: “We found a large metal structure with several types of cannons attached to it. It turned out these were the wrecks of a military ship. A professional committee was formed to investigate the matter and unearth the secrets around this discovery. We decided to expand the search perimeter around that ship. That is when we found another, smaller, ship approximately 800 meters away. On these two ships, we found rooms filled with cannon shells. In keeping with the instructions of our brothers, we began to extract those shells. The shells were secured and had no detonators. This made it easier for us to extract them from the wrecked ships. But since there were so many shells and they weighed so much, extracting them took us a lot of time and required a lot of effort.”

Narrator: “This footage, which is being revealed for the first time, shows part of the operation to reach the two ships and the efforts to extract the shells safely and bring them to shore. All the steps of this complex security and military operation in the sea of Gaza were completed successfully.”

Abu Salman, Commander of the Engineering Corps of the Al-Qassam Brigades: “The British ships were equipped with several types of cannons. The biggest one was a 233 mm cannon. It had steel shells that weighed 138 kilograms. These cannons were used to shell targets on the shore. Each shell was 60 mm thick and made of iron. These shells were made in Britain to be shot from cannons, and they are unique in that they have steel casings. Because of the siege, it is impossible to find steel in Gaza.”

Narrator: “In this workshop, the men of the engineering and production unit of the Al-Qassam Brigades worked to prepare the British shells to be used in new missiles. There were hundreds of such missiles. The discovery of the British shells was a great achievement in light of Israel’s ban that prevents iron and steel from entering Gaza.”

Abu Salman, Commander of the Engineering Corps of the Al-Qassam Brigades: “We tested their ability to penetrate and destroy the enemy’s reinforced concrete fortifications. We made an experiment on a 40-cm-thick concrete roof that had been left behind by the enemy when it withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The target was completely destroyed. The shells from the British destroyed were transformed into warheads for the Sejjil-40 and the Sejjil-50 missiles.”

Abu Ibrahim: “As a result of the ceaseless search efforts at land and at sea, we have accumulated hundreds of munitions and warheads, and dozens of tons of explosives and propellants. We have enough pipes to produce thousands of rocket engines.”

Hamas rockets passing through the Iron Dome?

Israel incurs heavy costs intercepting Hamas rockets
—–Iron Dome interceptor– $50,000 and $100,000/missile

Al-Jazeera Network Documentary About The Hamas Missile Industry

[Hamas surely realizes that ten-thousand Kalishnikovs firing into the air at once, would probably be deadlier than 1,000 unguided Qassams fired through the Israeli Iron Dome network.]

How does Tasnim report on the impact of resistance missile power on the Israeli defense structure / Hamas rockets passing through the Iron Dome?

How does Tasnim report on the impact of resistance missile power on the Israeli defense structure / Hamas rockets passing through the Iron Dome?

By studying the strengths and weaknesses of Israeli defense systems, Palestinian resistance groups have challenged their capabilities and shifted the balance of power in their favor.

Tasnim News Agency Defense Group – Seyed Mohammad Taheri:

A few days have passed since the beginning of a new round of clashes between the Zionist army and Palestinian resistance groups, and what is in the spotlight more than anything else is the high power of the resistance groups’ rockets and the firing of large volumes of these rockets into the depths of the occupied territories and air defense systems. The Israeli army is with them.

Since the beginning of the conflict, there have been various comments about the capability of the Israeli army’s defense systems, to the extent that some have assessed their capability as positive and some as lacking the capability to counter Palestinian rockets.

Read more

To take a closer look at the Israeli army’s air defense capabilities, we must first become familiar with the regime’s structure, organization, and air defense equipment, and then look at their strengths and weaknesses.

Since 2006, after the 33-day war, as well as three subsequent wars with Palestinian factions, the Israeli army has realized that it will now face far-reaching threats aimed at threatening the depths of the occupied territories. Therefore, the commanders of the regime’s army had to make fundamental changes in the structure and organization of the regime’s air defense.

With the introduction of the Iron Dome defense system into the air defense structure of the Israeli army in 2011, the theory of multi-layered air defense was introduced and this theory became operational in the second half of 2016.

In this regard, the name of “Anti-Aircraft Organization” was changed to “Air Defense Organization” and “Missile Defense Organization” was merged in its heart. According to this theory, the regional defense (northern, central, southern front) of the airspace of the occupied territories was also abolished and replaced by an integrated defense system.

In the new theory, a center called the “National Center for Ballistic Image Management or Mentao” was created, which is responsible for issuing national warnings and managing operations to detect, intercept and destroy all types of air targets.

Headquartered in Tel Aviv, the facility is responsible for centralized conflict management with all types of air threats, taking over all reconnaissance, intelligence, radar and defense systems throughout the Occupied Territories.

Other changes in the defense structure of the Israeli army, based on the theory of multi-layered defense, are the dissolution of defense regiments and the creation of battalions of defense systems. Each battalion, depending on the type of defense system, consists of several firearms that can be increased in emergencies. has it.

The defense systems of the Zionist Army are organized in such a way that the Iron Dome systems, which are organized in the form of two battalions, 137 and 947, are responsible for dealing with low-altitude targets. Subsequently, the 138th and 139th Battalions of the Patriot System and the 66th Battalion of the Falcon David System are tasked with engaging medium-altitude targets, and the 136th Battalion Megan Battalion, consisting of the Peykan 2 and Peykan 3 systems, has been deployed to counter high-altitude threats and ballistic missiles.

Among the IDF defense systems, the Iron Dome is the only system that changes positions according to the geographical scope of the threats, and the regime’s other defense systems are permanently stationed at their bases.

The Iron Dome system was designed in 2011 with the aim of countering threats at low altitudes with a range of 4 to 70 km and with the aim of protecting the regime’s settlements and sensitive areas.

Each Iron Dome system includes an EL / M2084 radar, a command and control center, and three launchers, each capable of carrying and firing 20 Tamir missiles. A total of 12 iron dome systems are used to defend the skies of the occupied territories.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
Launcher launch of standard missiles of Falcon David Defense System

The Falcon David system, which entered service in 2016, is responsible for countering threats from a range of 70 to 300 kilometers. David’s slingshot also uses an EL / M2084 radar, and each of its firearms has six 12-missile firing platforms that use the Stander missile defense. At present, 3 systems of David’s slingshot are deployed in the occupied territories in the form of a defense battalion.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
Arrow 2 and 3 missile defense systems

Megan Hirf Unit, which consists of three Heath 2 systems and one Heath 3 system, also has the task of engaging with high-altitude and high-range targets with GreenPine radar. In fact, these two systems are designed to deal with Iranian ballistic missiles.

So far, we have a brief overview of the Israeli army’s air defense structure, as well as its defense systems. It is important to note that, contrary to popular belief, the Iron Dome refers to the entire structure of Israel’s defense. The Iron Dome is one of the Zionist army’s defense systems, which has been widely used because of its many uses.

In view of the above, and despite the fact that the Zionist regime has made serious changes in the structure of its air defense since the 2006 war, we still see that the regime’s air defense organization is not able to fully protect itself against rocket attacks by resistance groups.

More recently, a missile strike near the Dimona nuclear power plant has cast serious doubt on the organization’s ability to defend the skies over the occupied territories.

On the other hand, the only Israeli defense system that has been active in recent years is the Iron Dome system, and other defense systems of the regime army, except for a few cases, have not yet entered into a serious conflict, and therefore the correctness of their operation is questionable.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
Rocket Launchers Repair Iron Dome Defense System

The Iron Dome system also has several weaknesses. First, the number of existing systems is not able to cover all the occupied territories, and therefore in the event of a multi-front war, this system will not be able to respond to rocket and missile attacks, and the air defense of the Israeli low altitude will be extremely vulnerable.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
How the Iron Dome defense system works

The system is also unable to intercept missiles and rockets fired from a distance of less than 4 km due to lack of time to detect and intercept the target, and the proliferation of resistance rocket launchers at this distance is a serious threat to the system.

On the other hand, the Iron Dome system can not track targets that have high speed and flight time of less than 28 seconds.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
Iron Dome Defense System Repair Missile

Also, the warheads of the repair missiles used in this system are equipped with an adjacent fuse, which is the best condition for destroying the target when it is targeted at a distance of one meter, otherwise the possibility of its fragments penetrating the target body and destroying it is reduced.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
Image of the confrontation of the Iron Dome system with resistance rockets

On the other hand, one of the weaknesses of this system is its inability to deal with large volumes of fire; This is an issue that the resistance groups have also realized, and this is one of the reasons why these groups fired rockets at high volumes.

The high price of missiles for repairing the Iron Dome system versus the low price of missiles of resistance groups is something that will greatly increase the cost of the battle for the Zionists.

According to published information, each Iron Dome repair missile costs between 40 and 100 thousand dollars. This is if the price of each rocket fired by Palestinian groups is between one thousand and five thousand dollars.

On the other hand, the type of rockets used by resistance groups in previous years had a lower speed, accuracy and volume of destruction than the rockets used by these groups in recent wars.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
An example of a rocket fired by the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas

Palestinian groups used rockets in the recent war that, in addition to better range and volume of destruction, have higher speeds and accuracy, making the Iron Dome system much more difficult than in the past.

The increasing power of the resistance rockets has caused the scope of the war, which was once limited to the borders of the Gaza Strip, to extend deep into the occupied territories; In addition to endangering the security of the regime’s sensitive and security centers, this has disrupted the daily lives of the inhabitants of the occupied territories and has increased dissatisfaction with the government and the army of this regime.

Islamic Jihad Movement, Islamic Resistance Movement | Hamas, Israel (Israel), Gaza Strip, Military News | Defense News,
Fighters of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades load rockets in launchers to fire on occupied territories

This shows that the resistance groups have gradually increased the quality of their rockets and missiles by carefully studying the strengths and weaknesses of the Zionist Army Air Defense Organization and especially its Iron Dome system, and so far they have been able to balance the acceptable power with the Zionist regime. Establish; If this continues, it will lead the resistance groups to acquire more advanced weapons than today and to inflict heavier blows on the Zionist regime.


ALL Human Lives Matter…Even Palestinian Lives

Can Palestinian Lives Matter?

George Floyd’s death penetrated the American imagination. Now Palestinians fight for the right to be human. Will the world see them?

People walk past a mural showing the face of George Floyd, an unarmed handcuffed black man who died after a white policeman knelt on his neck during an arrest in the US, painted on a section of Israel's controversial separation barrier in the city of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank on March 31, 2021. - The teenager who took the viral video of George Floyd's death said on March 30, at the trial of the white police officer charged with killing the 46-year-old Black man that she knew at the time "it wasn't right." Darnella Frazier, 18, was among the witnesses who gave emotional testimony on Tuesday at the high-profile trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin, 45, is charged with murder and manslaughter for his role in Floyd's May 25, 2020 death, which was captured on video by Frazier and seen by millions, sparking anti-racism protests around the globe. In the video, Chauvin, who was subsequently fired from the police department, is seen kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed Floyd for more than nine minutes. (Photo by Emmanuel DUNAND / AFP) (Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP via Getty Images)

A woman and child walk past a mural of George Floyd painted on the side of Israel’s separation barrier on the occupied West Bank side of Bethlehem on March 31, 2021.  Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

I WAS 19 the first time someone told me I didn’t exist. I was in college, standing near a display about civilian deaths in the occupied Gaza Strip during an Israeli assault. I can’t remember the face of the student who accosted me, although I remember the sneer in their voice, the way it sliced into my unguarded chest. I was not prepared to be erased.

“Palestinians don’t exist,” they said. With time this moment would blur, but not fade, mingling with innumerable interactions in which strangers would likewise inform me of my nonexistence. In that moment, though, it was a wholly new experience. I felt the brief flicker of a laugh before the sick sense of outrage landed in my gut. Before I could find the words to respond, the accuser was gone.

How strange, to tell a living, breathing human being, to their face, that they are “unreal.” And what would be the proper defense? How does one reply to a delusion?

Of course, it’s not true, that I don’t exist: I have a body, made of flesh and blood. Yet in many ways, that stranger was right.

Because something happens at the mention of that word — Palestinian. In the moment it is uttered, I become something more, and so much less, than human.

PALESTINIANS, AS A people, are visible but rarely seen. We do not “exist” as others do; we have neither a formal country nor any economic or military power to speak of. We have a history and culture, but these are eroded and appropriated more with every passing year. Mostly, we are collectively obscured by what people think they know, what they think we are: threats, troublemakers, terrorists.

This is how we can be in so many headlines and yet die such endless deaths. We die, in part, because that is what the world expects of us. Our name is invoked only in connection to brutality and strife, which are presented as inevitable, our natural state. Reports read like weather reports: The “climate” “heats up” then “boils over” into “another wave of violence.” Our casualties are like the seasons — a crop of dead every few years, usually in Gaza.

Public images of us reveal a world of dust, tanks, and soldiers. These stark, menacing streets mingle in the Western imagination with sand-colored reels of other deaths — Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians — further obscuring all of us. Clichés wrap individual tragedies in generic repetition, an endless archive of the unremembered.

TOPSHOT - An Israeli soldier takes aim with a tear gas launcher at Palestinin protesters during clashes following a demonstration along the border fence east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on November 8, 2019. (Photo by SAID KHATIB / AFP) (Photo by SAID KHATIB/AFP via Getty Images)

An Israeli soldier aims a tear gas gun at young Palestinian protesters during clashes following a protest against Israeli occupation along the border fence east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on November 8, 2019.

Photo: Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images

All this because we are among the world’s disposable people. What kills us is not only Israeli state violence but the international community’s collective failure to imagine us as human beings. It is the same failure that has allowed so many Black bodies to be murdered in the broad daylight of viral videos, with so little systemic change. As Elizabeth Alexander has written, “Black bodies in pain for public consumption have been an American national spectacle for centuries.” With such a violent collective memory, it’s no wonder white Americans have been so egregiously slow and equivocal in responding to anti-Black violence. For who is more visible in the U.S. than a Black person? Yet who is the most seldom seen?

This is the lethal contradiction that generations of Black intellectuals and activists have worked to dismantle. The “problem of the color line,” as W.E.B. DuBois called it, will only be solved when the U.S., as a whole, grasps the full humanity of Black people, who have been systematically dehumanized. There can be no going forward, in short, until the U.S. internalizes the most basic truth that Black Lives Matter.

In this way, the U.S. and Israel confront a similar moral failing: Years of intentional disenfranchisement, abuse of and theft from a people in the name of another group’s supremacy — in one case, under the banner of whiteness, and in the other, Zionism. Both have gambled on their ability to suppress these peoples’ efforts to resist their oppression, through the means of mass incarceration, state violence, and legal discrimination. And both have seen that even the most brutal crackdowns cannot squelch the human spirit forever.

WHEN I WAS a senior in college, after I’d lost track of the times I’d been told that I didn’t exist, I had an especially menacing run-in with a drunk stranger, who happened to know me as a Palestinian. He grabbed my arm, forcing me to join a circle of his friends, and proceeded to taunt me for my belief “that Arabs and Jews are equal” and that “Palestinians should have rights.” His harassment deteriorated into sexual threats, all of which his friends seemed to find hilarious. Yet, after I finally slipped out of his grip, what haunted me most was how silent I had been in the face of his tirade. Why did I always freeze?

TOPSHOT - Relatives of Palestinian Hussien Hamad, 11, mourn during his funeral in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on May 11, 2021. - Israel and Hamas exchanged heavy fire, with 22 Palestinians killed in Gaza, in a dramatic escalation between the bitter rivals sparked by unrest at Jerusalem's flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Nine children were among those killed in the blockaded Gaza Strip that is controlled by the Islamist movement and 106 people there were wounded, local health authorities said. (Photo by MAHMUD HAMS / AFP) (Photo by MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images)

A Palestinian girl and other relatives mourn the killing of 11-year-old Hussein Hamad during his funeral in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on May 11, 2021.

Photo: Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images

There is a particular, stultifying effect that comes with having one’s humanity denied outright. In that instant, the specificities of a life — the loves and fears and hungers, the family histories and secret hopes — are erased. It can leave a person speechless, shaken, losing grip on one’s sense of power. My drunken accosters did not ask me to debate policy; they questioned the very legitimacy of my existence. That moment cut to the hidden heart of the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict”: Do Palestinian lives matter?

The statement “Black Lives Matter” was birthed in the wake of the Ferguson uprisings and the brutal police response — events which Angela Davis remarked reminded her of the streets of Gaza. The idea — that Black lives have worth — is powerful because it seems obvious but forces us to confront all the material realities that contradict it. If Black Lives Matter, why are Black men 6 times more likely to be incarcerated than white men and 3 times more likely to be killed by police? If Black lives matter, why the vast racial disparities in resources, wealth, and health? In this way, the simple statement dares to unmask the forces of anti-Blackness and white supremacy in the very foundations of this nation.

Similarly, the material realities of Palestinians make clear that the Israeli state places little value on their lives. It would rather we weren’t there at all. The nation itself was founded on the violent displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including my family, in 1948 and expanded through subsequent wars and the ongoing dispossession and settlement of areas such as the West Bank and Jerusalem. Those who remain have their existence denied daily, through intentionally dehumanizing encounters with the Israeli state, from arbitrary checkpoints to extrajudicial violence to economic exclusion to a prison-industrial complex that captures thousands of Palestinians, including minors, each year.

THE RECENT “ESCALATIONS” in Jerusalem only confirm the unreality of my people. News outlets report the events with a tone of clinical accounting, unaffected by the vast incongruencies of injured and dead (as of Thursday morning — the first day of Eid — over 1,000 Palestinians injured and at least 83 dead, including at least 17 children, with seven Israeli deaths). Commentators like sportscasters placing bets on Hamas’s next move, Thomas Friedman cracking wise about Palestinian youth and TikTok. Rock-throwing youth and lethal military forces portrayed like equal adversaries, or worse, a reverse David and Goliath, the civilized against a rabid, brown-skinned crowd.

They will never tell you how each one of us breaks and bleeds uniquely, how specific each individual’s suffering and resilience are. You’ll never hear, as I did on the phone with Jerusalem this week, the details that make this such a human drama. One Sheikh Jarrah family who can’t bear to lose their garden, filling my WhatsApp chat with snapshots of trees rooted decades ago. Another young man who couldn’t let go of what he’d seen in Al Aqsa Mosque: not the bloodshed or his now-blinded companions, but all those soldiers’ shoes, stampeding sacred ground. Their shoes, their shoes, he moaned. Their dirty shoes.

The beloved garden of a Palestinian family in Sheikh Jarrah who will be forced to leave it.

BLACK AMERICANS HAVE shown us, again and again, that they will not allow themselves to be made unreal — and this last year, many more people seemed to listen. For Black Americans who routinely face state violence, the murder of George Floyd was tragically unsurprising. Yet this particular death seemed to penetrate the larger American imagination, managing, somehow, to puncture the gloss of indifference with its sheer visceral force, its specificity. Floyd was seen as an individual, a human being, and his name became a movement. “Black Lives Matter” had a resurgence, thanks in part to the sudden recognition by white Americans of a particular Black life, and death.

Palestinians were quick to respond to the George Floyd movement, protesting in solidarity, drawing parallels between their own experiences of mass incarceration, militarized law enforcement, legal discrimination, knees on civilian necks. Floyd’s face decorated stretches of the Israeli barrier wall, alongside murals of Palestinians killed by Israeli police and soldiers, including Iyad Hallaq, an unarmed man with autism, shot on his way home from school. Floyd’s death also prompted discussions in the Palestinian and wider Arab communities about their own anti-Blackness. This internationalism is not new: For years, Palestinian activists have looked to the American civil rights movement, the South African struggle against apartheid, and others for inspiration. They have also offered their solidarity and support to movements abroad, including the Standing Rock protests and other efforts for Indigenous rights.

Hundreds of Palestinian citizens of Israel protested in the city of Haifa, Israel, on Tuesday, 2 June, 2020 against the Israeli police killing of an unarmed autistic Palestinian man just days earlier. Israeli police shot and killed Iyad el-Hallak in Jerusalem on 30 May, 2020 as he made his way to his special needs school. The Palestinian protesters also expressed support for American citizens protesting the police killing of African American man George Floyd on 25 May, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Mati Milstein/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Hundreds of Palestinians protest against the Israeli police killing of an unarmed autistic Palestinian man in Haifa, Israel, on June 2, 2020. The Palestinian protesters also expressed solidarity with American citizens protesting the police murder of George Floyd.

Photo: Mati Milstein/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Palestinians drew on these experiences in the weeks leading up to the recent “escalations.” In the presence of mobs shouting “Death to Arabs,” police violence at the holy grounds of Al Aqsa Mosque, and the flagrant encroachment of settlers in Sheikh Jarrah, Palestinian protests remained “largely peaceful,” reported Amnesty International. This long suffering was obscured by the increasingly brutal “scuffles” around Al Aqsa Mosque, in which Israeli armed forces deployed concussion grenades and rubber-tipped bullets against worshippers, injuring over 1,000, including 170 at a single Friday prayer during the holy month of Ramadan.

Now, with the involvement of Hamas providing justification for Israel to unleash its world-class arsenal, the particular moral stakes of the events have dissolved into the familiar, generic narrative: Israel defends itself, Palestinians die. The headlines, for most readers, will become interchangeable; the death tolls will be packaged in the sanitizing language of military calculations and diplomatic jargon.

Meanwhile, defenders of Palestinians’ right to resist will be inundated with “what abouts” and demands to denounce violence — questions to which the Israeli military, infinitely more powerful, will never be subjected. On the contrary, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted this week that the killing in Gaza was “just the beginning. We’ll hit them like they’ve never dreamed possible.”

Throughout, detractors will use any casualties or property damage on the Israeli side to discredit the entire movement, just as the labels of “outside agitators” and “rioters” have been used to discredit Black activists from the 1960s to today. The fundamental illegality of the occupation will go unmentioned. Negotiators and journalists will demand that Palestinians pledge themselves to nonviolence, never acknowledging the years of peaceful resistance they’ve sustained against all odds.

While commentators recycle “both sides” rhetoric, the death toll will, as always, surge exponentially on one side. The decimation of Gaza will be excused as necessary to stop “terrorism,” the obliteration of dozens of civilians, including children, notwithstanding. Eventually, there may be talk of “conditions” for a cease-fire — a pause in Palestinian death must always have conditions. No one will assume that Palestinian lives, as lives, simply matter.

NEW YORK, NY - MAY 11: Protesters demanding an end to Israeli aggression against Palestine rally in Midtown Manhattan on May 11, 2021 in New York City. Recent violence between the Israeli military and Palestinians in Jerusalem has left dozens dead as activists around the world denounce attacks on the city's Al-Aqsa Mosque.(Photo by Scott Heins/Getty Images)

Protesters demanding an end to Israeli violence against Palestine rally in New York on May 11, 2021.

Photo: Scott Heins/Getty Images

Perhaps something, this time, will be different. With the newfound skepticism of law enforcement and incarceration wrought by the George Floyd movement, many in the “woke” world seem to have found resonance with the scenes of Palestinian civilian protests throughout the territories and Israel, launching marches of their own around the globe. Perhaps, after a year in which the words “decolonization” and “intersectionality” have become memes, in which social media has become a streamlined highway for outrage and mobilization, this “clash” will be recognized at last for what it is: a fight for the Palestinian right to be human.

Such a shift would be a breakthrough: Just as the U.S. will remain haunted until Black lives are fully, truly, and equally valued, there can be no peace in Israel-Palestine until all the lives involved are reckoned with as human. Such a reckoning is understandably terrifying for nations built on the systematic denial of certain humanities, but there is no other way. And if the last year has taught us anything, it is that no odds can outmatch the individual’s need for dignity.

“The myths of self-defense” — Israel’s — “and both sides are becoming more and more penetrable,” Mohammed el-Kurd, whose family is facing forced displacement from their home in Sheikh Jarrah, said in a CNN interview this week. “People are being able to see through these myths and call an occupation for what it is and an aggressor for what it is.”

And perhaps, too, they will begin to see us.

Sarah Aziza@SarahAziza1

Critical Race Theory A Weapon of Mass Subversion

“The Frankfurt School consisted mostly of neo-Marxists who hoped for a socialist revolution in Germany but instead got fascism in the form of the Nazi Party. Addled by their misreading of history and their failure to foresee Hitler’s rise, they developed a form of social critique known as critical theory.
CRT inherits from its Critical Legal Theory ancestor the commitment to dismantle all aspects of society through unremitting criticism”-If you want to understand the age of Trump, read the Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II–The Critique of Mass Culture

What critical race theory is really about

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it — and of those who have, many don’t understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism.

Originally, the Marxist left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Karl Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: The workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million people. They are remembered for gulags, show trials, executions and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

The Karl Marx sculpture is pictured in Chemnitz, Germany, August 31, 2018.
To explain critical race theory, we should begin with a brief history of Marxism.

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, which had large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream — the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the US lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision, President Lyndon Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

Demonstrators gather next to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial
Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision for a more just society defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

But the radical left has proved resilient and enduring — which is where critical race theory comes in.

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks and school curricula.

Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.”

Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.

Demonstrators hold signs during the Bay Area Rally Against Hate counter-protest against the cancelled No Marxism in America rally in Berkeley, California, U.S. August 27, 2017.
Critical race expert Ibram X. Kendi has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism.

Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government and would have the power to nullify, veto or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since, according to Kendi, “in order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist.”

In other words, identity is the means; Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination and omnipotent bureaucratic authority.

Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation: Critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.

What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees that they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which design America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day re-education camp where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and to write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, Calif., an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Mo., a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.”

In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgment of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, I am not exaggerating — from the universities to bureaucracies to K-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

A demonstrator wearing a Black Panther beret takes part in a protest against the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, in New York City, New York, U.S., June 6, 2020.
An elementary school in Philadelphia forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally.

This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic and oriented toward broadly held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, DC, but is true as well of institutions in the states — even red states. It is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.

So far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion.

Team Biden pushing Critical Race Theory in America’s classrooms

Demonstrators build a fire near fresh graffiti at Seattle Central College during an anti-capitalist protest in Seattle, Washington May 1, 2015.
Demonstrators at an anti-capitalist rally in Seattle  REUTERS

These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm — friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.

No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving cultural hegemony in America’s public institutions. It is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.

Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of re-education? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military?

How about every one of us?

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted with permission from City Journal.



Politics Is Reactionary, Pushing Transgenderism Fuels Opposition Politics

“It just isn’t fair”: Caitlyn Jenner opposes transgender girls participating in women’s sports

‘State of crisis’: Advocates warn of ‘unprecedented’ wave of anti-LGBTQ bills

Eight of these bills have already been enacted and 10 more are on governors’ desks, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Arkinsas State Capitol

The Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock.Ramesh Lalwani / Flickr Vision via Getty

Hundreds of bills that target LGBTQ people have been filed in state legislatures, creating a “state of crisis,” advocates say.

The bills “attempt to erase transgender people and attempt to make LGBTQ people second-class citizens,” Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said during a news conference Thursday.

David said the number of bills, particularly those targeting transgender young people, is “unprecedented” and that 2021 is on track to “become the worst year for state legislative attacks against LGBTQ people in history.”

Until now, 2015 held that record, with 15 anti-LGBTQ bills enacted into law, David said. So far this year, eight bills targeting LGBTQ people have been signed into law, and another 10 are sitting on governors’ desks awaiting signatures, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

“Just to underscore the severity of these bills and the dangerous threshold we are about to cross: If these bills are enacted, it would mean that states will have enacted more anti-LGBTQ bills this year alone than in the last three years combined,” David said.

The national landscape

So far in 2021, eight bills targeting LGBTQ people have become law, most of them centered on transgender minors.

Governors in four states — ArkansasMississippiTennessee and Alabama — have signed bills banning trans athletes from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem in South Dakota issued two executive orders that will prohibit trans girls from playing on girls sports teams. Noem also signed a religious freedom bill that advocates say opens the door to discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, signed a similar bill that allows doctors to refuse to treat someone due to their religious or moral beliefs. Hutchinson vetoed another bill to ban transition care for trans minors — including puberty blockers, hormones and surgery — but the Arkansas Legislature overrode the veto, and the bill will become law this summer.

In North Dakota, Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed a bill that the Human Rights Campaign says will allow student groups that receive state funding through their universities to turn away LGBTQ students “under the guise of free speech.”

In addition to those measures, another 10 are sitting on governors’ desks. Among them are a bill in Montana that would require gender-affirming surgery before a trans person can change the gender marker on their birth certificate; bills in West Virginia and Alabama that limit trans athlete participation; and bills in Arkansas and Tennessee that would require parents to sign off on any mention of gender identity or sexual orientation in school curriculums.

The Tennessee Legislature is expected to send a bill to Republican Gov. Bill Lee’s desk that requires schools to provide “reasonable accommodations,” such as single-occupancy restrooms, to public school students who don’t want to share public facilities with trans students.

“All of these bills are dangerous and harmful to LGBTQ people, and many of them have particularly singled out some of the most vulnerable in our community, which are transgender youth,” David said.

A few governors, like Hutchinson, have already vetoed some legislation. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, vetoed a bill last week that would have required parental notification of any mention of LGBTQ people in school curriculums. Burgum in North Dakota and Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, both vetoed trans athlete bans.

A protester holds a rainbow flag in support of transgender rights
A protester holds a rainbow flag in support of transgender lives during a demonstration on Oct. 2.SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty file

The vetoes, David said, are the result of advocates’ efforts to provide elected officials with facts instead of misinformation about the medical care trans young people receive, or the potential negative economic effects of passing such bills.

“Once they understand the facts from the medical community, from the business community, from families, they understand that these bills are not supported by the facts, they’re not supported by science and there’s no basis to advance these bills. Yet they are still under pressure from their ‘base,’” David said, “which is why we’re seeing some of these bills signed, because they’re providing red meat to their base, but at the same time they recognize that some of these bills are just simply unconscionable.”

Major medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association oppose medical care bans and support affirming care for trans youth, Dr. Robert Garofalo, division chief of adolescent medicine at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said during the news conference.

“We know that gender-affirming care is best practice and to think otherwise just flies in the face of all available scientific evidence,” Garofalo said. One study published in the journal Pediatrics found that trans people who received puberty blockers had a lower risk of suicidal thoughts than adults who wanted them but couldn’t access them.

The vetoes and opposition to the bills from some Republicans are also the result of grassroots activism, said Jasmine Banks, whose daughter is trans. Banks is also founder of Reconcile Arkansas, a queer and trans advocacy group.

“This is one of those moments in history where we’re putting these folks on notice and we’re saying, ‘We are the people who put you in those positions of power, and if you continue to leverage your attacks on our communities, you will no longer be in those positions. We will move you out of those leadership positions,'” Banks said during Thursday’s news conference.

David said a number of bills are also poised to soon pass their second legislative chambers, such as abill in Tennessee that would require businesses to post signs outside of restrooms if they allow trans people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

Texas and Tennessee are the two states considering the most anti-LGBTQ bills this year. Texas legislators have introduced more than two dozen bills targeting LGBTQ people, Cathryn Oakley, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said.

All told, Oakley said, state legislatures have considered 35 bills to ban or limit transition care for trans minors, 66 trans sports bans, 43 religious refusal bills and 16 bills that relate to trans people’s access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

“Our opposition, they are truly getting desperate,” Oakley said, citing the conservative fights against marriage equality and bathroom bills in North Carolina and Texas that ultimately failed or were repealed.

The bills’ ‘human cost’

The bills are already having an impact, advocates say. Dr. Michele Hutchinson, who runs a clinic for trans youth at Arkansas Children’s Hospital, told the Associated Press the families she serves “are in a state of panic” now that the state has approved a law that will ban gender-affirming care for trans minors.

“They want to know what they should do next and we don’t have a clear answer for them,” she told the AP.

She also said that since the bill passed, four young people in her program attempted suicide. Other patients have asked her if they’ll be able to get their medications on the black market, which she said would “be dangerous because they won’t be monitored for side effects.”

Texas is also considering a bill that would make it a felony for parents or doctors to provide transition care for trans youth. The proposal would classify the act as child abuse, and parents who violate it could have their children removed from their home and placed in foster care.

Libby Gonzales, an 11-year-old trans girl who lives in Texas, said lawmakers there have been “attacking” her since she was 6, when they tried to bar her from using the girls’ bathroom.

Libby Gonzales.
Libby Gonzales.Courtesy of the family of Libby Gonzales

“Now they’re trying to stop me from getting the health care I need,” Gonzales said Thursday. “Who am I supposed to be if these bills pass? I told my mom and dad that if this law passes I want to disappear. I don’t know how I’m going to go to school and pretend that everything’s OK.”

“If they don’t want to understand us, they should at least not keep our families from supporting us and our doctors from helping us,” she added.

The bills are not only impacting trans young people but the safety of all trans people, David said.

“It is important to say here that people are already dying,” David said. “These bills are further fueling a wave of anti-trans violence that is devastating our community so far in 2021.”

At least 15 trans and gender-nonconforming people have been killed so far this year. This puts 2021 on track “to more than double the number” of those killed in 2020, which was already the deadliest year on record with at least 44 trans people killed.

‘It merits united action’

Oakley said the “tide may be turning” for anti-LGBTQ legislation, noting the two recent vetoes by Republican governors in Arizona and North Dakota. A recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll found that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to laws that would limit trans rights.

“Public opinion is absolutely on our side,” Oakley said. But she still doesn’t think it will be enough to prevent 2021 from breaking the record for the most anti-LGBTQ bills to become laws.

David described the wave of legislation and anti-trans violence as “a national crisis by any objective standard,” and he said it “merits national attention, and it merits united action.”

He wrote an open letter to corporate leaders, published as a full-page ad in The New York Times on Monday, calling on business leaders to “take action now by publicly denouncing state legislation that discriminates against people, refusing to advance new business in states that are hostile to corporate values and refusing to support sporting events where transgender athletes are banned or athletes taking a knee are penalized.”

David said the Human Rights Campaign is also calling on the NCAA, which regulates college athletics in the U.S., to follow through on its April 12 statement saying it wouldn’t hold championship games in locations that aren’t “free of discrimination.”

“It is not just the NCAA. We also need our entire nation,” David said. “We need every single person to make their voices heard and make sure that their voices are clear that these bills are inhumane and unacceptable.”

Follow NBC Out on TwitterFacebook & Instagram


Bill Gates Against Giving Covid Vaccine Aid To Hard-Hit India

[SEE: Bill Gates and His Historical Support of Eugenics and Population Reduction Before Anyone Heard of 5G ]

COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn’t be shared with India: Bill Gates

Nachiket Mhatre

COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn

02 May 2021: COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn’t be shared with India: Bill Gates


It’s a terrible time to be a publicist for Bill Gates. The billionaire, who the mainstream media celebrates as a philanthropist, is being criticized for his stance on vaccine patents.

When asked if he would share the COVID-19 vaccine recipes with developing nations, the tech mogul categorically refused, much to the shock of everyone who believed Gates prioritized saving lives over making profits.

Profits over lives: Gates doesn’t believe in transferring vaccine tech to developing countries

The Microsoft co-founder answered with an emphatic “no” when the vaccine patent relaxation question was fielded to him during a Sky News interview.

The logic backing the query being that transferring vaccine recipes to developing countries would not only accelerate localized production but also make it possible for poorer nations to inoculate more people with cheaper vaccines.

Fact: Gates justifies stance by making this a safety, expertise issue

“There’s only so many vaccine factories in the world and people are very serious about the safety… Moving a vaccine, say, from a factory into a factory in India, it’s novel, it’s only because of our grants and expertise that can happen at all,” said Gates.

Grants and expertise: Gates believes vaccines tech transfer will be too expensive

Gates, however, provided a couple of reasons for his refusal to share vaccine recipes with poorer countries.

He contends there are limited vaccine factories in the world, and that transferring manufacturing technology can’t be done without American “grants” and “expertise”.

The vaccine czar essentially implies that it is impossible for developing countries to manufacture vaccines without the US spending a fortune transferring technology.

Weak argument: Contrary to Gates’ claims, India is proficient at vaccine manufacturing

Except, Gates’ notion that vaccine production cannot be moved to India is demonstrably false. India has shown remarkable technological proficiency in developing and manufacturing vaccines to become the vaccine hub of the world.

In fact, it had been exporting vaccines globally until US President Joe Biden invoked Defense Production Act, thereby starving India of critical materials required to keep up the manufacturing pace.

Factually incorrect: Vaccine tech transfer that Gates deemed impossible has already happened

Gates’ logic is further undermined by United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres deeming India’s vaccine exports “the best asset that the world has today” against the pandemic.

India achieved this feat on the basis of technology transfer between the Serum Institute of India and AstraZeneca. This directly contradicts the tech billionaire’s excuse that such a transfer is a major hurdle in opening up vaccine patents.

Pandemic profiteering: Gates’ involvement is the reason why Oxford vaccine isn’t free

Gates’ controversial comments have brought increased scrutiny to his influence on global vaccine availability.

A report by Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network Ltd (AFTINET) reveals how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s involvement in the partnership between the University Oxford and AstraZeneca prevented the vaccine from having an open distribution model.

Facade shattered: Increasing number of people are clueing into Gates’ true nature

To make matters worse for the billionaire, media coverage of the pandemic has ensured that the public is well versed with these facts.

That makes his disingenuous justification for prioritizing vaccine profits over saving millions of lives all the more conspicuous.

The fact that developed countries such as the US have been hoarding more vaccines than they would ever need doesn’t help matters either.

Chasing profits: Conflict of interest: Gates’ $250 million investment in vaccine firms

The Gates Foundation declared more than $250 million in vaccine investments through regulatory filings. The foundation’s $40 million-worth stake in CureVac alone has delivered profits to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

There’s ample evidence that Gates has his fingers in all vaccine pies, so he has a clear conflict of interest when choosing between saving the world and profiting off vaccines.

Risky Business In The Taiwan Straits

5 1

[The Taiwan Straights has a wall of ships in place, composed mostly of fishing boats and “unidentified” ships, no doubt military.  The unidentified ships are clustered primarily, around Penghu Island, the primary Taiwanese military fortification.]

The most dangerous place on Earth

America and China must work harder to avoid war over the future of Taiwan

The test of a first-rate intelligence, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. For decades just such an exercise of high-calibre ambiguity has kept the peace between America and China over Taiwan, an island of 24m people, 100 miles (160km) off China’s coast. Leaders in Beijing say there is only one China, which they run, and that Taiwan is a rebellious part of it. America nods to the one China idea, but has spent 70 years ensuring there are two.

Today, however, this strategic ambiguity is breaking down. The United States is coming to fear that it may no longer be able to deter China from seizing Taiwan by force. Admiral Phil Davidson, who heads the Indo-Pacific Command, told Congress in March that he worried about China attacking Taiwan as soon as 2027.

War would be a catastrophe, and not only because of the bloodshed in Taiwan and the risk of escalation between two nuclear powers. One reason is economic. The island lies at the heart of the semiconductor industry. tsmc, the world’s most valuable chipmaker, etches 84% of the most advanced chips. Were production at tsmc to stop, so would the global electronics industry, at incalculable cost. The firm’s technology and know-how are perhaps a decade ahead of its rivals’, and it will take many years of work before either America or China can hope to catch up.

The bigger reason is that Taiwan is an arena for the rivalry between China and America. Although the United States is not treaty-bound to defend Taiwan, a Chinese assault would be a test of America’s military might and its diplomatic and political resolve. If the Seventh Fleet failed to turn up, China would overnight become the dominant power in Asia. America’s allies around the world would know that they could not count on it. Pax Americana would collapse.

To understand how to avoid conflict in the Taiwan Strait, start with the contradictions that have kept the peace during the past few decades. The government in Beijing insists it has a duty to bring about unification—even, as a last resort, by means of invasion. The Taiwanese, who used to agree that their island was part of China (albeit a non-Communist one), have taken to electing governments that stress its separateness, while stopping short of declaring independence. And America has protected Taiwan from Chinese aggression, even though it recognises the government in Beijing. These opposing ideas are bundled into what Fitzgerald’s diplomatic inheritors blithely call the “status quo”. In fact, it is a roiling, seething source of neurosis and doubt.

What has changed of late is America’s perception of a tipping-point in China’s cross-strait military build-up, 25 years in the making. The Chinese navy has launched 90 major ships and submarines in the past five years, four to five times as many as America has in the western Pacific. China builds over 100 advanced fighter planes each year; it has deployed space weapons and is bristling with precision missiles that can hit Taiwan, us Navy vessels and American bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam. In the war games that simulate a Chinese attack on Taiwan, America has started to lose.

Some American analysts conclude that military superiority will sooner or later tempt China into using force against Taiwan, not as a last resort but because it can. China has talked itself into believing that America wants to keep the Taiwan crisis boiling and may even want a war to contain China’s rise. It has trampled the idea that Hong Kong has a separate system of government, devaluing a similar offer designed to win over the people of Taiwan to peaceful unification. In the South China Sea it has been converting barren reefs into military bases.

Although China has clearly become more authoritarian and nationalistic, this analysis is too pessimistic—perhaps because hostility to China is becoming the default in America. Xi Jinping, China’s president, has not even begun to prepare his people for a war likely to inflict mass casualties and economic pain on all sides. In its 100th year the Communist Party is building its claim to power on prosperity, stability and China’s status in its region and growing role in the world. All that would be jeopardised by an attack whose result, whatever the us Navy says, comes with lots of uncertainty attached, not least over how to govern a rebellious Taiwan. Why would Mr Xi risk it all now, when China could wait until the odds are even better?

Yet that brings only some comfort. Nobody in America can really know what Mr Xi intends today, let alone what he or his successor may want in the future. China’s impatience is likely to grow. Mr Xi’s appetite for risk may sharpen, especially if he wants unification with Taiwan to crown his legacy.

If they are to ensure that war remains too much of a gamble for China, America and Taiwan need to think ahead. Work to re-establish an equilibrium across the Taiwan Strait will take years. Taiwan must start to devote fewer resources to big, expensive weapons systems that are vulnerable to Chinese missiles and more to tactics and technologies that would frustrate an invasion.

America requires weapons to deter China from launching an amphibious invasion; it must prepare its allies, including Japan and South Korea; and it needs to communicate to China that its battle plans are credible. This will be a tricky balance to strike. Deterrence usually strives to be crystal-clear about retaliation. The message here is more subtle. China must be discouraged from trying to change Taiwan’s status by force even as it is reassured that America will not support a dash for formal independence by Taiwan. The risk of a superpower arms race is high.

Be under no illusions how hard it is to sustain ambiguity. Hawks in Washington and Beijing will always be able to portray it as weakness. And yet, seemingly useful shows of support for Taiwan, such as American warships making port calls on the island, could be misread as a dangerous shift in intentions.

Most disputes are best put to rest. Those that can be resolved only in war can often be put off and, as China’s late leader Deng Xiaoping said, left to wiser generations. Nowhere presents such a test of statesmanship as the most dangerous place on Earth. ■

Dig deeper

China’s growing military confidence puts Taiwan at risk (Apr 2021)
Even doveish China-watchers in America are becoming hawkish (Apr 2021)
How TSMC has mastered the geopolitics of chipmaking (Apr 2021)
Nominal spending figures understate China’s military might (Apr 2021)

There are only so many ways for China to invade Taiwan. The country’s main island is mountainous and rocky on its east coast. The good beaches are on the west coast, in particular along Taiwan’s southwest plain.

If China invades, it’s most likely going to land troops on that plain. But there’s at least one big obstacle to that approach. A fortified Taiwanese island that looms like a jagged speed-bump in the middle of the Taiwan Strait.

To be clear, it in theory is possible for a Chinese invasion fleet to directly attack Taiwan’s capital Taipei, in the country’s north, by sailing straight into the city’s port. Chinese planners reportedly have drawn up plans for just such an operation.

Ian Easton, senior director at the pro-Taiwan Project 2049 Institute and author of The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia, gamed out a Taipei-grab in a 2018 article.

“It’s the ultimate nightmare scenario,” Easton wrote. Fortunately for Taiwan, however, Taipei is heavily-defended so an assault “relie[s] on stealth”—and stealth is hard to pull off when attacker and defender lie a mere hundred miles from each other.

That makes the southern approach less risky for China. Everyone knows it. Everyone is planning for it. Analysts have had so long to study the problem that they’ve identified all the likely invasion beaches. That of course means the Chinese and Taiwanese militaries also know the beaches.

Shortly after Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen landslide reelection in January, the Chinese military apparently leaked a photo depicting soldiers studying maps of Taiwan.

Invasion routes are clearly marked on the maps. One of the maps shows Chinese forces landing in southern Taiwan, but only after seizing Penghu, a Taiwanese archipelago of 90 islets that lies 30 miles from the main island.

Penghu Island

China has little choice but to capture or suppress Penghu before invading Taiwan proper. Taiwanese forces on the archipelago operate a long-range radar plus Hsiung Feng II anti-ship cruise missiles and Sky Bow III surface-to-air missiles. If a Chinese invasion fleet bypassed Penghu without destroying its garrison, the fleet would be subject to missile strikes at its flanks.

It’s not for no reason that Paul Huang, a researcher with the Taipei-sponsored Institute for National Defense and Security Research, early this year described Penghu’s as the most important of Taiwan’s three major island garrisons.

If China failed to suppress or capture Penghu, the main invasion force “might be obliged to abort the operation, making an assault on Taiwan one of history’s nonevents—like Hitler’s invasion of England,” analysts Piers Wood and Charles Ferguson wrote in a 2001 edition of the U.S. Naval War College Review.

But taking the islands could be hard for China. Their 60,000-strong permanent garrison includes an army brigade with 70 upgraded M-60 tanks and an artillery battalion. The Taiwanese navy routinely deploys a missile destroyer in the waters around Penghu. The air force practices staging nimble Indigenous Defense Fighters to the archipelago’s airport.

A major beach-defense exercise in 2017 involved 3,900 Taiwanese troops, IDF and F-16 fighters, AH-64, CH-47 and UH-60 helicopters, RT-2000 multiple-launch rocket systems, tanks, 155-millimeter and 105-millimeter howitzers and teams firing Javelin anti-tank missiles at offshore targets.

The Taiwanese fleet operates just two front-line submarines, but in the event of war it’s a safe bet that at least one of them would prowl near Penghu.

To be clear, Beijing has the power to take Penghu. China’s navy possesses an amphibious flotilla with eight modern assault ships and dozens of large landing craft. China’s marine corps is tens of thousands strong. The Chinese air force and rocket force could bombard Penghu with literally thousands of bombs and missiles.

But every hour the Chinese military spends fighting for Penghu is an hour Taiwan could use to deploy its active forces toward its southern beaches and mobilize its two-million-person reserves.

The U.S. Navy could use that same hour to shift two or three aircraft carrier battle groups toward Taiwan. By the time Chinese troops raised Beijing’s flag over Penghu, American bombers could be en route with loads of stealth cruise missiles.

In any invasion scenario, time is not on China’s side. “Initiating a war over Taiwan in the face of both internal and external threats is the greatest risk imaginable,” wrote Drew Thompson, a researcher at the National University of Singapore.

Penghu embodies that risk. Capturing the island could clear the way for China finally to “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland. Failing to capture Penghu could, perhaps for a very long time, end Beijing’s reunification-by-force gambit.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. Send me a secure tip.

Columbus, Ohio Cop Demonized For Preventing A Black On Black (Girls) Knifing

… ‘Disgraceful & Dangerous’

Jen Psaki baselessly and disgracefully racialized the killing in Columbus

“Believe your own eyes” — that was the prosecutor’s final admonition to the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial. And indeed, the evidence of their own eyes was likely the reason the jury members didn’t accept the defense’s case that there was “reasonable doubt” about Chauvin’s guilt. Instead, they convicted him on all charges.

The same admonition should be governing the public response to the horrible event in Columbus, Ohio, that transpired just as the Chauvin verdict was being announced. But it isn’t.

No less than the press secretary of the president of the United States went before the public Wednesday and all but explicitly suggested what had happened in Ohio was an illegitimate, racist police killing.

Believe your own eyes, Jen Psaki. Watch the body-cam footage that shows 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant charging first one fellow teenager, then a second. The second girl was slammed against a car, at which point Bryant began to swing her right arm — with a knife in her hand.

The police officer whose camera recorded the event had told her to “get down,” and she hadn’t done so. He had only a split second to react as she aimed the knife and readied to swing. He fired.

Believe your own eyes. She had a knife. Had she not been stopped, that knife would have gone into the body of the girl on the car. The police officer was witness to a violent act in real time and interceded the only way he could.

At the five-second mark in the video, the officer has gotten out of his car and is asking someone on the street, “What’s going on?” Two seconds — two seconds — later, the first girl being chased by Bryant falls to the ground.

“Hey! Hey!” the cop says at the nine-second mark, as he spots Bryant turning toward the second girl. At 10-second mark, he says with great urgency, “Get down! Get down! Get down!”

It’s now the 12-second mark. The cop has removed his gun from his holster. At 13 seconds, Bryant’s arm is drawn. At 14, we see Bryant fall to the ground.

What this means is that the officer found himself in the middle of a violent confrontation and had to act . . . within nine seconds.

Count off nine seconds. Out of a car. Asks for information. Suddenly a girl falls in front of him, chased by Bryant and her knife. He tells her to get down before removing his weapon and has it in his hand in time to stop her from stabbing the girl against the car.

I’ve watched the body-cam footage 25 times. I can’t imagine what else the police officer could possibly have done given the urgency of the moment — except allow Bryant to stab the other girl.

My own eyes suggested to me, and to the world, that Chauvin was guilty of something — though it was certainly beyond my knowledge then or now, as I wasn’t on the jury, to know precisely what. Likewise, my eyes say this was a horrible, tragic, terrible event in which a police officer may have saved a life in imminent peril.

And yet this is what Psaki, the spokeswoman for the world’s greatest power and leading democracy, said: “She was a child. We’re thinking of her friends and family in the communities that are hurting and grieving her loss. We know that police violence disproportionately impacts black and Latino people in communities and that black women and girls, like black men and boys, experience higher rates of police violence.”

Then teen is seen allegedly holding a knife in the bodycam video.
Then teen is seen allegedly holding a knife in the bodycam video.
Columbus Police Department via WSYX-TV via AP 
I don’t think my eyes have been blinded by the cop’s whiteness. The girl he saved was black, just like Ma’Khia Bryant. She was a teenager, it seems, just like Ma’Khia Bryant. She has a family, just like Ma’Khia Bryant. And she wasn’t swinging a knife at Ma’Khia Bryant. She was defenseless — until the law-enforcement officer defended her.

Who speaks for her and the countless Americans whose lives are saved every day by the intervention of law enforcement? Who will speak out for those who have saved them?

Basketball Champion Would Make A Great President

“I truly believe in my heart most white people and black people are awesome people, but we’re so stupid following our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, and their only job is, ‘Hey, let’s make these people not like each other.”

[VIDEO] Charles Barkley Just Told The World Our Governments “Biggest Little Secret”…And He Nailed It

This is one of the reddest “red-pill’ statements ever. Charles Barkley really “gets it”

Wow. I gotta tell ya, I think Charles Barkley is inching closer and closer to being a full-blown conservative.


As a matter of fact, he’s sharing some pretty heavy stuff about the government that is about as ‘red-pilled’ as you can get.

Barkley has always been a common-sense kinda guy. He’s the type who can see through. the garbage, and speak the truth.

MORE NEWS: Heads Up: George Soros is On The Move Again…He’s Unleashing a $500 Million-Dollar Plan

Remember, Charles was one of the first people to come out really hard against the stupid “defund the police” nonsense.

Charles is calling out our government’s deepest, darkest plot … those of us on the right have always known this and talked about it, but to hear someone like Charles say it out loud, really makes your jaw drop.

So, what to Charles reveal?

He revealed that he believes our government is actively working to keep whites and blacks at each other’s throats and hating one another.

Here’s what he said:

Man, I think most white people and black people are great people. I really believe that in my heart, but I think our system is set up where our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, are designed to make us not like each other so they can keep their grasp of money and power. They divide and conquer. I truly believe in my heart most white people and black people are awesome people, but we’re so stupid following our politicians, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, and their only job is, ‘Hey, let’s make these people not like each other. We don’t live in their neighborhoods, we all got money, let’s make the whites and blacks not like each other, let’s make rich people and poor people not like each other, let’s scramble the middle class. I truly believe that in my heart.

Yep. Nailed it.



The media can be included in this mix as well.

They do the same thing – which makes sense since they’re basically part of the government, too.


We’re all being played – pitted against one another so that these swampy slimeballs can conduct all their illegal business and we won’t notice.

It’s time for everyone to wake up.

Attn: Wayne Dupree is a free speech champion who works tirelessly to bring you news that the mainstream media ignores.

Dem. Favorite Radical AOC Slams Biden Border Tragedy

“This is not an invasion. US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization of these regions…where the children are fleeing …. We have decades of interventionist foreign policies that have contributed to this issue.”

AOC slams ‘horrifying,’ ‘barbaric’ US border conditions under Biden

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday night slammed the overcrowded conditions for immigrants at the US-Mexican border under President Biden as “inhumane”, “horrifying,” “unnaceptable” and “barbaric.”

She also blamed decades of US foreign policy with countries in neighboring Central America as contributing to the perpetual crisis of desperate residents from poor, violence-torn countries flooding the border.

AOC unloaded on the border crisis during a virtual town hall meeting Wednesday night.

“The fact that this keeps happening is a political failure of both parties,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

AOC gave a detailed critique on the current border crisis — after being accused of giving Biden a pass after excoriating former President Trump’s border and immigration policies.

Migrant children sleep inside a cage at the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas on March 30, 2021.
AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills 

During an earlier interview, she criticized people who describe the situation at the border as a “surge” of pushing a “white supremacist” philosophy.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed people who described the border crisis as a "surge" were pushing a "white supremacist" philosophy.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed people who described the border crisis as a “surge” were pushing a “white supremacist” philosophy.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images 

She had visited immigration detention centers in 2019 and decried the conditions under Trump as “concentration camps.”

Ocasio-Cortez said the slow processing and verification system at the border causes a “huge pile up” leading to “inhumane conditions” that “are wrong.”

Unaccompanied migrant children play inside a playpen at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in Donna, Texas on March 30, 2021.
Unaccompanied migrant children play inside a playpen at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in Donna, Texas, on March 30, 2021.
AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills 

While claiming Trump’s immigration policies are more harsh than Biden’s, she added, “I don’t want to excuse any of this.”

“We should be doing better by now,” she said.

At one point, she said families who were forcibly separated during the Trump years “are owed reparations. Period.”

Migrants are processed inside the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas on March 30, 2021.
Migrants are processed inside the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas, on March 30, 2021.
AFP via Getty Images 

She blamed US foreign policy for contributing to the border crisis.

“This is not an invasion. US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization of these regions…where the children are fleeing …. We have decades of interventionist foreign policies that have contributed to this issue.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argues “US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization,” of Central-American countries where migrants are fleeing from.
AOC argues “US foreign policy has contributed to the destabilization,” of Central-American countries where migrants are fleeing from.
Bloomberg via Getty Images 

“People don’t want to talk about it but then they want to act like this is brand new every time,” said of the masses overwhelming the border.

While she decried the current conditions at the border, she claimed Biden is trying to solve the problem.

Two unaccompanied migrant children stand at a makeshift processing checkpoint in Roma, Texas on March 27, 2021.
Two unaccompanied migrant children stand at a makeshift processing checkpoint in Roma, Texas, on March 27, 2021.
AFP via Getty Images 

“I’ve been in contact with the Biden Administration personally. What is different is they’re trying to figure out … how to find the resources to end his problem,” AOC said..

She said the border crisis could get worse if the US doesn’t address root causes through its foreign policy and trade and climate policies.

“The volume of these shifts are going to increase as droughts increase,” said Ocasio-Cortez.

BLM To Politicize Music and Mathematics, Replacing Mozart with Rap and Math with Tribal Learning

Debate emerges over racism and white supremacy in Oregon math instruction

“The group claims white supremacy culture can show up in the classroom in various ways, including when ‘the focus is on getting the ‘right’ answer,’ and when ‘students are required to ‘show their work.'”

“The group also says educators should try to ‘center ethnomathematics’ by identifying and challenging the ways that ‘math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.'”


” Now mathematics is being nudged into a specifically political direction by educators who call
themselves “critical theorists.” They advocate using mathematics as a
tool to advance social justice. Social justice math relies on political
and cultural relevance to guide math instruction. One of its precepts is
ethnomathematics,” that is, the belief that different cultures have
evolved different ways of using mathematics, and that students will
learn best if taught in the ways that relate to their ancestral culture…The culturally attuned teacher will learn about the
counting system of the ancient Mayans, ancient Africans, Papua New
Guineans, and other ‘non-mainstream’ cultures… Partisans of social justice mathematics advocate an explicitly political
agenda in the classroom… Teachers are supposed to vary the teaching of
mathematics in relation to their students’ race, gender, ethnicity, and

Oxford University May Scrap Sheet Music for Being Complicit in ‘White Supremacy’


Ian Forsyth/Getty Images


The University of Oxford is considering proposals that would remove sheet music from its curriculum over woke claims that teaching the Western form of musical notation has roots in “colonialism” and “complicity in white supremacy”.

In response to widespread Black Lives Matter protesters and riots last year in the United Kingdom, music educators at Oxford University have joined the wider iconoclastic movement which has been sweeping through British academia.

The music department at the prestigious and ancient university has seen calls to remove music notation from the curriculum as professors seek to focus less on white European heritage and culture, according to documents seen by The Telegraph.

The woke educators went on to claim that musical notation itself is a “colonialist representational system” that has “complicity to white supremacy”. The claim is similar to leftist pronouncements in America that mathematics is inherently racist.

The Oxford academics went on to pronounce that teaching the piano or conducting orchestras could cause “students of colour great distress” as the skills involved are closely tied to “white European music”.

Professors at the university said that the classical music which is taught at Oxford, which includes Beethoven, Mozart, and Schubert, among others, is too focused on “white European music from the slave period”.

The assertion is somewhat dubious, as Western classical music, as well as the practice of sheet music notation, predates the Atlantic slave trade, stemming back to musical traditions from the medieval period such as Gregorian chanting.

Delingpole: Now Oxford University Grovels to Black Lives Matter

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) June 17, 2020

In response to student demands “arising from international Black Lives Matter demonstrations,” the Oxford faculty is also considering placing a heavier emphasis on “non-Eurocentric” musical traditions such as Hip-Hop and Jazz, as well as “African and African Diasporic Musics” and “Global Musics”.

The curriculum could also place more importance on pop music and culture, with suggested topics including “Artists Demanding Trump Stop Using Their Songs” at campaign rallies and “Dua Lipa’s Record-Breaking Livestream”.

Mocking the woke push from the university, London mayoral candidate and Heritage Party leader David Kurten said: “For goodness sake. Oxford is supposed to be one of our top Universities that promotes academic rigour and excellence. It should not be peddling woke nonsense like ‘classical music is racist and ‘sheet music is non-inclusive’”.

The proposals come amid a wider push throughout British academia to “decolonise the curriculum” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In February, for example, the University of Leicester caused uproar after it proposed cutting courses in Medieval English literature — removing seminal works such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf — in favour of focusing more heavily on texts relating to sexuality, diversity, race, and ethnicity.

The woke push has also seen the introduction of speech codes, with the University of Manchester telling staff to refrain from using gendered words such as “father” or “mother” in favour of more “inclusive language”.

Three Wise Monkeys Are Racist Now, Says Woke University of York

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 24, 2021

Near-Hysterical Biden CDC Director Warns of “Impending Doom”

‘Scared’ CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky warns of ‘impending doom’

By Jackie Salo

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky became emotional at a White House coronavirus press briefing on Monday — her voice breaking as she warned that the US is facing “impending doom” as COVID-19 cases rise again.

“I’m gonna lose the script and I’m going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom,” Walensky told reporters at the briefing.

“We have so much to look forward to, so much promise and potential of where we are, and so much reason for hope. But right now I’m scared.”

“I know what it’s like as a physician to stand in that patient room, gowned, gloved, masked, shielded and to be the last person to touch some else’s loved one because their loved one couldn’t be there,” she continued.

“And I know what it’s like to pull up to your hospital every day and see an extra morgue sitting outside.”

Walensky said she feared that the US is headed down a similar path to many European countries, which have had to issue lockdowns again amid surges in cases.

“The trajectory of the pandemic in the United States looks similar to many other countries in Europe, including Germany, Italy, and France looked like just a few weeks ago and since that time those countries have experienced a consistent and worrying spike in cases,” she said.

Walensky — speaking, she said, not just as the CDC director but “as a wife, as a mother, as a daughter” — urged Americans to “hold on a little longer” until they can get vaccinated against the coronavirus.

“We are not powerless. We can change this trajectory of the pandemic, but it will take all of us recommitting to following the public health prevention strategies consistently, while we work to get the American public vaccinated,” she said.

Are Whites Really To Blame For Mass Shootings? Photos Reveal The Truth

Are Whites Really To Blame For Mass Shootings? Photos Reveal The Truth

Following the mass shooting in Boulder Colorado, globalists and leftists joined arm in arm in blaming White Americans for mass shootings in America.

Once it was revealed that the shooter was actually a Syrian native who came to America as a child who was a devout Muslim and alleged ISIS sympathizer who hated Donald Trump and some of his major platforms, they quickly adjusted

But, the inevitable gun grabs began and the intentional false impression has been left on masses of Americans by these racist politicians and media personalities that white people are to blame for most mass shootings.

I’m hearing it repeated as gospel truth that “nearly all” American mass shooters are white. Here are the photos of mass shooters from 2019 (defined as four or more shot in a single incident). It shows quite a diverse set of faces. #Boulder #Atlanta

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) March 24, 2021

Trending: Global Prices Soar As Enormous Ship Draws Penis In The Red Sea…Then Gets Stuck in the Suez Canal

However, a photo collage released by journalist Andy Ngo on Twitter allegedly shows who is responsible for the known mass shootings in America.  And, if there is one slogan to describe mass shooters in America, it might be:

“Diversity Is Their Strength”Tinnitus? when the Ringing Won’t Stop, Do This (It’s Genius)healthtodayAds by

A 2020 photo collage from Andy Ngo reveals a similar trend:

The Gateway Pundit provides additional context to the photos as well as caveats:

“Democrats continue to push the ridiculous talking point that white men commit the majority of mass shootings in the United States.
The left continues to push this with every mass shooting.

Wiki Page was created to list every mass shooting in the US in 2019.

The list does not include those shootings where no one will speak to police.

At least 20 of the mass shootings in 2019 were in Chicago, Illinois.

More than 140 mass shootings are unsolved largely because no one will give descriptions to the police.

Of course, most of these shootings took place in the inner city. Democrats don’t care about those shootings. They never make the splash headlines for days.

It doesn’t fit their agenda.”

There are also some other interesting facts that pertain to the false narrative that white people commit most mass shootings and that government regulations make anything better:

Black people make up roughly 13% of the US population while white non-Hispanic people make up roughly 61%, so we might expect to see roughly 5 times more white people committing any given crime-including mass shootings.  Yet we do not.  Why?

Many mass shootings are part of gang violence.

It should be noted that non-whites make up nearly 88% all of the gang members in America despite being minority populations.  Interestingly, the large number of gang members and their demographic makeup were not always this way. Perhaps, they are now because government began destroying the black family the mid-1900s as well as flooding the country with impoverished immigrants since the 1965 Hart-Seller Act while promoting a massive welfare state to promote single motherhood.  Black single motherhood has skyrocketed from about 20% in the 1920s to about 76%, today.  People who come from broken homes tend to have more mental issues, less wealth, and tend toward more crimes.  This may lead them to seek out familial relationships in gangs much more often than those who come from solid homes in solid neighborhoods.

Bring back the family, promote the true American citizenry and the US Constitution, and reward meritorious hard work.

This is not a race issue.  This is a massive government meddling issue.



“If you catch 100 red fire ants as well as 100 large black ants, and put them in a jar, at first, nothing will happen. However, if you violently shake the jar and dump them back on the ground the ants will fight until they eventually kill each other. The thing is, the red ants think the black ants are the enemy and vice versa, when in reality, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. This is exactly what’s happening in society today. Liberal vs. Conservative. Black vs. White. Pro Mask vs. Anti-Mask. Vax vs. Anti-vax. Rich vs. poor. Man vs. woman. Cop vs. citizen. The real question we need to be asking ourselves is who’s shaking the jar… and why?” – Shera Starr

Who's Shaking the Jar? - The Thinking Conservative

A few weeks ago, I saw the above quote in Jeff Thomas’ article Learning from Ants, and it has been reverberating in my mind ever since. It is a perfect analogy for what has been happening in this country for years, with the jar lately being shaken at a rate faster than a Biden vote count increase at 3:00 am in a swing state. Everyone in this country, and the world, is at each other’s throats. Who is shaking the jar? Why are they shaking the jar? Why do they want us fighting each other?

If they keep us focused on fighting each other, they believe we will not notice their reprehensible criminality, as they manipulate the masses through psychological engineering and the employment of propaganda techniques to push their desired narrative. If you ask someone – who is shaking the jar? – they will likely answer based on the standard left vs right, liberal vs conservative, white vs black paradigm which has been created by those benefiting from conflict. It is always a safe bet to follow the money when trying to identify the culprits.

The elevated intensity of manipulation by those pulling the strings of societal discontent reveals much about their level of desperation in creating more chaos, because the awakening of more to the truth, endangers their wealth, power, and control. They have turned the shaking power up to eleven in the last year, as an implosion of the Ponzi financial system was looming as we entered 2020, and the Deep State oligarchs needed cover to implement a massive injection of liquidity into the veins of Wall Street bankers, the medical industrial complex, and mega-corporations like Amazon, Wal-Mart and Target.

The weaponization of a contagious, but highly non-lethal to anyone under 80 years old, flu became the perfect camouflage of fear to bailout the teetering financial system and creating turmoil, chaos, and distrust among the populace. The non-stop fear mongering was purposely ramped to keep the public distracted while the national wealth pillaging operation proceeded at a breakneck pace behind the scenes. $600 for you and $10 trillion for them.

The monstrous effort to polarize the country by the psychopaths in suits pulling the strings of societal disgruntlement has the ultimate purpose of subjugation and dominion over every aspect of our lives. They no longer feel the need to conceal their treachery, as they openly proclaim their Great Reset, where you will own nothing and be happy – living in a 200 sq ft shipping container, eating synthetic meat, drinking Gates endorsed reprocessed piss, snacking on bugs, and praying their windmill and solar power works on calm cloudy days as a frigid winter storm front arrives.

A right-wing meme on Twitter positioning George Soros as the originator of a coronavirus world conspiracy involving Bill Gates, James Comey, Rep Adam Schiff and others

None of this is an accident. It is not occurring naturally. This is the result of a designed blueprint to control and rule the world by a relatively small cadre of billionaire oligarch globalists, Big Tech despots, bought off politicians, the banking cabal fronted by their puppets at the Federal Reserve, surveillance state operatives, military industrial complex parasites, captured corporate media, mega-corporations, and mid-level government apparatchiks sucking on the teat of the Deep State.

These people are the real government who had been pulling the strings behind the curtain, but now feel emboldened to openly execute their plans, after observing how easily the masses could be manipulated and controlled through fear during this conveniently engineered pandemic. Decades of dumbing down the populace through government run public school indoctrination disguised as education, has produced millions of non-critical thinking barely sentient consumers who have their beliefs fashioned, choices formed, and opinions dictated by manipulative men operating in the shadows.

Those pulling the strings understand the psychological processes, societal relationships, and technology driven social media addictions of the masses. They know how to sell a narrative based upon the emotions, feelings, fears and biases of the masses. With so few capable of critical thinking and seeing through their deceptive manipulation of the story-line, complete control over mainstream and social media gives those pulling the strings tremendous power over the direction of society.

And if they can keep the majority at each other’s throats, distracted by trivialities, minutia, false narratives, and unable to decipher the truth, they can keep us subjugated and constrained while they pilfer and pillage the wealth of the nation. It is a despicably audacious plan but is working to perfection. But, as always with humans, their hubris and myopia have convinced themselves they are infallible and immune to defeat. Their greed and arrogance will ultimately lead to their downfall.

Fighting in Our Streets and God | Tennessee Bible College

Glenn Greenwald recently called out the faux journalists working in the corporate media complex for their shamefully pathetic attempt to twist the truth into the false narrative required by their Deep State puppet masters. They are nothing but highly paid whores doing tricks at the behest of their oligarch pimps.

“If you think the real power centers in the US are the Proud Boys, 4Chan & Boogaloos rather than the CIA, FBI, NSA, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and spend most of your time battling the former while serving the latter as stenographers, your journalism is definitionally shit.” – Glenn Greenwald

Real journalists like Greenwald and Tucker Carlson are not afraid to confront those shaking the societal jar. That is why there is a concerted effort by those shaking the jar to try and destroy Substack, where Greenwald writes, after The Intercept began to censor his articles, and to force Fox to cancel Carlson by pressuring advertisers to boycott his show. This Cancel Culture tactic is being employed by those in control to crush dissent and free speech, so their narrative can dominate the airwaves and social media platforms, drowning out the truth.

There is a war for the soul of America underway and only one side is fighting – the globalist cabal along with their billionaire backers (Gates, Soros, Bloomberg), Big Tech tyrants, Big Media, Big Pharma, and Big Corporations. They have positioned their troops as attorney generals, governors, mayors, and legislators; in universities; in K-12 classrooms; in the media; on Wall Street; at the Fed; and in the Swamp of D.C. They now have a senile useful idiot in the White House, with a compliant cackling diversity hire waiting in the wings to become their new stooge.

There is no Deep State - Econlib

The technique of using propaganda to manipulate the opinions of the masses, put forth by Edward Bernays almost one hundred years ago, has been enhanced and perfected by the deceitful and traitorous psychopaths operating as the shadow government, as they purposely construct false narratives and bogeymen, so they can expand their supremacy, dominion, and fortunes. It has always been this way, as human nature never changes, but the level and intensity has been ratcheted up to a degree never seen before in human history.

Technological advances have allowed these evil men to reinforce their narrative, while suppressing the truth tellers, and brainwashing the masses to do as they are told. Over the last five to ten years, they have convinced a vast swath of the population to believe utter nonsense, cower in their basements on command, and buy into false narratives and fake news that a sixth-grade level IQ should be able to see through. I have never lived through the final days of an empire, but this must be how it feels.


Those shaking the jar understand the mental processes of the ants because the indoctrination curriculum instilled in their brains by government controlled public schools through sub-mediocre, union worshiping, social justice warrior teachers has been designed to make them obedient, non-thinking, susceptible to psychological manipulation consumers.

The controllers know which buttons to push to keep the masses at each other’s throats: Democrat vs. Republican; liberals vs. conservatives; black vs. white; male vs. female; gay vs. straight; young vs. old; rich vs. poor; capitalists vs. socialists; white collar vs. blue collar; essential vs. non-essential; police vs. citizens; military vs. civilian and numerous variations on these categories of warring factions. Below is only a partial list of false narratives, fake news and outright lies over the last several years used by the powers that be to keep the ants fighting each other:MUST-SEE SHOWDOWN: WHAT’S AHEAD FOR YOUR MONEY DURING THE BIDEN PRESIDENCYThe Oxford Communique

  • The Russiagate conspiracy created by the Obama and Hillary acolytes, in conspiracy with the leaders of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to take down a duly elected president was a coup built upon nothing but lies, fomented and spread by the seditious corporate media. If the country were ruled by honest, forthright, law abiding people, Obama, Hillary, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and dozens of underlings would be in prison for this plot to unseat Trump.
  • The Mueller investigation cost the American taxpayer tens of millions; produced thousands of hours of fake news reports by CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and the rest of the left-wing media; ruined the lives and reputations of dozens; distracted Trump from governing for two years; and resulted in absolutely zero proof of any wrongdoing or collusion with the Russians. The entire episode was created to distract from Hillary’s emails, the murder of Seth Rich for providing the info to Julian Assange, and the filthy dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
  • The lies about kids in cages and children being torn from the arms of their loving parents at the border, with photo shoots of AOC crying in an empty parking lot, was nothing but tripe. The “cage” pictures were taken during the Obama administration. It seems those cages are being used again, with Biden inviting millions to cross our unprotected border, but now the narrative is one humanity and caring. The hypocrisy of these feckless idiots knows no bounds.
In Emergency Bill, House Dems Vote To Send More Fake Tears To Address Border Crisis | The Babylon Bee
  • The “fine people” hoax regarding the Charlottesville protests and clashes in 2017 had been used by the Democrats and their media mouthpieces for three years to make it appear Trump supported white supremacy. It was a complete and utter lie, and they knew it. Of course, the full airing of his real comments was played during the latest impeachment hoax, clearly vindicating Trump. But liberals still latch onto this false narrative like an infant with a bottle. The infantilization of the masses appears to be working, as they cry at every perceived micro-aggression.
Storytime with Drag Queens | Things to do in Chicago
  • George Soros and his Open Society organization is intent on destroying all societal norms and community standards which have bound us together for generations. His desire is to destroy the family unit and replace it with the state. He openly funds anything and anyone who will further this agenda. He encourages things like Drag Queen Story Hour at public libraries where purveyors of pedophilia freaks teach five-year-olds how to twerk and attempt to legitimize their mental illness as normal. This brain washing of children is child abuse. Soros has spent tens of millions to get sociopath District Attorneys elected in Democrat run urban shitholes, whose sole purpose is to encourage crime, not prosecute murderers and thieves, and allow havoc and chaos to engulf their cities. Mission accomplished, as murder rates have skyrocketed in every Democrat run urban paradise in America – and the killing is not being committed by white supremacists. Soros is tearing down our society so it can be built back in his dystopian communist vision of the future.
There's Been a George Soros for Every Era of Anti-Semitic Panic
  • The entire Jeffrey Epstein episode is another false narrative created by the jar shakers because they were the perverts, pedophiles, and deviants who Epstein was blackmailing with secret videotapes and whatever took place on his private island. Clinton, Gates, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, John Roberts and dozens more sociopaths were all implicated. Everyone knows Epstein did not kill himself. He was murdered by those at the top to shield themselves from revelations of their perversions and crimes. When you control the narrative, you can get away with anything. Maxwell will not talk. She knows her fate if she does.
  • The faked chemical weapons attack in Syria, blamed on the Assad regime, was completely fabricated and staged. It resulted in president Trump launching a missile attack against the Syrian government. Everything reported by the corporate media over the last decade has been built upon lies. Obama created ISIS, with the support of McCain and the neo-cons, to overthrow the regime of Assad. They did such a bang-up job turning Libya from the richest country in Africa to a 3rd world ungovernable hellhole, they wanted to accomplish the same in Syria. It was only after Putin’s military began obliterating ISIS, the U.S. was shamed and reluctantly joined, and then took full credit for their defeat.
A Movie as “New Evidence on Fake Chemical Attack” – Again - EU vs DISINFORMATION
  • Blaming Russia for everything bad that happens in our country, run by incompetent corrupt boobs, has become the go to lie by Democrats and their media lapdogs at CNN, Washington Post, NYT and MSNBC. They were accused of hacking into our electrical grid in 2016, with the entire story debunked in days. The Washington Post claimed 200 websites had been infiltrated by the Russians, accusing Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard of being Russian assets. The laughability of these claims by Hillary’s army did not stop useful idiots from believing. The Russians were accused of using sonic and microwave weapons to cause brain damage to U.S. personnel in the US embassy in Cuba. It was determined the sounds were male crickets during mating season. The bullshit continues to this day, as Biden has accused Putin of interfering in the 2020 election and calling him a killer. Maybe the Russians interfered to get Biden elected, knowing he is a dementia racked bumbling fool.
Shocking Footage of Joe Biden Falling Multiple Times: What Is Wrong? | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report - YouTube
  • The first ridiculous impeachment of Trump was based on a phone call with the Ukraine president regarding the actual corruption and payoffs to Hunter Biden and the Biden crime family to influence U.S. policy in the Ukraine. The U.S. had already funded and aided in the coup against the democratically elected president and encouraged the civil war that followed. The real crimes were committed by Hunter selling influence and the Big Guy having the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter fired. Ironically, two key figures in the impeachment hearings Eric “the farter” Swalwell and Diane ‘the crypt keeper” Feinstein had much bigger skeletons in their closets – sleeping with a Chinese spy and employing a Chinese spy for almost twenty years as her driver.
  • The second, more ridiculous, impeachment of Trump was such a shitshow, John Roberts refused to participate in the farce. This travesty of justice was conducted to send a message to all Trump supporters they will be painted with the brush of insurrectionists and white supremacists. The absurd charade was conducted after Trump was already out of office. Swalwell and his parade of woke jokes doctored evidence, lied and exaggerated the claims against Trump, and were ultimately eviscerated and embarrassed by Trump’s defense team on national TV. But they convinced their faithful intellectually deficient dupes Trump had provoked an armed insurrection, no matter the verdict.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., gives final remarks during a hearing where former White House national security aide Fiona Hill, and David Holmes, a U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
  • The false narrative of the January 6th “armed insurrection” is blatantly false and continues to be flogged by the dutifully deceptive defecators on the payroll of CNN and MSNBC. There is only one requirement for an armed insurrection. Somebody must be armed. Not one firearm was used by any of the selfie taking boobs wandering around the Capitol. I guess someone could have been gored by the buffalo dude. The fake news about a Capitol cop beaten to death with a fire extinguisher was peddled for months by CNN and MSNBC. It was 100% fake news. He died of a stroke a day after the protest. The only person killed was an unarmed female who posed no threat to anyone. They still have not revealed the name of the cop that executed her. The presence of ANTIFA plants, paid by CNN, instigating the crowd, has been memory-holed by the malleable media.
Maryland man caught inside US Capitol building during riot fired | WBFF
  • The “armed insurrection” by “white supremacists” false narrative has been exploited by the hateful shrew Pelosi to turn D.C. into an armed fortress with national guard members pretending to protect the Capital from imminent attack by the Trump militia armies. The FBI does their part by fear mongering about non-existent right wing domestic terrorists, while Democrat run cities continue to be terrorized and burned by real ANTIFA and BLM terrorists, with Federal buildings under armed attack and set on fire. The diversity hire Defense Secretary is busy purging white Trump supporters from the ranks, while encouraging the feminization of his forces, to the delight of Russia and China. Pelosi and Schumer will never tear down those walls. They know their far-left agenda will ultimately result in chaos and revolution. They want to extinguish our exiting civilization, so they can “build back better” as a globalist utopia where the few, like Gates, Soros and Schwab, rule over the many, and you will own nothing and be happy – or else.
This is not freedom': militarized US Capitol a sign of forever wars coming home | US Capitol breach | The Guardian
  • The false narrative they have been beating to death since the election is the Qanon conspiracy of a vast array of right-wing domestic terrorists planning a takeover of the government. They were blamed for the January 6th non-insurrection and are being used as the excuse to keep 12-foot walls around the Capitol. This entire storyline is laughable, except brainless twits in the corporate media flog it to benefit Pelosi and her parade of congressional dimwits as they intentionally mislead the public about the real threats in this country. If 5% of Trump voters had ever heard of Qanon, I would be shocked. If .00001% of the public believed the fairy tales spun on 4Chan or 8Chan or whatever Chan, then I would be flabbergasted. In retrospect, it is evident this was a Psy-Op conducted by the surveillance state to lure people into a trap of hope, and now is being used to paint all Trump supporters as crazy white supremacists, intent on overthrowing the government. Mission accomplished by the jar shakers.

In Part 2 of this article, I will detail the extraordinary efforts by those in power to cover-up the ultimately fatal levels of debt endangering the American Empire, by creating trillions more in debt, and pondering what happens next on our road to perdition.


Biden lies, and the media doesn’t question it: Goodwin

Biden lies, and the media doesn’t question it: Goodwin

By Michael Goodwin

Three big things stood out in President Biden’s first press conference.

1. The leader of the free world is often lost at sea and says many things that are blatantly false.

2. The media is in the tank and cannot be trusted to hold him accountable.

3. Because of Nos. 1 and 2, America is headed for serious trouble.

For this sickening spectacle we had to wait 64 days?

Still, the event was meaningful in one distressing way. Now we know beyond all doubt there is no way to deny the terrifying truth.

This was Biden’s coming out party, and the nation faces a mess that will only grow worse in time. The man who campaigned on unity is hell-bent on permanent polarization, meaning cancel culture and the super-charged racial climate are here to stay.

Biden gave license to the worst instincts on the left with his repeated sneering references to all Republicans and especially Donald Trump. At one point, he actually accused Trump of letting immigrant children “starve to death on the other side” of the Mexican border.

He said it in a room full of 30 supposed journalists and not a single one challenged him or even asked whether he meant it literally. In fact, not a single one challenged him on any of his falsehoods.

Nor did anyone ask him why he read from prepared talking points during answers to three questions on foreign policy. No recent president has felt the need to do that.

There also were moments when he talked himself into dead ends, yet there were no questions about when he would release the health reports he’s been hiding.

Regarding his agenda, a report that Biden sees himself as the new FDR gives credence to the idea that he’s all in for every big, crazy idea left-wings Dem can cook up.

The Green New Deal, open borders, removing voting safeguards, endless tax hikes, statehood for D.C. — they’re all on track and bound for glory. The only obstacle is the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass legislation, but Biden left no doubt he would be willing to do away with it.

“I want to get things done,” he said.Biden answers question about running for re-electionPlay Video

Each piece of his party’s planned utopia is unprecedentedly radical in its own way, but not nearly radical enough for the media. Their performance was pathetic not just in what questions they asked and didn’t ask, but how they asked them. The dominant theme was that Biden and his team are not moving fast enough to turn America upside down and inside out.

Why don’t you, when will you, why haven’t you? Over and over, the aim was not to ask a question but to speed up an agenda.

Naturally, this was the complete opposite of the way some of the same people behaved during the Trump presidency. Then the questions were outraged expressions that aimed at stopping the administration. Now they are pleas aimed at pushing this one forward faster.

As such, the 10 people Biden called on generally followed the script laid out in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Columnist Margaret Sullivan had warned reporters not to try to “show how tough” they were being on Biden to please “Trump allies.” She even downplayed the border crisis, suggesting it was getting too much attention.

It got the most attention Thursday, but only in ways that reinforced the idea that it is the milk of human compassion to invite Central Americans to make the long trek north. Violence is rampant and coyotes, human traffickers and the cartels are making a mint, but not a peep about that from the president or his media helpers.

Nor was there any hint that perhaps stricter enforcement was compassionate to Americans in border towns and taxpayers everywhere. Instead, the underlying assumption seemed to be that any suffering experienced by migrants once they got to the border was proof of heartlessness and had to be remedied as quickly as possible.

As for the pandemic, apparently it’s no longer a problem. Pictures showing migrants crowded together in cages and reports that many are released despite testing positive for COVID never came up. No sense spoiling the good vibes.

The facts of illegal immigration are fairly simple. Trump campaigned on the issue and after false starts and despite unified Democratic opposition, eventually stitched together a series of policies and actions that stemmed the tide. He built large sections of wall, deported criminal aliens and struck an agreement with Mexico that those making asylum claims would have to wait in Mexico.


Reporters suck up to ‘nice guy’ Biden

It is also a fact that Biden blew up each of those pillars, yet now claims he inherited a mess. Strangely, he also insisted that the numbers surging now “happens every single, solitary year. Nothing has changed.”

He’s either misinformed or lying. Record numbers of arrivals are being reported daily, and NBC recently called the crossings the highest in 20 years.

Again, Biden was not challenged.

The final proof that the press has abdicated its role was clinched when the president refused to say when he would allow more media access to the border detention facilities. He said it would have to wait until his team got its new programs working.

If Trump had said that, the sky would have fallen and democracy would be declared dead. But when Biden says it, the media rolls over.

So add transparency to the list of things that don’t matter anymore.

The Woke Mob vs. the Trump Mob: the Real Double Standard

Alexander Zubatov

(Jonathan Levinson/OPB)

“There is a real double standard at work. It is a glaring one, not the one President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris claim exists but, rather, the one they want to gaslight us into accepting.”

The bar for calling something “racist” in the United States has apparently dropped so low that it is now okay to concoct an utterly topsy-turvy narrative in order to call out an allegedly racist double standard in the way the Capitol Riots vs. the #BLM riots have been treated by the powers-that-be.

Although I, like many of us by this point, have become so numb to the incoherent shrieks of “racism” echoing out in every direction that I am quite comfortable dismissing nearly all of them as vacuous posturing by celebrities and social media influencers, virtue-signaling by white elites and woke corporations, or cynical profiteering by the outrage-clickbait-peddling media, this one still threw me for a loop: I could hardly believe my ears when I heard President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, parroted by the usual organs of the mainstream media, cry racism in characterizing the reaction of authorities to incensed supporters of President Donald Trump storming the United States Capitol on January 6th.

“No one can tell me that if that had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol,” President-elect Biden said. “We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer. It’s simply unacceptable,” Vice President-elect Harris tweeted.

Yes, the law enforcement response to the Capitol Riots was unquestionably a failure on every level. But racism? All I could think was how dumb do these people think we are? Do they really think we have forgotten the actual events of this summer so soon?

Do they think those like me who witnessed the #BLM riots with their own eyes in New York City (or in the many other cities across the nation shaken by #BLM’s violence this summer) have already forgotten how roving bands of almost exclusively black teens and twenty-somethings rioted and looted, breaking into high-end SoHo boutiques and struggling small businesses already ravaged by the Coronavirus (COVID-19), absconding with millions in merchandise and causing billions in damage, while our spineless leaders stood by doing nothing and left those businesses to board up and fend for themselves for days on end? 

Do they think we have forgotten how those few looters and rioters who were arrested were let go, with all charges against them dropped? Does anyone believe that the Capitol Rioters currently being identified and hunted down across the nation will be met with similar lenity?

Do they think we have forgotten how prominent #BLM leaders defended this summer’s looting or labeled it “reparations,” while establishment media outlets—the same ones that had no problem referring to the Trump supporters in Washington on January 6th as a “mob” of “rioters”—had continued to insist back in June, against the evidence of our own senses and the empirical findings showing a trail of violence across the country brought by the #BLM mob, that we were watching “peaceful protests”? NPR even gave a platform to someone hawking a book entitled In Defense of Looting.

CNN, New York Times and Washington Post online headlines on January 6th, when these outlets suddenly had no problem calling things by their true names.

Do they think we have forgotten how newly woke corporations fearful of #BLM shakedowns donated to the cause, coming forward with statements of full-throated support and new diversity and hiring policies, while pretending that the hateful anti-cop, anti-white, anti-American rhetoric we were hearing (and the crude graffiti and retrograde violence we were seeing) in previously sacrosanct public spaces was somehow a progressive accomplishment, even as the media did its darndest to sell us on an empirically unsupportable narrative that the freak incident in which one bad cop in Minneapolis unjustifiably killed the career criminal George Floyd was a commonplace occurrence representative of ubiquitous “systemic racism”? 

The graffiti defacing New York’s City Hall left untouched for weeks on end:

Do they think we have forgotten how the same Big Tech monopolies that were so quick to shut down President Trump’s social media accounts when his supporters came to riot had wholeheartedly embraced the #BLM cause and continued to let their platforms be used by #BLM and Antifa to organize disruptive protests, riots, and territorial occupations for weeks on end?

Do they think we have forgotten how people—from social media influencers to politicians like our incoming Vice President nominated for her race after #BLM—elevated their careers championing #BLM while, today, we are seeing people losing their jobs for joining (or persecuted for donating to) the pro-Trump assault on the Capitol?

No, we have not forgotten, and we will not forget. There is a real double standard at work. It is a glaring one, not the one President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris claim exists but, rather, the one they want to gaslight us into accepting. That double standard being perpetuated by all the organs of the elite media, Big Tech, woke capital, the celebrity class, and the political class is precisely what has led to so many of President Trump’s supporters resorting to violence; they and their concerns are not being heard. Their anger, like #BLM’s anger, is no excuse for violence. I believe in a single standard for everyone, and that those who break the law in the name of any cause should be held to account. For reasons I have previously explained, I voted for President Trump in 2020 despite his many flaws, and yet I think his behavior since the election has been childish, irresponsible, dangerous, and unbecoming of the Presidency. I will make no excuses for him or for his more intemperate supporters. But as long as one side of the equation—with its angry, racially divisive rhetoric and its violent actions to undermine law and order and shake America to its foundations—keeps getting a free pass, the other side of the equation will never add up, and the delicate balance between them will never amount to a functional democracy that works for everyone.

Alexander Zubatov is a lawyer in New York, as well as an essayist and poet. 

Former Pres. France Sarkozy Gets Jail Term For Corruption

SEE: Criminal Exploits of NICOLAS SARKOZY

Sarkozy: Former French president sentenced to jail for corruption

Nicolas Sarkozy in court in Paris, 1 March 2021IMAGE COPYRIGHT REUTERS
Nicolas Sarkozy appeared in court on Monday


French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy has been sentenced to three years in jail, two of them suspended, for corruption.

He was convicted of trying to bribe a judge in 2014 – after he had left office – by suggesting he could secure a prestigious job for him in return for information about a separate case.

Sarkozy, 66, is the first former French president to get a custodial sentence.

His lawyer says he will appeal. Sarkozy will remain free during that process which could take years.

In the ruling, Judge Christine Mée said the conservative politician “knew what [he] was doing was wrong”, adding that his actions and those of his lawyer had given the public “a very bad image of justice”.

The crimes were specified as influence-peddling and violation of professional secrecy.

It is a legal landmark for post-war France. The only precedent was the trial of Sarkozy’s predecessor Jacques Chirac, who got a two-year suspended sentence in 2011 for having arranged bogus jobs at Paris City Hall for allies when he was Paris mayor. Chirac died in 2019.

If Sarkozy’s appeal is unsuccessful, he could serve a year at home with an electronic tag, rather than go to prison.

His wife, supermodel and singer Carla Bruni, reacted by describing the case as “senseless persecution”, adding that “the fight continued, and truth would come out”.

Who is Nicolas Sarkozy?

Nicolas Sarkozy served one five-year term as president from 2007. He adopted tough anti-immigration policies and sought to reform France’s economy during a presidency overshadowed by the global financial crisis.

Critics nicknamed him “bling-bling”, seeing his leadership style as too brash, celebrity-driven and hyperactive for a role steeped in tradition and grandeur.

His celebrity image was reinforced by his marriage to Bruni in 2008. In 2012 he lost his re-election bid to Socialist François Hollande.

Carla Bruni with Nicolas Sarkozy on a state visit to London in 2008IMAGE COPYRIGHT GETTY IMAGES
Sarkozy began a much-publicised relationship with Carla Bruni after he took power in 2007

Since then he has been targeted by several criminal investigations.

In 2017 he tried to make a political comeback, but failed as his centre-right Les Républicains party chose another presidential candidate instead.

What is the corruption case about?

Sarkozy was on trial with two co-defendants, his lawyer Thierry Herzog and Gilbert Azibert, a senior judge.

The case centred on phone conversations between Sarkozy and Herzog that were taped by police in 2014.

Investigators were looking into claims that Sarkozy had accepted illicit payments from the L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt for his 2007 presidential campaign.

The prosecution convinced the court that Sarkozy and Herzog had sought to bribe Azibert with a prestigious job in Monaco in return for information about that investigation.

French media reported that Sarkozy was heard telling Herzog: “I’ll get him promoted, I’ll help him.”

The phone line police tapped was a secret number set up in a fictional name, Paul Bismuth, through which Sarkozy communicated with his lawyer.

On Monday Herzog and Azibert were also sentenced to three years in jail, two of them suspended.

Presentational grey line

From wronged politician to convict

Analysis box by Hugh Schofield, Paris correspondent

Nicolas Sarkozy is no stranger to legal investigations – since he left the presidency he has been the object of half a dozen – but up until now his record sheet has been clean. There was plenty of mud, but none of it stuck.

Half an hour in a courtroom in Paris’s new Palais de Justice changed all that. Judge Mée read out a verdict that spared nothing, and no-one. Sarkozy, Thierry Herzog and Gilbert Azibert all knew perfectly well what they were doing, she said.

They were trading confidential information for professional favours. And that was corruption in any book.

It is not the end of the affair, by any stretch. The appeal could take years. His team will continue to argue that the case rested on ill-gotten evidence – chance eavesdroppings on confidential phone-chats between a man and his lawyer.

But from today Sarkozy cuts a different figure. Before he was the wronged ex-president, fighting back against a left-wing judicial cabal. Now he has been convicted in a court of law.

Presentational grey line

What other accusations is Sarkozy facing?

He is due to go on trial next month over the so-called Bygmalion affair, in which he is accused of having overspent in his unsuccessful 2012 campaign.

Prosecutors are also investigating claims that Sarkozy received funding for his 2007 campaign from Libya’s then-leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Sarkozy has already been cleared in connection with the Bettencourt case. He had said all investigations against him were politically motivated.

Despite his legal woes he has remained popular in right-wing circles, a year away from another presidential election.

Republicans Who Supported Democrat Agenda Targeted For Ouster

‘Humans Against Mike Lee’ campaign launches to unseat senator for opposing Trump impeachment

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has failed, and continues to fail, to represent the average conservative Utah Republican voter.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney misrepresented himself as a Republican.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has prioritized his personal and political vendetta against President Donald J. Trump ahead of the Constitution of the United States, the interest of We, the People, and the advancement of the Republican Platform.

WHEREAS; President Donald J. Trump received 58.13% in Utah’s 2020 General Election.

WHEREAS Senator Willard Mitt Romney embarrassed the State of Utah when he was the only U.S. Republican Senator in 2019 to join the Democrats partisan vote to convict President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted against Senator Rand Paul’s motion regarding the unconstitutionality of impeaching a private citizen.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted to continue the Un-Constitutional Impeachment Trial of President Donald J.Trump to allow witnesses after House Managers had previously failed to call any witness prior to their rushed impeachment vote in the House, thus Denying President Donald J. Trump Due Process Rights under the Constitution.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted guilty in the 2021 Impeachment Trial of former President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney saw fit to intentionally violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment Rights of President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS, Senator Willard Mitt Romney used and uses his senatorial power and influence to undermine Republican President Donald J. Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has condoned false and misleading statements that have led the 117th Congress of the United States to further conduct an illegal and unconstitutional 2nd Impeachment proceeding against President Donald J.Trump.

WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney fails to ensure election integrity and continues to condemn those who do.

WHEREAS; the Utah Republican Party leadership has failed to issue a censure.


We, the undersigned voters, censure Senator Willard Mitt Romney.

Michael James
Marcy Underdahl
Larry Meyers
Lisa Shepherd
Allen Arnoldsen
Don Guymon
Aaron Bullen
Cindy L Shepherd
Susan Kay Anderson
Charlotte Wakefield
Laura Ferry
Bradley Green
Maria Diosdado
Cynthia Black
Gayle Rice
Janice Legler
Judy Woodward
Shanna Barton
Harley Woodward
Kirby Smith
Drew Chamberlain
Rachael Beasley
Robin Towle
Nancy P.
Beth A. Hartung-Soria
Maureen Rice
Art Christensen
Amy J Workman
Stephen N Millet
Jonnie Maughan
Amy Lloyd
Terri Palmer
Samantha Banner-Carreno
Kevin Harper
William Olson
Arturo Morales LLan
Lynn Jackson
William S Both (Bill)
Justin Miller
Don Houskeeper
Joe Taylor
Brent Keith Garner
Kassidy Koch
Linda Houskeeper
Jodi May
Deanna Holland
Jeralene Young
Robert Adams
Cynthia Perkins
Cevin Ormond
Meredith Leatham
Sheila Braun
Kaye Gladwell
Brooke Johnson
Klaye Slack
Robert Langworthy
Curtiss Perkins
Richard D Owens
Shelley Hupp
ElRsy L Anderson
W. G. Fairclough, Jr.
Tami Gray
Richard Chayer
Burke Johansen
Jenny Alder
Kathy Wilson
Don Smith
C. Kirk Rogers
Janalee Tobias
Nancy Green
Brandon Russell
Pamela Bridwell
Werner Weeks
Kelly Green
Todd J Thurgood
Tesa Smith
Amy Ritchie
Cathlene Smith
Mark johnson
Julie Green
Darin Bushman
Becky Gelderloos
Catie Anderson
Kimberli Gabaldon
Mary L. Taylor
John Taylor
Kevin Harris
Richard B. Smith
Traci Nichols
Otto Krauss
Clayton Hinman
Kassandra Berger
Rocky Bishop
Kim D. Johansen
Robert Gibbons
Darla Patterson
Ashley McNamee
Kristin Hayes
Susan L. Shaw
Rebecca Doty
Trevor George
Julie Eskelson
Laura Duncan
Kelly Clawson
Daleine Martin
Mark Steed
Gary Pease
Caridaun tobler
Jalene Davis
Don Cann
William Evans
Kellee Baird
Beverly Syrett
Ray Pini
Morgan Marie Brown
Glenn Olsen
Vince Oller
David Johnson
L.W. Howell
Craig Ferguson
Mark Yeates
Sue Dredge
Jared mickelsen
Phill Wright
Kristi Rivera
Stuart Radford
Jared J. Vanallen
Karena D Parkinson
Jerry Smart
LeAnn Bushnell
Annette Harris
Julie Gale
Richard Bushnell
George Jones
VerNonn Burkey
Lisa Ceniceros
Lesly Broadwater
Gary Moore
Joyce Joan Fenton
Traci Forsey
Stephen L. Dean
Brian Finn
Kaisa Schmidt
Chris Hatch
Aspen M Westenskow
Jill Stephens
David Pierce
Lee Ann. Brockbank
Trevor George
Loretta Johnson
Amy Bonnell
Merrill Brockbank
Jennifer Greenwood
Alvin Nash
Steve Smith
JoEllen Peterson
Lisa Smith
Marc Cooper
Daren Cottam
Ann Rose Berglind
Lisa Cottam
Frances Lay
John Schulz
Jill Tobler
Merl Guth
Kourtnay Cox
Kimberly Hermann
Lora Lewis
Cathy Hope
Marcelle B Cox
Dereck Hope
Lonni Clarke
Loie Lowry
Gene Heaton
Nick Bitton
Troy Hansen
Neil Varner
Barbara L Naylor
Linda Yarbrough
Donald H Harden
Sullivan Love
John Agar
Terry Bridwell
Bruce Kupfer
Daniel L Naylor
Laurie agar
LeAnn Gay
Paula J. Milby
Lani Love
Julie Paz
Scott Jackson
George D Crawford
Steven Diamond
Jeffrey Nielsen
Ethan Hay
Amanda Broadhead
Heather Boxell
Carolyn Fugal
Teena Horlacher
Willi Christensen
Layne Hansen
Elizabeth Allen
Haylee Bennett
Deon Jensen
Stacey Anne Stacey
Christopher Franklin
Michelle Anderson
Justin Conder
Erik Jensen
Helen S Naylor
Jorge Luis Lopez
Danny Stacey
Bob Andersen
WenDee Russon
James d olsen
Dorrell Barker
Jennifer Moroz
Kevin Dimond
David Tayloe
Dennis Gunn
Trena Harrison
DonnaVee Best
Jennifer Monthey
Becky Romney Zackrison
David Nielsen
Patricia Hahaj
Christine Boardman
Charlie Harrison
Neil Schultz
Debra Sutherland
Mark J Salcedo
Trudy Lund
Chris Kilmer
DonnaVee Best
Chris Davies
Russell Dye
maribeth merton
Rebecca Nix
Becky Larsen
Angela halliday
Joanna Lucero
Christal Holley
Daniel Scott Naylor
Ryan Kelander
Keith Kuder
Krista Pulsifer
Jared Bigham
Lisa Diane
Craig Ferguson
Karen olson
Allen Nielsen
Greg Hughes
Stacy Kienle
Stadelmayer Edward J
Justin Taylor
Rhonda Nelsen
Greg Cox
Mary W. Burkett
Brenda Paige
Crystal Harrison
Mary Ann Rudenborg
Cindy Bass
Anthony C Daniels
David Fanaras
Kyle Foc
Amanda Carlson
Elizabeth St Germain
Misty Paul
Wilfredo Diaz
Tammy Mott
Shannon Long
Donna Pellegrini
Kristina Hooper
Sonia Emigh
Travis Tanner
Ashlee Forti
Emily Ferentino
Sandra Blankenship
Lynette Woode
Debbie Morris
Janet LeeBurt
Lily Duran
Heather Conlon
Barbara Sawyer
Rawneat Davikaher
Angie Black
Debra Lemburg
Carolyn Choate
Brook Wardle
Thomas Andrew Menard
JoAn McLean-Turner
Bobby Samons
Deborah Grey
Kimberly Gaylord
Martha Gosselin
Janet Smart
Mark Slama
Mystina Slade
Patricia Simeone
Teri Alvarado
Deanna Deangelo
Kent Nielsen
Brian L Smart
Alan Riggs
Nichole Weiss
trudy williams
Lorin Smart
Juan Farran
Reginald Hughes
Nola Peterson
Janis Howse
Richard jarman
Nate Robertson
Kathleen Hawley
Roald E. Peterson Jr
Ashlee Lund
Ashley Johnson
Wendy Ozenne
Debbie Sather
Brad J. Beus
Jeannine Ulrich
Nickole Tanner
Jodi Hugoe
Brandon Rivera
Travis Tanner
Gary Marshall
Robert L Hugoe
Gail Harrington
Rex Stanworth
Timothy Thach
Brent Jackson
Laura L Guthrie
Katherine Elaine Adamson
Brent anderson
Michelle Kountz
Leigh Ann Beckham
Robin Tolleson
Jen Ottens
Dale Anderson
Carolyn Moosman
Shelley Monson
Mary Maxson
Ilene Anderson
Tina Cole
Kelli Arnoldson
Myra McGavin
Patt Mazzola
Richard R. Palmer
Ron Moosman
Peggy Denning
Cynthia Trautz
Shelley Monson
James Trautz
Kaylee Hawkins
Robert Dunn
Karl Donaldson
Debra L Gillett
Silke Oellrich
Bonita L Saunders
Tyler Hawkins
Terry Finnegan
Alice Valentine
Kay Ericson
Holly Daniels
Leesa Davis
Stephanie Danko
Mark Shea
Kay wenker
Al Patron Cassidy
Lauren Fowler
Kristy Williams
Mrs. Jessica Meyer
David Owen
Burke Christensen
Joan Heckel
Sheila Plourde
Linda Susan Weeks
Robert Hatch
Michele Christensen
Roland Whitesides
Kerri Gruebner
Brittany Green
Allen Parker
Ray Tripp
Glodeane Billeter
Sheila Davis
Jodi Conner
ambrea banagas
Janell Littlebear
Keri Bushman
Amber Howarth
Sharlene Malan
Jason hill
Chasidy Willhelm
Sheila Bess
Roger Stanworth
Michael D Rose
Scott Pehrson
Kayleen Flynn
Stanley Bess
Margaret Wilkin
Paul Gabaldon
Diane L Grieco
Phyllis A Monson
Linda Strauss
Craig A. Burbank
Eric Haws
Marlene Bodiford
Cindy Stringer
April Aguilar
Sally Farb
Becky Fales
Bret Bryce
Robert Hughes
Elizabeth Spicer
Robert B Shepherd
Richard Gardiner
Julie Eskelson
Janet Geyerman
Jim Neff
William F. Beach
Bryce Coons
Rowena montoya
Amberly Ethington
Summer Jones
Judith Mozley
Steven Ethington
Patty Johanson
Toni Sparrow
Warren McGuire
Susan C. Hatch
Bryan Christensen
Lindsey Carnahan
Joseph MacDowell
Maria Soza
Mertie Tonjes
Kathleen Reed
Elizabeth Carlin
Krystle Cordingley
Sharon Dotson
Anne Carman
Bert Walker
Kip Carman
Michael Lake
Anne Dunion
Ashley Orgill
Desiree Smith
Amy Saunders
Rick Smith
Ruth Cummings
Kendel Saunders
Martin Chatterley
Ryan Guy Palmer
Pita Hopoate
Rebecca Olson
Jeffery Harris
Paula Dalley
Sharon Law
Jeanne Weigel
Rhonda Covert
Sheri Harris
Sandra Ferraro
Tamara Marcroft
Barbara Donahue
Mary Ammend
Robert Law
Mildred Winter
Marie Owens
David Shelburne
Dale Gibson
Deborah Klemin
Deborah Doucas
Fred Owens
Julie Knudsen
Stephen O’Hearn
Terrie White
Toni Marroquin
Steve Wright
Debra E. Provence
Steffnie Shepherd
Toni Marroquin
Sarah Mitte
james Jackson
Sylvia Overson
Dinah Apple
Jason tayor
Jordan Clay
Juan Lara
Brenda Medina
Brian Probasco
Ryan Warczak
Rodasi Ishaya
Heather Dennis
Dustin McCleve
Jill K Ruggieri
Jann McConkie
Leilani Taukeiaho
Clare Clay
Jeff Atwood
Mark E. Peterson
Johnny Taukeiaho
Paul Minger
Julie Lisonbee
Alisha urbaniak
Robert W Hair
Roger Barton
Daniel Davidson
Daniel Hurley
Deborah Avery
Dave Elery
Zac Hamby
Dawnette Clyde
David Williams
Julie Hancock
Isileli Tukuafu
Judy Darby
Matthew W Bell
Kelsie Atwood
Chris Langlois
LeRoy Gibson
Jen Chiniquy
Victoria Wells
Doug Barton
Casey Thomas
Jonathan Wellman
Tim linton
Louise Garcia
Cindy Howell
Angela Livernois
Carolyn Lietuvininkas
Johnnie schear
Russell Sias
James Pruitt
Joseph Clay
Doug Butts
Jaime Allen
Pete Olson
Tom Kerr
Marci Stahl
Lauro Lacerda
Cindy Kerr
Paul Everly
Stephen Griner
Timothy Mccloud
Chrystal Smith
Sherry Hunt
linda g beyer
Katherine L Cole
Adam Jacox
Scott Darley
Bonnie Burson
Johanna Murrieta
Coulton Woodger
Lyndsy Tippetts
Sarah Foster
Paul Perdue
Linda merill
Debora kahny
Emily Santa Cruz
Patricia Jones
Patricia Whitten Bell
Tracey Brown
Victoria Fielding
Heather Swymeler
Tracy Cowley
Nancy Schumacher
Kathy Sifuentes
Tim VanVranken
Derek Harris
Mark Brack
Christie Yu
Jason mooney
Kimberly Ferrell
Jean Chen
Janet Gutierrez
Julie Long Gortler
Jamie Barrow
Beckie Lewis
Renee Yakiwchuk
Randall Martin
Tom Rucker
Walter Hale
Mark Ursic
Sean Snyder
Richard Bylsma
Steven Christensen
Reagan Brunger
Johnny Brian
Nancy Myers
Lydia Stelmae
Destry Griffiths
Rodney Myers
Scott D Farnsworth
James Calveri
Marci Brooks
Adrianne Sorensen
Jennifer Darger
Tom Faircloth
Lora Lane
Tiffany wiley
Philip L Bugher, SSG U.S. ARMY Retired
James Watson
Paula Johnson
Roy Watson
Cal Harlow
Jacqueline Fritz
Heather Griesemer
Laurie larsen
Judy Pierce
Donna Roylance
Doyle R. Griffith
Mark Griesemer
Jamie L. Girardi
Sue Wood
Moy M Chambers
Wyatt Allinson
Lee Clark
Junie Harlow
Jennifer Contreras
Caleb MitsVotai
Jan Collard
LaVerne Hunt
Natalie Cook
Austin Barton
Janice Erickson
Donna Sanchez
Ranae Boyer
Marley Millety
Maribel Chin
Joseph Kilpatrick
Brad Millett
Benjamin Blauer
Teena Horlacher
Edward Chin
Michael Nasella
Liam Gent
yes i want mitt to go
Maureen Burd
Nancy Elliott
Kelly R. Strebel
Bob Castagno
Lauri B Madsen
Adam Arrington
Joseph Rupp
Kieth Rawlings
Eileen Erekson
Shirley Altenes
Jeremiah S. Barlow
Lisa Barney
Steven S. Boyer
Tanissa Skeen
Sandra Critchlow
Barbara Puakea Balatico
Thomas Ellis
Jeff Pulver
Daniel Stephenson
Zachary Vincent
Daniel Altenes
Marianne K Boren
Adam Johnson
Marsha Stafford
Brett Lafeen
Royce Iverson
Terry Poulton
Gena M Jepsen
Theresa Brown
Gregg Gunzenhauser
Ryan Wall
Aaron Kaupp
Jana Olsen
Gerald Wagner
Korry Soper
Scott Olsen
elizabeth wagner
Chris Critchlow
Rod Kynaston
Bruce L.Boren
Danita Knickerbocker
Jules Brannon
Holly J Perry
Lisa Schroeder
Randy Wall
Jon Stratton
Max J Nield
Dana Erickson
Leisy Lisa
Thomas Cook
Sara Patterson
Steven Gifford
Emily Peterson
Trent Fredrickson
Barbara Jackson
Lois Leikam
Randy L. Thompson
Lyndon Brittner
Nickole Tanner
Wayne Burcham
Tricia Lavin
Kym McClimans
Ashley Pedersen
Sandra Mol
Nellrisa Warren
Paul M. Tom
Herschel Jones
Wanda K Anderson
Roger McClimans
Clarice Wayman
Sheila Jones
Cory Thompson
Rich Jarman
Lori Wolterman
Regena Persinger
Randall D McCleve
Anthony J Anderson
Kim Davis
Kenny Winters
Shannan Dowling
Brian R. Wilkin
Rebecca Hines
Joshua Jarman
David Hendrickson
Sydney Jarman
Amy Hofer
Marilyn Aiken
Michael Herner
Charles D Aiken
Jusy l blackner
Barbara Reeds
Wendy Gardner
Christi Wolsey
Dennis t blackner
Darci Brown
Marlene Harlow
Heather Kupfer
Kristen Smith
Leslie Savitz
Jaime Batewell
Garnett Schultz
Debra Hiett
Christina Colton
Cochise Murray
Trudy Teichert Lamb
Toni Grant
VickiAnn Higgs
Jerry R Anderson
Cheryl Waterman
Nicholas H Manning
Sheila Hunter
Jentrie Williams
Edward Scott
Michelle Brown
Justin Cook
Kirt Rawlings
Casey Flynn
Nicholas Manning
Tana Hallows
Terry Cox
Linda Ferrante
Leesa Kearl
Walt n jarvis
Bonnie Ralph
Rich Bowman Jr.
Brent Fairclough
Shelley Monson
Elizabeth Gasser
Cori Hyland
Luann Abbott
Kristy Snyder
Mark Lafferty
Julie Thatcher
Todd Holland
Deanne Bettino
Charlene Barber
Tara Chambers
Peg Kull
Connie M8nard
Karen Roylance
Renae Mears
Marie Whale
Melinda Hilleary
Konneen Willis
Brian Hardy
James Vanwagoner
Dev Brown
Austin Dixon
Bethany Hopoate
Mark H Robinson
Lakisha Lefevers
Leland H Boardman
Leilani Gray
Rowdy Chadwick
Mark Gray
Leann Bowman
Bev myers
Michael Grover Coltharp II
Julie Forrest
Robert Bishop
Kathy A. Thompson
Jennifer Boatwright
Kevin Thompson
Shelly Branz
Kamryn Thompson
Donnalyn Dwyer
M Shane Leishman
Kathleen Flygare
Kyle Jameson
Maurine Allen
Lloyd Dauer
Jc Black
Eileen Prevost
Gina Drake
David Crandall
Joseph DiGiovanna
Rheta Martinez
Dana Glaviano
Lisa Ashby
Douglas Nowak
Gary Glaviano
Tresa Christensen
Casey Brown
Thomas Barrie
Brad Warner
Janet Gates
Daniel M Gates
Jayne Coleman
Jack L. Stickney
Selena Thayne
Sabrina Robinson
Aubrey Jeppson
Sharina Latch
Colleen Staheli
Ron Payne
Rebekah Raymond
Zachary Merkley
Raegan Warren
Jaran Higley
Derek Smith
Michael Wilson
Megan Dennis
Rodney Bennett
Chris Booth
Berta Guerrero Hillison
Ella Early
Bartt ratcliffe
Darwin N. Davis D.D.S.
Debra Hendrickson
Leona Hicks
Gary J Wilson
Lori Youngblood
Alan Youngblood
Village Idiot
Robin Ensminger
Mike Grover Coltharp
Hubert Lumpkin
Mitt Romney
Willy Wonka
John Donald Turnp
Tanya LaBauve Hudkins
Pamela Kelley
David Shelton
Holly Goetz
Mark Bliss
Joan Francis
Dawn L Krisher
Shannon Marshall
Robie Cagle
Darlyn Arnesen
Matthew Williams
Lori Gelter
Tiffani D. Kurts
Patricia Kolman
Drew Coombs
Kathy Herman
Becky Johnson
Mildred E Hatfield
Scott Mabey
Randall D Jones
Robert Bryce Larabee
Janet Eyring
Sandra Davis
Brent Bein
Kay Whiting Harrison
David Bithell
Jill Metz
Michelle Cole
Karen Church
Charles Cole
Braxston T. Hughes
Lianne Ames
Christine Dunn
Royce Monson
Darrin Singletary
James R McAdams
Dalana Morse
Melanie Hungerford
Patricia Gerdes
Elaine Lacey
Glory Thomas
Zachary j Beach
Mike Spendlove
Lana Hanover
Tiffany Bearden
Richard Zebe
Tod wilson
Tiffany Sigmon
Jayni Anderson
Ron King
Sylvia Buckley
Nicole Sparks
Rebecca Fabiszak
Pamela Cantrell
Carmella B Mifflin
Barbara Hughes
Shanna Wilson
Robyn Veater
Cathleen Vanasse
Charles Vanasse
Heather Dievendorff
Shelly Martinez
Taresa Hiatt
Robert Zufelt
Lynn Hiatt
Natalee Pemberton
Jason Hoggan
Lorne Jensen
leslie a crick
steven crick
Melvin Ralph
Gary Walkee
Brook Allred
Janet Vincent
Gail Gardner
Ronald Vincent
Shane Gardner
Milton berlin
Derek Hopper
Brenden Borrowman
Kathryn Starling
Heather Salser
Troy Salser
Worth Barham
Frank Hatch
Shauna Hatch
Kyle Jacox
Cory Douglas
Garrick ainge
Rosemarie Marshall
Christan Strong
Oak Norton
Sharon Lewis
Diane Hardy Empey
Ashley Empey
Mike Gilbert
Justin Page
Katelon Gilbert
Kirsten Bascom
Tyler Jense
Rebecca strongo
Teresa Richfird
Elaine Rudd
Gary Chamberlain
Pamela A McIntosh
Shelley Morrell
Jacob R Creason
Joe Hando
Richard R McIntosh
Dawn Sutherland
Judith A Adams
Blake Hyatt
Kreg butterfield
Betty Hyatt
Kevin Kozak
Annette Hansen
margaret overson
Scott Karkos
Karen Rudman
Michelle Schlentz
Letty Willden
Larry Blanchet
Sidney Jensen
Brent V Peterson
Nancy J. Inman
Janna Stout Morrell
Jeanine Milliner
Todd Andrus
Jill Beard
Sophia Anderson
Rebecca Fabiszak
Les Farnsworth
Bradley Johnson
Lana Schultz
Kristen Barnes
Andrea Allred
Blayde Crockett
Garry Berg
Gary Richins
Richard Vondrus
Janelle Kentch
Pamela McKinnon
Diana A Williams
Eleanor Byrd
Ofa Afu
Lori Weiss
Kyle Hicks
jack l cleghorn
Patricia Lybbert
Stewart Finley
Laura Tramell
Camille Behunin
Leslie Hubrich
Linda Harlow
Sandra Howell
Dan H
Jean Corey
De Ann Moore
Debra lee rodriguez
Lyle Harlow
David Rubinger
Pierre duvall rodriguez
Paul James
Hayden Moss
Austin Clark
Mary Smith
David Dalbey
Jeff Tomlinson
Mike Vanalfen
Donald Bird
Mike Burke
Jennifer Thurston
Rosanne Silverwood
Rodasi Ishaya
Benjamin Allred
Mary Voss
Jhan Miller
Janie Schulthies
Leslie Eskelson
Karen Davis
Swede Larson
Julie Edwards
Joseph Scott Edwards
Richard Parks
Katherine P Olson
Shauna Jorgenson
Robert Sorensen
Trista Criswell
Regina Devlin
Robert Sloat
Kevin Hastings
Karson Hughes
Brandon Ralph
Tawni Stewart
Tj Edwards
George Dye
Heath Burchinal
Pamela Edwards
Mike Carpenter
Steffanie Norton
Michael Beaumont
Scott Conley
Karen Hodgson
Michelle Mosley
Wesley tallon
Frank Overfelt
Kelly J DeMello
Ryan Misrasi
Merae Kimbsll
Janalee Gold
Brandon Todd Sandstrom
Connie Hawkins
Jill Bodily
Catherine Gettman
Brenda Babcock
Ronald Craig Bruin
Colton Christensen
Shawn Gilbert
Anthony bishop
Dani Ray Wharton
Cynthia Antonelli
Steve White
Antonio Antonelli
Toni Nicole Antonelli
Michael Antonelli
Lindsay Pugh
Kenneth Kay
Seanna Williams
Christine Weston
Jill Kirk
Jason Cramer
Jason lester
Cathrynn Cramer
Susanne Burbank
April Elizabeth Hewitt
Wendy Cheney
Helena Kleinlein
Shannon Spainhower
Kennith C Hall
Stephen Randall Oveson
Cheryl Marz
Tiffany Pickett
Stephen C. Kelsey
Sylvia Borowiak
Jayne Barrus
Natalie Cox
Michele Larsen
Lucretia Harvey
Michael Gray
John Allen
Brent Russell
Toni Schoenborn
Lance Mudrow
Angie Quinonez
Veronica Ernest
Peggy Burdett
Shelly Jensen
Robert Blackburn
Julie Merrell
Mark Burdett
Lesley Guzman
Tammy Panfil
Michelle Thone
Judy J Sceili
Sandra McKee- Smuin
William Tim Hansen
Laurie Frazier
Panela Ransom
Gayle Peacock
Bradley Kalmar
Rebecca Hansen
Del William Smith
James Barker
Dustin Del Toro
Alan Sanders
Eric Steele
vernon brent allphin
Bonnie Sanders
Cynthia Bennett
Misty Braithwaite
Peter Mills
Mindy Walkingshaw
Collette Peacock
Colleen Carter
Carla Walker
Robert Diamond
Clarence Byington
Morris Clark
John L Smith
Lori Cooksey
Stacy Salmans
MarJean Pitcher
Todd Strelka
April Stoker
Michael Yates
Ronald Nielsen
Gary Hake
David T Walker
Newell Christensen
Zella Christensen
Kristin Randall
Jeff Sorenson
Gary Myrup
JaCoby Marston
David Hutchins
Jill Boyson
Clint Larsen
Krysten Lusty
D. Patterson
Forrest Lewis
Darcy Adams
Angelique Lowery
Joe Evans
Tammy Clarke
Dolores D Wiker
Todd D Glover
Vickie Hatch
Blaine Hatch
Theodore W. Schultz
Carolyne Jensen
Jeff Schramm
Rebecca L. Campbell
Renee Mikkelson
Ken Wright
Debra Cox
Lee nelson
Shannon Cloward
Dorothy Fraga
Paula King
Marilyn J Momeny
Lynne Whitt
Steven D Wilcock
Laura Jensen
Dixie Trevino
Tana Alexa
Helena Kleinlein
Rudy Trevino
Douglas Christenson
Patrick G. Whitt
Angela Alison Brown
Marian Bankemper
Scottie Sorensen
Shalyn Richtsteig
Shanece Leausa Fuimaono
Liz Hammond
Lindsay Pugh
Megan Johnson
Leah C Henderson
Darkness Kunzler
Dennis Hooper
Nicholas Willis
Larry & Karin Stone
Anthony Kociela
Nikki Jacobsen
Michelle Harris
Robert r shan jr
Mindy Mair
Daniel Houchen
Rebecca Phillips
Apryl Lund
Andrea Shirts Nelson
Shanalee Simper
Thomas Milner
Marilyn P Danielson
Arthur R Barnard
Dorothy Anne Jepsen
Leo C Branz
Debra Judkins
Erin Vendetti
Robert Harrington
Anthony kociela
Michael Henriksen
Nancy Jane Olpin
Rickie T Taylor
Kathy Nelson
Ruth Ann Milner
Tara Hobbs
Rodney Hobbs
Brian Flint
kenneth fannin
Horace Fleming
Lee Dove
Janice Alderson
Betty Hassell
Sally Squire
Rodney G. Hobbs
Denise gooch
Michael Squire
Stephen Alderson
Steve Stockberger
Sheila Geesa
Casey Christopherson
Laura J Ross
Susan Palmer Baker
Mrs. Sarah Anderson
Marie DelAguila
Hayden Davis
Allen Berg
Shelli Hufstetler
Nancy Tippets
Kipp Gavin
Leo Lipsie
Lorna Y Bitton
Craig Heffernon
Les Bitton
Wendy Barlow
Edward Reott
Darren Miller
Sara Hendricks
Dustin Bishop
Janice Payne Hymas
Kevin Anderson
Jonathan nelson
Jill McCloud
Ben Barlow
Debra Ley
Alanna Bean
Denna Robertson
Charles Mock
Vicky Keeth
Kevin Rushton
Cynthia Wassom
David Valentine
Glen Meyer
Steven M Visser
Nancy Jones
Robert Spendlove
Thomas Chapman
Sherry Cragun
Lynn Stout
Cody Cross
Shari worthen
Joseph A. Elder
Charles Russell Robinson
Russell Etheringtin
Andrea Lang
Kenneth Maloy
Jill McCloud
Russell Etheringtin
Helen Clawson
F Stewart Clawson
Glen Cox
Amanda Clanton
Eddie Stevenson
Rob Broadhead
Heather Ryan
Richard Bosler
Brian Wood
Kathleen C. Burns
James Weeks
John L Milliner
Blake Woodring
Lenora Spencer
Ellaine Chournos
Kerry Bang
Robert Robison
Rachael Montgomery
Matthew Montgomery
Betty Wentz
Cindy Cossairt
Richard Genck
Keith Brady
Dean Warkentin
Teri Thomas
Linda Holt
Crystal Sims
Tyle Ramshur
Kathryn Warkentin
Carolyn Tibbetts
Steve Horne
Marilyn Oveson
Brent Undhjem
Gretchen Denton
Gayline Rhinehart
Linda Brinkerhoff
Marilyn Middlesworth
Perry Renner
Alanna Bean
Penny Dunford
Greg Harris
Daniel B.Dunford
Troy w Bradley
Jodi Lynn Kaili
John w. Reynolds
Nathan Burton
Sylvia Weidlein
Blaine Syewart
Douglas Bronson
Tamra kendrick
Kari Kowalewski
Sandra barlow
Laura Ferguson
Tamara Laing
Corey Kendrick
Nina Hart
Candace washburn
Rick Jackson
Patricia Snow
Cathy Owens
D. Terry Noorda
Jon Beelsey
Mary G Smith
Penny Bridges
Dennis Bassett
Michael Scharbach
Terry Stewart
Pam Anderson
Kevin Richey
Richard Anderson
John Bingham
Jami Christopherson
Lisa Gillis
Guy Laing
Frank Lindhardt
Hollie Hansen
Debra Terry
Sandra Nielson
Chuck Mauronrt
Belinda Mallinak
Arthur O Davis II
Blaine Johnston
Howard Gillingham
Beckie Herring
Nancy Whitney
Lora lee wise
Lyle Goodsell
Lyle Goodsell
Scott Whitney
Lyman Grant Johnson
Dixie Millet
Barbara Undhjem
Darrell J Priest
William Blackwell
Jared Rea
Tony Roberts
Barry Clanton
Dr. Chris Taylor
Matthew Nelson
Marilyn Richardson
Clarissa Griffith
Jeff Groesbeck
Jeanette Keate
Jourdan Dixon
Kristy Ryan
Dennis Gardner
Susan Lindberg
Charles F Beickel
Gerry Saunders
Virginia Hucks
Colleen Gotberg
Trisha Hamilton
Paul Gotberg
Orrin Andersen
Rodney Stott
Richard Walton
Forrest B Allred
Karla Hullinger
Please resign.
Cathy Esplin
Terri Edmunds
Howard Gillingham
Kent Jenkins
Shari worthen
jimmie owens
Bryson Gillingham
Alice Skidmore Allred
Beth LaGrant
Nephi Lewis
Jay Lawrence
David J Rhees
David J Rhees
Wanling cooper
Tiffany Vanzeben
Terry Putnam
Chrystal Hartman
Thayle Wilkins
Marissa Gardner
Cherri Pidgeon
James Trump
Lori Wehling
Kellie Spendlove
Denna Hatch
B. L. Goddard
Nate Laing
Tylor John Young
John Bergeron
Russell McConkie
Liesl Li
Stephanie Given
Nickole George
brian rogers
Kenneth Smith
Marjorie Haun-Storland
Benjamin Wilkins
Skyler Spendlove
Richard A Jensen
Robert Herbstritt
David Johnson
Margaret Herbstritt
Miguel Munleon
Karolyne Johnson
Nathan R. Davis
Brent Sorensen
George Patterson
Larry Vance
Annie Webber
Darryl L. Williams
Andrea Beyerlein
Michael Leavitt
Patty Dunn
Holli Johnson
Justin Bybee
Carol S.
Janelle Ruesch
Joyce Pedersen
Rebecca Campbell
Michael Campbell
Mary Fuller
Lisa McDougle
Amy patton
Robert John Primbs, Jr.
Annette Everett
Gail Zahran
Dennis Knox
Caroline Sheehan
Kelle Olsen
Jeremy Nowak
Joel V. Storland
Cathy Thorsen
Darrin Williams
Amy Null
Annie Sturm
John Elroy Christianson
C. B. Paddock
Brien Smith
Larry Stephens
Dan Wade
Paul S. Ensign
Kyle Weaver
Cynthia Geertsema
Arbon Nordgran
Veronica Hollestelle
Steve Russell
Paul Hofheins
Julie Bryson
Christopher Porter
Jodi Bailey
Bobbi Jo Trimming
Riki Ashment
Ryan VanBeekum
Karen Yost
Richard Baldree
Brent K Allred
Steve Bryson
Gregg W. Stucki
Ann Cummins
Wade Starks
Steven Edgin
Richard L.Jensen
Arlene Stringham
Kirtland Stout
Russell G Hatch
Brent Forbush
Russell VanMeeteren
Betty Ann Heck
Michael Nordgran
John L. Honeycutt
Emily Adams
Deanna Mauchley
Jonathan Mauchley
Aaron Henrie
Coleman Noyes
Steve Covert
Floyd Jackson
Jenny call
Mattie Kirby
Russell Robinson
Bob Eckman
David M Rogers
Pablo Sanchez Jr
Michael Blais
Jill Kay
Marc Galen Woolley
Max Moody
Lorraine Henrie
Haydee Decker
Ann Sather
Patricia Williams
Jared Clanton
Kenzie Bagley
Robert Sather
Joey Edwards
Anmaree Osmond
Patricia A Hughes
Todd Wilson
Todd Wilson
LeAnn Walters
Ethan Clinger
Rick Moore
Melanee Bingham
Erin McGahuey
Jasmine Redd
Anna M Starley
Micah Braman
Vickie W. Patterson
Margie Houston
Micah Whitehead
Roger howe
Jessica Bussell
Jon Clark
Vern dickman
Rodney D Patterson
Gwen Theener
Sandra Adams
Deborah Ellis
Brianna DeMille
Lynnette Smith
Delaine Oaks
Robert W Tate
Linda galbraith
Richard Schmidt
Bart Nielsen
Christine Tate
Darin Kunzler
Imre Molnar
Rick Sutherland
Beau R Lund
Michelle Lund
Cindy Demerino
Dale Gary Frodsham
Jerry Samuels
Ruth Anderson
Colton Belliston
Ann Stauffer
Tamra Ensign
Russell Thornton
Kristen Small
Trudy Ross
Jen Chiniquy
Stephanie McConkie
Kimberly Eaves
James Belliston
Laurie agar
John agar
Cherie James
Janet Hodek
Kathy Anderson
Derk Palfreyman
Matthew rose
Christine Heathman
Alan Fish
RaNae Bennett
Margaret Stevens
Glade Barker
Karen Palfreyman
Mark Campbell
Kyle Stephens
Eric Wanner
Drew curley
Sharee Larsen
Cory Green
David Swan
Lindsey Lassen
Lawrence Law
Mike Sherwood
Deborah Barnes
Morris Kunz
Russell Allred
William Barton
Van Anderson
Gary Bradley
Kathie Masich
Annette Astuto
Jeanne Lewis
Karen Houston
Sally Meyer
TJefferson Gray
Jerold Carpenter
Kaley Giessing
David Giessing
Jillyn Bettridge
Melinda Wolf
Gordon Hendrickson
Patrick Oney
Cynthia Hansen
Karen Judge
Leland Hansen
Julie Harris
Denise Bohne
Donna Olsen
Susan Harris
Howard Carter
Allen J. Bohne
Candice Cochegrus
Katharine Barlow
Mary wood
Bradley Vallem
William Hoster
Tony Robinson
Tamara Jensen
Chay McGee
Sabrina Perry
Debra L Gillett
Julie Gale
Robert Henrie
KaeLene Scow
Laurie Loader
Neal Dastrup
Vicki Beach
Karen L Long
Sherry Burton
Ralph Burton
Jerry Shaw
Connie Taylor-Shaw
Timothy Scott Smith
Robert Judd
Michael Meservy
Bonnie Mounteer
Mary Judd
Robert J Rasmussen
JAy Mounteer
Daniel Judd
Katherine B McAndrews
Andrew Decker
Ken Matthews
James Baldwin
Tyson Bills
Paul Miller
Shirley Ann Manning
Paul Cozzens
Barbara Petty
Debbie Miller
Mark Miller
Greg Harris
Vincent R. Newmeyer
James Mecham
John Welsh
Karen B Turner
Edwin Odell Miner
Dorothy C. Miner
Matthew p hogan
Dalane England
April Pratt
jim Harris
Cheryl L Wall
Mark England
Shayne Howell
Max Johnson
Freda Smith
Shareen Johnson
Natalie Tanner
Kye Tanner
Jodie Barton Hunsaker
Paula Bicoy
Miki Riding
Debra McGee
Michiel Millett
Joshua Felt
Erin Burgener
Marge Stolk
Brian Anderson
Eric Reynolds
Kathryn Christensen
Cathy Harding
Stacy S Hale
Kyle Ashment
Robert Blakely
Blake Summers
Carrie Condon
Troy Weight
Kimberlee Turley
Catherine Merrill
Vanessa Sommerfeld
Mark turnbow
Lyndi Brinkerhoff
Sarah Hooke
David Pyne
Devin Dastrup
Karen Newmeyer
Chris Nielsen
Tonyia Clark
Justin Messick
Rae Young
Patricia childs
Rebekah Beckstrom
Kris Naisbitt
Carla Law
Joni Bott
Bonnie Durtschi
Elijah Rich
Susan Vivian
Laurie Scott
Sallee Walker
Amy Moody
Veronica J Elliott
Samuel Bush
Dan Petersen
Saundra Brower
L.J Blackett
Laura Perry
Harold Lan Ealey
Jamey Ealey
Jessica Naisbitt
Darin Naisbitt
Lacy Bingham
Leroy Etzler
Todd Thornock
David O. Morris
Kelsie Atwood
Angela and Val Meyer
Darlene Finger
Angela Boddy
Brad Duckworth
Carrie Morison
Kim Mathie
Alicia Koehler
Marianne Duckworth
Jim Morison
Dan Staheli
randy douglas
Emily Haverfield
Richard Hill
Kristina Brown
Cathy Mays
Susan Markham
Suzanne Harper
Daryl Owen
Michael Harper
Janice K Foster
June MacNaughtan
Dennis pond
Ken James
Roger V. Taylor
Ken James
Barry Brown
Thomas hart
Ryan K Bronson
Derek Hegsted
Thomas hart
Jeff Nielsen
John T. Gilden
Clint H Bean
Hal hicken
Trina Johnson
G Tracy Lewis
Aaron Diamond
Ken Boothe
Corbin Betts
Millie Green
Meghan Kleinlein
Patricia Sprunt
Jo Walker
Walter Bradford
William Skokos
James M. Popham
Bonnie Skokos
James P McGarvey
Dawn Van Nosdol
Elizabeth Spurrier
James Trussell
Mark Ewell
Gracelyn Neville
Hafin M Painter
Sarah Ann Naisbitt
Melissa A Taylor
jacob smith
Julie Painter
David Carter
Stephan Kleinlein
A. Woffinden
Barbara Minor
Holly Sutton Goetz
Tanalyn Parker
Don Lee Sheffer
Jolene Bigham
Natalie Silva
Chelsea Mieure
Aaron Morran
Tim Lindsay
Diane Pope
Doug Pope
Spencer Shuppy
Sally Farb
Josh Feller
Robert A. Jorgensen
Marta T Hudson
Randy Lieber
Eileen Lieber
Jeff Hansen
Edward bartling
Tracy Silva
Trudy Thompson
tony Di Preta
Christen Hansen
Brian Ordean
Ragen Bostrom
Julie Burgess
Fawn kohler
Douglas Smith
Gailen Call
Carson Tait
Kylee Brown
Sherry Lindow
Joyce Onorata Bonhag
Andrew Sanford
Douglas brown
Alayne Vicars
Michael Eldon Leigh
Aleta Leigh
Joseph Bodell
Penn Owens
James Costello
Blake Izatt
Alysa Leigh
Keeth Leigh
Sandra Bangerter
Keven T Leigh
Jane Sexton
Julie Self
Rocky Montoya
Janell Mitton
Jenefer Nielson
Shanna Christ
Ted vallejos
Kris Lewis
NaTeisha Kline
Magalene. Hawkins
Eric Vaughn
Jason Messick
Chase Hulse
Stephen Graham
Justin San Souci
Heather T Hulse
Rodman A Flint
Dan Greenberg
Dan Elmer
Amanda Ballif
Richard A Smith
John Luiting
Layne Kamalu
Janet L Seamons
Heidi Hadley
Cynthia Ottle
RuthAnne Noel
Jacqueline Smith
Rex Harris
Ezra Clements
Donald J. Levi
Robert Anderson
Kent Kenison
Lisa Fifield
Stephanie Wenz
Linda Blosch
Scott Hart
Linda galbraith
Jan Sherwood
John Thibeault
Walter Ward
Denise Ward
Michael Dunsmore
Shauna Fowers
Ruth Randall
Kay Brown
Yes recall
Gail Winegar
Vicki Dial
David Evans
Barbara Pledger
Sharon Mathews
Russ Adair
Brian Swenson
Ellen Hensley
Mekel Zorn
Kesaia Havea
Kristine Case
Kyle Eversole
Kim Hamson
Cindy Fahring
Jean Robbins
KathiJo Smith
Clark r Ward
Lisa Krage
Debbie Blair
Kodie Bird
Phoebe Fournier
Jeff Davis
Carla Kendall
Cory Watkins
Shauna Winter
Jodie Barton Hunsaker
Rozlyn Olmsted
Melanie Barnhill
Jill Carroll
Carla M. Crews
Nancy Johnson
Johnny Sandel
Michelle Herzog
Shirley Nault
Pat Rhodes
James McNeely
Ney Coleman
Darren Paul Wood
Lyman Stratton
Brian Oswald
Tom Bemis
Byron Tuck
R Craig Johnson
Faye Jenkins
Cody Burrows
Daniel Krage
Golden Bishop
Cymony M. Tarin
Sharon Goldsberry
Julianne Jenkins
David Johnson
Glayd Jenkins
Rebecca B. Barton
Judy Bennett
Camie Nord
Mike Bartell
Britney Krage
Sharon Smith
Brianna Kleinlein
Edward Johnstun
Camberly Anderson
Arlo Elizarraraz
Cynthia Russo
Christina Harrison
John Zirkel
Meghan Vargason
Lee Mahlstede
John Bowen
Dirk Allen Willden
Janice Cox
James L Harper
Bill Akers
Marianne Barton
Sofía gray
Beverly Harper
John Cox
Kathleen A Harris
Alisha Green
He is dishonest and disgraceful
Jennifer B. Faddis
Randal Olsen
Michael Braegger
Karen Braegger
Tricia Cox
Michael bishop
Ray Wilcox
Lana Barlow
Shauna Warren
Jeffery Smith
Michelle Holmes
Janice Hepworth
Patricia Huver
Linda Peterson
Melanie Wendt
Marty Stevens
Mike Brown
Melissa Clegg
Jan Sisneros
Robin Halverson
Sid and Linda Thatcher
Bernadette Difuntorum
James Greco
Ann Webb
Brenda Beus
Heather Brown
Matthew Westrich
Jon L. Hunt
Travis Tanner
Lacy Spruell
Melissa Jane Cesaria Erickson
Ronald Criss
Vanessa Baranowsky
Lauri Madsen
Janet Hendricks
Chris Carver
Eric Cottrell
Robert Powers
Judy Cottrell
Jacquie L. Hunt
Richard Melton
Loma Lee McKinnon
Sabrina Lupo
Sam Weston
MaRea Hess
Robert mcCune
Todd Montella
Sonya Jenkins
lajuana watts
Tina Esplin
Mekeli P. Miller
Tatiana Owens
Maria LaRocco
Jen Bryson
Olivia Dawn
Helen Clawson
Paul Williams
Roxanne W. Averett
Kathlene Norton
Linda Anderson
Helen Clawson
Mindy Rasmusen
Susan K Russell
Robert Satterfield
Janet Call
Patrick l larson
laura e larson
Peggy Sorensen
Melanie Knight
Sylvia O. Kralik
Marjorie Turner
Abbi Gaetano
Diana Salazar
Spencer Madsen
Lila Lee Christensen
Sadie Gurley
Margaret Anderson
Manuel Cypers
Margaret Anderson
Tarrell Hughes
Margaret Anderson
Ricky L Lelli
Margaret Anderson
Scott Olmsted
Dean Terry
Heather Thomas
Andrea Burton
Kathryn Pitochelli
Skylar thomas
Ashley Tucker
Tonya Huntsman
Sherry Kuchta
Diane Taylor
Paul Prier
Karen Prier
Todd Kuchta
Russell Jackson
John G. Kellogg
Aleena Pedersen
Janet Fawson
Allison Brumley
Carol Brady
Lauren Henshaw
Sharlene Pitman
Phil Fidler
Eric Rocky Romero
Bill Akers
Andrea Prier
Tawny Barker
Richard Harris
Keith Lyncy
Cynthia Beasley
Roberta Ivankovich
Amy Hart
Judy F Thompson
David Chambers
James D Rowell
Kourtney Roderick
Mark Herre
Donna P. Chambers
Scott Jackson
Nancy Rowell
Robert J. Chambers
Tonna Peterson Bowcutt
David Benson
Helen Chambers
MIke Bulllen
Elona White
Leanna Robinson
Kathy Bullen
Cameron Black
Dan McKittrick
Jennifer Black
Dayne Call
Lynette McKittrick
Renée Herrington, RN
James R Chambers
Kortni Call
Marlene Cook
Jesse White
Kristin Dunlop
Carol Chambers
Jordan McKittrick
Sam Weston
Nevrus Mero
Engjellushe Mero
Deborah K Phillips
Anita s weaver
Frank Wentz
Kendra Lloyd
Derek Lloyd
Andrea Browning
Tana Oscanyan
Ed Wallace
Nathan W Allred
Justin Bodily
nate blotter
Monte Wells
Kurt Duane Beckstrom
Alex’s Harding
Tamra Ensign
Julie McDonald
Russ Piggott
Kathy Piggott
Erica Lafferty
Sid Willes
Stacy Norton
michelle prisbrey
Bruce Ahlstrom
Kevin Thompson
Michelle Sala
sandy prisbrey
Michelle Sala
Rena Montedoro
mckay hyer
Charles Montedoro
Cyntha Stagg
Theresa Valdivia
Ingrid Weinmuller
Alicia Lesser
Patrick Warr
Jessie Ibrahim
David G Law
Brian Wilson
Janine W Law
Rick Harper
Cheryl Loveall
Raymond Kirk Johnson
Aleece Skeem
Ken Wade
Kamile K Stoker
Jennifer Ruff
Dean Lab
Jessica Johnson
Larry Ruff
Cherylynn Botkin
Mark Godfrey
Geoffrey Hibbert
Kimberlee Hicks
Lloyd Davis
Angelynn Okelberry
Elizabeth Johnson
Dean Averett
Casey Paul Mills
Shana Hall
Kori Prestwich
Kimberly F Hansen
Kyle Lynch
Becky L Parry
Lujuana Petersen
Richard Wilson
Janet Eichelberger
Clayton Parry
Donnalyn Dwyer
Mike Eichelberger
Analili Burrows
Tony Fieldsted
Sherry W Rhodes
Gerard Heck
R. Bick Lesser Sr.
Johnny Powell
Blake cozzens
Natalie Hatch
Michael Millard
jullyn doyle
Curtis Kohl
Megan Rueckert
Nicole Ford
Brenda Bourgeois
Hal Lemon
Quinn Mortensen
Jonathan Broomhead
Marnie Mattinson
Michael James London
Taylor webster
Brian Lake
Lynn Smedley
charles sarvis
Dwight Andersen
Colette Proffit
Toni Smedley
Karl. McClellan
Jeanne L Judges
Joe Ann Watts
Harold H L Hodges
David Breinholt
Rachel crandall
Patricia Welch
Tina Urbanik
Lisa Tenney
David Breinholt
Amy Kirkham
Sally Quinn
Kristen Gabriel
Lana S. Gardner
Shem Jessop Jr.
Lawrence Gardner
Darin Hoover
Dolores Burnsides
Jenny Bernards
Lynn Williams
Dallas W Fullmer
Alex Barnes
Hillary Dummar
Sheereen Stefan
Valerie Rogers
Jerry Backett
Rick A Meryhew
Jennifer Wild
Ann Bieker
James E Robertson
Hector Hernandez
Steve Asay
Ann Jacobsen Given
Chelsea Baker
Charles Waldrop
Beverly Asay
chas claybaugh
Nancy Rowell
Bogdan Wozniak
Howard Davis
Kristy Peterson
Abby Moore
Teri Zenger
Gilbert Benavidez
Dallen Holmgren
John O’Daly
Jeremy Biehn
Quinn Ryan Hammond
Elizabeth Abercrombie
Nick Smith
Whitney Warr
Cristi Staheli
Victoria VanHorn
Alma M Staker
Kevin Jolley
Ann Broadbent
Lanette Dalley
David J Sindt
Geanie Michelle Struthers
Joel R Sanders
Marcia Bohn
Lorraine Montgomery
Jason Ostler
Leroy Dow
Katherine Jensen
Macie Staheli
Rachel Ostler
Brian K Gorum – Uintah County GOP Chairman
Heidi Weyland
Amy Hofer
Maria Gardner
Charlotte Hansen
Christina Jenson
Judy E. Jolley
Brad DeBer
Agnieszka Wozniak
Jason Job
Jeremy Joplin
Jeffrey Bartholomew
Charles Joseph Freshman
Jon Moore
Gordon Larson
Dan Johnson
Richard N. Summers
Jennifer Gossard
Janet Freshman
Tiffany Martineau
Susan Boyce
Cole Burrows
Patrick Wilson
Kimberly Wilmarth
Shawn Casady
Jana Belliston
Stephanie Olsen
Nathan G Joplin
Kade Wilmarth
Lori Welch
Nathan G Joplin
Justin Hansen
William Weaver
Steven Capener
Charli Fraughton
Rosalyn Summers
Barbara Wilson
Carissa Gossard
Stanley Hodges
Teresa Nelson
Clifford Sorensen
Deron Brunson
Julianne Jones
Lorie L Dejoria Waldenberg
Mark Rasmussen
Jason McMillan
Shirl Brown
Julie Schulz
Stephanie Barton
Nicholas Dalley
Nicholas Dalley
Franklin H. Frederick
D Hamilton
James Tracy
Mark Barton
Krissy Vaynce
Jensen Litke
John Katsanevas
Brenda McEwan
Diana Bivens
Whitney Warr
Kendell Geiger
Art Mathews
Jackie Mathews
Gene Buhler
Dean Lehwalder
Merldene Karrh
Don Branca
Cynthia Cosgrave
Scott Deschamps
Kyle Romney
Amanda Biehn
Brian Arnold
Kristy Bird
Anne Rasmussen
Michael Cosgrave
Anthony Hecker
Kagun Fowkes
Sophia Anderson
Christina Colton
Kent Wetzel
Greg Cameron
Cassandra Lacy
Justin Powell
Renee Esterly
Dorothy Wetzel
Terri Clark
David Woolley
Daniel E Beatty
Rose Marie Sforza
James Albert
Dennis Thompson Jr
Carolyn Beatty
Hal Gunn
June Reese
Lori Welch
Calvin H Pearson
Brenda McEwan
Mike Reese
Lyman Ray Winger
Donnie Jennings
Ronnie Hawkins
Patricia Yarrington
Maggie Tracy
Weston S. Millward
M Susan Gunn
Ralph Dlugas
Marci McClellan
Kristin L Johnson
Royal Eccles
Lee Saylor
Iris Wyman
Amanda Dlugas
Leonor Saylor
Howard Fisher
Jerry R Johnson
Kathleen Hohosh
James Winger
Gregory Scot Rodman
Justin Reese
Annette M. Winger
Erasmo unda
Joseph Winger
Michelle Taylor
Kim Lakin
Carrie Barker
David Rowell
Julie Scow
Wendi Myrup
Days! Smith
Michael Burns
Joseph Brackner
Yolanthy Moleni
Raelynn Thomas
Seth Morrison
Sam Thomas
Lydia Pinilla
Randy Memmott
Carolyn Calkins
Christian Judd
Sarah Evans
Randy Lang
Charles Joseph
Shannon Chapman
R Corder Farnsworth
Brandon White
William Workman
Kody Condie
Laura Taylor
Anthony Hamby
Kevin Wade
Michael Wells
Mark Bowman
Tamara Perkins
Mark Wilkins
Danielle Kunsman
Matthew Parr
David Hurd
Camille Bell
William Sprunt
Kelli Clark
Kris Kimball
Joel Most
Karla Hurd
Michael Fonnesbeck
Dan Wade
Anthony C. Francis
Aubree Argyle
Chris Holm
Rick Hackford
Kevin Harria
Lisa Anderson
Michelle Bohne
John Bell
Jolinda Jarvis
Mary Wade
Joel Most
Terry Dickens
Joan Anderson
Anthony Alleman
Wendy Hart
Nate Hutchinson
Dennis Harris
Kelly Batt
Carl John Anderson
Kim Garity
Cori Smith
Teresa Bowman
Carla Green
Kristin Russo
Alan B Crane
Jim Green
Marianne Kuroski
SHERIFF Cameron M. Noel
Ray Stephenson
Scott Cameron
Robyn Fitzgerald
Chad Struckle
Randy Lang
Joseph Brewer
Brett Butler
Bart Peterson
Charles M. Drake
Mark Sosebee
Abigail Rosengren
Kelly Matlock
Debbie Miller
Karen Roylance
Rene Wood
Ray Bivens
Wendi Ficklin
Jenifer Yancey
Ellen Nerdin
Shannon Stucki
Lance Jaggar
Becky Moore
Allison Larson
Ross Burton
Raelynn Thomas
L Rand Jolley
Ben Black
Justin Richins
Robin Snyder
Michelle Loveridge
Andrew Howard
Daniel Perkins
Melissa Kemp
Robert Echols
Douglas Nerdin

Biden Names Obama’s Top Behaviorist Brainwasher To Wage War Against Americans With Criminal Thoughts

[SEE: Cass Sunstein]

Matthew Ehret
Cass Sunstein, Samantha Power
© Photo: Flickr/Mary Calvert

Conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial, Matthew Ehret writes. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?

If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.

Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.

If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.

Three Elementary Realizations for Thinking People

The first conclusion you would likely arrive at is that the United States government was just put through the first coup in over 58 years (yes, what happened in 1963 was a coup). Although it is becoming a bit prohibitive to speak such words aloud in polite society, Nancy Pelosi’s official biographer Molly Ball, recently penned a scandalous Time Magazine article entitled ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Elections’ which admitted to this conspiracy saying:

“Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” (Lest you think that this was a subversion of democracy, Ball informs us that “they were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”)

Another conclusion you might come to is that many of the political figures whom you believed were serving those who elected them into office, actually serve the interests of a clique of technocrats and billionaires lusting over the deconstruction of western civilization under something called “a Great Reset”. Where this was brushed off as an unfounded conspiracy theory not long ago, even Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister (and neo-Nazi supporting Rhodes Scholar) Chrystia Freeland decided to become a Trustee of the World Economic Forum just weeks ago. In this role, Freeland joins fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in their mutual endeavor to be a part of the new movement to decarbonize civilization and make feudalism cool again.

Lastly, you might notice that your having arrived at these conclusions is itself increasingly becoming a form of thought-crime punishable in a variety of distasteful ways elaborated by a series of unprecedented new emergency regulations that propose extending the definition of “terrorism”. Those implicated under the new definition will be those broad swaths of citizens of western nations who don’t agree with the operating beliefs of the ruling oligarchy.

Already a 60 day review of the U.S. military is underway to purge the armed forces of all such “thought criminals” while McCarthyite legislation has been drafted to cleanse all government jobs of “conspiracy theorists”.

Another startling announcement from the National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin that domestic terrorists include: “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority [and] perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”

While not yet fully codified into law (though it will be if not nipped in the bud soon), you can be sure that things are certainly moving fast as, before our very eyes, the right to free speech is being torn to shreds by means of censorship across social media and the internet, cancelling all opinions deemed unacceptable to the ruling class.

The Conspiracy to Subvert Conspiracy Theorizing

This should not come as a surprise, as Biden’s new addition to the Department of Homeland Security is a bizarre figure named Cass Sunstein who famously described exactly what this was going to look like in his infamous 2008 report ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (co-authored with Harvard Law School’s Adrien Vermeule). In this under-appreciated study, the duo foresaw the greatest threat to the ruling elite took the form of “conspiracy theorizing” within the American population using as examples of this delusion: the idea that the government had anything to do with the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, or the planning and execution of 9-11.

Just to be clear, conspiracy literally means ‘two or more people acting together in accord with an agreed upon idea and intention’.

The fact that Vermeule has made a legal career arguing that laws should be interpreted not by the “intentions” of lawgivers, but rather according to cost-benefit analysis gives us a useful insight into the deranged mind of a technocrat and the delusional reasoning that denies the very thing which has shaped literally ALL of human history.

In their “scholarly” essay, the authors wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” After establishing his case for the threat of conspiracies, Sunstein says that “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”.

Not one to simply draw criticisms, the pro-active Sunstein laid out five possible strategies which the social engineers managing the population could deploy to defuse this growing threat saying:

“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”.

(I’ll let you think about which of these prescriptions were put into action over the ensuing 12 years.)

Cass Sunstein was particularly sensitive to this danger largely because: 1) he was a part of a very ugly conspiracy himself and 2) he is a world-renowned behaviorist.

The Problem of Reality for Behaviorists

As an economic behaviorist and lawyer arguing that all “human rights” should be extended to animals (blurring the line separating human dynamics from the law of the jungle as any fascist must), Sunstein has spent decades trying to model human behavior with computer simulations in an effort to “scientifically manage” such behavior.

As outlined in his book Nudge (co-authored with Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Richard Thaler), Sunstein “discovered” that people tend to organize their behavioral patterns around certain fundamental drives, such as the pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of pain, and certain Darwinian drives for sex, popularity, desire for conformity, desire for novelty, and greed.

One of the key principles of economic behaviorism which is seen repeated in such popular manuals as Freakonomics, Nudge, Predictably Irrational, The Wisdom of Crowds, and Animal Spirits, is that humans are both biologically determined due to their Darwinian impulses, but, unlike other animals, have the fatal flaw of being fundamentally irrational at their core. Since humans are fundamentally irrational, says the behaviorist, it is requisite that an enlightened elite impose “order” upon society while maintaining the illusion of freedom of choice from below. This is the underlying assumption of Karl Popper’s Open Society doctrine, which was fed to Popper’s protégé George Soros and which animates Soros’ General Theory of Reflexivity and his Oxford-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).

This was at the heart of Obama’s science Czar John Holdren’s call for world government in his 1977 Ecoscience (co-written with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) where the young misanthrope envisioned a future utopic world governed by a scientifically managed master-class saying:

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable”.

The caveat: If Darwinian impulses mixed with irrational “animal spirits” were truly all that animated those systems which behaviorists wish to map and manipulate (aka: “nudge” with rewards, punishments), then a scientific priesthood would indeed be a viable and perhaps necessary way to organize the world.

Fortunately, reality is a bit more elegant and dignified than behaviorists wish to admit.

Why Computer Modellers Hate Metaphysics

On a closer inspection of history, we find countless instances where people shape their individual and group behavior around sets of ideas that transcend controllable material impulses. When this happens, those individuals or groups tend to resist adapting to environments created for them. This incredible phenomenon is witnessed empirically in the form of the American Revolution, Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, Civil Rights movements, and even some bold manifestations of anti-lockdown protests now underway around the world.

Among the most troublesome of those variables which upset computer models are: “Conscience”, “Truth”, “Intentions”, “Soul”, “Honor”, “God”, “Justice”, “Patriotism”, “Dignity”, and “Freedom”.

Whenever individuals shape their identities around these very real, though immaterial (aka: “metaphysical”) principles, they cannot be “nudged” towards pre-determined decisions that defy reason and morality. Adherence to these principles also tends to afford thinking people an important additional edge of creative insight necessary to cut through false explanatory narratives that attempt to hide lies behind the appearance of truth (aka: sophistry).

As witnessed on multiple occasions throughout history, such individuals who value the health of their souls over the intimidating (and extremely malleable) force of popular opinion, will often decide to sacrifice personal comfort and even their lives in order to defend those values which their minds and consciences deem important.

These rare, but invaluable outliers will often resist policies that threaten to undo their freedoms or undermine the basis of their society’s capacity to produce food, and energy for their children and grandchildren. What is worse, is that their example is often extremely contagious causing other members of the sheep class to believe that they too are human and endowed with unalienable rights which should be defended.

The Intentions Ordering World History

Perhaps, most “destructive” of all is that these outlier people tend to look for abstract things like “causes” in historical dynamics shaping the context of their present age, as well as their current geopolitical environment.

Whenever this type of thinking is done, carefully crafted narratives fed to the masses by an enlightened elite will often fail in their powers to persuade, since seekers after truth soon come to realize that IDEAS and intentions (aka: conspiracies) shape our past, present and future. When the dominating intentions shaping society’s trajectory is in conformity with Natural Law, humanity tends to improve, freedoms increase, culture matures and evil loses its hold. Inversely, when the intentions animating history are out of conformity with Natural Law, the opposite happens as societies lose their moral and material fitness to survive and slip ever more quickly into dark ages.

While sitting in a jail in Birmingham Alabama in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. described this reality eloquently when he said:

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust… One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

From Plato’s organization of his Academy and efforts to shape a Philosopher King to beat the forces of the Persian Empire, to Cicero’s efforts to save the Roman Republic, to Augustine’s battles to save the soul of Christianity all the way to our present age, conspiracies for the good and counter-conspiracies for evil have shaped history. If one were to begin an investigation into history without an understanding that ideas and intentions caused the trajectory of history, as is the standard practice among history professors dominant in todays world, then one would become incapable of understanding anything essential about one’s own reality.

It is irrelevant that behaviorists and other fascists wish their victims to believe that history just happens simply because random short-sighted impulses kinetically drive events on a timeline- the truth of my claim exists for any serious truth seeker to discover it for themselves.

Back to our Present Sad State of Affairs

Now we all know that Sunstein spent the following years working as Obama’s Regulatory Czar alongside an army of fellow behaviorists who took control of all levers of policy making as outlined by Time Magazine’s April 13, 2009 article ‘How Obama is Using the Science of Change’. As the fabric of western civilization, and traditional values of family, gender, and even macro economic concepts like “development” were degraded during this period, the military industrial complex had a field day as Sunstein’s wife Samantha Power worked closely with Susan Rice in the promotion of “humanitarian bombings” of small nations under Soros’ Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

After the Great Reset Agenda was announced in June 2020, Sunstein was recruited to head the propaganda wing of the World Health Organization known as the WHO Technical Advisory Group where his skills in mass behavior modification was put to use in order to counteract the dangerous spread of conspiracy theories that persuaded large chunks of the world population that COVID-19 was part of a larger conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty and impose world government.

The head of WHO described Sunstein’s mandate in the following terms:

“In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”

Today, hundreds of Obama-era behaviorists have streamed back into influential positions of government under the new “scientifically managed”, evidence-based governance coming back to life under Biden promising to undo the dark days of President Trump.

Ideologues who have been on record calling for world government, the elimination of the sick and elderly (see Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emmanuel’s Why I Hope to Die At 75), and population control are streaming back into positions of influence. If you think that anything they have done to return to power is unlawful, or antithetical to the principles of the Constitution, then these technocrats want you to know that you are a delusional conspiracy theorist and as such, represent a potential threat to yourself and the society of which you are but a part.

If you question World Health Organization narratives on COVID-19, or doubt the use of vaccines produced by organizations like Astra Zeneca due to their ties to eugenics organizations then you are a delusional conspiracy theorist.

If you doubt that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide or that implementing the Paris Climate accords may cause more damage to humanity than climate change ever could, then you must be a conspiracy theorist.

If you believe that the U.S. government just went through a regime change coordinated by something called “the deep state”, then you run the risk of being labelled a delusional threat to “the general welfare” deserving of the sort of treatment dolled out to any typical terrorist.

It appears that the many comforts we have taken for granted over the past 50-year drunken stupor called “globalization” are quickly coming to an end, and thankfully not one but two opposing intentions for what the new operating system will be are actively vying for control. This clash was witnessed in stark terms during the January 2021 Davos Summit, where Xi Jinping and Putin’s call for a new system of win-win cooperation, multipolarity and long-term development offset the unipolar zero-sum ideologues of the west seeking to undo the foundations of industrial civilization.

Either way you look at it, conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?

The author can be reached at

Ohio’s Most Endearing Quality…We Are A Hotbed For Anti-Government Extremists

protest columbus

Hundreds of protestors gathered outside the Ohio Statehouse on Saturday, April 18, 2020, calling for state officials to immediately lift coronavirus related restrictions.(Laura Hancock/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Mask mandates and business closures to fight coronavirus, Black Lives Matters rallies, and President Trump’s false election fraud claims stoked the fury of extremist antigovernment groups last year, according to Southern Poverty Law Center President and CEO Margaret Huang. Those issues prompted them to protest by the hundreds at state capitols, including Ohio’s, and by the thousands at last month’s U.S. Capitol riot that resulted in the deaths of five people including a police officer.

Huang’s organization, which started out 50 years ago as an Alabama law office fighting the Ku Klux Klan, is now a nonprofit that monitors hate groups and extremists around the nation. It released a report this week that found Ohio has the second highest number of active antigovernment groups of any state: 31. Only California’s 51 antigovernment groups exceeded the number found in Ohio, which has less than a third of California’s population.

Huang says some of the nation’s best-known extremists hail from Ohio, such as Columbus-native Andrew Anglin, who founded the white supremacist Daily Stormer website, and James Alex Fields of Maumee, who was sentenced to life in prison for ramming his car into a a crowd of counter-protesters at a 2017 “Unite the Right Rally” in Virginia that was promoted by Anglin’s website. Fields’ attack killed one woman and injured dozens of other people.

In an interview with Plain Dealer, Huang said young people in Ohio and elsewhere in the country who feel frustrated, isolated and lacking in community support sometimes find that community in online antigovernment or hate groups where people like Anglin lead them to believe the government or groups of people they dislike, such as racial minorities, have caused their problems.

“It seems like an answer to why they’re feeling so isolated, so frustrated,” says Huang, adding that the groups’ recruitment techniques mirror those of foreign terrorist organizations. “Many of them find a community there. They find people who want them to join their activities and who invite them to be part of something larger. I think in many parts of the country, not just Ohio, because you can see that these groups are found in every state, but in many parts of the country where there are a lot of young people who are frustrated, who may be economically disadvantaged, who may not have great employment or educational opportunities, they are turning to these extremist groups as a way to find community with others.”

The Ohio groups the Southern Poverty Law Center labels as antigovernment extremists include the OHIO III% United Patriots, Heartland Defenders, American Patriots Three Percent, Irregulars of Ohio Reserve Militia, John Birch Society, Oath Keepers, The Last Militia, Ohio Defense Force Home Guard and Ohio Militiamen.

Northeast Ohio-based organizations that the SPLC classifies as antigovernment include the Frontiersmen militia group of Ravenna, which the SPLC says spreads disinformation about COVID-19, Democrats and Antifa, among other topics, and Cleveland’s Silver Shield Xchange, which the SPLC says spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation about COVID-19, former President Barack Obama, China, former President Donald Trump, the 2020 election, and the supposed imminent collapse of the dollar. They also sell survivalist merchandise, including guns, gold and silver, the SPLC says.

Two of the Ohioans charged with rioting at the U.S. Capitol – Champaign County’s Donovan Crowl and Jessica Watkins – are members of a militia associated with the Oath Keepers, a loosely organized right-wing group that believes the government is stripping away Americans’ rights and focuses its recruitment efforts on former military members, federal charging documents indicate.

Huang said her organization identifies antigovernment groups by monitoring their online recruiting and event organization platforms, and through flyers the groups distribute in their communities to recruit new members, express hate, or call for people to take up arms against the government. She said her organization get the flyers from police reports or people who forward them to her organization’s six offices around the country.

“These are groups that openly advocate violence, that openly advocate white supremacy, etc.,” says Huang.

Over the years organizations including the socially conservative Family Research Council have disputed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s decision to classify them as hate groups, calling it “a hard left activist organization” whose political agenda pervades construction of its lists. In 2018, SPLC paid a $3.4 million  settlement  and issued an apology to a British political activist named Maajid Nawaz, who sued it for labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

Huang says Family Research Council made its hate group list for demonizing LGBTQ people and advocating policies that would deny their rights. She said several groups that have made SPLC’s lists have sued over their inclusion but her organization typically wins those challenges “because we use a clear definition and criteria for determining who falls into each category.”

“The reason we have a trusted reputation is that we do monitor these groups and we have been accurate in calling out their activities and calling out their hateful ideology,” Huang says. “If it bothers them, they should reconsider what they are saying and doing.”

According to Huang, many of the antigovernment groups existed for decades, but their numbers escalated when hard right groups took exception to a Democrat-run government after Obama’s election. Under Trump, she says many antigovernment groups focused more of their attention on state legislatures to express their frustration with coronavirus-related mask mandates and school and business closures.

“They have used this as a rallying cry to encourage people to oppose the government’s orders as illegitimate,” says Huang.

In addition to holding armed protests in numerous state capitals including Columbus and playing a key role in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, members of antigovernment groups were charged in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer because of restrictions imposed to limit the spread of coronavirus. Documents filed in the case against the alleged kidnap conspirators say they met twice in Ohio to discuss their scheme.

Huang says investments in education, job training opportunities and jobs in all communities would help stop the spread of antigovernment groups.

“When people talk about why international terrorists become radicalized, it’s frequently because they don’t have jobs, they can’t go to school and so they turn to terrorism as something that makes them feel a part of the community,” Huang said. “So we need to do the same kinds of things that we’ve advocated for countering terrorism internationally. You have to provide economic opportunities, you have to provide educational opportunities and when people have those alternatives, they’re much less likely to embrace extremism.”

Biden’s Gun Control Proposals Aimed At Neutering the New Right Patriots

[It will prove to be both violent and impossible to disarm one-third of all American adults, especially the patriotic ones who absolutely believe in the quotations given below.]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”–Declaration of Independence.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

White House officials met last week with several gun violence prevention groups as they weigh how to move forward on an issue that has stymied Democrats for years.

The White House says President Biden is “personally committed” to action on an issue he has tackled many times in the past. Less than a month into the new administration, Biden officials are meeting with advocates backing reforms that Democrats have been pushing for in Congress, like strengthening background checks.

However, Americans’ views on guns may be even more divided than the last time Biden confronted the issue. A November Gallup poll found support for stricter gun laws is at its lowest level since 2016.

But anti-gun violence groups still see momentum. Brady, Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action met virtually on Wednesday with Susan Rice, the head of the Domestic Policy Council, and Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to the president.

Officials familiar with the meeting said Rice and Richmond signaled the White House was prepared to use multiple avenues to try to curb gun violence, including executive action, though the administration has yet to roll out any specific proposals.

“I think everything is on the table. I think the White House is certainly supportive of Congress doing their part. I think there are things we’d like to see happen through legislation. … But certainly there is a role for executive action,” said Adzi Vokhiwa, director of federal affairs at Giffords, an anti-gun violence advocacy group.

The meeting comes as gun sales are on the rise across the U.S., which has been attributed to the concerns that Biden will act on gun control and amid fear and uncertainty around the pandemic and protests over racial injustice.

Sunday was the third anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Fla. Rice and Richmond held a call Thursday with most of the families of the victims of the shooting, a White House official said, and listened to stories about their loved ones and work they’ve pursued since the shooting.

Biden, who visited Parkland to comfort victims’ families in 2018, pledged during his presidential campaign to take numerous actions to try to curb gun violence. He vowed to pass legislation banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and buy back the ones already in circulation. The president’s campaign website also said he would “enact universal background check legislation.”

“This meeting provided more evidence that the Biden Administration is committed to being the strongest we’ve ever seen on gun safety,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, of Wednesday’s meeting. “With Covid making gun violence worse and armed extremists literally holding our democracy at gunpoint, the time for action is now — and we fully expect to see it soon.”

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, also released a statement on the White House meeting, saying it confirmed that gun safety is a top priority for the administration.

“We look forward to working with the administration to save lives and stop gun violence, and we’re confident that we will see executive and legislative action in the near future,” she said.

The White House is still staffing up and has yet to nominate a head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces gun laws. Both are a sign that the administration is still some time away from formally putting anything forward on guns, sources said.

Biden has repeatedly been involved in efforts to pass stricter gun laws dating back to his time in the Senate. He helped pass the Brady Bill in 1993, which implemented the modern background check system that advocates are now pushing to reform, and he helped pass the original assault weapons ban.

Through executive orders, Biden could change or expand the definition of who is in the business of selling guns, prioritize funding for community violence prevention programs and eliminate “ghost guns” by defining what constitutes a gun, according to gun control advocates.

The term ghost guns refers to guns available for purchase, typically without a background check or a serial number, that are not fully finished or may have a missing part.

Momentum has repeatedly hit a wall in Congress, even as mass shootings become commonplace in the United States. Congress failed to pass stronger gun laws after the Sandy Hook shooting, when Biden was vice president, and initial optimism fell by the wayside following back-to-back massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, in 2019.

While Democrats control the House, the party would need all 50 members in the Senate to rally around gun legislation and be joined by at least 10 Republican senators to overcome the legislative filibuster. A bill proposed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) after the Sandy Hook shooting only garnered 54 votes.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), an active voice on gun control ever since the Sandy Hook shooting in his home state, told The Hill he plans to introduce background check legislation “in the upcoming weeks” and is committed to getting a bipartisan bill passed in this Congress.

“President Biden and his administration are clearly committed to signing commonsense gun violence prevention legislation into law and taking executive action to save lives and make our communities safer. Two years ago, we got pretty darn close to striking a bipartisan deal to expand background checks that I believe would have passed on the floor if [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell put it up for a vote,” Murphy said.

The Democratic-led House last Congress passed control gun legislation, but those bills never received votes in the GOP-controlled Senate.

That bill, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, is aimed at strengthening background checks for gun purchases and passed the House on Feb. 27, 2019. A day later, the House approved the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which would close the so-called Charleston loophole, giving federal investigators more time to do background checks.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who authored the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, has not yet reintroduced it this Congress. But the bill is expected soon.

“The White House is definitely committed to gun violence prevention and Mike’s top priority on this issue is the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. We are still actively working with leadership and advocates on timing of that bill,” a Thompson aide said.

Assault weapon ban legislation to prohibit the sale of semi-automatic rifles and pistols with certain military-style features was also introduced last Congress by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), another vocal gun control advocate, noted that passing background checks in the House last Congress was the first legislative action to prevent gun violence in decades.

“While the bill to expand background checks received bipartisan support, it was unfortunately blocked by Mitch McConnell in the U.S. Senate. Now, with a new Congress and White House, I know that action to prevent gun violence remains a top priority for President Biden and Democrats in Congress,” Kildee told The Hill.

Democrats are also looking to take advantage of the weakened National Rifle Association (NRA). The once powerful pro-gun lobbying group filed for bankruptcy last month following a lawsuit that alleged it violated New York state law governing nonprofit organizations.

“It will be up to these millions of law-abiding gun owners, and millions of NRA members, to make their voices heard in opposition to any infringement upon their constitutional rights,” the group wrote in response to comments from White House press secretary Jen Psaki last week that Biden “would love to see action on additional gun safety measures.”

Democrats point to public polling to argue that basic actions intended to limit gun violence, such as universal background checks, are overwhelmingly popular.

Still, former President Trump’s vow to protect his supporters’ Second Amendment rights was one of his reliable applause lines on the trail in 2020. The Gallup poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans favor stricter laws for gun sales, the lowest percentage in 20 years. Conservatives are likely to ardently object to any effort that is perceived as taking guns away from Americans and use it to fuel their base heading into the 2022 midterm elections.

Pelosi Is Like A Toothless Old Dog with A Bone

[After conservatives openly challenge Pelosi with a series of questions on whether the Jan. 6 event was “allowed to happen”, or “made to happen”, Pelosi, the little vigilante, steps forward to create a “911 type commission” to investigate (cover-up/whitewash) the riot, just as the original 911 Commission covered-up the September 11 attack.]

Pelosi’s office pushes back on House GOP questions about Capitol security ahead of riot

Lawmakers trying to ‘deflect responsibility for the Capitol attack from Donald Trump,’ Pelosi’s office says

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s office fired back at House Republicans on Monday who demanded answers regarding security decisions leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot last month, saying they are “clearly” trying to “deflect responsibility for the Capitol attack from Donald Trump.”

House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis, R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer, R-Ky., and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., sent a letter to Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday, saying that “many important questions” about her “responsibility for the security” of the Capitol on Jan. 6 “remain unanswered.”


But Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, told Fox News that the speaker “has and will continue to take action to ensure accountability and enhance the security of the Capitol.”

“Two of the four House Republican ranking members voted to overturn the results of a fair election, just hours after the Capitol was sacked by an insurrectionist, right-wing mob – a mob incited by Trump,” Hammill said. “A full 65% of House Republicans joined them in voting to undermine our democracy.  All four ranking members also voted against holding Donald Trump accountable for inciting the mob.”

Hammill added: “Clearly, the security of our Capitol and democracy are not the priorities of these ranking members.”

The Republicans, in their letter to Pelosi Monday morning, questioned: “When then-Chief Sund made a request for National Guard support on Jan. 4, why was that request denied? Did Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on Jan. 4 prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the National Guard?”

Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes pointed to claims made by former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund, that he, on Jan. 4, approached the sergeant-at-arms to request the assistance of the National Guard. Sund, in a letter to Pelosi last month, said Irving replied that he was concerned about “the optics” and didn’t feel the “intelligence supported it.”

“As you are aware, the speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” they wrote. “The speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.”

The House sergeant-at-arms and the Senate sergeant-at-arms, Michael Stenger, were removed from their positions and Chief Sund resigned after the riot.

“It is the job of the Capitol Police Board, on which these three individuals sat, to properly plan and prepare for security threats facing the U.S. Capitol,” Hammill said. “It has been reported that the House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving has said that he did not present to House leadership any request for the National Guard before Jan. 6.”

Hammill noted that the committees of jurisdiction were briefed “in advance of Jan. 6 about security preparedness.”


“During a briefing of the Appropriations Committee Majority on Jan. 5 by the House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund both Chief Sund and Mr. Irving provided assurances that the Capitol Complex had comprehensive security and there was no intelligence that groups would become violent at the Capitol during the certification of electoral votes,” Hammill explained. “It is our understanding that ranking member Davis was also briefed, but took no action to address any security concerns that he might have had.”

Davis’ office, in response,  told Fox News that “no one is alleging that Ranking Member Davis denied a request for the national guard ahead of January 6th because he would not have the authority to do so even if he had been made aware of the request, which he was not.”

“Following the insurrection, the speaker immediately tasked Gen. Honoré with leading an immediate security review of the U.S. Capitol Complex and has called for a 9/11-style Commission to investigate, with legislation creating such a panel to be introduced in the coming days,” Hammill said. “The USCP is also conducting an internal security review.”

Pelosi, last month, appointed retired Gen. Russel Honoré to lead a security review of the events at the Capitol amid calls from members on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, to conduct a review.

Republicans took issue with Pelosi’s appointment, saying it was done “without consultation of the minority.”

But again, Hammill fired back, calling Republicans’ demands a “transparently partisan attempt to lay blame on the speaker, who was a target of assassination during the insurrection fueled by the lies of House Republicans,” and said that “the ranking members are trying to absolve former Police Chief Sund, former Sergeant-at-Arms Stenger and the leader who appointed him, Mitch McConnell, of any responsibility.”

“We look forward to these ranking members asking these same questions of former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,” Hammill said.

Hammill also added that Pelosi “knows all too well the importance of security at the Capitol and is focused on getting to the bottom of all issues facing the Capitol Complex and the events that led up to the insurrection.”

He added: “Clearly, these Republican ranking members do not share this priority.”

Capitol Police have been under heightened scrutiny amid the siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6 during a joint session of Congress to certify the Electoral College results in favor of President Joe Biden.

But Pelosi last week said she would introduce a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal – the highest honor Congress can bestow – to the U.S. Capitol Police officers and other law enforcement personnel who protected the Capitol during the riot.

“They are martyrs for our democracy, those who lost their lives,” Pelosi said during her weekly press conference.

Five people died when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, including U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42. Two other officers died by suicide in the week after the siege.

“The service of the Capitol Police force that day brings honor to our democracy. Their accepting this reward brings luster to this medal,” the California Democrat said. “We must always remember their sacrifice and stay vigilant against what I said before, about what Abraham Lincoln said: the silent artillery of time. We will never forget.”

Former President Donald Trump was impeached by the House, for the second time, on Jan. 13 for inciting insurrection on Jan. 6.The former president was acquitted by the Senate over the weekend.

Meanwhile, Republicans also claimed that House officers were not providing necessary documents surrounding the Capitol riot.

“We might have some more clarity on the timeline of events if Speaker Pelosi would direct her House officers to comply with Ranking Member Davis’s preservation and production requests for information surrounding January 6,” a spokesperson for Davis told Fox News. “USCP has agreed, but the SAA and CAO, who are appointed by the Speaker, have denied our requests.”

The spokesperson added: “But either way, Speaker Pelosi needs to answer these questions truthfully: was anyone on her team aware of Mr. Sund’s request for the national guard before January 6, was the request denied because of optics, and why did it take the SAA over an hour to approve the request for the national guard in the middle of the riots?”

Instagram bans top anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over COVID falsehoods

Instagram bans top anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over COVID falsehoods

Kennedy has a long history of spreading dangerous misinformation on social media.

Robert Kennedy Jr. heads up to a meeting at Trump Tower on January 10, 2017 in New York City.
Robert Kennedy Jr. heads up to a meeting at Trump Tower on January 10, 2017 in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Instagram has permanently banned the account of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an infamous and prolific peddler of dangerous anti-vaccine and COVID-19 misinformation.

The move will likely be cheered by public health advocates who have struggled to combat such harmful bunkum online during the devastating pandemic. However, Kennedy’s account on Facebook—which owns Instagram—remained active Thursday and lists over 300,000 followers.

In an email to Ars, a Facebook spokesperson said Kennedy’s Instagram account was removed “for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines.” The account had over 800,000 followers prior to its removal, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Facebook spokesperson declined to respond to Ars’ question about whether Kennedy’s Facebook account would also be removed or otherwise penalized. The social-media behemoth told The New York Times, however, that it has no plans to remove Kennedy from Facebook “at this time.”

In the email to Ars, the spokesperson noted Facebook’s updated policies that involve “expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccines in general during the pandemic.” Facebook says it has already removed “more than 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram” deemed harmful misinformation. The spokesperson also listed eight other accounts that Facebook had recently removed, including those with URLs /virusesarenotcontagious, /vaxxed2, and /nofacemasks.

Hazardous history

Kennedy’s contentious relationship with Facebook began well before the pandemic, however. He and his anti-vaccine organizations—Children’s Health Defense and the World Mercury Project—were leading forces behind the misinformation campaigns fueling the resurgence of measles worldwide in recent years.

For instance, at the end of 2019, the government of Samoa was forced to shut down to deal with an explosive measles outbreak. The deadly surge of disease came after Kennedy’s organization spent months fear-mongering over vaccine safety and spreading falsehoods about an incident that led to the tragic deaths of two Samoan infants. An investigation determined that the babies were given lethal doses of muscle relaxant by negligent nurses who intended to immunize them. The nurses were each convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. Of course, none of that information was shared by Kennedy’s organizations.

Just a month before the outbreak exploded in Samoa, a study appearing in the journal Vaccine found that Kennedy’s World Mercury Project was the single largest source of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook.

Though Facebook has tried—many times—to crack down on anti-vaccine misinformation, Kennedy has fought restrictions and continued to spread falsehoods. In August of 2020, Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit alleging that Facebook’s effort to fact-check vaccine misinformation was “censorship” that infringed on the organization’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.

BETH MOLE, Beth is Ars Technica’s health reporter. She’s interested in biomedical research, infectious disease, health policy and law, and has a Ph.D. in microbiology.

A rebellion against the US ruling class

On an HBO “Real Time” broadcast, Bill Maher stated, “Liberals can either write off half the country as irredeemable, or they can ask, what is it about a D next to a candidate’s name that makes it so toxic?” He continued, “Democrats, too often, don’t come across as having common sense to a huge swath of Americans.”

Maher is correct, but a more fundamental question is this: Why did the ruling class of America learn so little from 2016?

Ann Coulter, in a lecture at the University of Texas at Austin, said what Americans want is “Trumpism without Trump.” That Trump got almost half of all votes after five years of unrelenting negative press, constant innuendos, and negative selective reporting indicates that Coulter, who despises Trump, is also correct.

Those on the left who believe they are smarter than everyone are being blinded by their own hubris. That a man with the buffoonish demeanor of Donald Trump could gather such influence doesn’t tell us that people are stupid. It tells us they are desperate, and no one is listening to them.

In fact, a post-election poll found 73% of voters said that corruption in government was a problem, 62% of that group said it was a “major” problem.

Lincoln said at Gettysburg that the Civil War was being fought so that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” What many Americans see now is an elite class, supported by the media and much of the left, that wants to abolish a nation with borders, eliminate the “under God” clause from the Pledge of Allegiance,” and create a government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite, and any interest other than theirs be damned.

A poll of the people who voted in this election showed something that this column has been saying for decades. Liberals are a minority.

Voters who self-defined themselves as liberals constituted only 29% of the total; by contrast, conservatives, self-defined, were 37%.

This remains true even after the media, the education system, and the entertainment industry would have us believe that conservatives are some strange, small cult-like group, irredeemably racist, which resides out in the backward areas of fly-over country.

That cartoon caricature is simply not true.

America is not Europe. The left needs to get outside of their cultural bubble, or the next election will not be kind to them.

The majority of Americans did not vote for Joe Biden or his party, they voted for the anti-Trump. The majority of these voters consider the far left to be not only dangerous, but marginally insane. As Maher suggested, even associating with the far-left brands Democrats as having little common sense.

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe our current leaders are corrupt and unresponsive, and flirting with dictatorial powers.

Perhaps pessimism has always been with us, but at least in the past those corrupt leaders didn’t want to control every aspect of our lives.

The Democrats HAVE NO MANDATE…the 100 Million Strong Silent Majority Still Outnumbers Pelosi’s Party

[Yet she wages war against the opposing party, calling-out many Republicans as “enemies within”, because they refuse to accept the national narrative as defined by the Democrat leadership and the mainline liberal media.  Pelosi refuses to acknowledge the prominent role played by the “Qanon” subversives and the known provocateurs like Mr. Jones.  Having never listened to a Trump speech, or read any Q material, I have never understood the cult of Trump or Q, so I am at a loss to explain how normally sane Americans could fall for such nonsense.  But the belief in election fraud is not a conspiracy theory, it is a never-ending problem…who can forget the Bush/Gore voting controversy.  Gore probably would have won if there had been a national recount, by conceding early he may have handed the White House to W.  The concerted national effort to whitewash 2020 fraud claims without apparent investigation, coupled with the move to brand election doubters as “traitors”, was certain to enrage 74 million conservative voters who already considered the national mainstream news to be slanted and non-factual.]

In 2020, 80 + 74 million voted, 154 million total, out of a pool of 250 million voting age Americans.


Trump has a point about the media–
The media’s partisan hostility to Trump led to the abandonment of objectivity and truth.

Growing calls in media for Trump supporters to be ‘reprogrammed’

The left’s leaders are the real fascists

Unhinged Democrats inciting next civil war by moving to ban Trump supporters from getting jobs, joining military

A New Leninism Is Gripping America

Democrat Party Declares New Terror War On the Half of America That Voted For Trump

Pentagon goes rooting for ‘extremists’ among its 3.6mn trained killers

AOC: Country will heal with the ‘actual liberation of southern states’ from GOP control

Defense secretary orders military ‘stand down’ to address ‘extremism’

‘Fund them & lose in slow motion’? Twitter reads into CIA veteran’s advice to use Iraqi-Afghan playbook on DOMESTIC ‘extremists’

A rebellion against the US ruling class


How the QAnon Cult Stormed the Capitol

Perhaps the strangest thing about the media coverage of the Capitol Hill rally was how little of it focused on the visible presence of QAnon. What’s behind the Q cult, and how can we confront it?

A pro-Trump mob confronts the US Capitol Police outside the Senate chamber of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Perhaps the strangest thing about the media coverage of the Capitol Hill rally was how little of it focused on the visible and disproportionate representation of QAnon, an online community of conspiracy theorists that started in October 2017 when an anonymous 4chan post foretold the impending arrest of Hillary Clinton.According to the Daily Beast’s Will Sommer, who was reporting on the ground, the rally consisted not only of Trump-supporting, straight-ticket Republicans, but a visibly high number of Q true believers. In fact, Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was shot to death by Capitol Police, was an ardent member of the Q faithful, as was Rosanne Boyland, who was reportedly trampled to death during the conflagration.

Q adherents come from an increasingly eclectic set of backgrounds: you’ll find NEETS, police officers, military veterans, service workers, computer programmers, successful business owners, unsuccessful business owners, stay-at-home moms, and regular working stiffs. QAnon-ers also hail from a number of identity groups, uniting straight cis white men with women and racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, and religious minorities. You’ll even find immigrants, visibly represented by the bright South Vietnamese flags seen flying at the rally. The movement boasts Zoomers, boomers, and everyone in between.

Even aesthetically, QAnon offers the dedicated paranoiac manifold subcultures and aesthetics from which to choose. Soldier of Fortune may have published its last issue in 2016, but Q provides a space for the militia-chic crowd to talk guns, ammo, and tactical gear with fellow enthusiasts. If you’re more of a yoga mom influencer, “Pastel Q” offers a decidedly feminine, New Age approach to the Ministry of MAGA, complete with crystals. There are at least a few military officers; Babbitt, ironically, was part of the Air National Guard’s “Capital Guardians,” which is charged with protecting Washington, DC.

Aside from what appears to be a conspicuous absence of middle-class professionals, Q has space for everyone. As Chapo Trap House’s Felix Biederman has remarked, “this is why Q is successful. You can have a guy in there who’s thing is, ‘I’m a black guy against affirmative action,’ or you can have a guy in there who’s fully antisemitic, or you can just have some drunk woman.” It’s a true Rainbow Coalition.

The movement’s idiosyncratic demographics reflect its idiosyncratic ideology. Babbitt, for example, boasted on Twitter about voting for and supporting Barack Obama throughout his presidency, saying he did “great things,” before declaring that in 2016 she just couldn’t vote for Hillary and thus had to support Trump. As Babbitt’s comments suggest, not only have a fair number of QAnon-ers radicalized relatively recently, but many don’t hail from the traditional Trump or conservative base. Some, like Babbitt, were formerly liberals. Some were even Bernie Sanders supporters.

Another exceptional feature that distinguishes the contemporary iteration of QAnon from the traditional right-wing base is a palpable antipathy toward the Republican Party. Their objections and grievances toward the GOP run the gamut. Some Qanon-ers believe all institutional politicians — including almost all Republicans — are in a pedophile cabal. Some Q rail against the party’s capitulations to “cultural Marxism,” which means something different to every single one of them. Some dust off that old antisemitic chestnut about the (((rootless cosmopolitans))) who run the government, media, and banks. Many Q even vehemently oppose Republican collaborations with Big Tech and/or the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, one pervasive and popular Q conspiracy is that Trump will forgive the medical debt of all Americans.

At a QAnon rally in April of 2018, for instance, Sommer interviewed one protester dying of cancer, who believed a cure had been discovered long ago, but that the “cabal” (meaning the satanic, pedophile politicians and moneymen) were hiding it from the people. He told Sommer not to worry about him, though; Trump would release it soon enough. Another woman at the same rally, upset that her young son wasn’t receiving the special education support he needed in school, insisted that Trump would deliver the similarly repressed cure for his Down Syndrome.

And here we see how Q became one of the most successful phenomena of the Trump era, despite the fact that its adherents don’t share economic interests, culture, or even a political program. Rather, many people joined Q because of their alienation and disconnection from a system they view as illegitimate. To provide their ever-more precarious lives with meaning and an explanation for American decline, Q adherents congealed under a series of bizarre Internet conspiracy theories that unite a right-wing, anti-elitist, but nevertheless authoritarian sensibility that is organized around narratives that link pedophilic cabals, racism, antisemitism, fears of “cultural Marxism,” Satanism, and, of course, absolute faith in the singular, salvific, and millenarian figure of President Donald J. Trump.

The sources of the illegitimacy that drive QAnon are vast and well known to readers of Jacobin: the financial collapse of 2008–9, the pointless imperialist wars, the ever-more grotesque inequality between the wealthy and everyone else, bad trade deals and globalization, and a feeling of impotence in a political system that was supposed to be a democracy. All of these anxieties, of course, have been recently compounded and exacerbated by a pandemic, lockdown, and an economic recession that predictably witnessed an explosion in QAnon proselytes.

Therefore, to combat the appeal of QAnon, you have to understand that you’re not dealing with a political movement, but with a cult. As members of an ecstatic and Evangelical movement — many of them, in fact, are literal Evangelicals — QAnon-ers embrace conspiracy theories because unlike the Republican or Democrat narratives, the stories they tell provide meaning in dislocated lives. In essence, QAnon tells people who believe in America that a cabal has stolen their country from them, and that faith in a charismatic leader is the only way to redeem it (and, ultimately, redeem themselves).

In this way, QAnon’ers share a view of America with many liberals. In Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7, Abbie Hoffman, played by Sacha Baron Cohen declares patriotically, “I think the institutions of our democracy are wonderful things, that right now are populated by some terrible people.” Or to make a comparison that QAnon-ers might find less appealing: like Hillary Clinton, they believe America is already great.

What Is Q Capable Of?

Many in the media, including writers in Jacobin, have identified the Capitol riots as a “coup.” This is wrong, and an accurate diagnosis is neither academic nor pedantic. Were this merely a coup from a very small number of committed reactionaries, then a hyper-militarist response might be a workable solution to QAnon. But throwing the rioters, whose sentiments embody the feelings of manifold Americans, in jail will not solve the fundamental problems of dislocation, alienation, and resentment that impelled them. Just ask Hitler, whose stint in prison failed to stave off the Nazis’ rise.

If we want to actually address the problem posed by QAnon, we have to understand what it actually is and what its members actually want. Otherwise, we risk empowering the security state while ignoring and exacerbating the conditions that enabled the Q conspiracy to take hold.

Trump supporters enter the Rotunda of the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

First, a “coup” refers to the overthrow of a government. Not only did QAnon-ers not come close to achieving this goal, this wasn’t even their goal. Instead, many, if not most adherents, insisted that they were the defenders of the democratic system, which they believe elected Trump legitimately. To paint QAnon as antidemocratic is beside the point, as it misunderstands their motivations and sense of mission.

Second, and more important, describing the events of January 6 as a coup winds up portraying a fundamentally religious movement as a fundamentally political one. As became clear once QAnon-ers entered the Capitol, they had no genuine strategy and no genuine program, instead relying on a millenarian faith that Trump would deliver them from the rule of elite pedophiles, heal the sick, comfort the poor, and establish a New Jerusalem.

Put simply, QAnon is not a properly political movement. Instead, the cultist collection of ideas in the Q eschatology are frenetic, adaptive, and have little connection to political strategy or even reality. Q-Kremlinology is therefore not only unnecessary — Q-Anon zealots pretty much post their every move in full view of the public — but practically pointless.

What the riot does reveal, however, is what QAnon-ers are, and are not, capable of.

Very clearly, they can’t overturn an election. Despite an alarming number of veterans and police officers, they have nowhere near the numbers to prevent security services from murdering them (at the very least, the elites who control American violence are not on board with Q).

Q also can’t — and does not aspire — to woo either the Republican Party or the deep state, neither of which want any competition, especially from a delusional mob that believes all non-Trump elites are satanic pedophiles. On the Republican side, Senator Ben Sasse has called QAnon-ers “nuts”; Representative Liz Cheney has referred to the conspiracy as “dangerous lunacy”; and Karl Rove has lambasted Q as a “group of nuts and kooks.”

And while the initial success of a few Q-associated political campaigns should be monitored, it’s unlikely that Q has the ability to act as a “ginger group” that pushes the Republican Party into a similarly paranoid and potentially dangerous fantasia from the inside, as the Tea Party supposedly did. The fact of the matter is that most dedicated Q members have no interest in working with either party, which they correctly identify as decayed, sclerotic, and hopelessly corrupt.

New congressional representative Lauren Boebert’s commitment to Q has been largely overstated, with the connection hinging mostly on a QAnon radio appearance and a lukewarm Q-curiosity expressed in remarks like, “Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real.” In fact, Boebert reeled back her tacit support for the group, having already been disciplined by a visit from Republican Party officials, the details of which are presently unknown. New representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is a more serious QAnon-er, though she has been with the group for years, having endorsed the conspiracies when the movement was still largely comprised of small business owners like herself. Put another way, Greene belongs to the traditional conservative base and has genuine class interests that she will work to achieve. Whatever bizarre things she might utter, or even believe, her loyalty to capital is not really in doubt.

Additionally, QAnon is incapable of “uniting the Right,” as so many have tried before. After Charlottesville, the tenuous coalitions that united the far right collapsed, resulting in numerous splits and splinter groups. In many ways, Q became the lint trap of these fractures, collecting the orphans of more genuinely political movements, along with culture warriors and the hopelessly online. At this point even Pizzagate godfather Alex Jones has disabused himself of QAnon, and Ariel Pink isn’t exactly a militiaman.

So, like any broad tent that benefits from ecumenism, QAnon thankfully also suffers from sectarianism.

While all follow the Prophet (in this case, Trump), there are profound disagreements about who is preaching his True Word. Some Q are obsessed with Russiagate, others obsess over Pizzagate, and still others form into subcults centered on charismatic leaders like Austin Steinbart. The only glue that holds this collection of malcontents together is a faith in and adoration for Trump: not ideology, not politics, and not even a shared understanding of reality.

Considering the large number of security service services that have likely infiltrated their ranks, one might assume it would be easy enough to sow suspicions among them and fracture the group. They are, after all, a group predicated on paranoia. However, it would appear that QAnon is less susceptible to COINTELPRO than one might hope. But, at least for the moment, they’re more Burning Man than burn-it-all down.

Furthermore, Q has neither the direction, means, nor ability to coordinate the networks required to overtake the American state, nor do they seem especially interested in governing. What they really want is the True King to remain in power. Were there a coup, the deep state wouldn’t trust such a bag of mixed nuts with any real responsibility.

And perhaps most important for those who hope to deprogram and rehabilitate a Q-pilled loved one, there are limits to their faith. At the level of the group, it appears few QAnon-ers are willing to make martyrs of themselves in dramatic moments of violent self-sacrifice.

What Q is capable of is nonetheless significant. As the Capitol assault reveals, they’re willing to attack, and even kill, police officers. They’re also clearly able to organize mass events with a myriad of disaffected people who are willing to put themselves at risk of arrest and imprisonment.

Given historical precedent, this is nonetheless concerning. The Silver Shirts were a mystical, New Age nationalist cult with which no “respectable” fascist group initially wanted to associate. However, over time, more coordinated far-right groups began to identify the Silver Shirts as potential useful idiots, a viable secret militia that they could encourage to use violence while keeping their own hands clean.

It’s possible that the trained among the Q could be used as a militia on behalf of the conservative right or as tools in a Business Plot–style power grab by capital.

But, judging by the combat-readiness of the Q ranks of January 6, this overestimates their present capabilities.

However, even if most QAnon-ers are not inclined toward radical violence, mass events like the one we witnessed on January 6 provide both camouflage and an excuse for exceptionally violent people to act on their twisted fantasies. Whether a protest or a parade, large, boisterous events provide convenient chaos for a dangerous person to hide in plain sight, though this is true regardless of the agenda of the larger crowd.

Liberals and conservatives alike are well aware of the potential violence and threat to the legitimacy of the general order posed by crowds and mass politics. In fact, since the middle of the twentieth century, it’s been liberals who often take the lead on anti-populist politics. Much of modern liberalism is premised on finding reasons to ensure ordinary people don’t really shape most important government decisions.

As such, instead of transforming the conditions that engendered the angry crowds, which is what the left position must be, liberals lambast the idea of the crowd itself, which was well evidenced in the media coverage of the events of January 6.

This brings us to the most significant, and unintended, potential consequence of QAnon’s agitation: the response from a bourgeois security state that for decades has been shoring up its capabilities and winning the hearts and minds of Americans terrified of communists/Islamists/China as well as political and social collapse.

Barbarians at the Gates

Even as the events of January 6 were unfolding, the liberal media’s coverage was subsumed by their horror. Instead of simply reporting on the riots, pundits like Anderson Cooper derided the protesters as “unpatriotic” “terrorists,” “insurrectionists,” and “anarchists” — terms, of course, often used to malign leftists. Cooper also played the “barbarians at the gates” number, highlighting the uncouth, unsophisticated, and tacky American consumption patterns of the QAnon-ers, the Vanderbilt heir sneering at their penchant for Olive Garden and habitation of low-rent hotels.

To Cooper, the real problem with QAnon-ers isn’t their reactionary politics, delusional worldview, or blind adherence to a charismatic leader, but their antiauthoritarianism, lack of respect for and obedience toward the American state and its ruling class, and general vulgarity.

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Jon Cherry / Getty Images)

Politicians haven’t been much help either. There is, of course, the (second) impeachment campaign, which does not prevent another Trump from emerging and which has the potential to legitimize a corrupt and dysfunctional political system. For a United States experiencing mass death and economic collapse, the spectacle of impeachment, while potentially symbolically powerful, will do little to address the actual concerns of a growing mass of desperate and suffering people.

Then there are the gestures of “liberal capital,” which appear designed to do little more than antagonize increasingly hostile Trump supporters. Twitter has finally responded to Kamala Harris’s call to suspend Trump’s account, but of course @Jack didn’t stop there, suspending and banning accounts of people tweeting even mildly in support of Trump or the demonstrations. Twitter even banned Ben Garrison, a libertarian political cartoonist that draws Trump as a bestriding Adonis with rippling muscles, a sharp jawline, and a never-ending desire to own the libs. More seriously, Twitter and other platforms have also begun to ban anti-Trump users for making fairly obvious parody accounts to mock Trump. It’s not fearmongering to worry that critical voices on the Left might soon be subject to similar measures.

Another dangerous potential effect of the protests is the re-legitimization and strengthening of the national security state. The inklings of what is likely to come are already evident in president-elect Joe Biden’s assertion that the rioters were “domestic terrorists,” a phrase that indicates the new Democratic administration will bring the strategies of the “war on terror” home by cracking down even more on civil liberties, increasing the militarization of domestic security forces, and surveilling masses of people without a warrant. Before the riots gave them cover for their plans, the incoming administration already promised as much.

In the wake of the riots, Congress members like Elissa Slotkin have begun the arguments that “the single greatest national security threat right now is our internal division. It’s the threat of domestic terrorism. It’s that polarization that threatens our democracy.” As the Intercept has noted, such calls are likely to encourage those who advocate the passage of a domestic terror statute that would provide the government with the capacities to go after domestic terrorist groups in a manner similar to how it attacks foreign terrorist groups. The problem with this, as the Intercept makes clear, is that such a law could establish “broad and vague powers that could be used to go after activists or religious minorities.” In fact, after the storming of the Capitol, Republican lawmakers in Florida, Mississippi, and Indiana introduced bills that essentially criminalize protest. Again it is worth remembering that despite their declared aims, the House Un-American Activities Committee was always more invested in prosecuting Communists than Nazis.

And herein lies the danger of misdiagnosing QAnon as the source of, rather than a symptom of, the chaos borne of economic immiseration and rapid American decline. Not only will the move to repress QAnon further justify the repression of left-wing dissent in both legal authority and public opinion; it will do nothing to deprogram the dedicated cultists or curb the reactionary resentments and conspiracies worming their ways through brains across America. In fact, it’s likely to make it worse. That’s how cults work.

The Nature of the Threat

What is to be done about the cult of Q?

There are already online communities comprised of recovering QAnon believers, which tend to operate as both sympathetic support groups and as spaces for sophisticated discussions about Q and its appeal. On these message boards, people tell their life stories, try to understand why they joined QAnon (and how they got out), and offer advice to people who have lost someone they love to Q.

Posters tend to be insightful about the factors that left them vulnerable to such a stark break with reality. In particular, they highlight the significance of economic instability and poverty, general feelings of powerlessness, a broad disillusionment with politics, mental illness and depression, and boredom and loneliness. The pandemic lockdowns are often pointed to as a major factor in the group’s explosion, with many former QAnon-ers stating they had never even heard of the group until COVID-19, when they had little to do with their days except sit at home, alone, on the Internet.

Much of the energy that these former QAnon-ers once dedicated to divining the meaning of cryptic Trump utterances and anonymous Q posts is now directed toward a different kind of search for answers, not only to questions of politics and the economy, but to questions of the psychological and sociological conditions under which we all live. The success of Q, in fact, underlines what the late Michael Brooks emphasized in his work: that people need not only arguments, but spiritual and social connection, to make meaning of their lives.

Most former QAnon-ers recognize the group as a cult, and as such often read and discuss books about the psychology and sociology of indoctrination, refer to James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente’s Stages of Change, post videos of talks given by former Westboro Baptist Church member Megan Phelps-Roper, and host AMAs with people like Steven Hassan, author of Combating Cult Mind Control. Notably, none of the materials discussed seem to have been adopted with the same fevered conviction as the QAnon-ers’ former beliefs; the goal is not to replace one absolute truth with another, but rather to foster a healthy intellectual curiosity, provide compassion and insight that might help others leave or prevent their indoctrination in the first place, and make peace with the uncertainty of life under capitalism.

It’s of course not clear if the sort of ex-Q who posts about their journey was the same stripe of Q who would storm the Capitol, or even how many posters are authentic. For obvious reasons, contributors to these online groups are anonymous, and there is careful moderation to ensure the integrity of what is inevitably a vulnerable therapeutic and intellectual space. Still, a few ex-Q have graciously agreed to speak with or be profiled by journalists.

In late 2020, for instance, Jitarth Jadeja spoke candidly with Rolling Stone and the Washington Post about his indoctrination into Q and the devastating realization that he had believed a series of deranged and cruel lies:

“If I didn’t have family that loved me I probably would have committed suicide,” Jadeja remarked. “It was really a terrible feeling to know that you are this stupid and this wrong.”

And therein lies the rub: loss of faith is often very painful.

Q makes people feel good. We don’t mean merely that it makes them “feel good” by delivering the dopamine jolts that come from the embrace of a community, the thrill of discovery, the satisfaction of enlightenment, and the comfort of a worldview that brings hope, though QAnon does provide all of that. What we mean is that it makes them feel “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent. So why would a QAnon-er stop believing, especially given that a return to a pre-Q worldview likely invites back all the pre-Q fear, confusion, and feelings of powerlessness that engendered an individual’s turn to QAnon in the first place, only this time there’s the added pain of shame and the shattering of one’s self-image as a wise and virtuous person.

Friends and family members of the indoctrinated are often in the difficult position of trying to take away a belief system from someone who has finally found an intellectual framework that appears to make sense of the world and allows them to feel in control of what is likely to be an increasingly — and objectively — disenfranchised life.

There are different perspectives on how to break the spell of QAnon, but there are a few relatively consistent tips that sociologists, psychologists, and former cult members themselves recommend adopting at the interpersonal level.

First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that cult membership will not be solved by facts and logic. QAnon-ers, like members of all cults, have embraced a different ontology, a different view of reality, and attempting to “demystify” this new worldview is likely to be construed as naivete, hostility, or perhaps even collaboration with the evil cabal. Relatedly, berating, punishing, or shunning a cult member will probably do little but shore up their belief in the conspiracy theory and possibly direct their paranoia on you.

Instead, the best way to deal with someone who has embraced a conspiracy theory is to show your concern for them. An honest “I’m worried about you” or “This seems to take up a lot of your time and energy” reminds them that you are on their side. With time and luck, this can encourage QAnon-ers to open up about their beliefs. Questioning their claims and asking them to consider alternative explanations requires patience and actively listening to their concerns, getting to the root of the discontent that animates the byzantine collection of conspiracies to which they have subscribed. These are people trying to make sense of a frightening and precarious world, and if they believe the exit from Q requires them to again feel confused, powerless, and terrified, they are unlikely to leave the comfort of their delusions.

Presenting oneself as the sole authority of truth is generally counterproductive. One, you’re not, and two, an air of superiority ensures that a friend or relative will not confide in such a person should they begin to have doubts. The idea is to be patient and leave the door open for when cracks of skepticism emerge. No one likes feeling ashamed, and no one seeks a confidante who is likely to tell them, “I told you so.”

Finally, deriding QAnon-ers’ feelings of insecurity and outrage or writing them off as irrational or “privileged” does nothing. To reverse a quote by one of the United States’ dumbest minds, “feelings don’t care about your facts.” Indeed, be sure to make clear that you understand that their motives are “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent.

However, not only should one not overestimate their power to deprogram a QAnon-er; such a case-by-case approach swats at flies. Cults tend to recruit from the already lost and lonely, and both generate and exacerbate preexisting and pervasive antisocial insularity, isolating members from the people best equipped to help them. Moreover, individually deprogramming QAnon-ers does nothing to alleviate the conditions that produced the Q mindset, conditions that will only be addressed by transforming the world that allowed the conspiracy to take hold in the minds of so many.

QAnon-ers are correct about a lot of things. Recent revelations like those surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal indicate that a lot of wealthy elites are, in fact, members of a pedophilic cabal. More broadly, though, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that much of the world has gotten worse for millions of people as a direct result of forces beyond their control.

Socialists have some big advantages over an anonymous 4chan account; not only do we have explanations and a political program that addresses QAnon-ers’ legitimate concerns, but we also have reality and the honesty and humility to admit that, while we don’t have all the answers, we aspire to build a system that is democratic and just, that is honest, and that cultivates the better angels of our nature, so that our world, and indeed humanity itself, can become Good.

Daniel Bessner is the Joff Hanauer Honors Associate Professor in Western Civilization in the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is also a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a contributing editor at Jacobin.

Amber A’Lee Frost is a writer and co-host of the Chapo Trap House podcast. She is currently completing her first book, on the rise of social-democratic politics post-2008 financial crisis.

Freaked-Out Radical Congresswoman NOT IN US CAPITOL During Jan. 6 Riot, As Claimed

AOC compared to Jussie Smollett after her ‘near-death’ riot experience revealed as hiding from POLICE in office OUTSIDE Capitol

AOC compared to Jussie Smollett after her ‘near-death’ riot experience revealed as hiding from POLICE in office OUTSIDE Capitol
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being compared to the actor who staged an attack on himself, after her account of fearing for her life during the January 6 riot was fact-checked, exposing that she wasn’t in the Capitol building.

The hashtags #AlexandriaOcasioSmollett, along with #AOCLied, trended on Wednesday, following a fact-check of AOC’s (D-New York) Instagram livestream two days prior by OAN journalist Jack Posobiec. During her emotional one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she was not in the Capitol building during the riot to begin with, but continued to claim that she experienced a life-threatening situation.

When Ocasio-Cortez denounced it as a “manipulative take on the right,” Posobiec posted a map, with arrows pointing to the Capitol as well as two other office buildings across the road. One of them is where AOC’s own office is located, and where she claimed she “thought I was going to die” during the January 6 events. Another is where she ended up sheltering inside the office of Rep. Katie Porter (D-California) after leaving her office on the instructions of the Capitol Police.

“This isn’t a fact check at all,” Ocasio-Cortez responded to Posobiec’s post. “Your arrows aren’t accurate. They lie about where the mob stormed & place them further away than it was.”

She accused Posobiec of failing to show that demonstrators were trying to “storm” multiple areas, or showing “tunnels” between the Capitol and other office buildings – which to a lot of people sounded like moving the goalposts and not in line with her original description. Her post was quickly ratioed on Twitter, and the hashtag comparing her to Jussie Smollett began to trend.

A crowd of supporters of President Donald Trump had gathered outside the main Capitol building on January 6, eventually breaking inside and disrupting the joint session of Congress meeting to certify 2020 presidential election results. During the Monday night Instagram live-stream, Ocasio-Cortez described how she hid in the bathroom of her office, located in the Cannon House Building, and thought she was “going to die.”

However, she then admitted that the man who rushed into the office and supposedly looked at her with “anger and hostility” turned out to be an officer with the Capitol Police – who are now treated by Congress as heroes who opposed the “insurrection” against “our democracy.” 

The officer then instructed her and her staffer to go to the Longworth House Office Building – the one where Porter’s office is located, and the one that Ocasio-Cortez claims some protesters later tried to storm. There is no publicly available evidence that any of the rioters got anywhere close to Ocasio-Cortez’s whereabouts, and Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-North Carolina), who has her office two doors down from that of AOC’s, has said that “insurrectionists never stormed our hallway.”

However, Ocasio-Cortez has already sought to fend off any backlash by comparing criticism to a “tactic of abusers,” as she revealed she’s also a “survivor of sexual assault.”

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Bravery’ or ‘manipulative’? AOC comes out as survivor of sexual assault while describing ‘trauma’ of Capitol riotThis appeared to be a reference to a letter by 13 House Republicans demanding an apology from her for accusing Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others who challenged the 2020 election results as trying to have her “murdered” by supposedly “inciting” the rioters. Her January 28 tweet targeting Cruz said she was “happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.”

Smollett, who AOC scored comparisons to, shot to fame in February 2019, after accusing two Trump supporters of a racist and homophobic attack in Chicago. He quickly garnered sympathy from the media, activists and Democrats such as then-senator and current Vice President Kamala Harris. When the police located the men who allegedly doused him with bleach and put a noose around his neck, they turned out to be Nigerian immigrants who said the ‘Empire’ actor paid them to stage the “attack.”

Whatever the truth about AOC’s alleged sexual assault and near-death experience at the Capitol, some critics of the progressive social media star noted that she had successfully diverted attention from problems with the government and the small investor rebellion against hedge funds.

Mainstream American Media Is NOT fact-based reporting, If Half the Facts Are Omitted

“How do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensus reality?”–CNN interview.

The CIA Democrats: Part one
The CIA Democrats: Part two
The CIA Democrats: Part three–9 March 2018

Ideological Alignment Pushing America Toward Totalitarianism, Experts Warn


Concerns over the nexus of big tech, big media, and big government

The formation of a totalitarian state is just about complete in America as the most powerful public and private sector actors unify behind the idea that actions to stamp out dissent can be justified, according to several experts on modern totalitarian ideologies.

While many have warned about the rise of fascism or socialism in “the land of the free,” the ideas have largely been vague or fragmented, focusing on individual events or actors. Recent events, however, indicate that seemingly unconnected pieces of the oppression puzzle are fitting together to form a comprehensive system, according to Michael Rectenwald, a retired liberal arts professor at New York University.

But many Americans, it appears, have been caught off guard or aren’t even aware of the newly forming regime, as the idea of elected officials, government bureaucrats, large corporations, the establishment academia, think tanks and nonprofits, the legacy media, and even seemingly grassroots movements all working in concert toward some evil purpose seems preposterous. Is a large portion of the country in on a conspiracy?

The reality now emerges that no massive conspiracy was, in fact, needed—merely an ideological alignment and some informal coordination, Rectenwald argues.

Despite the lack of formal overarching organization, the American socialist regime is indeed totalitarian, as the root of its ideology requires politically motivated coercion, he told The Epoch Times. The power of the regime isn’t yet absolute, but it’s becoming increasingly effective as it erodes the values, checks, and balances against tyranny established by traditional beliefs and enshrined in the American founding.

The effects can be seen throughout society. Americans, regardless of their income, demographics, or social stature, are being fired from jobs, getting stripped of access to basic services such as banking and social media, or having their businesses crippled for voicing political opinions and belonging to a designated political underclass. Access to sources of information unsanctioned by the regime is becoming increasingly difficult. Some figures of power and influence are sketching the next step, labeling large segments of society as “extremists” and potential terrorists who need to be “deprogrammed.”

While the onset of the regime appears tied to events of recent years—the presidency of Donald Trump, the CCP virus pandemic, the Capitol intrusion of Jan. 6—its roots go back decades.

Is It Really Totalitarian?

Totalitarian regimes are commonly understood as constituting a government headed by a dictator that regiments the economy, censors the media, and quells dissent by force. That’s not the case in America, but it’s also a misunderstanding of how such regimes function, literature on totalitarianism indicates.

To claim power, the regimes don’t initially need to control every aspect of society through government.

Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist Workers Party in Nazi Germany, used various means to control the economy, including gaining compliance of industry leaders voluntarily, through intimidation, or through replacing the executives with party loyalists.

Similarly, the regime rearing its head in America relies on corporate executives to implement its agenda voluntarily but also through intimidation by online brigades of activists and journalists who take initiative to launch negative public relations campaigns and boycotts to progress their preferred societal structure.

Also, Hitler initially didn’t control the spread of information via government censorship but rather through his brigades of street thugs, the “brown shirts,” who would intimidate and physically prevent his opponents from speaking publicly.

The tactic parallels the often successful efforts to “cancel” and “shut down” public speakers by activists and violent actors such as Antifa.

Dissenting media in America haven’t been silenced by the government directly as of yet, but they are stymied in other ways.

In the digital age, media largely rely on reaching and growing their audience through social media and web search engines, which are dominated by Facebook and Google. Both companies have in place mechanisms to crack down on dissenting media.

Google gives preference in its search results to sources it deems “authoritative.” Search results indicate the company tends to consider media ideologically close to it to be more authoritative. Such media can then produce hit pieces on their competitors, giving Google justification to slash the “authoritativeness” of the dissenters.

Facebook employs third-party fact-checkers who have the discretion to label content as “false” and thus reduce the audience on its platform. Virtually all the fact-checkers focused on American content are ideologically aligned with Facebook.

Attempts to set up alternative social media have run into yet more fundamental obstacles, as demonstrated by Parler, whose mobile app was terminated by Google and Apple, while the company was kicked off Amazon’s servers.

To the degree that a totalitarian regime requires a police state, there’s no U.S. law targeting dissenters explicitly. But there are troubling signs of selective, politically motivated enforcement. Signs go back to the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups or the difference in treatment received by former Trump adviser retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—both allegedly lying to investigators but only one getting prosecuted. The situation may get still worse as the restrictions tied to the CCP virus see broad swaths of ordinary human behavior being considered “illegal,” opening the door to nearly universal political targeting.

“I think the means by which a police state is being set up is the demonization of Trump supporters and the likely use of medical passports to institute the effective equivalent of social credit scores,” Rectenwald said.

While loyalty to the government and to a specific political party plays a major role, it’s the allegiance to the ideological root of totalitarianism that gives the system its foot soldiers, literature on the subject indicates.

Totalitarian Ideology

The element “that holds totalitarianism together as a composite of intellectual elements” is the ambition of fundamentally reimagining society—“the intention to create a ‘New Man,’” said author Richard Shorten in “Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present.”

Various ideologies have framed the ambition differently, based on what they posited as the key to the transformation.

Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, viewed the control of the economy as primary, describing socialism as “socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature,” in his Das Kapital.

Meanwhile, Hitler viewed race as primary. People would become “socialized”—that is transformed and perfected—by removing Jews and other supposedly “lesser” races from society, he claimed.

The most dominant among the current ideologies stems from the so-called critical theories, by which the perfected society is defined by “equity,” meaning elimination of differences in outcomes for people in demographic categories deemed historically marginalized. The goal is to be achieved by eliminating the ever-present “white supremacy,” however the ideologues currently define it.

While such ideologies commonly prescribe collectivism, calling for national or even international unification behind their agenda, they are elitist and dictatorial in practice as they find mankind never “woke” enough to follow their agenda voluntarily.

In Marx’s prophecies, the revolution was supposed to occur spontaneously. Yet, it never did, leading Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, to conclude that the revolution will need leadership after all.

“The idea is that you have some enlightened party … who understand the problem of the proletariat better than the proletariat does and is going to shepherd them through the revolution that they need to have for the greater good,” said James Lindsay, author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.”

Elements of this intellectual foundation can be found in ideologies of many current political forces, from neo-nazis and anarcho-communists, through to progressives, and to some extent even neoliberals and neoconservatives, Lindsay said.

“This is why you see so many people today saying that the only possible answers are a full return to classical liberalism or a complete rejection of liberalism entirely as fatally disposed to create progressivism, neoliberalism, etc.,” he said.

That’s not to say these ideologies are openly advocating totalitarianism, but rather that they inevitably lead to it.

The roadmap could be summarized as follows:

  1. There’s something fundamentally and intolerably wrong with current reality
  2. There’s a plan to fix it requiring a whole society buy-in
  3. People opposing the plan need to be educated about the plan so they accept it
  4. People who resist the persuasion need to be reeducated, even against their will
  5. People who won’t accept the plan, no matter what, need to be removed from society.

“I think that’s the general thrust,” Lindsay said. “We can make the world the way we want it to be if we all just get on the same page and same project. It’s a disaster, frankly.”

Points four and five now appear to be in progress.

Former Facebook executive Alex Stamos recently labeled the widespread questioning of the 2020 election results as “violent extremism,” which social media companies should eradicate the same way they countered online recruitment content from the ISIS terrorist group.

The “core issue,” he said, is that “we have given a lot of leeway, both in traditional media and on social media, to people to have a very broad range of political views,” and this has led to the emergence of “more and more radical” alternative media like OAN and Newsmax.

Stamos then mused about how to reform Americans who’ve tuned in to the dissenters.

“How do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensus reality?” he asked in a CNN interview.

“And can you? Is that possible?” CNN host Brian Stelter said.

The logic goes as follows: Trump claimed the election was stolen through fraud and other illegalities. That hasn’t been proven in court and is thus false. People who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and managed to break inside and disrupt the electoral vote counting did so because they believed the election was stolen. Therefore, anybody who questions the legitimacy of the election results is an extremist and potentially a terrorist.

With tens of thousands of troops assembled to guard the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) recently told CNN that all guard members who voted for Trump belong to a “suspect group” that “might want to do something,” alluding to past leaders of other countries who were “killed by their own people.”

Former FBI Director James Comey recently said the Republican Party needs to be “burned down or changed.”

“They want a one-party state,” conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza said in a recent podcast. “That is not to say they don’t want an opposition. They want a token opposition. They want Republicans where they get to say what kind of Republican is OK.”

Just as Marx blamed the ills of the world on capitalists and Hitler on Jews, the current regime tends to blame various permutations of “white supremacy.”

“Expel the Republican members of Congress who incited the white supremacist attempted coup,” said Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) in a recent tweet, garnering some 300,000 likes. She was referring to the Republican lawmakers who raised objections on Jan. 6 to election results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Their objections were voted down.

“Can U.S. Spy Agencies Stop White Terror?” Daily Beast’s Jeff Stein asked in a recent headline, concluding that a call for “secret police” to sniff out “extremist” Americans “may well get renewed attention.”

Under the regime, allegations of election fraud—de facto questioning the legitimacy of the leader—have become incitement of terrorism. YouTube (owned by Google), Facebook, and Twitter have either banned content that claims the election was rigged or are furnishing it with warning labels. Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey was recently recorded as saying that banning the president’s account was just the beginning.

The approach closely mirrors that of the Chinese communist regime, which commonly targets dissidents for “subverting” the state or “spreading rumors.”

What’s the Alternative?

If calls for radically reorganizing the world are inherently totalitarian, how is the world to avoid them? The question appears to be its own answer. If totalitarianism inherently requires allegiance to its ideology, it can’t exist in a society with a lack of such allegiance.

The United States was founded on the idea that individual rights are God-given and unalienable. The idea, rooted in traditional beliefs that human morality is of divine origin, stands a bulwark against any attempt to assail people’s rights even for their own good.

Rectenwald said: “If you’re not a believer in actual God, you can posit a God’s ideal on the matter. … We have to posit some arbiter who’s above and beyond our own prejudices and biases in order to ensure these kinds of rights. … Because otherwise, you have this infinitely malleable situation in which people with power and coercive potential can eliminate and rationalize the elimination of rights willy-nilly.”

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

Democrat Party Declares New Terror War On the Half of America That Voted For Trump

Trump Led A Voting Bloc of 70 Million Anti-Elitists

The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming

No speculation is needed. Those who wield power are demanding it. The only question is how much opposition they will encounter.

National Guard Troops walk down the stairs towards the Capitol Visitors Center on Monday, Jan. 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting “terrorism” that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This trend shows no sign of receding as we move farther from the January 6 Capitol riot. The opposite is true: it is intensifying.

We have witnessed an orgy of censorship from Silicon Valley monopolies with calls for far more aggressive speech policing, a visibly militarized Washington, D.C. featuring a non-ironically named “Green Zone,” vows from the incoming president and his key allies for a new anti-domestic terrorism bill, and frequent accusations of “sedition,” “treason,” and “terrorism” against members of Congress and citizens. This is all driven by a radical expansion of the meaning of “incitement to violence.” It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (See Something, Say Something!) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance.

Underlying all of this are immediate insinuations that anyone questioning any of this must, by virtue of these doubts, harbor sympathy for the Terrorists and their neo-Nazi, white supremacist ideology. Liberals have spent so many years now in a tight alliance with neocons and the CIA that they are making the 2002 version of John Ashcroft look like the President of the (old-school) ACLU.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security website, touting a trademarked phrase licensed to it in 2010 by the City of New York, urging citizens to report “suspicious activity” to the FBI and other security state agencies

The more honest proponents of this new domestic War on Terror are explicitly admitting that they want to model it on the first one. A New York Times reporter noted on Monday that a “former intelligence official on PBS NewsHour” said “that the US should think about a ‘9/11 Commission’ for domestic extremism and consider applying some of the lessons from the fight against Al Qaeda here at home.” More amazingly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — for years head of Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of the war in Afghanistan — explicitly compared that war to this new one, speaking to Yahoo News:

I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America….I think we’re much further along in this radicalization process, and facing a much deeper problem as a country, than most Americans realize.”

Anyone who, despite all this, still harbors lingering doubts that the Capitol riot is and will be the neoliberal 9/11, and that a new War on Terror is being implemented in its name, need only watch the two short video clips below, which will clear their doubts for good. It is like being catapulted by an unholy time machine back to Paul Wolfowitz’s 2002 messaging lab.

The first video, flagged by Tom Elliott, is from Monday morning’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC (the show that arguably did more to help Donald Trump become the GOP nominee than any other). It features Jeremy Bash — one of the seemingly countless employees of TV news networks who previously worked in Obama’s CIA and Pentagon — demanding that, in response to the Capitol riot, “we reset our entire intelligence approach,” including “look[ing] at greater surveillance of them,” adding: “the FBI is going to have to run confidential sources.” See if you detect any differences between what CIA operatives and neocons were saying in 2002 when demanding the Patriot Act and greater FBI and NSA surveillance and what this CIA-official-turned-NBC-News-analyst is saying here:

The second video features the amazing declaration from former Facebook security official Alex Stamos, talking to the very concerned CNN host Brian Stelter, about the need for social media companies to use the same tactics against U.S. citizens that they used to remove ISIS from the internet — “in collaboration with law enforcement” — and that those tactics should be directly aimed at what he calls extremist “conservative influencers.”

“Press freedoms are being abused by these actors,” the former Facebook executive proclaimed. Stamos noted how generous he and his comrades have been up until now: “We have given a lot of leeway — both in the traditional media and in social media — to people with a very broad range of views.” But no more. Now is the time to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”

In a moment of unintended candor, Stamos noted the real problem: “there are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger audience than people on daytime CNN” — and it’s time for CNN and other mainstream outlets to seize the monopoly on information dissemination to which they are divinely entitled by taking away the platforms of those whom people actually want to watch and listen to:

(If still not convinced, and if you can endure it, you can also watch MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski literally screaming that one needed remedy to the Capitol riot is that the Biden administration must “shutdown” Facebook. Shutdown Facebook).

Calls for a War on Terror sequel — a domestic version complete with surveillance and censorship — are not confined to ratings-deprived cable hosts and ghouls from the security state. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) — not just one of the most dishonest members of Congress but also one of the most militaristic and authoritarian — has had a bill proposed since 2019 to simply amend the existing foreign anti-terrorism bill to allow the U.S. Government to invoke exactly the same powers at home against “domestic terrorists.”

Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new “domestic terrorism” laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because — just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws — their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.

US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) flanked by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) (R) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), speaks at a press conference on Capitol Hill (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

The answer to this question — what needs to be criminalized that is not already a crime? — scarcely seems to matter. Media and political elites have placed as many Americans as they can — and it is a lot — into full-blown fear and panic mode, and when that happens, people are willing to acquiesce to anything claimed necessary to stop that threat, as the first War on Terror, still going strong twenty years later, decisively proved.

An entire book could — and probably should — be written on why all of this is so concerning. For the moment, two points are vital to emphasize.

First, much of the alarmism and fear-mongering is being driven by a deliberate distortion of what it means for speech to “incite violence.” The bastardizing of this phrase was the basis for President Trump’s rushed impeachment last week. It is also what is driving calls for dozens of members of Congress to be expelled and even prosecuted on “sedition” charges for having objected to the Electoral College certification, and is also at the heart of the spate of censorship actions already undertaken and further repressive measures being urged.

This phrase — “inciting violence” — was also what drove many of the worst War on Terror abuses. I spent years reporting on how numerous young American Muslims were prosecuted under new, draconian anti-terrorism laws for uploading anti-U.S.-foreign-policy YouTube videos or giving rousing anti-American speeches deemed to “incite violence” and thus provide “material support” to terrorist groups — the exact theory which Rep. Schiff is seeking to import into the new domestic War on Terror.

It is vital to ask what it means for speech to constitute “incitement to violence” to the point that it can be banned or criminalized. The expression of any political viewpoint, especially one passionately expressed, has the potential to “incite” someone else to get so riled up that they engage in violence.

If you rail against the threats to free speech posed by Silicon Valley monopolies, someone hearing you may get so filled with rage that they decide to bomb an Amazon warehouse or a Facebook office. If you write a blistering screed accusing pro-life activists of endangering the lives of women by forcing them back into unsafe back-alley abortions, or if you argue that abortion is murder, you may very well inspire someone to engage in violence against a pro-life group or an abortion clinic. If you start a protest movement to object to the injustice of Wall Street bailouts — whether you call it “Occupy Wall Street” or the Tea Party — you may cause someone to go hunt down Goldman Sachs or Citibank executives who they believe are destroying the economic future of millions of people.

If you claim that George W. Bush stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections — as many Democrats, including members of Congress, did — you may inspire civic unrest or violence against Bush and his supporters. The same is true if you claim the 2016 or 2020 elections were fraudulent or illegitimate. If you rage against the racist brutality of the police, people may go burn down buildings in protest — or murder randomly selected police officers whom they have become convinced are agents of a racist genocidal state.

The Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer and hard-core Democratic partisan, James Hodgkinson, who went to a softball field in June, 2017 to murder Republican Congress members — and almost succeeded in fatally shooting Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) — had spent months listening to radical Sanders supporters and participating in Facebook groups with names like “Terminate the Republican Party” and “Trump is a Traitor.”

Hodgkinson had heard over and over that Republicans were not merely misguided but were “traitors” and grave threats to the Republic. As CNN reported, “his favorite television shows were listed as ‘Real Time with Bill Maher;’ ‘The Rachel Maddow Show;’ ‘Democracy Now!’ and other left-leaning programs.” All of the political rhetoric to which he was exposed — from the pro-Sanders Facebook groups, MSNBC and left-leaning shows — undoubtedly played a major role in triggering his violent assault and decision to murder pro-Trump Republican Congress members.

Despite the potential of all of those views to motivate others to commit violence in their name — potential that has sometimes been realized — none of the people expressing those views, no matter how passionately, can be validly characterized as “inciting violence” either legally or ethically. That is because all of that speech is protected, legitimate speech. None of it advocates violence. None of it urges others to commit violence in its name. The fact that it may “inspire” or “motivate” some mentally unwell person or a genuine fanatic to commit violence does not make the person espousing those views and engaging in that non-violent speech guilty of “inciting violence” in any meaningful sense.

To illustrate this point, I have often cited the crucial and brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. In the 1960s and 1970s, the State of Mississippi tried to hold local NAACP leaders liable on the ground that their fiery speeches urging a boycott of white-owned stores “incited” their followers to burn down stores and violently attack patrons who did not honor the protest. The state’s argument was that the NAACP leaders knew that they were metaphorically pouring gasoline on a fire with their inflammatory rhetoric to rile up and angry crowds.

But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining that free speech will die if people are held responsible not for their own violent acts but for those committed by others who heard them speak and were motivated to commit crimes in the name of that cause (emphasis added):

Civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. . . .

[A]ny such theory fails for the simple reason that there is no evidence — apart from the speeches themselves — that [the NAACP leader sued by the State] authorized, ratified, or directly threatened acts of violence. . . . . To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment. . . .

While the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity. Only those losses proximately caused by unlawful conduct may be recovered.

The First Amendment similarly restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual solely because of his association with another.

The Claiborne court relied upon the iconic First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohiowhich overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader who had publicly advocated the possibility of violence against politicians. Even explicitly advocating the need or justifiability of violence for political ends is protected speech, ruled the court. They carved out a very narrow exception: “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — meaning someone is explicitly urging an already assembled mob to specific violence with the expectation that they will do so more or less immediately (such as standing outside someone’s home and telling the gathered mob: it’s time to burn it down).

It goes without saying that First Amendment jurisprudence on “incitement” governs what a state can do when punishing or restricting speech, not what a Congress can do in impeaching a president or expelling its own members, and certainly not social media companies seeking to ban people from their platforms.

But that does not make these principles of how to understand “incitement to violence” irrelevant when applied to other contexts. Indeed, the central reasoning of these cases is vital to preserve everywhere: that if speech is classified as “incitement to violence” despite not explicitly advocating violence, it will sweep up any political speech which those wielding this term wish it to encompass. No political speech will be safe from this term when interpreted and applied so broadly and carelessly.

And that is directly relevant to the second point. Continuing to process Washington debates of this sort primarily through the prism of “Democrat v. Republican” or even “left v. right” is a sure ticket to the destruction of core rights. There are times when powers of repression and censorship are aimed more at the left and times when they are aimed more at the right, but it is neither inherently a left-wing nor a right-wing tactic. It is a ruling class tactic, and it will be deployed against anyone perceived to be a dissident to ruling class interests and orthodoxies no matter where on the ideological spectrum they reside.

The last several months of politician-and-journalist-demanded Silicon Valley censorship has targeted the right, but prior to that and simultaneously it has often targeted those perceived as on the left. The government has frequently declared right-wing domestic groups “terrorists,” while in the 1960s and 1970s it was left-wing groups devoted to anti-war activism which bore that designation. In 2011, British police designated the London version of Occupy Wall Street a “terrorist” group. In the 1980s, the African National Congress was so designated. “Terrorism” is an amorphous term that was created, and will always be used, to outlaw formidable dissent no matter its source or ideology.

If you identify as a conservative and continue to believe that your prime enemies are ordinary leftists, or you identify as a leftist and believe your prime enemies are Republican citizens, you will fall perfectly into the trap set for you. Namely, you will ignore your real enemies, the ones who actually wield power at your expense: ruling class elites, who really do not care about “right v. left” and most definitely do not care about “Republican v. Democrat” — as evidenced by the fact that they fund both parties — but instead care only about one thing: stability, or preservation of the prevailing neoliberal order.

Unlike so many ordinary citizens addicted to trivial partisan warfare, these ruling class elites know who their real enemies are: anyone who steps outside the limits and rules of the game they have crafted and who seeks to disrupt the system that preserves their prerogatives and status. The one who put this best was probably Barack Obama when he was president, when he observed — correctly — that the perceived warfare between establishment Democratic and Republican elites was mostly theater, and on the question of what they actually believe, they’re both “fighting inside the 40 yard line” together:

A standard Goldman Sachs banker or Silicon Valley executive has far more in common, and is far more comfortable, with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan than they do with the ordinary American citizen. Except when it means a mildly disruptive presence — like Trump — they barely care whether Democrats or Republicans rule various organs of government, or whether people who call themselves “liberals” or “conservatives” ascend to power. Some left-wing members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have said they oppose a new domestic terrorism law, but Democrats will have no trouble forming a majority by partnering with their neocon GOP allies like Liz Cheney to get it done, as they did earlier this year to stop the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.

Neoliberalism and imperialism do not care about the pseudo-fights between the two parties or the cable TV bickering of the day. They do not like the far left or the far right. They do not like extremism of any kind. They do not support Communism and they do not support neo-Nazism or some fascist revolution. They care only about one thing: disempowering and crushing anyone who dissents from and threatens their hegemony. They care about stopping dissidents. All the weapons they build and institutions they assemble — the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, oligarchical power — exist for that sole and exclusive purpose, to fortify their power by rewarding those who accede to their pieties and crushing those who do not.

No matter your views on the threat posed by international Islamic radicalism, huge excesses were committed in the name of stopping it — or, more accurately, the fears it generated were exploited to empower and entrench existing financial and political elites. The Authorization to Use Military Force — responsible for twenty-years-and-counting of war — was approved by the House three days after the 9/11 attack with just one dissenting vote. The Patriot Act — which radically expanded government surveillance powers — was enacted a mere six weeks after that attack, based on the promise that it would be temporary and “sunset” in four years. Like the wars spawned by 9/11, it is still in full force, virtually never debated any longer and predictably expanded far beyond how it was originally depicted.

The first War on Terror ended up being wielded primarily on foreign soil but it has increasingly been imported onto domestic soil against Americans. This New War on Terror — one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” among American citizens on U.S. soil — presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.

That a new War on Terror is coming is not a question of speculation and it is not in doubt. Those who now wield power are saying it explicitly. The only thing that is in doubt is how much opposition they will encounter from those who value basic civic rights more than the fears of one another being deliberately cultivated within us.

Turning Politics Into War

[Despite predictions of more violence predicted for today and the next few days, it is important to point-out once again, that this is NOT A ONE-SIDED FIGHT, the left did as much as the right (if not more) to prepare the ground for something like a civil war.  The post below does an excellent job of listing many of the Democrat actions which went into this fight.  Follow the reference links to reports confirming the extreme claims made.]

The left’s bare-faced hypocrisy: Devine


What a difference a week makes. On Wednesday, we discovered that House Democrats actually support police. They are against mob violence. They believe in law and order. They believe in harsh punishment for rule breakers. They believe in accountability.

They care deeply about civility. They believe words matter. They abhor intemperate rhetoric. They are against coarse language. Fancy that.

They believe in a peaceful transition of power, at least this time, as opposed to 2016. They believe in the Electoral College. They believe in the legitimacy of the people’s vote.

They believe in walls, at least when it comes to protecting their own place of work. They even believe in bringing in the National Guard to quell civil unrest, at least when it comes to preserving their own peace.

They believe in guns, at least when their own safety is at risk.

They revere American history and institutional norms. They honor the Founding Fathers. Hah!

This is what we learned while watching the Democrats in the House impeach President Trump for the second pointless time in 13 months.

We learned that they, almost to a man and a woman, suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.

Where have they been the past four years with these noble ideas that conservatives have been begging them to defend?

Perhaps if Democrats had not normalized and encouraged violence when organized BLM-Antifa mobs began rampaging through our cities, the tragic events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol would not have occurred.

As Republican Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas said Wednesday:

“Last summer the Antifa and BLM riots swept across our country. Businesses were destroyed, cities burned. It was not like the horrible hours we had on January 6. But rather, they went on for weeks and in some cases months.

Democrats have seemingly forgotten how many businesses and communities were burned amid the ‘peaceful’ George Floyd protests last summer.
Democrats have seemingly forgotten how many businesses and communities were burned amid the “peaceful” George Floyd protests last summer.
Star Tribune via Getty Images 

“So if there’s any silver lining in this dark cloud, it’s that our friends across the aisle have come to realize that riots are bad. We conservatives have known this all along.”

Perhaps if Democrats had not weaponized the intelligence agencies to spy on Trump’s campaign, perhaps if they had not used the Steele dossier to undermine the legitimacy of his presidency and accuse him of colluding with Russia to rig the 2016 election, perhaps if they had not hobbled his administration with the three-year Mueller investigation, perhaps more Trump voters would have been willing to accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency.

Perhaps if Dems had not already launched a spiteful partisan impeachment last year, their efforts to highlight the president’s shortcomings would have fallen on fewer deaf ears this time.

Nancy Pelosi and the left suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.
Nancy Pelosi and the left suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.

As Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said,it took just 19 minutes into Trump’s presidency for the Washington Post to trumpet: “Campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” 

“And now with just one week left,” Jordan said Wednesday, “they’re still trying.”

Perhaps if Dems had reflected on their own culpability in the attempted assassination of Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana by a Bernie Sanders supporter, their sanctimonious lectures Wednesday would be more credible.

“I’ve seen the evil of political violence firsthand and it needs to stop,” Scalise said Wednesday. “But all of us need to be unequivocal calling it out when we see it, not just when it comes from the other side of the aisle.”

Perhaps if Joe Biden had not spent two years muscling up to Trump, with threats like “I’d smack him in the mouth” and “I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,” Biden’s pitch for civility might be more palatable.

Perhaps if Democrats had not spent the last four years calling Trump a dictator, authoritarian, Nazi, Hitler, white supremacist, anti-Semite, bigot, racist, hater, dangerous, demented and insane, then the hyperbole they used against him Wednesday might have been more effective.

The Aesop’s fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” comes to mind. Democrats and their media handmaidens have spent four years demonizing Trump, using the most outlandish hyperbole their fevered imaginations could dream up.

So when finally, at the bitter end, when he behaves in a way that angers even his most loyal supporters, there is nowhere left to go in the demonization department.

Hence the absurdity of Wednesday’s rhetoric in the House, as Democrats overreached yet again, traducing the president as a “white supremacist” — or “racist in chief,” as Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan called him.

Instead of impeaching the president, the House could have censured him and gathered a lot more Republican votes.

His refrain since November about having won in a “landslide” was reckless and deluded but it had nothing to do with racism, and his speech at the Ellipse in DC on Jan. 6 explicitly called for the crowd to “peacefully” protest.

How was he to know that the Capitol would not be adequately guarded, and the mob would so easily smash their way inside?

Capitol Police had been left like lambs to the slaughter in part because the cop-hating mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, wrote to the Department of Justice the day before the protests specifically to reject federal reinforcements.

The flexible morality and selective outrage of the Democrats and their media boosters is so dishonest, it makes your head spin.

At a thunderous press conference Tuesday, acting US Attorney for DC Michael Sherwin said law enforcement officials are treating last week’s Capitol riot “like an international counterterrorism investigation. We’re looking at everything — money, travel records. No resource will be unchecked.”

It is reportedly one of the “most expansive criminal investigations in the history of the Justice Department,” with all 56 FBI field offices involved.

Great, but where was that kind of gravitas when BLM-Antifa rioters locked Seattle police in a building and tried to burn them alive?

Or when police were attacked with bricks and Molotov cocktails, whole blocks were looted and set ablaze at a cost of billions of dollars, and parts of some US cities were turned into lawless autonomous zones inside which people were murdered? For months.

There now are at least twice as many troops guarding the nation’s capital than the total number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Maybe it’s not overkill, but the optics also serve the purpose of further demonizing President Trump and his supporters to a worldwide audience.

That’s why Nancy Pelosi posed merrily for photos outside the Capitol in front of rows of uniforms yesterday. All class, and subtle as a sledgehammer.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to National Guard troops outside the Capitol
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to National Guard troops outside the Capitol.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s Office via AP

Democrats Plan Witch-Hunt To Destroy Republican Party, Leaving the U.S. A One-Party Dictatorship

When Deplorables Become Ungovernables

PBS lawyer fired after championing ‘REEDUCATION CAMPS’ for children of Trump supporters in latest Project Veritas sting

AOC: Country will heal with the ‘actual liberation of southern states’ from GOP control

DOJ, FBI say more than 170 charged in US Capitol riot: ‘This is only the beginning’

The Coup Began Years Ago

The Alt-Right Is Now the Entire Right

President Donald Trump speaks during a Jan. 6, 2021 rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President. After the speech, supporters of Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol. (AP)President Donald Trump speaks during a Jan. 6, 2021 rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as President. After the speech, supporters of Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol. (AP)

  • The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military and federalize National Guard troops to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion. 
  • Martial law, by contrast, is a concept that doesn’t have a legal definition in the U.S. At its most extreme, it reflects the suspension of civil authority and military control of civilian functions such as the courts.
  • Many social media posts pushing unproven claims about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring martial law contain information that’s misleading or inaccurate. ​
Social media users are spreading a variety of claims that President Donald Trump will either impose martial law or invoke the Insurrection Act to prevent Joe Biden from being inaugurated on Jan. 20.

The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion.

The act has been used to send the armed forces to quell civil disturbances a number of times during U.S. history, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was most recently invoked during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King, and during Hurricane Hugo in 1989, when widespread looting was reported in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Martial law, by contrast, is a concept that doesn’t have a legal definition in the U.S. Many people pushing the theory that Trump will invoke martial law don’t specify what form they expect it to take. However, their descriptions seem to reflect martial law at its most extreme: the suspension of civil authority and military control of civilian functions such as the courts.

As of this writing, there’s no indication that Trump is planning to invoke the Insurrection Act or impose martial law. Moreover, most of these posts contain information that’s misleading or just plain wrong.

Claim: “Trump already signed the Insurrection Act.”

Some social media posts went so far as to claim that Trump just signed and invoked the act. But there’s no evidence that this is true.

The Congressional Research Service says that it is legal convention under the act for the president to first issue a proclamation to get the situation under control before using the powers in the federal law.

“If the President decides to respond to such a situation, generally upon the recommendation of the Attorney General and, if necessary, the request of the governor, he must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time,” the CRS report says, citing Title 10 of the U.S. Code. “If the situation does not resolve itself, the President may issue an executive order to send in troops.”

Trump has not done this, and he signaled in a Jan. 7 speech that he will support the transition to a new administration.

In the videotaped speech, a day after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Trump said that he’s focused on “ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power” and that “a new administration will be inaugurated on Jan. 20.” He also added in a subsequent tweet that he would not be attending the event.

Claim: A 2018 executive order gives Trump the ability to impose martial law.

Another theory holds that a 2018 executive order on election interference gives Trump the ability to impose martial law. It doesn’t.

Six scholars of constitutional law and presidential power told PolitiFact that the executive order gives the president the ability to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities who interfere in a U.S. election.

“How you get from there to imposing martial law, I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government at American University.

Any executive order that gave the president the authority to unilaterally invoke martial law would be unconstitutional, the scholars said.

Claim: Martial law is imminent, and Speaker Pelosi’s laptop proves it.

Other variations of the rumor claim that martial law is “imminent” and that information on a laptop stolen from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the riot at the Capitol is the basis for Trump invoking the Insurrection Act.

A laptop was stolen from a conference room in the Capitol, but Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesman, said that the laptop was only used for presentations.

Besides Trump alluding to invoking the Insurrection Act at the height of the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd, he has not made any indication that he’s considering invoking the Insurrection Act or any variation of martial law going forward. Some D.C. officials were worried that Trump could invoke the act to seize control of the city’s police department the day of the Capitol riot, but that didn’t happen.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has no inherent authority to declare martial law except under the extreme circumstances of a rebellion or foreign invasion, said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School.

“Losing an election doesn’t count as a basis for invoking this power,” Feldman added.

In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that martial law cannot be imposed where civil courts are open and functioning. As a result, one should think of martial law as a state of affairs arising from a total breakdown of civil order, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law and expert in martial law.

Even if such conditions existed in a part of the U.S., the president would have to get congressional approval to use the military, said Joseph Nunn, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and author of an exhaustive study on martial law in America. ​

Starship Captain Pelosi Declares War On Republicans Who Supported Trump

[This was not an insurrection, neither was it treason.  It was a clear case of popular political manipulation by an extremely popular politician/President who rose to his position of preeminence through the callous manipulation and deception of his followers.  Trump set his own people up to be sacrificed, in order to glorify himself and to grant himself a second undeserved term, all on the pretext of protesting an impending vote in Congress, a political act of protest no different from Democrat protestors shouting “Kill the Bill” in the following clip.

Senate protesters chant ‘kill the bill,’ interrupt motion to proceed

Trump is the guilty party, along with all his people who helped to fabricate a seemingly sound complaint of election irregularities.  People followed their leaders to Washington to support the President’s claims.  They willingly went along with those who were committing destruction of property and criminal trespass into the Capitol, but there was no armed uprising or attempt to unseat the government.  They were no more guilty of insurrection or treason than were those in previous BLM and anti-lockdown protests, but Pelosi and her Democrat army want blood…(SEE: Capitol riot: Media mirrors Biden by vilifying police, comparing response to Black Lives Matter protests), they are already adding this latest charge to their ongoing narrative of American racism.]

Pelosi and her Democrat army are setting-up the liberal-Democrat faction of the American people for the same kind of fall.  The rapidly building Republican “witch hunt” is nothing less than political civil war.  By branding most Republicans in general as insurrectionists, or worse, treasonists, they are paving the way to that civil war.]

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government–

rebellion, revolution, uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny mean an outbreak against authority. rebellion implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful. open rebellion against the officers revolution applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government). a political revolution that toppled the monarchy uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising revolt and insurrection imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds. a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders an insurrection of oppressed laborers mutiny applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority. a mutiny led by the ship’s cook

Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened decisive action against the president for his role in the insurrection against Congress if he refused to resign.

Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Democrats laid the groundwork on Friday for impeaching President Trump a second time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California threatened to bring him up on formal charges if he did not resign “immediately” over his role in inciting a violent mob attack on the Capitol this week.

The threat was part of an all-out effort by furious Democrats, backed by a handful of Republicans, to pressure Mr. Trump to leave office in disgrace after the hourslong siege by his supporters on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Although he has only 12 days left in the White House, they argued he was a direct danger to the nation.

Ms. Pelosi and other top Democratic leaders continued to press Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to wrest power from Mr. Trump, though Mr. Pence was said to be against it. The speaker urged Republican lawmakers to pressure the president to resign immediately. And she took the unusual step of calling Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss how to limit Mr. Trump’s access to the nation’s nuclear codes and then publicized it.

“If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to colleagues.

At least one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, followed Ms. Pelosi’s lead and told The Anchorage Daily News that she was considering leaving the Republican Party altogether because of Mr. Trump.

“I want him out,” she said. “He has caused enough damage.”

At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before.

He said on Twitter on Friday morning that he would not attend President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration, the first incumbent in 150 years to skip his successor’s swearing-in. Hours later, Twitter “permanently suspended” his beloved account, which had more than 88 million followers, “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Federal law enforcement officials announced charges against at least 13 people in connection with the storming of the Capitol, including Richard Barnett, 60, of Gravette, Ark., who had posted a picture of himself on social media sitting at Ms. Pelosi’s desk during the mayhem with his feet up on her desk, and a Republican state delegate from West Virginia.

Among enraged Democrats, an expedited impeachment appeared to be the most attractive option to remove Mr. Trump and register their outrage at his role in encouraging what became an insurrection. Roughly 170 of them in the House had signed onto a single article that Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Ted Lieu of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and others intended to introduce on Monday, charging the president with “willfully inciting violence against the government of the United States.”

Democratic senators weighed in with support, and some Republicans appeared newly open to the idea. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska indicated he would be amenable to considering articles of impeachment at a trial. A spokesman for Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was “outraged” by Mr. Trump’s role in the violence, but could not comment on an impeachment case given the possibility she could soon be sitting in the jury.

Even Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s most influential allies for the past four years, told confidants he was done with Donald Trump. Mr. McConnell did not directly weigh on a possible impeachment case, but he circulated a memo to senators making clear that under the Senate’s current rules, no trial could effectively be convened before Jan. 20, after Mr. Trump leaves office and Mr. Biden is sworn in, unless all 100 senators agreed to allow it sooner.

It was a fitting denouement for a president who, despite years of norm-shattering behavior, has acted largely without consequence throughout his presidency, showing no impulse to change his ways, despite being impeached in Congress, defeated at the ballot box and now belatedly shunned by some members of his own party.

By Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi had not made a final decision on whether to proceed with impeachment and was wary of rushing into such a momentous step. She issued a statement saying she had instructed the House Rules Committee to be ready to move ahead with either an impeachment resolution or legislation creating a nonpartisan panel of experts envisaged in the 25th Amendment to consult with Mr. Pence about the president’s fitness to serve.

Democrats agreed it was logistically possible to vote on articles of impeachment as soon as next week, but they were weighing how to justify bypassing the usual monthslong deliberative process of collecting documents, witnesses and the president’s defense. Others worried that Mr. Trump’s base would rally more forcefully around him if Democrats pushed forward with impeaching him again, undermining their goal of relegating the 45th president to the ash heap of history.

Republicans who only days before had led the charge to overturn Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat said impeaching him now would shatter the unity that was called for after the Capitol siege.

Workers on Friday in the Capitol preparing for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration ceremony.
Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times 

“Impeaching the president with just 12 days left in his term will only divide our country more,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, just a day after he voted twice to overturn Mr. Biden’s legitimate victory in key swing states.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, issued a nearly identical statement.

Democrats, too, were concerned about plunging Washington into a divisive, time-consuming and politically fraught drama that would overshadow and constrain Mr. Biden’s agenda and stomp on his attempt to unify the country.

During an appearance in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden declined to directly weigh in on plans to impeach Mr. Trump saying, “What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide.” But he made clear his energies were being spent elsewhere.

“If we were six months out, we should be moving everything to get him out of office — impeaching him again, trying to invoke the 25th Amendment, whatever it took to get him out of office,” Mr. Biden said. “But I am focused now on us taking control as president and vice president on the 20th and get our agenda moving as quickly as we can.”

Mr. Trump had told advisers in the days before the march that he wanted to join his supporters in going to the Capitol, but White House officials said no, according to people briefed on the discussions. The president had also expressed interest beforehand in calling in the National Guard to hold off anti-Trump counterprotesters who might show up, the people said, only to turn around and resist calls for bringing those troops in after the rioting by his loyalists broke out.

On Friday, Mr. Biden had harsh criticism for Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, Republicans who had lodged objections to his Electoral College victory on Wednesday amid the mayhem at the Capitol. As some leading Senate Democrats called on them to resign, Mr. Biden said the pair had perpetuated the “big lie” that his election had been fraudulent, comparing it to the work of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

The recriminations played out on a day when workers in the Capitol were literally repairing the damage that had been done two days before, when a mob of supporters, egged on by Mr. Trump, stormed the Capitol as lawmakers were formalizing Mr. Biden’s electoral victory. Lawmakers mourned the death of a Capitol Police officer who succumbed to injuries sustained while defending the building.

From the same office ransacked by the mob, Ms. Pelosi was working furiously on Friday to try to contain Mr. Trump. She urged Republicans to follow the model of Watergate, when members of their party prevailed upon President Richard M. Nixon to resign and avoid the ignominy of an impeachment.

She also said she had spoken with General Milley about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.”

A spokesman for General Milley, Col. Dave Butler, confirmed that the two had spoken and said the general had “answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.

Ms. Pelosi elaborated on her thinking in a private call with House Democrats, indicating she was particularly concerned about Mr. Trump’s behavior while he remained commander in chief of the armed forces, with the authority to order nuclear strikes.

“He’s unhinged,” Ms. Pelosi, according to Democrats familiar with her remarks. “We aren’t talking about anything besides an unhinged person.”

She added: “We can’t move on. If we think we can move on then we are failing the American people.”

Democrats appeared to be largely united after the call, which lasted more than three hours, that the chamber needed to send a strong message to Americans and the world that Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and the violence that resulted from it would not go unanswered.

Ms. Pelosi had asked one of her most trusted deputies who prosecuted Democrats’ first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, to give a frank assessment of the potential drawbacks of impeachment during the session.

Mr. Schiff did so, but later issued a statement saying, “Congress should act to begin impeachment proceedings as the only instrument wholly within our power to remove a president who has so manifestly and repeatedly violated the Constitution and put our nation at grave risk.”

At least one Democrat, Representative Kurt Schrader, a centrist from Oregon, argued against impeachment, likening the move to an “old-fashioned lynching” of Mr. Trump, and arguing it would turn the president into a martyr. He later apologized for the analogy.

A bipartisan group of centrist senators, including several who helped draft a stimulus compromise last month, discussed the possibility of drafting a formal censure resolution against Mr. Trump. But it was unclear if a meaningful attempt to build support for censure would get off the ground, especially with Democrats pushing for a stiffer punishment.

After years of deference to the president, leading Republicans in Congress made no effort to defend him, and some offered stinging rebukes. At least a few appeared open to the possibility of impeachment, which if successful could also disqualify Mr. Trump from holding political office in the future.

Mr. Sasse said he would “definitely consider whatever articles they might move because I believe the president has disregarded his oath of office.”

“He swore an oath to the American people to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution — he acted against that,” Mr. Sasse said on CBS. “What he did was wicked.”

Senior Republican aides predicted other senators could adopt a similar posture, so deep was their fury at Mr. Trump. But they held back publicly, waiting to better understand a volatile and rapidly evolving situation.

If the House did impeach, and the Senate put Mr. Trump on trial, 17 Republicans or more would most likely have to join Democrats to win a conviction. That was a politically perilous and unlikely decision given his continued hold on millions of the party’s voters.

At the same time Republicans in Washington were chastising Mr. Trump, the Republican National Committee re-elected Ronna McDaniel, a Trump ally and his handpicked candidate, as its chairwoman for another term, and Tommy Hicks Jr., a close friend of Donald Trump Jr.’s, as the co-chairman.

Political risks for Republicans breaking ranks were also on vivid display on Friday at National Airport near Washington, where several dozen jeering supporters of Mr. Trump accosted Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, angrily denouncing the Republican as a “traitor” and a “liar” for voting to formalize Mr. Biden’s victory.

“It’s going to be like this forever, wherever you go, for the rest of your life,” one woman taunted to Mr. Graham, who had been one of Mr. Trump’s leading Senate allies and had initially humored his baseless claims of widespread election fraud.


Nicholas Fandos and Luke Broadwater reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Helene Cooper, Emily Cochrane and Catie Edmondson from Washington.