Saturday, March 26, 2022

How Bill Barr's Silence Impacted The Outcome Of An Election

How Bill Barr's Silence Impacted The Outcome Of An Election

Submitted by The Epoch Times, authored by By Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke

On May 18, 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr made a statement to the media, declaring that special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russiagate hoax wasn’t focused on either former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden, stating that “I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.”

In his new book, Barr has revealed that he made that statement in response to a series of tweets by then-President Donald Trump. A week earlier, Trump had started using the term “Obamagate” on Twitter, alleging that both Obama and Biden had “led the charge” on the FBI’s phony Russiagate investigation.

Barr recounts in his book that he felt it was unacceptable for Trump to attempt to drag his presidential election opponent into the Russiagate scandal and that Barr felt that it was incumbent upon him to make a public statement.

The corporate media immediately seized upon Barr’s statement, with The Washington Post running a same-day headline that “Barr says he does not expect Obama or Biden will be investigated by prosecutor reviewing 2016 Russia probe.” The New York Times’ headline went further, claiming that “Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot.”

Barr’s May 18 claim is an often underappreciated statement, the fallout of which was felt throughout the 2020 presidential election. Although Barr now claims that he issued his statement from a position of fairness, what he actually did was insert himself and the Department of Justice (DOJ) into the presidential campaign, and in doing so, he set the stage for the media’s whitewashing of questions of corruption that swirled around Biden throughout the campaign.

It’s also worth noting that Barr’s decision to make a public statement contrasts sharply with former FBI Director James Comey, who claimed that as a matter of DOJ policy he wouldn’t confirm or deny if President Trump was actually under investigation in 2017.

More importantly, Barr’s May 18 statement stands in stark contrast to his decision to remain silent after the second presidential debate in October 2020, when Biden falsely blamed the story about his son Hunter’s laptop on a “Russian plot.”

Barr recently recounted that he “was very disturbed during the debate when candidate Biden lied to the American people about the laptop.” Barr told Fox News in an interview that Biden “was squarely confronted with the laptop and he suggested that it was Russian disinformation. … And I was shocked by that. … When you’re talking about interference in an election, I can’t think of anything more than that kind of thing.”

Barr’s supposed “shock” over Biden’s claims of Russian disinformation during the debate begs a simple question: If Barr actually felt that Biden’s assertions of “Russian disinformation” amounted to “interference in an election,” why didn’t Barr say anything at the time?

The only discernible action taken by Barr’s DOJ was an Oct. 20 written reply from an FBI congressional affairs liaison to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). That letter, which preceded the second debate, was intentionally vague and, rather than countering potential narratives, it allowed the media to advance Biden’s claim that the laptop was a Russian plot. Crucially, the letter took pains to conceal that the FBI had physical possession of Hunter’s laptop at the time the letter was written—a fact that eliminated any possibility of a Russian plot.

During the second 2020 debate, Biden had asserted that his claims of “Russian disinformation” were backed by our intelligence agencies by citing a letter written by Obama-era intelligence officials such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director Leon Panetta. That letter was issued on Oct. 19, 2020, just days before the debate on Oct. 22, 2020, and was widely circulated by the media as proof of Biden’s claims.

In their letter, the intelligence officials claimed that the information from Hunter’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation,” and stated that “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election,” noting that “we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

That four different CIA directors would be willing to publicly promote false allegations about Russia in order to shield a presidential candidate from public attention is particularly troubling. These former CIA directors—whose tenure spanned more than 10 years of U.S. foreign policy activity—invoked their government positions and lied to the American public in order to protect and get their preferred candidate, Joe Biden, elected.

During his recent interview, Barr conceded that he knew that letter from our nation’s intelligence officials “was baseless” and that he believed Biden himself fully understood that it “was a lie.” Unlike Trump, Biden was citing published claims by intelligence officials that Barr now says he knew to be inaccurate at the time those claims were made. But, in contrast to his earlier actions regarding Trump’s tweets, Barr chose to stay silent on Biden’s claims.

In doing so, Barr decisively interfered in the election through his inaction.

The sharply differing stances that Barr took in those months preceding the 2020 presidential election are puzzlingly contradictory. Barr apparently felt that it was necessary to make sure that U.S. citizens were aware that Biden wasn’t under investigation as a part of Durham’s probe, but he didn’t feel it was important to counter a false narrative from former intelligence officials, including four CIA directors, that Barr knew to be untrue.

At the time of that second presidential debate, the FBI already had Hunter’s laptop in its possession—and had held the device for 10 months. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Hunter Biden for multiple offenses—including allegations of money laundering and possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Hunter’s laptop contained emails and other information that were directly connected to these allegations.

Barr’s differing treatment of Biden and Trump leaves many questions unanswered. Although many in the media, along with Biden’s current spokeswoman Jen Psaki, have claimed that Hunter is a private citizen who wasn’t running for office, Hunter’s laptop directly implicated Joe Biden in a number of dubious foreign dealings. Biden repeatedly lied about these matters while on the campaign trail.

In one particularly notable instance, Biden had personally met with Hunter’s Ukrainian business partner only a few months before that same partner demanded that Hunter end the investigations into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that was paying Hunter $1 million per year. On the campaign trail, Biden declared that he had never talked to his son about his foreign business dealings.

Not only did Barr choose to remain silent about Hunter’s laptop, but he had also, in fact, “instructed prosecutors and senior colleagues to prevent word of investigations into Hunter Biden from becoming public and keep the Justice Department out of campaign politics,” according to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal.

As we now know, Hunter’s emails and laptop are real. Indeed, shortly after the election, Hunter Biden suddenly released a statement acknowledging that he was under federal investigation.

The silence from Barr enabled the media’s blackout on the laptop story that had direct ramifications on the 2020 election. A poll by Media Research showed that 45 percent of the Biden voters were unaware of the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden and that 16 percent of Biden voters–well over the margin of victory–wouldn’t have voted for him had they known this crucial information.

In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign accused Russia of trying to help elect Trump. Then-CIA Director John Brennan played an important role in advancing the Clinton campaign’s narrative. In an eerie parallel to those events, the Biden campaign, again with the help of Brennan and other intelligence officials, falsely accused Russia of trying to help elect Trump in 2020.

Barr argues in his book that Trump’s claims about Biden required Barr to insert himself because he didn’t want a repeat of the Russia collusion claims that plagued the 2016 election; that same argument, however, should have required Barr to speak out on Biden’s debate claims that Hunter’s laptop was a Russian plot.

If Barr was truly concerned about a potential repeat of the 2016 election, it would have been incumbent on him to step forward publicly as soon as Biden made his false accusations against Russia, particularly given the involvement of Brennan, who was himself entangled in the 2016 election interference.

The national security implications from Biden’s repeated invocations of Russia is another important factor that should have required Barr to act.

“Russiagate was not only a despicable dirty trick that hobbled the first part of the president’s administration, but it also affected [sic] great damage to the United States,” Barr acknowledged in his recent interview with Fox News.

“Russiagate essentially froze the Trump administration from engaging with Russia.”

While Barr acknowledged the massive geopolitical damage caused by the Clinton campaign’s Russiagate hoax, he inexplicably ignored Biden’s false claims about his son’s laptop, which has served to undermine our national security in ways that are perhaps even worse than the actions taken by Clinton.

Both Clinton and Biden recklessly leveled false accusations against Russia, jeopardizing national security for their own personal and political gain. Clinton, among other things, had her 30,000 deleted emails to contend with. However, while no one has seen Clinton’s emails, the emails on Hunter’s laptop contain a multitude of damning disclosures of foreign dealings and payoffs involving the Biden family.

Beyond the direct ramifications from the emails on Hunter’s laptop, Biden’s fabricated accusations regarding Russia would have immediately been understood by the Kremlin as a fundamental weakness. There is no doubt that Biden’s statement worsened relations with Russia and might have contributed to the current situation in Ukraine.

By first speaking out and then remaining silent, Barr very directly put his thumb on the scale, leading to material ramifications for our country—including the geopolitical landscape we now face.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/26/2022 - 20:30


Unbeknown To Most, A Financial Revolution Is Coming That Threatens To Change Everything (And Not For The Better)

Authored by Nick Corbishley via,

Given how much is at stake, this financial revolution is among the most important questions today’s societies could possibly grapple with. It should be under discussion in every parliament of every land, and every dinner table in every country in the world.

Around 90 central banks are either in the process of experimenting with or are already piloting central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). In a world of just over 190 countries that is a large contingent, but given they include the European Central Bank (ECB) which alone represents 19 Euro Area economies, the actual number of economies involved is well over 100. They include all G20 economies and together represent more than 90% of global GDP.

Three CBDCs have already gone fully live in the past two years: the so-called DCash in the Eastern Caribbean, the Sand Dollar in the Bahamas and the eNaira in Nigeria. The International Monetary Fund, the world’s most powerful supranational financial institution, has been lending its expertise in the roll out of CBDCs. In a recent speech the Fund’s President Kristalina Georgieva lauded the potential benefits (on which more later) of CBDCs while heaping praise on the “ingenuity” of the central banks busily trying to conjure them into existence.

Also firmly on board is the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock, which helps many of the world’s largest central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the ECB, manage their assets while obviously keeping all potential conflicts of interests at bay. The fund was the largest beneficiary of the Federal Reserve’s bailout of exchange-traded funds during the market rout of Spring 2020.

The illusion of evidence based medicine

Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

BMJ op-ed: "Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia"

The illusion of evidence based medicine is an op-ed published in the BMJ on March 16, 2022. It points out that the system is now corrupt and needs major surgery to fix it.

I couldn’t agree more.

What is stunning is the silence from the medical community in supporting the suggested reforms. No comments to the article.


This, I guess, is why I’m not a doctor.

Ukraine on Fire: 2016 Documentary by Oliver Stone


  • Ukraine’s rich land has historically been used as a pathway for Western powers as they attempted to conquer the East
  • As a result, Ukraine, being surrounded by greater powers on all sides, had to master the art of changing sides
  • The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), founded in 1929, had the ultimate goal of creating an ethnically pure, independent Ukraine
  • U.S. intelligence agencies kept watch on Ukrainian nationalist organizations as a source of counterintelligence against the Soviet Union; declassified CIA documents show close ties between U.S. intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946
  • U.S. meddling during the Maidan Revolution encouraged demonstrators to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government
  • A leaked phone call, intercepted by Russian intelligence, between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt openly discussed their plan for a new Ukraine government

The PfizerGate Scandal: Governments worldwide are hiding data to disguise the fact the Covid Vaccines damage the Immune System and cause AIDS

By a concerned reader

The Chairman of the South African Medical Association. Dr. Angelique Coetzee, discovered the Omicron variant in South Africa in November 2021. Being a practicing GP during a pandemic, she saw plenty of Omicron cases and deduced from these that it lead to a mild form of the flu.

A proper informed consent leads to 99.8% of army soldiers refusing to get vaccinated

Army doctor Dr. Pete Chambers gave an informed consent briefing to 3,000 soldiers. After that briefing, just 6 soldiers wanted to be vaccinated. Chambers was subsequently relieved of his duties.

by Steve Kirsch

I want you all to watch this video starting at 37:50 for just 30 seconds.

Seriously. Just do it. 30 seconds. This was my reaction:

Army surgeon Dr. and Lt. Col. Pete Chambers gave a proper vaccine informed consent speech (approximately 30 minutes) to 3,000 soldiers and just 6 of them opted to take the “vaccine.” All the others refused to take the shot.

I nearly fell off my chair when I heard that.

Has the US Funded Bioweapons Research in Ukraine?

Any attempt to claim that Ukraine’s biological facilities are just benign and standard medical labs is negated by Nuland’s explicitly grave concern that ‘Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of’ those facilities. ~ Glenn Greenwald

As noted by investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald (whose report is also covered by Russel Brand, below):4

“Any hope to depict such ‘facilities’ as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by [her] warning …

Nuland’s bizarre admission that ‘Ukraine has biological research facilities’ that are dangerous enough to warrant concern that they could fall into Russian hands ironically constituted more decisive evidence of the existence of such programs in Ukraine than what was offered in 2002 and 2003 to corroborate U.S. allegations about Saddam’s chemical and biological programs in Iraq …

It should go without saying that the existence of a Ukrainian biological ‘research’ program does not justify an invasion by Russia … But Nuland’s confession does shed critical light on several important issues …

Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber Could Face 5 Years in Prison

(by Jack Bingham | LifeSite News) – Organizers of the anti-COVID mandate “Freedom Convoy” protest now face up to five years in prison after police came up with several additional charges.   Despite the non-violent nature of the “Freedom Convoy” demonstration that occurred in Ottawa for three weeks earlier this year in protest of COVID restrictions, two of the primary organizers, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, have now been hit with six additional charges and if convicted, could face five years in prison.   The new charges the two organizers jointly face are mischief, counselling mischief, intimidation, counselling intimidation, counselling […]


Friday, March 25, 2022

Has the US Funded Bioweapons Research in Ukraine?



More Semantics

When Fox News contacted the state department for comment about Nuland’s admissions, they received the following reply:5

“The U.S. Department of Defense does not own or operate biological weapons labs in Ukraine. Under Secretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony which are not biological weapons facilities. These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country.”

Again, this seems like someone trying to split hairs and not quite succeeding. The U.S. may not “own,” or “operate” biological weapons labs in Ukraine, but does it fund them? Funding, operating and owning are not the same thing, yet they’re denying the accusation of “funding” these labs by saying they don’t “own or operate” them.

Why the obfuscation? Why not say “we don’t FUND bioweapons labs,” if that is in fact the case? And what is the difference between “biodefense” labs and a “bioweapons” lab? If you were creating a bioweapon, wouldn’t you call it biodefense? As noted in an April 2020 article by independent journalist and analyst, Sam Husseini:6

“Governments that participate in … biological weapon research generally distinguish between ‘biowarfare’ and ‘biodefense,’ as if to paint such ‘defense’ programs as necessary.

But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable. ‘Biodefense’ implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight them.”

Bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, has also pointed out that many if not most BSL-4 labs are dual use: “They first develop the offensive biological warfare agent and then they develop the supposed vaccine.”7

Were Pathogens Secured or Not?

Nuland’s statement also raises another question. If the U.S. government feared the pathogens could be used as weapons, why didn’t they secure them before the Russians went into Ukraine? Carlson asks. Clearly, they knew it was going to happen. In fact, President Biden stated February 18 that he was “convinced” Putin would invade Ukraine.8

March 11, 2022, Reuters9 reported that the World Health Organization had advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens to prevent “potential spills” were any of the facilities to be bombed.

Curiously, the WHO declined to say when it made that recommendation. It also did not specify the pathogens Ukraine labs might have. We also don’t know whether the Ukrainians complied with the request.

What Are the Labs Actually Used For?

As reported by Carlson, initially, the Biden administration told members of Congress that the labs in Ukraine were “designed to help the Ukrainians fight tuberculosis” and “various livestock diseases.”

Next, numerous news organizations published “fact checks” stating that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has worked with Ukraine to eliminate bioweapons, some of which were allegedly left behind by the Soviet Union as far back as 2005. The labs are definitely not, however, bioweapons labs, they claim.

“That makes sense,” Carlson says. “But wait; 2005 — that was 17 years ago. How long does it take to eliminate Soviet bioweapons? Seventeen years seems like a long time. With 17 years and ample funding from Congress you can probably remove and catalogue every grain of sand on Waikiki Beach.

And yet, somehow, over that same time period, 17 years, the Pentagon has not finished removing test tubes from Soviet era freezers … When was the Pentagon planning on finishing this important job?”

Narrative No. 2

Perhaps because the first alibi didn’t make sense upon closer reflection, a small correction to the narrative was then rolled out by CNN, which claimed that the labs in Ukraine exist to “secure” — not eliminate — old Soviet bioweapons. But to Carlson, that explanation still doesn’t ring quite true. What does it mean to “secure” bioweapons, and why has it taken 17 years? Moreover, Carlson adds:

“If these are just old Soviet bioweapons, why is Victoria Nuland so worried they’ll wind up in the hands of old Soviet, which already presumably has these very same weapons? They probably don’t need more. It’s absurd, when you think about it.”

Narrative No. 3

Then, the third narrative was rolled out, again by CNN. In a live coverage, CNN showed Russian video footage from 2015, which claimed the U.S. was running biological facilities in Ukraine and Georgia, and were responsible for deadly outbreaks of disease among local livestock.

According to CNN, this story has been “a key part of Russia’s disinformation campaign” to justify its invasion of Ukraine. However, “the claims were debunked several years ago,” CNN states, “when in 2020 the U.S. issued a statement to set the record straight.”

According to that 2020 statement, the facilities were for “vaccine development” and “to report outbreaks of dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.”

Incriminating Interview

So, did the U.S. fund these labs to help Ukraine combat tuberculosis? Or was it to eliminate former Soviet bioweapons? Was it to “secure” Soviet bioweapons? Or to aid the Ukrainians with vaccine development?

Perhaps it’s all of those things. Or none of them. As reported by Carlson, the day after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists interviewed10 Dr. Robert Pope, director of the DoD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program.11 Pope has in fact been in charge of securing former Soviet weapons of mass destruction over his 30-year career.

While Pope insisted that the Ukraine labs “conduct peaceful scientific research and disease surveillance,” he also made some interesting statements that raise questions and allow for alternative interpretation. Here’s an excerpt highlighted by Carlson:12

“The pathogens in Ukrainian labs vary by facility, Pope said, but some can be characterized as presenting a concern in the Ukrainian environment. As an example, he cited African swine fever virus, which is highly contagious in pigs and has caused hundreds of outbreaks in Ukraine since 2012.

Some labs, he said, may hold pathogen strains left over from the Soviet bioweapons program, preserved in freezers for research purposes. ‘There is no place that still has any of the sort of infrastructure for researching or producing biological weapons,’ Pope said.

‘Scientists being scientists, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of these strain collections in some of these laboratories still have pathogen strains that go all the way back to the origins of that program.’”

So, in other words, according to Pope, the Ukraine labs may still have former Soviet bioweapons in their freezers — and, “scientists being scientists,” they don’t want to destroy those bioweapons. They want to keep them and use them for research purposes.

When you put those statements together, don’t you end up with “they may be doing bioweapons research”? And if the U.S. is funding such endeavors, doesn’t that mean the U.S. is funding bioweapons research in Ukraine?

Signs of Guilt?

During a March 16, 2022, War Room interview, guest host Peter Navarro asked Dr. Robert Malone, “Why do you think we are funding biolabs in Ukraine and Wuhan?”

Malone’s hypothesis is that the “federal government of the USA, specifically NIAID/HHS and DTRA/DoD, are offshoring risk and legal liability, and trying to circumvent congressional oversight concerning activities that we know we should not be doing.”13 In a Substack article, published that same day, Malone also made the following observation:14

“U.S. politician Tulsi Gabbard (a WEF ‘young leader’ trainee whose WEF webpage was recently removed) raised concerns on Twitter regarding the ‘Biolabs’ issue and was immediately attacked by Mitt Romney (Senator, Utah, Uniparty).

Romney used Twitter to state ‘Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives’ … Here is the text of what constitutes “treasonous lies” according to Mitt.

‘There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world. We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured & pathogens destroyed.’

As far as I am concerned, Mitt calling Tulsi Gabbard ‘treasonous’ for pointing out undeniable facts of the well documented US-sponsored Ukrainian biolabs is a tell. If this was a nothingburger, he would have called her a ‘crazy conspiracy theorist’ or some version of that.

But instead he essentially called her a traitor to her country for stating the truth. That is the behavior of someone who is caught in a lie. The words, strategies and tactics (propaganda, gaslighting, character assassination) being used by this administration are most consistent with attempts to hide guilt.”

Why Was This Notice Deleted?

Another finding that has fueled suspicions that the U.S. government is not being transparent about the Ukraine labs include the inexplicable scrubbing of an article announcing then-Senator Barack Obama leading an effort to build a biolab capable of handling “especially dangerous pathogens” in Ukraine, back in 2005.

It’s unclear exactly when the announcement was deleted, but as of August 26, 2017, it was gone.15 As reported by The National Pulse:16

“Originally posted on June 18th, 2010, the article ‘Biolab Opens in Ukraine’17 details how Obama, while serving as an Illinois Senator, helped negotiate a deal to build a level-3 bio-safety lab in the Ukrainian city of Odessa.

The article … also highlighted the work of former Senator Dick Lugar … ‘Lugar said plans for the facility began in 2005 when he and then-Senator Barack Obama entered a partnership with Ukrainian officials …

A 2011 report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Anticipating Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-Containment Biological Laboratories explained how the Odessa-based laboratory ‘is responsible for the identification of especially dangerous biological pathogens.’”

According to The National Pulse,18 other reports reveal the Odessa-based lab in question was constructed through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. DoD and the Health Ministry of Ukraine. The collaboration reportedly focused on “preventing the spread of technologies, pathogens, and knowledge that can be used in the development of biological weapons.”

The lab would also serve as an Interim Central Reference Laboratory and contain collections of pathogens, including bacteria and viruses of the pathogenic groups 1 and 2, which include Ebola.

The scrubbed article is very short. No more than an announcement, really. On the surface, it appears to confirm the U.S. government’s current claim that — at least this particular lab — was for the purpose of preventing the proliferation of bioweapons. When and why was it deleted? We may never know. Hopefully, we’ll have better luck getting to the bottom of what kind of research, really, the U.S. government has been funding in the Ukraine.

Sources and References

The post Has the US Funded Bioweapons Research in Ukraine? appeared first on LewRockwell.


Ukraine: The Great Manipulation


While revelations are multiplying about the exactions committed by Ukrainian banditry over the past eight years, Westerners continue to perceive only the suffering of the Ukrainian civilian population. They are unaware of the root causes of the war, as well as the events that led the Kremlin to unleash it. No matter, the banditry is losing and the great powers are preparing for peace.

Military operations continue in Ukraine with two radically different narratives depending on whether one listens to the Western or Russian media. These two versions diverge not only in describing the war, but more importantly in describing the goals of the war.

In the West, the public is convinced that the Russian army has enormous logistical problems and cannot fuel its tanks. Its planes strike indiscriminately at military and civilian targets, indiscriminately destroying entire cities. Dictator Putin will not be done until he crushes Kiev and kills elected President Zelensky. In his eyes, Ukraine is guilty of having chosen democracy in 2014 instead of reconstituting the Soviet Union. Until then, he sows death and desolation on a civilian population, while his soldiers are killed on a large scale.

On the contrary, in Russia, it is believed that the fighting is limited to specific areas, the Donbass, the coast of the Sea of Azov and military targets everywhere else. Certainly, there have been some casualties, but not a massacre. One observes with amazement the support that the former allies of the Great Patriotic War (the Second World War) give to the Banderists, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis. We wait until they are all neutralized so that peace can return.

In the background, the West has launched an economic and financial war against Russia. Many Western companies are leaving the country and are immediately replaced by others from countries not involved in this war. For example, McDonald’s restaurants will be replaced by the Turkish chain Chitik Chicken, while the United Arab Emirates welcome the oligarchs driven out of Europe. China and the Eurasian Economic Community are planning to set up an economic and financial system parallel to the Bretton Woods system. In short, the world is being split in two.

Who is telling the truth?


According to observers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), that is, the intergovernmental forum created by the Helsinki Accords (1973-75), the front of Donbass was stable for several months, when the bombing resumed from Wednesday, February 16, 2022 to reach their peak on Friday 18 (more than 1,400 explosions heard).The local governments of Donestk and Lugansk then withdrew more than 100,000 people to protect them from this deluge of fire.

On the evening of the 18th, the annual meeting of Nato elites, the “Munich Security Conference”, began. One of the most prominent guests was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. On the 19th, he took the floor and declared that his country had ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons against Russia. On the 20th, the Duma was in turmoil in Moscow and voted a motion asking President Putin to recognize the two Donbass republics as independent, which he did in a hurry on the evening of the 21st. There were not even any flags of the two new nations in the Kremlin.

On the 24th, the Russian military operation began with a massive bombardment of anti-aircraft systems, then of the arms factories and barracks of the Banderists (Ukrainian neo-Nazis). The Russian military strategy was improvised, as was the diplomatic recognition of the Donbass republics. The troops deployed were already exhausted by the maneuvers they had just carried out in Belarus.

The White House and the Western press, on the other hand, ignoring the war in Donbass and the statements of President Zelenski, claimed that all this had been planned for a long time and that the Russian troops had been positioned in advance. The dictator Putin, not supporting the choice of Ukrainians for democracy, forced them to reintegrate his Empire as Leonid Brezhnev had forced the Czechoslovakians into line in 1968. This reading of events caused panic among all the former members of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union (who forgot that Brezhnev was not Russian, but Ukrainian).

Since then, applying the technique developed by Jamie Shea during the Kosovo war, Nato has been writing a new edifying story about Russia’s crimes every day. It ranges from the irresponsible bombing of a Ukrainian nuclear power plant on the Russian border to the touching anecdote of a young child who reaches freedom alone by crossing Europe to Berlin. All of this is ridiculous and appalling, but widely reported without reflection or verification by the Western media.

Joel Lion, then ambassador in Kiev, warned against the banditry. He is now working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Israel.


With things going badly for the Ukrainian army and its Banderist (or “neo-Nazi” in Russian terminology) supporters, President Zelenski asked the Chinese embassy in Kiev to send a request for negotiations to the Kremlin on the second day of the conflict. The United States initially objected, but then allowed it to happen. During the contacts, France and Germany took initiatives before being replaced by Turkey and Israel. This is quite normal. Indeed, France and Germany failed in their responsibilities by allowing Kiev to massacre 13,000 to 22,000 people in violation of the Minsk agreements of which they were the guarantors. While Turkey supported the Ukrainian Tatars without taking any action in Ukraine, and Israel suddenly became aware that the Bandarist (i.e. “neo-Nazi”) danger that its ambassador in Kiev was denouncing was real.

These negotiations are going well, despite the murder by Ukrainian banditry of a delegate from their own country, the banker Denis Kireev, guilty in their eyes of having claimed that Ukrainians and Russians were Slavic brothers. Despite the blunder of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who thought it was clever to remind them that France is a nuclear power, causing Russia to go on nuclear alert.

These negotiations could end in a way that is difficult to imagine: Ukraine, which had included 102,000 banditry troops in its territorial defense forces, could be disarmed and placed under the protection of the United States and the United Kingdom (i.e., in practice, Nato). This is the only way to comply with the treaties, including the Istanbul (1999) and Astana (2010) declarations. Ukraine has the right to choose its allies, but not to receive foreign weapons in its country. It can therefore sign defense agreements, but not be placed in an integrated command. This is a very Gaullian position: Charles De Gaulle kept France’s signature to the North Atlantic Treaty, but withdrew the French army from the integrated command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and drove the US soldiers out of French soil.

Russia should permanently occupy, or even annex, the coast of the Sea of Azov (including Mariupol) in order to join Crimea to the Donbass. In addition, it should occupy, or even annex, the North Crimean Canal, which supplies drinking water to the Crimean peninsula. Finally, it could occupy or even annex the Black Sea coast (including Odessa) in order to join Crimea to Transnistria. The Hungarian minority, also a victim of the Banderists who closed their schools, could be attached to Hungary. However, the best is the enemy of the good: Ukraine’s loss of access to the sea could be a cause of future conflict.

The only thing that is certain is that Russia will continue its action until all the banditry has been neutralized and that Israel will support it in this, but not beyond. From this point of view, the meeting that President Putin called in Moscow “against the Nazis” is not a simple message of determination to his public opinion, it is already a victory cry. All monuments to Stepan Bandera and the Nazis must be destroyed. The other nations that supported the neo-Nazis, including Latvia, should take it for granted.


This is where everything is at stake for the United States. In a few days, it has managed to make all its allies take unilateral measures (and therefore illegal under international law). But these measures, described as “sanctions” although without judgement, are not tenable in the medium term. They have already led to unbridled speculation on energy and an immediate rise in prices in Europe. The big European companies are leaving Russia with a heavy heart. They assure the Kremlin that they have no choice and hope to return as soon as possible.

President Vladimir Putin is putting forward the liberals who were accused not long ago of being sold out to foreigners. Former president Dmitry Medvedev is back in favor. The head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, who was chosen at the time of the romance with the West, was presented to the Duma to succeed herself, but now to work with other partners. Sergey Glazyev, whose name is associated with the privatizations of the Yelstin era, has been entrusted with the creation of a new economic and financial system to replace the one conceived by the Anglo-Saxons in 1944, Bretton Woods. All is forgiven as long as they guarantee the Chinese and the Eurasian Economic Community (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan) that they will not be statist.


The peace in Ukraine will not solve the Russian-US conflict opened since December 17, 2021. It will continue with other confrontations. For their part, the Straussians, who have used and abused religious arguments to attack Russia in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, Chechnya and the wider Middle East, intend to use them on a global scale.

Let us remember that the Straussian orientalist Bernard Lewis (former British intelligence officer, then member of the US National Security Council, then adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu) had devised a way to mobilize the Arabs, instead of the West, against the Russians. It was the strategy of the “clash of civilizations”. He explained that in Afghanistan, Muslim believers had to fight against the atheistic Soviets. This vision was realized by Osama bin Laden’s Arab-Afghans. The same strategy was used successfully in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Chechnya. In the first theater of operation, Nato relied on the Saudi army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (as well as some elements of the Lebanese Hezbollah). A Staussian, Richard Perle, even became the diplomatic adviser to Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović, for whom Osama bin Laden was the military adviser. Later, during the Second Chechen War, the Straussians organized the alliance between Ukrainian Banderists and Chechen Islamists (Ternopol Congress, 2007), with logistical support from the Milli Görüş (then led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). All fought side by side for the Islamic Emirate of Itchkeria (Chechnya). Ultimately, Bernard Lewis’ strategy was popularized by his assistant, Samuel Huntington. However, he no longer presented it as a military plan, but as an inevitability that conveniently explained the attribution of the 9/11 attacks to Muslims in general.

Considering that nothing stops people who fight in the belief that they are serving God, the Straussians decided four years ago to reactivate the schism that separated the Catholics from the Orthodox in the 11th century. They first set out to split the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate. They succeeded with the help of Turkey, which put pressure on the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is now a matter of unleashing passions by resurrecting the Fatima prophecies. In 1917, just after the Russian revolution, Portuguese visionaries had apparitions of the Virgin Mary. She entrusted them with various messages, one of which implicitly denounced the overthrow of the Tsar by divine right. Russia was presented as choosing evil and trying to spread it. Therefore, the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, went to Rome, on the occasion of a meeting with China, in fact to convince Pope Francis. He succeeded.

A timetable was worked out. President Zelenski will address the French parliament, then President Biden will come to Europe to preside over an extraordinary NATO summit, and finally Pope Francis, fulfilling the prayer of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, will consecrate Ukraine and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin. This montage may appear artificial, but its effect should be powerful. For many Catholics, fighting Russia will become a religious duty.


In the coming weeks, President Joe Biden will have to try his hand at a new speech. It will be to present the peace in Ukraine as a victory of wisdom. It does not matter that the Ukrainians gambled and lost. It doesn’t matter that the Banditos are prisoners or dead. It does not matter that Ukraine loses its access to the sea. The Allies will be asked to increase their military spending and pay with their own money for all this carnage.

The post Ukraine: The Great Manipulation appeared first on LewRockwell.


Ukraine’s Propaganda War

Dan Cohen reveals the network of foreign strategists, Washington lobbyists and intelligence-linked media outlets behind Kiev’s public relations blitz. By Dan Cohen in Washington, D.C. MintPress News


Pentagon Drops Truth Bombs To Stave Off War With Russia



Two leaked stories from the Pentagon have exposed the lies of mainstream media about how Russia is conducting the Ukraine war in a bid to counter propaganda intended to get NATO into the conflict, writes Joe Lauria.

The Pentagon is engaged in a consequential battle with the U.S. State Department and the Congress to prevent a direct military confrontation with Russia, which could unleash the most unimaginable horror of war.

President Joe Biden is caught in the middle of the fray. So far he is siding with the Defense Department, saying there cannot be a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine fighting Russian aircraft because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

“President Biden’s been clear that U.S. troops won’t fight Russia in Ukraine, and if you establish a no-fly zone, certainly in order to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin earlier this month. (The administration plan is to bring down the Russian government through a ground insurgency and economic war, not a direct military one.)

But pressure on the White House from some members of Congress and especially the press corps is unrelenting to recklessly bring NATO directly into the war. (Secretary of State Antony Blinken who initially backed a plan to send NATO plans from Poland to Ukraine has backed down and now opposes the no-fly zone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also supported the Polish planes scheme, which was shot down by the Pentagon.)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, hailed as a virtual superhero in Western media, has vacillated between openness to negotiating a peace settlement with Russia and calling for NATO, again on Friday, to “close the skies” above Ukraine. To save his country he appears willing to risk endangering the entire world.

(The Pentagon’s mettle will be tested if there is a chemical weapons attack in Ukraine. Biden has said Russia would be a “severe price” but who the perpetrator would be might be murky.)

Meanwhile, Western corporate media, depending almost exclusively on Ukrainian sources, report that Russia is losing the war, with its military offensive “stalled,” and in frustration has deliberately targeted civilians and flattened cities.

Biden has bought into this part of the story, calling Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal.” He has also said that Russia is planning a “false flag” chemical attack to pin on Ukraine.

But on Tuesday, the Pentagon took the bold step of leaking two stories to reporters that contradict those tales. “Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act,” reported Newsweek in an article entitled, “Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why.”

The piece quotes an unnamed analyst at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) saying, “The heart of Kyiv has barely been touched. And almost all of the long-range strikes have been aimed at military targets.”

A retired U.S. Air Force officer now working as an analyst for a Pentagon contractor, added: “We need to understand Russia’s actual conduct. If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict.”

The article says:

“As of the past weekend, in 24 days of conflict, Russia has flown some 1,400 strike sorties and delivered almost 1,000 missiles (by contrast, the United States flew more sorties and delivered more weapons in the first day of the 2003 Iraq war). …

A proportion of those strikes have damaged and destroyed civilian structures and killed and injured innocent civilians, but the level of death and destruction is low compared to Russia’s capacity.

‘I know it’s hard … to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is,’ says the DIA analyst. ‘But that’s what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians, that perhaps he is mindful that he needs to limit damage in order to leave an out for negotiations.’”

A second retired U.S. Air Force officer says:

“I’m frustrated by the current narrative—that Russia is intentionally targeting civilians, that it is demolishing cities, and that Putin doesn’t care. Such a distorted view stands in the way of finding an end before true disaster hits or the war spreads to the rest of Europe. I know that the news keeps repeating that Putin is targeting civilians, but there is no evidence that Russia is intentionally doing so. In fact, I’d say that Russian could be killing thousands more civilians if it wanted to.”

These Pentagon sources confirm what Putin and the Russian Ministry of Defense have been saying all along: that instead of being “stalled,” Russia is executing a methodical war plan to encircle cities, opening humanitarian corridors for civilians, leaving civilian infrastructure like water, electricity, telephony and internet intact, and trying to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible.

Until these Pentagon leaks it was difficult to confirm that Russia was entirely telling the truth and that corporate media were publishing fables cooked up by Ukraine’s publicity machine.

No Evidence of Chemicals

The second article directly undermines Biden’s dramatic warning about a false flag chemical attack. Reuters reported: “The United States has not yet seen any concrete indications of an imminent Russian chemical or biological weapons attack in Ukraine but is closely monitoring streams of intelligence for them, a senior U.S. defense official said.”

It quoted the Pentagon official as saying, “There’s no indication that there’s something imminent in that regard right now.” Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post published the Reuters article, which appeared in the more obscure U.S. News and World Report. 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story — even if it could lead to the most devastating consequences in history.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Pentagon Drops Truth Bombs To Stave Off War With Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.


Congressman Andy Biggs Believes the US Failed to Address CCP Infiltration


People don’t want to admit it, but China, not Russia, poses the largest strategic challenge to the United States.  Per a report by Michael Washburn and Steve Lance at The Epoch Times, Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs believes that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infiltrating and meddling in the internal affairs of the US. Biggs’ argued that the CCP’s subversive activity is largely being ignored 

“[Russia’s] collusion with the Trump campaign was proven to be not real at all. But we have neglected the notion that China has also been an active player and has some interest in infiltrating our election systems and compromising our election integrity,” Biggs said to NTD on March 22, 2022.

The Arizona Congressman described the economic relationship between the US and China as “so vast, so broad, so deep.” Because of the intimate ties between the two nations, malicious actors within the CCP can tap into the US’s economic, political, and social networks to establish a foothold in the country. 

“When we talk about Russian infiltration, it would be comparatively small, compared to the CCP. And the reason is, there’s just a so much larger network of interconnectivity between the United States and our institutions, including our economic institutions, and China,” Biggs observed.

In order to reduce US dependence on China, Biggs has proposed “a ‘repatriation’ of U.S. economic institutions, corporations, and manufacturing networks that are either situated in or closely tied up with China.”

In addition, Biggs congratulated former President Donald Trump for his efforts to reduce America’s dependence on China. “That really is something that I think President Trump was trying very hard to do,” the Arizona congressman remarked.

Biggs also made the case for decoupling from China. He argued that decoupling from China improved U.S. self-sufficiency. In addition, Biggs maintained that the US’s flaws were “greatly exposed” throughout the pandemic, where American reliance on Chinese manufacturing stuck out like a sore thumb. For Biggs, an additional benefit of a more self-sufficient United States is the resounding message it sends to CCP leadership.

“I’m never a big believer in intervention internationally, but I do [believe in it] when another nation is interfering in domestic politics. I do think that we have a responsibility to an American First foreign policy which actually would be beneficial to … citizens of China,” Biggs said in his concluding remarks.

The Arizona Congressman is right about the China threat. That said, there’s no need to militarily intervene against China to keep it in line. Smart policies such as restricting immigration from China, shutting down Confucius Institutes, and downgrading diplomatic relations with it can send a strong message to China that its subversive activities will not be tolerated.

Moreover, the US will need to put its regulatory state on a diet. Excessive regulation and taxation impede business development and incentivizes various enterprises to go overseas so as to cut costs and not have to deal with burdensome regulation. 

All in all, the U.S. does not need to pursue hawkish policies, at least in military terms, against China. Instead, it can shore itself up domestically and make sure to deny China the ability to penetrate its markets and overall territory by restricting trade and immigration. Moreover, the US doesn’t need to go fully autarkic. It can double down on economic relations with its partners in the Western Hemisphere and start near-shoring manufacturing and other economic activities to countries that are not adversaries of the US in Latin America.


Stunner! Report links Hunter Biden to funding pathogen research in Ukraine


A stunning report from the Daily Mail on Friday linked the scandal-plagued Hunter Biden to financing a "U.S. military 'bioweapons' research program in Ukraine."

Joe Biden's son has been in the headlines over the last year or two for multiple scandals, such as his being paid tens of thousands of dollars a month from the Ukrainian Burisma gas company – even though he had no industry experience.

When he did have was a father who was vice president at that time for Barack Obama and in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy. And Joe Biden later ordered the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor looking into corruption at Burisma.

But details about payments to the Biden family from Chinese and Russian interests, Hunter Biden's dealings with prostitutes, and many other topics, have been revealed through a laptop he abandoned at a repair shop, which was turned over to the FBI, which is now investigating Hunter Biden's taxes and international business dealings.

The Daily Mail, with access to a copy of that hard drive, said that the Russian government's claims that "Hunter Biden helped finance a U.S. military 'bioweapons' research program in Ukraine" "may well be true."

That, the report said, is according to "emails and correspondence obtained by from Hunter's abandoned laptop."

The report explained "the emails show Hunter helped secure millions of dollars of funding for Metabiota, a Department of Defense contractor specializing in research on pandemic-causing diseases" and he also "introduced Metabiota to an allegedly corrupt Ukrainian gas firm, Burisma, for a 'science project' involving high biosecurity level labs in Ukraine."

The report charged Hunter Biden and some friends "invested $500,000 in Metabiota through their firm Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners," and they also "raised several million dollars of funding for the company from investment giants including Goldman Sachs."

It was the commander of the Russian Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Forces who recently alleged there was a "scheme" involving the U.S. government agencies and Ukrainian biological objects.

Intelligence experts had described the claims as a propaganda ploy to justify Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

"Although Metabiota is ostensibly a medical data company, its vice president emailed Hunter in 2014 describing how they could 'assert Ukraine's cultural and economic independence from Russia,'" which the report described as an odd plan for a biotech firm.

It said Metabiota actually works with the Department of Defense on diseases that could be used as weapons.

The report said in April 2014, Metabiota vice president Mary Guttieri sent to Hunter Biden that message about Ukraine's "independence."

Days later, "Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi wrote to Hunter Biden responding to his presentation of a "science project" involving Burisma and Metabiota in Ukraine."

And federal government records reveal the DoD gave an $18.4million contract to Metabiota between February 2014 and November 2016, with $307,091 earmarked for "Ukraine research projects."

The report noted, "Emails and defense contract data reviewed by suggest that Hunter had a prominent role in making sure Metabiota was able to conduct its pathogen research just a few hundred miles from the border with Russia."

The publication suggested Metabiota worked in Ukraine for Black & Veatch, a defense contractor with ties to the military, toward secure labs in Ukraine where scientists reviewed killer diseases.

Just weeks ago U.S. officials warned Congress "Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of these 'biological research facilities', prompting fears that deadly and even engineered pathogens could fall into Russian hands."

The Daily Mail reported, "Former senior CIA officer Sam Faddis, who has reviewed emails on Hunter's laptop, told that the offer to help assert Ukraine's independence was odd for a biotech executive.

It was during this time that Hunter Biden was being paid at estimated $83,000 a month to be on Burisma's board.

Faddis described the intersection of Hunter Biden, Metabiota, Ukraine and more a worrying revelation.

"His father was the vice president of the United States and in charge of relations with Ukraine. So why was Hunter not only on the board of a suspect Ukrainian gas firm, but also hooked them up with a company working on bioweapons research?" Faddis said.

He said Russia was using the circumstances for "propaganda," but that "doesn't change the fact that there does seem to be something that needs to be explored here."

The report noted Metabiota also "has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, suspected to be the source of the COVID-19 outbreak."

WND reported just a day earlier that the Republican party has begun setting the stage for a full-blown review of the scandals involving Hunter Biden, and perhaps those linked to Joe Biden.

In an interview on John Solomon Reports, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., confirmed that GOP lawmakers are dispatching letters to Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times and "dozens" of former U.S. intelligence officials.

The letters instruct them to preserve any and all evidence of their efforts to suppress 2020 news reports about Hunter Biden's laptop and business dealings.

Those stories first were broken by the New York Post, but social media industry leaders, along with legacy players like the Times, insisted they were Russian "disinformation" and suppressed them.

A subsequent Media Research Institute survey later revealed that had those accurate reports been more widely distributed, enough voters would have withheld their support from Joe Biden that he would have lost the 2020 election.

Those reports, of course, were verified through a variety of ways, and now even the Times has admitted to their accuracy.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


The post Stunner! Report links Hunter Biden to funding pathogen research in Ukraine appeared first on WND.


Moderna Seeks Approval from FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to Start Injecting Children Under 6 with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

Fierce Pharma reported yesterday that Moderna is seeking approval for their COVID-19 mRNA vaccine to be injected into children under the age of 6, from both the U.S. FDA and the European EMA. They are also asking the FDA to approve their vaccine for children between the ages of 6 and 11.


They’re Enslaving Our Minds And Driving Us Toward Destruction

You know you are being aggressively propagandized about Ukraine by the mass media and by Silicon Valley. You can feel it in your guts. Everyone can feel it, on some level. It feels gross.


US Government Paid News Media $1 Billion to Promote Vaccines

Via Mercola Story at-a-glance News outlets that did respond to TheBlaze assured them the editorial staff are not influenced by advertising money, but it’s not hard to imagine management would not look kindly on editorial staff who write content that doesn’t align with the advertising narrative


Thursday, March 24, 2022

Trump suing Hillary Clinton, Democrats over Russia collusion narrative

Donald Trump on Thursday sued Hillary Clinton and several other Democrats on the grounds that they attempted to rig the 2016 presidential election by creating a false narrative that tied his campaign to Russia.


US Authorities Secretly Accessed Project Veritas Emails: Court Documents

Federal authorities obtained communications from Project Veritas emails dating back to early 2020, the nonprofit journalism group alerted a federal judge on March 22.

Search warrants and non-disclosure orders obtained by Project Veritas and submitted to the judge show that the government ordered Microsoft, which the nonprofit uses for its email accounts, to hand over reams of information regarding multiple Project Veritas email addresses.

Jill Biden invites congressional spouses to White House, sets nasty rules for the unvaxxed

First Lady Jill Biden was kind enough to invite me & the other Congressional spouses to a reception at the White House. I just have to take a COVID test, & as an unvaccinated person (with natural immunity) I won’t be allowed to eat, drink, or talk to anyone. Should be a blast! 🥂

— Erika Donalds (@ErikaDonalds) March 21, 2022

U.S. Army surgeon in tears: Top brass ordered silence on vaccine injuries

An Army flight surgeon testified in federal court that she was ordered by high-level command not to discuss the controversy over Department of Defense data indicating a massive spike in serious injuries and illnesses among military personnel when the vaccines were rolled out in 2021.

Dr. Theresa Long was testifying March 10 in the case of a Navy SEAL commander who refused to receive a COVID shot. She told Judge Steven Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa that she was observing cases of the demyelination of the central nervous system in military personnel.

High-Quality Study Finds Preschool Enrollment Makes Children Learn Less And Misbehave More

Low-income children who attended Tennessee’s highly praised preschool program performed significantly worse on every academic and social measurement by sixth grade compared to peers who did not attend the program, a recent high-quality study found.

“[T]he children randomly assigned to attend Pre-K had lower state achievement test scores in third through sixth grades than control children, with the strongest negative effects in sixth grade,” summarize the Vanderbilt University study authors. “A negative effect was also found for disciplinary infractions, attendance, and receipt of special education services…”

An Interview With Ventavia and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID Vaccine Trial Whistleblower Brook Jackson

Brook Jackson has over 20 years clinical trial managerial experience. She was employed by Ventavia, a Pfizer vaccine trial contractor, in September 2020 as a regional managers during Phase 3 of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial. She oversaw three of Ventavia’s trial sites in Texas, covering over 1,000 trial participants.

Jackson claimed Ventavia committed fraud, put patient safety at risk and engaged in cover-ups of errors and malfeasance during its management of Pfizer’s clinical trials.

Doctors Who Embrace the Dangerous Call to Jab Kids Must Be Held Accountable

In my email on March 19, a Medscape “Perspective” post by William G. Wilkoff MD titled “Waiting for the Under-5 COVID-19 Vaccine” caught my attention. He opens by noting that “Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5.” He goes on to say that “earlier evidence suggest that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group.”

What?!?! Wilkoff has an MD degree, and presumably has some passing acquaintance with the basic concepts of illness, immunity, and statistics. To make matters worse, he’s a pediatrician with a long career in clinical practice. So, unlike Fauci, who hasn’t treated a patient in five decades, Wilkoff definitely should know better. And when writing for a national medical newsletter you’d think he would be somewhat aware of the literature related to pediatrics and COVID. It’s his ethical duty to provide accurate information.

He might be forgiven for not knowing that the FDA and CDC have carefully avoided allowing facts to escape their lairs, but the English NHS data should have been somewhere in his knowledge base. And that data has consistently shown that under the age of 55, the risk of death from COVID is statistically indistinguishable from zero. In plain English it says that a child’s chance of dying from COVID is about the same as expiring from a rattlesnake bite in Antarctica.

The pediatric literature is even more damning.