Dan Dicks
A pilot who didn’t know he was being recorded while being confronted about the dumping of toxic chemicals over people’s homes has not denied the accusation but instead insisted that what he was doing was not illegal and if anyone has a problem with it they can take it up with his boss. This incident has reignited the debate about Chemtrails and their impact.
[…]
Via https://www.activistpost.com/chemtrails-legal-or-environmental-issue/
Wired
Elon Musk claims to have found rampant fraud in the Social Security Administration. There’s a much simpler explanation.
Elon Musk has repeatedly claimed that his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project had uncovered massive government fraud when it alleged that 150-year-olds were claiming Social Security benefits.
But Musk has provided no evidence to back up his claims, and experts quickly pointed out that this is very likely just a quirk of the decades-old coding language that underpins the government payment systems.
Musk first made the claims during his Oval Office press conference last week, when he claimed that a “cursory examination of Social Security, and we got people in there that are 150 years old. Now, do you know anyone that’s 150? I don’t know. They should be in the Guinness Book of World Records … So that’s a case where I think they’re probably dead.”
While no evidence was produced to back up this claim, it was picked up by the right-wing commentators online, primarily on Musk’s own X platform, as well as being reported credibly by pro-Trump media outlets.
Computer programmers quickly claimed that the 150 figure was not evidence of fraud, but rather the result of a weird quirk of the Social Security Administration’s benefits system, which was largely written in COBOL, a 60-year-old programming language that undergirds SSA’s databases as well as systems from many other US government agencies.
COBOL is rarely used today, and as such, Musk’s cadre of young engineers may well be unfamiliar with it.
Because COBOL does not have a date type, some implementations rely instead on a system whereby all dates are coded to a reference point. The most commonly used is May 20, 1875, as this was the date of an international standards-setting conference held in Paris, known as the “Convention du Mètre.”
These systems default to the reference point when a birth date is missing or incomplete, meaning all of those entries in 2025 would show an age of 150.
That’s just one possible explanation for what DOGE allegedly found. Musk could also have simply looked up the SSA’s own website, which explains that since September 2015 the agency has automatically stopped benefit payments when anyone reaches the age of 115.
However, on Monday morning Musk doubled down, posting a screenshot of what he claims were figures from “the Social Security database” to X, writing that “the numbers of people in each age bucket with the death field set to FALSE!”
The figures suggested that over 10 millions people aged over 120 were collecting benefits.</
“Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security,” Musk wrote.
The database Musk took the screenshot from listed almost 400 million people, which is more than five times the number of people receiving benefits in 2024, according to the SSA’s own website. It’s also significantly more than the entire US population.
The fact that the Social Security system contains millions of entries from people who are dead is likely distinct from a potential COBOL-caused error, and also not news. A report written by the SSA’s inspector general in 2023 found that 98 percent of those aged 100 or older in the Social Security databases are not in receipt of any benefits. The report added that the database would not be updated because it would cost too much money to do so.
“DOGE going into all these agencies with largely unfettered access with a wrecking ball and no understanding of the business logic and structure behind the code, database and configured business logic, related payment systems, and integrated decision trees, poses real risks to the privacy and persona-level data of millions of people across all of those records,” Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency executive-turned-whistleblower, tells WIRED.
By
The wailing sound you heard last Thursday was the chorus of the Beltway warmongers shrieking in despair at President Trump’s suggestion that there was no reason for the United States to be spending one trillion dollars on “defense.”
“…[O]ne of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that,” the President told reporters.
With this statement, President Trump blew up one of the biggest myths of our time, particularly among Republicans, that spending more on the military is essential to keeping us safe. There is a vast and well-funded network of political and industrial interests that depend on maintaining that myth, from the weapons manufacturers to the mainstream media to the think tanks and beyond. Why? Because most of what is called “defense spending” has little to do with defending this country and a lot to do with enriching the politically well-connected.
Maintaining that global military empire has bankrupted the United States while making us less safe and less free. President Trump seems to understand this. But the military-industrial complex and its cheerleaders have for decades pushed the idea that we could not survive without continuously increasing their budgets.
Thanks to the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency” we are learning that much of what has been sold as “essential spending” is nothing of the sort. Take USAID, for example. We were led to believe that this agency was feeding the poor while promoting the best kind of American values overseas. Thanks to DOGE, we learned that the money was going to absurdities like funding transgender puppet shows in Peru.
We are also learning that a great deal of USAID money was going to actually overthrow democratic governments overseas – as well as manipulate foreign media and promote censorship of “dissident” voices at home and abroad. Not only was USAID not helping countries overseas – it was actually harming them!
Just as with USAID, when we are able to see just where that one trillion military budget is going Americans are going to fully realize that they have been lied to for decades. That is why we need a full audit of the Pentagon and full transparency of the results.
We also need a change in policy. Americans are beginning to understand the economic costs of maintaining a global military empire. US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabers at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defense? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defense of rich Europeans? Haven’t we had enough of this?
I very much hope that President Trump follows through with his plan to drastically reduce our bloated military budget. We can start by closing the hundreds of military bases overseas, bringing back our troops from foreign countries, and eliminating our massive commitments to NATO and other international organizations.
[…]
Via https://ronpaulinstitute.org/can-we-really-cut-half-of-the-military-budget-you-bet/
RIYADH, February 18. /TASS/. Following years of no communication, Russian and American delegations held a meeting in the Saudi capital Riyadh. The sides discussed rebuilding relations, preparations for a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, as well as prospects for resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
[…]
TASS has put together the highlights from the talks.
The Russian-US talks began around 7:30 a.m. GMT in one of the palaces of the royal family: Diriyah in the Albasateen complex. The meeting lasted 4 1/2 hours.
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Saudi Arabia was chosen as the venue for the talks because it suits both sides.
Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and special envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff comprised the US team.
The sides discussed rebuilding the entirety of Russia-US relations, preparations for a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, and possible negotiations on a settlement in Ukraine.
Ushakov said that the delegations had a “very serious conversation on all issues.” However, it is still hard to say that the positions of Russia and the US are getting closer, according to the official. He also said Russia and the US agreed to “take into account each other’s interests.” According to the aide, a date for a meeting between Putin and Trump hasn’t been set and it is unlikely that it will take place next week. He said it is not yet clear who would be appointed as negotiators on Ukrainian settlement, as the president has yet to make a decision.
Dmitriev said following the talks that the Russian and US teams treated each other with respect, as equals.
“It is too early to talk about compromises. We can say that the sides started communicating with each other, started listening to each other, started the dialog,” he said.
According to Dmitriev, the countries also discussed potential economic cooperation and energy prices.
Rubio and Lavrov agreed to appoint respective high-level teams to begin working on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible, State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement. They also agreed to establish a consultation mechanism to address irritants to the bilateral relationship and lay the groundwork for future cooperation on matters of mutual geopolitical interest and economic and investment opportunities.
“One phone call followed by one meeting is not sufficient to establish enduring peace,” she said separately.
[…]
The Egyptian military is continuing preparations for waging war, although Cairo has not announced an intended target.
The Egyptian paratrooper brigade recently conducted training exercises, jumping out of aircraft and using powered gliders – the same type of gliders used to invade Israel by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023, according to open source intelligence.
Egypt is reportedly furious over the publication of a hypothetical Israeli scenario created by artificial intelligence involving an attack on the Aswan Dam.
“The Nziv website, which focuses on military analysis, described a scenario in which bunker-penetrating missiles and advanced weaponry could be used to demolish or partially collapse the High Dam, leading to catastrophic flooding. It claimed that within minutes, millions of cubic meters of water would surge down the Nile Valley, flooding areas such as Luxor and Aswan and destroying infrastructure,” according to a report published Sunday by The New Arab.
Such an attack could wipe out military bases and industrial facilities, flooding vast areas and killing thousands in the first few hours, according to the report.
In response, Egyptian military researcher Sa’ad al-Faqi, told the Arabic edition of the Russian RT news outlet that Egypt would strike Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona “within minutes” of any attack on the Aswan Dam.
Beneath this all this verbal media skirmishing, however, lie very real Egyptian military preparations for another war with the Jewish State.
Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, warned recently that Egypt has established military bases in Sinai for potential offensive actions. The Israeli ambassador emphasized that the move is an absolute violation of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty signed on March 26, 1979.
Satellite images have also revealed 100 Abrams tanks – Egypt’s premier battle tanks — parked near Israel’s border with Egypt – another violation of the peace treaty, which stipulates that most of Sinai must remain demilitarized.
Three new airfields have been built in Sinai and massive tunnels have been dug – more violations of the treaty.
The peace agreement allows for military camps for 47 battalions; currently there are camps for 180 battalions, four times the permitted amount, according to Lt. Col. (res.) Eliyahu Dekel, a military analyst who has tracked adherence to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty for decades.
An analysis of the military buildup and the development of the infrastructure systems in the Sinai and the Canal front, leads [Dekel] to the conclusion that the Egyptian Army’s focus is on preparing a theatre of war against Israel in Sinai, Dekel warns.
Last Tuesday, Egyptian Defense Minister Abdel Mageed Ahmed Abdel Mageed Saqr ordered military brigades in the Sinai and near Rafah – which straddles the border between Egypt and Gaza – to maintain the “highest level of readiness for war.”
Proclaiming an elevated alert and ordering military exercises, however, is not new for Cairo. Egypt carried out similar activities shortly after the start of the October 7, 2023 war launched by Hamas against Israel, and again in the summer of 2024. Such posturing is often a way for the Cairo government to show its citizens it is defending the homeland against the “Zionist state.”
Nevertheless, Egypt may indeed be preparing its armed forces for a surprise attack on Israel, despite a decades-long peace treaty.
“For example, in May of this year, Egypt signed a contract to buy 30 advanced French Rafale fighters. It is meant to improve Egypt’s chances if it has to fight the powerful Israeli Air Force,” Israeli national security expert Ehud Eilam wrote in a commentary for Israel Defense.
Egypt spent years preparing for the Yom Kippur War, preceded by myriad official speeches laced with apparent bluster and bravado.
The reasons for another, possible attempt at annihilating the State of Israel are complex: They include internal and regional Arab political maneuvering, fear of being forced to accept an influx of hundreds of thousands of Gazan emigrants under the Trump Plan for Gaza, complete with thousands of terrorists among them, and the deterioration of a longtime cold peace with Israel.
One week ago, the Egyptian foreign ministry announced an emergency Arab summit to be held on Feb. 27 in response to Trump’s plan for Gaza, which would enable its residents to emigrate from the enclave to nations abroad.
Trump announced a plan to rebuild Gaza into what he called the “Riviera of the Middle East” while enabling Gazans to find a better, easier life elsewhere. The president suggested that Egypt and Jordan would provide land to resettle Gazans into new homes – but both countries swiftly rejected the plan outright.
“Over the past few days, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty made a series of phone calls with several Arab counterparts to mass regional efforts in a bid to thwart the US proposal of displacing the Palestinian people,” Egypt’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi canceled a planned official visit to the White House in response to Trump’s announced plan for Gaza.
Jordanian King Abdullah II, who did not cancel his own recent visit to Washington, expressed his views on the matter in diplomatic language during his meeting with Trump and a subsequent presser with media.
[…]
Blind Injustice
RT (2024)
Film Review
This documentary traces the genocidal war the Clinton administration launched against Bosnian Serbs in the former Yugoslavia and the role of the International Criminal Court in imprisoning Serbian leaders who spoke out against US aggression.
Clinton’s 1995 “humanitarian intervention” in the former Yugoslavia turned out to be a dress rehearsal for their 2014 intervention in Ukraine. There was even a Maidan-style color revolution in Bosnia in 1992, instigated by pro-NATO snipers firing on a crowd of peaceful protesters, bringing the pro-Western Islamist Alija Izetbegović to power. This was followed by two false flag explosions in the Sarajevo market in 1993 and 1994, which NATO falsely blamed on the Serbs.
Clinton’s main goal in 1995 was to use ethnic division to sever Yugoslavia’s ethnic ties with Russia, to carve it up into smaller more malleable political entities and to install pro-Western demagogues to rule them. Patriots who fought to preserve Yugoslavian unity were labeled as “war criminals,” particularly if they were Serbian.
Mass killings committed by non-Serbs were rarely prosecuted. Serbians convicted of war crimes were convicted of “criminal conspiracy” or “collective guilt” because there was scant concrete evidence linking them to specific massacres. Evidence presented at the International Criminal Court often consisted of forged documents, hearsay evidence or coerced false testimony.
No NATO leaders were prosecuted for their war crimes (eg the bombing of Belgrade).
In total one hundred Serbs were convicted of war crimes, with eight receiving life sentences. Most Croats and Muslims implicated in genocide were released after the first or second stage of trial. Those who were convicted usually received symbolic sentences, such as fines. In her book, former ICC prosecutor Carla del Ponte writes about political pressure not to prosecute non-Serbs for war crimes and describes a scheme to kill Serbs to sell their organs.
The West’s “humanitarian intervention” culminated in the October 2000 Bulldozer Revolution in Belgrade, at a time when the US and the UK still controlled every aspect of Serbia’s government. The Bulldozer Revolution, which began as a student movement, was financed by CIA-funded foundations. In 2001 Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was secretly transported the the Hague.
His four-year trial was frequently interrupted owing to his poor health. In 2006 he was found dead of a heart attack in his cell. The International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ultimately absolved him of any war crimes in 2016 – see ICTY Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic for War Crimes
Among war crimes committed by NATO, Bosnian Muslims and Croats and Kosovo Albanians in the former Yugoslavia:
By Akeia Lacy
Attorney General Pam Bondi issued last week several memos to all Department of Justice employees including one with the subject: “Reviving the Federal Death Penalty and Lifting the Moratorium on Federal Executions.” It detailed exactly how her agency will put into practice an executive order to restart federal executions that President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office.
The memo denounced the pause on federal executions under former President Joe Biden and claimed DOJ officials had neglected their jobs by upholding a moratorium on federal executions in place since 2021, which halted a killing spree launched by Trump in his first term.
“The Department’s political leadership disregarded these important responsibilities and supplanted the will of the people with their own personal beliefs,” the memo read.
While there is no evidence that the death penalty achieves its purported goal to deter crime, the Trump administration wants the federal government to direct substantial resources and dollars to carrying out more executions, more quickly. Through its executive actions and policy memos, the administration is also stating something that criminal justice and human rights advocates have long said: that conditions in many federal detention facilities are inhumane, and Trump wants to keep them that way.
In the January 20 executive order, Trump directed his attorney general to evaluate the conditions of confinement for the 37 people commuted from federal death row at the end of Biden’s term and “take all lawful and appropriate action to ensure that these offenders are imprisoned in conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes and the threats they pose.”
The message is a direction to the federal government to use conditions of confinement as additional punishment — which is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, according to Miriam Gohara, a clinical professor of law at Yale University and a former federal public defender.
On top of that, it suggests that inhumane conditions in federal detention are the administration’s goal.
“The one thing that was clear from the order was that it sounded like the administration was going to try to influence placement of people, and try to do so under conditions that they called ‘monstrous’ in their order,” Gohara told The Intercept. Gohara spent over a decade representing clients sentenced to death in post-conviction litigation.
“Certainly, if I were leading the [Bureau of Prisons] or if I were working in the BOP, I wouldn’t want to suggest that there are any monstrous conditions in my facilities,” she said.
“That suggests that they’re actually encouraging the Bureau of Prisons to maintain monstrous conditions, or that they think they’re already monstrous conditions in the BOP somewhere, and that somebody could be put there. Which again, seems like a very odd thing for the executive to be saying about one of his agencies.”
The administration’s use of language describing federal detention as “monstrous” is on par with how Trump has spoken on criminal justice from the start, said death row attorney Dale Baich. He previously led the unit of the Arizona Federal Defender’s Office that represents people sentenced to death in post-conviction proceedings.
“I was really taken aback by the number of adjectives in the order,” Baich said. “But, you know, that’s how he campaigned, that’s how Project 2025 was drafted. We really shouldn’t be surprised.”
Incarcerated people and advocates for reform have long argued that conditions of incarceration across the board — from federal prisons to local jails — are inhumane and that the government has not done enough to address them. Even prior to the latest order, there are plenty of examples of detention facilities that have not taken corrective measures even under court order.
Welcoming and embracing inhumane conditions in prisons as federal policy will make challenging those conditions even more difficult, Baich said.
“It’s hard enough to challenge conditions of confinement when departments of corrections or the Bureau of Prisons is saying that it’s not unconstitutional,” he said.
“So I just think it’s going to be a real heavy lift going forward to challenge those conditions,” Baich said.
But challenges, he said, must continue.
“What is important is to continue to pursue unconstitutional conditions of confinement and hold the government accountable.”
Bondi’s memo last week also directs Bureau of Prisons employees to work with states that allow executions to ensure they have “sufficient supplies and resources to impose the death penalty” — including lethal injection drugs — and helping to transfer federal detainees “to the appropriate authorities to carry out those sentences.”
The order also directs the U.S. attorney general to look for opportunities to bring state capital charges against those with commuted federal death sentences and make relevant recommendations to state and local authorities, effectively finding another way to execute them. At its worst, that could look like the Department of Justice finding a way to federalize crimes in states without the death penalty — in other words, making a new constituency of suspects eligible for federal execution, Baich said.
States that don’t have the death penalty or only rarely use it are already bracing for how, if at all, Trump’s order might affect them. On Wednesday, Trump said judicial efforts to push back on his orders amounted to a “weaponization” of the courts.
Since Trump won the presidential election, at least one Democratic governor has already taken steps to downplay the state’s history of botched executions. In late November, Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs fired an independent commissioner before they were set to publish a report on their investigation into the state’s history of botched lethal injections. A draft of the report, which was never published, concluded that death by firing squad, barred in Arizona, was the only form of execution more quick and less painful than lethal injection. Arizona’s next execution, the first in two years, is scheduled for March 19.
Capital trials are expensive and resource-intensive, and it’s an open question whether the Trump administration would provide grants or additional support to rural counties that historically don’t have the capacity to carry out capital trials or executions. In a worst-case scenario, the administration could find a way to offer money to rural counties that often can’t afford to prosecute death penalty cases.
Trump’s Justice Department has already authorized the movement of one person to ensure their execution. On Wednesday, Bondi approved Oklahoma’s request to transfer George Hanson to the state from Louisiana for execution. Hanson was previously scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma in 2022, but Biden’s DOJ denied Oklahoma’s request to transfer him from Louisiana, where he is serving a life sentence for an unrelated conviction.
Baich called the move an “example of this newly found cooperation between DOJ and the states.”
“Mr. Hanson was never going to get out of prison,” Baich said. “Deliberate decisions by government officials have deprived Mr. Hanson of the guarantees of due process. This trampling of constitutional protections and the rush to execute are consistent with what we saw at the end of the first Trump administration where thirteen people were executed.”
The Trump administration’s focus on accelerating federal executions takes away resources from the goals it claims to prioritize, Gohara said during a briefing on the order last month. Those stated goals include things like helping victims and curbing crime — at a time of historically low national rates.
“We now understand that the death penalty does nothing to promote public safety, and, in fact, detracts from public safety resources that actually could be used to help keep people free from crime and violence,” Gohara said. “If you’re spending money on expensive capital trials, you’re not spending money on doing things like using rape kits to clear old cases or to try to solve cold crimes.
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-federal-prisons-purposely-inhumane/5880113
Ron Unz
Senate Silent on RFK Jr’s Controversial Views on Sirhan Sirhan and HIV
Ironies abounded in that narrow 52-48 vote, which was almost exactly along party lines, with every Democrat in opposition and all but one Republican in support.
Not only had Kennedy spent almost his entire life as a liberal Democrat, but he was the scion of that party’s most famous political dynasty, nephew of the martyred President John F. Kennedy and son of his brother Robert, who would have also probably reached the White House in 1968 if he had not been cut down by an assassin’s bullet.
The younger Kennedy had followed in their illustrious footsteps, spending nearly his entire life as a high-profile environmental activist, so well regarded in Democratic Party circles that President Barack Obama had considered naming him to the Cabinet in 2008. But in recent years, Kennedy’s views on public health issues had caused him to fall from grace in his own ideological camp. His strident skepticism regarding the safety of vaccines in general and the Covid vaccine in particular outraged the mainstream liberal establishment, as did his loud denunciation of the lockdowns and other controversial public health measures undertaken to control the spread of that dangerous disease.
This sharp ideological rupture eventually propelled him to challenge the renomination of President Joseph Biden in the Democratic primaries, then to launch an independent run for the White House, and ultimately to drop out and endorse Donald Trump in that race. Following Trump’s victory, the president-elect named Kennedy as his choice to lead HHS, with the former Democrat proclaiming his intent to “Make America Healthy Again.” Last week’s Senate vote has now given Kennedy the authority to set our national public health policies.
Over the years, Kennedy had become a very sharp critic of both the pharmaceutical and the food industries, so having him in control of the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA represented the worst nightmare of those powerful corporations. Therefore, they naturally mobilized their army of lobbyists and opposition researchers to assist their media and political allies in derailing his nomination.
Along with Tulsi Gabbard, nominated as Director of National Intelligence, Kennedy had probably ranked as Trump’s most controversial and bitterly opposed nominee. Indeed, the volume and vehemence of the attacks I saw against him in our leading media organs such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal may have even been greater, with those influential publications doing everything they could to endorse and amplify any harsh accusations, hoping to sway enough senators to block his appointment. He was accused of every sort of iniquity and denounced as a deranged conspiracy theorist, whose bizarre, irrational beliefs would severely endanger our nation’s public health.
Few stones were left unturned in the attacks on Kennedy’s fitness for the job, and he experienced two days of grueling testimony before the relevant Senate Committees, with the Democratic staffers having obviously strategized on the best means of defeating him before feeding the most effective attacks to their senatorial principals who grilled the nominee before the television cameras.
But one oddity I noted was that almost none of the hostile news stories nor the probing senatorial questions ever mentioned the name of “Sirhan Sirhan.” That young Palestinian had been arrested and convicted of the 1968 assassination of Kennedy’s father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy Sr., and there had been a multitude of supposed eyewitnesses to that crime. But in recent years Kennedy publicly declared that Sirhan was an innocent patsy, framed by the true conspirators, and called for his release from prison.
For six decades, our media has invested enormous resources in ridiculing and demonizing anyone questioning the official verdict of the 1960s Kennedy assassinations as a “conspiracy theorist,” rendering that term of abuse almost as radioactive as slurs such as “racist” or “antisemite.” Yet although Kennedy had publicly placed himself in that poisonous category, virtually none of his fierce opponents were willing to take notice of that important fact.
I think there were obvious reasons that those barking dogs kept strangely silent. Not only had the victim been Kennedy’s own father, but he had very strong evidence on his side. As even the ultra-establishmentarian Wikipedia page admits, the fatal bullet had been fired into the back of the senator’s head at point-blank range while everyone agreed that Sirhan was standing five or six feet in front of him, and this led the LA Coroner to declare that a second gunman had apparently been responsible. Sirhan’s gun only held eight rounds yet acoustical records proved that more shots had been fired. In an early 2022 article, I discussed all this evidence at considerable length, and the journalists and Democratic staffers challenging Kennedy must have realized that his case was too strong and raising it would badly backfire against them.
In any event, the question of who had assassinated Kennedy’s father in 1968 might have seemed too far removed from how he would administer America’s system of public health nearly six decades later.
However, I also noticed a far more recent and more relevant matter that had equally escaped any public scrutiny.
On two consequence days, the New York Times ran a pair of major articles summarizing the intense questioning that Kennedy endured, with each of these carrying five or six bylines and containing a number of sections highlighting all the major points raised against the nominee:
Fact-Checking Kennedy’s Health Claims in His Confirmation Hearing, January 29, 2025
Fact-Checking Health Claims in Kennedy’s 2nd Day of Confirmation Hearings, January 30, 2025
These items were apparently regarded as Kennedy’s greatest vulnerabilities. But I noticed that one entire topic was totally missing from the interrogation, so I dropped a note to a highly knowledgeable journalist calling attention to that remarkable absence:
I know that you’ve been very skeptical of my support for the Duesberg Hypothesis regarding HIV/AIDS, but here’s another interesting data-point you might want to consider.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the Democrats have been mounting a ferocious all-out attack in the Senate on RFK Jr., doing everything they can to discredit him and try to block his confirmation. They have focused on every possible means of portraying him as a deluded, conspiratorial individual who holds crackpot beliefs and who must therefore be kept away from our public health system…
Don’t you find it very odd that there has been absolutely no mention of HIV/AIDS during those hearings?
After all, Kennedy published a #1 Amazon bestseller that devoted 200 pages(!) to promoting the theory that HIV was harmless and AIDS was merely a hoax.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have expected any of the senators themselves to have read his book, but surely many of their staffers did, and held strategy sessions to decide which issues to raise against Kennedy. They must have consulted scientific and medical experts to help decide where Kennedy was most vulnerable.
Isn’t it absolutely extraordinary that apparently not a single senator has brought up the Kennedy’s utterly heretical views on HIV/AIDS?
Surely this must be one of the most extreme cases of “the Dog That Didn’t Bark” on record.
The only explanation I can see is that the staffers concluded that raising the HIV/AIDS issue would be disastrously counter-productive to their efforts. This doesn’t prove that Kennedy and Duesberg are correct, but I think it means many, many very knowledgeable people fear that they might be.
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/rfk-jr-public-health-disasters/5880154
Dr Eddy Betterman
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has once again proven itself to be nothing more than a puppet for Big Pharma, a soulless entity willing to sacrifice the most vulnerable among us in the name of profit and population control. Despite a bombshell, peer-reviewed study revealing 37 safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines administered during pregnancy, the CDC continues to aggressively push these experimental, dangerous shots on pregnant women. This is not just negligence—it’s bioterrorism disguised as public health.
The study, published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and found that COVID-19 vaccines given during pregnancy are linked to horrifying outcomes, including miscarriage, preeclampsia, cervical insufficiency, chromosomal abnormalities, fetal malformations, premature birth, stillbirth, newborn asphyxia, and newborn death. These are not minor side effects—they are catastrophic, life-ending, and life-altering events that should have immediately halted the CDC’s reckless recommendations. Yet, the agency continues to double down on its deadly agenda.
The researchers used the same proportional reporting ratio (PRR) method employed by the CDC to identify safety signals. What they found was nothing short of alarming: adverse pregnancy events were reported 69.2 times more frequently after COVID-19 vaccines compared to other vaccines. Placental insufficiency, a condition that can lead to preterm birth or miscarriage, was reported 499 times more frequently after COVID-19 shots. Neonatal breathing difficulties were reported 134 times more frequently, premature infant death 124 times more frequently, and fetal cardiac arrest 108 times more frequently. These numbers are not just statistics—they represent real babies, real mothers, and real families destroyed by this unnecessary and dangerous intervention.
The researchers, including practicing obstetricians and gynecologists, concluded that an “immediate global moratorium on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is warranted.” But the CDC, in its infinite arrogance and corruption, has ignored this plea. Instead, the agency continues to peddle the lie that these vaccines are “safe and effective” for pregnant women, despite the complete lack of randomized controlled clinical trials to back up this claim.
Let’s be clear: this is a violation of the “Golden Rule of pregnancy,” which states that new and potentially harmful substances should not be introduced while a fetus is developing. Even common foods and drinks are restricted during pregnancy due to potential risks, yet the CDC has no problem injecting pregnant women with an experimental mRNA shot that has been linked to 37 adverse events and is being abandoned by institutions around the globe. This is not just incompetence—it’s criminal.
The CDC’s betrayal of pregnant women is reminiscent of past medical atrocities, such as the thalidomide and DES disasters, where recommended medications caused severe harm to pregnant women, their babies, and even their grandchildren. The COVID-19 vaccine is shaping up to be the next chapter in this dark history, and the CDC is complicit in the carnage.
What’s even more infuriating is the CDC’s blatant disregard for transparency. Despite protocols requiring the agency to conduct PRR analysis, it failed to publicly flag these safety signals. It took a lawsuit from Children’s Health Defense (CHD) to force the CDC to release its PRR data, and even then, the documents were heavily redacted. What is the CDC hiding? How many more lives must be destroyed before this agency is held accountable?
The CDC’s current recommendation, which states that pregnant women are “more likely to get very sick from COVID-19” and therefore should get vaccinated, is a manipulative scare tactic. For one, the vaccine doesn’t work. Additionally, the agency fails to mention that the risk of severe COVID-19 illness in pregnant women is already low, and the risks posed by the vaccine far outweigh any potential benefits. This is not about protecting pregnant women—it’s about pushing a depopulation agenda under the guise of public health.
Major medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, have blindly followed the CDC’s lead, parroting the “safe and effective” mantra without any evidence to back it up. These organizations have betrayed the very women they are supposed to protect, prioritizing their relationships with Big Pharma over the lives of mothers and babies.
The time for silence is over. The CDC’s reckless endangerment of pregnant women and their unborn children must be exposed and condemned. These vaccines are not saving lives—they are destroying them. The 37 safety signals identified in this study are a damning indictment of the CDC’s criminal negligence, and every official who continues to push these shots on pregnant women should be held accountable for their role in this ongoing tragedy.
[…]
Via https://dreddymd.com/2025/02/17/cdc-still-pushing-covid-jabs-pregnant-women/
The birth of NATO is often described, by bourgeois historians, as the result of the recognition that a north Atlantic defense organization was necessary in order to contain the so-called Soviet threat. What the bourgeois historians fail to mention is that the idea that an anticommunist military alliance between Western Europe and the US was so strongly supported by a major figure in German politics that NATO has sometimes been described as his brainchild. This man was Heinrich Himmler, renowned for his role as the leader of the SS and one of the main architects of the Nazi Holocaust.
The heart of the Second World War was in the East, where Hitler, with the financial backing of major Western capitalists, vowed to destroy what fourteen capitalist states had failed to eradicate in the wake of 1917: actually existing socialism. Once it became clear to Himmler that this war had failed, beginning around the time of the battle of Stalingrad in 1943, he started making secret overtures to the West in order to form an alliance that would allow them, collectively, to do what the Nazis—as well as the Japanese fascists—were incapable of doing on their own. This was appealing to sectors of the Western elite, and powerful figures in the leading imperialist countries shared Himmler’s opinion. Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, complained that his country was fighting the wrong enemy because the Nazis were pro-capitalist Aryan Christians, whereas the real opponent was godless communism.
Dulles, working at the time for the CIA’s wartime predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services, was one of Himmler’s interlocutors for the planned anticommunist north Atlantic alliance. General Karl Wolff, formerly Himmler’s right-hand man, offered Dulles, in return for postwar amnesty, to develop, with his Nazi allies, an intelligence network against Stalin. This is exactly what happened, and Dulles integrated many other Nazis and fascists into the ranks of an anticommunist international. This included the head of the Nazi intelligence service focused on the USSR, Reinhard Gehlen, who was appointed by the CIA to head West German intelligence after the war, where he proceeded to hire many of his Nazi collaborators. It also comprised, as part of Operation Sunrise in Italy, Valerio Borghese, the man known as the Black Prince and one of the major leaders of postwar fascism, who was saved from the communists by the OSS and then worked for the CIA. The Japanese official who signed the declaration of war against the US, Nobusuke Kishi, who was known as the “Devil of Shōwa” for his brutal rule of a Japanese colony in Northeast China, was also rehabilitated by the infamous Agency, which financed his rise to become the Prime Minister of Japan. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg, however, since an incalculable number of fascists were rehabilitated after the Second World War, at least 10,000 of which were brought directly to the US.
When NATO was officially established in 1949, Portugal was one of its founding members. It was a fascist dictatorship at the time, which demonstrates that NATO was, from its very founding, a military alliance of the imperialist powers—be they bourgeois democracies or fascist states—against communism, which is precisely what Himmler had had in mind. Greece joined NATO in 1953, after the communists, who had played a leading role in liberating the country from the Nazis, had lost a brutal war against their new anticommunist occupiers: the UK and the US. Having first reinstated the profascist King and then established a rightwing puppet government, the Western imperialist powers welcomed Greece into NATO once it had been remade into a reliable anticommunist client state. These patterns are visible throughout NATO’s long history, and the Ukraine is but one of the latest versions of a fascistic anticommunist client state.
West Germany joined NATO in 1955, the same year that the rearmament of the Federal Republic of Germany was authorized through the Paris Accords. The West German government screened volunteers and admitted 61 generals and admirals from the Nazi Wehrmacht into its new military, as well as many more at lower ranks. Among the most senior Nazi officers integrated into the West German military were Hans Speidel and Adolf Heusinger, who were sworn in as its first two lieutenant generals. Speidel became “chief of the Combined Forces Department at the Ministry of Defense” and served as one of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s key military advisers (a position later occupied by Heusinger). Heusinger, whom Hitler had referred to as “my true and loyal collaborator,” became West Germany’s senior serving military officer, the equivalent of the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also served as chief of evaluation for the CIA’s Gehlen Organization, performing his task so well that the Agency “seriously considered” him for Gehlen’s position, according to internal documents. He served as a CIA agent, who “continued to consult with and confide in CIA representatives,” who reported that they “found Heusinger’s political views clearly in the interest of the U.S.” These two Nazi leaders were both promoted and became West Germany’s first four-star generals.
Both of these major Nazi officers played key roles in NATO. In 1954, Speidel was appointed as the principal “negotiator on the question of German entry into NATO.” He oversaw the integration of West Germany’s armed forces into NATO and was appointed chief of Allied Land Forces in Central Europe. This meant that Speidel was “the senior operational commander of all German, American, French and British divisions assigned to NATO’s Central Region.” A high-ranking Nazi official, directly involved in the genocidal war of elimination against the USSR, would thus have been the senior NATO ground commander if war broke out with the Warsaw Pact countries. Heusinger became NATO’s “senior military officer and chief military adviser to the secretary general,” serving as the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, “the highest rank in the organization’s non-civilian branch.”
Speidel and Heusinger, like many others who were integrated into NATO, had not been low-ranking Nazis. Speidel was promoted to Lieutenant general in January 1944, and he received the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross for his service in the anti-Soviet war of elimination. Heusinger, according to US Senator Wayne Morse’s 1961 fact sheet, had become the “chief of operations on Hitler’s general staff” in 1941 and was “responsible for the military planning of all Nazi invasions from then on.” He commanded the special extermination squads (Einsatzgruppen) that were tasked with liquidating “all Jews and other groups.” Heusinger explained his view on these matters with remarkable candor: “It had always been my personal opinion that the treatment of the civilian population and the methods of anti-partisan warfare (extermination) presented the highest political and military leaders with a welcomed opportunity for carrying out their plans, namely, the systematic extermination of Slavism and Jewry.”
Speidel and Heusinger were far from the only Germans to follow the Nazi to NATO pipeline, but their leadership positions reveal how brazen NATO has been regarding its fascist ties. They were also both involved in setting up stay behind armies, which were secret fascist militias whose purported objective was originally to serve as military forces that would stay behind enemy lines to carry out acts of sabotage, espionage, exfiltration, etc. in the case of a Soviet invasion. In Germany, the Nazi colonel Albert Schnez set up a network of some 2,000 Nazi officers and 10,000 soldiers, claiming to be able to mobilize 40,000 fighters in the event of a war. They had financial backing from the business world and regularly shared intelligence with the Gehlen Organization. Gehlen himself was “the spiritual father of Stay Behind in Germany.” Schnez’s organization also had contacts with two other stay-behind Nazi networks, both of which were secretly funded by the U.S.: the Technischer Dienst (Technical Service) and the League of German Youth.
The stay behind armies that these Nazi leaders established across West Germany were part of a Western European network of sub rosa fascist militias set up by the CIA, MI6, and NATO. These organizations recruited Nazis, fascists, and other extreme rightwing anticommunists, provided them with weapons and ammunition, and fully equipped them for waging war. They were activated to commit false flag terrorist attacks, targeting the civilian population, which were blamed on communists in order to justify crackdowns and drum up support for so-called law and order governments. This anticommunist strategy of tension was extremely deadly, killing hundreds of people and injuring thousands. NATO was behind these false flag terrorist attacks, and NATO’s Nazis were—at a minimum—involved in setting up the organizations that committed them.
The well-known joke that NATO is really NAFO, the North Atlantic Fascist Organization, is no joke at all. It is a deadly serious reality, and it needs to be changed. The fight against NAFO is an essential part of the broader struggle against fascism and imperialism.
[…]
Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/02/17/natos-nazi-roots/
The Most Revolutionary Act 