The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Think Tank Report: Minerals as Key Drivers of US Foreign Policy

Posted on by
1
Several different types of minerals AI-generated content may be incorrect.
[Source: business-standard.com]

By Jeremy Kusmarov

In February, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an inside-the-beltway think tank, published a book-length study entitled Critical Minerals and the Future of the U.S. Economy, edited by Gracelin Baskaran and Duncan Wood.

The study laid bare what CovertAction Magazine co-founder Philip Agee detailed throughout his career: how U.S. military and covert interventions were driven largely by multi-national corporations and a yearning to secure access to the mineral wealth of developing world countries.

The CSIS report makes clear that this yearning has become more acute in the 21st century, when strategic minerals are necessary to power high tech computer and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and to advance the so-called clean energy revolution.

Donald Trump has been candid about the importance of rare-earth minerals to the 21st century U.S. economy, seeking to broker a deal with Ukraine to secure access to its rare-earth minerals in exchange for continued U.S. military aid. Trump has also talked about directly colonizing Greenland—heavily valued because of its untapped mineral wealth—and incorporating mineral rich Canada as the 51st U.S. state.

The book launch for the CSIS’s critical minerals study was hosted by U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-IN), who sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA offshoot specializing in political propaganda and helping to coordinate regime-change operations.

The report starts out by noting that “mining is an inextricable part of the American story. What starts as rock in the ground goes on to become the inputs that build America’s homes and buildings, transportation systems, energy generation and transmission, defense systems, and technological capabilities. Mining is the foundation that allowed the United States to be a military leader, providing the minerals needed to manufacture tanks, missiles, fighter jets and warships. It is the reason computers, phones, and iPads exist. Mining is the reason we have energy and can turn on lights every morning.”

A pivotal concern is that China is the major producer of 29 of the 50 minerals identified as critical by the U.S. Geological Survey.

China’s willingness to weaponize these minerals was epitomized by its initiating export restrictions, including complete bans, on antimony, gallium and germanium. The report warned that China has developed a “stranglehold on minerals processing, refining between 40 and 90 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth elements, graphite, lithium, cobalt, and copper.”

The authors wrote that “reducing reliance on China and creating resilient mineral supply chains is one of the most bipartisan priorities in Washington, D.C.”

Making the World Safe for Silicon Valley to Flourish

At the start of World War II, the Roosevelt administration signed into law the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act of 1939 establishing strategic material supply reserves. In a letter to Congress, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that commercial stocks of vital raw resources in the U.S. were low and that, “in the event of unlimited warfare on sea and in the air, possession of a reserve of these essential supplies might prove of vital importance.”

According to historian Jonathan Marshall, control of Southeast Asia’s rich mineral resources was the key determinant underlying U.S. war provocations directed against Japan that led to the Pacific War. Japan had established a regional empire coming on the heels of the decline of European colonial empires that threatened U.S. control over Southeast Asia’s mineral wealth.[1]

Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. raised the specter of the Soviet threat to justify continued imperialistic intervention designed to heighten access to mineral resources needed to power the U.S. economy and military.

Well-known examples include the CIA coup in Iran in the 1950s to secure access to oil and the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile after President Salvador Allende nationalized Chile’s copper industry (which was dominated previously by two U.S. firms, Anaconda, and Kennecott).

Another was the 1965 CIA-backed Indonesia coup and genocide, which paved the way for the exploitation of Indonesia’s rich mineral wealth by Western-based multi-national corporations and clear-cutting of Indonesian forests.

In the post-Cold War period, the U.S. government became more open about intervening in countries to access their mineral resources. Donald Trump, as an example, admitted that the U.S. was in Syria to steal its oil. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote some years before Trump took office that “the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

Sights on Zambia

One country that the U.S. ruling elite has set its sights on now is Zambia because it is a leading producer of copper, which the CSIS report specifies as a “necessary material for many of the advanced technologies that are essential to the modern global economy, including in infrastructure, clean energy, electronics and automotives; copper wires connect electrical grids, integrated circuits, and telecommunication systems.”

CovertAction Magazine has previously reported on the expansion of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Zambia, the Biden administration’s gifting of four Bell helicopters, and U.S. support for the right-wing government of Hakainde Hichilema, which has loosened regulations and lowered taxes on foreign mining companies operating in Zambia to enable a $2 billion expansion of copper production.[2]

In January 2025, Citizens First Party Chairperson for Mines and Minerals Committee Felistus Mumba, criticized the Hichilema administration for suspending a 15% export duty on precious stones and metals and for secrecy surrounding mining agreements, citing KoBold Metals, a Silicon Valley-based company backed by Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, planning a $2.3 billion investment in the Mingomba copper mine project.[3]

While the U.S. provided Zambia with $250 million in foreign aid in 2024, Hichilema’s pro-corporate policies[4] have made him extremely unpopular in the capital Lusaka and the copperbelt area due to the economic hardship experienced by Zambians living there, according to The Lusaka Times. Mumba said that “it is unconscionable that Zambians go to bed hungry while the country sits on vast mineral wealth.”

Harsh neoliberal policies have coincided with a mounting campaign of repression targeting Zambia’s socialist party, which developed a progressive manifesto pledging to reverse Zambia’s slide into privatization and de-industrialization and calling for re-assertion of national control over the copper industry.[5]

The situation in Zambia no doubt will provide a blueprint for other countries possessing vital minerals, whose socialist parties will face the same kind of repression.

Semi-Conductors, Military Advantage and a Clean Energy Revolution?

The CSIS report emphasizes that semi-conductors, foundational to modern life because of their use in smart phones, computers, medical devices, automotives and military applications, are mineral intensive, requiring essential quantities of gallium, germanium, palladium, silicon, arsenic and titanium.

The authors write that “the production of these resources is largely concentrated in foreign adversaries, exposing a severe national security risk.”

This risk necessitates building up the defense industry and military, which are reliant on strategic minerals, hence creating an ever-greater demand for them.

According to the report, China, unfortunately, is acquiring new weapons systems roughly five to six times more quickly than the U.S. based on its control over world mineral supplies, which the U.S. needs to try to offset.

Electric vehicles and renewable energy, like wind farms and solar energy plants, also require large mineral inputs whose supply chains are increasingly dominated by China. Wind farms and solar energy facilities require more mineral inputs than conventional power plants, enhancing yet greater demand for the minerals.

The Biden administration’s climate initiative, providing tax credits, loans and grants for renewable energy, does not seem all that environmentally friendly in the latter context, particularly if one considers the environmental effects of mining operations that pollute rivers, poison the air, despoil the land, and displace indigenous people.

Biden and the Democratic Party’s hawkish foreign policy, packaged under the false veneer of democracy promotion, makes best sense in light of the need to extract more and more minerals to fuel the “clean energy” revolution.

How clean this revolution is should be more openly questioned, including by environmentalists and progressives who support the Democratic Party.

Domestic Mining

The CSIS report laments that it takes on average 29 years to build a mine in the U.S. because of a “Byzantine” permit system and “burdensome” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations along with bureaucratic inefficiency.

The U.S. economy was in the late 19th century rooted in mining industries, which gave rise to radical labor groups like the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) because of the exploitative working conditions that are prevalent today in many countries.

One of the chapters in the CSIS report advocates for streamlining the permit system for mining projects in the U.S., considered to be socially and environmentally responsible to allow for revitalization of domestic mining.

Sugarcoating Modern-Day Colonialism

The report is generally written from a nationalist perspective that places primacy on the U.S. wresting control over mineral supply chains from China and securing access to mineral deposits around the world. This is to be achieved in part by better developing the “defense-industrial base” and placing the U.S. more on a war footing than it already is.

The pitfalls of the approach are never explored nor the likelihood of heightened military and covert military operations that have a disastrous track record, especially for the subject countries.

Further, there is the danger of outright war with China, which the CSIS report makes clear the U.S. could never win.

Lead author Gracelin Baskaran, a South African economist with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University who worked for the World Bank, claims that “Western companies are generally more responsible, environmentally conscious, and attentive to human rights and labor conditions [than non-Western ones],”[6] which history does not bear out.

Baskaran believes that a framework can be worked out where resource-rich countries would benefit from an expansion of mining operations by Western companies. Zambia, however, is indicative of the historical pattern by which the U.S. government helps to secure a privileged operating environment for Western corporations whereby they pay limited royalty taxes and can get away with exploiting the local labor force and plundering the local environment.

Furthermore, the U.S. government frequently orchestrates covert and military operations to help secure a favorable business climate for these companies that often result in the deliberate enflaming of ethnic divisions and spread of endemic violence.[7]

Baskaran praises the Biden administration’s $600 million Lobito Corridor project—an infrastructure project linking the ports of Lobito on Angola’s Atlantic Coast to Zambia through the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which contains some of the world’s largest deposits of critical minerals like cobalt and copper.

Baskaran’s viewpoint is challenged by Dady Saleh, a Congolese economic analyst in tune with local opinion, who told Al Jazeera that the Lobito Corridor was “neo-colonialist—an organized sell off of the region’s natural resources in a capitalist system” by which locals would only benefit “with crumbs.”

Saleh further said that the Lobido Corridor agreement was returning Africa “to the old days, where railroads were made to facilitate the transport of our raw materials by the colonialists,” adding that through the project “we’ve opened up our economy to modern plunderers.”

Baskaran would do well to consider Saleh’s perspective, take a history class, and study the writings of Philip Agee, Walter Rodney (author of the book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa) and others with a similar viewpoint.

Of course, if she did that, she would be out of a job. The think tank she works for provides guiding principles for the U.S. plutocracy that is intent on continuing the pattern of destructive policies from which they reap enormous profits.

[…]

Via https://covertactionmagazine.com/2025/04/16/think-tank-report-makes-clear-minerals-are-key-drivers-of-u-s-foreign-policy/

 

 

New Poll: Americans Reject Deporting Foreigners for ‘Wrongthink’ on Middle East

Posted on by
2

by

An important new public opinion survey taken by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has revealed very little American support for the deportation of legal foreign guests in the United States for expressing support for Palestine in its current conflict with Israel.

Responding to FIRE’s quarterly National Speech Index survey conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab this month, a mere one-quarter of the respondents supported the deportation of non-citizens legally in the US for expressing pro-Palestine views. A solid majority of 52 percent are strongly opposed or opposed to such measures.

The survey result comes as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has boasted of revoking “at least 300” student visas for the “crime” of expressing a position on middle east politics that the current US Administration disagrees with. Derided by Rubio as “lunatics” for opposing ongoing US government support for Israel as Gaza is flattened, many foreign students have been arrested by masked, armed federal agents – who refuse to even identify themselves – and sent to a federal detention facility in Louisiana.

In the case of Turkish PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk, the State Department had already produced a report concluding that she neither supported terrorism nor anti-Semitism before masked federal agents accosted her on the street and arrested her.

Her “crime” was co-authoring an op-ed in her university newspaper a year earlier criticizing Israel.

In many cases these arrests are carried out based on lists provided to the federal government by a militant, extremist group called Betar. The group is so radical that it has even been added to the pro-Israel ADL’s “extremism” list, yet somehow it has the ear of the Trump Administration.

Commenting on the findings, FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens said, “deporting someone simply for disagreeing with the government’s foreign policy preferences strikes at the very freedoms the First Amendment was designed to protect. Americans are right to reject this kind of viewpoint-based punishment.”

Additionally, the shocking arrests and incarceration of legal residents or guests for committing no crime beyond expressing a particular point of view has begun to eat away at Americans’ confidence that the Trump Administration can be trusted to uphold the First Amendment. From Inauguration day until the FIRE poll this month, a majority of Americans have now lost confidence in the Trump Administration’s respect for our most sacred right of free expression:

Many Americans mistakenly believe government “grants” rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and that it grants them to American citizens only. Constitutional scholar Andrew Napolitano dismisses such claims, writing:

We know from the writings of James Madison — who authored the Bill of Rights — that the Founders regarded the freedom of speech as a personal individual natural right. It is also, of course, expressly protected from government interference and reprisal in the First Amendment. The courts have ruled that it protects all persons — no matter their immigration status — who may think as they wish, say what they think, publish what they say, worship or not and associate with whomever they choose.

While many supporters of the Trump Administration are currently applauding the arrest and deportation of legal foreign residents who express political views they do not support, they would do well to keep in mind that the vicissitudes of the American body politic may well soon turn against them and their views, and – particularly given President Trump’s stated intent to begin deporting American citizens as well – once the trap of a precedent is set they may not be able to wiggle out of it.

Indespensible pro-liberty intellectual Jim Bovard expressed it best in a recent article:

What legal perils will pro-freedom protestors face in the coming years if the Ozturk rule is canonized, entitling federal officials to crush any disfavored opinion? Big-spending Democrats may consecrate Modern Monetary Theory and demonize anyone who criticizes the Federal Reserve. I took this ‘Kill the Central Bank’ photo of Ron Paul supporters at a 2008 Capitol Hill event for his presidential campaign. If the same protestors had peacefully carried the same banner within a half mile of the Capitol on January 6, they likely would have been nailed on a bevy of federal charges. Many politicians have made stark their hatred of libertarians and freedom advocates.

As long as anyone is sitting in shackles in a federal detention center simply for writing an op-ed, freedom of speech is not safe for anyone in the United States.

While a trip into the bowels of social media suggests a torch-bearing mob rallying to send those guilty of the “wrongthink” of the day to some El Salvadorian gulag, the good work of the freedom of expression organization FIRE reassures us that cooler heads continue to prevail. However, by no means does that suggest we can afford to let our guard down for a minute. This is not an issue of partisanship, but of principle. The mob – whether left or right – must not be allowed to take over.

[…]

Via https://ronpaulinstitute.org/new-poll-americans-reject-deporting-foreigners-for-wrongthink-on-middle-east/

Tesla Rolling Odometers Forward to Escape Warranty Repair Costs

Posted on by
1
By eric 

Allegations have surfaced about Tesla designing its odometers to read faster – to accrue mileage faster – in order (per the allegations) to get the cars past warranty faster. So that Tesla does not have to pay for warranty covered repairs.

A class-action lawsuit – Hinton v. Tesla – has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The chief plaintiff, Nyree Hinton, claims that rather than registering actual miles driven, Tesla vehicles register odometer readings based on “predictive algorithms” tied to energy consumption. Hinton claims the odometer in his 2020 Model Y read “at least 15 percent fast,” according to an MSNB news story about the lawsuit. He claims that his daily drive of about 20 miles often accrued 70 miles of driving on the odometer, resulting in his Model Y accruing more than 50,000 miles sooner than it otherwise would have and being out-of-warranty sooner than it would have, leaving him to foot a $10,000 bill for repairs that would have been covered under warranty.

If the allegations are true, it’s pretty bad – for Tesla. The possibility of not just a wholesale recall/buyback scenario looms but also catastrophic reputational damage that may not be fixable. Tesla is already on the outs with its core buyer demographic for political reasons; it may soon be on the outs for more traditional reasons. No one likes being gypped. The word is apt because this probably isn’t a case of something inadvertent but rather, deliberate. As in purposeful fraud.

And in more than just one way.

If Teslas overstate how far they’ve been driven, they are also overstating their range. If this is true, then they do not go as far as advertised, which would arguably constitute fraud (again) if it is true. Of course, all EVs are arguably fraudulent in this regard because all of them tout ranges that are at best optimistic because they are predicated on optimum conditions, especially as regards the temperature and the corollary use of accessories such as the AC and heat especially. When it is very cold outside, battery-powered devices are less efficient; they lose charge faster – a problem compounded when accessories such as the heater are used. Both for the passenger compartment and the battery, which must be kept above freezing in order for you to be able to recharge it.

When it is very hot outside, the charge winnows faster because you’re probably using the AC to keep cool – and because the EV’s thermal management system is trying to keep the battery cool.

I can “expert witness” attest – because I have test driven pretty much every EV on the market – that it is common for the actual driving range to be 10-20 percent less than what is touted when it’s cold or hot. This would be grounds for a federal inquisition – and a mass recall/buyback situation – if we were talking about a gas-engined vehicle that touted say 40 MPG actually delivered 32 MPG (20 percent off) or even a lot less than that. EVs have been allowed to get away with what is on the face of it false advertising – a nicer way of saying gypping people – because they are political vehicles. Tesla can be seen – because it’s true – as the vehicle for sexing up battery powered vehicles. They are so quick! So tech!

Which amounts to: Look! A Squirrel!

In other words, dazzle them with one thing to distract them from other things. Like how far they don’t actually go.

This distraction was really important during the first few years of the push to flood the roads with EVs – for the same reason it was important to flood the airwaves with “safe and effective” when the government-corporate nexus wanted to get as many people as possible injected. But time and experience act like water – the universal solvent – eventually eroding down to the truth.

People – not all, but a large percentage – know they were gypped when it came to the “vaccines” and lots of people understand that EVs are a gyp, too. The range is a lie. “Fast” charging is several lies. Yes, it’s “fast” relative to the hours’ long wait at home. But having to wait 20-30 minutes or longer to get a partial charge isn’t very “fast.” And it isn’t a full charge, which is the part the liars almost never tell people about. Just like they don’t tell people that if you do not have a warm garage and a place to plug the EV in overnight, it will bleed range overnight.

[…]

Via https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2025/04/18/odometers-rolled-forward/

 

Bush-Era Swamp Creature Key Figure In Oklahoma City Bombing Coverup

Posted on by
4

Zero Hedge

[…]

Readers may know the name John Ashcroft, attorney general under George W. Bush.

Well, good old Ashcroft was at the heart of a high profile cover-up: the Oklahoma City bombing, according to attorney Jesse Trentadue. The following comes from a court filing provided to ZeroHedge by Trentadue, attorney to OKC bombing accomplice Terry Nichols.

For context (per Jesse from kennethtrentadue.com):

Jesse is the brother of Kenneth Michael Trentadue who died in August 1995, while incarcerated at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Following the death, the Department of Justice (DOJ) immediately deemed it a suicide, denied the medical examiner access to the cell where Kenneth Trentadue was killed, ordered the cell cleaned and painted, and repeatedly asked both the medical examiner and Kenneth Trentadue’s family to authorize the cremation of his body. The medical examiner could not legally authorize cremation and the family refused, demanding that Kenneth’s body be returned to them. When Trentadue’s body was returned to the family, they removed heavy makeup and discovered bruises all over his body, from head to foot. The bruises, cuts, and other wounds depicted an obvious beating and murder.

Now for the story…

While serving his prison sentence, Nichols attempted to spark an investigation into FBI involvement in the OKC bombing. He sent a letter stating that he could provide such information to the then head of the DOJ Ashcroft.

Ashcroft did not respond to the letter but immediately forbade the media from speaking to Nichols, which resulted in 60 Minutes cancelling a sit-down interview they had scheduled with Nichols, says Trentadue. Shortly thereafter, Nichols said he received a visit from a man presenting an offer from the DOJ to undo Nichols’ death sentence if he agreed to three conditions:

  • Take ownership of an anonymous warning the DOJ received saying the Murrah Building was bombed 30 minutes before it actually had been.
  • Implicate Nichols’ own brother in the bombing plot.
  • Reveal the location of the “Kinestick”, an explosive used in the bombing. Nichols mentioned having knowledge of an unused stache in his letter to Ashcroft. The existence of a remaining stache was not known at the time.

The existence of the mysterious call was independently corroborated in Stephen Jones’ book Others Unknown and even covered by ABC News:

It was discovered that the DOJ proxy (Michael Selby) who visited Nichols previously worked in Ashcroft’s private security detail. Trentadue helped to further corroborate that this meeting took place by telling ZH:

After the declaration was filed, Selby called me upset as hell.  Said that I had just got him “fucking killed.”  The attorney who brought Selby into meet Nichols is Rodney Uphoff.  A law professor at the University of Missouri.  I called Uphoff and he confirmed the event.

It is strange that such an offer – giving leniency to an accomplice to one of the most horrific domestic terrorist attacks in U.S. history – would be presented by someone who does not work at the DOJ and stipulate that Nichol take credit for an anonymous tip which he did not make. 

Nichols ultimately did not accept the deal because he did not want to throw his brother under the bus.

The story, now part of official record thanks to Trentadue, serves as an interesting look into the true conspiracies that Ashcroft may have had a hand in.

To see the full spectrum of official documents that Jesse Trentadue has fought hard to force the government to release, follow his website named in honor of his brother who he believes was murdered by the FBI: http://www.kennethtrentadue.com/

And for a great interview where Trentadue discusses the contents of this article and more, listen to friend-of-ZeroHedge Scott Horton interview Jesse just last month.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/political/okc-anniversary-bush-era-swamp-creature-revealed-be-key-figure-bombing-coverup

Father of Israeli captive says Netanyahu prolonging Gaza war for political survival

Posted on by
4

Three Israeli captives are paraded on a stage before being handed over to the members of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the city of Deir al-Balah, the central Gaza Strip, on February 8, 2025.

Press TV

The father of an Israeli soldier held in Gaza has accused the regime’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of abandoning the captives in favor of prolonging the war for his political survival. 

Speaking to Hebrew-language Maariv daily, Hagai Angrest, the father of the Israeli captive, said Netanyahu was stalling the deal with Hamas that could lead to the return of his son from Gaza.

“It seems Netanyahu is choosing his political survival over the lives of those in captivity,” Angrest was quoted as saying.

“We were told this war would not end without them. But now it seems Netanyahu is choosing his political survival over the lives of those in captivity,” he said.

Angrest further accused the premier of endangering the lives of captives, soldiers, and civilians for personal reasons.

“Across the world, everyone is saying that a ceasefire and the return of the captives should be the top priority. Yet we see a prime minister who is abandoning the soldiers and sending more into battle.”

The remarks came hours after Netanyahu said in a televised speech that there was “no choice” but to continue the war on the blockaded Palestinian territory.

He claimed that a ceasefire deal with Hamas would “undermine the gains of the war.”

The Israeli prime minister also alleged that Hamas rejected a proposal that included the release of half the living Israeli captives and many of the dead, in exchange for ending the war.

This is while Khalil al-Hayya, the Palestinian resistance group’s chief negotiator and head of Hamas in Gaza, has made clear that Hamas was willing to engage in comprehensive negotiations that would secure the release of all Israeli captives in exchange for a full ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, reconstruction efforts, and the lifting of the siege.

The forum representing the families of Israeli captives on Thursday blasted Netanyahu’s cabinet for choosing to occupy more territory over releasing the captives.

Over 350 Israeli literary figures recently signed an open letter urging Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza and secure the return of the 59 remaining Israeli captives.

“Hamas has offered a deal for returning hostages, prisoner release, and a ceasefire. The prime minister outlined a phased deal but has done everything possible for the past seventeen months to thwart the agreement, fearing the war’s end would mean the end of his rule — and his freedom as a criminal defendant,” the letter stated.

More than 51,200 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, most of them women and children.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the former Israeli minister for military affairs, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on Gaza.

[…]

Via https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/20/746523/Israel-US-Benjamin-Netanyahu-Hagai-Angrest–

Pfizer faces legal backlash: Texas, Kansas, and more states begin to challenge Prep Act Immunity Shield

Posted on by
Reply

Bu Lance D Johnson

In a bold move to hold pharmaceutical giants accountable, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken his fight against Pfizer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The appeal, filed on Wednesday, challenges the federal court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Pfizer of making false and misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. This legal battle is not just about one state; it is a broader challenge to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which has shielded vaccine makers from liability for years, allowing them to operate with impunity.

  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appeals a federal court ruling, arguing that state consumer protection laws should supersede the federal PREP Act’s liability shield.
  • Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach files a lawsuit alleging Pfizer violated previous consent judgments by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Similar lawsuits in Utah and North Carolina challenge the PREP Act’s broad immunity, with some courts ruling that certain claims fall outside the act’s protections.

Texas appeals, challenging Prep Act immunity

Texas sued Pfizer in state court in November 2023, alleging that the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by misleading the public about the efficacy and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The state claims that Pfizer capitalized on the public’s fear and uncertainty, touting the vaccine as a “miracle cure” and leading consumers to make choices they would not have otherwise made. This, the state argues, resulted in billions of dollars in profits for Pfizer at the expense of public trust and health.

In January 2024, Pfizer successfully moved the case to federal court, where it was dismissed in December 2024. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, accepted Pfizer’s argument that the PREP Act’s liability shield protected the company from such claims. However, Texas is now appealing this decision, arguing that the PREP Act’s protections do not extend to consumer protection cases brought by the state.

Texas’ brief to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asserts that the PREP Act’s liability shield “only extends to claims ‘for loss’” and does not shield against consumer protection cases filed by the state. The state argues that the PREP Act’s immunity shield blocks claims involving the “administration” of a covered product to an individual but does not extend to “sovereign consumer protection suits.” Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), supports Texas’ position, stating, “The Texas District Court’s one-page dismissal is a prime example of the outmoded knee-jerk reaction that anything goes under PREP.”

Kansas lawsuit: a stronger case with historical context

Meanwhile, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has filed a similar lawsuit in state court, alleging that Pfizer violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. What sets the Kansas case apart is the inclusion of three previous consent judgments from 2008, 2012, and 2014, in which Pfizer agreed not to make misleading claims about its products. These agreements, Flores argues, form the “centerpiece” of Kansas’ case and provide a stronger legal foundation.

Kobach’s lawsuit alleges that Pfizer used “denial and delay” tactics, confidentiality agreements, and an extended study timeline to conceal significant safety concerns and critical data about the vaccine. The lawsuit states, “Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID-19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.”

Pfizer has sought to affirm its immunity under the PREP Act and dismiss the Kansas case, but Flores is confident that the state’s arguments will prevail. “Kansas v. Pfizer has an extra added benefit of three consent judgments, where Pfizer promised not to mislead the citizens of Kansas,” Flores said. “Astonishingly, Pfizer claims these three consent judgments entered more than a decade ago are unrelated settlements that did not involve a vaccine subject to the PREP Act. I don’t buy it.”

Other challenges to the Prep Act

The legal challenges to the PREP Act are not limited to Texas and Kansas. In Utah, a clinical trial participant, Brianne Dressen, sued AstraZeneca for breach of contract after the company failed to provide medical treatment for injuries sustained during the trial. In November 2024, a federal court ruled that the PREP Act’s liability shield does not extend to breach-of-contract claims, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for other vaccine-related lawsuits.

In North Carolina, the Supreme Court of North Carolina overturned lower court decisions, ruling that the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination. This case, filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy who was vaccinated without consent, will now return to the North Carolina Court of Appeals to address questions of state law and the state Constitution.

The legal battles against Pfizer and the PREP Act are more than just a series of lawsuits; they are a call to action for transparency and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry. As Ray Flores of CHD put it, “The all-consuming reach of the PREP Act’s tentacles is being challenged once again.” The outcomes of these cases could set important precedents, potentially stripping away the immunity shield that has protected vaccine makers from liability for years. The question remains: Will the courts finally hold these corporations accountable, or will the PREP Act continue to shield them from the consequences of their actions?

[…]

Via https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-04-18-texas-kansas-begin-to-challenge-prep-act-immunity-shield.html

Did White House Just Declare War on Covid Co-conspirators?

Posted on by
1

el gato malo

i had been wondering about the odd uptick in “claims the covid vaxx saved lives” and the “we did the best we could with what we knew” justification over the last week or two.

now we know.

the white house just blew the war trumpets on the covid conspirators.

oh man do i hope that this is what it looks like…

i have not yet been through this in detail, but in the interest of “let’s get many eyes on it ASAP,” you guys need to go check out whitehouse.gov right now.

this is quite a seismic changing of the guard.

and after what we all endured in the time covdian and the corrupt “public health” agencies, even if this is not new news to those of discerning cattitudes, it’s still a moment to savor and a sign of how far we have come.

let’s see what’s on the menu:

well, that’s an interesting start

and then they have a go right at teflon tony:

among others

there is (super long) video

and fun for the whole family

and as you can imagine, some topics near and dear to by black little feline heart.

and there is a link to the 500 page house subcommittee report.

lots to work through and many to work on.

tony baloney may have gotten a pass (assuming a pre-emptive pardon holds, which is a questionable idea) but the rest of the rogues did not.

collins, debbie “the scarf” birx, daszak, baric, health hobbit hotez, and many others at FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO, EHA, CIA, CISA and who knows how many NGOs and other shady government funded orgs who sought to silence so many of us.

as these networks roll up, the role of china, the WEF, the brandon administration, gates, the WHO, and an absolute laundry list of alleged academics is going to come out.

and won’t that be fun?

time to dig and to hold to account.

so here we go again.

as ever, proud to have stood with so many of you on rational ground.

i have neither forgotten nor forgiven those who did this, only become more adamant in my desire to ensure that they may never do it again.

time to finish the work.

[…]

Via https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/breaking-news-here-it-comes?publication_id=323914&post_id=161632176&isFreemail=false&r=1ggdo&triedRedirect=true

Appeals court halts Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against Trump administration

Posted on by
1

Boasberg moves to hold Trump administration in contempt over ...

By Zach Schonfeld

A divided federal appeals court panel on Friday temporarily halted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the Trump administration over its deportation flights to El Salvador last month.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indicated its order is intended to provide “sufficient opportunity” for the court to consider the government’s appeal and “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

Supreme Court halts latest wave of Alien Enemies Act deportations

Posted on by
3

Separately, the ACLU had unsuccessfully asked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in the nation’s capital, to block the deportations. Boasberg oversees the ACLU’s challenge to the original wave of March 15 deportations when Trump first invoked the Alien Enemies Act.

At the end of an emergency hearing Friday evening, Boasberg ruled he had no jurisdiction following the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that the migrants must challenge their removals where they are physically detained.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, the lead counsel in the case, responded to the Supreme Court ruling in a statement shared with The Hill on Saturday.

[…]

Via https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5256983-supreme-court-halts-alien-enemies-act-deportations/

From Oakland to Tehran Part II – The US Embassy Occupation

Posted on by
1

Marzieh Hashemi: Iranian Journalist has been released from US custody - CNN

News presenter Marzeh Hashim

From Oakland to Tehran Part II

Press TV (2024)

Film Review

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/02/15/742840/Oakland-to-Tehran-US-Iran-Revolution-1979-Abbas-Muntaqim-colonialism-Imam-Khomeini-Documentary-PressTV

In Part II, University of Berkeley instructor Abbas Muntaqim speaks with a freedom fighter named Mohammad Reza Herkat-Toutuochi, who spent three years in the Shah’s prisons, a professor at  Tehran University named Foad Izali and Marzeh Hashim, an African American woman and news presenter who emigrated to Iran in 2008.

Mohammad lays out the history and background of Iman Ruhallah Khomeini and Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution:

The latter first came to pubic attention on March 21, 1963 when he publicly denounced a proposal by the Shah to privatize Iran’s state owned industries. The Shah’s secret police responded by invading the seminary at Qom where Khomeini taught and killing several students and clerics. This in turn triggered major popular protests in several Iranian cities.

On June 5, 1963 Khomeini was arrested for making a speech blaming Israel for Iran’s repressive regime. His arrest triggered three days of major riots.

Following an October 26, 1964 speech in which he condemned the Shah for granting US  personnel diplomatic immunity for any crimes they committed in Iran, Khomeini was arrested and secretly exiled to Turkey. A year later he moved to Iraq, until Saddam Hussein (under pressure from the Shah) deported him to Paris.

Ten days after the Shah allowed him to return on February 1, 1979, he launched the Islamic revolution and overthrew the Shah was overthrown.*

Foad Izali explains the decision by Iranian students to violently occupy the US embassy in November 1979. According to Izali:  1) revolutionary leaders were concerned about the US launching a CIA coup out of the embassy, as they had against Mossadegh in 1953 (see From Oakland to Tehran Part I: The History of Iran/American Emnity) and 2) they wanted to return the the Shah to Iran to recover all the money he had stolen.

They invaded the embassy just as diplomatic staff were shredding heaps of documents, and the student occupiers meticulously reassembled all of them.

African American new presenter Marzeh Hashim subsequently explains the students’ decision to release the eight female and African American hostages. Their goal was to emphasize the students opposed the US government, not the American people. During the US embassy occupation, the revolutionary government also changed the Israeli embassy to the Palestinian embassy (the first in the world). The Islamic Republic of Iran was also the first country to take an official stand against apartheid in South Africa.

*The actual history is a little more complicated. Owing to growing economic problems and political unrest, in late December the Shah, fearing an impending military coup, approached leaders of the opposition National Front about forming a civilian government. On January 6 Shapour Bakhtiar was appointed interim prime minister and on January 16, the shah left Iran at Bakhtiar’s request. The government overthrown by the Islamic Revolution on February 11, 1979 was actually the caretaker government of Shapour Bakhtiar.