Saturday, April 23, 2022

Are We Letting Putin Win? - Guy Millère

 

​ by Guy Millère

Arming Ukraine, providing it with means to defeat Russia's unprovoked aggression and drive the Russians out of Ukraine, should be seen as a way to force Putin, and other potential predators, to understand that the costs for aggression are astronomical.

  • General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, keeps repeating that Russia is on the verge of defeat: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants to stop the atrocities by driving them [the Russians] out. He wants a victory, and he can get it".

  • A small contingent of Ukrainian soldiers is still heroically resisting Russian forces in what remains of the destroyed city [Mariupol]. Is anyone coming to their rescue?

  • Others still say that Putin should be offered an "off-ramp" as a face-saving device. Putin does not want an off-ramp. Putin wants Ukraine -- as much of it as he can get. Putin getting any of it simply sets a precedent for other predators. Putin should not be rewarded with land. He should be rewarded with a war crimes tribunal, perhaps similar to the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda or, as former US National Security Advisor John R. Bolton recommended, by Russians or Ukrainian tribunals -- just not by the "illegitimate" and "lawless" International Criminal Court (ICC). But that would be later.

  • Arming Ukraine, providing it with means to defeat Russia's unprovoked aggression and drive the Russians out of Ukraine, should be seen as a way to force Putin, and other potential predators, to understand that the costs for aggression are astronomical. So far, although the Biden administration has been generous, many Americans find that it has not given Ukraine many of the weapons it desperately needs, or given them fast enough. Hopefully, this is changing.

  • Does the Biden administration secretly want Putin to win? The former chess grand champion and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov has suggested that Putin is "the devil you know." The US seems naively to have considered Russia an ally to negotiate a new "nuclear deal" with Iran and as a partner for "climate change". For Russia, climate change concerns in the US means Russia can sell more oil to a country that has shut down its own gargantuan energy supply. So far, as Russia and Iran plan how to evade US sanctions on Russia and enrich themselves, America's interests appear the last concern of Russia's negotiators in the Iran nuclear talks.

  • There seems to be a current Washington fantasy about Russia: that Putin and Russian officials are people "you can do business with." The business has, in fact, been done: according to the New York Post, a "[US Senate] report says, Hunter Biden profited from a 'financial relationship' that he and associate Devon Archer had with Russia's richest woman, Elena Baturina, former wife of the late Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov."

  • The Biden administration appears to have gambled that if they were nice to Russia, Russia would be nice to them. They began their term by giving Putin the two things he wanted most. They extended the New START Treaty so that Russia could continue making tactical nuclear weapons, and they gave Putin the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to ensure that he would be able to supply Europe and Germany with natural gas in winter (while bypassing Ukraine) -- or shut the gas off. The US also allowed Russia's negotiators in the talks to revive the 2015 JCPOA "nuclear deal" with Iran in Vienna, Austria – where the US was not allowed in the same room with Iranians -- to have Russia's lead negotiator, Mikhail Ulyanov, represent the US. Not surprisingly, Ulyanov emerged from the talks saying that "Iran got much more than it expected."

  • The way to end the war, of course, is to defeat Putin -- and send a message to other aggressors waiting in the wings that they should not even think about taking on the United States.

  • Trump, an experienced businessman, spoke nicely to and about Putin -- but delivered nothing. Putin, however, especially after the woebegone US surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan, quickly took the measure of Biden and his administration. If they had wanted Putin to go to war, they seemed to do everything they could to bring one about.

  • Putin could be on the verge of defeat -- if the West, which has everything to lose, would just enable Ukraine to defeat him. Allowing Putin to win would not only be a betrayal of that international commitment to Ukraine; it would also broadcast to the world that any country can commit all the war crimes it wants without suffering any consequences. It would signal the defeat of all the values​​ Western world leaders claim to defend. The geopolitical implications could well be devastating.

A small contingent of Ukrainian soldiers is still heroically resisting Russian forces in what remains of the destroyed city of Mariupol. Is anyone coming to their rescue? Pictured: An aerial view of Mariupol, Ukraine, taken on April 12, 2022, showing the widespread destruction of residential buildings. (Photo by Andrey Borodulin/AFP via Getty Images)

Last month, Russian army tanks entered Mariupol, a peaceful city of 431,000 inhabitants, which has since been bombarded for weeks. Tens of thousands of people left the city; those still there have taken refuge in cellars, often with no food, water or electricity. No one knows how many civilians are still alive in the city.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called in Chechen militias, accused of crimes against humanity, and sent by Ramzan Kadyrov, head of the Russian Federation's Chechen Republic. Putin seems to be about to deliver an even more brutal assault. Schools, hospitals, supermarkets, retirement homes -- Russia has spared nothing. A theater where children were gathered -- and the Ukrainians had written the word "children", hoping that the Russian soldiers would at least spare them -- was reduced to ashes. Ukrainian officials estimated that 300 people were killed there. People trying to rescue them also were shelled. A small contingent of Ukrainian soldiers is still heroically resisting Russian forces in what remains of the destroyed city. Is anyone coming to their rescue?

The war Putin started against Ukraine on February 24 keeps increasing in carnage.

Britain's Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said that Putin believed that the Ukrainians would welcome the Russians as "liberators." Instead, Ukrainians regarded the Russian invaders as invaders, even in areas where Russian is spoken. Ukrainian soldiers, instead of surrendering, fought with breathtaking courage and are continuing to fight. According to American officials, when the US government offered to evacuate Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, his answer was, "I need ammunition, not a ride".

The Russian troops were evidently not equipped for an action lasting more than three or four days. There was a lack of food and fuel; tanks broke down, military columns were immobilized for miles. Russian soldiers were apparently told they were just going on a training exercise, and were on Russian territory. According to Ukrainian officials, some Russian prisoners of war said in interviews that they were reluctant to invade Ukraine and kill Ukrainians. Some deserted. Some reportedly shot themselves in the leg not to fight. Some surrendered to Ukrainian soldiers. According to one report, Ukrainian journalist Roman Tsimbalyuk wrote in a Facebook post that one Russian tank driver ran over the Colonel commanding his unit because he blamed him for the deaths of his friends.

The Ukrainian army not only fought; it obstructed the advance of the Russian army, soon stalled in mud, and even managed to push the Russians back.

Putin's dreamed of conquering Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, did not take place.

The weapons the United States eventually provided to Ukraine, though woefully insufficient, have helped. The weapons Ukraine needs, which could have been pre-positioned months ago, are not arriving fast enough and in a quantity that is sufficient. US aid has had trouble arriving. The Russians stole 14 tons of humanitarian aid on its way to Mariupol. According to Reuters, Zelensky claimed that Russian forces have suffered 20,000 killed. One report says that at least 18 senior Russian officers have been killed. The figures are equivalent to double the losses suffered by the Russian military in Afghanistan over ten years. Some Western media outlets report that the Russians have brought mobile crematoria, apparently to hide form the Russian public the number of their dead.

Putin, on March 16, described the need for the "self-purification" of Russia from "scum and traitors", a sign that he is confronted with opponents within his regime. Russia has fired "about eight" generals and placed the head of the FSB's foreign intelligence branch, Sergey Beseda, in prison.

Putin likely fears that if he loses this war, he will be overthrown, and that he has no choice but to persist. What Putin is doing now resembles what he did in Grozny, Chechnya, in 1999 and Aleppo, Syria, in 2016.

The Russian military is now committing, in cities such as Bucha, war crimes as gruesome as that of Mariupol, not sparing homes or the civilian population. Russia has reportedly used cluster bombs and thermobaric weapons, despite a ban on their use. Russian forced have fired at a nuclear facility and used a hypersonic missile.

On March 25, an official Russian statement was issued saying that the Russian forces had "attained their main objectives" in the rest of the country and were going to "redirect" their action and limit it to the Donbass region. The statement was immediately questioned as a ruse; the bombardments continued. On April 19, Russia launched a major assault in eastern Ukraine.

General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, keeps repeating that Russia is on the verge of defeat: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants to stop the atrocities by driving them [the Russians] out. He wants a victory, and he can get it".

Others still say that Putin should be offered an "off-ramp" as a face-saving device. Putin does not want an off-ramp. Putin wants Ukraine -- as much of it as he can get. Putin getting any of it simply sets a precedent for other predators. Putin should not be rewarded with land. He should be rewarded with a war crimes tribunal, perhaps similar to the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda or, as former US National Security Advisor John R. Bolton recommended, by Russians or Ukrainian tribunals -- just not by the "illegitimate" and "lawless" International Criminal Court (ICC). But that would be later.

Negotiations were used by Putin for buying time to keep shelling Ukrainians. Putin's demands have not changed: he wants the recognition by Ukraine of the Crimea as Russian territory and of the self-declared republics of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states; a broad disarmament of the Ukrainian military; the transformation of Ukraine into a "neutral" state (therefore a passage of Ukraine to a status of "limited sovereignty" similar to the status of the countries of Central Europe at the time of Soviet Union), and the recognition of Russian as an official language of Ukraine. He seems to have given up on demanding Zelensky's departure, but that is not certain. Putin reportedly has sent multiple squads to try to kill Zelensky, and has possibly tried to poison a negotiating team.

Zelensky refused on March 7 to give in unconditionally to Russia's demands. He has renounced ​​asking for Ukraine's entry into NATO, and has said that he was ready to negotiate the status of Crimea and the two self-proclaimed republics of Donbass. On March 27, he held an interview with Russian journalists. "Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state, we are ready to go for it", he said. He added that Ukraine would not try to retake Crimea by force and that a peace deal with Russia would have to be put to a referendum.

The offer apparently did not satisfy Putin, who said on April 12 that negotiations had hit a dead end. The war goes on.

Arming Ukraine, providing it with means to defeat Russia's unprovoked aggression and drive the Russians out of Ukraine, should be seen as a way to force Putin, and other potential predators, to understand that the costs for aggression are astronomical. So far, although the Biden administration has been generous, many Americans find that it has not given Ukraine many of the weapons it desperately needs, or given them fast enough. Hopefully, this is changing.

Does the Biden administration secretly want Putin to win? The former chess grand champion and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov has suggested that Putin is "the devil you know." The US seems naively to have considered Russia an ally to negotiate a new "nuclear deal" with Iran and as a partner for "climate change". For Russia, climate change concerns in the US means Russia can sell more oil to a country that has shut down its own gargantuan energy supply. So far, as Russia and Iran plan how to evade US sanctions on Russia and enrich themselves, America's interests appear the last concern of Russia's negotiators in the Iran nuclear talks.

There seems to be a current Washington fantasy about Russia: that Putin and Russian officials are people "you can do business with." The business has, in fact, been done: according to the New York Post, a "[US Senate] report says, Hunter Biden profited from a 'financial relationship' that he and associate Devon Archer had with Russia's richest woman, Elena Baturina, former wife of the late Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov."

The Biden administration appears to have gambled that if they were nice to Russia, Russia would be nice to them. They began their term by giving Putin the two things he wanted most. They extended the New START Treaty so that Russia could continue making tactical nuclear weapons, and they gave Putin the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to ensure that he would be able to supply Europe and Germany with natural gas in winter (while bypassing Ukraine) -- or shut the gas off. The US also allowed Russia's negotiators in the talks to revive the 2015 JCPOA "nuclear deal" with Iran in Vienna, Austria – where the US was not allowed in the same room with Iranians -- to have Russia's lead negotiator, Mikhail Ulyanov, represent the US. Not surprisingly, Ulyanov emerged from the talks saying that "Iran got much more than it expected."

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, US President Joe Biden hinted that if Putin were to carry out just a "minor incursion," that it might be acceptable. When the Biden administration then said it would not use its military, Putin saw it as a "green light". The administration is apparently under the illusion that, down the road, Russia will actually be helping the US with "climate change" and is presently advocating for US interests in negotiating a new "nuclear deal" with Iran. Russia is not; Russia is helping Russia -- and Iran.

For weeks, Putin has been methodically turning Ukraine into scorched earth, with relatively few negative consequences to himself. He seems to be trying to landlock Ukraine, preventing commerce by closing off access to the Black Sea. Ukraine wants more surface-to-air missile systems, tanks, anti-ship missiles and fighter jets to protect what is left of its seacoast, as well as to drive the Russians back.

The Biden administration, meanwhile, has been dragging its feet on delivering requested and promised items. Secretary of State Antony Blinken protests that "What we're trying to do is end this war in Ukraine, not start a larger one."

The way to end the war, of course, is to defeat Putin -- and send a message to other aggressors waiting in the wings that they should not even think about taking on the United States.

Putin would likely not even have started this war if Biden and his administration had not deeply damaged one of the major assets that the United States had under previously: deterrence.

During Trump administration, Putin did not lift a finger. Trump, an experienced businessman, spoke nicely to and about Putin -- but delivered nothing. Putin, however, especially after the woebegone US surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan, quickly took the measure of Biden and his administration. If they had wanted Putin to go to war, they seemed to do everything they could to bring one about.

The day of his inauguration, Biden blocked the Keystone XL pipeline project, then quickly led the United States from energy independence to energy dependence. Since then -- as all commerce, manufacturing and transportation depend on energy -- prices for everything in America, especially staples items such as food, gasoline and heating, have skyrocketed, bringing with them a crushing inflation. Meanwhile, higher global prices for Russia's oil and gas exports allowed Putin to immediately began raking extra billions, enabling him to finance his war.

On March 8, the Biden administration decided to ban US imports of Russian oil, natural gas and coal: too little, too late. European countries continue to buy gas and Russian oil at their new higher prices, thereby financing Russia's war against Ukraine.

To Russia, Biden's decision to lift sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in May 2021 showed only extreme weakness. Pretending to reinstate sanctions on Russian oil that do not begin until June 24, when the weather is warm, showed even greater weakness. "Let's have a conversation in another month or so to see if they're working," President Biden said in February with a straight face about US sanctions on Russia. In an asymmetrical war, a month means untold thousands captured, tortured, or dead.

In Brussels for a meeting of NATO heads of state, Biden said that "sanctions never deter" -- contradicting what Kamala Harris, Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken had been saying for weeks.

Sanctions, Matthew Continetti wrote, "are punitive... They may constrain an autocrat. They rarely stop him. Why? Because money matters less to tyrants than power".

Europe, not the United States, has been leading the way to help Ukraine, but does not seem likely to do more than it is doing, Putin is counting on that. Europe, mainly through the massive missteps of Germany's elites, is energy-dependent on Russia, industrially dependent on China and militarily dependent on the United States. Even though the leaders of the European Union seem to have received a wake-up call, they have a long tradition of generally appeasing their enemies. French President Emmanuel Macron, although he has obtained absolutely nothing, apparently wants to maintain his dialogue with Putin and appears reluctant to see that it is useless.

The Biden administration apparently has no dialogue with Russian officials, and according to the Washington Post, top Russian military leaders have declined to take calls from their American counterparts.

The Biden administration does not even appear to feel humiliated, and has blandly been accepting more humiliations: Iranian negotiators have refused to meet with the American negotiators in talks, now hopefully dead, to revive the 2015 JCPOA deal. The United States evidently would like to delist as a terrorist group the world's foremost terrorist organization, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as if were not actually a terrorist group, but at least for the moment has mercifully shelved that idea.

Biden, who is supposed to be the leader of the free world, has been doing almost nothing to stop the war. And he also seems ready to let other authoritarian powers, in particular the Chinese Communist Party, use force to get their way.

On March 26, in a speech in Poland, Biden, referring to Putin, said, "this man cannot remain in power." It was likely the most constructive sentence he has ever said.

Within minutes, a communiqué from the White House tried to "clarify" what he said:

"The President's point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change."

It was the third time in less than three days that the White House rushed to "clarify" something Biden said.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances states:

"The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"

Putin could be on the verge of defeat -- if the West, which has everything to lose, would just enable Ukraine to defeat him. Allowing Putin to win would not only be a betrayal of that international commitment to Ukraine; it would also broadcast to the world that any country can commit all the war crimes it wants without suffering any consequences. It would signal the defeat of all the values​​ Western world leaders claim to defend. The geopolitical implications could well be devastating.

According to Garry Kasparov:

"How does Putin fall? A million Russians in Red Square? A palace coup of military or security? An oligarch's rebellion? All of the above. It must be apparent that Putin is an obstacle to their goals, whether of power, liberty, or prosperity.... Don't give off-ramps to Putin. Give off-ramps to Russia after Putin, to Russians who will abandon him for the good of the nation and world."

Let us let Putin fall. It would be doing the world a great favor. How many people are we going to allow him to slaughter before we make him stop?

 

Dr. Guy Millère, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18461/letting-putin-win

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden met with Hunter Biden business partner at White House in 2010: Report - Timothy H.J. Nerozzi

 

​ by Timothy H.J. Nerozzi

Meeting with Joe Biden was one of 19 visits Eric Schwerin paid to the White House, according to visitor logs

 

Hunter Biden's most prominent investment partner had an official sit-down with Vice President Joe Biden in 2010.

Eric Schwerin, president of the Rosemont Seneca firm, met with Biden while Biden was serving as vice president under former President Barack Obama, the New York Post reports. Schwerin is linked to a variety of Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings, past and present. Hunter's finances have come under intense scrutiny as evidence mounts showing his father was used as leverage in negotiations.

The meeting with Joe Biden was one of 19 visits Schwerin paid to the White House, where he also met with a variety of aides to the vice president, according to archived visitor logs from the Obama White House.

RON KLAIN SOLICITED MONEY FROM HUNTER BIDEN FOR VP RESIDENCE IN 2012, EMAILS SHOW: 'KEEP THIS LOW LOW KEY'

Emails from Hunter Biden's discarded laptop show a series of exchanges between Hunter and his associates in Rosemont Seneca’s joint venture with Chinese investment firms Bohai Capital and BHR. 

In February 2017, Schwerin emailed the CEO of BHR, Jonathan Li. Previously, Li sent Hunter his son's resume with a list of colleges he planned to apply to.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden, left, stands with his son Hunter during a re-enactment of the Senate oath ceremony in the Old Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington Jan. 6, 2009.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden, left, stands with his son Hunter during a re-enactment of the Senate oath ceremony in the Old Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington Jan. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

"Jonathan, Hunter asked me to send you a copy of the recommendation letter that he asked his father to write on behalf of Christopher for Brown University," Schwerin wrote.

It is unclear if Li’s son was admitted to Brown University or, if so, whether he attended. 

The emails originated from a laptop said to belong to Hunter Biden. When asked about the content of the emails, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates told Fox News Digital, "We don't comment on the laptop."

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden (Fox News)

The president has repeatedly denied discussing Hunter's business ventures with his son. Earlier this month, White House press secretary Jenn Psaki was asked to confirm if Biden's statement that he has not discussed with his son his overseas business dealings still stands. 

"Yes," Psaki replied.

Fox News' Yael Halon contributed to this report.

 

Timothy H.J. Nerozzi is a writer for Fox News Digital. You can follow him on Twitter @timothynerozzi and can email him at timothy.nerozzi@fox.com

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-met-hunter-biden-business-partner-white-house-2010

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Is the Biden Administration Determined to Help Terrorist Iran Get a Bomb? - Majid Rafizadeh

 

​ by Majid Rafizadeh

The Biden administration, if it actually cares about peace in the region -- a subject that seems open to question -- would do well to listen to the warnings of these many US military leaders and Congressmen, and refuse to revive the disastrous nuclear deal.

  • Why would any administration in its right mind permit an official state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to have nuclear weapons, as well as billions of dollars that will assuredly not be used for a "GI Bill for returning members of the Revolutionary Guard"?

  • Just this week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan called Iran, a "sponsor of terrorism."

  • With Biden's deal, restrictions on the regime's nuclear program would be lifted only two years after the agreement is signed, permitting the regime to enrich uranium at any level it desires and spin as many uranium enrichment centrifuges as it wants.

  • Astonishingly, Russia will be trusted to be the country that stores Iran's enriched uranium, and Moscow will get paid for this mission. More uranium for Russia? How nifty: maybe Putin can use it for his next "Ukraine" -- in Poland, Sweden or France?

  • The new deal will not address Iran's ballistic missile program, meaning that the Tehran regime will continue attacking other nations with its ballistic missiles, provide missiles to its proxy militias in other countries, and advance the range of its intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach the US territories. Iran could even use shorter-range ballistic missiles to reach the US, perhaps launched from Venezuela or Cuba, where Iran is already deeply entrenched.

  • To meet the Iranian leaders' demands, the new deal will most likely include removal from the terrorist list of the IRGC, which has killed countless Americans, both on American soil and off.

  • The Islamic Republic of Iran began murdering Americans in Beirut in 1983, and also had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

  • The Biden administration, if it actually cares about peace in the region -- a subject that seems open to question -- would do well to listen to the warnings of these many US military leaders and Congressmen, and refuse to revive the disastrous nuclear deal. It will only a make even more dangerous a country that the US State Department itself has called "the world's worst sponsor of state terrorism," as well as frankly creating an unnecessary security threat in the region, Europe and the US.

Why would any administration in its right mind permit an official state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to have nuclear weapons, as well as billions of dollars that will assuredly not be used for a "GI Bill for returning members of the Revolutionary Guard"? (Image source: iStock)

Why would any administration in its right mind permit an official state sponsor of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to have nuclear weapons, as well as billions of dollars that will assuredly not be used for a "GI Bill for returning members of the Revolutionary Guard"?

Just this week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan called Iran, a "sponsor of terrorism."

Calls and warnings against reviving the 2015 nuclear, however, seem to be falling on deaf ears, as the Biden administration appears determined to reach a deal that would enable a state that has been trying to take over the entire Middle East for decades -- and already controls Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq -- to have nuclear weapons, the ballistic missiles to deliver them, and billions of dollars to further its well-documented terrorism.

Last week, 45 retired US Generals and Admirals sent an entreaty, titled "Open Letter from U.S. Military Leaders Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal", to the Biden administration, warning against reviving of the nuclear deal. They wrote:

"In Ukraine, we are bearing witness to the horrors of a country ruthlessly attacking its neighbor and, by brandishing its nuclear weapons, forcing the rest of the world largely to stand on the sidelines.

"The new Iran deal currently being negotiated, which Russia has played a central role in crafting, will enable the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to cast its own nuclear shadow over the Middle East.

"As retired American military leaders who devoted their lives to the defense of our nation, we oppose this emerging deal that is poised to instantly fuel explosive Iranian aggression and pave Iran's path to become a nuclear power, threatening the American homeland and the very existence of America's regional allies."

While the Biden administration is indefatigably trying to appease the ruling mullahs by lifting sanctions against the Iranian regime, the Islamic Republic has been ratcheting up its threats and attacks against the US bases and its allies, presumably as a nudge.

In addition, the head Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, Esmail Qaani, recently commended "Palestinian martyrs" and threatened Israel as well:

"We are in the middle of the battlefield. The Islamic Republic of Iran is at the forefront of the scene against global arrogance and international Zionism, and we will continue on the path of their honor and greatness, thanks to the martyrs."

Qaani also boasted about the Houthis' access to weapons:

"Today, the heroes of Yemen and the new sons of the revolution are building the major weapons they use inside their country... they build missiles with a range of over 1,000 kilometers and drones with a range of over 1,500 kilometers, and all of these operations are carried out using tools and facilities in tunnels and basements, under enemy bombardment..."

The Biden administration is not only empowering the ruling mullahs of Iran and its militia groups, but grievously alienating US allies in the region. As the retired American US Generals and Admirals accurately stated in their letter:

"America's closest regional partners, attacked regularly by Iran, already strongly oppose the proposed deal. If we will not help protect them against Iran, we cannot expect their help addressing threats like Russia and China. We instead support diplomacy that would genuinely end the threat posed by Iran's military nuclear program and counter Iran's regional aggression, backed up by credibly drawn and enforced redlines against Iranian nuclear and regional escalation."

Worse, the Biden administration's new deal with the Iranian regime is much weaker than Obama's 2015 nuclear deal. With Biden's deal, restrictions on the regime's nuclear program would be lifted only two years after the agreement is signed, permitting the regime to enrich uranium at any level it desires and spin as many uranium enrichment centrifuges as it wants.

The new deal will not force the Iranian regime to reveal its past nuclear activities, which had military dimensions.

Astonishingly, Russia will be trusted to be the country that stores Iran's enriched uranium, and Moscow will get paid for this mission. More uranium for Russia? How nifty: maybe Putin can use it for his next "Ukraine" -- in Poland, Sweden or France?

The new deal will not address Iran's ballistic missile program, meaning that the Tehran regime will continue attacking other nations with its ballistic missiles, provide missiles to its proxy militias in other countries, and advance the range of its intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach the US territories. Iran could even use shorter-range ballistic missiles to reach the US, perhaps launched from Venezuela or Cuba, where Iran is already deeply entrenched.

To meet the Iranian leaders' demands, the new deal will most likely include removal from the terrorist list of the IRGC, which has killed countless Americans, both on American soil and off.

The Islamic Republic of Iran began murdering Americans in Beirut in 1983, and also had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Last but not least, economic sanctions will be lifted against the Iranian regime will facilitate the flow of billions of dollars to the ruling mullahs. This will further assist the terrorist regime of Iran to destabilize the region, target and attacks US allies, and continue arming, funding and sponsoring its militia and terror groups across the world.

The Biden administration, if it actually cares about peace in the region -- a subject that seems open to question -- would do well to listen to the warnings of these many US military leaders and Congressmen, and refuse to revive the disastrous nuclear deal. It will only a make even more dangerous a country that the US State Department itself has called "the world's worst sponsor of state terrorism," as well as frankly creating an unnecessary security threat in the region, Europe and the US.

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18452/help-terrorist-iran-bomb

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Western Media Distortions and Anti-Israel Bias - Joseph Puder

 

​ by Joseph Puder

For the BBC, Guardian, and Reuters, the terrorist that killed 3 Israelis is just an “attacker”.

 


One can understand the biased propaganda in the Palestinian media. Their conflict with Israel makes them demonize the Jewish state. What is it about the anti-Israel bias, and distortion of facts by many in the western media? They can easily discern fact from fiction, and they’re free to move everywhere in Israel, with access to people and events, yet their reports lack accuracy, and smack of bias. 

Media outlets such as ReutersGuardian, and BBC to name a few, are deliberately avoiding using such words as “terror,” and “terrorist,” in the way they covered the recent terror attack by a Palestinian Arab on innocent Israeli civilians sitting in a Dizengoff street bar in central Tel Aviv, last Thursday, April 7, 2022. This triggered an angry reaction from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to the above-named media outlets over the deliberate omission of the nature of the attack, and the identity of the terrorist attacker who murdered three young Israelis and wounded twelve others.   

The BBC headline reported from Israel that, “Palestinian gunman killed after a deadly attack at Tel Aviv bar,” adding, “He was found after a huge manhunt following an attack on a bar which killed two people, police say.” In this BBC YouTube video, the announcer called the Palestinian terrorist simply “gunman.” No motive was given by the BBC for the terrorist killer’s action, when it was clear he was motivated by a jihadist urge to kill Israeli Jews, with the same motivation the previous three terror attacks in Beersheba, Hadera, and B’nei Brak. The BBC report failed to identify the victims as Israeli Jews. 

In none of the subsequent eleven revisions of its headlines, nor in the rest of the story, did the BBC use the words “terror” or “terrorist” to define the terrorist killer Ra’ad Hazem from Jenin… Instead, audiences were told at various points that it was a “gun attack” or a “shooting” by a Palestinian gunman, and sometimes “Palestinian attacker.” Apparently, the selectively applied by BBC editorial guidelines on the use of language, the words terror, terrorism, and terrorist appear only in describing counter-terrorism, and quotes from Israeli officials. 

Reuters World tweeted on the terror attack, “Israeli forces shoot dead Palestinian after Tel Aviv bar attack.” This distorted report was even worse than the BBC’s. Nowhere does it mention that three Israelis were murdered and many others injured by the “Palestinian,” or his motive for the killings. Moreover, the Reuters tweet puts a negative onus on “Israeli forces,” not on the terrorist killer, and there is no clue as to who was attacked and killed at the Tel Aviv bar. 

The British Guardian headlined its story, “Israeli forces kill Palestinian following shooting in Tel Aviv bar that left two dead.” Angry Israelis flooded social media, outraged by the Guardian’s headline. As a result, the Guardian changed its headline to “Israel: Two dead following an armed gunman opened fire in Tel Aviv bar.” Once again, the headline does not identify the “armed gunman” or his Israeli victims. 

The Israeli Foreign Ministry was not content with the Guardian’s slight change of headline, and sought to point out the paper’s lack of professionalism. The message to the paper was, “words have consequences,” and when mistakes are made, it is essential that the outlet correct it immediately. 

The spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry tweeted in response to the BBC’s refusal to use the terms “terror” or “terrorist,” suggesting that if (the BBC) is unable to call a person who murdered Israelis (simply because they were Israelis) a terrorist, that (the BBC) is giving legitimization to his deeds. 

CNN, NPR, Washington Post, and New York Times, like their British counterparts, used the same script provided by Reuters, refraining from calling the Palestinian killer a terrorist. The New York Times, like the British outlets, used the term “occupied territories” to define Judea and Samaria, typical for the liberal-left press. Although the New York Times provided more details, its headline read, “Palestinian who killed 2 in Tel Aviv is shot dead after manhunt.” 

The anti-Israel bias in the western media can be dated to the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel was transformed by the media from a proverbial “David” into a “Goliath.” To many in the liberal media, Jews are to be victims, not victors. Sympathy was given to the martyred Jews in the Holocaust, but none to the living Israeli Jews today, who have survived and flourished against all odds. Democratic and Jewish Israel was able to achieve material and military success, which raised old antisemitic tropes by some reporters and editors, driven by envy and resentment. The secular globalist media elites in America and Europe resent the idea of a Jewish state, but have no problem with 22 Arab-Muslim states, and 57 states (the Organization of Islamic Conference) under the banner of Islam. 

Many reporters and editors are clearly ignorant of Middle Eastern history, and most don’t speak the languages of the Middle East (Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Hebrew). As a result, one would rarely read in an article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that mentioned the fact that the Palestinian-Arabs rejected self-determination in November 1947, when the UN voted to partition Palestine into two sovereign states: an Arab state and Jewish state. This was the second opportunity for Arab-Palestinians to assert their self-determination. The first was a decade earlier when the British Peel Commission arrived at the same conclusion: that there must be two separate states for Jews and Arabs in Palestine. 

The Palestinian Arabs rejected many more such opportunities in subsequent years. The Oslo Accords and the July 2000 summit at Camp David could have provided the Palestinians with a state. Instead, Arafat chose a bloody intifada. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert made even greater concessions to Mahmoud Abbas than PM Ehud Barak made to Arafat. Still, Palestinian leaders continued to reject statehood by saying no to compromise and peace. Much like in 1947, Palestinian leaders would rather focus on destroying the Jewish state than provide a national framework (state) in which their people could prosper. Prosperity for Palestinians won’t be found in Hamas-controlled Gaza or in the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, where authoritarianism, corruption, and human rights abuses are the rule. Israel is being used as the scapegoat by Hamas and the PA leadership to cover up for their misrule. With Palestinian media, mosques, and schools preaching hatred for Israel and Jews, and inciting their young people to kill Israelis, is it any wonder killers like Ra’ad Hazem would murder innocent Israelis relaxing in a Tel Aviv bar? 

A significant number of western media outlets and their leadership have resented Jewish people’s success, and now begrudge the success and prosperity of Israeli democracy, as imperfect as it may be. The constant harping on “occupied Palestinian territory” by many of these outlets is patently false and misleading. The late Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale University law school and former Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the Lyndon Johnson administration, made it clear that Israel has as much claim to the West Bank territories as the Palestinians. You won’t, however, find it in BBC, NPR, or NYTimes reports.    

The easiest route for today’s reporters and their editors is to pick an underdog and a bully. In the eyes of the “politically correct” elites in the western liberal media, the Palestinians are “brown people” and are therefore automatically underdog “victims.” Hence, their underlying perverted rationale is, “white” Israeli forces, “shoot dead Palestinians,” and the Palestinian terrorist killer is merely a “Palestinian attacker,” and not a vile terrorist murderer.

 

Joseph Puder

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/western-media-distortions-and-anti-israel-bias-joseph-puder/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

2 + 2 = 4: Gov DeSantis Puts Math Ahead of Feelings - Daniel Greenfield

 

​ by Daniel Greenfield

“Math is about getting the right answer. It’s not about how you feel about the problem.”

 

 

2 + 2 = 4 should be an answer that everyone, regardless of politics or race, can agree on, but in a world in which equity insists that 2 + 2 = 5, the War on Math is underway in our schools.

Florida’s Gov DeSantis struck a blow for math by setting clear educational standards for textbooks and rejecting those educational materials that failed to meet those standards. 

And the media, with predictable malice, decided to have another fake news field day.

"DeSantis Saves Florida Kids From Being Indoctrinated With Math," the Washington Post sneered. "I'm Going to Florida So Gov. Ron DeSantis Can Keep My Kids Safe From 'Woke' Math," USA Today jeered. “DeSantis Warns That Math Makes Children Gay,” the New Yorker giggled.

(One of those is a parody, but with the media parody is indistinguishable from journalism.)

Fifteen of the rejected textbooks came from Savvas (formerly Pearson) whose CEO Bethlam Forsa has said that “as an extension of our core values of expanding equity and empathy, culturally responsive learning must be woven into everything we do" including "the curriculum we build".

Six came from Big Ideas Learning which promoted "teaching with equity in the math classroom" and urged promoting "students of color to leadership roles for in-class activities".  

Nine came from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt whose mission statement declares, "we believe in social justice, we believe that the education system needs to change, and we will continue to use our platform to make that change."

Eight came from McGraw Hill which claims to focus on "educational equity" and whose CEO stated that "equity" is "a core part of our mission."

Are the results really surprising?

While ‘wokeness’ has gotten the most attention, the core issues, as Gov. DeSantis noted, were compromised educational standards. Florida is not just keeping wokeness out of the math curriculum, but the old discredited Common Core standard, which DeSantis is eliminating from the state’s educational system, and other tainted approaches that keep students from learning.

Florida's Department of Education had two reasons for rejecting math textbooks. The first was that they failed to meet standards scores and the other was the inclusion of "special topics" or "unsolicited strategies". 

The biggest problem in unsolicited strategies is what's called SEL or Social and Emotional Learning. SEL waters down subjects like math while leaving students ignorant.

“Math is about getting the right answer,” Gov. DeSantis said, explaining why Florida had rejected so many math textbooks. “It’s not about how you feel about the problem or to introduce some of these other things. There’s a right answer and there’s a wrong answer. And we want our students getting the right answer.”

Gov. DeSantis correctly pointed out the problem with SEL is that it’s emotionally centered. 

SEL is a trojan horse for bringing equity into classrooms. And the aggressive push to embed SEL into classrooms has been directed by the usual foundations who have already broken much of the educational system. Curriculums are now evaluated for compatibility with SEL. And SEL is used to reinvent how to approach hard science subjects with disastrous results that prioritize feelings and cultural relevancy over competence and achievement. 

Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida made the right decision to keep SEL out of state schools when possible. And to reject math textbooks that utilize SEL rather than actual math skills.

Florida's Department of Education noted that a number of the rejected math textbooks had the "unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics". A full 21 percent were "not included on the adopted list because they incorporate prohibited topics or unsolicited strategies, including CRT." 

SEL and similar approaches urge that math problems be made “socially and culturally relevant.” That means everything from referencing celebrities to making them into tools for teaching about social issues and problems. Cultural relevance is how math becomes woke and then broke.

Christine Pushaw, Gov. DeSantis' press secretary, shared an example of an SEL influenced math exam which posed the following problem to students. "Angelou was sexually abused by her mother's ____ at age 8" and offered them the option of filling in "boyfriend", "brother" or "pimp". 

Critics pointed out that the math problem in question came out of Missouri, but it embodied the SEL approaching of providing students with alternative “culturally relevant” ways of finding the values of “x” and “y” "y = x + 2" and "3x + 6y = 12" by answering culturally relevant questions. 

This particular example may be outrageous, but it’s in keeping with SEL’s idea of equity which seeks to “shift power to students” by enabling them to use their “cultural knowledge” to solve problems. And, as in the case of this SEL math problem, the students aren’t learning anything. 

Certainly not anything related to math.

Beyond SEL absurdities like these which deprive the very minority students they claim to be trying to help of basic mathematical skills, the growing push to make math socially relevant means that mathematics textbooks increasingly sound like civics classes. 

Take Thinking Quantitatively: Communicating with Numbers, one of the textbooks rejected by Florida, which claims that it "empowers students to develop the critical-thinking and math skills they need to become informed and numerically literate citizens" and "make decisions with data they will encounter every day in their personal, civic, and business lives".

One of the author’s worksheets, listed on his blog, uses a graphic from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and tells students "explain how this chart indicates hydrocarbon usage and NOT solar activity are causing global warming."

Math problems shouldn’t require political affirmation. And math isn’t a civics class.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is fighting to protect math education in Florida. Along with education in general. That means in Florida, 2 + 2 will always equal 4, answers will be arrived at using objective rational laws, not “culturally relevant” feelings, and students won’t have to figure out who sexually abused Maya Angelou at the age of 8 in order to solve a math problem.

Woke math is the consequence of watering down educational standards in the name of equity. 

“Math is about getting the right answer,” Gov. DeSantis said. “It’s not about how you feel about the problem.” That’s why DeSantis has the right answer to educational wokeness. 

In Florida, math wins and wokeness loses.

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/2-2-4-gov-desantis-puts-math-ahead-feelings-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

While Elon Musk was attempting to restore free speech at Twitter, he was also humiliating the Russian military juggernaut - Monica Showalter

 

​ by Monica Showalter

Single combat heroism, on two fronts. What a gladiator.

 

While Elon Musk was dominating the news with his principled stance on buying — and reforming — censorship-wracked Twitter, something else big was going on on the side, according to Breaking Defense:

WASHINGTON: The US military's electronic warfare enterprise needs to take a page from SpaceX when it comes to responding to new threats, the Pentagon's director for electromagnetic warfare said today.

After SpaceX sent Starlink terminals to Ukraine in February in an apparent effort to help Ukraine maintain its internet connection amid war with Russia, SpaceX founder Elon Musk claimed that Russia had jammed Starlink terminals in the country for hours at a time. After a software update, Starlink was operating normally, said Musk, who added on March 25 that the constellation had "resisted all hacking & jamming attempts" in Ukraine.

Assuming Musk — famously something of a showboater in his public comments — is providing an accurate picture, a private firm beating back Russian EW attempts with software updates is the kind of thing that makes Pentagon EW experts pay attention. 

"From an EW technologist perspective, that is fantastic. That paradigm and how they did that is kind of  eyewatering to me," said Dave Tremper, director of electronic warfare for the Pentagon's acquisition office. "The way that Starlink was able to upgrade when a threat showed up, we need to be able to have that ability. We have to be able to change our electromagnetic posture, to be able to change very dynamically what we're trying to do without losing capability along the way."

Musk, in other words, besides fighting for free speech in the States, was also busy taking on the mighty Russian military machine — and beating it.  Even the Pentagon was awed, watching as Musk's Starlink Internet system beat back hacker after hacker from Moscow through a program of software upgrades, with the quoted official hoping and dreaming for something similar to be developed at the Pentagon.  It says a lot that the General Mark Milley crowd over there still doesn't have a clue.  

Musk didn't say much of anything about it as all eyes were focused on his Twitter war, but facts are facts: while Musk was brawling with the activist left and schooling the public about free speech over at Twitter, he was also quietly beating back monster state-sponsored internet attacks on his Starlink system, which rather miraculously was the only thing keeping Ukraine connected to the outside world.  The Pentagon stood by stupefied at the brilliant technology, and Russian president Vladimir Putin found himself schooled.

Putin is a bully, and tries to attack only things he believes can't or won't fight back.  Musk fought back, and left Putin's Russian military apparat with a bloody nose.

It was two kinds of single-combat heroism at once.  That raises Musk into some kind of "gladiator" territory, and of such things legends are made.  Perhaps he is the real "Ghost of Kiev."  For the rest of us, there seem to be a lot of reasons out there written in red, white, and blue to be impressed with Elon Musk.

Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.

 

Monica Showalter

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/while_elon_musk_was_attempting_to_restore_free_speech_at_twitter_he_was_also_humiliating_the_russian_military_juggernaut.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Maybe she likes being first lady too much - Silvio Canto, Jr.

​ by Silvio Canto, Jr.

Most wives would not enjoy their husbands being humiliated the way that Slow Joe is.

 

It's nice to see that I am not the only one in the country who is talking about First Lady Jill Biden and elder abuse.  It's hard for me to see the president of the U.S., and that's what he is, without wondering what his wife must think about all this.  Then I found this post by Stephen Kruiser:

During the campaign, I kept mentioning that Biden must not have anyone who really loves him. I was mostly talking about his wife, of course. The United States is being subjected to this misery because Jill Biden is power-hungry and wasn't in a position to grab any herself. She doesn't care how history remembers her husband's presidency.

She has no qualms whatsoever about seeing her husband humiliate himself in public as he did when his old buddy Barack came back to the White House and left him wandering around looking for a friend.

DOCTOR Jill is perfectly content to let Joe finish his long career falling apart on television just so she can have everyone in Washington suck up to her while she's keeping the evil teachers' unions in bed with the president of the United States.

Does Dr. Jill enjoy watching this?  I guess Air Force One must be really nice.

A normal lady would have said something to the Democrats who focused on Joe after the early debates proved that President Trump would easily defeat the likes of Beto, Warren, and Kamala.

Yes, she would have reminded them that Joe is not up to it, that he is old, not a man up to the pressures of the office.

She would have opposed the whole thing because she loved her husband too much to see the humiliating scenes we are watching on TV.

Maybe I'm just being unfair, another partisan who voted against Biden.  Honestly, I don't think so.  All I can tell you is that most wives would not enjoy their husbands being kept from the media by some bunny or listen to the press secretary correct everything he says into an open microphone, such as confusing Title 42 and the mask mandates.

Come on, Dr. Jill.  Is this worth it?

PS: Click for my videos and podcasts at Canto Talk.

 

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/maybe_she_likes_being_first_lady_too_much.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Connecting the Dots on Early COVID Treatments - Antonio Chaves

 

​ by Antonio Chaves

The suppression of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin didn't just happen.

 

As you may well know, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin are among the most frequently mentioned drugs for early treatment of COVID-19. Both drugs were originally used to combat tropical diseases like malaria (HCQ) and river blindness (ivermectin). What follows is a very brief history of how they were repurposed for treating COVID-19.

In 2010, zinc ionophores were shown to inhibit replication of coronaviruses. This research was done at Dr. Ralph Baric’s Lab at UNC at Chapel Hill. Four years later, a dose-response experiment demonstrated the ability of chloroquine to serve as a zinc ionophore for cells cultured in vitro. In early 2020 this information was used to treat COVID-19 in China, France, and the U.S. Unfortunately, following publication of a fraudulent study in the Lancet in May 2020, governments and medical institutions all over the Western world limited access to HCQ for treatment of COVID-19. Many states in the US followed suit by imposing their own restrictions on HCQ.

The antiviral properties of ivermectin were discovered later than HCQ, and in June 2020 Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter published the results on treating COVID patients with this drug (Hat tip: Kanekoa the Great). The FLCCC alliance later published a meta-analysis on ivermectin’s effectiveness for both prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and developed protocols for both outpatient and hospital care. Several developing nations followed up by making ivermectin widely available to their citizens. Unfortunately, ivermectin is difficult to get in the U.S. because both the CDC and FDA recommend against its use.

Whether or not you believe HCQ and ivermectin are effective early treatments is beside the point: Both of these generic drugs are considered safe for pregnant women and many nations sell these drugs over the counter.

Given that there is no moral or scientific basis for this unprecedented disruption of the doctor-patient relationship, why are the CDC and FDA doing this? Why do some dying patients need to resort to a court order to access alternative treatment?

According to U.S. Code 360bbb "expanded access to unapproved therapies" requires absence of any other "comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy." In other words, suppression of early treatment for COVID-19 paved the way for “emergency use authorization” of COVID-19 vaccines.

All COVID-19 vaccines available in the U.S. direct human cells to generate large amounts of spike protein. This is problematic because the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein plays a leading role in the “cytokine storm” causing death in high-risk patients. I will leave it up to the reader to determine as to why the CDC is encouraging Americans to take injections that program their cells to generate uncontrolled amounts of a de-facto biotoxin that may be responsible for a 40X increase in vaccine-related deaths and 1000X increase in vaccine-related myocarditis recorded on VAERS.

After the start of the pandemic, Dr. Ralph Baric overlooked his aforementioned work on zinc ionophores and chose instead to investigate Remdesivir. The testing of this dangerous and expensive drug was accomplished through a partnership of Gilead Science and UNC.

Remdesivir was soon authorized by the FDA for treating COVID-19 in April 2020. Unfortunately the clinical benefits of Remdesivir remain unclear, probably because this drug is only available in hospitals and viral replication is usually not a problem during late stages of COVID-19. This regulation prevented Remdesivir from competing with emergency use authorization of the COVID vaccines.

Remdesivir is not the only highly profitable item investigated at UNC. Baric also signed an agreement to research RNA vaccines developed by Moderna back in December 2019. Moderna has existed since 2010, but COVID vaccines are the first patent Moderna has brought to market. In my previous article I discussed both Baric and Moderna’s probable roles in the synthesis of SARS-Cov-2.

If there is a silver lining to this grotesque charade, it is our growing awareness of the moral bankruptcy in our government, our media, our medical institutions. Most importantly, it has shed light on how easily massive segments of the population can be frightened into blind obedience.

If you still believe the lockdowns, mandates, and medical recommendations were hammered out in good faith, I have some Moderna stock to sell you.

 

Dr. Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science. His older articles with graphs and images are available here. His COVID-19 blog is available here.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/04/connecting_the_dots_on_early_covid_treatments.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter