Rand Was Right...Fauci Lied
Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
In a letter to a Member of Congress yesterday the Principle Deputy Director of the National Institutes of Health admitted that his agency - contrary to Fauci's claims - did fund gain-of-function research on bats and viruses. Over to you, Fauci... Also today: "Boosters! Get yer boosters here! All ages, all sizes!" And...DeSantis stands up to the tyrant heading the DoJ (sic). Today on the Liberty Report: Rand Was Right...Fauci Lied Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
0 Comments
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen represented by a coterie of US intelligence insiders10/21/2021 A former employee of Facebook named Frances Haugen earned national renown after appearing before Congress on October 5, 2021 to accuse the company where she once worked of everything from poisoning the minds of young American women to aiding and abetting global evildoers. While Haugen has presented herself as a “whistleblower” who risked it all to expose the secrets of the powerful, she was cultivated and legally represented by an organization led by former intelligence insiders with close ties to the US national security state. Called Whistleblower Aid, the outfit was founded by a national security lawyer, Mark Zaid, who has been accused of ratting out his client, CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, to his employers in Langley. Zaid is joined by a former State Department official and government-approved whistleblower, John Tye, ex-CIA and Pentagon official Andrew Bakaj, and veteran US government information warrior, Libby Liu, who has specialized in supporting color revolution-style operations against China. John Kiriakou, the CIA whistleblower jailed for exposing the agency’s role in the serial torture of terror suspects, commented to The Grayzone, “Mark Zaid presents himself to the public as a whistleblower attorney, however, he is anything but. Instead, he has betrayed his clients and come down on the side of prosecutors in the intelligence community. He is not to be trusted.” Kiriakou continued, “My own personal belief is that he is the intelligence community’s preferred ‘whistleblower’ attorney because he’s willing to place their interests over his clients.” Tech billionaire and media mogul Pierre Omidyar has provided funding to Whistleblower Aid, as well as to a public relations firm assisting Haugen. Omidyar has played his own role in US foreign interventionism, sponsoring anti-government media outlets and activists alongside US government agencies in states where Washington seeks regime change. Following the October 5 remarks by the “Facebook whistleblower,” Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection Chair Sen. Richard Blumenthal commended Haugen for her “courage” and “strength” in “standing up to one of the most powerful, implacable corporate giants in the history of the world.” For her part, Haugen claimed to have come forward with her testimony “at great personal risk.” However, Haugen is now set to meet with the oversight board at Facebook, suggesting the supposed underdog whistleblower had never been a threat to her former employer, and may have been colluding in a mutually beneficial operation. Haugen emphasized in her testimony that she “doesn’t want to break up” Facebook; she was merely looking for increased “content moderation” to root out “extremism” and “(mis/dis)information.” While the public has been led to believe that Haugen embarked on her censorious moral crusade all by herself, driven by nothing more than her own sense of indignation and desire to stamp out “misinformation,” her testimony tracked closely with a narrative that has emerged from the US national security state and which aims to prevent the flow of information from counter-hegemonic “bad actors.” The agenda was laid bare by Haugen herself, who claimed she worked alongside intelligence assets at a previously unknown Facebook “threat intelligence unit,” and made repeated reference to supposed malign activities by designated US enemies including Ethiopia, Myanmar, Western China and Iran.. As this report will reveal, Haugen appears to be little more than a tool in a far-reaching plan to increase the US national security state’s control over one of the world’s most popular social media platforms. “Facebook whistleblower” Frances Haugen in 2015 The making of a phony Facebook whistleblower Haugen first appeared in September 2021 as the supposed source of a leak called “The Facebook Files.” She was immediately hailed as a “modern US hero” in the media for secretly copying tens of thousands of internal Facebook documents and releasing them to the Wall Street Journal, which published a series of nine articles based on the documents. The WSJ initially kept its source anonymous, rolling out the series two weeks before Haugen came forward in an October 3 interview with 60 Minutes. On camera, she complained that Facebook was “tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.” “Ethnic violence including Myanmar in 2018 when the military used Facebook,” narrated 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, to “launch a genocide.” When pressed by 60 Minutes about what motivated her to leak the documents, Haugen answered vaguely: “at some point in 2021, I realized I’m going to have to do this in a systematic way and I have to get enough [so] that no one can question that this is real.” Yet Haugen first divulged company information before 2021. In the final installment of the Journal’s series, the outlet revealed that Haugen first sent an encrypted text to one of their reporters on December 3, 2020. That same article, published the day the 60 Minutes interview aired, reported that Haugen “continued gathering material from inside Facebook through her last hour with access to the system. She reached out to lawyers at Whistleblower Aid, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that represents people reporting corporate and government misbehavior.” Haugen’s resignation with Facebook was effective in March, but the precise day of her client-attorney relationship with Whistleblower Aid remains unknown. What is known is that it all came together quickly. John Tye, a founder and the Chief Disclosure Officer at Whistleblower Aid, told the New York Times that he agreed to represent Haugen “within a few minutes” of speaking with her. On October 5, Haugen testified at a Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection. But already she had “spoken to lawmakers in France and Britain, as well as a member of European Parliament,” according to the New York Times on October 3, the day her identity was revealed on 60 Minutes. The outlet added: “This month, she is scheduled to appear before a British parliamentary committee. That will be followed by stops at Web Summit, a technology conference in Lisbon, and in Brussels to meet with European policymakers in November,” citing Tye. Alongside Haguen’s big reveal came the launch of a new website and a new Twitter account, which was immediately verified. Haugen’s old Twitter account was locked when she went public and has since been deleted, while her old blog is no longer online. It is instructive to contrast Haugen’s overnight verification with the way Twitter has treated others who have furnished secret documents in order to expose wrongdoing by the elite – namely, the jailed Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, who never received verification from Twitter. During her opening remarks to Congress, Haugen weaved a narrative that tied the State Department’s interventionist agenda to the Democratic Party’s crusade for online censorship. She commented that “what we saw in Myanmar and are now seeing in Ethiopia are only the opening chapters of a story so terrifying no one wants to read the end of it.” Later, Haugen nodded her head in agreement as Sen. Dan Sullivan called Iran the biggest state sponsor or terrorism in the world and China a “communist party dictatorship” that is the most serious competitor to the US in the 21st century. Oddly, she made no mention of malign activity by any US ally or country that was not currently sanctioned by the US Department of State. At Facebook, Haugen claimed she worked as product manager on a “threat intelligence unit” at the company. “So I was a product manager supporting the counter-espionage team,” she claimed to Sen. Sullivan. Part of her job included “directly work[ing] on tracking Chinese participation on the platform,” she claimed. Further, she alleged that Iran used the platform to conduct “espionage” on the platform. “I’m speaking to other members of Congress about that,” Haugen acknowledged. “I have strong national security concerns about how Facebook operates today.” As journalist Kit Klarenberg reported, the little-known Facebook “threat intelligence unit” where Haugen claimed to have worked is staffed by former CIA, NSA, and Pentagon operatives. Those who work at the unit must have “5+ years of experience working in intelligence (either government or private sector), international geopolitical, cybersecurity, or human rights functions,” according to a job posting. Yet Haugen’s now-deleted blog and Twitter account feature no political content, nor does her resume. On Twitter, she frequently discussed taking Ambien and flirting with boys, while on her blog she wrote about cycling through Europe. Apart from a lecture she delivered on “The Intersection of Product Management and Gender,” and donations to the Democratic Party, she has shown little discernible interest in politics. So how did a certifiable normie with jobs at Google, Pinterest, Yelp! become an expert on Iran and China? The background of Haugen’s shady legal team suggests she has been cultivated, coached and deployed to complete Facebook’s transformation into a fully-controlled vehicle of US foreign policy imperatives, willing to de-rank or outright censor any views the US government deems “misinformation.” The best whistleblower outfit Pierre Omidyar’s money could buy Whistleblower Aid bills itself as “a pioneering, non-profit legal organization that helps patriotic government employees and brave, private-sector workers report and publicize their concerns — safely, lawfully, and responsibly.” But is this group truly the whistleblower protection outfit it claims to be? In fact, Whistleblower Aid appears to have been modeled as a sort of anti-Wikileaks organization. “Whistleblower Aid is not Wikileaks,” the “vision” page of the former organization insists. On another section of its website, it states, “No one should ever send classified information to Whistleblower Aid. Whistleblower Aid will never assist clients or prospective clients with leaking classified information.” Whistleblower Aid was launched with support from Ebay founder and billionaire media mogul Pierre Omidyar. Through his Luminate foundation, Omidyar lavished $150,000 on the organization, while funding a non-profit, the Center for Humane Technology, that works for the same PR firm that represents Haugen. Politico has portrayed Omidyar as a “tech critic,” suggesting his support for Haugen is motivated by his disgust at Facebook’s propagation of toxic content. However, as this journalist and Max Blumenthal reported, Omidyar’s political empire has functioned for years as a force multiplier for interventionist US initiatives. Over the past decade, Omidyar’s various non-profits have sponsored the establishment of a broadcast outlet, Hromadske, in Ukraine that drove the country’s 2014 coup, backed anti-government bloggers and activists in Zimbabwe, and funded anti-government media in the Philippines, including 2021 Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa. In each case, Omidyar’s beneficiaries were simultaneously sponsored by US government entities dedicated to advancing regime change. A further hint of Omidyar’s adjacency to US intelligence operations can be found in the 2018-2022 strategy plan of the billionaire’s Luminate foundation, which lists “counter[ing]” Russia and China & “provid[ing] critical support” to groups in “countries in transition” as top priorities. Whistleblower Aid rose to national prominence by representing the anonymous whistleblower who fueled the carefully confected Trump-Ukraine scandal that eventually led to former President Donald Trump’s impeachment. But Whistleblower Aid is more than a mere law firm. It also “prep[s] clients in order to be focused on how to answer questions properly,” Mark Zaid, the organizations’ founding legal partner, told Gizmodo. “We have media experts that we work with to guide folks with something as simple as, you know, where do you look when you’re talking to a camera or a host?” Zaid explained. “How do you best fluidly answer a question to come across in a positive way? Everything that might be connected to ensuring the individual’s image and substance are at their best.” “The US government’s ideal whistleblower” The rollout of the Frances Haugen story was methodical and lightning-paced, and clearly a collaborative effort. “I came forward at great personal risk because I believe we still have time to act,” Haugen told Congress. Sen. Blumenthal responded with a promise that Congress would protect her. But was any risk truly present? In Haugen’s first conversations with Whistleblower Aid founder and Chief Disclosure Officer John Tye, she asked him for “legal protection and a path to releasing the confidential information.” Zaid launched the group after serving as legal counsel for his co-founder, John Tye, when Tye supposedly “blew the whistle” on the State Department. Tye was recruited to the State Department by former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Michael Posner. Now a prominent “human rights” lawyer, Posner was tasked with providing counsel to a group of seven Israeli generals accused by the United Nations of war crimes following Operation Cast Lead, a three-week long massacre of 1,400 Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, Wikileaks revealed in its release of US diplomatic cables. Ironically, Posner was also charged with overseeing the State Department’s review of those cable leaks. Tye was named as the section chief for internet freedom under Posner at the State Department. But to understand Tye’s work at the State Department, it is necessary to revisit a speech from his former boss, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, delivered a year prior to Tye’s appointment at State, but nonetheless a blueprint for the kind of work the department was doing; attacking countries like Iran and China for “erect[ing] electronic barriers.” It was during Clinton’s campaign for “internet freedom,” which established Tye’s position, that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an arm of the State Department, developed ZunZuneo, a fake social media service marketed to Cubans. This information weapon was deployed by the US in a failed attempt to spur Cuban youths to launch street protests and destabilize Cuba’s socialist government. It was Tye’s job to travel around the world and push for “the open use of the internet, free from government interference and monitoring.” However, following Edward Snowden’s exposure of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency, Tye began working explicitly against the open exchange of information by collaborating with the agency on tactics to undermine the leaker. Around the same time, Tye learned about Executive Order 12333, which allows the NSA to collect information on American citizens outside of US borders. Tye “blew the whistle” in an op-ed at the Washington Post, allowing both the NSA and the State Department to review his disclosures before publishing. Neither made any changes to the policy. Prior to speaking with reporters about his disclosure, Tye made sure he had a witness present and promised that he would not be revealing any classified information. “If you hear something that sounds like I am talking about classified activities or NSA activities, I want to tell you right now you misheard what I said,” his disclaimer went. “The only reason why I ever got an NSA briefing was because we had to develop a response to Snowden’s leaks,” Tye told Ars Technica. “I never would have found out enough to file a complaint if it hadn’t been for those leaks.” He also enlisted the help of Mark Zaid “to help him navigate the lawful reporting process.” Despite being indebted to Snowden, and Snowden having actually been the first to expose how EO 12333 was “the wellspring of NSA’s collection of information,” Tye’s attorney, Zaid has repeatedly maligned Snowden. “Unlike Snowden, Tye will not offer up any examples of actual unlawful surveillance he learned about while working at the State Department. He’s honoring his secrecy agreements,” Zaid has said. Zaid, who has falsely accused Snowden of refusing to attempt to go through proper channels, argues that the best way to seek policy change is through official processes. And he has painted Tye as “a shining example of how a national security whistleblower should raise his concerns lawfully and give the system and public time to debate the concerns, rather than decide unilaterally as Snowden did…” Tye quickly emerged as a model for disclosing government secrets, with corporate media headlines describing him as “the US Government’s Ideal New Whistleblower” and “the kinder, gentler, and by-the-book whistleblower.” Just Security, a Democratic Party-oriented national security blog funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and featuring a board of insiders including Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, hailed Tye at the time as a “hero” on par with the late Senator John McCain. However, the site noted that “the jury is still out on whether Tye’s whistleblowing will lead to meaningful reforms.” At the time, Tye claimed he hoped to “see a public response to my complaint that describes what changes have been made.” Flash forward to September 16, 2021, and Just Security is still calling for reform to EO 12333. Indeed, Tye’s milquetoast brand of whistleblowing failed to result in any meaningful policy changes, though he did get some presidential lip service, commenting that “even President Obama has acknowledged that the issues raised since those disclosures have been important for our democracy.” Coincidentally, days before leaving office, Obama expanded Executive Order 12333, allowing the NSA to share the data it warrantlessly collected with other intelligence agencies without the requirement of a court order. It was this executive order which enabled the NSA to wiretap Trump’s incoming National Security Director Michael Flynn, and leak the contents of his phone call with Russia’s then-Ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak to the media. Despite the abject failure of Zaid’s preferred “lawful” method of whistleblowing, he and Tye would go on to form Whistleblower Aid, but not before leaving the State Department to work for another shady outfit that was knee deep in NATO interventionist operations. From July 2014 to July 2015, Tye served as the Legal Director and Campaign Director of Avaaz, a digital activist group and PR firm that helped drum up support for a no-fly zone in Libya, as Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal has reported. During Tye’s time with Avaaz, which received early financial backing from Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the organization pushed for a no-fly zone again, this time in Syria. Further, Avaaz helped spawn a PR organization called Purpose, which handled public relations for the USAID-funded and al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets organization in Syria. During the Arab Spring, Avaaz ponied up $1.5 million to “provide pro-democracy movements with ‘high-tech phones and satellite internet modems, connect them to the world’s top media outlets, and provide communications advice,’” according to the BBC. Avaaz has set up proxy servers in Iran to support the Iran’s Green Movement and orchestrated a “three mile human chain handshake from the Dalai Lama to the doors of the Chinese Embassy in London.” More recently, the organization sponsored a rally demanding an investigation on Capitol Hill in response to the Wall Street Journal’s “Facebook Files” series, which featured Haugen as its source. Shortly before leaving Avaaz, Tye responded to criticism of the billionaire-backed group’s advocacy for a no-fly zone, writing “thousands and thousands of people will die, for years to come, if we turn away and wring our hands.” Like his former client-turned-legal partner, Mark Zaid has clamored for ramped up US intervention in Syria, tweeting to then-President Trump “what are you going to do about Syria? It’s your problem now, We can’t stand by and let innocent people continue to be slaughtered.” Whistleblower Aid, or whistleblowers played? Early in Zaid’s legal career, he “helped lobby Congress to change the law so the Libyan government could be sued for its secret plot to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.” Since then, he has built a reputation around representing whistleblowers, though he is now “representing many of the federal officials who have been afflicted with the mysterious symptoms known as Havana syndrome.” While Mark Zaid may earn the most corporate media ink of any lawyer specializing in supposed whistleblower cases in the US, he is also one of the most vitriolic antagonists of those who blew the whistle without official consent. Regarding Edward Snowden, Zaid has tweeted that the exiled whistleblower “in no way deserves a pardon.” Zaid believes that only those who have exposed wrongdoing dutifully within an organizational infrastructure deserve to be designated as whistleblowers. If they have attempted to do so but found themselves stonewalled, and took their information to the media, in his view, that action classifies them as a traitor guilty of espionage. Thus according to Zaid, Snowden is not a whistleblower, nor is Julian Assange a journalist. Zaid celebrated the June 2020 superseding indictment of Assange by the Department of Justice as “a message to those who want to undermine US national security that you will be pursued.” Even Reality Winner, whose leak of classified information was spun by the media to advance the discredited narrative of Russian collusion with President Donald Trump – whom Zaid has attacked and even sued – is also not a whistleblower, Zaid argued in the Washington Post. While Zaid has made his feelings clear towards those who leak classified information through “improper” channels, he has faced harsh criticism for his handling of the case of one of his former clients, CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling. “WikiLeaks is aware, from those directly involved, of serious allegations that Mark S. Zaid revealed one of his clients to the CIA. The client was later imprisoned,” WikiLeaks has tweeted. CIA torture whistleblower John Kiriakou has written of Zaid: “Any friend or advocate of rats and snitches is no friend of whistleblowers.” Whistleblower Thomas Drake has raised similar concerns, pointing in 2015 to transcripts detailing FBI special agent Ashley Hunt’s comments during the trial of Jeffrey Sterling. “The CIA advised that on February 24, 2003, it was contacted by Mark Zaid and Roy Krieger,” Hunt told the court. “They told the CIA on February 24 that a client of theirs had contacted them on February 21, 2003, and that that client, that unnamed client at the time, voiced his concerns about an operation that was nuclear in nature, and he threatened to go to the media.” Additionally, the FBI served Zaid with a subpoena compelling him to testify in the case of his former client, Sterling. Zaid has claimed that he did not breach attorney-client privilege at any time and called FBI agent Ashley Hunt’s testimony “hearsay.” Sterling declined to comment to The Grayzone about Zaid’s performance as his lawyer, and whether he played a role in his prosecution. “With no intention of stating an opinion one way or another, I will not comment on Mr. Zaid or his representation,” Sterling stated. “All the Disney one needs and wants to be” While Zaid maintains utmost hostility towards those who leak classified information, even refusing to work with them, he has no moral qualms about getting security clearances for “guys who had child porn issues.” Zaid also has a special place in his heart for Disney and potentially “Disney girls.” An archived version of a YouTube channel which appears to belong to him shows that he ‘liked’ videos including “Top 10 prettiest disney channel stars” and “Top 10 Disney Girls.” While Tye and Zaid’s records raise serious questions about their commitment to protecting whistleblowers at genuine risk of high-level retaliation, they are not the only staffers at Whistleblower Aid with close ties to the US national security state. Whistleblower Aid CEO Libby Liu details how she is “fighting against the Chinese government” The spooks at Whistleblower Aid’s door At almost the same time that Haugen began working with Whistleblower Aid in the Spring of this year, the organization took on a new CEO named Libby Liu. Liu previously served as CEO of Open Technology Fund (OTF), which was established by the CIA-founded propaganda outlet Radio Free Asia as part of Hillary Clinton’s “internet freedom” campaign. Prior to her role at OTF, Liu served as President of Radio Free Asia for over 14 years. The Radio Free Asia website credits Liu herself with creating the Open Technology Fund. In addition to pumping millions of dollars into projects like Tor and Signal, the Open Technology Fund boasts that “more than two-thirds of all mobile users globally have technology incubated by OTF on their device.” Moreover, OTF claims it “has investigated and exposed apps used for repressive surveillance throughout China, including tools used by the government to target religious minority Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province.” OTF helped fund the 2019 protests and riots in Hong Kong “to provide fast relief for civil society groups, protesters, journalists and human rights defenders who have come under digital attack.” Having helped rioters who invaded and ransacked Hong Kong’s parliament to evade censorship, Liu is now working with a legal firm representing a client that will meet with the Congressional committee investigating the January 6 “insurrection” – undoubtedly to bolster the case for more internet censorship. Another key figure at Whistleblower Aid is Andrew Bakaj. Like John Tye and Mark Zaid, Bakaj is not only representing Haugen, but promoting her in the media as well. Bakaj also happens to be a former CIA officer and criminal investigator at the Department of Defense. Since leaving the agency, he has teamed up with his former attorney, Mark Zaid, and taken on similar cases including the “Ukraine whistleblower” and “State Department officials impacted by ‘Havana Syndrome.’” On Twitter, Bakaj mocked Julian Assange as he took refuge inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, taunting him to “step outside” and get some Vitamin D. Behind the carefully confected image of Frances Haugen as a courageous whistleblower, the stated views and questionable record of her legal team at Whistleblower Aid suggest she is little more than pawn in a much more far-reaching game aimed at enhancing the national security state’s already substantial power over social media. Reprinted with permission from The Greyzone. Support The Greyzone here. Facebook ‘whistleblower’ Frances Haugen represented by a coterie of US intelligence insiders Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity Neoconservatives—like Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (“The One Foreign Base Biden Should Abandon”)—haven’t gotten over President Joe Biden’s withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. But Rubin is also upset that “the Biden administration is determined to hold on to the one base that America should have abandoned a decade ago.” This is Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. Rubin maintains that during the Cold War, Incirlik was crucial. But even though “the base supported U-2 surveillance flights, US operations during the 1958 Lebanon crisis, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, and, most recently, the fight against the Taliban,” Incirlik—which “also hosts approximately 50 nuclear weapons”—is “now a strategic liability” instead of “a strategic asset.” Turkey “is as much an enemy as an ally.” President Erdogan cannot be trusted. “Every American serviceman, contractor, and family at Incirlik are potential hostages.” “Incirlik now risks a repeat of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.” An American “departure from Incirlik” would not “affect US operations.” The United States should use the “Mihail Kogalniceanu air base in Romania” or the “Souda Bay Naval Base” in Greece. It would not be “irresponsible” to leave “an obsolete base.” Rubin is right. The United States needs to “end the US military presence in Turkey.” But here is a better idea: Why not abandon all foreign bases? According to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Base Structure Report: “The DoD manages a worldwide real property portfolio that spans all 50 states, 8 US territories with outlying areas, and 45 foreign countries. The majority of these foreign sites are located in Germany (194 sites), Japan (121 sites), and South Korea (83 sites).” Incredibly, the DOD is “one of the Federal government’s larger holders of real estate managing a global real property portfolio that consists of over 585,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on 4,775 sites worldwide and covering approximately 26.9 million acres.” The DOD has acknowledged the existence of about 800 US military bases in 80 countries, but we know from the work of Nick Turse, David Vine, and the late Chalmers Johnson that that number could be over 1,000. The United States has about 95 percent of the world’s foreign military bases. “Red” China has just one. There are also about 175,000 active duty US troops overseas in over 170 countries and territories. World War II ended in 1945, and yet the United States still maintains tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan. Why not abandon all foreign military bases, bring all of the troops home (not just the ones in Afghanistan), and stop policing the world? And while we’re at it, turn over all of the DOD golf courses in Japan to the Japanese. The US global empire of bases and troops is unnecessary to the defense of the United States, a global force for evil, and a drain on US taxpayers. It’s only purpose is to carry out an imperialistic, militaristic, reckless, belligerent, and meddling US foreign policy that is not in the interest of the American people. Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com. Why Not Abandon All Foreign Bases? Click on the headline to read the full story from
Nuclear scientists dismissed. First responders booted. Doctors and nurses axed. Pilots put on leave. And Biden's "mandate" has not even been promulgated by OSHA. The country is being ripped apart...and that may be just what they want. Meanwhile, Biden's numbers continue an express elevator downward. What's the end game? Watch today's Liberty Report: Biden's Mad Mandate Is Ripping The Country To Shreds Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity US chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci has declared American families may spend the holidays together – as long as they’re vaccinated. But who gave him the authority to decide, and why are people still listening to him anyway? “If you’re vaccinated and your family members are vaccinated … you can enjoy the holidays,” the self-styled Coronavirus Pope magnanimously declared on Sunday, in an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz. “You can enjoy Halloween trick-or-treating and certainly Thanksgiving with your family and Christmas with your family.” How thoughtful of him! But the good doctor didn’t give his approval unbidden – it was Raddatz, sporting a furrowed brow, who solicited his opinion about whether Americans would be permitted to see their families. Who, besides those TV talking heads tasked with pantomiming obedience, was actually waiting for Fauci’s sign-off for permission to enjoy Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Halloween with their families? Surely Americans, known for their independent streak, are more than capable of deciding who they’re going to spend their holidays with? After 18 months mired in a perverse game of ‘Simon says’ with health authorities, though, it’s not clear at all that Americans remain capable of making their own decisions. The complex behavioral codes of stand-up-mask-up to sit-down-mask-off (except between bites) – and don’t forget to show your vaccination papers at the door! – that now govern public behavior in places such as New York City have highlighted the superstar rule-obeyers, while the independent-minded who were once admired are now ignored and slandered. Only in the world of advertising is it still OK to “Think different” – for the rest of us, there’s a mask for that. Even as the nation has begun to lose faith in Pope Fauci, virus wrangler (and alleged perjurer) extraordinaire, the spot where he until recently sat in the collective unconscious, doling out contradictory advice about masks and herd immunity, remains vacant for many. Nature abhors a vacuum, and a year-and-a-half of focused training in learned helplessness is hard to shake off. But that Big Brother-shaped hole in the modern American mind isn’t exactly new – it has its parallels in Dark Ages-era religious terror, the fear-driven domain of illiterate peasants forced to rely on a priest class tasked with holding all the knowledge the people can’t be trusted to read themselves. The white-coated doctor stands in for the elaborately garbed cleric, prescribing the word of a Pharmaceutical God to those desperately seeking guidance but unable to read the ‘scriptures.’ Those holy books have since been replaced by scientific studies, which, as Forbes magazine reminds us, are hopelessly beyond our ken. Indeed, forget doing your own research, because attempting to read such texts at all “could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.” Luckily for those who’ve become addicted to obedience, a seemingly endless series of Covid-19 booster shots appears to be stretching out ahead of them, which they may receive gracefully every few months in the same way more traditional religious practitioners might take communion. But abdicating responsibility for the contents of their veins to the Higher Power for whom Pope Fauci speaks is not enough to keep the rule-obeyers’ neuroses soothed. One can hardly take a vaccine every day, and not everyone has the conviction to post increasingly unhinged video auditions for the insane asylum, haranguing the unvaccinated for being “afraid” of the shot or demanding they be locked in their homes as daily proof of faith. Indeed, such displays make obedience itself look less than palatable, and just as faith in Fauci is flagging, so is support for his media henchmen and their increasingly unseemly demands for the genocide of the unvaxed. The only cure? More rules to obey, of course. The combination of virus fatigue and the rise of ‘snitch culture’ have translated to a bonanza for scammers and scumbags of all stripes – not just those who work for the government. The Internal Revenue Service has vowed to paw through any and all transactions above $600 in value (luckily, most Americans can’t even pull together that sum for an emergency). Even banks call this new rule a “privacy breach waiting to happen,” citing frequent cyberattacks against the bureau. And if there’s anything left after the taxman and the hackers have had their way with your bank account, it’s been a banner year for phone scammers, as lonely and listless Americans are apparently willing to offer up their credit card and social security numbers to anyone who calls them up with a half-coherent scheme. One popular tactic is the “grandparent” scam, in which the scammer calls up their elderly victim pretending to be that person’s grandchild in trouble with the law and in need of some quick cash. Thanks to Covid-sponsored isolation of the elderly, Grandma or Grandpa probably hasn’t seen their relative in some time, making it easier for these rip-off artists to ply their trade. For those who prefer to spend their rule-obeying time online, Facebook is building out a permanent prison state – er, virtual playground – called the Metaverse, in which all dissident thought will be exiled on pain of deplatforming. Never more will you have to unplug and face a frightening reality governed only by the laws of physics (and sometimes, not even those) – Facebook’s ever-growing list of forbidden thoughts will keep even the most rebellious minds in line, especially when the time comes to start implanting thought-interrupting technology into the brain itself. Supposedly designed to disrupt depressive thought patterns, the latest and greatest in brain implants could eventually make rule-obeyers of us all, particularly those so desperate to become true believers that they’d gladly drown that little voice of critical thinking underneath all the propaganda they’ve imbibed. And if the ruling class can convince us to embrace the injection of questionable compounds into our bloodstreams, they’re hardly going to be deterred by a little bit of bone and skin separating them from the hunk of grey matter that’s the real prize for those bent on thought control. Is it possible to restore a sense of independence to a population that has voluntarily given theirs up out of fear of a virus with a 99%-plus survival rate, elevated an ill-tempered publicity hound to messiah status, and attempted to strip any and all of those who object of their professional credentials? Only time will tell, but meanwhile, if you find yourself waiting obediently for the man in the white coat to give you the green light to continue living your life, you might be a member of a doomsday cult. Reprinted with permission from RT. Mother, may I? Americans have lost their spines if they need Fauci’s blessing to gather for the holidays Click on the headline to read the full story from
The death this week of former Secretary of State Colin Powell reminds us of his ignoble role in selling the lies that led to the destruction of Iraq and a million deaths. It was one big lie, but the empire itself is built upon lies. Also today: Nebraska allows virus treatment drugs to be prescribed, Chicago mayor warns of an "insurrection" by the police, and Americans confirm they are sick of government. Watch today's Liberty Report: Colin Powell And The Empire Of Lies Click on the headline to read the full story from “It’s not necessary to censor the news, it’s sufficient to delay the news until it no longer matters,” Napoleon Bonaparte reportedly said. The same standard helps explain why Washington politicians and federal agencies usually get away with covering up their lies and abuses. Many people assume that unless the government actively censors, people will learn what the government has done. But most government cover-ups succeed. Daniel Ellsberg, who risked life in prison to leak the Pentagon Papers, related in his 2002 memoirs: “It is a commonplace that ‘you can’t keep secrets in Washington’ or ‘in a democracy’…. These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.” Cover-ups succeed because people defer to promises by government officials to investigate themselves. This was how the Nixon-era Pentagon buried scores of Vietnam atrocities even after confirming the carnage. After the My Lai controversy exploded, many US soldiers reported other atrocities to the Pentagon. Nine thousand pages of documents were compiled confirming more than 300 war crimes, including seven other massacres of civilians by US troops. David Hackworth, a retired colonel and the most decorated officer in the Army, later commented, ‘’Vietnam was an atrocity from the get-go…. There were hundreds of My Lais. You got your card punched by the numbers of bodies you counted.’’ American soldiers faced more legal perils for reporting than for committing atrocities. Nixon a mastermind of cover-ups Nixon gave the order: “Get the Army off the front page.” Col. Jared Schopper, in charge of the war crimes files at the Pentagon in the early 1970s, later explained: “The only way to get them [articles on atrocities] off the front page is to say they are founded and appropriate action was taken, or that they are unfounded and propaganda tools.” But the “appropriate action” usually meant simply burying the case regardless of how much evidence existed of war crimes. As long as the government claimed to be investigating an alleged atrocity, the media downplayed the story. While the media deferred, the Nixon administration aggressively slandered critics. In early 1971, former Navy officer John Kerry electrified the media with testimony that American soldiers in Vietnam had committed a wide array of grisly atrocities. Even though the Pentagon quickly provided confidential information to the White House confirming Kerry’s charges, “the Nixon administration went ahead with an aggressive backroom campaign to discredit as fabricators and traitors Kerry and other veterans who spoke out about war crimes,” as Deborah Nelson, the author of The War Behind Me, noted in 2008. The Nixon cover-up of Vietnam atrocities played a role in the 2004 presidential election. After the Democrats nominated Sen. Kerry, a group known as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” sprang up to, in its own words, “counter the false ‘war crimes’ charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans.” The group savagely attacked Kerry in a series of ads. Kerry suffered far more political damage than he would have if the Pentagon had not succeeded in burying the evidence of the vast majority of Vietnam war crimes. Bush’s cover-ups The George W. Bush administration used similar charades to stifle the scandal over its worldwide torture regime. The only thing necessary for a successful cover-up was for the president first to continually proclaim that everything will be investigated, and then, months later, to proclaim that everything has already been investigated. A year after the first photos from Abu Ghraib leaked out, Bush declared: “There have been over, I think, nine investigations, eight or nine investigations by independent investigators that have made the reports very public.” In reality, none of the investigations had been independent, and none of the reports were available in full to the public. Most of the investigations were based on the prior reports, which themselves did little or no honest digging. Yet, the Bush administration created the impression that anyone who refused to accept the good faith of the government’s self-investigations was acting in bad faith. George Orwell made the official fabrication and rewriting of history the occupation of the main character in 1984. But nowadays, there is no need for a bureaucracy to rewrite history. Newspaper stories are “the first draft of history,” and the US government routinely dictates the copy. If worse comes to worse, the military can simply delete photographs revealing too many victims. The media as handmaiden to the state The media elite happily plays lap dogs to the war machine. CNN chief Walter Isaacson explained: “Especially right after 9/11…. There was a real sense that you don’t get that critical of a government that’s leading us in war time.” Elisabeth Bumiller, the New York Times correspondent for the White House, explained why reporters did not ask tough questions at a Bush press conference just before he attacked Iraq: “It’s frightening to stand up there. Nobody wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.” The Washington Post blocked or buried pre-war articles exposing the holes in the Bush team’s assertions on Iraq. Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks explained: “There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’” Jim Lehrer, the host of government-subsidized PBS’s Newshour, explained his timidity in 2004: “It would have been difficult to have had debates [about invading Iraq] … you’d have had to have gone against the grain.” The illusion that the media is independent makes its groveling more subversive to citizens’ understanding. After he launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush perennially proclaimed that the United States had given freedom to 25 million Iraqis. Thus, any Iraqi civilians killed by US forces were both statistically and morally inconsequential. And the vast majority of the news coverage left out the asterisks. A 2005 American University survey of hundreds of journalists who covered Iraq concluded: “Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war.” Individual journalists commented:
- “In general, coverage downplayed civilian casualties and promoted a pro-US viewpoint. No US media show abuses by US military carried out on regular basis.”
- “Friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans, and no reference made to possible mistakes involving civilians.”
- “The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted.”
A 2008 New York Times article noted that “After five years and more than 4,000 US combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead US soldiers.” Veteran photographers who posted shots of wounded or dead US soldiers were quickly booted out of Iraq. The Times noted that Iraqi “detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the US Defense Department, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.” Privacy was the only “right” the Pentagon pretended to respect — since the vast majority of detainees received little or no due process. Cover-ups succeed because it is easier to recite official denials than to unearth official crimes. The Washington media takes its reality from the government. The Washington media’s idea of “factual reporting” is telling people what the government told them. Quoting a government official carries its own absolution. For the media, the official exonerates the falsehood almost every time. Controversial news that lacks a government seal of approval is often treated as scurrilous — or at least unfit for family newspapers. Pulitzer Prize–winning Associated Press correspondent Charles Hanley wrote about the US use of torture in Iraq six months before the Abu Ghraib story broke. Hanley later explained why his expose was almost completely ignored: “It was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source.” How craven was the media during the Iraq war? In 2008, the New York Times revealed how the Pentagon created a cadre of 75 retired officers who, in return for confidential briefings and flattery from top officials, would appear on TV and repeat Pentagon talking points — without admitting the source. The result was “a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.” Former Green Beret officer Robert Bevelacqua described the process: “It was [the Bush administration] saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.”’ Another retired officer described the whole process as “psy-ops on steroids.” The Times noted: “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” Some of the commentators received lavish government contracts after gushing praise over the Pentagon’s policies. Even though the networks made no effort to screen their “experts” for brazen conflicts of interest, they denied they had done anything wrong. Truth awards no licenses or regulatory exemptions. As former CBS news anchor Dan Rather explained in 2007: “Fear is in every newsroom in the country … fear … if you don’t go along to get along, you’re going to get the reputation of being a troublemaker. There’s also the fear that, particularly in [television] networks, they’ve become huge, international conglomerates. They have big needs, legislative needs, repertory needs in Washington. Nobody has to send you a memo to tell you that’s the case.” The networks became wealthy because of government preferences — they received scores of billions of dollars’ worth of scarce broadcast spectrum gratis. The fact that the airwaves were a gift leaves the recipient dependent on government. Rather’s CBS colleague Eric Sevareid made the same point years earlier: “The bigger the information media, the less courage and information they allow. Bigness means weakness.” A government cover-up succeeds if it dissipates the outrage. Politicians routinely use controlled leaks of damaging information to blunt the impact of a government abuse or debacle. They choose a friendly media source who will frame the issue to their liking. A few embarrassing details leaking out is no substitute for the smoking gun. Coverups often aim to focus wrath on specific tidbits or people — and avoid or stifle fundamental questions about government powers. After the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the firing of the head of FEMA chief Michael Brown (“Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job!” President George W. Bush publicly declared) ensured that the heat would be greatly decreased on FEMA itself. As long as the media uses a government-provided template, politicians have little to fear from the press. Information on government abuses is not self-propelled. If it were, political history would be radically different. The same people who wield power usually also determine what information is released. Politicians and pundits talk as if there is some divine law of democracy assuring that “truth will out.” In reality, the issue of whether truth will out is no different than any other political conflict. Government lying is not simply a result of character defects in politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats. Instead, it is often the result of a systemic bias against admitting systemic failures. The larger government becomes, the more the deck is stacked against honesty in public affairs. People in government and in power have far more tools and stronger incentives to deceive than the average citizen’s incentive and ability to discover the truth. This is not a problem that can be solved by finger-wagging or moralistic lectures calling for politicians to repent. As philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, “the lie did not creep into politics by some accident of human sinfulness; moral outrage, for this reason alone, is not likely to make it disappear.” But things will be different now that Joe Biden is president, right? Unfortunately, the media continues celebrating his election victory by ignoring almost all his falsehoods and failures. The mere fact that Biden is not Donald Trump will likely continue to give him a free pass from the media for at least another six months. Or maybe cold, hard reality will never catch up with the most media-beloved president since Barack Obama. Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation. Why Government Cover-Ups Succeed Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity Joe Biden’s China policy is unnecessarily adversarial. It is impractical and dangerous. It plays out as if US foreign policy is run by WWII reenactors. China was artificially reimagined as an enemy-in-a-box as the wars of terror sputtered out and America needed a new Bond villian. Biden envisions China as an autocratic foe for democracy to wage a global struggle against. “On my watch,” Joe said, “China will not achieve its goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world.” Biden went on to claim the world was at an inflection point to determine “whether or not democracy can function in the 21st century.” In Biden’s neo-Churchillian view, the US and what the hell, the whole free world he believes he is president of, are in a death match with China for global hearts and minds. One problem in this world view is the unbelievable hypocrisy underlying America’s claimed role. Biden seems oblivious the US mows down Muslims by drone and cluster bomb even while it self-righteously tsk tsks China for bullying its Uighur minority. After our two decade hissy fit of invasions and nation building brought kleptocracies and terrorists to lead countries, we dare bark that China is not democratic. We seem not to notice our lack of clothing when we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with petty tyrants and dictators strewn around Africa and the Middle East. We see no issues demanding democracy in Hong Kong while ignoring its weakening across the United States (never mind not having had much to say about democracy in Hong Kong when it was a British colony stolen by war from Chinese sovereignty.) A pretty weak resume when you’re aiming at Leader of the Free World. Apart from sheer hypocrisy, there are other reasons to wonder how China ended up America’s sworn enemy for Cold War 2.0. The relationship otherwise does not look much like that of our old nemesis, the Soviet Union. The Russkies had a nasty habit of rolling tanks across borders, as of course does the US Sometimes it was even the same country — how’d that Afghanistan thing work out? In contrast is the utter lack of countries China has invaded since WWII. Unlike the wheezing old Soviet economy, China is the world’s second largest economy, and one deeply tied, integrated, and in a symbiotic relationship with the US China is the second largest foreign holder of US government debt just behind Japan, with massive investments across the board inside the United States. Not counting Hunter Biden (we kid) the total Chinese investment in the US economy is over $145 billion. The Cold War joke, countries with a McDonald’s never made war on each other, seems under revision. The Chinese are literally betting the house on America succeeding. Meanwhile, US investment in China has passed $1 trillion. As we learned when Covid briefly shut down world logistics, the American economy is voluntarily dependent on Chinese manufacturing and vice-versa. With all this co-dependent commerce it is also increasingly unclear what we have to fight about, and what we have to gain in picking a fight. About the best the war influencers can come up with are lurid predictions that Chinese investments are a secret tool to control the US (as opposed to any other investors [Jeff Bezos, cough cough] domestic or foreign, yeah right.) They claim “someday” China will “weaponize” its investments and harm the US Left unexplained is how China would need to take a $1.1 trillion bath on its Treasuries alone, never mind slamming closed its largest export market and having to find a way to use unfinished iPhones as a food source. So why the lust for a new Cold War? The problem Biden faces on China, and everywhere else really, is the biggest player in today’s foreign affairs is the military. In many parts of the world (particularly Asia and Africa) the combatant commanders are putative epicenters for security, diplomatic, humanitarian, and commercial affairs. One reason is range: unlike ambassadors, whose budget and influence are confined to single countries, combatant commanders’ reach is continental. Unlike the White House, whose focus is ever-shifting, the military has the interest and manpower to stick around everywhere. Colonels grow up to be generals. Generals outlast administrations. The military has written America’s adversarial China policy. Following the old Cold War playbook, the goal seems to crank up tensions and exaggerate threats until confrontation looks inevitable but never really happens. Here’s how that plan recently exposed itself with China. Australia just ditched a $66 billion contract for French diesel-electric submarines to instead buy US nuclear-powered submarines. This is alongside a new alliance which will also see Australia, the US, and the United Kingdom share advanced technologies. The genesis was the US military’s muscular diplomacy, ramping up for a war with China they hope will power their budgets for decades. A side deal with Britain to station its newest aircraft carriers in Asia was certainly part of the package. This brings both the British and the Australians, nuclearized, into the South China Sea in force. An arms salesman just wrote Biden’s China policy. For what? China fusses with its neighbors over ownership of a handful of islands in the neighborhood, hardly worth risking total nuclear war over. See, it’s the nukes that rule out another Falklands. Even so, the US can’t help but contribute to the saber rattling. The White House recently announced the existing US-Japan security treaty now extends to the disputed Senkaku islands and the Philippines security treaty covers Manila’s claims to Chinese-occupied islets in the South China Sea. Flashback: once upon a time it was the Soviets who were supposed to invade disputed islands held by Japan. Never did. China and Taiwan make sport out of lofting rhetoric at each other, all the while maintaining a robust economic relationship that defines modus vivendi. Between 1991 and March 2020, Taiwan’s investment in China totaled $188.5 billion, more than China’s investment in the United States. In 2019, the value of cross-strait trade was $149.2 billion. Pre-Covid travelers from China made 2.68 million visits to Taiwan. China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner. What incentive would China have to drop bombs on one of its best customers? Um, how about… none? As they say, follow the money. The money leads toward rapprochement, right under America’s nose. Barack Obama sought the economic isolation of China. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a 2016 proposed trade agreement among most everyone in Asia except China. Trump withdrew the US from TPP in 2017. In 2018 the remaining countries negotiated a new consolation prize-like agreement called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership which meant little without the participation of economic superpowers US and China. Yet while Biden has made no moves to bring the US back into the play, and has kept Trump’s tariffs in place against China, Chinese diplomats have been busy beavers. In an end run timed to mock the American submarine deal with Australia, China applied in September to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. A week later, with no opposition voiced by Beijing, Taiwan applied to join as well. Radio silence on both applications from Washington, who, as a non-participant in the group, doesn’t even have a vote on the matter. And Biden has made clear he has no plans to join in the future. Ironically, the genesis of all this, the Obama TPP, was designed to force China at dollar-point to reform itself and be More Like Us. Who is it now that seems to be setting the rules of today’s international system in both trade and diplomacy? China is offering favorable access to its lucrative market to diplomatically influence the alliance on its own terms. All the US has to offer its allies is a subordinate and expensive role in a new Cold War. Where is the State Department? Nine months into his administration Biden still does not have an ambassador in Beijing, leaving China policy in caretaker hands. His nominee for ambassador, Nick Burns, is an old State Department hack, having made a career by bending over backwards in both directions as administrations changed. Coming out of a spokesmodel-type retirement university job, Burns will be read by Beijing, if he ever gets there, as a placeholder, a political crony handed a sweet, mostly ceremonial, final job. Elsewhere, Beijing seeks to make friends with its “belt and road” trade and investment initiative in Asia. If the America’s Afghan War had any winners, it’s probably the Chinese, who found some common ground with the Taliban (look it up, it’s called diplomacy, often done even with your enemies) and thus potential access to their vast mineral resources. American businesses meanwhile demand from Biden’s deaf ears he clarify the economic relationship with China. While Biden passively allows the military to prepare for war under the sea, China is winning in the competition over our heads in a game Biden does not seem to even know exists. American foreign policy credibility and its confrontational strategy has been shown to be a farce. America is still a big, mean dog, but our ability to influence events around the world is limited to barking and biting and only works when barking and biting is the solution. When anything beyond threats is needed, say when dealing with near-peers like China, we have few if any tools but to reimagine legitimate competitors into enemies. Our policy toward China, like our president, is a failed artifact from another era. Reprinted with permission from We Meant Well. Biden’s China Policy is Dangerous Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity
Fauci made the mainstream media rounds again over the weekend, this time "granting his permission" for Americans to celebrate Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas...but only if they are vaccinated. Will Americans continue to heed his demands? Also today: California's public workers are not vaccinated, Colin Powell passes from Covid, and new footage from the "insurrection..." Watch today's Liberty Report: Fauci To Americans: 'Enjoy Christmas...If You're Vaccinated!' Click on the headline to read the full story from NBA Player Says COVID Vaccine Caused Blood Clots But Team Officials Told Him to Keep Quiet10/18/2021 In the midst of the standoff between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and Kyrie Irving — who’s been banned from practicing or playing with the Brooklyn Nets until he gets vaccinated — another player has sounded the alarm on how the COVID vaccine ended his season last year, and how his team officials attempted to cover up the blood clots he suffered from the shot. Brandon Goodwin, former point guard with the Atlanta Hawks — who on Thursday signed a new contract with the New York Knicks — in May pulled out for the season for what was described as a “minor” respiratory condition. “Atlanta Hawks backup guard Brandon Goodwin will miss the NBA playoffs after being diagnosed with a respiratory condition,” the Associated Press reported May 18. “While the team described the condition as minor, it will require treatment and keep Goodwin out for the remainder of the season.” Nothing else was known about the “minor” condition until Sept. 29, when Goodwin disclosed on the video-streaming website Twitch that his minor condition was blood clots, which he said developed after he got the vaccine. Goodwin said during an Oct. 3 Twitch stream: I got sick, then I never recovered from it. I would always have back pain. I was just super tired in the games, like when we played Philly [Apr. 28-30] back to back. Bro, I was so tired, like I couldn’t run up and down the court. Then we went home, that’s when my back really started hurting bad. Then I’m like I have to go to the doctor, that’s when I found out I had blood clots.Goodwin said the symptoms “all happened in the span of a month” after getting vaccinated. “I was fine up until then, up until I took the vaccine,” Goodwin said. “I was fine. So people trying to tell you it’s not the vaccine, how do you know? You don’t know. Yes, the vaccine ended my season, one thousand percent.” Goodwin expressed no animosity toward the Hawks, but did express some confusion about how they handled his hospitalization. “Nothing against the Hawks, but they called me the next day while I was in the hospital and told me, ‘We’re going to tell the press your season’s over,’” he said. Goodwin said the team asked him to keep quiet about his condition, which explains why the public is only now learning that the so-called “minor” condition was blood clots. “They just, like, don’t say anything about it. Don’t tell nobody. I’m like, bro … ,” Goodwin revealed in the video. Fair use excerpt. Read the whole article here. NBA Player Says COVID Vaccine Caused Blood Clots, But Team Officials Told Him to ‘Keep Quiet’ Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity |
Ron Paul
|