![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/ron-paul-lecture-thin-600-fade_orig.png)
![](https://www.soonerpolitics.org/uploads/1/6/2/2/16224166/909268956_orig.gif)
BIden's Euro-trip and The Washington War Machine. RPI's Daniel McAdams Interivewed
Click on the headline to read the full story from
![]() ![]() BIden's Euro-trip and The Washington War Machine. RPI's Daniel McAdams Interivewed Click on the headline to read the full story from
0 Comments
![]() ![]() ![]() The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will hold an “emergency meeting” of advisers to talk about the higher-than-expected numbers of young men who’ve experienced heart inflammation after taking doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against coronavirus. Shh! That is, after taking doses of the entirely experimental, never-before-approved-for-use-in-any-disease mRNA vaccines against coronavirus. Remember, these vaccines are labeled “emergency use authorization” for a reason. And that reason is the side effects, both short-term and long-term, and most definitely longest-haul-term, are completely unknown. That means those who take the vaccine are taking one for the government. They’re taking a chance that the government is giving them chemicals that help, not harm. They’re trusting that when the bureaucrats in the government say they’re here to help, that they’re honestly, truly, irrefutably and undeniably, cross-their-fingers-hope-to-die here to help. Blood clots? What blood clots? “The Johnson & Johnson Vaccine and Blood Clots: What You Need to Know,” Yale Medicine wrote in April, around the time Johnson & Johnson had to take a “pause,” as it was oh-so-kindly called, in its delivery of its one-shot COVID vaccine because of health problems that came on the heels of its injection. What health problems? “[The pause came] after six women who received it developed rare blood clots — and one woman died,” Yale Medicine explained. Oh. Those health problems. Those blood clots. And just so we’re clear: J&J got its vaccine production OK back from the government. “[On] April 23, the Food and Drug Administration ended its recommended pause on the vaccine and will add a warning label about an uncommon, but potentially serious, blood clotting disorder,” Yale Medicine wrote. That’s called CYA. Cover Your — you know. Just in case any more people die after the Johnson & Johnson shot, the FDA can say, hey, we warned ya! Now comes this: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced … it will convene an ‘emergency meeting’ of its advisers on June 18th to discuss rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Modern COVID-19 vaccines. So far, the CDC has identified 226 reports that might meet the agency’s ‘working case definition’ of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, the agency disclosed. … The vast majority have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized and 3 are in the intensive care unit,” CBS reported. Emergency use authorizations are grand. Aren’t they? They mean zero accountability for government. But at least the CDC’s gonna hold a meeting to discuss. There is that. Fox reported that the agency’s actually received 275 reports of heart inflammation possibly tied to the vaccines. Of course, these are teeny numbers of cases when compared to the 130 million or so in America who’ve already been shot up with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. But the tragedy with this potential side effect is that the 275 reports of heart inflammation Fox wrote that the CDC’s received since May 31 have all come from patients between the ages of 16 and 24. Specifically, from young males between the ages of 16 and 24. The very ages who don’t get harmed by the coronavirus in the first place. We should thank them for taking one for the team — especially the three who are still in critical condition in the hospital. After all, without so many courageous Americans taking the vaccine the government’s promised, pledged and promised again is safe, effective and yes, safe, safe, safe — how indeed would we ever learn that it’s potentially not as safe as promised? Perhaps the Joe Biden administration can create some sort of medal for these brave souls, as a way of recognizing their service-to-country during times of declared emergencies. They may not be soldiers in war. But human guinea pigs deserve medals, too. Reprinted with author's permission from Washington Times. CDC — shh! — has a COVID shot ‘heart inflammation’ emergency Click on the headline to read the full story from You are not God Dr Fauci. If science was never challenged we would never make any progress6/11/2021 ![]() ![]() ![]() Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent suggestion that attacks on him are attacks on science itself is nonsensical. His attitude towards criticism is a prime example of scientism, which treats people in scientific fields with undue reverence. There has been an interesting cultural fight within the culture war over science itself. Many people on the political left have a tendency to place scientific method on a pedestal and not consider it for what it is – which is, purely and simply, scientific method. Rather, they treat science as a sort of dogma which cannot be challenged. In a sense, their attitude towards it is not that different from a Christian’s outlook on the Bible. A Christian believes that the Bible is God’s word, and is static and unchanging because of the nature of God himself. However, the nature of science is not static because our understanding of the world is not static. As such, it’s appalling when someone who wields as much influence and political power as America’s chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks in a manner that treats science as a dogma. In a recent interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC, Fauci recently claimed people who are critical of him are “critical of science itself”, which is clearly preposterous. Science is meant to be questioned. If science was not questioned, scientific progress would be impossible because there would be no prevailing attitude that more must be learned. The attitude and belief that science is some sort of monolith is very disconcerting from a societal perspective. I have great respect for those who spend their time trying to understand our universe one cell and one atom at a time, but Fauci’s stance seems to spit in the face of those people. Ultimately, every person who works in the sciences can only act on what they know, and whether they admit it or not they’ll never know enough. That, surely, is the name of the game. However, Dr. Fauci comes across as if he is the self-declared face of science and that he cannot be questioned for this very reason. Aside from this being wildly untrue, this is a prime example of scientism. It promotes the idea that his diplomas and governmental position make him someone who cannot be questioned, and that his knowledge has elevated him to a place above us mere mortals. As such if you don’t listen to what he says you’re nothing but a troglodyte. I don't know how a man of such short stature carries such massive arrogance, but he certainly does not speak as if he is someone who has the proper attitude of a scientist. And there is a deeper cultural issue that comes from this. The trend of those on the Left to worship scientists as if they are holy figures does nothing but boost their egos. That sort of deference does not show a hunger for knowledge, which is problematic. Sure, scientists are to be respected because success and status take an incredible amount of study and knowledge. But it doesn’t make you God. And ultimately, for everyone’s sake, I would hope that Fauci will realise this at some point. Reprinted with permission from RT. You are not God, Dr Fauci. If science was never challenged, we would never make any progress Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() March 2021 marked the 10th anniversary of the Western regime-change war on Syria. And after a decade of grueling conflict, Washington is still maneuvering to extend its longstanding relationship with the Salafi-jihadist militants fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. With the northeastern province of Idlib under the control of a self-proclaimed “Syrian Salvation Government” led by the rebranded version of Syria’s al-Qaeda franchise, and protected under the military aegis of NATO member state Turkey, powerful elements from Brussels to Washington have been working to legitimize its leader. This June, PBS Frontline aired a special, “The Jihadist,” featuring a sit-down interview with Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, de facto president of the “Syrian Salvation Government” and founder of the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda originally called Jabhat al-Nusra, today re-branded as Hay-at Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS. ![]() Syrian Al Qaeda leader Mohammad al-Jolani (L) with PBS Frontline’s Martin Smith Having traded in his battlefield garb for a freshly pressed suit, Jolani was presented with the once unthinkable opportunity to market himself to a Western audience and pledge that his forces pose no threat to the US homeland because they were merely focused on waging war against Syria’s “loyalist” population. The PBS correspondent who conducted the interview, Martin Smith, previously starred in a 2015 PBS special, “Inside Assad’s Syria,” which presented a US audience with a rare and relatively objective look at life inside Syrian government-controlled territory, as insurgents backed by NATO and Gulf monarchies encircled and terrorized its population. Whether or not he realized it, when Smith returned to Syria this March to meet Jolani, he was on more than a journalistic field expedition. A network of think tanks and Beltway foreign policy veterans were engaged in a simultaneous push to remove Jolani and his militant faction HTS from the State Department’s list of designated terrorist groups. This would open the door for international acceptance of his de facto government in Idlib, which regime-change advocates view as an important piece of leverage against Damascus, and as a human warehouse for the millions of refugees languishing there. In turn, the audacious PR campaign would consolidate a branch of the organization responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States into a de facto US asset. The campaign to normalize Jolani was publicly initiated by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank with close ties to the Biden administration and NATO. By the time of Smith’s interview, operatives from a network of Gulf-funded, pro-Israel think tanks had spent years quietly lobbying for Washington to support al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, and succeeded in securing shipments of weapons from the CIA to some of its battlefield allies. Though figures involved in this coordinated lobbying push were featured in Smith’s PBS Frontline report, they were presented to viewers as dispassionate analysts or former officials with no ulterior interests. Framed as hard news yet shaped by one of the most insidious public relations campaigns in recent history, the nationally broadcast PBS special provided an effective vehicle for rehabilitating a jihadist leader and perpetuating the decades-long dirty war against Syria. Whitewashing US and foreign support for Syria’s extremist insurgency When Muhammad Jolani first crossed the Syrian-Iraqi border in 2012 with a small detachment of fighters, he belonged officially to al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group responsible for countless attacks on US military occupiers and Shia civilians across Iraq. Upon their thrust into Syria, Jolani’s forces enabled the late self-proclaimed leader of the caliphate, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to establish his Islamic State, or ISIS, in the northeastern city of Raqqa. A feud over strategy and finances soon prompted Jolani to split from the Islamic State and establish Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian franchise of al-Qaeda, with the explicit blessing of the jihadist group’s global leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Martin Smith recounted this history in his PBS Frontline report, albeit briefly, while neglecting any mention of the scandalous covert US operation that made Nusra’s rise possible. Smith, for instance, neglected mention of the prescient August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment which stated clearly that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” and that the Western-backed opposition would likely create a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” if weapons were placed in the hands of anti-Assad Islamist militants. Despite the warning, in 2013, the CIA launched Operation Timber Sycamore, an arm-and-equip program that funneled up to $1 billion per year (one out of every $15 in the CIA’s budget) into material support for an armed opposition thoroughly dominated by Islamist extremists. It was the agency’s largest covert operation since a similar initiative in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which gave birth to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Just as the DIA predicted, an extremist “Salafist principality” took root in northeastern Syria, while Al Qaeda’s local franchise quickly emerged as the dominant force within the armed opposition. Nusra militants – including a former fighters of the CIA-created “Free Syrian Army” – were filmed cutting open the chests of Syrian soldiers, tearing their hearts out, and eating the organs raw (while receiving sympathetic media coverage from the BBC). ![]() Abu Sakkar, a former CIA-backed Free Syrian Army militant who later joined al-Qaeda, eating the raw heart of a soldier As it seized control of the Idlib province and moved to take Damascus, Nusra earned a reputation for grisly suicide attacks and executions, while instituting a medieval-style theocratic regime in the areas it controlled. An undercover 2017 documentary filmed by local residents, “Undercover Idlib,” exposed the dystopia that unfolded under Nusra control. All non-religious music and public celebrations were banned, the wearing of colorful headscarves outlawed, and Druze and Christian residents were killed or forced to convert at gunpoint. Rather than being uprooted from its “safe haven,” Nusra was encouraged by its NATO-aligned sponsors to rebrand and superficially distance itself from al-Qaeda so it could survive. First, in 2016, the al-Qaeda franchise changed its name to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, then morphed into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) the following year. Under tutelage from Turkey, which controlled the northern border of Idlib, HTS subsequently formed the “Syrian Salvation Government,” and embarked on a PR campaign for international legitimacy. ![]() Mohammad Jolani announces the formation of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, in 2016 Syria’s rebranded Al Qaeda branch courts Western media In 2020, Idlib’s “Salvation Government” established a media relations office to assist the entry of Western journalists and provide them with fixers to guide them in its territory. While independent reporters (including the co-author of this article) have been subjected to waves of online abuse by mainstream Western correspondents for visiting Damascus, a New York Times tour of Idlib that was openly managed by al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate took place without a hint of criticism. Martin Smith’s March 2021 visit to Idlib was a similarly guided venture. His report on Jolani blended interview footage with scenes of the HTS leader pressing the flesh with residents of Idlib City, conveying the image of a popular retail politician stumping for local office. ![]() Mohammad Jolani greeting locals around Idlib as a PBS Frontline crew films Idlib “does not represent a threat to the security of Europe and America. This region is not a staging ground for executing foreign jihad,” Jolani reassured Smith. Over the past decade, he added, “we haven’t posed any threat to the West.” In the interview, Smith focused entirely on whether Jolani would attack the West or not, demonstrating a near-total lack of interest in the lives of the millions of Syrians trapped under HTS’ neo-feudal rule in Idlib, and the minority groups threatened by its sectarian violence in nearby areas. Dressed in a pressed shirt and blazer suitable for any job interview, Jolani rattled off rhetoric about the “Syrian revolution,” while stressing that his Salafi-jihadist brethren and Washington shared a common goal: regime change in Damascus. ![]() The leader of rebranded Syrian al-Qaeda, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, doing a friendly interview with PBS in Idlib Days after Smith left Idlib, HTS stoned three women to death as punishment for alleged adultery. It was far from the first public execution carried out by the group. Back when it was still known as Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate shot a woman in the head in the middle of a plaza in Idlib because she, too, had been accused of adultery. None of these gruesome events were mentioned in Smith’s June 2021 PBS report, which represented the culmination of a years-long campaign to normalize HTS control in northeastern Syria. ![]() Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra executing a woman in public in Idlib in 2015 after she was accused of adultery “Al Qaeda has really got it right” A powerful Brussels-based think tank that is funded by Western governments helped ignite the PR campaign to legitimize HTS with a highly sympathetic 2020 “conversation” with Jolani. The think tank behind the whitewash, the International Crisis Group, gets the plurality of its funding from the European Union, Germany, France, and Australia, among other countries. It is effectively a Western intelligence cutout, and has consistently, over years, advocated for more Western military intervention in Syria. The Crisis Group revealed that it had “[spoken] with Jolani in Idlib for four hours in late January” of 2020 while it pushed a narrative that he had become a new man. “Following a series of rebranding efforts and internal transformations, Jolani told us, HTS presents itself today as a local group, independent of al-Qaeda’s chain of command, with a strictly Syrian, not a transnational, Islamist agenda,” the think tank wrote. The softball interview was promoted by prominent members of the Syria regime-change lobby, including an Israeli fellow at the neoconservative, Washington DC-based Newlines Institute, Elizabeth Tsurkov, who has emerged as a de facto jihadi whisperer of the US and Israeli foreign policy nexus. Tsurkov complimented the extremist rulers of Idlib, writing, “HTS is arguably the most pragmatic al-Qaeda offshoot to exist.” Then there was Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a billionaire oligarch-funded NGO that frequently promotes sanctions and regime-change operations against governments that have been targeted by Washington, from Syria to Venezuela, China to Nicaragua, Belarus to Bolivia. Roth took to Twitter twice to promote the International Crisis Group’s interview with Jolani. Both of his tweets demonized the Syrian government and its ally Russia while making no mention of the array of crimes committed by the Salafi-jihadist militia in Idlib. Roth’s message was clear: liberal interventionists in the Western human rights industry were on board with the HTS rebranding campaign. In February 2021, the International Crisis Group published a follow-up paper explicitly aimed at convincing policy makers to remove the rebranded Syrian al-Qaeda franchise from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. “HTS’s continued status as a ‘terrorist’ organisation (as designated by the US, Russia, the UN Security Council and Turkey) presents a major obstacle,” lamented the authors of the absurdly titled paper, “In Syria’s Idlib, Washington’s Chance to Reimagine Counter-terrorism.” A co-author of the document, Syria consultant Noah Bonsey, called for Western policymakers to show more “nuance” on the rebranded al-Qaeda extremists. The thrust of the think tank’s argument was that, unlike ISIS and other al-Qaeda affiliates, “HTS has distanced itself from transnational attacks and the militants who advocate for them.” In other words, the extremist group’s campaign of violence is acceptable as long as it stays focused on the Syrian government and its allies – not on targets in Western countries. The usual suspects enthusiastically promoted the policy paper, including the former Israeli soldier, Tsurkov. Perhaps the most influential member of the Syria regime-change lobby on Washington’s K Street, Charles Lister, happily promoted the proposal as well. The British pundit, who does not speak Arabic, has spent years advocating for Syria’s Islamist extremist occupation from within think tanks such as the Brookings Doha Center and Middle East Institute, which are funded by theocratic Gulf monarchies. During a 2017 panel discussion at NATO’s de facto think tank, the Atlantic Council, Lister described Idlib as “the heartland of al-Nusra,” acknowledging that “Al-Qaeda’s relative success in Syria has seen its ideology and its narrative mainstreamed, not just in parts of Syria, but also in parts of the region.” At a subsequent 2018 Capitol Hill panel discussion aimed at gathering congressional support for military intervention, Lister gushed about Nusra, “Al Qaeda has really got it right, I hate to say… Their strategy is so much more effective on the ground. They are winning hearts and minds.” Lister has even celebrated Jolani as an Islamist version of Che Guevara who “goes deep on modern Arab political history.” As for HTS, Lister praised them as “a more politically mature and intelligent jihadist movement.” Rankled by the successful advocacy by Lister and his Gulf monarchy-backed colleagues for arming Islamist fanatics in Syria, Brett McGurk, the former US special envoy against ISIS, grumbled to a reporter that the think tankers “got a lot of people killed.” By 2021, Lister was comfortable enough to call for the rebranded al-Nusra franchise to become an official Western asset.
![]() US special envoy on Syria James Jeffrey with Turkey’s defense minister in Ankara in 2019 James Jeffrey and Andrew Tabler’s undisclosed Turkish and Israeli ties The PBS Frontline special on Jolani provided an uncritical platform to James Jeffrey, the former US special representative for Syria engagement, and Andrew Tabler, a de facto Israel lobbyist and think tank pundit, presenting them to viewers as serious Syria experts without disclosing their longstanding ties to two of the most pernicious foreign backers of Syria’s Islamist insurgency. HTS is “the least bad option of the various options on Idlib, and Idlib is one of the most important places in Syria, which is one of the most important places right now in the Middle East,” Jeffrey declared to Frontline’s Martin Smith. He was finally acknowledging what was already well known in foreign policy circles but which few dared to say out loud: Washington has been allied with al-Qaeda in Syria. The United States has not had formal diplomatic relations with Syria for years. Damascus formally broke contact with Washington in 2012 over its support for armed militants seeking to overthrow the country’s internationally recognized government. The absence of diplomatic relations has led to the appointment of a series of US special envoys. One of the most influential, and aggressively interventionist, of these envoys has been Jeffrey. When mainstream US media outlets mention Jeffrey, they are often careful to stress that he has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, branding him as a bipartisan figure with extensive experience working at diplomatic posts in the Middle East. What is almost never mentioned in the many glowing media portraits of Jeffrey, however, is his deep commitment to strengthening ties with Turkey, his close personal ties to the government in Ankara, and his fellowship with one of the most influential pro-Israel think tanks in Washington. From 2013 to 2018, Jeffrey was a “distinguished fellow” at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a DC-based think tank that effectively serves as a cutout for Israeli intelligence. There, Jeffrey co-authored policy papers with neoconservative operatives such as Dennis Ross, advocating for hardline anti-Iran positions and even more US intervention in the Middle East. While presenting Tehran as the “biggest challenge” for the United States, Jeffrey has been an enthusiastic advocate of closer cooperation with the Turkish government. In a report at WINEP, he maintained that “Turkey is one of the most important countries for the United States overall, and of central importance for US policy.” Jeffrey called for Washington to build deeper ties with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who he noted is “the most powerful Turkish leader since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established the Turkish republic in 1923.” Jeffrey warned that failing to do so could inspire Ankara to improve its relations with longtime rival Russia. ![]() Top US diplomat James Jeffrey with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Alongside the United States, Turkey has played a pivotal role in the regime-change war on Syria. Ankara worked with the CIA to create training camps inside Turkish territory, while southern Turkey became the de facto base for Syria’s political opposition in exile, with cities like Gaziantep serving as a hub for Western intelligence agencies and their assets. For years, Erdogan maintained an open border with his southern neighbor, allowing tens of thousands of hardened Salafi-jihadists from around the world to enter Syria and wage war on the Assad government. This arrangement, known informally as the “jihadi highway,” allowed the Syrian opposition’s foreign sponsors to send billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons, including anti-tank missiles. It also gave extremist insurgents free rein to go back and forth across the porous border, seeking reinforcements and escaping retaliations by Damascus. Ankara directly supported fanatical Islamist groups inside Syria, playing a “double game” with ISIS and effectively turning al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra into a proxy. The Turkish military has illegally invaded Syrian sovereign territory several times since 2016, and Ankara military occupies parts of Idlib and northern Syria. The rebranded al-Qaeda extremists who run Idlib, HTS, collaborate openly with the Turkish military. Jeffrey publicly broadcasted his pro-Ankara views when, in March 2020, he and then US Ambassador to United Nations Kelly Craft visited Turkey on a joint trip. On the southern border with Syria, the two diplomats posed for a photo op with the Western government-funded White Helmets, while calling for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad and reaffirming Washington’s support for Turkey’s policy in Idlib. ![]() US Syria envoy James Jeffrey and UN Ambassador Kelly Craft in southern Turkey, posing with the White Helmets, in March 2020 A few weeks before the visit, Jeffrey conducted an interview on Turkish TV that was republished by the US embassy. The US special envoy on Syria enthusiastically defended Ankara’s military occupation of parts of Idlib: “There the United States totally agrees with Turkey on the legal presence and justification for Turkey defending its existential interests against refugee flow and dealing with terror and finding a solution to the terrible Syrian conflict with the war criminal regime of President Assad. We understand and support these legitimate Turkish interests that have Turkish forces in Syria and specifically in Idlib.” Jeffrey later admitted that he had lied to then-President Trump about the number of troops in Syria to prevent a total withdrawal. “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” he boasted to the military website Defense One. A 2019 report in Foreign Policy identified Jeffrey, alongside neoconservative operative and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, as part of a group of anti-Iran hawks who “repeatedly sought to reverse Trump’s Syria withdrawal over nearly two years, culminating in a disastrous Turkish invasion that has destabilized the region.” Foreign Policy explained: “Jeffrey began making plans to stay in northeastern Syria indefinitely as an obstacle to Assad’s attempts to consolidate power. In particular, Jeffrey’s team aimed to deny the Syrian president and his Iranian backers access to the coveted oil fields in Deir Ezzor province, which are mostly under SDF control.” Despite Jeffrey’s relentless advocacy for more Turkish control in northern Syria, PBS Frontline’s Martin Smith portrayed him as an objective expert who was delivering clinical policy analysis uncorrupted by any ulterior political interest. Similarly, Smith interviewed Andrew Tabler, who offered effusive praise for Turkey’s role in Idlib. Though Tabler works for the same pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy which employed Jeffrey for years, Smith presented him to viewers as a former journalist with years of supposed expertise on Syria. In fact, Tabler has aggressively advocated a US regime-change war on Syria during apparently paid Israel lobby lectures like the one he delivered to the Israel Club of Florida’s Valencia Isles. “The United States needs to develop and execute a plan to develop its Sunni allies’ spheres of influence in Syria to help retake and stabilize those areas from ISIS and al Qaeda,” Tabler told his pro-Israel audience. “However, such an operation will only succeed if Washington not only maintains its goal of al-Assad stepping aside, but adds a military component to the strategy as well.” ![]() WINEP’s Andrew Tabler at the Valencia Isles Israel Club, October 15, 2015 Both Israel and Turkey have played central roles in destabilizing Syria from its north and south. And in Washington, figures like Jeffrey and Tabler have helped advance the interests of these two religiously sectarian human rights violators with zealous dedication. But none of this context was provided to viewers of Smith’s PBS Frontline special on Jolani, leaving them with the impression that the two regime-change lobbyists were merely a couple of seasoned and unbiased analysts. “Well, it’s complicated”: A PBS reporter on Jolani’s record as Al Qaeda leader The June 2021 release of Smith’s PBS Frontline report prompted an exuberant Twitter victory lap by Lister, who erupted in quasi-orgasmic celebration at the portrayal of HTS as a “semi-technocratic ‘govt'”, and touted his own 10 years of work whitewashing the exploits of its jihadist founders. Though Jolani’s de facto job interview with the US government was received positively inside the Beltway, an independent interviewer managed to challenge Smith on his approach. He was Scott Horton, the Austin, Texas-based libertarian anti-war author and Pacifica radio host. In an interview with Smith before the full PBS special appeared, Horton asked Smith if he confronted Jolani about his militia’s record of slaughtering members of Syria’s Druze religious minority who refused to convert to Islam, or the vicious theocratic regime he operated from East Aleppo to Idlib. Smith responded with spin that sounded like damage control for al-Nusra: “Jolani says that a lot of mistakes were made,” the journalist said. Later, he insisted, “Well, it’s complicated,” when challenged about Jolani’s rampage of sectarian violence. HTS is “considerably different” from al-Qaeda, Smith maintained, and “don’t participate in large-scale attacks against civilians.” He even insisted that Jolani had pledged protect the rights of Druze, Christians, and other religious minorities – although all have been ethnically cleansed from Idlib or forced to convert. Finally, Smith claimed that Syria’s secular president was exponentially worse than the rebranded al-Qaeda leader, whose forces permitted no one but Sunni Muslims to exist under their rule. “There is no comparison between Assad and Jolani,” he argued. In one of his only direct criticisms of HTS in the interview with Horton, Smith conceded that HTS’ prisons “can be pretty nasty places,” adding in another massive understatement that Jolani “still runs a pretty tough ship.” However, the PBS reporter insisted that Jolani never affiliated with al-Qaeda because of ideology, but rather because of the terrorist group’s powerful “branding.” “At this point they’re trying to get the West to warm up to them,” Smith conceded. “They are engaged now in an ongoing effort to try to set up dialogue with the West; they would like to have the terrorism designation lifted.” Smith insisted that despite the ongoing public relations campaign on HTS’s behalf, he was not a participant in it. “The Americans are tired of wars in the Middle East,” the journalist claimed, implying that Jolani is someone the imperial planners in Washington can rely on to leave in charge. Whether or not he was wittingly complicit, Martin Smith and his PBS Frontline report represented the culmination of the Washington-led lobbying campaign to clean up Syrian al-Qaeda’s image and secure its status as a respectable US proxy. Lindsey Snell, an American independent journalist who was held captive by Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, scoffed at the public relations campaign waged on behalf of HTS by American media and think tanks. In an interview with The Grayzone, Snell said HTS still upholds the same ideology as ISIS, but has decided to appeal to the West in order to preserve its influence in Idlib while pocketing millions of dollars a month in international aid and oil money. “Actually, their rebranding campaign started when I was their captive,” Snell told The Grayzone. “They changed their name for the first time and they announced their split from Al Qaeda when I was their captive. And of course, it didn’t actually change anything.” “To this day most of them still call themselves ‘Nusra,'” Snell added. “Their split from Al Qaeda was really just a cosmetic, surface level thing and they’re still the same terrorists inflicting Sharia law on everyone in their territories.” Reprinted with permission from The Grayzone. Support The Grayzone here. How Washington is positioning Syrian Al-Qaeda’s founder as its ‘asset’ Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() Would you be comfortable inviting a convicted sex offender to babysit your 8 year-old daughter for the evening? I know what you’re thinking, “That’s preposterous, what a ridiculous question! Who in their right mind would ever consider such nonsense?” I agree, it does sound crazy. But think about this. Way back in 2009 Pfizer Inc. which is one of the four manufacturers of the not-yet-approved-by-the-FDA experimental therapy called a “vaccine” was convicted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for fraud resulting in the largest settlement in the agencies history at that time. Here’s the headline from the DOJ’s website dated September 2, 2009:
Justice Department Announces Largest health Care Fraud Settlement in its History
Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing
The case included Pfizer’s subsidiaries Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc. Turns out this bunch of criminals admitted to “...the intent to defraud or mislead.” They were promoting an anti-inflammatory drug, Bextra, for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA had previously declined Pfizer’s attempt to approve the drug for other uses over safety concerns. But that didn’t stop Pfizer! Oh no, the safety of human beings couldn’t stand in the way of increased profits. This is from the DOJ press release: “...the company illegally promoted four drugs-Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lycria, an anti-epileptic drug-and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted..."But there’s more... The good folks at Pfizer paid the DOJ a fine of $668 Million to, “...resolve allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs.” See how this works? You get caught red handed committing fraud and paying kickbacks, putting innocent people’s lives at risk and what happens? You simply cop a plea deal with the Feds, pay them off, and you’re back in business! Did anyone go to jail for the massive fraud and deceit that possibly put consumer’s lives at risk? Not that I can find. Does this sound like justice to you? Maybe the DOJ should be renamed the Department of Payoffs (DOP)? Fast Forward to 2021 Now the good folks at Pfizer are furiously churning out tens of millions of “vaccine” doses to fight Covid. Think about this: NO independent studies have been performed to attest to the safety or efficacy of Pfizer’s Covid “vaccine”. There simply hasn’t been enough time to follow the normal safety protocols designed to protect patients from unintended health consequences. They’ve been given complete immunity by Uncle Sam from any litigation for this unproven, experimental “vaccine”. The FDA relied on Pfizer’s own studies, with no independent verification, claiming they are safe and effective to approve them under the Emergency Use Authorization. Remember, these are the very same people who less than 12 years ago were convicted for fraud and deceit paying the largest fine in the DOJ’s history at that time for their admitted criminal actions. For everyone who’s considering taking Pfizer’s Covid jab it may be helpful to recall these words from the DOJ’s September 2, 2009 press release: “...and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs.”Would you bet your life they’ve changed their ways? According to the CDC over 5,000 Americans’ have already died and tens of thousands more have had serious adverse reactions from the “vaccine”. And all the “vaccine” manufacturers have full and complete immunity while they use unsuspecting citizens across the globe as their experimental lab rats! Ahh, but not to worry. The health “experts” are in charge so what could possibly go wrong? Did Your 'Jab' Come from Convicted Felons? Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() SecDef Austin: 'Start ACTING Like China Is Top Enemy!' Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() For over a year, there has been one fact that has been repeated in literally thousands of news stories: former Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the clearing of Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020 to allow former President Donald Trump to hold his controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. From the outset, there was ample reason to question the claim echoed across media outlets. As I noted in my testimony to Congress on the protest that month, the operation was clearly a response to days of violent and destructive protests. Now the Inspector General has completed its investigation and the report debunks the conspiracy theory that the Lafayette Square area was cleared to make way for the Trump photo op. While many today still claim that the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. It is only plausible if one looks at the level of violence at the start of the clearing operation as opposed to the prior 48 hours. There was in fact an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during the protests. In addition to a reported 150 officers were injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s. The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House. The expansion of the perimeter with the fencing was a logical and necessary move. It is the same decision reached (and indeed the same fencing) by Congress when it responded to January 6 riot this year. Absent such fencing, an extremely dangerous situation could have arisen where a major breach of the White House perimeter would have triggered the use of lethal force with the potential of a major loss of life. Ample evidence emerged in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others that the plan to clear the park area was proposed days before any plan for a photo op. There was never any evidence that Barr knew of the photo op plan before approving the operation. Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op. University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.” In a still uncorrected segment still up on the Internet, NPR declares “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.” Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated the conspiracy theory about the photo op and the Washington Post ran an article by Philip Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state incredibly: It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.It turns out that both assertions were true. The Inspector General of the Department of Interior has conducted an investigation over the last year and the Biden Administration just released the findings. The IG states unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the allegation that Barr or others ordered the clearing for the photo op. The report further concludes that “the USPP had the authority and discretion to clear Lafayette Park and the surrounding areas on June 1.” It further “the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31.” It was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.” That is not the only contraction of the almost universal media accounts. The federal government has long denied using “tear gas” in its operation as opposed to pepper balls in the clearing operation on June 6th. The difference has little real significance either legally or practically. However, critics latched on the denial to show that Barr and others were lying. The IG found that “the USPP incident commander did not authorize CS gas for this operation. Expecting that CS gas would not be used, most USPP officers did not wear gas masks.” The IG found no evidence of approval or use of tear gas by the federal operation. However, it confirmed “and the MPD confirmed, that the MPD used CS gas on 17th Street on June 1. As discussed above, the MPD was not a part of nor under the control or direction of the USPP’s and the Secret Service’s unified command structure.” It turns out that both assertions were true. In fact, last week, the District admitted that it used tear gas about a block away in its enforcement of Mayor Muriel Bowser’s curfew. The admission was itself breathtaking since the media lionized Bowser for her stance against the operation and specifically the use of tear gas. For a year, the District knew that it used the tear gas and said nothing to the public as Bowser basked in the media glow – and Barr was attacked as a liar. Now, on the anniversary of the operation, the Bowser Administration is in court asking for the lawsuit by Black Lives Matter be dismissed. Her attorneys are arguing that the use of tear gas was entirely appropriate and that the clearing of the area was reasonable. This is the same major who received national acclaim for painting “Black Lives Matter” on the street next to the park and renaming it “Black Lives Matter Plaza.” The Biden Administration is also joining in the effort to dismiss the BLM case. It told the court “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.” The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that “federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.” The media has largely ignored the admission of the District and the change of the position on the legitimacy of the law enforcement actions. Moreover, none of the media outlets have corrected their prior stories reporting that Barr ordered the clearing to allow for the photo op, let alone apologize to Barr. In today’s echo journalism, it is doubtful that any of this will matter. The myth of the photo op fueled the anger and fed the ratings. It is doubtful that these same media and legal experts will now acknowledge that they fostered a conspiracy theory without any concrete support. The IG Report may have more to say about our media culture than the clearing operation itself. As with the effective media blackout on the Hunter Biden story and the Chinese lab leak theory before the election, the media actively shaped the news to fit a narrative. It worked. Biden was elected and the public still believes these false accounts. For many Democrats, Bill Barr will remain the man who violently crushed protesters for a photo op. As the old media saying goes, it was (and remains) “a fact too good to check.” Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org. Debunking The Photo Op Myth: Inspector General Investigation Refutes Media Account On The Clearing Of Lafayette Park Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() ![]() Reading the tea leaves a week before Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin meet in Geneva puts a premium on the kind of media analysis we old-school Kremlinologists had to rely on back in the day. Not all rhetoric is equal though; it is just as important to make an honest attempt to reconstruct the circumstances surrounding a major initiative like the summit proposal. The weird timing of the invitation cries out for explanation. You Asked For It, Joe Lest we forget, President Biden suggested a summit with Putin in the midst of very high tension over Ukraine. On March 24 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued an official decree that Ukraine would take Crimea back from Russia; Kiev’s strategy includes "military measures" to achieve "de-occupation." US and NATO voice "unwavering" (rhetorical) support for Zelensky, who sends tons of military equipment south and east. Russia sends troops and arms south and west into Crimea and the border area opposite Luhansk and Donetsk in the eastern Ukraine. One Day in April The following refresher on what all went down on April 13 may throw some light on why – in such tense circumstances – Biden proposed a summit with Putin.
- NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg slams Russia for sending "thousands of combat-ready troops to Ukraine’s borders."
- Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu says, in effect, Yes, Stoltenberg has that right; Moscow has sent "two armies and three airborne formations to western regions" over the prior three weeks.
- Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov criticizes NATO and the US for "deliberately turning Ukraine into a powder keg." Strongly advises cancellation of plans for imminent passage of two US guided-missile destroyers into Black Sea. (The plans were canceled.)
- President Biden calls President Putin, later calls the conversation "candid and respectful." Putin spokesman describes it as "businesslike and rather long." Biden proposes "a summit meeting in a third country in the coming months to discuss the full range of issues facing the United States and Russia," according to the White House.
'Stable and Predictable' In broaching a summit meeting to Putin, Biden "reaffirmed his goal of building a stable and predictable relationship with Russia consistent with US interests," according to the White House. The White House readout gave pride of place to their discussion of "a number of regional and global issues, including the intent of the United States and Russia to pursue a strategic stability dialogue on a range of arms control and emerging security issues, building on the extension of the New START Treaty." It is a safe bet that Biden and his advisers learned a valuable lesson in barely avoiding being mousetrapped into facing open hostilities (or an embarrassing backdown) in Ukraine – an area in which Russia has an "asymmetric" (as Putin later described it) preponderance of power. Thus, beneath all the gratuitous insults and asymmetrically harsh Western media rhetoric, Biden and co. might see a priority interest in heading off such misadventures in the future. If Not Yet Trust, Then Mutual Interest Biden and Putin might see at least a modicum of common interest in developing a useful dialogue on regional issues (like Ukraine), as well as a more obvious strategic interest in avoiding mutual annihilation. On Monday, national security adviser Jake Sullivan defended Biden’s summit initiative, stressing the need for "strategic stability and progress on arms control." Sullivan described Putin as "a singular kind of personalized leader, so a chance "to come together at a summit will allow us to manage this relationship … most effectively." For his part, President Putin commenting in St. Petersburg on Friday on what issues will enjoy pride of place at the summit, also spoke of "strategic stability [and] settling international conflicts in the hottest spots," disarmament and terrorism. Acknowledging the political pressures any US president faces in trying to carve out a more sensible relationship with Russia, Putin conceded that "to a certain extent, Russian-American relations have become hostage to internal political processes in the United States itself." He added: I hope it ends someday. I mean the fundamental interests in the field of at least security, strategic stability and the reduction of weapons dangerous for the whole world are still more important than the current domestic political situation in the United States itself.Taking a more conventional tack regarding current US policy, Putin lamented: US leaders "want to hold back our development and they talk about this openly. Everything else is a derivative [including] an attempt to influence the internal political processes in our country, relying on the forces that they consider to be their own in Russia." In a separate interview on Russia’s Channel 1, Putin described Biden as "an experienced, balanced, and accurate" politician, and expressed the hope that those qualities would have a positive effect on the upcoming negotiations. Putin said, "I am not expecting anything that could become a breakthrough in US-Russia relations," but added that the Geneva talks may well create the right conditions for taking further steps toward normalizing Russia-US ties, which would in itself be "a positive result." A Senior Among Sophomores If Biden can shake himself free from his more extreme Russophobe advisers and the arms merchants who thrive on tension with Moscow, he has a mentor at hand to help him navigate the shoals. CIA chief William Burns has as much experience in foreign affairs as the rest of Biden’s wet-behind-the-ears rising sophomores (Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, et al.) put together. Indeed, Burns happened to be Ambassador to Russia when plans were afoot to make Ukraine and Georgia members of NATO. On February 1, 2008, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, explained to Burns precisely what the US should expect from Russia were NATO to move to incorporate Ukraine. (To his credit, Burns played it straight, titling his cable "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES," and sending it to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with IMMEDIATE precedence. Burns reported that "Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene." I believe I can detect the fine, experienced hand of now CIA Director Burns in the "2021 Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" published in early April. I found it remarkedly balanced and candid on how Russia sees threats to its security: We assess that Russia does not want a direct conflict with US forces. Russian officials have long believed that the United States is conducting its own ‘influence campaigns’ to undermine Russia, weaken President Vladimir Putin, and install Western-friendly regimes in the states of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. Russia seeks an accommodation with the United States on mutual noninterference in both countries’ domestic affairs and US recognition of Russia’s claimed sphere of influence over much of the former Soviet Union.Such candor has not been seen since the DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency) wrote, in its “December 2015 National Security Strategy” over the signature of DIA Director Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart: The Kremlin is convinced the United States is laying the groundwork for regime change in Russia, a conviction further reinforced by the events in Ukraine. Moscow views the United States as the critical driver behind the crisis in Ukraine and believes that the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych is the latest move in a long-established pattern of US-orchestrated regime change efforts.What If Things Go Bump in the Night? The analysis above is heavily dependent on fragile tea leaves. Other straws in the wind point to a disaster at the June 16 summit in Geneva. Let’s say that the NATO summit, in which Biden will take part on June 14, issues a Declaration (as it did in April 2008, two months after Lavrov’s loud Nyet) that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO." Or let’s say Biden keeps ringing changes on the theme of "democratic values" to contrast the West with Russia and China, and feels compelled to talk to Putin "from a position of strength" (as Biden did in his Washington Post op-ed Sunday); or he harps on "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, without any acknowledgment of his own complicity (or at least guilty knowledge of) the Victoria Nuland-orchestrated coup in Kiev in Feb. 2014. Or let’s say the US Department of Justice indicts a bunch of Russians for hacking (as happened three days before former President Donald Trump met with Putin in July 2018). There are a number of things that could go bump in the night, so to speak, and either cancel the summit or turn it into an acerbic exchange like the March 18 meeting in Anchorage between Anthony Blinken/Jake Sullivan and their Chinese counterparts – Yes, you remember, the ones who warned their interlocutors not to not speak to China in a "condescending way" or from a claimed "position of strength." Should that kind of debate ensue in Geneva, the US team will have to have their loins girded on the chance the following questions are asked:
- Do you now regret greasing the Senate skids for the attack on Iraq?
- Did you have a chance to watch the Dr. Strangelove dvd that Oliver Stone gave Mr. Putin? Do you have any Air Force generals like that still on active duty. What about the commander of STRATCOM who talks nonchalantly about using nuclear weapons?
- What do you think about the sworn testimony of the head of the cyber-firm CrowdStrike that no one – not Russia, not anyone – hacked those DNC emails that WikiLeaks published? Why has the NY Times turned that into a state secret?
- Does your Democratic colleague, Rep. Jason Crow, really believe that "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy." And what does Speaker Nancy Pelosi mean exactly, as she keeps repeating "All roads lead to Putin"? Are we correctly informed that Hillary Clinton suggested President Putin was giving President Trump instructions on Jan. 6 as your Capitol building was attacked? Finally, here is Putin in his own words. He has long had an allergy to "exceptionalism." After he pulled President Barack Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire by persuading the Syrians to give up their chemical weapons in early September 2013, Putin had high hopes, and set them down at the end of a New York Times op-ed on Sept. 11, 2013:
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere … and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.I was told at the time that Putin dictated those paragraphs himself. That report garnered additional credence in early 2020, when President Putin said the same thing during an interview with Andrey Vandenko: VANDENKO: But things did not go well [in your relationship] with Obama … Did somebody put you at odds with him?It seems it would be good to be aware of this and to take it into account. Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com. Biden-Putin Summit: Boon or Bust? Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity ![]() ![]() Massie: 'Fire The CDC!' - Us: 'Then End It!' Click on the headline to read the full story from ![]() ![]() There You Go Again! Another Study In Germany Finds Lockdowns Worthless Click on the headline to read the full story from Peace and Prosperity |
Ron Paul
|