Blog

An Essential Guide To The Truths And Myths Of Chemical Weapons

If you were to ask the average person on the street to tell you about chemical weapons, odds are you’ll hear far more in the way of legend, born out of popular culture, than you will anything resembling fact. For most people, the only information they have on chemical weapons comes from movies like The Rock, episodes of 24, or trashy spy thrillers. Worse still, because that level of background knowledge is so low, even those people who can speak with even a basic level of understanding can often be taken as credible, even as they rattle off incredibly misleading information.

I should know this. Before I started really working in the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) field, I wasn’t much better. When I first joined the U.S. Army as an artillery officer, my sum total of chemical defense training was a short period of instruction as a cadet at Fort Lewis. That very limited instruction reinforced the fact that chemical protective suits are awful to wear more than conveying any real functional knowledge about chemical agents and their effects. 

Keep reading

As doomsday predictions fizzle, climate crowd joins on lockdown bandwagon

A short time ago, climate activists were claiming that the world had just a year left to exist if climate change was not properly addressed. As those dire predictions fall by the wayside, some eco-warriors are hopping on a new bandwagon.

According to The Guardian, a new report from Nature Climate Change suggests that the world would need the equivalent of a COVID-19 lockdown every two years to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

“Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions of about 7% in 2020, or about 2.6bn tonnes of CO2, but reductions of between 1bn and 2bn tonnes are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement,” The Guardian reported.

They added that many countries were already starting to cut emissions before the pandemic, but that was not enough to please the woke mob.

“Since lockdowns were eased in many countries last year, there have been strong signs that emissions will rise again to above 2019 levels, severely damaging the prospects of fulfilling the Paris goals,” they reported.

Keep reading

Israel is deliberately obliterating media buildings in Gaza to cover up the war crimes that will follow

The destruction of two important Gaza buildings housing 20 media outlets was both shocking and predictable. History shows that if the media aren’t around to document Israel’s war crimes, it’s a lot easier for it to commit them.

On Tuesday, Israel bombed the 10-storey Al-Jawhara Tower, causing it to collapse. Before doing so, it had ‘benevolently’ warned that the airstrikes were coming. The following day, it bombed the 14-storey Al-Shorouk Tower, also giving warning it was going to do so.

Most reports have the buildings as evacuated before being levelled. But without these media offices, reporting on Israel’s other war crimes will be left largely to what little media remain and citizen journalists.

The buildings were significant. A statement by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) noted the Al-Jawhara building housed the offices of 13 media institutions and NGOs. And an advisory by the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that the Al-Shorouk building housed at least seven media outlets.

A further statement by the same committee said that the Israeli military had defended its bombing of the building via email, bizarrely claiming it had “acted within international law,” alleging the Al-Jawhara building housed Hamas’ intelligence and military offices, and saying the Al-Shorouk building was a base for Hamas’ military intelligence offices and “infrastructure to communicate tactical-military information.”

Keep reading

’60 Minutes’ Explores UFOs

Venerable news program 60 Minutes devoted a significant portion of Sunday night’s broadcast to exploring incidents of Navy pilots witnessing unidentified aerial phenomena and the United States government’s recent acknowledgment of the issue. Amazingly, the nearly 15-minute-long segment, which can be seen in its entirety above and is transcribed here, was actually the first time the program has ever covered UFOs in its more than five decades on the air . The piece largely served as an explainer to the 60 Minutes audience who may have been unaware of the remarkable series of UFO-related events that have been unfolding since the late 2017 New York Times article that revealed a Pentagon program to study unidentified aerial phenomena.

During the segment, reporter Bill Whitaker spoke to former military intelligence official Lue Elizondo and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Christopher Mellon, about their concerns regarding what they see as the government’s unwillingness to take a critical look at the UAP issue and how they have been working to rectify that situation. Also interviewed were former Navy pilots Lieutenant Ryan Graves and Alex Dietrich as well as retired US Navy pilot commander David Fravor. All three former pilots recounted their personal experiences witnessing unidentified aerial phenomena, with Graves making the eye-brow raising statement that he saw UAPs “every day for at least a couple years.”

While UFO enthusiasts may have found most of the material in the segment to be a retread of information that has already been circulating in bits and pieces over the last three years, the show undoubtedly brought a sizeable portion of the public up to speed on the matter, which is something of a victory for those wishing for the subject to be taken more seriously. On that note, one particularly telling aspect of the program was that, unlike in the vast majority of instances wherein the mainstream media looks at UFOs, the phenomenon was given a sincere examination rather than being the subject of ridicule. Additionally, it is noteworthy that not once during the segment were the words “alien” or “extraterrestrial” uttered by anyone.

Keep reading

The “Bonkers” Interview Of Bonny Prince Harry: Why The Attack On The First Amendment Should Concern All Americans

The media went into a frenzy this weekend when the bonny Prince Harry gave a huge Hurrumpf to the First Amendment. On a show appropriately called “the Armchair Expert,” Harry declared the First Amendment “bonkers” and expressed frustration of how it protects the media in its “feeding frenzy” over his life. Harry’s criticism of the First Amendment can be dismissed as the unfamiliarity of a royal refugee. However, it is actually far more serious than that. Harry and his American wife Meghan Markle have attacked media rights in England and succeeded under the laws of the United Kingdom. They are now joining a growing anti-free speech and free press movement in the United States.

It was not a surprise for many to hear Harry lash out at the First Amendment. After all, Harry and Meghan are so woke, they are virtual insomniacs.

However, that is the point. The First Amendment no longer holds the inviolate position it once did with the left.

Indeed, the First Amendment is now often treated as a danger than a guarantee to a fair and just society. Experts have explained how to evade its limitations to silence others. They have found precisely what Harry discussed in the interview when he noted “you can find a loophole in anything.”

Democratic leaders now openly call for corporate censorship and banning of books and authors. Academics now join in the cancelling of colleagues who express dissenting views of subjects ranging from climate change to gender identification to racial justice. Thus, it is not as risky for the Harry to declare “I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers.” Rather, millions are likely to wait in rapt anticipation to hear more of what Prince Harry will say about correcting our Constitution.

Keep reading

NYT Exposé: No More Hiding Biden’s Failing Mental Health

In an extraordinary article published on Sunday by the New York Times, a trio of investigative reporters reveal what life is really like inside the Biden White House, alleging the president is slow to make decisions and is given to outbursts of frustration, “often laced with profanity.” “He will,” they wrote, “often snap.”

Based on more than two dozen interviews with current and former Biden associates, the reporters learned that staffers spend an inordinate amount of time preparing Biden for public appearances: “His aides say it takes a lot of behind-the-scenes work to prepare him to project an assured demeanor.”

Additionally, Biden reportedly has “little patience with staffers,” wrote the authors, being increasingly “quick to cut off conversations” and “even occasionally hangs up the phone on someone who he thinks is wasting his time.” He is also “quick to demonstrate his displeasure” with those who cannot answer his questions.

According to the article, Biden’s staff schedules 15-minute breaks between his daily appointments, apparently because he becomes exhausted quickly, despite a light daily schedule. He typically arrives in the Oval Office around 9:30 in the morning and usually is back in his residence by 7:00 pm.

The authors added:

On policy issues, Mr. Biden, 78, takes days or weeks to make up his mind as he examines and second-guesses himself and others. It is a method of governing that can feel at odds with the urgency of a country still reeling from a pandemic and an economy struggling to recover.

Each of these examples is a telltale sign of dementia, perhaps leading to Alzheimer’s disease.

Keep reading

Fauci’s Biggest Lie Revealed… In March 2021, The Wuhan Institute Of Virology Deleted Fauci’s NIH And Gain Of Function From Old Web Pages

At the beginning of 2021, the Wuhan Institute of Virology removed the U.S. National Institutes of Health as one of its research partners from its website.

The discovery comes despite Dr. Anthony Fauci’s claims no relationship existed between the institutions.

Archived versions of the Wuhan lab’s website also reveal a research update “Will SARS Come Back?” – appearing to describe gain-of-function research being conducted at the institute by entities funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

On March 21st, 2021, the Wuhan lab’s website noted six U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.

Only a day later, the website was updated to contain only two research partners: EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama. By March 23rd, EcoHealth Alliance was the only partner remaining.

EcoHealth Alliance is run by long-standing Chinese Communist Party partner Dr. Peter Daszak.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s move to remove the NIH from its website came amidst heightened scrutiny that the lab was the source of COVID-19 and that U.S. taxpayer dollars from the NIH may have funded the research.

The revelation of the lab’s attempted coverup also follows a heated exchange between Senator Rand Paul and Fauci, who is now trying to distance his organization from the Wuhan lab.

Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institue of Virology, now-deleted posts from the site also specify studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research conducted with the Wuhan-based lab. Fauci, however, told Senator Paul that “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Keep reading

‘Taking Away The Male Gaze’: Some Women Want To Keep Wearing Masks Indefinitely

A number of women have come forth asserting they would prefer to keep wearing masks, even after the general public has discarded them, with some of the women offering explanations such as a mask functions as an “invisibility cloak” or acts “almost like taking away the male gaze.”

The women who preferred keeping masks were interviewed by The Guardian, which reported some of these comments:

“I don’t want to feel the pressure of smiling at people to make sure everyone knows I’m ‘friendly’ and ‘likable.’ It’s almost like taking away the male gaze. There’s freedom in taking that power back.”

“Maybe it’s because I’m a New Yorker or maybe it’s because I always feel like I have to present my best self to the world, but it has been such a relief to feel anonymous. It’s like having a force field around me that says ‘don’t see me.’”

“It’s a common consensus among my co-workers that we prefer not having customers see our faces. Oftentimes when a customer is being rude or saying off-color political things, I’m not allowed to grimace or ‘make a face’ because that will set them off. With a mask, I don’t have to smile at them or worry about keeping a neutral face. I have had customers get very upset when I don’t smile at them. I deal with anti-maskers constantly at work. They have threatened to hurt me, tried to get me fired, thrown things at me and yelled ‘f*** you’ in my face. If wearing a mask in the park separates me from them, I’m cool with that.”

“I appreciated that I felt a bit more anonymous in a mask and more gender ambiguous. After lockdown ended, it was confronting to go out and be exposed to all that offhand racism, sexism and misgendering from strangers again … Sometimes when I’m just going out to grab takeaway, I’ve enjoyed keeping the mask on even though it’s not really necessary here now.”

“I just stare at that little box with my face in it and pick apart my appearance. My double chin seems six times larger, my eye bags are too deep of a purple, etc … Even when there’s a heatwave and my apartment is close to 90 degrees, I’ll wear a turtleneck that I can pull up. I pack on thick makeup that makes my skin peel. I 10,000% plan on wearing it for the foreseeable future. After a full work day of worrying and not being able to focus on my actual job, it just feels nice to blend in. Simply put, I’m sick of being perceived.”

An article in Inside Hook stated, “Of course, a mere face covering isn’t going to deter the more dedicated cat-callers and unwanted attention-givers among us. After all, the lips may be the vagina of the face or whatever, but suffice to say cat-callers still have plenty of other material to work with even if the mouth and chin remain out of sight.”

Keep reading

PBS Journalist Implies That Ending Mask Mandates is Racist

During a White House press briefing, a PBS journalist suggested that ending mask mandates was racist.

Yes, really.

Last week, the CDC disappointed face diaper extremists by lifting restrictions on mask wearing in numerous settings.

This prompted a massive backlash from those who have adopted the face covering as a kind of cult symbol, with a PBS journalist attempting to argue that not masking up will lead to the deaths of more black people.

“The CDC guidelines on masks is putting front line workers and especially people of color at risk and they’re calling for the CDC to reverse that, what’s the White House’s stance on…people of color (being) at risk,” said the journalist.

Keep reading