On orders of President Biden, the United States has launched an airstrike on a facility in Syria. As of this writing the exact number of killed and injured is unknown, with early reports claiming “a handful” of people were killed.
Rather than doing anything remotely resembling journalism, the western mass media have opted instead to uncritically repeat what they’ve been told about the airstrike by US officials, which is the same as just publishing Pentagon press releases.
For the past few weeks since the roll-out of the experimental COVID mRNA “vaccines” we’ve been told by government health agencies that the massive amounts of injuries and deaths that have occurred just after the injections have nothing to do with the “vaccines.”
And yet, Joe Biden just recently gave the World Health Organization and GAVI, the global vaccine organization founded and funded primarily by Bill Gates, a $4 BILLION pledge for a new COVAX Program which includes a global compensation program for COVID-19 vaccine injuries, courtesy of American taxpayers, in an effort to entice poorer countries who are skeptical of the new COVID vaccines to distribute Big Pharma’s COVID injections.
Wayne Rohde, author of The Vaccine Court, examines this new global compensation program which is patterned after the U.S. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
Dozens of House Democrats are calling on President Biden to relinquish sole control over the country’s nuclear arsenal and the ability to launch a strike using those weapons.
Politico reports that the Democrats, led by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA) and Rep. Ted Lieu (CA), wrote a letter warning that “vesting one person” with the authority to initiate a nuclear war “entails real risks.”
“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter explains.
“The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war,” they add. “Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”
CNN host Brian Stelter asked a big question on his Sunday show. “What’s the future of fact-checking now that Trump is out of office?” He proclaimed it was “fraught with complexity, and allegations of bias and shouts of false equivalence.”
This is not complex. In 2016, a Rasmussen poll found that only 29 percent of the public trusted the media’s “fact-checking” of presidential candidates. There’s not just “allegations” of bias but easy and daily confirmation of bias.
Stelter tried to insist — on behalf of his network — that the fact-checking focus is now on President Joe Biden. CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale explained, “(I)t’s basically more like a smattering of falsehood than the daily avalanche we got from Trump, but he’s not perfect.” Dale has tried to demonstrate that he’s checking Biden, issuing an online report on 40 of Biden’s statements from his first month in office.
But there’s a catch. Dale’s becoming less visible. Mediaite noted on Feb. 20 that this CNN fact-checker was featured on air or mentioned by name on average more than once every other day since June 2019. But exposure dipped noticeably after the election, and “since President Joe Biden’s inauguration … Dale has only appeared on the network once. And that appearance, last Friday, was to fact-check Donald Trump’s lawyers.” Dale showed up with Stelter just three days after the Mediaite piece was published.
Stelter also interviewed PolitiFact editor-in-chief Angie Drobnic Holan. Is PolitiFact obsessed with fact-checking Biden? No.
In the first four weeks after Biden took the oath, PolitiFact issued two Biden fact-checks — two! Last week, it fact-checked three of Biden’s statements from the CNN town hall, since that was apparently a little too prominent to ignore. It added one more on Feb. 22. That’s six fact-checks of the president so far.
Let’s compare that to fact-checks defending Biden. In the same time frame, PolitiFact issued 19 fact-checks of Biden’s critics, and all but one of them were proclaimed “Mostly False,” “False” or “Pants on Fire.” (There was one “Half True”). There’s apparently no such thing as a “True” Biden critique.
The forever war on Afghanistan will continue.
The U.S. and its NATO proxy force have spent nearly 20 years and a trillion dollars to “do something” in Afghanistan. What that something was to be was never clear. There were attempts to impose some kind of enlightened model of governance on the Afghan people. But anyone with knowledge of that country knew that this would never work.
Bribes were handed out left and right and Afghan warlords, many of whom hold government positions, enriched themselves by scamming the occupation forces. They naturally do not want that to end. There are also Afghans who do not want to live under the heel of corrupt warlords and ignorant occupation troops. They are called Taliban and get support from Pakistan and Arab countries which the U.S. calls ‘allies’. The occupation forces tried to fight them but after nearly 20 years of wars the Taliban again rule over half of the country. Even while the warlords still have military support from the occupation forces their troops are losing in nearly every engagement.
Militarily the war against the Taliban has long been lost. Even with the 100,000 ‘western’ troops the Obama administration had sent there was no way to win it.
President Donald Trump made efforts to end the useless war on Afghanistan. He negotiated with the Taliban to remove all ‘western’ forces by May 1. The agreement also commits the Taliban to not attacking those forces and to negotiate with the warlord government in Kabul on power sharing. They agreed to that after the U.S. promised that Taliban prisoners of war, held by the Afghan government, would be released.
The Afghan government had and has of course no interest in losing power. At least not as long as still gets sponsored by ‘western’ money. It also did not want to let prisoners go as those would just turn around and again fight against it. A year ago the Trump administration threatened to withhold money should the Afghan government not follow the negotiated terms:
Facing collapse of Afghan peace talks before they even start, the Trump administration has threatened to withhold up to $2 billion in aid unless President Ashraf Ghani and his main rival put aside their political differences and open negotiations with the Taliban.
…
The threat was the sharpest sign yet that the Trump administration is distancing itself from its Afghan ally and moving closer to the Taliban. The longtime U.S. adversary has in effect become a wary partner as President Trump seeks to withdraw thousands of American troops before the November election and end America’s longest war.
…
The Kabul government is heavily dependent on international assistance. U.S. aid was expected to total $4.3 billion this year, all but $500 million of which was earmarked for training and equipping the Afghan army.
The threat worked as expected. But when it became clear that a new management would take over the White House the Afghan government again tried to stall the process.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.