Joshua Reid | Redpill Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Daily Dose Recap is our way of providing to you an overview of everything that was covered during the show. Here you will have easy access to all of the news that was talked about that day.
The House of Representatives’s formal impeachment inquiry – announced last week by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) – is set to begin on September 28th, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The chairman of the committee, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), says he intends to subpoena Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family as a part of the inquiry process.
“It’s an informative hearing where we’re going to have some experts in different areas of the law that can answer questions pertaining to specific crimes, as well as to educate and inform exactly what an impeachment inquiry is, and why you do an impeachment inquiry,” Comer said regarding what is being planned for the first hearing. The Committee has not yet released a finalized list of who will be testifying at the first hearing.
Two individuals who figure to play a large role in the inquiry are President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and the President’s brother, James Biden. Both members of the Biden family will receive subpoenas as early as this week. Both are alleged to have helped then-Vice President Joe Biden abuse his public office to profit from foreign business deals.
The Oversight Committee, according to Speaker McCarthy, will be working with the Ways and Means Committee and the Judiciary Committee. What role each committee will play in the inquiry is not yet finalized, though Rep. Comer indicated that he expects those details to be agreed upon soon, adding: “Once all of the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed, I expect to issue a subpoena for Hunter and James Bidens’ personal bank records.”
About 160 non-United States citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), commonly known as the terrorist watchlist, have attempted to cross into the U.S. this year, according to the Homeland Threat Assessment. The majority of these encounters occurred while these individuals were trying to enter the country illegally between official ports of entry.
This marks a notable increase compared to last year when border officials encountered roughly 100 individuals on the watchlist. The increase has alarmed officials at the Department of Homeland Security.
The annual assessment cited a record number of migrant arrivals as a significant complicating factor for border and immigration security over the past year. The report also highlights the expectation of continued high numbers of migrant encounters in the upcoming year.
This expectation is driven by factors such as the persistent motivations for migration to the U.S. and potential growing frustration with the limited availability of legal immigration pathways.
However, the report also raises concerns about the possibility of terrorists and criminal actors exploiting this heightened flow and the increasingly complex security environment to gain entry into the United States.
Homeland Security officials emphasized that every individual encountered at the border undergoes rigorous biometric and biographic screening and vetting.
Customs and Border Protection has also expanded its information-sharing agreements with international partners to enhance its ability to prevent, detect and investigate various crimes, including human trafficking.
The report tried to downplay the issue, noting that encounters with known or suspected terrorists at the Southern Border are extremely rare, representing significantly less than 0.01 percent of total encounters annually in recent years.
It added that these encounters may involve individuals who are not themselves known or suspected terrorists but may have associations with individuals on the watchlist, including family members.
Increase in encounters with watchlisted individuals linked to surge in travelers from Eastern Hemisphere
The report linked the increase in encounters with individuals on TSDB to the soaring number of travelers from the Eastern Hemisphere coming to the U.S. over the past year.
This surge in travelers from regions where terrorism is a concern has necessitated additional processing and repatriation resources. Individuals can end up on the watchlist because of their associations with known watchlisted individuals or their direct involvement in terrorist activities.
This underscores a broader trend of individuals from conflict zones worldwide seeking to migrate to the Western Hemisphere, ultimately targeting the United States.
In addition to the concerns related to terrorism, the report anticipates that the threat of domestic terrorism will remain high but unchanged in 2024.
It also identifies illicit drugs produced and imported from Mexico as the primary threat to American lives.
It's important to note that Border Patrol officials have reported a growing number of people on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's terror watchlist encountered not only at the southern border but also at the northern border.
TSDB contains sensitive information on known or suspected terrorists and individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States. When individuals on this list are encountered at the border, they may be detained, removed or turned over to another agency for detention or law enforcement action if necessary.
However, it's worth noting that most individuals on the terrorist watchlist are still permitted to fly within the U.S., with only a small subset placed on the "No Fly" list, a decision made exclusively by government agencies.
Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman recently addressed the United Auto Workers (UAW) strike. However, his message to the CEOs involved was delivered in a somewhat stuttered and mumbled manner, leading to some confusion.
Speaking on Tuesday about the ongoing strike, Fetterman stated, “My message to the, the CEOs, CEOs is, you know, it’s $74 million, you know, collectively earning that, you know, how many yachts can they need, you know, to, to yacht, to water, uh, ski behind it, you know, I mean, it’s, it’s crazy. You know, I don’t, my message.”
In other news, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer notably altered the Senate’s informal dress code, an act perceived as accommodating Fetterman’s notoriously slovenly attire.
While some see this as a reflection of changing times, progressives view it as a nod to Fetterman’s unique style and individuality within the political landscape.
Fetterman has faced a number of challenges in communicating clearly during his first term in the Senate, a significant portion of which can be attributed to his recovery from a stroke. His stroke recovery had necessitated the use of assistive technology in the Senate, where Senators are typically not allowed to use their phones.
Fetterman’s return to the Senate after a six-week medical leave for depression and other mental health issues has also been a challenge. His journey back to full duty in the Senate has been closely watched and widely reported
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has decided to skip the GOP presidential debate tonight. Instead, he has chosen to address the striking auto workers. This decision underscores the significance of the UAW strike and its wide-reaching implications across the political spectrum.
Image Credit: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) addresses reporters after a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 19, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Republicans failed to pass a procedural vote on the consideration of the defense appropriations bill, effectively blocking its consideration by the House.
The failed vote is the latest setback to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in his effort to keep the fractious Republican caucus together and complete the 2024 appropriations process.
The vote failed 212–214 with Reps. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) opposing their Republican majority. Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) initially voted against the rule but changed her vote to yes.
Mr. McCarthy had delayed the vote, originally scheduled for Sept. 13, in an unsuccessful effort to whip votes.
Earlier in the day, Mr. McCarthy appeared to question the aims of those opposing Republican spending initiatives in comments to reporters.
“If you’re not going to pass individual bills, you’re not going to pass a short-term CR that allows us to pass the individual bills to help the border get secure, if you don’t want to pass Homeland [Security appropriations], then want to do you want to do?” the speaker asked rhetorically.
“If you run for office, you should be willing to govern. And the thing I want to show the American public is that we can govern in a conservative manner and you can have a stronger country,” he said.
After the vote, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) criticized Republican leaders for giving ground to the far-right wing of their party. “They keep on negotiating with their extreme right to go farther and farther in a direction that, quite frankly, will not be welcomed by Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans,” Mr. McGovern said. “This is a ridiculous game they’re playing.”
The setback may be an occasion to build consensus, according to Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “We’ve got a four-seat majority, and we are all captured by a small number,” Mr. Bacon told reporters. Musing on the writings of James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, Mr. Bacon said: “They talk about protecting the minority. In this case, it forces working across the aisle to get consensus. That’s what we should be doing to begin with.”
The bill funds all agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. For Fiscal Year 2024, the bill includes $826. billion in new discretionary spending, $286 million over the president’s budget request, and $28.71 billion over the previous year, an increase of 3.6 percent.
Among other provisions, the bill authorizes a 5.2 percent pay increase for service members, including a 30 percent increase on average for junior enlisted personnel.
President Joe Biden delivered his annual address on Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly, where he condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for increased international assistance to Kyiv.
World leaders are gathering in New York for the opening of the 78th session of the U.N. General Assembly this week.
“Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence,” President Biden said. “But I ask you this: If we abandon the core principles of the U.N. Charter to appease an aggressor, can any member state feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?
“The answer is no. We must stand up to this naked aggression today to deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow,” President Biden continued.
“That is why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity—and their freedom,” he said, drawing applause from world leaders.
Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s U.N. envoy, was spotted examining his phone during President Biden’s address.
“It’s Russia alone who stands in the way of peace because Russia’s price for peace is Ukraine’s capitulation, Ukraine’s territory, and Ukraine’s children,” President Biden said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was among the leaders attending the meeting, which is his first in-person appearance at the U.N. since Russia invaded his country.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping were among the leaders who skipped this year’s meeting.
Besides the war in Ukraine, funding for international development projects is high on President Biden’s agenda at this year’s gathering.
During his speech, the president called for reforming the United Nations Security Council to make it more inclusive. In addition, he advocated for changes at the World Bank and other multilateral development institutions to better serve the infrastructure needs of low- and middle-income nations.
Today, President Biden is expected to meet with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to discuss global issues. In addition, he will meet with the presidents of five Central Asian nations: Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
This will be the first so-called “C5+1 presidential summit,” where President Biden and five Central Asian leaders plan to “discuss a range of issues related to regional security, trading connectivity, climate, and reforms to improve governance and the rule of law,” a senior administration official said during a briefing.
On Wednesday, the president will meet with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. He will also meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time since the Israeli leader returned to office.
After concluding his meetings in New York, President Biden will welcome Mr. Zelenskyy to the White House, where he will be hosting him for the third time. The White House will announce an additional aid package for Ukraine this week.
Biden’s Rough Week
President Biden’s meetings with foreign leaders come at a difficult time for him personally and politically. Last week, his son, Hunter Biden, faced indictment on three felony charges related to firearm possession while using narcotics.
Meanwhile, the president himself faces an impeachment inquiry. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced on Sept. 12 that the GOP-controlled House has launched an investigation into his potential involvement in Mr. Hunter Biden’s business dealings during his tenure as vice president under President Barack Obama.
The challenges don’t end there for the 46th president. David Ignatius, a prominent Washington Post columnist and ardent supporter of the president, opined last week that he should withdraw from the 2024 race. Mr. Ignatius, despite his respect for the president’s achievements, raised concerns about his age.
“In sum, he has been a successful and effective president,” he wrote. “But I don’t think Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris should run for reelection.”
President Biden is also dealing with the worst labor crisis of his presidency, which adds to an already onerous list of challenges. The United Auto Workers’ strike against Detroit’s three automakers, which began last week, has entered its fifth day with little sign of movement toward an agreement. A prolonged strike could have far-reaching effects on the economy and pose a significant setback for the president’s economic agenda, called “Bidenomics.”
In addition, the president faces continued low approval ratings, and the majority of Americans are unhappy with his handling of the economy.
However, according to Biden officials, these issues are not causing the president any distractions.
“This president has focused on advancing his positive agenda,” a senior administration official told reporters on Monday.
The world leaders will “hear a vision that we think is pretty compelling and a vision that not many other countries can offer,” the official said.
On September 17, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned Western countries to prepare for “a long war” in Ukraine, and that he backed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s aim of a military triumph over Russia. The NATO leader made these statements despite alleging that he wanted a “quick peace” in Ukraine.
“Most wars last longer than expected when they first begin,” Stoltenberg declared in an interview with Germany’s Funke media group. “Therefore we must prepare ourselves for a long war in Ukraine.”
Based on media reports over the last two months, Western officials and military planners have admitted that Ukraine’s present counteroffensive against Russian forces is likely to fail.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that Ukraine has lost over 71,000 men since the counteroffensive commenced in June this year. Notwithstanding such sobering attrition figures, with Ukrainian media sources stating that some units have lost 90 percent of their manpower, Stoltenberg maintained that NATO will persist in lobbying for a military solution instead of a diplomatic one.
“We are all wishing for a quick peace,” Stoltenberg said. “But at the same time we must recognise: if President Zelensky and the Ukrainians stop fighting, their country will no longer exist. If President Putin and Russia lay down their weapons, we will have peace.”
After dismissing a Turkish-brokered peace deal last April, Zelensky published a decree banning all peace talks with Russia. Furthermore, the Ukrainian leader has constantly pledged to recapture the former Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, as well as Crimea, the latter of which voted overwhelmingly to join Russia in 2014.
Washington, where officials have alleged that only the Ukrainian leader can determine when to seek peace, has repeatedly displayed support for Zelensky in his actions against Russia. Also, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has decried Putin for reportedly abandoning “meaningful diplomacy.”
On its end, Russia has insisted that it is ready for a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine. However, any negotiations would have to consider the “new territorial reality” — that Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporozhye, and Crimea will never be given back to Ukraine. Additionally, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has declared that peace talks would be conducted “not with Zelensky, who is a puppet in the hands of the West, but directly with his masters.”
Ukraine’s head of the National Security and Defense Council, Aleksey Danilov, penned an opinion piece published on September 16 in the Ukrainskaya Pravda newspaper stating that his country is undermined by the slow unraveling of its “carefully woven web of foreign assistance” due to rising disillusionment among its Western backers.
The security chief slammed “reputable and influential” Western media outlets for publishing information hinting that Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive was failing, that Kyiv’s troops could not recapture territory from Russia, and Moscow’s resources were “limitless.”
These materials dampen Western military aid to Kyiv and impede Ukraine’s “peace formula,” Danilov added.
Danilov then suggested that the only way out of the clash between Moscow and Kyiv was a military solution. “The peace formula is the weapons formula,” he argued in the article.
Furthermore, Danilov called for the West to address its own growing disappointment about Ukraine’s performance in the conflict.
Western nations should set up their “agreed formula for … the vision of Ukraine’s victory” and also “enshrine military assistance to Ukraine in … legislation,” he proposed, adding that election schedules might influence “the stability of the partnership” between Ukraine and the West.
Moreover, the United States and its allies should “develop and implement a set of measures to neutralize so-called ‘war fatigue,’” Danilov reinforced.
Danilov’s article came more than three months into the Ukrainian counteroffensive, and after various Western media outlets have reported on rising doubts among Western officials about Ukraine’s abilities in its counteroffensive. Danilov also alluded to Zelensky’s own “peace formula” — which includes the departure of Russian troops from all territories claimed by Kyiv, reparations from Moscow, and a criminal tribunal for Russian government officials.
The New York Times reported in August that U.S. and U.K. officials were “perplexed” by Kyiv’s strategies, whereas The Wall Street Journal declared Washington would cut military aid to Ukraine in 2024.
Washington’s widespread campaign to back Ukraine with arms equates to a war against Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared September 17, elaborating that the United States has long prepared Kyiv for this very purpose.
In a statement to Russian reporter Pavel Zarubin, Lavrov suggested that speculations about Washington possibly approving the delivery of Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), which have a range of up to 300km, were meant to influence “public opinion.”
Lavrov claimed that these considerations would not alter the reality that “for many years Ukraine has been groomed to fight with its hands and bodies in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” slamming the United States for stoking animosities between Kyiv and Moscow.
Various Western media outlets have recently reported that the administration of Joe Biden is on the verge of greenlighting deliveries of the ATACMS, which Kyiv has been requesting for several months. The United States has been hesitant to deploy these missile systems, stating that potential Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia could provoke a major intensification of the conflict.
Ukraine has already received long-range missiles from the U.K. and France, which, based on local officials, have been used to assault civilian targets and infrastructure in Russia’s Crimean Peninsula and Donbass.
As NATO countries earmarked tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons and ammunition for Ukraine since last February, Western leaders enforced strict sanctions on Russia to undermine its defense industry. However, U.S. officials have reportedlyadmitted that Russia is now manufacturing more missiles than it was before the conflict began.
While the sanctions curbed Russian missile output for around six months after Moscow launched its military offensive against Kyiv, the country’s defense contractors later managed to reinstate and even raise their production capacity, The New York Timesdeclared, quoting unnamed U.S. officials.
India is remaining defiant and has refused to acknowledge Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's shock accusation that Indian intelligence assassinated a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. Trudeau on Monday told lawmakers there is "credible" intelligence pointing to "agents of the government of India" as being behind the June murder of a prominent Sikh leader named Hardeep Singh Nijjar near Vancouver - shot dead outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia. He was a prominent leader in the Sikh Khalistan independence movement, and thus the Indian government labeled him a "terrorist".
Canada on Monday expelled an Indian diplomat who is a known intelligence official, but on Tuesday India in tit-for-tat fashion expelled a senior Canadian diplomat from its territory. India’s Ministry of External Affairs cited Canadian "interference" in India's sovereign matters. "The decision reflects Government of India’s growing concern at the interference of Canadian diplomats in our internal matters and their involvement in anti-India activities," the ministry said in a statement.
Image Credit: Unhappy meeting at the G20, via OpIndia
The Indian government has condemned and rejected allegations, calling them "absurd" and politically motivated. Further, New Delhi has suggested Canadian officials are running cover for 'terrorists' that are engaged in Sikh separatist activities. Canada has a huge Indian and Sikh population.
All of this reflects the already long simmering tensions between the two countries:
A number of individuals designated as terrorists by India's National Investigative Agency continue to call for India's break-up in Canada. Since 2020, self-proclaimed "referendums" that call for the break-up of the Indian state of Punjab from the Union of India have been occurring despite India asserting strong diplomatic offences.
"The inaction of the Canadian Government on this matter has been a long-standing and continuing concern," India's foreign ministry said.
Trudeau had in his televised announcement before the House of Commons asserted that "Any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty." Some pro-Indian commentators and media are questioning whether Nijjar is a Canadian citizen at all.
"We have seen and reject the statement of the Canadian Prime Minister in their Parliament, as also the statement by their Foreign Minister. Allegations of Government of India's involvement in any act of violence in Canada are absurd and motivated," India's foreign ministry said.
"Similar allegations were made by the Canadian Prime Minister to our Prime Minister, and were completely rejected," the Indian foreign ministry added. Canadian PM Trudeau told his country's parliament that he had taken up the purported matter of alleged Indian hand in Hardeep Singh Nijjar's killing "directly" with his Indian counterpart during the G20 summit in Delhi earlier this month.
Indeed Trudeau had told parliament that he had directly informed PM Modi of his intelligence service's findings related to Nijjar's murder.
But given India has focused much of its angry reaction on denouncing the Canadian government for being 'weak' on terrorism, it's increasingly looking like Indian intelligence was indeed likely behind or at least had knowledge of the assassination. After all, Nijjar was a top wanted man in India, and there was even a reward for his apprehension.
"That Canadian political figures have openly expressed sympathy for such elements remains a matter of deep concern," India's foreign ministry continued. "The space given in Canada to a range of illegal activities, including murders, human trafficking and organised crime is not new. We reject any attempts to connect the Government of India to such developments. We urge the Government of Canada to take prompt and effective legal action against all anti-India elements operating from their soil."
Image Credit: Hardeep Singh Nijjar
This sheds some light on negative events which happened at the end of Trudeau's G20 trip, as Reutersrecounts:
Trudeau was seen as the most snubbed leader during the G20 summit in Delhi, away from media's attention and geo-economic significance, as he chose to skip official dinners and made it a point to attend the formal business of the summit only. As Trudeau was to leave Delhi, his official plane developed a technical malfunction and he had to stay back in India for nearly two days, and denied the Indian offer to take the service of an Indian Air India One plane instead.
The stunning and unprecedented moment of such a severe accusation as a political assassination on foreign soil, and the tit-for-tat expelling of diplomats is likely to send already tension-filled India-Canadian ties falling off a cliff.
There's also the possibility the whole row could push India further away from the West when it comes to the Ukraine war, and into closer trade and economic cooperation with Russia and China.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called for “an immediate end to hostilities” by Azerbaijan against the ethnic-Armenian province of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeri operation has been condemned by the EU, US, and Russia.
“Azerbaijan’s unacceptable military actions risk worsening the humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh,” Blinken said in a statement on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday. “We call for an immediate end to hostilities and for direct dialogue.”
Earlier on Tuesday, an anonymous US official told Reuters that Blinken would hold talks with all sides in a bid to end the “egregious” outbreak of violence in the province.
Azerbaijan launched what it called “counter-terrorism measures” against the ethnically-Armenian province of Nagorno-Karabakh earlier on Tuesday. Baku claims that it is targeting a buildup of the Armenian military in the province, while Yerevan denies deploying units to Nagorno-Karabakh and has accused Azerbaijan of attempting to carry out the “ethnic cleansing” of the Armenian enclave.
The Azeri operation has been condemned by the US, EU, and Russia, among other powers. Russia brokered a ceasefire between Baku and Yerevan when both sides fought over Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, and maintains a contingent of peacekeepers in the province. Azerbaijan said that it informed Russia before launching its military operation, but Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday that this warning came just “minutes before military action began.”
The US is not a formal ally of either Armenia or Azerbaijan, but has sold weapons to Baku since 2002, in exchange for access to the country as a launchpad for deploying troops to Afghanistan. These arms sales are a bone of contention for the sizable Armenian diaspora in the US, which authorities in Yerevan say numbers up to two million people.
Two of the US’ major NATO allies – France and Germany – have issued condemnations of Azerbaijan’s actions, with French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna calling the operation “illegal, unjustifiable, [and] unacceptable.”
One NATO member, Türkiye, has come out in support of Azerbaijan. The Turkish Foreign Ministry stated that Azerbaijan “was forced to take measures it deems necessary on its sovereign territory.”
In the Armenian capital of Yerevan, protesters clashed with police outside government buildings. Opposition politicians and activists accuse Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of abandoning Nagorno-Karabakh when he said he would recognize Azeri sovereignty over the province earlier this summer.
Azerbaijan has vowed to keep up the bombardment of Nagorno-Karabakh until Armenian-backed authorities there surrender and dissolve their government.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi on Tuedsay accused the United States of worsening the Ukraine war but insisted that Tehran — which has provided drones to Russia — would back a peace settlement.
“The United States of America has fanned the flames of violence in Ukraine in order to weaken the European countries. This is a long-term plan, unfortunately,” he told the United Nations General Assembly.
The UK Foreign Office has imposed travel restrictions on Russian diplomats, requiring them to notify British authorities before journeying beyond their posts. The move is retaliatory, coming after the Russian Foreign Ministry announced similar rules for British diplomats in July.
“In response to Russia's decision to impose travel notification requirements on British diplomats in Russia, we have introduced commensurate reciprocal travel notification requirements for Russian diplomats accredited to the Russian Embassy in London and the Consulate-General in Edinburgh,” UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign Office Leo Docherty wrote in a statement on the UK parliament website on Monday.
“This is in line with the concept of reciprocity in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,” Docherty added.
The announcement came four months after the Russian Foreign Ministry announced similar travel restrictions on British diplomats in Russia, citing the UK’s “hostile actions… including the obstruction of the normal functioning of Russian diplomatic offices.”
Under the Russian regulations, staff at the British embassy in Moscow and consulate general in Yekaterinburg are required to notify Russian authorities five days before any trips beyond 120 kilometers from their office buildings.
Docherty did not say whether the UK would impose a similar distance or notification time limit.
Under the Vienna Convention, a government must give foreign diplomats “freedom of movement and travel in its territory.” The convention does not, however, forbid governments from applying rules and regulations to make travel more difficult.
Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Russian Security Council, revealed on Tuesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing next month.
This high-level encounter will take during the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation set for October. China had previously confirmed the attendance of approximately 90 countries for this event, including foreign leaders, such as Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Argentine President Alberto Fernandez.
During a meeting in Moscow with China's top diplomat, Wang Yi, on Tuesday, Patrushev emphasized that the relationship between Russia and China is built on the principles of respect, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, and mutual support on the global stage. He emphasized that these ties are “self-rewarding and not subject to external conditions.”
Patrushev also affirmed Moscow's commitment to supporting Beijing on issues such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong. He highlighted that Western powers are exploiting these topics to undermine China's reputation.
“In the context of the campaign launched by the collective West to contain both Russia and China, the further deepening of Russian-Chinese coordination and interaction in the international arena is of particular importance,” Patrushev said.
Wang, for his part, emphasized that Beijing remains committed to supporting Moscow in their bilateral partnership and within various international forums. He underlined that China and Russia are at a pivotal juncture in their national rejuvenation and state development.
Political and economic collaboration between Russia and China has experienced substantial growth in recent years, particularly against the backdrop of increasing tensions between Moscow and Western nations, primarily over the Ukraine conflict. Beijing has refused to uphold Western sanctions against Russia. Meanwhile, in light of strained relations with the West, Moscow has begun to pivot its focus toward the East.
Human Events Senior Editor and host of Human Events Daily Jack Posobiec has been added to an infamous Ukrainian "kill list" that has also targeted Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, and Glenn Greenwald in the past. The list, called "Myrovorets," which translates roughly to "Peacemaker," calls for retribution against perceived enemies of Ukraine.
The list refers to Posobiec as an "anti-Ukrainian propagandist" and "provocateur."
In response to the threat, Posobiec said "After the collapse of his counteroffensive, Zelensky's biggest threat isn't me, it's his own intelligence services. Hope you don't get put on the CIA's Early Retirement Plan, Volod. Drop the receipts on the Bidens and we'll find you a nice McMansion in Sarasota."
"Ukraine has added Human Events host and conservative US influencer Jack Posobiec to their 'Myrovorets' hitlist. The list also includes slain Russian journalist Darya Dugina (now "liquidated") and briefly included Elon Musk" Ian Miles Cheong posted on X.
"Whoa. Why are we giving billions of dollars to a country who creates hit lists with American citizens on it?" Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichek asked.
"The US government is funding Ukraine while they spit in our face by putting American citizens on a hitlist for the crime of not supporting endless war in Ukraine. This is disgusting. Will legacy media ignore Ukraine targeting a journalist like @JackPosobiec" Robby Starbuck asked.
Just last week an American representative from the Ukrainian military pledged that individuals voicing opposition to the Ukrainian government would be actively pursued.
"Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash even harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. This puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia's war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served" Sarah Ashton-Cirillo warned.
In response to the warning, Charlie Kirk said "Ashton-Cirillo is now taking to social media threatening to hunt down and kill those who criticize the country’s government. ... Why are we giving these psychos our money?"
“This video was made by an American born person in English directed towards the west, not the Kremlin, saying that if you engage in wrong speak, we're going to murder you” Kirk added.
You know you’re VERY dumb when you send Billions upon Billions to a Country that hates you….and literally has a list of your own people they want to kill.
I guess though, to be fair, it’s not the first time we’ve done this.
Remember when we sent literal pallets of cash to Iran?
The country that shouts “Death to America”?
What did OBummer do?
Sent them a plane with literal $400 million in cash.
And to the fact-checkers who will say that’s not true, here is CNN from 216:
We all thought that was bad, but enter Biden who says “Hold My Beer”.
We now send Billions upon Billions to Ukraine who has a literal USA “Kill List”.
Human Events Senior Editor and host of Human Events Daily Jack Posobiec has been added to an infamous Ukrainian “kill list” that has also targeted Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, and Glenn Greenwald in the past. The list, called “Myrovorets,” which translates roughly to “Peacemaker,” calls for retribution against perceived enemies of Ukraine.
The list refers to Posobiec as an “anti-Ukrainian propagandist” and “provocateur.”
In response to the threat, Posobiec said “After the collapse of his counteroffensive, Zelensky’s biggest threat isn’t me, it’s his own intelligence services. Hope you don’t get put on the CIA’s Early Retirement Plan, Volod. Drop the receipts on the Bidens and we’ll find you a nice McMansion in Sarasota.”
“Ukraine has added Human Events host and conservative US influencer Jack Posobiec to their ‘Myrovorets’ hitlist. The list also includes slain Russian journalist Darya Dugina (now “liquidated”) and briefly included Elon Musk” Ian Miles Cheong posted on X.
“Whoa. Why are we giving billions of dollars to a country who creates hit lists with American citizens on it?” Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichek asked.
“The US government is funding Ukraine while they spit in our face by putting American citizens on a hitlist for the crime of not supporting endless war in Ukraine. This is disgusting. Will legacy media ignore Ukraine targeting a journalist like @JackPosobiec” Robby Starbuck asked.
Just last week an American representative from the Ukrainian military pledged that individuals voicing opposition to the Ukrainian government would be actively pursued.
“Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash even harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. This puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia’s war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served” Sarah Ashton-Cirillo warned.
In response to the warning, Charlie Kirk said “Ashton-Cirillo is now taking to social media threatening to hunt down and kill those who criticize the country’s government. … Why are we giving these psychos our money?”
“This video was made by an American born person in English directed towards the west, not the Kremlin, saying that if you engage in wrong speak, we’re going to murder you” Kirk added.
Hundreds of students in Pennsylvania staged a walk-out last week in protest of their school board failing to enact a policy barring transgenders from using female bathrooms.
The demonstration took place Friday, with students of the Perkiomen Valley School District expressing their disapproval over biological males being allowed to use female restrooms.
Joining Fox News Monday, the organizer of the protest, John Ott, said students were highly concerned over the school board’s inaction.
“Kids were upset. Girls… we wanted to protect them. They were upset. They didn’t want men in their bathroom,” Ott told Fox News.
“The safety of females is so important and these students that stood out that walked out, they are to be commended. They have courage and they exercise their First Amendment rights. This is about protecting our children and our privacy and boys and girls. It’s simple biology.”
The walk-out comes as the board earlier this month refused to enact a policy restricting restroom and locker room access to a student’s “biological sex classification based upon chromosomal structure and anatomy at birth.”
Proposed Policy 720 says “restrooms, locker rooms, and showers that are designated for one sex shall be designated for use only by members of that sex,” and specifies “No person shall enter a restroom, locker room, or shower that is designated for the use of the opposite sex.”
The policy has been sent to committee for further review and consideration.
Proposed Policy 720 came after local father Tim Jagger posted on social media that his daughter was left “too upset and emotionally disturbed” to walk into school bathrooms after allegedly having an encounter with a transgender student in one of the facilities, according to WPVI-TV in Philadelphia.
The outlet’s report, however, said neither the father nor his daughter were 100% sure that the student Jagger’s daughter encountered in the restroom was a biological male.
“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors.”—Professor Robert Gellately, author of Backing Hitler
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the government and flagged for heightened surveillance and preemptive intervention.
Let that sink in a moment.
If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.
So what is the government doing about these so-called American “extremists”?
The government is grooming the American people to spy on each other as part of its Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, or CP3 program.
As Hohmann explains, “Whether it’s COVID and vaccines, the war in Ukraine, immigration, the Second Amendment, LGBTQ ideology and child-gender confusion, the integrity of our elections, or the issue of protecting life in the womb, you are no longer allowed to hold dissenting opinions and voice them publicly in America. If you do, your own government will take note and consider you a potential ‘violent extremist’ and terrorist.”
Cue the dawning of the Snitch State.
This new era of snitch surveillance is the lovechild of the government’s post-9/11 “See Something, Say Something” programs combined with the self-righteousness of a politically correct, hyper-vigilant, technologically-wired age.
For more than two decades, the Department of Homeland Security has plastered its “See Something, Say Something” campaign on the walls of metro stations, on billboards, on coffee cup sleeves, at the Super Bowl, even on television monitors in the Statue of Liberty. Colleges, universities and even football teams and sporting arenas have lined up for grants to participate in the program.
If you see something suspicious, says the DHS, say something about it to the police, call it in to a government hotline, or report it using a convenient app on your smart phone.
This DHS slogan is nothing more than the government’s way of indoctrinating “we the people” into the mindset that we’re an extension of the government and, as such, have a patriotic duty to be suspicious of, spy on, and turn in our fellow citizens.
This is what is commonly referred to as community policing.
Yet while community policing and federal programs such as “See Something, Say Something” are sold to the public as patriotic attempts to be on guard against those who would harm us, they are little more than totalitarian tactics dressed up and repackaged for a more modern audience as well-intentioned appeals to law and order and security.
The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own policing.
After all, the police can’t be everywhere. So how do you police a nation when your population outnumbers your army of soldiers? How do you carry out surveillance on a nation when there aren’t enough cameras, let alone viewers, to monitor every square inch of the country 24/7? How do you not only track but analyze the transactions, interactions and movements of every person within the United States?
The answer is simpler than it seems: You persuade the citizenry to be your eyes and ears. You hype them up on color-coded “Terror alerts,” keep them in the dark about the distinctions between actual threats and staged “training” drills so that all crises seem real, desensitize them to the sight of militarized police walking their streets, acclimatize them to being surveilled “for their own good,” and then indoctrinate them into thinking that they are the only ones who can save the nation from another 9/11.
Consequently, we now live in a society in which a person can be accused of any number of crimes without knowing what exactly he has done. He might be apprehended in the middle of the night by a roving band of SWAT police. He might find himself on a no-fly list, unable to travel for reasons undisclosed. He might have his phones or internet tapped based upon a secret order handed down by a secret court, with no recourse to discover why he was targeted.
This Kafkaesque nightmare has become America’s reality.
This is how you turn a people into extensions of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent police state, and in the process turn a citizenry against each other.
It’s a brilliant ploy, with the added bonus that while the citizenry remains focused on and distrustful of each other and shadowy forces from outside the country, they’re incapable of focusing on more definable threats that fall closer to home—namely, the government and its cabal of Constitution-destroying agencies and corporate partners.
Community policing did not come about as a feel-good, empowering response to individuals trying to “take back” their communities from crime syndicates and drug lords.
Rather, “Community-Oriented Policing” or COPS (short for Community Partnerships, Organizational Transformation, and Problem Solving) is a Department of Justice program designed to foster partnerships between police agencies and members of the community.
To this end, the Justice Department identifies five distinct “partners” in the community policing scheme: law enforcement and other government agencies, community members and groups, nonprofits, churches and service providers, private businesses and the media.
Together, these groups are supposed to “identify” community concerns, “engage” the community in achieving specific goals, serve as “powerful” partners with the government, and add their “considerable resources” to the government’s already massive arsenal of technology and intelligence. The mainstream media’s role, long recognized as being a mouthpiece for the government, is formally recognized as “publicizing” services from government or community agencies or new laws or codes that will be enforced, as well as shaping public perceptions of the police, crime problems, and fear of crime.
Inevitably, this begs the question: if there’s nothing wrong with community engagement, if the police can’t be everywhere at once, if surveillance cameras do little to actually prevent crime, and if we need to “take back our communities” from the crime syndicates and drug lords, then what’s wrong with community policing and “See Something, Say Something”?
We are now the unwitting victims of an interconnected, tightly woven, technologically evolving web of real-time, warrantless, wall-to-wall, widening mass surveillance dragnet comprised of fusion centers, red flag laws, behavioral threat assessments, terror watch lists, facial recognition, snitch tip lines, biometric scanners, pre-crime programs, DNA databases, data mining, precognitive technology and contact tracing apps, to name just a few.
This is how the government keeps us under control and in its crosshairs.
By the time you combine the DHS’ “See Something, Say Something” with CP3 and community policing, which has gone global in the guise of the Strong Cities Network program, you’ve got a formula for enabling the government to not only flag distinct “anti-government” segments of the population but locking down the entire nation.
Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Strong Cities Network program works with the UN and the federal government to train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.
What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale with the objective being to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. In other words, police will identify, monitor and deter individuals who could be construed as potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats.
The government’s war on extremists has been sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combatting terrorists who seek to destroy America.
However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.
Similarly, the concern with the government’s ongoing anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.
Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers, data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
These reports, which use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably, indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.
Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which each successive presidential administration has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.
Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the far-reaching data crime fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that identifies and tracks you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers which are attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
If you can’t read the writing on the wall, you need to pay better attention.
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country five, ten—even twenty—years from now.
As long as “we the people” continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, things will get worse, not better.
The best thing to do if you are ever confronted by criminals while in Seattle is to simply give them "whatever they're looking for," according to King County Sheriff David Robinson.
Instead of trying to fight criminals when they attempt to, say, steal your car, Robinson suggests that residents and visitors of Seattle "give up their car keys" and avoid provoking these robbers and thieves.
"Give the criminals what they want," Robinson told Seattleites about how to live in their city, which is currently facing the highest violent crime rate in 15 years.
Staged carjackings are a major problem in Seattle, just like they now are in San Francisco and surrounding Bay Area communities. And because all of these cities and areas have lessened their police presence, criminals are becoming increasingly bolder in committing blatant acts of crime in broad daylight.
To give Robinson some credit, his advice is probably the smartest advice that he can offer to Seattleites, all things considered. Since the city's police presence has dwindled since George Floyd, and because violent crime is up big time, it makes sense to avoid unneeded confrontations in the event that a carjacker, say, demands your vehicle and you are ill-equipped to handle it yourself.
On the other hand, if Seattle had a greater police presence, there would be fewer carjackings in the first place. And if Seattle was a city that valued the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, more criminals would be deterred from committing crimes because they themselves want to avoid getting shot in a confrontation.
"What if the colonists had decided that the British were just too strong – and just gave up?" asks Eric Utter, writing for American Thinker.
"The likes of George Washington and Samuel Adams could have simply told them to give up their guns and hand the keys to their homes over to the Redcoats. After all, the British had a large and experienced army and the best navy in the world. The colonists had neither."
Utter makes a great point, and one that today's Americans need to consider as their country descends into lawlessness, especially as the consequences of many decades' worth of financial crime, i.e., Wall Street and the federal government's endless money-printing spree, catch up with the average person, plunging him into poverty that leads to increasingly more crime due to desperation.
"We must rise up and demand that authorities get tough on crime and support law enforcement," is how Utter hopes things will be handled moving forward.
"We must demand that they enforce bail. We must rid ourselves of Soros-funded DAs who never met a criminal they wouldn't coddle. No more catch and release, no more recidivism. We must vote out the people in power who put the 'needs' of criminals above those of law-abiding (and tax-paying!) citizens."
"Unless we recover our courage, our spirit, and our moral character, criminals will forever be in the driver's seat – and we will be left helpless on the side of the road ... wondering what went wrong."
Is the United States in the process of imploding by design?
The UK is set to backtrack on policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2050, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak suggested on Tuesday, setting up a possible rift in his party.
Sunak is due to make a major speech on Friday, but said Tuesday in a statement that while the government was committed to the target, it will try to achieve it “in a better, more proportionate way”.
His comments follow British media reports that he was set to water down plans to phase out gas boilers from 2035 and delay the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars due in 2030.
Sunak said politicians “of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs” and that he would “put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment”.
The move would trigger dissent within his Conservative Party, with former Cop26 president Alok Sharma warning that “for any party to resile from this agenda will not help economically or electorally”.
Other reports suggested that some MPs may even be preparing letters of no confidence should he go ahead with the move.
Labour’s shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband called it a “complete farce from a Tory government that literally does not know what they are doing day to day.”
Meanwhile, Jess Ralston, Head of Energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said the U-turn “would speak of chaos at the heart of government.
“All of this would leave us more dependent on foreign oil and gas, less energy independent and with investors spooked, putting jobs in the industries of the future in jeopardy,” she said.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has "gone rogue," according to virologist Dr. Robert Malone, who accused the federal agency of sacrificing its own rules and regulations with its decision to recommend the latest batch of COVID-19 boosters, which only have limited clinical trial data attesting to their efficacy and safety.
Image Credit: Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of mRNA vaccines, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas at the Hilton Anatole on Aug. 5, 2022. (Bobby Sanchez for the Epoch Times)
Dr. Malone made the remarks in an interview with EpochTV's "Crossroads" program on Sept. 11, the day that the FDA cleared new COVID-19 vaccines in a bid to counter the waning effectiveness of the currently available shots.
"It's difficult to conclude anything other than the FDA is no longer feeling bound by their own rules and regulations," Dr. Malone said. "The term is—they've gone rogue."
Dr. Malone said the lack of human clinical trial data demonstrating effectiveness and safety of the updated vaccines should have precluded their approval by the FDA.
He said that, essentially, the FDA authorized the new vaccines on the premise that “neutralizing antibodies as detected in mice and their cross-reactivity are correlative protection,” which he said “is a lie, there are no established correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2."
FDA officials didn't respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
The agency cleared Moderna's and Pfizer's newest mRNA vaccines on Sept. 11 without analyzing data from any human trials.
In a statement announcing its approval, the FDA said that the decision was supported by its evaluation of "manufacturing data" from vaccine producers and "non-clinical immune response data on the updated formulations including the XBB.1.5 component."
The benefit-risk profile of earlier versions of the vaccines is "well understood," the FDA claimed, adding that the similar manufacturing process for the updated vaccines "suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) followed with its own recommendation on Sept. 12, urging nearly all Americans to get the new vaccines. The shots will be available to children as young as 6 months old this month.
The new vaccines target XBB.1.5, a sub-type of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes the disease COVID-19. However, the XBB.1.5. subvariant has already largely been displaced by newer strains of the quickly evolving virus, including EG.5, according to the CDC.
While FDA documents show the agency did not include any trial data in its review of the new shots, data from a Moderna trial was considered by the CDC before it issued its recommendation. The trial featured just 50 people receiving a new shot, and found the vaccine induced levels of neutralizing antibodies that authorities said would protect against COVID-19. One of the 50 people suffered a vaccine-related adverse reaction.
Image Credit: Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo in Tampa, Fla. on Oct. 15, 2022. (York Du/ The Epoch Times)
'Lot of Red Flags'
"There's essentially no data," Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo said at a recent news conference, where he suggested that people might be better off passing on the new round of shots.
"Not only that, but there are a lot of red flags," Dr. Ladapo added, while pointing to studiesfinding that the effectiveness of the vaccines turns negative over time.
“There's been no clinical trial done in human beings showing that it benefits people, there's been no clinical trial showing that it is a safe product for people."
He also noted that studies have linked previous versions of the COVID-19 vaccine to cardiac problems such as heart inflammation.
"It's truly irresponsible for FDA, CDC, and others to be championing something ... when we don't know the implications of it," Dr. Ladapo said.
Asked to comment on Dr. Ladopo's remarks, Dr. Malone pointed to a growing body of studies that show negative vaccine effectiveness, which he said suggests that, in the risk-benefit analysis, "there's no discernible benefit, or there's negative benefit, but there's clearly risk."
'Most Americans Take Them'
While acknowledging the current vaccines' waning effectiveness, CDC Director Mandy Cohen penned an op-ed in The New York Times on Sept. 13, in which she called the updated COVID-19 vaccines "one of the most effective tools in combating the virus."
"Covid-19 vaccines are the best way to give the body the ability to keep the virus from causing significant harm. Extensive studies and real-world experience have shown that they are safe and they work," she wrote. "And most Americans take them."
Dr. Cohen said the vaccines were put through extensive clinical trials before they were introduced in 2021 and "since then, their safety has been intensely monitored."
She didn't address criticism, such as the little trial data that's been made available.
On Wednesday September 20th, our representatives meeting at the United Nations will sign off on a ‘Declaration’ titled: ‘Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.’
This was announced as a “silent procedure”, meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text. The document expresses a new policy pathway for managing populations when the World Health Organisation (WHO), the health arm of the UN, declares a future viral variant to be a “public health emergency of international concern”. The WHO noted in 2019 that pandemics are rare and insignificant in terms of overall mortality over the last century. Since then, it decided that the 2019 old-normal population was simply oblivious to impending annihilation. The WHO and the entire UN system now consider pandemics an existential and imminent threat. This matters, because:
They are asking for far more money than is spent on any other international health program (your money);
This will deliver great wealth to some people who now work closely with WHO and the UN;
The powers being sought from your Government will reimpose the very responses that have just caused the largest growth in poverty and disease in our lifetimes; and
Logically, pandemics will only become more frequent if someone intends to make them so (so we should wonder what is going on).
Staff who drafted this Declaration did so because it is their job. They were paid to write a text that is clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless. They are part of a rapidly growing industry, and the Declaration is intended to justify this growth and the centralisation of power that goes with it. The document will almost certainly be agreed by our Governments because, frankly, this is where the momentum and money are.
Whilst the Declaration’s 13 pages are all over the place in terms of reality and farce, they are not atypical of recent UN output. People are trained to use trigger words, slogans and propaganda themes (e.g., “equity”, “empowerment of all women and girls”, “access to education”, “technology transfer hubs”) that no one could oppose without risking being labelled a denier, far-Right or colonialist.
The Declaration should be read in the context of what these institutions and their staff have just done. It is difficult to summarise such a compendium of right-speak intended to veil reality, but it is hoped this short summary will prompt some thought. Wickedness is not a mistake but an intended deception, so we need to distinguish these clearly.
Fomenting darkness behind a veil of light
Put together, the following two extracts summarise the internal contradiction of the Declaration’s agenda and its staggering shamelessness and lack of empathy:
In this regard, we:
PP3: Recognise also the need to tackle health inequities and inequalities, within and among countries…
PP5: Recognise that the illness, death, socio-economic disruption and devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic…
‘Recognition’ of devastation is important. SARS-CoV-2 was associated with mortality predominantly within wealthy countries, where median age of Covid-associated death was between 75 and 85 years. Nearly all of these people had significant co-morbidities such as obesity and diabetes, meaning their life-expectancy was already restricted. Most people contributing significantly to economic activity were at very low risk, a profile know in early 2020.
These three years of socio-economic devastation must, therefore, be overwhelmingly due to the response. The virus did not starve people, as the Declaration’s writers would like us to believe. Deteriorating disease control was predicted by WHO and others in early 2020, increasing malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malnutrition. Economic disruption in low-income countries specifically results in more infant and child deaths.
In Western countries, adult mortality has risen as expected when screening for cancer and heart disease are reduced and poverty and stress increase. Knowing this, WHO advised in late 2019 to ”not under any circumstances” impose lockdown-like measures for pandemic influenza. In early 2020, under the influence of its sponsors, it advocated them for COVID-19. The Declaration, however, carries no note of contrition or repentance.
Undeterred by incongruity, the Declaration goes on to describe COVID-19 as “one of the greatest challenges” in UN history (PP6), noting that somehow this outbreak resulted in “exacerbation of poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty”. In fact, it acknowledges that this caused:
(a) negative impact on equity, human and economic development across all spheres of society, as well as on global humanitarian needs, gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, the enjoyment of human rights, livelihoods, food security and nutrition, education, its disruption to economies, supply chains, trade, societies and the environment, within and among countries, which is reversing hard-won development gains and hampering progress (PP6)
To restate the obvious, this does not happen due to a virus targeting sick elderly people. It occurs when children and productive adults are barred from school, work, healthcare and participation in markets for goods and services. Economic, social and health catastrophe inevitably results, disproportionately harming poorer people and low-income countries, conveniently far indeed from the halls of Geneva and New York.
No, we were not all in this together.
Not all were negatively impacted by this catastrophe. People and corporations who sponsor much of the WHO’s health emergency work, and that of its sister organisations such as CEPI, Gavi and Unitaid, did very well from the policies they advocated so strongly. Software and Pharma companies made unprecedently high profits while this mass impoverishment played out. The international agencies have also gained; construction and recruitment are strong in Geneva. Philanthro-capitalism is good for some.
The main aim of the Declaration is to back the proposed WHO International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments and treaty (PP26), key to ensuring that viral outbreaks that have such small impact can remain highly profitable. An additional $10 billion dollars per year in new financing is requested to support this (PP29). There is a reason why most countries have laws against scams. The UN and its agencies, fortunately for its staff, are outside of any national jurisdiction.
Based on their sponsors’ assessments, the staff of these agencies are doing their job well. For the rest of humanity, their work is an unmitigated disaster. In 2019 they said never lock down, then spent 2020 defending top-down lockdowns and mandates. For three years, they theatrically pretended that decades of knowledge on immunity, disease burden and the association of poverty with mortality did not exist. Now they write this UN Declaration to fund their industry further through taxpayers they so recently impoverished. Once tasked to serve the world’s vast populations, particularly the poor and vulnerable, the UN vision has been consumed by public private partnerships, the allure of Davos and a fascination with high-net-worth individuals.
When words are used to obscure actions
While the Declaration underlines the importance of educating children during pandemics (PP23), these same organisations backed school closures for hundreds of millions of children at minimal risk from COVID-19. Among them, several million more girls are now being farmed off to nightly rape as child brides, others in child labour. Women and girls were disproportionately removed from education and from employment. They weren’t asked if they supported these policies!
The girls are being raped because the people paid to implement these policies did so. They know the contradiction, and the harm. But this is a job like many others. The only unusual aspects, from a business standpoint, are the sheer amorality and lack of empathy that must be engaged to excel in it.
To justify wrecking African children’s lives, the UN claims out that the continent has “over 100 major public health emergencies annually” (OP4). Africa has a rising burden of endemic diseases that dwarf mortality from such outbreaks – over half a million children die every year from malaria (increased through the COVID-19 lockdowns) and similar burdens from tuberculosis and HIV. By contrast, total COVID-19 deaths recorded in Africa over the past three years are just 256,000. The 2015 West African Ebola outbreak, the largest such recent emergency pre-Covid, killed 11,300 people. MERS and SARS1 killed less than 1,000 each globally. However, induced poverty does cause famine, raises child mortality and wrecks health systems – is this the health emergency that the UN is referring to? Or is it simply making things up?
Through the IHR amendments, these agencies will coordinate the locking down, border closures, mandated medical examinations and vaccination of you and your family. Their Pharma sponsors reasonably expect to make several hundred billion more dollars from these actions, so we can be confident that emergencies will be declared. By claiming 100 such events annually in Africa alone, they are signalling how these new powers will be used. We are to believe the world is such that only the abandonment of our rights and sovereignty, for the enrichment of others, can save us.
The UN and WHO do recognise that some will question this illogic. In PP35, they characterise such scepticism as “health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatisation”.
The WHO recently publicly characterised people who discuss adverse effects of Covid vaccines and question WHO policies as “far-Right”, “anti-science aggressors” and “a killing force”.
This is unhinged. It is the denigration and hate speech that fascist regimes use. The reader must decide whether such an organisation should control his or her freedom of expression and decide what constitutes truth.
It is not helpful here to give details of all 13 pages of right-speak, contradiction and fallacy. You will find similar rhetoric in other UN and WHO documents, particularly on pandemic preparedness. Straight-talk is contrary to business requirements. However, the first paragraph in the Declaration’s ‘Call to Action’ sets the tone:
We therefore commit to scale up our efforts to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and further implement the following actions and express our strong resolve to:
OP1. Strengthen regional and international cooperation, multilateralism, global solidarity, coordination and governance at the highest political levels and across all relevant sectors, with the determination to overcome inequities and ensure the sustainable, affordable, fair, equitable, effective, efficient and timely access to medical countermeasures including vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics and other health products to ensure high-level attention through a multisectoral approach to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics and other health emergencies, particularly in developing countries;
There are 48 more. You paid taxes so that someone could write that!
Those millions of girls suffering at night, the hundreds of millions of children who had their futures stolen, the mothers of those malaria-killed children, and all suffering under the increasing burden of poverty and inequality unleashed by this farce are watching. The Declaration, like the IHR amendments and pandemic treaty it supports, await the signatures of the Governments that purport to represent us.
Eleven countries have declared in a letter to the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly president their opposition to a pandemic declaration calling for global vaccine access, digital health documents, and socialized, universal health coverage.
The “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR)” has been recently circulated among U.N. member states via a silence procedure in which silence is interpreted as acceptance of the document by a member state.
The declaration has been slated for adoption on September 20, ostensibly if no objections are voiced by member states. However, Health Policy Watch noted that it is unclear what impact the 11 nations’ objections will have on the declarations’ outcomes since there is a “possibility” the documents may be passed via a vote count rather than unanimously, as has been the custom.
According to the news outlet, despite the 11 countries’ objections, the Political Declaration on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) was adopted at Monday’s SDG Summit.
Writing to U.N. President Dennis Francis on September 17, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe also expressed their objections to the draft political declarations of the SDG Summit, the high-level meeting on universal health coverage (UHC), and the high-level meeting on the fight against tuberculosis.
The countries lamented that it had not yet been possible to “find a political solution to the current stalemate” regarding these declarations, which they said was due to lack of “meaningful negotiations to have balanced and acceptable outcomes for all” as well as “lack of transparency.”
These states took issue with what they referred to as “illegal” unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) – economic actions intended to coerce policy change in another nation – which they called an “existential” problem for their nations, and claimed affected a third of the world’s population.
Such economic measures include trade sanctions, embargoes, asset freezing and travel bans, Health Policy Watch noted. Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela all face sanctions from the U.S. and its allies.
“Our delegations oppose any attempt to pretend to formally adopt any of the draft outcome documents in question,” stated the letter, adding, “In addition, we reserve the right to take appropriate action upon the formal consideration of these four draft outcome documents in the coming weeks.”
The political pandemic Declaration heavily emphasizes the importance of global access to vaccines both as a remedy and a preventive measure for pandemics. The Declaration considers vaccine uptake such a high priority that it deems any messages encouraging “vaccine hesitancy,” including on social media, a problem to be combatted.
The document also calls for the recognition of the potential of digital health technologies in “strengthening secure communications in health emergencies,” as well as of the importance of “digitalized health documents.” These could theoretically include digital vaccine passports, which are being developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Union (EU).
According to the U.N.’s silence procedure, after the objections of member states, the U.N. president “may choose to” refer the draft resolution to certain U.N. representatives for revision, to be followed by further deliberations. It remains to be seen whether the U.N. will conduct further deliberations regarding the PPPR political declaration after member state objections.
-Emily Mangiaracina, Lifesite News
Thank you for reading Joshua Reid | Redpill Project. This post is public so feel free to share it.
