The Greeks Are Biggest Worriers About Their Financial Future
With thecost of living crisis and inflation having shot up in the last few years, many households are starting to look nervously at their bank balance.
This feeling is particularly pronounced in Greece, according to survey data conducted by Statista’s Consumer Insights, where as many as six in ten people said they are worried about their financial future.
This is well above the 38 percent average of the 39 countries surveyed. Portugal and Argentina also reveal high figures, hovering just shy of the 50 percent mark.
Even in France, one of the countries with a comparatively lower share of people reporting that they were worried about their financial future, around three in ten reported feeling concerned.
The reality is that Russian influence is non-existent in Poland due to the legacy of its former conservative-nationalist government.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that he’s establishing a “Russian influence commission” to investigate alleged examples of this from 2004-2024. What’s hypocritical is that he condemned his predecessor for doing the exact same thing last summer, which he and the West condemned as a means for influencing last fall’s parliamentary election in the former government’s favor. It’s arguably the case that Tusk now wants to influence next spring’s presidential election in the same way.
Incumbent Andrzej Duda from what’s now the conservative-nationalist opposition has been able to obstruct some of the new liberal-globalist coalition government’s policies, which his envisaged successor (whoever they’ll be since he can’t run for re-election) envisages continuing to keep them in check. It’s precisely for this reason that Tusk is hellbent on ensuring that his party wins that post by hook or by crook, ergo why he’s now resorting to the same meddling that his predecessor employed against him.
These accusations serve to keep Russia at the center of Poles’ minds, which in turn is intended to influence them into thinking that Poland cannot stand alone against its historical rival in the east and must therefore closely coordinate all relevant security matters with neighboring Germany. The notion is that newly remilitarizing and nowadays anti-Russian Germany is right next door while the US is halfway across the world and NATO’s collective action could be hamstrung by pragmatic members like Hungary.
Complementarily, the ruling liberal-globalist coalition has sought to connect the high-ranking Warsaw judge that fled to Belarus earlier this month to escape political persecution for his anti-proxy war views with the conservative-nationalist opposition. Shortly after that happened, Polish media then reported that the Supreme Audit Office is investigating the former government for allegedly misallocating funds spent on an anti-Russian propaganda campaign, which could potentially lead to charges by summertime.
Tusk exploited these narratives of Russia plotting to invade Poland, actively waging “hybrid war” against it, and even infiltrating the state itself to justify the revival of his predecessor’s “influence commission” in a new context that’s designed to lend it false legitimacy in order to distract from its true purposes. That aforementioned judge who just fled to Belarus predicted that it’ll lead to “purges and political prisons”, which aligns with this analysis’ argument that the end goal is to influence the next presidential election.
The reality is that Russian influence is non-existent in Poland due to the legacy of its former conservative-nationalist government whose premier boasted about his country being responsible for Russophobia going mainstream across the world and called the Russian World a “cancer”. He also “de-Russified” the energy sector, ramped up military spending, invited even more US troops into Poland, and ultimately turned Poland into NATO’s top logistics base for arming Ukraine against Russia.
These aren’t the policies of a government operating under Russian influence, yet Tusk wants to manipulate Poles into thinking otherwise so that they don’t vote for the conservative-nationalist candidate during the next presidential election, who might even be barred from running. If the liberal-globalist candidate wins, then the ruling coalition will be able to impose the most radical parts of their ideological agenda onto the country, though at the risk of Poland’s political crisis spiraling out of control.
“The enemies from within are more dangerous to me than the enemies from the outside,” said Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, at a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on May 11, 2024.
At a Springfield, Illinois, event, some 20 years before the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln delivered a prophetic message to his fellow citizens: “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
The speech is said to be the origin of the popular quote wrongly attributed to Lincoln: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
While these were not Lincoln’s exact words, most Americans understand that the 16th and 45th presidents of the United States were troubled by the same thing—the potential self-destruction of their nation.
History has demonstrated that internal discord can be as dangerous to a sovereign country as a foreign aggressor.
A History of Betrayal
In 2013, American author Diana West published “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.” Her book initiated an important debate about the modern history of the American Republic.
Ms. West contended that Nov. 16, 1933, was the beginning of a long assault on the security of U.S. democracy. This was the date when Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to normalize relations with the murderous communist regime known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. FDR’s fateful decision opened America’s doors to an unprecedented invasion of Marxist militants, communist spies, and domestic fellow-travelers.
In the decades that followed, progressive academics, journalists, novelists, artists, and entertainers all celebrated the socialist ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution. According to Ms. West, even American businessmen were “eager to buy their rope from Lenin.”
Ms. West’s views about the influence of communist ideologues in American politics were ridiculed by some of the most notable literary figures in the United States and Canada.
Other courageous scholars came to her defense.
One was the late Vladimir Bukovsky, a Russian-born writer and human rights activist who spent 12 years in Soviet psychiatric hospitals, prisons, and labor camps during the Brezhnev era. Another was Pavel Stroilov, a Russian Christian exile who fled to the UK after his academic research put his life and liberty in jeopardy.
Writing for Breitbart News in November 2013, Mr. Bukovsky and Mr. Stroilov insisted that Diana West’s book would make history. Both agreed that, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the unraveling of the Warsaw Pact in 1989, the United States never really won the Cold War.
Like Ms. West, they asserted that the conflict between the United States and the USSR was more than a military stand-off.
“It was an ideological war waged by the totalitarian utopia of Socialism against our civilization; and on that level, the most optimistic view of it is that it still goes on. The Soviet Union is gone, but Russia is still governed by a junta of Gestapo officers; China is still governed by the Communist Party; and the Western world is governed by closet Marxists and Mensheviks, imposing on us yet another version of the same socialist utopia,” they wrote.
Drawing on copious research and experience, Ms. West, Mr. Bukovsky, and Mr. Stroilov demonstrated that it was an elite American intelligentsia who surrendered the United States to the adversarial socialist culture. The U.S. establishment’s capitulation to the global left led to a complete occupation of U.S. institutions and the ultimate corruption of the free world.
Few scholars have produced better explanations for the precipitous decline of Western democracy in the 21st century.
Treason of the Intellectuals
For more than 150 years after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, Americans regarded their nation as a beacon of liberty and a model for representative democracy.
In the early decades of the 19th century, French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville expressed high praise for the United States, its citizens, and their civic institutions.
After abolishing slavery, Abraham Lincoln identified the U.S. Republic as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Americans developed civil institutions that were second to none. In 1964, the American Civil Rights Act extended the foundational promises of the United States to all of its citizens.
Today’s woke left is destroying America’s legacy. While they claim to worry about “democracy,” they are really worried about losing their own power. They saw how actual democracy worked in 2016 and they don’t want any more of it.
Ordinary American citizens are victims of what French philosopher Julien Benda once called “La Trahison des Clercs” (The Treason of the Intellectuals).
Benda condemned early 20th-century European elites who were apologists for aggressive imperialism, military power, and racial discrimination. The elites who are betraying America today are proponents of aggressive globalism, technocratic power, and reverse racial discrimination.
Both Benda and Ms. West asserted that free societies can be ruined by a leadership class that rejects objective reasoning and ignores the difference between truth and lies.
From the New Deal to Bidenomics, Soviet show trials to corrupt courts, national sovereignty to open borders, education to indoctrination, free speech to censorship, honest elections to ballot harvesting, and freedom of religion to the suppression of faith, the survival of American democracy is more tenuous than ever.
These are the “dangers from within” that Presidents Lincoln and Trump were speaking about.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
As is the case with rapid population growth and urbanization in many so-called developing nations, waste management becomes a problem not only in rural areas but also in densely populated cities.
As Statista’s Florian Zandt details below, a textbook example of this growth outpacing infrastructural capacities is the situation in urban hotspots in India like Delhi, where a report by Euronews from May 2023 mentions neighborhoods with “open gutters […] filled with plastic and grey-colored water”. While the number of operational sewage treatment plants doubled between 2014 and 2020, the capacity for water treatment is still severely lacking.
According to the latest annual report by the Central Pollution Control Board, India generated 72.4 billion liters of wastewater per day across all provinces, with Maharashtra (9.1 billion), Uttar Pradesh (8.3 billion), Tamil Nadu (6.4 billion) and Gujarat (5.0 billion) being responsible for around 40 percent of wastewater.
The 1,093 sewage treatment plants only had operational capacities of 26.9 billion liters of wastewater per day, with around 400 plants either non-operational or under construction as of the latest available tally from 2020/2021. This translates to only 37 percent of sewage being treated, exacerbating the risks of communicable diseases and contaminated food and drinking water.
While India is seemingly hard-pressed to keep up with the amount of wastewater its population generates, measures to grant more people access to potable water and basic sanitation and hygiene were scaled up significantly in recent decades. For example, the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan campaign, translatable to Clean India, initiated in 2014 aims to eliminate open defecation by installing upwards of 100 million toilets in the country.
Imagine a technology that could genetically rewire organisms in real-time, silencing critical genes across entire ecosystems with unknown effects. Sounds like science fiction? It’s not. It’s the reality of a new class of pesticides harnessing RNA interference—or RNAi—and they’re already being deployed in our fields and food supply with minimal testing or oversight. According to organic producers and non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) advocates, the risks could be catastrophic.
Environmental Organization Warns of RNAi Pesticide Dangers
In 2020, a groundbreaking report from Friends of the Earth (FOE) rang the alarm on the dangers posed by gene-silencing RNAi pesticides. According to the non-governmental environmental organization report, these products can genetically modify organisms in the open environment, with risks of unintended effects on non-target species, human health, and the integrity of organic and non-GMO agriculture. Despite these threats, RNAi pesticides face little to no regulatory scrutiny in most countries, and some have already been approved for use.
In June 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency green-lit the RNAi corn developed by Monsanto and Dow, now being marketed under the trade name SmartStax Pro.
In a press release announcing the approval of SmartStax Pro, regulators praised the product for its value to the farmer and the low impact it has on the environment.
“The ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) technology found in SmartStaxPro works through a process of gene control that occurs naturally in plants, animals, and humans alike. Scientists harnessed this control process to create the product, which works as a pesticide by silencing or turning off the activity of a gene critical to corn rootworm survival, resulting in the death of the corn rootworm. This product is so specific that it only affects the corn rootworm,” states the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) press release.
RNAi works by using small RNA molecules to interfere with and “silence” the activity of specific genes. While that may sound precise, the FOE report emphasizes that RNAi technology is prone to “off-target effects,” meaning it can unintentionally silence genes in non-target organisms. Since many genes are conserved across species, a pesticide designed for one insect could end up harming beneficial pollinators, soil microbes, or even humans. What’s more, the alteration caused by RNAi can sometimes be passed down to future generations, meaning that a single application could spark uncontrollable ripple effects.
The Friends of the Earth report dubs RNAi pesticides “a vast, open-air genetic experiment,” with entire ecosystems at risk. Because they’re sprayed directly into the environment, controlling exposure is nearly impossible. Any organism that takes up the interfering RNAs could have its genome tinkered with. Some evidence suggests that ingesting RNAs from our diet may even influence human gene expression.
There’s also a risk that RNAi sprays could alter the genetic makeup of the very crops they’re meant to protect, changing nutritional content or toxicity in unpredictable ways.
Could RNAi Pesticides Impact Human Genes?
What’s particularly concerning is that the off-target effects of RNAi pesticides may extend beyond the farm and into the bodies of consumers. A 2008 study funded by Monsanto revealed that numerous small RNAs from corn, soybeans, and rice had perfect sequence complementarity to human genes. While Monsanto pointed to this finding as evidence of safety, the reality is far more complex and troubling.
As the study showed, there are numerous plant RNAs with sequences identical to human genes. If these dietary RNAs are indeed able to influence human gene expression, as mounting evidence suggests, then the genetic rewiring of our food crops with novel RNAi molecules could have far-reaching and entirely unpredictable effects on our health.
A 2012 study published in Cell Research demonstrated that a specific plant microRNA from ingested rice could be detected in human blood and tissues. When the same plant microRNA was fed to mice, it appeared to modulate the expression of a receptor involved in removing LDL cholesterol. If a natural plant RNA can have such a significant biological effect, what might be the consequences of engineered RNAi molecules?
Many genes are not consistently expressed, and their activity can vary based on environmental conditions. This adds yet another layer of complexity and unpredictability when it comes to assessing the risks of RNAi crops.
Furthermore, the human gut is home to a diverse community of microbes that play a vital role in our health and immune function. Preliminary research suggests that some of these bacteria may be capable of taking up dietary RNAs and incorporating them in such a way as to affect their gene regulation. The effects of RNAi crops on the human microbiome are unknown but could be significant given the importance of gut flora in everything from nutrient absorption to mental health.
Taking Advantage of Loose Regulations
In the United States, the EPA’s regulatory framework for genetically engineered crops was established in 1986 and has only been updated once in the last 30 years.
This old standard is being used to evaluate a whole new kind of pesticide. SmartStaxPro, the RNAi corn developed by Monsanto and Dow, produces a double-stranded RNA that disrupts a critical gene in a major agricultural pest, the western corn rootworm, causing its death. In 2023, the EPA registered an RNAi pesticide that targets the Colorado potato beetle.
According to the FOE report, the companies crafting RNAi pesticides are also filing broad patents that would grant them ownership rights over any organism exposed to their products. This could mean that if a farmer’s crops are unintentionally contaminated by drifting RNAi sprays, the company could lay claim to their harvest.
At the international level, RNAi is barely on the regulatory radar. Technically, RNAi products fall under the “living modified organisms” category defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. According to one assessment published in the Annual Review of Plant Biology, “the European GMO regulatory framework is inadequate and needs to be updated.”
For organic and non-GMO advocates, this regulatory vacuum is a recipe for disaster. Without robust safety testing and labeling requirements, RNAi crops could soon infiltrate food supplies worldwide, turning consumers into unwitting test subjects in a massive uncontrolled experiment. Organic farmers may find their crops and local ecosystems irreversibly contaminated by drifting RNAi molecules.
Can We Prevent an Agricultural Disaster?
Despite these concerns, many consumers may already be eating this genetically altered corn. There is significant adoption of these advanced corn traits, particularly in regions where corn rootworms are prevalent. Based on recent information from Bayer, their SmartStax and SmartStax PRO traits are utilized in about 15 million acres across the United States—nearly 17 percent of the ninety million acres dedicated to corn growing in the United States.
An email was sent to Bayer Crop Sciences requesting comment on the FOE report and the threat of off target consequences related to their RNAi pesticides. No response was returned.
Although advocates for RNAi pesticides promote it as a precise means for targeting a single pest, it’s clear the technology isn’t merely a tweak to existing agricultural practices—it represents a watershed moment in the industrialization of our food supply.
A review of RNAi transgenic plant technology from the Bioscience Resource Project, notes several off-target effects the technology has demonstrated. The report suggests that this technology could lead to “distinct toxicological and environmental hazards.”
”… while RNAi holds great promise for agricultural applications, the potential for OTEs within the plant, in non-target organisms, and in mammals consuming the plant material warrants careful assessment and risk mitigation strategies,” state authors Jonathan R. Latham and Allison K. Wilson.
To mitigate these risks, researchers propose several preconditions for regulatory approval of RNAi transgenes, such as avoiding perfectly duplexed sequences, minimizing complementarity with known human and host sequences, ensuring minimal transgene expression levels, and using short RNAi-triggering sequences and naturally occurring miRNA (microRNA) promoters.
Until these off-target effects can be identified and eliminated, the report calls for “a precautionary approach” to furthering the technology and asks regulators to consider the possible hazards the development of RNAi-based genetically modified crops may cause.
With regulations as they now stand, biotech firms are granted the power to deliberately manipulate gene expression across entire species and ecosystems. Although the technology may be billed as a high-tech solution to move away from toxic pesticides, it is introducing a wide range of potential unintended adverse effects.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
These Are The World’s Wettest (And Driest) Countries
From tropical rainforest nations to the sandy deserts of North Africa and the Middle East, the world’s wettest and driest countries are a study in contrasts.
Colombia tops the list of nations with the highest average precipitation at 3,240 millimeters (128 inches) in a year.
Its Tutunendo district is the one of the world’s wettest places, averaging nearly 12,000 mm (463 inches) of rain annually.
Note: Figures are rounded.
Off the coast of Africa however, Sao Tome & Principe is not far behind Colombia, receiving about 3,200 mm of rain in 2020.
Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands also average more than 3,000 mm of rain in a year, and Panama (2,928 mm) rounds out the top five.
Noticeably, all 10 countries lie in close proximity to the equator, and near oceans, where rising hot and humid air leads to abundant rainfall.
Ranked: Top 10 Driest Countries
On the other end of the scale, Egypt records the lowest average annual rainfall across all countries, at 18 mm (0.7 inches). For comparison, Colombia receives nearly 180x the amount of rain Egypt does.
Note: Figures are rounded.
In fact, countries from North Africa and the Middle East make up the entirety of this list of the driest countries in the world.
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out Mapping the Unequal Distribution of Global Precipitation which divides the world into two halves: one that receives more than global average of rain (or snow), and one that receives less.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law on May 23, allowing Arizona doctors to travel to the Golden State on a temporary basis to perform abortions for their patients.
Senate Bill 233, introduced by state Sen. Nancy Skinner of Oakland and Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Winters, allows licensed Arizona abortion providers to come to California and provide abortions or abortion-related care to patients from Arizona who travel to the state for such procedures until near the end of this year.
The measure states that licensed Arizona doctors in good standing simply need to fill out an application form with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to perform abortions. Provided they meet certain requirements, their approval will be granted within five business days.
Arizona licensed doctors who chose to come to the state temporarily will only be able to do so until Nov. 30, when California officials expect Arizona voters to approve an abortion measure on their state ballot.
The measure, which is being implemented in partnership with the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, contains an urgency clause and takes effect immediately.
It also notes that physicians are prohibited from providing care or consultation for other purposes or to other patients, except under the circumstances outlined in the legislation. Arizona doctors must also provide an array of information to the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, including their Arizona and temporary California addresses, as well as an affidavit attesting that they meet all requirements, according to the legislation.
Providing false information in that affidavit is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, one year in prison, or both, the bill states.
Arizona Supreme Court Ruling
Senate Bill 233 was introduced in response to Arizona’s Supreme Court’s April 9 ruling which Mr. Newsom said reimposed a “regressive 1864 law imposing a near-total abortion ban” that threatens to “almost completely curtail access to abortion care in Arizona.”
The state Supreme Court last month upheld the 1864 ban on nearly all abortions in the state, except in cases where it will save the life of the mother, following the reversal of Roe v. Wade, which brought the issue back into the spotlight.
Under the Civil War-era law, anyone who performs an abortion or helps a woman access abortion services in Arizona risks a felony charge and between two to five years in prison. Exceptions for rape or incest are not allowed.
While the Arizona Legislature has since passed a bill repealing that ban, which Governor Katie Hobbs signed in early May, the ban will remain in effect until 90 days after the Arizona state Legislature’s session ends, which typically happens in June or July.
Currently, Arizona law allows abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Senate Bill 233—which passed in California’s state Senate on May 21 after previously passing the state Assembly—has been described by Mr. Newsom as a “critical stopgap” for Arizona patients and providers while enforcement of the 1864 bill remains uncertain.
In a statement on May 23, the Democrat praised the legislation while touting his efforts to “defend and advance” reproductive rights and women’s health care.
“Arizona Republicans tried to turn back the clock to 1864 to impose a near-total abortion ban across their state,” the governor said in a statement. “We refuse to stand by and acquiesce to their oppressive and dangerous attacks on women,” he continued.
“I’m grateful for the California Legislative Women’s Caucus and all our partners for moving quickly to provide this backstop. California stands ready to protect reproductive freedom.”
The legislation was also welcomed by pro-abortion advocates, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California’s president & CEO Jodi Hicks.
“As we continue to navigate a chaotic national abortion landscape, we appreciate Governor Newsom and the California Legislative Women’s Caucus for their continued commitment to advocating for additional tools that support abortion providers’ ability to serve patients,” Ms. Hicks said.
“Together, we will continue to work to ensure that all who are forced to leave their home state to access abortion care can get the services they need and deserve in California,” she added.
However, Republican lawmakers and pro-life advocates have criticized Mr. Newsom, accusing him of taking California’s “abortion sanctuary” status to a “new level.”
In a statement published earlier this month before the measure was signed into law, Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, a Christian nonprofit group focused on life and family values, said it is a “disgrace that California legislators continue to find ways to promote the killing of innocent pre-born babies at every turn.”
“Instead of deceptively treating pregnancy as a disease requiring abortion ’treatment,’ our state representatives should be seeking to create a culture where vulnerable women facing unplanned pregnancies feel supported and encouraged to give birth,” he added.
Governors from 24 states have joined together to speak out against treaty negotiations being conducted by the Biden administration, which “would purport to grant” the World Health Organisation (WHO) “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.”
In a March 22 letter, the governors stated that they “stand united in opposition to two proposed instruments” currently under negotiation.
“The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” the governors wrote. “If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health.”
The documents they refer to are a new treaty called the WHO pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHRs), which together would centralize a significant amount of authority within this United Nations subsidiary if the WHO declares a state of “health emergency.”
Governors from the following states signed the letter: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
As the negotiations among member nations move into their final phase before the start of the voting session at the World Health Assembly, scheduled to begin on May 27, the WHO appears to have scaled back some of the powers it had sought in hopes of finalizing a deal.
The latest IHR draft has deleted a prior provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to following the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are non-binding.
The WHO had attempted in previous drafts to obtain powers over “all risks with the potential to impact public health,” which could include environmental and climate issues. The latest draft seeks to limit the WHO’s authority to diseases.
The WHO has simultaneously launched a public relations campaign, using politicians, celebrities, and religious leaders, to encourage member states to sign the agreements.
On March 20, WHO ambassador and Britain’s former Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the efforts of a “100+ pantheon of global leaders” that have come to the WHO’s defense.
“A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary, and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organization, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics,” Mr. Brown stated in a press release.
He called for an international effort to “expose fake news disinformation campaigns by conspiracy theorists trying to torpedo international agreement for the Pandemic Accord.”
“No country will cede any sovereignty, and no country will see their national laws set aside,” he declared.
The issue of whether or not to grant the WHO additional powers has become a partisan issue, with Democrats generally supporting the plan and Republicans generally opposing it.
GOP Senators Demand Right to Approve Treaty
On May 1, all 49 GOP senators signed a letter to President Biden urging him either not to sign the WHO Pandemic Agreement and IHR amendments or, if he does, to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, as required by the Constitution. Senate Democrats have thus far not supported efforts to require Senate approval for the treaty.
“The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country,” the Republican senators wrote.
“The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic functions and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations or any new pandemic related treaty that would increase WHO authority,” they continued. “We are deeply concerned that your administration continues to support these initiatives and strongly urge you to change course.”
In the United States, the authority to deal with health issues is largely in the domain of states and outside the grasp of the federal government. States with Republican majorities have been active in opposing the WHO agreements.
Louisiana and Florida recently passed laws stating that state officials will not obey WHO directives, and other states, such as Oklahoma, are considering similar legislation.
Attorneys general from 22 U.S. states also signed a May 8 letter to President Biden urging him not to sign the WHO agreements and stating that they will resist any attempts by the WHO to set public health policy in their states.
“Although the latest iteration is far better than previous versions, it’s still highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote. “The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return. Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health,” they stated.
“It’s to cede authority to the WHO—specifically its director-general—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders), and informed consent.”
Hypocrite Dems Demanding Alito Recusal Played Dumb Over Virulent Anti-Trumper Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Senate Democrats have found their latest tantrum to attack the Supreme Court since its conservative majority – the fact that Justice Samuel Alito reportedly flew two flags outside his homes they say makes him unfit to weigh in on matters concerning Donald Trump.
In mid-January 2021, Alito flew an upside down American flag – historically used by the military as a distress signal, while in July and September of 2023, he displayed an “Appeal to Heaven” flag – commissioned by George Washington in 1775 for maritime use – outside his New Jersey vacation home.
The flags have caused uproar among Democrats, who have been scheming for years to dilute the conservative power of the Supreme Court (see: court packing). In a Friday letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin and subcommittee head Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse urged Roberts to take steps to ensure Alito recuses himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and Jan. 6 attack. The Court currently has two such cases pending before it – one concerning federal prosecutors’ use of an obstruction charge against Jan. 6 defendants, and another which addresses whether Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal charges stemming from his actions following the 2020 election.
Now, the New York Times and Obama’s law professor Lawrence Tribe are engaging in what people are referring to as “High-brow QAnon” conspiracy theories (aka ‘BlueAnon);
In 2016, Democrats were absolutely silent over Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s notorious and public hatred of Donald Trump – comments she later apologized over, calling them “ill-advised.“
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she told the NY Times during the election, adding “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
She also called Trump a “faker” and criticized him for not releasing his tax returns.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” she joked.
Who cares, right? But Democrats playing in the sandbox want to throw sand over Alito.
When Sheldon Whitehouse, the guy currently demanding Alito’s recusal, was asked by The Dispatch about Ginsburg’s public comments opposing Trump during the 2016 campaign, he said “I don’t know what cases she was ruling on at that point. They [Republicans] weren’t asking for [recusal.].
In 2016, Justice Ginsburg—not her spouse—weighed in against Trump’s election, suggested fleeing the country, and made comments about his tax returns.
Ginsburg notoriously weighed in on several cases involving Trump’s policies, including the travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii), Trump’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census (which was denied), and DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), though the major Court decision involving the case came after her 2020 death.
Wikipedia propagandists are hard at work
Meanwhile (and there’s always a meanwhile), WikiPedia’s entry on the Appeal to Heaven (aka ‘Pine Tree’) flag has radically changed over the past several days.
On Wednesday, it was referred to as ‘a religious and political symbol by some conservative, nationalist, and Christian national activists’ in the US. Now, the entry reads:
“The flag fell into obscurity until the 2020s, where it became seen as a symbol of Christian nationalism and support for President Donald Trump and his “Stop the Steal” campaign among far-right groups.
Wikipedia edits on the Pine Tree Flag page are fascinating.
On Wednesday, it was just a normal flag.
On Friday, it’s a now a symbol of Christian nationalism and right-wing extremism.
And the Popular Culture section on the HBO miniseries has been completely removed. pic.twitter.com/vIadtsCiyZ
lest you think this was just 2019, the Appeal To Heaven flag was flying outside San Francisco City Hall in 2023 as well — the same time frame as at Alito’s beach house
The flag draws its meaning from a John Locke quote: “And where the Body of the People, or any single Man, is deprived of their Right, or is under the Exercise of a power without right, and have no Appeal on Earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven, whenever they judge the Cause of sufficient moment,” -The Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689).
Russia’s jamming of the guidance systems of modern Western weapons, including Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, which can fire some U.S.-made rockets with a range of up to 50 miles, has eroded Ukraine’s ability to defend its territory and has left officials in Kyiv urgently seeking help from the Pentagon to obtain upgrades from arms manufacturers.
The success rate for the U.S.-designed Excalibur shells, for example, fell sharply over a period of months — to less than 10 percent hitting their targets — before Ukraine’s military abandoned them last year, according to the confidential Ukrainian assessments.
Six months ago, after Ukrainians reported the problem, Washington simply stopped providing Excalibur shells because of the high failure rate, the Ukrainian officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive security matter. In other cases, such as aircraft-dropped bombs called JDAMs, the manufacturer provided a patch and Ukraine continues to use them.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine created a modern testing ground for Western arms that had never been used against a foe with Moscow’s ability to jam GPS navigation.
But even before the United States ceased deliveries, Ukrainian artillerymen had largely stopped using Excalibur, the assessments said, because the shells are harder to use compared with standard howitzer rounds, requiring time-consuming special calculations and programming. Now they are shunned altogether, military personnel in the field said.
Dense web of jamming
A web of Russian electronic warfare systems and air defenses menace Ukrainian pilots, the documents said, adding that some Russian jammers also scramble the navigation system of planes. The Russian defense is so dense, the assessment found, that there are “no open windows for the Ukrainian pilots where they feel that they are not at gunpoint.”
HIMARS launchers were celebrated during the first year of Russia’s invasion for their success in striking ammunition depots and command points behind enemy lines.
But by the second year, “everything ended: the Russians deployed electronic warfare, disabled satellite signals, and HIMARS became completely ineffective,” a second senior Ukrainian military official said. “This ineffectiveness led to the point where a very expensive shell was used” increasingly to strike lower-priority targets.
A new ground-launched version of an air-to-ground weapon developed for Ukraine on a rapid timeline failed to hit targets in part because of Russian electro-magnetic warfare, Bill LaPlante, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief, said at an event held by think tank CSIS.
LaPlante suggested that Ukraine may no longer be interested in the weapon. “When you send something to people in the fight of their lives that just doesn’t work, they’ll try it three times and they’ll just throw it aside,” said LaPlante.
The weapon LaPlante is referring to is very likely the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) based on his description, according to Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
A Boeing spokesperson did not confirm that LaPlante was referring to GLSDB, but said the company is “working closely with the [Defense Department] on spiral capability improvements to the ground-launch SDB system.” Spiral capability improvements refers to an iterative software development process.
The GLDSB boasts a range of 90 miles—double the range of the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMRLS) missiles Ukraine previously used to wreak havoc on Russia’s logistic centers. Funding for the weapon was approved in February 2023, and Ukraine was reportedly using the weapon by February 2024.
GPS spoofers work by sending false location data to GPS navigation devices. Because GPS signals are weak, a stronger, false signal can be sent to override the correct inputs. Russia has used GPS spoofing in Ukraine since at least 2018. But advancements in technology mean spoofers can be created cheaply with just a software-defined radio and open-source software.
The weapons the spoofers are working against, meanwhile, are anything but cheap. A GMLRS missile costs around $160,000, while an Excalibur round can cost as much as $100,000. The GLDSB costs around $40,000.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Sullivan’s words about Russia’s plans to use nuclear weapons:
“His statement sounds like he had a meeting with Zelensky, where he was given some of Zelensky’s cocaine. Russia will not use nuclear weapons unless there is a real threat. If the… pic.twitter.com/aLY8XGBK2V
— S p r i n t e r F a c t o r y (@Sprinterfactory) April 9, 2024
Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Sullivan’s words about Russia’s plans to use nuclear weapons: “His statement sounds like he had a meeting with Zelensky, where he was given some of Zelensky’s cocaine. Russia will not use nuclear weapons unless there is a real threat. If the US deploys F-16s in Poland, then Russia will destroy them “with conventional weapons, because they do pose a nuclear threat. The Taurus missiles are the same situation. If they are deployed, then you know – Russia has admitted that they can be used to launch a nuclear strike.”
Would You Mind Not Shooting at the Thermonuclear Weapons?
“The neocons seem bent on testing Russia’s resolve and the MAD doctrine itself. They may view Russia as a rump state, but Russia does not so view itself…Russia has six thousand nuclear warheads.” – Dan Oliverhttps://t.co/wcgIGEnK2Vpic.twitter.com/3Fbjqtx1xZ
— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) March 12, 2022
Get Russia to Strike First
“Thirteen days before Pearl Harbor, secretary of war Henry Stimson recorded in his diary a meeting with Roosevelt: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.””https://t.co/wcgIGEnK2Vpic.twitter.com/92gpWSwE3E
— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) March 12, 2022
Using Nukes First Is a Risk/Reward Setup
The risk/reward of not believing Russia couldn’t kill tens of millions of us seems insufficient.
— Rudy Havenstein, Senior Markets Commentator. (@RudyHavenstein) March 15, 2022
