Politics They’re Lying About Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Contrary to popular belief, the Kennedy scion is anything but a health extremist. (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images) If there’s one thing most Americans can agree on, it’s that most Americans are unhealthy. In 2024, more than 40 percent of Americans are overweight and nearly one in 10 are severely obese. The top four leading causes of death for Americans are heart disease, cancer, accidental injury, and stroke, three of which are exacerbated by poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle.   Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the incoming Secretary of Health and Human Services, agrees with most Americans. In an ad campaign released this fall, Kennedy stood in front of a table of Cheez-Its, Cap’n Crunch, and Doritos, carefully explaining how the Food and Drug Administration allows chemicals banned in other developed countries into the American food supply to cut costs. “A few people get very, very rich, and the toxins end up in every supermarket aisle,” Kennedy noted before expounding on the harmful properties in tartrazine, commonly known as Yellow 5 dye, which is found in many foods at American grocers. “Like the frog in slowly boiling water, we didn’t really notice as we got sicker and sicker,” Kennedy explained. “We’ve grown now to accept chronic disease conditions as normal. But now, we’re finally waking up to this cataclysm and we’re asking ourselves, ‘How in the world did this happen?’”  Ultraprocessed foods make up an estimated 73 percent of the American food supply. These foods have been found to reduce the bioavailability of vitamins and lead to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, angina, elevated blood pressure and reduction in biological age. Like Yellow 5, Red No. 3 is also commonly found in food products on the shelves of supermarkets throughout the United States. It has been nearly 35 years since the FDA banned the use of Red No. 3 in cosmetics after studies found it caused cancer in animals, yet the chemical still remains in the U.S. food supply while the agency continues to review the color additive used in food. Kennedy’s views on corn are non-debatable. He has advocated for less reliance on the subsidy which is used to feed cattle and to cheapen production costs for many of America’s most popular food items. Michael Pollan’s fantastic 2006 book The Omnivore’s Dilemma provides an extensive look at how corn has invaded the U.S. food supply. From the beverages we drink, to the foods we eat, America relies on corn to cut food costs and power trade. Ninety-five percent of animal feed in America is now made with corn which, Pollan notes, is the root cause of liver disease in cattle.  High-fructose corn syrup, which is linked to cardiovascular disease, has singularly replaced cane sugar in soft drinks over the last half century. The most popular soft drink companies in the country all use it as a cheap alternative to cane sugar. Type 2 diabetes, childhood obesity, and poor dental health are all linked to the substance which Americans consume at twice the recommended limit. And it’s not just in the foods and drinks we consume. Corn is also found in trash bags, charcoal, toothpaste, batteries, matches, and lining the shelves in supermarkets across America.  But Kennedy’s concerns about corn aren’t what’s making waves across the American media landscape. The real fears over Kennedy’s ascension to the top of America’s federal health institution have to do with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.  The talking heads at CNN were practically apoplectic the day after President-elect Donald Trump nominated Kennedy to lead the HHS. For them, Kennedy is not so much a threat to the health of Americans but a serious challenge to their advertisers.  Whether it’s Ozempic, or Wegovy, or Jardiance, or Mounjaro, on CNN any hour of the day every ad break is peppered with pitches by leading pharmaceutical companies that have little interest in addressing the root causes of obesity and diabetes. When the CNN host Kaitlin Collins recently read a tweet from Kennedy that promised to send FDA officials packing, her producers made sure not to highlight the section of his post which called for Americans to eat clean foods, get in the sun, and most importantly, exercise. There’s simply no money to be made off Americans getting off the couch and going for a walk in the sun. The pharmaceutical industry prefers our people sick so they can sell them pills. Kennedy is the first real challenge to the biggest game in town.  Kennedy’s outspoken views on vaccines are well documented. He has repeatedly questioned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention schedule of immunization for children. During an appearance on the “Health Freedom for Humanity” podcast in 2021, he encouraged people to speak out against the over-vaccination of children.  “I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated,’” Kennedy said. “If he hears it from 10 other people, maybe he won’t do it, you know, maybe he will save that child.” In the 1940s, American children were recommended the vaccines for smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. Today, American children are recommended 15 different immunizations, including the recently added vaccination against Covid-19. Though Kennedy’s skepticism of the immunization schedule is debated by experts, what can’t be debated is that American children are receiving more vaccines than ever before in US history.  With his cabinet appointment looming, Kennedy has attempted to moderate his message on vaccines. In an interview with NPR following Trump’s victory, Kennedy promised he won’t be nearly as radical as his critics claim. “If vaccines are working for somebody, I’m not going to take them away,” Kennedy told NPR. “People ought to have a choice and ought to be informed by the best information, so I’m going to make sure that scientific safety studies and efficacies are out there and people can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them.” Virologists have specifically targeted Kennedy’s belief that the unprecedented surge of autism rates in American children is connected to vaccines. In 1997, one in 2,500 children were diagnosed with autism. By 2017, that number had exploded to one in 68. Experts claim the surge is a result of a better understanding of the disease, but skeptics, including Kennedy, have suggested the rise is linked to the broader immunization schedule for American children. Kennedy has repeatedly claimed that “vaccines cause autism,” a statement that is debated and dismissed by leading virologists.  “I don’t think there’s any scientific question that vaccines cause autism,” Kennedy stated during a podcast appearance with Patrick Bet-David. Speaking with Jesse Watters in 2023, Kennedy repeated his claim. “I do believe that autism comes from vaccines, but I believe most of the things people believe about my opinions on vaccines are wrong. All I’ve said about vaccines is we should have good science. We should have the same kind of testing, placebo-controlled trials, that we have for every other medication.”  Despite his stated objections to the ballooning immunization schedule, Kennedy claims his interests lie less in the prohibition of vaccines and more in creating transparency for informed consent. It’s a concern that is echoed by a broad swath of the American public, especially Republicans. In 2019, Gallup found that more than 50 percent of Republican voters with children believed it was “extremely important” to vaccinate their children. By 2024, that number had nearly halved to 26 percent.  Vaccine skepticism didn’t appear out of nowhere. The Covid-19 pandemic put American vaccine policy front and center as businesses, government institutions, and educational centers mandated a rushed, faulty vaccine that was advertised as a magic bullet but failed to live up to the hype. If the medical and media institutions of America harbor frustrations with increased skepticism surrounding vaccine policy, they need not blame Kennedy.  Robert Redfield, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the first Trump administration, defended Kennedy’s nomination to head HHS on Sunday. “Kennedy is not antivaccine,” Redfield said. “What Kennedy is about is transparency about vaccines, honest discussion about vaccines, asking for the data to show that these vaccines are safe and they’re efficacious.” Those concerned that Kennedy’s appointment to lead America’s top health agency will usher in a wave of forced nutrition and government-prescribed dieting could rest a little easier Sunday after a picture posted this weekend aboard Trump’s plane showed Kennedy eating McDonald’s with the MAGA crew. Don Trump Jr. humorously captioned the image “Making America Healthy Again starts TOMORROW.”  For Americans, tomorrow can’t come soon enough.  The post They’re Lying About Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Trump and the Storm of the Century The U.S. is sleepwalking into disaster in the Middle East. Credit: saideex/Shutterstock The fear in many nations’ capitals is that President Donald Trump’s return to Washington might make Israel feel more confident in attacking Iran. According to Mike Evans, founder of the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, “There is no world leader Trump respects more than Netanyahu.”  The evangelical leader also confides that President Trump would support an Israeli attack before his inauguration on the assumption that the destruction of Iran’s oil production facilities would devastate Iran’s economy, inducing Iran to end the war with Israel before President Trump assumes his office. This thinking by no means excludes an Israeli decision to strike Iran’s nuclear development sites as well.  What Trump will or will not do is unknown. When the illusive stillness in the standoff between Tehran and Jerusalem will end is also unknown.  One thing is certain: If America joins Israel in its war against Iran, the outcome will be a geopolitical showdown that could dramatically alter the world as we know it. It is the storm of the 21st century and, for the moment, the American ship of state is sailing right into it. At a minimum, Trump should demand answers from his civilian and military advisors to four important questions. Question 1. What is the American purpose in waging war against Iran? Is Washington’s purpose to destroy the Iranian state? To destroy its capability to wage war against Israel? To eliminate Iran’s developing nuclear capability? Or to decapitate the Iranian state in the hope that the Iranian people will overthrow their national government?  All these goals demand serious study and analysis. In some cases, they overlap; in others they do not. The answers require identifying resources, manpower, capabilities, and the time needed to achieve these goals.  It is obvious that America’s air and naval forces will have to deliver powerful disabling strikes through dense Iranian air and missile defenses while potentially defending themselves and American military bases against attacks by Iranian and allied forces in the region. How long can these forces operate before their stocks of munitions are exhausted and their human and materiel losses are replaced?  Based on these answers, the stated objectives may or may not be attainable. National political and military leaders habitually plan and organize to achieve short, decisive outcomes, but wars always last longer than anticipated. Question 2. How will U.S. military power achieve the objectives?  What is the right mix of weapon systems and munitions? What targets promise effects that profoundly shape Iran’s ability to fight? In the aftermath of the Second World War, studies of bombing effectiveness revealed that the most important contribution air power made to Germany’s defeat was the destruction of Germany’s fuel production and the transportation network to move it. Its second-most important contribution was to cause German air forces to defend Germany’s cities and industries, thus stripping the German army of its close air support. But thousands of tons of bombs were still dropped on thousands of targets with minimal impact on the German war machine.  Can air and missile power alone compel the Iranian State to submit to Israeli and American demands? To date, no amount of precision-strike forces linked to space-based and terrestrial, persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities has delivered victory in war. The Kosovo air campaign inflicted enormous damage on the Serbian economy, but its impact on Serbian ground forces was minimal. Yet once Moscow withdrew its promise of energy and food support to the Serbian people, the destruction of power plants and civilian and commercial infrastructure did induce the Serbian leadership to remove its forces from Kosovo.  Nevertheless, Serbian air defenses, despite their obsolete technology, were never degraded below 80 percent effectiveness. Precision strike has advanced in lethality and capability, but so has the military technology of the Iranian state. How far is unknown. In addition, it may turn out that air and missile attacks may prove incapable of halting the launch of tens of thousands of missiles, rockets and unmanned systems against Israel, as has been the case with Hezbollah.  Question 3. What is the desired end state? What does the President want Iran and the region that surrounds it to look like when the fighting ends?  This question is potentially the most difficult to answer. Unlike Iraq in 1991 and 2003 or Serbia in 1999 or Libya in 2011, Iran is not isolated. Iran has allies and supporters. By failing to define the end state in 1991, American operational strategic military planners were unprepared for the war’s outcome. The resulting peace was unsatisfactory to the long-term interests of the United States. The Russian Foreign Ministry recently announced that “negotiations on the strategic security partnership between Russia and Iran are ongoing… with a particular focus on military cooperation.” China’s President Xi Jinping has assured Iran of China’s support in the defense of Iranian national sovereignty and security. Even Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) advises against attacking Iran. During a recent summit of Arab and Muslim leaders, MBS stated, “The international community should oblige Israel to respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.” Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are also making strategic financial moves. Saudi Arabia’s holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds have fluctuated significantly, falling to approximately $108.1 billion as of June 2023, a decline of over 41 percent since early 2020. If a conflict with Iran breaks out, the Saudis and Emirates will likely repatriate their wealth to the Arabian Peninsula and launch a “fire sale” of their U.S. treasuries, causing a financial crisis in the U.S. and the West on the scale of the Great Depression.  Less conspicuous, but no less important, is Turkey’s decision to break relations with Israel. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also signaled that Turkish Forces are ready to launch operations in Northern Syria to destroy U.S.- and Israeli-backed Kurdish forces that threaten Turkish and Syrian security. Turkish forces could easily be committed to the defense of Lebanon or Egypt. Question 4. What is the strategic cost to the American people if Washington declines to participate in a regional war begun by Israel?  Since October 7, 2023, Israel’s political and military goals have extended far beyond the defense of Israeli national territory. Netanyahu seems confident that, with American financial aid and military support, Israeli forces can remove millions of Palestinian Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank, and Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon. Nevertheless, to secure Israel’s victory, PM Netanyahu insists that Iran and its proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen must also be destroyed. What do Netanyahu’s goals mean for the health of the American economy and the stability of the international system? Can Israel survive without attacking its numerous enemies?  In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower refused to risk war with the Soviet Union over Hungary’s revolution against Communism. In the same year, Eisenhower refused to support the Anglo-French-Israeli intervention to seize the Suez Canal. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson refused to employ American military power to halt the Soviet military intervention reasserting control of Czechoslovakia. None of these decisions harmed American national interests. Eisenhower viewed the success of American Arms in the Second World War as the result of the carefully constructed grand strategy drawn by civilian leaders and executed by the senior leadership of the armed forces. Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, not only lampooned the thinking prevalent in the 1960s about nuclear war, but demonstrated the breakdown of this important policy-making process. The film, starring Peter Sellers and George C. Scott, begins with a rogue Air Force general who orders nuclear-armed B-52 Bombers to attack targets inside the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the president, who says he does not want to go down in history as a mass murderer, suddenly discovers that the Soviets created a doomsday machine consisting of cobalt bombs set to strike the continental United States if the Soviet Union is attacked. Eventually, all the bombers are recalled, except for one B-52 commanded by Major T.J. “King” Kong. Unaware of the recall order, “King” Kong completes his mission, yelling and waving his cowboy hat as he rides the bomb to his death. The outcome is nuclear Armageddon.  Hardly the stuff of comedy, but it is a cautionary tale. Any number of accidents or false flags could precipitate conflict in the Middle East, but Dr. Strangelove need not become a reality. In the words of the great coach Vince Lombardi, “The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have.” It is up to Trump to use American power wisely. The post Trump and the Storm of the Century appeared first on The American Conservative.

INVERTED WORLD ORDER! It's the REPUBLICANS Who Are Bgringing in the NWO With A.I. Governance Rebel Call - 7,233 views November 18, 2024 Rebel Call - Nations Conspire - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@nationsconspire

Donald J. Trump’s rivals have chased him like Wile E. Coyote hounding the Road Runner. In a real-life Looney Tune, this clever, colorful creature escaped all the anvils, boulders, and explosive birdseed placed on his path. Rather than four years behind bars, Trump just earned four more years as president of the United States, and he did so in spectacular fashion. Jack Smith, Fani Willis, Letitia “Lucretia Mac Evil” James, Merrick Garland, and others in the Hate Trump Bar all look as if cigars have gone ka-BOOM in their pouty little mouths. And that nasty smell is Jack Smith’s shabby beard smoldering. Nonetheless, the most absurd of Trump’s legal tortures — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s business records ronde — remains mercilessly alive. Judge Juan Merchan’s hearing in Manhattan Criminal Court on Tuesday morning will determine whether Trump’s enemies finally abandon the lawfare strategy that turned him into a sympathetic figure and exposed them as the lawless monsters that they are, or if these cretins will continue the corrupt approach that boomeranged right into their foreheads. Have these people learned anything, or will they carry on with their — what is the right word — garbage? Merchan should dismiss this landfill of a case and spend the rest of 2024 on hiatus. Yes, as even Merchan can testify, it has been a tough year — on both sides. If Merchan cannot bring himself to bang his gavel and say, “Case dismissed,” he at least should do what he should have done months ago: recuse himself from this matter. Merchan’s recusal is even more vital, now that Merchan’s daughter and her company are under a federal microscope. With all the tumult of recent months — Trump’s trials, a long GOP primary season, the Democrats’ anti-Biden coup d’état, Trump’s twin assassination attempts, and so much more — it might have gone unnoticed that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Loren Merchan and Authentic Campaigns Inc. Lawmakers want to know the extent to which they used Trump’s case to raise Democrat campaign cash. Loren Merchan directed digital persuasion for the Kamala Harris for the People campaign in 2019. Authentic Campaigns has performed extensive work for Kamala. Indeed, the consultancy brags about it. The website features at least three mentions and images of Trump’s just-annihilated rival for the White House. “Biden–Harris” appears twice. “Kamala Harris for President” is on Authentic Campaigns’ “Full Client List.” Loren Merchan and her company worked for the political rival of a defendant in her father’s courtroom. They literally are under subpoena by members of Trump’s political party. So, this is an easy call for Judge Merchan: Recuse! Even if Loren and Authentic Campaigns stopped working for Harris, the fact that they feature her on their website to promote their capabilities, recruit new clients, and retain existing ones creates, at least, a clear and present appearance of a conflict of interest for Judge Merchan. Even if he is holistically honest, the mere suspicion that he might be hearing this case while thinking about his daughter, her career, and her company corrodes public trust in the justice system like acid on steel. This is dreadful for every American. Several attorneys and legal scholars I consulted agree, although others advise caution: “Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 100.2, a judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality,” Edward Paltzik tells me. The veteran litigator, active in Florida and New York adds: “It is evident that Justice Merchan’s daughter — as president of the leftist political consulting firm ‘Authentic Campaigns’ — directly or indirectly benefits from the prosecution of President Trump, over which the Justice presides. Therefore, Justice Merchan should have recused himself long ago.” Andrew D. Cherkasky, CEO of Golden Law, Inc. said: “The House’s subpoena of Judge Merchan’s daughter is one more reason he should be recused from the case. This subpoena itself seems unlikely to shift the current position of the judge and appellate court denying the defense requests for recusal. This is the type of situation the court should have, and perhaps did, consider when first refusing recusal. I believe President Trump and those who watched this trial deserve to understand how deeply involved Merchan’s daughter is with President Trump’s political opponents.” “I believe that, if the reports are true, that Judge Merchan’s daughter is a paid consultant for Kamala Harris, Judge Merchan must now recuse himself from the Trump case,” declares John Yoo, a distinguished professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and alumnus of the U.S. Justice Department. “Better yet, Judge Merchan should recognize that his trial violated the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, and he should vacate the jury verdict before he steps aside.” Yoo cites clause E(iii) of New York’s judicial conflict-of-interest rules. It specifies that a judge should stand down when he “has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” This might be a chicken-and-egg scenario. However, the fact that Merchan’s daughter and her company got subpoenaed shows that her interest in that company already has been “substantially affected by the proceeding.” If Bragg were prosecuting Donald J. Smith, that would have no impact on Merchan’s daughter or her company. If Bragg were pursuing Trump, but in the court of Judge Juan Gomez, this would have no influence on Merchan’s daughter or her firm. But Bragg is prosecuting Trump in the court of Judge Merchan, and this has caused his daughter and her company to get subpoenaed. This suggests that Merchan’s daughter was “substantially affected by the proceeding.” That fact should trigger this statute’s E(iii) clause, disqualify Judge Merchan from this case and require his recusal. One wonders, if Merchan refuses to recuse himself, at what point can Trump and his lawyers run to an appeals court with their hair on fire, scream “Bloody Murder!” and get Merchan catapulted from this case? Must Judge Merchan appear on surveillance cameras receiving a bag of cash from his daughter marked, “Daddy’s Share of the Anti-Trump Campaign Funds I Raised for My Clients”? Even if such a video existed and were televised worldwide, Judge Merchan still would cling to this case, like a lamprey on a rainbow trout. Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy favors Merchan’s recusal. However, he thought so long before this subpoena arose. He explains: The subpoena by the House committee does not improve the case for recusal. It exposes the case for recusal (marginally more than it was exposed before). But a defendant and his allies cannot foment a conflict by agitating that the judge is biased. If they could, then any defendant could force a judge’s recusal by (a) accusing the judge of bias, and then (b) taking provocative actions, and (c) using the judge’s inevitable stern or even hostile reaction to those actions to claim that the reaction demonstrates bias. To my mind, the case for Judge Merchan’s recusal/disqualification is overwhelming — even absent the daughter’s lucrative and partisan relationship with Trump’s political opponents, the judge’s contribution to Biden’s 2020 campaign violates New York judicial ethics law. The judge keeps waiving around an ethics panel opinion that says small-dollar contributions are too negligible to be the basis for disqualification; that gets it exactly wrong: the relevance of a small-dollar contribution is that the donor is trying to show that he’s on the team, not necessarily intent on affecting the outcome. McCarthy makes a powerful point regarding the small-dollar aspect of Merchan’s political donations to Democrats. According to CNN, he gave $15 to Biden’s 2020 campaign and $10 each to the Progressive Turnout Project and its Stop Republicans PAC. $35? Who cares? Campaigns care plenty about small donations. They trumpet them all the time to show, as McCarthy says, that tens of thousands or even millions of Americans are “on the team.” Wearing a Yankees baseball cap shows that you are a Yankees fan, without spending $36,000 for a pair of season tickets or unspeakable millions for an equity share in the Bronx Bombers. Judge Merchan’s $15 makes him a member of Team Biden, just as much as a $15 hat or T-shirt would identify him as a member of Team Yankees. Conversely, Professor Alexander Volokh of Emory Law School harbors doubts about recusal. A judge is allowed to have family members who are politically active, because, even though it’s reasonable to tell judges not to be politically active, it’s not reasonable to impose that requirement on a judge’s family members (who, after all, are separate people), or to presume that a judge is biased in a particular direction because of family members’ political activity. (For example, consider Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginni, a conservative activist.) Clint Bolick is an Arizona Supreme Court justice. His wife, Shawnna, is a very conservative Arizona state legislator. I’m sure they get recusal motions all the time! Volokh wonders if the House subpoena might “introduce very perverse incentives, if a political party could engineer the recusal of a hostile judge just by attacking the judge or his family members?” “What about Ginni?” is the perfect rejoinder for Judge Merchan’s defenders. And, yes, congressional Democrats someday could subpoena her, just to force Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from an expected 5-4 case. The same goes for other politically active relatives of judges across the federal bench. And why not try this with state-level judges? “I have to say that I’m personally skeptical of recusal claims that stem from the actions of a judge’s family members,” says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh (Alexander’s older brother). “Back in the day, Judge Stephen Reinhardt was married to Ramona Ripston, the head of the Southern California ACLU chapter; Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth was married to Senator William Roth (R – Delaware); Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat DeWine’s father is the Buckeye State’s Governor, Mike DeWine; Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s daughter, Janet, was Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” If all is fair in love and war, then the same holds for lawfare. As in war, the time arises to throw the closest stick of Dynamite. But remember: It could be hurled back into the trench from whence it came. READ MORE from Deroy Murdock: Downballot Races Offer Abundant Drama Are You Better Off Now Than Four Years Ago? Obama Treats ‘the Brothers’ Like Babies The post Judge Merchan: Dismiss Trump’s case or Recuse Thyself! appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Ambassadors From 'Morning Joe'

Trump’s Energy Secretary Gets It

It Is Called Experience

Trimming Obese Government

The ‘Fundamental Transformation’ of America Come to an End