RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-fbis-strange-anthrax-investigation?token=ey

One of the most significant events of the last two decades has been largely memory-holed: the October, 2001 anthrax attacks in the U.S. Beginning just one week after 9/11 and extending for another three weeks, a highly weaponized and sophisticated strain of anthrax had been sent around the country through the U.S. Postal Service addressed to some of the country’s most prominent political and media figures. As Americans were still reeling from the devastation of 9/11, the anthrax killed five Americans and sickened another seventeen.

As part of the extensive reporting I did on the subsequent FBI investigation to find the perpetrator(s), I documented how significant these attacks were in the public consciousness. ABC News, led by investigative reporter Brian Ross, spent a full week claiming that unnamed government sources told them that government tests demonstrated a high likelihood that the anthrax came from Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program. The Washington Post, in November, 2001, also raised “the possibility that [this weaponized strain of anthrax] may have slipped through an informal network of scientists to Iraq.” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared on The David Letterman Show on October 18, 2001, and said: “There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” Three days later, McCain appeared on Meet the Press with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and said of the anthrax perpetrators: “perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the United States of America,” while Lieberman said the anthrax was so finely weaponized that “there’s either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program” (Lieberman added: “Dr. Fauci can tell you more detail on that”).

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/2/fauci-should-drop-the-mask-on-wuhan/

While our masks come off, Dr. Anthony Fauci still wears his mask of secrecy – one that cloaks the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ response to COVID-19. The time for an honest discussion regarding Dr. Fauci’s leadership and actions during the pandemic is long overdue.

Scientists have learned a great deal about the coronavirus, including how it transmits and attacks the body and crucially, how to treat patients and create seemingly effective vaccines. However, scientists are requesting more information that they say is necessary to determine how COVID-19 originated and became a pandemic in order to develop strategies to prevent such a pandemic from ever again visiting such destruction upon humanity. But to this day, Dr. Fauci and NIAID have steadfastly refused to release documents that would help answer this and many other important questions. 

Over the past year, Judicial Watch has bird-dogged Dr. Fauci’s records through the Freedom of Information Act. And when FOIA requests were ignored, Judicial Watch filed lawsuits compelling NIAID to comply. Although the agency continues its unprecedented stonewalling, it has released at least some documents, some of which are deeply troubling. In one instance, Dr. Fauci approved a press release that was specifically designed to praise China’s initial response to the coronavirus. In an even more troubling case, officials from the NIH tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms, and the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/blm-founder-patrisse-cullors-marxist-abolitionist-paul-kengor/

Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors has been in the news a lot lately because of controversy over her income and financial dealings, including recent purchases of several new homes. Cullors lashed out at these criticisms by protesting, “The fact that the right-wing media is trying to create hysteria around my spending is, frankly, racist and sexist.”

The fact is that Cullors’ own organization has demanded answers. Hawk Newsome, head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, called for “an independent investigation” of Cullors. “If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes,” says Newsome. “It’s really sad because it makes people doubt the validity of the movement and overlook the fact that it’s the people that carry this movement.… We need black firms and black accountants to go in there and find out where the money is going.”

But another particularly striking Cullors revelation of late has gotten almost no publicity. It was flagged for me by Mike Gonzalez, author of an upcoming major new book on BLM. It’s a video by Cullors titled, “What Is Abolition And Am I An Abolitionist?” Posted on her personal YouTube channel, it needs to be widely watched.

In that video, Cullors repeatedly calls herself an “abolitionist.” She talks about her “abolitionist journey” and the “abolitionist future we deserve.” She announces that she’s writing a book titled An Abolitionist Handbook.

Cullors applies her abolitionist goals to police — and not just police but even prisons and jails. She states flatly, “Abolition is the getting rid of police, prisons and jails, surveillance, and courts.”

Yes, the abolition of police, prisons, jails, surveillance, and courts — all part of what Cullors calls the “prison industrial complex.” As many of us have noted, she emphasizes that BLM’s “defund” movement is about literal abolition. That is, not just defunding the police, but abolishing the police. Plus prisons and jails, and now surveillance and courts, too.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/senators_manchin_and_sinema_show_the_courage_of_their_convictions.html

In January, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.) entered into a power-sharing agreement with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D. Beijing) that was predicated on his receiving a promise from Sen. Joe Manchin (D. W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D. Az.) that they would not join with their fellow Democrat senators to end the filibuster. This was an overwhelmingly important promise because the filibuster is the only thing that stands between America as it has existed for 230 years and a Democrat-run, socialist, despotic future. I must admit that I had no faith whatsoever that Manchin and Sinema would keep their promise but, happily, I seem to be wrong.

The reason the filibuster matters so much is that the Senate is split 50-50. Technically, Kamala Harris is the tie-breaking vote but, if the Republicans invoke the filibuster (which dates back to 1806), it takes three-fifths of the Senate to override a filibuster. It is the filibuster that stands between America and the Democrat plans to pack the Supreme Court (turning it into a Democrat super-legislature), pass the Equality Act (opening the way to men in women’s restrooms, locker rooms, sports, and prisons), give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens (reshaping the American electorate forever), and enshrine fraud as an integral part of American elections (need I say more?).

Almost six months into the Biden era, as the Democrats get ever more aggressive in dividing the nation along racial lines, destroying the economy, supporting Iran, enshrining the mental illness that is so-called “transgenderism,” etc., it was nerve-wracking to think that the only thing between us and turning America into a racially-riven, sexually-obsessed version of China was a promise from Joe Manchin who rather consistently takes stands and then abandons them, and Sinema, who started out in the Green Party and Code Pink.

But Manchin and Sinema have held firm. Indeed, they’ve held so firm that Biden, during his disgraceful race-baiting speech in Tulsa, was forced to lie about them in order to pressure them into yielding on the same filibuster Biden once declared practically sacred. To that end, he accused them of voting with the enemy (i.e., the GOP):

Biden did not name the Democratic senators that could stand in the way of passing bills like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, although he was likely referring to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). Both senators are moderates who have come under heavy criticism this year over perceptions that they are obstructing elements of the Democratic agenda, particularly due to their refusal to support eliminating the Senate‘s filibuster rule.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/adls-brief-history-antisemitism-focuses-christians-christine-douglass-williams/

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) first published its “Brief History on Antisemitism” in 2013, but it is newly relevant amid the dramatic recent upswing in antisemitic attacks all over Europe and North America. The ongoing united efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state and support a Palestinian “resistance” that has sought to annihilate Israel from the day of its founding have been relentless, and have gained new impetus in recent weeks. Unfortunately, the ADL plays it safe in its history, ignoring Iran’s hatred of Jews, Arab nationalism and the alliance of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler during the Holocaust.

This is unfortunate on many levels. The ADL has been foundational in advocating for American Jewry, and its influence extends beyond American borders. According to its website, “the ADL was born at a time when American Jews—both new immigrants and generations-long members of our society—were experiencing deep-seated bigotry.”

Founded in 1913 by the Independent Order of B’nai Brith, the ADL split from B’nai Brith to become an independent organization committed to combating antisemitism. In 2018, it rebranded itself more broadly as an “anti-hate” organization, often taking up the cause of controversial groups and entering into what has become known as the culture war, eliciting criticism in the war of ideas, often from both sides of the right-left divide and anything in between.

Robert Spencer recently noted that ADL called accurate reporting of Muslim responses to coronavirus “anti-Muslim bigotry.” “Anti-hate” today is synonymous with opposition to racism. Opposition to “hate” is based on a notion of whites oppressing non-whites. Those who subscribe to this way of thinking also classify Islam as a “race,” so that when Islamic doctrines and practices are scrutinized and criticized, the offender is deemed to be “Islamophobic.” Similar brandings include “racist,” “white supremacist,” “xenophobic,” “bigoted,” “intolerant,” and the like. The two “safe” groups to criticize are Christians and Jews, who are both largely viewed by Westerners as “white.” Jews are now facing global abuse at levels reminiscent of the Nazi era, but it’s not generated by Christians; rather, it emanates from the Palestinian jihad against the Jewish state of Israel, backed by powerful Islamic powerbrokers — an “unsafe” longstanding issue that the ADL avoids –  failure of nerve that many share.

The predominantly “unsafe” groups to criticize are black and Islamic. Certainly not all Muslims are antisemitic, but Islamic antisemitism is a powerful, united global influencer leading to an increasingly violent new outbreak of antisemitism, as the Palestinian “resistance” is used and recycled as a social justice cause embraced by the anti-racism industry.