Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 86

Below the radar: Is the Trump-Netanyahu ‘unthinkable’ about to happen?

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on April 7, 2025 [Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images]

by Dr Ramzy Baroud  

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest trip to Washington was no ordinary visit. The consensus among Israeli analysts, barring a few remaining loyalists, is that Netanyahu was not invited; he was summoned by US President Donald Trump.

All of the evidence supports this assertion. Netanyahu rarely travels to the US without extensive Israeli media fanfare, leveraging his touted relationships with various US administrations as a “hasbara” opportunity to reinforce his image as Israel’s strongman.

Netanyahu was informed of Trump’s summons while on an official trip to Hungary, where he was received by Hungarian President Viktor Orban with exaggerated diplomatic accolades. This was a signal of defiance against international condemnation of Netanyahu, an alleged war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Orban’s open arms welcome portrayed him as anything but an isolated leader of an increasingly pariah state.

The capstone of Netanyahu’s short-lived Hungarian victory lap was Orban’s announcement of Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC, a move with profoundly unsettling implications.

It would have been convenient for Netanyahu to use his Washington visit to divert attention from his failed war in Gaza and internal strife in Israel. However, as the Arabic saying goes, “The wind often blows contrary to the ship’s desires.”

The notion that Netanyahu was summoned by Trump rather than invited, is corroborated by Israeli media reports that he attempted to postpone the visit under various pretexts. He failed, and flew to Washington on the date determined by the White House. Initially, reports circulated that no press conference would be held, denying Netanyahu the platform to tout for Washington’s unwavering support for his military actions and to expound on the “special relationship” between the two countries.

A press conference was held, although it was dominated largely by Trump’s contradictory messages and typical rhetoric. Netanyahu spoke briefly, attempting to project the same confident body language observed during his previous Washington visit, where he sat straight-backed with legs splayed out, as if he was in full command of all around him.

His eyes shifted nervously, and he appeared stiff and surprised, particularly when Trump announced that the US and Iran were about to begin direct talks in Oman.

Trump also mentioned the need to end the war in Gaza, but the Iran announcement clearly shocked Netanyahu. He desperately tried to align his discourse with Trump’s, referencing Libya’s disarmament under Muammar Gaddafi. But that was never part of Israel’s official regional plan. Israel has advocated consistently for US military intervention against Iran, despite the certainty that such a war would destabilise the entire region, potentially drawing the US into a conflict far more protracted and devastating than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Further evidence of the US divergence of views from Israel’s regional ambitions — which are centred on perpetual war, territorial expansion and geopolitical dominance — lies in the fact that key political and intellectual figures within the Trump administration recognise the futility of such conflicts. In leaked exchanges on the encrypted messaging platform Signal, Vice President JD Vance protested that escalating the war in Yemen benefits Europe, not the US, a continent with which the US is increasingly decoupling, if not actually engaging in a trade war.

Figures like Tucker Carlson, a prominent commentator, articulated the growing frustration among right-wing intellectuals in the US, tweeting that, “Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”

Trump’s willingness to challenge Netanyahu’s policies openly remains unclear. His conflicting statements, such as calling for an end to the Gaza war while simultaneously advocating for the expulsion of Palestinians, add to the ambiguity. However, recent reports suggest a determined US intention to end the war in Gaza as part of a broader strategy, linking Gaza to Yemen, Lebanon and Iran. This aligns with Washington’s need to stabilise the region as it prepares for a new phase of competition with China, requiring comprehensive economic, political and military readiness.

Should Trump prove capable of doing what others could not, will Netanyahu finally submit to American pressure?

In 2015, the Israeli leader demonstrated Israel’s unparalleled influence on US foreign and domestic policy when he addressed both chambers of Congress. Despite a few insignificant protests, Republican and Democratic policymakers applauded enthusiastically as Netanyahu criticised the then President Barack Obama, who did not attend and appeared to be isolated by his own political class.

However, if Netanyahu believes that he can replicate that moment, he is mistaken. Those years are long gone. Trump is a populist leader who is not beholden to political balances in Congress. Now in his second and final term, he could, in theory, abandon America’s ingrained reliance on the approval of Israel and its aggressively influential lobby in Washington.

Moreover, Netanyahu’s political standing is diminished. He is perceived as a failed political leader and military strategist, unable to secure decisive victories or extract political concessions from his adversaries. He is a leader without a clear plan, grappling with a legitimacy crisis unlike any faced by his predecessors.

Ultimately, the outcome hinges on Trump’s willingness to confront Netanyahu. If he does, and sustains the pressure, Netanyahu could find himself in an unenviable position, marking a rare instance in modern history where the US dictates the terms, and Israel listens. Is the unthinkable about to happen? Let’s wait and see.

[…]

Via https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250415-below-the-radar-is-the-trump-netanyahu-unthinkable-about-to-happen/

French contradictions: Macron’s Palestine play – too little, too late?

French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France on April 09, 2025. [Ümit Dönmez – Anadolu Agency]

by Dr Ramzy BaroudIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vehement opposition to a Palestinian state aligns perfectly with a long-standing Zionist ideology that has consistently viewed the establishment of a Palestinian state as a direct threat to Israel’s very foundation as a settler colonial project.

Thus, the mere existence of a Palestinian state with clearly defined geographical boundaries would inevitably render the state of Israel, which pointedly remains without internationally recognised borders, a state confined to a fixed physical space.

At a time when Israel continues to occupy significant swathes of Syrian and Lebanese territory and relentlessly pursues its colonial expansion to seize even more land, the notion of Israel genuinely accepting a sovereign Palestinian state is utterly inconceivable.

This reality is not a recent development; it has always been the underlying truth. This, in essence, reveals that the decades-long charade of the “two-state solution” was consistently a mirage, meticulously crafted to peddle illusions to both Palestinians and the broader international community, fostering the false impression that Israel was finally serious about achieving peace.

Therefore, it came as no surprise that Netanyahu reacted with considerable fury to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognise the State of Palestine next June.

In a phone call with Macron yesterday, Netanyahu predictably resorted to his familiar nonsensical rhetoric, outrageously equating the establishment of a Palestinian state with rewarding “terrorism”.

And, with equal predictability, he trotted out the well-worn and unsubstantiated claims about an Iranian connection. “A Palestinian state established a few minutes away from Israeli cities would become an Iranian stronghold of terrorism,” Netanyahu’s office declared in a statement.

Meanwhile, Macron, with a familiar balancing act, reiterated his commitment to Israeli “security”, while tepidly emphasising that the suffering in Gaza must come to an end.

Of course, in a more just and reasonable world, Macron should have unequivocally stressed that it is Palestinian security, indeed their very existence, that is acutely at stake, and that Israel, through its relentless violence and occupation, constitutes the gravest threat to Palestinian existence and, arguably, to global peace.

Sadly, such a world remains stubbornly out of reach.

Considering Macron’s and France’s unwavering and often obsequious support for Israel throughout the years, particularly since the onset of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, some might cautiously welcome Macron’s statement as a potentially positive shift in policy.

However, it is imperative to caution against any exaggerated optimism, especially at a time when entire Palestinian families in Gaza are being annihilated in the ongoing Israeli genocide as these very words are read. It is an undeniable truth that France, like many other Western governments, has played a significant role in empowering, arming and justifying Israel’s heinous crimes in Gaza.

For France to genuinely reverse its long-standing position, if indeed that is the current trajectory, it will require far more than symbolic and ultimately empty gestures.

Palestinians are, understandably, weary and disillusioned with symbolic victories, hollow rhetoric, and insincere gestures.

The recent recognitions of the State of Palestine by Ireland, Norway and Spain in May 2024 did offer a fleeting spark of hope among Palestinians, suggesting a potential, albeit limited, shift in Western sentiment that might exert some pressure on Israel to cease its devastating actions in Gaza.

Unfortunately, this initial and fragile optimism has largely failed to translate into broader and more meaningful European action.

Consequently, Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognise the State of Palestine in June has been met with a far more subdued and skeptical reaction from Palestinians.

While other European Union countries that have already recognised Palestine often maintain considerably stronger stances against the Israeli occupation, France’s record in this regard is notably weaker.

Furthermore, the very sincerity of France’s stated position is deeply questionable, given its ongoing and concerning suppression of French activists who dare to protest the Israeli actions and advocate for Palestinian rights within France itself.

These attacks, arrests, and the broader crackdown on dissenting political views within France hardly paint the picture of a nation genuinely prepared to completely alter its course on aiding and abetting Israeli crimes.

Moreover, there is a stark and undeniable contrast between the principled positions adopted by Spain, Norway and Ireland and France’s steadfast backing of Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza from its very inception, a support underscored by Macron’s early and highly symbolic visit to Tel Aviv.

Macron was among the first world leaders to arrive in Tel Aviv following the war, while Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to the most unspeakable forms of violence imaginable.

During that visit, on 24 October 2023, he unequivocally reiterated, “France stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. We share your pain, and we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and its right to defend itself against terrorism.”

This raises a fundamental and critical question: how can France’s belated recognition of a Palestinian state be interpreted as genuine solidarity while it simultaneously remains a significant global supporter of the very entity perpetrating violence against Palestinians?

While any European recognition of Palestine is a welcome – if overdue – step, its true significance is considerably diminished by the near-universal recognition of Palestine within the global majority, particularly across the Global South, originating in the Middle East and steadily expanding worldwide.

The fact that France would be among the last group of countries in the world to formally recognise Palestine (currently, 147 out of 193 United Nations member states have recognised the State of Palestine), speaks volumes about France’s apparent attempt to belatedly align itself with the prevailing global consensus and, perhaps, to whitewash its long history of complicity in Israeli Zionist crimes, as Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and condemned on the international stage.

One can state with considerable confidence that Palestinians, particularly those enduring the unimaginable horrors of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, prioritise an immediate cessation of that genocide and genuine accountability for Israel’s actions far above symbolic acts of recognition that appear primarily aimed at bolstering France’s relevance as a global power player and a long-standing supporter of Israeli war crimes.

Finally, Macron, while reassuring Israel that its security remains paramount for the French government, must be reminded that his continued engagement with Benjamin Netanyahu is, in itself, a potential violation of international law. The Israeli leader is a wanted accused criminal by the International Criminal Court, and it is France’s responsibility, like that of the over 120 signatories to the ICC, to apprehend, not to appease, Netanyahu.

This analysis is not intended to diminish the potential significance of the recognition of Palestine as a reflection of growing global solidarity with the Palestinian people. However, for such recognition to be truly meaningful and impactful, it must emanate from a place of genuine respect and profound concern for the Palestinian people themselves, not from a calculated desire to safeguard the “security” of their tormentors.

[…]

Via https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250416-french-contradictions-macrons-palestine-play-too-little-too-late/

Groundbreaking technology promises to change digital currency landscape

End Time Headlines

A revolutionary advancement in blockchain technology is poised to reshape the world of digital currencies, offering a sustainable alternative to traditional cryptocurrency systems.

Unlike conventional cryptocurrencies, which are often criticized for their high energy consumption, this new approach significantly reduces environmental impact while maintaining robust security and efficiency.

Traditional cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin rely on energy-intensive processes such as proof-of-work (PoW), which require vast computational power to validate transactions and secure the network.

This has led to concerns about their environmental footprint, with some estimates suggesting Bitcoin’s annual energy consumption rivals that of entire countries.

According to Yahoo News, the new technology, developed by a team of researchers and blockchain innovators, introduces an eco-friendly consensus mechanism that drastically cuts energy usage.

By leveraging advanced cryptographic techniques and a novel validation protocol, the system achieves high transaction throughput without the need for power-hungry mining operations.

“Not every cryptocurrency has to be an energy guzzler,” said Dr. Elena Martinez, a lead researcher on the project. “This technology proves we can have security, speed, and sustainability all at once.”

The breakthrough technology offers several advantages over existing blockchain systems:

Energy Efficiency: The new protocol consumes up to 90% less energy than traditional PoW-based cryptocurrencies, making it a viable option for environmentally conscious investors and developers.

Scalability: The system can process thousands of transactions per second, addressing one of the major bottlenecks of earlier blockchains like Ethereum and Bitcoin.

Accessibility: Lower operational costs mean reduced transaction fees, making digital currency more practical for everyday use, from microtransactions to large-scale financial operations.

Security: Advanced cryptographic algorithms ensure the network remains resistant to attacks, maintaining trust in the system.

These features position the technology as a potential game-changer, not only for digital currencies but also for industries like supply chain management, decentralized finance (DeFi), and digital identity verification.

The introduction of this technology is expected to accelerate the adoption of digital currencies across various sectors.

Financial institutions, which have been hesitant to embrace cryptocurrencies due to environmental and scalability concerns, may now see a path forward.

“This is an innovation we’ll likely be seeing a lot more of,” noted Sarah Thompson, a fintech analyst at Global Finance Insights. “It aligns with the growing demand for sustainable and scalable solutions in the financial world.”

Moreover, the technology could challenge the dominance of established cryptocurrencies.

While Bitcoin and Ethereum continue to lead the market, their high energy demands and slower transaction speeds have opened the door for competitors.

This new system could attract developers and businesses looking to build applications on a more efficient blockchain.

[…]

Via https://endtimeheadlines.org/2025/04/groundbreaking-technology-promises-to-change-the-landscape-of-digital-currency/

Sen. Warren Introduces Bill to Tighten Ethics Standards for Musk and Other Special Government Employees

Epoch Times

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has announced new legislation that will subject Elon Musk and other “special government employees” (SGEs) to the same ethics rules as other federal employees.

Warren said the legislation was prompted by Musk’s close advisory access to President Donald Trump, coupled with the fact that Musk’s companies have been the recipients of billions in government contracts and subsidies for over a decade.

Her proposed legislation aims to prevent conflicts of interest by preventing SGEs from communicating with government agencies whose work overlaps with their business interests.

The bill “would apply standard ethics rules to SGEs starting on the SGE’s 61st day in government,” would require the Office of Government Ethics to sign off on any conflict-of-interest waivers issued to SGEs, and make such waivers public.

A fact sheet on the bill states that “While most ethics laws for regular federal employees apply to SGEs, some apply more loosely and others do not apply at all.”

It would also allow public access to some SGE financial disclosures and require the Office of Personnel Management to keep a list of which federal workers are designated as SGEs.

[…]

Via https://hellboundanddown.com/2025/04/17/sen-warren-introduces-bill-to-tighten-ethics-standards-for-musk-and-other-special-government-employees/

Profanity-laced Emails, Misuse of CDC Funds: How Big Fluoride Tries to Prevent Towns From Removing Fluoride

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Washburn, North Dakota’s town commissioners voted Monday night to stop fluoridating the town’s water supply. But in the months leading up to what the commissioners thought would be a small-town, local debate, the commissioners uncovered a federally funded, coordinated lobbying scheme by state actors and a national fluoride lobby group to crush efforts by small towns like theirs to stop fluoridating their water supplies.

When Washburn, North Dakota’s town commissioners decided in January to take up the issue of whether or not to continue fluoridating the water supply for the town’s 1,300 residents, they anticipated researching the risks versus benefits and putting the matter to a vote.

What they didn’t anticipate — but soon encountered — was evidence of a coordinated effort by state actors and a national fluoride lobby group, using federal money, to crush local efforts by small towns like Washburn to stop fluoridating their water supplies.

On Monday night, town commissioners voted 4-1 to stop adding fluoride to Washburn’s water supply — making Washburn the latest in a growing list of communities across the country to end the practice in light of mounting scientific evidence that the chemical harms children’s health and provides little or no dental benefit.

At the meeting, Commissioner Keith Hapip shared what he said was evidence of astroturfing by Dr. Johnny Johnson, president of the American Fluoridation Society; Jim Kershaw, Bismarck, North Dakota’s water plant superintendent and others.

“Astroturfing is when a group with money and power pretends to be regular folks supporting something, but it’s really a planned push from the top,” Hapip said. “Real grassroots come from the community naturally. And here, the oral health program used CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] cash to manufacture support for fluoridation in Washburn.”

Johnson phoned into the meeting to advocate for water fluoridation. In response, the commission also hosted a presentation by Michael Connett — the attorney who represented the plaintiffs who won a landmark ruling in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the agency’s failure to appropriately regulate fluoride use in water supplies.

Dr. Griffin Cole, conference chairman of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, who has expertise on fluoride’s toxic effects, also made a presentation.

Interviews by The Defender with grassroots actors across the country revealed that for years, Johnson, one of the country’s foremost advocates of water fluoridation, has been intervening in grassroots efforts to end fluoridation in their communities.

He and colleagues — in this case, Kershaw — travel physically or virtually to meetings in towns across the country.

Johnson himself, along with the American Dental Association (ADA), openly celebrates this work lobbying local governments. The ADA frequently reports on Johnson’s appearances and his “success” blocking community efforts to end fluoridation on its website.

As recently as last week, Johnson reportedly bussed in dentists to a meeting in Seminole County, Florida.

North Dakota officials misused CDC funding to lobby in Washburn

On Jan. 13, Hapip brought the issue of fluoridation to the commission. He kicked off the discussion by asking some basic questions: “Is there an ethical question to medicating people without explicit consent? And, does fluoride work systemically or topically?”

Kershaw, a staunch water fluoridation advocate, traveled the 35 miles from Bismarck, a much larger city, to present information about water fluoridation.

Kershaw so adamantly pushed fluoride that one of the commissioners asked him if he was there representing “big fluoride” or some other interest. Kershaw said he was there on his own money and his own time because he simply had learned a lot and was “excited about sharing it with other people.”

“I do this on my own time, and to help colleagues like this,” he said. “I do this on my own. I do this out of my own expense for gas money and stuff.”

Hapip said he was surprised by the response. “There were people writing us letters from out-of-state regional dentist associations, people traveling from Bismarck to come to our meeting. It was like, there’s something going on here,” he said. And the letters were all strikingly similar. “They seemed very copy and paste.”

Hapip found the disproportionate response to the small-town question and Kershaw’s comments to be so strange that he submitted a public records request for communications between Kershaw and the top officials at the North Dakota Oral Health Program (OHP), including Director Cheri Kiefer and OHP Public Health Hygienist Vanessa Bopp, about Washburn.

In a Jan. 6 email from Kiefer, Kershaw — who is not an OHP employee — wrote that the agency would fund Kershaw’s trip to Washburn. A Jan. 21 email confirmed the reimbursement.

The communications Hapip obtained also included an email from Kiefer wishing Kershaw success. “You’re going to be amazing Jim!! Flatten them like a pancake,” Keifer wrote.

When Hapip read the emails, he was outraged. “OHP Director Kiefer urged Kershaw to crush us hours before the meeting. This isn’t technical assistance or education — it’s a funded intent to dominate,” he told The Defender.

Hapip said the funding for OHS comes from a $380,800 annual grant from the CDC and a $400,000 annual grant from the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA)

Both grants explicitly prohibit the use of funds for publicity or propaganda purposes or for lobbying or influencing legislation at any level, such as that being proposed in Washburn.

“These emails suggest that they’re violating their grant funding,” Hapip told The Defender. “They are directly reaching out to public health officials to come speak at our meetings. They’re providing dentists with letters — I’m not even kidding — giving them a full template.”

The template was first shared with Hapip by a city counselor, Rebecca Osowski, in Grand Forks, which is also considering ending fluoridation. Hapip and Osowski noticed they were receiving multiple letters that were strikingly similar. The records request showed the letter template, along with emails from OHP staff approving the template.

The letters from the template constituted “90% of the pushback” the council received, Hapip reported at Monday night’s meeting.

Hapip said the dentists who sent in the letters from the templates didn’t include their contact information. He looked them up and reached out to them, asking them to comment on multiple recent major studies linking fluoride to neurotoxicity in children.

Record request responses show that at least two of the dentists forwarded Hapip’s letter to Kershaw, who told them not to respond.

Hapip was outraged. “Their grant is to provide education. So that was an education opportunity. They are denying the education opportunities and only doing the activism. It’s ridiculous.”

After Hapip’s records request, Kershaw began using his personal email rather than his professional one for communications.

Hapip has filed a formal complaint with the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services.

Johnson and Kershaw use abusive and degrading language to mock and demean opponents of fluoridation

After Kershaw’s appearance at Washburn’s meeting, Hapip reached out to ask him about several points he made at the meeting. Hapip provided evidence that Kershaw’s statements were false and asked him to respond.

For example, Hapip said he called poison control to ask if there was a safety concern if children swallowed toothpaste and was told that if a child consumes more than two ounces of toothpaste, there would be a serious medical concern, requiring treatment with calcium.

This contradicted information Kershaw had provided — via Johnson — that poison control says a child would have to swallow an entire tube of toothpaste to get sick, and that the foaming agent in toothpaste would compel them to vomit first.

Poison control told Hapip that no agent in toothpaste would induce a child to throw up on their own.

Records show that Kersaw consulted with Johnson on his response, calling Hapip a “dink.”

Johnson responded, calling Hapip a series of expletives and asked Kershaw if he could respond to him directly. Kershaw replied, “Don’t reply to him now, I have a plan.”

Commenting on the email, Hapip said he was shocked. “It’s a kind of rough start to a relationship, I guess you could say.”

At Monday’s meeting, Hapip confronted Johnson about his comments. Johnson said he was simply “blowing off steam” and that he gets “a bit disturbed” because he is constantly having his integrity and professionalism called into question.

Johnson also complained that public records requests seeking information about fluoride communications are made to “stop people from being able to have their free speech about helping public health folks.”

Johnson was referring to the many Freedom of Information Act requests that have revealed, among other things, collusion among the ADA and other lobbying groups and top public health officials to prevent scientific evidence of fluoride’s dangers from reaching the public.

Cole, who listened to the meeting, told The Defender it was clear that Johnson was tipped off in advance that Hapip planned to confront him. He said Johnson’s response was disingenuous.

“He acted like such a victim,” Cole said. “He has no idea what people like me and other people who have been doing research on fluoride’s toxic effects for years have gone through.”

”For years and years, people were being just denigrated and their careers ruined because they were simply telling the truth. They were doing the science, and saying here are the results. For that, they were blacklisted.”

Cole said that unlike Johnson, researchers concerned with fluoride’s negative effects don’t badmouth those who promote fluoridation; they simply present the facts.

Cole and Connett’s presentations followed. They presented data from research published by government agencies and in top journals showing that fluoride exposure is linked to lowered IQ in children and other negative neurocognitive effects — even at fluoridation levels currently recommended by the public health agencies, as well as recent research showing that water fluoridation has little benefit for dental health.

A few public comments were made supporting both sides of the debate. Then, the commission voted.

After the vote, the commission asked the water plant operator what would be necessary to implement the decision to stop fluoridating Washburn’s water supply. He said the fluoridation could be stopped as soon as five minutes after the meeting concluded.

Grand Forks is the next battlefield

Grand Forks, the third largest city in North Dakota, is set to discuss water fluoridation next week. The issue first came up earlier in the year as part of a broader discussion about the city’s annual bids for treatment chemicals at water and wastewater treatment plants, according to the Grand Forks Herald.

In January, the council voted 4-3 to maintain fluoridation after Osowski made a motion to remove it, but they are revisiting that decision.

Johnson and Kershaw are preparing their commentaries, according to emails released to Hapip through records requests. They continue their use of profanity to characterize public officials opposed to their position, referring to Osowski in the email below.

Emails show that since January, Bopp and Kiefer have been working behind the scenes to mobilize dentists, dental associations and others to intervene to influence the legislation in Washburn and Grand Forks.

At least one other town in North Dakota, McVille, voted to remove fluoride from its water in 2023. However, after Johnson, Kershaw, OPH employees Bopp and Kiefer, and dentists from the ADA pressured the town of 417 inhabitants — Johnson flew in for their meeting — the town reversed the decision.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/north-dakota-towns-effort-end-water-fluoridation-exposes-cdc/

Three Theories of Trump’s Strategy for American Power

Three Theories of Trump’s Strategy for American Power

DW News (2025)

Film Review

The purpose of this documentary is to try to make sense of Trump’s impulsive and chaotic foreign policy according to “established” foreign policy principles. I found it extremely disappointing as it makes no mention whatsoever of BRICS (which represents half the global population and 41% of global GDP) or China’s Belt and Road initiative. In addition to the 10 current BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates), another eight partner countries (Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan) are on the path to become full members. Any realistic US foreign policy would surely need to take account of this growing multipolar alliance.

It also makes several serious misstatements of fact. The most serious is its claim that Russia “seized” Crimea and Eastern Ukraine following the CIA installation of an openly Nazi government in Kiev in 2014. The historical record indicates the mainly Russian-speaking residents of Crimea, Donestsk and Luhansk and voted (with a 90+ plus majority) voted to rejoin the Russian Federation in 2014. The filmmakers also fail to acknowledge the official US and international recognition of China’s One China policy under both Carter and Obama and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in October 1971 (see http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/16215516.html).

The three strategic foreign policy goals set out are Realism, Reverse Kissinger and Spheres of influence. The foreign policy analysts consulted include Gautan Chikermane (Vice President Observer Research Foundation Delhi), Liana Fix (Council on Foreign Relations), Alexander Gabuev (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Amanda Hsiao Amanda Hsiao (director in Eurasia Group’s China practice covering China’s foreign policy and cross-strait relations) and Steve Wertheim (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).

1. Realism

In a realism-based foreign policy, results are based on power rather than principle (like the so called Rules Based Order*) and normally end with some compromise on both sides. Gautam Chikermane feels that while Trump believes his foreign policy is realism-based, he fails to acknowledge that foreign policy is no longer binary but involves multiple players, that European and US economies are collapsing and that Russia no longer cares about positive US esteem.

2. Reverse Kissinger

With a Reverse Kissinger foreign policy, the main goal would be to disrupt the Chinese-Russian alliance by forming a special relationship with Russia (Kissinger destroyed this alliance by forming a special relationship with China).

Analysts supporting this view of Trump’s foreign policy see the US as a nation in “very serious decline.” They blame Biden for allowing Russia, China and Iran to form a political, economic and military alliance, and believe one of Trump’s main goals is to “un-unite” them. This approach would seek to give Russia more (mainly economic) options to make her less dependent on China.

3. Spheres of Influence

Long associated with power relations and empire, this strategy seeks to possess or dominate neighboring countries for specific political and/or economic gain. This view equates Trump’s desire to possess Greenland, Canada and Panama with Russia’s alleged “seizure of Crimea and East Ukraine,” China’s desire to “seize” Taiwan, their dispute with Japan over South China Sea islands and with India over Himalayan borders.

Although all five analysts interviewed are highly critical of Trump’s bullying and his disruptive and unpredictable behavior, Chikermane is cautiously optimistic about Trump’s approach to foreign policy. He feels the “fake liberalism” under Biden had to be called out and that Europe had to be “woken up.” For some reason, he neglects to mention that India is a member of BRICS, which clearly places his own country under China’s sphere of influence.

*The film also neglects to mention the US only adheres to The Rules Based Order when it suits its own foreign policy interests (eg its long history of illegal sponsorship of international terrorism and color revolutions).

 

Trump Administration Fast-Tracks Controversial Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccine for H5N1 Bird Flu

End Time Headlines

The Trump administration announced its decision to grant Fast Track designation to ARCT-2304, a self-amplifying mRNA (sa-mRNA) vaccine candidate developed by Arcturus Therapeutics targeting the H5N1 avian influenza virus.

This move has sparked significant debate, with proponents highlighting its potential to bolster pandemic preparedness and critics raising concerns about safety and transparency.

ARCT-2304 differs from traditional vaccines by utilizing a self-replicating mRNA platform.

Unlike conventional mRNA vaccines, which instruct cells to produce a viral protein to trigger an immune response, sa-mRNA continues to replicate within cells, potentially amplifying the production of flu-fighting proteins.

According to The Gateway Pundit, the vaccine is currently in Phase 1 trials and is being positioned as a critical defense against a possible H5N1 pandemic.

The technology aims to enhance immune responses with lower doses, but its novel approach has raised questions about long-term effects.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), previously instrumental in Operation Warp Speed, is spearheading the funding and acceleration of ARCT-2304.

Reports indicate that BARDA has been granted broad authority to expedite pandemic-related therapeutics, a move that echoes strategies from the COVID-19 response.

While this could streamline vaccine availability, some sources note that the fast-tracking process may limit scrutiny.

The Gateway Pundit emphasized BARDA’s role, highlighting its history with mRNA vaccines during the prior Trump administration.

The announcement has elicited mixed reactions. Supporters argue that the Fast Track designation reflects proactive public health planning, especially given H5N1’s potential to mutate and spread.

However, skepticism abounds, fueled by experiences with mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Posts on X reflect significant public unease, with users expressing distrust and referencing side effects reported from earlier mRNA vaccines.

Critics argue that the self-amplifying nature of ARCT-2304 introduces untested variables, though no major news outlet has confirmed specific risks at this stage.

The decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of vaccine development processes.

Some reports draw parallels to the rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, noting that while those vaccines were effective for many, side effect reports eroded trust for some communities.

The Gateway Pundit highlighted public complaints about mRNA vaccine side effects, suggesting that ARCT-2304’s approval could face similar resistance.

Additionally, there are calls for greater transparency in trial data to address concerns about the sa-mRNA platform’s safety profile.

[…]

Via https://endtimeheadlines.org/2025/04/trump-administration-fast-tracks-controversial-self-amplifying-mrna-vaccine-for-h5n1-bird-flu/#google_vignette

Anger in Israel as US says it’s withdrawing from Syria

US troops in Syria, 22 October 2019 [Twitter]

Middle East Monitor

Anger has mounted in Tel Aviv as the United States informed Israel of its decision to begin a gradual withdrawal from Syria in the coming period, according to Israeli media reports yesterday.

The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that American security officials notified the Israeli occupation army that the withdrawal is set to commence within two months.

Israeli officials quoted by the paper said that Tel Aviv is still pressing Washington to delay the pullout, fearing that “Turkiye will take over more strategic assets in the new Syria” once US troops leave.

The report clarified that the decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw American forces from Syria does not come as a surprise. Trump had announced his intention to pull troops out of the region on 20 January.

The paper noted that Israel is concerned about heightened tensions with Turkiye, which has been openly working to expand its influence in the region following the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime.

It added that “Israel believes the withdrawal of American forces could embolden Turkiye to take control of additional strategic military assets on the ground.”

Since a coalition of opposition factions ousted Al-Assad in late 2024, the Israeli occupation’s military has launched hundreds of strikes in Syria, under the pretext of targeting military installations, naval bases and air bases to prevent the new administration from seizing the former army’s arsenal.

Israeli forces have also infiltrated the buffer zone in the Golan Heights and expanded their occupation of Syrian land.

Israel has expressed concerns over Ankara’s growing influence in Damascus, especially given Turkiye’s alliance with the interim Syrian government.

Last week Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he has “great relations” with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, adding that “Any problem that you have with Turkiye, I think I can solve. I mean, as long as you’re reasonable, you have to be reasonable. We have to be reasonable.”

Via https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250416-anger-in-israel-as-us-says-its-withdrawing-from-syria/

Maryland senator goes to El Salvador in push for Abrego Garcia’s return

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images CNN

US Sen. Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday seeking to meet with government officials there about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who had been living in his state until he was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration last month to a mega-prison in the Central American nation.

“I just landed in San Salvador a little while ago, and I look forward to meeting with the team at the U.S. embassy to discuss the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia,” the Maryland Democrat wrote on X. “I also hope to meet with Salvadoran officials and with Kilmar himself. He was illegally abducted and needs to come home.”

Ahead of his flight early Wednesday, Van Hollen said he aimed to “check on [Abrego Garcia’s] condition — and remind him that we won’t stop fighting until he’s home.”

The March deportation of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national and Maryland resident, has become a flashpoint in the fight over the Trump administration’s hardline deportation push.

The senator’s trip swiftly drew the ire of the White House.

Communications director Steven Cheung called Van Hollen “a complete disgrace” and the Office of Communications accused the senator in a statement of a lack of concern regarding crimes they say were committed by undocumented immigrants against his constituents. Abrego Garcia has not been charged with any crimes in the United States.

While Abrego Garcia had not been legally in the US prior to his deportation, a 2019 court order said he could not be returned to El Salvador and the Trump administration admitted in court documents he was deported there due to a clerical error.

In recent days, however, Trump administration officials have denied that he was mistakenly deported. US officials have alleged he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which the administration has designated as a foreign terrorist organization – a claim his attorneys dispute and at least one federal judge has voiced skepticism toward.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the US must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, White House officials have argued it’s up to El Salvador whether to do so. The Trump administration and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made clear during an Oval Office meeting earlier this week that the Maryland man wouldn’t be returned to the US.

Bukele said during the meeting that while he has the power to release Abrego Garcia, he wasn’t willing to do so [Ed Note – because the contract Trump signed with him pays him to keep Garcia in prison].

Officials in the Oval Office meeting, including President Donald Trump, made no effort to ask for his cooperation in the matter.

[…]

Via https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-maryland-senator-el-salvador/index.html

US threatens China with 245% tariff

©  Win McNamee/Getty Images

RT

Chinese imports to the US could face tariffs as high as 245%, according to a White House fact sheet released on Tuesday. The warning comes amid a growing trade rift between the world’s two largest economies.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has cited Beijing’s retaliation to previous levies as the reason for the latest potential hike.

“China now faces up to a 245% tariff on imports to the United States as a result of its retaliatory actions,” the fact sheet reads. However, it’s not clear from the document when the increase would come into force.

Washington has imposed several major tariff rises on Beijing in the past two months, increasing the duties from an initial 20%.

Beijing’s retaliation has included a hike to 125% on all American imports, a suspension of global shipments of rare-earth metals and magnets used in tech and military industries, and an order to Chinese airlines to stop accepting Boeing jets and parts.

The standoff with China comes amid a broader US tariff campaign targeting dozens of countries. According to Trump, the measures are part of an effort to balance the US trade deficit with its trading partners.

Following turmoil on the financial markets, the US administration paused higher tariffs for most countries to allow trade negotiations, except for China.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump was open to making a trade deal with the Asian nation, but that Beijing should make the first move.

China has slammed US tariffs as “a weapon to exert extreme pressure and pursue private interests” and an act of “unilateral economic bullying.” It has also vowed to continue to “take resolute measures to safeguard its legitimate interests.”[…]Via https://www.rt.com/business/615854-us-threatens-china-tariffs/