International
The Globalists’ New Weapon
The Globalists’ New Weapon
Authored by Robert Malone via The Brownstone Institute,
On the heels of Davos (World Economic Forum) week, the…
Share this:
Authored by Robert Malone via The Brownstone Institute,
On the heels of Davos (World Economic Forum) week, the MSM hysterical propaganda push from the globalists regarding “Disease X” is in full swing.
Just take a gander at a few of the Corporate Mockingbird Media headlines...
Almost every major news outlet in the world has run black propaganda pieces about Disease X. Why do I write black propaganda – because the “experts” aren’t actually named, the peer-reviewed papers supporting the thesis of “a deadly pathogen causing 20 times more deaths than COVID-19” or “killing 20 times more people than COVID-19” or “killing 50 million people” are non-existent. Yet these narratives are all headline news in mainstream media.
This is just another exercise in globalized messaging to support the WHO (World Economic Forum) and WEF-pushed narrative that governments must pour billions into the largest transnational corporations in the world to “cure” a non-existent disease.
What isn’t black propaganda but rather grey propaganda is that this fearporn is being pushed by the WEF and the WHO. WHO officials are most of the featured speakers and panelists on “Disease X” at the Davos meeting this week. From the WEF website:
World leaders are set to discuss preparation for the next pandemic at the World Economic Forum in Davos…
Officials from across the globe will be heading to the annual meeting in Switzerland, with the risk posed by what’s known as Disease X one of the key items on the agenda.
The meeting will address new warnings from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that the unidentified disease could kill 20 times more people than the coronavirus pandemic.
The big push from the WHO and the WEF is that “Disease X” will be zoonotic. That money to surveil every speck of land in the world is the path forward to stopping “Disease X.” What a coincidence that the brand new CIA/intelligence agency designated to run the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center to surveil pathogens intends to do just that. And that this happens to be intended to run in parallel with the CIA mission to surveil the world for other (nefarious?) purposes.
According to the WHO, Disease X is all about One Health solutions. The World Health organization describes One Health as the following:
Government officials, researchers and workers across sectors at the local, national, regional and global levels should implement joint responses to health threats. This includes developing shared databases and surveillance across different sectors, and identifying new solutions that address the root causes and links between risks and impacts.
Basically One Health gives public health officials total control and surveillance across AI, the internet, agriculture, climate change, public health, medical systems, ecological sites, urban, and rural areas. It can encompass just about anything. It also values animal and plant life as equal to human life. The WHO goes on:
investigating the impact of human activity on the environment and wildlife habitats, and how this drives disease threats. Critical areas include food production and distribution, urbanization and infrastructure development, international travel and trade, activities that lead to biodiversity loss and climate change, and those that put increased pressure on the natural resource base – all of which can lead to the emergence of zoonotic diseases.
We have seen this playbook before…
The International Journal of Arts of Social Science published the paper titled: “The World Economic Forum, “The Lancet,” and COVID-19 Knowledge Gatekeeping.” That paper is seminal in understanding just how corrupting the WEF as well as the WHO have become to scientific journals, scientists, universities, and media (fact-checkers).
Abstract:
The study investigated the links that the World Economic Forum has established with organizations and persons linked to the Lancet article titled Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. Guided by the Gatekeeping Theory, appended by the Political Economy of Knowledge Theory, the study implemented an integrative literature review (textual synthesis).
Relevant online pieces of literature were sampled through a snowballing technique using the Google search engine platform to elucidate on the funding and ownership of the Lancet, and the 27 authors of the said article and their affiliations with higher learning institutions vis-à-vis their connections with the World Economic Forum to highlight their implications to gatekeeping and COVID-19 knowledge production in journal publications, particularly that of the Lancet.
Results revealed that the WEF has penetrated all knowledge institutions that benefit from the natural COVID-19 virus origins hypothesis and the silencing of contrarian hypotheses, including the lab-leak narrative. A model of the WEF knowledge production complex against the lab-leak hypothesis was presented to visually represent the influence of the WEF on scientific journal gatekeeping in the context of the Lancet.
This is the paper being discussed:
The latter was the scientific paper that stopped the “spread” of “misinformation” that Cvoid-19 could have originated from a lab. This paper was crucial in shutting down “lab-leak” investigations at the WHO and in the US. In fact, the WHO Report published on February 2021 on the origins of the virus concluded that the lab-leak hypothesis was “Extremely unlikely.” They later scuttled a second investigation, because WHO officials claimed China was uncooperative – while never even admitting that the US may have had a significant role in both funding and directing the Wuhan laboratory research program.
Back to that original 2020 Lancet paper, the 27 WEF affiliated authors included both Peter Daszak and Jeremy Farrar (Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization since 2023. He was previously the director of The Wellcome Trust from 2013 to 2023).
From the 2020 Lancet paper:
The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
What Brian Bantugan, the author of “The World Economic Forum, ‘The Lancet’, and COVID-19 Knowledge Gatekeeping” discovered is shocking. The publishers, the authors, the affiliated universities, the NGOs, and the funding sources – are almost all directly linked to the WEF. They all continued to suppress information about the lab leak through out the pandemic. He writes:
Through content analysis, by way of a matrix of analysis, the study established the connections that exist between The Lancet and the WEF. The study argued through the Gatekeeping and Political Economy of Knowledge Production that the connections found between The Lancet and the WEF suggest likely collusion that led to the marginalization of the lab leak origin narrative as early as February 2020 and a network of disinformation within established but invisible networks of knowledge production.
Furthermore, scientific journals used what is called “gatekeeping” to withhold information.
According to author Brian Bantugan:
The term “gatekeeping” was coined by Kurt Lewin to refer to a process of blocking “unwanted or useless things by using a gate” (communicationtheory.org, n.d., para. 2). The theory asserts that “(t)he Gatekeeper decides what information should move to group or individual and what information should not” (para. 3). According to Shoemaker and Vos (2009), gatekeeping is the “… process (that) determines not only which information is selected, but also what the content and nature of messages… will be” (para. 1). Initially, it was used to describe the process of news production in mass media involving “selecting, writing, editing, positioning, scheduling, repeating, and otherwise massaging information to become news” (Vos & Reese, 2009, in Omlette à la Chantal, 2021).
First off, the Lancet is owned by Elsevier which is owned by the WEF partner RELX Group. This fact, by the way, is not transparent on the Lancet website.
But it gets worse.
Some examples of this effort were Elsevier Novel Coronavirus Information Center, Center, the Wiley COVID-19 Resources and News portal, the Springer Nature COVID-19 resources centre, and the Frontiers Coronoravirus Knowledge Hub (Matias-Guiu, 2020). Elsevier is owned by WEF partner RELX Group. John Wiley & Sons published Schwab‟s Stakeholder Capitalism (WEF, 2022). Springer Nature is owned by WEF partner Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. Frontiers was founded by WEF-affiliated Henry Markram (WEF, 2022).
So, all of these publishers have direct ties to the WEF… and yet they have been the gatekeepers of what got published during Covid-19. Including publishing the original animal origins paper.
But the paper goes on to document that almost all of the 27 Lancet authors and their universities have strong affiliations to the WEF. The details of those relations are laid in a series of tables, which can be found here. But the paper goes on:
The fact that the authors of the controversial article in The Lancet are all quite involved with high- profile organizations like the UN-FAO, WHO, and the USAID reveals much about why they decided to support the actions that led to the immediate “conspiratorialization” of other hypotheses on the virus origins, and mass immunizations they heavily promoted not long after the lockdowns were in place all over the world.
Assuming that the UN-FAO, WHO, and the USAID operate within a seamless system, embodied by the One Health approach they championed years before the pandemic happened, it would not be difficult to think that the editorial processes linked to and supported by their system will work towards their and the WEF’s benefit and advantage.
The data show that the WEF is part of the micro and macro environments that shape editorial gatekeeping. There is a playing field biased towards their system and only ideas that promote their system will have a chance to be heard. That the lab-leak hypothesis is silenced is what the article of the 27 authors may have likely aimed to ensure. Figure 1 below shows the network supporting the natural origins hypothesis of COVID-19.
Figure 1 below, based on the data above tables found in the article>, shows the complex relationships on which the WEF has firmly established itself. Through the influence of the WHO and UN-FAO, WEF is not only shaping WEF- affiliated higher education institutions but also those that look up them as models.
However, recent developments have shown that it is not only the Lancet that was rendered questionable by its decision to privilege the work of the 27 authors affiliated with WEF-linked universities, resulting in the marginalization of competing but equally valid theories on the origin of the Covid-19 virus, but also NatureMedicine (Campbell, 2022) which is also under an organization affiliated with the WEF.
Clearly, gatekeeping in scientific journals is seen here as equally vulnerable to the influence of the political and economic elite, like the rest of mainstream and social media. Given that leaked and redacted documents linking Fauci to some of the authors in the controversial Lancet article have emerged (showing that some of the authors were communicating directly with him before the article was published) (Peak Prosperity, 2022), and the web of relationships in Figure 1, it is not surprising that the controversial article was released in no time. “Scientific” gatekeeping and “truth” -making seems to be favoring the interest of the WEF, above all
Put together with the data in Tables 2 and 3, one can infer that the WEF has penetrated all the institutions that shape the minds of people, through their policies and programs.
The top executive editors of the Lancet, its owners, and funding agencies aside, the WEF has undeniably positioned itself to influence future leaders, policymakers, and knowledge gatekeepers like the Lancet, especially those in prestigious schools that can only be accessed by the privileged and the wealthy. It is not difficult to think that the interest of the WEF would be top-of-mind among the students and graduates of such universities compared to the multitude who have no interest in the workings of the WEF at all.
Right now, Disease X and One Health are being propagandized in the mainstream media as being the solution to save the world from a massive die-off` – this propaganda is being driven by the WEF in collaboration with the WHO. The EcoHealth Alliance is also at the forefront of the One Health initiative and has collected millions of dollars for their research projects into One Health. The Davos meeting is being used to prop up support for the WHO Pandemic treaty that removes national sovereignty over public health by promoting.
The WEF and the WHO envision solutions to the imaginary “Disease X” that involve more loss of freedoms. They want control over food systems, more money, more censorship, more surveillance, control over the climate change agenda – all in the name of public health. But even worse, they want all this codified in a document that turns over national sovereignty to the WHO.
The WEF and the WHO know that One Health and the pandemic agreement are their best pathways to more world control.
Without ever consulting sovereign nations, the WHO has placed the global “rights in nature” movement on par or above humans. This is why the One Health model must be rejected.
Listen below to The World Economic Forum’s 2024 Discussion “Preparing For Disease X” as Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director General, speaks about the Pandemic Agreement:
To have better preparedness and to address disease X we have Pandemic Agreement. The Pandemic Agreement can bring all the experience and all the challenges we have faced all in one…This is a common global interest and very narrow national interest should not come in the way. Of course, national interest is natural but it is NARROW national interest that can be difficult and affecting the negotiations as we speak…
Dr. Tedros, Davos 2024
This is the face of the enemy.
This particular embodiment of enemy comes in the form of the WEF and the WHO.
They now control the buttons for the mainstream media, the fact-checkers, academic institutions, the publishers of the scientific journals, and heads of state.
The list of who they own or have bought off is almost endless.
The fight in front of us is vast. Now is not the time to give up.
* * *
Republished from the author’s Substack
International
Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico
Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Officials in…
Share this:
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Officials in New Mexico confirmed that a resident died from the plague in the United States’ first fatal case in several years.
The New Mexico Department of Health, in a statement, said that a man in Lincoln County “succumbed to the plague.” The man, who was not identified, was hospitalized before his death, officials said.
They further noted that it is the first human case of plague in New Mexico since 2021 and also the first death since 2020, according to the statement. No other details were provided, including how the disease spread to the man.
The agency is now doing outreach in Lincoln County, while “an environmental assessment will also be conducted in the community to look for ongoing risk,” the statement continued.
“This tragic incident serves as a clear reminder of the threat posed by this ancient disease and emphasizes the need for heightened community awareness and proactive measures to prevent its spread,” the agency said.
A bacterial disease that spreads via rodents, it is generally spread to people through the bites of infected fleas. The plague, known as the black death or the bubonic plague, can spread by contact with infected animals such as rodents, pets, or wildlife.
The New Mexico Health Department statement said that pets such as dogs and cats that roam and hunt can bring infected fleas back into homes and put residents at risk.
Officials warned people in the area to “avoid sick or dead rodents and rabbits, and their nests and burrows” and to “prevent pets from roaming and hunting.”
“Talk to your veterinarian about using an appropriate flea control product on your pets as not all products are safe for cats, dogs or your children” and “have sick pets examined promptly by a veterinarian,” it added.
“See your doctor about any unexplained illness involving a sudden and severe fever, the statement continued, adding that locals should clean areas around their home that could house rodents like wood piles, junk piles, old vehicles, and brush piles.
The plague, which is spread by the bacteria Yersinia pestis, famously caused the deaths of an estimated hundreds of millions of Europeans in the 14th and 15th centuries following the Mongol invasions. In that pandemic, the bacteria spread via fleas on black rats, which historians say was not known by the people at the time.
Other outbreaks of the plague, such as the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century, are also believed to have killed about one-fifth of the population of the Byzantine Empire, according to historical records and accounts. In 2013, researchers said the Justinian plague was also caused by the Yersinia pestis bacteria.
But in the United States, it is considered a rare disease and usually occurs only in several countries worldwide. Generally, according to the Mayo Clinic, the bacteria affects only a few people in U.S. rural areas in Western states.
Recent cases have occurred mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Countries with frequent plague cases include Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Peru, the clinic says. There were multiple cases of plague reported in Inner Mongolia, China, in recent years, too.
Symptoms
Symptoms of a bubonic plague infection include headache, chills, fever, and weakness. Health officials say it can usually cause a painful swelling of lymph nodes in the groin, armpit, or neck areas. The swelling usually occurs within about two to eight days.
The disease can generally be treated with antibiotics, but it is usually deadly when not treated, the Mayo Clinic website says.
“Plague is considered a potential bioweapon. The U.S. government has plans and treatments in place if the disease is used as a weapon,” the website also says.
According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the last time that plague deaths were reported in the United States was in 2020 when two people died.
International
Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda
Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda
Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and…
Share this:
Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and bewildering tunnel of social justice cultism? Global events have been so frenetic that many people might not remember, but only a couple years ago Big Tech companies and numerous governments were openly aligned in favor of mass censorship. Not just to prevent the public from investigating the facts surrounding the pandemic farce, but to silence anyone questioning the validity of woke concepts like trans ideology.
From 2020-2022 was the closest the west has come in a long time to a complete erasure of freedom of speech. Even today there are still countries and Europe and places like Canada or Australia that are charging forward with draconian speech laws. The phrase "radical speech" is starting to circulate within pro-censorship circles in reference to any platform where people are allowed to talk critically. What is radical speech? Basically, it's any discussion that runs contrary to the beliefs of the political left.
Open hatred of moderate or conservative ideals is perfectly acceptable, but don't ever shine a negative light on woke activism, or you might be a terrorist.
Riley Gaines has experienced this double standard first hand. She was even assaulted and taken hostage at an event in 2023 at San Francisco State University when leftists protester tried to trap her in a room and demanded she "pay them to let her go." Campus police allegedly witnessed the incident but charges were never filed and surveillance footage from the college was never released.
It's probably the last thing a champion female swimmer ever expects, but her head-on collision with the trans movement and the institutional conspiracy to push it on the public forced her to become a counter-culture voice of reason rather than just an athlete.
For years the independent media argued that no matter how much we expose the insanity of men posing as women to compete and dominate women's sports, nothing will really change until the real female athletes speak up and fight back. Riley Gaines and those like her represent that necessary rebellion and a desperately needed return to common sense and reason.
In a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast, Gaines related some interesting information on the inner workings of the NCAA and the subversive schemes surrounding trans athletes. Not only were women participants essentially strong-armed by colleges and officials into quietly going along with the program, there was also a concerted propaganda effort. Competition ceremonies were rigged as vehicles for promoting trans athletes over everyone else.
The bottom line? The competitions didn't matter. The real women and their achievements didn't matter. The only thing that mattered to officials were the photo ops; dudes pretending to be chicks posing with awards for the gushing corporate media. The agenda took precedence.
Lia Thomas, formerly known as William Thomas, was more than an activist invading female sports, he was also apparently a science project fostered and protected by the athletic establishment. It's important to understand that the political left does not care about female athletes. They do not care about women's sports. They don't care about the integrity of the environments they co-opt. Their only goal is to identify viable platforms with social impact and take control of them. Women's sports are seen as a vehicle for public indoctrination, nothing more.
The reasons why they covet women's sports are varied, but a primary motive is the desire to assert the fallacy that men and women are "the same" psychologically as well as physically. They want the deconstruction of biological sex and identity as nothing more than "social constructs" subject to personal preference. If they can destroy what it means to be a man or a woman, they can destroy the very foundations of relationships, families and even procreation.
For now it seems as though the trans agenda is hitting a wall with much of the public aware of it and less afraid to criticize it. Social media companies might be able to silence some people, but they can't silence everyone. However, there is still a significant threat as the movement continues to target children through the public education system and women's sports are not out of the woods yet.
The ultimate solution is for women athletes around the world to organize and widely refuse to participate in any competitions in which biological men are allowed. The only way to save women's sports is for women to be willing to end them, at least until institutions that put doctrine ahead of logic are made irrelevant.
International
Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness
A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…
Share this:
Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.
A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.
And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.
I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.
Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.
A promised investment
Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.
Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.
The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.
But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.
Research’s critical impact
That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.
For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.
Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.
But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.
Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.
Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:
A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.
A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.
More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.
When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.
Jobs and innovation
Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.
In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.
That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.
High stakes
If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.
Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.
Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.
Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.
economic growth covid-19 grants congress vaccine china
IFM’s Hat Trick and Reflections On Option-To-Buy M&A
Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched
Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda
The SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research announces new advisory board
Analyst reviews Apple stock price target amid challenges
Economic Trends, Risks and the Industrial Market
Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood
Chronic stress and inflammation linked to societal and environmental impacts in new study
SoCal Industrial Prioritizes Speed, Power and Sustainability
Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico
-
Uncategorized3 weeks agoAll Of The Elements Are In Place For An Economic Crisis Of Staggering Proportions
-
International6 days agoEyePoint poaches medical chief from Apellis; Sandoz CFO, longtime BioNTech exec to retire
-
Uncategorized4 weeks agoCalifornia Counties Could Be Forced To Pay $300 Million To Cover COVID-Era Program
-
Uncategorized3 weeks agoApparel Retailer Express Moving Toward Bankruptcy
-
Uncategorized4 weeks agoIndustrial Production Decreased 0.1% in January
-
International6 days agoWalmart launches clever answer to Target’s new membership program
-
Uncategorized4 weeks agoRFK Jr: The Wuhan Cover-Up & The Rise Of The Biowarfare-Industrial Complex
-
Uncategorized3 weeks agoGOP Efforts To Shore Up Election Security In Swing States Face Challenges