Connect with us

Alternative News

Trump’s Surprising Speech In Saudi Arabia & Signing Of The Largest U.S. Arms Deal To Date

Published

on

A lot of change occurred within the global political landscape this week (or so it seems). We saw President Donald Trump deliver a powerful keynote speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Saudi Arabia, where  he signed the largest arms deal in U.S. history.

advertisement - learn more

Instead of being a speech about “radical Islam,” which many believe to be a creation of the western military alliance, his speech in Saudi Arabia was one that discussed a future of peace and unity. Though it still contained a bit of fear mongering, it came as a surprise to many. Trump even announced that the U.S. was going to stop financing terrorist groups, a move that presumably would upset the elite and those who profit off war and terror. The fact that he has called out the US government multiple times for funding terrorism, is quite remarkable. It’s something that prior presidents never even talked about.

-->Help Support CE: Donate to Collective Evolution to help us move past the challenges censorship has put on independent media. Click here to contribute!

During his visit, Trump also signed the United States’ single largest arms deal to date, valuing at a whopping $350 billion with Saudi Arabia. However, when it comes to politics, things are rarely as they seem. Why is the Trump administration rewarding Saudi Arabia’s war crimes with more weaponry, and how will his promises affect global politics?

Details from Trump’s Speech in Saudi Arabia

Before I begin to analyze Trump’s address, it’s important to note that he didn’t actually write his speech himself. The speech was drafted by Stephen Miller, Senior Adviser for Policy and Speechwriter, who is well-known for his Islamophobic rhetorics, and the same individual who actually wrote Trump’s controversial travel ban.

This is another clear example of why we cannot trust what politicians say. This speech wasn’t even produced by the President himself, it was drafted by an advisor, so who knows what his actual views are. Secondly, Trump made some fairly racist remarks during his campaign, and now he is all of a sudden a strong advocate for diversity and inclusion. If anything, this is another example that proves how politicians will do and say anything in order to gain support from the public (or in many cases, the elite).

Here are some of the notable quotes from the speech:

advertisement - learn more

After highlighting some of the more beautiful aspects of the Middle East, Trump explained, “But this untapped potential, this tremendous cause for optimism, is held at bay by bloodshed and terror. There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.”

He then went on to address the sacredness of the land and why we shouldn’t be encouraging so much death and destructing, not just in the Middle East but everywhere, stating, “Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land.”

Trump announced that the U.S. would act as a friend of Saudi Arabia’s, noting, “America is prepared to stand with you—in pursuit of shared interests and common security.”

Here’s where the speech truly gets interesting. Up until this point, Trump has simply said some kind words on peace and a hopeful tomorrow, but now he proceeds to discuss how this newfound peace will come into fruition.

Our partnerships will advance security through stability, not through radical disruption. We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes – not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms – not sudden intervention.

Keep in mind that this is a very different stance than the U.S. government usually takes anywhere. Sudden intervention into conflicts in other countries has been the strategy of choice for many years now, and even the Trump administration demonstrated this when they chose to launch 50 missiles at Syria in response to the “chemical attack,” which the Syrian  and Russian President claimed was a false-flag attack orchestrated by the United States.

“Definitely, 100% for us, it’s fabrication… Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack,” President Assad said. You can read more about that in our CE article here.

Nevertheless, perhaps Trump’s words are sincere, or maybe the U.S. government only wants to extend their kindness to Saudi Arabia for an ulterior motive. At this point, it’s unclear. However, if they do put a halt to sudden interventions, this will not be a welcomed approach by many corporations and the elite who profit off war and chaos.

Trump continued:

I am proud to announce that the nations here today will be signing an agreement to prevent the financing of terrorism, called the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center – co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and joined by every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is another historic step in a day that will be long remembered.

This is perhaps the most noteworthy statement Trump made during his speech. The U.S. has funded terrorist groups for at least the past 20 years, which has been proven by various government documents and has been openly discussed by numerous members of the government. Halting the funding to terrorist groups would be a huge financial loss to the U.S. government.

U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard addressed U.S. arms sales to ISIS and other terrorist groups in a speech, offering a compelling call to action in the process:

I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists—directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.

You can read our CE article about it here.

The Treasury described the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center (TFTC) as a “collaborative approach to confronting new and evolving threats arising from terrorist financing.” The TFTC’s primary goals include identifying, tracking and sharing information on terrorist financing, with a focus on disrupting the flow of finances and weaponry while also providing support to the region in order to deprive radical groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda. To be clear, these are the very groups that the U.S. funds, so this would be a significant change in regime for the U.S. government.

Congresswoman Gabbard actually already commented on the TFTC, referring to it as a “farce,” which isn’t much of a surprise given many of the countries history in funding terrorists and their extreme interpretation of Islam.

So, how does the new U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia relate to all of this?

Trump Rewards Saudi War Crimes With $350 Billion Worth of Weapons

In October 2016, the Saudi Arabia-led coalition bombed an entire funeral hall in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, injuring and killing hundreds of civilians. Almost immediately after, the Obama administration suspended the sale of approximately $400 million worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

The United Nations statement on Yemen states, “Nearly 2.2 million children in Yemen are acutely malnourished and require urgent care. At least 462,000 children suffer from Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM), a drastic increase of almost 200 per cent since 2014.” What’s worse is that the U.S. is in part to blame for this, as Human Rights Watch found remnants of U.S. laser-guided or satellite-guided munitions at three strike locations, two of which resulted in civilian casualties.

The worsening state of Yemen is also a direct result of the war fuelled by the Saudis, who purchase arms from the U.S.. In December 2016, the U.S. announced that they would stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia due to the extreme violence and increasing number of deaths in Yemen. However, this was likely a PR stunt, as the U.S. was still planning to continue to support Morocco, Qatar, and the U.A.E. at the time, which all play significant roles in the Saudi-led coalition.

Even Congresswoman Gabbard was quoted as saying that the “CIA has also been funnelling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.”

And now, we have Trump, who literally just expressed his sentiments to all countries experiencing war and terror and pledged to help create a more peaceful future for all, signing a $350 billion deal to sell weapons to a country that fuels war and terror. It makes you question why he gave that speech in the first place: Was it all just a massive PR stunt to make the public think that the U.S. is fighting war and terror, when in reality they’re funding it?

Though the $350 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia will be over the span of 10 years, approximately $110 billion will be taken into effect immediately. The U.S. Department of State said in a statement on Saturday:

“This package of defense equipment and services supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of malign Iranian influence and Iranian related threats. Additionally, it bolsters the Kingdom’s ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on US military forces.”

Final Thoughts 

To me, this sounds as if Trump wants Saudi Arabia to do the U.S. government’s dirty work. This begs the question: How long will Saudi Arabia agree to do so? By holding active deals with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. government isn’t just putting their reputation at risk, they’re putting all Americans in the cross fire, so to speak. If the U.S. continues to sell arms to a country that has violated the laws of war numerous times, it’s exposing U.S. officials to legal liability for aiding and abetting coalition war crimes.

Let’s keep in mind that Trump isn’t really the one who’s in charge here, he could just be the political puppet of choice. We know he didn’t write the speech, and realistically he’s probably not making these decisions either. Ask yourself: What groups of people profit from chaos and violence the most?

When it comes to alleged “terrorist attacks,” wars, and any type of violence or chaos, the sad truth is that the government, the shadow government, or the elite are often involved. Regardless, the U.S. government is ultimately controlled by the cabal, but both of them have two common interests: profit and control. So, is Trump really looking to inspire peace, or is he somehow profiting from the chaos? Perhaps the answer to that question is both, but after looking at this new Saudi Arabia arms deal, it’s clear that there is truth in the latter.

On a final note, this information isn’t meant to scare readers. We believe that through education and raising consciousness, we can create positive change. The more we think for ourselves and search for the truth, the greater the potential for change!

 

 

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Vancouver Council Votes Against Mandatory Mask Mandate: They’re Not Required

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Vancouver, Canada will not have a required mask policy in civic facilities, and instead will simply recommend that people wear them.

  • Reflect On:

    Should governments recommend what they feel we should do and present the science instead of forcing certain measures on the population that many people and health professionals clearly disagree with?

What Happened: The city of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada will not mandate masks inside city buildings and will “strongly encourage” people to wear them instead. This is a bold move as many cities across the globe have mandatory mask measures in place.

The proposal by Counc. Sarah Kirby-Yung, which would have required masks inside city buildings, was opposed by more than a dozen speakers who pleaded with the city council to vote against it.

“Please consider our forefathers fought for our freedom, and if we release that choice, it’s the first step towards a dictatorship,” said one speaker according to City News. “Masks are used as weapons and they have certainly been used as weapons against me and others to silence and marginalize us and it’s not fair.”

According to Coun. Christine Boyle, public health experts encourage wearing masks, but a mandatory policy is not needed.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Positive Association Found Amongst COVID Deaths & Flu Shot Rates Worldwide In Elderly

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recently published paper has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

  • Reflect On:

    Why does vaccine hesitancy continue to grow worldwide? What's going on? What information/factors are contributing to this hesitancy?

What Happened: A recently published study in PeerJ  by Christian Wehenkel, a Professor at Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango in Mexico, has found a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.

According to the study, “The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR (influenza vaccination rate) of people ≥65 years-old. There is a significant increase in COVID-19 deaths from eastern to western regions in the world. Further exploration is needed to explain these findings, and additional work on this line of research may lead to prevention of deaths associated with COVID-19.”

To determine this association, data sets from 39 countries with more than half a million people were analyzed.

The study was published on October 1st, and two weeks later a note from the publisher appeared atop the paper emphasizing that correlation does not equal causation, and that this paper “should not be taken to suggest that receiving the influenza vaccination results in an increased risk of death for an individual with COVID-19 as there may be confounding factors at play.”

The paper provides evidence from others which have recently been published that ponder if the flu shot could increase ones chance of contracting and dying from COVID-19.

For example, this study published in April of 2020, reported a negative correlation between influenza vaccination rates (IVRs) and COVID-19 related mortality and morbidity. Marín-Hernández, Schwartz & Nixon (2020) also showed epidemiological evidence of an association between higher influenza vaccine uptake by elderly people and lower percentage of COVID-19 deaths in Italy, which directly contradicts the author’s own findings and suggests that the flu shot may help prevent COVID-19 related deaths.

He goes on to mention another study:

In a study analyzing 92,664 clinically and molecularly confirmed COVID-19 cases in Brazil, Fink et al. (2020) reported that patients who received a recent flu vaccine experienced on average 17% lower odds of death. Moreover, Pawlowski et al. (2020) analyzed the immunization records of 137,037 individuals who tested positive in a SARS-CoV-2 PCR. They found that polio, Hemophilus influenzae type-B, measles-mumps-rubella, varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), geriatric flu, and hepatitis A/hepatitis B (HepA-HepB) vaccines, which had been administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years, were associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates.

So, its important to mention that correlations between the flu vaccine have also found that it may decrease ones chance of deaths from COVID-19.

But are there studies that have shown an increased chance of death or contracting other respiratory viruses as a result of getting the flu shot? Yes.

That’s also discussed in the paper. For example, he mentions a paper published in 2018:

In a study with 6,120 subjects, Wolff (2020) reported that influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a higher risk of some other respiratory diseases, due to virus interference. In a specific examination of non-influenza viruses, the odds of coronavirus infection (but not the COVID-19 virus) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher, when compared to unvaccinated individuals (odds ratio = 1.36).

The study above found the flu shot to increase the risk of other coronaviruses among those who had been vaccinated for influenza by 36 percent. The study was conducted prior to COVID-19, so it’s not included and only applies to pre-existing coronaviruses. The study also found an even higher chance of contracting human metapneumovirus amongst those who had received the flu shot.

Below are some more studies regarding the flu shot and viral infections that hint to the same idea.

  • 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.
  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.
  • 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.
  • 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Why This Is Important: We live in an age where vaccinations are heavily marketed. We’ve seen this with the flu shot time and time again and we are also living in an age where a push for more mandated vaccines seems to be growing.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

This is a touchy subject that dives into medical ethics and the connections that big pharmaceutical companies have with our federal health regulatory agencies and health associations. Vaccines are a multi billion dollar industry.

At a recent World Health Organization conference on vaccine safety, it was expressed that vaccine hesitancy is growing at quite a fast pace, especially among doctors who are now becoming hesitant to recommend certain vaccines on the schedule. You can read more about that and find links to the conference here.

We have to ask ourselves, why is this happening? Is it because people and professionals are becoming aware of certain information that warrants the freedom of choice? Should freedom of choice with regards to what we put in our body always remain? Are we really protecting the “herd” by taking these actions?

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice.

When it comes to the flu shot, I put more information and science as to why so many people seem to refuse it, in this article if interested.

The University of California is currently being sued for mandating the flu shot for all staff, faculty and students. A judge has prevented them from doing so as a result until a decision has been made. You can read more about that here.

In South Korea, 48 people have now died after receiving the flu shot this season causing a lot of controversy. You can read more about that here.

The Takeaway: There are many concerns with vaccines, and vaccine injury is one of them. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Should these statistics alone warrant the freedom of choice? Should the government have the ability to force us into measures, or would it simply be better for them to present the science, make recommendations and urge people to follow them? When the citizenry is forced and coerced into certain actions, sometimes under the guise of good-will, there always seems to be a tremendous amount of uproar and people who disagree. Why are these people silenced? Why are they censored? Why are they ridiculed? Why don’t independent health organizations receive the same voice and reach that government and state “owned” or organizations do? What’s going on here? Do we really live in a free, open and transparent world or are we simply subjected to massive amounts of perception manipulation?

When it come to the flu shot there is plenty of information on both sides of the coin that point to its effectiveness, and on the other hand there is information that points to the complete opposite. When something is not 100 percent clear, freedom of choice in all places should always remain, in my opinion.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Some South Korean Doctors & Politicians Call To Stop Flu Shots After 48 People Die

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The number of South Koreans who have died after getting flu shots has risen to 48, but health authorities in South Korea have found no link between the vaccine and the deaths.

  • Reflect On:

    Is the flu shot as safe as it's marketed to be?

What Happened: It’s that time of year and flu shot programs are rolling out across the globe. The number of South Koreans who have died after getting the flu shot has now risen to 48 and some South Korean doctors and politicians have called to stop flu shots as a result, according to Reuters. The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) has decided not to stop the program, and that flu vaccines would continue to be given and will reduce the chance of having simultaneous epidemics in the era of COVID-19.

Health authorities in South Korea have explained that they’ve found no direct link between these deaths and the shots. KDCA Director Jeong Eun-kyung said, “After reviewing death cases so far, it is not the time to suspend a flu vaccination programme since vaccination is very crucial this year, considering…the COVID-19 outbreaks.”

According to Reuters, “Some initial autopsy results from the police and the National Forensic Service showed that 13 people died of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and other disorders not caused by the vaccination.”

The South Korean government is hopeful to vaccinate approximately 30 million of the country’s 54 million people.

Concerns Some People Have With The Flu Shot: One concern many people seem to have is the worry of a severe adverse reaction.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot.

Moss is one of many who believe that the flu vaccine is not as effective as it’s been marketed to be. For example,  A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines the following:

Recently outlined A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal)  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

These are just a few examples out of many claiming that the flu shot has not really been effective, opposing others that claim it is.  Mercury that’s still present in some flu shots also seems to be a concern.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million.

Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project stated at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference that more doctors are starting to be hesitant when it comes to recommending vaccines.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…

This is no secret, and actions against mandates are being taken. The University of California was recently sued for making the flu shot mandatory. That trial will begin soon, and you can read more about it here, and find information regarding the claim that the flu shot can help in the times of COVID-19.

The Takeaway: We are living in an age of extreme censorship of information, no matter how credible or how much evidence is provided, information that goes against the grain always seems to receive a harsh backlash from mainstream media as well as social media outlets. Why is there a digital fact checker patrolling the internet? Should people not have the right to examine information openly and freely and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

As far as vaccines are concerned, despite the fact that there are many safety issues the scientific community  is bringing up, a push for vaccine mandates continues and the idea that we are protecting other people is usually the narrative that’s pushed hard. Vaccine skepticism is growing at a fast pace among people of all professions, and people aren’t stupid. There’s a reason why more and more people are starting to question what we’ve been told for years, and those reasons should be acknowledged and openly discussed amongst people on both sides of the coin.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!