NATO Leaders Losing their Ways in a Maze

•June 18, 2021 • Leave a Comment

NATO leaders see rising threats from China, but not eye to eye with each other

POLITICO Reports / June 18, 2021

Tough words about Beijing in summit communiqué but less consensus among allies about what to do.

Nato leaders fret China's Atlantic ambitions | Financial Times
President Biden fret about China’s Indo-Pacific and Atlantic ambitions

Boasting of restored unity thanks to the arrival of US President Joe Biden, NATO leaders on Monday declared that China poses increasing dangers to the security of Western democracies. But they revealed deep disagreements over the urgency in confronting Beijing, or even if it should be NATO’s role at all.

In their closing communiqué of an afternoon summit at NATO headquarters in Brussels, the leaders used remarkably forceful language to describe China as their most troublesome rival after Russia — given Beijing’s fast-expanding nuclear arsenal, stepped-up military cooperation with Moscow, and increasing use of disinformation.

“China’s stated ambitions and assertive behavior present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security,” the leaders wrote. “We are concerned by those coercive policies which stand in contrast to the fundamental values enshrined in the Washington Treaty,” NATO’s founding charter.

The historic shift in focus comes partly at the urging of Biden, who has made clear he sees China as a growing threat. And NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, eager to please the richest and most powerful ally, has taken up the charge.

NATO leaders declare China a global security challenge
China is seen entering the North Atlantic thus NATO leaders declare China a new global security challenge! “Be afraid,” says David Goldman. “Be very afraid.”

Stoltenberg stressed that China was “not an adversary” but posed challenges that must be answered, and he insisted that NATO was not shifting operations to Asia but protecting itself close to home.

“This is about taking care of a core responsibility to be able to protect and defend all allies against any threat from any direction,” Stoltenberg said at his closing news conference. “Because we see China is coming closer to us in cyberspace, we see them in Africa, we see them in the Arctic, we see them trying to control our infrastructure, we had the discussion about 5G.”

He noted that the first-ever mention of China in a NATO leaders’ communiqué was from a summit in London in December 2019. “Before that, we didn’t have any language at all,” he said. “In the current Strategic Concept, China is not mentioned with a single word. Now, you can read a communiqué and you see that we have seen a convergence of views among allies.”

But there didn’t seem to be much convergence when French President Emmanuel Macron spoke to reporters just minutes later.

“On China, as I said during the meeting, I think I can say we shouldn’t confuse our goals,” Macron said. “NATO is a military organization, the issue of our relationship with China isn’t just a military issue. NATO is an organization that concerns the North Atlantic, China has little to do with the North Atlantic.”

“So, it’s very important that we don’t scatter ourselves and that we don’t bias our relationship with China,” he continued. “It is much larger than just the military issue. It is economic. It is strategic. It is about values. It is technological. And we should avoid distracting NATO which already has many challenges.”

Emmanuel Macron, the French presidency and a colonial controversy
Macron: “For my part, China isn’t part of the Atlantic, or perhaps my map is off.” 

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the wealthiest European allied nation, stressed that Moscow still represented the biggest threat — a point evidenced by it being mentioned 62 times in the communiqué to just 10 mentions of China.

“Russia, above all, is a major challenge,” Merkel said. “China is playing an increasing role, as is the entire Indo-Pacific region. This is of course related to the fact that the United States of America, and of course the transatlantic partners as a whole, are also a Pacific nation. Here, the economic and also the military rise of China is of course an issue.”

But she also cited a risk of overreaction. “If you look at the cyber threats, the hybrid threats, if you look at the cooperation between Russia and China, then you cannot simply negate China,” Merkel said. “In this respect, I do not think that we should overestimate the importance of this, so we have to find the right balance.”

Adding another layer of discord, Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte engaged in a terse exchange of words during the leaders’ meeting over their differing views on how Europe should approach military and security policy. Macron, who has pushed for greater military cooperation among EU countries and the development of strategic autonomy, claimed most other EU leaders were with him and said it was up to Rutte “to clarify his thoughts.”

Security analysts cite a growing risk of a deep rift within the 30-nation NATO alliance if China becomes too great a focus, particularly because European militaries are relatively limited in their capabilities and the US could not simultaneously manage a military conflict in Asia while also protecting Europe along its borders with Russia.  

Biden, at his own news conference after the summit, sought to focus on his overall revitalization of transatlantic bonds, which were strained almost to a breaking point by his predecessor Donald Trump.

“Everyone in that room understood the shared appreciation, quite frankly, that America is back,” he said, adding strong words about US fidelity to NATO’s collective defense clause. “The US Commitment to Article 5 of the NATO treaty is rock solid and unshakeable,” he said.

Biden suggested that Russia and China posed similar risks to NATO. “Russia and China are both seeking to drive a wedge in our transatlantic solidarity,” he said. And the president noted that when NATO last focused on its overall strategic outlook, in 2010, “Russia was considered a partner and China wasn’t even mentioned.”

But some allies made no mention of China whatsoever in their public comments, a reflection of how, especially in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, Russia is the sole focus.

NATO leaders bid symbolic adieu to Afghanistan at summit - The Economic  Times
NATO leaders bid adieu to Afghanistan, but President Biden’s and Narendra Modi’s wish for Nato’s new mission is to help India fight China in the high mountains of Ladakh.

“The US is aware of the threats faced by the Baltic States and is well informed about Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture and its aim to integrate Belarus into Russian military structures,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said in a statement following a meeting with Biden.

One Central European official said that there was clear recognition that Washington puts a priority on containing China and European countries were not disappointed. “They understand that China must be part of a new ‘transatlantic bargain’ to preserve NATO’s relevance for the US,” the official said, adding: “Plus, the attention given to Russia was pretty substantial and outspoken.”

The war of attrition in Ladakh has made the Indian army miserable, military  reform will be ruined, and the modernization of national defense may be  indefinitely | DayNews
Failing in their Uighur ETIM strategy, President Biden would like to transfer US and other Nato’s troops to these mountains of Ladakh to help India bog down China.

Indeed, Biden’s news conference focused overwhelmingly on Russia, largely because of his summit meeting on Wednesday with President Vladimir Putin.

Asked about Putin’s laughing, during a recent television interview, over Biden saying he believed the Russian president was a killer, Biden laughed dramatically. Asked about his approach, in the context of Reagan’s famous “trust but verify” approach toward the Soviet Union, Biden reversed the phrase.

“I’d verify first, and then trust,” he said “It’s not about trusting, it’s about agreeing. You know when you write treaties with your adversaries, you don’t say ‘I trust you.’ You say this is what I expect and if you violate the agreement we made, then the treaty is off, the agreement is off.”

Biden did not retract the killer accusation but said he hoped Putin might adopt a new approach. “I am hoping that President Putin concludes that there is some interest in terms of his own interest in changing the perception the world has of him in terms of whether or not he will engage in behavior that is more consistent with what is considered to be appropriate behavior for a head of state,” he said.

“Be afraid,” says David Goldman. “Be very afraid.”

“And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth; and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies” Leviticus 26:37

Is the Dollar on Life-support?

•June 17, 2021 • 2 Comments

ASIATIMES Report “China is intervening in forex markets to soak up dollars, invest in Treasuries and effectively pay the bill of US fiscal stimulus.”

But why would China try to prop up the dollar? Remember, China’s strategy is to manage a peaceful decline of the United States. its strategy is to wait for the rotting apple to fall on its own rather than to shake the tree risking the wrath and fallout of a Samson seppuku.

See also 1; US Treasury Secretary Yellen and China’s vice premier talk about cooperation and economic recovery 2; China can help US out of its inflation trap


NEW YORK – Hating China may be the only thing that American politicians agree about, but China remains the prop and support of the American economy.

Americans can’t spend the trillions of dollars that their federal government has poured out in “stimulus” payments without Chinese imports. And the American Treasury can’t finance its projected US$2.3 trillion deficit – not without substantial pain – unless China recycles its nearly $500 billion trade surplus with the United States into US government bonds.

The US is perilously short of money, and China is flooded with money from its trade surplus. There’s nowhere else the US can raise the money it needs except China, unless it prints more money. What economists once called “Chimerica” – the symbiosis of an American economy that borrows and imports with a Chinese economy that lends and exports – is back with a vengeance.

China’s apparent support for the US dollar has a double impact. It supports the imperiled Treasury bond market, and it also keeps Chinese goods cheap for US consumers. That has a significant impact on US inflation: America’s trade deficit is deepening while import prices are rising.

Life Support Systems Cartoons and Comics - funny pictures from CartoonStock

This will happen not because Biden is well disposed towards China, or because he planned to cut a deal with China, or because a cabal of China-friendly American business persuades him to do so, but simply because he is short of money and China has lots of it.

A forensic analysis of market data suggests that all of this already is happening. China is to thank for the buoyancy of the US Treasury bond market despite a sequence of inflation shocks. China appears to be intervening in the foreign exchange market to prevent its enormous trade surplus from driving down the dollar’s exchange rate against the Chinese renminbi (RMB), and then reinvesting the proceeds of intervention in American money markets.


I would [[or wouldn’t]] be surprised to learn that the US Treasury and the PBOC have worked this out in some kind of tacit policy agreement. The current is so strong that the US is being caught up in a Sinocentric vortex of trade and capital flows whether it likes it or not.

Eventually, US-China policy will adjust to the misery of America’s present circumstances.

“Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.”

“Be afraid,” says David Goldman. “Be very afraid.”

Is The G7 Obsolete?

•June 16, 2021 • Leave a Comment

Martin Jacques says G7 is no longer able to order the world around. So is the G7 obsolete? Is it hopeless, divided and outdated as the Guardian had said? However, according to University of Chicago’s Professor John Mearsheimer, the G20-1 should be a better bet to dispel this sense of gloom, but China already has its Belt and Road Initiative covering over 130 nations! The problem would also mean the need for President Biden to rope the head of “a Killer” over to his “new Atlantic Charter” — but Russia says “We’re smarter than Americans think [who we are].” And second, Xi has already seen such attempts as bluffs since both of Putin’s legs are already well-entrenched in China’s Belt and Road!


GlobalTimes Reports / Jun 08, 2021 / Martin Jacques

Fine words will accompany the G7 summit this week. Much will be promised. And little will be delivered. It has long been like this. The G7 is no longer fit for purpose. Comprising the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Japan, in the 1970s the G7 was the overlord of the global economy. Today, the G7 is but a pale shadow of what it once was, reduced to the role of a declining faction within the global economy. It still talks in grandiose terms about its intentions, but the world has learnt to discount them. It is entirely appropriate that this week’s summit will be chaired by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a grandmaster of verbal exaggeration and empty gestures. 

The role and importance of the G7 has been greatly diminished by the rise of the developing world. The latter now accounts for almost two-thirds of the global economy compared with one-third by the West: in the 1970s, it was exactly the opposite, the West enjoying a two-third share and the developing world just one-third. The most dramatic illustration of the G7’s waning authority came in 2008 when, at the height of the financial crisis, it was effectively displaced by the more representative G20. 

Ever since, the G7 has increasingly become an institution in search of a role. Under Biden, as if to confirm its eclipse as a global institution, there is an ongoing attempt to reframe G7 as the representative and champion of the democratic world in the struggle against autocracy, shorthand for China. To this end, South Korea, India, Australia and South Africa have been invited to attend the G7 summit this week. There is even talk of the G7 becoming the D10 (D being a reference to democracy). This, however, would only serve to emphasize the declining authority of the G7: from global leader to ideological sect.

How Should the U.S. Government Treat Chinese Students in America? |  ChinaFile

The truth, however, is that this proposal is unlikely to gain assent either among existing G7 members or potential new members, excepting perhaps Australia. Here we get to the heart of the crisis of the G7. It is the rise of China, above all else, that has transformed the global economy, sidelined the G7 and, at the same time, reconfigured the various G7 economies. Good relations with China are fundamental to the economic prospects of Germany, France and Italy. That is why they are opposed to the G7 becoming an anti-China crusade. So is Japan; and likewise would-be recruits such as South Korea and South Africa. Here laid bare, then, are the fault lines of the G7 and any potential extended membership. The West is divided and fragmenting. The authority of the US is in decline, no longer able to get its way as it once was.

The best illustration of the growing impotence of the G7 concerns its relationship with the developing world. For eight years, the West has been trying to find a way of responding to the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The subject is due to be raised again at this week’s G7 summit. All the ideas that have been offered as a basis of a Western alternative to BRI have come to nought. This failure is extraordinarily significant and most revealing about the West on the one hand and China on the other. 

China produces 15 times the number of STEM graduates than the US. How does  the US keep its edge in science and technology? - Quora

BRI is an eloquent articulation of China’s relationship with the developing world, rooted in its own semi-colonial past and its position as a developing country. The West, in contrast, has failed because its history has been precisely the opposite, one of colonization and the exploitation and subjugation of these countries. It has neither the experience, empathy nor motivation that is required. The existential gap between the rich Western world and the developing world is a multidimensional chasm.

Which country is going to rule the world in the coming 20 years: India,  China, the USA or any European countries? - Quora

A dramatic example of the West’s indifference to the needs of the developing world will be on full display at the G7 summit. Although the US and UK, and increasingly Western Europe, have vaccinated a majority of their populations against COVID-19, the UK, to take one example, has not exported a single dose of vaccine to the developing world. It has kept all its vaccines for itself, even though its existing stock far exceeds its own future needs. As each new variant spreads around the world, however, it has become patently clear to everyone that no country will be protected until every country is protected. 

In a pandemic, no country is an island. The US, which has so far failed to export a single dose of vaccine, is promising to export 80 million doses of vaccines later this year. Compare this with China’s record. In addition to the 777 million vaccinations already carried out in China, it has exported more than 300 million doses of vaccines to the developing world. Over half the vaccinations in Latin America, for example, have been sourced by China. It seems all too likely that the West will fail in its moral responsibility to vaccinate the developing world until it is too late and many millions have died unnecessarily. 

“Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.”

“Be afraid,” says David Goldman. “Be very afraid.”

What are the Oracles of God?

•June 15, 2021 • Leave a Comment

What are the Oracles of God committed to the Jews?

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there in circumcision?

2. Much in every way; chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3. For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4. God forbid! Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. As it is written: “That Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou art judged.”

So what are these Oracles committed to the Jews?

The Oracles of God Committed unto the Jews – Purely Presbyterian
But what are the components of these Oracles?

The Oracles is designated by Strong to be G3051 logion of God

Strong’s Outline of Biblical Usage

  • a brief utterance, a divine oracle (doubtless because oracles were generally brief)
  • in the NT, the words or utterances of God
  • of the contents of the Mosaic law

There are four times in the New Testament this word oracles (logion G3051) of God are used:

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles (G3051) to give unto us:

Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles (G3051) of God.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles (G3051) of God; and become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

1 Pe 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles (G3051) of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

The Greek word Logion is related to Logos! The Greek phrase translated as “oracles of God” is logion Theos (logion G3051 being the plural form of logos).

In the New Testament, in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (G3056 logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God. Thus the term oracles of God could be translated as the “Words of God.” 

But sometimes the term oracles has been used by some Bible translators as are the messages or words of God. In Acts 7:38, Stephen speaks of how Moses received “living oracles to give to us” — a reference to the life-giving nature of God’s Word.

Romans 3:2 mentions the oracles of God: “To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Paul highlights the fact that the Jews who received, copied, and preserved the Tanakh had been entrusted with the very Words of God.

In our twentieth-first century, the Scriptures or Bible has been delivered to us, all seems intact, but it’s not so simple. The Scriptures we have today have many components, all put together, some written, some not written. So what are the components of the Oracles (Words) of God?

No vowels in the original Hebrew Text that Moses wrote, only alphabets.

(1) The Hebrew alphabet. But unfortunately the original written Words of God couldn’t be understood without the “unwritten” Words of God – the written Words have no vowels! It was just the bones! 

(2) Only when the unwritten vowels were incorporated into the Texts could the Words of God be read and understood. The unwritten are the flesh. The bones and flesh constitute a whole. Like it or not, our standard Bible, like the King James, has already incorporated the unwritten words or the oral Words of God into the written Text. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” has a combination of both the Written and Oral Words of God.

(3) The Words of God also include the case law that had been decided by the judges (or oral law)

Deuteronomy 16:18 “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with just judgment. 

19 Thou shalt not distort judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a bribe; for a bribe doth blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous.

Deuteronomy 17:11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee to the right hand nor to the left. 

12 And the man who will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest who standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 

13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

The Set of Letters of the Hebrew alphabet | Hebrew alphabet, Hebrew,  Alphabet
Ezra changed the Paleo Scripts to Square ones but still no vowels. Vowels were added Millennium later in the 10th Century AD.

(4) The unspoken Word or the unspoken Will of God. These are for those who are willing and happy to go the extra mile, so what are they?

Four fasts – Zechariah 8:19 “Thus saith the Lord of hosts: ‘The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts. Therefore love the truth and peace.’

The Scriptures do not give any details, but they are in the Oral Law:

Ninth of Av (Tisha B’Av, full fast) — fall of Jerusalem on the same dates in 587 BC and 70 AD. – July 18, 2021

Fast of Gedalia (Tzom Gedalia, minor fast) — assassination of Gedaliah, the righteous governor of Judah (II Kings 25:22–26). – Sept 9, 2021

Tenth of Tevet (Asara B’Tevet, minor fast) — the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. – Dec 14, 2021

Seventeenth of Tammuz (Shiva Asar B’Tammuz, minor fast) — the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. – June 27, 2021

But notice, these fasts by the “house of Judah” will turn to be a joy and into “gladness and cheerful feasts.” How so, you may ask? God must have accepted their prayers and fasts and will be duly rewarded. These four fasts are all related to Jerusalem, God’s beloved city.

Aleppo Codex | Hebrew Bible | Britannica
Aleppo Codex – the first Hebrew Text to be written with vowels in the 10th Century AD.

Zechariah 8:1 Again the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying,

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury.

3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.

(5) Out of the unwritten Word of God came also rules and regulations in determining the calendar. During the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin met in a building called the Hall of Hewn Stones near the Temple in Jerusalem. When the new month should start depends on the crescent new moon actually being seen by at least two witnesses. The word “this” (in this verse in Exodus 12:2, “This month shall be unto you”) implies something that is actually seen. These witnesses could be local or from the Diaspora who arrived in Jerusalem to testify. And the phrase “be unto you” means the calendar is being given to us the layman, and not for the layman each to determine the calendar for ourselves.

The rabbis of the Sanhedrin would question the witnesses in the sightings of the moon on their arrival. They knew what the proper responses to their questions ought to be, and were thus quickly able to identify fraudulent claims. Starting with the elder of each pair, they would ask: “Tell us how you saw the moon.”

On whether to declare a leap year on a given year, the Sanhedrin considered several factors in the course of their deliberations. The primary factor, which may or may not override other factors, was the spring equinox.

(a) If the spring equinox would fall later than the first half of Nissan (from the 16th onward), then the year could be declared a leap year. This is because Passover should be observed “in its appointed season” (Numbers 9:2-3). Again “in its appointed season” is defined by the Oral Law as in the spring.

(b) However, it wasn’t enough for Passover to fall after the equinox, when it was “officially” spring; spring-like conditions needed to be evidenced. If in the land of Israel, the barley had not yet ripened, and the trees were not yet blossoming with seasonal fruit — that, too, was sufficient reason to delay Nissan by adding a second month of Adar. Spring had to be felt; it had to be bright and green.

(c) There were also several non-season-related factors which the Sanhedrin considered. For example, if the roads or bridges were in disrepair due to the winter rainy season, impeding the ability of the pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem for Passover.

This was an advantage to the Jews because they have God’s Words. Of course, this advantage was not only applicable to those who believed the gospel, but even to those who don’t believe. Roman 3:4 – God forbid their advantage be disadvantaged even if they don’t believe; let God be true, but man a liar. — the Words of God, both written and unwritten; And Case Laws, are still committed to the Jews.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The above is a combination of both the written and oral Words of God.

And the man who will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Sanhedrin who were and are designated to minister before the LORD thy God, even that man shall die.

Deuteronomy 17:12 And the man who will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest who standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 

13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

It’s a death penalty “that man shall die” because mankind have been found guilty of being presumptuous or acting presumptuously by creating our own calendars.

Is there a Calendar Omen?

Why US will lose a war with China over Taiwan

•June 13, 2021 • Leave a Comment

Despite all the rhetorics, China’s strategy is to win a war without fighting a war. Despite all the posturing, China’s strategy is to manage a peaceful decline of the United States. Despite all the theatrics, China’s strategy is to wait for the rotting apple to fall on its own rather than to shake the tree risking the wrath and fallout of a Samson seppuku.

The Global Times by Franz Gayl / Apr 27, 2021

It would seem to some that a US war with China over the island of Taiwan appears imminent. 

Considering the congestion of hostile forces in, above, and below the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea, conflict could explode by accident or design. Once blood is drawn, the US will have few options. If the US elects to fight China over the island of Taiwan, then it will lose. 

Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) independence hubris is fueled by US cabinet-level China hawks and Congress’ bipartisan, bicameral Taiwan Caucus. The DPP has rejected political reunification in one China and dismissed the “one country, two systems” model under which both Taiwan and Hong Kong have gotten rich. Encouraged by US trivialization of the three joint communiqués, the DPP parades a sense of entitlement, taking for granted an umbrella of protection with full knowledge of the dire consequences for the US 

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) may not have been intended to give birth to Taiwan’s renegade secessionists, but it has done exactly that. 

The DPP’s champions in the US Congress dismiss omens of fanatical China grit on the topic of Taiwan. China-bashing and Taiwan-coveting rhetoric forms an echo chamber reminiscent of the groupthink-led American Friends of Vietnam (AFV) lobby that pressured the US to commit to the Vietnam War killing 60,000 American patriots before the US disgracefully abandoned its ally. 

But the Chinese are different. China’s history of the whole-of-society commitment to core national security priorities is legendary. The rebellions and unrests in the 19th century cost millions of Chinese lives. Twentieth century Chinese civil war losses ranged between 5 and 8 million, and 360,000 Chinese died in Korea, while routing and humiliating US and UN forces. In each case, the dynasties emerged stronger. 

90 Taiwan Map Videos and HD Footage

The US Congress’ interests in Taiwan are deeply conflicted, better said corrupt. The reciprocal relationship between defense lobbyists, industry contributions, and a Caucus Member’s reelectability is well documented. The bipartisan support for increasing arms sales to Taiwan and even larger defense expenditures on the US Indo-Pacific Command are logical and transparent as all parties profit from the tension and war. 

Many Americans assume China’s citizenry longs for a liberal democracy like that on the island of Taiwan, and that war will trigger popular revolt. But the Taiwan question is not an ideological dispute. Rather it is a raw and painful open wound in China’s civilizational identity. Today, US othering of Chinese only fuels a fierce nationalism in its 1.4 billion citizens. China has a traditional self-narrative wherein the preservation of face and enforcement of sovereignty are inseparable. 

All the while the balance of power has shifted fundamentally. The US would be wise to regard China as a peer superpower, if only due to her casualty-tolerance – China’s decisive advantage in any fight with the US. China also shares a binding mutual defense treaty with North Korea, and the depths of its friendship and security bonds with Russia should never be underestimated. 

The US can think whatever it wants about China’s ideology, culture, Xinjiang and Hong Kong policies, and sovereign claims to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and surrounding seas. But, whether the US likes it or not, those are ultimately China’s internal affairs. 

As for DPP claims of the Province of Taiwan’s non-Chinese identity, they are historical fiction. Fate made them Chinese just as fate made us Americans. We also know that the free will choice to carve out a territory and people from an existing nation incurs a steep price, one the Confederacy paid not long ago. 

The US has never paid an existential price for violating another nation’s sovereignty, leading to our smug sense of military invincibility. However, with Taiwan being a core Chinese priority, that would be a fatal miscalculation. Still, the US counts on regional allies to share the pain. Yet some will have blood debts to pay if they engage in China’s civil war. For example, India was bloodied badly in the 1960s for testing China’s territorial resolve. Japan’s humiliating 50-year occupation of Taiwan and the Rape of Nanjing also remain fresh, unforgettable wounds for China. The US allies will definitely think twice before militarily intervening in China’s unresolved civil war and internal affairs. — Lee Kuan Yew once said Taiwan is China’s core interests, but only periphery to American interests. No way will Americans have the stomach to wage a costly and bloody war with China on this, less still its fair-weather allies.

Missiles of China | Missile Threat

The US could advise Taiwan’s secessionists to peaceably accept “one country, two systems” and cease its “independence” ambitions. If they don’t stop their rhetoric, the US president could rescind the TRA, as baiting China to force reunification is of the DPP’s own choosing. If Congress obstructs TRA recension, the US president could order all national security agencies to stand down in cross-Straits conflicts, keeping our powder dry for actual existential threats in the future. 

In the end, the prosperous Taiwan people will make every effort to wag the American dog. But Taiwan’s fate poses no existential threat to the US, and the US should not fall into the trap of paying for their hubris with American blood. However, in view of the violent political polarization of the US at home, an ill-advised foreign war with no path to victory would only serve to accelerate America’s decline.

Written by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine Corps infantry officer who serves as a US civil servant in the Pentagon, is now under an “investigation.”

Part II US ‘othering’ of Chinese could be prelude to Taiwan conflict

“And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth; and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies” Leviticus 26:37

Emperor Fauci Declares Himself The Supreme Authority

•June 11, 2021 • Comments Off on Emperor Fauci Declares Himself The Supreme Authority

In 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on Gain of Function because it was seen as too risky on humanity, but this moratorium was overturned on December 19, 2017 by Dr Anthony Fauci who sees himself siting on a pedestal above the President.

SummitNews report: Fauci Declares Himself The Supreme Authority; “Attacking Me Is Attacking Science”

By Steve Watson / 10 June, 2021

As the scrutiny of Dr Fauci continues to increase following the release of his emails, it’s clear he’s feeling the strain. He declared, yet again, Wednesday that anyone attacking him should be seen as attacking science itself.

Fauci made the comments in part in response to Republicans in the House demanding he explain comments previously made that contradict sworn testimony that he gave to Congress.

During another softball interview on MSNBC, Fauci repeated his claim to being the supreme authority on the pandemic, suggesting that anyone who questions what he says is “painfully ridiculous”.

“If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking, not only Dr Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science,” Fauci proclaimed.

Fauci continued “Anybody that looks at what’s going on, clearly sees that. You have to be asleep not to see that. That is what’s going on. Science and the truth are being attacked.”

Many would argue that science and truth were attacked at the beginning of the pandemic when Fauci dismissed out of hand the notion of coronavirus leaking from the Wuhan Institute of Virology [[unless Fort Detrick is similarly investigated like WIV, WHO could never give an honest answer! More likely Fort Detrick is the nerve center of the original coronavirus/Covid-19 operation, with tentacles reaching out earlier to Barcelona in March 2019; France in December; and Italy in October 2019 and even in the United States itself in December 2019. The Latest: zero chance it leaked from WIV]] when leading virologists were telling him that the thing looked like it was engineered.

“It’s very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science.”

Science and truth was attacked when Fauci’s pal Peter Daszak, the Wuhan gain of function funder, the guy Fauci routed the money through, orchestrated a ‘bullying’ campaign and coerced top scientists into signing off on a letter to The Lancet aimed at removing blame for Covid-19 from the Wuhan lab he was funding with taxpayer dollars.

Fauci is repeating this ‘I am science’ talking point all over the place. Last week, again on MSNBC, he said basically the same thing.

A real scientist would point out that one should always beware anyone who says ‘the science is settled’ or criticises others for questioning science. That’s what science is, a series of questioning hypotheses.

And given Fauci’s record for flip flopping on what is and isn’t scientifically sound during this pandemic, and his shady involvement with funding the dangerous research in a lab where the virus magically appeared, he in particular should be the first to be questioned.

“The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high, and thou shalt come down very low … He shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail” Deuteronomy 28:43-44

Wuhan’s “Gain of Function” Exposed

•June 10, 2021 • Comments Off on Wuhan’s “Gain of Function” Exposed

“Gain of Function” experiments are when a natural pathogen is taken into the lab, made to mutate, and then assessed to see if it has become more deadly or infectious.

This research also allows the virus’s potential effects on humans to be studied and better understood. Gain of Function has been considered controversial due to its inherent biosafety risks.

In 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on Gain of Function which included halting funding for projects, however, this decision was overturned on December 19, 2017 by the National Institute of Health (NIH) under Dr Anthony Fauci who took the decision for the Institute and did not alert any White House officials.

“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks,” Dr Fauci wrote in the American Society for Microbiology well back in October 2012, deciding to overturn the Obama moratorium five years later on his own authority.

Dr Anthony Fauci has denied any wrongdoing. Asked to testify, he told lawmakers that the NIH committed $600,000 to the Chinese lab through a nonprofit, to study whether bat coronaviruses could be transmitted to humans – but denied funding went towards Gain of Function research.

That appears to be technically true, as the NIH grants actually go to a New York-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance (where Dr Peter Daszak is President, later a member of the WHO team sent to investigate the origins of the virus in China) – which then subcontracts some of its work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The National Pulse Reports / June 8, 2021

EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak – who collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on research funded by Dr Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease – appears to boast about the manipulation of “killer” SARS-like coronaviruses carried out by his “colleagues in China” in a clip unearthed by The National Pulse.

Daszak made the admission at a 2016 forum discussing “emerging infectious diseases and the next pandemic,” which appears to be at odds with Fauci’s repeated denial of funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

WHO inspector has conflict of interest in Wuhan COVID probe: Prominent biologist

While describing how his organization sequences deadly viruses, Daszak describes the process of “insert[ing] spike proteins” into viruses to see if they can “bind to human cells” as being carried out by his “colleagues in China”:

“Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. Then we… Well I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people.

“You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers,” he adds.

The comments follow growing evidence that Fauci’s NIAID has deep financial and personnel ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – and that Daszak’s EcoHealth alliance was one of the primary proxies funneling the money to the Chinese Communist Party lab.

Over a dozen research papers carried out under a $3.7 million National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) grant list the Wuhan Lab’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Director Shi Zhengli as a co-author alongside Daszak. Shi has included these Fauci-backed grants on her resume.

The Wuhan lab has also listed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as one of its “partners,” secretly erasing the mention in March 2021.

“I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel; there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled” Hosea 6:10

Is the US the Covid-19 Mastermind?

•June 7, 2021 • Comments Off on Is the US the Covid-19 Mastermind?

Was the US a mastermind or just a complicit in China’s Covid-19 research?


The Joe Biden administration closed the US State Department’s investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Personnel working inside the bio-level 4 lab at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick.

But as the pandemic recedes in the United States, there is renewed interest by the scientific and journalistic communities about the origins of the virus and whether it could have escaped from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). So, a day later, the president opened a new investigation.

The flip-flop came amid Senator Rand Paul’s claim at a Senate committee hearing on the Covid-19 pandemic that the US collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to make a more deadly, transmittable coronavirus. That’s putting the Chinese lab leak theory, which Beijing vigorously denies, back at the forefront of the Covid-19 origin debate.

Hazard suits at the high-security National Biosafety Laboratory in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which received $3.7m from the US’ NIH to collect about 15,000 bat sample.

Based on papers published by WIV on the scientific work of Dr Shi Zhengli, the US government investigators have some catching up to do. In 2015, Dr Shi – popularly known as the “bat lady” – published a paper entitled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses show potential for human emergence.”

Her colleagues on the study included American researchers associated with the University of North Carolina’s Department of Cell Biology and may be related to work funded by the US government.

It is possible, although we don’t know, that Dr Shi and her team successfully converted a coronavirus, specifically SARS-like virus SHCO14-CoV, from bats to other animals and not only mice. It is also possible, but not proven, that the new virus quickly spread to other animals and then to lab workers, three of whom became sick in November 2019, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report.

This is known as “gain of function” research, which is considered by the US to very dangerous. Between 2014 and 2017, gain of function research, which had been actively subsidized by The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies, was suspended in the US.

“Gain of Function” experiments are when a natural pathogen is taken into the lab, made to mutate, and then assessed to see if it has become more deadly or infectious.

This research also allows the virus’s potential effects on humans to be studied and better understood. Gain of Function has been considered controversial due to its inherent biosafety risks.

In 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on Gain of Function which included halting funding for projects, however, this decision was overturned on December 19, 2017 by the National Institute of Health (NIH) under Dr Anthony Fauci who took the decision for the Institute and did not alert any White House officials.

“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks,” Dr Fauci wrote in the American Society for Microbiology well back in October 2012, deciding to overturn the Obama moratorium five years later on his own authority.

Dr Anthony Fauci has denied any wrongdoing. Asked to testify, he told lawmakers that the NIH committed $600,000 to the Chinese lab through a nonprofit, to study whether bat coronaviruses could be transmitted to humans – but denied funding went towards Gain of Function research.

That appears to be technically true, as the NIH grants actually go to a New York-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance (where Dr Peter Daszak is President, later a member of the WHO team sent to investigate the origins of the virus in China) – which then subcontracts some of its work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Slightly later, in 2019, the US temporarily closed some laboratories, including the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, over safety issues.

Mistakes and errors in labs

According to the CDC: “The two breaches [at Fort Detrick] reported by USAMRIID to the CDC demonstrated a failure of the Army laboratory to ‘implement and maintain containment procedures sufficient to contain select agents or toxins’ that were made by operations in biosafety Level 3 and 4 laboratories …”

Level 4 is, in theory, the most secure type of laboratory known today; China’s WIV is also a Level 4 lab. But not all the Wuhan laboratory followed Level 4 standards and there are, as Fort Detrick shows, lapses that need to be accounted for.

In fact, the same kind of lapses that happened at Fort Detrick, which centered on waste treatment, also happened at the Wuhan lab.

The National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada’s only level four lab.

Furthermore, Fort Detrick was working with other American and foreign labs, which may have included Chinese facilities. For example, Fort Detrick was connected to Canada’s National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, which was thoroughly penetrated by the Chinese, including at least one known member of China’s biowarfare community.

According to Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper: “One of the Chinese researchers, Feihu Yan, from the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Academy of Military Medical Sciences, worked for a period of time at the Winnipeg lab, a Level 4 facility equipped to handle some of the world’s deadliest diseases.”

There were at least seven Chinese scientists at the lab. Two of them, “Xiangguo Qiu and her biologist husband, Keding Cheng, were fired in January (2021) after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service … recommended that their security clearances be removed on national security grounds,” (allegedly for sending samples of deadly viruses to the Wuhan lab).

On at least one occasion, Qiu, and probably others, visited the Fort Detrick Laboratory. The details are not known, but it can be reasonably surmised that the Winnipeg Lab and Fort Detrick were cooperating, and this cooperation might have included Wuhan.

Unsupervised, this pretty “Snow White” Shi Zhengli was busying herself in the dark catching bats and doing labwork for a “science-maniac” Professor Ralph Baric.

Was Canada a weak link?

Given Fort Detrick’s security level, further investigation is essential. 

It also begs the question of Canada giving Chinese scientists, including at least one from the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences, top secret clearances.

The US and Canada, as part of the North American Defense Sharing Agreement, share classified information, which means there is a strong possibility that some classified American information made its way to Winnipeg and then to Wuhan or elsewhere in China.

Not only does WIV need further investigation, but so do American institutions including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the CDC and Fort Detrick.

In 2017 and 2018, the US did at least two inspections of the Wuhan Laboratory. That raises the question of why did a US inspection team gain entry multiple times to a sensitive Chinese laboratory?

The answer seems to be that the Americans had special status because of high-level, top-secret cooperation between the US, China and other partners (eg, Canada).

Ralph Baric in his lab
With the help of a “batwoman Shi Zhengli,” is Professor Ralph Baric the Father of COVID-19?

Top US infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci has said it would have been “almost a dereliction of our duty” if the NIH had not worked with China to study coronaviruses and “collaborate” with “very respectable Chinese scientists.”

“Respectable scientists” working for the Chinese government. That’s another avenue for investigation.

International collaboration suggests the US may have halted gain of function research because it was easier and less politically risky to let China do it. China has lower legal standards – try litigating in China if you have any doubt – and, as Fauci said, the US government funded Chinese labs and happily published papers by Chinese scientists.

Those papers today give us a partial record of what the Chinese with the CDC and NIH – and perhaps even the US Army – were up to.

The CIA changes course

The US intelligence community had to know all of this, and a lot more.

But the CIA and other senior American officials, including James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, insisted that Covid-19 did not come from the Wuhan Laboratory but was zoonotic, namely that it was transmitted in nature by animals.

Today the CIA appears to have tentatively reversed course as American scientists press for more information. 

Donald Trump's South Asia strategy working, says Mike Pompeo | World  News,The Indian Express
Mike Pompeo: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole … we had entire training courses … It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

A proper investigation would have to ask why the US would trust China, knowing how sloppy the Chinese are about food and safety standards. The faulty ventilators, Covid-19 test kits and N-95 masks for physicians and health workers that were sent abroad by China after the outbreak of the epidemic illustrated this clearly for the world to see.  

But beyond sloppiness, it seems the US decided to fund and shift dangerous research to Chinese labs run by the Chinese state. The Biden administration erred in closing the investigation and is right to have opened a new one.


DailyMail reports “COVID-19 is Man-Made.” / 29 May 2021 / Findings from Norwegian scientist Dr Birger Sørensen and British Professor Angus Dalgleish

RT Reports / 28 May, 2021 / ‘Benefits outweigh the risks’?

“I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel; there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled” Hosea 6:10

“Ephraim shall be desolate in the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel have I made known that which shall surely be” Hosea 5:9

Russian Hypersonic Mach 20 Missiles!

•June 6, 2021 • Comments Off on Russian Hypersonic Mach 20 Missiles!

A Sino-Russian Pack? Will the Biden Administration Push Russia and China Closer Together? Already as “strategic partners” both China and Russia had said they are “not entering into an alliance but keeping the door open to one,” should the need arises.

DefenseNews / by Alexander Bratersky / March 15, 2021

Russian foreign minister to visit China hard on heels of Alaska talks |  South China Morning Post

MOSCOW — Hypersonic weapons are a top priority for the Russian government, a defense analyst with the state-run think tank IMEMO has told Defense News, and with two now fielded, the country is looking into further improving the technology.“

The so-called hypersonic technology is essentially an evolutionary development. However, it provides new, combined abilities for missile weapons: increased speed and maneuverability, and improved accuracy,” Dmitry Stefanovich said. “I can’t imagine a person who is responsible for the decision-making in the country and who wouldn’t be interested in improving all those features.”

By creating hypersonic technology that can overcome missile defense systems, Russia maintains “strategic stability and strategic balance,” President Vladimir Putin once told Russian news agency Tass in March 2020.

For Russia, hypersonic technology is also a way to avoid a quantitative arms race like the Soviet Union went through during the Cold War, said Viktor Litovkin, a retired colonel and military analyst with Tass. “We have no money to get involved in a quantitative arms race. You need to have a little, but the highest quality, which will restrain the adversary,” he said.

Russia Zircon Hypersonic Missile

There are currently two hypersonic missiles with the Russian military: the Avangard and the Kinzhal. The former is a nuclear-capable missile reportedly able to fly faster than 20 times the speed of sound. The first Avangard infrastructure was set up in December 2019.

The Kinzhal (or “Dagger” in English) is a nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile fielded in December 2017. Before entering the military’s inventory, it was tested with the MiG-31 fighter jet. Putin has said the weapon can exceed 10 times the speed of sound, but some missile experts have cast doubt on that capability.

Why Russia’s Hypersonic Missiles Can’t Be Seen on Radar

Russian media previously reported the Kinzhal physically resembles the 9M723 ballistic missile developed for the Iskander tactical missile system. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck,” Stefanovich said of the similarity.

Russia is also testing its 3M22 Zircon anti-ship hypersonic cruise missile, expected to be installed on the modernized submarine-killing ship Marshal Shaposhnikov. The vessel is undergoing its owns tests. The head of Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC, Boris Obnosov, told Tass last month that the Zircon’s testing is going according to schedule.

The first launch of Zircon from the nuclear-powered submarine Severodvinsk will take place in June, industry officials said, according to reports from Tass this month. If testing goes well, the Zircon will be delivered to the military in the first half of 2022.

Obnosov has said hypersonic projects are among the top priorities for his company, adding that there are “several dozen” hypersonic efforts ongoing in partnership with the country’s several research and development institutes. He said a center dedicated to hypersonic technology efforts could be established to oversee the projects, without providing further information.

Tactical Missiles Corporation is Russia’s leading developer of hypersonic technology, so it might also be behind a recently tested prototype of an air-to-surface hypersonic missile meant for the Su-57 fifth-generation fighter jet. However, the company did not respond to questions from Defense News regarding its hypersonic projects.

“The children of Ephraim, being armed and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle” Psalm 78:9

Come Covid Clean America!

•June 5, 2021 • Comments Off on Come Covid Clean America!

Amid growing controversy about the virus’s origins, US President Joe Biden has ordered intelligence agencies to investigate the emergence of Covid-19. In a statement, Mr Biden asked US intelligence groups to “redouble their efforts” and report to him within 90 days.

But 116 NATIONS had already backed the VIRUS PROBE over a year ago, but Not the UNITED STATES! Why?

The Daily Telegraph / May 18, 2020

Many countries have signed up to support Australia’s call for an international COVID-19 inquiry at the World Health Assembly, but not the leading Nation of this world.

Electron microscope image (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 virus particles) made available by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Integrated Research Facility in Fort Detrick

At least 116 countries have now signed up as co-sponsors of the draft motion calling for an investigation, but not the United States.

Britain, Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand and Russia have put forth their support.

The EU draft resolution now has 116 co-sponsors, after the entire African Group and its member states joined the initial list of 62 countries, which included Australia, Russia, the UK and Japan.

The countries now backing the inquiry are Albania, Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, the African Group and its Member States, the European Union and its Member States, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. — But but wait: where is the United States?

Why IS the United States SO reluctant to open Fort Detrick for an investigation? If the operation surrounding Fort Detrick is clean there is nothing to hide. But if something there is fishy, then there are lots to hide!

ABC reports / 18 May 2020

Another European diplomat told the ABC China might well vote for the motion even if it didn’t join as a co-sponsor.

He said Beijing opened the door to supporting the EU motion last week when its Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it was “not the same thing” as Australia’s push for a probe.

Meanwhile, United States diplomats have been pressing for tougher language that calls for a probe into how the virus started in China.

WHO names B1617 fourth COVID-19 variant of concern | CIDRAP
B1617 a fourth COVID-19 variant of concern

US President Donald Trump said repeatedly the coronavirus originated in a Chinese virology lab but declined to provide any evidence for his claim that is likely to further increase tension with China over the origins of the pandemic.

Asked about providing evidence, he responded, “Yes, yes I have,” he said, declining to give specifics. “I can’t tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that.”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters: “China could have spared the world a descent into global economic malaise. They had a choice but instead – instead – China covered up the outbreak in Wuhan. China is still refusing to share the information we need to keep people safe.”

“Mr Pompeo repeatedly spoke up but he cannot present any evidence. How can he? Because he doesn’t have any,” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

FORT DETRICK, the nerve center of US biological weapons program, was “shut down” in July 2019 but resumed back on November 25, 2019. Is this FORT the Source of COVID-19?

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua expressed stance on the issue of origin-tracing at the press conference: “If the United States truly respects facts, it should open the biological lab at Fort Detrick, give more transparency to issues like its 200-plus overseas bio-labs, invite WHO experts to conduct origin-tracing in the United States.”


The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart; and thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness. — That was written in Old Testament time in Deuteronomy 28:28-29, but at the enlightened endtime, the intended Israelites are groping in the light.