The media say Trump lied when he told Joe Rogan that industrial wind turbines are killing whales, but he didn't. In fact, it's worse than Trump said. If the wind industry continues with its boats, noise, and vibrations, it will make the North Atlantic right whale extinct.
This isn't a matter of opinion. This is the conclusion of the world's leading whale researchers and what the boat tracking data and sonar data both show.
The evidence is in this documentary, "Thrown To the Wind," below, with all supporting data and research here:
Wind energy companies and their foundations have donated nearly $4.7 million to at least three dozen donations to major environmental organizations. @LinowesLisa has made public a report and a database documenting the conflicts-of-interest she discovered.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a granting organization, took up to $1 million from wind energy companies Avangrid and Shell, and then distributed it to other environmental groups. In August 2020, the National Audubon Society received a $200,000 grant from the New England Forest and Rivers Fund.
The same year, the Nature Conservancy received a $165,218 grant from the New England Forest and Rivers Fund. The Nature Conservancy has supported offshore wind since at least 2021.
NJ Audubon has partnered with wind farm developer Atlantic Shores, a joint venture between Shell Oil and EDF Renewables. Ocean Wind, another wind energy developer, has sponsored NJ Audubon’s World Series of Birding event multiple times.
The wind industry has also made hefty donations to scientific organizations:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute received a donation of $500,000 from Ørsted in or after 2018. Woods Hole has endorsed offshore wind since at least 2019.
The New England Aquarium received a donation pledge of $250,000 in 2018 from Bay State Wind. In 2019, Vineyard Wind donated an undisclosed amount to the Aquarium. Similarly, in 2020 offshore wind developer Equinor, was cited as a donor in the Aquarium’s annual report. The Aquarium has supported offshore wind since at least 2021.
In October 2020, Mystic Aquarium featured an exhibit promoting offshore wind. In June 2021, Ørsted and Revolution Wind donated $1,250,000 to Mystic Aquarium to create new pro-offshore wind exhibits, but also to research the effects of offshore wind turbines on marine mammals and sea turtles.
The Wall Street Journal was paid to greenwash industrial wind turbines by the wind companies that are in the process of making the North Atlantic right whale extinct.
Both UK and US governments and the wind industry have been covering up the role of industrial wind in causing huge increases in whale and other cetacean deaths.
For years, the industry, governments, and media said the industry's ear-splitting noises weren't hurting cetaceans. Then, BBC in 2023 said there was a solution to the noise: "bubble curtains." But if noise wasn't a problem, why the curtains?
Preventing a whale species from going extinct should be the highest priority of every environmentalist. The fact that it's not proves the fraudulence of today's environmentalists, who are making a species extinct in exchange for filthy lucre.
Shame on all of these purveyors of disinformation for their contribution to the killing of whales and the potential extinction of the North Atlantic right whale:
— Wind corporations, including Orsted, GE, and Siemens Energy, with a direct interest in building the East Coast wind farms, funded several news media organizations directly, including the Associated Press, the Baltimore Sun, Bloomberg, Axios, Financial Times, Huffington Post, Insider NJ, the NJ Spotlight, the New York Times, Politico, Reuters, the Guardian, Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
— Public contacted 17 news media companies for this investigation, and nine responded. Several companies told Public that accepting money from the renewables industry was consistent with the practices of other media organizations and that their “ethics and values” sections delineate clear firewalls between the advertising and editorial departments.
— The Guardian designed Orsted’s paid advertisements to look like Guardian News content in a 12-part, two-year-long branded content project called “Power of Green.” The project involved a “multimedia execution [that] leveraged a variety of formats including an animated explainer video, an interactive experience, an infinite scroll immersive journey, and feature articles.”
— The New York Times published an interactive article about how the wind industry has grown and how Orsted is at the forefront of the movement. One paid post read, “Transitioning to renewable energy will not only lead to a cleaner planet — it’ll also be vital for economic growth”;
— The Washington Post published sponsored content for Avangrid, Siemens, and Chevron and ran an article headlined “An Ideal Setting for Offshore Wind Technology” and “The Value of Offshore Wind”;
— Reuters held an Offshore Wind conference that was sponsored by a number of energy companies, including Siemens Energy, National Grid Ventures, and Shell;
— In July 2021, Axios hosted a virtual event called Energy Forward: The Future of Alternative Energy, sponsored by GE, which has a major wind energy division, and featured the former CEO of GE Renewable Energy as a panelist;
— The Baltimore Sun’s expansive paid post in partnership with Orsted claims, “Our Future will be Powered by Wind,” has a special pull-out box, “Preserve Marine Life,” which claims that industrial offshore wind projects will serve as “marine preservation areas”; — Bloomberg’s sponsors include wind industry component makers, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Siemens, and Cisco;
— The Financial Times published sponsored content for Vestas, EDP Renewables, Hekel, Fujitsu Global, and ENI. One FT article headline read, “Renewables drive stronger returns. It’s time to redirect investment.” The “partner content,” as FT calls it, was sponsored by Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer; Huffington Post produced a sponsored article for NRG Energy in 2014;
— Insider NJ had a paid contract with PSE&G and published “sponsored content” headlined, “An Environmentally Responsible Plan to Bring Clean Offshore Wind Energy to New Jersey,” which claimed that “construction activities will be timed to avoid impacts on endangered species, such as the North Atlantic Right Whale, which migrates along the Jersey shore each year”;
— Orsted and PSE&G help fund NJ Spotlight News;
— Politico published sponsored content from Enbridge, Orsted, Polska Grupa Energetycza, and Equinor;
— Time Magazine published sponsored content for ABB Energy Industries, which has a wind energy division;
— The Wall Street Journal published sponsored content from Vineyard Wind, Iberdrola, Hitachi, Deloitte, which has a robust renewable energy consultancy.
It's been whale massacre after whale massacre whenever the wind industry is building. The US government is covering this up by refusing to conduct the studies it is required to carry out under U.S. law.
Scientists have documented the devastating impact of wind industry construction on cetaceans for over a decade. The wind industry paid off environmental groups, the media, and the scientists to stop researching it, in large measure with taxpayer money.
Top scientists in 2021: “The North Atlantic right whale population cannot withstand any additional stressors; any potential interruption of foraging behavior may lead to population-level effects...”
Industrial wind projects “could have population-level effects on an already endangered and stressed species,” warned the top US government (NOAA) scientist.
This is incredible. After Senator @RandPaul started asking questions about why DHS was doing a large scale cyber exercise in Atlanta on Election Day, DHS postponed the entire event, blaming "disinformation." DHS is one of our most corrupt, politicized, and totalitarian agencies.
Thank you, @RandPaul for being a tireless defender of freedom.
The media & @KamalaHarris say they have evidence that @realDonaldTrump admires Hitler & hates Latinos. They really don't. And the fact that they've made Hitler their closing argument isn't just desperate and shameful, it's proof that the Democrats are now a totalitarian party.
Kamala Harris’ Hitler-Focused Closing Argument Is A Shameful Stain On Her Party
Democrats are the party of mass censorship, the weaponization of the CIA, FBI, and DHS, and the politicization of everything. What does that sound like to you?
Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris arrives to deliver remarks before departing the vice president’s residence on October 23, 2024 in Washington, DC. Harris spoke on former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's recent comments on former U.S. President Donald Trump, including that he fits “into the general definition of fascist” and wanted the “kind of generals Hitler had”, in a series of interviews published Tuesday. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Trump is a fascist who sells out America, says Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in a new advertisement released yesterday. “John Kelly, a four star Marine general, has told us Trump said, ‘Why aren't my generals like those of Hitler's?’” Harris says over images that look like a Republican is holding up a Nazi salute to Trump. “He admires dictators.”
The ad comes on heels of what was ostensibly a new revelation of what Trump said to Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, in a major piece called, “TRUMP: ‘I NEED THE KIND OF GENERALS THAT HITLER HAD,” by The Atlantic magazine’s Editor-in-Chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
But Goldberg’s revelation wasn’t new. On August 8, 2022, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “Trump wanted ‘totally loyal’ generals like Hitler’s, new book says.” Journalist Amy Wang wrote a near-identical article to the one that Goldberg wrote.
“President Donald Trump once told a top adviser that he wanted ‘totally loyal’ generals like the ones who had served Adolf Hitler,” reported Wang, “unaware that some of Hitler’s generals had tried to assassinate the Nazi leader several times, according to a new book about the Trump presidency.”
Both the Goldberg story and the two-year-old Wang piece were based on claims made by Kelly and Kelly alone. Nobody else has verified them. And the Kelly claims received abundant coverage when the book Wang referred to, The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, by the New York Times’ Peter Baker and the New Yorker’s Susan Glasser, was published in 2023.
As such, the Atlantic article was the first of a coordinated pivot by the Harris campaign back to making “Trump = Hitler” her closing argument to the American people.
On Tuesday, ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR and hundreds of other news media around the world reported on Kelly’s claim as though it were new.
On Wednesday, Harris gave a supposedly “surprise speech,” saying, “It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. This is a window into who Donald Trump really is, from the people who know him best.”
Also on Wednesday Harris repeatedly denounced Trump as a fascist and Hitler-like in a Town Hall with CNN. Then yesterday, Harris launched two new ads highlighting Kelly’s claim that Trump is a wanna-be Hitler.
Laurene Powell Jobs both owns The Atlantic and is a major donor to the Harris campaign. "It's clear that if we want to change the narrative,” she said at a 2018 Atlantic event, “we have to change the narrator," referring to Trump.
The Atlantic has become the publication of choice for Democrats and Intelligence Community (IC) intermediaries and an ostensibly “former” CIA employee to demand mass censorship.
Goldberg’s article in the Atlantic also quoted Trump calling a slain Mexican-American solider a “f— Mexican,” after having previously offered to pay for her funeral, in an Oval Office meeting.
But Goldberg did not name a single source in his article, while all named individuals in the room at the time deny that Trump ever said such a thing.
“The Atlantic hit piece is a lie,” said the translator of the meeting with the soldier’s parents. “President Trump had zero interest in the cameras. He met with the Guillén family privately for twenty minutes and offered the press gaggle solely if it would assist them in honoring Army Specialist Guillén and raising awareness about her case.”
Guillén’s attorney Natalie Khawam said, “After having dealt with hundreds of reporters in my legal career, this is unfortunately the first time I have to go on record and call out Jeffrey Goldberg@the Atlantic: not only did he misrepresent our conversation but he outright LIED in HIS sensational story.”
There are other red flags in Goldberg’s story. He told CNN that Trump calling Guillén a “f— Mexican” is something that “tracks with everything that we know about the way he speaks,” but he did not say this in his article and offers no evidence to support his claim that those two words are uniquely Trumpian.
Goldberg’s claim that someone in the Oval Office meeting wrote down that Trump had called Guillén a “f— Mexican” stretches credulity. Why would someone have done such a thing and in front of so many people crowded in the Oval Office? Were they worried they wouldn’t remember that Trump had said such an outrageous thing?
And there is evidence that Goldberg deliberately misrepresented the meeting. Ben Williamson, the spokesman for Meadows, said he told The Atlantic that Trump “absolutely did not say that” but the Atlantic claimed Meadows said he “didn’t hear Trump say it.” Williamson shared his text message to the Atlantic as proof of his claim.
When CNN confronted Goldberg with what Meadows said, he said, “We've seen this pattern again and again and again. They deny, deny, deny, and then it comes out as true.” Goldberg then cited as an example another one of his claims: that Trump had called slain soldiers “suckers and losers.” But no independent evidence has ever come out that Trump said such a thing.
Public sent a direct message and email on Tuesday, asking Goldberg about these discrepancies and challenges to his reporting; he did not respond.
It is not obvious why Harris is pivoting back to attacking Trump as a fascist and would-be Hitler. After all, the Democrats and the media shifted away from the Hitler-fascism message after the public started to turn against the lawfare against Trump, after the Butler assassination attempt, and after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris. If the Hitler-fascist framing has lost much of its power, why is the Harris campaign returning to it now?
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism and to read the rest of the article!
First Brazil and now the EU say they will seize the assets of @ElonMusk's companies. A President Harris would do the same. They know it's illegal. They know it looks bad. They don't care. They know they can't rule the world without mass censorship and total information control.
They've been preparing us mentally for weeks, months, and years. Recently it was Gates, Clinton, and Kerry. Before that, it was Obama, Biden, and Harris. Before that it was Aspen, Harvard, Stanford, the UN, the WEF, the EU, and IC intermediaries.
Around the world, legacy media are urging mass censorship. They want the government to transfer wealth from social media companies to them. Their journalist-employees are petty authoritarians filled with status anxiety & envy who are desperate to censor what we can say online.
You might think the war on free speech in other nations has nothing to do with you, but it does. Global elites, including Biden and Harris, are trying to censor the whole Internet. And now the Biden administration is implicated in the persecution of Brazil's free speech leader.
Biden Administration Implicated In Brazilian Court’s Attack On Congressman Fighting Censorship And Corruption
Federal Police investigation of libertarian Marcel Van Hattem marks new stage in Lula government’s authoritarian turn
President Joe Biden (left); Congressman Marcel Van Hattem (center); Brazilian President Lula (right)
In March, Public published the “Twitter Files - Brazil,” which revealed demands made by Brazil’s Supreme Court that independent journalists and policymakers, including a 38-year-old libertarian congressman named Marcel Van Hattem, be banned not just from Twitter, today X, but all social media platforms.
Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the same justice who temporarily banned X and froze Starlink’s assets, had accused Van Hattem of spreading election misinformation. And yet the video in question had nothing to do with the election, and had been posted on Instagram but not X.
Since then, no member of Brazil’s Congress has done more to expose censorship by that nation’s Supreme Court and denounce corruption in President Lula’s government than Van Hattem.
Van Hattem’s censorship and his denuciations of corruption have made him famous nationwide. He has become a prominent and popular face of Brazil’s free speech movement. At a recent demonstration against censorship in São Paulo, hundreds of people asked to take selifes with him. On Instagram and on X, Van Hattem has 1.5 million and 1 million followers, respectively.
Now, amid a broad crackdown on free speech, the Lula government appears to be retaliating against Van Hattem. Brazil’s Federal Police are investigating alleged insults made by Van Hattem against one of its officers. They are doing so despite explicit constitutional protection of Congress members' speech.
“This is the first time in history a Brazilian judge has ever ordered the investigation of a member of Congress for something he said in the Chamber,” Van Hattem told Public.
Congressman Van Hattem taking selfies with fans in São Paulo at a free speech demonstration on September 7, 2024 (author photo)
If the Supreme Court finds that Van Hattem knowingly made false claims about Shor, he could face prosecution for defamation or slander.
That would be considered a radical step in Brazil because its courts have respected the separation of powers for decades and have treated Congress’ parliamentary immunity as sacrosanct.
“The Supreme Court has gone after politicians before,” said Van Hattem, “but it hadn’t until now violated the sacred and constitutionally protected right of the people’s elected representatives to speak.”
The Federal Police report says Van Hattem’s speech displayed “a possible purpose…. To embarrass, humiliate, and offend DPF Fábio Shor, all this because he apparently disagreed with his professional investigative performance….”
But Van Hattem’s concern wasn’t merely “performance.” In his August 14 speech, Van Hattem accused Federal Police officer Fábio Alvarez Shor of having produced “several absolutely fraudulent reports against innocent people,” which, if true, are violations of the law.
Legal scholars expressed alarm at the Supreme Court’s violation of parliamentary immunity. “The investigation of @MarcelVanHattem is abusive and unconstitutional,” wrote constitutional law expert Andre Marsiglia on X yesterday. “Article 53 of the Federal Constitution states: ‘any words spoken by congressmen are inviolable.’”
The exact language of Article 53 is “Deputies and Senators enjoy civil and criminal inviolability [immunity] on account of any of their opinions, words and votes.”
That broad protection, Marsiglia says, includes alleged insults of the police.
As such, the Lula government and Supreme Court risk fueling the anti-corruption and pro-free speech movements and undermining their own legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Why is that? And given that Van Hattem has been denouncing the Lula government and Supreme Court for years, why did they decide to go after him now?
Please subscribe now to support our defense of free speech and to read the rest of the article!
The media say we must give the government more power to fight misinformation online. We must not. The only way to fight misinformation is through free speech. What the media really want is the power to censor us. And it's easy to see why: very few Americans trust them.
For years, governments and mainstream media corporations worked hand-in-glove to censor social media platforms. After @elonmusk bought Twitter, that changed. Ever since, they've been on the warpath, demanding the power to censor X and demonizing the First Amendment.
Brazil, Canada, and Australia show where this is all headed. They are working to shake down social media platforms to pay off mainstream media they control. It's censorship in service of propaganda. Their goal is total control over the information environment
California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk's politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California.
The California Coastal Commission rejected SpaceX's proposal to increase rocket launches for political not environmental reasons. Just look at what they said
— “We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” said CCC Chair Caryl Hart.
— “This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet,” said another commissioner.
— “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” said another one.
All California regulators take their cues from California Gov. @GavinNewsom.
As such, this could be payback by Newsom, who has been at war with @elonmusk ever since Newsom signed legislation that makes it easier for teachers to brainwash children into believing they are the opposite gender and can change their sex through drugs and surgery.