Live Show! Deep State Goon Jack Smith Reindicts Trump In Latest Democrat Election Interference Scheme
“The American Journal” is live every weekday from 8-11 am CST.
Follow The American Journal on Telegram:
‘There is a Risk of a Nuclear Incident at The Kursk Nuclear Power Plant,’ Warns IAEA, Blames Ukraine for Drone Strikes on Plant
As the expanding frontline inches within just a few kilometers of the Kursk nuclear power plant in Russia, there are fears there could be a major nuclear disaster.
“There is a risk of a nuclear incident at the Kursk nuclear power plant,” said Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), after visiting the facility in Kurchatov, in the Kursk region bordering Ukraine, on Tuesday.
He added that he had seen evidence of drone strikes during his visit to the plant.
“I was told today that there have been several cases of drone attacks on the site (the site of the Kursk nuclear power plant), on the facilities. The fact that there is fighting a few kilometers away from the nuclear power plant raises great concerns and anxiety about the security system,” Grossi added.
He stressed that under no circumstances should a nuclear power plant be the target of military action, nor should it be used by either side for military purposes. The director general also said that the security systems of a plant must be fully operational under all circumstances.
Grossi noted that the IAEA delegation was shown the traces of the Ukrainian attack on the Kursk nuclear power plant. Based on the evidence his team gathered, he said there could be no doubt that Ukraine carried out these strikes and where they came from.
Putin also announced on Thursday that Ukraine had attempted a drone strike on the Kursk nuclear power plant.
Grossi, who said that he had visited the reactor hall, the engine room, and the control room of an operating power plant unit — as well as the spent nuclear fuel storage — found that the Kursk plant was operating at what is very close to “normal” mode.
He stressed that the IAEA is responsible for maintaining nuclear safety and security in nuclear installations worldwide. He said that he had accepted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invitation to visit the Kursk nuclear power plant with his team to assess the situation personally and to find solutions together with his Russian counterparts. Earlier in the day, the IAEA director general was received by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.
He said that he intends to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky next week to discuss, among other things, the situation at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and the IAEA’s intention to extend its observer presence to other nuclear facilities in Ukraine, as requested by Kyiv.
On the question of whether the Ukrainian side could be building a dirty bomb, Grossi said that the IAEA was present at all nuclear facilities in Ukraine and saw no sign of any leakage of materials for the assembly of such a device.
A statement from the plant’s press service on Tuesday quoted deputy director of personnel Vayim Yelekhich as saying that Russian special services are taking all security measures to ensure maximum protection of the facility and that they are in control of the situation, keeping operating conditions under control. Artyom Sarov, deputy director of the Information Policy Department of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations, said that background radiation in the Kursk region was normal.
VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED: Kamala Harris Imprisoned Journalist for Exposing The Crime of Harvesting Living Babies’ Organs
On the Tuesday show Alex Jones exposed the most heinous crime of the Democrats, the ritualistic murder of babies in abortuaries.
Kamala imprisoned those who’ve exposed the sacrifice.
Don’t miss:
UK Nurses Plan to Deny Healthcare to Anyone Opposing Unlimited Illegal Immigration
A registered trade union for those in the profession of nursing in the U.K. has just issued new guidelines on situations where they can refuse to treat and withdraw care from patients and this includes clients who would oppose illegal migration because they deem them “racists.”
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) indicated in the Aug. 6 updated guidelines that some situations may justify refusing treatment, withdrawing care or finding an alternative.
“In response to comments made by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, we’ve updated our guidance on when and how members can refuse to treat a patient in their care. We recognize that every patient interaction is unique and this will be the most difficult decision for RCN members,” RCN said in a statement on its website.
According to RCN, the new set of rules is related to the ongoing racist attacks. It claimed that most of them have targeted nursing staff. The health secretary reportedly expressed commitment to dealing with the “racist abuse of all health workers” and decided that this is grounds for turning away patients.
“I am demanding the government ensures anybody targeting our members pays a very heavy price. Hearing that nurses going to work in Sunderland came under attack is unforgivable,” Professor Nicola Ranger, RCN general secretary and chief executive said. “Migrant nursing staff are precious members of our communities, hardwired into the very DNA of our health and care services. Our international colleagues are welcome, valued and owed a debt of gratitude.”
RCN said that “racism has no place in our society” and as an anti-racist organization, it will take a lead part in tackling this hatred.
The guidelines indicate that nurses can decline and stop treating patients in the following circumstances:
“Where there exists, or there is fear of, physical violence; where there is discriminatory behavior, including racism; where there are health and safety hazards e.g. lack of appropriate equipment; where the care required is outside the scope of competence or training; where there is a conscientious objection, where the client/patient is known to you in a personal capacity and where you are asked to do something unlawful or in breach of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Code.”
For healthcare entrepreneur Jonathan Engler, this professional body essentially acting as a social justice organization, “represents an egregious abandonment of longstanding ethical principles” – especially when this particular organization is “simply parroting the government position that anyone who expresses any concern whatsoever about unfettered immigration must automatically be a racist.”
Engler pointed out the particular entry that determines the discriminatory behavior of the patients. “Who is to judge what is racist? Are 95-year-olds who don’t keep up with the latest approved language and use outmoded words such as ‘colored’ to be refused treatment because they are “racist?’”
“The whole point of sacrosanct ethical principles (and inalienable rights for that matter) is that they don’t depend on the prevailing circumstances, since the consideration of such leaves far too much room for post-hoc justification of leaving patients frighteningly vulnerable to the ideological whims of their careers,” he argued.
SRA supports totalitarianism and suppression of speech
Meanwhile, the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority (SRA), the body responsible for regulating the professional conduct of more than 125,000 solicitors and other authorized individuals at more than 11,000 firms, as well as those working in-house at private and public sector organizations in England and Wales, is also following a totalitarian ideology mirrored in the new RCN guidelines.
Solicitor Lois Bayliss has been accused by the SRA of acting “against mainstream science” because she sent out anti-vaccine letters. The SRA alleged that for less than three weeks in February 2022, she sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 237 schools and general practitioner surgeries threatening that recipients would face criminal and civil liability.
Bayliss applied to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to be allowed to adduce expert statements on medicine and ethics when her case is heard in September. Dr. Peter Fields said the solicitor had a right to use this evidence to defend herself in light of assumptions being made in the SRA’s case. But the tribunal rejected the application, urging both parties to focus on the nature of the allegations rather than enter into wider discussions about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines. SRA ruled that she needed to be able to bring experts who would provide an alternative view.
What happened with the SRA case is “consistent with the complete lack of debate permitted anywhere by any major government around the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and this appears to be an example of a supposedly independent institution doing the government’s dirty work in suppressing debate,” Expose‘s Rhoda Wilson commented.
BREAKING: Zuckerberg’s Turning on The Deep State Signals The Globalists are in Deep Trouble
On the Tuesday show Alex Jones broke down how the Meta CEO Zuckerberg lashed out against the Deep State.
Don’t miss:
EU Commission Chief Pressures Countries to Drop Male Nominees for Top Jobs
EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is trying to strongarm several smaller member states into changing their commissioner nominations to women so that she can have the gender-balanced cabinet she vowed to set up. But disregarding countries’ sovereign choice for a PR stunt might not only affect her relationship with the capitals but also hurt any women in her administration, whose rightful place in Brussels could be questioned from now on.
The deadline for nominating members to the second von der Leyen Commission is just days away, and all but five countries have submitted nominations. However, many have chosen to ignore von der Leyen’s request to put forward two names this year—a man and a woman—so that she could come up with a mix of candidates that is at least 50% female.
Out of the 21 nominations so far, 16 are men. There is nothing to be outraged about: there is not a single clause in the treaties that would demand gender parity in the Commission, unlike those that guarantee member states’ right to nominate whoever they see most fit for the job.
But according to a report published on Tuesday, August 27th by Times of Malta, von der Leyen has asked the Maltese government to withdraw the candidacy of Glenn Micallef, who stepped down as head of the prime minister’s secretariat earlier this year to become the country’s next commissioner.
The sources say Valletta is reluctant to comply, but the prime minister’s office neither confirmed nor denied the discussion taking place at this point, saying only that “the engagement process is ongoing and [von der Leyen] is speaking to member states.”
The confidential Brussels sources also said that instead of Micallef, von der Leyen “suggested” keeping Malta’s existing EU commissioner in the role for another five years, Helena Dalli who had been in charge of the fairly insignificant equality portfolio.
One diplomat speculated that the reason goes further than just gender parity: “Dalli has had a borderline useless portfolio. She is easy for von der Leyen to control,” he said. “Having her for a second term would just ensure Malta is effectively irrelevant within the Commission.”
The Times’ sources also indicated that there are at least two other smaller member states that von der Leyen is trying to pressure into changing their minds and dropping their male nominees. She may also be in talks with the five remaining countries who haven’t revealed their picks yet, trying to influence their choice.
The problem is that von der Leyen has all the power she needs to strongarm her way toward having a gender-balanced Commission, regardless of how unethical and undemocratic it may feel. While nominating commissioners is up to each member state, it’s entirely up to the president-elect to distribute the portfolios between them. Those who comply could be rewarded with more influential ones (those dealing with economy or security issues, for instance), while governments who defy her can expect to be ‘punished’ with weaker posts.
That’s also the dilemma that Malta and others now face. “Von der Leyen is probably promising us a better portfolio if we agree to renominate her,” another Maltese diplomat told the Times. “If that’s the case, the government must decide: stand by our nominee and look strong but get a weaker portfolio. Or swap nominee, look weak but get a stronger brief.”
Von der Leyen’s obsession with gender parity might also be the reason why Italy has not officially named its commissioner pick so far despite the choice being so obvious. Virtually everyone in Brussels expects Italy’s highly experienced EU Affairs Minister Raffaele Fitto to become one of the most experienced and influential members of the incoming College of Commissioners, but the fact Rome is holding out until the very last minute may point to a deeper discussion behind the scenes.
We know that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the biggest ‘winner’ of the EU elections, still feels cheated for being sidelined by the ‘losers’ (Scholz, Macron, and others) during the initial negotiations when they appointed von der Leyen for a second term. The only way the president-elect could make it right in Meloni’s eyes is by giving Italy a Commission vice-presidency overseeing several (preferably economic) portfolios. However now it is entirely possible that the price of claiming the desired post is dropping Fitto for a woman.
Besides the obvious sovereignty problem, several other issues with this approach are worth nothing. One is that even with a male-heavy College, no one could claim that women are powerless in Brussels: four out of the five top EU positions will be women—including the presidents of the Commission, the Parliament, the European Central Bank, as well as the foreign affairs chief—with only the European Council presidency given to a man (Portugal’s socialist ex-PM running away from the country’s biggest ever corruption scandal).
It is also worth noting that all her efforts to achieve a gender-balanced cabinet are probably just for optics. After all, it was her ‘Ursula coalition’ in the European Parliament that willfully sacrificed gender parity in the committee bureaus just to prevent the national conservative Patriots for Europe (PfE) group from taking their pre-allocated seats, despite the Parliament’s internal rules actually containing language that requires keeping the balance wherever possible.
What’s more, if von der Leyen does get her way, it could have disastrous consequences for any actually competent women in her team, who could (and probably would) come under fire for being a ‘diversity hire.’ Not that any of this would matter to ‘Queen Ursula.’ She only cares about gender when she personally profits, regardless of whether she might hurt women—along with democracy and sovereignty—in the process.