Too much dirty laundry. The post The singer Paul Simon said would regret recording his hits: “It’s a mistake you make early on” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

In an ambush near the White House, West Virginia National Guard soldier Sarah Beckstrom was killed, and Andrew Wolfe wounded. Charged is 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan who worked with CIA-backed units during the war in Afghanistan. Lakanwal came to the U.S. in 2021 thanks to Operation Allies Welcome and was granted asylum in April.  Last week, Lakanwal, one of our so-called friends, drove from Washington state to kill Americans, proving that no good deed goes unpunished. Biden’s chaotic Afghanistan surrender stands as yet another failure with lasting consequences. Did any of the army of bureaucrats throughout the State Department actually believe that we could turn any Islamic theocracy into a Western-style democracy? When we abruptly departed from the Afghanis, the plan was contingent upon the Taliban developing a government that honored and protected civil liberties for all. Did any of the army of bureaucrats throughout the State Department actually believe that we could turn any Islamic theocracy into a Western-style democracy? (RELATED: Thank You For Your Service) Cue the laugh track. Once again, history schools those who adhere to its message that no one ever wins after being involved with Afghanistan. After defeating the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States, Afghanistan just moved ahead of Ohio State in the polls based on the strength of schedule. Import the Third World, get the Third World. Lakanwal is not the cause but a symptom of the disease that seemingly metastasizes throughout presidential administrations ever since the conclusion of World War II: Nation-building. (RELATED: When Honor Walks Into a Liberal Democracy) Nation-building is too often sold as a noble pursuit by a benevolent people to deliver democracy, stability, and prosperity to the most unstable of nations. History spares no one; it humbles the powerful and insists on teaching the lessons we resist. Its lessons often seem inevitable: Bygone decisions appear inescapable, and the viability of alternate pathways easily discounted. Time and again, foreign interventions cloaked in the language of “nation building” have produced splintered societies, endless upheavals, and governments propped up by imported interests rather than the will of their own people. While plans may look rational and even practical on paper, in practice, even the best of intentions often collapse under the weight of misguided and unrealistic altruism. Too often, democracy’s blueprint has no regard for the longstanding culture, religion, history, and traditions that have existed for centuries within a civilization. Afghanistan is the most glaring example. After two decades and trillions spent, the Afghan government fell in a matter of days once foreign troops withdrew. The Afghan army, painstakingly trained and funded by the West, disintegrated overnight. By the end of 2003, U.S. special forces had fulfilled much of their objective in Afghanistan, targeting senior figures and high‑value assets within al‑Qaeda and the Taliban. Rather than sheathing our swords and returning home, we embarked on nation-building, trying to craft democracy from a fractured tribal society filled with centuries of strife into a Western democracy. What is seemingly forgotten is how American democracy was nurtured after a bloody four-year civil war and generations of internal struggle. Iraq tells a similar tale. The 2003 invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, but what followed was not stability but sectarian violence, corruption, and the rise of ISIS. The attempt to impose a new political order created a vacuum that Islamic extremists eagerly filled, plunging the country into years of turmoil. In 2011, Libya was acknowledged as a humanitarian intervention. Instead, Libya became a failed state, splintered by militias and rival governments. The hope of any democratic rule dissolved into civil war, mass displacement, and a breeding ground for human trafficking and jihadi extremism. Nation-building does not reconcile or empower — it destabilizes. Instead of creating thriving democracies, it leaves behind fractured institutions, cultural upheaval, and widespread suffering. These efforts produce fragile states reliant on foreign aid and are vulnerable to insurgency, which leads to resentment of those who intervened. Rather than sowing prosperity and civic harmony, such projects breed dependency, resentment, and chaos. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, the pattern is unmistakable: nation-building is nothing short of political hubris. The belief that we can waltz into a society and engineer change from the top down as if nations were Lego blocks to assemble. We call it nation-building when the task is about changing a civilization. Such goodwill never stood a chance and, in its wake, comes murderous zealots like Lakanwal. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: When Sanctuary Policies Hit the Highway Penny for Your Thoughts The $40 Million Mulligan

In many ways, Trump is outperforming the expectations many of us had for his second term. Things are going reasonably well. The world is a better and safer place since he’s been in the White House — or rather, since someone is in the White House. But there is one task he’s leaving unfinished. And it’s worrying. The culture war will never be won if he doesn’t keep his promise to reconquer Hollywood and the major streaming platforms. There are plenty of producers working hard to ideologically corrupt their audiences, and no one has stood up to them yet. (RELATED: Why Is Trump Protecting Hollywood?) I’ve written this more than once: unfortunately, Netflix is an enemy of Western civilization. It’s a garbage factory. You might argue that every now and then it produces something decent, but in between, it pours tons of ideological poison into the moral bloodstream not only of Americans, but of the entire West and beyond. It is far more than an entertainment company; it is a company with a mission — and that mission is nauseating. (RELATED: The Spectacle Ep. 300: Why Movies Suck: Screenwriter Lou Aguilar Tells the Story) Many large corporations abandoned the whole “woke” movement. Netflix didn’t. Disney backtracked and reversed course. Many large corporations abandoned the whole “woke” movement. Netflix didn’t. In fact, it doubled down. Identity politics and gender politics are more ubiquitous than ever. Its insistence on promoting transsexualism among young people — even children — is a direct attack on our way of life, on our values, and, more seriously, is helping create a generation of frustrated individuals who will carry serious psychological problems for decades. Amid all this, Netflix has now announced a deal to acquire Warner Bros. and the HBO platform. Trump could block it through an antitrust action that would be entirely justified. Reports suggest he prefers the Paramount option. I’m in favor of any option that reduces Netflix’s power, because although I am deeply committed to free markets, I also believe that the celebrated streaming giant is a threat to the nation and has done more than any other outlet to promote anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment. Rewarding it would be a mistake. (RELATED: They’re Still Coming After the Kids) Aside from this operation — about which we will soon hear more — I continue to wait for the reconquest of Hollywood that Trump promised us at the beginning of his term. In these confusing times, with the battle of ideas erupting on every corner, and often led by idiots and villains, we need America once again to produce films and series that reflect the values upon which the nation was founded. (RELATED: The Fall and Rise of American Culture) We also need to return to speaking about honor and truth, the value of family and the blessing of parenthood, sincere love, the age-old meaning of friendship, the pride of being a soldier, principled politics, classical art, philosophy, and the importance of thought — the fostering of a critical spirit in the face of the postmodern world’s anti-values. You can win every political and geopolitical war, but if you lose the cultural battle, it is only a matter of time before the left — with all its woke lies — regains power and tears down the structures the Trump administration is now so painstakingly building. By contrast, a victory in the cultural battle — from schools to the movie industry — lays the groundwork for once again forming free and equal citizens, with a critical and well-informed public opinion, not an unhealthy mass of sheep ashamed of their history, their identity, and their nation’s traditional values. There are naive politicians, even on the right, who still believe that film or music are trivial forms of entertainment. That is precisely the kind of politician who should be kept as far away as possible from where the major decisions are made. Ideally, they would be shipped off to a deserted island with a survival kit — and a damn Netflix subscription. I’m sure they’d change their minds within two weeks. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Sánchez’s Spain Is a Caricature of Political Corruption Truly, Spectacularly Stupid Purchases This Black Friday Maduro Is a Mustachioed Turkey With Bird Flu (and Deserves No Pardon)

President Trump appeared to say that Americans are going to be allowed — isn’t it great? — to buy small, inexpensive vehicles that are not currently available for sale in America, because it is illegal to sell them in America. Models such as the little pickup made by Toyota — the HiLux — being one of them. Also, the so-called “Kei” cars, which are abundant in Japan but unavailable here. “You’re not allowed to build them,” the president said, which isn’t exactly true. The manufacturers — Toyota, for instance — could build them here. There’s nothing illegal about that. The illegality occurs when a manufacturer of a non-compliant vehicle — i.e., a vehicle that does not meet every single Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) and federal “emissions” requirement (which these days means chiefly the “emissions” of carbon dioxide, which has nothing to do with pollution) — offers it for sale. Specifically, offers it for sale for use on what are styled “public” — meaning government-owned — roads. (RELATED: Longing for the Era of Economy Cars and Real Fuel Efficiency) It is legal to buy vehicles like the Roxor, which looks like the original WWII-era Willys Jeep. And what are called side-by-sides, such as the Can Ams you can find at motorcycle stores. But they are only legal for off-road use. (RELATED: Less Is Still Too Much) “I have authorized the secretary (of transportation) to immediately approve the production of these cars,” Trump said on Wednesday. Italics added. “Approving the production” is not the same thing as allowing the sale. “Approving the production” is not the same thing as allowing the sale. As explained above, there is no law precluding any vehicle manufacturer from producing vehicles in America that aren’t legal for use in America — on “public” roads, at least. The reason that vehicles such as the HiLux Champ are not produced in America is that it makes no economic sense to produce them here, for two ought-to-be-obvious reasons. The first being it would be absurd to produce a vehicle meant for use on public roads that cannot be used on public roads, because it couldn’t be sold in numbers high enough to make it worth trying to sell them. It’s fine to buy a Roxor or side-by-side if you have a farm or enough land to knock around on — and enough money to buy a fun toy to play with in the field. Most people have neither. They need a vehicle they can drive on the government’s — whoops, “public” — roads. But the government does not allow it. So most would never even consider buying a For Off Road Use Only Toyota HiLux Champ or any other such vehicle. The second thing is that producing vehicles here is more expensive than it is to produce them elsewhere. The HiLux that Toyota can offer for sale in other places for $16,000 would probably cost $25,000 if it were made in the USA, on account of the much higher manufacturing costs in the USA. More finely, the much higher regulatory compliance costs imposed on manufacturing anything in this country. Trump has yet to meaningfully address this elephant in the room. (RELATED: ‘Defrauding’ the United States) There’s another elephant that needs addressing. Low-cost vehicles such as the HiLux Champ pickup (and the little EV I recently wrote about — the Micro Microlina — that costs half as much as the last expensive EV Americans are allowed to buy) are not-compliant. Some of them have no airbags at all, and most have too few to be compliant with federal “safety” standards. It is doubtful any of them could pass federal side-impact/rear-impact and other such “standards.” Making them compliant would make them just as expensive as the cars we’re “allowed” to buy. And while none of them pollute, their “emissions’ (of CO2) are a problem, as regards regulatory compliance. They have engines that run all the time — unlike the hybrids being shoved down our throats, which achieve compliance by cycling the engine off as often as possible. When they are off, they “emit” no CO2 and are thus compliant. These hybrids — the ones we’re allowed to buy — naturally cost more because adding hybrid equipment — 48 volt electrical systems, an additional battery pack, and electric motors, etc. — costs money. Un-hybridized models cost less, but they are not compliant. Catch meet 22. So, in order for Toyota or any other vehicle manufacturer to be legally able to offer for sale vehicles like the HiLux Champ in this country, the federal regs mandating such things as multiple airbags and many other such things would have to be set aside. But they have not been set aside. More finely, the apparats that emit them have not been set aside. Until they are, any talk about such vehicles being “allowed” is wishful thinking at best and disingenuous at worst. Trump could just decree the “safety” and “emissions” regs null and void. That would change everything — in a good way, if you support the notion that other people ought to be free to decide for themselves whether they’re willing to “risk” driving a vehicle without airbags because it would enable them to buy a new vehicle they can afford to own. That this is controversial in America says a lot about what America isn’t anymore — which Americans intuitively know. When was the last time you heard an American say, It’s a free country? Well, Trump could make it a lot freer — at least insofar as the vehicles we’re allowed to buy. Note — because it is important — that no one would be forced to buy an airbag-free vehicle. They would merely be available, so that people who prefer not to buy a vehicle with airbags (and so on) would be free to buy them. The problem is that Trump is up against multiple federal regulatory apparatchiks, including the Department of Transportation (which encompasses the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), as well as the EPA. He can “authorize” Sean Duffy to “allow” the production of noncompliant vehicles in this country. But that is a very different thing from authorizing their lawful sale to Americans. The apparats are not going to go quietly into that goodnight. But at least it is being talked about — and perhaps the fact that the president is talking about it may gin up the needed public/political support to get the federal apparat out of our business as regards the kinds of vehicles we’re “allowed” to buy. Americans have gotten used to the federal government deciding that. It is long past time to end that. Here, at last, is a real chance to make America something more along the lines of what America used to be. Wouldn’t it be great? READ MORE from Eric Peters: ‘SCORE’-ing a Win Celebrating the End of EVs An Automotive Atrocity

WASHINGTON — What happens when rules designed to ensure public safety fray so much that undocumented residents can obtain commercial driver’s licenses for big rigs, even if they are not qualified to drive them and do not speak English? In 2025, Americans saw the danger of allowing unvetted migrants to drive big rigs without obtaining bona fide commercial driver’s licenses, often thanks to what Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy calls “scam schools.” (RELATED: When Sanctuary Policies Hit the Highway) In November, an illegal immigrant with a California commercial driver’s license was charged with killing a newlywed couple in Oregon. In October, an immigrant truck driver who had been in the United States illegally since 2011 allegedly caused a fatal accident. He did not hold a valid CDL, the New York Post reported. In August, three people were killed in Florida after an Indian driver made an illegal U-turn on a major freeway. If you see the video, you have to wonder, what was the illegal immigrant from India thinking when he blocked all lanes of the highway? And who gave this guy a CDL? The answer, according to the Department of Homeland Security: California. Again. (RELATED: How Did a Migrant Who Can’t Speak English Get a License to Drive a Big Rig?) After President Donald Trump withheld $40 million in federal funds to punish California for not complying with its new English-speaking requirements, Gov. Gavin Newsom revoked some 17,000 CDLs. Good. Fatal crashes were bound to happen more frequently when unqualified individuals who should not be behind the wheel were able to drive 18-wheelers that weigh as much as 80,000 pounds — and on roads with family cars, light trucks, and pedestrians. As Paul Enos, CEO of the Nevada Trucking Association, said of big-truck drivers, “They should be able to read a runaway ramp truck sign.” Truckers who can’t read traffic signs won’t see warnings they need to see. But as a report you can read at TruckingResurgence.com informed, the requirement that truck drivers be able to read road signs and basic English instructions “was essentially removed in 2016.” “This administration is cracking down on every link in the illegal trucking chain,” Duffy maintained. “Under Joe Biden and (his Transportation Secretary) Pete Buttigieg, bad actors were able to game the system and let unqualified drivers flood our roadways.” According to the report, “90 percent of trucking carriers remain unrated for safety.” Scary. When truck drivers aren’t properly trained by experienced professionals who know why smart regulations make travel safer, they may not appreciate how lethal their profession can be. So they might flout the rule limiting drivers to 11-hour days behind the wheel, Enos noted. And they might tinker with electronic monitoring devices meant to make sure that they don’t drive too much in a day. Another issue is the problem of “chameleon carriers” who shutter when they are busted for flouting regulations, then reopen with new names. It takes brass to go after bad actors at a time when America is experiencing a trucker shortage. That’s probably why the Biden administration did not make compliance a top priority. On the one hand, trucking provides opportunities to men and women who aren’t interested in desk jobs. But the demands — long hours, living on the road away from family — mean the job is not for everyone. The rules and testing regimen can discourage marijuana users, which Enos tells me has limited the driver pool. But professionals want a system that protects them from bad actors. So it’s heartening that the Trump administration isn’t out to simply cut the size of government. Duffy wants to make it work. READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Sleepy Donald Trump? Umm, No, He’s Not Joe Biden. Yes, the New York Times Really Ran a Story About Social Services Fraud by Immigrants The Flying Public Is Getting Surly. Don’t Let It Ruin Thanksgiving. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS

You are an experienced Navy SEAL Commander  (rank 05) with a solid combat record in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have been a student at the National War College for the past eight months. You have been identified as a potential flag officer, and the college is preparing you for decision-making at the political-military level. And you are now in the final exam period of the course of instruction. You have just completed the first of three war game role-playing simulations, where you have been asked to make difficult political-military decisions under time constraints. In the game scenario, you are acting as a senior commander supervising an action regarding a high-speed boat believed to be carrying drugs. Administration policy is to destroy such craft when located and confirmed to be transporting narcotics. The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) has been monitoring the situation and has given the order to kill them, with the assumption being that the weapon used was deadly enough to eliminate the vessel and everyone aboard. The strike is successful, but the post-strike photos show that — amazingly — two of the crew have survived.  Now, it is decision time. You have three potential courses of action: (1) Call the SECDEF and ask for a clarification of intent. (2) Order a second strike to finish off the survivors. (3) Order a quick reaction force to apprehend the survivors for interrogation. You also have the option of coming up with your own solution. You order option 2, the second strike, and the survivors are eliminated. Part of the post-game debrief requires you to justify the rationale for your decision. You explain that the decision was to follow military procedure and carry out the last order given, and with the rationale that the survivors might try to call for help to recover the drugs. If I were evaluating the exercise and conducting the debrief, my response would be as follows: “Commander, you made a poor decision. At least, I will give you credit for making a decision decisively. First, let’s look at this from a moral standpoint. You knowingly violated both the Law of War and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibit the execution of helpless survivors of combat at sea and unarmed prisoners of war. The ‘I was only following orders’ excuse doesn’t fly here any more than it did at Nuremberg. “Second, faced with an unanticipated situation that was not covered in the original rules of engagement, you did not ask for clarification. There was time to get such clarification; the survivors were not going anywhere in the immediate future. Your action forced the SECDEF into being involuntarily complicit in a potential war crime without his being given the option of changing the commander’s intent based on an unanticipated situation. That decision has far-ranging legal and political implications far beyond the tactical situation. “Third, is the purely military aspect of your decision. Those crewmen may have been mere mules, or they might have had information useful in dismantling the cartel involved. Based on your decision, we will never know. Given your rationale that the survivors might call for help to recover the drugs, you blew the chance to acquire a second target. “You will have two more scenarios to try to redeem yourself. But frankly, Commander, based on this scenario alone, I would not recommend you for high-level command.” The evaluation situation above does not exist in the war colleges or in the military promotion system today, but it should. Our war colleges currently stress theory and academics rather than evaluating the decision-making skills of officers under pressure. During my military career and as a State Department field officer, I ran into too many officers who had succumbed to the Peter Principle, where, through no fault of their own, they had been promoted beyond their level of competence. In peacetime, that only leads to confusion and poor morale. In combat situations, it can lead to unnecessary death and international repercussions. Because of a series of unusual circumstances, I was placed into situations similar to the one above, where tactical decisions could have had far-reaching political-military implications, before I went to the Marine Corps War College. Fortunately, I got through them without killing anybody who wasn’t actively trying to kill Americans or causing an international incident. Nothing I learned in the schoolhouse would have prepared me for that; however, the kind of rigorous decision-making tests described above might have weeded out the flag-level officers who made bad decisions ranging from the Afghan withdrawal to the recent boat debacle. We need to reform professional military education. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: The Marine Corps Could Not Fight Fallujah Today The Best Birthday Present for the Marine Corps US Marine Leader Misread History and the Patterns of Conflict Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps colonel who served in Lebanon, Somalia, and Bangladesh. He served as a civilian advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For any writer, losing a mentor is a painful moment, and such was the case when I found out that Allan Brownfeld had died on August 4, 2025, at 85 years old. Allan passed so quietly that I missed the news at the time. I fear many others did as well. I did not want his passing to go by without writing a tribute. The end of any friendship causes moments of reckoning and gratitude, but Allan in particular will be sorely missed. I agree with this: It is how we learn that matters, and it makes life more interesting. Allan knew how to learn. Who was Allan Brownfeld? His resume is stellar: syndicated columnist; longtime writer for the St. Croix Review; popular speaker here and abroad; expert on the Middle East; staffer for a vice president, for congressmen, and for the U.S. Senate Internal Subcommittee; editor of respected journals like The Lincoln Review and Issues. His books included Hung Up On Freedom (1969); The New Left (1978); Dossier on Douglas (1970); co-author with Jay Parker of What the Negro Can Do About Crime (1974); and co-author with J. Michael Waller of The Revolution Lobby (1984). He was a fiscal conservative and, as time passed, a social liberal. According to the beautiful tribute his son Peter wrote for the American Council for Judaism, a group Brownfeld worked with for decades, Allan’s Jewish grandparents immigrated from Lithuania and Poland to New Jersey and New York. Hardworking and dreaming of a better life for their children, they embraced the land of the free and home of the brave, and family members like Allan thrived as he grew up in Brooklyn. Education was first and foremost. Brownfeld attended the College of William and Mary, where he became involved in politics and journalism and wrote for the student newspaper. He eventually attended law school at his alma mater, but never practiced because his passions were the power of the written word and statecraft. Civil rights were fiercely important to Allan, and he defended blacks and American Indians with fervor and respect. Probably my favorite quote from Allan occurred when he was still a student at William and Mary during the 1960s, when he had invited the college’s first black speaker. The college president criticized Allan’s decision by saying, “I thought you were a conservative?” Allan responded: “Racism isn’t something I want to conserve.” Touché. I met Allan Brownfeld quite by accident. In 1980, I travelled around the world to New Zealand, Australia, crewed on sailboats in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea, and ended up settling in the Seychelles, a communist country a thousand miles off the coast of East Africa. After teaching school, I left in 1982 after a very bad coup d’etat. When I arrived home, Jerry Van Voorhis, the rector at my boarding school, Chatham Hall, asked me to write about my trip for the alumnae magazine. He later sent my article to his friend Allan Brownfeld, who republished it in The Lincoln Review. Allan and I finally met in Washington, D.C., where he took me out to lunch and encouraged me to write for a living, proceeding to publish my first articles and encouraging me to carry on. His influence on me was enormous. When I talked to people who knew Allan Brownfeld well, they all shared that they had respected him deeply. Many used the same words to appraise him: “loyal,” “a true intellectual,” and “a gentleman who was able to reach across the aisle because he was from a kinder, gentler age.” Stephen Naman is the president of the Board of Directors for the American Council for Judaism (ACJ), a group whose focus is Judaism beyond nationalism through education, social connections, and religious guidance, a break with Zionism. The council was founded in 1942, and Brownfeld became involved when he was 17 years old. At one time, he even edited the council’s magazine, Issues. As Naman explained, Brownfeld, “did not believe in Jewish nationalism. Humanity was more important, and his belief was that Jewish Nationalism was oppressive to the Palestinians.” This was the core belief of ACJ, and for decades, Brownfeld was the voice of the council. Naman described Brownfeld as a very thoughtful person who was firm in his beliefs, especially rights for all peoples. “He was a force to be reckoned with,” said Naman. Van Voorhis, who had been one of Allan’s roommates at William and Mary, called Brownfeld not only a writer, but a polemicist whose articles usually focused on civics, education, and love of country, race relations, and the Middle East. He said that Allan’s “first sentences were like a dagger in the heart.” He was highly effective with his words. But aside from polemics, Allan Brownfeld also had a kind and gentle side. A father to three successful children, he was also a loving grandfather to six grandchildren, whom he spent time with, reading books with them and listening to what they had to say. Brownfeld always struck me as the type of person who befriended people from all walks of life and all ages. I agree with this: It is how we learn that matters, and it makes life more interesting. Allan knew how to learn. Allan’s son Peter wrote in his obituary that his father was “an eternal optimist about America.” He acknowledged that we had made “grave errors — slavery, racism, treatment of Native Americans, Vietnam, Watergate — but he thought of America as a resilient nation.” Comforting words from someone who knew what he was talking about. Allan Brownfeld’s legacy will not only be his scholarly work, but also the mark he left on people like me. READ MORE: James Stevens Curl: A Champion for Beauty, Tradition, and Heritage in Architecture RIP Mike Greenwell — a Good Ball Player and a Good Man ‘Everything is Personal’ — Remembering Jane Goodall Tyler Scott is a freelance writer living in Blackstone, Virginia, who has been publishing her articles since the early 1980s. Her website is tylernscott.com

from State Of The Nation: But, really, why has the Trump Administration so radically morphed into a dangerous camarilla of Khazarian Mafia hitmen? (See answer below.) BECAUSE: The Chicago’s Jewish Supermob uses their wholly owned and operated Military Industrial Complex to conduct WW3-triggering Economic Warfare and Financial Terrorism worldwide while the captured U.S. Armed Forces […]

by Mike in Alaska, Survival Blog: When it all hits the fan and the grid is gone for whatever reason, be it EMP, all out nuclear exchange, a hurricane, or possibly a tornado, snow knocking down trees, or as we say up here in the interior of Alaska the four reasons power goes out: it’s […]

by Caitlin Johnstone, Caitlin Johnstone: President Trump has been holding talks with top advisors this week regarding potential US attacks on Venezuela in order to bring about regime change in yet another oil-rich nation. As the western political/media class frames Venezuela’s President Maduro as a “dictator” who must urgently be removed from power, it is worth noting […]