Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Venezuela to Buy Only US-Made Products Under New ‘Oil Deal’ – Trump

Sputnik – 08.01.2026

WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump said Venezuela would only purchase American-made products as part of a “deal” with Washington to sell the Latin American country’s oil.

“I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

He said it is a “wise choice,” and a good thing for Venezuelans and Americans.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

President Trump’s Cross of Iron

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | January 8, 2026

On Wednesday, United States President Donald Trump declared in a post at Truth Social that he has determined the military budget for the next fiscal year should be hiked to 1.5 trillion dollars.

A Thursday Reuters article by Costas Pitas and Andrea Shalal quantifies Trumps proposed spending increase as amounting to a 66 percent increase over what the US Congress approved for 2026. The Reuters article further relates that this proposed increase in spending is, historically speaking, very large. The article states:

Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, said Trump’s post raised questions about where the funds would be directed and whether they could even be absorbed by the defense sector.

He said the last time the U.S. Defense Department saw an increase higher than 50% was in 1951 during the Korean War, with even huge surges in military spending under former President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 1982 amounting to 25% and 20%.

An analysis of the cost of this spending should go beyond dollars alone and consider as well what economists term the opportunity costs — what is foregone because of Trump’s proposed military buildup. President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided such an analysis in his April 16, 1953 “The Chance for Peace” speech. Summing up his tabulation of opportunity costs of military spending, Eisenhower in the speech related spending on the military to “humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” Eisenhower warned:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Each Congress member would do well to read or listen to Eisenhower’s speech and give it thoughtful consideration before voting on Trump’s proposed military spending increase.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

A Modern History Of U.S. Regime Change Efforts

A look at recent U.S. regime change efforts

The Dissident | January 7, 2026

With Trump’s recent regime change in Venezuela , the subject of American regime change is back in the mainstream conversation.

This marks the perfect time to note that the long-running hybrid regime change war on Venezuela is not unique to the country and is a repeat of similar regime change campaigns that Washington has unleashed around the world.

In this article, I will review the recent history of U.S. regime change operations.

Reshaping The Middle East

In 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu was elected as Prime Minister of Israel, and a group of American Zionist Neo-conservatives came up with a plan sent to him to have Israel dominate the Middle East.

These Neo-conservatives such as, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, laid out this plan in a letter sent to the newley elected Benjamin Netanyahu titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which called for him to abandon the prospect of a two state solution and instead overthrow governments in the Middle East that were seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, first and foremost though, “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.

When George W. Bush was elected president of the United States in 2000, many of the authors of this document filled up high ranks in his administration, Richard Perle was “A key advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld”, Douglas Feith was, “Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005” and David Wurmser was “Middle East Adviser to then US Vice President Dick Cheney”.

After 9/11, these Neo-cons saw it as the perfect opportunity to carry out the “important Israeli strategic objective” of overthrowing Saddam Hussien.

The Pentagon created a Office of Special Plans, which funnelled fabricated intelligence from the U.S’s Iraq puppet Ahmad Chalabi, and a secret rump unit created by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction.

Similarly, the UK’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair fabricated intelligence claiming Iraq had WMDS and spread the claim through a dossier, despite the fact- as the British Chilcot report later found- “the original reports said that intelligence was ‘sporadic and patchy’ and ‘remains limited’ and that ‘there was very little intelligence relating to Iraq’s chemical warfare programme’”, all of which was left out of the UK dossier.

Based on this mass fabrication, the U.S. and UK launched a criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and removed the Saddam Hussein-led regime, which killed 1.03 million people by 2008.

For the U.S, Israel, and the UK, this regime change war was only the beginning of a grander plan to “reshape the Middle East” through regime change.

The U.S. General Wesley Clark said that after 9/11, when he went to the Pentagon and met with “Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz” he learned they came up with a plan to, “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.”

Clark later revealed that this plan came from a study which was “paid for by the Israelis” which expanded on the clean break document, saying, “if you want to protect Israel, and you want Israel to succeed… you’ve got to get rid of the states that are surrounding”.

The plan was later continued by the Obama administration when the Arab Spring protests erupted across the Middle East, to carry out the already planned regime change in Libya and Syria.

To take out Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the Obama administration organized a bogus humanitarian intervention through NATO, claiming that Gaddafi was about to slaughter civilians.

Based on this false claim, the U.S. and allied NATO states intervened in Libya and bombed the way for “rebels” to take out Muammar Gaddafi.

But in 2015, a UK Parliament Inquiry into the regime change operation found that the claim Muammar Gaddafi was massacring civilians was fabricated, writing, “The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011”, and “The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians”.

It added, “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence”.

Furthermore, it noted that the rebel force backed by NATO, which was presented as moderate and pro-democracy, in reality was largely made up of, “militant Islamist militias” including branches of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The regime change in Libya, was used by the U.S. advance the next regime change war in Syria.

Following the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the CIA established a rat line to, “funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition” adding, “Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.

The CIA’s rat line to Al-Qaida linked rebels fighting the Bashar Al Assad regime eventually turned into a CIA program to arm the rebels directly, dubbed Timber Sycamore which the New York Times called, “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the CIA” and “one of the most expensive efforts to arm and train rebels since the agency’s program arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s”.

According to the Washington Post in 2015 , Timber Sycamore was, “one the agency’s largest covert operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year.”

A declassified State Department cable from 2015 revealed the real reason for the operation, writing, “A new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles” and “Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East” adding, “America can and should help them (Syrian rebels) – and by doing so help Israel”.

Following the CIA regime change program- as the U.S. Pentagon official Dana Stroul, boasted -the U.S. placed crushing sanctions on Syria and occupied one third of the country military which was the “economic powerhouse of Syria” with the intention of keeping Syria in “rubble” in hopes it would lead to regime change, a plan that eventually came through in late 2024, when CIA backed rebels overthrew Bashar Al Assad.

Turning Ukraine Into A U.S. Proxy

Another major U.S. regime change project was the overthrow of Ukraine’s neutral, elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to turn Ukraine into a U.S. proxy to be used to fight Russia.

The U.S., through USAID and NED, funded groups like New Citizen, which organized protests against Viktor Yanukovych in late 2013.

Once the protests were underway, they were overtaken by far-right extremist groups, including Right Sector and the Svoboda party, who eventually overthrew Yanukovych in a violent coup backed by the U.S. over false claims that Viktor Yanukovych massacred protestors in Maidan Square.

After the coup, the U.S. senator Chris Murphy, who went to Ukraine during the coup, admitted on C-Span, “With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines; we have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there, members of the state department that have been there on the (Maidan) square. The Obama administration passed sanctions, the Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions, and as I said, I really think the clear position of the United States has been in part what has led to this change in regime. I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office”.

The U.S. justified backing the coup based on the claim that Viktor Yanukovych’s forces committed a sniper massacre on protestors in Maidan Square, but in-depth research from the University of Ottawa’s Ukrainian-Canadian professor of political science, Ivan Katchanovski, proves that the massacre was actually carried out by Right Sector, one of the militant groups behind the coup.

Before the coup took place, then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on tape deciding who to install in government after Viktor Yanukovych was deposed, eventually deciding that, “Yats is the guy” referring to the Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk.

This – as Forbes Magazine noted at the time –  was because, “Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund’s demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency” while, “Yatsenyuk doesn’t mind”.

Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko documented the effect of the IMF-imposed policies after the U.S. imposed regime change in Ukraine, including:

  • “Ukraine’s GDP shrinking by approximately 17%”.
  • The exchange rate going from “8 hryvnias (Ukrainian dollar) to 1 U.S dollar” in 2013 to “23 hryvnias to the dollar” in 2015
  • Inflation rising from 24.9% in 2014 to 43.3% in 2015
  • a “significant decline in industrial production during the first two years” after the coup, leading to Ukraine losing “its economic cluster that manufactured goods with high added value (machine engineering)”
  • “mining and metallurgical complex, energy (coal production), chemicals, food production”, “sustained significant losses”.
  • “an increase in unemployment and the emigration of citizens from Ukraine to neighboring countries—primarily to Poland and Russia.”
  • “utility rates increasing by 123%, reaching up to 20% of family income” from the IMF introduced policies

Along with the IMF “reforms” the coup was done to turn Ukraine from a neutral country into a U.S proxy willing to fight Russia.

As Konstantin Bondarenko put it, “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia.”

Following the regime change, the UK’s channel 4 news reported that, “the far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum”, which supported abuses against Ukraine’s ethnic Russian population, including by supporting ethnic Russians being trapped in a burning trade Union building in Odessa in 2014 and burning alive, which eventually led to all out civil war in Eastern Ukraine.

Furthermore, the new U.S.-backed government dropped its neutral stance on NATO and, as former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg put it was, “keen to ensure that the resolution from the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, through which Ukraine had been promised NATO membership, would be upheld”.

This regime change- by design -provoked the eventual Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and ensuing U.S. proxy war to weaken Russia.

Regime Change In South America

The recent regime change in Venezuela is far from the only U.S. regime change in South America in recent years.

As Mother Jones reported in 2004, when, “a rebellion erupted against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Haiti’s democratically elected president, “Several leaders of the demonstrations — some of whom also had links to the armed rebels — had been getting organizational help and training from a U.S. government-financed organization”, the International Republican Institute, a subsidiary of the CIA cutout NED.

Mother Jones noted, “In 2002 and 2003, IRI used funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to organize numerous political training sessions in the Dominican Republic and Miami for some 600 Haitian leaders. Though IRI’s work is supposed to be nonpartisan — it is official U.S. policy not to interfere in foreign elections — a former U.S. diplomat says organizers of the workshops selected only opponents of Aristide and attempted to mold them into a political force. In 2004, several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide”.

In 2009, a military coup took place against Honduras’ elected president Manuel Zelaya, and an in-depth investigation fromthe Center for Economic and Policy Research Research Associate Jake Johnston later found that:

… high-level US military official met with Honduran coup plotters late the night before the coup, indicating advance knowledge of what was to come;

While the US ambassador intervened to stop an earlier attempted coup, a Honduran military advisor’s warning the night before the coup was met with indifference;

Multiple on-the-record sources support the allegations of a whistleblower at SOUTHCOM’s flagship military training university that a retired general provided assistance after-the-fact to Honduran military leaders lobbying in defense of the coup;

US training of Honduran military leaders, and personal relationships forged during the Cold War, likely emboldened the Honduran military to oust Zelaya and helped ensure the coup’s success;

US military actors were motivated by an obsessive concern with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s perceived influence in the region, rather than just with developments in Honduras itself. …

From 2014-2018, the United States National Endowment for Democracy spent $4.1 million funding opposition groups in Nicaragua- which “laid the groundwork for insurrection” that attempted to violently oust the country’s president, Daniel Ortega.

The outlet Global Americans noted during the insurrection in 2018, “it is now quite evident that the U.S. government actively helped build the political space and capacity in Nicaraguan society for the social uprising that is currently unfolding”.

USAID even funded opposition outlets which- before the failed coup attempt- “urged anti-Sandinista forces to storm the presidential residence, kill the president, die by the hundreds doing so, and hang his body in public”.

The U.S. also caused a violent military coup in Bolivia in 2019, by pushing the false claim that the country’s president, Evo Morales, stole the election that year, which was used to justify the military coup, which installed a military dictatorship led by U.S. puppet Jeanine Áñez, who massacred many of Morales’ indigenous supporters when they protested the coup.

The U.S.’s latest regime change in Venezuela is yet another regime change campaign to be added to the long list.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

China Slams U.S. Pressure on Venezuela and Vows to Deepen Trade Ties

teleSUR | January 8, 2026

On Thursday, He Yadong, a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry (MOFCOM), questioned the United States for attempting to restrict Venezuela’s international economic relations and reaffirmed his country’s willingness to maintain trade ties with the South American nation.

“The hegemonic actions of the U.S. seriously violate international law, infringe on Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America. China firmly opposes such actions,” He said.

“Economic and trade cooperation between China and Venezuela is conducted between sovereign states and is protected by international law and the laws of both countries. No other country has the right to interfere.”

“Regardless of changes in Venezuela’s political situation, China’s willingness to continuously deepen bilateral economic and trade relations remains unchanged,” the MOFCOM official stressed.

“China’s economic and trade cooperation with Latin American countries has always adhered to the principles of mutual respect and win-win outcomes. China does not seek spheres of influence, nor does it target any specific party. Economic complementarity serves as a solid foundation for China–Latin America cooperation, with openness, inclusiveness and mutual benefit as its defining features.”

“China will continue to work with Latin American countries to address international uncertainties through unity and collaboration, promote economic and trade cooperation on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, and achieve shared development,” He concluded.

The remarks by the MOFCOM spokesperson come after the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump informed Venezuela that it must end its relations with China, Russia, Iran and Cuba as part of a series of demands before it can extract and market its oil.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Kidnapped By the Washington Cartel

By Eric Striker • Unz Review • January 8, 2026

Washington’s snatching of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his visibly brutalized wife, Cilia, has been widely condemned as naked criminality. Supporters of US interventionism have taken to justifying the attack under the guise of the Monroe, or “Donroe,” Doctrine, while leaders of the American left such as Bernie Sanders have largely ignored the moral implications by fixating on the legalistic aspect of the spectacle.

Practically nothing substantial has been presented to the public justifying military intervention in Venezuela. US officials have made half-hearted attempts at blowing the cobwebs off the Reagan-era Cold War boogeyman trope, but the Venezuelan state of Maduro last year spent only 18% of its GDP on public expenditures, making the US (37%) twice as “communist.” It should also be noted that Venezuela’s Communist Party has long been part of the heterogenous US-backed anti-Maduro opposition and is perceived inside the country as a front for the CIA.

The next ginned up fable accuses Maduro, in a Brooklyn federal court case overseen by 92-year-old Zionist Jew Alvin Hellerstein, of being a global cocaine kingpin.

The original Department of Justice case was cobbled together during Trump’s first term but was pursued heavily by the successive Biden administration, which introduced a $25 million dollar bounty in hopes that someone inside the regime would capture Maduro for them. Critics have dismissed the charges as both baseless and hypocritical, pointing out that several current US-installed leaders in Latin America are running actual narco regimes. The well of irony goes deeper: the very Delta Force unit responsible for capturing Maduro is itself a violent cocaine trafficking ring, as journalists documenting JSOC operator’s use of military planes to import millions of dollars worth of cocaine from Colombia to Fort Bragg for both personal use and illicit profit have shown.

The last excuse, tossed to the nihilists in the MAGA base as red meat, is that America wants to steal the oil to make gas prices cheaper. During World War II, the United States strong-armed Venezuelan oil into the hands of American businesses to fuel the Allied war effort, but the 30 to 50 million barrels of oil Trump is demanding for America is only enough to last two months. Venezuela’s low-quality crude requires refining infrastructure that experts believe could cost 10s of billions of dollars in investment and potentially a decade to come to fruition, meaning that the US would have to pay a hefty price to produce the product in order to “steal” it.

Military action for oil makes no sense. For nearly a decade, Maduro’s government has been desperately reaching out to the US to negotiate an end to the devastating sanctions crippling the Venezuelan economy and bring back American oil companies, with extraordinary gestures such as a $500,000 donation to Trump’s 2017 inauguration festivities. These overtures were ignored.

Realist arguments for removing opponents of the American empire from the Western Hemisphere also seem inadequate. Many nations that have strong links to Russia and China, such as Hungary, also have close relations to the Trump administration. Neither Russia or China are interested in or able to meddle in the Western Hemisphere, as the May 2024 8,000 word Sino-Russian joint statement calling for non-interventionism reveals.

The remaining outstanding issue, what separates friend-to-all Hungary from Venezuela and is likely real cause of the conflict is Maduro’s militant anti-Zionism, which has been put into practice through Hugo Chavez-era infrastructure of sanctions-busting trade with Iran, who the Zionist hawks in Washington are trying to isolate further. Venezuela has become an outlier in Latin America, where regimes propped up by the US are rapidly embracing the pro-Israel Isaac’s Accords. What exactly the Israelis want in Latin America remains a matter of speculation, but this question is important enough to compel Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado to repeatedly declare her devotion to the Jewish state and openly plan to make Israel a central focus of her potential future government.

The notion that Trump was settling accounts on behalf of Israel, rather than America, appears to be taken for granted by both Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who cited the security interests of Israel for cause, as well as Maduro’s successor Delcy Rodriguez, who has publicly declared that the president’s kidnapping has “Zionist undertones.”

It is not yet clear if the British and French educated lawyer Rodriguez, the daughter of a communist guerrilla tortured to death by the CIA, is herself an American asset tasked with gradually taking apart the Bolivarian revolution from within, but the decision to keep her in power was made by the same group that murdered her father. The new president was initially purged from Hugo Chavez’s political circle in 2006, only to be brought back by Maduro in 2013 for her magical ability to operate around American sanctions and defeat diplomatic onslaughts.

Delcy’s power within the Maduro government grew after she was able to single-handedly defeat an attempt by the Organization of American States to officially ostracize Venezuela in 2017. She has been able to broker large sanctions violating underground financial transactions on behalf of her country in Europe and, as head of Venezuela’s oil sector, has been actively lobbying the US to return to take it over. She has been criticized in socialist circles for her campaign re-dollarizing the Venezuelan economy, which has exacerbated poverty and inequality in the country. Her links to enemies of Venezuela are an open secret and include secret meetings with mercenary leader Erik Prince even as his outfit was actively trying to overthrow Maduro. Her years of unusual unofficial welcome in Washington and the wealth it has provided some corrupt elements in the world of Chavismo has allowed her to accumulate enough power domestically to, over the years, root out elements suspicious of her rise.

For now, Rodriguez is urging calm and the armed forces appear to be taking her at her word that she is a good faith pragmatist rather than a traitor. The next six months of her presidency will be crucial as a boots on the ground intervention by America continues to loom.

The flood of fake videos on social media of showing celebrations of Maduro’s removal do not reflect the reality on the ground. Approval for Trump’s actions is a minority opinion in both the United States and Venezuela. General sentiment is that the populations of both America and Venezuela will suffer the consequences of yet another Washington military adventure if the Trump administration goes any further.

Supporters of American imperialism — again, a minority opinion — have sought to distance themselves from the spoiled “neo-conservative” brand and argue that this new emphasis on Latin America will be different from the disastrous War On Terror. But interventions of the kind just witnessed with Maduro in the Western Hemisphere have historically fared no better than Iraq.

A case that comes to mind is the 2009 US overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya, who like Maduro, was abducted and taken to face trial in Costa Rica on flimsy drug charges. Successive American backed governments (including an actual cocaine trafficking president Trump recently pardoned) mismanaged Honduras to the point of making it the most violent country in the world. This situation provoked a massive exodus to the US, producing a large percentage of the hundreds of thousands of so-called Northern Triangle illegal immigrants, with Honduras regularly populating the bulk of the notorious migrant caravans. From 2010 and 2020, the Honduran population in the United States increased from 490,000 to at least 1.3 million, and this is only those we know of. More than 10% of Honduras’ population now lives in America, many of them illegally.

The removal of Maduro is a regime change campaign going back 20 years, with the blame for this latest conflict shared by Democrats and Republicans equally. The substance of Washington’s global terrorism is decided by permanent bureaucrats and high finance, with the president only serving to influence the style and execution.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | 1 Comment

Is the Psychiatric Drugging of Children a Form of Child Abuse?

A case that becomes harder to dismiss the longer you look

By Dr. Roger McFillin | Radically Genuine | December 18, 2025

Let me be direct about something before we go any further.

We call them psychiatric “medications.” We say children are being “medicated” for their “conditions.” This language is a lie.

These are drugs. Chemical compounds made in a factory. They do not correct any known abnormality. They do not heal anything. They are not medicinal in any meaningful sense of the word. They are chemicals that alter brain function that numb, restrict, and sedate.

We need to stop hiding behind medical language that implies these interventions are “therapeutic” and healing. They are not. They are chemical management of behavior with the potential for severe health consequences. Once we are honest about what we are actually doing to children, the ethical questions become unavoidable.

The Question We Must Answer

I have spent fifteen years in private practice as a clinical psychologist. Before that, I worked in psychiatric hospitals, community mental health, public schools and the juvenile justice system. I have watched what we do to young people in the name of treatment, and it’s a moral and ethical failure.

Federal law defines child abuse as “any act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm” or “an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”

The question I want to pose is straightforward: Does the prescription of mind-altering and mood-altering drugs, which carry significant potential for harm and frequently cause it, meet this legal definition?

I believe it does. Here is why.

Rationale #1: No Identifiable or Measurable Biological Foundation for Mental Disorders Exists

If we could identify a biological abnormality that a drug effectively corrects, we would have reasonable justification for the risks involved. We could measure responses empirically and adjust treatment accordingly.

But no such abnormality has been identified. Not for ADHD. Not for depression. Not for anxiety. Not for any psychiatric diagnosis given to children.

Psychiatric diagnoses fail the most basic standards of scientific measurement. They lack both reliability and validity.

Reliability means consistency. If a diagnostic system is reliable, different clinicians evaluating the same child should arrive at the same diagnosis. This does not happen in psychiatry. Studies repeatedly demonstrate that clinicians disagree at alarming rates. One psychiatrist sees ADHD. Another sees anxiety. A third sees oppositional defiant disorder. The same child, the same behaviors, wildly different labels depending on who is in the room. Field trials for the DSM-5 found that many diagnoses failed to reach acceptable reliability thresholds. The system cannot even produce consistent results.

Validity means the diagnosis corresponds to something real and distinct in the world. A valid diagnosis identifies a specific condition with a known cause, predictable course, and targeted treatment. Psychiatric diagnoses meet none of these criteria. There are no biomarkers. No lab tests. No imaging findings. No way to confirm or disconfirm the diagnosis through objective measurement. These categories were created by committees of psychiatrists voting on clusters of behaviors. They are descriptive labels masquerading as medical diagnoses.

The honest history is this: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was developed primarily to facilitate insurance billing within the broader healthcare system. It provided codes so that psychiatrists could be reimbursed like other physicians. The appearance of medical legitimacy was the point. Scientific validity was never established because it was never the priority.

The chemical imbalance theory has been formally abandoned. The former director of the National Institute of Mental Health publicly stated that psychiatric diagnoses lack scientific validity. Yet physicians continue telling parents their children have brain disorders based on no objective test whatsoever.

Consider the psychological impact on a child who begins to identify with a psychiatric label. They internalize the message that something is fundamentally wrong with how they think and feel. They believe they are different from other children. They conclude they need drugs to be normal.

Is this not a form of emotional harm?

Any genuine medical disease underlying psychiatric symptoms would be reclassified as a medical condition. If obsessive-compulsive symptoms stem from a streptococcal infection, we treat the infection with antibiotics. If attention problems result from nutritional deficiencies, we address the deficiencies through diet and supplementation.

When we affix psychiatric labels to children without objective confirmation, we drug them with chemicals that cause significant adverse effects and health concerns.

Rationale #2: No Psychiatric Drug Has Been Proven to Objectively Improve the Assigned Mental Disorder

I have spent fifteen years studying psychiatric drug trials, the FDA approval process, and the mechanisms through which these chemicals reach the market. What I have learned disturbs me deeply.

These trials typically last six to twelve weeks. Researchers measure effectiveness through symptom checklists, quantifying whether reported symptoms decrease. The critical problem is that many of these drugs primarily induce emotional numbing or sedation. A person who feels disconnected from their emotions will report fewer symptoms on a checklist. This is not the same as improvement.

The objective is to create enough of a drug effect to generate a statistical difference compared to placebo. That statistical variance should not be mistaken for evidence that a drug treats depression or stabilizes mood. By the same logic, alcohol could be considered an approved treatment for social anxiety.

Pharmaceutical companies have encountered significant challenges demonstrating that antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs outperform placebos in meaningful ways. The illusion that we possess effective pharmacological treatments for childhood emotional and behavioral challenges must be dispelled.

If we are honest about what happens in clinical practice, the primary approach involves attempting to induce emotional numbness and detachment in developing children. This truth is rarely communicated to families.

I hear the same descriptions from young people in my practice over and over. “I feel like a zombie.” “I feel nothing.” “I cannot cry anymore.” “I do not feel like myself.”

This is not treatment. This is chemical suppression of the full range of human emotion in a developing brain. And we call it medicine.

Rationale #3: Psychiatric Drugs Are Proven to Create Harm

Every psychiatric drug approved for children carries a substantial list of side effects. Many are severe. Some are potentially fatal.

Do you want to know the long term effects? Well so do I! However, if you fail to study the long term problems of a drug you do not have to report on it.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, the most commonly prescribed class of drugs for childhood anxiety and mood disorders, carry a black box warning. This represents the most stringent cautionary label the FDA can issue. The purpose of black box warnings is to alert the public and healthcare providers to grave side effects, including risks of injury or death.

The FDA requires black box warnings when compelling evidence indicates a drug can trigger severe adverse reactions, when benefits do not outweigh risks, when the drug requires restricted usage to protect public safety, or when the drug poses heightened dangers to specific populations, including children.

The black box warning on SSRIs states that these drugs increase suicidality in children and adolescents.

I need you to fully absorb that statement. The drugs most commonly prescribed to treat depression in young people can increase their desire to end their own lives.

I have witnessed this pattern repeatedly in clinical practice. A teenager who was struggling but stable starts an antidepressant. Within weeks, they are engaging in self-harm. They are making suicide plans. They are hospitalized.

In the hospital, the response is often to adjust the drug or add another. The adverse reaction becomes evidence of how sick they truly were.

Within clinical settings, physicians frequently combine drugs in ways that have never been adequately studied. Polypharmacy in pediatric psychiatry is common practice, not the exception. The combinations given to children have often never been evaluated even in adult populations.

This is experimentation. It is conducted on those least able to advocate for themselves.

Rationale #4: Psychiatric Drug Reactions Are Misinterpreted as Mental Disorders, Leading to More Diagnoses and More Drugs

This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of the current system. It creates a self-perpetuating cycle that transforms episodic struggles into chronic disability.

The pattern begins when a physician attributes emotional or behavioral challenges to a simplistic chemical imbalance. Drugs are prescribed that alter brain chemistry and can create genuine neurological changes. When the child displays adverse reactions, these responses are interpreted as manifestations of mental illness.

The misinterpretation becomes justification for additional drugs, additional diagnoses, and further deterioration.

A child enters the system because her parents are divorcing and she is sad. Understandable. Her world has been disrupted. She is prescribed an antidepressant. It makes her agitated and unable to sleep. A second drug is added for the agitation. That causes weight gain and lethargy. A stimulant is added to counteract the lethargy. The stimulant triggers anxiety. A benzodiazepine is added for the anxiety.

Within a few years, this child is taking five psychiatric drugs. She has accumulated diagnoses of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. She has been hospitalized. She has dropped out of school. She believes she is fundamentally broken and will need psychiatric management for the rest of her life.

She did not have five psychiatric disorders. She had one: an adverse reaction to psychiatric drugs that was misinterpreted at every turn.

This system transforms episodic and even typical variations in behavior into chronic disabilities. It creates the very conditions it claims to treat.

This Is Child Abuse

I use this language deliberately.

When we label children with psychiatric disorders based on no objective biological evidence, we cause emotional harm.

When we prescribe drugs that carry black box warnings for suicidality, that cause neurological changes, sexual dysfunction, metabolic disruption, and emotional blunting, we cause physical harm.

When we interpret adverse drug reactions as evidence of worsening mental illness and respond with additional drugs, we perpetuate harm.

When we transform children experiencing normal human responses to difficult circumstances into lifelong psychiatric patients, we cause profound harm to their identity, their development, and their future.

The fact that this occurs in medical settings does not change what it is.

The fact that it is performed by credentialed professionals does not change what it is.

The fact that insurance covers it does not change what it is.

We are systematically harming children while calling it care. And until we name it clearly, nothing will change.

AWAKEN

I would not have dedicated my career to exposing these problems if I did not believe alternatives exist.

Children do not need to be diagnosed and drugged. They need to be understood.

Anxiety is not a disorder. It is information. A child’s nervous system communicates that something requires attention in their environment, their relationships, their nutrition, their sleep, their sense of safety and belonging. Many need to LEARN how to face and tolerate fear, uncertainty and anxiety provoking situations. It’s part of the journey.

Address the root causes. Create genuine safety. Build authentic connection. Teach skills for understanding and navigating difficult emotions. Support the family system. Examine what the child is eating, how they are sleeping, whether they are moving their bodies, whether they have purpose and meaning. If you are on your phone for 8 plus hours a day I guarantee you are going to be miserable. You do not have a genetic condition called “Major Depressive Disorder” and “ADHD”.

We have collectively lost our minds.

I have watched children labeled treatment-resistant transform when we stopped drugging their symptoms and started addressing their lives. Not occasionally. Repeatedly. Consistently.

The psychiatric system does not want families to know this is possible. Healthy children do not generate recurring revenue.

But it is possible. And families deserve to know.

A Challenge

If you are a prescriber who puts developing children on psychiatric drugs without exhausting other options, without providing genuine informed consent about the risks, without a clear plan for eventual discontinuation, I ask you to reconsider what you are participating in.

If you are a parent who was told your child has a brain disease requiring lifelong medication, please know that you were not given accurate information. Seek other opinions. Explore other approaches. Your child’s future may depend on it.

If you are a young person who was drugged into compliance and told there was something fundamentally wrong with you, I want you to hear this: There was not. There is not. You were a human being having a human experience within a system that profits from your suffering.

The psychiatric drugging of children is one of the defining moral failures of our era. I will continue saying so until something changes.

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson reports on Paul Singer (2019)

January 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

US to ease Venezuela oil sanctions after Maduro kidnapping: CNBC

Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026

The United States is preparing “to recalibrate” its unilateral sanctions regime on Venezuelan oil, CNBC reported. Washington says the move would allow crude exports to continue without a fixed end date, a claim Caracas and several international observers reject as part of a coercive campaign to seize control over the country’s strategic resources.

The reported policy shift comes amid extraordinary tensions following the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro by US forces, an operation carried out without an extradition process, a United Nations mandate, or consent from Venezuelan institutions. Caracas has described the act as a grave breach of sovereignty and international law, while allied governments have warned it marks a dangerous escalation from sanctions enforcement to outright military intervention.

Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump is expected to meet executives from major American oil companies on Friday to discuss what the White House has described as the “future” of Venezuela’s energy resources. Fox Business, citing a senior US official, said the talks will focus on managing Venezuelan oil flows as sanctions are selectively eased.

Oil Coercion Campaign

The discussions follow reports that US authorities have instructed Venezuela’s what it blatantly described as “interim leadership” to prioritize American buyers and partner exclusively with US firms in oil production, while simultaneously demanding that Caracas cut economic and security ties with key allies, including China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.

Beijing has condemned the demands as “typical bullying,” warning that Washington is attempting to reshape Venezuela’s foreign relations and economic model through force and pressure.

Trump earlier claimed that Venezuela’s interim authorities had agreed to supply the United States with between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil, pledging that the proceeds would be used for the benefit of both countries.

“We’re talking about 30 to 50 million barrels of oil being turned over,” Trump said. “We’re going to use the money for the benefit of the people of both countries.”

Caracas and its allies reject that framing, arguing that any such transfers, announced in the aftermath of military pressure, maritime interdictions, and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state, amount to resource extraction under duress, regardless of claims that transactions would occur at “market prices.”

Venezuelan officials note that Washington has simultaneously enforced seizures of tankers, restricted access to non-US buyers, and threatened senior political and military figures with similar treatment, narrowing Caracas’ options while portraying the outcome as voluntary trade.

Sovereignty Under Assault

The White House has yet to release full details on the scope or conditions of the sanctions rollback. Critics, however, say the sequence of events, including military escalation, leadership seizure, recognition of an interim authority, threats against remaining officials, and rapid moves to redirect oil exports, reflects a longstanding US strategy of using sanctions and force to assert control over energy assets in resource-rich states.

For Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, officials insist that oil belongs to the Venezuelan state and its people. They argue that Washington’s actions represent an escalation from economic warfare to outright aggression, setting a precedent that threatens international norms governing sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition on the use of force to secure economic advantage.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump, and Most Americans, Do Not Understand the Monroe Doctrine

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | January 7, 2026

I want to make you a wager… I bet that 99% of Americans have never read the speech that President James Monroe made to the US Congress on December 2, 1823. As part of that speech — which was the seventh annual address to the US Congress — President Monroe outlined a policy that is now commonly referred to as the Monroe Doctrine. Understanding what President Monroe actually said has taken on more importance because Donald Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine to justify his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro. I am going to show you that President Monroe said nothing that would excuse or support Trump’s action. To the contrary, Trump is behaving like one of the old European colonial tyrants.

Trump is not the first to misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine, which is now widely interpreted in America as giving the US control of the Western Hemisphere and giving the US the right to take action against ANY foreign government that has relations with the countries of Central and South America, Mexico and Canada.

The essence of the Monroe Doctrine originally was a firm declaration to oppose European colonization of the Americas. Read carefully what Monroe said:

In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers

All US presidents in the 20th Century — including Trump — believe that the Monroe Doctrine gives the US a veto over political or economic relations that any country outside the Western Hemisphere can have with Canada, Mexico, and the countries of Central and South America. But Monroe’s focus was on European colonial imperialism. President Monroe did not declare that the US would be the final arbiter in deciding whether a country in Central or South America can voluntarily form a political or economic alliance with another country, such as China or Russia.

Monroe’s specific concern was to keep the US out of the wars that were ravaging Europe in the 19th Century. He said:

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. . . .

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

Monroe made two critical points in the preceding two paragraphs… First, the US will act only if it is attacked or threatened by European powers. Again, his concern was to keep America free of the wars among the various European powers as they sought to secure and consolidate their respective colonial ambitions. Second, Monroe insisted that the US will not interfere with existing colonies or dependencies. However, if people in Mexico, Central America or South America decided to declare independence — as did the 13 British colonies on July 4, 1776 — then any European military action against those former colonies would be viewed as an attack on the United States. In other words, the US policy proposed by Monroe gave priority to those American countries that declared independence a tacit promise that the US would support them. However, this did not grant the US the right to unilaterally insert itself into the political affairs of countries in Central and South America, nor did it empower the US to carry out regime changes in those countries simply because we did not like the new rulers or the structure of the new government.

Monroe then makes a policy statement that every US president in the 20th and 21st Century has ignored… No interference in the internal affairs of other countries:

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.

Monroe concluded his outline of the Monroe Doctrine by emphasizing that would be his policy to prevent foreign governments from forcibly imposing their political systems on countries in the Western Hemisphere:

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.

Sadly, the Monroe Doctrine has been desecrated and ignored by a bevy of Presidents, starting with President Polk in 1848. Instead of defending Mexico and our Central and South American neighbors from foreign interference, we have repeatedly behaved as an authoritarian dictator. Mexico declared independence from Spain on 16 September 1810. Thirty-six years later, the US provoked a war with Mexico by annexing Texas and manufacturing a border crisis in service of a broader expansionist project. Maybe we should christen this kind of behavior as the Polk Doctrine, i.e., only we, the US, have the right to decide what kind of government the people and nations in the Western hemisphere can have. The Monroe Doctrine was intended to combat foreign interference by imperial powers… The US has bastardized that doctrine and now uses it as an excuse to feed our own imperial ambitions. Venezuela is just the latest casualty.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

US Boarding of Marinera Vessel in Open Waters Violates UN Convention – Russia’s Transport Ministry

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

US navy forces boarded the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera at around 12:00 GMT, after which the contact with the vessel was lost, the Russian Transport Ministry said on Wednesday.

“Today around 3:00 p.m. Moscow time, in open seas outside the territorial waters of any state, US navy forces boarded the vessel, and the contact with the ship was lost,” the ministry said in a statement.

On December 24, 2025, Marinera received a temporary permit to sail under the Russian flag, issued on the basis of Russian legislation and norms of international law, the ministry added.

“In accordance with the norms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation applies on the high seas, and no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered under the jurisdiction of other states,” the ministry said.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Russian MFA Spox Dismayed by US Statement on ‘Bloodless’ Operation in Venezuela

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Wednesday expressed her surprise at Washington’s claim that its military operation in Venezuela was bloodless, pointing the US State Department to the dozens of deceased Venezuelans and Cubans.

“What do you mean by nobody died? What about the citizens of Venezuela and Cuba, are they not people? I have a question: in what dimension are we even living? I want an answer. Just the other day, Mr. Rubio [US Secretary of State] sent Christmas greetings to his Russian counterpart. I, using this opportunity, would also like to congratulate the State Department on Christmas and ask a question, when the US says that this so-called operation was bloodless, does it mean they don’t consider the citizens of Venezuela and Cuba as people? Who gave them such a right? Who gave them the right not to see the bloody consequences which they themselves have caused, which have resulted from their actions?” Zakharova said on Sputnik radio.

Zakharova also said that the UN had similarly failed to properly assess the loss of life.

“What is amazing is just as they don’t see the victims of the recent New Year’s Eve strike on a cafe in the Kherson Region, just as for many years they have not seen the Alley of Angels or the victims of the Lepestok [PFM-1] mines. In exactly the same way they did not see the citizens of Venezuela and Cuba who died there. That is dozens of people in 42 minutes,” she stated.

The remarks followed a report by the Washington Post citing unnamed officials that more than 70 people were killed during the US military operation in Venezuela on January 3.
US President Donald Trump previously expressed regret regarding the large number of people killed by the US military personnel during the operation in Venezuela.

On January 3, the US launched a massive attack on Venezuela, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and taking them to New York. Trump announced that Maduro and Flores would face trial for allegedly being involved in “narco-terrorism” and posing a threat, including to the US.

Caracas requested an emergency UN meeting over the US operation. Venezuela’s Supreme Court temporarily transferred the duties of the head of state to Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who was officially sworn in as acting president before the National Assembly on January 5.

Russia, China, and North Korea have strongly condemned the US actions. The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people and called for the release of Maduro and his wife, as well as for the prevention of further escalation of the situation.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

US seizes Russian oil tanker

RT | January 7, 2026

The US military on Wednesday seized the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera in the North Atlantic, after pursuing it all the way from the Caribbean Sea.

The vessel, previously named Bella 1, was intercepted for alleged “violation of US sanctions” in the international waters to the northwest of Scotland.

The action was taken by the US Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with the military, the US European Command has announced.

“The vessel was seized in the North Atlantic pursuant to a warrant issued by a U.S. federal court after being tracked by USCGC Munro,” it said.

The action against the tanker supports US President Donald Trump’s “proclamation targeting sanctioned vessels that threaten the security and stability of the Western Hemisphere,” the command noted. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed that the seizure of the vessel was related to the “blockade of sanctioned and illicit Venezuelan oil.”

The tanker first came into the US crosshairs after reportedly trying to approach Venezuela late last year. The US Coast Guard attempted to detain the vessel, yet the crew declined to let the Americans on board, and headed for the Atlantic. During the pursuit, the vessel changed its name and switched to the Russian flag.

Shortly after the capture of the Marinera, the US Southern Command said it had seized another vessel in the Caribbean Sea, describing it as “a stateless, sanctioned dark fleet motor tanker.”

“The interdicted vessel, M/T Sophia, was operating in international waters and conducting illicit activities in the Caribbean Sea. The US Coast Guard is escorting M/T Sophia to the US for final disposition,” the command stated.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries