Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hillary Clinton Says Pro-Palestine Protestors Don’t Know History, While She Distorts The Actual History.

The Dissident | December 3, 2025

Former Secretary of State and failed 2016 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, recently emerged from the shadows to give a condescending lecture to pro-Palestine protestors at the “Israel Hayom” conference.

At the Zionist conference, Clinton said, “Students, smart, well-educated young people from our own country, where were they getting their information? they were getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok,” adding, “That is where they were learning about what happened on October 7, what happened in the days, weeks, and months to follow. That’s a serious problem. It’s a serious problem for democracy, whether it’s Israel or the United States, and it’s a serious problem for our young people”.

She claimed that pro-Palestine protestors “did not know history, had very little context, and what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda”.

She added, “It’s not just the usual suspects. It’s a lot of young Jewish Americans who don’t know the history and don’t understand.”

Previously, when Hillary Clinton made similar statements, she elaborated on the “history” she claims pro-Palestine protestors don’t understand, namely the claim that her husband, Bill Clinton, when president, gave Palestinians a chance to “have a state of their own” and Palestinians rejected it- a blatant distortion of the actual history.

The Actual History.

In reality, Bill Clinton began negotiating his Oslo agreement between Israel and Palestine in 1993, but as Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada noted:

In 1993, Israel was compelled to accept the Oslo Accords by its failure to violently crush the First Intifada and its inability to cope with international isolation, pressure, and the economic, diplomatic, and political damage resulting from its “breaking the bones”strategy against unarmed civilian protesters and children.

The world hailed Oslo as a new era of peace, but Israel put enough loopholes in the agreement to avoid allowing an end to the occupation. Prime Minister (Yitzhak) Rabin, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for Oslo, made it abundantly clear that it was merely about separation, not Palestinian statehood.

“We do not accept the Palestinian goal of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. We believe there is a separate Palestinian entity short of a state,” he said.

Apartheid means ‘separateness’, and this is what transpired on the ground. Israeli settlements grew exponentially, and more settlers moved into the occupied territory during the “peace process” than before Oslo. Palestinians, meanwhile, were forced to police Israel’s occupation and thwart armed resistance, making apartheid cost-free for Tel Aviv.

Furthermore, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was Israeli Prime Minister from 1996-1999, is on video boasting that while Prime Minister, he sabotaged the Oslo agreements and manipulated Bill Clinton into doing so.

In the leaked video, Benjamin Netanyahu boasts that “They (Clinton administration) asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords] I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ‘67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue” adding, “from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords”.

Netanyahu went on to say, “I know what America is, America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way”.

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy noted at the time the video came out, “No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he’s even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse’s mouth.”

The following year, in 2000, when Netanyahu was out of office, Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat and the newly elected Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak met with Bill Clinton at Camp David in an attempt to resurrect the peace process that Benjamin Netanyahu had sabotaged. Hillary Clinton claims that Israel conceded every Palestinian demand for a Palestinian state, but Arafat rejected it.

This, too, is a complete distortion of history. As Muhammad Shehada noted:

In 2000, Israel made clear at Camp David that the maximum it would offer Palestinians was not a sovereign independent state, but rather three discontiguous Bantustans separated by Israeli settlements and military checkpoints without any right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Israel would retain control over Palestine’s airspace, radio, cellphone coverage, and borders with Jordan, and maintain its military bases in 13.3% of the West Bank while annexing 9% and even keeping three settlement blocks in Gaza that cut the enclave into separate pieces.

Robert Malley, Bill Clinton’s special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, who led the negotiations at Camp David, calls the claim that Yasser Arafat rejected a good deal a “myth,” adding that “the deal nevertheless didn’t meet the minimum requirements of any Palestinian leader”.

Robert Malley in the New York Times wrote that it is a myth that “Israel’s offer met most if not all of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations,” adding that under the offer at Camp David, “Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank”, “While it (Palestine) would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area” and “As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a ‘satisfactory solution,’ leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.”

As Journalist Seth Ackerman reported under the Camp David agreement,

-(Israel) would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank—while retaining “security control” over other parts—that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government

-The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert—about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex—including a former toxic waste dump.

-Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new ‘independent state’ would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

-Israel was also to have kept ‘security control’ for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt—putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

-Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an ‘end-of-conflict’ agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over, and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, who was a key part of the Camp David negotiations, admitted “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David, as well”.

Following the meeting at Camp David, as journalist Jon Schwarz noted, “Clinton had promised Arafat that he would not blame him if the talks failed. He then reneged after the summit ended. Nonetheless, the Israelis and Palestinians continued to negotiate through the fall and narrowed their differences.”

As Schwarz noted, “Clinton came up with what he called parameters for a two-state solution in December 2000,” and “the Israelis and the Palestinians kept talking in late January 2001 in Taba, Egypt,” but “it was not the Palestinians but (Ehud) Barak who terminated the discussions on January 27, a few weeks before Israeli elections.”

Following the election, as Schwarz notes, “Barak was defeated by Ariel Sharon, who did not want a Palestinian state and did not restart the talks. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the Clinton parameters ‘are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.’”

Pro- Palestinian Protestors Do Understand History, Including The History of Hillary Clinton’s War Crimes.

In reality, Hillary Clinton- being the narcissist that she is-has an issue with pro-Palestinian protestors, not because they don’t understand history, but because they understand the history of her war crimes she had committed.

At Columbia University, where Clinton teaches a class on international relations, she has been called out directly by pro-Palestine protestors for her war crimes in the Middle East.

When Hillary Clinton hosted an event at the University with Sheryl Sandberg, laundering the claims from Sandberg’s atrocity propaganda film “Screams Before Silence”, which used misinformation to launder the false claim that Hamas committed mass rape on Ocotber 7th, one student protestor correctly pointed out she was pushing atrocity propaganda, and that she had used the same propaganda to justify the 2011 regime change war in Libya, saying, “You’ve done this before…You exploited sexual violence in Libya so you could justify US militarization. If you were enraged about sexual violence, you’d be talking about the sexual violence in Palestine and the sexual violence that they endure daily”.

Indeed, in 2011, Hillary Clinton pushed debunked claims that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi ordered mass rape against civilians, which was used to justify the U.S.-led NATO regime change bombing in the country, which turned it into a failed state rife with ISIS bases and open slave markets.

While the once-prosperous country was turned into a failed state, Netanyahu cheered the regime change bombing, hoping it would lead to similar regime change in Iran.

Similarly, Sheryl Sandberg’s film that Hillary Clinton laundered has been completely discredited.

The film used supposed confessions from Palestinians as evidence that mass rape happened, but the UN later documented that the “confession” videos were extracted using torture and put out for propaganda purposes, noting, “The Commission reviewed several videos where detainees were interrogated by members of the ISF, while placed in an extremely vulnerable position, completely subjugated, when confessing to witnessing or committing rape and other serious crimes. The names and faces of the detainees were also exposed. The Commission considers the distribution of such videos, purely for propaganda purposes, to be a violation of due process and fair trial guarantees. In view of the apparent coercive circumstances of the confessions appearing in the videos, the Commission does not accept such confessions as proof of the crimes confessed.”

Furthermore, the film’s central “witness”, Rami Davidian, has been discredited even by Israeli media.

Israeli investigative journalist Raviv Drucker uncovered that Rami Davidian- who is featured heavily in the propaganda film claiming to have witnessed “mass rape”- was telling, “stories made up from beginning to end. Hair-raising stories that never, ever occurred”.

In other words, student protestors were correct that Hillary Clinton previously used false stories of mass rape to justify war in Libya and was continuing to use false stories of mass rape to justify genocide- and real mass rape by IDF soldiers- in Gaza.

As the United Nations documented, the fabricated stories of Palestinians committing mass rape on Ocotber 7th were used to justify the continuation of the genocide in Gaza, and “the sharp increase in sexual violence against Palestinian women and men … seemingly fueled by similar desire to retaliate.”

Furthermore, at another Colombia University event, a pro-Palestine protestor called out Hillary Clinton’s support for America’s criminal wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen and for continuing to cheer on war crimes and genocide in Gaza, saying, “Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, you are a war criminal, the people of Libya, the people of Iraq, the people of Syria, the people of Yemen, the people of Palestine as well as the people of America will never forgive you”.

In reality, Hillary Clinton knows that pro-Palestine protestors are well aware of her past war crimes in the Middle East, well aware of her and her husband’s distortion and lies about the Oslo Accords and Camp David, and well aware of the fact that she is manufacturing consent for genocide- and so in turn smears them.

December 11, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I was canceled by three newspapers for criticizing Israel

By Dave Seminara | Responsible Statecraft | December 9, 2025

As a freelance writer, I know I have to produce copy that meets the expectations of editors and management. When I write opinion pieces, I know well that my arguments should closely align with the publication’s general outlook. But I’ve always believed that if my views on any particular topic diverged from an outlet I’m writing for, it was acceptable to express those viewpoints in other publications.

But I’ve recently discovered that this general rule does not apply to criticism of Israel.

In fact, it appears that publications I’ve had an ongoing relationship with up until recently have canceled me for articles I wrote in other media outlets that were critical of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby in the United States.

In recent years, I penned more than 100 columns for prominent right-leaning publications, including The Wall Street Journal, the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, and The Daily Telegraph. I’ve covered woke corporations, illegal immigration, inflation, foreign policy, the State Department, censorship, Florida politics and a host of other issues. I never once pitched a column concerning Israel to the aforementioned publications because I know the editors and leadership at those outlets are staunch backers of unlimited U.S. aid to Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his merciless assault on Gaza, not to mention President Trump’s efforts to deport foreign critics of Israel, his administration, and other related issues.

I have never seen an opinion column in The Journal, City Journal or The Telegraph expressing compassion for Palestinian victims of Israel’s military assaults. In fact, quite the opposite. For example, Ilya Shapiro, a contributing editor and the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, said in a since deleted tweet, “Ethnic cleansing would be too kind for Gaza.” That comment isn’t an outlier. The prevailing wisdom at these publications is to excuse and defend the behavior of the Israeli government, regardless of the situation.

And so, when I wanted to express my disgust at the outrageous number of civilian casualties in Gaza — the Israeli military has killed at least 70,000 Palestinians according to the U.N., including more than 18,000 children — and lament the Trump administration’s efforts to deport people for criticizing Israel, I never considered pitching editors at those three publications.

Between November 2023 and May 2024, I published several columns, including for The Spectator and on my personal Substack, Unpopular Opinions, criticizing Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel. I think my critiques were mild — for example, I never categorized Israel’s actions as a genocide. Given Israel’s flagrant human rights violations, my commentaries were well within the boundaries of how most Americans feel about the carnage in Gaza. For example, in a column I wrote in November, 2023, I noted that:

“I was horrified by the October 7 Hamas attacks. And I was disgusted to see some self-proclaimed pro-Palestine advocates celebrating or justifying the barbaric attack act. This was a horrific act of terrorism, and there’s no excuse for it.”

But I added that I was disappointed with “how many conservative politicians and conservative media refuse to articulate any concern for thousands of innocent Palestinians killed or the more than one million rendered homeless.”

In subsequent columns, I criticized the Republican Party for its fixation on Israel and argued how hypocritical many on the right are in conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism in order to silence critics of the Jewish state.

None of my editors at The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph or City Journal ever said a word to me about what I wrote in these columns. But my relationships with these three outlets deteriorated rapidly and dramatically after I started covering the topic. Prior to being cut off by the Wall Street Journal, I published 34 opinion columns for them since 2017. My relationship with the opinion editor, James Taranto, was good enough that when he visited Tampa, where I live, in 2022, he and his wife took me out to dinner.

I knew where Taranto stood on Israel, having once called Rachel Corrie, an American citizen who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting Israel’s settlement policy, a “dopey… advocate for terror.” Prior to writing critically of Israel, my success rate in pitching columns to Taranto was roughly 30-40% positive. Since then, he has rejected 12 consecutive pitches, all on topics unrelated to the Middle East. Previously, he would send a generic one-liner when he rejected an idea. “I won’t be able to use this, but thanks for letting me see it.” Lately, my pitches don’t even merit a formal rejection. I went from being a regular contributor and on friendly enough terms to socialize after-hours, to being ghosted.

My apparent dismissal at City Journal, where I contributed 62 columns from 2020-2024, took longer and my editor there, Paul Beston, was kinder, but the result was the same. Rather than ignoring me, Beston would apologetically respond to my pitches weeks or even months later once the idea was too late to publish. He also stopped asking me to write columns for the website. Around the same time, the Manhattan Institute, which produces City Journal, fired prominent conservative economist Glenn Loury for being too critical of Israel, so perhaps there was a purge of Israel critics afoot. At least one other Manhattan Institute fellow who was critical of Israel, Christopher Brunet, was also fired last year.

My seeming dismissal at the rabidly pro-Israel Daily Telegraph, where I contributed 30 columns from 2023-2024, was similar to the City Journal experience. My editor there, Lewis Page, was cordial enough, but he, too, started to ignore my emails and stopped asking me to write for his publication. In one case, he asked me to write a column but then never published it.

Is it a coincidence that these three prominent, pro-Israel publications all stopped publishing me last year as I started to criticize Israel in other outlets? It’s conceivable, but quite unlikely given the zero tolerance for dissent on Israel that now permeates much of conservative media.

RS asked Taranto whether the Journal had stopped publishing me because of my views on Israel. Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot — whom I did not work with — responded that Taranto had passed on our inquiry and said, “I don’t recall ever reading a piece by Mr. Seminara on Israel or Gaza, so I have no idea what his views on those subjects are.”

Lewis Page at the Telegraph said my version of this story is “false” and that neither he nor anyone else at his publication knew that I had been critical of Israel. He added that the paper has not “consciously stopped using” my copy.

A spokesperson I do not know and never worked with at City Journal said that they are unaware of my position on Israel. Of course, I don’t expect any of these publications to say, “We stopped commissioning you because we don’t agree with your position on Israel.”

The bottom line is that my views on Israel and U.S. policy toward Israel are in line with those of the majority of Americans and even of a majority of American Jews. According to a Washington Post poll conducted in October, 69% of American Jews think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% believe it is guilty of genocide. A Pew Research poll released around the same time revealed that 59% of Americans have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. And in a September New York Times/Sienna poll, 35% of Americans said they sympathize with Israel, while 36% said they side with Palestinians.

I am not sorry for criticizing Israel even though it has cost me professionally. In fact, I was probably too cautious and diplomatic in my critiques. But I think it’s a very sad statement on conservative media when news outlets that many Republicans trust have so little tolerance for dissent on a critical issue that undermines American national interests and damages our credibility around the world.

During the crazy, cultural revolution days of 2020, when statues were being toppled and progressives were claiming scalps on a weekly basis, I thought it was just the left that embraced cancel culture and silenced enemies through intimidation. Now I know better.

Dave Seminara is a writer and former diplomat based in St. Petersburg, Florida. He’s the author of four non-fiction books, including, most recently, “Mad Travelers: A Tale of Wanderlust, Greed & the Quest to Reach the Ends of the Earth.” He vlogs about his travels on his YouTube channel, @MadTraveler.

December 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

US May Require Digital Background Checks for Tourists and Their Families

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | December 10, 2025

Foreigners planning trips to the United States may soon face one of the most extensive digital disclosure requirements ever introduced at a national border.

Under a new directive from the Trump administration, travelers will have to submit five years of their social media history along with extensive personal data before being allowed entry.

The rule, described in new documents released by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), affects even citizens of visa waiver countries such as the UK, Germany, and France.

We obtained a copy of the new documents for you here.

What was once a short online form for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is set to become a far more intrusive process.

Applicants will be expected to upload a selfie, provide every phone number and email address used over the last five years, and list relatives’ names, addresses, and birth dates. Authorities have stated that compliance will be “mandatory.”

Currently, the ESTA system is relatively straightforward: travelers pay $40 to give basic contact and emergency information, and if approved, receive permission to visit.

The proposed expansion transforms this into a digital audit of a person’s communications.

The move follows an earlier decision by the State Department in June to make some visa holders’ social media profiles publicly viewable.

Officials have justified these changes as a national security measure, saying that online behavior could reveal “anti-American activity.”

The timing of the new requirement coincides with preparations for the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympic Games, both of which will take place on US soil.

The administration argues that large international events draw heightened security risks, though the new data collection policy would apply broadly to all visitors, not only those attending the games.

It marks a shift from traditional border checks to a continuous form of data surveillance, where online activity becomes part of a traveler’s permanent record; an new precedent for global movement and personal privacy alike.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Vacates NY Ruling That Amish Cannot Have an Exemption to Vaccination Requirements

By Aaron Siri | December 10, 2025

I’m pleased to announce that the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has vacated the Second Circuit’s decision that enabled New York State to persecute the Amish for refusing to inject pharma products in violation of their religious beliefs. SCOTUS remanded the case (Miller v. McDonald) to the Second Circuit to reconsider its illiberal and unconscionable decision. A huge step in the right direction—the day the Amish are compelled to pierce their bodies in violation of their religion is the day religious freedom dies in this country.

I discussed the Amish situation further in Chapter 11 of my book, Vaccines, Amen, including how their children are far healthier than the surrounding vaccinated population:

[T]he NYS DOH decided to wage war on the Amish community, seeking to levy financially ruinous fines on them unless they vaccinate their children. My firm has the privilege of representing the three Amish schools that received these violations. The sworn court papers in this case evidenced to the Court that the families with children in these three Amish schools have a total of 168 unvaccinated children (no vaccines) and that none of these children have any of the chronic health issues that plague children in the United States.

We also provided sworn expert evidence to the Court attesting that among a random sample of 168 U.S. children, one would expect to find (based on the background rate of chronic disease among U.S. children) 31 cases of environmental allergies, 15 cases of ADHD, 10 cases of asthma, 9 cases of food allergies, and 4 cases of ASD. Yet, the 168 unvaccinated Amish children whose families New York wants to persecute are free from the chronic health conditions—all related to some form of immune system dysregulation—that plague the vaccinated communities in New York.

Since vaccination is supposedly about improving health, and the Amish who do not vaccinate are clearly healthier, one would expect the NYS DOH to leave them alone. But that is not how this religion works. The vaccine zealots in the NYS DOH cannot stand that the Amish refuse to abandon their beliefs in favor of the religious beliefs held by the NYS DOH officials regarding vaccines. The “health” officials are willing to sacrifice the way of life and belief system of these Amish children and their community, that has kept them far healthier, if they refuse to bend the knee to adopt cult-like vaccine beliefs.

These “health” officials also apparently cannot stand that the Amish children are healthier and are even willing to wage war against them until they submit and receive every vaccine New York demands—so they can be just as “healthy” as all the children outside the Amish community.

The Amish earnestly seek to avoid conflict but because violating their sincerely held religious beliefs is not an option, they have been placed in the impossible position of being required to leave New York to simply send their healthy children to Amish schools on Amish land. As of this writing, my firm, along with co-counsel, continues to litigate on behalf of the Amish to defend their freedom to practice their religion in peace.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Federal Law Allowing Hospitals to Target Good Physicians

By Jefferey Jaxen | December 10, 2025

By now, much of the public knows, or should know, not to step foot into a hospital without a trusted loved one or a patient advocate by their side. Many have heard the horror stories of hospitals holding people against their will, attempting to take children from parents for not consenting to treatments, or physicians simply acting counter to a patient’s consent.

Thanks in large part to the MAHA spirit, public efforts, and policy changes, a magnifying glass has begun to examine the inner workings of our American medical and public health systems. Key to this investigation is the need to heavily scrutinize corporate hospital entities and their secretive inner workings and that starts with HCQIA.

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) was implemented in 1986 under the need to improve key areas of healthcare. At that time, medical malpractice was on the rise. There also was a national need to provide an incentive for physicians to engage in effective peer review to address unprofessional behavior.

The idea was sound…nearly 40 years ago. Other medical professionals would serve as the watchdogs and police the behavior of their profession within hospitals. To do so, it was agreed upon and codified into HCQIA’s law that the physicians and hospitals needed protection from legal retribution while taking action to review those among them who were failing to uphold quality medical care and increase patient safety.

America wanted better and HCQIA was their vehicle to accomplish it…in 1986.

Unfortunately, the act lacked balance in key areas and began to be exploited by the changing business model of hospitals as they moved to for-profit corporate conglomerates.

As the guardians of healthcare in this country, physicians were replaced by hospital administrators. And community-based hospitals were turned into corporate entities with financial officers and responsibilities to their shareholders.

Since 1986, consolidations through mergers and acquisitions have lead to a market dominated by a few large corporate health players.

Becker’s Hospital Review ranks Kaiser Permanente’s health system at $115.8 billion in annual revenue in 2024 – number one on a list of 65 such American health system empires together accounting for nearly $800 billion in annual revenue.

A die was cast and a paradigm descended upon American healthcare which still exerts its suffocating power to this day. The legal cover that allows it is HCQIA.

Secret tribunals, lack of due process, civil rights violations, false accusations and ultimately lack of patient safety all freely live and breath thanks to the act’s loopholes exploited by corporation hospitals.

How do good physicians become targeted using an Act which was written to uphold medical care and patient safety?

HCQIA created a National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), wherein substandard physician practice or unprofessional conduct is reported. This database has been weaponized against good physicians.

Once a hospital opens a case on a physician, which can be without their knowledge, their name is added to this database which all but guarantees they will never be hired again. Besides malpractice, a separate category was added called a ‘disruptive physician,’ a purposely nebulous label which leaves medicine behind to land in quasi-human resources territory.

Would a hospital purposely investigate or punish a good physician?

An American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) publication noted:

“The recent standard promulgated by The Joint Commission regarding hospitals’ responsibility in addressing ‘Disruptive Behavior’ is purposely broadly drawn, general, vague and subjective which could allow hospital administrators to interpret it however they wish.

This standard has the potential to lead to the abuse of ‘Disruptive Physician’ charges. The concern in the physician community and registered by ACEP is that “disruptive physician” can be an [sic] easily manipulated to include a physician who properly defends patient care, exercises his/her right of free speech on political matters, seeks to improve various clinical practices, or who properly demands adherence to excellence.”

ACEP continues by saying:

“Some hospitals have learned that if they simply appear to follow the HCQIA ‘procedural cookbook,’ they can eliminate virtually any physician in the absence of any meaningful substantive due process.”

Steve Twedt, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, wrote a landmark series of articles titled The Cost of Courage: How the tables turn on doctors which outlined many cases of ‘sham peer review’ freely allowed by HCQIA.

An accompanying editorial wrote

“For many years, a fundamental principle for physicians has been popularly understood as: “First, do no harm.” These words are not in the ancient Hippocratic Oath, but they have been handed down as a rough but sensible synopsis. As it happens, fealty to the original wording is pointless, because across the nation some hospitals have reworked this noble idea. Too often for physicians who see harm being done, the operating principle is today: “First, make no waves.””

“The first order of business should be to revisit the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. Passed with the best intentions, it gave too much discretion and protection to hospital-based review panels which have too often demonstrated a tendency to shoot the physician messenger of bad tidings. Anyone who doubts this should reread the exhaustive documentation of cases cited in the “Cost of Courage.””

Hospitals caring about their bottom lines would presumably frown upon patients who’d rather not submit to rounds of chemotherapy, for parents who’d rather not have their children fully vaccinated or to hospital consumers/patients who reject taking psychiatric drugs.

For the physicians who are truly patient advocates, an ever-present shadow of faceless hospital reviewers is allowed to confidentially open a case on them with the threat of cancelling their career.

As HCQIA is written presently, those reviewers enjoy immunity from recourse, secrecy to operate, and privilege to the degree that hospitals can even withhold peer review documents from court subpoena.

Patricia Robitaille is an emergency medicine physician with extensive experience in credentialing and peer review. Currently, she is working with Dr. Coleen Rickabaugh, M.D. to advance draft legislation to significantly revise HCQIA. Below is Dr. Robitaille’s proposal to HHS and Washington lawmakers to revise HCQIA.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US defence bill legally binds Washington to counter arms embargoes on Israel

MEMO | December 10, 2025

A newly passed United States defence bill contains extraordinary provisions that would commit Washington to systematically identify, assess and ultimately compensate for any Israeli weapons shortfalls caused by international embargoes. The legislation effectively shields Israel from global attempts to restrict arms transfers, even in the face of genocide.

Buried deep within the 3,000-page National Defense Authorization Act is Section 1706, titled: “Continual Assessment of Impact of International State Arms Embargoes on Israel and Actions to Address Defense Capability Gaps.” It mandates a permanent US obligation to mitigate the effects of foreign arms restrictions imposed on Israel.

Under this provision, the Secretary of Defense is required to conduct a continual assessment of current and emerging embargoes, sanctions, or restrictions on arms transfers to Israel. This includes evaluating how such measures might create vulnerabilities in Israel’s security capabilities or undermine its so-called “qualitative military edge.”

In practical terms, if states or international bodies move to restrict Israel’s access to weapons due to its conduct in Gaza or the occupied West Bank, the US government is now legally bound to examine how these limitations weaken Israel militarily—and to act.

Section 1706 does not stop at analysis. It obligates Washington to identify specific weapons systems or technologies that Israel can no longer acquire, sustain or modernise due to such embargoes, and then to devise practical ways of filling the gap.

The legislation tasks the Pentagon and the State Department with leading this effort, which may include removing bureaucratic barriers to foreign military sales, expanding the US industrial base to supply alternative systems, increasing joint research and production of defence technologies, and enhancing military training and logistics cooperation.

In effect, if Israel is prohibited from acquiring a weapons system from another supplier, the United States will manufacture a replacement, expedite sales or adapt its military-industrial output to meet Israeli needs.

The section mandates that these assessments must be updated “not less than once every 180 days,” establishing a biannual review cycle that guarantees Israel uninterrupted military capacity regardless of international opposition.

At a moment when global scrutiny is intensifying over Israel’s military operations in Gaza—including allegations of mass civilian casualties, enforced starvation and the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure—Section 1706 functions as a form of political and logistical insurance, effectively insulating Israel from global accountability.

Such embargoes are typically employed to pressure governments engaged in serious human rights violations. In Israel’s case, they would be rendered largely symbolic. Washington would be legally required to compensate for any capacity lost due to international censure.

This provision comes on top of billions of dollars in ongoing US funding for Israel’s missile defence systems, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow 3, all of which are supported by direct appropriations and technology-sharing agreements within the same legislation.

Critics argue that Section 1706 represents a structural guarantee of Israeli military dominance, regardless of Israel’s conduct or global condemnation. By obligating the US to counteract embargoes, the bill does more than offer aid—it effectively integrates Israel’s military needs into US strategic planning and shields it from international accountability mechanisms used against other states.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Threatens ICC With Sanctions Over Future Investigations – Report

Sputnik – 10.12.2025

The Trump administration has threatened the International Criminal Court (ICC) with potential sanctions if it does not amend its founding documents to exclude President Donald Trump and his top officials from future investigations, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing an administration official.

In addition to its pledge not to target the US, the Trump administration also demands that the ICC halt existing investigations into Israel and American military actions in Afghanistan, the report said.

In return for these concessions, the Trump administration is prepared to forgo additional sanctions on court officials and refrain from sanctioning the court itself, according to the report.

Washington has conveyed its demands to ICC members and directly to the court, which has 125 members, the report added.

The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 2002 with powers to prosecute heads of state.

In recent years, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for several world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These decisions have been criticized. Some states, such as Hungary, decided to withdraw from the ICC.

On February 6, Trump signed the executive order on sanctions against the ICC for its actions against Washington and its allies, including Israel. The order states that the US will take significant measures against those “responsible for the ICC’s transgressions.” Some of the measures include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the US for ICC staff and their family members.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

European Leaders ‘Willing to Pay for Their Hubris With Ukrainian Lives’

Sputnik – 10.12.2025

Ukrainians “who are being used as cannon fodder for Europeans pushing a failing narrative” have become the “greatest victims of this conflict,” London-based foreign affairs analyst Adriel Kasonta tells Sputnik while commenting on Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent statements to the Russian parliament.

“Thus far, these leaders are willing to pay for their hubris with Ukrainian lives,” Kasonta laments.

He also observes that, while European economies “are declining, and the cost-of-living crisis continues to worsen,” European elites refuse to acknowledge their mistakes – as it could discredit them politically – and instead opt to “double down on their hostile posture toward Moscow.”

In the meantime, Donald Trump essentially acknowledged the previous US administration’s “miscalculation” and had a change of heart on the Ukrainian conflict issue.

For his part, French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon adds that the EU policy of fighting for Ukraine is part of a strategy aimed at stripping Russia of much of its land and power, and that “and it is not likely to change unless it becomes totally impossible for the Europeans to continue.”

Even if the powers that be in Ukraine agree to a peace deal, the European leadership believes that there will be a confrontation with Russia in the future, he warns.

Globalization Shaped Entirely by West is No Longer Effective

Western-led globalization is a no-goer as it is increasingly “dominated by factors that are outside Europe and to an extent outside the West, because even the U·S now has to make major concessions to China,” French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon tells Sputnik.

He further speculated that there may be “some sort of reconnection between Russia, America, and Europe,” and that “an understanding or an agreement reached between the United States and Russia in the coming months or years would be the first step in bringing together the West again in a defense of its general interest.”

Global institutions like BRICS and their architects created “an alternative to the predatory institutions of the Bretton Woods system,” allowing nations to trade “on an equal footing” instead of suffering from exploitation, London-based foreign affairs analyst Adriel Kasonta adds.

“China has demonstrated that an alternative model of development is possible — one that is more beneficial for sustainable growth,” he notes.

This model, Kasonta explains, promotes a “win-win situation rather than the debt enslavement of weaker nations by Western powers,” whereas the dynamics imposed by the West “keep countries dependent and perpetually indebted, rendering the idea of genuine decolonization little more than a façade.”

The West Fears ‘Alternative Views That Challenge Their Narrative’

Europe is “becoming increasingly intolerant of and afraid of outside information channels that provide very distinct viewpoints and open minds to other perspectives,” Come Carpentier de Gourdon tells Sputnik.

The European leadership, he suggests, is especially fearful Russian media like RT and Sputnik, which “project a very different perspective and show facts that Europeans, are generally left to ignore.”

One such example of the information Europe was keen to suppress was the warnings about the risks of NATO’s expansion to the east and “the circumstances of the Ukraine conflict” that did not fit into the official Western narrative.

“The fact that Russian media are exposing a lot of these facts and also are exposing a lot of the things that are very wrong in the structure of the European Union and in American policy, in the American society and in the American political system, that is what generates a very hostile reaction with the attempt to ban any such information which is regarded as hostile propaganda,” De Gourdon says.

For his part, Adriel Kasonta adds that the West’s fear of alternative views “manifests as hostility toward free speech,” which drives Europeans “to engage” with outlets like RT and Sputnik.

“Western leaders adopt a paternalistic attitude toward their citizens, believing they cannot discern between truth and falsehood,” he remarks.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Do You Believe in Coincidence… Was the CIA Involved in Operation Spiderweb and Israel’s June 12 Attack on Iran?

By Larry C. Johnson | December 9, 2025 

With the benefit of hindsight, we’re all geniuses. The Wall Street Journal article, Inside Ukraine’s Daring Operation Spiderweb Attack on Russia (published December 8, 2025) details the operation’s planning as a 18-month effort starting in late 2023, with significant activities ramping up in 2024. While the piece emphasizes the full timeline’s secrecy and oversight by President Zelenskyy and SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk, it highlights 2024 as a pivotal year for infiltration, testing, and logistics preparation. I am more interested in what it does not state outright — i.e., that Ukraine relied heavily on Western intelligence, meaning the CIA and British MI-6, in planning this operation.

The attack took place on June 1st, 2025 and, despite a flood of Western propaganda touting it as a tremendous success, it was a tactical and strategic failure — i.e., it did not damage Russia’s ability to continue its offense in Ukraine. But here is the question of coincidence… Two weeks later, Israel launched the decapitation attack on Iran, which also failed to topple the Iranian government and cripple the Iranian military, who promptly retaliated. Do you think it is just a coincidence that Israel and Ukraine used similar tactics — i.e., launching drones from within Russia and Iran to attack strategic targets? I do not.

Let’s take a look at the timeline of Operation Spiderweb as laid out in the WSJ article.

December 2023: Planning begins under direct oversight of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). Initial focus: Smuggling disassembled drones, batteries, and explosives into Russia via borders (e.g., Belarus, Black Sea routes) and commercial trucking networks. Goal: Target Russia’s strategic bomber fleet to disrupt missile launches on Ukrainian cities. Hmmm… If the SBU was involved then so was foreign intelligence.

Early 2024 (January–March): Initial scouting and prototype testing. Ukrainian operatives conducted reconnaissance of target airbases (e.g., Olenya, Dyagilevo) using commercial satellite imagery and smuggled spotters, according to the WSJ. In my opinion, an audacious operation like this would also require imagery from Western intelligence. The WSJ is mute on that point. The article notes that early experiments with “spider nest” launch mechanisms—disassembled FPV drones (Osa quadcopters) hidden in truck roofs— were tested in simulated Russian environments near the border. This phase reportedly involved ~20 commandos refining smuggling routes via Belarus and the Black Sea, with failures (e.g., a test drone malfunction) leading to redesigns. The WSJ article conveniently ignores the likely role that the territories other than Ukraine, such as Khazakstan, Armenia and Azerbaijan also were used as infiltration points for this operation.

Mid-2024 (April–July): Infiltration buildup. The WSJ describes “web-like” networks expanding, with agents embedding in Russian trucking firms to map logistics. Over 100 drones were smuggled in parts during this period, reassembled in hidden workshops (e.g., Bryansk region sheds). A key activity was recruiting unwitting Russian truckers (e.g., via bribes or coercion) for transport, with the article citing intercepted FSB chatter revealing early suspicions but no disruptions. Zelenskyy approved budget reallocations (~$50M) for Western tech integration (e.g., Starlink relays). What do you think are the chances that some of this money was siphoned off by Zelensky and his intel bubbas and sent to their overseas retirement accounts?

Late 2024 (August–December): Final rehearsals and positioning. Intensive dry runs simulated the June 1 strike, focusing on simultaneous launches across time zones. The piece highlights a December 2024 “dress rehearsal” near Ivanovo, where signal jamming countermeasures (AI autopilots) were validated. By year-end, all 117 drones were prepositioned, with operatives establishing safe houses. The article quotes an anonymous SBU officer: “2024 was the spider spinning its web—silent, patient, invisible.”

January–May 2025 Infiltration phase: Ukrainian agents (150+ operatives, including commandos and drone technicians) establish “spider nests” (hidden launch sites) across five Russian oblasts spanning three time zones. Drones (117 total, FPV models with Western tech like Starlink) are reassembled in disguised cargo (e.g., wooden sheds on trucks). Scouting identifies four primary airbases: Olenya (Murmansk), Dyagilevo (Ryazan), Ivanovo Severny (Ivanovo), and Belaya (Irkutsk/Siberia, 4,300 km from Ukraine). A fifth target (Ukrainka in Amur) is aborted due to a truck fire.

June 1, 2025 Execution: Coordinated strikes unfold over ~72 hours starting ~1 p.m. local time. Remotely activated truck roofs release drones, hitting ~40–50 aircraft (15–20 destroyed, including Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3 bombers, and A-50 radar planes; ~$2–7B in damage). Fires reported at all sites; Russia confirms attacks but claims minimal losses. Ukrainian operators control from Kyiv; no SBU fatalities, though two teams captured.

There is no denying that this was a sophisticated operation and, in my judgment, depended heavily on intelligence support from the US and the UK and, possibly, Israel. Why Israel? Because of the similarity of the tactics used in the attacks on Russia and Iran within a span of two weeks. Both were deep-penetration operations targeting high-value, hardened assets far from the front lines. Both required extensive intelligence support.

I also believe that the US played a significant role in coordinating the two attacks as part of a broader strategy to weaken both Russia and Iran. The planning for these operations were carried out in separate channels, but there was someone, or a group of someones, overseeing the broader strategic goals.

The publication of this article comes at a time when the Trump administration’s support for Ukraine is weakening. I don’t rule out the possibility that the CIA, who has an enormous investment in Ukraine, is working to undermine Trump’s efforts to secure a peace that will come at Ukraine’s expense. I do not believe that some intrepid reporter thought that this would be a swell story to tell and that it was published now just because the WSJ had nothing better to report. I believe this is part of a unending effort by the Deep State to try to pump life into Project Ukraine, which is now on life support and fading fast, by pushing a narrative that Ukraine is far from defeat.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Europe heed America’s warnings over ‘civilizational erasure’?

By George Samuelson | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 10, 2025

A new national security document released by the Trump administration last week warned that Europe is facing civilizational suicide and will be “unrecognizable in 20 years or less” due to illegal immigration that has made European powers militarily vulnerable.

The 33-page document, titled National Security Strategy, lays out President Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy agenda and argues the United States should focus its efforts on securing the Western Hemisphere.

The document’s section on Europe begins with a brief mention of some of the continent’s best-known perennial problems, including “insufficient military spending” and “economic stagnation” before saying that Europe’s real problems “are even deeper.”

Europe’s economic decline takes a backseat to the real prospect of what DC policymakers refer to as “civilizational erasure,” caused in part by “migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife,” it said.

The document also mentioned the censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence that are happening across the 27-member bloc.

Just last week, the European Commission slapped a massive fine against X (formerly known as Twitter) in a ham-fisted effort to censor Elon Musk’s social media platform, while exactly one year ago the eastern European nation of Romania was thrown into chaos after the far-right pro-Russian populist Călin Georgescu had his presidential victory annulled due to – yes, you guessed it – ‘Russian interference’ and other supposed electoral irregularities.

Just before the Romanian elections, Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov made a startling claim that the head of France’s foreign intelligence agency Nicolas Lerner asked him to ban far-right conservatives on his platform ahead of the country’s elections, a request he says he flatly refused.

The conclusion the document makes in light of these and other dangerous developments was straightforward: if present trends continue, “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.”

This is a serious concern for the United States, of course, plagued as it also is with rampant illegal migration. How can the United States and the European Union remain reliable allies when there could eventually be a yawning chasm separating the two powers? After all, in just a few decades the European Union may be comprised of majority non-European civilians who may be tempted to question whether they view their friendship with Washington in the same way as those who signed the NATO Charter.

Looked at from such a perspective, it is obvious why the Trump administration is adamant that ‘Europe remain European,’ despite the fact that the chances for that happening are about zero.

Critics responded to the document’s central thesis by saying it is espousing “anti-Semitic” conspiracy theories, such as the “Great Replacement Theory” that says White people are being deliberately replaced in the Western hemisphere by immigrants from majority non-White nations, particularly from Africa and the Middle East.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly slammed the comparison, calling it “total nonsense.”

The devastating impacts of unchecked migration, and those migrants’ inability to assimilate, are not just a concern for President Trump, but for Europeans themselves, who have increasingly noted immigration as one of their top concerns. These open border policies have led to widespread examples of violence, spikes in crime, and more, with detrimental impacts on the fiscal sustainability of social safety net programs.

Such a grim reality comes as no surprise to many people, least of all former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Europe’s primary architect of mass migration who admitted one decade ago that multiculturalism was a “sham” that does nothing to improve a society.

“Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ or a sham,” she said, before making the empty promise that Germany “will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”

Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced five years earlier when she said multiculturalism in Germany had “utterly failed.”

“Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘Let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.’ But this concept has failed, and failed utterly,” she said in 2010. Why Merkel ever imagined that things would not turn out exactly as they did remains one of the great mysteries of modern European politics. Or perhaps she did know, but completely lacked the political will to resist the insurmountable pressure she was facing at the time. It is no surprise that the EU elite were very much in favor of open borders, as many remain so today.

Whatever the case may be, one other thing is worth noting about this document – Moscow has expressed favor with its provisions.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday that the changes “correspond in many ways to our vision”.

He also welcomed language about ending “the perception and reality of the NATO military alliance as a perpetually expanding alliance”. Moscow has long voiced its opposition to NATO expansion, citing its national security concerns.

At the same time, Peskov cautioned that the position of what he called the U.S. “deep state” – a term Donald Trump has used to accuse officials who he believes are working to undermine his political agenda – may differ from Trump’s new security strategy. Time will tell.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Honduran president accuses Trump of ‘election manipulation’

Al Mayadeen | December 10, 2025

Honduran President Xiomara Castro accused US President Donald Trump of direct interference in her country’s presidential elections, condemning what she termed election manipulation in Honduras’s disputed presidential race.

The controversy centers on the November 30 presidential election, where vote counting has been plagued by repeated computer system failures that have delayed final results. Trump-backed conservative Nasry Asfura currently holds 40.53 percent of votes, followed closely by right-wing candidate Salvador Nasralla with 39.16 percent, according to the National Electoral Council. Both candidates significantly outpace Castro’s left-wing Libre party candidate, Rixi Moncada.

Nasralla has challenged the results as fraudulent, claiming he actually leads by 20 percent and demanding a comprehensive recount. Speaking at a rally, Castro praised voters’ determination but alleged the election was marred by threats, coercion, manipulation of the preliminary results system, and tampering with voter intentions.

Castro specifically accused Trump of interference, noting his threats of consequences if Hondurans voted for Moncada. Trump openly endorsed Asfura as a “friend of freedom” while dismissing Nasralla as merely “pretending to be an anti-communist.”

In a stunning move, Trump also pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a 45-year US prison sentence for facilitating the trafficking of hundreds of tons of cocaine.

More than a week after voting concluded, thousands of ballots with irregularities await review. The Libre party has called for total election annulment and urged protests, while election officials have until December 30 to declare a winner under Honduran law. The Trump administration maintains the election was fair and rejects calls for annulment.

Trump’s unprecedented election meddling

Trump’s involvement in Honduras represents an extraordinary breach of diplomatic norms. Days before the election, he issued explicit warnings that the United States would cut off financial support if Asfura lost, stating on Truth Social that the US would not throw “good money after bad” if a candidate he deemed “communist” took power.

The Trump administration employed Cold War rhetoric, labeling Moncada and Nasralla as “communists” or “borderline communists” allied with Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. Beyond aid threats, Trump leveraged the possibility of mass deportations and blocking remittances, which constitute approximately 25 percent of Honduras’ GDP.

Moncada noted that text messages were circulated warning voters that December remittances would not arrive if the wrong candidate won, creating panic in a population heavily dependent on these funds.

The impact proved measurable. Ricardo Romero Gonzales, who runs an independent polling company, reported that Nasralla held a nine-point lead before Trump’s endorsement. After Trump intervened, the candidates reached a virtual tie. Roughly one-third of Hondurans have family in the United States, making Trump’s threats particularly potent.

José Ignacio Cerrato López, a 62-year-old retiree, told the New York Times that he initially planned to vote for Nasralla but switched to Asfura after Trump’s statement. “Trump said he was going to make things worse,” Cerrato López explained, citing fears about deteriorating bilateral relations.

The Trump corollary: A new doctrine of hemispheric control

Trump’s Honduras intervention exemplifies what his 2025 National Security Strategy terms the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. Unlike the original 1823 doctrine preventing European colonization, Trump’s version asserts US rights to intervene directly in Latin American domestic politics to prevent influence by “non-Hemispheric competitors,” specifically China, or ideologies deemed hostile to US interests.

Under Castro, Honduras severed ties with Taiwan and established relations with China in 2023, opening the door for Chinese infrastructure investment. By backing Asfura, Trump aims to install a government that will reverse or freeze these projects, viewing Asfura as the “checkmate” to Beijing’s regional influence.

A pattern of historical intervention

Trump’s interference continues a century-long pattern of US meddling in Honduras, often called the quintessential “Banana Republic” due to historical dominance by US fruit companies.

During the 1980s Reagan administration, Honduras became known as “USS Honduras,” serving as the staging ground for the proxy war against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. The CIA trained Battalion 316, a death squad responsible for kidnapping, torturing, and disappearing nearly 200 activists.

More recently, the 2009 military coup against President Manuel Zelaya, who had moved closer to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, received tacit US support. While the Obama administration officially condemned the coup, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to designate it a “military coup,” allowing aid to continue.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

The National-Security Establishment’s Message to Americans

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | December 9, 2025

It’s easy to assume that with its drug-war killings in the Caribbean, the Pentagon is sending a message only to Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro: “We can kill your citizens with impunity and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it.”

In actuality, however, the Pentagon is sending the same message to the American people: “We can kill anyone we want, including American citizens, and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it.”

There are lots of commentators in the mainstream press pointing out the manifest illegality of intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately killing people on the high seas who U.S. officials are saying have violated the U.S. government’s drug laws. They are pointing out that the killings amount to state-sponsored murder. Under U.S. law and under the U.S. Constitution, federal officials are not permitted to kill people who are suspected of violating drug laws. Law-enforcement personnel are required to instead take them into custody, secure a grand-jury indictment, and prosecute them in a court of law, where they have the right to a lawyer, a jury trial, and other procedural guarantees.

But remember: This isn’t the DEA we are talking about. This is the U.S. national-security establishment — that is, the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial empire, the CIA, and the NSA— we are talking about. Once they become a law-enforcement agency for the drug war, everything changes. That’s because they are not bound by the same rules as regular federal law-enforcement agencies. They are not bound by any rules whatsoever. That’s what the Pentagon is reminding every American with its drug-war killings in the Caribbean.

Once the U.S. government was converted into a national-security state after World War II, the new national-security establishment — specifically, the Pentagon and the CIA — automatically acquired the power of assassination. Recognizing this reality, the federal judiciary made it crystal clear that it would never enforce the Constitution against the Pentagon’s and CIA’s omnipotent power to assassinate people, including American citizens.

Thus, no one could do anything about the national-security establishment’s plots to assassinate people like Congo leader Patrice Lumumba, Cuban president Fidel Castro, Dominican Republic leader Rafael Trujillo, Chilean general Rene Schneider, and, more recently, Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

There was also nothing that anyone could do about the coups that would very possibly leave foreign leaders dead, such as Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, and Chilean president Salvador Allende.

There was also nothing anyone could do about the national-security’s establishment’s participation in international assassination rings, such as Operation Condor.

The message has always been clear: “We can kill anyone we want, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Our power over you is total and complete. Accept it and get used to it.”

The message became clearer when they took out President John F. Kennedy, who had taken them on, and then crammed down American throats the “lone-nut, magic-bullet” theory of the assassination, which was always about as lame, inane, and ridiculous as labeling drug-war suspects “terrorist enemy combatants” or, for that matter, the use of scary WMDs to justify a war of aggression against Iraq, or some “attack” on the United States in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a deadly, destructive, and senseless war in Vietnam. But Americans have always been expected to buy it all, no matter how ludicrous, and many of them deferentially have.

More recently, we shouldn’t forget their assassinations of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman. They were American citizens, not foreigners. It was another powerful message to the American people: “We can kill anyone we want and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Accept it, embrace it, and get used to it. And don’t forget to thank us for our service.”

It’s probably also worth mentioning the federal judiciary’s deference to the authority of the national-security establishment to take American citizens into custody simply by labeling them as “suspected terrorists,” torture them, incarcerate them for the rest of their lives without a trial, and, no doubt, even execute them. That’s what the Jose Padilla case was all about.

So what if those drug-war killings in the Caribbean are illegal, as those commentators in the mainstream press are saying? What difference does it make? Everyone, and especially the national-security establishment, knows that nobody can do anything about it. That’s the powerful message that the U.S national-security establishment is sending to the American people: “We can illegally kill anyone we want, including Americans, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We are in charge. We have total and complete control over you because we can kill you whenever we want, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.”

After all, who is going to prosecute the Pentagon and CIA killers? The Justice Department? Don’t make me laugh. The Justice Department is subordinate to the Pentagon and the CIA. The Congress? Again, please don’t make me laugh harder. Congress has long deferred to the power and majesty of the national-security establishment, especially when we consider the large number of loyal and “patriotic” military veterans and CIA officers serving in Congress. The federal judiciary? When have they ever done anything about the national-security establishment’s assassinations or, for that matter, its torture and indefinite detention camp in Cuba?

Make no mistake about it: As comforting as it might be to Americans that those illegal drug-war killings are taking place “over there” against Latin American foreigners, the fact is that the national-security establishment’s omnipotent power to kill suspected “narco-terrorists” extends to everyone right here in the United States. When the right time comes to demonstrate this point to American citizens, my hunch is that we will see lots of shocked, frightened, deferential, silent, dependent, and even supportive American sheep.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »