TSA Controls Public Transit: Orders Americans To Wear Masks On Buses And Trains
MassPrivateI | August 26, 2021
For years, Edward Hasbrouck of “Papers Please” has been sounding the alarm over the TSA and DHS. And yours truly, has published numerous articles warning the public about the continued expansion of said organizations under the guise of the War on Terror.
Last week the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the TSA is requiring Americans to wear masks on public transit.
“Passengers will be required to wear masks on the nation’s trains, buses, airplanes and airports through Jan. 18 under a federal mandate extended Tuesday by the Biden administration.”
This is a privacy advocate’s worst fear. What was once considered “fake news” by our mass media is now a reality. This is not a CDC request, it is a TSA federal mandate, which essentially means that the TSA is now in control of America’s public transit.
How does a news agency like the San Francisco Chronicle just rubber-stamp a federal power grab of our public transportation networks and simply say; “the purpose of TSA’s mask directive is to minimize the spread of COVID-19 on public transportation.”
Is this an admission that the TSA is controlling our public transit agencies?
The TSA’s website matter-of-factly states that all transportation networks must require Americans to wear face masks.
“TSA has extended the face mask requirement for all transportation networks, including public transportation, through January 18, 2022. TSA’s initial face mask requirement went into effect on February 1, 2021 with an expiration date of May 11, 2021 and was then extended through September 13, 2021.”
A red flag in the TSA’s “mask mandate” is how they claim to have the power to fine public transit agencies that fail to comply.
“While this announcement extends the date of enforcement, all other aspects of the requirement remain unchanged, including exemptions and civil penalties.”
How can the TSA fine public transit agencies? How can the TSA essentially force public transit agencies into complying with their mandate[s]?
For years, we have watched the DHS/TSA install CCTV cameras and microphones on buses, bus stations, trains and train stations. As I wrote about in 2015, the TSA is using CCTV cameras to spy on commuters billions of times every year.
In New York, NICE has installed ten TSA/DHS surveillance cameras inside and outside their transit buses.
“Other features include: a transparent barrier by the fare box to shield drivers from attacks; 10 video cameras mounted inside and outside buses to record incidents and accidents; and lights on the sides of buses to help drivers see adjoining travel lanes better.”
All of those “public safety” CCTV cameras and surveillance systems come at a huge cost to our privacy. Public transit agencies who have used federal funds to upgrade their buses, trains etc., appear to be obligated to obey TSA mandates under the “FTA Master Agreement.”
And what makes the FTA Master Agreement so worrisome is that it does not have an expiration date.
“This Master Agreement does not have an Expiration Date. This Master Agreement continues to apply to the Recipient and its Underlying Agreement, until modified or superseded by a more recently enacted or issued applicable federal law, regulation, requirement, or guidance, or Amendment to this Master Agreement or the Underlying Agreement.”
The “procurement” page of Section 16 (f) basically says that public transit agencies can only purchase federally approved (surveillance) buses.
“In-State Bus Dealer Restrictions. The Recipient agrees that any state law requiring buses to be purchased through in-state dealers will not apply to purchases of vehicles supported with federal assistance appropriated or made available for 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, as provided in 49 U.S.C. § 5325(i).”
And subsection L basically says that public transit agencies must agree to turn buses, trains and stations into federally approved public surveillance platforms.
“National Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and Standards. The Recipient agrees to conform to the National Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture requirements of 23 U.S.C. § 517(d).”
According to Section 18. “Rights in Data and Copyrights” (f), if the public catches transit agencies abusing people’s civil rights, they cannot sue the federal government for providing the surveillance equipment.
“Hold Harmless. Upon request by the Federal Government, the Recipient agrees that if it intentionally violates any proprietary rights, copyrights, or right of privacy, and if its violation under the preceding section occurs from any of the publication, translation, reproduction, delivery, use or disposition of subject data, then it will indemnify, save, and hold harmless the Federal Government against any liability.”
And if you’re thinking the FTA Master Agreement cannot possibly be used by the TSA to gain controlling interest in public transit agencies, it appears that the Feds have figured out a way to do just that
Section 19. “Use of Real Property, Equipment, and Supplies” basically lays it out in plain English or as plain as this master agreement can.
“Federal Interest. The Recipient agrees that the Federal Government retains a federal interest in all real property, equipment, and supplies acquired or improved for use in connection with a Project (Project property) until, and to the extent that, the Federal Government removes its federal interest.”
“Satisfactory Continuing Control. It will maintain continuing control of the use of its Project property as satisfactory to FTA, which is defined as the legal assurance that Project property will remain available to be used for its originally authorized purpose throughout its useful life or until disposition.”
I am not an attorney and I admit that the legal jargon quoted in the FTA Master Agreement can be interpreted any number of ways. But the takeaway from this story is, how the hell did the TSA manage to gain controlling interest of our public transit agencies? And why isn’t this headline news instead of just a matter-of-fact news story that has gone largely unnoticed?
Hopefully my version of a 1980’s pop song will put the TSA taking control our public transit into perspective.
“You may ask yourself, well, how did we get here? Letting the days go by, letting the TSA pat me down. Into the blue again, after our civil rights are gone. Letting the TSA take our rights away, into the silent sky. You may ask yourself, where does that road lead to? You may ask yourself, am I right, or are the Feds wrong? You may say to yourself, my GOD, what have we done to America? The Feds are lying to us, Al-Qaida isn’t after us. Letting the lies go by, letting the lies go by, letting the lies go by, once in a lifetime.” (lyrics by J. Cadillic based on original lyrics by: Once in a Lifetime by the Talking Heads.)
I changed the words of the original song to make a point: nothing good will come from letting the TSA take control of public transit.
You cannot be forced to get the Covid vaccine. Here is the way out.
By Meryl Nass, MD | August 26, 2021
Let me show you how FDA, Pfizer and BioNTech colluded to fool everyone about the EUA status of the vaccine Americans will be offered. But close reading of their document gives you an escape route.
The “Fact Sheet for Recipients, “dated August 23, 2021, is approved by FDA and is on FDA’s website, and is signed by BioNTech and Pfizer.
Direct quotes from this easy to read 8 page document are below, and I suggest you print the document out, as it will help you avoid a vaccine mandate. Pay close attention. I added numbers to the most interesting excerpts.
After stating that you might receive the licensed vaccine or a vaccine under EUA in item 2, item 6 indicates that both the licensed vaccine AND the EUA vaccine are both under EUA. (This may be the way chosen to shield the licensed vaccine from liability.) Item 5 says that while under EUA, it is your choice whether or not to receive the vaccine.
Show this document to your college, your hospital, your boss. They cannot force you to receive either of these vaccines!
—————–
1. The FDA-approved COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series.[1]
2. You are being offered either COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2.
3. The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.
4. WHAT IF I DECIDE NOT TO GET COMIRNATY (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA) OR THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
5. Under the EUA, it is your choice to receive or not receive the vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.
6. This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.
Manufactured by Pfizer Inc., New York, NY 10017
Manufactured for BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH An der Goldgrube 12 55131 Mainz, Germany LAB-1451-7.2 Revised: 23 August 2021
Washington school introduced invasive ankle bracelets for COVID tracing
Parents push back
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | August 25, 2021
A public high school in the state of Washington was making student athletes, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, wear ankle monitors for the purposes of social distancing and contact tracing.
The story was brought to the spotlight by the mother of a 15-year-old girl in Eatonville High School’s volleyball team.
Speaking to The Post Millennial, the mother said that her daughter sent her a text about being asked to wear the ankle monitor. After being unable to reach her daughter again, presumably because she was playing, the mother called the school, but no one answered her questions. So she decided to go to the school where she spoke with the coach who told her that a meeting about an ankle monitoring program for students was held last week.
The device was manufactured by a tech firm called Triax. The company’s website states that the device’s purpose is to help in “maintaining social distancing guidelines” as well as “real-time insight into whether these guidelines are being observed.” The site mentions construction and manufacturing businesses as potential customers, not schools.
The device achieves its social distancing goal through “a visual and audible alarm, so individuals know when to adjust their current distance to a proper social distance.”
The device also has a feature for “passive collection of worker interactions for contact tracing should an individual test positive.”
The coach, Gavin Kralik, told the mother that if an unvaccinated student tested positive, they would have to quarantine for 14 days. The quarantine policy would not apply for vaccinated students.
The ankle monitoring policy was not included in the school district’s back-to-school documents. Additionally, the mother was not informed about the meeting, where, apparently, she would have been provided with the option to opt-out of the program.
In an interview Tuesday on The Ari Hoffman Show, the mother expressed her concern that the program would result in the discrimination of unvaccinated students, because, unlike the vaccinated students, they would have to go into isolation for 14 days.
The Eatonville School District Superintendent Gary Neal insisted that the purpose of the device was not discrimination.
Neal told The Post Millennial : “We received grant funding (known as ESSER III) that specifically included provisions to support higher-risk athletic programs, and we used some of those funds to pay for athletic proximity monitors. We are using these monitors for high contact and moderate indoor contact sports. The monitors are for both staff (coaches) and students on the field, regardless if they are vaccinated or unvaccinated. If a student or coach tests positive, we will have immediate information regarding athletes’ and coaches’ contacts, so we can more tightly determine who might need to quarantine.”
But the School Board Director Matt Marshall had a different message, saying that the school district has “shelved the devices until proper procedures including community input and board approval process occur.”
“I will fight any requirements that segregate students based on vaccination status,” he added. “I am confident the rest of my colleagues will do the same.”
NHS plans Covid-19 vaccination for 12-year-olds that would NOT require parental permission – reports
RT | August 26, 2021
The UK National Health Service (NHS) has reportedly made plans to vaccinate children as young as 12 without the need for their parents’ permission – a plan that government advisers have not yet supported.
Under the NHS’ plan, children between the ages of 12 and 15 would start being vaccinated in less than two weeks’ time after returning to school following the summer holidays, according to The Telegraph, which obtained emails sent by the NHS’ regional offices. The newspaper also reported on Thursday that the children “would not need parental consent” to get vaccinated.
Though Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine has been approved in the UK for children aged 12 and over, the Department of Health said on Wednesday that a decision on the vaccination of young children had not yet been made.
Government advisers on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have been reviewing whether to approve widespread vaccination of children, but had earlier said only children with certain health conditions would receive jabs.
Earlier this month, England’s deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, expressed his support for the vaccination of under 18s, claiming to be “very much in favour” of 16- and 17-year-olds getting jabbed.
Vam-Tam also said that it was “more likely rather than less likely” that the number of children between the ages of 12 and 15 who were eligible to get vaccinated would soon expand.
News of the NHS’ plan angered many people on social media who pointed out that the risk vs reward conclusion for vaccinating young children was still uncertain.
Reform Party leader Richard Tice called the plan “shocking” while pub entrepreneur Hugh Osmond called it “grotesque.” Conservative academic Adrian Hilton – a former adviser to Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove – pointed out that “12-year-olds cannot consent to a medical procedure.”
Other Brits protested that “the government does not own my child” and threatened to pull their children out of public schooling.
Some supported the idea, with one Welsh social media user stating that she agreed 12- to 15-year-olds “can consent” and are “mature enough to make that call,” but thought it should be “done near to medical care like mine was, not in school.”
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises all Americans aged 12 and over to get vaccinated against Covid-19. Roughly 600,000 children between the ages of 12 and 15 were vaccinated in less than a week after Pfizer’s vaccine was approved for under 16s in May.
Many European Union countries have also started vaccinating children, with the EU approving Pfizer for 12- to 15-year-olds in May and Moderna in July.
YouTube censors Gavin Newsom critic, Errol Webber
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 26, 2021
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is currently facing recall in his state and could realistically lose, is still popular among at least one “demographic” – YouTube censors, whether they’re automated or human.
At least that transpires now that Oscar winning filmmaker Errol Webber is facing what reports say is “double censors” because he’s really not fond of the Democrat’s track record in office.
Webber won his Oscar for “Music by Prudence” that deals with a singer with disabilities in Zimbabwe. Back in California, though, Webber decided to flex his apparently stellar documentary-making muscle by taking on a project under the title, “100 Reasons to Recall Gavin Newsom” that looks into all the things that Newsom did wrong during his three years in office, reports say.
This is where things came to a screeching halt, at least on YouTube, where the video got blocked and placed under a total of two warning labels.
In one screenshot shared by Webber, YouTube declared the Newsom era-exposing documentary as something that “may not be appropriate for some users” (true enough – especially when it comes to his hard-core political supporters, but why would YouTube care to appease those?).
Plus, YouTube sent Webber an email informing him that his content was not appropriate for all age groups.
So YouTube was “thinking of the children,” not “of the Democrats” here.
In any case, users can still see the video but only if they wish to proceed by clicking a button on an ominously back screen complete with a prominent exclamation mark seemingly demoting danger ahead.
The other labelled screen reads, (with another the big exclamation mark and a button that lets users “understand and proceed,” reading that, “the following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate and offensive to some audiences.”
One would be hard pressed to find a video on YouTube that doesn’t fall into this nebulous category of “offending” someone’s sensibilities; but for YouTube not all sensibilities are born equal.
The video showcasing Newsom’s term in office uses “authoritative” sources like CNN and AP to document all that’s gone wrong during the governor’s rule.
“I made sure that many of the sources for this video were left wing media, so if the fact checkers on YouTube and Facebook wanted to fact check me and discredit something they would be discrediting their own left wing media,” Webber said.
And despite the hurdles on its way, Webber’s content is still finding an audience on YouTube – until, that is, the giant fine-tweaks its censorship tools to downrank what it doesn’t like without necessarily removing it.
Here Come the Terrorists. Again
By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 26, 2021
President Joe Biden is being praised in some circles because he finally ended the war in Afghanistan that in all likelihood should never have begun. President George W. Bush initiated the conflict on a series of lies about 9/11 and the Taliban role in that attack and what followed. After bringing about regime change, he decided to remake the country into a western style democracy. President Barack Obama subsequently allowed a “surge” which actually increased the militarization of the conflict and made things worse. The joint effort produced no free elections but delivered instead tens of thousands of deaths and a huge hole in the US Treasury. Bush and Obama were followed by President Donald Trump who actually promised to end the war but lacked the conviction and political support to do so, handing the problem over to Biden, who has bungled the end game but finally done the right thing by ending the fiasco. Biden also has been right to accede to a withdrawal of the last US combat troops from Iraq by year’s end, a move that will considerably ease tension with the Baghdad government, which has been calling for such a move since last January.
But America’s war on those parts of the world that resist following its self-defined leadership is not about to go away. An interesting recent article in the foreign policy establishment The Hill written by a former senior CIA operations and staff officer Douglas London sees an Orwellian unending war against major adversaries Russia and China. Derived from his own experience, he concludes that sustained and enhanced clandestine actions should now replace conventional military forces confrontation, which has been somewhat outdated as an option due to the development of relatively cheap missile technologies that have undermined classic conventional weapons. Some of the clandestine activity he appears to recommend would undoubtedly fall under cover of classic espionage “plausible denial,” i.e. that the White House could disavow any knowledge of what had occurred, but sabotage and cyber-attacks, particularly if implemented aggressively, would quickly be recognized for what they are and would invite commensurate or even disproportionate retaliation. This would amount to an all-out semi-covert war against powerful adversaries which could easily escalate into a shooting war.
The London article is an interesting insight into the thinking of those in both the Democratic and Republican parties who continue to argue that the United States is threatened by largely asymmetrical warfare being conducted by what are regarded as “autocratic” regimes in Moscow and Beijing as well as by non-governmental terrorist groups that is seeking to undermine confidence in US policymakers, the “democratic” government system and the stability of its other institutions.
That the White House is listening to at least some of the complaints coming from the neoconservatives and neoliberals calling for more “democracy promotion” and “regime change” would appear to be the case as there have been renewed calls for greater engagement in various fora, to include NATO leadership now urging the alliance to stand up to Russian “aggression.” The US has meanwhile also called on “friends” in the Middle East to block any attempts by China to establish “military bases” in that region, with the State Department arguing that “The current assessment is that China has a global strategy of pursuing military installations all over, including in the Middle East.” The United States, by one estimate, has nearly 1100 military bases worldwide while China has only one in Djibouti.
Admittedly this time, the US will have to go about its usual school bully behavior without much in the way of allies. The Europeans will not show up as they are disgusted with American vacillation and inability to anticipate obvious developments, as was the case in Afghanistan. Israel and Saudi Arabia will likely line up, or pretend to, while also continuing their collaboration with radical groups that Washington would prefer to avoid.
To be sure there are many in Washington who would be quite happy to continue the US naval build up in the South China Sea while also sending ships to the Black Sea to cruise defiantly off the Russian coast. And then there is also Iran and its ally Syria, both of which continue to be targets of opportunity for sabotage, covert action and the Israeli Air Force, which last week again attacked Syria after penetrating Lebanese air space. So there are always wars and rumors of wars available, which is precisely what the US military-industrial-congressional complex wants to sustain. And in so doing they know that they will have the mainstream media on board, which has the same objective.
But still, it is important to have a plausible threatening enemy, and China is still somewhat over the horizon in that context. So, you turn to the one-size-fits-all option, which is “international terrorism,” preferably Islamic, to continue to empower the central government and fatten one’s friends in the national security industry. And it doesn’t hurt along the way to label some domestic opponents in the same fashion to guarantee one’s political supremacy for the foreseeable future. It’s a win-win.
So, the Biden Administration is either inadvertently or by design setting up the next chapter in its “America goes to war” narrative even as it has not yet figured out how to extricate the soldiers it has sent to assist in the evacuation of Kabul and who are now potential hostages at the airport surrounded by heavily armed Taliban.
But key figures in the Administration and elsewhere inside and outside the government are already looking beyond that, arguing that the new Afghan state will become a terrorist haven and those radicals will look to the United States for a target, as al-Qaeda reportedly did. Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University argues that “There’s no question that the return of the Taliban opens up space in this new Islamic emirate for al Qaeda to return, rebuild a base, and for other groups associated or previously associated with al Qaeda, like ISIS, to return to the region. Jihadi fighters of all stripes will now once again make Afghanistan their home, as they did in the lead-up to 9/11.”
Indeed, some of those “experts” are seeing the twenty years spent in Afghanistan as a plus as it kept in check those extremists who might have been inclined to act in Europe and the US. That of course ignores the continued existence of many other unsettled parts of the world where terrorists of various kinds have been able to flourish successfully without feeling any need to bomb New York. Senators Lindsey Graham and Mark Warner have warned of a likely resurgence in terrorism, as have both General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Graham laments that “The likelihood of an attack coming from Afghanistan now is through the roof.” The Department of Homeland Security has also done its bit, warning that possible Afghanistan-derived attacks from Islamic extremists on or near the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 event “could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence.”
Anyway, you look at it, terrorism with be the national security flavor du jour over the next year or more. The only real question is, “Will it be domestic or foreign?” Either way the seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be history but the search for new enemies will continue no matter who is president or which party dominates congress.
We will work with the Congress to provide $1bn to Iron Dome, US official says
MEMO | August 26, 2021
US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin yesterday pledged to work with Congress to provide $1 billion to Israel’s Iron Dome defence system, the Times of Israel reported.
“We are working closely with Congress to provide all the necessary information to respond positively to your request to provide $1 billion in emergency funding. And it’s going to save more innocent lives,” Austin told Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
Speaking to reporters following the meeting, Austin said: “The Department of Defense is also committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge, and to ensur[ing] that Israel can defend itself against threats from Iran, its proxies, and terrorist groups.”
“Iran must be held accountable for acts of aggression in the Middle East and on international waters,” referring to the attack on Mercer Street tanker off the Omani coast.
“US is committed to strengthening its strategic relationship with Israel,” he said, “the administration is committed to Israel’s security and its right to self-defense.”
When asked about the ten-year memorandum of understanding worth $3.8 billion in defence aid annually that was signed during the Obama administration, he said: “That is unwavering. It is steadfast.”
Withdrawal from Afghanistan to benefit Israel, says US official
MEMO | August 26, 2021
A US official has defended the withdrawal from Afghanistan by claiming that it will benefit Israel. Speaking at a briefing ahead of a meeting between the far-right Israeli Prime Minster Naftali Bennett and US President Joe Biden, the unnamed official said that Washington will be in a better position to direct resources and attention to its allies such as Israel, the Times of Israel has reported.
The newspaper claimed that Biden will use the meeting with Bennett to reinforce his commitment to the occupation state and other US allies in the region.
Washington is redirecting its resources towards the threat posed by China and Russia. However, US officials rejected a frequently reported claim by analysts that the Middle East is no longer a key priority for the US.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” said a senior official. “If anything, in the Biden administration, we are not pursuing… unachievable goals.” This is believed to mean that Biden will not make demands on Israel.
“We’re not trying to transform the Middle East. We’re not trying to overthrow regimes. We are pursuing a very steady course, centred on achievable aims; alignment of ends and means; and, first and foremost, support for our partners and, of course, Israel being second to none,” the official added.
Despite early cautious optimism on the back of the Biden administration reversing some of the more controversial policies of former US President Donald Trump — Biden has reopened the Palestine Embassy in Washington, for example, and restored humanitarian aid to the Palestinians — there is a new realism within America over what is achievable. No new peace plan is expected to be unveiled, nor is there an expectation on Israel to return to the negotiation table with a view to ending its brutal military occupation of Palestine.
Bennett goes into today’s meeting having made a renewed pledge that there will be no independent Palestinian state under his watch. As a former settler leader who opposes the creation of such a state, Bennett said that there would be no resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians for the foreseeable future.
US relations with Iran and the so-called Abraham Accords, which saw four Arab countries (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan) normalise relations with the occupation state last year, are expected to be discussed during the Biden-Bennett meeting. Apparently, the US president will be looking to see how Israel feels about the US entering into a nuclear deal with Iran, and to find ways to expand the list of countries signed up to the accords.
America’s $800 Million Kabul Embassy To Be Abandoned – No Troops Will Guard It
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | August 25, 2021
The initial Biden plan for the complete US troop draw down from Afghanistan was to authorize a security force of some 600 Marines to guard the massive US embassy compound in Kabul. This was announced last Spring – of course long before the chaotic botched evacuation events of this month, which has seen all diplomats and military retreat to the confines of Hamid Karzai international airport.
Plans have drastically changed as on Wednesday during a Pentagon press briefing a military spokesman confirmed that the embassy will be completely abandoned.
“After the US military leaves Kabul on Aug. 31, no Americans will guard the $800 million dollar US embassy in Kabul,” Fox’s Pentagon corresponded Lucas Tomlinson reports.
As Forbes has recently reviewed, US taxpayers have sunk a whopping $1.5 billion to erect and maintain it soon after the post 9/11 American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, though most estimates commonly put it at $800 million in value (minus maintenance, upkeep, and security costs).
The publication recently went through 10 U.S. investments in Afghanistan that didn’t pan out (a bit of an understatement):
U.S. Embassy: $1.5 billion for the U.S. Embassy (security, construction and maintenance) plus $157 million for operations since 2001. Embassy officials lowered the American flag this week as the embassy was totally evacuated.
Since last week embassy operations have relocated to the airport, though it seems there may be a minimal US security force still guarding it and perhaps destroying any final sensitive equipment so it’s not left to Taliban hands.
Military helicopters have been airlifting personnel from the embassy since the collapse of the US-backed Afghan national government, and as the Taliban approached and took control of the capital city.
At the same time recent reports have indicated both Russia and China plan to keep their embassies in Afghanistan operational, with last week both countries confirming their intent, also as China has signaled it plans to formally ‘recognize’ the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.


Butchered by “Healthcare” is Robert Yoho’s plain-spoken account of how American medicine stopped being a profession and became an industry. 341 pages. Over a thousand references. Thirty-eight chapters.