Following Bill Gates’ Prediction, Cyberattacks Strike Refrigerators Across 5 European Countries

This comes just weeks after Bill Gates said “over the next year, we are going to have a lot of negative surprises” from AI cyberattacks.

A new wave of cyberattacks has struck supermarket refrigeration systems across Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Estonia, allowing hackers to remotely manipulate refrigerators and freezers and causing large quantities of perishable food to be discarded.

In some cases, attackers changed refrigeration settings to 50°C (122°F), disrupting temperature controls and triggering widespread food spoilage. The incidents occurred three weeks after a similar cyberattack compromised refrigeration systems at hundreds of supermarkets across France.

Refrigeration is essential for limiting the growth of food-borne pathogens in perishable products. Prolonged refrigeration failures can force retailers to discard substantial quantities of food.

Just weeks before this latest wave cyberattacks, Bill Gates stated during a CNN interview:

“Over the next year… we are going to have a lot of negative surprises. We’ll probably see most dramatically in the next year is cyberattacks.”

Watch the video here

Days after that, Bill Gates said the COVID pandemic “didn’t work the way I expected.” He proceeded to say, “over the next several years, certainly in the cyber domain, because there’s a business model there, you will see a lot of attacks different in terms of scale than anything we’ve seen in the past.”:

Watch the video here

The World Economic Forum has already been war-gaming cyberattacks since 2019. Through its Cyber Polygon initiative, it has conducted international cybersecurity exercises simulating large-scale cyber threats, including attacks on interconnected digital infrastructure and supply chains.

This is where Klaus Schwab declared, “It’s high time for a Great Reset,” and warned of a “cyber pandemic” that could make COVID look like a “small disturbance” by “halting our power supply, transportation, and hospitals.”:

Watch the video here

Meanwhile, multiple governments are now encouraging citizens to maintain emergency supplies of food, water, and other essentials to prepare for potential disruptions.

Something is definitely afoot…

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/widespread-cyberattacks-strike-supermarket-refrigerators-across-five-european-countries/5944997

Trump Talks Peace While CIA Fueling War in Ukraine

27 October 2026 by Larry C. Johnson

The United States is simultaneously paying to destroy Russian diesel production and begging Russia to sell it more diesel. You could not design a more incoherent policy if you tried.

Trump’s CIA is helping Ukraine destroy Russian refineries while he cuts deals to sell Russian diesel. His spy chief flies to Moscow to tell the Russians they cannot win, while his agency’s own analysts are afraid to tell him what they think.

I spent enough years at the Central Intelligence Agency that I learned how to read the press stories that the agency’s friends place for it. Shane Harris’s new profile of CIA Director John Ratcliffe in The Atlantic, published October 23, is one of those stories. It is written to make Ratcliffe look like the sober professional in a chaotic administration. But read it carefully and it confirms something Washington has spent four years denying: the United States is not merely supplying Ukraine. Through the CIA, it is fighting Russia.

“The CIA is in the lead”

Harris does not bury the lede. Armed with information the CIA provides, Ukraine’s military has been launching strikes deep inside Russia. American spy satellites give Ukraine early warning of incoming Russian missiles and drones. Among U.S. personnel on the ground in Ukraine, a retired senior officer who travels there frequently told him, “the CIA is in the lead.”

It gets better. A Baltic intelligence officer who works closely with the Americans told Harris that, whatever Donald Trump says in public, the CIA’s operations against Russia are now “much more aggressive” than they were under Joe Biden. Officers in the CIA’s Special Activities Center, the people who run covert and paramilitary operations, are reportedly among the happiest at Langley, because they are so busy. And this is not new. As Harris notes, the CIA helped build Ukraine’s modern intelligence apparatus after Russia took Crimea in 2014. This has been the agency’s war for more than a decade.

Let me translate that from the polite language of a magazine profile. American intelligence is identifying the targets inside Russia, American satellites are running Ukraine’s air-defense warning network, and American officers are “in the lead” on the ground. If Russia were doing that for Mexico against Texas, Washington would call it an act of war. Moscow has said for years that it is fighting NATO, not just Ukraine. Here, courtesy of The Atlantic and its anonymous sources, is the evidence.

Shooting ourselves in the fuel tank

Now comes the absurdity. According to Harris, the CIA’s success has become a problem for the President. The refinery strikes the agency helps enable have hobbled Russia’s economy. The International Energy Agency estimates that in the first eight months of this year, Ukraine hit a Russian refinery on average once every three days.

Those refineries make diesel. The world is short of diesel. The International Energy Agency says the shortage will run well into 2027. And Trump, according to Harris, blames the attacks on Russian refineries for the spike in prices and wants them to stop. He has threatened to cut off intelligence support to Ukraine unless Kyiv halts the refinery strikes.

Think about that. The CIA helps Ukraine knock out Russian refining capacity. Diesel prices soar. Then on October 9, in the middle of peace talks in Miami, the President announces a deal for Russia to sell its diesel on the world market, boasting on Truth Social that prices would be “COMING DOWN… AND FAST!” Harris reports that the announcement caught the negotiators by surprise, and that Putin made no reciprocal commitment. So the United States is simultaneously paying to destroy Russian diesel production and begging Russia to sell it more diesel. You could not design a more incoherent policy if you tried.

The spy channel

The most revealing passage in the piece concerns Ratcliffe’s trip to Moscow in August. Trump sent him to meet his counterparts in the Russian security services through what is informally called the “spy channel.” His message, Harris writes, was that nobody was winning: Russia had failed to make meaningful advances, and Ukraine could not expel Russian forces. The hope was that Ratcliffe could convince Putin he was pursuing a lost cause.

I have two problems with that. The first is the claim itself. Russia’s General Staff reported to Putin on October 16 that its forces had taken roughly 6,500 square kilometers and 310 settlements since January. You can argue the Russian figure is inflated, and I have. But even DeepState, the Ukrainian mapping project, counts about 1,300 square kilometers. Russia is advancing. It is not doing so as fast as Moscow claims, but “failed to make meaningful advances” is wishful thinking dressed up as intelligence.

The second problem is the messenger. Imagine you are the head of the SVR or the FSB. The director of the CIA flies into Moscow to tell you, spy to spy, that your war is a stalemate and you should give it up. You know perfectly well that his agency is the one feeding Ukraine the targeting data for the drones hitting your refineries. That is not a peace overture. That is a threat with a diplomatic passport. If Ratcliffe expected the Russians to take his assessment as neutral advice, he does not understand the people he was talking to.

Not what Truman built

Ratcliffe likes to talk about returning the CIA to its “roots.” He has the roots wrong. Harry Truman did not create the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947 to run paramilitary campaigns. He created it to collect and analyze intelligence from foreign sources and tell the President the truth, so that he would never again be blindsided the way Franklin Roosevelt was at Pearl Harbor. Covert action came in through the back door. Within a year, the National Security Council’s directive NSC 10/2 authorized covert operations, and the clandestine tail has been wagging the analytic dog ever since.

Truman saw it happening and said so publicly. In an op-ed published in the Washington Post on December 22, 1963, a month after John Kennedy’s assassination, he wrote that he had become disturbed by how far the CIA had strayed from “its intended role.” His words are worth quoting: “I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.” The agency, he warned, “has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.” He said that in creating it, “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions,” and he asked that the CIA be “restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President.”

Sixty-three years later, Ratcliffe has turned Truman’s warning into a mission statement.

How covert action corrupts the truth

I want to explain why this matters, because it is not an abstract argument about organization charts. I watched it from the inside.

When an intelligence agency is simply collecting and analyzing information, its only stake in the outcome is getting the answer right. The moment the same agency is running a covert operation, it has a horse in the race. The operation has a budget, a sponsor on the Seventh Floor, careers riding on it and, most important, a President who has already been told it will work. Now the analysts down the hall are being asked to assess whether their own colleagues’ operation is succeeding. Bad news is no longer just bad news. It is an attack on the director’s program and an embarrassment to the man in the Oval Office.

The pressure is rarely an explicit order to change a conclusion. It is subtler and more corrosive than that. The pessimistic assessment gets sent back for more sourcing. The analyst who keeps writing that the operation is failing gets a reputation for not being a team player, and does not get the next promotion. The briefing for the President leads with the success stories and buries the costs in an annex. After a few rounds of that, as Julia Curlee told Harris, officers simply stop telling the hard truths and “learned to avoid” what the White House did not want to hear.

We have seen where this leads. The Bay of Pigs was planned by the clandestine service and kept walled off from the agency’s own analysts, who might have pointed out that there was no evidence the Cuban people were about to rise up against Castro. The operators sold the President the operation they wanted to run, and the analysis that would have stopped it never reached his desk. The pattern repeats whenever the agency becomes both the player and the referee.

Now look at Ukraine. The CIA is, by The Atlantic’s account, “in the lead” on the ground, helping run a campaign of deep strikes inside Russia. The same CIA is responsible for telling the President whether that campaign is working and whether Ukraine can win. Is it any surprise that the agency’s message, the one Ratcliffe carried to Moscow, is that Russia has “failed to make meaningful advances”? An agency that has spent twelve years building Ukraine’s intelligence service and now directs its targeting has every institutional incentive to report that its war is going well, or at least not badly. The negative consequences, Russian advances, Ukrainian casualties, a diesel shortage that is hammering Europe and American consumers, are exactly the things an agency in that position is least likely to put front and center.

That is the corruption Truman feared. Not that the CIA would lie outright, but that it would slowly start serving the operation instead of the President, and the President would make decisions based on intelligence shaped by people who need him to keep going.

An agency that tells the boss what he wants

Harris also reports on the state of the CIA itself, and it isn’t pretty. Ratcliffe pledged at his confirmation hearing to “conduct covert action at the direction of the president, going places no one else can go and doing things no one else can do.” The covert-action side is thriving, from Ukraine to Venezuela to the CIA’s air strikes on suspected drug boats, which legal experts say may violate the laws of armed conflict. One former officer told Harris, “The agency is over its skis right now.”

The analysts, meanwhile, are miserable. More of them report that the objectivity of their work is being undermined. Julia Curlee, a senior analyst who resigned in May, put it bluntly: “Ratcliffe isn’t protecting the CIA from politicization; he’s leading it.” Current and former officers say they have never seen so many retirements and resignations. An agency where the paramilitary officers are thrilled and the analysts are afraid to tell hard truths is an agency built to fight wars, not to understand them. And Harris himself notes that Trump did not heed the intelligence community’s warnings about how Iran would respond to American attacks. We are all paying for that one now.

Pick a policy

So here is where the United States stands. The President calls Zelensky “more difficult to deal with” than Putin and urges Ukrainians to elect someone else. His CIA director is running operations against Russia that are more aggressive than Biden’s. His CIA is helping Ukraine destroy Russian refineries while he cuts deals to sell Russian diesel. His spy chief flies to Moscow to tell the Russians they cannot win, while his agency’s own analysts are afraid to tell him what they think.

That is not a strategy. It is a contradiction that the American people are paying for at the pump, and that the Ukrainians are paying for with their lives. If Washington wants peace, it should stop being a combatant. If it wants to fight Russia, it should have the honesty to say so, to Congress and to the voters, before the midterms rather than after. What it cannot keep doing is both, and pretending it is doing neither.

Via https://nuclear-news.net/2026/11/03/1-b1-trump-talks-peace-while-the-cia-is-fueling-the-war-in-ukraine/

Trump Reacts to Murphy Stroke Days After Senator’s ‘Insane’ Iran Warning

Nov 1, 2026

President Donald Trump reacted to news that Democratic Senator Chris Murphy suffered a stroke, days after he called a possible administration plan for renewed military action against Iran “insane.”

After landing in Dubuque, Iowa, for a campaign rally, Trump told reporters on Sunday that he was “really surprised” to learn about the Connecticut senator’s stroke. “Nobody wants to have that,” he added.

Murphy, 53, began experiencing numbness in his arm while attending his son’s hockey game Saturday afternoon, his chief of staff Allison Herwitt said in a statement.

“He was taken to a local hospital, where it was discovered he had experienced a stroke,” Herwitt said. “He was transferred to Johns Hopkins for further monitoring and is responding well to treatment.”

Doctors were encouraged by Murphy’s progress, and he was awake and alert, Herwitt added.

“We are optimistic he will make a full recovery,” she said.

Murphy serves on the Senate’s Appropriations and Foreign Relations committees and is a leading voice on immigration and gun policy. He is considered a contender for more senior leadership positions in the chamber and among the many Democrats seen as potential 2028 candidates for the White House.

Murphy said last week that he had been briefed on a possible resumption of U.S. military operations against Iran.

The Democrat discussed the briefing during a Middle East Institute event in Washington following a trip to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He said lawmakers had received a detailed description of what a renewed military campaign could look like.

Asked about the proposal, Murphy said: “Their plan is insane. It will lead to devastating escalation, and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law.”

Murphy said officials had been asked by Trump to develop a plan, although he said he did not know whether they believed it would work.

“The plan that they have developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongment and an escalation of this war that will be devastating for our security interests,” Murphy said.

Murphy also addressed the issue on social media on October 29.

“Trump is reportedly planning to restart war with Iran after the election,” he wrote. “Some of us have been briefed on the war plan. And while I cannot disclose any details, I can say this: the plan is insane.”

He added that the plan “will not achieve objectives and will set off a new cycle of escalation.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House recently briefed allies in the Middle East to prepare for a “short, intense military campaign” against Iran as soon as November 4, the day after the midterm elections, according to three senior Gulf Arab officials, granted anonymity to share sensitive discussions.

Trump said Friday that the Iran war “is going to be over very soon.”

[…]

Via https://www.newsweek.com/trump-reacts-to-murphy-stroke-days-after-senators-insane-iran-warning-12647635

Western News Media Propagandists Describe US Bombing Iran As “Defensive

Caitlin Johnstone

Nov 4, 2026

I never want to hear another American compare their media’s malpractice to North Korean propaganda ever again. Westerners are more aggressively propagandized than any other population on earth.

The propagandists of the American press have been uncritically describing recent US airstrikes on Iran as “defensive” despite the US being the clear aggressor in this ongoing conflict, and despite the United States existing on the other side of the planet from Iran.

CBS News was the most egregious offender with its headline, “U.S. launches defensive strikes at Iranian targets near Strait of Hormuz.”

The title frames it as an objective fact that the attack was defensive in nature, without quotation marks around the word “defensive” and without even bothering to uncritically cite US officials as the source of this claim.

As a reminder, CBS News was recently acquired by David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, who is one of the wealthiest people on the planet with a net worth of some $160 billion and who is also the largest single donor to the Israeli military. The Ellisons have responded to Israel’s genocide-induced PR crisis by frenetically buying up control over major platforms like CBS, CNN, HBO Max, Warner Bros and TikTok in order to drum up support for US-Israeli military agendas.

Other mass media outlets weren’t much better, uncritically regurgitating assertions from the US government which present the attacks as “defensive”.

The Associated Press headline on the story reads, “US has conducted defensive strikes on Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, US official says.”

From The Washington Post, “U.S. forces launch new ‘defensive’ strikes in Iran on eve of election.”

From CNN, “US military conducts strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island in defensive operation, officials say.”

From Fox News, “US launches ‘defensive’ strikes on Iranian island as Tehran talks hang in balance.”

From Reuters, “US carries out ‘defensive’ strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island, officials say.”

From ABC News, “US carries out defensive airstrikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island: Officials.”

From Politico, “US has conducted defensive strikes on Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, US official says.”

The first paragraph of the Newsweek write-up on the story reads, “The U.S. carried out defensive strikes against Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official told the Associated Press (AP) on Monday.”

The story that these propagandists are spinning was first broken by The Wall Street Journal, who reported that the attacks on Qeshm Island were actually part of a series of secret strikes on Iran which have been going on for weeks now. Paragraphs four and five of the report contain claims attributed to anonymous US officials saying their attacks have been “defensive in nature” in response to Iranian aggressions, which the aforementioned other outlets then seized on as the most significant and newsworthy element in the story.

At no time is the assertion that US forces are “defending” themselves off the coast of Iran ever called into question by any of these outlets. At no time is the audience ever reminded that the US started this war of aggression without any provocation whatsoever. At no time is the audience ever encouraged to ask what the fuck the US military is doing “defending” itself thousands of miles from American shores.

I never want to hear another American compare their media’s malpractice to North Korean propaganda ever again. Westerners are more aggressively propagandized than any other population on earth.

[…]

Via https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2026/11/04/western-news-media-propagandists-describe-us-bombing-iran-as-defensive/

What If Your Kid Doesn’t Need a Pediatrician

I set out to write a guide to handling vaccine pressure. I ended up questioning the whole arrangement.

My granddaughter needed a hearing test. My daughter assumed, the way most of us would, that the road to a referral for the test or the specialist runs through the pediatrician.

She booked a visit with a new pediatric practice. Within minutes of the staff learning my granddaughter is unvaccinated, the appointment turned into an intervention. This wasn’t consistent with their practice, they said. No referral, no hearing test, nothing, until she put a vaccination visit on the calendar. So she booked it.

She needed the referral, and of course, she had exactly zero intention of showing up. After that, every call to the office came with a fresh lecture. She told me she had never been so bullied over it in her life.

All of that for a hearing test.

The Assignment

About a month ago, a friend told me that if I wrote a post about how moms can handle vaccine pressure at the pediatrician’s office – with actual words to say in the exam room – it would go viral. I said I would give it a go.

Then I spent a month failing to write it.

I procrastinated. I cogitated and tried to outline something. I played out every angle.

Every road I went down ended in the same place, the same thing I tell women who hire a doula to “protect” their birth plan during a hospital birth: you can’t buy eggs at the hardware store. You can walk in with the best list, the sweetest smile, and the sharpest elbows in town, and they still won’t have eggs. Autonomy and informed consent aren’t on the menu.

I had been asked, and I was desperately trying, to write a guide to buying eggs at the hardware store.

The High Priests of the Exam Room

Once you walk into the system and let them know that you need something (a prescription, a form filled out, a referral), the system holds every card. And once they’ve filed you under “those kind of” parents, you get the worst the profession has to offer: condescension, the need to control, weight-throwing.

Medicine has a priesthood problem.

[…]

That parent sees the doctor as a vendor. She’s paying, she wants what she came for, and she’d like it without the attitude, the same way you’d expect a contractor to fix the leak without critiquing your life choices.

Nothing gets under a doctor’s skin faster.

They hate feeling “used” or treated like they have customers instead of serfs. Whatever brought them to medical school, plenty of them seemed to have acquired a taste for being the authority in the room: respected, revered, and, though they’d never say it out loud, obeyed.

There are exceptions. They are RARE, and the rare ones mostly don’t take insurance, which puts them out of reach for most young families on a budget.

But I’d promised my friend scripts. So I made a few attempts:

Script One: The Polite Dodge

“Thanks, but I’m not looking for vaccine guidance today. Can we stick to why we came in?”

Or: “If you have something printed, I’m happy to take it home and read it. Maybe we can talk about it next time?”

These buy you one visit, and you pay for it later. Every time you use them, the doctor grows more certain you’re humoring her. Sooner or later you get pushed harder, with threats like the ones my daughter got, or with a letter discharging you from the practice.

Script Two: The Mic Drop

Then there’s the version that tries to end the conversation for good.

You: We’ve spent a lot of time with the FDA package inserts for the childhood vaccines. We’re not willing to accept the adverse event risks listed in Section 6.1 in exchange for whatever benefits the public health authorities promise. We’re informed, and we don’t consent.

Doctor: Our policy is that every patient follows the CDC (or if they’re particularly ridiculous, the AAP) schedule. If you won’t, we can’t keep seeing you.

You: Does your practice receive bonus payments from my insurer, or any insurer, tied to the vaccination rate of your patient population? Quality incentives, value-based payments, anything like that?

Doctor: (huff, puff) Well, I never! (clutches pearls)

Deeply satisfying. I’ll confess I had fun writing it. It also probably makes this your last visit. You’ve made an enemy of the person whose signature you need, and the odds they let you back in the door aren’t great.

[…]

It Starts in the Maternity Ward

If you’ve had a baby in a hospital, you know the pediatrician question comes early and often before, during and after the delivery. Who’s your pediatrician? Have you picked one yet? Can we get a name? At our local hospital, they won’t discharge your newborn until they’ve confirmed an appointment on the books within a couple of days. Tell them to pound sand, and the next call they make is to CPS.

Ask me how I know.

[…]

Look at the calendar the AAP recommends. Your baby is supposed to have about ten well visits before his second birthday: at a few days old, then one month, two, four, six, nine, twelve, fifteen, eighteen, and twenty-four. Now lay the shot schedule over it. Two, four, six, twelve, fifteen, eighteen months. The visits are built around the vaccines. Take the vaccines away, and most of what’s left is a scale, a tape measure, and a clipboard you could fill out at your kitchen table.

So for those of us who have opted way the hell out of the vaccine play, the only reason we ever call or visit the pediatrician is for acute needs. Fever. Rash. Playground injury.

In other words – you want someone to call late at night to run some symptoms by and get the watch-at-home, bring-in-tomorrow or go-to-the-ER answer. What you don’t need is a fight-or-flight-inducing confrontation every time you need something from a practice that is trying to hold your child’s care hostage to an injection schedule.

Follow the Money

Here’s where my benefits-consultant brain kicks in. Most health plans are graded on something called HEDIS, a set of quality scores run by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. One of those measures is Childhood Immunization Status, the share of kids fully vaccinated by their second birthday. Plans get scored on it, and plenty of them pass the pressure down to practices through quality bonuses and “value-based” payments.

What You Actually Need

Once you stop assuming that “having a pediatrician” and “having access to good care” are the same thing, the list of what your child needs from the medical system gets very short.

  1. Sick care. Ear infections, strep, the rash that won’t quit, the cough that sounds like an angry seal. If you’re uncomfortable with homeopathic or other holistic approaches, urgent care and telehealth handle nearly all of these episodes, and there’s an urgent care clinic in roughly every strip mall between here and the Pacific.
  2. The occasional physical form. Daycares, schools, camps, and sports leagues want a signature. Many urgent care and retail clinics do school and sports physicals for a flat fee.
  3. A referral now and then. Here’s the kicker to my daughter’s story: plenty of insurance plans, PPOs especially, don’t require a referral to see a specialist at all. Call your plan before you book anything. She probably endured all that bullying for a piece of paper she never needed.

Your Permission Slip

If firing your pediatrician makes your stomach drop, I understand. Most of us were raised to believe a good mother has a pediatrician the way a good Catholic has a parish. If you need someone with an MD to tell you it’s okay, let me introduce you to Dr. Larry Palevsky.

I’ve learned a tremendous amount from Larry over the years at the Weston A. Price conference. He’s a New York pediatrician who has spent years questioning the white-coat orthodoxy from the inside, and he does it with all the Norman Rockwell family doctor kindness you’re longing for but somehow never seem to find in those totalitarian practices anymore. He only sees patients locally, so unless you live near him on Long Island, you can’t book an appointment. But his website is the next best thing. It gives you all the credentialed permission you need to fire your own pediatrician.

Most Fevers Don’t Need You to Do Anything

Dr. Larry taught me that you need way less urgent care than you think.

A child who can mount a good fever is a healthy child. That heat is the immune system at work, and most of the time it needs nothing from you except room to finish the job. When we reach for the Tylenol at the first degree, we interrupt that work, and our kids pay for it over the long haul. Even the (kid-transing, school-closing, Kennedy-hating) American Academy of Pediatrics says fever is protective and that fever reducers are for comfort, with no need to chase a normal reading on the thermometer.

What a sick kid needs is wonderfully old-fashioned: a dark, quiet room, a mommy rubbing his back, and a steady supply of broth.

In our house, the other thing that comes out when someone gets sick is the homeopathic kit.

Acute illness is where I’ve seen homeopathy help most in my own family: the high fever that comes on suddenly in the middle of the night, the clingy, inconsolable teething baby, the earache that shows up at bedtime. A well-chosen remedy is gentle and cheap, and it doesn’t suppress symptoms so much as help the body move through them to homeostasis faster and more gently. If you’re curious, a basic acute kit and a good home-prescribing guide are a fine place to start. Many professional homeopaths (myself included) will happily take your call or text and do the remedy-selection for you. Some even offer full-family memberships so that they’re always on call.

The white coats do get one thing right: a tiny baby under three months with a fever of 100.4 or higher needs to be seen today. So does a child of any age who is limp or hard to wake, has a stiff neck, stops making wet diapers, is working hard to breathe, or has a rash that doesn’t fade when you press on it. Those are the times you pick up the phone.

AI can tell you this, by the way.

But Then What?

I know how hard all of this is when both parents work and nobody can stay home with a sick kid on back-rubbing, broth-warming duty. I lived it. But I’m not here to make anyone feel good about our choices, mine especially.

Long before I woke up to my own health journey and the failures of Team White-Coat, I was the career mom who brushed off my kids’ illnesses, suppressed symptoms with Sudafed, Advil, cortisone cream and sent them to school anyway. Suck it up, I told them, because that’s what I did. I went to work sick, I expected them to go to school sick, and I called it grit. I wish I knew then what I know now. I recently apologized to my 20-something year old son for how I treated him when he was sick growing up.

Who You Gonna Call at 11 P.M.?

There are some great options. If you want an ongoing relationship with the same practitioner, you can have it, affordably, from your house in your bathrobe.

I also like MyCatholicDoctor.com, which offers freedom-respecting urgent care or ongoing pediatric care virtually, and even better, they take most insurance plans. In both cases, you get an ongoing relationship with a pediatrician, minus the inquisition. Yes, it’s telehealth only. That’s the first objection I hear, and my answer is: so what?

[…]

Via https://www.katytalento.com/p/what-if-your-kid-doesnt-need-a-pediatrician

 

The Original Deep State: The Anglo-Canadian Hand Behind the Civil War and Lincoln’s Murder

[…]

It is thus worth taking the time at this moment of crisis to review the true reasons for America’s last British intelligence managed Civil War 160 years ago, how Lincoln revived a system of constitutional banking to preserve the nation, how Russia saved the beleaguered nation in 1863, and how the Anglo-American oligarchy killed Lincoln, and undid his vision for a world liberated from empire after his murder.

What in Hell was Lincoln Actually Dealing With?

Beyond the dangers of secession, Lincoln had to contend with the Wall Street financiers and anglophile families who worked tirelessly to sabotage the president’s ability to acquire the funds necessary to execute the war.

[…]

While modern defenders of the confederacy maintain the lie that slavery itself would have disappeared peacefully in time had Lincoln not made it an issue, the fact is that the Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery as perpetual, actually making it illegal for any one at any point to pas any law “denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves” [Article 1, Section9].

In Article 4, section 2, the constitution enshrined the Dred-Scott fugitive slave amendment into law saying: “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Perhaps most indicative of the nature of the struggle that nearly undid the republic in 1861 is the following devotion to British liberal monetarism banning protectionism, national banking, or investments into internal improvements. In Article 1 section 8 of the Confederate Constitution, we read: “no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties imposed and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States” and Congress shall never “appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce”.

The City of London’s Two American Confederacy Operations to Undo 1776

Russian Ambassador to London de Brunow reported to Moscow of England’s desire to break the Union writing in January 1861:

“The English government, at the bottom of its heart, desired the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”

This was not only the opinion of Russia’s ambassador to London, but Robert Gascoyne Cecil (later called the Marquess of Salisbury and three-time Prime Minister of Britain) expressed his viewpoint on the matter in the British Parliament:

“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.” [emphasis added]

British Traitors in America

[…]

150 years of revisionist historians have obscured the real Lincoln and the true nature of the Civil War as a British run operation to undo the revolution of 1776. The martyred president was always an opponent to slavery and always situated himself in the traditions of the American System of Hamilton describing in 1832 a policy which he later enacted 30 years later: “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles.”

As early as 1839 Lincoln was a loud advocate for reviving a third Hamiltonian National Bank and worked to get Whig president William Harrison elected on that ticket in 1840 (who unfortunately died after only three months in office with a national bank revival act sitting unsigned on his desk). The second (and last) Whig leader to become president in 1851 supported by Lincoln was Zachary Taylor who also died under similarly conspicuous circumstances in the middle of his first term while fighting against America’s proto Deep State. Official cause of death? Eating too many cherries and cold milk.

[…]

From this period in the Congress where he became a leading ally of John Quincy Adams alongside other Henry Clay Whigs, Lincoln played a leading role in opposition to the unjust U.S.-Mexican War, Lincoln committed himself consistently to ending not only systems of slavery but also all hereditary power structures internationally which he understood were inextricably connected . . .

[…]

Putting this economic policy into action during the height of the war occurred in a 3-step operation which began with Banking and Currency Acts in 1862 and 1863. These acts established placed the thousands of local state banks under a federal charter with federal supervision for the first time in decades. By imposing a 10% tax on state bank notes, private independent state banks shrank from 1466 in 1861 to only 297 by 1865 and over 1630 national banks took their place.

The Bank Act of 1863 established reserve requirements for the first time, and also capped the interest rates in order to destroy usury within the nation itself. In order to eliminate international interference and manipulation from Wall Street financiers, the Bank Act also forced 75% of all bank directors to reside in the state in which the bank was located and all directors had to be American citizens.

The most important step in this fight was the sovereign control of credit issuance which, according to Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution, can only be affected through the U.S. treasury (an important lesson for anyone serious about ending the privately run Federal Reserve controls over national finance today). Following this constitutional principle, Lincoln issued a new form of currency called Greenbacks which could only be issued against U.S. government bonds. These began being issued with the 1862 Legal Tender Act.

[…]

These measures were accompanied by a strong protective tariff to grow American industries as well.

[…]

Some Uncomfortable Questions

The story has been told of Lincoln’s murder in tens of thousands of books and yet more often than not the narrative of a “single lone gunman” is imposed onto the story by researchers who are either too lazy or too corrupt to look for the evidence of a larger plot.

How many of those popular narratives infused into the western zeitgeist over the decades even acknowledge the simple fact that within John Wilkes Booth’s possessions was found a $500 bank draft signed by Ontario Bank of Montreal President Henry Starnes (later to become Montreal Mayor) when he was (apparently) shot dead at Garrett Farm on April 26, 1865?

How many people have been exposed to the vast Southern Confederacy secret service operations active throughout the civil war in Montreal, Toronto, and Halifax which was under the firm control of Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin and his handlers in British intelligence?

How many people know that Booth spent at least 5 weeks in the fall of 1864 in Montreal associating closely with the highest echelons of British and Southern intelligence including Starnes, and confederate spy leaders Jacob Thompson and George Sanders?

[…]

On The Trail of the Assassins

After Lincoln was murdered, a manhunt to track down the intelligence networks behind the assassination was underway that eventually led to the hanging of four low level co-conspirators who history has shown were just as much patsies as John Wilkes Booth.

Days later, President Johnson issued a proclamation saying:

“It appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that the … murder of … Abraham Lincoln … [was] incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson Davis, late of Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, [Nathaniel] Beverly Tucker, George N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels and traitors against the government of the United States harbored in Canada.”

Two days before Booth was shot, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton wrote:

“This Department has information that the President’s murder was organized in Canada and approved at Richmond.”

[…]

In the book Montreal City of Secrets (2017), author Barry Sheehy proves that not only was Canada the core of Confederate Secret Services, but also coordinated a multi pronged war from the emerging “northern confederacy” onto Lincoln’s defense of the union alongside Wall Street bankers while the president was fighting militarily to stop the southern secession.

[…]

The Many Shapes of War from the North

Although not having devolved to direct military engagement, the Anglo-Canadian war on the Union involved several components:

Financial warfare: The major Canadian banks dominant in the 19th century were used not only by the confederacy to pay British operations in the construction of war ships, but also to receive much needed infusions of cash from British Financiers throughout the war. A financial war on Lincoln’s greenback was waged under the control of Montreal based confederate bankers John Porterfield and George Payne and also JP Morgan to “short” the greenback.

By 1864, the subversive traitor Salmon Chase had managed to tie the greenback to a (London controlled) gold standard thus making its value hinge upon gold speculation. During a vital moment of the war, these financiers coordinated a mass “sell off” of gold to London driving up the price of gold and collapsing the value of the U.S. dollar crippling Lincoln’s ability to fund the war effort.

Direct Military intervention Thwarted: As early as 1861, the Trent Crisis nearly induced a hot war with Britain when a union ship intervened onto a British ship in international waters and arrested two high level confederate agents en route to London. Knowing that a two-fold war at this early stage was unwinnable, Lincoln pushed back against hot heads within his own cabinet who argued for a second front saying “one war at a time”. Despite this near miss, London wasted no time deploying over 10,000 soldiers to Canada for the duration of the war ready to strike down upon the Union at a moment’s notice and kept at bay in large measure due to the bold intervention of the Russian fleet to both Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA. This was a clear message to both England and to Napoleon III’s France (who were stationed across the Mexican border) to stay out of America’s war.

[…]

Despite Russia’s intervention, Britain continued to build warships for the Confederacy which devastated the Union navy during the war and which England had to pay $15.5 million to the USA in 1872 under the Alabama Claims.

Terrorism: It is less well known today than it was during the 19th century that confederate terror operations onto the north occurred throughout the civil war with raids on Union POW camps, efforts to burn popular New York hotels, blowing up ships on the Mississippi, and the infamous St Albans raid of October 1964 on Vermont, and attacks on Buffalo, Chicago, Sandusky, Ohio, Detroit, and Pennsylvania. While the St Albans raiders were momentarily arrested in Montreal, they were soon released under the logic that they represented a “sovereign state” at conflict with another “sovereign state” with no connection to Canada (perhaps a lesson can be learned here for Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers?).

[…]

 

The Truth is Buried Under the Sands of History

[…]

While four low level members of Booth’s cell were hanged on July 7, 1865 after a four month show trial (1), the actual orchestrators of Lincoln’s assassination were never brought to justice with nearly every leading member of the confederate leadership having escaped to England in the wake of Lincoln’s murder.

[…]

Via https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-original-deep-state-the-anglo

Former Israeli commander warns Israel faces ‘irreversible collapse’

Israeli activists hold placards during a demonstration in Herzliya on October 29, 2026, (Photo by AFP)

Press TV

2026/11/02

Retired Israeli commander Itzhak Brik says Israel has become an international pariah, warning that its growing isolation is unsustainable.

Retired Israeli commander Itzhak Brik has warned that Israel is facing an “irreversible breakdown” across its military, economy, and institutions, saying it has lost international legitimacy and allies and could not endure prolonged isolation.

In an opinion article published by Israel’s Maariv daily on Sunday, Brik called the results of last Tuesday’s parliamentary elections “the official death certificate of the [regime] of Israel as we knew it,” criticizing television commentators for focusing on parliamentary seats and coalition negotiations while ignoring the regime’s mounting structural problems.

He likened their coverage to “an orchestra playing aboard the Titanic in its final moments,” noting that the political debate was obscuring a far deeper crisis.

The regime is not in a “political crisis, it is in the process of a total, multi-system collapse, from which there is no way back,” he added.

Brik, a former commander of military colleges and former Ombudsman for Soldiers’ Complaints at the ministry of military affairs, said Israel had become an international pariah, warning that its growing isolation was unsustainable.

“We have lost legitimacy and allies,” he wrote, adding that Israel could not remain completely isolated for an extended period.

He also warned of a structural collapse within Israel’s ground forces, citing deteriorating morale and an inability to adequately defend the occupying entity against simultaneous threats from within and beyond its borders.

According to Brik, an exhausted army would be unable to stop large-scale incursions or protect civilians in a broader regional war.

The former military commander further pointed to the economic consequences of prolonged warfare, saying Israel’s national debt had reached 1.4 trillion shekels ($445 billion).

He pointed out that economic sanctions, restrictions on arms supplies and increasing financial isolation were placing additional pressure on the Israeli economy.

Brik dismissed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to use cryptocurrencies to circumvent potential European sanctions as “naive and absurd,” warning that further economic deterioration could put Israelis’ savings at risk.

Turning to Israel’s internal divisions, Brik said the occupying entity was experiencing a “silent civil war,” rather than merely political polarization.

He warned that the departure of doctors, scientists, technology entrepreneurs, and other highly skilled professionals was draining decades of accumulated expertise and weakening the regime’s institutional and economic foundations.

Brik also slammed Israel’s political leadership for undermining the rule of law and public institutions, arguing that political loyalty and appointments had increasingly taken precedence over competence and integrity.

The October 27 parliamentary election left Netanyahu’s bloc with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 seats for the opposition bloc led by Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot and 19 seats for Arab parties.

Neither of the two main blocs secured the 61 seats required to form a parliamentary majority.

Via https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/11/02/779736/former-israeli-commander-warns-israel-faces-irreversible-collapse

Trump pushed Justice Dept. to subpoena reporters covering war on Iran

Trump has reportedly pushed the Justice Department to issue subpoenas to reporters covering the war in Iran in an effort to uncover their sources.

US President Donald Trump has reportedly pushed the Justice Department to issue subpoenas to reporters covering the war against Iran in an attempt to uncover their sources, according to officials familiar with the matter.

Trump delivered his message on a sticky note bearing the word “Treason” written in Sharpie, which he placed atop a stack of printed articles handed to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during a White House meeting, officials said.

Following the meeting, the department issued several subpoenas, including to The Wall Street Journal, which first revealed the probes.

One official told CNN that the Justice Department’s National Security Division was already preparing to examine some of the stories’ sources, but Trump’s stack of articles accelerated the effort.

A source told CNN that the investigation aims to identify government employees who leaked information, not the reporters themselves.

Nevertheless, the subpoenas represent one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts against leaks concerning the administration.

Trump, who has complained about leaks of classified information to reporters since his first term, has been particularly furious when his private comments or details of his briefings related to the Iran war became public, according to several people familiar with his response.

Months into Trump’s second term, former Attorney General Pam Bondi revised Justice Department policy to allow federal investigators, in certain cases, to seek reporters’ phone records, notes, or testimony through court orders, warrants, or subpoenas.

The move, which made it easier for investigators to identify sources, reversed a years-long ban imposed after revelations that Attorney General William Barr had secretly sought reporters’ emails during Trump’s first term.

Last month, just one day after the US president fired Bondi, Trump publicly threatened to send an unspecified reporter to jail as part of a hunt for the “leaker” behind reports of an injured Air Force officer missing inside Iran.

Following Trump’s threat, Blanche stated that the Justice Department “will always investigate” leaks involving classified information, particularly those that put US service members at risk.

“And we will investigate if it means sending a subpoena to the reporter,” he said. “That’s exactly what we should do, and that’s exactly what we will be doing.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that it had received a grand jury subpoena for reporters’ records related to an article published five days before the war began.

The article concerned Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine and others at the Pentagon who had warned the president about the risks of an extended aggression against Iran.

“The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering,” a spokesperson for Dow Jones, which publishes The Journal, said in a statement to CNN. “We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting.”

In addition to The Journal, other news outlets have received subpoenas in recent months, a person at one of the news outlets said on condition of anonymity. However, some of those news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being.

Via https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/05/12/768483/Trump-pushed-Justice-Department-subpoena-reporters-covering-Iran-war-Report

US Judge orders Trump administration to stop intimidation of election officials

This image, taken on June 3, 2026, shows voting ballots being inspected at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center in the City of Industry, California, following the state’s primary election. (File photo by AP)

Press TV

2026/11/02

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions and other groups, who filed a complaint against the Trump administration for interfering in the administration of the midterms.

US District Judge Trina Thompson, who is based at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, ruled on Friday that the Trump administration was operating outside of its constitutional authority and likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits “attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce” officials facilitating the election process.

“Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by non-citizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters,” she said.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order that expires on November 16, almost two weeks after Election Day.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed just a day earlier by labor unions and other groups, who filed a complaint against the Trump administration for interfering in the administration of the midterms.

Later on Saturday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged the California judge’s ruling.

A DOJ spokesperson said in a statement that “the judge issued an order against the federal government without even waiting to hear from the US, while in other cases the Department’s own urgent election claims are delayed by judges until after Election Day.”

On Friday, the Trump administration also lost an appeal against an earlier ruling by another federal judge, who denied the DOJ’s request for California to block more than 20,000 ballots from alleged non-citizens, noting that it “violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections.”

On Saturday, District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned that the Trump administration’s efforts to intervene in elections could have a “chilling effect.”

“The government has made no secret of their determination to purge the voter rolls” of individuals they believe to be noncitizens, Chutkan said. “Past efforts to do so have resulted in US citizens being swept up into this law enforcement dragnet.”

Chutkan said she was concerned people may not go to the polls if they’re afraid they could be wrongly accused of noncitizen voting.

The Trump administration is said to be considering taking legal action against more states in the lead-up to — or possibly after — the midterm elections as part of its effort to force states to comb through voter rolls for noncitizens trying to vote in federal elections.

NBC News average of national polls, published on Sunday, suggested that 52 percent of US voters preferred a Democrat-controlled Congress, while 44 percent are in favor of one with a Republican majority.

Via https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/11/02/779742/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-stop-intimidation-of-election-officials

Israeli opposition leaders rally behind Eisenkot as PM amid government formation talks

(Photo credit: Israel Hayom)

The Cradle

NOV 2, 2026

Opposition politician Avigdor Liberman says he rejects forming a government with Netanyahu or with Israeli-Palestinian parties

Israeli opposition politician Avigdor Liberman will recommend Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot for prime minister and support B’Yachad’s Yair Lapid for Knesset speaker, Israeli media reported on 2 November.

Liberman, who leads the Yisrael Beytenu Party, made the announcement at a press briefing on Monday.

Liberman, Eisenkot, and Lapid are among Israel’s most prominent opposition leaders. They are seeking to form a coalition of opposition parties to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party from power as prime minister.

Under Israel’s Basic Law, President Israel Herzog must consult the political parties represented in the Knesset before deciding which member of parliament should attempt to form a government, which requires 61 of the 120 Knesset seats to form a majority.

When asked whether he expected to be nominated as prime minister, Liberman said he had no expectations and was working to form a government as soon as possible.

Until now, Eisenkot had called for the leader of the largest party in the opposition bloc to become its candidate for prime minister.

Among opposition parties, Eisenkot’s Yashar led with 21 seats in last week’s Knesset election, followed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid’s Together Alliance with 12.

However, Liberman announced no agreement on the arrangement within the opposition bloc.

The four-party opposition bloc won 48 seats, compared with 53 for Netanyahu’s bloc. Parties representing Palestinians with Israeli citizenship won another 19 seats.

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the B’Yachad party, announced on Sunday that he would recommend Eisenkot to President Herzog as its candidate to form the next government.

If opposition parties cannot form a coalition, new elections may result.

Another possibility is that Netanyahu’s bloc will reach an agreement with members of Eisenkot’s bloc to form a national unity government.

Such an outcome could allow Netanyahu to remain prime minister.

The Palestinian-Israeli parties have said they are willing to cooperate with the opposition bloc to ensure Netanyahu is ousted.

If Eisenkot partners with the Palestinian-Israeli parties, they could form a coalition with 67 seats, prompting Herzog to give Eisenkot the mandate to form a government.

However, Liberman continues to reject forming a government with Netanyahu or one that is reliant on support from Palestinian-Israeli parties, which he says would “survive less than a year.”

Herzog is expected to begin consultations with party representatives on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, opposition party leaders also plan to oust Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

“Also regarding the Knesset speaker, all the speculation and nonsense – we were not extortionists, and we do not intend to extort,” Liberman said. “Yair Lapid said he wants to be Knesset speaker. We will support Yair Lapid’s candidacy for Knesset speaker.”

If Ohana is replaced as speaker, the opposition bloc will gain greater control over the parliamentary agenda, including votes, legislation, and committee appointments, even if Netanyahu remains prime minister.

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-opposition-leaders-rally-behind-eisenkot-as-pm-amid-government-formation-talks