FILE PHOTO: Tulsi Gabbard. ©  Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

By Robert Bridge

The US national security advisor finally finds herself in a position where the truths she speaks cannot be ignored

In light of accusations that former US President Barack Obama had committed treason by attempting to rig the 2016 election and stage Russiagate, newly surfaced evidence shows Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election.

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, armed with a freshly declassified 2020 report by the House Intelligence Committee, went on the offensive against Obama last week during a wild White House press briefing.

Her follow-up message on X cuts to the chase and shows an administration that is no longer taking Democratic trash talk of “Russian collusion” sitting down.

She wrote that the “Obama administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false, promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt gave the presidential stamp of approval to Gabbard’s statement when she exclaimed: “There was no collusion, no corruption, except on the part of Barack Obama and the weaponized intelligence agencies at the time.”

Finally, it seems that some intelligent folks in Washington are coming around to the Kremlin’s way of thinking when Russiagate was at its peak lunacy. In a nutshell, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not care who would emerge victorious in the heated contest between the Democrat Hillary Clinton and her Republican challenger Donald Trump. The Russian leader declared his willingness to work with either leader accordingly. After all, it was a radically different period for US-Russia relations, but things would change quickly thanks to a nasty thing known as Politics as Usual.

Back in 2016, after Trump stunned Washington DC by being declared the Republican victor, President Barack Obama took a dramatic and distasteful move. Before any actual evidence of Russian interference in the election was forthcoming, he singlehandedly set out to destroy US-Russia relations by expelling Russian diplomats, confiscating Russian property, and targeting Russian officials and organizations for sanctions. This was followed up by a non-stop political witch-hunt, which largely prevented Donald Trump from focusing on anything else during his first presidency that was not Russia-related.

Just seven months into Trump’s first term, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether the maverick from Manhattan and members of his campaign had colluded with Vladimir Putin to influence the 2016 campaign. After nearly three years of dragging US-Russia relations over the coals, that investigation, which concluded in March 2019, yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian authorities. Yet the rumors of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, drummed up unmercifully by the Democrats, continued to spiral.

That’s why the revelations made by Tulsi Gabbard and her team on Wednesday are so important. They provide what appears to be the final nail into the coffin to the Democrat’s great deception known as Russiagate. In fact, the revelations of skullduggery are so damaging and timely that there are rumblings on Capitol Hill that Obama and his intelligence team could face charges of treason. That would pretty much guarantee another full-blown civil war in the country. But I digress.

Amid an assortment of shenanigans, the House committee reported that “One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win.” It went on to say that the intelligence report “ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged ­­– and in some cases undermined – judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.”

The report also found that two senior CIA officers reportedly warned the highest levels of the intelligence community that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.”

The declassified committee report includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that “Putin told him he did not care who won the election,” and that the Russian leader “had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.”

Other revelations from the House report:

“[Then] CIA Director Brennan and the Intelligence Community (IC) mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, ‘substandard’ sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed ‘a clear preference’ for Trump.”

“[Then] CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier (drafted by counterintelligence agent Christopher Steele in 2016) to assess ‘Russian plans and intentions,’ which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.”

“The IC excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence that contradicted the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA’s) key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was ‘implausible – if not ridiculous.’”

“Senior, experienced CIA officers who objected that the intelligence did not support the key judgment that Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win, were silenced by the outgoing Director of the CIA in December 2016. Those officers might have had their voices heard if the ICA’s publication (was) delayed until after the inauguration, to allow the incoming Director of the CIA to manage the process.”

At this point, it must be asked: Is this the beacon on the democratic hill that the US likes to claim for itself? A country that sits idly by as a sitting president pulls off a years-long coup against a political challenger, while jeopardizing relations with a nuclear power/erstwhile ally? A tarnished country that relentlessly preaches to the world about its democratic credentials?

Whatever the case may be, it is indeed fortuitous that Russia has found a fair dealer in Tulsi Gabbard. This is not the first time this courageous woman has supported Russia in a world gone mad. The American politician and military officer has previously defended Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, claiming that the US had provoked Russian aggression with NATO pledges to Kiev and that Ukraine housed US-funded biolabs. Her role in bringing the Russiagate hoax to a much-delayed close must be applauded, and should help US-Russia relations at a very critical time.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/622159-tulsi-gabbard-russiagate-history/

By Brian Shilhavy

I have published dozens of articles since the beginning of 2023 when the AI frenzy started, showing that it was poised to be the biggest market bubble of all time.

While there were a few dissenters back then, now more people are waking up, and the headline news on the Dow Jones publication “MarketWatch (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-man-behind-the-haters-guide-to-the-ai-bubble-thinks-wall-streets-hottest-trade-will-go-bust-ac398ce0)” today kicked this warning into the mainstream media.

The only thing I disagree with that the analyst said in this interview, it that “the AI boom will eventually lead to a painful bust on par with the collapse of the dot-com bubble.”

Ah, no. When you look at the total spending on AI right now, this bubble is MUCH bigger than the dot-com bust, which I lived through and even created my own ecommerce company during that time which is still operational.

When this AI bubble bursts, the effects will be FAR WORSE!

Why the man behind ‘The Hater’s Guide to the AI Bubble’ thinks Wall Street’s hottest trade will go bust

Excerpts:

Ahead of earnings reports from several of the major so-called AI hyperscalers due this week, MarketWatch spoke with Zitron to learn more about his perspective. Zitron elaborated on some of the points he made in a recent edition of his newsletter, “Where’s Your Ed At” and explained why he believes the AI boom will eventually lead to a painful bust on par with the collapse of the dot-com bubble.

MarketWatch: In your view, what are some of investors’ most common misconceptions about generative AI and its feasibility as a business?

Zitron: It doesn’t make any money or profit. Really, depending on the company, it is one or both. It’s one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen. It’s not like there are a few incumbents that are profitable but only making a little money. Even the two largest companies making the most revenues, OpenAI and Anthropic, are burning through billions of dollars a year.

MarketWatch: There has been a lot of talk about the potential for AGI — artificial general intelligence. How close are we to developing that?

Zitron: We are nowhere. We don’t have proof it’s even possible. We just don’t. Even Meta, which is currently giving these egregious sums of money to AI scientists — their lead AI scientist said scaling up large language models isn’t going to create AGI.

We do not know how human beings are conscious. We don’t know how human thinking works. How are we going to simulate that in a computer?

Furthermore, there’s no proof that you can make a computer conscious, and right now, they can’t even get agents right.

How the hell are they meant to make a conscious or automated computer? These models have no concept of right or wrong, or rules, or really anything.

They are just looking over a large corpus of data and generating, as they are probabilistic, the most likely thing that you may want it to. It is kind of crazy that they can do it, but what they are doing is not thinking.

Reasoning models are not actually reasoning. They do not reason. They do not have human thought, or any thought. They are just large language models that just spit out answers based on what the user wants.

Full article

[…]

Via https://t.me/healthimpact/2580

What’s Going on With Shipping? | July 27, 2025

In this episode, Sal Mercogliano — a maritime historian at Campbell University (@campbelledu) and former merchant mariner — and Patrick Dunham from StacheD Training discussed the decision of Matson to suspend the shipment of Electric Vehicles (EVs) on board their ships from the West Coast of the United States to Hawaii and Guam.

Viktor Mikhin, July 29, 2025

Despite Israel’s formidable military capabilities in the Middle East, it undoubtedly cannot establish regional dominance—a status implying absolute superiority over all adversaries and the voluntary submission of neighboring states. 

Netanyahu’s bold claims of transforming Israel into an unshakable regional ruler sound like a fantasy detached from reality. His ambitions are not strategic calculations but dangerous illusions, ridiculed by history and debunked by the very logic of Middle Eastern conflict.

The Bloody March of the “Invincible” Hegemon 

After Hamas’s successful October 2023 attack, Israel responded with relentless slaughter, attempting to erase Palestinians from the political map. Human rights advocates and experts unanimously labeled it genocide. Then, it methodically decimated Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon—through airstrikes, exploding phones, and other covert warfare tactics. It bombed Yemen to suppress the Houthis and struck Syria under the pretext of destroying weapons, though in reality, it sought to crush any resistance to its influence.

Then came Iran’s turn. Israel’s unprovoked attacks were not just strikes on nuclear facilities, but an attempt to:

– Sabotage U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, leaving Tehran with no diplomatic options.

– Decapitate Iran’s elite—killing generals, scientists, and diplomats to cripple its ability to respond.

– Drag the U.S. into a major war, shifting the burden of its adventurism onto Washington.

At best, Israel hoped to push the Iranian regime to collapse. But all of Netanyahu’s “bold strategist” efforts ended in obvious failure. The Iranian people rallied even more firmly around their government, and hatred for Israel’s bandit-like actions only grew. This reaction among ordinary Iranians is widely reported by diplomats and global media, including in the U.S. The exception is the Israeli press, which Netanyahu has heavily censored under an endless-seeming wartime regime.

Hegemon? Or Hostage to His Own Delusions? 

If each of these actions brought temporary success, does that mean Israel has become the region’s unshakable master? If a hegemon is a force no one can resist, does Israel fit that definition? And crucially: Should neighbors bow their heads, acknowledging its “natural” superiority, as small nations do before great powers?

Reality only laughs in response. Israel’s might is not a sign of dominance, but a desperate attempt to suppress growing resistance. Each new attack breeds new enemies; each bombing creates new avengers. Netanyahu’s hollow “victories” are Pyrrhic—they don’t consolidate power but only rock the boat he himself sits in.

The idea of Israeli hegemony is a doomed utopia. Because true strength lies not in aerial terror but in the ability to negotiate—something neither Israel nor its prime ministers, including the latest failure Netanyahu, have ever learned.

Israel and the Illusion of Regional Dominance 

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has demonstrated an impressive ability to survive and strengthen amid hostile surroundings. Relying on cutting-edge military technology and unwavering Western (especially U.S.) support, the country has gained significant influence in the Middle East. Yet, the dream of regional leadership remains unattainable—not due to a lack of strength but because of a lack of legitimacy, recognition from neighbors, and a coherent strategic vision.

With a $27.5 billion budget, Israel boasts one of the world’s most powerful militaries: a nuclear arsenal, advanced missile defense, elite special forces, and cyber warfare units. Its per capita military spending is among the highest globally, and overseas operations—like assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists or striking Syrian facilities—showcase its formidable capabilities.

But military might do not translate into political dominance. Operation Rising Lion in 2025—a joint U.S.-Israel strike on Iran’s nuclear sites—exemplified this paradox. Despite tactical success (temporarily destroying centrifuges in Natanz and the underground Fordow facility), the operation was a strategic failure. Iran not only quickly repaired the damage but, as Tehran announced, accelerated its nuclear program, enriching uranium to 90%. Meanwhile, Iran retaliated with effective missile strikes on Israeli bases and the U.S. Al Udeid base in Qatar.

Why Can’t Israel Become a Hegemon? 

Several glaring reasons stand out:

1. The Demographic Time Bomb – The Arab population within Israel and in occupied territories (Gaza, West Bank) continues to grow, threatening the Jewish character of the state.
2. The Palestinian Wound – The unresolved Palestinian issue undermines Israel’s international reputation and unites the Arab world in solidarity with Palestinians. Even Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has repeatedly emphasized this.
3. Geopolitical Isolation – Even normalization with the UAE and Bahrain hasn’t changed the fundamental reality: the Arab world is unwilling to accept Israel as a legitimate regional leader. Powers like Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia see it as a rival, not a partner.
4. No Unifying Ideology – Unlike Iran’s “Shiite resistance” or Turkey’s Ottoman nostalgia, Israel lacks a regional vision. Its policy revolves around security and deterrence, not constructive engagement.

True hegemony requires not just military superiority but voluntary recognition. Yet, Israel remains an “outsider” in the region—due to its occupation of Palestinian lands, blockade of Gaza, and reliance on U.S. support, which is seen as dependence on an external power. Even technological marvels like the Iron Dome don’t negate its vulnerability to mass rocket attacks. And with 30% of its military budget coming from U.S. aid, its strategy is predictable.

Israel’s “security through superiority” approach has reached its limit. Operations like *Rising Lion* only accelerate arms races and consolidate enemies. Without a political settlement with Palestinians and normalized relations with neighbors, Israel is doomed to remain a fortress—not a leader.

The Alternative? 

Shifting from intimidation to diplomacy. Creating regional security structures where Israel is an equal partner, not an occupier. For now, Netanyahu’s dream of hegemony remains a utopia—because force can be bought, but respect cannot.

Israel will not become a hegemon because it lacks not just military power but legitimacy. Its security depends not on strength but on political reconciliation with neighbors, including Palestinians. The world must realize: instead of blind support for Israel, diplomacy and dialogue are needed. Only this can break the cycle of violence and achieve lasting peace.

[…]

Via https://journal-neo.su/2025/07/29/israels-dream-of-domination-a-utopia-mocked-by-reality/

World War II Lies of the West Part 2

Directed by Tatanya Borsch(2025)

Film Review

https://en.rtdoc.tv/films/2005-world-war-ii-lies-of-the-west-part-2

Also see World War II: Lies of the West Part 1

The series continues with lies #5-7

Lie #5 Stalin shared equal blame with Hitler for starting World War II because he signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany in August 1939.

Stalin was the last allied leader to sign a non-aggression pact after EVERY other Allied leader had done so (Germany, France, UK and Italy in 1933 and Poland in 1934).

• in 1935, the UK and Germany signed the Anglo-German naval pact
• in 1938, Britain, France, Italy signed the Munich agreement consenting to the partition of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary (which the USSR officially opposed).
• In 1939 Latvia and Estonia both signed non-aggression pacts with Germany.

When Stalin signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, it had become obvious that the West (especially Britain and the US) were deliberately rearming Germany with the expectation Hitler would end the communist regime in Russia.

Lie #6 Only Hitler and the Nazi party were involved in genocide.

The Japanese engaged in genocide against the Chinese.

Croatian and Romanian troops who participated in Hitlers armies deliberately murdered Serbian civilians, Russian POWs and Russian women and children.

The Finns set up the first concentration camps for Russians along the Russo-Finnish border (see The Finnish Face of Fascism). The 14 camps interned 50,000 Russians under inhuman conditions that killed thousands.

Lie #7 The Soviet Union carried out a military occupation of its Western neighbors (known as the Eastern Bloc) following World War I.

In reality, the so-called Eastern Bloc countries elected communist governments when the war ended largely because the partisan movements that fought Nazi occupation significantly significantly augmented communist party membership in Eastern European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Romania and Czechoslovakia). France, Italy and Greece were also on the verge of electing communist governments when the CIA’s Gladio program violently intervened (see Operation Gladio The Secret CIA Program to Control Europe)

Rather than stripping Eastern bloc countries of their resource, as the British and French empires did in Africa and Asia (and the Americans have done with the Philippines and their Latin America and African neo-colonies), the Russians invested extenaively in rebuilding the Eastern bloc countries, providing massive food aid and helping them industrialize*

Both Bulgaria and Mongolia asked to join the USSR as the 16thand 17th Soviet Socialist republics. The Soviets declined because it violated treaty agreements with the West on borders.

*The only instances in which the Soviet military intervened in Eastern Block countries were in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The 1956 invasion of Hungary came in response to CIA/MI6 backed “color revolution,” in which the spy agencies supplied Hungarian fascist rebels with funding and weapons (1954-56) and transported them to British-occupied Austria to train them. SeeThe Hungarian “Revot” of 1956 – A Detailed Look at the Events

The 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (according to the CIA analysis) was one in which all Warsaw pact countries participated, owing to their heavy reliance on Czechoslovakia’s robust economy and superior military to resist a growing NATO threat (similar to the one Russia currently faces) and concern that reforms might jeopardize their economy). See The CIA and Strategic Warning: The 1968 Soviet-Led Invasion of Czechoslovakia

Imran’s sons also met with Dr Asif Mahmood, a Pakistani American physician who has been playing a key role in the PTI’s campaign to win over Americans.

Dr Mahmood, vice chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), shared a picture showing he also met with Grenell, along with the ex-premier’s sons.

“Immense pride for [Kasim] and Sulaiman Khan for their bravery in fighting for their father, former prime minister Imran Khan’s freedom,” he said.

He also praised Grenell for “standing for justice and principle” and called for unity to free the PTI founder.

In December 2024, after Trump won the presidential elections, Grenell had made a series of statements and tweets over a few weeks, including a viral “Free Imran Khan!” post on X.

He sharply criticised the policies of ex-president Joe Biden’s administration toward Pakistan, particularly its handling of the country’s missile programme and Imran’s imprisonment. Subsequently, Pakistan’s political and diplomatic machinery in the US had also ramped up efforts to engage with the new Congress.

“Getting the ear and voice of Richard Grenell, a key Trump insider, was crucial,” Shuja Nawaz, a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, had said in January.

Last week, during a congressional hearing on Pakistan, Republican Congressman Christopher H. Smith suggested that the US Congress may soon urge Trump’s administration to consider imposing sanctions on countries that suppress religious freedom and violate human rights.

Speakers at the hearing, also attended by PTI’s Zulfi Bukhari, discussed the rights situation in Pakistan. Democratic Congressman James McGovern stressed the need to engage and talk “about political prisoners, the future of Imran Khan … but also how you do it”.

Notably, there have been increased positive engagements between Washington and Islamabad, with an unprecedented meeting between Trump and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir in June and the US hailing the country as a “phenomenal partner” in counterterrorism.

Although the government has not officially commented on the matter of Imran’s son, Minister of State for Interior Tallal Chaudhry said today while speaking on Geo News show ‘Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath’ that the meeting would “practically have no result” even though it might net symbolic gains for the party.

He questioned what, if any, role Imran’s sons would be able to play, adding that they were welcome to visit Pakistan and there would be no obstacle for them and visas would be issued “in less than 24 hours”, provided they stayed within the law.

Previously, Minister of State for Law and Justice Barrister Aqeel Malik had told Dawn.com that Article 16 of the Constitution, which grants the right to gather, was applicable to citizens and foreigners are not allowed to assemble in Pakistan.

Malik also said that the two brothers could not legally participate in local political activity as they were British nationals, and that if they “violate the visa conditions, the visa can be cancelled”.

There were conflicting statements from PML-N leaders as well on whether the duo would be allowed entry into Pakistan, with Senator Irfan Siddiqui saying they should be allowed to come and “carry out their activities”, but within the limitations of the law.

[…]

Via https://www.dawn.com/news/1926052