The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Can Trump Demilitarize Gaza with Night Raids and Death Squads?

At the opening ceremony for Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace in Davos, Jared Kushner unveiled glossy images of his vision for a “new Gaza”: shining apartment towers, luxury developments, and sweeping views of the Mediterranean. There were no Palestinians at the ceremony—and none on the Board of Peace itself. In Kushner’s fantasy, Palestinians appear only as an absence, buried beneath the rubble of the real Gaza.

But how, exactly, are Palestinians to be “demilitarized” and pacified to make way for this Riviera of the Middle East? The assassination of Gaza’s Khan Younis police chief in a drive-by shooting this January offers a chilling clue. It was not an isolated act of lawlessness, but an ominous signal of what lies ahead. As Israeli-backed Palestinian militias openly take credit for targeted killings, the United States is reviving a familiar, deadly—and thoroughly discredited—playbook from Iraq and Afghanistan, in which death squads, night raids, and “kill or capture” missions are cynically repackaged as stabilization and peace.

Gaza is now being positioned as the next laboratory for this model, under the banner of Donald Trump’s so-called “peace plan,” with consequences that history has already shown to be catastrophic.

That strategy was laid bare on January 12th, 2026, when Lieutenant-Colonel Mahmoud al-Astal, the police chief of Khan Younis in Gaza, was assassinated by a death squad based in the Israeli-occupied part of Gaza beyond the “yellow line.” A militia leader known as Abu Safin immediately took credit for the killing, which he said was ordered by Shin Beit, Israel’s anti-Palestinian spy agency.

Another Israeli-backed militia, reputedly linked to ISIS, killed a well-known Gaza journalist, Saleh Al-Jafarawi, in October. That militia’s leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, was disowned by his family for running a pro-Israel death squad and was killed on November 4th, reportedly by one of his own gang.

These Israeli-run death squad operations follow a similar pattern to the targeted killings of Iraqi civil society leaders as resistance grew to the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq in 2003 and 2004. But as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, these targeted killings are likely to grow into a much more systematic and widespread use of death squads and military “kill or capture” night raids in the next phase of Trump’s “peace” plan.

President Trump has announced that the so-called “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) in Gaza will be under the command of U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers, who was, until recently, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command. Jeffers is a veteran of “special operations” in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. occupation responded to widespread armed resistance with death squad operations, thousands of airstrikes, and night raids by special operations forces that peaked at over a thousand night raids per month in Afghanistan by 2011.

But like Israel’s Palestinian death squads during the first stage of Trump’s “peace” plan, the U.S. mass killing machines in Afghanistan and Iraq began on a smaller scale.

For an article in the New Statesman, published on March 15, 2004, British journalist Stephen Grey investigated the assassination of Abdul-Latif al-Mayah, the director of the Baghdad Centre for Human Rights and the fourth professor from al-Mustansariya University to be killed. Professor al-Mayah was dragged out of his car on his way to work, shot 20 times and left dead in the street. A senior U.S. military spokesman blamed his death on “the guerrillas,” and told Grey, “Silencing urban professionals… works against everything we’re trying to do here.”

On further investigation, Grey discovered that it was forces within the occupation government, not the resistance, that killed Professor Al-Mayah. An Iraqi police officer eventually told him, “Dr. Abdul-Latif was becoming more and more popular because he spoke for people on the street here… There are political parties in this city who are systematically killing people. They are politicians that are backed by the Americans and who arrived in Iraq from exile with a list of their enemies. I’ve seen these lists. They are killing people one by one.”

A few months later, retired Colonel James Steele, a veteran of the Phoenix program in Vietnam, the U.S. war in El Salvador and the Iran-Contra scandal, arrived in Iraq to oversee the recruitment and training of new Special Police Commandos (SPC), who were then unleashed as death squads in Mosul, Baghdad and other cities, under command of the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

Steven Casteel, who ran the Iraqi Interior Ministry after the U.S. invasion, was the former intelligence chief for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Latin America, where it worked with the Los Pepes death squad to hunt down and kill Pepe Escobar, the leader of the Medellin drug cartel.

In Iraq, Steele and Casteel both reported directly to U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, another veteran of U.S. covert operations in Vietnam and Latin America.

Just as John Negroponte, James Steele and Steven Casteel brought the methods they learned and used in Vietnam and Latin America to Iraq, Jasper Jeffers brings his training and experience from Iraq and Afghanistan to Gaza, and will clearly bring other special operations and CIA officers with similar backgrounds into the leadership of the so-called International Stabilization Force (ISF).

The ISF, as described in Trump’s “Peace Plan,” is supposed to be an international force that would provide security, support a new Palestinian police force, and oversee the demilitarization and redevelopment of the Gaza Strip.  But the Arab and Muslim countries that originally showed an interest in contributing forces to the ISF all changed their minds once they understood that this would not be a peacekeeping mission, but a force to hunt down and “disarm” Hamas and impose a new form of foreign occupation in Gaza.

Turkey wants to send troops, but so far, Israel has objected, and the other countries that have expressed interest, such as Indonesia, say there is no clear mandate or rules of engagement. And what Muslim country will send forces to Gaza while Israel controls over half of the territory and moves the “Yellow Line” even deeper into Gaza?

Even if some Arab and Muslim countries are persuaded to join the ISF, the most difficult and politically explosive job of actually destroying Hamas will most likely be in the hands of the U.S. and Israeli Special Ops commanders, the mercenaries they bring in and the death squads they recruit.

We can expect to see General Jeffers and his team provide more training and direction to Palestinians already collaborating with Israel in death squad operations, and try to recruit more militia members from current and former Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank and from the Palestinian diaspora.

CIA and JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) officers with experience in death squad operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to oversee these operations from the shadows, using the same “disguised, quiet, media-free approach” that senior U.S. military officers hailed as a success in Central America as they adapted it to the “war on terror” and the “war on drugs.”

For political reasons, Jeffers will probably use JSOC officers mainly for training and planning, and employ private military contractors to conduct night raids and other combat operations. Along with the huge expansion of U.S. and allied special operations forces in recent U.S. wars, there has been a proliferation of for-profit military contractors that employ former special operations officers from U.S. and allied countries as unaccountable mercenaries.

These privatized forces have already been deployed in Gaza, notably by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Its food distribution sites became death traps for desperate, hungry people forced to risk their lives just to try to feed their families. Israeli forces and mercenaries killed at least a thousand people at and around these sites.

The tens of thousands of Americans and others who took part in night raids in Iraq or Afghanistan and special operations in other U.S. wars have created a huge pool of experienced assassins and shock troops that Jeffers can draw on, with for-profit military and “security” firms serving as cut-outs to shield decision-makers from accountability. More routine functions, such as manning checkpoints, can be delegated to other ISF forces, military police veterans and less specialized mercenaries.

The appointment of General Jeffers to command Trump’s ISF, and Israel’s formation and deployment of Palestinian death squads during the first phase of Trump’s phony peace plan, should be all the red flags the world needs to see what is coming—and to categorically reject Trump’s obscene plan before it goes any farther.

Like Bush and Blair planning the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Trump is planning to systematically violate the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and especially the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees protection for civilians in war zones or under military occupation.

Tony Blair’s role in Trump’s plan is further evidence that the plan has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with the Western imperialism that keeps rearing its ugly head around the world, and which has bedevilled Palestine for more than a century.

Appointing Blair to any role in governing Gaza ignores not only his role in U.S. and British aggression against Iraq, but also his lead role in the U.K. and EU’s decision, in 2003, to abandon earlier efforts to bring Palestinian factions together in the interest of Palestinian unity. Instead, they adopted a militarized, “counterinsurgency” strategy toward Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups. Blair’s failed policy helped pave the way for Hamas’s election victory in 2006, and for the endless, U.S.-backed Israeli violence against Gaza ever since.

It is perhaps no wonder that Trump and Blair see eye to eye on Palestine, as they share the same ignorance, egotism and inhumanity, and the same disdain for international law. But the savage methods used by U.S. special operations forces and U.S.-trained death squads to kill hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq only fueled broader resistance, which ultimately drove U.S occupation forces out of both countries.

The same tactics will lead to the same failure in Gaza. But unleashing such horrific violence on the already desperate, starving, unhoused, captive people of Gaza is a policy of such gratuitous barbarity and injustice that it should compel the whole world to come together to put a stop to it.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-demilitarize-gaza-night-raids-death-squads/5913280

Historic Win: US Exits World Health Organization

Health Freedom Defense Fund

It was a historic day for health sovereignty for American citizens. On January 22, 2026, the White House released Executive Order #14155, which formally withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization. While this decision was made a year ago, the terms of membership required a one-year waiting period to exit the organization. Health Freedom Defense Fund voices its full support of this steadfast move, and hopes that it will be a durable one. The WHO was and remains the world’s top supporter of one-size-fits-all medicine, and it facilitated and legitimized most of the excesses and crimes of the “pandemic” era.

The WHO constitution, written in 1948, was an optimistic and exceptionally naive document that was full of flowery language and vague mandates. In theory, cooperation is always nice, but in practice, the details and results are what matters. And if the cost of this arrangement was loss of sovereignty over our own health decisions, billions of dollars in funding, and a continuation of a paternalistic attitude toward individual choices and local control, no trade off could be worth it.

For eight decades after the Second World War, the WHO consulted UN member states on health matters and policy, issued medical guidelines, hosted working groups, and held opulent galas to celebrate their own achievements. Privileges and immunities, both legal and social, were showered upon its officials. Despite admitting doing no actual “implementation” of health programs, the WHO was quick to dubiously note its own impact through its various meetings and declarations, all to justify its existence, and to extend its reach and budget. Over that time period, the United States was by far its largest donor, and certainly in turn used the WHO for its own purposes of maintaining easy financial support for favored regimes abroad. It did this while dictating other country’s policies to benefit American pharmaceutical and diagnostic corporations’ bottom line.

Until very recently, the WHO served as a lead technical advisor to huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer money going around the world through USAID, PEPFAR, The Global Fund, and other mechanisms. So instead of U.S. citizens and their elected representatives deciding how health and development assistance money should have been spent, the WHO was inappropriately and secretly advising how and when American taxpayer money should be spent. In so doing, it not only interfered with our representative republic, but also enriched themselves via American generosity with exorbitant tax-free salaries, diplomatic immunity, and insufferable arrogance.

More importantly, in so doing, the WHO decided the fates of billions of people by its arbitrary, unaccountable guidelines and recommendations. Even if we are to believe the lofty goals of the WHO were genuine, and if we believed the fantastic claims of effectiveness of a given drug or intervention, the WHO often stood in the way of poor people receiving the same access to care as those in rich countries, in effect “kicking away the ladder” so poor people couldn’t access the very care available in richer countries.

As an example, the WHO excluded horrific ailments like childhood tuberculosis, from the official treatment guidelines, so member states for decades never received funding to treat children for the ailment under the utilitarian justification that “it is necessary to make the best possible use of limited resources”[1]. So even by its own terms, it was a shameful failure that stood in the way of countries making their own decisions for decades. And so, it remains.

Ultimately, in practice, the WHO attempted to continue a legacy of colonial control that eventually started to also include control over rich countries through its Covid-19 guidelines and arbitrary measures like social distancing and masking. Even newer instruments like the Pandemic Treaty would have eviscerated the sovereignty of all member states to make their own decisions in health emergencies. Thankfully, for now, the country is safe from this meddling by foreign bureaucrats.

With this announcement, one less country, and one huge donor, will no longer be involved in this scheme. With the departure of the United States, the top donors will be Bill Gates’ “philanthropic” organizations like The Gates Foundation and GAVI, with China leading the way as a state donor. HFDF sincerely hopes that countries around the world consider these facts before giving money to the WHO, listening to its advice, or assuming it has their best interests in mind.

[…]

Via https://healthfreedomdefense.org/a-historic-win-the-us-exits-the-world-health-organization/

Netanyahu regime runs defamation campaign against Doctors Without Borders

MSF teams support people in North Gaza with mobile clinics to provide medical care. (File photo by MSF)

Press TV

The medical charity organization Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières or MSF) has said the defamation campaign launched against it is a propaganda offensive funded and sponsored by Israel.  

Declassified UK, a British investigative journalism and media organisation​​​​​, revealed that the Israeli regime’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, launched an anti-MSF defamation campaign in the UK in an effort to stop the medical charity from providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, ravaged by the Israeli regime’s genocidal war.

Declassified UK reported on Friday that as part of the defamation campaign, the Tel Aviv regime is paying for an advertisement to appear as the top result on Google search when users search for information about MSF.

The Israeli-paid advertisement shows a report released by Tel Aviv, which accuses the MSF of alleged “grave misconduct” in Gaza.

The report — which is titled the “Systematic Conduct of Médecins Sans Frontières” and is authored by an “Inter-Ministerial Team” in Israel and dated December 2025 — claims the conduct of MAF, including the behavior of its international and local staff in hospitals, “contradicts the fundamental ethics of international humanitarian action.”

Tel Aviv claims the MSF is authoring the release of “official publications … that far exceed the bounds of legitimate criticism.”

It adds that the MSF is deliberately making an “effort to undermine and deny the legitimacy” of the Tel Aviv regime.

The Israeli regime’s defamation campaign against the MSF comes as Tel Aviv seeks to limit the scope of activities of the MSF and other international humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza, carrying out life-saving operations there on a daily basis.

The move is seen as part of the regime’s wider efforts to dismantle the humanitarian organizations providing crucial life-saving services for Palestinians.

Under this pretext, the Tel Aviv regime has refused to renew MSF’s permit to operate in Gaza and the West Bank since the start of January.

Now, the medical aid organisation says it might be forced by March 1 to stop its humanitarian operations in the Palestinian territories.

The hapless Palestinian patients who are dependent on the MSF for aid in Gaza have responded to the news with horror.

“If MSF stops working, people will lose their lives,” one Palestinian pointed out.

In the meantime, MSF has issued a statement giving assurance to the Palestinians that the medical charity group remains fully committed to its humanitarian obligations towards patients in need of relief.

“We remain committed to providing assistance to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and call on the Israeli authorities to reverse their decision… and to put in place acceptable operating conditions,” MSF said in its statement.

MSF has provided crucial medical aid to Palestinians, caring for the defenseless Palestinians cut off from the rest of the world throughout the Gaza genocide by providing international and local staff working in hospitals across the besieged strip.

[…]

Via https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/01/23/762782/Doctors-without-Borders-MSF-defamation-campaign-funded-by-Israel

Alexander the Great and the End of Persian Empire 333-323

The Grand Master: Alexander's Genius in the Battle of Issus | War ...

Episode 23: End of Persian Empire 333-323

The Persian Empire

Dr John W I Lee (2012)

Film Review

The armies of Darius III and Alexander met for the first time in 333 BC at the Battle of Issus (in modern Turkey near the border with Syria). Darius had approximately 50,000 men (mainly Greek mercenaries and Persian archers) and Alexander 37,000. Despite their smaller numbers, the latter had far more training and experience. The vast majority of Darius’ army had never seen battle.

The Persian emperor fled the battlefield after his guard was killed, allowing Alexander to capture his mother, wife and daughter, which the latter treated with great respect. When Darius wrote Alexander requesting his family’s return. Alexander made reference to the emperor’s illegal seizure of the Persian throne.

SIEGE OF TYRE AND ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN PHOENICIA | Facts and Details

Following his victory at Issus, Alexander laid siege (with his siege engines) to Tyre and Gaza. After laying waste to both cities, he headed south to Egypt, where most cities surrendered voluntarily.

Darius meanwhile built up a force of 100,000 men from the eastern empire. This included armored cavalry from Bactria and and 15 elephants from India. Alexander marched north to confront him at Gaugamela north of Babylon in 331 BC. With fewer troops (40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry), he deployed his pike holders in a moving hollow square so he couldn’t be outflanked.

Warfare History Network » The Battle of Gaugamela: Alexander the Great ...

Darius fled after the Persian center collapsed and escaped to Ecbatana in Medea. Proclaiming himself great king of the Persian empire, he headed for Babylon to “liberate” the Babylonians from Persian oppression.

Seizing the city’s massive treasury of gold and silver, he appointed the Persian Mazeus as satrap of Babylonia and ordered the money spent on public works and infrastructure to stimulate the Babylonian economy.

Pushing on to Persepolis and Pasargardae, Alexander experienced strong resistance that killed many of his troops. However without clear leadership, the Persian forces had no hope of prevailing. After looting the immense stores of silver and gold in Persepolis, Alexander set fire to the palaces and burnt much of the city to the ground.

Darius had planned to make a stand at Ecbatana, but found none of the nobles there regarded him as the legitimate king. So he took a few thousand troops and headed for Bactria, seeking support from nomadic steppes warriors. When he decided to surrender to Alexander in 330 BC, the nobles accompanying him put him in golden chains and left him by the roadside to die. Alexander sent the body to his mother in Susa, who buried him and stabbed herself to death. Bessus, the Persian satrap of Bactria, declared himself Artaxerxes the V and unsuccessfully tried to mobilize opposition to Alexander.

Between 330-327 BC Alexander, who adopted Persian dress and married both Darius’s oldest daughter and Artaxerxes IV’s sister, suppressed numerous revolts in the eastern empire. However the letter never came under Macedonian control.

Between 327-25 BC he led his troops to the Indus valley, when they refused to go any further. He returned to Susa to assume his full time role as Persia’s new king. He died under mysterious circumstances in 323 BC.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/15372393/15372454

Caution, magic elves!

Dmitry Orlov

Since I mostly publish in English and in French, most of you, my readers, find yourselves living in North America or in Europe. And since I happen to be Russian, my attitude is pro-Russian — as you would expect, as you would cats to be pro-cat and dogs to be pro-dog. This is potentially a problem for you, my dear readers, since in the countries in which you find yourselves being pro-Russian is a crime. Hence, my call for caution.

I take it as axiomatic that Europe and the US are being run by genocidal maniacs who are hell-bent on killing as many Russians as possible, be they Russian Russians or Ukrainian Russians. The difference between the two is not so much cultural, religious or linguistic as it is ethical and moral. My distinctly Russian attitude is that Ukrainians are Russians who have lost their way. Russia had also lost its way, albeit briefly, and in this we have done a great disservice to the Ukrainians, causing them to once again succumb to the siren call of the west.

In any case, the Genocidal Maniacs of the West, who have been hell-bent on killing as many Russians as possible for 830 years (ever since Pope Celestine III’s call for the Northern Crusades in 1195) have taken advantage of this situation and, overcome by their centuries-old bloodlust, have funneled huge quantities of money and weapons to the losing side (the Ukrainians, that is), resulting in at least a million deaths, most of them on the Ukrainian side.

In perpetuating the fiction that this is some sort of “just war,” the Genocidal Maniacs of the West no longer feel restrained by any legal requirements or strictures. To them, anybody who is active socially or on the internet (which are the same thing at this point) and who is pro-Russian is automatically a criminal. So, here’s the choice: either you stay in North America or in Europe, or you can be pro-Russian. (Conversely, if you are in Russia and are anti-Russian, you can easily find yourself labeled as a foreign agent and face certain unpleasant consequences.) There is a war going on, you know. “The first casualty when war comes is truth,” said Senator Hiram W Johnson.

There are some people who apparently believe themselves to be magic elves to whom no evil can ever befall and who violate this cardinal rule: those who say pro-Russian things while remaining in Europe or the US. Examples include the Swiss military expert Jacques Baud and the former Iraqi arms inspector Scott Ritter, who have suddenly found their bank accounts frozen. And let’s not forget the Chilean/American journalist Gonzalo Lira who was tortured to death in a Ukrainian jail. I am sure that I am failing to mention quite a few other such people, but that is the range of negative experiences one should expect: the lightest sanction one would face is financial, the heaviest getting tortured to death.

Their predicament results from a combination of two root causes:

1. being on the wrong side physically and

2. being on the wrong side publicly

They could have avoided their predicament either by shifting sides or by keeping quiet. Taking their location as a given, the root cause reduces to UNSAFE PUBLICITY.

Some of them attempt to “fix” their problem through even greater unsafe publicity — with the help of YouTube journalists such as Tucker Carlson or judge Napolitano. By the way, some of these YouTube journalists may also turn out to be magic elves — but not all: there is also Nima. He may look like a magic elf but he isn’t one, since he broadcasts from the safety of distinctly pro-Russian Brazil.

Some also attempt to “fix” their problem by applying legal or political pressure — but the problem with this approach is that anybody who comes to the defense of someone who is pro-Russian is also automatically pro-Russian and therefore, axiomatically, a criminal. Therefore, these approaches only enlarge the problem.

The only solution to someone who has gotten into trouble by making pro-Russian statements or expressing pro-Russian sentiments in the public space in Europe or the US is EXPATRIATION. But this is not possible without considerable preparation and planning, so the only viable alternative for most people is keeping their mouths shut.

I know that many people feel that speaking the truth is somehow an impenetrable defense: how can someone accuse you of making statements that are provably true? For them, it is important to understand that concepts such as “truth” no longer apply in Europe or the US. Statements made or opinions expressed in public must fit one of the acceptable, mainstream narratives.

If you are in (no longer great) Britain, same goes for statements or opinions made or expressed in private — the walls have ears and so do the gadgets through which people now communicate. You might still get away with thinking contrary thoughts, but only because the prosecution of thought crimes is still technically challenging.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/a4eb8c02-5acf-472d-868d-a92ac8521191

Democrats Join Republicans in Voting Clintons in Contempt of Congress

Why the Clintons Avoided Sworn Testimony—and What the Law Doesn't Tell ...

Jonathan Turley

Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee. Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.

As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.

From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.

After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.

It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons

What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution. Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:

Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)

Shontel Brown (D., Oh)

Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)

Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)

Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)

Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)

James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)

Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.). That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.

Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California. Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.

The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.

Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.

This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage. Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.

For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering an even remotely plausible legal defenses.

[…]

Via https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/22/democrats-join-republicans-in-voting-the-clintons-in-contempt-of-congress/

Trump reveals details of secret ‘sonic weapon’ used in Venezuela raid

Trump claimed that the US military used a sonic weapon during the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela

Donald Trump confirmed that US special forces used a ‘secret sonic’ weapon during the daring capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The President on Tuesday night bragged that ‘nobody else’ has the weapon, while glorifying the capabilities of the US military.

The exact nature of the weapons and how it was used is unknown. Trump was coy when giving details during an interview with NewsNation anchor Katie Pavlich.

Pavlich asked Trump whether Americans should be ‘afraid’ of these sonic devices.

‘Well yeah,’ Trump responded.

He then added that only the US military has access to the sonic weapons by noting, ‘It’s something I don’t wanna… nobody else has it.’

‘But we have weapons nobody else knows about.’ Trump continued. ‘And, I say it’s probably good not to talk about it, but we have some amazing weapons.’

Following the capture of Maduro, reports surfaced that special forces used unknown sonic weapons to disable the Cuban bodyguards assigned to protect the Venezuelan dictator.

The President on Tuesday night bragged that ‘nobody else’ has the weapon, while glorifying the capabilities of the US military

Following reports of the weapons existence, Kremlin officials have demanded that the US provide more information about the sonic device

The report surfaced online by an X account claiming that the sonic weapon caused Venezuelan soldiers to vomit blood. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the testimony via X earlier this month.

Leavitt’s account on X shared an interview with an unnamed security guard who claimed to be working the night the US struck Venezuela and took Maduro on drug trafficking charges.

The interview saw the security guard reveal the terrifying capabilities of the mysterious new US military weapon, which he described as a ‘very intense sound wave’ that disabled Venezuelan forces.

Mike Netter, the vice chairman of Rebuild California, first shared in the days after the attack in an X post that received over 15 million views in a day, and he said the apparent use of the sonic weapon ‘explains a lot about why the tone across Latin America suddenly changed.’

‘Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside,’ the security guard reportedly said. ‘We all started bleeding from the nose. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move.

‘We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon or whatever it was.’

Following reports of the weapons existence, Kremlin officials have demanded that the US provide more information about the sonic device.

US special forces captured Nicolás Maduro earlier this month on the orders of President Trump

Putin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said his government would begin investigating and obtaining more information regarding Trump’s remarks.

Sonic weapons have been linked to the ‘Havana Syndrome’, a controversial disease which is yet to be formally recognized but has been put forward as an explanation for dozens of anomalous ailments hitting US officials.

The condition was first documented in 2016, after officials said a localized sound wave caused symptoms including headaches, dizziness, nausea, cognitive impairment, memory lapses, balance issues and insomnia.

If the weapon system Trump is referring to is a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), then this device has been used by other countries’ militaries all over the world, including Israel.

An LRAD is a specialized loudspeaker that fires a concentrated beam of sound, rather than spraying noise in all directions like a typical bullhorn.

LRADs are used by military, law enforcement and maritime security for communication, crowd control and defense against pirates.

Capable of reaching up to 3.5 miles for voice, they can also emit excruciating sound at 160 decibels as a deterrent that can cause hearing loss.

[…]

Via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15484475/Trump-reveals-details-secret-sonic-weapon-used-Venezuela-raid-it.html

‘I’m not gonna pay anything’ – Trump on Greenland

‘I’m not gonna pay anything’ – Trump on Greenland

RT

US President Donald Trump has said that the Greenland deal currently being worked out by his administration and NATO would grant American forces “total access” to the territory at zero cost to Washington.

Earlier this month, Trump promised to seize Greenland from Denmark “the easy way” or “the hard way.” During a speech at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos on Wednesday, he described the island as “ours,” and called on Copenhagen to enter “immediate negotiations” to hand it over to the US.

Denmark refused, and Trump softened his approach after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later that evening. He said that he would no longer tariff European nations opposing his acquisition plans, and that he and Rutte had come up with a deal that “everybody’s very happy with.”

“It’s being negotiated right now,” he told Fox News on Thursday.

“I think it’s gonna be something,” he said.

Trump said that Greenland is vital for his planned ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system, a project that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost the US $831 billion. Trump claimed on Thursday that the system – which will supposedly utilize space-based interceptors – will be “Israel times probably 100.”

Neither Rutte nor Trump have commented on whether their deal would impact Danish sovereignty. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he had spoken with Rutte but declined to provide details.

Greenland already hosts around 150 US troops at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Under the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, American forces can move freely throughout the territory, and there is no upper limit set on the number of US troops that can be deployed there.

Trump has claimed that only US ownership can protect Greenland from Russia and China, arguing that both would claim the island if the US didn’t take it first. However, Denmark maintains that there is no external threat to Greenland “today.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Greenland is of no concern to Moscow, and that the US and Denmark would “sort it out among themselves.”

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/631360-trump-not-paying-greenland/

Canadian PM Carney arrives in Beijing; visit to help Ottawa gain more room for balance with US, China

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives in Beijing on January 14, 2026. Carney kicked off an official visit to China from Wednesday to Saturday. Photo: VCG

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives in Beijing on January 14, 2026. Carney kicked off an official visit to China from Wednesday to Saturday. Photo: VCG

Liu Xin

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for an official visit to China through Saturday. This marks the first trip to China by a Canadian Prime Minister in eight years.

Some Chinese experts said that Carney’s visit may also mark a pivotal step in efforts to stabilize and repair China-Canada relations. Using Carney’s visit as a starting point to advance consensus and restore economic and trade ties would help further stabilize China-Canada relations, allowing more room for Ottawa to balance its ties with both Washington and Beijing.

“I am headed to Beijing. China is our second-largest trading partner, and the world’s second largest economy,” Carney wrote on X on Tuesday local time. “A pragmatic and constructive relationship between our nations will create greater stability, security, and prosperity on both sides of the Pacific.”

He also posted a photo showing himself waving after stepping onto the aircraft’s boarding stairs, with the plane’s cabin door open behind him.

Upon arrival later on Wednesday, Carney was welcomed at Beijing Capital International Airport by Chinese officials and the Guard of Honor, according to video clips from CCTV.

China attaches high importance to the visit. President Xi Jinping will meet with Prime Minister Carney to provide new strategic guidance for the further improvement and development of bilateral relations. Premier Li Qiang and Chairman Zhao Leji of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress will hold talks and meet with him respectively to have broad-based and in-depth exchanges of views on bilateral relations and issues of mutual interests, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Carney’s pre-departure tweet to China conveyed goodwill and signaled a willingness to build consensus for tangible cooperation. Although China and Canada have maintained constructive engagement in recent months, concrete progress in economic and trade ties has yet to materialize, making the visit an effort to move beyond symbolism toward actionable outcomes, Zhao Xingshu, a deputy director of the Department of Canadian Studies at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The China-Canada leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of last year’s APEC meeting in Gyeongju, South Korea, sent a positive signal, and Carney’s current visit is both a follow-up to that consensus and a reflection of a growing sense of urgency in Ottawa, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

That urgency, Lü noted, stems from Canada’s unique strategic predicament. As a North American country, Canada is facing what he described as “unprecedented security pressure from its neighbor,” prompting a reassessment of its relations with major powers and a shift away from the previous government’s one-sided approach. In this context, managing ties with major powers has become an urgent, and in some respects existential strategic task for Canada.

Carney’s visit may also mark a pivotal step in efforts to stabilize and repair China-Canada relations. Whether Canada can seize the opportunity to translate diplomatic goodwill into concrete outcomes through pragmatic cooperation in trade, climate action, and multilateral affairs, will shape not only the future of bilateral ties but also broader stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific, Lü said.

Move toward diversification

Canada announced Carney’s plan to visit China and Switzerland on January 7, and said that Canada’s new government is moving its economy from reliance to resilience by “building our strength at home, working to double our non-US exports, and attracting massive new investment.”

Trade is expected to feature prominently on Carney’s agenda, alongside agriculture and international security. While some Western media have highlighted bilateral frictions, particularly disputes over tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, some Chinese experts said the two sides still have room to resolve differences through sincere dialogue that aligns with their respective interests, rather than following the US approach of imposing unilateral trade pressure.

Lü said that even in areas Canada views as competitive, there is significant room for complementary cooperation with China. For example, Canada’s strength in traditional auto parts could be redirected toward EV components, allowing it to integrate into China’s mature electric vehicle ecosystem as a key supply-chain partner.

While full vehicle manufacturing may not be Canada’s strong suit, deeper participation in the industrial chain would both create opportunities and help ease its dependence on the US market. Overall, cooperation remains the central focus of Carney’s visit, said Lü.

Canadian and other Western media have extensively covered Carney’s visit to China in recent days. A BBC report on Wednesday said that Carney faces a “delicate balancing act” during his China visit. On Wednesday, a report in The New York Times claimed that “Carney…is spending a significant chunk of his time overseas seeking new customers for Canadian goods. China is at the top of his list.”

A report in Canadian media The Globe and Mail on Tuesday noted that Carney’s entourage for the China trip will include five cabinet members, the biggest ministerial delegation that has accompanied Carney on a foreign trip so far. It also claimed that Carney’s trip to China comes with an agenda that would have seemed unlikely before Trump took office – warming up ties with China “to a degree not seen in a decade, plus carving out a bigger role for Beijing in Canada’s economy.”

Also on Tuesday, The Globe and Mail reported that Trump described the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade as “irrelevant,” remarks coming just a day ahead of Carney’s visit to China. The report added that Trump’s comments have unsettled both Canada and Mexico ahead of an expected renegotiation of the continental trade pact later this year.

Canada has come to realize that the Pacific Rim’s pathway to stability is under threat. This reflects not only concern over Canada’s own position, but also deeper anxiety that a vast, tightly interconnected trans-Pacific trade system is being destabilized by US unilateralism, Lü said, noting that with trade protectionism on the rise globally, China and Canada need frank and proactive consultations aimed at delivering concrete outcomes.

Zhao noted that amid China-US strategic competition, managing ties with China has become a key test for Canada. The resumption of the China-Canada diplomatic dialogue reflects Ottawa’s effort to reassess its role within the US alliance framework, as bilateral exchanges enter a phase of recalibration.

If Carney’s visit can anchor cooperation around shared interests and deliver tangible progress in restoring economic and trade ties, it may help steer China-Canada relations back onto a healthy and sustainable path, and support a more balanced relationship with the US, Zhao said.

[…]

Via https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1353230.shtml

Is Israel Preparing Nuclear Bombs for Iran According to “The Samson Option”?

Story of Samson in Judges chapter 16 in the Old Testament part of the Bible.

by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News

Last week, Israeli press reported a 4.2 earthquake in Dimona, near a major nuclear facility.

4.2 magnitude earthquake recorded in southern Israel

The epicentre was registered near a major nuclear facility, but Magen David Adom has confirmed that no injuries have been reported and witness testimony suggests damage in the area was limited

An earthquake measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale has set off alerts in the Dead Sea and southern Negev regions of Israel.

According to the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre, the quake took place around 9am IST (7am GMT) with the epicentre near Dimona.

Dimona is the third largest city in the Negev, with an estimated population of just under 40,000 people, and his home to the Negev Nuclear Research Centre.

One local resident, who left a testimony on the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre’s website, said they felt their bed moving.

Other testimonies included a resident of Beersheba, 49km west from epicenter, who said: “We live on a high floor. We felt the earthquake. The lamps on the ceiling moved.”

One person even reported feeling tremors in Haifa – 192km north-west of the epicentre – saying: “Felt a quake while sitting on my chair. Furniture was shaking lightly.”

Testimonies also came in from nearby Jordan, with a resident of Ma’an, 108km south-east of the epicentre, reporting: “I felt the desk in my office moving side to side for 2 seconds.”

Source.

There has been speculation that what caused the earthquake was a nuclear bomb explosion underground.

Max Blumenthal was interviewed on The Jimmy Dore Show a few days ago where they were discussing the Iran situation, and when he mentioned this earthquake in Dimona within the context of Israel trying to put pressure on Trump to attack Iran, he brought up the topic of “The Samson Option” which has been allegedly used to blackmail U.S. Presidents in the past to gain their military support.

The “Samson Option” is named after the Biblical character of Samson in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Samson committed suicide while also annihilating Israel’s enemies at the same time.

The current day meaning is that Israel would use this option to cause a nuclear war, knowing full well it might destroy their own country.

I saw Blumenthal’s comments in a clip out of the interview, but I watched the entire interview today with Jimmy Dore, and it is well worth watching, and easy to follow along at higher speeds.

The section about the “Samson Option” starts around the 1:23:20 mark.

 

Here is some more information about the “Samson Option”, which has allegedly been used as a threat to blackmail U.S. Presidents to support Israel since the Nixon years.

The Samson Option (Hebrew: ברירת שמשון, romanized: b’rerat shimshon) is Israel’s deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.

The name is a reference to the biblical Israelite judge Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had captured him.

When the Lehi militant group were discussing ways to assassinate General Evelyn Barker, the British Army commander in Mandatory Palestine, a young woman volunteered to do the assassination as a suicide bombing.

She said “Let my soul die with the Philistines [he]” as a reference to the Samson story in the Hebrew Bible. Other members of the group rejected her offer.

Israel refuses to confirm or deny it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, a policy of deliberate ambiguity known as “nuclear ambiguity” or “nuclear opacity.”

This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to describe the country’s true nuclear policy definitively, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.

However, over the years, some Israeli leaders have publicly acknowledged their country’s nuclear capability: Ephraim Katzir in 1974, Moshe Dayan in 1981, Shimon Peres in 1998, and Ehud Olmert in 2006.

During his 2006 confirmation hearings before the United States Senate regarding his appointment as George W. Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates admitted that Israel had nuclear weapons, and two years later, in 2008, former US president Jimmy Carter stated the number of nuclear weapons held by Israel to be “150 or more”.

In his 2008 book The Culture of War, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, wrote that since Gates admitted that Israel had nuclear weapons, any talk of Israel’s nuclear weapons in Israel can lead to “arrest, trial, and imprisonment.” Thus Israeli commentators talk in euphemisms such as “doomsday weapons” and the Samson Option.

Nevertheless, as early as 1976, the CIA believed that Israel possessed 10 to 20 nuclear weapons. By 2002, it was estimated that the number had increased to between 75 and 200 thermonuclear weapons, each in the multiple-megaton range.

Kenneth S. Brower has estimated as many as 400 nuclear weapons. These can be launched from land, sea and air. This gives Israel a second strike option even if much of the country is destroyed.

In 1991, American investigative journalist and Pulitzer Prize winning political writer Seymour Hersh authored the book Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal & American Foreign Policy.

In the preface of the book he writes: “This is a book about how Israel became a nuclear power in secret. It also tells how that secret was shared, sanctioned, and, at times, willfully ignored by the top political and military officials of the United States since the Eisenhower years.”

Archived full article.

Here is the 8-minute clip of Blumenthal discussing the Samson Option.

[…]

Via https://vaccineimpact.com/2026/is-israel-preparing-nuclear-bombs-for-iran-according-to-the-samson-option/