[NY Post] #MeToo tears down another POS Democrat only a week before his annual Holiday. Oh, who to displease? Farm Workers' Union? Latin racialists? Feminists? Who will have a carpet big enuf to sweep this under?? His bust sat in Obama's and Biden's Oval Office. Do they have comments?
Disturbing details about Cesar Chavez’s creepy California lair are emerging where the disgraced union titan raped girls and women while living like a king.
Chavez has been accused of sexually abusing multiple young girls and women, according to a shocking investigation from the New York Times.
Multiple women, two of whom said they were children, detailed accounts of when Chavez began sexually abusing them. The allegations have surfaced more than thirty years since the co-founder of the United Farm Workers labor union died in 1993.
Ana Murguia claimed the abuse started when she was just 13, while Debra Rojas said she was first assaulted at 12 and later raped at 15.
Murguia recalled that Chavez, 45, would call her house and asked to see her. She obliged, looking up to Chavez as “a hero.”
Why now? Possibly because of Julie Chávez Rodriguez:
It is possible this is some kind of internal battle within the Democratic party to “take out” the grand daughter of Cesar Chavez ahead of the midterms and 2028 race. pic.twitter.com/d4j7FG4Lob
#5
#2 First Che and now Cesar Chavez. Yet another lefty icon turns out to be less than admirable.
I hear rumors that Stalin was a bit of a jerk too.
Posted by SteveS 2026-03-19 09:04|| 2026-03-19 09:04||
#7
In the mid-1970s, Chavez and the UFW initiated a campaign to identify undocumented workers and report them to the INS. Kinda incompatible with current Democrat Party dogma. Might wanna sweep Cesar under the rug.
#13
I^ I think Mike was softballing that set up :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/19/2026 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I worked in downtown San Francisco in the 1990's, and the fact that Cesar Chavez was at least a little bit of a creep and a pedophile was common knowledge. I remember a Mexican American comedian working it into his bit at the Punch Line.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Ilya Knorring
[REGNUM] 35 years ago, on March 17, 1991, the only all-Union referendum in the history of the USSR took place, which was to decide the fate of the country.
Citizens were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to the question: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of individuals of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
The plebiscite result: 148.5 million people voted, of which 113.5 million (80.03%) voted "yes" to the Union, while 32.3 million, or 21.7%, voted "no." These figures are remembered primarily by current high school students preparing for the Unified State Exam in history.
But in the collective memory – even of older generations – the details and context of the event are no longer so firmly preserved.
Firstly, it is widely believed that the referendum took place in all 15 republics, from Azerbaijan to Estonia.
Or, alternatively, the Baltic states, the republics of Transcaucasia and, possibly, Moldova totally ignored Moscow’s instructions.
Secondly, the referendum is considered to have supreme legal force. Therefore, the Belovezh Accords, which Boris Yeltsin, Stanislav Shushkevich, and Leonid Kravchuk signed on December 8, 1991, dissolving the USSR, were illegal.
WHAT ARE WE VOTING FOR?
The question of how to ensure the preservation of the union state was brought up for discussion in mid-December 1990, at the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR—the fourth since 1989.
There were just over two months left for propaganda. In the Soviet republics, including the Ukrainian SSR, it was carried out in the spirit of perestroika not only from above but also from below.
For example, the Ternopil branch of the People's Movement urged "everyone who does not want Ukraine to be a colony" to vote against the "imperial treaty" for "the life and immortality of the people of Ukraine."
Then, in the winter of 1991, Galician nationalists from Rukh campaigned for the union of independent states, or literally, for the Commonwealth of Independent States.
But in the southeast of the Ukrainian SSR, another amateur leaflet, which was circulating perhaps throughout the entire USSR, found a greater response: “If you want to eat your fill, don’t destroy the Union!”
Food shortages and the semi-collapse of the state (threatening civil war, “like in Yugoslavia”) were what worried us most.
The separatist uprisings that the central government tried to suppress, without much success, were then simply called “events”: events in Tbilisi, Vilnius, Riga, Sumgait, and Baku.
By the spring of 1991, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh had already entered an armed phase, with the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian wars looming.
MOSAIC VOTING
Although the referendum was declared nationwide, six of the 15 republics—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia—refused to hold it by resolutions of their Supreme Councils. Therefore, it was impossible to conduct a "representative sample" of the opinions of residents across the country.
But even here, things aren't so simple. The USSR's "half-life" had reached a point where even the leadership of some union republics no longer controlled the territories they claimed.
Georgia avoided the referendum, but it was held in the Abkhaz ASSR and the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. On the day of the vote, Tskhinvali was under fire from Zviad Gamsakhurdia's forces.
In the Azerbaijan SSR, by contrast, voting was held everywhere except in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (only local Azerbaijanis participated in the referendum) and the Nakhichevan ASSR. Nakhichevan, where the Azerbaijani Popular Front held a strong position, unilaterally declared its secession from the USSR back in January 1990.
In Moldova, the referendum was abandoned, but it was held in the self-proclaimed Pridnestrovian Moldavian SSR and the Republic of Gagauzia. In Estonia, local authorities ensured voting on their territory—not only in the Russian-speaking northwest, in Narva and Kohtla-Järve, but also in Tallinn, where the population was mixed.
The actual disintegration of the Union no longer occurred along the borders of the union republics, but along the boundaries of individual regions. Furthermore, the "enclaves" where the referendum took place were military units stationed in the Baltic republics, Georgia, Armenia, and Moldova.
The voting was also “mosaic” where the republican authorities agreed to hold a plebiscite.
Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan simply held the event without any unnecessary or additional questions.
The Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR, on the initiative of Nursultan Nazarbayev, shortened the text of the all-Union question to read: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a Union of equal sovereign states?”
At the same time, they asked that the answers to this question be counted as the answers to the all-Union question.
The leadership of the RSFSR took advantage of the all-Union date to establish the post of president of the republic by the people.
The Ukrainian SSR, as they used to say at the time, "outsmarted itself." This was true both at the republican and lower levels. A pan-Ukrainian question was added to the all-Union question: "Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of the Union of Soviet Sovereign States based on the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?"
And for residents of Galicia, that is, the Lviv, Ternopil, and Ivano-Frankivsk regions, a joint meeting of the three regional councils (the "Galician Assembly") added another question: "Do you want Ukraine to become an independent state?"
Thus, residents of western Ukraine were asked to vote for preserving the Union or for secession from it.
The referendum results were positive and unconditional. Between 70.2% (Ukrainian SSR) and 97.9% (Turkmen SSR) responded "yes," with a national average of 76.4%.
"RECOMMENDING POWER"
The people who came to the polling stations were convinced that, through an act of direct democracy, they were guaranteeing the inviolability of the Soviet Union, albeit a "renewed" one, without the Baltics and, perhaps, without Transcaucasia. It was then generally accepted that a referendum had the highest legislative force.
The most legally savvy said that the USSR law on the nationwide vote (referendum), which deputies adopted in December 1990, allegedly stated that it “has binding force and can only be repealed by a new referendum.”
Therefore, the Belovezh Accords were perceived as a violation of this supreme will.
But it was precisely the referendum on preserving the USSR that was the "bomb." The law contained a legal complication: not all popular votes were binding, but only certain ones (such as the "referendum on the basic content of the laws of the USSR").
The question of preserving the Union, oddly enough, fell into a different category—"gathering public opinion on other critical issues." And regarding this "gathering of opinion," it was stated: its results "must be taken into account when making decisions by the relevant government bodies." That is, they may or may not be taken into account.
This concerns the "letter of the law." In essence, the process of abolishing the USSR was in full swing—by the spring of 1991, all the union republics had declared state sovereignty.
"Referendum: 'To be or not to be for the Fatherland?' Although, in reality, framing the question this way is just another bit of demagoguery: nothing can be stopped, no matter how this referendum ends," wrote Anatoly Chernyaev, aide to President Gorbachev, in his diary on March 17, 1991.
He did not hide the fact that the President of the USSR “is suppressing his self-importance and the ‘dirty’ nature of the internal scandalous situation,” but “ he… is not leaving because he missed the most advantageous moment – an honorable and glorious retirement.”
But the republican party nomenklaturas were no less arrogant. And thanks to the parade of sovereignties and the seizure of powers from the Union center, they already had ample resources. After the failure of the State Emergency Committee, Gorbachev had no opportunity for an honorable retirement.
The Union's "half-life" ended in December 1991, with the formal dissolution of the country. The Belovezh Accords were ratified by the parliaments of 12 of the 15 former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania did not), including the Supreme Soviet of Russia.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin
[ColonelCassad] Yesterday, the director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Center resigned with a bang, publishing an open letter condemning Trump's policies and U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran.
Dear President Trump:
After much consideration, I have decided to resign as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no immediate threat to our country, and it is clear that we started the war because of pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. I support the values and foreign policy you championed in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and which you implemented during your first term. Until June 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that cost America precious patriotic lives and drained our nation of wealth and prosperity. During your first term, you understood better than any modern president how to decisively use military force without entangling us in endless wars. You demonstrated this by killing Qassem Soleimani and defeating ISIS.
Early in this administration, senior Israeli officials and influential members of the American media launched a disinformation campaign that completely undermined your "America First" platform and sowed pro-war sentiment to push for war with Iran. This information bubble was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an immediate threat to the United States and that if you struck now, you would have a clear path to a quick victory. This was a lie, and it is the same tactic the Israelis used to drag us into the disastrous Iraq War, which cost our country the lives of thousands of our finest men and women. We cannot repeat that mistake.
As an 11-time combat veteran and a husband who lost my beloved wife, Shannon, in a war provoked by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation to a war that brings no benefit to the American people and does not justify the cost in American lives. I pray that you will consider what we are doing in Iran and for whom we are doing it. The time for bold action is now. You can change course and forge a new path for our country, or you can allow us to slide further into decline and chaos. The cards are in your hands. It has been an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great country. Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center
.
A text, so to speak, with a pretense of conscience. Trump, predictably, followed Musk, Greene, and Carlson in scolding the "traitor."
"Well, I read his statement. I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security. I didn't know him very well, but I thought he was a pretty nice guy. But when I read his statement, I realized it was good that he went, because he said Iran wasn't a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country understood what a threat Iran was. The question was whether they wanted to do anything about it. And a lot of people, a lot of the greatest military scientists, have been saying for years that the president should have destroyed Iran because they wanted nuclear weapons." (c) Trump
Anyone who dared to criticize Trump suddenly turns out to be weak and incompetent.
The number of weak and incompetent people around him is growing.
In general, I have written more than once that Trump is rapidly repeating the path of the first administration, where he also consistently got rid of all dissenters and ultimately surrounded himself with neocons and war mongers.
[JPost] Dr. Uzi Rubin tells The Media Line that stopping missiles at high altitude remains the only effective defense once submunitions are released.
Rubin’s warning comes as analysts and defense officials examine the use of cluster warheads in missiles launched from Iran during the recent war with Israel. The weapons, which disperse multiple smaller bomblets instead of a single explosive payload, have drawn renewed attention from missile defense specialists.
The core challenge, Rubin said, is simple: A ballistic missile carrying a cluster warhead must be intercepted before the payload opens and releases its submunitions. Once that happens, the missile is no longer a single target, and the chance of stopping its full effect drops sharply.
[Yahoo] Israel has killed one senior Iranian leader after another in airstrikes as it seeks to topple the Islamic Republic. But its past experience of targeting senior militants shows the strategy has limits and can sometimes backfire.
------------
haven't seen this argument from the Democrats yet
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
03/19/2026 09:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1787 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
[Jpost] In the early days of the war with Iran, there was some ambiguity about shared roles by Israel and the United States in the assassinations of the top Iranian officials.
Now, however, cutting through some of US President Donald Trump’s exaggerations, it has become clear that they have been mainly carried out by Israel.
Non-political US military sources have been careful not to take credit for the assassinations, even if the CIA did provide some of the critical, helpful intelligence.
Rather, the US has focused on ballistic missiles, drones, some regime strongholds, and the Iranian navy.
Although this might seem to make sense after Israel killed so many top Iranian military officials in June 2025, it is the polar opposite of what Israel’s and the US’s approaches to the issue had been previously.
Bizarrely, even to date, Israel has not publicly taken credit for the assassination of Iran’s nuclear chief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November 2020 — despite the fact that it is a widely held conviction.
When first-term Trump wanted Israel to kill then-Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force chief Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu balked, and instead he helped provide intelligence to Trump and the US to carry out the attack.
ISRAEL WAS SCARED OF IRANIAN, PROXY, RETALIATION FOR ASSASSINATION STRIKES
Israel was terrified that the regime in Iran would unleash its feared ballistic missiles on the Jewish state, in synch with attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.
That meant that even Israel’s ancillary role in helping the US was kept covered up for two years until December 2021, when former IDF intelligence chief Tamir Hayman revealed it to the public.
It appears that this consideration was the reason that in the past, Israel avoided taking credit for killing Fahrizadeh and for many other operations against senior Iranian nuclear or terror officials attributed to the Mossad.
So what changed?
In April 2024, Israel assassinated the IRGC commander for Syria and Lebanon, Mohammed Reza Zahedi, while not taking credit publicly.
According to top Israeli security officials, Zahedi was turning Lebanon and Syria into additional dangerous fronts, just as Jerusalem was revving up to invade Rafah, and they needed him out of the way to keep those areas calmer.
Iran viewed the assassination as crossing a line — whether Israel took credit or not — and launched around 100 ballistic missiles, hundreds of drones, and cruise missiles at the state, in its first-ever direct attack.
Hezbollah launched rockets too, as did the Houthis in Yemen, and Iran-sponsored militias from Iraq and Syria.
Israel’s worst fears were at its doorstep. But something strange happened.
With help from the US, England, France, Jordan, and, according to their own statements, the Saudis, Israel shot down just about everything that was thrown at it, with almost no casualties.
The sides had another round in October 2024, and once again, Iran failed to badly damage Israel (though there was more physical damage that time).
Suddenly, Israel believed it could take Iran’s best shot and come out on top.
This thinking, along with various other issues, led to the massive Israeli strike in June 2025, taking out the IRGC chief, the military chief, and many other top Iranian military officials.
At that point, it was not really a choice between Israel and the US, and Trump was not even sure he was going to risk participating at all.
Only around 10 days into Israel having successfully achieved air supremacy, did Trump briefly venture in with the US air force.
All of that explains why Israel was no longer afraid to be the one who would kill top Iranian officials.
Why did Trump not want credit for it this time, when he was readier to roll the dice, with the American military to date having struck 7,800 targets in Iran and rising?
The answer is more opaque, but probably still connected to his hedging.
Now, three weeks into the war, with Trump seemingly still ready to go on for longer, many may have forgotten that until the US president knew that Israel had pulled off a strong surprise attack on February 28, it was unclear whether he would for sure order the US in — and even if he did, very unclear whether he would extend American participation for more than a few days.
Once Trump saw that Israel and the US achieved air supremacy in around 24 hours, that the risk to American soldiers’ lives was minimal, and that at least military dominance over the Iranian regime was essentially assured (however unlikely toppling the regime might be), he was much more ready to roll the dice.
But what if the initial attack by Israel had failed? What if Ali Khamenei and other top Iranian officials had survived, and it appeared possible that the Islamic regime might lash out with its full coordinated power? And not as it ultimately did, in a much weaker and less coherent fashion.
Trump could have tried to persuade the Iranians not to direct their full anger at American troops, but at whoever it was who dropped the bombs: Israel.
Still, that only explains day one.
Why did Trump not order his forces to eliminate Ali Larijani and the Basij national leader on Monday night?
There was already no real risk of super-dangerous retaliation, given how weakened Iran already was.
Some of the reasons for Israel continuing to carry out the assassinations could be that it has Iran much more penetrated on the ground than the CIA.
The CIA has spies all over the world on a level that Israel could never hope to even come close to matching. But Israel has a specialty in penetrating Iran that the CIA has not been close to for a decade or more.
Another possibility in the odd thinking that sometimes creeps into Trumpian strategy is self-preservation.
Some reports have said that one of the reasons he ordered an attack on Iran was because the Islamic Republic had marked him for assassination after the killing of Soleimani.
Is it possible that Trump could have thought that if he "only" bombed Iran 7,800 times, but left Israel to carry out the assassinations, that some surviving Iranian terror spy master might decide to give him a pass and to direct more fury at Israel?
It does not seem to make classical rational sense, but it is not impossible that this is part of his thinking.
Lastly, Trump is still hoping at some point to do business with a new, more moderate Iranian leader.
Israel has a harder time imagining such a scenario.
Maybe Trump feels that it’s bad form to be assassinating top Iranian officials himself when he may need to work with the next guy in the chair, who may have been close friends with the guy who was just axed.
The full true story will probably need to wait until Trump is out of office, so that various aides will be ready to share such unflattering details without worrying as much about retaliation.
In the meantime, it appears that the top Iranian officials’ assassination vector is all Israel’s show.
#8
The Israelis are good at it. As #5 points out, they have skin in the game; as well as intelligence networks and means. (Is that your pager going off?)
Look at it from a business point of view: if something is outside your core competency, outsource it.
Rather, the US has focused on ballistic missiles, drones, some regime strongholds, and the Iranian navy.
Then get on with what you are good at.
#9
I think we would have had better results if we had listed out all the hierarchy and assigned points. Maybe some prizes. We could have spiced things up.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/19/2026 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
