[Rumble] BEWARE THE LEAKERS! This episode of Liberty’s Voice is about presidential authority, ethics, rogue staffers, and the trust required inside the Office of the President. I explain why a president must be able to rely on the people around him, why Joe Kent and intelligence leaks matter, and why proper conduct inside the executive branch is essential to U.S. national security, leadership, and constitutional government. I also connect it to the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and the responsibility of public officials to serve the presidency—not undermine it. Topics include Trump, Iran, intelligence, ethics, the White House, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. But can he shuck corn or skin a possum?
Posted by: Omans Slath8956 ||
03/21/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1783 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#2
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, Conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently and die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects."
-- Robert A Heinlein
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Leonid Tsukanov
[REGNUM] March 19 marked 15 years since the NATO coalition's invasion of Libya. The mission, initially billed as a "limited humanitarian intervention," gradually escalated into a systemic operation. The Libyan Jamahiriya fell, and its leader and ideologist,
…and Arab Socialist totalitarian tyrant — mustn't forget that part…
Muammar Gaddafi, was killed by Western-backed collaborators.
The "liberation operation" failed to bring the country the promised "democratic renaissance." Instead, it plunged it into a protracted civil war, the consequences of which are still being felt today.
The country is divided into two camps, each of which considers itself the only legitimate force, but is unable to overcome its opponents or stabilize even the part of the country under its control.
Is it time to formally divide the thing, recognizing each part as de jure independent as well as de facto? It worked for Czechoslovakia, though in all fairness they are civilized…
THE COUNTRY OF THE GREEN BOOK
The Libyan Jamahiriya, created in the late 1970s by Colonel Gaddafi on the basis of his own original political and philosophical ideas, outlined in the Green Book, is written into the history of Africa in golden ink.
Written in blood, rather, like pretty much everything in that part of the world since Rome conquered Carthage.
Unlike most "experimental regimes," the Libyan version not only took hold but also proved quite effective. By the early 2000s, the Jamahiriya, known in the mid-20th century only for its nomads and bananas, had risen to the ranks of advanced African states, becoming the economic engine of northern Africa and a trade gateway to Europe.
Russians do seem to have a sentimental fondness for other people’s socialist totalitarianisms…
Gaddafi and his cronies managed to almost completely eradicate illiteracy among the population (which in 1977 was 73%, and in 2009 – only 13%),
…taught them to read to stop them from thinking, and look how well it worked!
and develop and launch ambitious systems of state support – from interest-free loans to free energy supplies.
Libya's desert lands have blossomed with gardens, thanks in no small part to the implementation of the Great Man-Made River project, recognized as the largest irrigation project in the world. Access to fresh water for the population has increased tenfold.
It is not surprising that Libya rose to the top of the Human Development Index by the early 2010s, overtaking South Africa, Egypt, and other regional giants.
In foreign policy, Gaddafi also placed a premium on independence. Libya's oil- and precious metal-rich mineral resources, which had attracted the attention of both European and American businessmen by the mid-1970s, were declared the property of the Libyan people, and their development was carried out under strict state control.
However, the colonel didn't close himself off from the West either—Libyan youth were given the opportunity, at government expense, to study in both socialist bloc countries and Europe, at their own discretion. Knowledge and technology exchanges intensified, making Libya a technological hub for Africa.
CHALLENGE TO THE WEST
However, the Mediterranean neighbors were not too happy about the emergence in Africa of a “special country” that combined communist and democratic trends.
Especially after the colonel took the risk of challenging the global financial system and announced plans to create a single pan-African currency – the gold dinar.
This seriously alarmed European bankers. The collapse of the dollar and French franc's hegemony threatened to collapse the system of behind-the-scenes adjustments to the foreign policies of former African colonies built over half a century, promising a rapid turn by local governments toward other players—particularly Russia and China.
Although the colonel was far from the first African leader to propose the creation of a continental currency, his ambitious project certainly had a chance of succeeding: Tripoli's total gold and silver reserves, by the most conservative estimates, were close to 300 tons at the time, which was quite sufficient to launch a pilot currency.
Gaddafi became dangerous for the West, and it was decided to remove him—all that was needed was a formal pretext, of which they had produced plenty.
Tripoli has been accused of supporting rebel groups in Africa, organizing the mass trafficking of illegal migrants into Europe, drug trafficking, and illegal mineral trafficking.
Previously forgotten accusations against Gaddafi have also been brought back into circulation – for example, his attempt in the early 2000s to accelerate his secret nuclear program and gain access to atomic weapons – the “clever weapon” that Libya had been seeking to possess since the mid-1970s.
In early 2011, Western intelligence agencies vied with each other to report that the Jamahiriya was allegedly only a couple of steps away from creating a fully functional bomb—even though a year earlier, the Libyan nuclear program had been assessed as stagnant and “focused on peaceful nuclear technologies,” and Tripoli had officially renounced nuclear weapons back in 2003.
Other European politicians perceived the upcoming intervention as a chance to clean up their own mess.
At the time, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, welcomed the idea of an invasion with both hands and spoke of the importance of eliminating Libya's "economic and terrorist threat."
Tactfully omitting the fact that his 2007 presidential campaign was de facto funded by Libyan billionaires close to the Gaddafi clan.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, considered a close friend of the colonel, at first glance tried to defend him from attacks, criticizing the "hawks" for trying to ignite a war in the Mediterranean.
In fact, Italy did not violate its solidarity with its other EU partners. Berlusconi secretly ordered the Foreign Ministry to denounce the Friendship Treaty with Tripoli, which included a mutual non-aggression pact. However, until the first ten days of March, Rome diligently pretended that the pact was still in effect, explaining the concentration of NATO forces at its airbases as "preparations for exercises."
FROM RESOLUTION TO REVOLUTION
Using their collective resources, Gaddafi's opponents put pressure on the UN, achieving the adoption of an anti-Libyan resolution by the Security Council (UN Security Council Resolution No. 1973), which legitimized the invasion of the Jamahiriya "for the purpose of protecting civilians."
To convince Security Council members, the US and France prepared numerous materials detailing the Libyan regime's atrocities—torture, extrajudicial killings, and the targeted genocide of specific population groups. All of this was accompanied by "insider" photographs and testimony from defectors. The UN decided to "harshly end this injustice."
But, as subsequent events showed, the officials who supported the "humanitarian intervention," including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, fell victim to a cunning diplomatic game. Resolution 1973 only authorized the establishment of a "no-fly zone" over civilian areas, but NATO voluntarily expanded its mandate, going on the offensive.
Supported by the alliance from the sea and air, the anti-government forces, which were at that time experiencing a serious crisis of ideas and internal division, rose up and began an offensive.
Although the UN Security Council, in an attempt to stabilize the situation, quickly imposed an embargo on arms supplies to Libyan rebels, this did not prevent the interventionists from establishing "resupply areas" in the Nafusa Mountains, as well as transferring light equipment, including modernized Toyota pickup trucks, through "hand-picked" arms dealers in the region.
Less than two weeks later, the last pockets of resistance to government forces were suppressed, and the leader of the Jamahiriya fell into the hands of the rebels and was soon killed by them.
Some campaign participants later admitted in retrospect that they had "jumped the gun."
In particular, a 2016 UK House of Commons Committee report concluded that the intervention was based on "flawed assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence." In other words, Libya's legitimate authorities were overthrown under false pretenses, setting a precedent and seriously undermining the authority of the UN.
The intervention in Libya was seen by a number of countries, including Russia and China, as an "abuse of UN mechanisms" and a "sign of the degeneration" of the international order.
FIFTEEN YEARS - NO UNITY
Contrary to the promises of Western governments, the overthrow of Gaddafi did not bring prosperity to Libya or transform it into a “thriving African democracy.”
Quite the opposite. The country is split into several parts, and each fragment considers itself the "correct heir" to Libyan statehood.
A “stabilization government” is in session in Tripoli, which relies on Turkish bayonets and alternately distributes mineral resources to Ankara and Washington.
The eastern part of the country has been taken over by Egyptian-sponsored "disgruntled military men," many of whom formerly served under Gaddafi but later defected to the opposition. They consider Tobruk their capital, and view western Libya as "temporarily occupied lands" that they periodically attempt to seize by force. This, however, doesn't stop them from doing business with EU countries and handing out concessions to European magnates.
Interestingly, both governments are partially recognized by the UN as part of the inter-Libyan dialogue—Tripoli has slightly more international support, but the organization's officials refuse to recognize it as the sole ruling force until all-Libyan elections are held.
The situation is complicated by the fact that throughout Libya there are at least several dozen more small "princes" who once broke away from the opposition front and now answer only to themselves. Even if their "domain" is limited to the borders of a single small town, this does not prevent them from establishing their own rules locally, including judging and executing at their own whim.
On the outskirts, the self-sufficient and heavily armed Tubu and Tuareg tribes rule the roost—former favorites of the colonel, who now alternate between smuggling and fighting banditry. The tribal militias are equally distant from both Tripoli and Tobruk, and they live by their own rules, periodically providing assistance to all sides as mercenaries or scouts.
The terrorist threat is also thriving: supporters of banned organizations are active not only in Libya but also in neighboring countries like Mali, Niger, and Chad, using the "Libyan gateway" to infiltrate Europe. Meanwhile, neither side is short of weapons: the extensive arsenals of the Jamahiriya era continue to provide ample sustenance for local warlords of all stripes. African slave markets and black market transplants have been revived.
Meanwhile, any attempts to hold presidential and parliamentary elections in Libya have repeatedly failed—neither power in the former Jamahiriya is prepared to give in. At the same time, neither has the resources to confidently overcome their opponents, at least not using legal political instruments.
Libya's story itself serves as a stark warning to the Global South, especially to states with significant natural resources: if your policies threaten the economic interests of Western powers, no standard of living for your population, no social achievements, and no sovereignty will protect you from "humanitarian" bombing.
Iraq, Libya, and Syria are links in a single chain, proving that only a strong state, true sovereignty, and an independent defense system can provide protection.
NATO has proven that international agreements are not worth the paper they are written on when it comes to oil and geopolitical dominance.
#1
This is the old "bankers control us" smear. It's so old it still wears knickerbockers.
Saddam wasn't removed because he was going to sell oil in Euros, he was removed because he had WMD and was going to give them to Al-Qaeda.
#2
Removing Gaddafi was a high priority for NATO. Seems not to have worked out. I guess it was sort of a NATO stepping stone into Syria, which also has not worked out. I guess Ukraine is sort of a NATO win, in that there aren’t slave markets or beheadings there. Tell me again why we want NATO’s help in Iran.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/21/2026 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The article doesn't seem to mention how much Great Britain was involved in the mess and that the inadequacies of the French & British militaries ended up dragging the US into the mess.
#4
As the US entered WWI there was a critical shortage of horses, tack, and wagons. The equistarian industry had not fully recovered from sales made to the UK during the Boer War.
#5
…and Arab Socialist totalitarian tyrant — mustn't forget that part…
Nobody's forgotten that part but IIRC, he was effectively neutered when Ronald Reagan bombed him, killing his daugher and wounding him. He never sponsored much terrorism after that.
What if he was the best the Lybians could do and are Lybians better off with him gone? Was the world better off with him at least keeping Lybia stable or are we all better off with the civil war and chaos that has ruled in oil-rich Lybia ever since his death?
IMHO, this is one of the most shameful chapters in the history of NATO. It's no surprise that Baraq Obama was president at the time. He was front and center in quite a few shameful chapters.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/21/2026 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Things must be pretty weird in NATO land when countries such as Norway participate in the bombing.
So, like, where is NATO now (thinking Strait of Hormuz)?
#7
this is one of the most shameful chapters in the history of NATO. It's no surprise that Baraq Obama was president at the time.
The combination of President oObama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cubed the gleeful shamefulness. But they went in because President Khadaffy threatened to open his borders and unleash the hordes of Africa on Europe unless Europe surrendered on some issue or other.
They killed him and it happened anyway, though the original hordes were from Syria and beyond, with the sub-Saharan African masses following later. Still, I am convinced he or his sons, who like the Saddam Hussein lads lacked their father’s deft balancing of vicious brutality and bluntly wielded power, would have soon enough been overthrown with the same result — because the background of the second generation was too privileged to have instincts honed by the climb through that kind of ranks to that kind of top of the pyramid. Such things cannot be taught, even by letting them become psychopaths.
[Townhall] Three weeks into a military engagement in Iran, a war Republicans will not call a war, the American and Israeli militaries have all but wiped out Iran's capacity to make war. We have killed their leadership, the replacement leaders, and militia members on the ground. We have destroyed their missile launchers and the factories in which they made the missiles. But Iran still has one of the most powerful weapons in the world on its side, and it is ruthlessly deploying it – the American press corps.
"Families mourn as dead are laid to rest in Tehran," blared the front page, above the fold headline in the Athens Banner-Herald in Athens, Georgia. Beneath the headline, a grieving mother dressed fully in black held a black-framed portrait of her dead son with a black band across the portrait. Her son was in a military uniform.
The Detroit News ran another picture of the same mother with the same story. "Marzia Rezaei reacts while standing near the grave of her son, Erfan, who was killed in strikes, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, at Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, in Tehran, Iran, March 16, 2026." Reuters, the wire service, got credit for both pictures and the underlying story.
The Detroit News, the Athens Banner-Herald, and other news outlets featuring the dead Iranian soldier ran no front-page stories with the names and faces of the 35,000 Iranian citizens that Erfan Shamei, the dead soldier in the picture, would have been complicit in killing. When Iranian protesters took to the streets in January, the Iranian regime opened fire on them. Outside observers claim up to 150,000 would have been wounded and many killed. Iran itself claims 35,000 were killed.
In Tehran, the regime punished two nurses who had aided the wounded by letting men gang rape them. They were so severely raped that their uteruses had to be removed. The Athens Banner-Herald did not cover that. But a dead regime soldier killed by American and Israeli air strikes warranted front-page news coverage in newspapers across America.
The American press claims it is "just asking questions," which is the same line used by the antisemitic conspiracy theorists online also rooting against the United States and Israel. The press should hold officials accountable, but they are desperate for the American military to fail because they really do not want President Donald Trump to succeed.
For over a decade, the American press has built up a repository of conventional wisdom that Trump keeps defying. Moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would destabilize the region and lead to war. It did not. Killing Qasem Soleimani would lead to war. It did not. Now, the press is left to assure us that the American and Israeli military are killing all the moderate Iranian leaders and only the hardliners will be left, which will lead to a forever war.
Only in the newsrooms of America could a leadership that killed 35,000 of its citizens, hang gay men by cranes, and gang rapes nurses rendering aid be considered moderate. Now, relying on conventional wisdom, the press tells us we cannot win or even that we are losing. The press relies on voices that process most of their insights through their hatred of Donald Trump and other voices that have long had ties to the Iranian regime.
We captured and jailed Nicolas Maduro and have Cuba on the verge of collapse, with Cubans starting to riot and burn down communist party offices around the country. We have deprived China of oil from Iran. We have deprived Russia of Iranian drones to use in Ukraine. But the American press would rather us believe we are on the verge of defeat at the hands of the fifth deputy under lieutenant of toilet bowls of Iran, the last leader standing and now defiantly a hardliner.
Posted by: Mercutio ||
03/21/2026 09:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1808 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
[JustTheNews] In this episode of John Solomon Reports, we tackle the pressing issue of the ongoing government shutdown and its impact on airport security, as TSA agents prepare to work without pay once again. John Solomon discusses the frustrating situation faced by travelers as Senate Democrats block the Homeland Security bill, resulting in longer lines and growing dissatisfaction among passengers.
We are joined by Devin Nunes, chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, who provides insights into the critical oversight of U.S. intelligence operations. Senator Tommy Tuberville from Alabama also weighs in on the current political gridlock and the controversial alliances forming within Congress, including the rise of an anti-Sharia law caucus.
Additionally, Paul Teller, a former advisor to the Trump administration, shares his perspective on the implications of the Iran conflict and the government shutdown. The episode concludes with investigative journalist John Summer, who reveals a shocking case of home title theft that highlights the increasing risks of property fraud in America.
[PJ Media] The joint American-Israeli military operation against the Iranian regime is now three weeks old, but there is another war — a more silent one — raging here on the home front. President Donald Trump's second administration is facing a highly coordinated shadow war — one waged both by some influential outside voices on the right and, more dangerously, by their subversive allies within Trump's very own government.
If this campaign is not confronted and decisively defeated, the result will be calamitous: a second Trump term that drifts into lame-duck status not due to a voter backlash but because of an insurrection from within. What this column has previously referred to as "Operation Divide MAGA" has reached fever pitch. And Trump, to his great credit, has begun to settle all the MAGA family business. But an even more concerted effort is needed to clean out the Augean Stables once and for all.
First, let's take a step back.
In any healthy political coalition or movement, debate is inevitable and often desirable. But what we have seen from certain high-profile podcasters, such as Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, is nothing less than a full-scale assault on Trump and his agenda. These provocateurs first outed themselves last summer, when they all but accused Trump of covering up a global (Mossad-tied?) pedophile ring over his Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files. But above all, the podcasters' subversion has focused on foreign policy — most recently, on Iran and Operation Epic Fury.
Trump is a conservative nationalist. His foreign policy is rooted in confidence and "peace through strength"-style deterrence. Yet Carlson, Kelly and their fellow travelers have blasted the Iran conflict as everything from "evil" (Carlson) to "clearly Israel's war" (Kelly). The not-so-dynamic duo is thus accusing the man they quite literally campaigned for in 2024 of engaging in heinous acts and of being the unwitting dupe of a foreign government.
#2
I suppose you could say 'it's Israel's war'. But I think it necessary to add that Israel has been the tip of the spear for the defense of what remains of Western Civilization for quite some time.
No matter how intrepid and resourceful they can't do it alone forever.
[Federalist] The United States became the world’s leading manufacturer and exporter after World War II. Over the decades that followed, major manufacturing companies in America became top-heavy in their management, costs increased, profits shrank, and the quality of their products declined. By the late 1970’s, Japan, a nation long-known for cheap, low-quality products, began producing low-cost, high-quality automobiles and many other products that were superior to those manufactured in America. Japan’s secret became known as total quality management (TQM). It was the brainchild of American consultants Edward Deming and Joseph Juran — experts who had been ignored by arrogant manufacturing executives in the United States.
I added TQM consulting to my practice in the 1980s and learned a lot about how it could revolutionize any company, including service companies like hospitals and universities. The concept of TQM was relatively simple, but hard for old-style executives to accept, because it required giving up control and pushing decision-making down to the people who were producing the products and providing the services. Giving up control is very difficult for executives — and politicians.
I was a certified quality trainer, and my job was to teach workers how to continuously improve quality and not accept anything less than 100 percent of the desired quality goal. One of the keys to making this work was to identify problems, defects, or inefficiencies, and then keep digging and asking "why" until you discovered the root cause of the problem.
Though my first experience with management buzzwords, it was nonetheless a powerful tool within its limits.
Understanding the connection between cause and effect was difficult for many workers, because our lifestyles, education system, and expectations have virtually eliminated critical thinking skills. Most people focus on the problem or the symptom of the problem and don’t naturally seek the root cause. This inability to connect cause and effect is evident with American voters.
Given the growing antisemitism in this country, it is now or never to finish off Iran. We'll never get the chance again. Too many people will really believe it's for the Jews instead of stopping a really evil regime that wants to kill us all. We cannot give up this fight.
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.
[PJ Media] The joint American-Israeli military operation against the Iranian regime is now three weeks old, but there is another war — a more silent one — raging here on the home front. President Donald Trump's second administration is facing a highly coordinated shadow war — one waged both by some influential outside voices on the right and, more dangerously, by their subversive allies within Trump's very own government.
