[Federalist] Following the federal fraud indictment of the purportedly anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center, the usual voices on the braindead political left have depicted the controversy as a mean right-wing attack on left-wing virtue.
The SPLC has due process rights, and the fraud charges have to be proved in court. But before you fall for the sob story about Mean Orange Man attacking the allegedly scrappy anti-racism warriors, take a look at the SPLC’s Form 990. That’s the financial disclosure form that non-profit corporations have to file with the IRS every year. Here’s the latest, which is archived on the ProPublica website. Filed in 2025, it covers the period ending in October of 2024. With about $129 million a year in both revenue and expenses, the SPLC reported total assets of, read this number carefully, $786,768,246. Once you get above $750m, you're talking real money.
#1
May 1, 2019 · On the third day of the riots, Rodney King appealed for calm and said, "People, I just want to say, can't we all get along? Can't we all get along?"
#6
where is their kind to be found or heard from today ?
A most excellent question, sir!
In the opinion of this amateur literary critic, something that comes through Kipling's work, something that makes Kipling Kipling, is a willing to look at the world and see it as it is. One of my favorite poems is The Grave of the Hundred Head - tale both noble and appalling, a lesson about order and chaos. You might even call it a morality play. If it were written today, the usual ninnies would be shrieking about war crimes and colonialism.
Once upon a time, The Atlantic magazine was filled with great writing on a wide range of topics. I used to subscribe and read it cover to cover. I think that was where I first came across Tom Wolfe. Over time, the writing became more partisan, more predictable and less interesting. I canceled but still thumbed through new issues at the library. Now, I have not read it in years. Same with Scientific American. I think the last straw was when they started going on about Climate Change which is the biggest scientific hoax since the Piltdown Man.
These were not just magazines, they were institutions, the tips of cultural icebergs. Nowadays, everything must be examined through a "lens" of some kind - a process that makes you both near-sighted and boring. Outrage has become the currency of the day. Too many formerly sane people have contracted Trump Derangement Syndrome and similar mono-maniacal afflictions. Combine that with institutional decay and the distributed nature for our world, and it becomes harder find value.
tl;dr: Even though Rantburg is a news aggregator for the War on Terror and Poetry and the occasional Oxford comma, there are a lot of references along the way to interesting thinkers and their works.
#7
Print and broadcast media has always been biased. Internet access to wider opinions and fact-checking has disrupted their effects, to the point their credibility and approval ratings are in the dumpster. Kipling would have a substack or blog nowadays
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/24/2026 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
[Imprimis] The following is an updated version of a speech published in Imprimis in July 2008.
This summer, Americans will celebrate the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence—our nation’s 250th birthday. Also this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will render a decision in the case of Trump v. Barbara, a class-action lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order ending the practice of birthright citizenship. The two are connected, because Trump v. Barbara involves issues fundamental to the meaning of the Declaration and the future of the American experiment in republican government. It is worth the time and effort of every citizen to understand its importance.
Birthright citizenship—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.
The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship, as Blackstone readily admits, is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of "perpetual allegiance."
America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies . . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason." So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: "Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects." The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.
WHO IS A CITIZEN?
Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature. It is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create. Indeed, this is true of all citizens of a new nation: they are not born into it but rather become citizens by law.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was not until 1868, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution. Here is the familiar language: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Furthermore, the principal supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment were explicit about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction": it meant owing exclusive allegiance to the U.S. and none to any other country.
It is broadly agreed by constitutional scholars that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed over the veto of then-President Andrew Johnson. A supermajority of both chambers of Congress approved the act, which established the citizenship of newly freed slaves and the protection of their rights and liberties on the exact same basis as white citizens. Many in Congress initially argued that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 granted citizenship and the rights and liberties attached to that status. Others argued that there should be explicit legislation, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act the following year. Still others thought the Civil Rights Act was insufficient because future majorities could repeal it. This concern became the impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment, which constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act.
The citizenship clause was a late addition to the Fourteenth Amendment. The first draft merely stated that citizens were "persons born in the U.S. or naturalized by the laws thereof." This language was referred to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which reported back the language that became the citizenship clause. It is evident that the Joint Committee placed importance on the jurisdiction clause, which meant, at a minimum, that not all persons born in the U.S. were automatically citizens.
Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, who was the manager of the Fourteenth Amendment for the Reconstruction Committee, said the addition of the jurisdiction clause was "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already," referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and principal architect of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, joined Howard in agreeing that the "law of the land" meant that "subject to the jurisdiction" connoted "complete jurisdiction"—in other words, not owing allegiance to anyone else.
Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to define "by appropriate legislation" who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make citizens of the Indians. Although the Indians were born within the nation’s geographical limits, Howard steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to the nation’s jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Howard pointed out, excluded not only Indians but "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Thus "subject to the jurisdiction" does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate, or abandon, their citizenship. Supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Expatriation Act characterized the right of expatriation as "a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the British common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House of Representatives at the time expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: "The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public law." The common law established what was characterized as an "indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance," a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government.
In sum, what we today call birthright citizenship is a legacy of feudalism that was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. A minor’s allegiance should follow that of his or her parents. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
WONG KIM ARK
Contrary to claims made by defenders of birthright citizenship, there is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. In an 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court did hold by a vote of six to two that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. Even then, the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the British common law system of birthright subjectship. The majority opinion did not explain how subjects were miraculously transformed into citizens within the supposedly adopted common law. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that "citizen" and "subject" were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism! Indeed, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote a powerful dissent arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious, and that decision could easily be overturned by our current Supreme Court this summer. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether a majority of the members of our current Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegal aliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.
We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment agreed that Indians were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe-by-tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.
DECLINE OF CITIZENSHIP AND OF THE NATION STATE
The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken by new citizens today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship—and dual allegiance—is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation state.
Elite liberal opinion has for many years considered the sovereign nation state as a historical anachronism in an increasingly globalized world. We are assured that human dignity adheres to the individual and does not require the mediation of the nation state. In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of the nation state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate "universal personhood." In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous.
Those who advocate open borders tend to share this cosmopolitan view of transnational citizenship. Illegal immigrants, they say, are merely seeking to support their families and improve their lives. Borders, according to them, should not stand in the way of "family values"—those universal "values" that refuse to recognize the importance or relevance of mere political boundaries. Somehow, for those who hold these views, political exclusivity and the requirement of exclusive allegiance are opposed to these universal "values" if not to human decency itself.
We must constantly remind ourselves, however, of the historical fact that constitutional democracy has existed only in the nation state, and that the demise of the nation state will almost certainly mean the demise of constitutional democracy. No one believes that the European Union or similar organizations will ever produce constitutional government. Indeed, the EU is well on its way to becoming an administrative tyranny. Nor would the homogeneous world-state—the EU on a global scale—be a constitutional democracy; it would be the administration of "universal personhood" without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed.
The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration of Independence calls a "separate and equal" nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.
Another one from International Crisis Group, a George Soros think tank.
For nearly three years, the two sides in Sudan’s civil war have fought bitterly for supremacy. Their conflict has devastated the country, with the risks of long-term partition and spillover continuing to grow. The outside powers with influence must keep striving for a diplomatic solution.
WHAT’S NEW?
Control of Sudan is now divided between its army, which holds Khartoum and the east, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in the west. Though diplomacy made strides in 2025, it appears stalled amid a row between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – and now the Middle East war.
Why does it matter? Sudan is home to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Millions of Sudanese face starvation or famine. The state has largely collapsed, and Khartoum remains mostly uninhabitable. With Gulf and other regional powers backing opposing sides, the war risks further drawing in neighbours, including Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa’s behemoth.
What should be done? While they may have little bandwidth for Sudan diplomacy at present, the outside actors best positioned to press for peace cannot let it slip off the agenda. Even as war wracks the Middle East, they should step up their efforts to end Sudan’s conflict before all momentum is lost.
I. OVERVIEW
With the world’s attention fixed on the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, another conflict is raging in the Horn of Africa, not that far away. The Sudanese civil war is grinding on with no resolution in sight. For nearly three years, two branches of the military, the Sudanese army and paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have fought bitterly for supremacy. Neither seems on the verge of achieving it. Control of the country is divided between them, and the risk of long-term partition is growing, with both sides naming governments staking claims to nationwide sovereignty in 2025. The war has compelled as many as four million Sudanese to flee the country, displaced many more internally and plunged several areas into prolonged hunger or famine. Foreign powers are complicit, backing opposing sides. A U.S. effort to marshal outside actors to press the conflict parties toward peace was struggling even before the Middle East war distracted them all. But they must not neglect the Sudan file; they need to find a way to manage their own differences so they can map an endgame for the war before it expands further past Sudan’s borders.
Sudan’s civil war broke out in April 2023, following a military takeover that removed a civilian cabinet working toward a democratic transition. The army and RSF had seized power together, but they soon came to blows, kicking off a protracted battle that has seen each side’s fortunes wax and wane. The army and its affiliated government now hold the capital Khartoum; the central Nile River corridor; and the east, including strategic Port Sudan. The RSF dominates most of the western Darfur region, with supply routes from Chad and Libya. The main front lines between the sides lie at present in the west-central Kordofan region.
More at the link
Posted by: badanov ||
04/24/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1771 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Sudan
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Ol'ga Kuznetsova
[REGNUM] Massive purges are underway in Venezuela, according to media reports: President Delcy Rodriguez, despite ostensibly being an interim leader, is replacing all her ministers, shaking up the secret services, and issuing arrest orders nonstop. Is this true or not?
Not quite. The Bolivarian Republic certainly hasn't been without arrests, removals based on ethnicity, and what only yesterday was called "corruption" and "cronyism" in American high places. But not all of this is the president's fault.
A DIFFICULT START
Spanish-language media began reporting on repression by Venezuela's new leadership immediately after Rodriguez's inauguration.
The first victim was Major General Javier Marcano Tabata, head of counterintelligence and the presidential security service. He was initially dismissed for "lack of adequate security measures during the US military intervention," and the next day he was arrested on suspicion of treason. Evidence was also found: encrypted correspondence with US intelligence agencies in which Tabata explained how to disable air defense protocols. However, this information was not released to the public.
Either way, the decision isn't surprising. If your predecessor and his wife were kidnapped from their bed in the middle of the night, the first thing that comes to mind is to replace the security and bring in your own people. However, the key here is to bring in your own people.
Gustavo González López took Tabata's place as head of the presidential guard and counterintelligence. By March, he had also been promoted to Minister of Defense, replacing Vladimir Padrino López. González once headed the national intelligence service, SEBIN, but was removed by Nicolás Maduro in 2024 during a personnel reshuffle. Then, Delcy Rodríguez appointed him head of strategy at the state-owned oil company, PDVSA. But in Venezuela, he is considered primarily a man of Diosdado Cabello, the head of the Interior Ministry and the republic's "grey cardinal."
Opposition media outlets reported that the first person arrested under the new government was not Tabata at all, but those who dared to celebrate the intervention and capture of Maduro—as well as a couple dozen liberal journalists who came to cover Rodriguez's inauguration.
It's worth noting that in the first days after the US invasion, Venezuelan security forces demonstrated extraordinary zeal and attempted to rehabilitate themselves. And yes, they did seize any suspicious individuals, conduct raids on the "usual suspects," and even mistaken reconnaissance drones belonging to foreign units for enemy ones. But would it have been any different in any other country under a similar scenario?
It is characteristic that discrepancies between the claims of the internal opposition and the criticism of foreign journalists were noticeable from the very beginning.
ROUND DANCE OF MINISTERS
Having assumed the presidency—albeit temporarily—Rodriguez immediately made it clear she was here to stay: she initiated legislative changes to allow American investors and oil companies to enter the country, began holding diplomatic meetings and open negotiations with the White House. And, of course, she began replacing those occupying important positions.
Attorney General Tarek William Saab resigned. His replacement was immediately replaced by Larry Devoy, former executive secretary of the National Human Rights Council. Devoy is considered a close associate of the Rodriguezes—both Delcy herself and her brother, Jorge, the president of the Venezuelan Parliament.
Contrary to rumors, former Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López was not jailed, but appointed Minister of Agriculture. Apparently, he was politely retired, remaining in public administration only nominally.
The heads of the Strategic Operations Command, the ground forces, and the Air Force were also replaced. Some analysts note that the main factor in appointing new people to their positions was the availability of compromising information on them by American agencies, allowing them to manipulate them as they pleased.
For example, the head of the Strategic Operations Command, Rafael Prieto Martínez, previously commanded the Guayana military district in the Orinoco mining region and, according to US intelligence, accepted money from criminal syndicates for the right to mine ore.
The caveat is that nearly all military officials, ministers, and judges who served under Maduro's government (including Delcy Rodriguez herself) were already under US sanctions for a variety of reasons, from drug trafficking and human rights violations to corruption allegations.
The new Minister of Defense, González, served during the time of Hugo Chávez and became famous as one of those responsible for the mass purges in the ranks of the opposition.
The New York Times writes that in just a few months of her tenure, Rodriguez replaced 17 ministers, but fails to mention that some of them did not leave the government apparatus, but merely changed departments.
For example, when writer and intellectual Miguel Pires Pirela became Minister of Information and Communications, his predecessor, Freddy Nánes, was assigned responsibility for environmental protection. Nánes, however, is known for his active propaganda against the United States.
Environment Minister Aníbal Coronado has become Minister of Transport. Meanwhile, Leticia Gómez has simply been removed from the Ministry of Tourism. Given that she is ethnically Cuban, some attribute her dismissal to a demonstration of diminished "Cuban influence" in the new cabinet (previously, it was reported that elite Cuban security forces were being withdrawn from Venezuela under pressure from Washington). Gómez's replacement is no mere chance – she is Daniella Cabello, the daughter of the aforementioned "grey cardinal."
PERSECUTION OF MADURO'S FRIENDS
The man who was called one of the most important people in the country, former Minister of Industry and Trade Alex Saab, also lost his position.
Colombian-born businessman Saab is best known for ensuring the flow of essential goods into the country during the first wave of US sanctions – and then everything else.
Moreover, he was the diplomat who concluded agreements on behalf of Maduro that provided for payment in Venezuelan oil, and was also responsible for the security of the top leadership's finances in foreign banks.
Several years ago, Saab was arrested in Cape Verde, extradited to the United States, but handed over to Venezuela during another period of warming relations. He subsequently became Minister of Industry and Trade.
And now everything has changed. According to the official version, Saab left his post due to a change in the agency's operating format. However, news soon spread online that the businessman had been detained and taken to prison.
The former minister's lawyer later denied the arrest, but news of his imprisonment continues to spread online. This is fueled by the fact that Saab's wife, Camille Fabry, has lost her position as the head of the program repatriating Venezuelan refugees.
The couple's story has sparked speculation about persecution of Maduro's inner circle, as well as the removal of his family members from the management of oil assets. It would seem that this turn of events should have pleased the established opposition figures, but they, too, are dissatisfied.
THE OPPOSITION IS NOT REJOICING
Liberal political activists say they had some hopes for a change in the political climate after the American intervention, but Donald Trump left a "Chavismo supporter" in power, so the situation regarding the protection of freedoms has changed little.
Despite the new Venezuelan government's announcement of an amnesty for political prisoners, a significant number remain in prison—or are quickly returned there. This, for example, is what happened to Juan Pablo Guanipa, one of the main supporters of opposition leader María Corina Machado. He went straight from prison to a rally in support of other prisoners, where he was arrested.
Curiously, there's been no criticism of this coming from Washington. However, the issue has been picked up by María Corina Machado herself, who is currently actively building her political image by visiting foreign leaders and reviving her supporters' party in Venezuela. In her view, Delcy Rodríguez has usurped power, as her 90-day term has expired and new presidential elections are needed.
Rodriguez herself pays little attention to her competitor's attacks and actively conducts business with the Americans, who have already begun lifting sanctions against the Bolivarian Republic.
However, the expiration of his term and the lack of any public explanation is increasing internal tensions, and sporadic protests are already beginning to break out across the country. For now, they are being contained by the security apparatus, but what will happen next is unknown. And given that the standard of living for ordinary citizens hasn't improved at all, a positive outcome is unlikely.
A MAN WHO IS TOLERATED
What's currently happening in Venezuela's state apparatus is a normal political process for a country facing foreign invasion. And given that rumors suggest this was due to elite betrayal, the change of those responsible for key areas, such as the military, is entirely logical.
A review of the candidates who have entered the national public sphere suggests that if purges are taking place, they are not being done entirely in Rodriguez's interests. Rather, Minister Diosdado Cabello had a hand in it.
In the United States, he is described as an influential person who will never give up his personal ambitions and, if he so chooses, has the ability to cause a lot of problems for the new leadership of Venezuela.
For example, he may refuse to provide security and regulate the protests. Perhaps to avoid the hassle of defusing chaos on the ground and preventing the emergence of a "second Haiti," the Americans tolerate Cabello's presence in Venezuela's security apparatus—as well as his desire to serve the interests of his inner circle.
As for arrests and dismissals, there will likely be even more soon—after all, a few days ago, unknown hackers broke into the National Intelligence and Criminal Investigative Corps database. They downloaded all the personal data of officers and called it a "public demonstration of capabilities."
Both the security forces and Rodriguez's cabinet will do everything possible to find those responsible without involving Washington. So the arrests will continue.
#1
I consider the source - REGNUM - generally unreliable, biased, and butthurt. But they probably aren't all wrong. Venezuelans must learn to clean out their own stalls. I wish them good luck, without sarcasm.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
04/24/2026 6:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yup - know your sources. Regnum I feel gives a good Russian Perspective on things. Do I always agree, hell no. But it's good to see how they see things.
[FoxNews] Iran, North Korea, Russia and China are not just conducting cyberattacks against the United States. They are running coordinated financial fraud operations inside our system — deliberately, systematically and in ways our defenses were never designed to detect.
The Justice Department unveiled charges Thursday against two Chinese nationals allegedly behind an overseas cryptocurrency scam center, as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro vowed that the Trump administration is "just getting started" in combating these schemes.
Pirro told reporters in Washington, D.C., that cyber-enabled and cryptocurrency investment fraud is "among the fastest growing and the most financially devastating form of cybercrime that is targeting Americans today." The DOJ’s actions come after Pirro launched the Scam Center Strike Force in November last year, following an executive order from President Donald Trump.
"Today, we announce significant milestones in that fight. We have charged Chinese bosses who ran a scam compound in Burma where thousands were trafficked, enslaved, beaten and then forced to steal from Americans for years. We have seized also a Telegram channel, and that channel was luring workers into a forced compound in Cambodia," Pirro said. "There they were ordered to pose as U.S. banks, as the New York City Police Department, to steal Americans’ life savings."
"We have taken down more than 500 websites. They were used to steal Americans life savings. My office is going to continue to work to identify the funds stolen," Pirro added. "We have also restrained more than $700 million in cryptocurrency from U.S. victims of fraud. The administration of President Trump is lockstep in combating these scams, and we are just getting started."
#4
Was ValJar, the Persian Ferret, accompanying the boodle?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/24/2026 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I've wondered if that Reaper which 'mysteriously' flew deep into Iran and landed itself had a card full of Crypto, other info, correspondence. A Cylon Courier, if you will.
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] Britons heading abroad for holidays over the coming months are 'very likely' to face flight cancellations or 'very, very expensive tickets', energy officials warned today.
EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen warned tourists to brace for disruption and higher prices as airlines adjust schedules and costs to cover the higher fuel costs.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes physical jet fuel shortages could start in June because of the prolonged blockage of the Strait of Hormuz amid the Iran war.
Carriers have been announcing increased ticket prices, with United Airlines saying this week they may need to rise by up to 20 per cent to offset the fuel cost surge.
Air France-KLM is planning to raise long-haul cabin fees by €50 (£43) per round trip, while Delta and Southwest are both hiking baggage fees to cover the higher costs.
Mr Jorgensen told Sky News: 'Unfortunately, it's very likely that many people's holidays will be affected, either by flight cancellations or very, very expensive tickets. Even if we do everything we can do, if the jet fuel is not there, then it's not there.
'It is primarily a crisis of prices and not yet a crisis of supply, but unfortunately we cannot be sure to prevent a crisis of supply, especially on jet fuel in the future, if the crisis continues. How inconvenient.
[All That Is Interesting] n March 1, 1944, French Resistance Captain Henri Tardivat found Nancy Wake tangled in a tree. As he looked up at her hanging from the branches, he remarked on her beauty.
"I hope that all the trees in France bear such beautiful fruit this year," he said.
Wake, who’d gotten stuck in the tree after parachuting from a B-24 bomber, was armed with classified documents. On her way to the local maquis resistance group, she had no time for Tardivat’s asininity.
"Don’t give me that French shit," she said as she untangled herself from the tree.
Tardivat realized at that moment that if there was one thing Nancy Wake was not, it was a damsel in distress.
Trained in hand-to-hand combat, espionage, sabotage, and able to drink almost all of her male counterparts under the table, Nancy Wake was known as one of the most fearsome French Resistance fighters during World War II. By 1942, the Gestapo had put her at the top of their most wanted list, offering a five million franc prize for her capture, dead or alive. They referred to her as the "White Mouse," as she had managed to evade capture several times throughout the war.
Wake’s resistance had begun in 1933. While working as a freelancer for a Parisian newspaper, the Australian expatriate was asked to travel to Vienna to interview the new German Chancellor — a man named Adolf Hitler. In Vienna, Wake witnessed firsthand the horrific treatment of Jewish men and women at the hands of devoted Hitler followers. Immediately, she vowed to oppose Hitler by whatever means necessary.
#2
My unpopular opinion is that I would have rather defeated the communists. And not have folded the globalist portion of the Nazis into the West War Machine.
Globalist Nazis were not defeated; the nationalist ones were.
Globalist nazis found positions in NATO, UN, CIA, etc. And I argue that their ethos transferred to these international anti-American agencies and we are still dealing with those repercussions today.
[X] Illegal immigrants into the United States (2020-2024): Border encounters reported by US Customs and Border Protection. Flows originate from each citizenship and land randomly across U.S. territory.
[X.com] Watch the desecration of churches. There are a lot of others online of similar desecrations in Europe as well as the burning of churches in Canada and the Netherlands. There's a clip of thousands of Muslims surrounding a cathedral in Melbourne chanting "Ghod is Great"! The challenge could not be more blatant. But, yes, let's import more of them. There more clips than you can count of Muslim preacher immigrants openly stating their goal is destroy the Constitution, impose Sharia Law, and forcibly convert everyone to Islam.
The strange story of the stoned Salafi unfolded when a certain Aymen B. (it’s the policy of the European media to conceal the surnames of accused criminals), a 43-year-old Muslim from Tunisia, entered a church on Holy Saturday, April 4, the day before Easter. According to the French-language publication Valeurs Actuelles, Aymen was “taken into custody after entering the Saint-Clément Church in Arpajon (Essonne) and shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ multiple times.”
That wasn’t all. Aymen also “shoved a female worshipper inside the church.” He also “knelt down before prostrating himself on the floor to pray; he then stood back up and knocked over several objects.”
And so, however reluctantly, the French police, who seldom expend too much energy chasing Islamic jihadis, swung into action. Aymen’s “home was also searched. Although the search yielded no results, it was determined that the individual had consumed a large quantity of cannabis.” Ah. Now French authorities had the excuse they needed for Aymen’s actions, and once again didn’t have to face the reality of Islamic jihad.
Aymen himself helped out when he “confessed that he had been seized by a momentary fit of madness and admitted to having smoked a joint just prior to the incident.” He claimed he was so stoned out of his mind that he “had not realized the nature of his actions.” And that certainly makes sense. After all, who among us hasn’t smoked a joint and then, in a “momentary fit of madness,” decided to drop by the local church, scream “Allahu akbar,” and start knocking things over and shoving people around?
As Aymen was screaming his declaration of supremacism and shoving the women, there were just “four people, including the priest,” inside the church. The priest contacted the police, and Aymen was duly taken into custody. Acting upon the prevailing assumption that all jihad activity is simply a manifestation of mental illness, Aymen was treated as if he were crazy: “Following his arrest, Aymen B. underwent a psychiatric evaluation.” However, in this case it didn’t go as expected, as it “concluded that he possessed full mental capacity.”
That determination was extremely surprising. Generally Western European authorities are unwilling even to admit that such a thing as Islamic jihad even exists, and so they classify all Islamic jihadis as mentally ill. In this case, however, apparently Aymen was so obviously in his right mind that this popular obfuscation wasn’t going to fly.
Aymen’s phone also made that comforting fiction harder to maintain: “Upon searching his mobile phone, officers discovered that he had conducted some intriguing searches; specifically, the individual had searched online for ‘Al Jazeera’ and ‘Bin Laden.’ He was taken into police custody, though he was later released.”
#4
Or this, also from PJ Media, about two middle aged, drunk Algerian brothers who decide to commit jihad on a bar in the Basque country… where the locals don’t put up with such nonsense.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Andrey Bulkin
[REGNUM] US casualties during Operation Epic Fury continue to mount, despite the ceasefire announced in early April. They are not publicly reported; the figures are simply updated in a database.
This quiet rise in casualties signals that US statements about the progress of the conflict are likely far from transparent, even though the Pentagon is trying hard to convince the public otherwise.
THE HABIT OF MANIPULATION
During the first month, US Central Command held regular briefings on the operation, including information on casualties among American troops. According to these data, by the end of March, combat losses stood at 13 killed and 315 wounded.
By the time the ceasefire was signed on April 4, the official death toll had remained unchanged, while the number of wounded had risen to 365. However, the ceasefire did not stop the rising casualty count.
This became known from data from the US Department of Defense's Centralized Database for the Collection and Storage of Information on Casualties of Military Personnel in Conflict (DCAS), which the Pentagon is required to regularly update to inform the president, Congress, and the public.
Last week, the number of wounded in the operation against Iran rose to 399. This means that, on paper, there has been no fighting for over two weeks, yet the number of wounded American soldiers has increased by 33 during this time.
On Monday, April 20, the statistics were updated again, and the list of those injured was supplemented by 16 more entries—now, according to the official version, the number of wounded has risen to 415.
The US Department of Defense claims that the number of casualties is increasing because in some cases, especially concussions and head injuries, soldiers do not immediately seek medical attention. If these claims are to be believed, it appears that some unfortunate individuals may not have noticed their concussions or the effects of a concussion for up to two weeks. However, the oddities surrounding the casualty accounting system don't end there.
The American publication The Intercept drew attention to discrepancies in the data published by DCAS. In early April, the page with a breakdown of wounded by category (gender, rank, age, etc.) listed the total number as 372, while the table with a breakdown by month listed 357. Moreover, both figures differed from the published figures. After the latest update, the discrepancy was corrected, but the unpleasantness remained, and it did not inspire confidence in the system.
According to the publication, the Pentagon is blatantly concealing losses, providing journalists with outdated and incomplete information. For example, official data excludes more than 200 sailors who suffered smoke and carbon monoxide poisoning during the fire on the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, as well as other non-combat casualties.
Central Command has responded to journalists' requests for up-to-date information with silence, limiting itself to formal replies or citing old press releases.
The political situation clearly also encourages the military to maintain such secrecy. A public opinion poll conducted by Reuters and Ipsos shows that up to 66% of Americans oppose the military campaign in Iran.
As The Guardian notes, even in traditionally conservative states such as Ohio, Iowa and Kentucky, where nearly half of all the service members who have died so far are from, discontent is growing.
Veterans of past conflicts openly ask: Why are Americans dying? "It's a real tragedy. What is our purpose? We're losing people," said Bob Baylor, an Ohio colonel and veteran of Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.
Admitting the true number of casualties, as well as the fact that some of them were concealed, could be a serious political blow to the Donald Trump administration, which launched the war without congressional approval or a clear plan to end the conflict. Therefore, the question raised by American journalists about the methodology for counting casualties in the US military deserves special attention.
Examples of American manipulation of casualty data are well-known. During the Vietnam War, for example, the "Dover Rule" was enacted, in effect until 2009, prohibiting the free photography of coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base, home to the largest US military morgue.
According to research by Professor Candida Purnell of City University London, the US government is engaged in a systematic effort to conceal losses.
Planes carrying wounded soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq arriving at Joint Base Andrews near Washington were deliberately landed under cover of darkness to prevent the press from seeing them and determining the exact number of wounded. A similar practice existed at Bagram Air Base, where the wounded were brought into the hospital through a secondary entrance to avoid attracting public attention.
An even more telling incident occurred in Afghanistan in 2011. Thirty American service members, including 15 Navy SEALs, were killed in the crash of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Wardak province.
These were the largest single losses since the operation began. Due to the extensive damage, the remains were difficult to separate from each other and from the helicopter wreckage. Without the families' consent, all were cremated on Pentagon orders.
Shortly thereafter, the US Air Force admitted that between 2004 and 2008, 976 body parts belonging to 274 fallen service members were similarly destroyed at Dover Air Force Base, with the ashes then transported to a landfill in Virginia. This bears no resemblance to the honorable burials for fallen heroes portrayed in the media.
Whether these losses were included in the overall statistics is a big question, especially considering that they do not include the dead and wounded employees of private military companies and so-called "contractors" of the US Department of Defense.
A study by Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs found that the Pentagon recruited migrant contractors en masse in Iraq and Afghanistan to shift the risk of losses to them and avoid unnecessarily alarming the American public. For example, in 2012, out of 88,000 American troops in Afghanistan, there were 117,227 Pentagon contractors, only a third of whom were Americans. They were entrusted with a wide variety of jobs, from guarding various facilities to construction, cleaning, and cooking.
According to incomplete and unofficial data, more than 3,700 contractors had been killed in Afghanistan by the end of 2015. Naturally, the Pentagon doesn't account for these losses: companies hiring foreign contractors are required to independently report killed and wounded, but most cases go unreported. This is a systemic policy that allows the war to be waged more cheaply, politically speaking.
However, manipulating statistics is not the only method used by the American government to mislead the public.
The intense coverage of the fate of one missing pilot, while silencing the stories of others who were wounded or killed, is another example of how the Pentagon uses technology to shape the narrative about the wars the United States wages.
Public attention is focused on individual heroic stories, diverting it from systemic questions about the cost of war. However, this time, the attempt to resort to this tactic backfired on the American command.
WAS THERE A PILOT?
The White House presented the rescue of the weapons operator of the downed US Air Force F-15E fighter jet as an unequivocal triumph for American weapons and special forces. But the official version, detailed by media giants like the BBC and Time magazine, is at best bizarre.
So, on April 3, Iranian air defenses shot down an American jet over Iran's Isfahan province. Both crew members ejected. The pilot was rescued within hours, but the weapons operator, whom Trump would later refer to on social media as "the distinguished Colonel," was injured.
Bleeding profusely, he climbed a 2,100-meter-high ridge, hid in a crevice, and from there, periodically activating a radio beacon, signaled the search party. Meanwhile, Iranian authorities allegedly offered a $60,000 reward for his capture, so not only military personnel but also civilians set out to search.
The rescue operation, according to the US president, involved 155 aircraft, including four bombers, 64 fighters, 48 tankers, 13 rescue aircraft, and hundreds of special forces personnel, including the elite Navy SEAL Team 6, and even CIA operatives with a secret device called " Ghost Whisper." An abandoned airfield in the southern part of Isfahan province was allegedly used to evacuate the wounded colonel and his rescuers.
The two MC-130 transport aircraft carrying the special forces, according to the official version, proved too heavy, causing them to become stuck in the sand and were destroyed by the Americans themselves, along with the helicopters they carried, to prevent the equipment from falling into enemy hands. The entire operation ended in a triumphant rescue: the pilot was safe, and no American troops were injured.
It looks like something out of a B-movie war movie. However, upon closer inspection, this heroic epic begins to fall apart at the seams.
The first thing that strikes you is the protagonist's complete anonymity. Week after week passes, and the "respected colonel's" name, his photograph, his service record, and his biography remain a closely guarded secret.
He doesn't give interviews, he isn't publicly honored, and his return home and joyful reunion with his family were not shown to his fellow citizens. This stands in stark contrast to the established tradition in the United States of dedicating articles and television reports to every service member rescued or rescued from captivity.
The second, even more serious discrepancy is geographic. The supposed rescue site and the airfield used for it are located in none other than Isfahan, in close proximity to one of Iran's key nuclear facilities—the Nuclear Technology and Research Center.
This circumstance has given rise to a theory that is being actively promoted by the Iranian side and some Western analysts: was the rescue operation merely a cover for a failed sabotage operation?
The Iranian version of events differs strikingly from the American one. Tehran claims that two military transport aircraft and helicopters were destroyed during the battle. Iranian state media published photographs and videos of smoking aircraft wreckage at the site of a makeshift airfield for American special forces.
With the publication of satellite images, a third theory emerged. The photos clearly show traces of fire not only in the area where the equipment was hauled for destruction, but also in the middle of the runway.
There is an opinion that something went wrong during the landing and the planes delivering the special forces collided for some reason, after which the rescuers themselves had to be rescued.
This theory is supported by the fact that the American military once encountered a similar situation in Iran. In 1980, during Operation Eagle Claw, a rescue operation involving the infamous Delta Force special forces, to rescue US embassy personnel in Tehran, a field airfield was also established on an abandoned airstrip in the Islamic Republic.
While refueling on the ground, one of the helicopters crashed into a fuel plane, killing eight people and burning both aircraft. Afterward, the operation was canceled, and the renowned special forces fled Iran, leaving behind five more helicopters to the delight of the thrifty Iranian military.
Despite all the oddities and contradictions, the American side continues to insist on the "planes stuck in the sand" theory. But juxtaposing the official rhetoric of overwhelming air superiority and a heroic rescue with photographs of destroyed American equipment, it's hard to shake the feeling that the Pentagon is trying to pass off wishful thinking as reality.
This entire convoluted rescue story thus appears not as proof of military triumph, but as yet another link in the chain of systematic concealment of the truth about what is happening in Iran and, in general, about the wars waged by the United States.
While officials talk of "miraculous rescues" and "invincible special forces," the number of wounded in the DCAS database continues to rise.
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.
[X.com] 
