Blog

Did A Mysterious “Sonic Weapon” Really Aid Delta Force In Capturing Maduro?

viral and as-yet totally unsubstantiated claim that U.S. forces used a mysterious “sonic weapon” that left security forces bleeding and stunned during the recent operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro has been getting a ton of attention. The allegation – amplified, but not expressly confirmed by the White House – does add to years now of persistent rumors of weapons very loosely similar to this description being in use globally, with separate news on that front having broken just today. When it comes to the United States, this has been further fueled by decades of known work on directed energy weapons, including ones intended to produce novel auditory and less-than-lethal effects.

The sonic weapon claim looks to originate with a video posted on TikTok on January 9 by an individual who goes by Varela News (and who uses the handle @franklinvarela09). The Spanish-language clip is a purported interview with a member of the Venezuelan security forces who was involved in the response to the U.S. operation in Caracas just over a week ago. The contents of the clip gained wider traction online after Mike Netter shared an English transcription in a post on X that same day. Netter is a political commentator and advocate who describes himself as the “main proponent” of the failed 2021 effort to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom. He is now Vice Chair of an organization called Rebuild California and hosts a radio show on KABC, a Cumulus Media station that broadcasts in the Greater Los Angeles area.

Keep reading

No, ICE Agents Do Not Have ‘Absolute Immunity’ From State Prosecution

According to Vice President J.D. Vance, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis cannot be prosecuted for it by Minnesota officials. “The precedent here is very simple,” Vance declared. “You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action—that’s a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job.”

But the precedent is not actually so simple. In an 1890 case known as In re Neagle, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal marshal named David Neagle was “not liable to answer in the Courts of California” after he fatally shot the would-be assassin of a Supreme Court justice named Stephen Field during an attack on Field that occurred on a train traveling through California (Neagle was present as Field’s official bodyguard). “Under the circumstances,” the Court said, Neagle “was acting under the authority of the law of the United States, and was justified in so doing.” Therefore, “he is not liable to answer in the courts of California on account of his part in that transaction.”

Vance may have been thinking of In re Neagle when he claimed that ICE agents possess “absolute immunity” from state prosecution. However, In re Neagle was not the Supreme Court’s final word on the matter.

Keep reading

Alien Abduction Odds Index 2026: Where Reports Cluster Across the U.S. and Canada

Tracking Where Alien Abduction Stories Consistently Surface

Most alien abduction stories begin quietly — a strange light, a missing moment, something that feels off. Many are never reported. Others are quickly dismissed.

But when years of UFO data are compared, a clear pattern emerges: these reports don’t appear evenly across the map.

The Alien Abduction Odds Index 2026 compares where abduction-related UFO reports are most often recorded across the United States and Canada. It doesn’t predict events — it compares patterns.

Each state and province is given an implied probability, an odds-style measure that shows how frequently these reports have appeared in one place compared with others.

The odds are low everywhere. But the takeaway is simple: these reports don’t appear everywhere — they appear somewhere.

Keep reading

Multiple States Facing Marijuana Legalization Repeal Threats in 2026

Prohibitionist-led efforts are underway in multiple states to repeal voter-initiated adult-use marijuana markets.

In Maine and Arizona, campaigners are collecting signatures to place ballot questions before voters undermining those states’ cannabis legalization laws. If passed the Arizona initiative would repeal the state’s licensed retail marijuana market. The initiative in Maine would similarly wipe out the state’s regulated adult-use market, while also eliminating consumers’ ability to legally grow personal use quantities of cannabis at home.

In Massachusetts, campaigners have already collected the necessary number of signatures to place a similar repeal measure, titled An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy, before voters. In Massachusetts and Maine, allegations persist that voters’ signatures in support of the proposals were fraudulently obtained.

“2026 is going to be a pivotal year for the marijuana reform movement,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “If successful, these measures will wipe out regulated cannabis markets — eliminating tens of thousands of jobs, ballooning state budget deficits, and disrupting safe access to millions of consumers. How successfully we respond to these challenges today will determine the degree to which our movement continues to move forward tomorrow.”

Also, in Idaho, a constitutional amendment will appear on the November ballot that, if approved, will forbid voters from ever again having the opportunity to decide on statewide marijuana policies. State lawmakers voted last year to place the amendment on the 2026 ballot.

Keep reading

The War on Drugs Failed Because It Never Understood Why People Use Drugs

The conversation around drugs has long been framed by cost. Policymakers calculate the billions lost every year to productivity gaps, hospitalizations, law enforcement and incarceration. The U.S. alone spends an estimated $193 billion annually dealing with the fallout of illicit drug use, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Yet there is a blind spot. People do not only use drugs because of the usual suspects: trauma, poverty or pathology. They also use them because they feel good. Pleasure. Connection. Belonging. A stronger sense of self.

There is an old joke that goes: “Do you know what’s the problem with drugs? That they feel too good.” And it is spot on. Ignoring this basic human driver has a cost of its own.

Researchers and frontline harm-reduction workers are now introducing a radical, almost counterintuitive idea: what if drug policy and education started not from fear, but from pleasure? What if acknowledging the real reasons people use could reduce overdoses, improve mental health and save governments millions?

As Valentine and Fraser noted in their 2008 study of methadone patients: “Although pleasurable and problematic drug use are often thought to be mutually exclusive, pleasure is reported from both the effects of drugs such as heroin and methadone and from the social worlds of methadone maintenance treatment.”

This is the frontier of “pleasure management” or “pleasure maximization,” a new way of thinking about consumption that blends economics, public health and lived experience. Daniel Bear and colleagues argue that harm reduction too often “foregrounds risks at the expense of benefits.” Their framework of Mindful Consumption and Benefit Maximization (MCBM) begins by asking users why they consume, what benefits they seek and how to reduce risks while preserving those benefits.

Zara Snapp, director of Instituto RIA in Mexico, reminds us that this is not a new invention. She points to ancestral traditions across Latin America where psychoactive plants were used to foster vision, knowledge and connection to the sacred. In this sense, today’s debates about pleasure management are part of a much longer human story about using substances for meaning and wellbeing, not only risk.

Silvia Inchaurraga, a psychoanalyst and president of ARDA (the Harm Reduction Association of Argentina), frames it in terms of rights: “The concept of harm reduction cannot stand without legitimizing the right of people to consume drugs… interventions must always start from recognition of this right and the user as a citizen.” She argues that pleasure management challenges abstentionist logics that seek to eliminate risk altogether, instead of acknowledging that people use for multiple reasons, including wellbeing.

Keep reading

From Noriega to Maduro: The Long US History of Kidnapping Foreign Leaders

While it has undoubtedly shocked the world, the Trump administration’s abduction of President Nicolás Maduro fits into a long history of United States kidnapping of foreign leaders.

On January 3, U.S. Special Forces entered Venezuela by air, captured Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, killing around 80 people in the process. They were flown to the United States, where Maduro was put on trial on spurious drug trafficking and possession of firearms charges.

Despite President Trump himself declaring that “kidnapping” was an appropriate term for what happened, corporate media around the world have refrained from using the obvious word for what transpired, preferring to use “capturing” or “seizing.” These terms reframe the incident and cast doubt on its illegality, helping to manufacture public consent for a grave breach of international law. Indeed, managers at the BBC sent out a memo to its staff, instructing them in no uncertain terms to “avoid using ‘kidnapped’” when reporting on the news.

Targeting Venezuela

Maduro is not the first Venezuelan official Washington has helped kidnap. In 2002, the Bush administration planned and executed a coup d’état that briefly ousted Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, from power.

The U.S. government had been organizing and financing the ringleaders of the coup for months, flying the key players back and forth to Washington, D.C. for meetings with top officials. On the day of the coup, American Ambassador Charles Shapiro was at the mansion of local media magnate, Gustavo Cisneros, the headquarters of the coup.

Two U.S. warships entered Venezuelan waters, moving towards the remote island of La Orchila, where Chavez was helicoptered to. Chavez himself stated that senior American personnel were present with him during his abduction. Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration immediately endorsed the proceedings, describing them as a return to democracy.

Chavez was only saved the same fate as Maduro after millions of Venezuelans flocked into the streets, demanding a return of their president. Their actions spurred loyal military units who retook the presidential palace, and the project fell apart. After the coup, the United States quadrupled its funding to the coup leaders (including Maria Corina Machado) through vehicles such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy.

A further kidnapping of a Venezuelan official occurred in June 2020, when the United States downed the plane of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab. Saab was in Cabo Verde at the time, traveling back from a diplomatic mission to Iran, where he has been helping break American sanctions. He was only released in 2023, after Venezuela negotiated a prisoner swap which included a number of CIA agents captured in Venezuela in the act of carrying out terror attacks against the country’s infrastructure.

Keep reading

Iran’s Inflation Protests Turned Into an Uprising. Will Trump Get Involved?

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who made Iran an Islamic republic in 1979, famously said that revolution was “not about the price of watermelons.” He held economics in contempt as the science of feeding donkeys. As his successor, Ali Khamenei, is learning, people will make a revolution about the price of watermelons. Demonstrations against inflation in late December have become some of the most violent unrest in Iran since the 1979 revolution.

The country has been under a total communications blackout since January 8, but the information that has emerged from Iran indicates that there has been a massive, bloody crackdown. The Human Rights Activists News Agency, a nonprofit in Virginia, has verified 483 civilian deaths and 47 deaths of police and military personnel. On Sunday, Iranian state television broadcast video from a morgue in Tehran overflowing with bodies; authorities claim that the situation is now under control and hosted a progovernment rally in Tehran on Monday.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened Iran if the government kills protesters. He told reporters on Sunday that “it looks like” his line has been crossed, and that he “might meet” with Iranian negotiators, or that “we may have to act because of what is happening before the meeting.” His cabinet is scheduled to meet on Tuesday to discuss options, including war, to support the protesters.

Trump’s promise to intervene “encouraged [Iranian authorities] to act much more aggressively and brutally,” Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Professor Vali Nasr said during a panel hosted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, where I used to work. “You just end the protests quickly and take this off the table, so if that’s the excuse for intervention, it’s not going to be there anymore,” he explained, quoting a hypothetical Iranian official. 

As the space for political dissent has shrunk in Iran, protests have become more frequent and violent. In 2009, around 72 people were killed in protests by the reformist movement against a contested presidential election. In 2019, the government responded to protests about fuel prices by shutting down the internet, killing at least 321 people, and banning reformists from parliament. In 2022, when Iranians rose up against mandatory hijab laws, the crackdown killed at least 551 people.

This round of protests began with a merchants’ strike that was triggered by the Iranian rial hitting a record low against the U.S. dollar. (Unlike many of Iran’s self-inflicted economic problems, economist Esfandyar Batmanghelidj pointed out, the currency crisis has been directly caused by U.S. economic sanctions.) In the midst of the protests, the government announced that it would cut billions of dollars from import subsidies—increasing prices in the short term—and instead give citizens an additional $7 per month.

The unrest suddenly escalated in the second week of January. Video evidence from before the communications blackout, compiled by military observer Mark Pyruz, shows that protest sizes ballooned by five times between January 5 and January 7. Then, several Kurdish parties and Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince exiled in 1979, called for their followers to come out on the night of January 8. At that point, authorities shut down the internet.

It’s unclear how much control Pahlavi actually has on the ground. Last summer, after the Israeli war with Iran, he claimed to have recruited 50,000 defectors from the Iranian government online. On Sunday, the former crown prince called on oil workers to go on strike in a video message. There’s no evidence that Pahlavi has been able to summon either the defectors or the strikes; on Sunday, he went on Fox News to appeal publicly to Trump, who has refused to meet with him, for help.

Keep reading

The Rubicon crossed – Team Trump’s nihilistic anti-values paradigm

So, finally an act of unvarnished predatory action by Trump and his team – the abduction of President Maduro in a lightning night-time military strike – has launched 2026 into a pivotal moment. A pivotal moment not just for Latin America, but for global politics.

The “Venezuela method” is aligned with Trump’s “business first” approach which is rooted in constructing a “financial reward system,” whereby diverse stakeholders to a conflict are offered financial benefits that permit the US to (ostensibly) achieve its own objectives, whilst locals continue to extract rewards from the exploitation of (in this case) Venezuelan resources – under US close supervision.

In this template, the US does not need to create a new governing régime from scratch, nor put “boots on the ground” – for Venezuela, the plan is that the existing government of the newly-sworn in President, Delcy Rodriguez, will remain in control of the country – so long as she follows Trump’s wishes. Should she or any of her ministers fail to follow that blueprint, they will receive the “Maduro treatment,” or worse. Reportedly, the US has already threatened Venezuela’s Interior Minister, Diosdado Cabello, that he will be targeted by Washington unless he helps President Rodriguez meet US demands.

Put another way, the plan comes down to a single underpinning premise that the only thing that matters is the money.

In this context, the US approach to Venezuela resembles that of a Vulture Hedge Fund “buy-out”: Remove the CEO and co-opt the existing management team with money to run the company to new dictates. In Venezuela’s case, Trump likely hopes that Rodriguez (who has been “talking” with Secretary Rubio via the Qatari royal family, and who is also the Minister responsible for the oil industry) has squared off all the factions that compose the Venezuelan power structure to accept the relinquishment of state sovereign resources to Trump.

What is so pivotal here is the shedding of all pretence: The US is in a debt crisis and wishes to seize – for exclusive US use – Venezuelan oil. Submission to Trump’s demand is the only variable that matters. All masks are off. A Rubicon has been crossed.

“Venezuela will be turning over 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil to the United States of America, sold at market price with the money controlled by me,” Trump has written on Truth Social.

The erasure of the American “project” – the substituting of self-interested hard power for the American narrative of it being “a light to all nations” – constitutes a revolutionary change. Myths and their supporting moral stories provide the meaning to any nation. Without a moral framework, what will hold America together? Ayn Rand’s celebrated belief that rational selfishness was the ultimate expression of human nature cannot reconstitute social order.

Keep reading

Bill Clinton defies congressional subpoena, Comer says contempt charges moving ahead

Former President Bill Clinton appears to have defied a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday morning.

Clinton was compelled to sit for a sworn closed-door deposition in the House’s bipartisan probe into Jeffrey Epstein, but Fox News Digital did not see him before or after the scheduled 10 a.m. grilling.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., had threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings against Clinton if he did not appear Tuesday.

Comer said Tuesday morning, “We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress.”

“I think everyone knows by now Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee,” Comer told reporters after formally ending the deposition.

“No one’s accusing Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. We just have questions. And that’s why the Democrats voted, along with Republicans, to subpoena Bill Clinton.”

He said “not a single Democrat” showed up to the deposition on Tuesday.

Keep reading

Mike Pompeo Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About ‘Popular’ Regime Change in Iran

Former Secretary of State and Director of the CIA Mike Pompeo is one of the most bloodthirsty and prominent neocons in the United States today. He is militantly pro-Israel and has openly and consistently pushed for regime change in Iran. In the first Trump administration, he was one of Trump’s most hawkish advisors. As one of the main advocates for the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, Pompeo clearly is not bothered by military action which is illegal under international law. However, one factor which differentiates Pompeo from his neocon cronies is his blunt, nigh-idiotic honesty.

While Washington has orchestrated numerous coups around the globe, few prominent officials have been so bold or careless as to acknowledge that the United States or Israel is helping foment a revolution in real time. However, Pompeo did just that when he tweeted, “The Iranian regime is in trouble… Riots in dozens of cities and the Basij under siege – Mashed, Tehran, Zahedan.  Next stop:  Baluchistan… Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets.  Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them…”

Pompeo’s remarks are important because of what it casually assumes: Israel is intimately involved in the current protests in Iran. This undermines the US and Israeli governments’ narrative that the protests are an organic development. Contrary to neoconservative narratives, the fact that every protester is not literally on a State Department payroll does not make the protests organic. While some, if not most, of the protesters might genuinely oppose the government, the fact remains that funding, intel, media amplification, training, and sanctions have all been used as tools to influence political outcomes inside Iran to the benefit of Washington and Tel Aviv.

The biggest historical example of this is the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. After Mohammad Reza Shah was installed by the Iranian military on behalf of the US and UK, the CIA hired mobsters to stage riots in favor of the Shah. On top of this, the CIA also paid for buses and trucks full of demonstrators to protest in Tehran. Following the Iranian Revolution, the US trained members of the leftist Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) who previously killed American soldiers. With the rise of the internet, the US government provided funding for online activism targeting the Iranian government, asked Twitter to delay site-maintenance to help 2009 Green Movement protesters communicate, and carried out cyberattacks in collaboration with Israel. In short, for decades the US has tried to destabilize Iran to foster regime change. Pompeo’s remark suggests that this long-standing policy has not changed under the nominally “anti-war” second Trump administration.

Like the Obama administration, the second Trump administration is following the “Arab Spring playbook.” The Arab Spring was a series of protests, insurrections, and rebellions across the Arab world which sought to “promote democracy.” In reality, many of the figures and groups involved in the Arab Spring received not only training, but also funding from American NGOs like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and Freedom House. These organizations all receive money from the US government via Congress or the State Department. Most of the aims of the Arab Spring failed. Instead of democracy, the protests led to an authoritarian backlash from Arab governments. This “counter-revolution” was beneficial for Israel as the failure of the Arab Spring made normalizing relations with destabilized, divided Arab regimes easier.

Ultimately, the main beneficiaries of regime change are not the United States or its people, but instead Israel. Unfortunately, so many figures in the American government, like Mike Pompeo, have a theology which places support for the secular State of Israel in high regard. In fact, Pompeo once suggested that God sent President Donald Trump to save Israel.

To put it frankly, there is nothing godly about Israel, especially with regard to its conduct in its proxy war against Iran. A godly nation would not have its intelligence agency pose as the CIA in an attempt to recruit terrorists for a false flag operation against Iran. The terrorist group in question, Jundallah, has been responsible for murdering both Iranian government officials and civilians.

Keep reading