Tag: history

Halloween ‘Corpses’ Hanging Outside PA Home Spark Outrage as NAACP Demands Removal Over ‘Painful Historical Significance’ — Homeowner Refuses to Back Down

A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, homeowner is refusing to remove his Halloween decorations after the local NAACP and some residents claimed the display of hanging “bodies” resembles lynching victims and carries “painful historical significance” for Black Americans.

Homeowner Mike Wade told reporters he bought the kit and never intended to offend anyone. “My house is scary. My house is always scary. It’s always set up scary. Same thing. Dead bodies laying around, skeletons. It’s Halloween,” he said.

Some neighbors agreed it was simply seasonal spookiness, while others, including resident Roshea Newkirk, questioned, “I’m just looking at it and I’m just thinking to him, like, ‘do you not see what’s wrong with this?’”

The controversy reached a Bristol Borough Council meeting, where resident Karla Scott called the scene “very inappropriate.”

Council President Ralph DiGuiseppe confirmed that a borough inspector contacted the homeowner shortly after the display went up. Officials asked him to take it down, but he declined.

The homeowner told FOX 29 the display was simply for Halloween and there was “no other agenda.”

Keep reading

America’s Sordid History of Filming Executions as Entertainment

Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of the Army Adam R. Telle signed an order scheduling the execution of Nidal Hasan, a former Army major who was convicted of killing 13 people in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. Two days later, self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth made a startling announcement. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public,” Hegseth told the conservative Real America’s Voice News network, as the interviewer raised his eyebrows. The Department of War’s official “Rapid Response” Twitter account promptly promoted the clip.

Hegseth’s plan apparently won’t come to fruition. Amid outcry about the barbarity and optics of streaming the planned execution by firing squad — scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood — President Donald Trump on Thursday called off the broadcast. “I think streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan but, many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device,” Trump posted on his social media website.

Some news outlets, such as The New York Times, framed the planned killing as an aberration, claiming that “such a broadcast has little precedent, and releasing video of executions is most often associated with extremist militant groups like the Islamic State.” This narrative, however, overlooks a forgotten American cultural history in which filmed executions turned government killings into spectacle.

The practice of filming executions in America is effectively as old as cinema itself.

In 1897, a few years after the first motion pictures began to be exhibited in the United States, a Missouri farmhand named William Carr was convicted of murdering his daughter and sentenced to death by hanging. Filmmaker Frederick Guth, of the American Phonographic Company, who had previously recorded an interview with Carr in prison, opted to film the execution as well — marking a grim milestone as history’s first filmed execution. The resulting motion picture, “The Hanging of William Carr” (1897), was first exhibited in Kansas City and St. Louis, then screened around the country.

The following year saw the nationwide premiere of “An Execution by Hanging,” otherwise known as “Execution of Negro at County Jail, Jacksonville, Fla” (1898). It showed the hanging of Edward Heinson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for criminal assault of a 14-year-old white girl. Illustrating racist views that have long shaped the American criminal legal system and the death penalty, the catalog of the film’s production company, American Mutoscope and Biograph, teased the film as depicting “a very ghastly, but very interesting subject.”

As these early films were distributed across the nation, they were met with interest and outcry. The journal Phonoscope at the time described the filming of Carr’s execution as “revolting,” while the Cleveland Leader cautioned that the film may have “brutalizing effects” on viewers. Some newspapers even claimed that during the hanging of Carr, Guth had hired people to storm the gallows to create added pandemonium.

Keep reading

Israeli False Flags From Irgun to Flydubai

By now, you’ve likely seen the “terror at 30,000 feet” that just played out in the skies over Tel Aviv last week. And you’ve probably marveled at how the narrative of that fateful Flydubai flight—a narrative dutifully parroted by the eager propagandists of the establishment media—disintegrated in the exact same way that Boeing’s airframe miraculously didn’t disintegrate.

As unsurprising as this latest manipulated news story may be to us veteran conspiracy researchers, however, there are millions around the world who, shocked by the ongoing genocide in Gaza, are only now beginning to look into the false flag trickery and the bloody deceptions upon which the modern state of Israel has been built.

So, for the benefit of such newly awakened students of suppressed history, today let’s examine some of the foundational false flag terror events of Israeli history.

On July 22, 1946, terrorists associated with the Irgun—a Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Mandatory Palestine and led by Menachem Begin—bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

Their targeting of the hotel was a response to Operation Agatha, a security operation conducted by British troops days earlier that had resulted in the arrest of 2,700 Zionist operatives.

Operation Agatha included the seizure of documentary evidence that the Jewish Agency for Palestine—a branch of the World Zionist Organization—had approved sabotage operations as part of their insurgency against the British Mandatory government. Knowing that the King David Hotel housed the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan, the Irgun terror squad presumed that this was where the Brits were storing these incriminating documents.

An article from History Today recounts the set-up for the attack.

Keep reading

North Dakota: Seven Coffins Holding Human Remains Found Near Governor’s Residence

Archeologists have located seven coffins containing human remains near the governor’s residence in Bismarck, North Dakota, a site where community members laid their loved ones to rest in the 1800s.

Crews found the coffins and a wooden box after Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Facilities Management Director Brandon Solberg said they investigated over 80 spots before concluding their fieldwork in early September, KFYR reported Monday.

OMB told People that preliminary analysis of the remains inside the coffins showed they were those of two women, two men, two teenage boys, and a toddler.

Per the KFYR article, “The discovery dates back to May 19, when contractors doing excavation on the southwest corner of the property near 4th Street and Boulevard Avenue first uncovered remains, coffin hardware, and fragments. That paused construction and led to a radar scan by the State Historical Society, followed by a dig that started Sept. 1.”

Keep reading

The 200-Year History of Vaccine Disasters That The Government Censors

The first federal vaccine push in the U.S. was the Act to Encourage Vaccination of 1813 – signed by President James Madison, which required free distribution of smallpox vaccine – according to historical accounts. The measure followed lobbying by James Smith, a physician known as the “Jenner of America,” who was appointed federal vaccine agent under the law.

Congress repealed the act in 1822 after safety failures and complaints of profiteering and corruption, the same accounts state. The repeal marked the first federal retreat from vaccine regulation in the nation’s history. The episode set a template that historians and critics say has repeated for more than two centuries: government promotion of vaccination, followed by documented safety failures and followed by public backlash.

Early Setbacks: Tarboro Tragedy and Civil War Vaccination Problems

The 1822 repeal followed what is known as the Tarboro Tragedy, in which Smith sent live smallpox virus instead of cowpox vaccine to North Carolina, causing about 60 infections and 10 deaths, according to the historical account. The incident is cited as an early example of distribution failures under a federal vaccine program.

Historian Terry Reimer wrote that “unfavorable results from vaccination, or spurious vaccinations, were all too common” during the Civil War, according to Brownstone Institute President Jeffrey A. Tucker. Reimer stated that syphilitic scabs and contaminated material spread disease, and that the Confederate Medical Department tried to limit soldier-to-soldier vaccination.

These 19th-century episodes illustrate a recurring theme that later critics of vaccine policy would cite. Safety problems were often documented only after widespread use, and official responses frequently came after public harm had occurred.

Biologics Control Act of 1902: Industry Initiative, Coleman Article Says

The Biologics Control Act of 1902, a foundational federal law governing vaccine and antitoxin production, was an initiative of the large biologics manufacturers, according to Terry S. Coleman’s 2016 article in the Food and Drug Law Journal titled “Early Developments in the Regulation of Biologics.” Coleman wrote that “the 1902 Act was an initiative of the large biologics manufacturers, and it was enacted with the secret cooperation of Public Health Service.”

According to the historical account, Parke-Davis pushed for strict standards and wrote to the Public Health Service, “As you are perhaps aware, the regulations cannot be too stringent for us.” The correspondence is cited as evidence that industry players sought regulation to stabilize markets and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Separately, investigative reporting published by The BMJ has found that regulatory agencies in six countries, including the United States, have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate, raising questions about independence. Maryanne Demasi, the investigative journalist behind the report, documented significant conflicts of interest between drugmakers and the agencies, according to the reporting [1][2][3].

Jacobson v. Massachusetts and the 1986 Liability Shield

In 1905, the Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding forced vaccination on public health grounds over freedom of conscience, according to the historical account. The ruling remains a foundational precedent for state vaccine mandates.

Eighty-one years later, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 granted liability protection to makers of childhood schedule vaccines and moved injury claims out of civil courts into a specialized federal compensation program, according to the account. The law has been criticized by vaccine-injured families, who describe the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as “a fortress of opacity and resistance – a system that prioritizes protecting the pharmaceutical industry” over claimants [4].

According to Tucker, the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act enabled the National Institutes of Health to share patents with pharmaceutical companies, a policy shift with reported market value approaching $1 billion to $2 billion. The combination of liability protection, patent sharing and mandatory childhood schedules created what critics describe as a durable framework of industry-favorable regulation.

Keep reading

REALLY? MSNOW Guest Suggests the Second Amendment Was About ‘Slave Patrols’

Left wing author Malcolm Gladwell recently appeared on MSNOW’s ‘Morning Joe’ and suggested that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms, was really written about slave patrols.

He spends much of the segment complaining about the Supreme Court, which he says has been ‘a significant impediment’ in the left’s pursuit of gun control.

The most amazing thing is that what he is saying here is treated as completely normal by the hosts, who do not interrupt or correct him in any way.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

MIKE BARNICLE, MS NOW CONTRIBUTOR: What do you say about a culture, American culture, that when a disease is identified and it’s threatening and it’s killing people, you can talk about from the inception of polio vaccines through AIDS, we — we react, we find — we find a cure almost immediately. People feel relieved. Guns have been killing Americans on the streets for decades — decades. And there’s nothing we can do.

GLADWELL: Yeah. I mean, here I have two chapters in the book on the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has been a significant impediment here. They have — the last two major gun rulings — in the Bruen case and the Heller case — are abominations. And I had — I actually have fun with them because in both of those cases, the court plays historian and plays linguist, because in the Heller case, of course, Scalia famously.

And the — and the fellow justices try to make sense of the grammatical convolution that is the Second Amendment, which, if you read, makes — no one would ever write that sentence today. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s commas everywhere. There’s this weird initial what’s called an initial being clause. Does it modify the main clause? And all of these linguists lined up and told the court, “Okay, here’s how people in the 18th century used an initial being clause — here’s how James Madison used that clause. Here’s what James Madison meant.” What he meant was, we’re talking about militias here, and by militias he meant slave patrols, right? And the court had no interest.

Keep reading

Napoleon’s secret code deciphered after 217 years using AI to read emperor’s mysterious letter

After more than 200 years, a coded letter written by the wee warlord Napoleon Bonaparte has been deciphered.

Napoleon’s stepson, Eugene, the Viceroy of Italy, sent the original letter to French general Auguste de Marmont in March of 1809 amid France’s ongoing conflict with Austria.

At the time, Marmont, a close companion of the emperor, was positioned with his troops in Dalmatia, on the far side of the Adriatic, where he was totally isolated from other French forces and their allies.

While the opening line of Napoleon’ correspondence is in his native French, the next 24 are an incomprehensible mix of symbols, letters, and numbers.

Experts believe the OG correspondence would have come with a deciphering key, but that key has been lost to the mists of time, until now.

Carter Church, an engineer at cybersecurity company SentinelOne, has cracked the centuries-old code with the aid of AI. 

‘I used GPT–6 Astra to break an unsolved cipher to one of Napoleon’s generals that had gone unread for 217 years. What makes this impressive isn’t actually the codebreaking, but that Astra completed the entire multi-modal workflow in six hours from a single image and goal,’ he explained on X. 

The first line reads: ‘Vous avez dû recevoir, Monsieur le Général Marmont, mes lettres des 8, 14 et 20 courant,’ which translates to: ‘You must have received, General Marmont, my letters of the 8th, 14th, and 20th of this month.’

Keep reading

The Tyranny of One Man’s Opinion

Thomas Cromwell was the Lord Chancellor of England for much of the reign of King Henry VIII. He engineered the convictions and executions of many whom Henry wanted out of the way, including his two predecessors in office — one of whom was St. Thomas More — and even the king’s second wife, Queen Anne.

When Cromwell’s son Gregory, who became sickened as he watched his father devolving from counselor to monster, learned that an executioner for the queen had been sent for from France a week before her trial, he asked his father what the purpose of her trial was if the king had preordained the queen’s guilt and prepaid the executioner. Cromwell replied that the king needed a jury to give the appearance of legitimacy to her conviction and prevent the public perception of “the tyranny of one man’s opinion.”

In America, we have a Constitution not only to prevent the perception but also the reality of the tyranny of one man’s opinion. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment makes clear that if the government wants life, liberty or property, it cannot take it by executive command, but only by due process — a fair jury trial and all its constitutional protections; and Article I makes it clear that if the government wants war, it cannot commence it by executive command, but only by congressional declaration.

We have a Constitution also to assure the separation of powers in the federal government. Congress writes the laws, appropriates the taxpayers’ money and funds borrowed in their names and declares war when the United States is in danger of imminent foreign threat. The president enforces the laws, spends money as Congress directs and wages the wars Congress has authorized. The judiciary decides what the Constitution and the laws mean and, if properly challenged, determines if the president and Congress or the states have exercised their duties lawfully and constitutionally.

The central constitutional question is not whether a president sincerely believes that his policies are necessary. It is whether the Constitution permits personal liberty and limited government to depend upon the opinion of one man. That is the danger of executive government without effective legislative and judicial checks.

A fair reading of the Constitution begins with a truism: Presidential power is not whatever the president believes it to be. It is only what the Constitution and laws actually confer.

Consider the administration’s attacks on alleged drug-trafficking boats. President Donald Trump says he has directed military forces to strike narcotrafficking vessels and describes the operation as part of his campaign against fentanyl and cartels. But the constitutional question is separate from the president’s characterization of the targets. A person suspected of being a drug trafficker — or even a mass murderer — does not thereby become condemned to death. Criminal guilt always requires accusation, evidence and adjudication according to law, before punishment.

These boat killings are unlawful extrajudicial executions. In the language all Americans can understand, they are murders.

The same principle applies to Iran. The Framers deliberately divided the war powers. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, authorize military force, regulate the armed forces and control appropriations. Article II makes the president commander in chief. The distinction matters. The president commands forces; Congress determines where and under what circumstances the president does so.

Trump has openly declared an American blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and said that the United States controls which ships pass through it. He has also imposed sanctions which deny food, medicine and currency stability to millions of innocent Iranians. He even threatened to murder all Iranians — beyond the thousands he has already killed — if a peace agreement is not soon reached.

Those statements highlight what the Constitution was designed to prevent one individual from addressing alone: Whether the United States should wage military and economic hostilities against the population of another nation.

Congress has repeatedly resisted treating the Iran conflict as a matter solely for presidential discretion. Just two weeks ago, support for Trump’s war failed to muster majorities in both houses of Congress.

Nor can the president’s personal assessment of Iran’s nuclear intentions settle the matter. In 2018, his State Department’s compliance report said Iran was fulfilling its nuclear-related non-proliferation commitments and U.S. intelligence had assessed with high confidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

In 2020, his State Department again said that Iran was not then engaged in key activities associated with designing and developing a nuclear weapon. In 2025, his Director of National Intelligence testified that the entire U.S. intelligence community continued to assess that Iran was not building nuclear weapons.

Those facts alone establish something constitutionally important: The president’s personal belief — whether informed or uninformed — is not evidence or law or a substitute for congressional authorization.

The same textual principle reaches domestic spending and taxation. Article I provides that only Congress can impose taxes, and money may be drawn from the Treasury only pursuant to appropriations made by law. Even though the Supreme Court has invalidated Trump’s tariffs, he continues to impose them. Even though Congress has not authorized funds for Trump’s vanity projects, he continues to spend tax dollars on them.

The Constitution does not grant any branch of government carte blanche. It has separated powers precisely because legislators, presidents and judges can all succumb to the corruption of power — and can all be wrong.

That is the deeper meaning of the tyranny of one man’s opinion. The danger is not merely that one president might be wrong. It is that a constitutional system becomes meaningless if one man’s conclusions about war, crime, taxation, spending, foreign threats or national security become the sole basis for government actions — particularly actions that kill innocents.

The Founders separated the sword from the purse and divided governmental power because they understood a truism: Personal liberty and limited government cannot long survive when entrusted to one man’s opinion.

Keep reading

America’s Greenland deal has a radioactive backstory

The US, Denmark, and Greenland have signed a new agreement to expand American military activity on the island. Washington calls Greenland vital to its security, but an expanded military presence also raises an older question: What risks does the Arctic island take on in return?

The agreement builds on a defense partnership dating back to 1951. That history includes an episode that brought the risks of Washington’s Cold War strategy into sharp focus: An American mission over Greenland that ended in a nuclear disaster.

The nuclear patrols over Greenland

In the 1960s, in the middle of the Cold War, the US Air Force launched Operation Chrome Dome. This mission implied keeping bombers armed with nuclear weapons on continuous airborne alert, ready to strike the USSR if necessary. If you’ve seen the film ‘Dr. Strangelove’, you’ll remember that Major T.J. ‘King’ Kong’s crew was involved in such a patrol mission.

Theoretically, this strategy was feasible: It would have made it impossible for the USSR to disarm the US with a single blow. However, in practice, as the number of nuclear-armed aircraft patrols increased, so did the number of incidents involving nuclear weapons.

Then-US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara advocated for ending this program, arguing that Americans had already established an effective early warning system for ballistic missile launches, so the US could take fewer risks and cut costs. However, the Strategic Air Command resisted this idea, fearing it would decrease their importance and result in budget cuts. 

A horrific incident occurred in 1966 over Spain when a bomber collided with a refueling tanker aircraft, resulting in several fatalities and nuclear bombs landing on beaches and in the Mediterranean Sea. Despite this incident, the US considered the nuclear threat from the USSR a matter of primary importance, one which justified any security measures. 

Eventually, after intense debates, a compromise was reached: The number of patrolling bombers would be reduced, but the airborne patrols would continue.

Thule Air Base in northern Greenland was established in the 1950s. A Mercator projection map gives a distorted sense of distance; in reality, its location was very convenient for potentially launching missiles at the USSR and monitoring missile launches from there. It also provided a convenient vantage point for reconnaissance of the Novaya Zemlya Soviet nuclear test site. 

Keep reading

The Treatment Was Worse Than the Disease

On December 12, 1799, George Washington returned to Mount Vernon after several hours on horseback in snow, hail, and freezing rain. The next day he developed a sore throat and hoarseness, and in the early morning of December 14 he awoke struggling to breathe and swallow. Doctors were called, and what happened next is now one of the most talked-about medical cases in American history.

Washington did not lack medical care. In fact, he received a lot of attention from three skilled physicians, who used the treatments they thought best for someone as sick as he was, such as repeated bloodletting and other methods meant to reduce inflammation and restore balance. Late that night, Washington died.

Even now, more than 200 years later, we are not sure exactly what disease killed Washington. Some experts have suggested acute bacterial epiglottitis, severe pharyngitis, peritonsillar infection, or other causes of upper-airway blockage [1]. What is clear is that Washington lost a large amount of blood, by most estimates about 80 ounces, through repeated bloodletting while he was already very sick. His doctors did not mean to harm him. They thought removing blood would control the inflammation, but it made him worse. Their actions followed a long-standing medical tradition, supported by accepted theories, experience, and the authority of many generations of doctors.

It is easy to look back at this story and feel superior because of our modern knowledge. Today, we understand things like oxygen delivery, blood volume, shock, infections, airway care, IV fluids, antibiotics, and advanced life support. Washington’s doctors did not have this knowledge. But calling them primitive misses the real point. They were trained doctors using the best knowledge they had to try to save their patient. The real question is not why doctors in 1799 believed bloodletting would help. Instead, we should ask which treatments we use today with the same confidence that future doctors might find hard to believe.

Keep reading