Tag: perpetual war

US OBLITERATES 3 More Venezuelan Drug Boats Just Hours After President Trump Designates Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction

United States Southern Command on Monday announced that Joint Task Force Southern Spear took out three narcotrafficking vessels in the Eastern Pacific. 

A total of eight “narco-terrorists” were killed in the strikes. “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking,” US SOUTHCOM said.

Video from the strikes shows massive explosions on each boat, turning them into burning piles of rubble.

US Southern Command said in a statement on X,

On Dec. 15, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on three vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters. Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking. A total of eight male narco-terrorists were killed during these actions—three in the first vessel, two in the second and three in the third.

Trump signed an executive order earlier on Monday to designate fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) and empower his administration to take on the “concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries.”

This will likely be used to justify the defense of America against drug cartels further, as the order directs the Secretary of War and Secretary of Homeland Security to “update all directives regarding the Armed Forces’ response to chemical incidents in the homeland to include the threat of illicit fentanyl.”

Keep reading

Senate Advances $900 BILLION Defense Spending Bill with Military Aid to Ukraine

The US Senate on Monday voted to end the filibuster and advance the National Defense Authorization Act to a final vote. 

The bipartisan vote, 76-20, invoked cloture on the bill, bringing it one step closer to final passage, which could still take days.

Still, some lawmakers seek to amend the bill further, which would then require House passage before landing on the President’s desk.

Senator Ted Cruz, who showed no concern about Ukraine funding or other unnecessary provisions, has called for an amendment to restrict military aircraft at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), following the deadly crash between a female helicopter pilot and a passenger airplane in January.

The presidential hopeful released a campaign-style video of himself at a Monday press conference, calling for the rewriting of Section 373 of the bill and its replacement with his ROTR Act to add more protections for aviation safety in the bill’s language.

Keep reading

Biggest Military Funding Bill Still Allows Promoting Soldiers By Race And Sex

Five months ago, in these pages I expressed concern that Congress was missing the opportunity to restore merit to the military personnel system. To accomplish that task I urged Congress to include a meritocracy provision in the 2026 NDAA that does four things: (1) require all military personnel actions to be based exclusively on merit; (2) forbid race and sex-based preferences; (3) provide for reasonable exceptions when mission success requires sex or race be considered; and (4) define key terms so idealogues in the Pentagon cannot manipulate the language to further their diversity agenda.

When the House and Senate passed their versions of the NDAA, it appeared that between the two chambers some progress toward establishing a merit-based personnel system was being made. When the compromise bill resolving the differences between the House and Senate version, S. 1017, was released last week, it was readily apparent that Congress had no intention of requiring merit principles to govern military personnel actions. To make matters worse, the drafters employed smoke and mirrors to put a merit-sounding title on a provision that just reinforces the Biden-era identity preference status quo.

What’s Not in the NDAA

The bill passed by the House had a provision that would have specifically forbidden the use of race or ethnicity in personnel actions except for certain special operations missions. It also required all personnel actions to be based “exclusively on individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance.”

While it did not address sex-based preferences, it did put Congress on the same page as the administration insofar as racial discrimination was concerned.

The initial Senate version, on the other hand, lacked any attempt to restore a meritocracy or to eliminate identity preferences. Had the final version negotiated between the House and the Senate accepted the House provision it would have been a big improvement. Instead, what we got was a provision that, when viewed in context, sends the unmistakable message that race and sex-based preferences are alive and well in the military personnel system.

Gaslighting on Merit

To appreciate the sleight of hand the Congress pulled off, one must look at how its members framed the issue. Section 525 of the final version of the bill is titled “Requirement of equal opportunity, racial neutrality, and exclusive use of merit in military personnel actions.” Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, it is the text of the legislation and not the title that is important. All this section does is add “command selection” to Section 529C of the 2024 NDAA so that the provision now reads, “MERIT REQUIREMENT. — A military accession, promotion, or command selection in the Department of Defense shall be based on individual merit and demonstrated performance.”

Note what this provision does not say. It does not say that personnel actions shall be exclusively based on merit and demonstrated performance. It does not say that racial and sex-based preferences shall not be applied in military personnel actions. It does not define “merit” and “demonstrated performance.” And it does not provide for reasonable and legitimate exceptions, such as assigning women to Female Engagement Teams and blacks to a special operations mission in Africa where the ability to blend in with the local population might be critical to mission success.

You may ask, “Why must Congress be so specific? The language seems straightforward, and a reasonable interpretation would not allow for discrimination or preferences.” When, however, ideologues get to interpret the statute, they will manipulate the language to further their ideological goals.

We know this because of what happened after President Biden signed the 2024 NDAA into law on December 22, 2023. From that point forward “military accession” and “promotion” were to be based on “individual merit and demonstrated performance.” Furthermore, “DOD Instruction 1350.02,” the Department of Defense (now called the Department of War under the Trump administration) policy on Equal Opportunity, required service members to be “evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance.” The statutory language and the department’s instruction would seem to make merit the standard. But things are not always as they seem.

Because neither the federal law nor the department’s policy specifically prohibited race and sex-based preferences and Congress did not define key terms, Pentagon ideologues continued with business as usual. Neither the 2024 NDAA provision nor the Department of War’s policy language contradicted the “diversity is a strategic imperative” mantra of the Biden Pentagon. Despite the language of the 2024 NDAA and the Pentagon policy, the senior leadership in the Pentagon and the Department of Justice argued in federal court that racial preferences were appropriate in granting admission to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. “Diversity is our strength,” they said.

In their interpretation of both the federal statutory law and Biden’s Defense Department policy, considering skin color to achieve diversity was part of the “merit” calculation. “Performance” was weighed not in relation to any objective standard, but relative to the amount of melanin in an applicant’sskin. When Congress fails to define key terms, ideologues can manipulate the language to achieve their goals. Clever lawyering can even convince federal judges to go along with the scam.

By adding “command selection” to a statute Department of War has already twisted to allow using racial preferences does not change anything. Furthermore, codifying the language of the DOW policy without defining the terms allows the DOW bureaucrats to supply their own definition.

Keep reading

BRITAIN ESCALATES: First Female MI6 Intel Chief Blaise Metreweli Warns of Russia’s ‘Aggressive’ Threat in First Speech, Vows a More ‘Active’, ‘Operational’ Role

Granddaughter of a Ukrainian Nazi, Metreweli is going after Russia – coincidence?

The United Kingdom is hell-bent on the confrontation against Russia.

For many, it’s a clever way to distract from the real problems of mass migration, two-tier policing, censorship, stagnant economy, skyrocketing taxes… the list goes on.

But for some, like the new MI6 Intel chief, it’s reportedly a multi-generational conflict – it’s personal.

Let’s call back a BBC News quote back from June:

“Blaise Metreweli was announced as the incoming head of the Secret Intelligence Service earlier this month. She will be its first female ‘C’ in its 116-year history.

With little known about her wider backstory, several newspapers reported on Friday that her grandfather was Constantine Dobrowolski, who defected from Soviet Russia’s Red Army to become the Nazis’ chief informant in Chernihiv, Ukraine.”

Yes, you read it right: she is the granddaughter of the man they called ‘The Butcher’.

Keep reading

Why Diplomacy Is Going Nowhere & Ukraine Is Doomed

With Zelensky having much-belatedly dropped aspirations for Ukraine’s NATO membership, European officials are now openly admitting what pretty much everyone knew but was afraid to say.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas has newly acknowledged in fresh remarks that Ukraine’s membership in the military alliance is now obviously “out of the question” – but that the European Union now needs to provide concrete security guarantees.

“Now if this [Ukraine’s NATO membership] is not in question, or this is out of the question, then we need to see what are the security guarantees that are tangible. They can’t be papers, or promises, they have to be real troops, real capabilities,” she told reporters ahead of an EU Foreign Ministers meeting.

Kallas asserted that “in the last 100 years, Russia has attacked at least 19 countries,” and so this means “the security guarantees are needed for all other members” in the EU.

Keep reading

The Nonsense of Christian Zionism

I am sure this going to anger some people, but so be it. Christian Zionism is a theological and political movement primarily among evangelical Protestants (especially in the United States) that expresses strong support for the modern State of Israel and the Jewish people’s right to the land. Its beliefs are rooted in a particular interpretation of the Bible—known as dispensational premillennialism—which views biblical prophecies as literal and still applicable today.

Christian Zionists (aka CZs) take God’s covenants with Abraham and his descendants (the Jewish people) as eternal and unconditional. The CZs rely to two snippets from the Old Testament / Pentateuch to justify exalting the modern state of Israel:

Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”

Genesis 17:8: God promises the land of Canaan “to you and your descendants after you… as an everlasting possession.”

Christian Zionists support Israel because they believe the Bible literally promises the Jewish people an eternal covenant with the land, that modern Israel fulfills ancient prophecy, and that backing Israel aligns believers with God’s end-times plan and brings divine blessing. This theological conviction drives both spiritual solidarity and strong political advocacy.

But there are several problems with this. Let’s start with the polygamous activities of Abraham. The initial promises to Abraham in Genesis (e.g., Genesis 12:1–3, 15:18) are broad, speaking of blessing Abraham’s “offspring” or “seed” (zera in Hebrew) without naming a specific child. Abraham had eight sons total: Ishmael (with Hagar), Isaac (with Sarah), and six others (Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah) with Keturah (Genesis 25:1–6). Abraham, if he were alive today, would fit in well in some Florida retirement villages that are notorious for rampant sexual activity among the senior citizens.

So why do the CZs assume that God’s promise to Abraham only applies to Isaac and not the other seven offspring? I maintain that is a consequence of author bias. The traditional Jewish (and much Christian) view attributes the entire Torah—including the first five books (Genesis through Deuteronomy)—to Moses himself, around the 13th–15th century BCE, as divine revelation received at Sinai and written down by Moses. The is ZERO archeological evidence to support that claim.

Keep reading

German chancellor with Nazi family past likens Putin to Hitler

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose grandfather was a member of the Nazi Party, has compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Merz’s maternal grandfather, Josef Paul Sauvigny, served as mayor of Brilon in what is now North Rhine-Westphalia from 1917 to 1937. Initially a member of the conservative Center Party, Sauvigny joined Hitler’s NSDAP after the Nazis came to power in the early 1930s.

Speaking at a Christian Democratic Union conference in Munich on Sunday, Merz accused Putin of seeking to restore the borders of the Soviet Union.

“If Ukraine falls, he won’t stop. Just as the Sudetenland was not enough (for Hitler) in 1938, Putin will not stop either,” Merz said, referring to the moment when Britain and France allowed Nazi Germany to annex parts of Czechoslovakia.

Keep reading

U.S. Intelligence Warns: More Than 2,000 Afghan Residents May Have Terrorist Links

The Director of National Intelligence of the United States, Tulsi Gabbard, raised alarms after revealing that more than 2,000 Afghan nationals currently residing in the country may have potential ties to terrorist organizations.

This announcement comes amid a thorough security review of approximately 190,000 Afghans who arrived in the United States following the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2021, under the operation known as Welcome Allies.

U.S. intelligence agencies have launched a reevaluation process to thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of these individuals, with the goal of determining whether they pose a threat to national security.

Gabbard explained that part of the concern lies in the possibility that some of these Afghans “may be spreading radical Islamist ideologies within the United States,” and she argued that this scrutiny is essential to protect both the safety of the American people and the “fundamental freedoms” enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The measure also follows recent violent incidents, including a shooting that occurred in late November in Washington, D.C., in which an Afghan national—identified by English-language media as Rahmanullah Lakanwal—opened fire on members of the National Guard, killing one and seriously injuring another.

This incident reignited the debate over the effectiveness of the “vetting” process (background checks) applied to evacuees after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

Additionally, officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have indicated that thousands of investigations involving Afghans admitted into the country have been reopened, and that visa processes and asylum applications for Afghan nationals have been temporarily suspended while the detailed review is completed.

Keep reading

Why Are American Troops Still Dying in Syria?

On December 13, 2025, two U.S. soldiers and a civilian interpreter were killed near Palmyra, Syria. According to a Pentagon statement, a lone Islamic State (ISIS) gunman disguised as a shepherd opened fire on a joint U.S.–Syrian patrol, killing three and wounding three before Syrian troops shot him dead. Donald Trump responded with characteristic fury; he promised “very serious retaliation” and said Syria’s new president Ahmed al‑Sharaa was “devastated” by the attack. Yet the promise to end America’s “forever wars” has been part of his pitch since 2016, and U.S. troops remain.

The withdrawal that never happened

Trump first told Americans he had “won against ISIS” in December 2018 and ordered U.S. troops home. In reality, Pentagon and congressional pressure kept about half of the roughly 2,000 troops in place. Less than a year later he issued another withdrawal order, but officials left 90 percent of the force to “guard oil fields.” Reports noted that the mission quickly shifted from defeating ISIS to protecting oil; roughly 500 troops stayed behind to keep oil fields from falling into jihadist hands.

Behind the scenes, U.S. officials were playing “shell games.” James Jeffrey, Trump’s envoy for Syria, later admitted they deliberately misled the president about troop numbers. “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” he confessed. Though Trump publicly agreed to keep only 200–400 troops, the actual number was “a lot more than” that. Journalists eventually learned that roughly 900 U.S. troops remained.

The Pentagon continued to slow‑roll civilian orders after Trump returned to office in 2025. In December 2024 the Defense Department quietly acknowledged there were about 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria – roughly 1,100 more than the 900 “core” personnel previously reported. Officials explained that these extra soldiers were “temporary rotational forces” deployed to meet fluid mission requirements. The new U.S. envoy, Thomas Barrack, announced plans to close most of the eight bases and consolidate operations in Hasakah province. Yet by November 2025 Reuters reported that the Pentagon intended to halve the troop presence to 1,000 and establish a new base at Damascus’ airport – a sign that numbers change on paper while the boots stay.

From jihadist to head of state

Understanding why American troops are still in Syria requires grappling with the identity of its new president. Ahmed Hussein al‑Sharaa – better known as Abu Mohammed al‑Julani – joined al‑Qaeda in Iraq and later founded the al‑Nusra Front. After splitting from al‑Qaeda the group rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al‑Sham (HTS), which the United Nations and United States still classify as a terrorist organisation. In late 2024 HTS swept across Syria, toppling Bashar al‑Assad’s government and ending the thirteen‑year civil war. By January 2025 its leader proclaimed himself interim president and adopted the name Ahmed al‑Sharaa. Despite the rebranding, the Congressional Research Service notes that both HTS and Sharaa remain on U.N. sanctions lists.

Trump embraced Sharaa as an ally. In May 2025 he met the Syrian leader in Riyadh and praised him as a “tough” leader. The following November he welcomed Sharaa to the White House – the first visit by a Syrian head of state since 1946 – and told reporters he was doing “a very good job.” Commentators recalled that only a few years earlier Americans would have balked at a president welcoming a former al‑Qaeda commander. The meeting delivered what Sharaa craved: legitimacy.

Keep reading

Iran’s Response to Australia’s Bondi Beach Terror Attack Raises Questions

The mass-casualty terror attack targeting a Hanukkah gathering at Sydney’s Bondi Beach was the predictable outcome of a global environment in which antisemitic incitement is normalized, rationalized, and, in some cases, actively encouraged by state actors.

In the hours following the attack, attention has turned to Iran—not because Tehran immediately claimed responsibility, but because of how Iranian officials, state media, and regime-aligned commentators have responded.

Iran’s reaction follows a familiar pattern. There has been no direct praise for the murders.

Instead, Iranian outlets have worked to reframe the attack as an understandable—or even defensible—reaction to the Israel-Hamas war, while redirecting outrage toward Israel and the West.

This strategy allows the regime to distance itself from operational responsibility while sustaining the ideological climate that fuels antisemitic violence worldwide.

Iranian state media coverage was notably clinical on the surface. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Tehran’s official media, reported the basic facts: a shooting at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration, multiple fatalities, and ongoing investigations by Australian authorities.

Missing, however, was any moral condemnation of the attack or recognition of antisemitism as a motivating factor. Instead, IRNA quickly pivoted, characterizing Israeli reactions as “harsh” and “unprecedented” and situating the massacre within the broader narrative of Gaza.

Iranian coverage repeatedly emphasized claims about civilian deaths in Gaza, citing figures from Hamas-run authorities and presenting them as uncontested fact.

The implication was clear: violence against Jews abroad should be understood through the lens of Israel’s military actions, rather than as terrorism targeting a religious minority.

By embedding the Bondi Beach attack within a Gaza-focused narrative, Iranian media effectively shifted blame from the perpetrators to Jewish collective identity itself.

That narrative was taken further by regime-aligned commentators. Lebanese journalist Hadi Hoteit, who identifies himself as a correspondent for Iran’s state-run Press TV, posted on social media questioning whether the attacker should even be labeled a terrorist.

Keep reading