Most of the people detained following the "largest single-site enforcement operation" in history are said to be South Korean Nationals who are believed to have been working for a "network of subcontractors" at the 3,000-acre site.

Quote:The spokesman for the South Korean foreign ministry, Lee Jaewoong, said there was a "large" number of South Koreans among those detained in the raid, but did not provide an exact number.

He said the detained workers were part of a "network of subcontractors" and that the employees worked for several different companies on the Georgia site.
Mr Lee said South Korea's foreign ministry is dispatching diplomats from its embassy in Washington and consulate in Atlanta to the site, and plans to form an on-site response team centred on the local mission.
"The business activities of our investors and the rights of our nationals must not be unjustly infringed in the process of US law enforcement," Mr Lee added.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that agents executed a search warrant "as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into allegations of unlawful employment practices and other serious federal crimes".

The manufacturing site, which employs about 1,200 people, has been hailed as the largest economic development project in the state's history by Governor Brian Kemp and other officials.

https://news.sky.com/story/475-people-de...a-13425630

Cool short story from the past...

Quote:In a recorded interview in 1947, 101-year-old General Julius Howell recalls fighting as a Confederate soldier during the Civil War and the moment he heard about Lincoln’s assassination.

Pvt. Julius Franklin Howell. Howell was born on January 17th 1846 and at the age of 16 enlisted into the Confederate Army. He served with Company "K" of the 24th Virginia Cavalry until he was captured at the battle of Sailors Creek in 1865.

His unit fought around the Black Water River boundary until his regiment was called to defend the Capital City of Richmond in 1864.  After the evacuation of Richmond his unit moved west under the command of General Ewell until its capture at Sailors Creek in April of 1865.  He then was taken as a prisoner to Point Lookout prison in south eastern Maryland where he was held for three months and then upon taking the "Oath of Allegiance on June 13, 1865 he was released.

Howell bore witness to the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2 and the first atomic weapon before dying at the age of 102 years old  on June, 19th 1948.

Hi all.

Asking for advice, I know absolutely noone whom I can ask this in person. 
So I did a home inspection. 
And this is one of the found:

"ATTIC VENT LINES : The bathroom exhaust vents are tied into the plumbing vents in the attic, rather than terminating on the exterior. This could create an explosive condition by introducing flammable methane gas into the fan's electrical system. We recommend adding extensions and rerouting to soffit or other exterior vents "


My handyman, whom I trust and think does good work connected the bathroom exhaust fans , appearantly into the plumbing vents?
He said the following about what was said in the inspection report: 

" This is crazy, I don’t see how it is possible that a bathroom exhaust fan which pushes the air out can pull any gas in? Another thing, those pipes are designed to suck fresh air in when toilets and sinks are being drained to help with that process. There is never methane in the air space of those pipes. So I don’t see any way that this can be a potential or danger.
Insurance companies are so paranoid these days because of all the fraud that’s going on.
If you would like me to reroute the ventilation through the roof, according to Code, I can do it, but it will not be cheap. I will need to call a roofing company to cut the hole in the roof to install the vent professionally as I I’m not insured for cutting holes in roofs and cannot be held liable for leaks that may be caused of it." 



So do I go with what was said in the inspection report, or do I go with what my handyman said?

Thanks 

It`s possible maybe that Ebola outbreak could start in Colorado.....I dont know how probable it happening is , but in other parts in the World there seems to started outbreaks after ebola vaccines . There`s also  lab which have bats , just like they had in Wuhan China lab ....

Ebola Vaccine That 'Sheds' in 31% of Vaccinated Given to Colorado Healthcare Workers Just Down the Road from New Bat Lab

Quote:In November of last year, Colorado healthcare workers at Denver Health received doses of a live Ebola vaccine.

Hospital officials said the Regional Emerging Special Pathogen Treatment Center team became some of the first to receive Merck’s ‘ERVEBO’ Ebola jab, for “preventative measures in case of a future outbreak.”

ERVEBO Ebola Vaccine’s ‘Shedding’ Problem

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) package insert for ERVEBO states that the vaccine “shed[s]” in 31.7% of the vaccinated and for up to 20 days after vaccination.
This means that vaccinated individuals could spread the vaccine virus to those around them.
“Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in blood, saliva, urine, and fluid from skin vesicles of vaccinated individuals,” the insert reads. “In Study 6, 31.7% (19/60) of participants 12 months through 17 years of age enrolled in a substudy shed vaccine virus in saliva following vaccination.”

This shedding problem raises questions about Africa’s 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022 Ebola outbreaks that occurred after vaccination campaigns were carried out in those areas.

Given the established record of Ebola outbreaks following earlier vaccination campaigns in the same regions, concerns are raised about a future outbreak in Colorado—situated in the central U.S.—spreading across the country and perhaps the world.

Quote:New Bat Lab Just Down the Road from Denver Health

Meanwhile, a new $12 million, U.S.-taxpayer-funded lab is being built in Fort Collins, Colorado, just 65 miles north of Denver Health, where healthcare workers received the Ebola vaccine “in case of a future outbreak.”
The lab will import bats from around the world and experiment on dangerous diseases, according to The Daily Mail.
Proposals for the 14,000 sqft facility indicate the lab could store and study some of the most deadly or transmissible pathogens on the planet, including Ebola, Nipah virus, and COVID-19.
The project is a collaboration between Dr. Anthony Fauci’s old department at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Colorado State University (CSU), and EcoHealth Alliance (EHA).
EcoHealth is the controversial New York-based research group at the center of the COVID lab leak theory led by Dr. Peter Daszak, who channeled millions of American taxpayer dollars to fund risky gain-of-function research on bats at the Wahn Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China.
The WIV laboratory is argued to be ground zero for the coronavirus pandemic.

China's military parade is discussed along with the political look of Xi, Putin, Modi and Rocket man Kim. It really is funny how CNN gushes and blushed over how great China's parade looked while dissing the USA's..

I guess the brief pause when CNN was the Clinton News Network could not continue as they have once again reverted back to their original name of Communist News Network or so I have been told.

The hot mike moment between Xi and Putin is interesting as evidently Xi seems to think you can almost become immortal if you keep getting organ transplants... Xi looks pretty bad to me so He better get some better organ donors IMO.

The shootings in Chicago and how TPTB in Chicago threaten lawsuits if the Feds clean up their lawlessness. Just another spread sheet on just how messed up some of the high crime regions really are.. Some of these cities are drug distribution centers so no wonder they do not want the feds in their business.

The government elite wanted more even though they make in a month many times over what a citizen can even dream of making. 

I guess I am part anarchist because when a people stand up and fight back against corrupt leadership I think WTG people !   

Trump has demanded to get to the bottom of project Warp Speed...For those who do not remember that was during the COVID outbreak during Trumps first term in office. It has been said that at least 50% of Americans know someone they believe was injured by the vaccines and especially the repeated vaccinations. Trump's first term had Fauci who was the go to man and was supposed to know everything about  a proper nation's defense against the COVID outbreak plus no doubt, the pharmaceutical company reps were all over D.C. singing their own praises.  As president you have to try and trust your cabinet people until you find out they are just a bunch of leeches and dirt bags; maybe the truth will finally come out. 

Now that congress is back they have subpoenaed many people involved in the Epstein case to include the prosecutor from Florida who was told to back off; Epstein was an intel asset. Expect some movement within the next month or so. Also they are releasing something like 33,000 pages (I assume burn bag contents) to be published. The Clinton's and several other high profile people are to testify before Congress; on the subject of Epstein..

I can't wait to see and hear Billy boy say it depends on what the meaning of is is, while he sucks on a cigar.  This may make some of our resident Trump haters pause for a moment and come up with a new TDS line ? 

 Ilhan Omar the Somali congress critter who married her brother (keeping the blood line pure I suppose) is now worth 30 million .... Pays well to be a political anarchist I suppose ? 





Omar the Somali congress critter who married her brother (keeping the blood line pure I suppose) is now worth 30 million .... Pays well to be a political anarchist I suppose ?

Quote:President Trump and Congress should bring letters of marque back. The Constitution permits it. History vindicates it. Modern threats invite it. A letter of marque and reprisal is a government license to a private citizen to target enemies of the state, seize their persons or property, and deliver them to lawful custody, subject to strict rules and judicial oversight. In the age of sail, privateers multiplied national power at low public cost. In the age of ransomware and state protected kleptocrats, they can do so again. Critics will say the practice is archaic, that international law has moved on, that private force is undisciplined. The better view is simpler. The text of our Constitution, the practice of our early Republic, and the nature of today’s threats align. With proper statutory guardrails, letters of marque can be reintroduced for the narrow purpose of targeting narco tyrants and transnational cyber criminals, including Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the hacker syndicates that daily raid US companies and agencies.

Start with first principles. The US Constitution assigns to Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, alongside the power to declare war and to make rules about captures on land and water. The placement is telling. The Framers saw marque and reprisal as a calibrated instrument, below full war yet above ordinary law enforcement. It is not executive adventurism. It is a legislative tool, supervised by courts, that allows targeted coercion where ordinary jurisdiction fails. This is not a dusty curiosity in the margins of constitutional text. It is an unused power, like a rarely opened drawer, waiting for a moment that fits. Our moment fits.

Skeptical readers often ask whether letters of marque are a euphemism for piracy. The answer is no. Privateering was an honorable and legal practice in European and American law for centuries. In medieval England, kings licensed subjects to take reprisals against foreign wrongdoers when ordinary remedies were unavailable. By the fourteenth century the language of marque and reprisal was fixed, and by the sixteenth century the practice was routine. Elizabethan sea captains, Drake most famously, raided enemy shipping with legal commissions and brought their prizes to admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. The key was adjudication. A privateer could not keep a prize by brute possession. He had to prove lawful capture to a court applying rules of prize law. That judicial check made privateering a law governed partnership between state and citizen, not a free for all at sea.

The British system matured in the eighteenth century. The High Court of Admiralty issued commissions, required a bond for good behavior, recorded a ship’s tonnage, armament, and crew, and enforced discipline by revoking commissions or forfeiting bonds for abuses. When captured, privateer crews were entitled to prisoner of war treatment, because their commission distinguished them from pirates. This bright line was literal, it could mean the difference between exchange and the gallows. Privateering was therefore a disciplined auxiliary to national power. It harnessed private capital and skill for public ends while spreading risk away from the treasury.

America took the institution and refined it. During the Revolution and again in the War of 1812, Congress authorized privateering, and hundreds of American privateers harried enemy commerce. They brought captured ships into US prize courts, where judges applied law to facts and distributed proceeds under statute. The system worked. It hurt British trade, raised insurance rates in London, and fed vital supplies to a young nation with a tiny navy. After the Civil War, the United States drifted away from privateering, not because it was unlawful, but because the US Navy grew strong enough to do the work directly and because most European powers joined an agreement in 1856 that abolished privateering among signatories. The United States did not join that agreement. We announced that we would respect its principles in practice, but we never surrendered the right our Constitution gives. That is the crucial legal point. The US never abolished letters of marque in domestic law and never bound itself by treaty to do so. The power remains.

What of the moral objection that this is privatized violence? Here clarity helps. Letters of marque are not blank checks. They are individualized commissions, circumscribed by statute and conditioned on bond, that precisely define who may do what to whom, where, and under what rules, with liability and forfeiture for violations. Historically, the law required humane treatment of captured crews and transparent judicial proceedings. Modern legislation can go further. Congress can limit the use of force to capture rather than kill, can confine operations to specific theaters, can prohibit collateral damage by setting risk rules, can require persistent telemetry and after action reporting, and can require US custody of all persons and property seized. In short, Congress can write a twenty first century version of the discipline prize law once supplied.

At this point a reader may wonder whether the Neutrality Act stands in the way. It forbids private expeditions from US soil against foreign states at peace with us. The answer is again straightforward. Neutrality statutes were written to constrain private actors who operate without federal authorization. A letter of marque is the very opposite. It is federal authorization. Once Congress authorizes specific action by commission, the underlying criminal prohibitions no longer apply, because the actors are not neutral adventurers. They are agents by license of the United States. This is why, during the Founding era, privateers were lawful and pirates were not. The badge of legality was public authorization and judicial supervision. That badge is what Congress can supply again, subject to strict conditions and targeted purposes.

Those targeted purposes are now clear. First, Nicolás Maduro. The US has charged him and his inner circle with narcoterrorism, money laundering, and drug trafficking. The US has posted a large monetary reward for his arrest and conviction and for key members of his regime. Rewards are lawful, but they do not authorize any use of force by citizens. That is why letters of marque matter. They convert reward into commission. Congress can pass a Maduro Marque and Reprisal Act that authorizes vetted American teams, subject to bond, oversight, and reporting, to locate, seize, and deliver Maduro and designated lieutenants to US custody for trial on the pending indictments. Those teams would be barred from operating on US soil, required to coordinate with US agencies, and bound to avoid harm to civilians. The point is not to invade Venezuela. The point is to turn a corrupt tyrant’s own networks, rivals, and guards into conduits of justice by placing a legal American bounty hunter behind every chink in the regime’s armor.

Second, cyber privateering. US law makes it illegal for private companies to hack back, even against clear foreign attackers. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, together with related statutes, rightly prevents vigilante cyber strikes that could spiral into escalation. Yet the current legal regime leaves US companies defenseless against agile criminal syndicates and state protected proxies who operate from safe havens. Congress can solve this by issuing cyber letters of marque to licensed firms. The commission would authorize active defense outside US networks against specified adversaries who have already attacked or are attacking US companies or agencies. The commission would define permissible actions, for example beaconing, trace back, deception, infrastructure takedown, data recovery, and counter exfiltration, and would forbid actions likely to cause civilian harm, such as attacks on hospitals or critical infrastructure unrelated to the adversary’s operations. It would require contemporaneous logging, agency notification, and judicial review after the fact. In other words, it would transform illicit hack back into accountable, targeted active defense by commission.

Is this fantasy? Not at all. Congress has seriously considered modern letters of marque more than once. After 9/11, a bill proposed issuing letters against bin Laden and al Qaeda, treating them like the pirates of an earlier age. In 2022, a House bill proposed letters of marque to enable the seizure of sanctioned Russian oligarch assets such as yachts and jets. In 2025, congressional analysis renewed attention to the doctrine’s textual footing and practical adaptation, noting that modern statutes have removed prize money but not Congress’s core power. These efforts fell short of enactment, but they demonstrate that the institution is a live option and that drafting modern controls is straightforward. It is a real policy choice, not a law school hypothetical.

Some will ask whether international law forbids it. The fair answer is that the United States is not bound by the 1856 declaration, and that the ban on privateering is not a universal rule of customary law that binds nonconsenting states to treat letters of marque as void. Nations today condemn mercenaries, but a commissioned privateer historically was not a mercenary. He was a citizen acting under the sovereign’s license, subject to public law. A cyber privateer under a modern commission would occupy the same posture. He would not be a soldier for hire in a foreign war. He would be an agent by license of the United States, subject to bond, supervised by US courts, and liable for excesses. That posture is consistent with the law of state responsibility. The United States would be responsible for the acts it commissions and would be positioned to supervise and correct them. That is not a bug. It is the mechanism of accountability.

Here a practical objection arises. What about escalation, diplomatic fallout, and reprisals. Those concerns are real, but they cut both ways. Maduro’s cartel state floods our hemisphere with cocaine and shelters criminals, and transnational hackers cripple hospitals, freeze pipelines, and steal billions from US companies and citizens every year. The absence of a credible, legal private force multiplies these harms, because the adversaries choose targets precisely where jurisdiction is weak and state capacity is stretched. Letters of marque deter by creating risk on the offender’s side. A tyrant who cannot trust his guards and bagmen becomes more cautious. A hacker who must budget for the loss of his infrastructure and the seizure of his wallet will think twice about waking a licensed adversary with a legal right to strike back. Deterrence is not certainty, but it changes the cost calculus of bad actors at a fraction of the cost of deploying carrier groups or standing up permanent cyber teams in every agency.

We must also be candid about design. Congress should create a small Office of Marque and Reprisal in the Department of Justice, jointly staffed with Defense and State, to vet applicants, set bonds, issue commissions, and oversee operations. The office should require proof of technical capability and responsible plans of operation, along with insurance or surety to cover potential liabilities. It should coordinate with existing bounty programs, such as Rewards for Justice, while making clear that force may be used only under commission. It should ensure that all captured persons are turned over immediately to US custody and that all seized assets undergo judicial condemnation in US courts, with fair distribution of proceeds and full transparency. Finally, it should sunset authorizations unless renewed, to prevent institutional drift.

Some may accuse this proposal of romanticizing the past. The charge fails. The point is not to cosplay as frigate captains. The point is to use a classical tool of American statecraft in a modern format against modern enemies. When the Republic was poor, letters of marque multiplied power while the Navy took shape. Today, the Navy is strong, but some adversaries live on terrain better patrolled by licensed entrepreneurs, smugglers turning state’s evidence, and world class security engineers, incentivized by reward, constrained by law, and proud to serve their country in a limited, disciplined way. The principle is constant. Private initiative, channeled by law, can serve public security.

Will X help, or will it spiral. Not necessarily. The risk of abuse is real if Congress writes sloppily. That is why Congress should start with narrow targets. Begin with Maduro and his indicted circle. Begin with ransomware gangs and state proxies that have already attacked US hospitals, schools, municipalities, and agencies. Set strict rules. Review outcomes quarterly in public reports. Renew only on proof of benefit. If the tool works, widen the aperture. If it does not, let it lapse. Prudence, not maximalism, is the conservative way to test old tools in new conditions.

Finally, a word about constitutional symbolism. The Framers placed letters of marque in the same clause as declarations of war for a reason. They understood that sovereignty includes controlled instruments of force beneath the threshold of war. To abandon that instrument forever, not by amendment but by neglect, is to unilaterally disarm a power that may be precisely tailored to our most common twenty first century harms. Privateering, properly reformed, is not a step toward lawlessness. It is a step away from it, a way to retake the gray zones where criminals and kleptocrats today operate with impunity.

President Trump ran and won on restoring order at home and strength abroad. Congress should join him in reviving a constitutional power that lets citizens share the burden of that order and strength, under law. The enemies of the United States, whether a narco tyrant who poisons our hemisphere or a hacker who bankrupts a hospital, should once again have to look over their shoulders for an American privateer with a lawful commission. The law allows it. Our adversaries deserve it. And the Republic will be safer for it.

@amuse

Quote:We went to Martin County, Kentucky, on Appalachia’s remote border with West Virginia to look into its water problem. Instead, we ended up deep in a holler, miles from any store, hospital, or business. There, we asked locals about jobs, drugs, and life in the holler.

Quote:September 1, 2025 / Joseph P. Farrell

I decided to start this week's blogs off with a bit of fun, given that we've had so many sad and tragic stories in the news lately.  And in a second exception to our normal practice, this blog is not about an article that someone sent, but rather about a video which was spotted and shared by V.T.  That too is an exception, because as regular readers here know, sending me a video is a quick trip to the deleted folder.  99.9999% of the time I simply never even look at them. I open the email, see it's a video, and immediately delete it. But something about this one caused me to click on it - -yea I admit, I'm a sucker for click bait - and watch it.

It did not disappoint: here's the video that is the subject of today's really high off-the-end-of-the-speculation-twig hypotheses:




As one can see, there are essentially three short clips or segments: (1) the segment which begins the recording, which "shows" a few lights flitting about, and the formation of a circle, which is quickly followed by (2) the actual formation of a simple circle, with a few very luminescent "orbs" that appear to be "forming" the simple circle, and which appear to be some sort of phenomenon like ball lightning; and finally (3) a video taken from a vehicle showing more luminous orbs over a field.  These short sequences are then repeated. The video was posted a few days ago on YouTube.

Now, personally, I am normally suspicious of any video that purports to "prove" or "show" anything, especially something like UFOs, orbs, or what-have-you. As one of the commenters to the video correctly observed, in today's world of artificial intelligence, videos are all too easily faked. Indeed, the video falls far short of showing the creation of the intricate designs one has come to associate with crop circles. Rather, it shows merely the creation of a simple circle. So I remain much more skeptical of the video than inclined to view it as genuine. While I have no way nor technical expertise to evaluate it in any case, the first segment to me looks more like insects being caught in bright light, flitting about as insects do in bright light, than anything else.

But beyond the (in my opinion very strong) possibility we're loooking at a bit of click bait, what happens if we simply assume it to be genuine for the sake of high octane speculation?  What might we be looking at, besides a few "orbs" that appear to be "forming" a crop circle? Is it "proof" that "someone" is trying to "communicate" with us?

Well, again, unfortunately, no, it falls far short of proof. In my books I have not often mentioned the crop circle phenomenon, but when I have, one of the things I have focused upon are those studies of the plants in the circles that show signs of having been exposed to very high energy microwaves. Very high energy microwaves are hardly beyond the ability of humans to create. What if - I hypothesized - what if what we're really looking at are human black projects world experiments in how to calibrate and use microwave interferometry in very tight, closely controlled ways, forming those intricate patterns often in evidence in crop circles, as if one is looking at a crop circle version of those old television test patterns that one used to see at the beginning and end of the broadcast day?

Might such interferometry also be capable of producing (and manipulating or controlling) those orbs? Maybe...  In any case, for those familiar with my books of World War Two secret Nazi research, I've also pointed out that they were also involved with research into ball lightning, experiments that would appear to have some sort of direct relevance to what we might be seeing in the video. It also should be noted that while this video appears to be a first, I seem to recall that it is not the first time such a video has been captured. More importantly, many witnesses have reported seeing such orbs or ball lightning over fields at night, only to discover the next day that an elaborate crop circle has been formed in the fields.  Since there are such witnesses, the video at least has some corroborative evidence in the form of eye witness statements.

More recently, however, I have also been entertaining the plasma life hypothesis and its subset, the intelligent plasma life hypothesis. Viewed in that context the video suggests a very different set of interpretive speculations: are those orbs an example of such "intelligent plasma life" and are they trying to communicate (or are they simply "fooling around" doing the plasma equivalent of teenage boys driving their cars or spray painting graffiti on a wall, the "graffiti" here being the crop circles themselves; or again, is this the plasma equivalent of the peemail that dogs like to leave each other)? If it is communication be it plasma peemail, graffiti, or otherwise, what is the message? In this respect I've also noted in a recent book (The Demon in the Ekur) that ball lightning has shown behaviors suggestive of intelligence, such as appearing to be examining the intricate patterns of oriental/Persian rugs.

The intricate designs of many if not most crop circles suggest something similar. Might they be a kind of mimicry, or an attempt at communication based on very false assumptions about human art (and rugs)? Or again, might such orbs or ball lightning be a kind of "plasma drone", projections of a "life form" we barely understand and under some sort of central control while yet also capable of independent guidance, similar to the tentacles of an octopus, a creature with nine brains, one in each tentacle, and a central brain controlling them all?

Or does the video show something falling between these two extremes, of humans in some secret black project, attempting to create and manipulate orbs because they are trying to communicate with such exotic life? Who knows? Doubtless there are many other possibilities for interpretation if one assumes that the video is genuine. Let me know what you think. But as for me, at present I remain highly skeptical.

See you on the flip side...