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...

Minority report: "You aren't just being watched, you are being predicted, and predictions become policy."

Palantir and the Conspiracy to Own Everything:

Quote:A lot has happened in 2025. Yet, arguably the most substantial event(s) is something you've never heard of. And something that media outlets are scarcely covering. It's one of the most substantial heists in human history. And even though it took place in the United States, it will have ripple effects across the globe.

And it starts with a secretive company named Palantir.

What an ambition...?
- To be a male model.

' My modeling career is over.
  But, I'd sacrifice my legitimate shot
  at overtaking both Derek Zoolander, and Hansel (he's so hot),
  to protect that girl's life...again...without hesitation...
  (Show my nose again
    ...I may still overtake Derek & Hansel...!!!) '

I could be way off ... but, it looks that way, to me.

I prefer not linking to any contemporary articles, for reference, but will, for your convenience.


~ Hello. Nice to see those, still kicking---back!

- - - - - - - -

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08...fending-2/

   

His Majesty's Government has been re-introducing Sea Eagles (White-Tailed Eagles) to parts of the Isles.

Ernes lived in much of the country but were hunted down, mostly from their habit of taking farm animals.

The birds are picking up where they left off.

https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news...all-field/

standing as big as a ewe I am quite certain it is a white-tailed eagle. Absolutely awesome to see it charging off a 85kg ewe but heart breaking to see it just sitting there waiting on me to leave.”
Predation by white-tailed eagles on lambs and sheep remains a major concern for sheep farmers, especially on the west coast of Scotland.

 thread on another forum on this topic
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?...es.425432/

"Stand your ground" law come to play in this New Years Eve event.. Can you imagine if this same scenario would have happened in a Democratic Blue state  or any place/country where a government wants you to be the victim ..

Quote:On New Year’s Eve, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley sat in her Oklahoma home—newly widowed, holding her 3-month-old baby—when two armed men in bulletproof vests tried to kick in her door.

No neighbors. No police minutes away. Just Sarah, her infant son, and the terrifying sound of her door being beaten down. With a shotgun in one hand, a baby in the other, and 911 on the phone, Sarah had to make a choice: the intruder or her son. When the door finally gave way, she pulled the trigger. One attacker fell dead. The other ran. And the police called it what it was: justified self-defense.

This isn’t theory. It isn’t a “debate stage” soundbite. It’s the Second Amendment in action—the only reason Sarah and her baby lived to tell the story.

? In this video, I break down Sarah McKinley’s story and why it’s a reminder that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or sport. It’s about giving even the most vulnerable among us a fighting chance when evil decides tonight’s the night. Sarah McKinley didn’t choose to be a hero. She chose to survive. And because of that choice, her son still has a mother. And even when you do everything right, you can still end up in a legal fight after the smoke clears. That’s why I’m a USCCA member—for the training, preparation, and legal protection that keeps you ready before, during, and after a fight for your life.

Saw this video on youtube. I love bats, not in the least bit scary, though maybe a bit stinky 

This channel is at 997 members, and at 1000 members I know youtube would monetize them.

I am in no way affilated, just love animals and want their channel to grow:



Hope some subscribe. 

I had been to Larry Massey's shooting range which is now a Space X launch site.

Back in the day I was zeroing in one AR-15 for long shots (300+yards ) for feral pig hunting. I could hit an 8 by 8 steal plate at 327 yards with that gun but I wanted a tighter grouping. Unfortunately at that range the rounds were about a hands width apart (maybe 6 inches).. The 327 range with wind or atmospheric conditions was about as good as I was gonna get I finally figured out.. My three inch target zone on a pig was now around 6 inches   

I usually hunted at night and all my shots with a night scope were usually less than 125 yards so just about any weapon would do but a friend had said he was having daylight pig problems and wanted me to try and kill or scare them off. 

So after messing around at the range I was heading home, hungry, as I had been at the rage for many hours, shooting and B.S.ing with Larry and others. I am heading back on a winding "S" road doing maybe 70 to 80 when "POOF" a highway Patrol car comes around the corner head on to me ! I hit the breaks hard without smoking the tires.

I continue to slow down and pull over into the dirt knowing I was about to be captured.. 

Sure enough here he comes with lights lit up like a carnival UFO !

Both my hands were on the steering wheel of the car; one hand had my driver's license and concealed hand gun permit while the other had had my insurance information. The windows were tented (barely legal so I had rolled down my driver's side window. He approached and asked did I know why he stopped me... I started to say he did not stop me but instead I smiled and said, "maybe because I was going a little fast ?"

" Yes I had you going 65 in a 55 !" Thank god for breaks and quick reaction time I was thinking !

" I laughed and said I never knew what the speed limit was on that road and I had driven it many times. He was the first highway Patrol I had ever seen this far out away from the city; lucky me !"

I then said, " glad I had slowed down for the curves !" which actually got a grin from him.

He then saw the concealed weapons permit and backed up one step and asked if I had any weapons in the car. 

" Not sure how many but I think I have 2 pistols 2 AK-47 rifles, One SKS and two ARs !"

"You must be a real gun nut!"

"Kinda, maybe, but I was at Larry's gun range zeroing in the weapons for some serious pig hunting we are going to do next week. "

He knew there was beginning to be a serious pig problem in the area for the farmers.
 
I do not remember what else was said but the whole encounter lasted for probably 30 or 40 minutes as he had never handled the AK-47 and actually kinda wanted to buy my 1911 pistol if it was ever for sale...... but alas it was not for sale...

I kept my weapons in like new condition and even the SKS I had was once a Chinese parade weapon; you can still see them carried during parades with their white gloves in Beijing. The SKS was a great pig killer out to about 125 yards but the 10 round internal magazine sucked as my ARs and AKs carried at least 30 per Mag.

The Russian 762x39 bullet really had sever bullet drop around 150 yards to the point of you might as well be throwing rocks. AK-47s were the same with that ammo so I doubt it was the twist rate of the barrels.. One AK was an actual Russian made AK with the red star stamp.  Just my experience and do not want to get into a pissing contest over Russian 762x39 ammo.  

We left as friends and he was invited to Larry's as many DEA, ICE, and a few Police practice there on the weekends. 

I left with a simple warning ticket and a new friend. 

He was a young Patrolman without the attitude some cops want to display with us pedestrians which warmed my heart and belief in justice and the American way !! hahahaha