DAILY SHMUTZ | COMMENTARY / OPINION | 10/27/24

COMMENTARY / OPINION

Jonathan Pollard: Unpacking Israel’s Strike on Iran   [1:07:06]

Oct 27, 2024  Machon Shilo – Discussion between the head of Machon Shilo Rabbi David Bar-Hayim & Jewish hero Jonathan Pollard

Watch Jonathan Pollard & Machon Shilo’s Rabbi David Bar-Hayim discuss how Israel can defeat the Hezbollah:

“Six Days from Sunday” and the Continuity of Government    Sundance

October 27, 2024  The Conservative Treehouse – Incredible as it seems, at least to me, it is the four-year anniversary of this outline [GO DEEP].

During the rushed debate over the Patriot Act, was when I first heard political officials talking about the importance of “continuity of government.”

I immediately recognized what all these DC voices were describing was a construct of a post-911 government that would exist and maintain itself without the elected representatives of WeThe People.

The intelligence gathering and homeland security system put into place after the Patriot Act was passed, is a bureaucratic administrative state without the presence of elected officials controlling the apparatus. That leads to the following question:

How can a constitutional republic function without elected officials in control of it?

That question is at the heart of our current situation.

That question is at the epicenter of this “new American democracy” that no one seems to understand.

The simple answer is it cannot.

We have been fighting this three-headed IC monster (DHS, DNI, DOJ-NSD) ever since.

This reality the underlying predicate behind why Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Special Counsel charges against Trump. This reality is also the underlying framework behind why the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the plenary power of the President with control over the executive.

In the post-9/11 system that was created by the Patriot Act, our Constitutional Republic was inextricably fractured, placing systems and silos in charge of government under the auspices of “continuity of government.”

From that moment forth, elected representatives no longer held authority or oversight *over* the national security apparatus. Instead, the Patriot Act flipped the actual system of democratically elected representative government.

The RESULT: Our elected officials became subservient to the institutional interests of unelected agency officials. As Senator Schumer calls them “the six ways from Sunday” coalition.

Continue reading

Israel FIRES back at Iran! Was that it?   Caroline Glick [LIVE]

October 27,2024  JNS TV – The IDF carried out precise and targeted strikes against military targets in Iran over the weekend. In today’s episode, we’ll explain what exactly was targeted and why the IDF chose these targets. We’ll also try to understand factors affecting Israel’s strategy and what to look for in the coming days and weeks, especially as America heads to elections.

Communist Cuba Runs Out of Power   by Daniel Greenfield

The regime is out of Castros and cash.

October 27, 2024  Front-page Magazine – Communist Cuba, the darling of progressive champions like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Mayor Karen Bass, and CPUSA leader Gus Hall, is not doing so well. After Venezuela ran out of money and Russia spent all its money buying Iranian drones, the Communist regime ran out of Castros and cash.

The power is down and has been going down on and off for days. And unlike California, there’s not much of an industry or a taxpayer base that the ruling Communist elite can loot for repair money.

The Cuban Communist regime is reliably blaming the American embargo, but when you’re a Communist regime, blaming all your problems on the refusal of the capitalists to sell you stuff ought to be embarrassing.

Taking a lesson from California, the Cuban regime has however demanded more money from the ‘private sector’ and announced plans to build more solar power. The problem with solar power (apart from the fact that it’s an expensive and highly inefficient gimmick mainly good for putting money in the pockets of green investors and Communist China) is that Cuba can’t make its own and is deeply hostile of foreign businesses which means that its solar pipe dreams are as real as Das Kapital’s economics.

Good news though.

As part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Cuban government committed to 37% of its power coming from renewable energy by 2030, an ambitious increase from an initial 24% targe

The actual number is 5%. And a bunch of that apparently involves burning cane sugar.

The share of Cuba’s electricity that comes from renewable sources like solar and burning sugar cane waste has increased only slightly, from 3.8% in 2012 to 5% as of 2022, according to research from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and EDF

Perhaps some greenie can educate me about the environmental impact of burning cane sugar on the planet.

Meanwhile, there’s no power, there are shortages of running water, and pretty much everything else.

There’s only one answer: California Gov. Newsom must immediately take over Cuba.

Daniel Greenfield   Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

[Ed.:

Federal Appeals Court Rules for ‘Election Day’, Not ‘Election Week’   by Daniel Greenfield 

“Congress statutorily designated a singular ‘day for the election’”

October 27, 2024 – Once upon a time, America used to have Election Day. Now we’re being threatened with Election Week.

There’s no reason for it. The year is 2024. We can order a toaster and have it delivered overnight from another state. We hear about an event seconds after it happens. Yet somehow despite insane budgets, we’re told that it’s impossible to do in 2024 what we were able to do in 1944. During wartime.

Election Week may have hit a bit of a snag after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that counting mail ballots arriving after Election Day is wrong because it’s… Election Day, not Week, Month or Year.

“Congress statutorily designated a singular ‘day for the election’ of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this ‘day for the election’ is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

The ruling spends time restating the obvious along with simple definitions of words.

Election Day is when all the ballots have to be in. If the ballots aren’t in, there’s an endless election that only ends when all the ballots have been received.

“Even if the ballots have not been counted, the result is fixed when all of the ballots are received and the proverbial ballot box is closed. The selections are done and final. By contrast, while election officials are still receiving ballots, the election is ongoing: The result is not yet fixed, because live ballots are still being received.”

It’s not Election Day if you can keep dumping in ballots and counting them until you win.

But like many common sense court rulings, this one may not even be enforceable. It may possibly be cited in election challenges to limited effect, and yet what it states is the simple truth.

Daniel Greenfield   Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

[Ed.:

Voter Fraud––The issue that matters most in 2024   Joan Swirsky

Clearly, the only thing Democrats have cared about for the past hundred years is winning elections at any cost. Beware.  Opinion.

Oct 26, 2024, 7:00 PM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – No, it’s not “the economy, stupid,” in spite of the schizophrenic stock market since our remarkably resilient capitalistic economy ran head into the socialist-cum-communist Biden-Harris regime, with its $1.8-trillion deficit.

And no, it’s not domestic policy, where we have had the luxury of being on the receiving end of:

• High taxes.
• High food prices.
• High gas prices.
• Sky-high regulations.
• Alarmingly high crime rates throughout the country, particularly in states run by Democrats, where arrests are few, bail is nonexistent, and raging criminals enjoy no consequences for their assaults, rapes, murders, racist attacks, et al.
• Eleven million illegal and unvetted aliens who are further draining our economy thanks to the largesse of this regime, which is housing them in fancy hotels, providing food, healthcare, iPhones, education for their children, even monthly stipends that are higher than what American families and veterans receive.

And no, it’s not foreign policy in which:

• We’ve spent trillions of dollars supporting Zelenskyy in Ukraine but couldn’t find the funds, as ace investigative journalist Kelleigh Nelson spells out, to help the ravaged victims of the government-manipulated hurricanes Helene and Milton in several southern “red” states. Talk about a pre-election October Surprise!
• There are now five wars that didn’t exist four years ago—in Yemen, Darfur, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Israel… costing more trillions of dollars and precious lives.
• The Biden-Harris regime is indefensibly antagonistic to our trusted and invaluable ally, Israel, as they have waffled on their support and threatened an arms embargo for that tiny Jewish state, surrounded and at war with seven menacing enemies whose charters call for its complete annihilation and death to every Jew on earth. And yet a US president threatens Israel not to destroy the Iranian nukes.

CRUNCH TIME

Clearly, the only thing Democrats have cared about for the past hundred years is winning elections at any cost.

And in the past four years in particular, they’ve been maniacally obsessed with lodging phony lawsuits against President Trump in order to ensure that he is not reelected, even if the perpetual sore losers of the left have to buy the guns they say they hate in order to assassinate him.

Why? Because the business mogul and non-politician Citizen Trump won the 2016 election by exposing:

• “The Swamp’s” systemic lawlessness, corruption, and treason.
• The Democrats’ America-Last policies.
• The leftist bias of the bought-and-paid-for Media Whores.
• The Democrat racism that has kept blacks uneducated, impoverished, and imprisoned for decades on end because of the welfare system they created that promises food, housing, education, medical care, et al, to women and says they can have as many children as they desire, with only one iron-clad rule: if you get married, you lose all benefits! Hence, tragically, the decades of broken families.
• The horrific trade deals that benefited foreign nations, but not America .
• The fallacy that no Mideast peace is possible without striking a deal with the hostile-to-Israel Arabs who insist on calling themselves “Palestinians.” Really? See President Trump’s colossally successful Abraham Accords.
• The craven deals that made our country dependent on foreign oil by––POOF! ––making America completely energy independent.

As I often and regretfully state, because of space limitations, the above is the short list.

METHOD TO THEIR MADNESS

Dozens of books have spelled out in detail how Democrats have stolen elections over the past many decades by enlisting the votes of illegal aliens, absentee voters who simply don’t exist, and of course dead voters.

Among the most riveting are:

• John Fund’s Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
• Eric Eggers’ Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election

Then there is Ballot Harvesting, a scheme exclusively used by Democrats to win elections. How does it work? According to CA political commentator Stephen Frank, someone––campaign worker, minor, illegal, etc.––goes door to door to “help” people fill out ballots that strangely favor Democrats, and refuses to collect ballots from anyone they suspect of voting the “wrong” way.

Intimidation is common and nothing stops them from allegedly altering ballots or throwing out ballots for the undesired candidate or paying to vote for the right one.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2020, 26 states allowed this fraudulence, a practice that was aggressively and successfully challenged by Tom Fitton of electionintegrity@judicialwatch.org.

Not to omit the now-defunct ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)—a massive group of over 500,000 members which operated nationwide since 1970, registering voters and helping people sign up for government-financed programs.

ACORN was exposed for its criminal activities in 2009 by James O’Keefe, founder of The Veritas Project, resulting in multiple convictions for massive voter fraud in several states, and it closed its doors in 2010, although it is believed that splinter groups formed and are active to this day.

Writer Barbara Kralis maintains that “America’s election mail-in ballot scam has been a huge problem the last four national elections. Democrats and organized union officials keep ‘miraculously’ finding lost mail-in ballot boxes (fake ballots) on the days following each of the last four elections,” leading to highly suspect Democrat victories. And Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “2000 Mules,” shows in real time how the massive fraud of the 2020 election was executed.

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS

Just the other day, Kamala Harris’s Department of Justice––in a can’t-make-it-up act––sued the state of Virginia for removing illegals from its voter rolls!

The last time I kept track of such measures was just a few years ago, and here is just a tiny sampling of the vote-rigging methods used exclusively by Democrats that I discovered at that time:

• In a FL primary, more than 35,000 mail-in ballots were rejected, and over 100,000 ballots were rejected in CA.
• GA authorities reveal 1,000 people double-voted in primary using absentee ballots.
• More than 534,000 mail ballots were rejected during primaries across 23 states— nearly a quarter in key battlegrounds for the fall (Townhall).
• In NC, voters reported receiving two ballots in the mail.
• A top PA lawmaker called on the state to immediately expunge the names of 11,198 non-citizens whom the state confirmed are registered to vote despite not being eligible.
• FBI Found Discarded Military Mail-in Ballots Cast for Trump (see below picture).
• Election Watchdog Finds 350,000 Dead Registrants on Voter Rolls in 42 States.
• GA Investigating 1,000 Cases of Voter Fraud.
• The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) of IN found the following: there may be as many as 350,000 dead people still registered to vote in U.S. elections; NY, TX, MI, FL, and CA accounted for 51 percent of the dead registrants; 40,000 likely duplicate voters may have voted twice; many state registrars have been forbidden to cull their voter rolls by the courts because hysterical Democrats claim some voters might be disenfranchised; NV’s largest county sent out more than 200,000 mail-in primary ballots to the wrong addresses, while 84,000 mail-in presidential primary ballots cast in NY City were disqualified.
• Again, CA political commentator Stephen Frank reports: Trump IS Right: Post Office Is Discarding, Hiding Absentee Ballots! (Well, whaddaya know––Joe Biden just received the endorsement of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union!).

You get the picture.

PARTNERS IN CRIME

Linda Goudsmit, author of The Book of Humanitarian Hoaxes: Killing America with ‘Kindness‘ and the just-released Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier-Reality Is, sees the upcoming election as another “sinister leftist, Islamist, globalist attack on America.”

“We are only weeks away from the 2024 election,” she said, and “the enemies of America are desperate and behaving like cornered animals poised for attack. Their survival is at stake because if POTUS 45 is reelected, he will take down the Deep State and expose them all. They know it and Trump knows it.”

Goudsmit’s point is really the crux of the Democrats’ desperation these past four years. With a Trump victory, you can be sure that over the next few months, the powers-that-be will be handing out indictments to alleged criminals in government offices, appointed during the terms of Barack Obama and Biden, including whoever leaked Israel’s plans on atacking iran.

With now three assassination attempts, I only hope that President Trump has a dozen private armed guards and a food taster!

Joan Swirsky is a New York based journalist and author. Her website is www.joanswirsky.com, and she can be reached at joanswirsky@gmail.com.

Survival limits of military nuclear power   Prof. Louis René Beres

Israel and the “sting of the bee.” Recall that one type of honey bee dies after it has stung. Op-ed.

Oct 27, 2024, 6:02 AM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – In a now classic 1965 article on nuclear weapons, physicist Leo Szilard offered a clarifying metaphor on different types of national nuclear capability. For some situations, the Manhattan Project physicist explained, belligerent use of nuclear ordnance could become self-annihilating. Recalling that one type of honey bee dies after it has stung, Szilard proceeded to identify certain “weaker” nuclear states as those with “sting of the bee” survival limits.

Such imaginative characterizations remain relevant to world politics. Were he writing today about possible Russian or North Korean interventions on behalf of Iran, Szilard would likely caution Israel that even its most powerful nuclear weapons could be immobilized by such surrogate foes. In essence, Szilard would warn Israel against ever being reduced to “bee sting” nuclear status.

Following Israel’s October 26 self-defense retaliations against Iran aggression – lawful counter-attacks against an enemy displaying continuously criminal intent – this would be an appropriate warning.

For Israel’s senior military planners, issues of Iranian nuclearization are already dense and soon-to-be opaque. Even while Israel remains the only regional atomic power, a nuclear war with the Islamic Republic remains possible. More precisely, even a pre-nuclear Iran could bring Israel to the point where Jerusalem’s only strategic options would be intolerable capitulations or nuclear escalations. In effect, the second option would represent an “asymmetrical nuclear war.”

Would Israel allow itself to reach such an “all-or-nothing” decisional precipice? Though there are several persuasive answers, all that really matters is that Jerusalem consider this chilling prospect with attention to force-multiplying intersections and “synergies.” Accordingly, a one-sided nuclear war scenario should come to mind in which Iran would target Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor and/or employ radiation dispersal weapons against the Jewish State.

Unique escalations could also follow in the wake of an Iranian resort to biological or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) ordnance.

In a next-to-worst-case scenario, Israel would be prevented from striking preemptively against designated Iranian targets by Russian and/or North Korean nuclear threats. The worst-case scenario would be a “bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack launched by Russia or North Korea (or both together).

Where does Jerusalem actually stand on such existential challenges? Looking toward its steadily-expanding conflict with Iran, any preemption against Iranian weapons and infrastructures would be problematic. At this late stage, any such defensive action would need to be undertaken in increments and during an ongoing war. In 2003, when this writer’s Project Daniel Group presented its early report on Iranian nuclearization to then-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, Iranian targets had already become more daunting than had been Iraq’s Osiraq reactor on June 7, 1981 (“Operation Opera”).

What next? There is a revealing strategic dialectic. During any expanding war against Iran, Israel could calculate that it has no choice but to launch multiple and mutually-reinforcing preemptive strikes against specific enemy targets.

At the same time, Russian and/or North Korean threats of support for Iran could lay the groundwork for a multi-state nuclear war, one that could come to involve the United States and/or China. While it might be tempting to claim such jaw-dropping interventions as “speculative” or “unlikely,” there is no science-based way to estimate the probabilities of any unique event.

There would be variously important qualifications. To the extent that they might still be usefully estimated, the risks of an Israel-Iran nuclear war will depend on whether such a conflict would be intentional, unintentional, or accidental. Apart from applying this critical three-part distinction, there could be no adequate reason to expect operationally-gainful strategic assessments of any such war. Ensuring existential protections from openly declared Iranian aggressions, Jerusalem should always bear in mind that even the Jewish State’s physical survival can never be “guaranteed.” At some point, even a nuclear weapons state could be left with only “the sting of the bee.”

There are further nuances. An unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war between Jerusalem and Teheran could take place not only as the result of misunderstandings or miscalculations between rational leaders, but also as the unintended consequence of mechanical, electrical, or computer malfunction. This should bring to analyzing Israeli minds a further distinction between an unintentional/inadvertent nuclear war and an accidental nuclear war. Though all accidental nuclear wars must be unintentional, not every unintentional nuclear war would need to occur by accident. On one occasion or another, an unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war could be the result of fundamental human misjudgments about enemy intentions. This catastrophic result could be both irremediable and irreversible.

History matters. An authentic nuclear war has never been fought. There are no genuine experts on “conducting” or “winning” a nuclear war. Reciprocally, Jerusalem ought always to disavow strategic counsel drawn from “common sense.” For Israel, nothing could prove more important than to understand this imperative and to reserve complex nuclear calculations to small cadres of “high thinkers.” We are speaking here of the caliber of Szilard, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohr and assorted others, not to make another “gadget,” but to plan for nuclear deterrent success via calculated non-use. All such urgent planning should be initiated on a theoretical levelץ

There is more. Providing for Israeli national security amid a still-nuclearizing Iran ought never to become an ad-hoc “game” of chance. Without a suitably long-term, systematic and theory-based plan in place, Israel would render itself unprepared for an Iranian nuclear conflict that is deliberate, unintentional or accidental. At every stage of its lethal competition with Tehran, Jerusalem should never lose sight of the only sensible rationale for maintaining its national nuclear weapons and doctrine. That justification is (1) stable war management at all identifiable levels; and (2) reliable nuclear deterrence.

More than anything else, Israel’s strategic plans should include a prompt policy shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.” The core logic of this shift would not be to simply reframe the obvious (i.e., that Israel is already a nuclear power), but to remind would-be aggressors that Jerusalem’s nuclear weapons are operationally usable at all imaginable levels of warfare.

Nonetheless, even with optimal prudential planning, Russian and/or North Korean threats to Israel could sometime become overwhelming. Jerusalem will need to remain prepared for all plausibly related scenarios.

Reduced to its essentials, an authentically worst case scenario for Israel would commence with progressively explicit threats from Moscow about Israeli preemption costs. Israel, aware that it could not reasonably expect to coexist indefinitely with a nuclear Iran, would proceed with its planned preemptions in spite of the dire Russian warnings. In subsequent response, Russian military forces would begin to act directly against Israel, thereby seeking to persuade Jerusalem that Moscow is in a patently superior position to dominate all conceivable escalations. Alternatively, Putin could delegate such military responsibilities to North Korea, an Iranian ally that is presently preparing (within Russia) to augment Russian military forces against Ukraine.

Unless the United States were willing to enter the already-chaotic situation with unambiguously support for Israel, Moscow should have no foreseeable difficulties in establishing “escalation dominance.” In this connection, well-intentioned supporters of Israel could over-estimate the Jewish State’s relative nuclear capabilities and options. Significantly, there is no clear way in which the capabilities and options of a state smaller than America’s Lake Michigan could actually “win” at competitive risk-taking vis-à-vis Russia or North Korea. For Israel, in such unprecedented matters, self-deflating candor would be much safer than self-deluding bravado. As a strategic objective, Israel’s avoidance of “bee sting” nuclear capacity would be indispensable.

What about the United States? Would an American president accept an alliance commitment that could place millions of Americans in positons of grievous vulnerability? For those most part, the answer would lie with the character and inclinations of the American leader. It this president would visibly assume the long-term benefits of honoring US security guarantees, the world could be looking at another Cuban Missile Crisis or some similar confrontation.

There are additionally important issuers of nuclear doctrine. In his continuing war of aggression and genocide against Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has been recycling provocative elements of Soviet-era strategic thinking. One critical element concerns the absence of any apparent “firebreak” between conventional and tactical nuclear force engagements. Now, much as it was during the “classical” era of US-Soviet nuclear deterrence, Moscow identifies the determinative escalatory threshold with a first-use of high-yield, long-range strategic nuclear weapons, not a first use of tactical (theater) nuclear weapons.

But this perilous nuclear escalation doctrine is not shared by Israel’s United States ally, and could erode any once-stabilizing barriers of intra-war deterrence between the original superpowers. Whether sudden or incremental, any such erosion could impact the plausibility of both a deliberate and inadvertent nuclear war. As Israel could need to depend on firm US support in countering Russian nuclear threats, Vladimir Putin should be granted a prominent place in Israel’s threat assessments of Iranian nuclear progress. In principle, at least, this place ought even to be preeminent.

For Israel, the bottom-line of such dialectical analysis is an invariant obligation to analyze still-pertinent preemption–options as an intellectual task. Among other things, reaching rational judgments on defensive first strikes against a still pre-nuclear Iran will require fact-based anticipations of (1) Russian and/or North Korean intentions; and (2) United States willingness to stand by Israel in extremis.

Israel’s growing nuclear war hazards include variously tangible scenarios of Russian or North Korean interventions on behalf of Iran. Remembering Leo Szilard’s elucidating metaphor, Jerusalem should consider in its strategic calculations that even with conspicuously refined nuclear weapons and doctrine, Israel could end up with “the sting of a bee.”

For the imperiled Jewish State, no such end could be survivable.

Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His twelfth and most recent book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016) (2nd ed., 2018) In 2003-2004, Professor Beres was Chair of Israel’s Project Daniel (Iran’s nuclear weapons) for PM Ariel Sharon). His scholarly publications include annual contributions to the Oxford University Press Yearbook on International Law and Jurisprudence and articles in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. One of his early Bulletin pieces was granted the publication’s Rabinowitch Prize, an award created by former members of the Manhattan Project. Dr. Louis René Beres was born in Zürich at the end of World War II.

How many chances does a country get to finish the job?   Gerald A. Honigman

Israel’s response to Iran’s missile attack was the way to damage their ability to repeat it, but there are other problems, like Iran’s nuclear plans, that must be tackled. Will Israel do it? Op-ed.

Oct 27, 2024, 8:42 AM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – Now that an Israeli response to overt Iranian attempts to inflict massive casualties on its citizens and infrastructure has come and gone, some questions remain.

I won’t take it upon myself to question Israel’s top military and political brass making the decisions, but, nevertheless, my concerns are valid.

The major ongoing issue, that of nuclear power, remains. But , once again, Israel had to abide by Obama-Biden dictates, which Kamala Obamala will also undoubtedly adopt as well. Who is going to take responsibility when Iran, allegedly within days of achieving the ability to produce nuclear warheads, places a few on randomly selected ballistic missiles, and doesn’t think twice about firing them against Israel?

The mad mullahs have long referred to the Zionist Entity as a one-bomb nation. No explanation necessary, correct ?

Regardless of how much damage Israel caused this time, it’s not enough.

It risks the lives of its precious pilots and is forced to abide by others’ commands on matters that affect it more than anyone else.

Israel special ops forces went in on the ground several times before this in Iran, including when they entered and walked out with huge amounts of key intelligence equipment and information.

A combination of similar ground actions , with enough fire power applied from its aircraft, drones, and ballistic missile capabilities, might have done unto Iran what Israel previously did to Iraq and Syria…de-nukefy it.

It probably already had assets in place. It was worth a try.

But Israel also had years to plan a major ground operation at night, like it did before for its intelligence heist, that would assist in planting major explosives in the deep caves or wherever the nuke sites are located, in coordination with IAF strikes from above.

I’m sure Israel doesn’t need me to tell it this, but as someone who has done extensive grad studies involving Kurdish and other non-Iranian group aspirations (including in Iran itself), there are friendly folks within Iran who probably have already assisted it in earlier operations, who could have assisted in providing an exit strategy if required for the Israeli special ops forces.

Each time Israel settles for less than what’s really required because others bully it, it becomes that much harder the next time to achieve the main goal. Its enemies learn from their mistakes, and incremental pinprick retaliations aren’t the answer when the enemy who seeks your absolute eradication is on the verge of becoming nuclear.

The Shi‘a mullahs running the Islamic Republic show don’t care how many Iranians die, let alone others.

The chaos they seek only hastens the return of their mystical 12th major religious leader, the Mahdi (a messiah-like figure), who will bring Islamic order out of the turmoil they deliberately cause.

You don’t defeat such people at the negotiating table, with pinprick responses, nor with other partial responses.

If Kamala Harris gets elected it will be Obama/Biden all over again.

And Israel’s very sovereignty and existence will be in such peoples’ hands. The same folks who gifted the mullahs with over 100 billion dollars in oil revenues to give to Hamas, Hezbollah, et al – revenues that President Trump had denied them.

We simply can’t afford to give the Biden team another heads-up   Dr. Aaron Lerner

An American official with knowledge of Israel’s plans told The Washington Post – while much of the operation was still underway – that missile manufacturing facilities were the targets.

Oct 27, 2024, 8:59 AM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – First, they leaked top-secret intelligence to interfere with the Jewish State’s execution of an attack on Iran.

Bad enough.

Saturday morning, the Biden team risked the lives of our pilots by revealing our targets mid-operation!

It was reported that we gave the Biden team a heads-up six hours before the attack on Iran.

As soon as we started, Biden’s people began calling reporters.

An American official with knowledge of Israel’s plans told The Washington Post – while much of the operation was still underway – that missile manufacturing facilities were the targets.

Biden’s team couldn’t wait for our pilots to return safely?

If our leaders have eyes in their heads, today’s attack wasn’t just about leveling scores.

Starting November 7 (when it is dawn in Tehran it is 6:20 PM the previous day in Alaska), we’ll have an opportunity to secure our future as the Iranians scramble to restore their air defenses and get solid-fuel mixers from China.

And before Hezbollah rearms with precision missiles.

If Blinken pursues a post-election Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution mandating a ceasefire, with harsh penalties for non-compliance, we must preempt it.

We simply can’t afford to give the Biden team another heads-up.

At best, to avoid mishaps with American jets in the region, we can provide the wrong target details.

Yes, it’s depressing that this is our relationship with the Biden team.

But we have to play the cards we have.

Dr. Aaron Lerner heads IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis, Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

[Ed.: With ‘friends’ like that, who needs enemies?]

Two Lawsuits Challenge Swampbuster and the Regulatory Labyrinth of the Administrative State   By Janet Levy

October 25, 2024

Dwight Waldo, whose 1948 book The Administrative State gave the eponymous term widespread usage, believed that public administration is rational action designed to maximize public goals.

Unfortunately, the administrative state and its bureaucrats no longer have the public on their minds.
Without any constitutional authority, the administrative state frames, enforces, and adjudicates the regulations of a plethora of alphabet agencies. Unelected bureaucrats, politicized by monied NGOs and lobbyists, exercise powers of all three branches of government, disregarding the separation of powers and the checks-and-balances provisions of the Constitution.

Such is the viselike hold of the administrative state that Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting in a 2013 judgment on a regulatory scheme of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), wrote: “The administrative state ‘wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life….’ The Framers could hardly have envisioned today’s ‘vast and varied federal bureaucracy’ and the authority administrative agencies now hold over our economic, social, and political activities.”
An example of the arbitrary power the administrative state wields are some of the rules agencies have framed for the Swampbuster provisions, passed by Congress in 1985, under which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can deny benefits to farmers who do not voluntarily give up farming on wetlands. And who designates wetlands? It is the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency of the USDA. Using Swampbuster, the USDA has come to regulate property it would otherwise not have been able to.
However, four recent Supreme Court decisions have reined in the administrative state. The court swept aside decades-old precedents to shift the balance of power from the agencies to the courts. The Swampbuster provisions and NRCS-framed rules, too – seen by many legal experts as violative of property rights and overly broad in implementation – have been challenged in two recent lawsuits. Though the courts have yet to decide on the Swampbuster lawsuits, the four Supreme Court decisions will likely have a strong bearing on the cases.
Here, in brief, are the salient points of the four rulings:
1) In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the principle of Chevron deference – which requires that courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a disputed or ambiguous
statute – was challenged. This year, the court overruled the principle as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act, and charged courts to “use every tool at their disposal to determine the best reading of the statute and resolve the ambiguity.” In effect, the Supreme Court said that courts, not agencies, have the competence to resolve
ambiguities.

2) In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the constitutionality of administrative law judges trying a defendant accused of fraud instead of trial by jury in a federal court was called into question. The court restricted the use of administrative law judges and asserted that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial in a federal court.

3) In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court overturned the six-year limit on judicial review of a rule made by a federal agency. The court said that “regulated parties may always assail a regulation as exceeding an agency’s statutory authority in enforcement of proceedings against them.” A victory for civil liberties, this decision opens the door to challenging long-standing regulations.

4) In Sackett v. Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the court limited the authority of federal agencies over private property. It also limited the types of waterways that the EPA can regulate. The Sacketts had waged a 16-year battle to build a home on property they had purchased. The EPA had erroneously declared the area a protected wetland, threatening them with fines if they built on it. The court said landowners have the right to seek judicial review of agency determinations before facing action such as fines.
These are major victories for our constitutional republic. These rulings, in which the courts have forced the administrative state to back off, will be cited whenever agencies that have arrogated to themselves the power to make, enforce, and decide on rules and regulations are challenged. And indeed, they will now be challenged more frequently, as in the two Swampbuster lawsuits were taken up pro bono by attorneys at the Pacific Law Foundation (PLF).

The first is CTM Holdings LLC v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which challenges the very constitutionality of Congress’s Swampbuster provisions. The lawsuit has been filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
CTM Holdings is a family-owned business managed by Jim Conlan, an Iowa attorney. Conlan started buying farmland in his state as an investment, as a means of reconnecting to his family’s farming roots, and to give those who cannot afford to buy farmland an opportunity to take part in farming.
Among the properties he bought was a farm once owned by his grandparents. Soon he ran into trouble: the NRCS, using a Certified Wetland Delineation from 2010, declared nine scattered acres on his property as protected wetlands. He was therefore prohibited from farming on or around them; should he do so, he would be ineligible for government assistance.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that takes property without compensation and seeks to set aside the regulations with which the NRCS designated the nine-acre wetland on Conlan’s farmland. The lawsuit makes five claims:
a) The alleged wetland is within the boundaries of one state and has no connection to interstate waters, so federal intervention through Swampbuster violates the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution, which permits federal regulation only of interstate commerce.

b) This claim expands on the first. Since a federal agency cannot regulate activity on Conlan’s farm under the Commerce Clause, the owner’s not farming on the designated
wetland amounts to the waiver of a constitutional right. Therefore, this is an instance in which, under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the government is prohibited
from conditioning a benefit (loans, disaster relief, etc.) on the waiver of the right to use one’s property as one chooses.

c) The wetlands designation constitutes a “taking” of private property without just compensation, and this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
d) The agency-framed rule adds the words “the removal of woody vegetation” to 16 U.S.C. 3801 (a) (7) (A), the original definition of a “converted wetland.” Since the words are not in the statute, the additional language is not in accordance with the law and thus exceeds statutory jurisdiction and authority.

e) In 1990, the Grassley amendment to the Swampbuster provisions allowed for a review of designations made by the agency. In response, the USDA delineated procedures that allowed requests for a review only when a natural event changes the land or the NRCS itself believes there has been an error. Again, this action exceeds statutory authority.
The second lawsuit – Foster v. Vilsack – is in the U.S. Supreme Court. The NRCS designated a wetland on Arlen Foster’s holding in Miner County, South Dakota because a small depression on less than an acre fills with snowmelt in spring. Three requests to review the certification, including one that appended an engineering report confirming it was snowmelt, were declined.

Foster filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected his case. The case has been appealed in the Supreme Court, arguing that denial of requests for recertification of wetlands violates the right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
It remains to be seen if the courts find the NRCS guilty of administrative overreach and breach of constitutional rights. Its arbitrary decisions not only affect farmers’ land use but also force them to endure lengthy, expensive legal procedures to seek resolution.

[Ed.:

Are Intelligence Agencies Planning to Make Voters Obsolete?   By Jerome R. Corsi

October 26, 2024

Here’s something for you to contemplate as you consider concerns about election integrity: Do the algorithms that Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has found surreptitiously embedded in current state board of election voter rolls suggest intelligence agents have decided to bypass voters to vote election simulations?

As documented on GodsFiveStones.com, Paquette has found secret algorithms in the board of election voter registration databases in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Texas, with ongoing examinations underway in Arizona and Georgia.

The algorithms appear designed to hide critical voter attribute information, allowing the people who developed the scheme to create and hide “non-existent voters” capable of being assigned legitimate state voter IDs. Once created, the algorithms can vote certifiable mail-in ballots for enough “non-existent voters” to steal an election from an opponent who won through legitimate votes.

In his analysis of the algorithm found in the New York State Board of Election voter registration database, Paquette detailed how the algorithm could be used in a mail-in ballot scheme to steal an election.

The data uncovered by NYCA’s (New York Citizens Audit) research suggests systemic election fraud is built into New York’s electoral process. The current working hypothesis is that:

1.    False voters were introduced into the voter rolls.

2.    The algorithm covertly tagged these records for easy retrieval when needed.

3.    False registrants requested absentee ballots.

4.    Ballots and ballot envelopes were gathered at central collection points.

5.    Fraudulently generated ballots were cast in fraudulently obtained ballot envelopes.

6.    False voter records were updated to reflect false votes.

7.    After certification, false voter records were manipulated to disguise their purpose and history.

In that paper, Paquette estimated there were approximately 338,000 illegally generated registrations in the New York State Board of Election voter registration database active for the 2020 General Election.

With tens of thousands of nonexistent voter registrations thanks to the algorithm, the criminals accessing the Board of Election computers could easily ask how to structure an election. “Should our Candidate X (the algorithm-chosen winner) win by 1 percent, 3 percent, or more? Should our Candidate X lead throughout election day, surge late in the voting, or require a stoppage of vote counting to produce enough ‘non-existent voters’ to cast mail-in ballots to steal the election?”

The point is that these hidden “non-existent voters” could be activated to cast a certifiable mail-in vote as needed, provided the algorithm assigned legitimate state voter ID numbers to the “non-existent voters.”

The problem with the algorithmic mail-in ballot election fraud scheme is that if you know about the algorithm, the patterns become apparent. In mail-in ballot fraud, we see candidates who are losing the in-person vote surge at the end of the election, when the mail-in ballots are counted. For example, if a candidate through legitimate, in-person voting has a larger lead than anticipated, vote counting stops overnight, followed by a surge of newly discovered mail-in ballots that heavily vote for Candidate X.

To succeed, the scheme requires that the certification process does not involve any forensic attempt to go into the community to investigate whether the mail-in ballots cast belong to legitimate voters. The scheme also depends on lax checking of the signatures on the outside cover of mail-in ballots to ensure they are matched for accuracy with the voter’s signature placed on file at the time of registration.

How close are we to intelligence agencies deciding that with advances in AI and the statistical analytic skills of modern political science, voters are obsolete? This is not a far-fetched question.

In an exchange preserved on video from a 2017 World Economic Forum meeting, Klaus Schwab suggested that voters have become obsolete given advances in computer technology. Schwab said, “But since the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what, predict, and afterwards you can say, ‘Why do we need the elections?’ Because we know what the result will be. Can you imagine such a world?”

The World Economic Forum quickly attempted to control the damage, issuing a corrective statement insisting that Schwab’s comments were not “a call for action” but a hypothetical musing based on the anticipated predictive capabilities of computer technology in the future.

The academic modeling of presidential elections has advanced to the point where a group of scientists in Peru and Brazil have developed a predictive mathematical model that utilizes machine learning (ML) and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to predict presidential election results (PER) with 100 percent agreement with actual elections in Brazil, Uruguay, and Peru. Conceivably, a computer model could run a simulation of a presidential election that would model a victory for the preferred candidate X. But for the computer simulation to be substituted for the actual vote credibly requires that the simulation matched reasonable anticipations of voter preferences.

That conclusion that intelligence agencies are involved in placing algorithms in the state boards of election databases is supported by the complexity of the cryptographic mathematics and cipher intricacy that Dr. Paquette has demonstrated to be characteristic of the voter registration databases that he has discovered. Developing and placing the algorithms into the computer systems of the state boards of elections would require either confederate actors within the state board elections or a covert intelligence operation to penetrate the various state boards.

However, stealing elections to be credible also involves successfully implementing a psychological operation involving control over mainstream media narratives. For example, consider that Joe Biden, after a disastrous debate with Donald Trump, demonstrated diminished mental functioning that disqualified him from being a credible contender. Vice President Kamala Harris was a more credible challenger, provided intelligence agencies could get the mainstream media to report questionable “surveys” that showed her challenging President Trump neck-to-neck despite her history of unpopularity and failure to advance in previous presidential attempts.

That Schwab was engaged in paving the way for a planned elite dystopian future is a reasonable conclusion given the arguments Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò advanced in an essay entitled “The Technocratic Dystopia: Are novels of Huxley and Orwell an unheeded warning or an example of predictive programming?”* Archbishop Viganò explained: “What Brave New World and 1984 describe corresponds to the same processes of predictive programming that we find in numerous movies having as their theme pandemics, dictatorial regimes after climate crises, and plots by pharmaceutical companies, high finance, and secret societies—that is, to the use of the fictional literary genre as a tool for mass mental processing in order to make the population more willing to accept planned future events.”

Archbishop Viganò defined “predictive programming,” i.e., the use of a hypothetical comment “as a tool for mass mental programming in order to make the population more willing to accept future planned events.” If the algorithms Paquette has discovered are the handiwork of U.S. intelligence agencies, the New World Order to make voters obsolete has already begun.

GodsFiveStones.com is a tax-deductible 501(c)3 foundation created by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., and Karladine Graves, M.D., managed by Capstone Legacy Foundation.

_____________________

*Reprinted in my most recent book: Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., The Antiglobalist Manifesto: Ending the War on Humanity (Nashville, TN: Post Hill Press, 2024), Appendix C, “Message of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, ‘The Technocratic Dystopia,’ (April 30, 2023),” pp. 226-234, at p. 232.

[Ed.:

Illegals, Voting Issues, War & the Weaponized Justice System: Fixing America in 3 Sentences or Less   Tom Renz

OCT 26, 2024

Last weekend I spoke at the Reawaken America Tour stop in North Carolina. As an attorney I spend an immense amount of time reading and attempting to understand the laws we have. In fact a major part of my practice is outside the court – working to ensure the laws we have are good. To that extent, the topic I discussed in North Carolina was critical and something very few people realize; fixing America is not complicated – there’s just no political will to do it.

A few years back I worked with Missouri State Representative Holly Jones to promote a bill that would have blocked the use of mRNA poisons in the food supply. While that bill was ultimately defeated because big pharma lobbyists bought off too many Missouri GOP officials, the bill itself was incredibly viral, facilitated a global discussion, and did it all in under 2 pages. This same strategy can and should be used across the country to fix a number of issues.

For example, here’s a slide referencing the wars we are dealing with and some very easy legislative solutions I think would receive support from around the country:

As you can see, by adding a sentence or two to a funding bill Congress could shut down a number of wars. American foreign aid funds wars around the world – and then we rebuild after the war. Maybe we just stop doing that? It would only take a few sentences. And taking care of Americans before taking care of people around the world should be wildly politically popular so the 2 suggestions above seem both effective and politically feasible so why not use them?

Illegal immigration is a major issue this election season. We were told we needed some big complicated multi-billion dollar border bill but what if instead of spending more we cut spending to fix things:

The language above could be fine-tuned but it would actually save Americans money and, without that money, there would not be any incentive to be an illegal alien. I’m just guessing this language would do more to stop illegal immigration than any border bill in history. It even takes care of kids and I can’t imagine this not being politically well received.

Another hot topic this election season is states allowing non-citizens to vote. Politically, even Democrat voters don’t want illegals voting so this should be a no-brainer. Here’s my suggestion:

Most states take in massive amounts of federal funding. Cutting funding for states allowing illegals to vote would end that problem very quickly and would save us money in the process. A win/win!

As a Trump supporter I think the weaponization of the justice system is appalling. Republicans control the House and ending that weaponization would have been very easy had they included this in the last spending bill:

This language was a bit rough and certainly could be fine tuned but imagine how helpful that could have been for Trump. Further, the obviously corrupted justice system would have been prevented from continuing their quest to interfere with the election.

When I present solutions like this to elected officials they usually scoff, send them to their lobbyist buddies to try and figure out a way to oppose them, and then tell me these things cannot work for various nonsensical reasons. So I am presenting this to you. Read these and tell me why they would not work. It’s not magic, the law is whatever it says it is and these laws would save money, be politically popular, and fix real issues in real ways. The question I have is why can’t we make use of these easy solutions, or more appropriately, who’s paying our elected officials off to pretend they are solving problems when they are simply trying to perpetuate them.