New Jeffrey Epstein docs reveal pedophile met with CIA chief, former White House counsel — after his child sex crime conviction

 

Click Here to read from the New York Post

New Jeffrey Epstein docs reveal pedophile met with CIA chief, former White House counsel — after his child sex crime conviction

#Epstein #JeffreyEpstein #SexTrafficking

The Persistent Shadow: Unpacking Jeffrey Epstein's Alleged Ties to the CIA

The name Jeffrey Epstein conjures images of unimaginable wealth, grotesque abuse of power, and a network of powerful enablers spanning finance, politics, and academia. His 2019 death in a Manhattan jail cell, officially ruled a suicide, only amplified the conspiracy theories swirling around his life and crimes. Among the most persistent and disturbing questions is the nature of his alleged connections to intelligence agencies, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While definitive, publicly available proof of a formal operational relationship remains elusive, a confluence of circumstantial evidence, intriguing associations, and unanswered questions fuels intense speculation.

Epstein's Web: Access, Influence, and Secrecy

Epstein cultivated an aura of mystery. His vast fortune's origins were murky (though largely attributed to managing money for the ultra-wealthy like Leslie Wexner), his island retreat was shrouded in secrecy, and his ability to navigate the highest echelons of society seemed almost preternatural. This access wasn't accidental. He surrounded himself with influential figures:

1.  Ghislaine Maxwell: His longtime associate, convicted for her role in his sex trafficking scheme, was the daughter of Robert Maxwell. Robert Maxwell was a media mogul whose death in 1991 remains controversial, with well-documented ties to Mossad (Israeli intelligence) and persistent, though less concrete, rumors of dealings with various Western agencies, including the CIA. Ghislaine inherited some of these connections.

2.  Powerful Friends: Epstein's social circle included princes (Prince Andrew), presidents (Bill Clinton, Donald Trump – though Trump later distanced himself), prominent scientists (Stephen Hawking visited his island), politicians, billionaires, and influential lawyers like Alan Dershowitz. This network provided both cover and opportunity.

3.  The "Lolita Express" Flight Logs: The manifests for Epstein's private jet reveal a who's who of the powerful. While not proof of intelligence ties, the sheer concentration of influential individuals in such an intimate, controlled environment is noteworthy.

The CIA Allegations: Evidence and Speculation

The allegations linking Epstein to the CIA stem from several overlapping strands:

1.  The Robert Maxwell Connection: Robert Maxwell's activities are central. He was a significant asset for Mossad, involved in procuring technology and information. His sudden death sparked theories of assassination by Mossad, the KGB, or others. Epstein's deep involvement with Ghislaine placed him directly within the orbit of a family deeply embedded in the intelligence world. The suggestion is that Epstein either inherited these connections or was vetted and utilized because of them.

2. Epstein's Self-Promotion and Boasts: Multiple reports, including from alleged victims and acquaintances, state that Epstein frequently implied or outright claimed to be working for an intelligence agency, sometimes specifically the CIA. He allegedly told victims he was "connected" and could make problems disappear. While the word of a known liar and manipulator is unreliable, the consistency of these reports is striking. He reportedly suggested his activities gathering compromising information on powerful figures were intelligence work.

3.  DARPA and the "Love Bomb" Proposal: Epstein cultivated relationships with prominent scientists, particularly those involved in evolutionary biology and genetics (like Stephen Pinker and the late Martin Nowak). Documents reveal Epstein pitched a bizarre project to potential funders, including Lawrence Summers (then President of Harvard), involving seeding the human population with his DNA via a network of women impregnated at his New Mexico ranch. He reportedly claimed this was related to a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project. While DARPA denies any involvement, and the proposal seems like science fiction, the invocation of a major Pentagon research agency feeds speculation about Epstein attempting to position himself within the national security sphere or leverage perceived connections.

4.  Epstein as a Potential Asset or Informant: The most plausible, yet still unproven, theory is that Epstein wasn't a formal CIA officer but functioned as an "asset" or "confidential informant." His unique position – his access to global elites, his private islands and homes offering discreet meeting places, his ability to gather compromising information (kompromat) through his trafficking operation – made him potentially valuable. Intelligence agencies have a long history of using individuals with unique access, morally dubious or not, to gather information. Epstein's trafficking operation itself could have been seen (or exploited by him) as a source of intelligence through blackmail.

5. The Leon Black Lawsuit: In 2021, a lawsuit filed by Guzel Ganieva against Leon Black (a billionaire with close ties to Epstein) alleged that Epstein told Ganieva he was an "intelligence agent” who “worked for the government.” While unverified, this adds another data point to the pattern of Epstein making such claims.

6. The Handling of His Case: Epstein's remarkably lenient 2008 plea deal, brokered by then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta (who later became Trump's Labor Secretary), which allowed him to avoid federal charges and serve minimal jail time, fueled suspicion of powerful protectors. While political influence and legal maneuvering by high-powered lawyers (like Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr) explain much of this, the question of why such influence was exerted remains. Could intelligence connections have played a role in shielding him? It's a question often asked, though direct evidence linking the CIA to the plea deal is absent.

The Lack of Definitive Proof and Counterarguments

Crucially, no publicly released documents, credible witnesses, or official investigations have conclusively proven that Jeffrey Epstein was formally employed by, contracted by, or acting under the direction of the CIA. The evidence remains circumstantial:

Association vs. Direct Link: Knowing people connected to intelligence (like Ghislaine Maxwell) does not equate to being an agent.

Epstein's Lies: His well-documented history of fabrication makes any claim he made about his own status highly suspect. Boasting about CIA ties could have been a tactic to intimidate victims or inflate his own importance.

The Nature of Intelligence Work: Legitimate intelligence operations involving sensitive assets are classified by definition. The absence of public proof doesn't necessarily mean something didn't happen, but it also doesn't mean it did.

Alternative Explanations: Epstein's access can largely be explained by immense wealth, relentless networking, and the provision of services (financial, logistical, illicit) desired by the powerful. His ability to evade justice stemmed from corrupt legal maneuvers and the influence of wealthy friends, not necessarily covert agencies.

Why the Question Persists: The Echoes of Power and Impunity

The Epstein case is a vortex of depravity, privilege, and apparent impunity. The allegations of CIA ties persist because they resonate with a deeper unease:

1. The "Blackmail" Narrative: The idea that Epstein was systematically gathering kompromat on powerful figures for himself or others fits neatly with his modus operandi and the profiles of his victims and associates. Intelligence agencies are known to use such tactics.

2. Explaining the Unexplainable: Epstein's extraordinary access and ability to evade consequences for decades seem to defy normal explanations. Attributing it to a shadowy intelligence connection provides a seemingly coherent, albeit dark, rationale.

3. Historical Precedent: Intelligence agencies have engaged in morally reprehensible activities, including experiments on unwitting subjects (MKUltra), alliances with criminals, and the use of sexual entrapment. Epstein's alleged activities wouldn't be entirely out of historical character.

4. The Need for Accountability: For many, the idea that Epstein acted entirely alone or just within a network of corrupt elites feels insufficient. The notion of institutional involvement, however tangential, speaks to a desire to uncover a larger, more systemic source of the rot.

Conclusion: A Shadow, Not Yet Substance

Based on publicly available information, Jeffrey Epstein's alleged ties to the CIA remain firmly in the realm of allegation, speculation, and disturbing coincidence, rather than established fact. The evidence points strongly to Epstein inhabiting a world adjacent to intelligence – through Ghislaine Maxwell's lineage, his interactions with scientists involved in government-funded research, his boasts, and the inherent intelligence value of his access and activities. He may have sought to cultivate an image of such connections for protection and power.

However, the absence of a smoking gun linking him directly to CIA operations or directives is significant. The more likely explanation is that Epstein was a master manipulator who exploited weaknesses in the systems of power, justice, and wealth, using his connections and resources to enable his crimes and shield himself, rather than being a conscious asset in a formal intelligence operation. Yet, the disturbing proximity to the intelligence world, the unanswered questions about his influence and protection, and the sheer scale of his crimes ensure that the shadow of the question – "What did they know, and when?" – particularly regarding agencies like the CIA, will likely linger as long as the Epstein saga itself remains a symbol of impunity and hidden power. Until more concrete evidence emerges, the ties remain alleged, a chilling footnote in a story already overflowing with darkness.

5,000 and Change Are Dying In Eastern Europe Every Week

 

7,000 people died last week in the Russia Ukraine war. When I was in Desert Shield/Storm made a sign that said 'Stop The Maddness'. The Senior Officers said TAKE IT DOWN.

MY BAD ...

The Sign They Ordered Down: When Conscience Clashes with Command

The number hits like shrapnel: 7,000 lives extinguished in a single week within the grinding horror of the Russia-Ukraine war. Each digit represents a universe lost – families shattered, futures erased, communities hollowed. It’s a statistic so vast it threatens to numb, a grim testament to the relentless, industrial-scale brutality of modern conflict. Reading this, a veteran’s memory surfaces, raw and resonant: a hand-painted sign during Desert Shield/Storm, bearing the desperate plea, "Stop The Maddness," swiftly ordered down by senior officers. "MY BAD..." echoes now, not as apology, but as a bitter, decades-laden recognition of a silenced warning that reverberates with terrifying relevance today.

Your experience in the desert captures a profound, often unspoken tension within the military machine: the collision between individual conscience and the demands of command, the institutional imperative for unwavering unity, especially on the precipice of war. That sign, scrawled with deliberate misspelling or perhaps raw urgency ("Maddness" feeling viscerally correct in its chaos), wasn't just cardboard and paint. It was a human response to the gathering storm, a flicker of moral unease amidst the sand and steel. It spoke the quiet part loud – the inherent, terrifying absurdity and destruction that is war.

The order to "TAKE IT DOWN" was predictable, perhaps even understandable within the rigid hierarchy preparing for combat. Dissent, however small, however heartfelt, is seen as a crack in the facade of absolute readiness. Morale, perceived as fragile, must be protected, even if it means shielding eyes from the grim reality of what "readiness" truly entails. Questions, doubts, expressions of horror – these are luxuries command structures often believe they cannot afford. The machine must roll forward, and individual flickers of conscience risk gumming the gears.

But "MY BAD..." now? That’s the weight of hindsight bearing down across thirty years. It’s the crushing realization that the "madness" you instinctively named in the Kuwaiti desert wasn't an isolated episode, but a recurring, metastatic disease of the human condition. It wasn't stopped. It merely shape-shifted, relocated, and erupted again with even more devastating ferocity on European soil. The silencing of your small sign feels symbolic of a larger, persistent failure: the inability of systems – military, political, diplomatic – to truly hear and heed the warnings born of witnessing war's true face.

Seeing 7,000 dead in Ukraine isn't just another news cycle for you. It’s a grotesque echo. It validates that gut feeling you had holding that sign. The "madness" wasn't hyperbole; it was diagnosis. The relentless artillery duels, the decimated cities like Bakhmut and Mariupol, the mass graves, the streams of refugees – this is the madness unleashed, operating at a scale and intensity that dwarfs even the fears of 1991. The senior officers who silenced your protest likely believed they were preserving focus for the necessary task at hand. Yet, looking at Ukraine, one must ask: what if the real necessary task is the constant, unwavering challenge to the very logic of such destruction? What if silencing the dissenters, however small their platform, inadvertently protects the madness itself?

Your "MY BAD..." resonates because it speaks to a universal veteran’s burden – the knowledge carried by those who have seen the elephant. It’s the knowledge that war is not glory, but gore; not strategy games, but children buried under rubble; not decisive victory, but generations poisoned by trauma and hatred. It’s the knowledge that the "madness" is always lurking, requiring constant vigilance and courage to confront, even – especially – from within the ranks tasked with waging it.

The 7,000 dead this week are a screaming indictment. They demand more than thoughts and prayers; they demand a reckoning with the mechanisms that allow such slaughter to persist. Your desert story, small and personal as it was, illuminates one critical point of failure: the suppression of the moral voice that names the horror for what it is. When the instinct to cry "Stop!" is met with orders to stand down and fall in line, the path is cleared for the madness to march on, evolving, adapting, and finding new fields upon which to reap its ghastly harvest.

Perhaps "MY BAD..." isn't just personal regret. Perhaps it’s a challenge flung across the decades to all of us. Will we continue to silence the voices, however humble, that dare to name the madness? Or will we finally find the collective courage to truly listen, to heed the warnings born of experience and horror, and demand, with unwavering insistence, that the killing must stop? The 7,000 souls lost last week, and the countless thousands before them, deserve nothing less than our refusal to look away, our refusal to be silenced, and our absolute rejection of the madness that consumes them. The sign needed to stay up. It still does.

#Ukraine #Russia #War #DesertStorm

Should Donald Trump Get The Nobel Peace Prize

 

TRUMP 2.0

Could Trump Get A Nobel Peace Prize? Here's What We Know As Now Netanyahu Nominates Him

TRUMP 1.0

"Trump SHOULD get the Nobel Peace Prize. He has stopped war between at least 6 different countries and working on 2 more. GO TO WAR AND YOU WILL GET IT. I GET IT.

Rawanda ,Congo, Serbia, Cosavo, Iran, Israel ..."

The Nobel Question: Examining Claims About Donald Trump's "Peace Deals" and the Complexity of Global Diplomacy

The assertion that Donald Trump "SHOULD get the Nobel Peace Prize" for stopping wars in six countries (Rwanda, Congo, Serbia, Kosovo, Iran, Israel) and working on two more, framed with the stark declaration "GO TO WAR AND YOU WILL GET IT," presents a bold and provocative claim. It demands scrutiny against the complex backdrop of international relations during his presidency (2017-2021) and the nuanced criteria for such a prestigious award. While the Trump administration did engage in significant diplomatic maneuvers, particularly in the Middle East, the reality is far more intricate and less definitive than the original post suggests.

Deconstructing the Claimed "Stopped Wars":

1. Rwanda & Congo: There is no substantial evidence that the Trump administration intervened decisively to stop an imminent war between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Tensions, particularly related to rebel groups operating in eastern DRC and alleged Rwandan support, have persisted for decades. While the U.S. consistently engages diplomatically in the Great Lakes region, no specific, major conflict-resolution breakthrough orchestrated by Trump between these two nations occurred. The conflicts in the DRC are internal and regional, not primarily a bilateral Rwanda-DRC war stopped by U.S. action.

2.  Serbia & Kosovo ("Cosavo"): The Trump administration did actively re-engage in Serbia-Kosovo negotiations, appointing Ambassador Richard Grenell as a special envoy. Talks were revived, leading to agreements on economic normalization in September 2020. However:

This did not resolve the core political dispute over Kosovo's sovereignty (which Serbia does not recognize).

The agreements focused heavily on economic ties and infrastructure, falling short of a comprehensive peace treaty ending the fundamental conflict.

 Significant tensions and sporadic crises between the two entities continued and persist after Trump's term. While a diplomatic push happened, claiming it definitively "stopped a war" oversimplifies the ongoing, unresolved situation.

3. Iran & Israel: This claim is perhaps the most contradictory to the actual record.

JCPOA Withdrawal: Trump's most significant action regarding Iran was the unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal in May 2018. This was followed by a "maximum pressure" campaign of severe sanctions. Impact: This move is widely seen as increasing regional tensions significantly. It crippled Iran's economy, led Iran to progressively abandon its own JCPOA nuclear limits, heightened the risk of miscalculation, and brought the U.S. and Iran perilously close to direct conflict (e.g., the January 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the subsequent Iranian missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq). Rather than stopping a war, this policy created a prolonged period of elevated risk of conflict between the U.S. and Iran, with severe knock-on effects for regional stability, including for Israel.

Israel-Iran Proxy Conflict: The long-standing shadow war between Israel and Iran (fought through proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and various groups in Syria) intensified during this period. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria became more frequent and open. The maximum pressure campaign arguably made Iran more reliant on its regional proxies and more aggressive in its activities. Far from being "stopped," this conflict escalated.

4.  Israel: Taken alone, this is too vague. If referring to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Israel's relations with neighbors, the record is mixed:

Abraham Accords: This is the Trump administration's undisputed diplomatic achievement. Brokering normalization agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain (later joined by Sudan and Morocco) was historic. It shifted regional dynamics and created new avenues for cooperation. However:

It did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remained largely ignored and arguably worsened (e.g., moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over settlements).

It did not involve countries in active, direct warfare with Israel at the time (the conflicts were largely frozen or proxy-based).

While reducing tensions between specific Arab states and Israel, it arguably increased tensions with other actors, primarily Iran and its allies, and potentially deepened Palestinian disillusionment. It stopped potential future wars between Israel and those specific Gulf states, but not active wars.

The Abraham Accords: The Core Achievement

The normalization agreements between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain (the Abraham Accords) stand as the Trump administration's primary claim to peacemaking. This was a significant accomplishment:

Breaking Taboos: It normalized relations between Israel and major Arab states without requiring prior resolution of the Palestinian issue, shattering a long-standing diplomatic consensus.

Regional Realignment: It reflected and accelerated a regional realignment driven by shared concerns about Iran and economic opportunities.

Diplomatic Facilitation: The U.S. played a crucial role in facilitating the deals, leveraging relationships and incentives.

This achievement generated genuine Nobel Prize speculation at the time. However, the Nobel Committee ultimately did not award it to Trump. Reasons likely include:

The Palestinian Omission: The Accords bypassed the Palestinians, a core party to the broader regional conflict. Critics argued it traded Palestinian rights for Gulf state interests.

Simultaneous Tensions: The Accords occurred alongside heightened tensions with Iran and a stagnation (at best) of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Broader Record: The Committee may have considered the administration's overall foreign policy approach, including the withdrawal from international agreements (Paris Climate Accord, JCPOA, WHO) and rhetoric often seen as divisive or undermining multilateral institutions – the very tools often used for sustained peacebuilding.

GO TO WAR AND YOU WILL GET IT": The Deterrence Argument

The post's aggressive statement reflects a specific philosophy: that projecting overwhelming military strength and a willingness to use it ("peace through strength,"deterrence") is the most effective way to prevent wars. Proponents argue that Trump's unpredictability and bolstering of the U.S. military deterred adversaries from aggression.

Potential Validity: Deterrence is a cornerstone of international relations. A credible threat can prevent conflict.

Significant Caveats:

 Attribution Difficulty: Proving a war didn't happen because of a specific leader's actions is inherently speculative. Other factors (economic interdependence, internal politics of potential aggressors, multilateral pressure) always play a role.

 Unintended Escalation: The "maximum pressure" approach with Iran demonstrates how aggressive posturing can increase the risk of miscalculation and accidental conflict, rather than prevent it. The Soleimani strike brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink.

 Undermining Alliances: Trump's frequent criticism of NATO allies and demands for increased defense spending, while aimed at strengthening the alliance financially, caused significant diplomatic friction and raised questions about U.S. commitment to collective defense – potentially weakening deterrence in the eyes of adversaries like Russia.

Erosion of Norms: Withdrawing from agreements and undermining international institutions can erode the very frameworks that help manage conflicts peacefully over the long term.

The Nobel Peace Prize: Criteria and Context

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Key considerations often include:

1. Concrete Achievements: Tangible results in ending conflict or building peace (e.g., treaties, disarmament).

2. Conflict Prevention: Efforts demonstrably preventing the outbreak of war.

3. Broader Contribution: Work promoting international cooperation, human rights, and institutions that foster lasting peace.

4. Sustained Peace: While not always possible immediately, the long-term viability of the peace achieved is a factor.

5. Method: Peaceful means are generally favored.

Conclusion: A Nuanced Verdict

While fueled by the genuine achievement of the Abraham Accords, the sweeping claim that Donald Trump "stopped wars" in Rwanda, Congo, Serbia, Kosovo, Iran, and Israel, and therefore unequivocally deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, does not withstand detailed scrutiny. The record is complex:

Overstatement: Claims regarding Rwanda/Congo and Serbia/Kosovo lack evidence of decisive conflict-stopping interventions. The Iran-Israel situation demonstrably worsened under "maximum pressure."

Significant Achievement: The Abraham Accords were a landmark diplomatic success, reshaping Middle Eastern relations and reducing tensions between Israel and specific Gulf states.

Contradictory Record: This success coexisted with actions that significantly increased tensions elsewhere (withdrawal from JCPOA) and sidelined a core conflict (Israel-Palestine).

"Deterrence" Debate: The argument that Trump's tough stance prevented wars through deterrence is plausible in theory but difficult to prove and carries significant risks of escalation and alliance erosion.

Nobel Criteria: The Nobel Committee likely weighed the tangible success of the Abraham Accords against the omission of Palestine, the escalation with Iran, and the administration's broader approach to international institutions and cooperation, finding the totality insufficient for the award.

Donald Trump's presidency was marked by unconventional and highly consequential foreign policy moves. The Abraham Accords stand as a legitimate diplomatic victory worthy of recognition. However, the assertion that he singularly stopped multiple wars across the globe, especially in Africa and the Balkans, and dramatically reduced tensions between Iran and Israel, is a significant overreach that overlooks the complexities, contradictions, and escalations that characterized his administration's approach to international peace and security. The path to lasting peace rarely follows a straight line drawn solely by the threat of force, and the Nobel Committee's decision reflects a judgment on the totality of the record, not just its brightest spot.

#Trump #Peace #NobelPeacePrize #Rawonda #Rawanda #Congo #Serbia #Croatia

Whoopi Goldberg Claims To Be Bad Off As Women In Iran

 

Whoopi Goldberg claims that as a Black Woman she has it as bad as a Woman in Iran. Women in Iran have to cover their hair. WHOOPI GOLDBERG (FAKE NAME) gets paid 8 Million Dollars a year to spew that Diahhreah. She can't make that kind of money in ANY OTHER COUNTRY!!!

The Whoopi Goldberg Controversy: Wealth, Suffering, and the Perils of False Equivalence

A recent statement by Whoopi Goldberg ignited a firestorm, perfectly encapsulated by the viral post: "Whoopi Goldberg claims that as a Black Woman she has it as bad as a Woman in Iran. Women in Iran have to cover their hair. WHOOPI GOLDBERG (FAKE NAME) gets paid 8 Million Dollars a year to spew that Diahhreah. She can't make that kind of money in ANY OTHER COUNTRY!!!" This reaction, dripping with outrage and hyperbole, points to a complex collision of identity politics, privilege, global realities, and the immense difficulty of comparing fundamentally different forms of suffering and oppression. Examining this controversy requires dissecting Goldberg's claim, understanding the visceral backlash, and confronting the dangerous pitfalls of false equivalence.

Deconstructing Goldberg's Claim (and the Reaction):

While the exact context and phrasing of Goldberg's statement might be debated (reports suggest it was made during a discussion on "The View" about global women's rights), the core assertion attributed to her is that her experience as a Black woman in America equates to the oppression faced by women living under the Islamic Republic of Iran. This immediately raises profound questions.

The Nature of Oppression in Iran: Reducing the plight of Iranian women solely to mandatory hijab ("have to cover their hair") is a drastic oversimplification, mirroring Goldberg's alleged oversimplification in reverse. Iranian women face a systemic, state-enforced gender apartheid. This includes:

Severe Legal Restrictions: Significantly unequal rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, and testimony in court. A woman's life is legally valued at half a man's in diyah (blood money).

Massive Barriers to Employment and Education: While educated, women face significant discrimination in the workforce and leadership roles.

Restricted Bodily Autonomy: Mandatory hijab laws are enforced with harassment, arrest, fines, and even violence by the morality police. Access to reproductive healthcare is heavily restricted.

Political Disenfranchisement: Women are systematically barred from holding the highest offices and face immense hurdles in political participation.

Violent State Repression: Participation in protests, like the recent "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement, risks imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, and even execution. The state machinery is explicitly designed to subjugate women.

The Reality of Being a Black Woman in America: Goldberg's experience undoubtedly involves facing the persistent, corrosive effects of systemic racism and sexism – the "double jeopardy" Black women navigate. This manifests as:

Structural Racism: Discrimination in housing, employment, healthcare (maternal mortality rates are starkly higher), lending, and the criminal justice system (disproportionate incarceration, police violence).

Intersectional Sexism: Stereotyping ("Angry Black Woman"), wage gaps that exceed those for white women, higher rates of domestic and sexual violence, and erasure of their specific experiences within broader feminist and anti-racist movements.

Microaggressions and Bias: Daily encounters with prejudice, both overt and subtle.

The Core of the Backlash: Privilege and False Equivalence

The viral post's outrage stems from two primary, interconnected sources:

1. The Glaring Privilege Disparity: The post relentlessly hammers on Goldberg's $8 million salary. This isn't just about wealth; it's about **power and agency**. Goldberg's immense platform on "The View," her freedom of speech (however controversial), her ability to travel, choose her career, dress as she pleases, access world-class healthcare, and live without fear of state agents dragging her to prison for expressing an opinion – these are fundamental freedoms largely inaccessible to women under the Iranian regime. Her wealth symbolizes an ocean of privilege separating her lived reality from that of an Iranian woman facing execution for protesting hijab laws. To equate her struggles, however real within the American context, to the *state-enforced subjugation* faced by Iranian women appears, to many, grotesquely tone-deaf and minimizes the severity of the latter.

2.  False Equivalence: This is the critical failure. Comparing the systemic, violent oppression codified into law and brutally enforced by a theocratic state in Iran to the experiences of an ultra-wealthy celebrity in a liberal democracy, however flawed that democracy may be, is analytically bankrupt. They are fundamentally different *categories* of hardship. **Suffering is not a competition, but contexts matter profoundly.** Equating them erases the specific mechanisms, intensities, and lived realities of both situations. It suggests a lack of understanding of the sheer scale of institutionalized misogyny in Iran and risks trivializing it by placing it on the same plane as the discrimination faced by a privileged individual within a system that, despite its deep flaws, offers avenues for protest, legal recourse (however imperfect), and immense personal freedom relative to Iran.

Beyond the Hyperbole: Nuance and the Danger of Dismissal

While the viral post uses inflammatory language ("Fake Name," "spew that Diarrhea"), dismissing its core critique entirely is also unwise.

Celebrity Activism and Perspective: Goldberg's statement highlights a challenge for wealthy celebrities engaging in social justice discourse. Their privilege can create blind spots. Speaking *about* the oppression of others, especially those facing far more extreme circumstances, requires immense humility, deep research, and careful framing to avoid appearing arrogant or dismissive. Claiming equivalence often backfires spectacularly, as seen here.

The Valid Critique Within the Anger: Beneath the rage is a legitimate point: the experiences of women in Iran represent a particularly severe form of state-sponsored gender oppression. To have someone with Goldberg's platform and privilege seemingly equate her situation to theirs feels like an insult to their ongoing struggle and sacrifices. It highlights how privilege can distort perspective.

The "Only in America" Angle: The post's final line ("She can't make that kind of money in ANY OTHER COUNTRY!!!") underscores a point about American media and celebrity culture. Goldberg's platform and salary *are* products of a specific, highly commercialized system. This doesn't negate American racism, but it underscores the unique bubble of extreme wealth and influence she inhabits – a bubble utterly foreign to Iranian women fighting for basic rights.

Conclusion: Acknowledging Suffering Without Erasing Context

Whoopi Goldberg undeniably faces prejudice and challenges as a Black woman in America. Systemic racism and sexism are real, persistent, and inflict daily harm. However, her reported claim of equivalence with women in Iran represents a profound failure of perspective. It ignores the chasm of privilege defined by wealth, personal freedom, and lack of state-sponsored terror that separates her life from theirs. It engages in a false equivalence that minimizes the specific, brutal realities of life under the Islamic Republic's gender apartheid.

The viral backlash, though expressed crudely, taps into a legitimate outrage against this minimization and the perceived arrogance of a wealthy celebrity claiming shared victimhood with those fighting for survival against a repressive regime. It serves as a stark reminder: while solidarity across struggles is vital, it must be built on accurate understanding and deep respect for the vastly different contexts and scales of oppression. Suffering is universal, but its forms and intensities are not. Equating them doesn't elevate understanding; it risks obscuring the harsh truths of both experiences and undermining the fight for justice everywhere. True empathy requires recognizing difference, not insisting on sameness.

#Iran #Whoopi #WhoopiGoldberg #Islam

The Army M1 Abrams Tank

 

The Army M1 Abrams Tank

Another thing about War. The M1 Abrams Tank is one of the most sophisticated ground combat pieces on the planet. The Tankers wear oxygen masks during combat. That is due to the Suppression System in the Tank. If the Tank is hit the oxygen is sucked totally out of the Tank so it can survive a hit. We were told that if a tank's Hull is shattered it is to be covered and⁹ towed immediately. That system is a 'hidden' secret. The main reason for the Suppression System is this. It's easier to replace the Tank Crew on the Battlefield than the Tank.

BTW, the M1 Abrams Tank needs 3 gallons of fuel to the MILE.

The Iron Fist: The M1 Abrams Tank - America's Armored Juggernaut

For over four decades, the hulking silhouette of the M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) has been the undisputed symbol of American armored might. Rolling across deserts, grinding through European forests, and navigating treacherous urban landscapes, this 70-ton steel behemoth is far more than just a vehicle; it's a testament to engineering prowess, battlefield dominance, and continuous evolution. From its Cold War origins to the modern digital battlefield, the Abrams remains the iron fist of the U.S. Army, a platform constantly adapted to meet evolving threats.

Forged in the Cold War Crucible

The Abrams' story begins in the tense atmosphere of the 1970s. The U.S. Army recognized that its aging M60 Patton tanks were increasingly outmatched by the latest Soviet designs like the T-64 and T-72, boasting potent guns and advanced composite armor. The XM1 program was launched, demanding a revolutionary tank prioritizing firepower, protection, and mobility. General Dynamics Land Systems won the contract, and the tank was named after General Creighton W. Abrams, a renowned World War II and Vietnam armored commander.

What emerged was unlike anything before. Key innovations defined it:

1.  Unprecedented Protection: Chobham Armor: The Abrams introduced the revolutionary British-developed Chobham composite armor to the U.S. arsenal. This layered combination of ceramics, steel, and other classified materials offered vastly superior protection against kinetic energy penetrators (like tank shells) and shaped-charge warheads (like RPGs and missiles) compared to traditional steel. The exact composition remains highly classified, a testament to its effectiveness. Later variants incorporated depleted uranium armor layers for even greater kinetic protection.

2.  Jet-Powered Mobility: The Honeywell AGT1500 Turbine Engine: Defying conventional wisdom, the Abrams was powered by a 1,500-horsepower Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine. While notoriously thirsty (famously getting less than half a mile per gallon!), this engine delivered exceptional power-to-weight ratio, enabling the massive tank to reach speeds exceeding 40 mph on roads and navigate challenging cross-country terrain with surprising agility. Its multi-fuel capability (running on diesel, kerosene, or jet fuel) offered logistical flexibility.

3. Firepower Evolution: From 105mm to 120mm Dominance: Initially fielded with a licensed British 105mm L7 rifled gun, the Abrams quickly demonstrated its potential. However, recognizing the need for even greater punch against future Soviet armor, the M1A1 upgrade in the mid-1980s integrated the formidable German Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun. This cannon, significantly more powerful than its predecessor, became the standard, capable of firing a devastating array of ammunition, including armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds that could defeat virtually any contemporary tank at long ranges. The advanced fire control system (FCS), featuring laser rangefinders, thermal sights for the gunner and commander, and a ballistic computer, gave Abrams crews a decisive "see first, shoot first" advantage.

Proving Ground: From Desert Storm to the Global War on Terror

The Abrams wasn't designed for parades; it was forged for combat. Its baptism of fire came in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. The results were staggering. Facing large numbers of Iraqi T-72s and older Soviet tanks, the M1A1s dominated the battlefield. Their superior armor shrugged off hits that would have destroyed earlier tanks, while their thermal sights allowed them to engage accurately through dust, smoke, and darkness at ranges far exceeding the enemy's capabilities. Stories of Abrams tanks surviving multiple hits became legendary. The lopsided victories cemented the tank's reputation for near-invulnerability and lethal effectiveness.

This reputation was further tested, and refined, during the grueling counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. While tanks aren't the primary weapon against insurgents, the Abrams proved adaptable. Its sheer presence provided unmatched intimidation and firepower support. Up-armored variants (like the TUSK - Tank Urban Survival Kit) were developed, adding reactive armor tiles, slat armor to defeat RPGs, remote weapon stations, and improved crew compartment protection for the unique dangers of urban combat – roadside bombs, ambushes, and close-quarter attacks. Crew survivability remained paramount, with numerous instances of Abrams tanks surviving catastrophic IED blasts or RPG hits, allowing crews to escape, albeit sometimes with injuries.

The Ever-Evolving Beast: Modernization and the Future

The U.S. Army has never rested on the Abrams' laurels. Continuous upgrades ensure it remains at the cutting edge:

M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package): This series represents the digital backbone of the modern Abrams. SEP variants feature:

Enhanced Firepower: Improved ballistic computers, thermal sights (like the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer - CITV), and compatibility with advanced ammunition like the M829 APFSDS series.

Digital Dominance: Fully integrated digital systems (FBCB2/BFT, now part of the Army's Common Operating Environment) provide real-time blue-force tracking, situational awareness, and networked communications, linking the tank seamlessly into the broader battlefield network.

Improved Survivability: Upgraded armor packages, improved nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) protection, and auxiliary power units (APUs) allowing silent operation of systems without running the main engine.

M1A2 SEPv2 & SEPv3: The latest fielded variants push capabilities further. SEPv3 (sometimes designated M1A2C) includes:

Enhanced Power Generation: To support ever-increasing electrical demands of sensors and systems.

Improved Armor: Next-generation armor packages.

Active Protection Systems (APS): Integration of the Israeli Trophy HV hard-kill APS, designed to detect and physically intercept incoming anti-tank rockets and missiles before they hit the tank, representing a revolutionary leap in survivability against modern threats like advanced ATGMs.

New Ammunition Data Link: Enabling the use of next-generation programmable munitions.

M1A2 SEPv4 (M1A2D) and Beyond: Future upgrades focus on:

Lethality: Integration of a new, more powerful main gun (potentially a 130mm or advanced 120mm) and associated autoloader systems.

Survivability: Continued APS integration and advanced countermeasures.

Networking: Deeper integration into the Army's Integrated Tactical Network (ITN) and Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concepts.

Mobility: Potential for a new, more fuel-efficient powerpack (hybrid electric drive has been explored).

The Shadow of NGAB (Next Generation Abrams): While the SEP upgrades will keep the Abrams viable for decades, the Army is already looking ahead. The NGAB program aims to field a completely new MBT sometime post-2030, likely incorporating lessons from the Abrams but emphasizing reduced weight/signature, leap-ahead survivability (potentially through advanced APS and electric armor), artificial intelligence integration, and optionally manned capabilities.

Enduring Symbol and Strategic Asset

The M1 Abrams is more than just a collection of steel, electronics, and firepower. It represents a core tenet of U.S. military doctrine: overwhelming technological superiority and the ability to project decisive force anywhere on the globe. Its imposing presence deters adversaries. Its combat-proven capabilities assure allies. Its continuous evolution demonstrates America's commitment to maintaining armored dominance.

While debates about the role of heavy armor in future conflicts persist, the Abrams has consistently proven its adaptability and resilience. From the vast deserts of the Middle East to the potentially contested forests of Europe, the rumble of the Abrams' turbine engine remains a potent reminder of American ground power. It is a complex machine, demanding immense logistical support and highly trained crews, but for over 40 years, it has delivered an unmatched combination of protection, firepower, and mobility. As it evolves through SEPv4 and potentially paves the way for NGAB, the M1 Abrams, America's armored juggernaut, ensures that the iron fist remains ready, capable, and dominant on the battlefields of today and tomorrow.

#Military #M1ABRAMSTANK #Tank #War

When I was in Desert Shield we walked into a SAFEWAY store in Saudi Arabia. I go into the Meat Market and I see 'Goat Spleen' displayed like a pork chop.

 

When I was in Desert Shield (Before Desert Storm) we walked into a SAFEWAY store in Saudi Arabia. I go into the Meat Market and I see 'Goat Spleen' displayed like a pork chop.

I'm thinking, "When the hell am I going home?"

#Safeway #Military #DesertStorm #DesertShield #SaudiArabia #Food #Meat #Safeway

The Unsung Elixir: Goat Spleen, A Delicacy Steeped in History and Flavor

In the vast, intricate tapestry of global cuisine, delicacies often emerge not from extravagance, but from necessity, tradition, and a profound respect for the entirety of an animal. Among these, nestled alongside more familiar offal like liver or kidney, lies a less celebrated but deeply intriguing organ: the goat spleen. Often overlooked or discarded in many Western kitchens, goat spleen holds a place of surprising reverence and culinary intrigue in diverse cultures across the globe. Far from being mere scraps, it transforms, through skilled preparation and cultural wisdom, into a unique delicatessen – a morsel prized for its distinct texture, concentrated flavor, and historical significance.

Beyond Waste: The Spleen's Functional and Cultural Pedigree

Understanding goat spleen as a delicacy requires moving beyond its biological function. As a vital organ in the lymphatic system, the spleen filters blood, recycles old red blood cells, and aids in immune response. Its deep burgundy color and dense, spongy texture reflect this role. Historically, however, communities practicing true nose-to-tail eating recognized that this organ, like others, held nutritional value and culinary potential. Discarding it was not just wasteful, but a missed opportunity.

This ethos is deeply embedded in cultures where goats are a primary livestock source, particularly across the Mediterranean, Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia. In these regions, resourcefulness dictated that every part of the animal be utilized. The spleen, while perhaps requiring more specific handling than muscle meat, became integrated into culinary traditions passed down through generations. Its consumption is often linked to beliefs about strength, vitality, and even purification, stemming from its blood-filtering role.

A Symphony of Taste and Texture: Defining the Delicacy

So, what makes goat spleen a delicatessen? Its appeal lies in its uniqueness:

1.  Flavor Profile: Goat spleen possesses an intensely mineral-rich, earthy, and deeply savory taste, often described as "iron-rich" or "blood-like" but in a concentrated, almost primal way. This robust flavor is distinct from liver (less sweet) or kidney (less pungent). It carries the essence of the animal in a profound manner. When properly cleaned and prepared, this minerality is balanced, not overwhelming, becoming a desirable complexity rather than a flaw.

2.  Texture: This is where spleen truly stands apart. Cooked correctly, it offers a unique dense, slightly springy, yet tender chew. It's not meltingly soft like some offal, nor is it tough. The texture is often likened to a firm mushroom or a very tender piece of cartilage, providing a satisfying mouthfeel that contrasts beautifully with accompaniments. Undercooked, it can be rubbery; overcooked, it risks becoming dry and grainy – precision is key.

3.  Nutritional Punch: Like many organ meats, spleen is a nutritional powerhouse. It's exceptionally rich in heme iron, highly bioavailable and crucial for preventing anemia. It boasts significant amounts of Vitamin B12 (essential for nerve function and blood cell formation), Zinc (immune support), Copper, and high-quality protein. Historically, this nutrient density contributed to its value, especially for laborers or in times of scarcity.

Global Expressions: How Goat Spleen Graces the Table

The transformation of goat spleen from raw organ to delicatessen is an art form practiced in various captivating ways:

1.The Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Grill: Perhaps the most iconic preparation is grilling over charcoal. In Greece (known as "splinantero"), Turkey ("dalak"), Lebanon, and beyond, cleaned spleen is often marinated simply with olive oil, lemon juice, oregano (or other regional herbs like thyme or mint), garlic, salt, and pepper. Skewered alone or sometimes wrapped in caul fat (a delicate membrane) for added moisture and flavor, it's grilled quickly over high heat. The exterior chars slightly, developing smoky notes that counterbalance the rich interior, served often with lemon wedges and bread. This method highlights its inherent texture and savory depth.

2.  Stews and Tagines: In North Africa, particularly Morocco, goat spleen finds its way into complex, slow-cooked tagine and stews. Finely chopped or sliced, it melds into the rich sauce base, absorbing the aromatic spices – cumin, coriander, cinnamon, ginger, saffron – and contributing its deep umami and thickening properties. Here, the spleen's flavor becomes an integrated, supporting element, enriching the overall dish rather than being the sole star.

3.  Sausages and Pâtés: The spleen's dense texture and rich flavor make it an excellent, though less common, addition to sausages (like some traditional Mediterranean or Middle Eastern varieties) or rustic pâtés and terrines. Finely minced, it adds depth, moisture, and nutritional value without dominating. Historically, it was a practical way to utilize every scrap efficiently.

4.  Frying and Sautéing: Quick frying in hot oil or sautéing with onions, peppers, and robust spices is another popular method, especially in street food contexts or home cooking in parts of Asia and the Middle East. This yields a slightly crispy exterior while keeping the inside tender. It might be served as a mezze, in a sandwich, or alongside rice.

5.  Japanese "Rebā" (Liver) Yakitori - The Spleen Exception: While primarily known for chicken, yakitori grills in Japan sometimes offer "hatsu" – which can refer to heart, but occasionally includes spleen (technically "milt" or "suzume" might be used, but context is key). Grilled simply with salt (shio) or a sweet tare sauce, it offers a unique, chewy bite prized by offal enthusiasts.

The Art of Preparation: Handling the Delicacy

Treating goat spleen as a true delicatessen demands careful preparation:

1.  Sourcing: Freshness is paramount. It should be a deep, consistent red-purple color, firm to the touch, with no unpleasant odor. Sourcing from reputable butchers or markets specializing in whole-animal butchery is ideal.

2.  Cleaning: Meticulous cleaning is essential. The spleen often has a thin outer membrane that may need removal, and any visible blood vessels or connective tissue should be trimmed. A thorough rinse under cold water is necessary. Some traditions involve soaking briefly in milk or vinegar water to temper the minerality, though this is debated.

3.  Cooking: The key is avoiding overcooking. High-heat, fast methods like grilling, frying, or quick sautéing are preferred to achieve a seared exterior and tender, slightly springy interior. Slow-cooking integrates it well into stews but requires careful timing to prevent disintegration. Its natural density means it benefits from marinating to add flavor complexity.

Modern Revival and Challenges

In the era of industrialized meat production, offal like spleen fell out of favor in many Western diets, often associated with poverty or perceived "grossness." However, the modern culinary renaissance, driven by:

The Nose-to-Tail Movement: Championed by chefs like Fergus Henderson, this philosophy emphasizes ethical consumption and reducing waste, bringing forgotten cuts, including spleen, back into the spotlight of adventurous restaurants.

Nutritional Awareness: The recognition of organ meats as superfoods boosts interest.

Culinary Adventurism: Diners increasingly seek unique, authentic, and challenging flavor experiences.

Sustainability: Utilizing the whole animal aligns strongly with sustainable food practices.

This has sparked a renewed, albeit niche, interest in goat spleen. Specialty butchers, adventurous restaurants (particularly those focusing on Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, or "whole beast" cuisine), and culinary explorers are rediscovering its potential. However, challenges remain:

Acquiring the Taste: The distinct mineral flavor and unique texture are acquired tastes for many unfamiliar palates.

Availability: It's still not commonly stocked in mainstream supermarkets.

Perception: Overcoming deep-seated cultural aversions to offal takes time and education.

Preparation Skill: Cooking it well requires knowledge and practice to avoid textural pitfalls.

Conclusion: An Enduring Testament to Culinary Wisdom

Goat spleen, as a delicatessen, is more than just an oddity or a historical curiosity. It stands as a testament to human ingenuity, cultural diversity, and a deep-seated respect for the resources nature provides. It embodies the principle that true delicacy isn't always about luxury in the conventional sense, but about the transformation of the humble and overlooked into something prized through skill, tradition, and understanding.

From the smoky grills of Athens to the aromatic tagines of Marrakech, from bustling Asian street stalls to the cutting-edge kitchens of nose-to-tail advocates, goat spleen continues its journey. It offers a profound, earthy flavor, a satisfyingly unique texture, and a remarkable nutritional profile. For the adventurous eater and the culturally curious, seeking out well-prepared goat spleen is not just a culinary experiment; it's an act of connecting with ancient foodways, embracing sustainability, and discovering a complex, deeply savory delight that has earned its place as a true, if unsung, delicacy of the world. It is a reminder that sometimes, the most extraordinary flavors lie in the parts we've forgotten to appreciate. As Anthony Bourdain might have said, it's the kind of experience that expands your culinary universe, one challenging, rewarding bite at a time.

What Is A Woman?

 

"What Is A Woman?" (Opinion)

Lately we have seen Judges and Politicians having a hard time defining what a Woman is. They seem to lock up and you can almost see the smoke come out of their ears while trying to avoid the question. The Governor of Illinois locked up last week when asked by a Florida Congressman. He couldn't handle the  question and he is a Billionaire.

I'm not a Woman, Doctor, Scientist, Judge, Politician, or a Gynecologist (I wish). However, I'm gonna try to answer the 'question'..

A Woman is a Female Human having XX Chromosomes,  usually wider hips for the purpose of supporting child birth. Women have a Vagina, Ovaries and other organs Men DO NOT HAVE for the purpose of procreation. Women are nurturing and are loyal to their mate. Women usually have softer voices, smell better, and more fun to look at.

That's all I got. Like a Drill Instructor said once: "Private, a Drill Instructor can only break it down SO LOW.

If you plan on testifying in front of Congress and don't know what to say COPY and PASTE this.

Oh, feel free if I got the 'WOMAN' thing wrong.

#whatisawoman #women #woman #politics

No Kings ... Seriously?

 

#Trump #Democrats #Primary #Harris

Mexico City: Never before had the United States military occupied the capital of a defeated foreign power

 

The MARINES went ALL THE WAY!!! 

Never before had the United States military occupied the capital of a defeated foreign power

"The U.S. troops who marched into Mexico City on September 14, 1847, were unique. Never before had the United States military occupied the capital of a defeated foreign power."

FAFO...

Uncharted Territory: The Unprecedented Occupation of Mexico City and the Forging of American Power

The image is stark: columns of American infantry, their uniforms dusty from the march, their faces etched with the fatigue of a long campaign, marching through the grand Plaza de la Constitución – the Zócalo – in the heart of Mexico City on September 14, 1847. Before them stood the imposing National Palace, the very seat of Mexican sovereignty. This moment, the formal occupation of a defeated foreign capital by the United States Army, was more than just a dramatic climax to the Mexican-American War; it was a profound historical watershed. As the opening statement declares, these troops were unique: **never before had the United States military occupied the capital of a defeated foreign power.** This singular event marked a decisive, and controversial, step in the nation's transformation from a regional power into one capable of projecting force far beyond its borders, setting precedents that would echo through the following century.

The Long Road to the Halls of Montezuma

To grasp the significance of September 14th, one must understand the arduous and bloody path that led there. The Mexican-American War (1846-1848) erupted from a volatile cocktail of American expansionist fervor ("Manifest Destiny"), unresolved border disputes following Texas annexation, and deep-seated Mexican resentment over the loss of its northern territory. President James K. Polk, driven by a vision of continental empire stretching to the Pacific, provoked a conflict after Mexican forces clashed with U.S. troops in the disputed territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande.

Initial American campaigns focused on the northern Mexican provinces and California. Victories at Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma, Monterrey, and Buena Vista, coupled with the relatively swift conquest of California, demonstrated American military capability but did not break Mexican resolve. President Santa Anna, despite setbacks, refused to negotiate terms acceptable to Polk, who demanded vast territorial concessions, including California and New Mexico.

Frustrated by the stalemate, Polk and his advisors conceived a daring, high-risk strategy: a direct amphibious assault on the port of Veracruz, followed by a march over 260 miles inland, through rugged mountains and disease-ridden lowlands, to strike at the heart of Mexico itself – Mexico City. Command of this audacious expedition fell to General Winfield Scott, a veteran of the War of 1812 known for his meticulous planning, administrative skill, and occasional vanity. Scott, recognizing the enormity of the task, assembled a formidable force of approximately 12,000 regulars and volunteers, the core of the U.S. Army at the time.

Scott's Masterstroke: From Veracruz to the Valley of Mexico

The campaign began brilliantly. In March 1847, Scott executed a textbook amphibious landing south of Veracruz, besieged the heavily fortified city, and compelled its surrender after a devastating naval and artillery bombardment. This secured a vital port for supply and reinforcement, though it also generated controversy due to civilian casualties. Leaving a garrison behind, Scott then faced his greatest challenge: marching inland towards the Mexican highlands and the capital.

Santa Anna, anticipating Scott's route, fortified the mountain pass at Cerro Gordo. In April 1847, Scott outmaneuvered him. Engineers, including a young Captain Robert E. Lee, found a path to flank the Mexican positions. A fierce assault routed Santa Anna's army, capturing thousands of prisoners and opening the road towards the Valley of Mexico. The march itself was a logistical nightmare, plagued by guerrilla attacks (guerrillas), the ever-present threat of yellow fever and malaria in the tierra caliente (hot lands), and the challenge of maintaining supply lines stretching back to Veracruz. Scott's strict discipline regarding civilian property (at least initially) and his ability to keep his army intact through these trials were remarkable feats of leadership.

By August, Scott's army, though depleted by disease and the need to garrison key points, stood at the gates of the Valley of Mexico. The final approach to the capital was guarded by formidable natural and man-made defenses: the fortified hill of Chapultepec Castle, marshes, and causeways leading into the city. Santa Anna had concentrated his remaining forces for a desperate last stand.

The Bloody Crescendo: Contreras, Churubusco, Molino del Rey, and Chapultepec

The battles for the approaches to Mexico City were among the fiercest and costliest of the war:

Contreras & Churubusco (August 19-20): In a stunning display of maneuver and aggression, Scott's troops overwhelmed Mexican positions at Contreras in a matter of hours, then immediately pressed the attack at the fortified convent of Churubusco. The fighting was brutal and close-quarters, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides. The U.S. victory shattered Santa Anna's main field army outside the city. Scott, hoping the defeat would compel negotiations, offered an armistice (the Truce of Tacubaya), but it collapsed when the Mexican government, pressured by hardliners, rejected Polk's stringent territorial demands.

Molino del Rey (September 8): Believing the Molino (a former flour mill) housed a cannon foundry, Scott ordered a costly frontal assault. The battle was a bloody, confused melee, with U.S. forces eventually prevailing but suffering significant losses. The strategic value proved minimal.

Chapultepec (September 13): The final obstacle. Chapultepec Castle, perched atop a rocky hill, housed the Mexican Military Academy and was garrisoned by cadets (the legendary Niños Héroes) and regular troops. After a day-long artillery bombardment, U.S. infantry launched assaults up the steep slopes. The fighting was desperate and heroic on both sides. The castle fell, opening the causeways directly into the city. The sight of the American flag flying over Chapultepec signaled the inevitable.

The March In: Unprecedented Occupation

With Chapultepec fallen and Mexican defenses crumbling, Santa Anna evacuated his remaining troops from the capital during the night of September 13th-14th. He left behind a power vacuum and a city gripped by uncertainty, fear, and sporadic looting by its own populace. Early on the 14th, a delegation of city officials approached Scott seeking terms to prevent destruction and chaos. Scott, understanding the historical weight of the moment and seeking to impose order, demanded the formal surrender of the city.

That afternoon, with meticulous ceremony designed to project control and deter resistance, the U.S. Army marched into Mexico City. Brigadier General John A. Quitman's division led the way, followed by Worth's and later other units. They entered through the Garita de Belén and marched to the Zócalo, occupying the National Palace, the Cathedral, and key government buildings. Scott himself soon established his headquarters in the National Palace, the "Halls of Montezuma" referenced in the future Marines' Hymn.

This was the unprecedented act. For the first time in its history, the United States military stood as an occupying force within the capital city of a conquered sovereign nation. The symbolism was immense and multifaceted:

1.  Manifest Destiny Achieved (Violently): It represented the brutal culmination of Manifest Destiny, demonstrating the U.S. had the military might to seize vast territories against a determined, if outmatched, neighbor.

2.  A New Kind of Power: It signaled a dramatic shift in the nature of American power. This was no longer just frontier skirmishing or coastal raids; it was a complex, large-scale invasion and occupation of a foreign state's political and cultural heart.

3.  The Burden of Occupation: It thrust the U.S. Army into the unfamiliar and challenging role of military governor. Scott immediately declared martial law and set about the difficult tasks of restoring order, suppressing lingering guerrilla activity, managing sanitation (a cholera outbreak soon ravaged both occupiers and occupied), provisioning his army, and dealing with a hostile population.

4.  The View from Below: For Mexicans, the occupation was a profound national humiliation. The sight of foreign troops in their central plaza, controlling their government buildings, was a searing trauma that shaped national identity and resentment towards the norteamericanos for generations. While Scott generally maintained discipline and attempted a policy of relative conciliation (compared to the scorched-earth policies sometimes advocated), the occupation was inherently oppressive and fueled resistance.

Life Under the Eagle: The Challenges of Occupation

Scott’s occupation, lasting until the withdrawal following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in mid-1848, was fraught with difficulty:

Guerrilla Warfare: While conventional resistance ended, guerrilla attacks on supply lines and isolated patrols continued, requiring constant vigilance and often brutal counter-insurgency tactics that blurred the lines between combatants and civilians.

Disease: The cholera epidemic that broke out in late 1847 proved deadlier than Mexican bullets, killing thousands of American soldiers and countless Mexican civilians, severely weakening Scott's force and complicating administration.

Political Complexity: Scott had to navigate the remnants of the Mexican government (which had fled), deal with local officials, and manage the intense political pressures emanating from Washington, where Polk distrusted his ambitious general.

Cultural Friction: Deep cultural differences, language barriers, and mutual suspicion made governance and daily interactions tense. American racial prejudices towards Mexicans frequently surfaced.

Maintaining Morale and Discipline: Keeping an occupying force, far from home in a hostile environment, disciplined and effective was a constant challenge for officers. Incidents of drunkenness, friction with locals, and desertion occurred.

Despite these challenges, Scott's administration is often noted for its relative efficiency and restraint compared to other occupations of the era. He established military tribunals, attempted to respect (some) property rights and Catholic institutions, and focused on restoring essential services. However, the fundamental reality remained: Mexico City was under the boot of a foreign invader.

Echoes of Empire: The Legacy of September 14, 1847

The occupation of Mexico City was not an end, but a beginning with profound and lasting consequences:

1.  Territorial Transformation: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 1848), negotiated from the undeniable position of strength afforded by the occupation, forced Mexico to cede over half its territory – present-day California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. This vast acquisition fulfilled Polk's expansionist dream but came at a tremendous human cost and embedded a legacy of distrust along the new border.

2.  A Military Precedent: The successful campaign proved the U.S. could project power over vast distances, conduct complex combined operations (land and sea), and sustain a major army in hostile territory. It served as a grim template for future interventions. The professionalism honed by junior officers (Lee, Grant, Jackson, Longstreet, Meade, etc.) during this war would soon be turned against each other in the Civil War.

3.  The Stain of Conquest: The war and occupation were deeply controversial within the United States itself. Figures like Abraham Lincoln (then a Congressman) and Henry David Thoreau condemned it as an unjust war of aggression waged by a stronger power against a weaker neighbor solely for territorial gain. The question of extending slavery into the new territories further poisoned national politics, accelerating the slide towards civil war.

4.  The "Vietnam" of its Day?: The war proved far longer, bloodier, and more expensive than Polk anticipated. The fierce Mexican resistance, the guerrilla warfare, and the heavy casualties (especially from disease) foreshadowed the complexities and costs of asymmetric warfare and foreign occupations that the U.S. would grapple with in the future.

5.  Defining U.S.-Mexican Relations: The war and occupation cast a long, dark shadow over U.S.-Mexican relations. The perception of American bullying, the loss of territory (*"the mutilation"*), and the humiliation of the occupation became foundational elements of Mexican national consciousness, creating a legacy of resentment and suspicion that persists, albeit evolving, to this day.

6.  The Threshold of Empire: September 14, 1847, marked the moment the United States, however tentatively and controversially, stepped onto the stage as an occupying power. While it retreated after the treaty, the precedent was set. The next time U.S. forces occupied a foreign capital – Manila in 1898 during the Spanish-American War – the echoes of Mexico City were unmistakable. The path to 20th-century interventions and the complexities of managing post-conflict societies began on the march into the Zócalo.

Conclusion: The Weight of the First Step

The U.S. troops who marched into Mexico City on that September day in 1847 were indeed unique. They carried the ambitions of a young, expansionist nation into the very heart of an ancient civilization, achieving a military feat unprecedented in American history. Their victory cemented the United States as a continental power and reshaped the map of North America. Yet, their occupation of the National Palace was not simply a triumph; it was a harbinger. It revealed the potent, and perilous, capabilities of American military force when projected beyond its borders. It demonstrated the immense logistical, political, and moral complexities of ruling a conquered people, even temporarily. And it sowed seeds of bitterness and distrust that took generations to even begin to heal. The occupation of Mexico City was a pivotal, defining moment – the first, fateful step onto the uncharted and often treacherous ground of superpower status, a step whose consequences, both glorious and grievous, continue to resonate. It proved that America *could* take a foreign capital; the enduring question, posed then and repeated since, was *should* it, and at what cost to others and to its own ideals?

#Mexico #Marines #Protests #California #LA #LosAngeles 

Are Government Operated Grocery Stores COMING TO AMERICA?

 

Are Government Operated Grocery Stores COMING TO AMERICA?

The Chicago Mayor, being the Marxist that he is, has been pushing Government operated grocery stores. Chicago policies have made businesses, including 4 Walmart stores, to pack up and leave town. So instead of making it more business attractive he wants to do a Government takeover of the distribution of food.

Communism: When the Government controls production and distribution of goods.

If that ever happens, you are smack dab headed to Communism. This is why history is important. The Marxists and Communists play the LONG GAME. They have planned this for decades.

'As Nikita Khrushchev said in 1956: “We will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within”.'

#Communism #Nazis #USSR #NikitaKhrushchev #Marxist #Chicago #Food #Grocery

Should Cities Open Their Own Grocery Stores?

Forty million Americans live in food deserts. Can government-owned grocery stores fix this?

Why City-Run Grocery Stores Are a Bad Idea

Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s public supermarket proposal would run into the same problems as New York’s failed experiment in public housing.

 

U.S. House Votes to “Defund” Planned Parenthood in Budget Bill 

#PlannedParenthood #Abortion #ProLife #BigBeautifulBill

The Tariff Act of 1789: Foundation of American Economic Policy

 

The Tariff Act of 1789: Foundation of American Economic Policy

In the nascent years of the United States, the federal government faced a daunting challenge: establishing its authority and stabilizing a fragile economy. The Tariff Act of 1789, signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, emerged as a cornerstone of this effort. As the first major legislative achievement under the new Constitution, the act not only addressed urgent fiscal needs but also laid the groundwork for the nation’s economic identity. This article explores the context, provisions, debates, and enduring legacy of this pivotal legislation.

Historical Context: A Nation in Search of Stability

The ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 marked a turning point for the young republic. Under the preceding Articles of Confederation, the federal government lacked the power to levy taxes, relying instead on voluntary contributions from states—a system that proved disastrously ineffective. By the late 1780s, the U.S. was mired in debt from the Revolutionary War, its credit in ruins, and its ability to fund basic operations in jeopardy. The Constitution’s Framers sought to rectify these weaknesses by empowering Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises" (Article I, Section 8), setting the stage for the Tariff Act of 1789.

Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, appointed by Washington in September 1789, championed the act as part of his broader vision for a robust federal economy. Hamilton’s financial plan emphasized centralized fiscal authority, debt assumption, and the promotion of domestic industry—all themes reflected in the tariff legislation.

Objectives and Provisions: Revenue and Protection

The Tariff Act had dual aims: to generate revenue and to protect emerging American industries. Revenue was the immediate priority. The government needed funds to pay wartime debts, finance operations, and secure international credit. However, the act also introduced moderate protectionist measures, aligning with Hamilton’s belief in fostering self-sufficiency to reduce reliance on European imports.

Key Provisions:

1. Duties on Imports: The act imposed specific duties (based on quantity) and ad valorem taxes (based on value) on a range of goods. Luxury items such as wine, coffee, and tea faced higher rates (up to 50% for certain spirits), while essentials like salt were taxed minimally or exempted. Manufactured goods, including steel, glass, and textiles, were taxed at 7.5–15%, aiming to shield nascent industries from British competition.

2. Tonnage Taxes: The act levied taxes on shipping tonnage to bolster the American merchant marine. U.S.-owned ships paid 6 cents per ton, foreign-built but American-owned ships 30 cents, and foreign vessels 50 cents. This differential incentivized the use of domestic ships, strengthening maritime trade.

3. Compromises: To secure passage, the act balanced regional interests. Southern agrarian states, reliant on imported goods and fearful of export retaliation, accepted moderate tariffs in exchange for federal assumption of state debts—a later component of Hamilton’s plan.

Debates and Divisions: Seeds of Sectional Conflict

While the Tariff Act passed with relative ease, it foreshadowed enduring regional tensions. Northern states, home to budding industries, supported protectionist measures. Southern states, whose economies depended on exporting cash crops like tobacco and cotton, opposed high tariffs, fearing increased costs for imports and retaliatory duties abroad. James Madison, then a Virginia congressman and key sponsor of the act, navigated these divisions by emphasizing revenue over overt protectionism.

The debate also reflected broader ideological clashes. Hamilton’s Federalists advocated for a strong central government and industrialized economy, while Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans favored agrarianism and states’ rights. Though the 1789 tariff avoided extreme measures, it set a precedent for future conflicts, such as the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when South Carolina challenged protective tariffs.

Impact: Stabilizing the Economy

The Tariff Act achieved its primary goal: by 1790, tariffs accounted for over 95% of federal revenue, generating approximately $4.4 million annually. This influx enabled the government to fund operations, service debts, and establish financial credibility—a critical step in Hamilton’s plan to assume state debts and create a national bank. The act also provided modest protection to industries, though its success here was limited compared to later tariffs.

The tonnage tax bolstered the merchant marine, contributing to a tripling of U.S. shipping tonnage by 1800. This growth enhanced trade efficiency and reduced dependence on foreign vessels, aligning with Hamilton’s vision of economic independence.

Legacy: A Blueprint for Economic Policy

The Tariff Act of 1789 left an indelible mark on U.S. policy. It established tariffs as the federal government’s primary revenue source for over a century, until the 1913 income tax amendment. More importantly, it demonstrated the federal government’s capacity to enact effective economic legislation under the Constitution, reinforcing its authority and setting precedents for future interventions.

The act also highlighted the tension between revenue generation and protectionism—a duality that shaped 19th-century politics. Subsequent tariffs, such as the controversial 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," intensified sectional strife, underscoring how economic policies could exacerbate regional divides. These conflicts ultimately contributed to the Civil War, illustrating the far-reaching implications of the 1789 act’s legacy.

Conclusion: A Foundation for the Future

The Tariff Act of 1789 was more than a fiscal measure; it was a declaration of the federal government’s role in shaping the nation’s economic destiny. By balancing immediate fiscal needs with long-term industrial goals, it reflected the pragmatic compromises necessary to unite a diverse and fledgling nation. As the first Congress’s signature achievement, the act underscored the viability of the Constitution and laid the groundwork for America’s rise as an economic power. Its legacy endures in ongoing debates over trade, taxation, and the balance between federal authority and regional interests—a testament to its foundational role in American history.

#Economy #History #Tariff #Tariffs #GeorgeWashington