Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Before I begin this analysis of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences, I want to warn people that this examination is going to be largely secular and nuanced; which means people on both sides of the divide are going to piss and moan about it. Frankly, I don’t care.

To be clear, I’m not interested in the “plight” of the Palestinians, the Islamic regime in Iran or the conspiracy theories of “groypers.” I find appeals of empathy and compassion for Islamic societies to be naive – They are perfectly indifferent and hostile to the west, they always have been. They have also formed political alliances with far-left organizations in the US and Europe with the intent to burn the west to the ground. I do not waste my time worrying about them.

In fairness, I also don’t care about the Israeli government and I have no vested interest in whether or not they survive. In the past, Israeli supported organizations have helped in the formation of militant leftist groups and anti-conservative sentiments in the US. The fact that leftist activists have turned on Israel in recent years is rather poetic.

I recognize many Christians would disagree with this position in the belief that Israel is the only western ally keeping watch over the Holy Land. I argue that it should be western Christians (not Israelis) in charge of the region, given it was ours (through the Holy Roman Empire) for centuries, until the Muslim hordes invaded.

I’m also aware that there are numerous disinformation agents online who are paid by both sides. Israel as well as Islamic governments run these digital operations constantly. They expend vast amounts of money to employ armies of social media shills. Their singular job is to disrupt sincere discussion and sway American opinion to support one side or the other.

This tells me a lot about how important the US population is to the geopolitical future of the world. Everyone wants us to pick their team or hate their opponent.

What I care about first and foremost is how geopolitical events and our involvement will affect America and American interests. What I have learned in recent years, though, is that it’s easy enough to predict events but not necessarily outcomes. There are people out there that think every international conflict or crisis is going to end in global doom.

None of them have so far. Of course, all it takes is the right crisis to trigger a Black Swan. This is where I think many of us in the alternative media build lighthouses, warding ships away from the rocky shores of any incident that might become a world-ending singularity.

It’s important to understand that dramatic geopolitical shifts have the potential to act as “linchpins”, impacting our lives through a chain of dominoes that is not immediately apparent until years later. Potential does not mean certainty. As I’ve been pointing out for many years now – collapse is a process, not an event.

In spring of 2024 in my article “Iran vs Israel: What Happens Next Now That Shots Have Been Fired?” I predicted the development of an unavoidable war footing between Iran and the US (with Israel as instigator or convenient rationale) and I argued that this would escalate in the spring of 2025. I was one year off.

In that article I predicted initial air strikes of primary targets. I predicted Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz (which has now happened). I predicted a ground invasion into Lebanon by Israel (which has not happened yet), followed by the eventual ground invasion by US and Israeli forces into Iran.

Immediate consequences could include a spike in oil and gas prices (over 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz). Then there’s elevated possibility of planned and autonomous terror attacks (the recent mass shooting in Austin, TX appears to be the first). There’s the danger of a potential military draft should the war carry on for more than a couple years or if it turns into an occupation dealing with a large insurgency.

Finally, there is the growing chance of increasing hostility with Russia and China leading to an eventual catalyst that causes world war. This is a worst-case scenario viewpoint of the conflict, and not necessarily the most likely outcome.

For example, in Venezuela, black pillers wailed and raged over Donald Trump’s black-bag operation that resulted in the capture of illegitimate dictator Nicolas Maduro. They claimed with certainty that this action would initiate Vietnam Part II. They were entirely wrong.

Millions of Venezuelans around the world rejoiced and the Venezuelan population has done nothing in the name of bringing Maduro back. Trump’s critics ignored the applause from Venezuelan nationals and argued that their opinions don’t matter.

Why? Because their support of Trump’s invasion is inconvenient to the narrative that he’s a “mindless warmonger” and that he is “betraying his voter base.” This is a childish response to complex geopolitical dynamics.

Many dictatorships deserve to die. The libertarian methodology of sitting around and doing nothing while bitching about the people who take action is growing stale. The American public is not inspired by passivity. This does not mean we should go to war with Iran, per se, but I think US patriots are done with ego-stroking debates on constitutional and ideological theory. They want to see results.

If moral justification is the issue, then there is a fair case to be made for the decapitation of the Islamic regime in Iran. The Iranian government engages in the same brutal theocratic oppression we have seen with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but on an industrial scale. If you are a woman, a political dissident or a religious minority in Iran, you have no rights and can be arrested or murdered for any reason at any given moment.

Just because Muslims happen to agree with conservatives that transgender activists are predatory lunatics does not mean we have anything else in common.

Most critics will argue that regime change in Iran is only meant to benefit Israel and not the Iranian people. It actually benefits MANY countries, not just Israel. I would also argue that Trump’s REAL goal is probably to further isolate China from its international oil sources, while Israel is a secondary concern (or a useful excuse).

Trump’s decapitation strategy against Venezuela, his policies on the Panama Canal and his Iran strikes conveniently cut China off from around 20% of its oil resources. This is significant and could change China’s military development efforts dramatically. That said, just because Trump was right on Venezuela does not mean he will be right on Iran.

The US is very good at taking out enemy leadership and blowing stuff up. We are completely inept when it comes to occupation and this is where we always lose. Occupation requires majority support of the foreign population. Without it, there is no point.

In Iran, Trump MIGHT have it. We have to wait and see what the Iranian population does in reaction to the decapitation strikes. If too large a percentage of the populace throws support behind the Islamists, then the limited strikes will have to evolve into a ground war, and a ground war without domestic alliances would turn into a quagmire.

Then there’s the question of the Strait of Hormuz. Clearing the strait and keeping it operational will be difficult. Iran can run interference on oil shipping for months merely by targeting tankers with thousand of drones. I don’t have to explain what one Shahed drone can do to a ship loaded with combustible oil.

If it was my operation, I would target the strait with long range artillery or ballistic missiles supported by drone spotters. All it takes is one large sunken ship to close the Hormuz for weeks. This is a problem IF Trump’s strikes on top officials do not inspire a popular revolution.

The Hormuz closure will mean higher gas prices (though, I suspect part of Trump’s strategy is to use Venezuelan oil exports to offset the Hormuz bottleneck). If Trump can’t keep prices relatively low, then the American public will be very unhappy. We already spent four years suffering under Biden’s inflation. We can’t absorb any more.

Russian and Chinese involvement in the region appears to be limited to weapon sales and logistics. Russia does have a Strategic Partnership Treaty with Iran, but it does not contain a mutual defense clause. I worry far more that elitists in Europe are doing everything in their power to start a world war with Russia by interfering in Ukraine.

Speaking of the OTHER conflict in the east, it’s interesting to me that, under the Biden Administration, Democrats avidly and rabidly demanded direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. Like Iran, it’s just another country that has little to do with us, yet they were happy to risk nuclear conflagration over that foreign entanglement. This is why I don’t take leftists seriously at all when it comes to their anti-war rhetoric.

As far as Israel is concerned, yeah, they make off like bandits in this situation. They know they do. I’m sure they are secretly proud of that fact. They would never be able to fight this war alone. But I’m not going to cry over the destruction of a Muslim theocracy just because Israel gains something from it.

The issue is America, and whether or not this war will escalate out of control and turn into a global crisis that harms us. I will admit that Trump has displayed a knack for executing limited military operations with far-reaching effects at limited cost. He has proven the blackpillers wrong on several occasions.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth asserts that there will be no quagmire. If this is possible to pull off, then it will be the Trump Administration’s greatest magic trick yet.

If it’s not possible, then the outcome will be chaos and civil breakdown in Iran followed by balkanization, tribal warfare and widespread insurgency far outside the boundaries of the country. Trying to clean up the mess would likely result in the same kind of failed occupation the US experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s a gamble that risks a sharp division within the conservative base. It also risks the extremist left coming back into power. Any major disaster on Trump’s watch could serve the interests of globalists seeking to exploit a crisis to further demonize the concepts of nationalism and conservatism.

At that point, the only solution would have to be a total and unrelenting crusade, with or without the Trump Admin.

If we want to protect our children and the future in general, the leftist cult can never be allowed to take power again. Third world migrants cannot be allowed to stay in the US. And, globalists can’t be allowed to remain as social engineers influencing world events.

There are many people who oppose the elites who also see a substantial failure by Trump as an opportunity to “kick off the boogaloo.” They see chaos as a chance to finally put the greater underlying war against the globalists and multiculturalists to rest. I’m not sure I disagree. What I do know is that this would cost a considerable number of innocent lives, but maybe it can’t be avoided.

The success or failure of the Trump Presidency changes little in terms of our ultimate responsibility to ensure that the globalists face justice.

For now, I am erring on the side of an Iranian government collapse and a win for Trump after a couple months of limited strikes and covert ops. In the meantime I expect a wave of attempted terror attacks, even more NGO paid riots by leftists activists and probably an emergency effort by DHS to deport most Muslim immigrants from the country. The cynics say “nothing ever happens”, except when something happens. Keep your head on a swivel.

As the AI and data center explosion threatens to overwhelm the grid, the Trump administration organized a commitment from the hyperscalers driving that demand: pay your own way, or don’t build here.

*TRUMP: TELLING BIG TECH THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN POWER

*TRUMP: NEGOTIATED NEW RATE PAYER PLEDGE ON DATA CENTER ENERGY

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 25, 2026

On March 4, the White House rolled out the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, signed by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI. The deal is simple and overdue: these companies must build, bring, or buy every new megawatt they need, and then some. No more socializing the costs onto ordinary ratepayers already hammered by years of green-mandate fallout.

The five core commitments are straightforward:

•  Full funding of new generation: Companies cover 100% of new power plants or purchases, with extra capacity added where possible to actually benefit the broader grid.

•  Infrastructure upgrades: All transmission and delivery upgrades required for their facilities get paid by them.

•  Take-or-pay rates: New, separate utility contracts mean they pay the full freight for the power and pipes whether they use every watt or not.

•  Local jobs and training: Hiring and skill programs in host communities.

•  Grid resilience backup: Backup generation available to utilities during shortages to prevent blackouts.

As we’ve long documented, from the growing revolt against data centers in political races, where affordability crushed every other issue, to our piece on Democrats still blaming tech while ignoring Biden-Harris green policies that sent Northeast bills soaring to national highs. 

Households and small businesses love nothing more than staring down double-digit rate hikes and skipping rent payments just so Silicon Valley can train the next LLM models.

between exploding electricity bills and lack of jobs for grads, a new luddite revolution is coming – they will be burning down data centers within a year

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 25, 2025

Trump framed it bluntly in the accompanying proclamation: Americans shouldn’t subsidize private AI infrastructure. The pledge explicitly aims to leverage the boom for lower long-term costs and stronger reliability, not higher bills.

It should be noted this is just a “pledge”, and voluntary pledges from trillion-dollar tech giants have a habit of evolving. If enforced, the pledge could mark the first time the AI revolution actually lowers costs for the rest of us instead of raising them.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Much of politics today seems to be driven by the source of policies.

If President Donald Trump or his administration is for it, Democrats are against it. Democrats have pulled 180-degree turns from past support for unilateral military operations by Democratic Presidents to opposing government shutdowns. However, one of the most intriguing has been the opposition to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has launched moves against unhealthy food additives and products.

That was evident yesterday when Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) virtually declared war over his effort to press Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks over high-sugar drinks.

Dunkin’ Donuts is clearly an iconic brand, but the lack of support for Kennedy’s food policies is striking in light of the general support of Democrats for Big Gulp laws like the one in New York put forward by former mayor Michael Bloomberg (R).

For the record, I have long opposed efforts to ban unhealthy foods. While I strongly support educational campaigns by the government about such unhealthy choices, I believe that it remains an individual choice on whether to engage in unhealthy habits, from smoking to high-fat foods. I also previously wrote how I believe the Big Gulp law was unlawful. It was later struck down.

In this country and other countries, such as Great Britain, similar measures targeting unhealthy foods have been rallying points for the left.

Yet, Kennedy received pushback after announcing that “We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s OK for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it.’ I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.”

Healey responded with a taunt, “Come and take it,” sharing an image of a flag resembling the 1835 “Come and Take It” flag first used at the start of the Texas Revolution.

Kennedy is not necessarily calling for a ban. He has been pushing to improve the food-ingredient approval system by implementing reforms long called for by nutrition advocates. Much of this effort focuses on improving the Generally Recognized as Safe policy. He has been attacking an exemption allowing food companies to independently verify the safety of food additives without the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight.

Kennedy has stated that this “loophole was hijacked by the industry, and it was used to add thousands upon thousands of new ingredients into our food supply. In Europe there’s only 400 legal ingredients. This agency does not know how many ingredients there are in American food.”

That would seem precisely what many liberals once heralded.

Yet, no democratic administration was ever willing to go head-to-head with these companies.

Kennedy is doing what administrations like the Obama and Biden administrations failed to do.

However, he remains persona non grata on the left, viewed as a traitor as a member of a famous Democratic family who supported Trump. They would rather defend unhealthy food than a party turncoat.

Once again, I generally oppose limits on consumer choices, preferring educational campaigns and healthy guidelines. However, the latest controversy only highlights the flipping of the magnetic poles in American politics.

As things continue to pop off in the Middle East, the United States is still focused on Venezuela – and has brokered a multimillion-dollar gold deal. 

The agreement, first reported by Axios, involves the sale of between 650 and 1,000 kilograms of gold doré bars – which are semi-refined with approximately 98% gold content – from Venezuela’s state-owned mining company, Minerven, to the global commodities trader Trafigura. The gold is destined for refineries in the United States, marking a shift in Venezuela’s resource exports toward American markets.

The deal, valued at roughly $163,000 per kilogram based on current gold prices amid global economic uncertainty, marks the third extraction contract overseen by the Trump administration since U.S. forces captured Maduro on January 3. It’s part of a broader effort to stabilize and reconstruct Venezuela’s economy under U.S. influence, with the White House asserting de facto control over the country’s vast oil reserves – the world’s largest known.

The Role of Key Players in Facilitating the Agreement

According to the report, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum played a pivotal role in shepherding the contract – traveling to Venezuela to discuss opportunities in oil and minerals, while leveraging his position to bridge the gap between Minerven and Trafigura. Under a separate arrangement with the U.S. government, Trafigura will handle the delivery of the gold to American refineries, ensuring compliance and oversight.

This gold transaction is intertwined with larger oil deals, including contracts worth over $1 billion also involving Trafigura. President Trump highlighted the progress in a post on Truth Social, stating, “The oil is beginning to flow, and the professionalism and dedication between both countries is a very nice thing to see!” He also praised Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, for her cooperation.

Rodríguez, in turn, announced plans to reform Venezuela’s mining laws following her meeting with Burgum, aiming to attract more foreign investment and modernize the sector.

Context: From Sanctions and Conflict to Economic Partnership

The agreement unfolds against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Venezuela tensions that culminated in Maduro’s capture, which the Trump administration justified as a strike against “narco-terrorism.” Prior to this, U.S. sanctions had severely restricted Venezuela’s access to global markets, forcing the Maduro regime to rely on black-market smugglers and allies like Turkey, Iran, Russia, and China for exporting resources such as gold and oil.

A source familiar with the deals emphasized the benefits for Venezuela to Axios: “There was so much corruption before in Venezuela involving black-market smugglers who skimmed money off the top. Now the money for Venezuela’s resources will go to Venezuela’s government and people. And instead of the gold going overseas to Turkey or Iran, that resource is coming to the U.S.”

This shift redirects revenues back to Venezuela’s coffers, providing access to stable U.S. markets and financial systems. It also aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of using Venezuelan oil proceeds—estimated at billions from sales of 30 to 50 million barrels—to fund purchases of American products, including agricultural goods, medicine, and energy infrastructure equipment.

Economic Implications and Broader Geopolitical Ramifications

Economically, the deal could inject much-needed stability into Venezuela’s beleaguered mining industry, which has suffered from years of mismanagement, illegal operations, and environmental degradation. For the U.S., it secures a supply of high-quality gold amid rising global prices, which have surged due to geopolitical uncertainties, including recent U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran.

However, the arrangement has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and liberal groups, who accuse the Trump administration of imperialism and potential corruption. They argue that U.S. oversight of Venezuelan resources prioritizes American interests over genuine aid for the Venezuelan people, potentially exacerbating inequalities in the region.

On a larger scale, this gold deal is part of Trump’s vision to “reimburse” the U.S. for its interventions, as he has stated regarding oil investments. Major U.S. oil companies are reportedly eager to invest billions to repair Venezuela’s infrastructure, though experts caution that political instability could hinder long-term progress.

The world desperately needs oil, but can’t get it as 20% of it is literally stuck behind the blockaded Straits of Hormuz. Putin has tons of oil because sales are metaphorically stuck by US sanctions. If the world does not get access to oil soon enough, there will be a global recession or worse, and every day the price of oil rises by 5%.

What to do? 

Lightbulb moment: why, remove Russia’s sanctions to one of the countries most in need – India – and bring the excess oil to those who have the most urgent need for it, allowing the price to fall and removing much of the leverage Iran has by keeping prices sky high. 

That’s what happened late on Thursday, when the US issued a general license to allow for some Russian oil sales to India, giving the nation more options to purchase fuel as an escalating conflict in the Persian Gulf cuts off a major producing region.

The license lasts a month (which hints at how long the operation against Iran will likely last according to the Admin) and covers transactions related to the sale of Russian crude oil and petroleum products loaded onto vessels before March 5, so long as it’s delivered to India and purchased by an Indian firm. The measure expires April 4 at 12:01 a.m. Washington time. 

The move is another U-turn, and comes months after President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on Indian goods in a bid to pressure Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to abandon energy purchases from Russia, which India never did. 

“To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a post on X. “This deliberately short-term measure will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government as it only authorizes transactions involving oil already stranded at sea.”

President Trump’s energy agenda has resulted in oil and gas production reaching the highest levels ever recorded.

To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil.…

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) March 6, 2026

Which reminds us: just a few days ago we pointed out that there are hundreds of millions of barrels of oil stuck at sea on various embargoed tankers, and that whoever managed to deliver those to a final destination would make an absolute killing…

3 days later, Goldman went and charted it https://t.co/9O6rSXcOhz pic.twitter.com/0PLe4CJkDA

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 23, 2026

We now wait to see if Vitol indeed becomes the merchant bank of choice for the next month’s (with unlimited extensions) Russia-to-India transfers.

According to Bloomberg, Indian state refiners and government officials met earlier this week to consider contingency measures including turning to Russian cargoes loitering near its waters. The oil ministry had pushed for diplomats to seek some room for maneuver from Washington.As we pointed out recently, after China, India is the second country most reliant on gulf oil.

India became the single most important buyer of Moscow’s seaborne crude after the invasion of Ukraine, but the country has pretended to cut back in response to US pressure, particularly after a US trade deal struck last month that rolled back punitive tariffs. The reality is that India still continues to buy copious amounts of Russian oil and today’s decree will only make it official.

Meanwhile, in other market moving news, Reuters reported that China – both Iran and the Gulf’s biggest energy client – is in talks with Iran to allow crude oil and Qatari liquefied natural gas vessels safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. As we discussed yesterday, China, which has friendly ​relations with Iran, has funded and armed the regime, and relies heavily on Middle Eastern supplies, is unhappy about the ​Islamic Republic’s move to paralyze shipping through the Strait and is pressing Tehran ⁠to allow safe passage for the vessels. 

Since China gets ​about 45% of its oil from the Strait, should Iran agree to allowing Chinese ships through, and should Russia be able to fully supply India’s needs, and if Saudi Arabia can reroute as much as 7 million bbl/d from the gulf to Yangbu via the East-West pipeline, as we touched upon earlier…

… and suddenly the Hormuz blockade will seem far less ominous, as most of the oil blocked finds alternative ways to continue on its way to its final destination. 

It’s merely less than a week in to the Iran war and Trump’s Operation Epic Fury, being done in cooperation with Israel, and much of the whole Middle East region is on fire. The blowback has been fierce, and as the energy supply disruptions compound and begin to be felt at the gas pumps in American, we expect growing blowback among the US domestic public as well.

Washington has already expended untold blood and treasure in the horrific two-decade long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, and US interventions have resulted in mass death and enduring instability in places like Libya and Syria as well. President Trump of course ran on a “no new Middle East regime change wars” platform, but with the massive attack on Iran, here we go again… And already some Iraq war veterans are loudly calling out the Trump administration over this new ‘war of choice’:

BREAKING 🚨 MARINE: “NO ONE WANTS TO DIE FOR ISRAEL”

U.S. Marine Brian McGinnis got dragged out of a senate hearing for standing up and saying what everyone is thinking.

Reports that they BROKE his hand.

This is a patriot. pic.twitter.com/RiO3ohgdoQ

— ADAM (@AdameMedia) March 4, 2026

An Iraq War Marine veteran was forcibly removed from a Senate hearing after speaking out against the war with Iran. Veteran Brian McGinnis earlier posted a video on X saying he had come to Washington, D.C. to challenge lawmakers over the expanding conflict.

“I’m here to speak out against the Senate and ask them why they are going to send our men and women into harm’s way,” he said.

During the hearing, McGinnis stood up from the audience and interrupted proceedings, declaring loudly: “Israel is the reason for this war. America does not want to fight this war for Israel.”

Security quickly confronted the retired Marine and began dragging him out of the chamber. McGinnis kept shouting at the senators in the room, and the situation fast escalated – with security at one point almost carrying him out.

This is Brian McGinnis, who had his arm broken by AIPAC-funded Republican Senator Tim Sheehy.

Brian McGinnis showed up in Washington, D.C., this morning for all Americans who felt betrayed by our government starting another war.

“Anybody who feels disillusioned and betrayed by… pic.twitter.com/wilCtYbt1B

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) March 4, 2026

“Your inability to name that shows your ineptness as leaders,” he said, adding, “No one wants to fight for Israel.”

During the struggle at the doorway, McGinnis’ hand apparently became trapped between the door and the frame while he continued trying to speak, resulting in injury.

“Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy has defended himself after an anti-war protester he was helping remove from a Capitol Hill hearing was injured,” The Telegraph writes. “The incident unfolded when Sheehy came to the aid of Capitol Police as they struggled to remove the activist from a committee hearing on Wednesday.” Sheehy can be seen almost tackling McGinnis rugby style.

Witnesses said the confrontation appeared to leave McGinnis injured, with some observers stating it looked as if his hand or arm was broken during the struggle. The moment in the video was graphic as a snap is heard.

Lara Loomer isn’t happy and is going after McGinnis…

US Marines are not allowed to engage in political activity while they are wearing their uniform. They are also not allowed to wave the flag of adversaries.

If Brian McGinnis is getting military benefits, they should be stripped from him. He appears to be a Muslim convert, and he… https://t.co/uc4jmafnXN

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 5, 2026

And the important counter is below from Fuentes, as a MAGA internal war is erupting over Trump’s Iran action…

Nick Fuentes on Marine veteran Brian McGinnis getting arrested and having his arm broken for protesting Israel 😳

“I don’t care what the guy’s politics are. That’s a guy in uniform… Where is the respect?” pic.twitter.com/zOrO3SIiE7

— Charging… (@RedPillSayian) March 5, 2026

Later media reports said of the Marine, “He clashed with three officers attempting to remove him from the chamber and suffered a broken arm in the process,” per Reuters.

Authored by Mac Slavo via shtfplan.com,

The cost of living crisis is continuing with no end in sight. People used to use their tax refunds for trips or fun experiences, but now they have to either save the money, pay off debt, or use it to keep the lights on or buy groceries.

The sad state of most Americans’ financial status is getting progressively worse, too, as it’s often psychologically damaging as well as economically. Two-thirds of young Americans no longer believe they will ever be able to afford to live where they want. That means living in a place they desire, not having their dream home.

Accoridng to a report by The Hill, consumer spending continues, but the foundation is cracking. Credit card debt has surged to record highs, topping $1.2 trillion. A third of adults have raided their savings in just the past few months. More than a quarter now lean harder on credit cards simply to cover routine purchases. Buy-now-pay-later plans, once marketed for gadgets and fashion, are increasingly used for groceries.

Everything is now more expensive, including housing costs, which jumped sharply in just two years. Coffee prices rose nearly 20 percent year over year, while the cost of beef climbed 15 percent. Medical care rose again, and so did the overall costs of medical insurance and healthcare. These aren’t abstract charts or distant averages, but brutal prices staring back at Americans at checkout counters, pharmacy windows, and rental offices. For those who think people are buying more, they aren’t. They’re paying more for what they’ve always needed.

A high-cost expense, such as a car repair, often flings one into debt for years at this point. Americans are relying on debt not to buy things they don’t need, but to survive. Analysts have said that consumers are “muscling through,” relying on willpower rather than margin. When 70 percent say their area is no longer affordable and nearly half report their finances worsening year over year, that isn’t mass misperception but a clear-eyed assessment of daily reality.

The flailing job market is about to make things worse, too. Just as families scramble to cover today’s bills, the job market that once offered escape is beginning to buckle. People are being replaced by technology as artificial intelligence takes over and never sleeps.

This crisis is compounding, and another war isn’t going to alleviate the pressure.

In a remarkable feat, a single Kuwaiti F/A-18 Super Hornet took out all three of the American F-15s that were shot down over Kuwait on Sunday, according to sources who spoke to the Wall Street Journal. The new narrative replaces the initial reports that attributed the shootdowns to a Kuwaiti Patriot missile battery. 

Launching just three missiles, a single pilot went three-for-three, destroying the trio of F-15E Strike Eagles, which were purchased for something like a combined $93 million in 1998 dollars, or $187 million today. New F-15EX models go for about $100 million apiece. All six crew members parachuted safely in Kuwaiti territory, though one of them had an unsettling reception from a pipe-wielding Kuwaiti who may have mistaken him for an Iranian pilot:  

Moment crashed US F-15 pilot confronted by pipe-wielding local.

This is the shocking moment a US pilot is almost battered by a pipe-wielding local after he survived his fighter jet being shot down over Kuwait.

Footage shows a group of men aggressively shouting as they approach… pic.twitter.com/A5AwJdyBeo

— Politically Incorrect (@DirtyCitizen) March 3, 2026

The incident happened shortly after an Iranian drone hit a US tactical operations center in Kuwait, killing six US Army Reserve soldiers, say the Journal’s sources, who are familiar with the initial reports on the mishap. With many other drones having swarmed the area, when an amped-up Kuwaiti pilot saw jets on his radar, he started blasting.

The airspace in the theater of operations is a madhouse, packed with fighter jets, bombers, reconnaissance craft, fuel tankers, drones, cruise missiles, HIMARS rockets, interceptor missiles, and incoming Iranian missiles and drones. “It’s a busy, busy air environment, and in times of stress, tension, crisis, and, certainly in this case, conflict, even more so,” retired US Air Force B-52 bomber pilot Mark Gunzinger told the Journal.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Dan Karbler, who led the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command provided additional perspective on these types of incidents and what investigators will look at: 

A fratricide incident like the one in Kuwait usually happens because of several breakdowns in communication or failures in equipment, Karbler said. Investigators will be looking to see if the aircraft friend-or-foe transponders, which are supposed to broadcast the information about a plane electronically, were working properly. Other factors are whether the Kuwaitis knew the planned flight paths of the American jets, whether the aircraft themselves were flying the correct routes and whether Kuwait was able to talk to the F-15s, either electronically or by voice…

“It’s all the more complicated when you have different air defense systems operating on different frequencies that aren’t integrated, and some of those systems are actively trying to counter threats such as drones,” he said.

The incident will hang an asterisk on the F-15’s otherwise flawless record, with none of the craft ever having been shot down in air-to-air combat — going 104-0 since they were introduced in the 1970s. Military aviation wonks are taking a keen interest in the particulars of Sunday’s incident. For example, here’s TWZ’s Tyler Rogoway: 

Three shoot-downs and everyone made it out alive sounds like tail-aspect shots made by smaller yield weapons. Also, if the Super Hornet employed passive heat seeking missiles (AIM-9 Sidewinder), the F-15E pilots would not have known they were being engaged until the weapon detonated. There are caveats to this, including if the Hornet had used its radar to assist in the Sidewinder lock. But Kuwaiti Hornets were clearly in the airspace at the time defending against drones, so even being painted by their radar may not have indicated how serious the situation was about to become.

Iran has claimed its forces shot down the F-15s. Of course, even if the Iranian military didn’t fire the weapons that doomed the three craft, Iran’s strategy of responding to unprovoked Israeli-US warfare by lashing out at countries all around the region certainly precipitated the disaster. 

Authored by William L. Anderson via the Mises Institute,

Twenty years ago this month, the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case exploded on the Duke University campus, with three members of the university’s lacrosse team falsely accused of raping and assaulting a black stripper. It took more than a year to exonerate those young men, but only after the false charges had ruined lives and exposed elite higher education in the US.

As one who wrote nearly 100 articles on this case and who was interviewed on talk shows, along with working with some of the attorneys and families involved in the case, I saw it from the inside. I reported on prosecutors who lied and knowingly filed false charges and suborned perjury to cover their lies, police who lied at every turn of what turned out to be a sham investigation, and members of the Duke University faculty and administration who took part in framing innocent people for a crime that did not happen. And hovering over all of the wreckage was a combination of national and local media whose reporters—with some heroic exceptions—followed a false narrative until it drove them right over a cliff.

There is a standard narrative that the media and others want us to imagine: three young men were falsely accused of terrible crimes, but after diligent investigations by the authorities and good-faith efforts by others, the lacrosse players were exonerated while the malefactors were punished. In the end, the system worked.

That narrative is a lie, and over these next few weeks, I will deal with the different aspects of the case, from the police and prosecution to the Duke faculty and administration and to the media. There are numerous villains in this story and very few “good guys.” Furthermore, other than a mild punishment given to the lead prosecutor who committed numerous felonies during his reign of terror, none of the others who participated in pushing this false case faced any sanctions at all and many of the worst actors found themselves gaining even more power and wealth after the saga ended.

Far from being a situation in which the justice system “worked,” the Duke Lacrosse Case was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, a warning as to just how badly the system would veer off course when one of its members decided to lie with impunity. And it wasn’t just the justice system that showed its utter corruption. Duke’s foray into what now is called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) would be a driving force in forcing attorneys for the players to do something unprecedented in US educational and justice history: attorneys filing a request for a change of venue because the university’s faculty and administration had behaved like a lynch mob.

And even after the lies in the case were exposed, nothing changed. Just seven years after the players were declared “innocent” Rolling Stone magazine, which had already disgraced itself in its coverage of the lacrosse case, published a story alleging rape and assault at the University of Virginia called “A Rape on Campus”—a story that was a complete fabrication and ultimately cost the magazine millions of dollars in settlements against people who were libeled and even was condemned by the left-wing Columbia Journalism Review.

Of course, the national media at first accepted the Rolling Stone piece as gospel truth just as it swallowed whole the Duke Lacrosse account. In both stories, the facts quickly established that both situations were built on lies, but the narratives that mainstream journalists follow rarely bow to the facts and the so-called “Newspaper of Record,” the New York Times, was probably the worst offender in the Duke case, with the possible exception of the local Durham Herald Sun.

The blogosphere and other internet outlets were a different story. While mainstream journalists (with the exception of the late Ed Bradley of CBS News’ “60 Minutes”) were siding with the prosecution and the Duke faculty, a number of bloggers and writers, led by KC Johnson—a Harvard-educated history professor at Brooklyn College whose blog Durham-in-Wonderland took the case apart time and again—exposing one lie after another. If anything, the Duke Lacrosse Case demonstrated the power of the internet and bloggers who were more than able to match wits with the most powerful journalists in the world and shoot down their false claims.

Today’s account will outline the fundamentals of the case. After all, it happened 20 years ago, and most people have either forgotten it or never heard of it in the first place. But this story is worth remembering for no other reason than it showed how dishonest police and prosecutors can frame innocent people in broad daylight and it proved that the worst of the academic world was now running the elite universities, and there was no stopping the rot. As written earlier, it was higher education’s canary in the coal mine—and the canary is still dying if not already dead.

It Began with a Party

On Monday, March 13, 2006, Duke University was on spring break, but the highly-ranked lacrosse team—a favorite in the upcoming NCAA championships—was on campus practicing and preparing for its next game. Every year at this time, the team would have a party at the on-campus house on Buchanan Street in Durham, and for the party that night, the captains had called a local escort agency to hire strippers for the evening. (The media insists on calling them “exotic dancers”).

The agency sent two black women, one being Crystal Gail Mangum, and the other Kim Roberts, and both women were prostitutes. They were to be paid $400 each to put on a “show,” but when it became obvious to them that none of the players were going to seek sexual favors with them, the two quickly locked themselves in the tiny bathroom in the house and refused to come out. After about 30 minutes, they walked out and left the building, calling for a ride. Because they had spent so little time actually stripping, the players claimed they had been cheated and they and the two women argued back and forth with some racially-charged language spoken by both sides. Roberts called the police, but when police showed up later, everyone was gone.

That should have been the end of things—a tawdry event that should have done no one proud—but it was not to be. Later that night, Mangum refused to leave Roberts’ car, so Roberts called the police and had Mangum removed. The officer took her to Durham Access, a place where she could be examined for mental disorders. A nurse—against protocol—asked Mangum if she had been raped and, given that a “yes” would mean she would not be committed to a mental health facility, Mangum answered in the affirmative. According to federal law, she then had to be taken to a medical facility to be examined, so she was driven to Duke University Medical Center. Per an account I wrote for an academic journal, this followed:

After arriving at DUMC, Mangum “recanted” her accusations to (Police Sgt. John) Shelton, and then reversed herself. She told a number of conflicting stories, and Shelton loudly announced to the others at DUMC that he did not believe her. According to the lawsuit filed by Robert Ekstrand, the case almost ended there, but was picked up by Mark Gottlieb, a Durham police officer who allegedly had an animus for Duke students. Gottlieb would breathe new life into the case.

The rape exam of Mangum by an ER doctor did not find signs of rape or a beating, but a feminist nurse who signed the examination paper (even though she had not done the exam herself) wrote she saw evidence of “rape” and “blunt force trauma,” and from there the case got legs and ended up in the hands of Michael Nifong—the acting Durham County district attorney who was in a contested primary for election to that office.

Police came to the Buchanan Street house on March 16, accusing the captains of rape, but not making any arrests. Nine days later, the News & Observer—a McClatchy-owned newspaper in Raleigh—had a front-page story authored by Samiha Khanna and Anne Blythe entitled “Dancer Recalls Details of Ordeal” (link no longer available), which featured an interview with Mangum and her father who claimed she was beaten and raped in the Buchanan house bathroom by three members of the lacrosse team. From there, everything exploded.

Within six weeks, police arrested Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, accusing each of them of rape, kidnapping, and assault against Mangum. In April 2007, then-North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, after a long investigation, declared all three “innocent” of all the charges. Two months after that, the North Carolina State Bar disbarred Nifong—the first time a state prosecutor had faced such consequences—and later that summer, a North Carolina judge sentenced Nifong to spend a day in jail on contempt charges for lying to the court.

Conclusion

Over the next three weeks, I will go into detail of the legal case, the role of the Duke administration and faculty in promoting a false story, and, finally, the role of the mainstream news media in keeping a number of lies alive in the mind of the public. Three important institutions of our society failed so miserably as to make it difficult to salvage anything good from them.

But the Duke case also showed the power of the internet in which ordinary citizens who were not employed by the police, courts, or the media could use the web to push information to the public that ordinarily would not have been able to see at all before the internet existed. While some were able to use the internet to push false accusations and theories of guilt, in the end the truth did prevail, despite the best efforts of the police, prosecutors, Duke faculty, and the New York Times. The institutions these people represented might be hopelessly corrupted, but for now, at least some people can fight back.

Democrats needed a winner in Texas. They may have nominated a liability instead.

James Talarico barely had time to savor his primary win over Rep. Jasmine Crockett before the Republican opposition research machine started doing what it does best. Within hours of the Associated Press calling the race, an avalanche of old tweets and video clips had already begun circulating – and Republicans are practically giddy. 

The first batch of video ammunition came courtesy of Senate Republicans, who surfaced a clip of Talarico invoking Scripture to defend gender ideology. “God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary,” he said in the footage.

Meet James Talarico, Texas’ Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate.

He thinks “God is nonbinary.” pic.twitter.com/PTXKT6GdeK

— Senate Republicans (@NRSC) March 4, 2026

He also said, “Trans children are God’s children, made in God’s own image. There’s nothing wrong with them, nothing at all. They are perfect, they are beautiful, and they are sacred. Bullying children is immoral. It’s a sin, a special kind of sin.”

This is James Talarico, who just won the Texas Democratic primary for U.S. Senate:

“Trans children are God’s children, made in God’s own image. There’s nothing wrong with them. Nothing at all.”pic.twitter.com/w7mIVcyA1B

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 4, 2026

Another clip shows Talarico describing the southern border with the kind of metaphor that writes campaign ads for the other side: “Our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front.” 

James Talarico, Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate in Texas: “Our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front.”

pic.twitter.com/3CXcNI6HaI

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 4, 2026

He separately described Jesus as a “radical feminist.” 

JAMES TALARICO: “Did they teach you in Sunday school that Jesus Christ himself was a radical feminist?”

This is the Democrat nominee for Senate in Texas. pic.twitter.com/caVqHhxvoY

— Senate Republicans (@NRSC) March 4, 2026

In 2021, he delivered a floor speech at the Texas statehouse, claiming that “modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six, which honestly, Rep. Hefner, surprised me, too.”

Texas Democrat U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico says there are 6 sexes.

TALARICO: “Modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes, in fact there are six.”pic.twitter.com/w2ryke0QoQ

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 4, 2026

He also insisted the “trans community” needs “abortion care.” 

JAMES TALARICO: “Our trans community needs abortion care too.”

This is who Democrats just nominated as their senate candidate. pic.twitter.com/INHeOteRYs

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 4, 2026

 He’s also suggested that atheists can be more “Christ-like” than some of his Christian colleagues.

Texas Democrat U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico says atheists are more Christ-like than Christians:

TALARICO: “I have met so many Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics who are more Christ-like than some of the Christians I serve with.” pic.twitter.com/3Hmz9YbdwY

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 30, 2026

Talarico is also being criticized for a social media posts in which he claims that his “white skin” is giving him “immunity” from the “virus of racism.”

“White skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus,” he wrote on Twitter back on May 8, 2020. “But we spread it wherever we go—through our words, our actions, and our systems. We don’t have to be showing symptoms—like a white hood or a Confederate flag—to be contagious.” The metaphor was framed around early COVID-19 language and the outrage following the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. It went largely unnoticed at the time. It is not going unnoticed now.

White skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus. But we spread it wherever we go—through our words, our actions, and our systems. We don’t have to be showing symptoms—like a white hood or a Confederate flag—to be contagious.

— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) May 8, 2020

He also wrote “Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country.”

Black Americans in a church.

Mexican Americans in a store.

Asian Americans in a spa.

Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country.

— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) March 18, 2021

Democrats were counting on Talarico to be an electable Democrat who could finally flip Texas. Now, Republicans are laughing.

“If this is a real Talarico post, he is toast,” Gov. Greg Abbott said on X. “This is Tim Walz clone territory. He could win in Minnesota, but not in Texas.” 

Sen. Ted Cruz wasn’t subtle either. “Left-wing zealots are very, very different from ordinary Americans. Among other things, they are open racists,” he said. 

Texas Democrats likely passed on Crockett because she was too combative, too polarizing, too much of a guaranteed loss in a state Republicans have held in the Senate since 1988. Talarico was supposed to be the reasonable one who could peel off disenchanted Republicans and make the suburbs competitive. Democrats thought they had momentum with Talarico, but now it looks like all they have is a lot of baggage.