The madness of The Donald

 

Trump, who is not very bright, has fallen into a very deadly trap, says Chris Hedges. The Israelis tricked him into the war on Iran that they've been lobbying for over three decades. The consequences are dire.

Israel promotes genocide weapons in Germany

 

Europe remains far too obedient to Donald Trump.

While his NATO allies are so far refusing to take part directly in the war against Iran, the US president has not been totally abandoned.

Ramstein in Germany serves as one of America’s largest military bases. Attacks on Iran are being coordinated from there.

By allowing Ramstein to be used for crimes of aggression – for that is what the assaults on Iran constitute – the Berlin government is underscoring that it is still Washington’s plaything.

Along with hosting US troops, Germany is a vital partner for Israel’s arms industry.

Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons exporter, has taken a number of steps to reinforce that partnership recently.

One step has involved bringing German “journalists” – stenographers may be a more accurate term – on propaganda trips.

The trips have yielded predictably fawning coverage.

Burghard Lindhorst is among the “journalists” who has been escorted to a “secret location in the heart of Israel” where Elbit makes drones. In return for that privilege, he rhapsodized about how those remote-controlled warplanes have “proven their worth” as they went “hunting” Iran’s missile launchers.

Another step to reinforce the partnership with Germany involves expanding Elbit Systems Deutschland, a subsidiary based in the southwestern city of Ulm.  (more...)

Israel promotes genocide weapons in Germany

Why Pentecostal Denominations Finally Rejected William Branham

 

John and Charles examine the 1953 split between William Branham and major Pentecostal denominations, arguing that one of the central ideas in Message belief was developed after church leaders began distancing themselves from Branham. They explore how "come out of her my people" became a defining separation theme, and why Branham's followers later treated that break as proof of prophetic vindication rather than institutional rejection.

The conversation also looks at failed healing claims, missed prophecies, fundraising tied to prophetic promises, and allegations that later tape edits helped protect Branham's image. Using historical context and a quoted account from a Pentecostal leader involved in the investigations, John and Charles argue that denominational sanctions were driven by real concerns over deception, public harm, and spiritual abuse.

• The Message Became Bigger Than Branham
• Tape Editing, Failed Healings, And Missing Audio
• Why Pentecostal Leaders Finally Sanctioned Branham

Canada's role in the war on Iran

 

Canada has assisted Israeli/US belligerence on Iran in a slew of ways. Through diplomatic comments as well as NORAD, Canada’s base in Kuwait and troops stationed at US bases in the region Canada has backed the war. In “Canada’s role in the war on Iran” Iranian Canadian Congress President Mona Ghassemi and author Yves Engler detail Ottawa’s bid to weaken that country diplomatically and economically.

Joe Kent Reveals All in First Interview Since Resigning as Trump’s Counterterrorism Director

 

Joe Kent on why we actually went to war with Iran.

Joe Kent is a former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and the President’s principal counterterrorism advisor, who served 20 years in the U.S. Army with 11 combat deployments fighting terrorist networks with the 75th Ranger Regiment, Army Special Forces, and U.S. Army Special Operations Command, earning six Bronze Stars. Joe is also a Gold Star husband whose first wife, Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon Kent, also served and was killed while fighting ISIS in Syria in 2019.

Now is the Time to Break the Silence

 

Diane Sare, 9/11 whistleblower Coleen Rowley & Lt. Col. Anthony Aguila

The Hybrid War Against Brazil: The Geopolitical Siege and the 2026 Elections

 

Hybrid wars operate by saturating the public space, destroying trust, disorganizing social perception, and manipulating real crises.

When new revelations about the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein began to emerge, the US government shifted the focus of its international agenda with a military escalation against Iran. The timing between a domestic scandal and a foreign offensive cannot be interpreted as mere chance. In the history of great powers, international crises often also serve the function of reorganizing the internal public debate, repositioning leaders and rebuilding legitimacy through war. When this movement against Iran is observed together with recent US policies towards Latin America, the picture becomes even more disturbing.

The aggression against Iran does not only affect the Middle East. It has a direct impact on the global economy, puts pressure on energy prices, affects logistics chains, makes inputs more expensive, and can produce sensitive effects on peripheral or semi-peripheral countries, including Brazil. In a context where economic stability is a central variable in any electoral dispute, a war involving the USA, Israel, and Iran could have concrete effects on inflation, fuel, exchange rates, food costs, and the social perception of well-being. In other words: an international conflict of this magnitude could also interfere with the political conditions for Lula’s reelection.

However, the decisive dimension of this war is geopolitical. The attack on Iran should not be seen as an isolated episode, nor as a mere continuation of its historical antagonism with the USA. Iran occupies a strategic position for China, due to energy and the logistics routes linked to Eurasian integration; it is relevant to Russia for its cooperation in the nuclear sector and its position on the North-South corridor. Furthermore, as a member of BRICS, Iran has become part of a broader arrangement challenging the unipolar order. From this perspective, the aggression against Iran can be read as an indirect attack on Russia, China, and the BRICS group as a whole. The immediate target is a State; the strategic target is the emerging multipolar order.

If this interpretation is correct, Brazil appears as a piece of special value. It is a founding member of BRICS, holds territorial, energy, mineral, food, and diplomatic weight, and remains one of the few nations capable of acting in an autonomous margin between different poles of power. Precisely because of this, it has become a priority target of a new architecture of pressure. This architecture was unashamedly spelled out in the 2025 National Security Strategy, when the USA reaffirmed the western hemisphere as a space for containing rivals, protecting strategic assets, defending critical supply chains, and combating “narco-terrorists,” concluding with the willingness to affirm and impose a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The message is brutally clear: Latin America is once again being treated as a zone of US strategic tutelage, and any change in the hemispheric power architecture directly affects Brazilian sovereignty. It is in this context that recent events cease to appear unrelated.  (more...)

The Hybrid War Against Brazil: The Geopolitical Siege and the 2026 Elections