In 1974 we beamed a radio transmission into space that changed the way we think about our place in the cosmos

By Nadia Drake

DYLAN ALLMAN: 60 years ago, the CIA murdered the sitting President of the United States in broad daylight. The media was in on it the whole time. And I am going to prove it to you here once and for all.

On November 22, 1963, not only did President John F. Kennedy die, but so did our free press … and as we have seen and continue to experience, so did our hopes for world peace. Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefitted? Who had the power to cover it up? Let's start from the beginning.

What are the origins of the CIA? What was its purpose? Well, in 1947, the US had no enemies to speak of after WWII. There was no reason to create such a monstrous new agency unless the major objective was to create machinery to be able to control foreign policy in the United States. The legislation creating it was not drawn up by an intelligence man; it was drawn up by a Wall Street man, James Forrestal. In 1949, Forrestal was Truman’s Secretary of Defense.

 I found out about the death of William Calley from his obituary this week on the front page of Washington Post. It was followed by another in the New York Times. Calley passed away months ago in what must have been planned obscurity. I was glad to see the newspapers remind Americans about the Vietnam War and Calley’s role in the US Army’s infamous massacre in March of 1968 of more than 500 men, women, and children in a rural village known as My Lai. 

 I spent months chasing rumors that led me to Calley’s lawyer and then to an interview with Calley as he was preparing to face a court martial for his role in the horror. He was initially accused by Army lawyers of responsibility for the premeditated deaths of 109 “Oriental” human beings. He was convicted, after trial, of the death of twenty-two. He was the perfect fall guy: an officer who had no business being a leader of men and was presented to the American public as an Army convenience, the rotten apple who spoiled his fellow soldiers. No other member of Calley’s company was convicted of murder or rape, although that was the order of the day at My Lai. 

 I found my way to Calley after getting a tip in the fall of 1969 about murders in Vietnam that were panicking the US Army, whose chief of staff at the time was General William Westmoreland. He had been commander of all forces in Vietnam when the massacre took place, and My Lai was a stink that he needed to go away. 

 There was an unseen tug of war going on at the time inside the Army and among the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the disarray and breakdown of discipline that had become rife throughout the war zone. General Andy A. Lipscomb, who was in charge of the Army’s 11th brigade, the parent unit of the soldiers who committed the massacre, which was initially reported as an American combat victory, told a later Army inquiry that “the general feeling over there was that anything that was shot was a VC. I’m speaking bluntly here, but I think that generally was the accepted modis operandi over there.” Lipscomb, a 1938 graduate of West Point, retired from the Army a few days before the massacre took place. I tried to find him, but I never did. He died in 2000. 

 I was the right guy to get a tip about war crimes in Vietnam. I’d been in the reporting business for eight years by then, starting as a cynical police reporter in Chicago, where I learned there was a difference, in terms of punishment, between police crime and other crimes. Then came the Army and next a newspaper job with United Press in South Dakota, followed by an offer from the Associated Press to come back to Chicago, my hometown. I had been fascinated by the war in Vietnam since my Army days, and I had read enough about the region’s history to wonder why President Lyndon Johnson was pouring troops in where they were not wanted.  

 I was promoted in 1965 to the AP Washington bureau and did enough good reporting to be assigned as the bureau’s correspondent in the Pentagon. I wrote stories raising questions about the integrity of the men at the top. They were making decisions that raised doubts in the minds of the young officers there who had done combat tours in the war. Inevitably, my stories about their bosses led me to become friendly with them, and they gave me a seminar on what we agreed was the “shitshow” the war had become. I came to believe that the generals were lying about the chances of success, and so were the high-profile civilian stars at the top of the Pentagon, especially Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, the man President Kennedy chose to run the war. I started getting information from senior generals and admirals who didn’t like official lying about the extent of US bombing of population centers in North Vietnam. 

I got in trouble with McNamara for my reporting, and by late 1966 I was pulled off the beat. I resigned. There were no hard feelings because I had learned a great deal at the AP about how to think and write quickly—necessities for an important beat like the Pentagon—and I had gotten to know some generals and admirals who would help me for many years. The anti-war movement was growing in America, and former GIs were speaking out about atrocities they witnessed and, in some cases, participated in.

In late 1967 I was asked to join the anti-war presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, a brilliant if often remote Democrat who was not afraid to run against President Johnson. His hatred of the war, but not of the American soldiers fighting in it, matched my view. Politics was not for me, to say the least, and I lasted only through his primary shock to Johnson in New Hampshire and his win in Wisconsin. But I stayed friendly with the senator through his campaign and for decades afterwards. I always believed in his cause.

I’m telling you all this because it will explain why late in the afternoon on October 22, 1969, I jumped to full attention when a young Washington lawyer I didn’t know called me at my office and told me about a terrible massacre in Vietnam that was being covered up by the Pentagon. We had a friend in common, he explained, who told him I was a reporter who might pursue the tip. The immediate problem was that he had no more to say because he couldn’t jeopardize the person, obviously in the government somewhere, who passed him the information.

It was the slimmest of tips. But the information made sense given what I had learned in my time at the Pentagon. I still had Defense Department press credentials to get me in the building for a book I was then researching, and so I began at the beginning. The alleged massacre had taken place eighteen months earlier.

There are terrific resources at the Pentagon, and I started by going through all the murder cases that originated in each service. Nothing remotely matched the tip I had, although the number of alleged rapes that were dropped because the alleged victim was said to be an enemy nurse was more than a little distressing. I tried going through the daily newspapers for the fall of 1968, but that was clearly a nonstarter.

The Foundation was created to support the Archivist of the United States in developing programs, technology, projects, and materials that will introduce and interpret the Archives’ holdings to the American people and to people around the world. The purpose of the Foundation is to educate, enrich, and inspire a deeper appreciation of our country’s heritage through the collected evidence of its history.

Orwell was a paradoxical man, contradictory, and sometimes hypocritical. 

As his Vogue profile stated, fairly much a leftist, George Orwell was a defender of freedom, even though most of the time he violently disagreed with the people besides whom he fought.

Although a writer of the political left, Orwell has gained many fans on the political right ever since ‘Animal Farm’ was published.

And over the decades, both the Left and the Right have claimed Orwell as their own.

Today the issue of freedom is far more used by the Right. 

“For conservatives like myself,” Ed West writes, “when we see dictionaries changing the definition of a word literary overnight, or the total distortion of history to suggest it has always been so, when it is ‘normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children’ because they are the greatest fanatics, we can’t help but see the echoes of 20th century totalitarianism in the modern progressive movement, even if it is a soft totalitarianism and doesn’t come from the state, but from the media, the academy and tech companies.”

THE BATTLE FOR GEORGE ORWELL'S SOUL.....

No writer’s legacy and approval is so fought over as George Orwell, whose final – and most celebrated – work Nineteen-Eighty-Four was published seventy-five years ago this month.

The most influential piece of political fiction in history, such is the success of the dystopian novel that its themes have been recited to death by columnists, often by people I imagine he would have loathed (including me). 

Orwell’s nightmare became a particular focus of conservative commentators from the 1990s with the rise of ‘political correctness’, which might be seen as both a form of politeness and at the same time a way of policing opinions by changing the language.

As Orwell’s Newspeak was described, it was to ensure that dissent cannot be voiced because ‘the necessary words were not available’.

Newspeak, along with thought police and doublethink, has become a part of our political vocabulary, while even the proles have Big Brother to entertain them.

No one can doubt that Orwell has won the final victory, and the struggle for the writer’s soul forms part of Dorian Lynskey’s entertaining and informative The Ministry of Truth, a biography of Nineteen-Eighty-Four which was published at the time of the last significant anniversary. 

Lynskey, a hugely gifted writer who specializes in the relationship between arts and politics, is very much on the Left and sees the modern parallels with the Trumpian disdain for truth, although the great man himself is now often more cited by the Right.

Indeed the anniversary was recently celebrated by the free-market think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs with a new edition and an introduction by my friend Christopher Snowdon.

Orwell was a paradoxical man, contradictory, sometimes hypocritical (aren’t we all?).

In the preface to his book, publisher Victor Gollancz wrote that ‘The truth is that he is at one and the same time an extreme intellectual and a violent anti-intellectual. Similarly he is a frightful snob – still (he must forgive me for saying this), and a genuine hater of every form of snobbery.’

As Lynskey writes: ‘Until the end of his life, Orwell acknowledged that microbes of everything he criticized existed in himself. In fact, it was this awareness of his own flaws that inoculated him against utopian delusions of human perfectibility.’

Such awareness is surprisingly rare among intelligent journalists and commentators, especially when ideology takes a grip – and Orwell was introduced to this reality in quite brutal form.

I can imagine that many people reading the sub-headline of this article may be wondering, “hasn’t the world suffered from enough Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny over the past two centuries?! Haven’t wars across the middle east, genocide against native Americans and imperial abuses of Latin American nations all occured BECAUSE of the doctrines of Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine??”

While I understand completely why these thoughts may strike the mind of a reader, and while I don’t deny the vast abuses done to the world under these doctrines, I would like it to be known that the actual origins of both interconnected philosophies should not be thrown into the garbage simply because evil perverts justified evil things using them. For inversely, great good was done by great moral heroes against imperialism and the Anglo-American deep state following these doctrines as well.

So rather than fall into the trap of calling American history all evil (as Wokeist zombies do) or as all good (as too many simple-minded patriots do), I want to revisit these foundational philosophies with the hope that we can gain a measure of nuanced thinking in our appreciation for world history and the dynamics shaping today’s volatile world.

The earliest expression of America’s sense of Manifest Destiny can probably be traced to John Winthrop’s famous “City on a Hill” speech of 1630, where he made a point that America’s identity should serve as a beacon and role model of liberty for other nations to be inspired by. It was later amplified by George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, who explicitly wanted America’s first army and congress to be called ‘Continental’ instead of the ‘congress of the 13 colonies’ or ‘army of the 13 colonies’.

When Washington led the Continental Congress, the Americas were dominated by hereditary systems of empire led by the French, English, Russian and Spanish oligarchist systems that dominated everything but the 13 colonies.

• Small towns in Texas may have low populations, but they offer genuine Southern hospitality, delicious food, and unique boutiques.
• Jefferson, Marfa, Fredericksburg, and Gruene are just a few examples of small Texas towns with rich history and attractions to visit.
• From art scenes to vineyards, charming downtown squares to outdoor recreation, these small towns offer a variety of experiences for visitors to enjoy.

They say everything is bigger in Texas, but there are actually a number of adorable small towns in Texas worth adding to the bucket list. Not just small as in 20,000 people; these are some truly tiny spots with populations as low as 10,000, 2,000, 300, and all the way down to 91!

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
July 28, 2024

Earlier this year I wrote about "The Globalist's SECRET Message!"

If you read that editorial, you'll know the "secret" message turns out to be remarkably open and shockingly frank: "There are too many useless eaters out there and it's time to get rid of them!" (SPOILER: You are, in the globalists' estimation, just such a "useless eater.")

So, we already know about the technocrats' plan for global depopulation. Now, how about their political action plan? How is it that these enemies of humanity propose to organize the polities of the world as they send us to the slaughter pen?

Why, as it turns out, that plan isn't much of a secret, either! In fact, its creators have written and talked about it extensively and out in the open. 

By RHODA WILSON

July 1, 2024

The Supreme Court on Friday curtailed the power of US federal agencies to regulate the environment, public health and other fundamental aspects of American life.

It effectively overturns a long-standing precedent known as the Chevron deference.

The Chevron deference empowered agencies to interpret ambiguous laws as it states that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law, as long as that interpretation is reasonable.

It was established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

And represented a victory for the Reagan administration and a loss for environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”).

Under President Ronald Reagan, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a rule that allowed manufacturing plants to install or modify one piece of equipment without obtaining a federal permit. 

Environmental groups challenged the rule, saying it violated the Clean Air Act and would cause more air pollution.  

But the 1984 unanimous Supreme Court decision said that the court should defer to the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act and other agencies’ interpretations of other statutes. 

The Chevron ruling became a major precedent once it filtered through the lower courts, and it eventually gave future administrations more power to issue stronger environmental rules than those of the Reagan era.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court corrected this decades-long federal overreach on Friday in the landmark case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning the Chevron doctrine and delivering a huge victory to all Americans being suffocated by crushing government regulation.

Loper Bright was brought to the Court by fishermen challenging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA”) at-sea monitor program.

This program required fishermen to host a government employee on their vessel to monitor compliance with federal regulations, all at the fishermen’s expense, which amounted to a whopping $700 per day.

These charges, not even authorized by federal law, could add up to thousands of dollars over a multi-day voyage.

Failure to comply meant that the fishermen, who have risked their lives every day to deliver food to the tables of American families across the country, would be unable to fish and provide for their own families.

In short, the government told small business owners – without any basis in law – that they had to accommodate a so-called expert or lose their livelihoods.

“The Chevron doctrine gave NOAA this power by requiring judges to be deferential to federal agencies’ interpretation of statutes when the law is ‘ambiguous’. It granted federal bureaucrats, who are not elected nor accountable to the public, the power to make up and interpret their own policies. Unchecked for decades, Chevron deference allowed the administrative state to morph into a quasi-fourth branch of government,” Fox News reported.

Ironically, many environmental groups supported retaining Chevron in recent months, even though the original 1984 decision handed them a defeat.

Two heavyweights in the environmental movement – the Environmental Defense Fund and the NRDC – both submitted amicus briefs urging the justices not to overturn Chevron.

David Doniger, senior strategic director of the climate and clean energy program at NRDC, said the ruling released on Friday could prevent agencies from using older environmental laws to tackle newer environmental problems – such as climate change – as they arise.

Still, fake pResident Biden’s signature climate law gave the EPA more authority to curb planet-warming emissions, Doniger said.

For the first time, the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, defined greenhouse gases as air pollutants that the EPA can regulate under the Clean Air Act.

“Under the Constitution, lawmaking authority rests with Congress, not the ad

ministrative state. If those laws inflict harm, the Constitution affords Americans the means to voice their grievances. Forty years ago, the Supreme Court’s Chevron decision upset that balance,” Fox News wrote.

Adding, “[On Friday], the balance has been restored, and more importantly, the government’s accountability to the people has been restored. It is now up to Congress to see this judicial victory through.”

In a memo released on Monday, staff for the House Republican Study Committee wrote that Friday’s ruling could prompt Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill to intensify their oversight of the criminal Biden administration’s environmental rules.

“If Chevron is rolled back or overturned, this will be a landmark decision which could open the door to Congress … rolling back Obama-Biden’s woke and weaponized administrative agenda,” the memo says.