Category: International

IT consultant arrested after posing with gun on LinkedIn

An IT consultant was arrested by police in Britain after he posted a picture online of himself posing with a gun in the US.

Jon Richelieu-Booth said he was shocked by the “Orwellian” decision by West Yorkshire Police (WYP) to prosecute him over the social media post.

The 50-year-old said that on Aug 13 he had posted a picture of himself on LinkedIn holding a shotgun while on a private homestead with friends during a holiday in Florida.

Mr Richelieu-Booth claims the LinkedIn message contained nothing he considered threatening, with the picture attached to a lengthy post about his day and work activities.

However, he said that a police officer later visited his home to warn him that concerns had been raised about the post.

“I was told to be careful what I say online and I need to understand how it makes people feel,” he said.

Mr Richelieu-Booth said he offered to provide officers with proof that the picture of the firearm had been taken while he was in the US but the officers said that was not necessary.

Mr Richelieu-Booth said two officers then returned to his home shortly after 10pm on Aug 24 and arrested him.

Continue reading “”

U.N. Climate Conference Rejects EU Demands to Commit to Fossil Fuel Phase-Out

(AFP) — Nations clinched a deal at the UN’s COP30 climate summit in the Amazon Saturday without a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels as demanded by the European Union and other countries.

Nearly 200 countries approved the deal by consensus after two weeks of fraught negotiations in the Brazilian city of Belem, with the notable absence of the United States as President Donald Trump shunned the event.

Applause rang out in the plenary session after COP30 president and Brazilian diplomat Andre Correa do Lago slammed a gavel signalling its approval.

The EU and other nations had pushed for a deal that would call for a “roadmap” to phase out fossil fuels, but the words do not appear in the text.

Instead, the agreement calls on countries to “voluntarily” accelerate their climate action and recalls the consensus reached at COP28 in Dubai. That 2023 deal called for the world to transition away from fossil fuels.

The EU, which had warned that the summit could end without a deal if fossil fuels were not addressed, accepted the watered-down language.

“We’re not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything,” EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told reporters.

Continue reading “”

Did anyone actually believe HAMAS was going to keep its promises?

You almost — almost — have to respect Hamas for the sheer audacity of today’s announcement.

Welp, So Much for Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan

Surprising almost nobody, Hamas today rejected essential points in Phase 2 of President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan with defiant conditions that the fractured terrorist group is in zero condition to enforce.

In a statement before today’s UN vote on Trump’s proposal, Hamas (translation courtesy of open-source intel guy “Raylan Givens“) said it opposes “the disarmament of Gaza” and insisted that “any discussion about weapons will be within a Palestinian framework related to ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state.”

Calling Trump’s plan “dangerous,” Hamas described it as “an attempt to impose international guardianship over the Strip” and claimed that “humanitarian aid could become a tool of blackmail that pushes out UNRWA and Palestinian institutions.”

“Any international force must be directly subordinate to the UN and work in coordination with the official Palestinian institutions, without the participation of the occupation,” Hamas said in reference to Israel in that last bit. Hamas wants the UN to run things because the UN is friendly to Hamas and hostile to Israel. UNRWA — the UN organization responsible for “relief” in Gaza — is essentially run by Hamas.

But guess what? Losing is supposed to suck — and it’s exactly what ought to happen when you start a war with the murder of 1,100 or so civilians and kidnap 250 others.

None of this is to imply that Trump’s plan was a total failure. Implementation of Phase 1 got all 20 living hostages back to Israel and the bodies of around 20 others murdered while held under Hamas’ tender mercies. Only three bodies are believed left in Gaza.

You almost — almost — have to respect Hamas for the sheer audacity of today’s announcement. The terrorist organization doesn’t merely assert a legal sovereignty it never had, it also acts as though it hadn’t been thoroughly beaten on the field of battle, or that the only reason there are still any of them left in Gaza is the same ceasefire they just rejected.

That’s enough to make me wonder, if only for a moment, whether President Trump should have stayed hands-off until Israeli forces had completely occupied the Strip and eliminated Hamas. But then I think of those hostages, finally home after two hellish years. Trump’s ceasefire also gave Israel much-needed diplomatic breathing space, particularly from our so-called allies in London, Paris, and Ottawa, hell-bent on legitimizing Hamas. Now, when the ceasefire fails, the onus is on Hamas for choosing war over peace.

So, yeah, even with Phase 2 effectively Tango-Uniform, Trump’s diplomacy was worth it. Phase 1 didn’t do anything to help Hamas, but it did get nearly all of the hostages home, dead or alive.

What happens next? Well, if Hamas doesn’t want a ceasefire, there’s no reason for Israel to keep the IDF on its side of the ceasefire line for one second longer than it takes to lock and load, if that’s what the government decides is right.

As Richard DeCamp wryly noted on X this morning, “So what I’m taking away from that is Hamas wants Israel to finish the job.”

What other choice has Hamas left them?

Why No One Cares About the Climate Conference.

Suppose they held an international summit and nobody came? The Brazilian organizers of the annual United Nations climate conference are close to finding out. They pulled out all the stops, including bulldozing tens of thousands of acres of rainforest to clear a new highway to the host city, Belém. International business leaders flocked to earlier summits, and 150 heads of government attended the one in Dubai two years ago. The moguls are steering clear of Brazil, though, and only 53 national leaders are making the trek (a shame, considering all those temporarily converted “love motels“).

The sudden bursting of the climate-alarmism bubble is nearly as shocking as the global shrug that has accompanied it. Not so long ago, the climate movement was widely believed to be the most urgent cause of our time. Global do-gooders flew around the world urging others to cut transportation-related greenhouse gases, agencies and bureaucracies developed plans to slash carbon emissions, and C-suites lobbied their governments for green targets and subsidies. Now Germany is trying to avoid hosting next year’s climate gabfest.

This allegedly existential threat seems to have vanished with little notice, and observers are fumbling for an explanation. Many point an accusing finger at Donald Trump, but he is far from the only bubble-burster. Xi Jinping and the emerging artificial intelligence industry have also forced decision-makers to reconsider the vast amounts of energy and attention poured into the climate crusade.

Continue reading “”

Libertarian Agentine President Milei Expands Gun Rights

There is a problem here in the United States, and that’s if liberty were to fall here, there’s nowhere to go. There’s no escape route for those of us who don’t want the government to take everything from us, up to and including our guns, which is why so many of us have a line in the sand that cannot be crossed.

And I don’t see there being anywhere to go anytime soon. Too many other nations that are supposedly free really aren’t, and the trend internationally is for more regulation of everything and a complete and total lack of gun rights.

But Argentina might well be shifting in a more pleasing direction as President Javier Milei has just made a move that looks downright American.

Argentine President Javier Milei has officially authorized civilians to purchase and possess semi-automatic rifles, lifting a ban imposed in 1990.

The new resolution, approved by the government on Wednesday, establishes a control system based on sporting justification and traceability, replacing the broad prohibition with a set of requirements for obtaining a special permit.

The new requirements for civilian ownership include a specific identification of the semi-automatic rifle a person intends to acquire; the person must possess a registered G2-type storage area—a secure, certified system approved by the National Arms Registry—and a sworn statement detailing the specific grounds for the application, accompanied by supporting documentation and photographs of the material.

This reform directly replaces a 1990s decree issued during the administration of former President Carlos Menem, who ruled from 1989 to 1999.

That decree had largely prevented civilians from acquiring semi-automatic rifles unless explicitly authorized by the Ministry of Defense.

In June, the Milei government took the initial step by repealing the Menem-era decree.

Continue reading “”

Do tell…..

Sharyl Attkisson: Mexican government bought US guns used in cartel crimes

For years, escalating violence and bloodshed in Mexico was blamed on U.S. gun smuggling and lax firearm laws. American-made weapons litter Mexican crime scenes.

But what if the truth is far different? A former federal agent is flipping the script with a jaw-dropping twist: Many of the U.S. guns used in cartel crimes were bought by Mexico’s own government.

Deadly shootouts and clashes with police are a daily reality among Mexico’s killer cartels. As a result, Mexico’s gun homicide rate is two to three times worse than the U.S., with over 21,700 gun murders in 2022. It’s a flashpoint in the debate over firearms and crime and who’s to blame. Mexico and gun control advocates have long blamed smuggling and America’s loose gun laws.

That’s the story John Dodson says he was told throughout his 15 years as a special agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The narrative was, “We are to blame. Our civilian firearms market, our right to bear arms, is to blame for the violence in Mexico and along the southwest border,” Dodson said.

But that narrative, he says, has been upended by the surprising truth: “The vast majority of crime guns recovered in Mexico are purchased directly by the Mexican government,” he said.

Tracing data confirms it. Most of the U.S. firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes weren’t trafficked or smuggled. The Mexican government legally purchased them.  Exact numbers are hard to come by, but a 2023 State Department report confirms the U.S. approved $147.7 million in small– arms sales to Mexico from companies like Sig Sauer and Glock. Still more weapons are supplied through U.S. Foreign Military Sales.

“When we first started telling the Mexicans, ‘You have to do something to stop the drug trafficking coming north of the border,’ the Mexican authorities needed resources and funds to do that,” Dodson said. “So we started funding these operations … providing them with hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase equipment — much of that firearms.”

He says he queried ATF’s gun-tracing network. And he saw that most of the U.S. guns turning up at cartel crime scenes were originally sold to the Mexican government. Dodson said he was “flabbergasted.”

We reviewed data from 2016 to 2023. It confirms the Mexican government was the top buyer of U.S. guns later traced to crime scenes in Mexico. One document shows the Mexican military, listed as “dealer,” purchased more than 2,000 from 2016 through 2021.

A 2023 document sources a year’s worth of U.S. guns from Mexican crime scenes, with 779 of them originally bought by the Mexican government. No other source is anywhere close.

The State Department, which oversees foreign weapons sales, declined our interview request and wouldn’t answer any of our questions. We also couldn’t get any information from the Justice Department or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The State Department has told Congress that its priority is national security.

“From what I know,” Dodson said, “the amount of those firearms that are ending up being diverted to the black market — I would cease and desist all transactions with the Mexican government when it comes to firearms.”

And for our friends South O’ The Border

Colombia’s Petro Picks a Fight With Trump. Spoiler Alert: FAFO

In 2022, Gustavo Petro, a former member of the M-19 guerrilla group and all-around nutcase, became Colombia’s first left-wing leader since the founding of the country. In three years, his popularity ratings have tanked, he’s been involved in scandal after scandal, and his reckless economic policies have stalled the country’s growth. Heck, in just the last three or so weeks, he’s had his United States visa revoked, become an arm chair “No Kings” rally expert, and accused our country of killing poor little fishermen in the Caribbean Sea — fishermen who just happened to have illegal drugs on board their fancy narco-boats.

Well, Donald Trump has had enough. Petro has officially reached the FO version of FAFO.

On Sunday morning, Trump made the following announcement on Truth Social (emphasis mine):

President Gustavo Petro, of Colombia, is an illegal drug leader strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs, in big and small fields, all over Colombia. It has become the biggest business in Colombia, by far, and Petro does nothing to stop it, despite large scale payments and subsidies from the USA that are nothing more than a long term rip off of America. AS OF TODAY, THESE PAYMENTS, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PAYMENT, OR SUBSIDIES, WILL NO LONGER BE MADE TO COLOMBIA. The purpose of this drug production is the sale of massive amounts of product into the United States, causing death, destruction, and havoc. Petro, a low rated and very unpopular leader, with a fresh mouth toward America, better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President Donald J. Trump

Shortly after that, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted on X that the U.S. on Friday blew up a narco-vessel, which actually belonged to Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), or Colombia’s National Liberation Army — a group the U.S. designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization back in 1997 — along with video of the strike.

On October 17th, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), a Designated Terrorist Organization, that was operating in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility.
The vessel was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was traveling along a known narco-trafficking route, and was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics.
There were three male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel during the strike—which was conducted in international waters.
All three terrorists were killed and no U.S. forces were harmed in this strike.
These cartels are the Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere, using violence, murder and terrorism to impose their will, threaten our national security and poison our people. The United States military will treat these organizations like the terrorists they are—they will be hunted, and killed, just like Al Qaeda.

 

Continue reading “”

Gaza On the Brink of A Civil War?
Palestinian Clans Are Battling Hamas

There now are warning signs that the Gaza Strip may be on the verge of a full-blown civil war.

Mayhem is reported to be occurring throughout the Strip as Hamas has begun to launch vicious assaults against its own Palestinian citizens. And local Palestinian clans are fighting back.

If an outright civil war does emerge, Palestinian citizens could dramatically alter their history of oppression at the hands of Hamas. And it appears that in various parts of the Gaza Strip, many Palestinians are seeking genuine liberation.

But the fight is going to be ugly and murderous for those who have the courage to stand up to the terror group. Could we see a bloodbath by Hamas as it tries to suppress the open rebellion?

Today, the British Telegraph reported on the brutal display of public executions by Hamas. According to the Telegraph’s Henry Bodkin, “Hamas has carried out a mass execution in the streets of Gaza as part of a series of bloody reprisals following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from key urban areas.

“Footage has emerged appearing to show around eight kneeling, blindfolded men, bearing signs of beatings, being shot dead in front of a crowd,” he wrote.

For months, there’s been ample evidence of a rising Palestinian rebellion against Hamas throughout the Gaza Strip. My own Substack post from last May highlighted various clans that were mobilizing against the terror group.

But even as yesterday’s international conference in Sharm El-Sheik promised to end the power of Hamas, the terror group has decided to strike back by launching murderous street battles across the Strip against rebellious Palestinian clans.

Yesterday, it appeared that President Trump gave Hamas temporary “approval” to still use its security forces to keep public order. But today in a White House meeting with the Argentine President, he seemed to reverse himself, saying, “If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently.”

But Hamas is used to its power to behave with total abandon and without any international restraints. As Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip acutely know, Hamas has ruled with a mafia-style grip that threatens and murders all of its opponents.

The Jerusalem Post’s Seth J. Frantzman observed the current state-of-play: “Hamas will want to settle scores and also show that it is still in control. Hamas will not remain in the shadows, it is already deploying men with AK-47s in areas of Gaza. It will want to show that it still has a mafia-like grip on power. It won’t want any of the various clans, tribes and militias to get any ideas. It will want to cement itself in power before any new interim administration is appointed. Then it will hand a fait accompli to anyone who thinks they can remove Hamas from Gaza.”

Even the BBC confirms Frantzman’s report, arguing that Hamas is seeking to “reassert control over Gaza as fears of renewed internal violence emerge following the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The mobilization has been widely anticipated as uncertainty grows about who will govern Gaza once the war ends – this is a key sticking point for later phases of Trump’s plan.”

The latest reports of pitched, murderous battles against the Palestinian clans also were filed yesterday by the Saudi state-run news agency Al-Hadath.

The Saudi news service reported that explosions were heard in the Gaza City neighborhood of Sejaia. Hamas claims it is launching a “large campaign” against rebelling clans.

The BBC also reported other battles in the Strip: “Masked Hamas gunmen exchanged fire with clan fighters near the city’s Jordanian hospital, witnesses said.”

The British news agency reported on eyewitness accounts of the clashes that erupted in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southern Gaza City. The BBC stated, “a Hamas force of more than 300 fighters moved to storm a residential block where Dughmush gunmen were entrenched.”

Their reporter recounted stories of sheer mayhem: “Residents described scenes of panic as dozens of families fled their homes under heavy gunfire, many of them displaced multiple times during the war.

“This time people weren’t fleeing Israeli attacks,” one resident said. “They were running from their own people.”

According to another report about the Doghmush clan fighting in Gaza City was from the Israeli outlet Ynet. They stated that 52 members of the Doghmush clan were killed, and 12 Hamas terrorists died in brutal battles.

The outrage expressed by local Palestinians opposed to Hamas is palpable. The Jerusalem Post quoted Hussam al-Astal, the commander of an armed group that’s fighting Hamas in Khan Yunis. He published a defiant post on his Facebook page, harshly attacking the organization, according to the Post.

“To all the Hamas rats,” he wrote, “your tunnels are destroyed, your rights no longer exist. Repent before it’s too late – there is no Hamas from today onward.”

Clearly, the clans also are gunning for major Hamas figures. The infamous Hamas “influencer” and blogger Salah al-Ja‘farawi was one of the most prominent pro-Hamas voices in the Gaza Strip who celebrated the butchery of October 7. He was found dead, reportedly shot in the head.

Interestingly, the wife of New York Democratic mayoralty candidate Zohran Mamdani, Rama Duwaji, mourning his killing. She shared an image of al-Ja’farawi on her Instagram post, accompanied by four broken-heart emojis, according to the Daily Caller. The Caller added she also shared a separate post referring to the “beloved Ja’farawi.”

Also killed by the Palestinian rebels was the son of a senior Hamas military intelligence official, Basem Naim.

The clans clearly are challenging the international narrative about life in Gaza under Hamas. Wrote one clan member, “We are trapped. They arrested all the youths, lined them up against walls, pointed weapons at their heads. There is a massacre here.”

“Children are screaming and dying, they are burning our houses,” another clan member told the Israeli news outlet, Ynet.

The British Telegraph reported in an exclusive interview with Khan Younis clan leader Hossam al-Astal who describes how he and others who hate the terror group await the moment to liberate Gaza.

“It was in the streets of Khan Younis that Hossam al-Astal, a sworn enemy of Hamas, gathered his men for battle against the terrorists after they had attacked the neighboring al-Majayda clan,” the Telegraph reported.

The British news agency further noted, “The bloody battle was the first serious clash between Hamas and the rebel leader’s militia, which he calls Strike Force Against Terror.”

The Telegraph added that the hate for Hamas was deep: “‘No place for Hamas dogs’ reads a slogan emblazoned on a social media picture of the militia leader alongside eight heavily armed men, which was posted around the same time as last week’s battle.”

There are a number of key clans that are leading the uprising. One is Yaser Abu Shabab, a clan leader who I wrote about in my previous Substack. He commands groups of armed men in Gaza’s Rafah area. They patrol and protect aid convoys while openly challenging Hamas’ power.

“Call us counter-terror forces. Our goal is to protect Palestinian human rights from Hamas terrorism,” he has said.

Another is the Doghmush clan whose members were killed this week by Hamas. The clan is large and has weapons. Hamas is gunning for its defiant leaders.

A third is the al-Mujaida clan, one of the largest clans in Gaza’s south. BBC reported that, “The southern Gaza city of Khan Younis has witnessed one of the fiercest internal confrontations since the war began, between a Hamas security force and gunmen from the al-Mujaida clan.

Then there are the community-grown rebel centers like that created by Hossam al-Astal.

Hamas won’t admit that Palestinian unrest is due to the opposition from local clans that are fed up with the terror group. Instead, they’re issuing the ever-weakening claim that Palestinians who oppose Hamas are “collaborators with Israel.”

It’s unclear how quickly an outside security force by Arab states can be mobilized to disarm Hamas and bring some calm to the Strip. This is part of the “second stage” of the 20-point agreement written by President Trump and supported by European and Muslim nations.

Until then, expect Hamas hopes to brutalize those who challenge it. They will probably intensify their killing spree.

Might the Gaza Strip become the Cambodia killing grounds from the 1970’s when communist leader Pol Pot murdered 1.5 to 2 million of its citizens – about a quarter of the country’s population? Might a brutal civil war engulf the small strip before international forces can replace the murderous Hamas?

Only time will tell

4chan to British Censors: Get Stuffed.

A funny thing happened on the way to once-Great Britain’s transformation into George Orwell’s dystopian Airstrip One: The renegade users of the anonymous 4chan forum got themselves legal representation and told British busybodies to sod off.

A little background.

4chan’s exploits are legendary, if not always savory.

Ever wanted to know how lefties came to believe that the perfectly innocent “OK” hand gesture is some kind of secret code for white supremacy?

That was 4chan.

When Pepsi held an online contest in 2012 to name a new Mountain Dew flavor, 4chan users hijacked it, flooding the rankings with names like “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong” and “Diabeetus.” That same year, they rigged a contest where fans could vote for Taylor Swift to perform at their school. I hesitate to tell you this part, but they rigged it so that the winning school was the Horace Mann School for the Deaf.

So I’m not saying that 4chan is a bunch of world-saving good guys. They aren’t. What I am saying is that it is unwise to mess with the DGAF anonymous users of a forum dedicated to cultural and political pranks, and who often describe themselves as “weaponized autists.”

They will come for you if you do.

And Another Thing: “Weaponized autists” is their term, not mine.

Even the Trump administration tried to warn off the U.K.’s censors. Last week, Marco Rubio’s State Department warned that the “human rights situation worsened” in Britain in 2024 and criticized the country’s so-called Online Safety Act, which is used and abused by British authorities to stifle speech around the world.

Including 4chan.

Big mistake — but not for the reason I would have guessed.

Instead of going after the U.K.’s censorship board — aka the Office of Communications — in ways only they could dream up, 4chan hired Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C. to represent them against His Majesty’s Craptaculent Government.

Coleman Law is headed up by Ron Coleman. I’ve known Ron (virtually) for probably 20 years, and can tell you that you don’t want to be opposite him in court.

“According to press reports,” 4chan’s new lawyers said in a statement, “The U.K. Office of Communications (‘Ofcom’) has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.”

However, “4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.”

And: “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.”

Finally, they warned that if needed, “we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles,” and that “United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.”

The same U.S. authorities at State, I’d wager, that just ripped the U.K.’s censors a new one last week.

So color me shocked that 4chan pursued a legal remedy against Britain’s notorious nannies, instead of doing what they do best, and waging an attritional war of embarrassment and manipulation.

At least for now.

Signal Breaking Through: Australia ‘Losing Control’ as the Populace Slowly Re-Arms Itself.

[W]hile Australia has long been heralded as the gold standard for gun control, almost 30 years later, the landscape is shifting.

Gun numbers are on the rise – there are now more than 4m firearms in the Australian community, almost double the 2.2m weapons recorded in 2001, after the national firearms agreement, according to a report commissioned by gun safety groups.

At least 2,000 new guns are lawfully entering the community every week.

And while the number of gun licence holders per capita has gone down as Australia’s population has soared, there is now a larger number of guns in the community per capita than there was in the immediate aftermath of the crackdown.

That’s because the number of guns each licence holder has is going up – gun owners now average more than four firearms for each licence. In Sydney New South Wales firearm register data shows that there are more than 70 individuals who own more than 100 firearms. (Crucially, these are not deemed to be collectors, whose weapons are not functional.)

And, despite the Howard reforms promising uniform gun laws throughout Australia and the establishment of a national firearm register, 30 years later this is not a reality.

The states and territories are creeping towards the establishment of a new national firearms registry but the gun lobby is pushing back as the details of how it will operate are still being negotiated.

Other provisions of the national firearms agreement remain unimplemented, the country still has a hodgepodge of state-based laws and a lack of data transparency makes understanding Australia’s gun landscape difficult. In NSW the government is considering enshrining a new “right to hunt” in law, while in WA shooting groups are mobilising against tough new licensing requirements.

There are also growing concerns about weapons that circumvent the gun licensing system entirely. 3D-printed firearms of increasing sophistication are now routinely seized by police as Australians tap into an online ecosystem that glorifies a so-called “unlimited right to keep and bear arms”.

— Sarah Martin and Ariel Bogle in Australia was once the gold standard for gun safety. Experts say it’s losing control

Petro Opposes Right to Carry Guns in Colombia

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro spoke yesterday during a Cabinet meeting about the ongoing debate over the right to carry guns among civilians. Petro repeated what he has previously stated on other occasions, expressing his support for keeping weapons solely in the hands of public security forces and not in civilian possession.

This is a recurring debate during election periods in Colombia, a country where violence is cyclical and the notion of self-defense resurfaces in political campaigns. While the conservative opposition makes legal gun ownership one of its key banners, the ruling party maintains that the state should monopolize the use of force, arguing that arming the population only fuels the cycle of violence.

Petro calls for a gun-free civilian population

During a Cabinet meeting held Yesterday, Tuesday, Aug. 19, Petro weighed in on the debate over the right to carry guns in Colombia. The President stressed the need to move toward a country where civilians are unarmed. In his remarks, he pointed out that Colombia must remain consistent with the principle that weapons should be monopolized by the state and not by private citizens.

Continue reading “”

Drug Cartels Are Proxy Armies, So Use the Militaryby Austin Bay
August 13, 2025

Sometime after 2002, Communist China began subtly transforming organized Latin American drug trafficking syndicates. The gangs, the biggest with the hired guns, money and political connections to rate as cartels, continued their usual felony and smuggling operations but added an additional line of operation: hybrid warfare entities, shape-shifting cousins to Iranian proxy armies and classic guerrilla cadres.

The goal of this Chinese-induced transformation: waging plausibly deniable disintegrative and chemical and anarchic war against America on America’s own soil.

Chemical war? Killer drugs are chemicals.

Disintegrative warfare. The term appears in chapter 13 of a book called “World System History: The Social Science of Long-Term Change.” In a disintegrative war, a “unitary belligerent becomes increasingly fragmented by secessions.”

Or, instead of classic territorial secession, social and economic fragmentation spawned and accelerated by corrupt local and state political machines, violent crime encouraged by George Soros-backed district attorneys who put murderers and rapists back on the street, and deadly drugs and more violent criminals crossing open borders

The date 2002 is ballpark. “Unrestricted Warfare,” written by Chinese strategists Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, mulls weaponizing almost everything human beings do or want to do. But by 2011, China’s strategic intent was evident and the cartel connectivity was emerging.

According to several sources, fentanyl’s so-called “second wave” hit the U.S. in 2007 — fentanyl cut with heroin. In 2013, overdoses from synthetic opioids like fentanyl increased dramatically.

Communist China was and remains the world’s primary source of fentanyl. Beijing either ships it directly to the U.S. or smuggles it via Mexico. It’s a two for one — making money while destroying America.

In 2017, the National Interest called China’s drug strategy vis-a-vis the U.S. the “Reverse Opium War.” From 1839-1842, China’s Qing dynasty went to war with Britain to stop the Brits from selling opium in China. The drug threatened Chinese social cohesion. China became a failed state.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, heavens, Washington, D.C. Flailing U.S. cities are the battlegrounds in China’s drug war. Illegal drug use and violent crime kill Americans and destroy social cohesion.

President Donald Trump, however, has formulated policies and operations to address the disintegrative crises.

Washington is a mess — and Trump has a test case. He has the legal authority to secure D.C. So he’s ordered operations. Federal and local law enforcement, backed by a federalized National Guard, will cut D.C.’s murder rate — one small step toward reintegration. Federal prosecutors will prosecute the lawbreakers.

As for adding the military the so-called civil “drug war”? Military capabilities have played secondary but significant roles in the anti-drug war since President Richard Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs” in 1971. The Pentagon has provided the DEA, FBI and other civilian law enforcement with electronic intercept, intelligence and logistics.

America Must Never Apologize for Dropping the Bombs on Japan.

This week marks the 80th anniversary of President Harry Truman’s fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively, Aug. 6 and 9, 1945). To date, those two bombings represent the only instances in which nuclear weapons have been deployed in war. At least 150,000 Japanese perished — a majority of them civilians. But the bombings were successful in achieving their intended effect: Japan announced its formal surrender to the Allies six days after the second bombing, thus finally bringing the bloodiest conflict in human history to an end.

For decades, ethical opposition to Truman’s decision has mostly come from left-wing critics. That seems to be changing. Last year, Tucker Carlson claimed that nuclear weapons were created by “demonic” forces and asserted that the United States was “evil” for dropping the bomb on Japan. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also posted a highly peculiar video in June that, while falling short of apologizing for the bombs, did pointedly warn of “warmongers” who are bringing the world to the brink of “nuclear holocaust.”

This is misguided. Looking back eight decades later, Truman’s decision deserves not condemnation but a tragic and grudging gratitude. It was the right decision, and America must never apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Critics often portray Truman’s decision as an act of monstrous brutality — a flex of raw military might by a sadistic and trigger-happy superpower. But such characterizations, drenched in presentist moral narcissism, do a grave disservice to the reality on the ground and the countless lives Truman undoubtedly saved. They are also a grave disservice to the memory of all those killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Carlson and his fellow ultra-pacifists should visit Pearl Harbor and stand over the sunken USS Arizona, the final resting place of more than 900 sailors and marines. One can still see and smell the oil leaking from the ships, all these decades later; it is an extraordinary experience.

Shocking sensory intakes aside, the sober reality is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter how morbid and macabre, were strategically and morally correct.

When Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs, he faced a truly appalling alternative: a full-scale land invasion of Japan. Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, had projected American and Japanese casualties potentially reaching as high as a million lives each. The Imperial Japanese, steeped in a kamikaze warrior ethos, had proven time and again — at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and elsewhere — that they would fight to the last man, woman and child. Schoolchildren were being trained to attack American troops with sharpened bamboo sticks. Fighting to the death was not mere speculation; it was core Imperial Japanese doctrine.

The under-discussed truth is that Imperial Japan was just as ruthless and barbaric as its Nazi German wartime ally. And the atomic bombs — absolutely horrific though they were — finally shocked Japan into surrender. They punctured Japan’s carefully curated myth of divine invincibility and left Tokyo’s bellicose leadership with no doubt that continued resistance could only mean utter annihilation.

More than 100,000 Americans had already been killed in the Pacific theater, and those who had survived were overjoyed by Truman’s decision: They knew they would live and return home to their wives and children.

Truman’s decision also affirmed a deeper American nationalistic sentiment: that from an American perspective, the safety and security of American lives must necessarily be prioritized over foreign lives. Truman did not see any moral virtue in sacrificing our soldiers on the altar of an abstract globalism or a relativistic humanitarianism. His first obligation as commander in chief was to protect American lives by securing a final, unconditional end to the war. In this, he succeeded — resoundingly.

Critics often claim Japan was already on the brink of surrender. They point to back-channel diplomacy and note the Soviet declaration of war the day prior to the bombing of Nagasaki. But Truman didn’t have the benefit of postwar memoirs or archival research. He had bloodied maps, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, grieving families, and military intelligence suggesting the Japanese military would never accept unconditional surrender without a shock so great it shattered their will to fight.

This, too, reflects a clarity that modern Western leaders often lack: the resolve to act decisively, to bear the weight of terrible decisions in pursuit of peace and justice. Truman’s choice was not only militarily sound but morally defensible. The bombings were not, as many armchair critics have argued over the decades, a cheap form of ethical utilitarianism; Truman’s decision to bomb was simply reflective of how real war-and-peace decisions must be made in the heat of the moment, when the stakes are the highest.

It is fashionable now to question the morality of Truman’s decision from the safety of the present. But it is an act of historical myopia to pretend that the atomic bombings were gratuitous or overly callous. They were not. They were the tragic price of a brutal victory and the necessary cost of hard-fought peace.

War, we know, is hell. Indeed, that is a very good reason to avoid starting wars in the first place. But once upon a time, Western societies understood that once a horrific war has been initiated, there can be no substitute for absolute victory. That lesson has long been forgotten. It is past time to learn it once again.