Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 73
May 13, 2025
SpaceX Wants to Increase Launches at Boca Chica Without a Full Environmental Review
Image by Sven Piper.
On April 20, 2023, SpaceX’s Starship—the largest and most powerful rocket ever built—exploded just four minutes after liftoff from its Boca Chica spaceport in Texas. While CEO Elon Musk touted the mission as a success for clearing the launch pad, the environmental and community fallout painted a different picture. Scorched wetlands, debris scattered for miles, and fire damage underscored the risks of high-stakes experiments in a region rich with biodiversity and human history. Now, SpaceX seeks approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to increase its Starship launch frequency or “cadence” to 25 times per year—potentially 75 events annually when accounting for booster and spacecraft recovery attempts—all without completing the rigorous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by law for projects of this magnitude. Instead the FAA only requires a weaker form of environmental review, an Environmental Assessments (EA).
Although Musk has accused the FAA of regulatory overreach and declared on Twitter that “humanity will never get to Mars” under such constraints, the reality is that the FAA has granted him every Starship license for he has sought at Boca Chica, never once requiring a full EIS. Now, as the Trump-appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has the power to push anti-regulation initiatives like Project 2025, which seek to dismantle critical environmental protections. Without swift action to demand accountability, Boca Chica could become not just a testing ground, but a sacrifice zone for Musk’s megalomaniacal pursuit of a world where neither people nor the planet stand in his way. Unless his plans are stopped or slowed, communities, ecosystems, and taxpayers will bear the cost of his unchecked ambitions. Submitting testimony during the FAA’s public comment period is an important way to hold Musk and SpaceX accountable and demand a thorough environmental review with an EIS.
Boca Chica: A Community Under Siege
Boca Chica is far more than a launch site; it is a vital ecosystem and home to diverse communities. The region includes the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, wetlands and endangered species such as the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle and piping plover. It is also sacred land for the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe, whose members have opposed SpaceX’s industrial encroachment on their ancestral lands. The Tigua Tribe, also known as the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, has argued that the development of the SpaceX launch site at Boca Chica Beach has disrupted their traditional ceremonial practices, which include the use of the beach for sacred rites, thereby violating their First Amendment-protected religious practices. Advocacy groups like Save RGV and the Center for Biological Diversity have stepped forward to challenge SpaceX’s operations, highlighting the disproportionate burden borne by the local environment and residents. Both organizations have filed lawsuits demanding the FAA require a full EIS for SpaceX’s activities at Boca Chica. Save RGV has highlighted violations such as discharging untreated industrial wastewater into surrounding wetlands, while the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit argues that the FAA has violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by allowing SpaceX to operate under insufficient EAs. Ironically, SpaceX is required to do a full EIS for Starship operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) under the U.S. Space Force due to stricter regulations. Yet Boca Chica, with its more fragile ecosystem, is left without the same level of scrutiny. The people of Boca Chica deserve the same protections and oversight as those at KSC.
For local residents, the impact of SpaceX’s operations is impossible to ignore. Frequent road closures disrupt daily life and block access to public beaches. Loud rocket tests and sonic booms disturb both human and wildlife populations, and the April 2023 explosion left debris scattered across miles of sensitive habitat. Meanwhile, Indigenous and local voices remain sidelined in regulatory decisions. The FAA has failed to adequately consult with communities, treating them as collateral damage in Musk’s ambitious pursuit of Mars.
According to a recent NPR story, the situation has worsened due to SpaceX’s wastewater discharges. The company has been found to have violated the Clean Water Act, with both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) levying fines totaling over $150,000. Environmentalists, including local group Save RGV, have pointed out that this disregard for environmental regulations highlights the urgent need for a more comprehensive review of SpaceX’s impact on the region. Local activist Joyce Hamilton stated, “This is potentially really damaging,” emphasizing the significant environmental consequences of SpaceX’s unchecked operations.
Environmental Risks Ignored by the FAA
Although the FAA did complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SpaceX Starbase in 2014, it was only for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets—much smaller and less complex systems. Since then, SpaceX’s operations have expanded dramatically to include the much larger and more powerful Starship/Super Heavy launch system. The FAA has relied on a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) and tiered reviews, rather than conducting a full EIS specific to Starship operations. While the FAA completed a full EIS for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches at Cape Canaveral in Florida, it has failed to apply the same standard to Starship’s vastly more powerful and experimental operations in Texas. The two systems are not comparable: Starship’s unique size, power, and planned recovery operations—along with its location in sensitive wetlands near endangered species—demand a new, comprehensive review. The FAA’s reliance on outdated assessments is grossly inadequate and leaves the area unprotected from significant, unexamined risks.
The environmental risks of SpaceX’s operations extend far beyond Boca Chica. The FAA has also permitted SpaceX to blow up Starship in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, and north of Hawaii. Even in cases where the spacecraft are intended for “soft” landings in the ocean, the explosive charge used to destroy the spacecraft results in significant pollution, including harmful chemicals like rocket fuel residues, other contaminants, and debris that can endanger marine ecosystems. In the Pacific near Hawaii, it is dangerously close to the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that is considered sacred to Native Hawaiians. Despite its cultural and ecological significance, no cultural consultation has been conducted for permission to land or conduct operations near this sacred site. The monument is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, home to over 7,000 species, many of which are endangered. The contamination of these waters from SpaceX’s operations further threatens the delicate biodiversity of this pristine marine environment. These crash landing sites are also in the direct path of humpback whale migration, potentially endangering their migratory patterns and jeopardizing their fragile populations.
In April 2023, SpaceX’s experimental launch license included a plan for Starship to crash into the Pacific Ocean just 62 miles north of Kauai. The EA claimed that fewer than one marine mammal would be harmed during the explosion, despite the spacecraft’s 100-metric-ton mass and the force of 14 tons of rocket fuel detonating on impact. The FAA’s “Finding of No Significant Impact” or FONSI ignored the area’s cultural significance and failed to consult with Hawaiian residents or agencies such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), which co-manages the marine sanctuary. Local experts raised concerns that even minor deviations from SpaceX’s “nominal” trajectory could cause debris fields to drift into the protected waters of Papahānaumokuākea.
Why the Current Reviews for Starship Are Totally Outdated and Inaccessible
Right now, SpaceX’s licenses for launching Starship at Boca Chica are based on a 2022 PEA. But here’s the catch: that review relies on the even older EIS from 2014 which wasn’t written for Starship at all—it was written for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, which are much smaller and much less complicated. In fact, Starship isn’t even mentioned in the 2014 EIS.
The problem is simple: Starship is nearly twice the size of Falcon 9, ten times heavier, and far more powerful, with untested systems like mid-air recovery and deluge cooling that bring entirely new risks. While the 2014 EIS assumed far fewer launches, SpaceX now proposes up to 25 per year, with vastly greater environmental damage and disruption. The FAA’s reliance on this outdated framework ignores these realities and creates a confusing web of layered reviews that fail to provide a clear picture for the public or sufficient protection for local communities and ecosystems. It’s time to stop building on broken foundations and require a full, updated EIS that reflects the true scope of Starship’s operations.
Furthermore, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which oversees NEPA have regulatins that include requirements for public participation and clear communication. The current FAA Revised Draft EA spans 75 pages and refers to over a dozen additional technical documents critical to understanding the full scope of SpaceX’s proposed operations. These referenced materials total about 1,200 pages, requiring over 80 hours to read and analyze. Written in dense, jargon-heavy language, the EA and its supporting documents are nearly incomprehensible to the layperson, effectively excluding the public from meaningful participation. NEPA mandates that environmental reviews be accessible and transparent, yet the FAA has failed to provide simplified summaries or plain-language guides. Finding the place to submit comments and testimony is ridiculously complicated. This inaccessibility undermines public input and compliance with NEPA’s core purpose, leaving communities without the tools to adequately challenge or engage with the review process. The FAA must extend the public comment period and provide simpler, more accessible documents so communities can meaningfully engage.
The Hypocrisy of Musk’s Anti-Regulation Stance
Despite Musk’s repeated calls for a smaller government and less regulation, SpaceX’s operations are heavily subsidized by the public, having received over $5 billion in federal funding for projects ranging from national security launches to satellite deployments. On top of this, SpaceX benefits from indemnities under the Commercial Space Launch Act, which caps its liability for catastrophic accidents at $500 million, effectively shifting much of the financial risk to taxpayers. As SpaceX pushes for an accelerated launch cadence, the potential for accidents—and the resulting financial burden on the public—grows. This stark contradiction highlights how Musk’s anti-regulation rhetoric is at odds with the significant taxpayer dollars and protections that sustain his company.
In addition to federal subsidies, SpaceX also benefits from generous incentives provided by the state of Texas and the city of Brownsville. Texas has offered tax breaks, land leases, and infrastructure support to encourage SpaceX’s development of the Boca Chica launch site. Brownsville, a city with one of the lowest median incomes in the U.S., has also provided SpaceX with significant tax exemptions and financial incentives to attract the company to the region. These subsidies not only reduce SpaceX’s operating costs but also shift the financial burden onto Texas taxpayers and the local community. While Musk criticizes government regulation, his company is essentially a recipient of state and local welfare, further illustrating the gap between his public persona and the reality of SpaceX’s reliance on public funds.
If you are funded by the public, you should be regulated by the public. Musk’s calls, as the head of the DOGE to dismantle regulation are dangerously misguided. Those who benefit from public money and protections must be held accountable to the same level of oversight that ensures the safety, health, and well-being of the public they rely on. The people who are regulated should not be in control of deregulation. Its a conflict of interenst.
Musk’s Mars Myth and Planetary Risks
Musk’s plan to make humanity a “multiplanetary species” reflects a childish understanding of the challenges we face on Earth. His rush to colonize Mars, driven by a naive belief that it offers a backup for human survival, overlooks the fact that Mars is a hostile, uninhabitable world that couldn’t sustain a colony without Earth’s support and resources. Using his X platform, Musk is pushing the Mars survival myth to convince the public to fund his childish dream of conquering the “final frontier” of space on the taxpayer dime, all while demanding the dismantling of public agencies that protect people and the planet. Instead of risking Earth’s biosphere for an uncertain future on Mars, we should focus on safeguarding our home planet.
[…]
Bill Gates Unveils New mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Jabs for Billions of Cows
By Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Bill Gates has unveiled new mRNA-lipid nanoparticle jabs for billions of cows, a move that raises red flags about his relentless push for experimental vaccines and their risks. This latest initiative, targeting U.S. dairy cattle amid the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1, is part of a troubling pattern where Gates-funded research, backed by institutions like the NIH, USDA, and U.S. Department of Energy, prioritizes profit over safety.
The preprint study, which claims the vaccine induces strong immune responses in calves, is yet another example of mRNA technology being rushed into use without thorough scrutiny. As public health experts and veterinarians sound the alarm, Gates’ involvement fuels skepticism about the true motives behind these jabs, questioning whether they’re truly about health or part of a broader, dubious agenda.
Globalbiodefense.com reports: This study provides timely and potentially transformative insights into a potential intervention strategy. The vaccine, adapted from the same platform used in human COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, may help reduce viral spread among cattle and limit the risk of zoonotic transmission.
A Spreading Threat in U.S. Livestock
First identified in U.S. dairy cattle in March 2024, the H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus has since been confirmed in over 950 herds across 16 states. While human cases linked to this strain have mostly been mild, a recent fatality underscores the growing concern about mammalian adaptation and the potential for human-to-human transmission.
Detection of the virus in milk and mucosal secretions highlights not only the risk to animal health and food systems but also the potential exposure pathways for humans, especially farm workers and veterinarians.
Vaccine Induces Broad Antibody Responses in Calves
Two intramuscular doses (50 µg and 500 µg) of the H5 mRNA-LNP vaccine triggered strong antibody responses against both the vaccine strain (A/Astrakhan/3212/2020) and the cattle-derived H5N1 virus. Calves receiving the 500 µg dose exhibited significantly higher antibody titers. Antibodies showed hemagglutination inhibition and virus-neutralizing activity against multiple 2.3.4.4b H5N1 strains, including a representative wild bird isolate.
Cellular Immunity: CD8+ T Cell Activation
Vaccination led to expansion of virus-specific CD8+ T cells, especially at the higher dose. These T cells proliferated and produced interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) in response to H5 antigen stimulation. Modest CD4+ and γδ T cell responses were also observed, suggesting a balanced but CD8-dominant cellular profile.
Protective Efficacy: Reduced Viral Shedding After Challenge
To evaluate protection, vaccinated and unvaccinated calves were fed milk from cows experimentally infected with H5N1:
Unvaccinated calves shed high levels of virus in nasal secretions over 5 days post-infection.
Vaccinated calves showed minimal or undetectable viral RNA in nasal swabs, with only one weak detection in the 50 µg group.
Lung and airway samples post-necropsy confirmed significantly lower viral presence in vaccinated animals.
No calves, vaccinated or unvaccinated, exhibited overt clinical symptoms or fever, though viral replication and shedding in controls indicate subclinical infection with transmission potential.
Implications: A Step Toward Livestock Immunization
The successful immunogenicity and partial protection in calves offer early evidence that an mRNA-based H5 vaccine could serve as a viable countermeasure against the spread of H5N1 in cattle populations. This has critical implications:
Zoonotic risk reduction: Limiting virus replication in cattle may lower the chance of new mutations and cross-species transmission to humans.
Pandemic preparedness: Preventing adaptation of H5N1 to mammalian hosts is a key goal for global health security.
Agricultural stability: A livestock vaccine could reduce economic disruptions from culling and trade restrictions.
Next Steps: Trials in Dairy Cows and Longevity Studies
Future work will assess vaccine efficacy in lactating dairy cattle, the primary population affected in the current outbreak. Researchers also plan to determine:
The minimum effective dose for protection.
Duration and memory of immune responses.
Field-level feasibility and cost-effectiveness of vaccine deployment.
[…]
Via https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/bill-gates-unveils-new-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-jabs-for-billions-of-cows/
DNI Tulsi Gabbard says Biden-era domestic terrorism policy ‘must end,’ calls it an abuse of power
John Solomon
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says the Biden-era mentality of treating conservatives and citizens with dissenting views like domestic terrorists was an “abuse of power,” signaling that a 2021 memo that empowered the FBI to probe Americans for “concerning non-criminal behavior” is no longer operative.
Gabbard told Just the News in a statement Monday that she has ended the domestic terrorism approach of the Biden administration that was used to justify the targeting of conservative Catholics, gun enthusiasts and parents who protested school board policies.
In fact, officials said, domestic terrorism was recently removed as a top threat from the intelligence community’s national threat assessment as a first step in that transition.
Gabbard’s statement came after Just the News reported last week that a June 2021 domestic terrorism policy memo empowered federal agencies like the FBI and Homeland Security Department to open probes on Americans solely if an agent believed they had been involved in “concerning non-criminal behavior.”
You can read that memo her;
DIG-Declassified-Strategic-Implementation-Plan-for-CT-April2025.pdfBiden lowered the bar for probing U.S. citizens to mere suspicionThe policy, which was shielded from Americans’ view because the document was mostly classified during the Biden years, substantially lowered the decades-long standard that agents opening a probe must have a predicate based on a reasonable factual basis that a crime has been committed.
The FBI and DHS were allowed by Biden to open a probe based on a mere concern and without the behavior having to be criminal in nature.
After Gabbard declassified the memo this spring, legal experts and members of Congress raised serious concerns about the change, warning it threatened Americans’ rights and civil liberties. Gabbard signaled in her statement to Just the News that she shared those concerns.
“Disguised as an attempt to curb ‘domestic terrorism,’ Biden’s plan actually functioned as a partisan playbook on how the Biden Administration would weaponize government and intelligence against everyday Americans whose ‘offense’ was supporting President Trump, or daring to disagree with or oppose their policies,” the Trump administration’s top intelligence official said.
“To ensure transparency and accountability, I declassified and released the document, so Americans could see the truth about the Biden Administration’s weaponization and politicization of our government against Americans. This abuse of power that violates our God-given freedoms and civil liberties must end,” Gabbard added.
Officials confirmed the Trump administration has abandoned the tactics enumerated in the 2021 memo crafted by the Biden National Security Council,
“The last administration appeared more focused on investigating Americans for their opinions than addressing actual criminal activity,” the FBI said in a statement from a spokesman. “Under new leadership, the Bureau is actively reviewing and revising its guidance to ensure our efforts are focused where they belong: on making America safe.”
The directives provided to the Justice Department and FBI under President Joe Biden by the National Security Council said the agencies should “drive…executive and legislative action” to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, rein in “ghost guns,” monitor active-duty service members for possible terrorism recruitment and “mitigate xenophobia and bias.”
The Biden policy also included a plan to counter “xenophobic disinformation” as a basis for investigation by creating the “Disinformation Governance Board” program under DHS that was discontinued in 2022, after being widely criticized as an ersatz “Ministry of Truth” established in the name of national security. Nina Jankowicz, selected to head the board, was widely mocked before the board was disbanded.
Sen. Johnson reminds voters that “elections have consequences”For decades, FBI agents have been required to meet stringent requirements for opening criminal and national security investigations, known as a “predicate.” Before Biden’s term, the predicate for a full investigation required “an articulable factual basis” that “reasonably indicates” a crime or national security threat has or is about to occur, according to the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations.
Lawmakers expressed disbelief that such a change impacting civil liberties was made by Gabbard with so little notice, praising President Donald Trump and Gabbard for declassifying and releasing the memo.
“It’s not surprising. But you’re right. It is shocking,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the powerful Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told Just the News. Paraphrasing former President Barack Obama, Johnson said, “And again, elections have consequences, and in this case, it’s a very good consequence that now this is coming to light.
“I appreciate Tulsi Gabbard looking up exactly what happened and releasing this information. It’s important the American public understands what government does to it, how it tramples on our constitutional rights,” he added.
[…]
Virginia passes law to limit time teens spend on social media to one hour a day
By: Cameron ThompsonRICHMOND, Va. — Virginia teens under 16 will soon face limits on their social media usage after Governor Glenn Youngkin signed new legislation into law.
The law requires social media companies to set default time limits of one hour per day for users under 16 years old, with parents having the ability to adjust that time up or down.
“It’s a good first start, and it’s a good way for parents to be able to have better control over how much social media their kids are on,” said Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D – Henrico), who co-sponsored the legislation.
VanValkenburg, who teaches in Henrico County schools, has witnessed the impact of excessive social media use firsthand.
“You see how much it hinders their ability to do well in school, and you see how much it hinders their socialization with their friends,” VanValkenburg said.
He said among the social media platforms that would be subjected to the legislation include Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, and YouTube.
It would not apply to platforms that only provide email or direct messaging services.
The legislation underwent several changes during the legislative process.
It initially contained language that would have banned addictive feeds for anyone under 18, but that version was rejected in the Virginia House of Delegates.
VanValkenburg noted that the revised approach gained support from major social media companies like Meta.
“What is contained in the bill actually mimics a significant amount of what we already have for our teen accounts in Instagram,” Meta lobbyist Patrick Cushing said during a Feb. 17, 2025 hearing on the bill. “So, Instagram has already moved to this type of restriction and so this codifies that plus some.”
Youngkin attempted to add amendments to raise the age back up to 18 and ban infinite scroll features.
While VanValkenburg said he supported these changes, they were ultimately rejected by lawmakers.
Looking ahead, VanValkenburg indicated that additional restrictions might be considered in the future.
“I think we really need to continue to look at the tools that social media sites use to keep kids on their applications and we also need to make sure that the content that they’re pumping out to kids is appropriate,” he said.
Companies that do not comply with the legislation could be subjected to fines under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
The new social media restrictions won’t take effect immediately. The law has a delayed implementation date of January 1, 2026.
[…]
Via https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-social-media-time-limit-law-may-12-2025
Nightmare of Jerusalem Part – Iran’s Long Complicated Relationship with Israel
Nightmare of Jerusalem Parts I and II
Press TV (2025)
Film Review
Nightmare of Jerusalem is an intriguing 8-part series about Iran’s long and complicated relationship with Israel. The first three episodes relate specifically to Iran’s April 13 missile attack on Israel, in retaliation for their April 1 bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The last five episodes relate to Israel’s complex relationship with Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi; the Iranian role in the Palestinian resistance and the birth of Hezbollah in Lebanon; the systematic efforts by the Mossad and the CIA to weaken the Islamic Republic of Iran via funding and arming Kurdish rebels, funding the Iran-Iraq War and numerous attempts to instigate an Iranian color revolution via the Green Movement (aka the Green Wave of Iran, aka the Persian Spring); and finally the Irangate scandal, in which the Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran weapons via Israeli intermediaries.
Part I
Part I provides background on the development of Iran’s missile systems and Israel’s US-supplied missile defense system. In considering a target 2,000 km beyond their border, Iran’s rocket scientists also have to allow for the major anti-missile system the US has installed in Iraq* and Turkey and the sea-based anti-missile systems on US and UK naval vessels in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. They also risk the possibility that the UAE, Saudi Arabia or Yemen could shoot their missiles down as the three Arab countries have supplied Israel a long route for food and other essential supplies now that the Houthis have effectively blockaded their ports.
*After Trump ordered the 2020 drone strike assassination of Iranian general Suleimani, Iran retaliated with a missile attack on US bases in Iraq. This led the US to significantly increase its Iraqi anti-missile defenses in Iraq.
Part II
Part II is an extremely detailed discussion of the large inventory of rockets in Iran’s missile program, starting with their Scud missiles, which Iran reverse engineered from the Scuds Saddam Hussein fired at them during the Iran-Iraq war. Some of their more advanced missiles include hypersonic missiles (developed with Russian assistance), lightweight carbon fiber missiles, cruise missiles (which avoid detection by flying at low altitude), and missiles that avoid radar detection by using solid fuel, making U-turns and carrying detachable hard-to-detect warheads.
May 12, 2025
Multiple Western Press Outlets Have Suddenly Pivoted Hard Against Israel
Caitlin Johnstone
After a year and a half of genocidal atrocities, the editorial boards of numerous British press outlets have suddenly come out hard against Israel’s onslaught in Gaza.
The first drop of rain came last week from The Financial Times in a piece by the editorial board titled “The west’s shameful silence on Gaza,” which denounces the US and Europe for having “issued barely a word of condemnation” of their ally’s criminality, saying they “should be ashamed of their silence, and stop enabling Netanyahu to act with impunity.”
Then came The Economist with a piece titled “The war in Gaza must end,” which argues that Trump should pressure the Netanyahu regime for a ceasefire, saying that “The only people who benefit from continuing the war are Mr Netanyahu, who keeps his coalition intact, and his far-right allies, who dream of emptying Gaza and rebuilding Jewish settlements there.”
https://x.com/FT/status/1920135077448634492On Saturday came an editorial from The Independent titled “End the deafening silence on Gaza — it is time to speak up,” arguing that British PM Keir Starmer “should be ashamed that he said nothing, especially since Mr Netanyahu has now announced new plans to expand the already devastating bombardment of Gaza,” and saying that “It is time for the world to wake up to what is happening and to demand an end to the suffering of the Palestinians trapped in the enclave.”
On Sunday The Guardian editorial board joined in with a write-up titled “The Guardian view on Israel and Gaza: Trump can stop this horror. The alternative is unthinkable,” saying “The US president has the leverage to force through a ceasefire. If he does not, he will implicitly signal approval of what looks like a plan of total destruction.”
“What is this, if not genocidal?” The Guardian asks. “When will the US and its allies act to stop the horror, if not now?”
To be clear, these are editorials, not op-eds. This means that they are not the expression of one person’s opinion but the stated position of each outlet as a whole. We’ve been seeing the occasional op-ed which is critical of Israel’s actions throughout the Gaza holocaust in the mainstream western press, but to see the actual outlets come out aggressively denouncing Israel and its western backers all at once is a very new development.
https://x.com/NimerSultany/status/1921661916583203228Some longtime Israel supporters have unexpectedly begun changing their tune as individuals as well.
Conservative MP Mark Pritchard said at the House of Commons last week that he had supported Israel “at all costs” for decades, but said “I got it wrong” and publicly withdrew that support over Israel’s actions in Gaza.
“For many years — I’ve been in this House twenty years — I have supported Israel pretty much at all costs, quite frankly,” Pritchard said. “But today, I want to say that I got it wrong and I condemn Israel for what it is doing to the Palestinian people in Gaza and indeed in the West Bank, and I’d like to withdraw my support right now for the actions of Israel, what they are doing right now in Gaza.”
“I’m really concerned that this is a moment in history when people look back, where we’ve got it wrong as a country,” Pritchard added.
[…]
Pro-Israel pundit Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, who had been aggressively denouncing campus protesters and accusing Israel’s critics of “blood libel” throughout the Gaza holocaust, has now come out and publicly admitted that Israel is committing a genocide which must be opposed.
“It took me a long time to get to this point, but it’s time to face it. Israel is committing genocide in Gaza,” Ephraim tweeted recently. “Between the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, starvation of the population, plans for ethnic cleansing, slaughter of aid workers and cover ups, there is no escaping it. Israel is trying to eradicate the Palestinian people. We can’t stop it unless we admit it.”
It is odd that it has taken all these people a year and a half to get to this point. I myself have a much lower tolerance for genocide and the mass murder of children. If you’ve been riding the genocide train for nineteen months, it looks a bit weird to suddenly start screaming about how terrible it is and demanding to hit the brakes all of a sudden.
These people have not suddenly evolved a conscience, they’re just smelling what’s in the wind. Once the consensus shifts past a certain point there’s naturally going to be a mad rush to avoid being among the last to stand against it, because you know you’ll be wearing that mark for the rest of your life in public after history has had a clear look at what you did.
[…]
This is after all coming at a time when the Trump administration is beginning to rub Netanyahu’s fur the wrong way, recently prompting the Israeli prime minister to say “I think we’ll have to detox from US security assistance” when Washington went over Tel Aviv’s head and negotiated directly with Hamas to secure the release of an American hostage. The US is reportedly leaving Israel out of more and more of its negotiations on international affairs in places like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Something is changing.
[…]
Via https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/multiple-western-press-outlets-have
Net Zero Fades as the Deluded Cling to Its Fantasy
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
The grand vision of “Net Zero” initiatives – by which emissions of carbon dioxide magically balance with expensive and futile capture and storage systems – have long been sold as the redemption arc for humanity’s profligate modern ways. Yet, like a poorly scripted dystopian thriller, the holes in this plot are glaring.
Net Zero was always a fragile concept. It rested on shaky and illogical assumptions: that wind turbines, solar panels and “green” hydrogen could reliably replace fossil fuels, that governments could redesign economies without unintended consequences, that voters would accept higher costs for daily necessities, and that developing countries would sacrifice growth for climate targets they had no hand in creating.
None of those fantasies held. Countries did not decarbonize nearly at the speed promised, even though climate bureaucracies clung to the illusion. Long-range targets, five-year reviews and international pledges lacked common sense and defied physical and economic realities. The result? An unaccountable machine pushing impractical policies that most people never voted for and are now beginning to reject.
If Net Zero were a serious endeavor, its architects would confront the undeniable: China and India are more than delaying their decarbonization timelines – they’re burying them. Why has this been ignored?
China and India – responsible for more than 40 percent of global CO2 emissions in the last two decades – are accelerating fossil fuel use, not phasing it out. In Southeast Asia, coal, oil and natural gas continue to dominate. Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are building new electric generating power plants using those fuels. These countries understand that economic growth comes first.
Africa, too, is pushing back. Leaders in Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal have criticized Western attempts to block fossil fuel financing. African nations are investing in exploitation of the oil and gas reserves.
If Asia represents the global rejection of Net Zero, Germany and the U.K. are poster children of the West’s self-inflicted wounds. Both nations, once hailed as Net Zero pioneers, are grappling with the harsh realities of their green ambitions. The transition to “renewables” has been plagued by economic pain, energy insecurity and political backlash, exposing the folly of policies divorced from facts. When the war in Ukraine cut off energy supplies, Germany panicked. Suddenly, coal plants were back online. The Green Dream died a quiet death.
Trump funding cuts likely will accelerate the fall of Net Zero’s house of cards. The president’s decisions to slash financing for international and domestic green programs has severed the lifeline for global climate initiatives, including the United Nations Environment Program. Trump also vowed to redirect billions from the Inflation Reduction Act – Biden’s misnomered climate law – toward fossil fuel infrastructure.
The retreat of Net Zero interrupts the flow of trillions of dollars into an agenda with questionable motives and false promises. Climate finance had developed the fever of a gold rush. Banks, asset managers and consulting firms hurried to brand themselves as “green.” ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing promised to reward “climate-friendly” firms and punish alleged polluters.
The fallout was massive market distortions. Companies shifted resources to meet ESG checklists at the expense of fiduciary obligations. Now the tide is turning. The Net Zero Banking Alliance comprising top firms globally has been abandoned by America’s leading institutions. Similarly, a Net Zero investors alliance collapsed after Blackrock’s exit.
Perhaps the fundamental failure of Net Zero was political. Permission was never sought from taxpayers and consumers who would pay the costs and suffer the consequences of an always ill-fated enterprise. Climate goals were set behind closed doors. Policies were imposed from above. Higher utility bills, job losses and diminished economic opportunity became the burdens of ordinary families. All while elites flew private jets to international summits and lectured about the need to sacrifice.
[…]
Trump’s Rift With Bibi Might Be Irreconcilable
That would be a nightmare scenario from the perspective of Israeli interests.
A report circulated last week alleging that Trump cut off all direct contact with Bibi after feeling manipulated by him. For as sensational as it sounds, the larger context suggests that it might be true. For starters, there was bad blood between them since late 2020 after Trump reportedly felt betrayed by Bibi recognizing Biden’s electoral victory while Trump was still challenging it in the courts. This is a very personal issue for him seeing as how he continues to insist that he won so it wouldn’t be surprising.
More recently, Bibi has been pressuring Trump to bomb Iran, which Trump doesn’t want to do since a large-scale war in West Asia would offset his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” for containing China. In connection with that, Trump reportedly dismissed former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz due to him supposedly coordinating too closely with Israel. Also of relevance are the rumors that Israel was caught off guard by the US’ resumption of talks with Iran and is against any agreement between them.
Then there’s the US’ recent deal with the Houthis that excludes Israel, reports that the US will delink Saudi recognition of Israel from their civil nuclear talks, and even speculation that Trump might recognize Palestine during his attendance at next week’s Gulf-US Summit in Riyadh. Altogether, it’s self-evident that US-Israeli ties are newly beset with a host of problems, thus lending credence to the earlier cited report about Trump cutting off all direct contact with Bibi.
Their rift might even be irreconcilable depending on Trump’s next steps. It was already bad enough from Israel’s perspective that the US reached its own deal with the Houthis right after they announced their plans to impose an air blockade on Israel but delinking Saudi recognition of Israel from their civil nuclear talks, let alone recognizing Palestine, could cross the Rubicon. In that scenario, Israel and the US would remain at odds during the rest of Trump’s term, and perhaps even afterwards if Vance succeeds him.
The consequences of that happening would widely reverberate throughout the region. Without the continued support of its oldest and most reliable ally, which is still the strongest and most influential country in the world despite the global systemic transition to multipolarity, Israel would be left alone to deal with threats from Iran and Turkiye. To make matters worse, it can’t be ruled out that the US might curtail or even suspend its military aid to Israel on whatever pretext, thus weakening its armed forces.
This combination of factors could lead to Israel wildly lashing out against its regional adversaries in desperation before it loses its military-strategic advantages, which could spark a large-scale war, or being coerced into a series of compromises that accelerates the loss of these selfsame advantages. From the viewpoint of Israeli interests, this a zero-sum dilemma that it must avoid at all costs, yet Trump’s potentially irreconcilable rift with Bibi could turn this nightmare scenario into a fait accompli.
Nevertheless, as Trump’s unexpected reconciliation with Zelensky shows, there’s always the chance that their tensions could be overcome. For that to happen, however, Bibi would likely have to give Trump something of equivalent strategic value to Zelensky’s minerals deal. It’s unclear what that might be, and it could come too late to stop the US from delinking Saudi recognition of Israel from their civil nuclear talks and/or recognizing Palestine, but Bibi would do well to make Trump a peace offering pronto.
[…]
Via https://korybko.substack.com/p/trumps-rift-with-bibi-might-be-irreconcilable
NOAA Using Covert Sub-Departments For Rogue Chemtrails
The recently established Chemtrails Task Force of the Trump administration is not wasting any time.
As confirmed by insiders, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has been operating rogue chemtrails out of covert sub-departments.
The problem is that’s only the beginning. Because what the task group discovered next is far more sinister—and includes foreign countries, weather systems that have been weaponized, and a long-standing scheme to manipulate the bodies and minds of a whole population.
Independent labs are analyzing samples, and initial findings are alarming.
The dust contains a toxic mix—barium, strontium, aluminum, lead, cadmium, and traces of Ba-137, a radioactive isotope linked to nuclear activity.
To be clear: this is evidence of nuclear transmutation.(See link for article and important videos)
US, China drop high tariffs, agree to 90-day pause
The U.S. agreed to drop its 145% tariff rate on Chinese goods down to 30%, while China agreed to lower its tariff rate on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%.
The U.S. and China on Monday announced the details of a trade agreement reached over the weekend in which the countries vastly scale back their massive reciprocating tariffs for 90-days.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the U.S. agreed to lower its 145% tariff rate on Chinese goods down to 30%, while China agreed to lower its tariff rate on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%, with each country dropping their respective rates by 115 percentage points, according to the Associated Press.
Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the tariff deal in Geneva, following the weekend of negotiations with their Chinese counterparts.
“The consensus from both delegations this weekend is neither side wants a decoupling,” Bessent said. “And what had occurred with these very high tariff … was an embargo, the equivalent of an embargo. And neither side wants that. We do want trade.”
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said that both sides agreed to cancel 91% in tariffs on each other’s goods and pause another 24% in tariffs for 90 days, resulting in a total reduction of 115 percentage points.
“This initiative aligns with the expectations of producers and consumers in both countries and serves the interests of both nations as well as the common interests of the world,” the Commerce Ministry said in a statement.
[…]
Via https://justthenews.com/nation/economy/us-china-drop-high-tariffs-agree-90-day-pause
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
