ATTACK OF THE CIA'S 282,000 KILLER TICKS

CIA accused of secret bioweapon experiments linked to major outbreak in its own people

 

By Chris Melore 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 6, 2026

 

 

In the US, between 30,000 and 40,000 cases of Lyme disease are diagnosed annually and reported to the CDC. The illness is spread by infected ticks biting mammals. The CIA is believed to have experimented using ticks as a weapon

 

A biochemist has claimed to have found evidence that the modern Lyme outbreak in the US could have been the result of CIA bioweapon experiments.

Dr Robert Malone, who helped lay the groundwork for mRNA vaccine technology, made the explosive allegations this week after analyzing declassified government documents, historical records from Cold War biological weapons programs and scientific research on tick-borne diseases.

Malone highlighted experiments in the 1960s that allegedly released more than 282,000 radioactive ticks in Virginia and open-air tick research at Plum Island, a federal laboratory located near the Connecticut community where Lyme disease was first identified.

The experiments were designed to track how disease-carrying ticks spread through the environment, with scientists marking the parasites using radioactive Carbon-14 so their movements could be detected with Geiger counters, a portable, gas-filled instrument. 

Malone’s report argued the research was part of a much larger Cold War biological weapons program known as Project 112, which involved dozens of secret tests aimed at studying how insects could be used to spread pathogens.

The program, authorized by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1962, oversaw 134 planned tests and included facilities capable of breeding millions of infected insects each week.

According to the report, the same region where these experiments took place later experienced an unprecedented surge in tick-borne illnesses.

Malone's claims follow calls from US officials to investigate whether federal agencies experimented with pathogen-laden ticks as tools of war.

 

Operation Mongoose was allegedly carried out by planes from Air America, an airline secretly owned by the CIA

 

In December 2025, an amendment by New Jersey Representative Chris Smith called for a review of military, NIH and USDA projects from 1945 to 1972 involving Spirochaetales and Rickettsiales, bacteria linked to tick-borne diseases. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has also suggested Lyme disease may have originated from a failed US bioweapons program in the 1970s tied to research at Plum Island. 

Plum Island is an 840-acre island off the northeastern coast of Long Island, New York, and home to the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, a government lab used since the 1950s to study infectious animal diseases.

However, the Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly said Lyme disease was never studied at the facility.

Malone’s report also claims key research into a second tick-borne pathogen may have been suppressed.

He alleged the government sidelined research on a pathogen known as the ‘Swiss Agent,’ which was detected in Lyme patients in Europe during the 1970s.

Malone, an expert in biology who earned multiple degrees at the University of California, also accused the government of suppressing research on a second disease called the 'Swiss Agent' found in Lyme patients in Europe in the 1970s.

Unpublished papers from Willy Burgdorfer, the scientist who discovered the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, suggested the pathogen complicated treatment because it triggered persistent symptoms that did not respond to standard antibiotics. 

 

Documents obtained by journalist and author Kris Newby revealed the Pentagon's plan to use Biological Weapons (BW) and Chemical Weapons (CW) on communist-controlled Cuba

Documents obtained by journalist and author Kris Newby suggested that the plans for Operation Mongoose were eventually called off because of weather conditions

 

Lyme disease, caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, reportedly affects 30,000 to 40,000 people annually according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but the agency estimates the true number of infections may be as high as 476,000 annually.

Along with a telltale rash around the bite, symptoms often include fever, fatigue, and muscle aches, but severe and untreated cases can also lead to fatal complications like heart problems, neurological issues, and brain inflammation.

Malone's claims focused on his analysis of the archived records as well as alleged confessions by Burgdorfer himself, which appeared in journalist Kris Newby's book 'Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons.' 

Malone argued that infecting ticks with multiple pathogens, including the so-called Swiss Agent, may have complicated diagnosis and treatment for patients exposed to tick bites. 

Swiss Agent, known by scientists as Rickettsia helvetica, is related to another tick-borne bacterium called Rocky Mountain spotted fever. It can cause mild to moderate flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle aches, and fatigue. 

Malone concluded that there was a 45 percent likelihood that the secret tick experiments and the omission of the 'Swiss Agent' discovery from Burgdorfer's original 1982 Lyme discovery paper contributed to the disease reaching epidemic levels in the US.

'Burgdorfer’s notes indicate he was “told to omit the presence of at least one potential bioweapon” during the Lyme investigation,' Malone wrote in an article on his Substack. 

'Swiss Agent suppression for 40+ years demonstrates systematic institutional willingness to conceal public health information.'

The Daily Mail has reached out to the CIA for comment regarding the declassified reports and claims of accidental exposures in the US. 

 

Within 3 days to a month, a red, bull's-eye rash will appear in 70 to 80 percent of cases involving a tick bite

 

In Cuba, under CIA-led Operation Mongoose, operatives reportedly dropped boxes of infected ticks from aircraft onto sugarcane workers to sabotage the economy, though the operation was said to have been quickly canceled due to risks like shifting winds.

The purpose of these operations was to create insect-based bioweapons during the Cold War, aiming to incapacitate communist adversaries by spreading illnesses such as anthrax or dengue without engaging in an actual war.

These events allegedly took place mainly from the 1950s to the 1970s, with Operation Mongoose specifically occurring in 1962, and domestic tick releases happening between 1966 and 1969.

The 282,800 ticks let loose in Virginia during these years were irradiated with the non-harmful isotope Carbon-14, which allowed scientists to track how far they could spread as local birds carried the insects during their migrations.

Some events have been verified through declassified documents found in the CIA and National Archives, confirming the existence of bioweapons programs like Project 112 and Mongoose's sabotage plans.

However, the claims that infected ticks were dropped over Cuba rely largely on anonymous testimony and have never been independently verified. 

IRAN IS GETTING DETAILED INTELLIGENCE FROM RUSSIA

Russia aiding Iran with intelligence on US military assets

Sources tell The Washington Post the intelligence included the locations of US warships and aircraft in the Middle East.

 

by Bar Shaffer 

 

Israel Hayom

Mar 6, 2026 

The moment of an Iranian strike on a US base in Bahrain.

 

 

Russia has been providing Iran with detailed intelligence about the locations of US military forces in the Middle East in an effort to help the Islamic Republic target American assets in the region. The development marks the first indication of even indirect involvement by another major US rival in the unfolding events in the Middle East.

 

According to three sources familiar with the intelligence who spoke with the Washington Post in a report published Friday morning, Russia has supplied Iran with precise information about the locations of US military assets since fighting erupted last Saturday. The intelligence reportedly included the positions of warships and fighter jets deployed across the region. One source described the Russian effort to assist Tehran as "fairly extensive and systematic." 

 

 

Missile attack hits US Navy Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain 

 

The exact scope of Russia's targeting assistance to Iran remains unclear. However, the sources said Iran's ability to independently locate US forces was significantly degraded within less than a week after the fighting began, which may explain Tehran's urgent need for outside intelligence support.

US War Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the issue of Russia and China earlier this week. The two countries are widely considered Iran's most powerful international backers. Hegseth said he had no special message for them and argued that "they are not really playing a role here."

Unlike Russia, China does not appear to be assisting Iran's defense efforts at this stage despite the close ties between the two countries. Two of the intelligence sources said there are no signs that Beijing is involved in providing assistance to Tehran, suggesting China may currently prefer to keep some distance from the conflict in order to avoid jeopardizing its complex relationship with Washington.

Meanwhile, a senior Ukrainian official told ABC News that Ukrainian drone interception specialists will be deployed across the Middle East "in the coming days" to help defend US bases.  

LIBERAL JEWS SHOULD CONVERT TO CONSERVATISM

If pro-Israel Democrats become extinct, what will liberal Jews do?

As supposed moderates like Gavin Newsom demonize AIPAC and smear the Jewish state to appeal to their party’s mainstream, voters will have to draw their own conclusions. 

 

By Jonathan S. Tobin 

 

JNS

Mar 6, 2026 

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally outside the Manhattan headquarters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Feb. 22, 2024.

 

The pro-Israel AIPAC lobby met last week for its first major public event in Washington since the COVID pandemic. The atmosphere among the thousands of attendees at its off-the-record plenum sessions exuded a spirit of solidarity with the Jewish state and determination to stick to its traditional and once highly successful formula of seeking bipartisan support for the State of Israel. 

But hanging over it all was a stark truth about the current atmosphere that can’t be denied. To be pro-Israel, let alone willing to work with AIPAC, has become politically dangerous for Democrats. 

AIPAC becomes toxic for Democrats

It’s a familiar story that’s repeating itself in midterm races occurring all over the country, as well as in the first murmurings of the run-up to the 2028 presidential election.

Everywhere you look, you find evidence of mainstream Democrats scurrying for cover as their invariably more left-wing primary opponents use past visits to Israel or reports of their getting funding from pro-Israel PACs, as well as those connected to AIPAC, as campaign issues. For Democrats, AIPAC is more and more being falsely compared to radical right-wing hate groups, despite the absurdity of the comparisons. 

Examples of this abound. In Illinois, State Senator Laura Fine is being bashed for taking pro-Israel PAC money by her opponent Daniel Bliss, as they compete for the Democratic nomination to replace Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), herself a veteran Israel-basher in the state’s heavily Jewish 9th District on Chicago’s North Side and adjoining suburbs. All three are Jewish. 

Even more awkward is the controversy in New York’s 10th District, where Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) is running for a third term in another constituency with a significant Jewish population in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Goldman felt compelled to distance himself from his wife and campaign treasurer, Corrine Levy Goldman, because of her online support for Israel and outrage about the Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, 2023. 

Though as much of a limousine liberal as her husband, who is one of the heirs to the Levi Strauss & Company jeans fortune, she is under fire for the offense of liking posts on Facebook that said that “Jews for Palestine” made as much sense as “Chickens for KFC” and that suggested that those who advocated for “Free Palestine” ought to go to the Gaza Strip and experience life under Hamas rule. Though those are entirely reasonable points of view, they were characterized by The New York Times as “hateful” and “insensitive,” which is, no doubt, how people who support the Oct. 7 massacres and Hamas feel about them. 

The case of the Goldmans might be comical if it were not so troubling. 

Goldman, who was the lead counsel for the first attempt to impeach Trump, is considered a relatively moderate Democrat and a supporter of Israel, albeit one who feels compelled to continually distance himself from the Jewish state’s government and virtually anything it does to defend itself from terrorists and their Iranian sponsors. But he now finds himself at a disadvantage as he tries to fend off a primary challenge from former New York City Controller Brad Lander (also Jewish), who is an ardent opponent of AIPAC and Israel.

The AIPAC-bashing, however, is more than a function of these liberal civil wars in deep-blue districts. 

Polling milestone

As the most recent Gallup poll measuring attitudes toward Israel indicated, the already existing partisan divide over the Middle East is growing. 

As it stands now, 65% of those who identify as Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians while only 17% are on Israel’s side. By contrast, 70% of Republicans support Israel while only 13% back the Palestinians. Meanwhile, independents now also tilt toward the Palestinians, with 41% sympathizing with them to 30% backing Israel. As a result, for the first time in the 21st century, a plurality of Americans as a whole are pro-Palestinian, the atrocities of Oct. 7 notwithstanding. 

That Democrats are no longer a pro-Israel party isn’t news. 

The left’s embrace of toxic ideas like intersectionality, critical race theory and settler-colonialism, which label Jews as “white” oppressors over people of color, has caused the two parties to exchange identities on the issue. More than half a century ago, the Democrats were largely sympathetic to Israel, while most Republicans were lukewarm about it. But over the course of the 21st century, the growing alienation toward the Jewish state in the Democratic Party has steadily increased. It is now to the point that backing the right of the one Jewish state on the planet to exist and defend itself is almost as unpopular among Democrats as opposing abortion.

So, it’s not really all that surprising that some Democrats—long considered moderates and eager to be identified as pro-Israel—are abandoning that stance. That’s true for Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-N.M.), considered a long-shot Democratic presidential contender in 2028, and
who recently joined the chorus of those blaming U.S. involvement in the conflict in Iran on the Jewish state. 

Newsom’s cynical turn

 

Gavin Newsom now compares Israel to an “Apartheid State” and urges the U.S. to rethink on Military Support

 

The embrace of anti-Israel rhetoric by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, now that he’s clearly aiming at a run for president, is evidence of the current political climate. Not so long ago, Newsom, who currently ranks second in the early presidential preferences of Democrats behind former Vice President Kamala Harris, was eager to be identified as a supporter of Israel, even making a solidarity visit after the Oct. 7 attacks. But the 58-year-old governor, who has always been something of a political chameleon, has put his finger up into the wind and decided to change sides. 

Instead of a gradual drift away from his former position, he has come to the conclusion that halfway steps would be of little use in primaries where anti-Israel voters will clearly predominate. So, he is not just saying that he would cut off U.S. aid to Israel, even while it is still at war with terrorists and nations that seek its destruction. He is fully bowing the knee to so-called “progressives” by smearing it as an “apartheid” state. 

It’s far from clear whether such vicious attacks will ultimately win elections outside of Democratic primaries or in deep-blue states. But there’s no use pretending that what was once accurately described as a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus simply no longer exists. 

And that leaves AIPAC, as well as the majority of Jews who identify as Democrats, with a difficult problem and a stark choice. 

The myth of the so-called ‘Israel lobby’

The idea that AIPAC—the fearsome “Israel lobby”—has always been a dominant force in Washington is utter nonsense. The anti-Israel movement, funded by oil-rich Islamist emirates like Qatar and leftists like the Soros family, has far more money to spread around. And compared to corporate lobbies like those that represent the oil and pharmaceutical industries, AIPAC is a minor player inside the Beltway. 

Still, the idea of its importance was bolstered both by its supporters, who thought it helped convince more people to listen to their arguments, and its opponents, for whom it has long been the object of their antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish money buying Washington and the alleged dual loyalty of American Jews. If most members of Congress were sympathetic to Israel, it was because the Jewish state was broadly popular among voters. And it still is, at least among Republicans. 

Another myth was the claim that it tilted to the right, an idea that has gained a great deal of currency in the last decade. That was never true and still isn’t. 

The lobby has always been animated by the idea that building support for Israel in both parties was vital. As such, it did its best to cultivate Democrats and Republicans. To this day, it seeks to help pro-Israel Democrats triumph over those who oppose the Jewish state and approaches GOP races in the same way. 

Yet Democrats have become increasingly hostile to Israel, a trend that accelerated during the presidency of Barack Obama, who sought to appease Iran. While that was happening, Republicans—in no small measure due to the influence of evangelical Christians—became more of a lockstep pro-Israel party. 

AIPAC’s leadership was deeply embarrassed and apologized for the reaction of many of those in attendance at their 2016 conference when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke. The mere fact that they were giving him a hearing outraged many Democrats. But a loud cheer went up in the crowd when Trump mentioned that Obama was in the last year of his presidency. This was considered evidence that the group was being taken over by right-wingers. All it meant was that grass-roots pro-Israel activists, most of whom were Democrats, were alienated by an administration that had turned on Israel. 

The Trump factor

Trump has proven time and again to be the most pro-Israel president to sit in the White House since the founding of the modern-day Jewish state in 1948. That belief, rooted in many of the decisions in his first term, such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and the 2020 Abraham Accords, has been reinforced by his recent stand on Iran. His willingness to use force to defend both the Jewish state and Americans from the nuclear and terrorist threat that Obama sought to appease has again earned him the gratitude of the pro-Israel community. 

The issue for AIPAC and Jewish voters isn’t so much what Trump is actually doing. Nor is it the way anti-Israel and antisemitic voices on the right, such as former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, are opposing the president. Rather, it is the wholesale collapse of pro-Israel sentiment among Democrats and the way tropes of Jew-hatred have become normalized in the party. Carlson and even more hateful right-wingers represent a loud minority in the GOP with minimal support among officeholders and party activists. Still, as has become painfully obvious, hostility to Israel and Zionism, coupled with a willingness to treat those who call for Jewish genocide as both reasonable and idealistic, is now the view of a majority of Democrats. 

It was one thing when Harris and former President Joe Biden were treating Jew-haters with kid gloves in a futile attempt to win them over without fully embracing their positions. But these days, mainstream Democrats like Newsom are doubling down on the Israel-bashing and even matching the invective of those who were widely thought of as extremists only a few years ago. 

A test for Jews

For those Jews who are themselves abandoning Israel, this won’t be much of a dilemma. Indeed, many left-wing Jews and publications that appeal to them, such as The Forward, are claiming it is only understandable. Some have themselves bought into the campaign of pro-Hamas propaganda, including blood libels about Israel committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. As a result, those who feel this way now seem to think that Zionism is incompatible with their skewed concept of liberalism or their misguided notions about Judaism that strip it of Jewish peoplehood and the religious importance of the land of Israel. 

But the majority of liberal Jews who still say they care about Israel, even if they aren’t fans of its current government, will soon face a profound test of their principles. They may still detest Trump and the GOP. Yet are they ready to vote for Democrats, like Newsom, who are prepared to demonize the Jewish state and treat mainstream politically neutral advocates for it, like AIPAC, as if it were a hate group? If so, then they will be sending a message that their ties to left-wing allies and traditional hostility to Republicans are more important to them than Israel’s survival at a time of war and surging antisemitism. 

Under these circumstances, it’s going to be harder and harder for pro-Israel Democrats to hold their ground within the party, let alone aspire to lead it. It will be equally difficult for AIPAC to find Democrats to support. Stalwarts, like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who are prepared to stand behind Israel and support efforts to defeat those who seek its destruction, were once commonplace in the party. Now they are outliers. Soon, like pro-life Democrats, they may be altogether extinct.

SINCE THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION OF 1979, THE REGIME HAS DECLARED ITS INTENTION TO DESTROY BOTH ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES - THE 'LITTLE SATAN' AND THE 'GREAT SATAN'

Trump’s strike on Tehran exposes Europe’s blindness

The Western debate focuses on imperialism, while ignoring Tehran’s decades-long war against the free world. 

 

By Fiamma Nirenstein 

 

JNS

Mar 6, 2026

 

 

Why did U.S. President Donald Trump attack Iran?

Ask many newspapers and television panels across Europe, and you will hear a familiar answer: because he is an imperialist, reckless and aggressive. That is the dominant explanation repeated across much of the continent’s media and political discourse.

According to this narrative, Trump acts out of arrogance and geopolitical ambition. Following closely behind him, critics say, is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, often portrayed in the same commentary as a dangerous provocateur. Together, they become convenient symbols of Western aggression.

Yet this interpretation ignores the central fact that has defined Middle Eastern politics for more than four decades: The Islamic Republic of Iran has built a vast system of ideological warfare, military expansion and terrorism directed not only at Israel but at the West as a whole.

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the regime has declared its intention to destroy both Israel and the United States—the “Little Satan” and the “Great Satan.” This was not rhetorical excess. It became the organizing principle of the regime’s foreign policy.

The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was the opening act. In the years that followed came the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the rise of Hezbollah, the spread of proxy militias throughout the Middle East and the systematic export of terrorism.

That history includes many chapters, the latest being the atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023.

Yet large segments of European commentary prefer to dismiss the Iranian threat as exaggerated or imaginary. Ballistic missiles, enriched uranium, nuclear ambitions—these are often treated as speculative claims or diplomatic bargaining tools that can always be resolved through another negotiation.

The assumption is that an agreement is always possible if only the West shows patience.

But the facts tell a different story. Even the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has warned that Iran possesses hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium that could soon be transformed into nuclear weapons.

Negotiations have hardly reassured Western officials. According to reports from diplomatic discussions, Iranian officials have openly suggested that their program could quickly reach the capacity to produce multiple nuclear devices.

Meanwhile, Tehran continues to deepen strategic cooperation with Russia, particularly through drone technology used in the war in Ukraine, while maintaining strong ties with China.

Yet many European commentators remain convinced that the Iranian regime is stable, resilient and perhaps even part of a broader “axis of resistance” deserving of political legitimacy.

In this interpretation, Trump’s strike on Iran becomes an act of senseless belligerence rather than a strategic response to a mounting threat.

Critics now accuse the U.S. president of abandoning his earlier pledge to seek peace. War, they argue, contradicts that promise.

But this argument fails to recognize a basic strategic reality. Sometimes a war of necessity prevents a far more devastating war of aggression.

History repeatedly demonstrates that confronting expansionist regimes early can avert catastrophe later. The alternative—waiting for the threat to fully materialize—often leads to far greater destruction.

Trump’s decision has also revived another familiar accusation: that the United States is acting at Israel’s behest.

Trump himself rejected that characterization, insisting that Washington is leading the effort. Israel and the United States have long shared intelligence and strategic concerns regarding Iran’s ambitions.

Israel’s position is not difficult to understand. Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for its destruction while building a regional network of armed proxies designed precisely for that purpose.

For many critics in Europe, however, the deeper discomfort lies elsewhere: the idea that Western powers might openly fight alongside Israel.

When U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described it as “refreshing to fight shoulder to shoulder with such a capable ally,” the remark captured a reality that unsettles many commentators.

Israel today is a powerful and capable military actor. It is also a state that has endured decades of threats calling for its elimination from the face of the earth.

Supporting Israel’s right to defend itself—and defending the broader Western order threatened by Iran—should not be controversial. Yet for some observers, it remains deeply problematic.

During the Holocaust, the decision to fight Nazi Germany to save Europe and the Jewish people was long delayed and painfully difficult. Ultimately, it proved indispensable to the survival of European civilization.

Today, cooperation with Israel’s military is portrayed by some critics as unacceptable.

Trump, however, has not hidden behind Israel nor been dragged reluctantly into confrontation. He has chosen to act alongside an ally while also calling on the Iranian people themselves to reclaim their freedom from a regime that has ruled them through repression and fear.

What makes Trump’s decision so remarkable—and so difficult for many Europeans to understand—is that he has chosen to stand alongside the Jewish people and defend them from an existential threat.

Instinctively, he seems to grasp the profound moral significance of that choice. After centuries in which Jews were left alone to face persecution, defending them is itself a historic achievement. Today, that defense means standing with Israel and its army. It marks a turning point—historically and morally.

It is a complex strategy, but one rooted in a clear understanding of the stakes.

For much of Europe, however, the situation appears easier to interpret through a simpler narrative of imperialism and aggression.

Reality, unfortunately, is far more complicated.

PARTY PARTY PARTY

By Bob Walsh

 

                     

 

I guess Shannon O'Connor, 51, wanted to be the cool mother.  Or maybe she wanted some action for herself.  It is hard to say.  In any event she just got bitten on the butt by her wild alcohol fueled parties for teenagers.

The Los Gatos, CA. was just found guilty of 47 counts including child endangerment and sexual offenses.  The trial lasted three months.  She will be required to register as a sex offender and could get 30 years when she is sentenced late this month.  She has been a guest of the county for the 4 1/2 years since her original arrest.

Among other things O'Connor allegedly encouraged teenage boys to sexually assault extremely intoxicated young girls in a hot tub.  She originally faced 20 felonies and 43 misdemeanors.  Her teenage son and several of his friends were the primary "beneficiaries" of these parties.  Most of these parties occurred at O'Connor's house but some occurred at rural locations.

DC COURT OF APPEALS THROWS OUT 10-ROUND MAGAZINE BAN

By Bob Walsh

 

 

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has just ruled that the DC law prohibiting the possession of firearms magazines holding more than ten rounds by members of the general public is unconstitutional.  While this has no immediate effect outside of DC it may be one more push towards SCOTUS looking at and overturning similar laws elsewhere.

AND THE HITS KEEP COMING

By Bob Walsh

 

 

Five of the seven SCUSD Board of Education members.

 

The Sacramento City Unified School District has just announced that the next-year deficit projection has just gone up AGAIN from last month.  They are now talking about $134 million rather than the $113 million cited just last month.

The district has just announced several hundred MORE potential layoffs on top of those already announced.  They are absolutely desperate to avoid a state takeover.  A lot of people will lose their seat on the gravy train if that happens, and a lot of competent investigation may take place to figure out just what the fuck is going on there.  Maybe it is just me but I find it hard to believe that that much money is disappearing or needed due to ordinary incompetence.  

CALIFORNIA'S COSTLY GAS

By Bob Walsh

 

Gasoline has gone up about 50 cents per gallon here locally in about two weeks.  Yesterday I paid $5 for gas.  Today the gas is $5.29 at the same station.  

There was a guy on the tube from Chevron two days ago.  He implied very strongly that if the formerly great state of California doesn't get its shit together Chevron may shut down all refining in CA and he implied broadly that other refiners are considering the same.  He pointed out specifically that CA is getting ready to go into it's MANDATORY "summer mixture" gasoline blend that is used NOWHERE ELSE in the country making CA gasoline even more costly and hard to get.  

There are no pipelines to bring gas into CA right now, though that is being worked on.  It is NOT an instant process.  There are not enough tankers or HazMat certified drivers to bring as into the state and tankers and for that matter railroad tank cars are much more expensive and much less safe than pipelines for this sort of thing.

With any sort of luck this bullshit will hit HARD just before the primary elected and hard again just before the general election.  If it doesn't we will end up with damn few people in CA that are net tax payers rather than net tax consumers.  

BUT INSTEAD OF FLAT-OUT FIRING NOEM, TRUMP REWARDS HER WITH A NEW POSITION

Inside Kristi Noem's spectacular fall from grace... and the moment Trump finally turned on her

 

By By Nick Allen, Jon Michael Raasch, Phillip Nieto and Shawn Cohen 

 

Daily Mail

Mar 5, 2026

 

 

Kristi Noem is now the former homeland security secretary

 

For Donald Trump - a man who values loyalty above all else - it was the moment his patience with Kristi Noem finally ran out.

Appearing before Congress, his embattled homeland security secretary said under oath that the President had signed off on her spending a staggering $220 million of taxpayer money on a border security advertising campaign.

This prominently featured Noem herself, including a scene of her on horseback at Mount Rushmore in her home state of South Dakota. It sparked rumors that she could be raising her profile ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run.

'I never knew anything about it,' Trump lamented on Thursday.

However, while that was the final straw for the President, the seeds of Noem's demise had been sown in the preceding months. 

She had made herself a deeply polarizing figure, loathed on the left as 'Bloody Kristi' and alienating independents.

As the midterm elections loom in November, Republican strategists have been alarmed at how what was previously Trump's strongest issue - immigration - has become an electoral liability with Noem at the fore.

A key moment in that damaging process came when she stepped to the microphones, just hours after the fatal shooting of activist Renee Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on January 7.

In such situations, federal officials typically say they will need to wait for the findings of an investigation before passing judgment. So, her response was highly unexpected and controversial.

Flanked by burly, stone-faced agency officials and wearing a black DHS hat pulled down over her eyes, Noem claimed that Ms Good had committed an act of 'domestic terrorism,' 'weaponized' her car and 'attempted to run a law enforcement officer over.' The officer, she declared, followed his training.

Her comments sent shockwaves through the law enforcement community and America at large. One former senior DHS official told the Daily Mail that Noem displayed 'profound ignorance' and a 'disturbing disregard for the proper way to investigate an officer-involved shooting' by not reserving her judgment.

Some Republicans in Congress echoed those sentiments and Democrats stepped up calls for Noem's impeachment.

Her handling of the shooting of Ms Good, and that of Alex Pretti, appeared to signal a possible turning point in her troubled tenure as secretary.

It brought to a head an internal agency struggle with Trump's hand-picked border czar Tom Homan.

Noem had strived to make herself the very public face of Trump's mass deportation program. 

But it was a trial by fire for a woman labelled 'ICE Barbie' by detractors. She became a frequent target of ridicule for Democrats and late-night comedians - 'Why is Kristi Noem always in some sort of cosplay outfit?' smirked Stephen Colbert.

Even before her appointment to the post, Noem was widely derided over an admission in her book, released last year that while she was governor of South Dakota (2019-2025), that she shot and killed her family's 14-month-old dog, which had bitten her and killed livestock.

The theriocide became a national story, which Noem eventually addressed in a public statement.

 

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem films an ad at Mount Rushmore. It was a part of a $220 million campaign to recruit more DHS workers. Noem said Trump signed off on the expense, but the President refuted that

 

Recently, walking through the halls of Congress carrying her infant granddaughter, the extent of antipathy for Noem was evident.

She was accosted by a group of belligerent protesters. She was the 'Gestapo' and the new SS, they cried, even yelling that she was using the baby as a 'political prop'.

Within the Department of Homeland, sources told the Daily Mail that Noem had been in a fierce turf war with Homan. 

She recently lost one of her key allies in the department as the deputy director of ICE, Madison Sheahan, 28, announced she was resigning to run for Congress.

Homan was said to want to prioritize deportation of the most dangerous criminal illegal aliens, while Noem wanted to deport as many as possible, often in high-profile operations featuring herself in law enforcement gear.

Her critics inside the agency said her approach inflamed the backlash against ICE, and the split reverberated through the rank and file, with insiders telling the Daily Mail the situation was a 'train wreck.'

Behind the scenes, at the Department of Homeland Security's imposing headquarters, also lurked Corey Lewandowski, Noem's trusted adviser and confidant.

Lewandowski is a former political adviser to President Trump and he officially serves in the administration as a temporary government employee. The Daily Mail has previously reported that Noem and Lewandowski are also secretly romantic partners, which both of them have denied.

Some in the department have found Lewandowski, to put it politely, abrasive.

 

Then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem rides a camel before touring Qal'at al-Bahrain Fort near Manama on May 25 last year

Noem participates in a ship assault demonstration on board the US Coast Guard Cutter Elm with the Maritime Security Response Team in San Diego on March 16 last year

Noem and Tom Homan (right) have been at odds on how to enforce immigration policy, according to sources 

 

In December, the Daily Mail reported that Lewandowski repeatedly encouraged DHS officials to issue him a federally approved gun, going so far as to make it a litmus test for a top candidate interviewing to become ICE director, according to multiple department sources.

Lewandowski denied the claims and alleged to the Daily Mail that Homan had planted the story, which elicited a rare rebuke of him from the White House.

'Tom Homan is an American patriot who does not leak to the media and is very respectful of the White House's press processes,' said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a direct response to Lewandowski's claim.

These ill-feelings and other within the department, which has a $100 billion budget and 260,000 employees, contributed to ongoing speculation that Noem would be fired by President Trump.

At one point, Noem was confronted with that assessment at a news conference in Tampa. She gave a wry smile and said she had 'no indication' she was on the chopping block.

In January, influential Trump advisor and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller publicly backed Noem.

He told the Daily Mail: 'On behalf of President Trump, Secretary Noem is returning America to the American People.

'She has demonstrated exceptional leadership in responding to the wide array of threats and challenges facing our nation – from foreign cartels to mass migration to natural disasters – and has been instrumental in delivering so many historic wins for the American People.'

 

Noem rides on the USCG MSRT Small Boat in South Bay, San Diego, California, last March

Stephen Miller told the Daily Mail in January that Noem had displayed 'exceptional leadership'

Federal agents clash with rioters on the streets of Minneapolis

 

It has long been said that Trump has a particular loyalty to those who actively defend him in extremis and he notes who is on television fighting for him and his administration.

In the wake of the Minneapolis shooting, Noem was everywhere on the airwaves - and not just on safe ground. She ventured into the bear pit of CNN to face the network's chief inquisitor Jake Tapper.

That appeared to have helped prolong her tenure. 

Asked at the time by the Daily Mail if Trump was satisfied with Noem's handling of the crisis, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: 'Yes, 100 percent.'

However, rank and file DHS officials told the Daily Mail that ICE agents appreciated more Homan's initial response to the shooting, viewing it as far more measured compared to Noem's provocative approach.

 

Renee Good was shot dead by ICE in Minneapolis on January 7

Several DHS officials reached out the Daily Mail to express their disdain for a woman seen by some as unqualified for the position

 

There is no doubt that some in the law enforcement community want to see the back of her.

Several DHS officials reached out the Daily Mail to express their disdain for a woman seen by some as unqualified for the position. 

In October, the growing friction between the two camps – Noem on one side and Homan on the other – sparked a shakeup within at least eight ICE field offices.

As many as 12 senior leaders within the field offices were reportedly turfed out and replaced with Border Patrol officials, in a sign that Noem's allies were trying to assert more influence within ICE.

Noem's broader and more aggressive approach to boost the number of reportable deportations each day also led to pushback from some moderate Republicans.

According to one Republican strategist, immigration had been a 'huge political strength of the President - get bad hombres out of the country, people wanted to see drug lords, bad people snatched up. But '[the electorate] doesn't want to see people who are doing dry wall, sheet rock, gardeners, nannies, zip-tied in a CVS parking lot.' 

 

Noem sits atop a horse with Border Patrol agents near the Rio Grande river

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in January that President Trump was '100 percent' satisfied with Noem's handling of the Minneapolis crisis 

 

One former senior ICE official, whose son works for ICE and who maintains regular contact with officers in the field, claimed much of the rank and file lost confidence in Noem's leadership.

'Morale is in the toilet right now,' the source told the Daily Mail in January. 'This is a strategy to screw with blue states. It's all to get clips so the secretary can make cute statements.

'Kristi Noem is the stereotype of what Trump likes to have in leadership. They look good on camera, they provide you with good sound bites and videos, but that's about it.' 

Another ICE insider, speaking before Noem was fired, said: 'It's a total train wreck. Lewandowski, Stephen Miller and Homan don't get along and always fight and bicker behind the scenes.

'Noem doesn't have a lot of people surrounding her who have real world experience, as far as law enforcement is concerned, and I think that's going to be here undoing.'

IN HOCKEY IT'S OK TO FIGHT, BUT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DROP YOUR STICK, NOT KONK YOUR OPPONENT WITH IT

Frustrated Penguins star Evgeni Malkin is ejected for going 'full Paul Bunyan' in stick attack on rival

 

By  Jake Fenner

 

Daily Mail

Mar 5, 2026

 

 

Pittsburgh Penguins star Evgeni Malkin was ejected for a shocking hit on an opponent

 

Pittsburgh Penguins star Evegeni Malkin was ejected from a game against the Buffalo Sabres for a shocking outburst against defenseman Rasmus Dahlin.

Malkin and Dahlin were engaged in a physical battle in front of the net before the Penguins star crashed into Sabres goaltender Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen.

Dahlin then shoved Malkin to try and protect his goalie, leading to a response from the three-time Stanley Cup champion.

Malkin initially pushed Dahlin back, but then shocked fans by slashing the defender in the head with his stick.

Dahlin was seen holding his head and nearly fell to the ice after the shock from the blow from the Russian veteran.

On-ice officials instantly charged Malkin with a five-minute slashing major plus a game misconduct, kicking him out of the game.

 

Malkin slashed his stick against the helmet of Buffalo Sabres defenseman Rasmus Dahlin

Malkin was ejected from the game and could face further punishment from the league

 

Fans were shocked by Malkin's behavior, described by Spittin' Chiclets as 'going full Paul Bunyan' on the Sabres star.

'Classic geno [Malkin] pirate rage slash been doing that since 08’,' wrote one user on X.

'What a loser. Suspend him,' another wrote.

One comment read, 'He just can't help but forget that he's playing hockey and not swordfighting.'

It's possible that Malkin could receive further punishment for his actions, which would put the Penguins in a tough spot in a race for the playoffs.

Pittsburgh currently sits second in the Metropolitan Division, but is only three points away from missing the playoffs entirely.

This all comes as star and captain Sidney Crosby is out with an injury he sustained in the Olympics. 

MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE THE LIE THAT ISRAEL FORCED THE HAND OF THE US INTO THE WAR ON IRAN

In a polarized America, Iran war puts American Jews on the defensive

As accusations fly that Israel forced the hand of the US into the Iran campaign and social media erupts over Khamenei's death, diaspora leaders warn that Israel's bond with American Jewry cannot be taken for granted.

 

by Adi Nirman 

 

Israel Hayom

Mar 5, 2026

 

 

 

A person wears a t-shirt with images of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a protest against the war in Iran on March 2, 2026 in New York, New York. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Israel had launched an attack on Iran Saturday morning 

 

 

Tensions among the American public and its leadership over the joint American-Israeli strikes on Iran peaked on Wednesday, when the Senate held a vote on a measure to limit President Donald Trump's authority in Iran. Though it voted against the measure, the criticism – which came primarily from the Democratic camp and framed the campaign as "a war the American public did not want" – also took on an Israeli dimension, with accusations that Israel had forced the hand of the US into yet another operation in Iran, a charge the president flatly rejected, arguing the opposite was true.

 

Still, the controversy has generated fresh friction within the American Jewish community and in Jewish diaspora communities worldwide, which have faced mounting difficulties since the Hamas attack on October 7.

"Since the war began, we have been witnessing in the United States two parallel processes," Shira Ruderman, CEO of the Ruderman Family Foundation, explained. "On one hand, an extraordinarily deep sense of shared destiny between American Jewry and Israel, and an unprecedented mobilization of Jewish communities to provide aid, support, and engagement. But alongside that, many American Jews feel that the space they live in has changed. Jewish identity and the connection to Israel have suddenly become charged subjects in public discourse – on campuses, in workplaces, and in social life."

Ruderman addressed how Israel factors within the American public debate. "American society itself is today in a very polarized place, and the war in Israel has been pulled into America's internal political polarization," she said. "We are seeing growing gaps, especially among the younger generation, where support for Israel is no longer taken for granted the way it once was. At the same time, there has been a genuine rise in the sense of insecurity among American Jews and in antisemitism incidents – something we have not seen at this scale in years."

"For American Jewry, this is a complex moment," she stressed. "On one hand, a deep commitment to Israel and a sense of responsibility for what is happening here; on the other, a need to explain, to justify, and at times to defend the very connection to Israel within American society."

Alongside celebrations – particularly following the elimination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Iran's supreme leader and architect of decades of repression, torture, and murder of the Iranian people), at which one could see Iranians, Israelis, and their supporters waving the flags of Iran, Israel, and the United States – protests began breaking out around the world, accompanied by tens of thousands of videos on social media.

Social media in the US has been roiling with videos condemning the killing of the Islamic Republic's supreme leader and even challenging the accusations leveled against him. The finger-pointing directed at Israel has come from high-profile activists with large followings, among them Tucker Carlson, who had visited Israel before the war and argued that blame rests on every member of the American leadership who agreed to "Netanyahu's demands or threats."

"This is a critical moment for Israel to understand that the relationship with diaspora Jewry cannot be taken for granted," Ruderman said. "It is a long-term strategic asset built on partnership, listening, and mutual understanding – not only in times of crisis, but also in the day that follows."

Acting on precisely that logic, immediately upon the launch of Operation Roaring Lion, World Zionist Organization Chairman Yaakov Hagoel sent a communique to Jewish communities across the world – in the US, Australia, Europe, and Gulf states – laying out the importance of the military operation in Iran and its implications for the liberation of the Iranian people.

"Israel and the United States, as determined allies, carried out a targeted strike against terrorist infrastructure in Iran in order to defend our citizens and preserve stability in the Middle East," Hagoel stated. He noted that since the operation began, Israel has been under continuous missile attack, specifically citing the deadly strike in the city of Beit Shemesh that resulted in the deaths of nine civilians. "Nine innocent civilians were murdered in the city of Beit Shemesh. Not soldiers on a battlefield. Civilians in their homes. This is a crime. It is state-sponsored terror. And it is a painful reminder of a truth we must never suppress: there are those who seek our destruction. And we will continue to choose life".

Asserting the need for a global Jewish unity, Hagoel said: "From Jerusalem to New York, from Paris to Melbourne, our voice must be clear and unwavering: a terror regime that openly seeks our destruction must be dismantled. The Jewish people live, stand tall, and will never apologize for our right to live securely in our homeland".

Hagoel concluded with a warning that the threat from Tehran extends to Jewish communities worldwide. "We entered this campaign not by choice but by necessity. Our war is with the regime that rules Iran, not with the Iranian people. We must remember and remind the world that the Iranian people themselves deserve a future free from this tyranny".

HIGH PRAISE FOR ISRAELI FORCES

Hegseth hails “unmatched skill” of Israeli forces

US Secretary of War says it is refreshing to work with a “capable” and “determined” partner that understands the proper application of force.

 

By Ryan Jones

 

Israel Today

Mar 5, 2026

 

 

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (C) receives Israel Defense Minister Katz (L) at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., July 18, 2025

 

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth hailed the results of the unprecedented cooperation between their two nations in Operation Roaring Lion/Epic Fury.

In less than a week, the combined US-Israeli aerial assault has eliminated most of the Iranian regime’s top leadership, fully destroyed the Iranian Navy, decimated the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile forces and manufacturing capabilities, and severely weakened the forces used to suppress the Iranian population.

All of this was made possible by the rapid achievement of air superiority in the two allies’ areas of responsibility–Israel in western Iran and over Tehran, and the US military along the southern Iranian coast and up into central Iran.

“Changing history”

In an overnight call with Hegseth, Katz said that the US-Israel cooperation in confronting the Islamic Republic was “changing history.”

Katz expressed Israel’s deepest condolences over the deaths of six US troops during the first week of the campaign, and said Israeli forces would continue to do everything possible to defend their allies.

Hegseth in turn expressed America’s gratitude to Israel, and urged the Israelis to “keep going to the end–we are with you.”

High praise for Israeli forces

Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that the US deeply appreciates working with such a capable ally.

“To our steadfast partner, Israel, your mission is being executed with unmatched skill and iron determination,” he stated, adding: “Fighting shoulder to shoulder with such a capable ally is a true force multiplier and a breath of fresh air. We salute your courage and your contribution.”

A day earlier, Hegseth effectively called out America’s other Western allies, and suggested they take notes on Israel’s conduct.

The US, he said, had “clear missions” in Operation Epic Fury aimed at protecting American and Western interests. And Israel is doing its part to bolster those missions while protecting its own interests.

“Israel has clear missions as well, for which we are grateful,” Hegseth said. “As we’ve said since the beginning, capable partners are good partners. Unlike so many of our traditional allies, who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.”

Advanced timetable

Israel has originally planned to assault the Iranian regime in mid-2026, Katz revealed on Wednesday.

But the events that transpired in Iran in January, including the massacre of over 30,000 demonstrators by regime forces, and the opportunity to work with US forces to fulfill the promises of both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to send help, necessitated advancing the timetable.

“Developments and circumstances—especially what happened inside Iran, the position of the US president and the possibility of creating a combined operation—created the need to move everything up,” Katz told troops during a visit to the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder, head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, joined Katz in applauding his troops, whose work in gathering deep intelligence on the Iranian regime had made possible the stunning success of the opening wave of US-Israeli airstrikes last Shabbat.

“Anyone who chooses to engage in such [hostile] actions against the State of Israel, against the residents of the State of Israel, against our future here, we will find them, and we will eliminate them,” warned Binder.

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE?

Don’t blame Israel for America defending itself against Iran

The Islamist terror regime, now allied to China and Russia, has been waging war against the United States for 47 years. But to Israel-bashers, it’s simply another Jewish plot. 

 

By Jonathan S. Tobin 

 

JNS

Mar 4, 2026

 

 

U.S. President Donald Trump oversees “Operation Epic Fury” at Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Fla., March 1, 2026.

 

When it comes to the reason why Washington has taken action against Iran’s terrorist regime, who are you going to believe? President Donald Trump—the man who ordered the strikes—or California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the writers at The New York Times, and media personalities Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly? 

Liberal and leftist publications, pundits and politicians have joined with far-right podcasters to oppose Trump on military strikes on Iran, which the president hopes will lead to the collapse of the regime’s Islamist government. In fact, they disagree on a lot. What they do seem to agree on is that the effort to put an end to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and its sponsorship of international terrorism, is a bad idea. More than that, they agree that the primary culprit for these actions is the State of Israel, which they say dragged Trump into starting a war for its own interests and not those of the United States. 

Trump declares his motivation

Trump is having none of it. He’s been explicit in declaring that it wasn’t the Israelis who pushed him into making his decision. At the White House, the president explained this week that the attempt to portray him as the catspaw of the Israelis was simply wrong. 

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” Trump said. “They were going to attack if we didn’t do it. They were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready.” 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth agree. The Islamic government and its mullahs have been quite explicit about the fact that they are waging a religious war against both the “great Satan” of the United States and the “little Satan” of Israel for 47 years.

Nevertheless, opponents of various stripes insist that Trump is being pushed around by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

By accusing Israel of strong-arming Trump into doing something that costs American lives and doesn’t make the United States safer, critics of Washington and Jerusalem have initiated charges going far beyond those of ordinary debate about foreign policy.

Of course, like any decision a president makes, the current military action is fair game for debate. So, too, are Israeli policy choices.

Scapegoating Israel

But scapegoating Israel, and by extension, its Jewish supporters, in this particular way is redolent of traditional antisemitic tropes about Jews of dual loyalty, buying political power in the halls of Washington, D.C., and exercising other nefarious behind-the-scenes influence. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate such wild distortions about the truth of the U.S.-Israel alliance and threat to both countries from Iran, and the equally inflammatory blood libels hurled at the Jewish state since Oct. 7, 2023. Those include accusations that Israel is committing “genocide” against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip or is an “apartheid” state, which have fueled a surge of antisemitism around the globe.

The particular motivations of those beating the drum for blaming Israel may differ, though all seem motivated by a mix of ideology and personal ambition.

The base of the Democratic Party has embraced toxic left-wing ideas like critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism that label Israel and Jews as “white” oppressors over people of color, who are the oppressed. They want to use opposition to the war to defeat Republicans in the midterm elections this November. Newsom, who understands that he is viewed as too centrist by many of his party’s primary voters, is aiming for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 by tilting to the left and smearing Israel with the “apartheid” libel.

On the right, Carlson wants to seize control of the GOP from Trump as part of an isolationist and antisemitic paleo-conservative movement that may not have very much support among party activists and officeholders, but has a broad audience on social media and the internet.

By framing the debate about Trump’s decision as one of Jerusalem pushing Washington into fighting a war adverse to America’s interests, liberal politicians like Newsom and far-right hatemongers such as Carlson aren’t just critiquing Trump. By choosing this particular angle to oppose administration policy, they are seeking to exploit the surge of anti-Zionism and openly antisemitic invective spreading throughout U.S. public discourse since the Hamas-led Palestinian Arab terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7.

It is entirely true that Netanyahu has long advocated for the West to take action against Tehran, repeatedly warning of the threat that its nuclear ambitions pose to the world. Indeed, there is a cross-party consensus on the issue within the State of Israel, as the overwhelming majority of its citizens understand that the Islamist regime is bent on the destruction of their country as a first step toward the imposition of Islam on the West. A poll conducted by the left-leaning Israel Democracy Institute published this week showed that fully 93% of Jewish Israelis support the airstrikes taking place right now.

Yet the notion that the United States had to be manipulated by its small ally into taking this step is a pernicious myth. While Americans may debate the timing of the military campaign—with polls showing that Republicans support the president’s decision, and most Democrats and independents opposing it—the need to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and opposing its exporting of violence has been a position held by every American president in the 21st century.

Taking Rubio out of context

Trump’s opponents jumped on a statement lifted out of remarks uttered by Rubio that made it seem as if joining the attacks happened because the Israelis had decided to go in anyway, and Washington feared Iranian retaliation and chose not to wait to be hit.

Taken out of context, that bolstered the claim that the joint effort was primarily Israel’s doing. In the same statement, however, Rubio had made it clear that the primary reason for the initiation of the strikes on Iran was that its nuclear program and missile production is a threat to “the safety and security of the world,” and not only to Israel. What’s more, the timing of the decision was as much a sober evaluation of the futility of trying to expect a rational self-interested policy from a clerical regime that refuses to “make geopolitical decisions; they make decisions on the basis of theology—their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one.”

What those harping on Israel’s role in this drama also forget is that Iran has become a key ally of America’s chief geostrategic foe: China. Beijing has kept the Iranian regime afloat when Western sanctions threatened to bring Tehran to its knees by cutting it off from the global economy. China buys up to 90% of Iran’s oil, which consists of as much as 13% of its oil imports, playing a crucial role in its ability to compete with the West while also undermining efforts to force the Islamist regime to give up its nuclear ambitions and terrorism.

The Iranians are also a strategic partner of Russia, another ally of China. The drones they supply to Moscow have been a key factor in allowing it to continue its war against Ukraine, which Trump has tried in vain to end via negotiations.

Still, nothing Trump or Rubio can say is stopping the groundswell of incitement coming from the left and the right that pins the responsibility for the conflict on the Jewish state.

Antisemitic conspiracy-mongering

The Times constructed a narrative in an article published two days after the latest chapter in the long struggle between the United States and Iran’s government, in which Netanyahu plays the featured role of instigator of the conflict. That dovetails with the claims aired by former Fox News personalities Carlson and Kelly on their popular programs, not to mention what was being said by even more extreme figures like podcaster Candace Owens and neo-Nazi groyper Nick Fuentes.

In an effort to make the current fighting sound like a rerun of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq ordered by President George W. Bush, Carlson said the decision to strike Iran was based on “lies,” and that “this happened because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war.” Going further—and doubling down on antisemitic tropes about Jewish manipulation of America—he falsely claimed that the Islamic Republic’s attacks on Arab countries in the region were actually the nefarious work of Mossad agents.

Kelly, who has abandoned her stance as a mainstream figure to appeal to a more extreme audience that clicks on content related to attacks on Jews and Israel, agreed. She said that any U.S. servicemen who were killed in the conflict were “dying for Israel,” not America.

They were, of course, outdone by the increasingly unhinged Owens, who said the war was enabled by a mythical Israeli assassination of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk last September. Fuentes said Trump’s decision was further evidence that “organized Jewry” runs the country. “The United States is Israel’s bitch,” he said. “We all know that Israel is the boss, that Israel controls our country. Now you know it for a fact.” He concluded his rant by advising his audience to vote for the Democrats in the midterm elections.

While most Democrats weren’t echoing their antisemitic talking points, they, too, were declaring that the war was not merely illegal or wrong, but also linked to Israel. Newsom wasn’t the only one blaming it on Netanyahu. And it isn’t an accident that this comes at a time when growing numbers of members of the Democratic congressional caucus are refusing to accept donations from pro-Israel sources and attacking the AIPAC lobby. Indeed, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) denounced AIPAC this week at the left-wing J Street conference as “anti-American” for advocating for the U.S.-Israel alliance and pushing for action on Iran. 

American national interests

All of the incitement against Israel and its supporters ignores the basic fact that every American president, including both Democrats and Republicans, for the past quarter-century has made it clear that preventing a nuclear Iran was a key national security goal. The only differences between them have been about how to stop them. Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden thought appeasement would work. But rather than preventing Iran from getting a weapon, with its sunset clauses, the 2015 nuclear pact would have guaranteed that they would eventually get one.

Trump has tried negotiating with Tehran, but rather than seeing an agreement, however weak and ineffectual, as a goal in and of itself, he believed that if a deal didn’t end its nuclear program (the objective that Obama promised in his 2012 foreign-policy debate with presidential opponent Mitt Romney), it was worthless. And instead of allowing the mullahs to prevaricate and delay until they got their way, he was prepared to act to stop them before it was too late.

Though his decision to strike now brings risks, the cost of continuing to wait would be far higher. Stripping the regime of its ability to inflict mayhem in the region via its own military might and its terrorist auxiliaries isn’t just in America’s interests. Doing so now to prevent the mullahs and their minions from using more time to build up their missile program and/or potentially race to a nuclear weapon with whatever material was left after last summer’s 12-day Israeli-American bombing campaign was an imperative.

That doing so helps Israel is not in question. Iran’s leaders have explicitly said they consider a genocidal effort to destroy the Jewish state—calling it a “one-bomb country”—would be worth it, even if it meant catastrophic retaliation from Jerusalem or other parts of the world.

Preventing such a catastrophe (and understanding that Israel is far from the only intended target of Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles) isn’t solely in the interest of the Jewish state. If Iran can achieve its objective of mass murder in Israel, it can do the same with allied Arab countries and those in the West.

At best, that would mean nuclear blackmail being conducted by religious fanatics, furthering the efforts of China and Russia to undermine the West.

At worst, it would present the possibility of nuclear war involving the entire world.

This goes beyond the fact that the alliance with Israel is not merely consonant with American societal norms rooted in the Western tradition, faith and common democratic values. It is also a function of American national interests. The United States never treated Israel as a strategic ally until after its victory in the Six Day-War in June 1967, when it proved it could be an asset to the West rather than a liability. And it wouldn’t be acting in close cooperation with the Israeli military against a common foe unless doing so was in defense of shared strategic interests.

It doesn’t require pressure from Israel or some sort of nefarious plot straight out of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to convince Americans to take the Iranian threat seriously. Only an American leader who cared nothing about defending his nation’s security interests or preventing a jihadist regime from dominating the Middle East and threatening Europe and Asia would ignore such a threat.

But for leftists and right-wing antisemites who hate Israel, as well as those like Carlson, who clearly seem to be under the influence of the Islamist regime in Qatar, the fact that Iran seeks the elimination of the one Jewish state on the planet seems to be an argument in favor of either appeasing or actively aiding them.

You don’t have to be an antisemite to embrace the notion that presidents ought to wait for congressional approval for the use of military force. But no president—and that includes Democrats like Bill Clinton, Obama or Biden—has hesitated to act without a Declaration of War or a direct authorization from Capitol Hill when they believed it to be in America’s best interest, as Trump has done now. Advocates for appeasement of Iran can also cling to the belief in that approach even though doing so has only enriched and empowered a dangerous regime to launch wars, spread terror and move closer to its nuclear goal.

But those who embrace a narrative that efforts to stop Iran can only be the result of an underhanded Israeli plot or Jewish efforts to bribe Congress and the executive branch to ignore American interests and fight an unnecessary “war of choice” are doing something else. They aren’t just distorting the truth about the alliance between the two countries, which is both close and mutually beneficial. They are crossing the line between a rational debate about a crucial policy choice and one that is inextricably linked to traditional tropes of Jew-hatred.