The war in Iran is unlawful and unconstitutional, but in post-World War II America, it is normal. Here is the backstory.

When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran last June, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own CIA had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2005.

His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the U.S. to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the U.S. has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, the legal bases for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.

When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building, and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Tehran girls school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the U.S. or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.

No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.

They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.

For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America.

The Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The president, under Article II, wages war, but only after Congress has authorized it.

James Madison argued that the executive branch is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it,” which is precisely why the Constitution deliberately divided the war power.

The Framers believed that no single individual should possess the authority to plunge the nation into armed conflict, yet over the past eight decades, presidents of both political parties have steadily ignored these constitutional limits.

President Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to combat in Korea without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress because he said U.S. troops there constituted a “police action.”

The pattern only intensified during the Vietnam War. Although Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was based on a fraud and effectively delegated its congressional constitutional responsibility to the president. The result was years of escalating conflict that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese while achieving none of its stated objectives.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally accelerated this trend. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Patriot Act · the former granting the president broad authority to pursue those responsible for the attacks, and the latter substantially impairing rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

What was presented as a targeted war authorization evolved into legal justifications for military operations across multiple countries against groups that did not even exist in 2001.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the costs of this expansive approach. The war in Afghanistan lasted two decades before ending with the return of the Taliban to power. Iraq was invaded based on fabricated or erroneous intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction.

The proper role of government · according to Thomas Jefferson, its only role · is to protect life, liberty and property, not to remake foreign societies through military force. Wars of choice generate unintended consequences, empower new enemies, create refugee crises and expand government power at home.

The economic and human consequences are equally profound. Massive defense expenditures have pushed the debt of the federal government to nearly $40 trillion. A government willing to kill millions and spend trillions on foreign wars while borrowing money to pay the interest on borrowed money will one day collapse of its own weight; as have all empires.

A genuinely constitutional foreign policy would look very different. Military force should be reserved for defending the United States against actual or truly imminent attacks, not speculative threats or ambitious nation-building projects, or favors for other countries. Congress should debate and vote openly before committing American forces to any combat.

Strong national defense does not require perpetual war. A capable military can deter aggression. Diplomacy, commerce and peaceful engagement generally serve American interests more effectively than military intervention.

George Washington’s warning against entangling foreign commitments and John Quincy Adams’s declaration that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy” remain relevant guides for a republic committed to liberty, rather than an empire committed to conquest. Of course, monsters abroad can follow you home.

The constitutional allocation of war powers exists not as a procedural rule but as a substantive safeguard for freedom itself. Every unnecessary war expands executive authority, enlarges government, consumes wealth, risks American lives without clear necessity and diminishes personal liberty.

The best protection against endless conflict is a less powerful presidency and a renewed commitment to the Constitution’s deliberate separation of powers and the principle that the United States should fight only when its own security imminently and genuinely requires it.

Is it any wonder that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to justify its recent killings of 163 Tehran school girls and their teachers?

The post The Normalcy of American Wars appeared first on Activist Post.

After years at the helm of Policing the Police, Jason Bassler is uniquely qualified to be one of the leading voices in the ALPR/Flock camera privacy movement. With over 100,000 cameras deployed and networked across the country, this problem will continue to grow exponentially without intervention on the governmental and citizen levels.

As a longtime freedom advocate, Jason Bassler is no stranger to the slow creep of government surveillance, and his independent news website, The Free Thought Project, has been an Activist Post staple for well over a decade. The future is here, and the time to act was yesterday.

Hypocrazy Audiobook: https://amzn.to/4aogwms

The Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMm

Website: www.Macroaggressions.io

Merch Store: https://macroaggressions.dashery.com/

C60 Power: https://go.shopc60.com/PBGRT/KMKS9/
Promo Code: MACRO

Chemical Free Body: https://chemicalfreebody.com/macro/
Promo Code: MACRO

Wise Wolf Gold & Silver @ (800) 426-1836: https://macroaggressions.gold/

LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com

Christian Yordanov’s Health Program: www.LiveLongerFormula.com/macro

Replace Your Mortgage: www.WipeOutYourMortgageNow.com

Augason Farms: https://augasonfarms.com/MACRO

Activist Post: www.ActivistPost.com

Jason Bassler: www.JasonBassler.com

The Free Thought Project: www.TheFreeThoughtProject.com

The post #671: Get the Flock Outta Here | Jason Bassler appeared first on Activist Post.

According to formal complaints lodged by Lebanon with the United Nations, Israel did spray a toxic herbicide over agricultural land in southern Lebanon as Netanyahu sought to adopt a scorched earth tactic. The Lebanese government has formally accused Israel of using this as a method of warfare.

The core of the Lebanese complaint focuses on an incident in February 2026, where Israel allegedly used the herbicide glyphosate. Lebanon’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs filed official complaints with the UN Security Council based on a report from its National Council for Scientific Research. Soil samples taken from border villages showed glyphosate levels as high as 22,750–23,000 micrograms per gram . This is a concentration over 11,000 times higher than what is normally found after routine agricultural use (0.5–2 micrograms per gram) .

Lebanon argues that the high-concentration spraying violates the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of herbicides as a method of warfare. The spraying reportedly covered an 18-kilometer strip along the border, extending 300–500 meters wide, and was aimed at eliminating all vegetation to create a “barren, desert-like strip” or buffer zone. This incident is part of a broader pattern of ecological damage that has devastated Lebanese agriculture.

Agricultural Devastation has been an estimated 22-24% of Lebanon’s total cultivated land (approximately 56,000 hectares) has been damaged, with the southern governorates being the hardest hit. The south produces 95% of Lebanon’s bananas and 75-97% of its citrus fruit, both of which have been severely affected. Olive groves, tobacco, and grain fields have also suffered heavy damage.

This tactic was intended to starve out Hezbollah. The farmer displacement has been over 76% in the affected areas have been displaced losing both their property and livelihood, threatening food production and food security.  There have been other independent agents who have confirmed Netanyahu’s use of white phosphorus, which burns vegetation and agricultural land, and cluster munitions, which leave behind unexploded ordnance.

Lebanese officials have described the objective as creating a “scorched landscape” similar to Gaza, designed to be “empty of any life” on the orders of Netanyahu. The long-term consequences for the land, local biodiversity, and food security are expected to be severe. The unintended consequences can be the creation of a permanent wasteland.

Based on extensive reports from the United Nations, humanitarian organizations, and Palestinian authorities, Israel’s military operations in Gaza have systematically destroyed the territory’s agricultural capacity. While the exact method of “poisoning” (such as aerial herbicide spraying) is referenced broadly in the context of agricultural destruction, the overwhelming evidence points to a multi-layered assault that has rendered the land incapable of producing food.

Mercy Corps found that 96% of Gaza’s agricultural land was either destroyed or rendered inaccessible. The organization’s Vice President for Policy and Advocacy stated, “The scale of destruction is unlike anything we’ve seen in previous conflicts. It represents the collapse of a food system.”

While I do not support the Internation Criminal Court (ICC), it is worth noting that Netanyahu was charged by the ICC, in part with the charges closely linked to the “scorched earth” tactics that devastated Gaza. These are tactics that are not confined to a military adversary. They are permanent destruction of the land to support the civilian population.

It is hard say who was the first to adopt the scorched earth tactic in war. The Scythians in 513BC did use this against King Darius the Great of Persia. It is ironic that Netanyahu is using this military tactic against Iran some 2500 years later.

Netanyahu is not the first to seek to permanently damage the land to prevent anyone from living there. A classic example involves the Roman razing of Carthage in 146BC. According to historical accounts, Roman troops not only destroyed the city but also poisoned the surrounding soil with salt to prevent it from being farmed again. This is one of the earliest recorded uses of tactics designed to make land permanently infertile.

A more modern, well-documented case occurred in Afghanistan, where the Taliban destroyed the agricultural infrastructure of the Shomali Plain in August 1999. This operation systematically burned grapevines, destroyed orchards of fruit and nut trees (like mulberry and walnut), and poisoned wells.

The long-term impact was severe because these fruit trees take many years to root and produce a crop again. This tactic was particularly devastating in the high-altitude, cold climate of the region, where agriculture was already marginal. The United Nations estimated that recovery would take billions of dollars and “no less than a decade.” This represents a near-permanent loss of food production capacity due to the time required to re-establish the agricultural base.

This is a totally different form of warfare that is directed at a population rather than a military adversary.

The post Netanyahu’s Scorched Earth Tactics appeared first on Activist Post.

A study of nearly 39,000 adults found that people who varied their workouts and included higher-intensity exercise had lower odds of depressive symptoms, according to findings released July 30.

Researchers analyzed exercise volume, intensity, type, and diversity over a three-month period and accounted for factors including age, body weight, smoking, alcohol intake, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar, according to the report. The report stated that exercise diversity and intensity were more strongly associated with mood than total exercise volume alone.

Study Design and Measurements

Adults in the study completed a depression screening questionnaire and reported the types of physical activity they had performed in the previous three months, according to researchers. Rather than looking only at whether participants met exercise guidelines, the research team separated physical activity into total amount, workout intensity, exercise categories, and weekly routine variety.

Exercise diversity reflected how participants spread movement across different forms, not simply how many activities they tried occasionally, the report stated. The study accounted for factors known to influence depression risk, including age, body weight, smoking, alcohol intake, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar. Because the study relied on self-reported exercise and depression measures, the results describe associations rather than proof of cause and effect, the report noted.

Key Findings: Variety and Intensity Over Volume

People who exercised more generally had lower odds of depressive symptoms, researchers said. Once researchers looked at all of the exercise characteristics together, two factors rose to the top: diversity and intensity.

Participants who spread their movement across multiple activities and included higher-intensity exercise appeared to have the lowest odds of reporting depressive symptoms, according to the study. These characteristics were more strongly associated with mood than total exercise volume alone, the report stated.

“It’s not just about how much you exercise, but how you vary it,” officials said. A separate analysis of nearly 80,000 participants found that aerobic exercise reduces symptoms of depression with an effect size comparable to antidepressant medications, according to researchers at James Cook University [1]. Earlier findings have reported that resistance training can relieve depressive symptoms [2], and researchers have examined the biological basis of exercise’s mood-lifting effects [3].

Sex Differences in Exercise Associations

Researchers reported that vigorous exercise showed a particularly strong association with lower depressive symptoms among women. For men, aerobic exercise and mixed-endurance activities, such as circuit training, basketball, and racket sports, showed the strongest associations, the report stated.

The study authors said the sex-specific differences may warrant further investigation. Previous research has documented that the benefits of regular physical activity extend beyond physical health to mental health [4].

Context and Takeaways

The findings do not suggest that people need to spend more time exercising; rather, they may benefit from exercising differently, according to the study. A varied week could include strength training, brisk walks, pickleball, cycling, and interval workouts, the report noted.

Exercise diversity can also be compared with dietary variety, researchers said. Just as eating a wide range of foods provides a broader range of nutrients, moving in different ways may challenge the body and brain differently, according to the report.

Researchers said the observational design means the study cannot prove causation and relied on self-reported exercise and depression measures. The findings align with earlier research showing that regularly engaging in multiple types of physical activity, rather than only increasing exercise volume, may reduce mortality risk [5]. Broader analyses have also described exercise as an important component in depression treatment [6], and World Health Organization guidelines call for a combination of aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity each week [7].

References

1. NaturalNews.com. “The Good Stress That Rewires Your Brain: How Exercise Builds Mental Resilience”. NaturalNews.com. July 29, 2026.
2. Mercola.com. “Strength Training Can Relieve Depression”. Mercola.com. June 1, 2018.
3. Mercola.com. “The Science Behind Exercise’s Mood-Lifting Effects”. Mercola.com. August 22, 2019.
4. “Role of Physical Exercise in Preventing Disease and Improving the Quality of Life”.
5. Coco Somers. “Study: Variety in Physical Activity Linked to Lower Mortality Risk”. NaturalNews.com. April 30, 2026.
6. Mercola.com. “Millions Led Astray by These Pills No Better”. Mercola.com. June 20, 2019.
7. “Exercise”.

Explainer Infographic

The post Study Links Workout Variety, Intensity to Lower Depression Odds appeared first on Activist Post.

Mapped: U.S. Cities With the Most Educated Residents

Key Takeaways

• Ann Arbor ranks first overall, followed by Durham and San Jose.
• College towns and technology hubs account for many of the highest-ranked cities.
• Nearly half of the top 30 most educated cities are located on the East Coast.

This graphic ranks the most educated U.S. cities in 2026, highlighting metropolitan areas with high levels of educational attainment and strong local education systems.

The data for this visualization comes from WalletHub. Cities were ranked using a weighted composite score based on educational attainment (80%) and education quality and equality (20%).

College Towns Continue to Lead

Ann Arbor, Michigan, ranks first with an overall score of 94.48, driven by exceptionally high educational attainment.

More than 96% of adults in Ann Arbor have earned at least a high school diploma. The presence of the University of Michigan also contributes to the area’s highly educated population.

Durham, North Carolina, ranks second, reflecting the influence of Duke University and the broader Research Triangle.

Madison, Wisconsin, also earns a top-five finish, supported by the University of Wisconsin and a workforce anchored by government, health care, and research.

Technology Hubs Also Rank Highly

Several of the country’s leading technology centers rank among its most educated cities.

San Jose places third, followed by San Francisco in sixth and Seattle in 10th, reflecting the concentration of highly skilled workers in Silicon Valley and the Pacific Northwest.

Austin ranks ninth as its growing technology sector continues to attract graduates and professionals from across the country.

Washington, D.C., places fourth, supported by a highly educated workforce across government, consulting, law, and policy organizations.

The East Coast Has a Strong Presence

Nearly half of the top 30 cities are located on the East Coast, reflecting the region’s dense network of universities, research institutions, and knowledge-based industries.

Boston, Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Albany, Trenton, Baltimore, and New York all make the list.

Many of these metropolitan areas benefit from long-term investment in higher education and proximity to major employers in finance, health care, biotechnology, and government.

The post Mapped: U.S. Cities With the Most Educated Residents (2026) appeared first on Activist Post.

For the past couple of weeks I have been closely tracking the migrant surge in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta and taking notes on the behavior of the extremely liberal Spanish government. One of the most important things to note about the event is that European officials quickly took to the media to admonish the OPTICS of the crisis, but not the migrants.

In other words, left-wing politicians didn’t like that the situation made them look bad, but they never spoke out against the basic premise of mass immigration from the third world. In fact, Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, has been enthusiastically promoting open border policies since 2018. The main reason the migrants all flooded into Ceuta at the same time was because Spain’s supreme court ruled only days before that migrants arriving by sea could not be immediately deported.

It’s a scene we have witnessed over and over again in the past several years. The multiculturalists set the wheels in motion for a migrant rush into Europe then pretend to be shocked when it happens.

They engineer these events by breaking the cardinal rule of western civilization – Never leave the gates open, because the barbarians will see this as an invitation to pillage. Like hyenas circling a wounded animal, they will be uncontrollably drawn to the smell of an easy meal.

The only reason European elites took any opposition to the incident in Ceuta was because the migrants immediately started looting, burning and attacking locals the second they set foot on the beaches. If the barbarian horde had behaved themselves for a couple weeks, journalists and politicians would have called it a humanitarian crisis and lavished the migrants with praise for their “bravery.”

And yes, I have heard all the conspiracy theories about the US and Israel supposedly pulling the strings to facilitate the invasion and I have found those theories to be complete tripe based on zero tangible evidence. If the Trump Administration, for example, actually wanted migrants to invade Spain, all they would have to do is sit back and let the Spanish government continue to do what they’ve already been doing for years.

The fall of the western world is being aided by progressives, but these elitists are only tapping into the forces of an eternal conflict that has been raging for millennia.

Meaning, even if globalists were not a thing, the west would still be threatened with the constant danger of third world plunder. The elites are merely exploiting a problem that already exists naturally. The root of this conflict is the prominence of two distinct groups of human beings that are incapable of coexistence…

Pillager Culture vs Producer Culture

I was recently watching Sargon of Akkad’s latest expose on a small town in South Africa called Orania. It’s an all white town built by Afrikanns in the middle of nowhere in order to protect themselves from the exceedingly violent black population; a population organized around the ideology of race communism. The video is a great overview of the town and the controversy that surrounds it and I highly recommend watching it in full.

The details of Orania remind me of an article I published last year titled “The Third World Is Forever Chasing The White Man”. The concept of cultural separation is, I believe, the key to almost every problem we are facing in modern times. It may very well be the key to understanding every conflict since human history began.

At bottom, I argue that there are two kinds of people in the world: There are people who produce, create and maintain a functioning civilization. Then, there are parasites and pirates; people whose only survival trait is to pillage the wealth and resources of producer societies.

A community like Orania would not be controversial at all if it was made up of black isolationists, or Asians, or Hispanics, etc.  In fact, it would be celebrated.  It is treated as radioactive by the media specifically because the town was created by white people FOR white people. Their goal? To preserve their western principles and heritage and, most of all, to protect themselves from pillaging tribes and communists.

Orania looks much like any smaller rural town in America, with clean streets, quiet parks, well maintained infrastructure, self sufficient utilities and farms, safe neighborhoods and kids playing outside without fear.

The interesting thing is the reactions to the town by the YouTubers who visit with the expectation of discovering a virulent, racist, hate-fest. What they find instead is a community that functions far better than any other place in South Africa, run by white western people who just want to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

There are two common reactions to Orania:

1) Black influencers, surprised by the peace and relative tranquility of the town, ask “why can’t black people have something like this…?”

2) South African politicians and thought leaders ask “How can we take away what these people have built and keep it for ourselves…?”

The answer to both questions is uncomfortable for most westerners in the US and Europe to think about, but it is a fact we desperately need to consider and embrace. They can’t copy Orania because they are socially and in some cases genetically incapable (the average IQ of Africans is 70). They can’t steal it for themselves because as soon as they take it over, the town will turn to shit and collapse.

In Ceuta, over 60,000 migrants overran the local infrastructure and demanded access to provisions, jobs, housing and the ability to travel deeper into Europe.  When asked why they came to Spanish territory, they all tended to say the same thing: “We want more money and a better life.”  They came to Europe because they can’t build a prosperous society on their own.  Their pillager mentality drives them to latch onto the west, but as they do this they turn the west into the third world.

Western Civilization Has Two Choices: Separation Or Colonization

In recent articles I have explained the differences that separate the west from the third world, including the absence of the concept of “maintenance” in third world societies. In Africa, for example, there is no terminology for the idea of “maintenance”. They simply don’t have a word for it. They have words for “repair” or “replace”, but not a word for “maintain.” Learning this fact was a revelation for me.

It explains everything about the conflict between the third world and the west. It explains why third worlders are “forever chasing the white man.” It explains why these cultures never seem to progress without direct western investment, intervention or colonization. It explains why these people flood into western countries by the millions the second the gates are left open.

If you cannot maintain, then you can’t keep a system alive for future generations. From basics like water, sewer, sanitation, electricity, food, security, etc. – There can be no generational infrastructure and no generational wealth. Your tribe will be perpetually resource-poor and scratching in the dirt for bugs, UNLESS, that is, you turn to pillaging. You can steal the wealth created by producer tribes, but you can’t copy their success.

If we come to terms with the undeniable existence of the parasite or pillager class, everything becomes clear. The third world as we know it today is rooted in pillager culture, but this ideal is not limited to brown people. Within the west we also have white socialists and communists, useless people who have devised an entire philosophy to justify stealing from producers.

As far as the third world is concerned, the west has been dealing with such people for centuries. We were almost destroyed by them during the Muslim invasions into the Holy Roman Empire from the 7^th Century to the 10^th Century, and we had to continue to hold them back for several centuries after.

We’ve tried a variety of methods to solve this issue. We tried the Crusades to beat them into submission (effective). We tried colonization and importing western infrastructure so they don’t come to the west to steal what we have (also effective).

However, these solutions are no longer considered political correct by progressive ideology. It’s not a coincidence that liberalism has worked tirelessly to demonize colonization as one of the “great evils” of history. They hate it because it works; it made the west far more safe.

So, we tried global subsidization instead. In other words, western governments paid out billions of dollars (perhaps trillions) in subsidies to third world countries in order to keep them happy enough that they would stop trying to invade us. This has not worked for a number of reasons.

Most of all, migrants cannot help themselves. They will never be self reliant and independent producers, so they are compelled by their survival imperatives and their tribal instincts to plunder whenever an opportunity arises. The political left understands this dynamic and they stage opportunities so they can use migrants as biological weapons to tear down the west.

The reason third worlders and leftists seem to be joining forces (through Democratic Socialists and other organizations) is because they ARE joining forces. Conservatives will often point out the hypocrisy of progressives who claim to be champions of individual rights for women and “marginalized” groups. Meanwhile they aggressively defend the invasion of people who oppress those same groups.

I’ve made the point many times myself, but its not as profound as conservatives think it is. Leftists know exactly what they’re doing, because Marxists/Socialists/Communists and third worlders are the same. Both tribes are pillager tribes; both tribes are parasitic. They all want the same thing, which is to feed like vampires on the resources of producers. They are joining forces because parasites tend to work together.

One parasite infection can weaken a host’s immune system, which indirectly helps other parasites move in and thrive. At least, until the host is dead.

I have heard it argued that conservatives need to come to an understanding on why younger generations are turning to socialism as a solution. People claim that we don’t have enough empathy for their plight.

My position is, these people were ALWAYS going to turn to socialism because they are born pillagers. They are incapable of functioning in any merit based system, even one that is highly prosperous, because they are predisposed to feel as if they’re entitled to more. They are always going to be jealous of people who have more.

The idea of earning what we have never plays into it. They are barbarians. They are pillagers. There is no reasoning with them. There is no bargaining or compromise that will satisfy them. The only solution is for producers to separate completely, or, conquer the pillagers and force them to stop pillaging. Anything else would be a pointless half-measure.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

The dollar buys less today than it did a year ago, a decade ago, a generation ago. That slide is the predictable result of endless printing and borrowing. Dr. Ron Paul believes the FED has the answer. But they’re keeping it to themselves. Fortunately, a new financial chart has publicly exposed their secret moves. See it for yourself HERE.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

You can also follow me at –

TwitterX: @AltMarket1

The post Pillagers vs Producers: There’s Only Two Ways To Save The Western World appeared first on Activist Post.

WARNING: Apple is putting cameras in your ears.

The next AirPods feature “Visual Intelligence” with outward-facing sensors that let Siri see and log your entire environment in real time.

It’s being marketed as convenience but in reality it’s another step toward a mobile surveillance grid.

You’re no longer just being watched…you’re becoming the camera!!

Refuse the hardware.

Don’t normalize cameras in your ears.

And please share this video far and wide like your privacy depends on it…because it does!!

WATCH ON ➜ ODYSEE

WATCH ON ➜ BITCHUTE

WATCH ON  ➜ MINDS

WATCH ON ➜ RUMBLE

WATCH ON ➜ BASTYON

WATCH ON ➜ YOUTUBE (meh)

WATCH ON ➜ X

WATCH ON ➜ FACEBOOK

WATCH ON ➜ TIKTOK

If you would like to support this kind of journalism please consider making a contribution here:

PATREON ➜ https://www.patreon.com/PressForTruth

SUBSCRIBESTAR ➜ https://www.subscribestar.com/pressfortruth

Other Ways To DONATE ➜ https://pressfortruth.ca/donate/

Buy Me A Coffee ➜  https://buymeacoffee.com/pressfortruth

DONATE via Paypal ➜ https://www.paypal.me/PressforTruth

Or you can send an e-transfer to dan@pressfortruth.ca

If you’re old fashioned like we are and prefer to keep it old school, we also accept cash, cheques (made out to Dan Dicks), equipment and words of encouragement! You can send us those things here:

Dan Dicks P.O. Box 1521 Squamish BC V8B 0B1

The post YOU’RE THE FLOCK CAMERA NOW!! Apple’s New AirPods Puts CAMERAS IN YOUR EARS!! appeared first on Activist Post.

A United Nations proposal would replace the current system of taxing each multinational subsidiary separately with a global unitary tax system. A corporation’s worldwide profits would first be combined into one total and then divided among countries according to a formula measuring where it employs workers and where its customers purchase goods and services. Each country would apply its own corporate tax rate to the portion assigned to it, regardless of where the company legally reported the profit.

Tax Justice Network estimates that this reallocation would produce an additional $500 billion in annual corporate tax revenue worldwide. It would be redistributed among governments, creating major winners while stripping revenue from countries whose economies currently benefit from corporate headquarters, intellectual property, financial services, or low-tax structures.

Ireland would suffer one of the largest losses, surrendering an estimated $11.15 billion annually, or 81.9% of the multinational corporate tax revenue measured by the study. Hong Kong would lose $9.37 billion, or 75.7%; Singapore $8 billion, or 69.2%; Switzerland $5.43 billion, or 42%; the Netherlands $3.16 billion, or 28.4%; and Malta $3.04 billion. Bermuda would lose $489 million, the British Virgin Islands $496 million, Puerto Rico $547 million, Jersey $510 million, and Mauritius $152 million.

These jurisdictions currently tax profits that multinational corporations book within their borders despite having relatively little employment or customer activity there. The UN formula would disregard where those profits are legally reported and redistribute them toward countries where the company’s workers and customers are located.

The UN claims some of these jurisdictions could theoretically recover the lost revenue by taxing their smaller remaining profit base at much higher rates. The study estimates that the Netherlands would need an effective rate of roughly 29% to 33%, compared with its present estimated rate of 13.6%. Switzerland would need approximately 20% to 25%, up from 10.4%, while Singapore would need between 25% and 37%, up from 9.2%.

Those numbers become absurd for economies heavily dependent on profit booking. Ireland would require an effective rate between 68% and 94% to replace the revenue it loses under the various formulas. The Cayman Islands could require between 28% and 162%, while the British Virgin Islands could require anything from 9% to 643%. That is an admission that these jurisdictions could not recover their losses through ordinary taxation without destroying the economic model the UN intends to dismantle.

However, the losers are not limited to traditional tax havens. Japan would lose an estimated $34.09 billion per year, equal to 27.1% of the multinational corporate tax revenue included in the study. Denmark would lose approximately $1.8 billion, or 31.9%, while Saudi Arabia would lose $1.77 billion, or 17.9%.

The report classifies these three as “headquarters-bias” countries. Their multinational corporations report an unusually large share of global profits in the country where the parent company is headquartered, even though much of their employment and sales occurs abroad. Under the UN formula, some of that profit would be exported to foreign governments.

Japan’s result may reflect the concentration of research, intellectual property, engineering, and other high-value functions at Japanese parent companies. Yet the formula gives equal weight to employee headcount and customer location, meaning it may fail to recognize where a product was invented, financed, designed, or developed. A country could spend decades building an advanced industrial and technological base only to be told that much of the resulting profit belongs to whichever foreign country purchased the finished product.

To preserve its existing revenue, Japan would need to increase its effective corporate tax rate from approximately 30.5% to somewhere between 36.3% and 42.6%, depending on the allocation formula. Denmark would need to raise its rate from around 15% to between 25.3% and 38.8%. Saudi Arabia would need to increase its 20% effective rate to between 22.7% and 26%.

Denmark’s projected loss may be influenced by its large shipping industry and tonnage-tax regime. The report notes that $29 billion of A.P. Moller-Maersk’s $30.2 billion in 2022 pretax profit was subject to Danish or foreign tonnage taxation, producing an effective tax rate of only 3%. The proposed formula would allocate more of that profit to countries connected to Maersk’s workers and customers rather than allowing Denmark to retain the advantage of hosting the corporate headquarters.

New Zealand is also projected to lose about $220 million annually, Macao $975 million, Eswatini $22 million, and several smaller island jurisdictions would lose meaningful shares of their present corporate revenue. Some estimates for the smallest jurisdictions are based on thin reporting data and must be treated cautiously, but the direction is clear. This is a redistribution of national taxing rights, not a magical creation of $500 billion from nowhere.

The report attempts to dismiss these losses by telling tax-haven nations to abandon their present economic models, increase their tax rates, invest in education and infrastructure, and diversify into other industries. That is an extraordinary display of bureaucratic arrogance. Unelected organizations are effectively telling sovereign nations that their tax policies, competitive advantages, and development strategies are unacceptable and must be replaced by a model designed in New York.

Globalist institutions do not view countries as independent societies with different resources, cultures, needs, and economic strategies. They view the world as an administrative spreadsheet. If Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, or a small Caribbean nation loses a major source of revenue, that is treated as an acceptable adjustment so long as the global model produces the desired aggregate result.

This is precisely how these organizations operate. The OECD, IMF, European Union, and United Nations always claim that another layer of coordination will produce fairness, stability, and efficiency. What actually appears is another permanent bureaucracy with committees, reporting mandates, enforcement mechanisms, technical standards, review conferences, and dispute panels.

The treaty language proposed by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice would empower a Conference of the Parties to assess the allocation of taxing rights across all forms of taxation with cross-border effects and adopt additional measures it considers appropriate. It also calls for an international system based on consolidated global profits, an agreed allocation formula, regular reviews, sector-specific rules, and an “effective global minimum corporate tax rate.”

The proposal explicitly says the convention should cover “all types of taxes with transboundary effects.” Once established, the bureaucracy could move into wealth taxes, digital taxes, environmental taxes, financial-transaction taxes, and the taxation of individuals deemed internationally mobile.

These global organizations protect bureaucracy before sovereignty because bureaucracy is their product. They do not produce goods, discover medicine, grow food, or create wealth. They produce regulations, standards, frameworks, and reporting requirements that justify larger budgets and greater authority. Every disagreement becomes evidence that the world needs more coordination, and every failure becomes an excuse to expand the institution that designed the failed policy.

Japan, Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark, and the other losing jurisdictions will not be incidental casualties. Their tax bases are being deliberately redistributed under a formula they may not control. The global bureaucracy calls this fairness because it evaluates success by the amount of money transferred into government hands, not by whether individual nations retain the right to govern themselves.

The post The Countries That Will Pay for the UN Tax Experiment appeared first on Activist Post.

The expansion of autonomous surveillance towers will come at a cost of $1 billion to the American taxpayer, funds that were originally allocated under Trump’s Big Brother Bill.

In June, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a new report that detailed how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has contracted with Anduril Industries—a Peter Thiel-funded company—to nearly triple the number of surveillance towers along US borders. The report outlines the plan to increase the number of surveillance towers from 830 to 2,300 by 2034.

The new GAO report describes the “Integrated Surveillance Towers” (IST) program that currently consists of “803 fielded towers located along US borders that detect items of interest, such as people or vehicles.”

The IST program includes towers from four legacy systems, including Autonomous Surveillance Towers (AST). An AST is a solar-powered surveillance tower that the DHS says can “provide autonomous surveillance operations 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.” The towers are equipped with radar, optical, and thermal cameras.

According to the GAO report, in August 2024, DHS approved the purchase of up to 42 additional ASTs. DHS had previously approved Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) request to purchase up to 133 additional towers between 2022 and 2023. The report states that the program should be completed by March 2034, with 2,300 deployed by that date.

The GAO was established in 1921 to serve as an independent and nonpartisan agency that audits the federal government. The GAO releases annual reports on key issues and details its findings to Congress.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to digital privacy and rights, called the expansion of border surveillance a “digital dumpster fire for human rights and civil liberties.”

“It’s not just surveillance towers; drones, aerostats, surveillance vehicles, ground sensors, game cameras, and license plate readers are also part of the vast taxpayer-funded infrastructure that threatens all those who live, work, or seek refuge in the borderlands,” the EFF wrote in response to the GAO report. “This technology isn’t exclusive to U.S. federal agencies: it’s also deployed by state and local law enforcement, and even by governments on the Mexican side.”

The EFF also noted that these rapidly expanding surveillance technologies place residential neighborhoods in Arizona within the sight of the towers, making them “capable of spying on homes on both sides of the border.”

Anduril Industries and the Surveillance Lattice

The GAO report notes that the contract for construction of the Autonomous Surveillance Towers went to Anduril Industries. 

Anduril was founded by Trump donor Palmer Luckey with funding from Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel. They are one of several Thiel-associated companies that have seen their stars rise under Trump 2.0.

The Last American Vagabond has previously reported how numerous acolytes of Thiel are or were serving in the second Trump administration, including numerous employees of Anduril.

One such example is Trae Stephens, the co-founder and chair of Anduril Industries. According to Bloomberg, Trump and his team have consulted with Trae Stephens. Stephens is a partner at venture capital firm Founders Fund, which was organized by Peter Thiel, Ken Howery, and Luke Nosek in early 2005. Stephens also worked for Thiel’s Palantir Technologies.

In December 2024, Anduril, along with Palantir, SpaceX and OpenAI, announced a partnership on U.S. military contracts. The move marked the latest efforts by the Technocrats to replace the old guard of the Military Industrial Complex—companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing.

As part of that effort, Anduril is aiming to be the main provider of Autonomous Surveillance Towers along the border. As far back as July 2020, Anduril was awarded a contract by CBP to set up over 200 mobile surveillance towers in border communities.

The surveillance towers use an Anduril AI software known as Lattice that automatically detects, classifies, and tracks people and vehicles from miles away, during the day and at night. Anduril describes Lattice as a software platform that “takes data from disparate and distributed sensors, feeds, and systems and moves this data into a single integration layer”.

Over the last couple of years, Anduril has secured numerous contracts with the US government to build weapons of war and surveillance tools.

In October 2024, towards the end of the Biden administration, Anduril announced a $249,978,466 contract for more than 500 of their Roadrunner-Ms and “additional Pulsar electronic warfare capabilities.” In 2023, Anduril unveiled their Roadrunner system and their Pulsar family of AI-enabled electronic warfare systems aimed at combating the “growing threat of unmanned aerial systems (UAS),” or drones.

In 2026 alone, Anduril has received at least three contracts with the US government.

In January, the US Marine Corps awarded Anduril a $23.9 million contract to deliver more than 600 Bolt-M systems. In March, Anduril partnered with the US Army to “consolidate the procurement and management of the company’s commercially available technologies.” The ten-year contract has a total estimated value of up to $20 billion.

Anduril signed a contract with the US Air Force for the production phase of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program in June. As part of the arrangement, Anduril will deliver a set of production FQ-44 semi-autonomous fighter aircraft.

Most recently, in July, Anduril celebrated the production of the first Ohio-made YFQ-44A model, an autonomous drone known as the Fury.

Clearly, Anduril’s Military-Industrial-Complex partnership with Palantir, SpaceX and OpenAI is proving quite successful.

Surveillance Funded By Trump’s Big Brother Bill

It’s worth noting that the funding for the Autonomous Surveillance Towers is coming in part from funds allocated by Trump’s controversial 2025 Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), or, more correctly, the Big Brother Bill. (To be perfectly accurate, the funding came from the pockets of American taxpayers, and then was taken by the federal government under duress before being distributed to companies like Anduril.)

The BBB set aside $30 billion for “digital modernization efforts” involving artificial intelligence and biometric surveillance. The bill gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) $2.5 billion specifically for AI systems, biometric data collection platforms, and digital case tracking.

Under the heading “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Technology, Vetting Activities, and Other Efforts to Enhance Border Security,” the bill gave $637 million for the “deployment of technology, relating to the biometric entry and exit system under section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.”

The section also states that the funds may only be used for “the procurement or deployment of surveillance towers” after they have been tested and accepted by US Border Patrol.

The mention of a biometric entry/exit system and surveillance towers is perfectly in line with the long-term plans of the US government and Donald Trump during his first administration. In fact, I’ve argued since Trump’s election in 2016 that the issue of immigration would be used to divide the masses and help usher in the final stages of the American police state.

These types of technological encroachments—facial recognition, retina scanning—have often been known as a “smart” or “virtual” border wall. The idea is that these technologies can serve the purpose of Trump’s long-promised border wall without the cost of building an actual physical barrier.

The concept was supported by Trump and the Biden administration. In February 2021, I reported that more than 40 privacy, immigrant rights, and civil liberties organizations called on the Biden administration to abandon a bill that would extend the Trump administration’s border policy, particularly the ongoing creation of a biometric wall.

The letter came in response to the US Citizenship Act of 2021, which would direct the DHS to implement new biometric and aerial surveillance technologies at ports of entry and along the US/Mexico border.

While the bill did not become law, the concerns about surveillance along US borders continue. The federal government and courts have consistently ruled in favor of the so-called border search exception that allows search and seizures by agents of the government without a warrant within 100 miles of the border.

In fact, this belief was just reaffirmed in July when the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that manual searches of cell phones at the border are “routine” and thus exempt from the requirement of individualized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.

However, it is not only along the borders where Americans are subject to surveillance. In 2024, the GAO released a report warning that the DHS and associated federal law enforcement agencies are using more than 20 types of surveillance technologies against the American public without a warrant and with limited privacy protections.

Every year since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans have been forced to endure more and more surveillance measures from the federal government, as well as countless state and local law enforcement agencies. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 false flag, it’s more important than ever for the American public to ask: are we really free if we no longer have privacy?

The post Peter Thiel-Funded Company Anduril to Triple the Number of Autonomous Surveillance Towers Along the US-Mexico Border appeared first on Activist Post.

From Taylor Swift and Kim Kardashian to Jennifer Aniston and Lionel Messi, celebrities across the world are hiring teams of Israeli bodyguards made up of former Shin Bet, Mossad, and Israeli special forces. 

But how safe is it to entrust your life and most intimate details to agents from spying agencies with a long track record of infiltrating, surveiling, and blackmailing foreign targets? 

MintPress explores how Israeli security took over Hollywood and the world. 

In High Demand

Israeli Secret Service agents do not die or fade away, writes The New York Post. Instead, they move to Hollywood. The Tel Aviv-to-Tinsel Town pipeline has been well established over decades, and there are now a myriad of Israeli security agencies, both in Los Angeles and across the world, guarding many of the planet’s richest, most famous, and influential figures. 

Inter Miami soccer superstar Lionel Messi – who, in 2020 became the face of an Israeli A.I. company staffed by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spies –  is accompanied by an select force of former Israeli agents everywhere he goes. 

Hollywood royalty Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston are known to have relied on the services of Israeli security, as have pop stars, Madonna, Pink, and Jennifer Lopez. 

Actress Lucy Liu, meanwhile, is followed around everywhere by a troupe of Israeli minders. 

And Canadian singer Justin Bieber’s relationship with Israeli security came to public attention in 2013, after he allegedly beat up his ex-IDF handler Moshe Benabou, the CEO of Israguard Security Services. 

In short, Israeli bodyguards are highly sought after. “There’s demand around the world, and rightly so. Israeli security is like Coca-Cola,” said Roman Tukh, the co-founder of Guise Security, “You don’t have to advertise yourself – you have a name. The question is whether you manage to maintain it or not. That’s why it’s easier for us as Israelis.”

Bodyguards do not come cheap. The services Tukh and others like him provide cost between $125 and $1,500 per hour, depending on the level of security needed. 

Two other famous names well acquainted with Israeli security dispatches are Bill Maher and Charlie Kirk. In a 2025 conversation, the former revealed that he spent his entire European vacation “wedged between these two giant Israeli bodyguards the whole way.” “When I went to Europe in 2015, I had like two Israeli bodyguards and my security person,” he told the conservative influencer. “If you want security, the Israelis know what they are doing,” Kirk responded, knowingly. 

Maher edited this conversation out of the video he released to the public. It only exists as a reaction video on Kirk’s official channel, which appears to be unmaintained since his death.

Only a few months later, Kirk would be publicly assassinated. His death, and his precise relationship with Israel and Israeli security, has triggered all manner of speculation online.

Stars and Spies

One of the pioneers of the pipeline was Moshe Alon. A former longtime IDF officer and Israeli Secret Service veteran, Alon came to the United States in 1984 as head of the security team protecting Israeli athletes at the Los Angeles Summer Olympics. 

He never left, setting up Professional Security Consultants (PSC) the next year and bringing over large numbers of former colleagues to protect Hollywood royalty. Today, PSC is licensed in over 40 states and employs more than 4,000 people across the country, and Alon himself provided security for Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Caine, Armand Hammer, and Goldie Hawn. 

Many bodyguards come from top-tier units in the Israeli military or national security state that have carried out major war crimes in Gaza and beyond. Yet these allegiances are not seen in the U.S. as a mark against them, but rather a selling point. 

Kfir Goldin, director of Safe Security and bodyguard to Nick Jonas and Priyanka Chopra, boasts of his past as a member of the elite IDF unit, the Givati Brigade. The Givati Brigade is known for its mass bulldozing and torching of civilian Palestinian homes. “In every place where [our] soldiers walk, the place turns into scorched earth,” declared Givati commander, Avraham Zeriviv.

Meanwhile, before he was a bodyguard to the stars, Lior Raz served in the notorious Duvdevan Unit of the IDF, an elite group of spies who live deep undercover in Arab communities, secretly spying on them. Raz moved to the U.S. and became the personal bodyguard of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver. He later created “Fauda,” a TV series glamorizing the lives and work of Duvdevan operatives. 

“Israel is branded around the world as a counterterrorism success, so that catches on overseas. The question is what happens in practice, what’s the product you get. Duvdevan is something that people flaunt because of ‘Fauda,’” said Yechiel Salomon, an Israeli Special Forces veteran whose company, BHS Security, protects the likes of Helen Mirren, Michael Douglas, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. “People want bodyguards ‘like in “Fauda.”’ It’s great marketing,” he added.

Another Duvdevan operative turned bodyguard to the stars is Aaron Cohen. Born in Canada, Cohen made Aliyah at 17-years-old and served for three years in the Duvdevan, where he learned Arabic and participated in over 200 missions infiltrating Arab communities. 

Coming from a screenwriting family, he moved to Los Angeles and founded IMS Security Consultants, and provided security for a host of stars, including Britney Spears, Katy Perry, and Brad Pitt. 

And after she was robbed at gunpoint in 2016, Kanye West tasked Cohen with revamping his then-wife Kim Kardashian’s security. Given West’s political trajectory, it is remarkable that, less than 10 years ago, he was paying an armed former Israeli spy to follow his every move, entrusting his life to him. 

But one does not have to descend to Ye’s level of paranoia to raise serious concerns about the problematic relationship between Israeli spies and the world’s celebrity elite. 

The Duvdevan is an elite Israeli spying force who are charged with going deep undercover in enemy territory for years, passing themselves off as friends or as one of their targets. All the while, they are secretly collecting information and data on these marks, in order to control, extort, blackmail, or even kill them. Why any celebrity would want an individual such as this near them – especially a foreign national from a country known for their international espionage operations – is an open question. 

National Security Threat

It is often said that one never truly retires from the spying business. Cohen’s case is of particular note, as he called his security firm “Cherries” – the English translation of the Hebrew word, duvdevan. 

Is it unfair to ask to whom – state or celebrity – these former Israeli commandos owe their allegiance? This question was put into sharp relief in 2023, when, after the October 7 attacks, a spate of high-profile security guards quit their American jobs to rejoin their units. 

The most notable of these was Taylor Swift’s bodyguard, who discussed his reasons for rejoining his IDF unit with local outlet, Israel Hayom. “I have a pretty great life in America, a dream job, great friends and a comfortable home. I didn’t have to come here, but I couldn’t stand by while families were slaughtered and burned alive in their homes… I couldn’t stand by and do nothing,” he said. 

Another example is Oded Krashinsky, the founder of Advanced Security Concepts and Nicole Kidman’s personal bodyguard. Krashinsky previously served for many years as an officer in an unnamed IDF Secret Service operations unit. In 2023, he dropped everything to fight for Israel. “I came here to help my unit. The morale is tense. The main threat is invasion — we have to deflect it, fight it, and protect against it,” he said, “I am who I am because I came from here. At the end of the day, it’s about experience, decision-making, tactics, and leadership — that’s what I felt I could bring and that’s what I do now.” 

The individuals and companies Hollywood stars trust with their lives and their most intimate secrets come from some of the same organizations infamous for creating and spreading malware and spyware targeting tens of thousands of notable figures, including political leaders, journalists, and royals. Former agents of elite IDF group, Unit 8200, launched Pegasus, software that attacked the devices of heads of state, giving the Israeli government intimate knowledge of the ongoings of both their enemies and their allies. Known victims include President Emmanuel Macron of France, Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan, and Iraqi president, Barham Salih. 

Authoritarian governments around the world used Pegasus to suppress their enemies. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi used the software to dig up dirt on his personal opponents. Meanwhile, the government of Saudi Arabia targeted Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi before dismembering him with a bone saw. 

IDF spooks also spy on Palestinian Arab populations, reading their texts and listening to their calls for the purposes of blackmail and extortion. If a target was found to be homosexual or cheating on their spouse, that information would be used against them. One IDF whistleblower revealed that, as part of their training, they were assigned to memorize different Arabic words for “gay” so that they could listen out for them in conversations. 

Hollywood itself, though, has been bastion of support for Israel. A MintPress News investigation based on leaked emails published by Wikileaks found top movie producers coordinating with Israeli government and military officials on how best to promote the country in the United States and how to stamp out pro-Palestinian voices within the industry. 

Therefore, it should hardly come as a shock that many in Tinseltown see little problem in hiring former Israeli operatives to provide security services. Perhaps more surprising, however, is the amount of ex-secret agents from a foreign country the United States allows to live and operate within its own borders.

 If this were any other country, it would doubtless be considered a massive security risk. Given how quickly the United States and Israel are beginning to merge, however – the House of Representatives just passed a $1.5 trillion bill integrating the two countries’ militaries – it is likely that we will see more of the same in the future. 

That individual celebrities do not see the risk in entrusting their most intimate security to foreign nationals from agencies infamous for undercover surveillance and extortion of high-value targets, is deeply concerning. 

Taylor Swift and Kim Kardashian: you have been warned.

The post From Lionel Messi, Kanye West to Taylor Swift: Celebrities are “Protected” By Israeli Security Teams appeared first on Activist Post.