12-5-25 DailyBriefs.info LennyAndMariaPodcasts.com    archive  

welcome to the NoteBookLM.news series.

Venezuela Invasion: A Case of Iraq War Redux

The current military buildup orchestrated by the Trump administration against Venezuela evokes a profound sense of déjà vu, drawing unmistakable parallels to the events leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. Just as George W. Bush did before him, Trump is amassing military assets off foreign shores, preparing for a potential invasion of a sovereign, oil-rich nation. A key similarity between the two situations is the active effort by both presidents to promote the necessity of war using ludicrously false pretenses.

In 2003, Bush mendaciously exaggerated a nonexistent threat—the widely promoted, yet mythical, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD),. Bush’s campaign to sell the war involved inventing a terrifying major deception to incite the public, suggesting that "we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud". This approach ultimately advocated for ruining an entire nation and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people based on preposterous accusations that were backed by absolutely no evidence. Prior to the 2003 invasion, pre-war Iraq was relatively stable and prosperous, despite being crippled by sanctions, and there was never any credible evidence that the country actually possessed an arsenal of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. That WMD story was purely propaganda derived from "overheated neoconservative imaginations".

Fast forward to today, Trump’s claims regarding Venezuelan fentanyl are viewed as every bit as absurd as the WMD deception employed by Bush. The alleged threat currently being hyperventilated about is another type of "chemical weapon": fentanyl supposedly coming from Venezuela. The asserted link between the planned US invasion and this alleged pretext is purely imaginary. Trump has engaged in extrajudicial killings, amounting to premeditated first-degree murder, having directed his military to summarily blow up over 20 boats, resulting in the deaths of more than 80 people. However, the "Killer-in-Chief" has not provided a single shred of evidence that any of those boats were transporting fentanyl. It is widely understood that almost all fentanyl consumed in the US is manufactured in Mexico, which is located in North America, immediately south of the US, meaning Venezuela and Columbia—which are in South America—cannot be involved with Mexico-produced fentanyl. Trump's pronouncements on this topic are so unhinged they almost defy belief. For example, Trump has claimed that "every Venezuelan (fentanyl) boat"—of which the article asserts there are none—"kills 25,000 people". In a separate address, he stated that each boat he destroys "saves 25,000 American lives". These calculations do not logically add up, especially since there are approximately 75,000 fentanyl overdose deaths annually in the US, suggesting three such boats would account for all deaths, yet Trump claims to have saved 500,000 people by sinking 20 vessels. This whole narrative is dismissed as "preposterous hogwash" and a significant insult to the US armed forces, the American public, and the world. Highlighting the pretext as a sham, Trump has simultaneously pardoned actual drug smugglers, such as former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a 45-year sentence for smuggling hundreds of tons of cocaine into the US.

The second major point of comparison is the intense demonization of the targeted leaders, a strategy Trump is utilizing just like Bush’s playbook,. Bush repeatedly attacked Saddam Hussein with a torrent of insults, including calling him a "murderous tyrant," a "master of deception," a "brutal dictator," and a "homicidal dictator who routinely tortures and murders his own people",,. However, the article argues that the US invaded Iraq not because of Hussein’s bad qualities, but rather because of his good ones,. The US itself was complicit in some of Hussein’s worst crimes; for instance, US-supplied nerve agents and mustard gas were used in Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Iran during the 1980s war. Donald Rumsfeld, who personally authorized US-orchestrated shipments of those chemical weapons to Baghdad when he was Reagan’s special envoy in the 1980s, later led the invasion of the WMD-free Iraq twenty years later using the false WMD pretext,.

Bush’s intense demonization was intended to obscure the fact that Saddam Hussein used Iraq’s massive oil revenue to provide excellent education, healthcare, transportation, and other infrastructure for his citizens,. Furthermore, Hussein was dedicated to building a military powerhouse with the ultimate goal of liberating Palestine. Although he was willing to maintain cordial relations with the US, Hussein would never agree to American demands to betray the Palestinians by appeasing the "genocidal Zionist entity". These positive commitments—not his brutality—were the true catalyst for the US turning against him.

Today, Trump is similarly hurling "childish ad hominem attacks" against Nicolás Maduro, labeling him a "dictator" and a "thug," borrowing directly from the Bush playbook. Trump’s extensive list of insults against Maduro includes calling him "a puppet," "a total failure," "a fool," "a loser," "a criminal," "a liar," and "a thug who kills his own people",. The source material suggests there is considerably less truth in Trump’s anti-Maduro rhetoric than there was in Bush’s anti-Hussein tirades. Maduro is portrayed as a thoughtful, cultivated man who can speak extemporaneously with considerable coherence and grace. He is a fixture at literary festivals and cultural campaigns, championing patriotic Latin American writers. Maduro is said to enjoy widespread popular support, potentially more than Trump does domestically, and his popularity extends throughout the Latin American left intelligentsia. Unlike the US-centric oligarchs who oppose him, Maduro understands that the purpose of life is to live an ethical, contemplative existence, not to simply amass riches. It is suggested that when Trump describes Maduro with negative terms such as "a puppet" or "a total failure," he is more accurately describing himself. Ordinary citizens in Venezuela benefit from a government that prioritizes health care and education for the poor over profits for the wealthy, and they view the rich Venezuelans who hate Maduro, much like wealthy Cubans hated Fidel Castro, as "gusanos" (worms). Maduro is characterized as a patriot who is risking his life to defend his nation from its "rapacious neighbor to the north". The positive aspects of Maduro’s government are precisely what has driven the US to repeatedly attempt to overthrow it.

The third critical takeaway is the identification of the true underlying reasons for aggression, which extend beyond the public pretexts and character attacks. In both the 2003 Bush regime invasion of Iraq and the 2025 Trump regime plotting against Venezuela, the real reasons have nothing to do with alleged WMD, fentanyl, or the character flaws of the leaders. The actual motivations for war are distilled into two key words: "oil" and "Israel".

Both nations are deemed geo-strategically significant because of their colossal oil reserves. Bush invaded Iraq partly because of its 145 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Venezuela, however, possesses more than twice that amount, with 303 billion barrels, making it the world leader. Control over this oil allows the controlling power to reap profits, offer resources to allies, and restrict access for adversaries. However, oil is considered secondary, not the primary issue, in both conflicts; instead, the article posits that Zionism is the core issue.

Despite their willingness to offer favorable oil deals to American corporations—a position held by Saddam Hussein’s government before 2003 and by Maduro’s government today—the US refused to take "yes for an answer" in either case. The resistance stems from the fact that both countries were and are fundamentally committed to full sovereignty. A crucial expression of this sovereignty is their commitment to the Palestinian resistance struggle against Zionist genocide. Currently, Venezuela is strongly allied with anti-genocide nations like Iran and Yemen, and maintains political, financial, and logistical ties with Hezbollah. Although the Bolivarian government would happily sign "win-win oil deals" with US corporations, it reserves the right to pursue a sovereign foreign policy and specifically ally itself with the Palestinian people. This stance mirrors the exact position held by Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003.

This sovereign position is deemed "unacceptable" to the US because the US is asserted to be dominated by a Jewish-Zionist billionaire oligarchy whose true loyalty lies with the interests of the "genocidal entity occupying Palestine," rather than American interests. When a potentially powerful, oil-rich nation like Iraq or Venezuela chooses to ally itself with the Palestinian liberation struggle, the Zionist forces insist that country must be destroyed, regardless of the staggering cost. This alleged underlying Zionist imperative is why both Bush and Trump are compelled to lie about the genuine reasons for war; if they disclosed the truth—that "the Zionist billionaire crime bosses want to run America into the ground by waging pointlessly destructive wars for Israel"—the American populace might be motivated to put an end to that oligarchy.

thank you for listening to another session of the NoteBookLM.news series. You can find the full archive of all my podcasts at NotebookLM.news.

welcome to the NoteBookLM.news series.

We begin our session today by discussing the core materials and key analyses derived from the first set of excerpts, which originate from the LewRockwell.com platform. This site is explicitly identified as being Anti-State, Anti-War, and Pro-Market.

The central economic thesis provided in this material, dated December 5, 2025, comes from Dr. Mark Thornton. His key takeaway focuses on a profound concern regarding central banking policy and market stability, summarized by the title: "Fed Cutting Rates to Re-Stimulate the Everything Bubble". This analysis by Dr. Mark Thornton is situated within a robust intellectual framework available on the platform, which includes dedicated resources for the Mises Institute and the Murray N. Rothbard Library & Resources. The organizational structure supporting this analysis is extensive, providing access points such as a Show Menu, Archives, Authors, a Blog, Political Theatre, and Podcasts. Readers are also directed toward Lew Rockwell Books, Ron Paul Books, and LRC Bestselling Books. Additional organizational functions available include a Store, About section, Contact information, and options to Donate or Advertise.

Turning our attention to the second source, we find a rich collection of key takeaways listed under the heading "Political Theatre". This material addresses a wide array of highly consequential geopolitical developments, domestic political challenges, and economic risks.

In the realm of foreign policy, a critical concern is raised regarding the necessity to "Stop the Drive to War With Venezuela". Further foreign entanglement is highlighted by the observation that, with Charlie Kirk gone, TPUSA Supports US War With Iran. The list of key insights also touches on high-profile political commentary and criticism, including an assessment that Harry’s Colbert Appearance Needling Trump Was Reckless and, Politically, Not Astute. Economically, a stark warning is issued, suggesting that the system is "Headed for a Derivative Meltdown". Domestically, in Europe, the political environment is tense, with the insight that the entire state of Rheinland-Pfalz is toying with a strategy to outright ban AfD candidates from elected office. The content also features provocative political comparison in the title "Hitler phones Harris". Regarding foreign conflicts and media narratives, the materials present the view that Hillary Clinton Says Young Americans Are Pro-Palestine Because They Watch ‘Totally Made Up’ Videos of Gaza Horrors. Legal and executive concerns are addressed under the concept of "Legal vs. Illegal Orders". Finally, the sources document mass political mobilization, reporting that thousands of leftist protesters clashed with thousands of police in a massive action to defend “Our Democracy” against a few hundred AfD members. This section of political discourse concludes with a retrospective warning captured by the title "Ayn Rand Warned Us".

Finally, we explore the comprehensive list of key takeaways presented in the third set of sources under the "LRC Blog" heading. These topics delve deeply into economic conditions, institutional transparency, and specific political investigations.

The economic climate is scrutinized through the question posed in the title: "The “Golden Age” of Job Layoffs?". This immediately connects to the political implications of financial hardship in the analysis of "The ‘Affordability Crisis’ And What It Means For The Midterms". Institutional focus is provided by the article aiming to reveal "The US Institute of Peace: The REAL Story". Specific figures are highlighted in the content related to Robert Barnes. Investigative reporting is summarized in the update that Hegseth is In Hot Seat As ‘Murder-gate’ Picks Up Steam. The sources also celebrate ideological champions through the focus on "A Real Libertarian Hero". Serious geopolitical military questions are raised by the title "‘Who Ordered The Second Strike?’. The materials encourage a broad intellectual scope, emphasizing the importance of "Opening My Eyes to a Deeper, Wider Perspective on Viewing the World – its History and Geopolitics". Security analysis is provided through the retrospective question of "How The Afghan Attacker Could Have Been Stopped". The role of public figures, government agencies, and the media are intersected in the key takeaway provided by Mike Benz: MrBeast And the USAID Truman Show. This blog content exists alongside necessary administrative links, including access to Archives, Authors, Blog content, and the Privacy Policy. The organization also lists its extensive resources, including Lew Rockwell Books, Ron Paul Books, and the Mises Institute.

thank you for listening to another session of the NoteBookLM.news series. You can find the full archive of all my podcasts at NotebookLM.news.

welcome to the NoteBookLM.news series.

The American military tradition explicitly broke with ancient military customs that required swearing loyalty to a leader. Instead, Article VI of the Constitution mandated that American officers swear loyalty to our basic law, the Constitution. This commitment is codified in the American Code of Military Obedience, which demands that if military orders and the law ever conflict, officers must unfailingly obey the law.

Every military servicemember’s oath is fundamentally a pledge to defend the Constitution against all enemies, whether foreign or domestic. It is crucial to understand that this oath is not a pledge of allegiance to a specific politician, a political party, or the developing police state. This constitutional principle is foundational, meaning no president—whether Republican or Democrat—can override it. At the United States Military Academy, the "Loyalty to the Constitution" plaque reinforces this core tenet, stating that if orders and the law conflict, officers must obey the law. This principle is the foundation of American civil-military relations, and removing it transforms the republic into a personality cult supported by weapons.

Currently, the moral line is being tested in real time as service members face pressure to prioritize obedience to power and loyalty to a political leader over their allegiance to the Constitution. This scenario forces a critical question: is the United States a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law, or is it transitioning into a militarized police state where "legality" is merely defined by the person wielding the most power and the largest military? This dilemma becomes clearer when examining the orders being given to troops, and the tacit acceptance of those orders by "we the people," often in the supposed name of national security.

The tension between obedience to the Constitution and obedience to the Commander-in-Chief is highlighted by the controversy surrounding a maritime strike. A report centered on an alleged verbal order issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “kill everybody” on a vessel in the Caribbean suspected of drug trafficking. Following an initial “lethal, kinetic” strike that disabled the boat and killed nine men, accounts allege a second strike was performed to kill two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage. This alleged “double tap strike” is highly problematic, with legal experts warning it could constitute murder or a war crime if the survivors no longer posed a threat. In total, the vessel was reportedly hit four times: twice to kill the eleven occupants and twice more to sink the boat.

Intentionally killing survivors who are clinging to the remains of a boat in the middle of the ocean, especially in the absence of an imminent threat, is unlawful. Murder committed on the high seas is recognized as a crime. Even the Pentagon’s own manual on the law of war dictates that combatants who are “wounded, sick, or shipwrecked” should not be attacked because they no longer pose a threat. An explicit command to “kill everybody” represents precisely the type of order that legal guardrails were established to prohibit. The core lesson derived from the Nuremberg Trials and the modern law of armed conflict is that the defense of “I was just following orders” is invalid for war crimes. The goal of a police state, conversely, is to cultivate mindless automatons who obey without question. As Hannah Arendt noted in 1963 regarding the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a key element of totalitarian government is to dehumanize people by turning them into functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery.

The crisis surrounding this incident highlights that three critical bodies of law converge and were potentially violated. First, regarding the Constitution’s allocation of war powers, Congress has issued no declaration of war. Under the Constitution, only Congress possesses the authority to declare war, and the president cannot initiate wars based solely on his own authority. Second, both the international law of armed conflict and the law of the sea forbid the killing of shipwrecked survivors who pose no immediate threat. Third, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear in its requirement that every servicemember must refuse orders that are manifestly unlawful. Every military recruit is taught in basic training that they have an equal duty to disobey orders that are clearly unlawful, alongside their duty to obey lawful ones.

The broader context reveals that the September 2 boat strike was part of a larger Trump administration campaign of maritime attacks that had already resulted in the deaths of at least 80 individuals at sea. These actions were conducted without a formal declaration of war and without providing due process to warrant what amounts to an extrajudicial execution. The Trump administration has attempted to justify this preemptive maritime war against suspected “narco-terrorists” by framing it as a “non-international armed conflict”. Ultimately, this constitutes an undeclared war, launched in international waters, without securing congressional authorization or having just cause.

The White House, which had initially been celebrating its power to kill extrajudicially, suddenly began signaling its willingness to scapegoat subordinates in the chain of command following the backlash. The individual who appears to be on the chopping block is Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley. It is tragically apparent that it is the men and women who carry out unlawful orders—and not those who issue them—who typically end up suffering the consequences.

The administration’s rationale—that a preemptive “kill everybody” attack was conducted in “self-defense to protect U.S. interests”—is profoundly alarming to the American public. If the government is permitted to redefine "self-defense" to justify killing incapacitated survivors on a sinking boat, then it creates a precedent that allows it to justify killing anyone, regardless of whether they are at home or abroad. In response to this mounting pressure on the military, The Orders Project, a nonpartisan initiative, has reported a spike in calls from military personnel concerned they might be pressured to carry out illegal orders or participate in missions that violate their training in the laws of war. These concerns are reasonable, especially given that Defense Secretary Hegseth has openly championed a more “unshackled” approach to lethal force and derided the military’s Judge Advocate General corps.

For restating the principle taught in basic training—that servicemembers can and must refuse illegal orders—six members of Congress with military backgrounds were reportedly accused of “sedition” and branded as “traitors” by President Trump. One lawmaker, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, was even threatened with being recalled to active duty for a court-martial for his remarks. The clear message being sent from the top is that allegiance to the Constitution is a punishable crime.

The actions of the administration also reveal a corrupt double standard. The president is pardoning individuals convicted of conspiring to transport hundreds of tons of cocaine into the U.S. while simultaneously deploying forces to blow up boats in the Caribbean, claiming they are ferrying drugs. For example, the president pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who had been sentenced for conspiring with drug traffickers. U.S. prosecutors indicated that Hernández took bribes and used the country's armed forces to protect cocaine shipments destined for the U.S.. Furthermore, the rapid buildup of U.S. military forces in the Caribbean, including aircraft carriers, destroyers, and a nuclear-powered submarine, far exceeds the needs of a typical counternarcotics operation.

The government’s weaponization of the armed forces for political purposes, followed by throwing the service members who execute the orders “under the bus,” is a betrayal of the Constitution and the very people who swore to defend it. This systematic betrayal is not about ensuring public safety; it has consistently been about power—who wields it, who is protected by it, and who is ultimately crushed beneath it. Once a government demonstrates a willingness to break faith with its defenders, it signals a willingness to break faith with anyone. A government capable of discarding its military service members is also capable of discarding journalists, judges, whistleblowers, political opponents, dissidents, and any citizen who dares to say “no” when the state demands “yes”. This betrayal of those who swore an oath to the Constitution is a significant warning.

thank you for listening to another session of the NoteBookLM.news series. You can find the full archive of all my podcasts at NotebookLM.news

welcome to the NoteBookLM.news series.

We begin today with an examination of the Transportation Security Administration’s newest policy, titled Confirm.ID, which is generating significant concern regarding liberty and the right to travel. This policy is set to begin rolling out in February. The author of this analysis, Adam Dick, who previously served as a legislative aide for Rep. Ron Paul from 2003 through 2013, posits that the new Confirm.ID initiative is essentially a new tax and a set of demands imposed on individuals who do not possess REAL ID compliant identification documentation.

The sources detail the specifics of this new governmental requirement, explaining that Confirm.ID will impose a mandatory $45 fee on travelers without REAL ID compliant documents. This fee is characterized as a tax because it is levied by the government. The Confirm.ID process serves as an alternative method for seeking travel permission from the TSA, but it is neither quick nor permanent. Reports indicate that complying with the other demands of the Confirm.ID process and seeking permission can take up to half an hour to complete. Furthermore, if the person is successful in this endeavor, the travel approval is only valid for 10 days. Concerns about the collection of biometric information have historically surrounded the REAL ID program. The Confirm.ID process does not appear to offer a way around these requirements, as the collection of biometric information is fundamentally incorporated into its procedures. The push for the United States government’s REAL ID mandate was authorized by congressional legislation two decades ago. However, the mandate's rollout was delayed until last year, largely due to opposition from individuals worried about the threats REAL ID posed to personal liberty.

This new financial burden is compounded by the fact that Americans are already required to fund the TSA through tax dollars, including a separate "Passenger Fee" or "September 11 Security Fee" that is included in the total price of every airline flight ticket. The TSA is characterized as consistently finding new means to take money from Americans. The new tax and demands targeting people who travel without REAL ID compliant documentation are adding insult to injury. This situation is exacerbated because the underlying push for people to obtain and utilize REAL ID was itself motivated by a rejection of the basic right of each individual to travel.

The imposition of the Confirm.ID program and its subsequent tax is layered on top of significant harassment that the TSA routinely dispenses to travelers. The harassment meted out on passengers includes long waits in line and the demanded production of identification documentation, which violates the right to travel anonymously. Furthermore, passengers are subjected to zero privacy concerning the contents of their bags or pockets. The TSA also engages in the confiscation of nonthreatening but verboten items. Travelers are subjected to never properly safety tested “full-body scanners,” which carry a potential for harm. They must also undergo "pat downs," which are considered essentially the same as friskings by police. Without special governmental protection, these pat downs would be regarded as assaults or sexual assaults. While Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem attempted to gain some support from people fed up with the TSA by announcing a minimal rollback of bullying related to allowing people to keep their shoes on at checkpoints, the rest of the enumerated harassment remains in place.

The new tax and demands associated with Confirm.ID placed on travelers who do not have REAL ID compliant identification documentation are described as repugnant. The sources argue that REAL ID is equally repugnant. When the REAL ID legislation was passed twenty years ago, then-United States House of Representatives Member Ron Paul (R-TX) explained the negative implications on the House floor. The central argument against both policies is that neither Confirm.ID nor REAL ID is compatible with a fundamental respect for liberty. The conclusion drawn is that both programs, along with the TSA’s extensive list of harassment activities, should be entirely discarded.

thank you for listening to another session of the NoteBookLM.news series. You can find the full archive of all my podcasts at NotebookLM.news.

welcome to the NoteBookLM.news series.

The source material presents a critical analysis arguing that President Putin has been fundamentally wrong about the war from its inception, leading to a needlessly protracted conflict. This perspective stands in direct opposition to the "Putin Hero Worship" often found among Russian cheerleaders in alternative media, who may eventually crow that peace arrived because Putin executed all the correct strategic moves. The author argues instead that the war got off to a very poor start and has been dragged out unnecessarily due to the unique strategy adopted and maintained by Team Putin. This prolonged conflict has resulted in mounting fatalities and a deteriorating international climate, threatening to escalate the current proxy war against Russia into a kinetic war across Europe, potentially devastating the Continent.

A significant area of criticism focuses on the initial execution and planning of the Special Military Operation (SMO). The author maintains that Team Putin failed to perform due diligence regarding the probable Ukrainian army response to an invasion. Furthermore, the initial invasion force was inadequate in size. According to normal military doctrine, an operation aimed at crossing into enemy territory to capture the capital and force a regime change requires a specific troop count; the 150,000 troops amassed by the Russians across the Belarus border from Ukraine were only about one-third of the necessary number. The planning appeared predicated on the flawed expectation that the Ukrainian military would swiftly raise the white flag upon the first sight of Russian troops invading, mirroring what occurred in 2014 in Crimea. This suggests that Putin and his close advisors failed to recognize how effectively British and other NATO trainers had reshaped the Ukrainian army over the preceding eight years. Consequently, Russian appeals to Ukrainian officers to rebel against the extremist nationalist government in Kiev and the Nazi battalions within their ranks were entirely ignored.

Evidence suggests that military intelligence was either poor or ignored at the outset. The author recounts hearing from a source—a retired military intelligence officer working as a taxi driver—that Team Putin had stunned its own military intelligence people by neglecting to consult with them prior to staging the invasion. This lack of consultation with the agency responsible for providing military intelligence appears to follow a pattern, demonstrated more recently when Putin completely sidelined the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Sergei Lavrov from peace negotiations with the USA and Ukraine. Instead, Putin relied on Kirill Dmitriev, described as a "relative outsider and neophyte" in such diplomatic matters.

The flaws in intelligence and planning appear to have persisted throughout the war. The author points to the "surprise" Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk oblast of the Russian Federation as evidence that the Russian command has not become better informed. This incursion required more than six months of fierce fighting to uproot and expel. The author found it difficult to understand why the Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, was not dismissed for this failure to secure the Russian Federation borders, and why no one investigated the fortifications in Belgorod and Kursk that were allegedly built with federal funds but either never materialized or were constructed using inferior concrete due to local government corruption.

The source strongly critiques Putin’s overall strategy of waging war ‘the Russian way’. This strategy, introduced in February 2022, is contrasted with the U.S. style of 'shock and awe' designed to overwhelm the enemy quickly. The current strategy of attrition, the author contends, has dragged out the war vastly longer than necessary, resulted in far more Russian and Ukrainian soldiers being killed and severely maimed, and invited the very Western intervention that could have been avoided. The flawed belief that this war of attrition approach is sparing lives and that a total military victory remains achievable suggests that Putin would fight on for years to come. The author suggests that had Putin followed Soviet practices, using a hammer to crush the fly instead of a napkin, the outcome would have been different. The lessons from the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 demonstrated that massive troop presence should be brought to bear for successful regime change by force of arms. While those operations were cruel, they were relatively swift, concluded in days or weeks, and involved fewer deaths, unlike the current conflict spanning years. These essential lessons have not been absorbed by Team Putin. Furthermore, the Boss in the Kremlin has inexplicably refused to make a decapitating strike in Kiev that could end the fighting immediately and prevent further loss of life.

Regarding the conclusion of the war, the source material argues that it is primarily the intervention of external political actors, particularly Donald Trump, that is bringing down the Kiev regime, not military victory by Russia. The war is expected to end, likely with Ukrainian capitulation, due to the political collapse of the Kiev regime, rather than the Ukrainian army being driven from the battlefield. Team Trump is deemed more responsible than anyone else for pushing Kiev toward political collapse. The author agrees with Trump's Realpolitik motivation, which is centered on reaching a geopolitical settlement with Russia primarily to dismantle the Russia-China alliance. Team Trump is reported to be working to sideline Europe, weakening the "Coalition of the Willing," and preparing the environment for capitulation by Kiev before Brussels can react. This external pressure includes anti-corruption investigations backed by the United States, which have significantly weakened Zelensky’s position following the forced resignation of Andrii Yermak, the head of the Presidential Administration.

Ultimately, the author holds the greatest respect for Vladimir Putin for his achievements in stabilizing Russia—economically, socially, and militarily—following the collapse and disgrace of the 1990s, achievements for which he may be honored for decades. However, the analysis concludes that as the Commander in Chief of a nation at war, Putin, the nation builder in peacetime, has consistently made too many wrong moves.

thank you for listening to another session of the NoteBookLM.news series. You can find the full archive of all my podcasts at NotebookLM.news.

welcome to the NoteBookLM.news series.

Today, we dive into a roundup of critical developments spanning scientific research, political investigations, and major judicial decisions, starting with two significant reports that challenge the established pandemic consensus, followed by major shifts in the J6 narrative, and key rulings concerning redistricting and ongoing legal battles.

Scientific Findings Challenge Vaccine Narratives

We begin with the actuarial equivalent of a mass grave, as described in a study by two German researchers titled, Regional Patterns of Excess Mortality in Germany During the COVID-19 Pandemic, published in Royal Society Open Science. This rigorous analysis looked at excess mortality across all sixteen German states without relying on "modeling" or "estimates," simply comparing how many people should have died versus how many actually did. The study's findings reveal a tragedy unfolding in three acts.

In the initial period, Act I in 2020, excess deaths barely budged. However, in Act II, 2021, after the COVID-19 jabs were rolled out, excess mortality mysteriously increased, even though covid deaths fell sharply. The trend worsened in Act III, spanning 2022–2023, where covid deaths dropped dramatically, yet all-cause excess mortality inexorably continued to climb. This shift meant that regional mortality patterns completely reversed; states that had experienced low covid mortality early on suddenly saw death charts climb. A mysterious new driver had clearly entered the arena.

While examining the data, researchers initially noted that during the first two years of the pandemic, excess mortality correlated tightly with reported covid deaths. However, even during that period, covid-labeled deaths exceeded actual excess deaths by factors of 3.5x and 2x, suggesting Germany experienced a "pandemic of re-labeling". By year three, when excess mortality exploded despite drops in cases and deaths, the baffled researchers checked their calculations and tried to explain why people were dying faster than ever from other causes. They tested potential factors like "long covid," lockdowns, age, poverty, GDP, and care home prevalence, finding that all provided only random noise and no association.

Running out of ideas, the researchers then turned to vaccination rates. What they discovered was an extremely tight correlation. States with higher vaccination rates had significantly higher excess mortality. Furthermore, these highly vaccinated states had smaller declines in covid deaths and smaller declines in case fatality rates, with some even seeing covid death rates rise instead of fall. Critically, when the researchers adjusted the data for prior mortality levels and time-invariant confounders, the association between the jabs and excess deaths grew even stronger. The data showed unambiguously that excess mortality increased most in the states with the highest vaccination rates.

Excess death data is difficult to conceal because it is derived directly from population data, which is inextricably linked to political forces such as local funding and voting district sizes. Since local vaccination rates were also published and easily accessible throughout the pandemic, the combination of these two data points—jab rates and excess deaths—is sufficient to prove the severity of the danger posed by the jabs. Predictably, analysts attempted to excuse the results by deploying the "Correlation isn't causation!" canard. They also suggested that the unvaccinated died earlier, which makes little sense given that excess deaths actually rose. Another suggested cause, a severe influenza wave, correlated negatively with excess deaths, meaning the more flu a state had, the less excess deaths it recorded. This peer-reviewed study, published in a solid, respectable journal, climbs onto a tower of previous studies and case reports proving problems with the mRNA shots.

Adding to this scientific challenge, a completely separate, peer-reviewed bombshell arrived from Israel concerning the persistence of mRNA. The study, published in the Annals of Case Reports and titled “Detection of Pfizer BioNTech Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Human Blood, Placenta and Semen,” showed that vaccine mRNA traveled to places the experts had guaranteed it would never go, including reproductive fluids. Researchers tested blood, placentas, sperm, and seminal fluid from 30 participants, including 22 pregnant women.

The findings showed that synthetic vaccine mRNA was detectable in approximately half of the samples collected more than 200 days after vaccination, found in the blood, placentas, sperm, and seminal fluid. This persistent synthetic mRNA was found long after it should have vanished. Among the men tested, three out of four had detectable mRNA in their sperm, and the fourth man, who did not produce sperm, still had the mRNA in his seminal fluid, meaning 100% of the men tested had persistent mRNA in their reproductive fluids. Researchers used a very sensitive PCR test—the same type used during the pandemic—to detect the lingering mRNA.

This evidence directly contradicts the assurances of experts who had repeatedly promised that the mRNA would stay in the arm, vowing that it was "stable at the injection site," would "not travel," and was "too delicate" to migrate. This paper calmly reported that the synthetic mRNA shows up in the blood at least half a year later, crosses into placental tissue, and loiters in the reproductive system. This is yet another peer-reviewed study confirming prolonged, tissue-level persistence of synthetic COVID vaccine mRNA, contradicting years of official assurances, pharma talking points, and media statements. This old-fashioned science used techniques like Sanger sequencing and nested PCR.

J6 Pipe-Bomber Identified and Arrested

In a major development, the FBI quietly announced the arrest of Brian Cole Jr., 30, from Woodbridge, Virginia, "in connection with" the pipe bombs placed outside the Republican and Democratic national committees on January 5, 2021. The arrest concludes the DC Pipe-Bomb Mystery nearly five years after the incident.

FBI director Kash Patel explained that the breakthrough was not based on new information, but came after new agents were assigned to the case and carefully combed the existing FBI investigative files, connecting the dots that ultimately led to Cole’s arrest. The newly assigned agents utilized surveillance footage matched to Cole’s cell phone records, tracked his slight limp to the suspect's gait, and reviewed bank account statements and credit card receipts to track purchases of pipe-bomb parts. These purchases, made at local stores including Home Depot, involved items like galvanized pipe, nine-volt batteries, electrical wire, steel wool, and white kitchen timers.

The $550,000 reward remains unclaimed, suggesting the arrest resulted entirely from the FBI’s renewed investigative work. This case was highly contentious, birthing numerous conspiracy theories. For five years, Democrats seized on the pipe bombs, claiming the bomber was obviously a deranged MAGA supporter and key evidence of a "violent insurrection". This claim, which the January 6th Committee also accepted, transitioned into established BlueSky mythology. Conservatives grew restless because the FBI, which effortlessly identified mask-wearing "J6 tourists," seemed unable to solve the case of the pipe-bomber who was captured on multiple surveillance cameras, leading to suspicions of a deep-state cover-up or false-flag operation. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel celebrated the well-deserved victory.

Supreme Court Clears Texas Redistricting Maps

Moving to the judiciary, the Supreme Court handed President Trump a victory in the fight over Texas’s congressional map. The ruling cleared the way for a map that could allow Republicans to win up to five additional seats in the House.

The terse, unsigned order canceled a district judge’s injunction against the new maps, with the Supremes stating that the District Court "improperly inserted itself" into an active primary campaign, thereby upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections. Democrats had falsely claimed that the map was drawn out of racism to thwart black voters. Justice Alito, in a separate supporting opinion, clarified that the impetus for the Texas map was "partisan advantage pure and simple". This means that Texas Republicans simply wanted to win seats, rather than oppress black citizens. Texas Governor Greg Abbott subsequently bragged that Texas is "officially — and legally — more red".

The ruling is seen as a strong message to lower courts to stay out of such political fights. The skirmish began after President Trump sued the state, arguing that the old maps had been racially engineered to favor Spanish districts. Following the redrawing of the maps by Texas Republicans, Texas Democrats attempted to prevent a legislative quorum by fleeing the state in a disorganized panic.

Letitia James Indictment Rejected by Grand Jury

Finally, we address the repeated attempts by the DOJ to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for outright mortgage fraud. Blackpillers who demanded arrests often miss that arrests are only part of the process, and overly hasty arrests can benefit bad actors.

Outstanding lawyer Lindsey Halligan, acting as a temporary interim US Attorney, initially charged James, but the judge tossed the indictment, citing arcane procedural problems with Halligan’s unorthodox status. The DOJ tried again, presenting the case to a new Grand Jury, this time without Halligan. However, the new Grand Jury refused to issue an indictment.

NPR described this as the latest setback for the Justice Department. Prosecutors are expected to try again, but James’s lawyers will be able to argue malicious prosecution after repeated failed attempts. The judge would only need to find a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" to permanently dismiss the charges. James's attorney asserted that continuing the effort, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury’s rejection, would be a "shocking assault on the rule of law".

It is important to understand that the system should make it difficult to convict Americans, particularly for picky or technical crimes, or if political motives are suspected, or if the effort seems disproportionate to the alleged conduct. In this case, a grand jury of local partisan Democrats did not indict James. This grand jury pushback is encouraging because it demonstrates how the system should have worked for President Trump and the January 6th tourists. However, since the case had to be filed in Eastern Virginia, a highly Democratic district, it may also reflect pure partisan lawlessness rather than juror wisdom.

Ultimately, this development proves that the DOJ must bring airtight cases and must be skillful and strategic about where and how cases are presented to juries, which requires significant time and effort. The James case serves as a crucial lesson for Trump’s new DOJ and Congress. It suggests that due to the difficult education being received, the country may be headed for profound judicial and criminal justice reform.

thank you for listening to another session of the NoteBookLM.news series. You can find the full archive of all my podcasts at NotebookLM.news.