New Mexico Governor Declares Emergency After Massive Flood Hits The State

New Mexico Governor Declares Emergency After Massive Flood Hits The State

Anthony

First Texas and now New Mexico.

On Tuesday, a flash flood hit Ruidoso, New Mexico.

The massive floods quickly wreaked havoc on the town and caused some homes to be swept away.

Take a look:

At least three people died after a flash flood struck a mountain village in New Mexico on Tuesday, according to officials. The emergency comes days after deadly floods in neighboring Texas left more than 100 people dead

Rio Ruidoso New Mexico Floods in Minutes: Timelapse Shows Wall of Water and Debris

Now, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has declared a state of emergency for Ruidoso.

CBS 4 Local had more details to report on Grisham’s order:

The governor of New Mexico has signed an emergency declaration asking for help from the federal government as Ruidoso deals with flooding.

On Tuesday night, NM Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham released a statement announcing she has mobilized all state resources and is now asking for federal resources.

Lujan Grisham said Ruidoso needs the same urgent response that Texas received after the flooding disaster.

Below is her full statement:

More....

‘Transformational’ plans for Mideast:

‘Transformational’ plans for Mideast crux of Trump, Netanyahu meetings

ANDREW BERNARD

As U.S. and Israeli leaders continue to hold meetings in Washington on Tuesday, experts told JNS that the discussions between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be “transformational” for the entire Middle East.

Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS that what the two leaders have described of their plans could reset the region.

“An end to Iranian aggression, peace between Israel and Syria, plus an end to the Gaza war with resettlement opportunities for Gazans and regional leadership in the Strip? One of these would be a remarkable achievement,” Schanzer said. “All of them would amount to a new Middle East.”

“What the two leaders laid out last night was nothing short of transformational,” he added.

At their White House dinner on Monday, Trump and Netanyahu said that they were working on a plan to relocate Gazans either within the coastal enclave in what Trump called a “freedom zone,” or to third countries.

“I think President Trump had a brilliant vision. It’s called free choice. If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave,” Netanyahu said.

He emphasized that Gaza “shouldn’t be a prison. It should be an open place.”

In February, Trump first suggested that the United States could “own” the Gaza Strip with implications for U.S. involvement that drew criticismfrom some Republican lawmakers and a number of Arab states.

Schanzer told JNS that the latest discussions of plans for the long-term redevelopment of Gaza no longer seem to phase regional leaders.

“I didn’t see a massive backlash to Trump’s comments last night,” Schanzer said. “That seems significant to me. I get the sense that things may be moving in the right direction.”

Assaf Orion, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Politics and a retired brigadier general in the Israel Defense Forces, told JNS that any maximalist versions of those plans to relocate Gazans and reoccupy the Strip would carry “a prohibitive cost in blood and treasure.”

“We haven’t heard of a single country willing to take them in,” Orion said. “It looks like one of the magical thinking solutions that both parties to the conflict share—wishing that when we get up next morning, the other side won’t be here. I don’t see it as a realistic option.”

“If we are to occupy Gaza and manage it with military rule, this would be our national project for the next generation,” he added. “This is billions and billions of dollars, and 100,000s of soldiers and an endless amount of casualties.”

Trump said on Monday that the United States would begin “very high-level” direct talks with the Iranians on Saturday to try to find a solution for Washington’s remaining issues with Iran’s nuclear program after the U.S. strikes in mid-June on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities.

“We’re dealing with them directly, and maybe a deal is going to be made, that’ll be great,” Trump said. “It’ll be really great for Iran, I can tell you that.”

One of the open questions about negotiations with Iran is whether the U.S. and Israeli air campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites, air defenses and military leadership has left them more open to a deal or will push them to further preserve and conceal their nuclear activities.

“The regime has very little leverage right now,” Schanzer told JNS. “I don’t know if a nuclear deal matters at this moment. Deterrence and freedom of action seem to be the key ingredients to prevent a renewed nuclear program. A deal with Iran that ends the nuclear program, the ballistic-missile program and the proxy network would be a massive lift. But if there was ever a time to try, it would be now.”

Orion said he had concerns that despite the “world-class” air campaign against Iran, the United States and the international community might falsely view the problem of Iran’s threat to Israel as settled.

“There is a high probability that they won’t agree on the diplomatic side, that they will slow roll the negotiation, and, on the side, they will try to recuperate, to salvage whatever’s possible and to hide it somewhere,” Orion said. “It’s not a one-shot problem. It’s an ongoing effort.”

That commitment will have to be similar to the campaign against Hamas, even if the war in Gaza comes to an end, Orion told JNS.

“I think with Iran, the game is still on,” he said. “It’s not ‘Mission Accomplished.’ We can’t go and have beers because this problem is solved. On Gaza, there’s a wide understanding that this war must end, even if we will need to continue campaigning against Hamas for years and decades to come. There’s no total victory in that sense.”

Gaza memoir offers stark warning on Hamas

Gaza memoir offers stark warning on Hamas

Sveta Listratov,

He was five when he watched his first public execution. The crowd cheered. The body hung in the square. And like the other children in Khan Yunis that day, Ayman Abu Subuh — now Dor Shachar — was taught to hate Jews, Israel, Christians, and the whole world.

Decades later, Shachar lives in Israel, not only with a new name but a new religion. But with the recent release of his memoir “From Gaza to Tel Aviv” in English, he’s less focused on his personal journey.

Shachar is intent on warning the West about the enemy he says it still doesn’t understand.

“I would be thrilled if this book reached President Trump, that he would read it and understand what is really happening in Gaza,” Shachar told The Press Service of Israel.

“I wrote this book so the world — especially the West — would wake up and start understanding the truth. Who the people of Gaza really are. What’s really waiting for them, too. Some Western countries are already deep inside this problem, whether they realize it or not.”

The memoir traces Shachar’s harrowing journey from Khan Yunis.

Raised in a violent family and educated in a system of hatred, he ran away from home as a teenager and was eventually taken in by an Israeli family and given a second chance at life.

He eventually converted to Judaism.

But the book’s deeper message lies in what Shachar exposes about the nature of the Hamas regime and the people of Gaza.

This includes what he describes as the dangers of a negotiated end to the war and the return of hostages.

Negotiations are ‘Feeding the Monster’

“I grew up there. I was held in prison there. I know exactly what the Israeli hostages are going through. And I say this clearly: trying to free them through negotiations is a mistake. What we’re hearing now about another deal — a 60-day ceasefire, massive humanitarian aid, terrorist releases — it’s a disaster,” Shachar insists.

“It’s feeding the monster that will strike again the moment it regains strength. You don’t make deals with the devil.”

Shachar describes his memoir as another tool in his broader mission:

“To be a messenger to the entire world, thanks to the insights I bring. The story of Israel and Gaza is simple: There is truth, and there is lies. There is light, and there is darkness. The people of Gaza chose death. They chose hate. Not just against Jews — against Christians too.”

That clarity, he says, is sorely missing in the international conversation. In his public lectures worldwide, Shachar says he finds a hunger for truth.

“People come up to me afterward and say, ‘We had no idea. Thank you for showing us what no one else is saying.’ That’s why I knew the book had to come out in English. It’s not about me. It’s about getting the truth out.”

Among the most controversial claims in the book is Shachar’s assertion that there are no truly innocent civilians in Gaza.

“I know, people tell me — but what about the innocent Gazans? And I say this with certainty: there are no innocents in Gaza. If there were, Hamas would have been overthrown long ago. People would be in the streets protesting, throwing the Hamas thugs off rooftops,” Shachar says.

“But what did we see on October 7th? We saw people cheering, hugging terrorists, celebrating in the streets while hostages were dragged through Gaza. I know what I saw, I know where I grew up. There are no innocents. And that’s why you cannot negotiate with them,” he insists.

“These people aren’t hiding their intentions. They say it openly: once they’re done with the Jews, they’ll move on to the Christians. And the West still doesn’t get it.”

Asked what impact he hopes the book will have, he returns to the idea of mission.

“If this book helps someone in Europe or America — or even someone in the White House — realize who we’re really dealing with, then it will have been worth it,” Shachar says.

At least 1,180 people were killed, and 252 Israelis and foreigners were taken hostage in Hamas’s attacks on Israeli communities near the Gaza border on October 7. Of the 50 remaining hostages, around 30 are believed to be dead.

War Is a Certainty

War Is a Certainty

Jeff Thomas

Recently, an associate offered the following observation with regard to the likelihood of war in the immediate future:

“The big guys like to play chess with the world. It’s the biggest game. The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money. The military needs wars to exist. The politicians need both to exist.”

Whilst he was reiterating a concept we have discussed on many occasions, it occurred to me that I have never seen the subject defined so succinctly, nor so informatively.

Let’s break it down:

The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money

Just as bankers increase their profit as a result of upward and downward economic fluctuations, so, too, do they benefit from war. It is not unusual for a given bank to finance those who would create armed conflict, and indeed, they sometimes bankroll both sides. Whilst banks have other means of making money, war is often more profitable than conventional banking.

The military needs war

The military-industrial complex is in the business of selling armaments to governments. Although armament sales may tick over nicely in peace time, they boom in war time. Therefore, any armament supplier will benefit from war. It matters little whether it is an all-out war or a series of smaller ventures. The object is sales.

The politicians need both banks and war

This is true in the sense that politicians need both bankers and an active military to thrive. Political campaigns depend upon funding. Banks and armament suppliers have long been a major source of campaign funds for candidates of the primary political parties. (If each party is well-paid before the election, favourable treatment towards banks and armament suppliers is assured, regardless of which party wins an election.)

But there is further necessity for armed conflict with regard to politicians. First, it is a truism that a country rarely changes leaders during times of war, and nothing is more imperative to the politician than gaining a further term of office.

Second, nothing distracts the voting public like war. If a politician is receiving increased criticism from the voters, a good war can be counted on to get the voters concentrating more on the war than on the politician’s poor stewardship.

Third, governments typically remove the freedoms of a populace over time. Whilst citizens may object to the loss of their freedoms in normal times, they are often more willing to relinquish them “temporarily” in times of war, “for the good of the country.” Not surprisingly, lost freedoms are seldom reinstated after a war.

Consider the words of James Madison, the fourth US President:

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Generally speaking, the citizens of most countries would prefer to avoid war. After all, they rarely benefit from it. But then, the impetus for war is almost never generated by the people of a country. Unless a nation is actually attacked, in nearly every case, the people need to be talked into going to war.

More...

The Bitcoin-Dollar system: The fast-approaching digital financial system

The Bitcoin-Dollar system: The fast-approaching digital financial system

Rhoda Wilson

In his investigative series published last year, Mark Goodwin revealed a complex web of figures, companies and technologies building the “Bitcoin-Dollar” system, consisting of Bitcoin and privately-issued dollar stablecoins which operate on public blockchains.

Key players, including Brock Pierce and Peter Thiel, have ties to intelligence agencies, organised crime and venture firms, suggesting a merged intelligence community influencing the development of this system.

The construction of The Chain involves a network of companies, including PayPal, Palantir and Facebook, which have contributed to the creation of a new financial system, enabling surveillance and the circumnavigation of government-issued money.

The US government, led by Trump, is embracing Bitcoin and stablecoins to extend dollar hegemony and potentially service the country’s ballooning debt, Goodwin writes.

Last year, Mark Goodwin and Whitney Webb published a four-part investigative article series titled ‘The Chain’ on Unlimited Hangout.  The Chain is “a deep dive on the creation of the Bitcoin-Dollar system, which names the names and explains the technology upholding the deflationary and highly-surveillable digital financial system fast approaching.”

After the final part, Goodwin published “a concise post-mortem on The Chain series.”  The following is his “post-mortem” to which we have added some additional resources noted in [square brackets].

Breaking (Down) The Chain: An Investigation Post-Mortem

By Mark Goodwin, 18 November 2024

Months of research and 82,000 words later, The Chain series has concluded – at least in its current online form. What began as a simple investigation into the stablecoin issuer Tether quickly unravelled into a decades-long web of figures, companies, investors and technological mechanisms that conspire to build what is referred to as “The Bitcoin-Dollar” system.

This financial instrument consists of two main components: the first being Bitcoin itself, a distributed digital asset boasting deflationary monetary policy and trustless settlement on a transparent ledger; while the second is privately-issued tokenised government debt that operates on public blockchains, known as dollar stablecoins.

These two elements could not be further separated in regards to the publicly stated ethos of their champions. Bitcoin will circumnavigate the government and separate money from the State, while stablecoins aim to strengthen the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, provide much-needed demand for government-issued debt reserves, and further perpetuate the US dollar as the de facto medium of exchange to the unbanked citizens of the globe. At the surface, Bitcoin and the digital dollar appear as if oil and water, unable to co-exist in the same space, and molecularly opposed.

And yet, collectively, the dollar and Bitcoin are to form the backbone for an entirely new financial system, a yin and yang construction that allows an entirely new commodity class to co-exist with a hyper-dollarised world. It was my opinion before embarking on this research vein – see 2021’s ‘The Birth of The Bitcoin-Dollar’ – that the coincidence of this structure emerging at the onset of the US government’s greatest-yet threat of a debt crisis was likely not an accident.

Upon further investigation of the primordial Bitcoin community, and the ensuing class of stablecoin issuers – not to mention the cross-section of these parties – I must unfortunately now conclude that the emergence of this system immediately after the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent phase-shifting adoption of Bitcoin by the institutional authors and beneficiaries of the pandemic’s financial stimulus, was the work of a modern intelligence community that has merged with the Silicon Valley technology meridian since at least the 1980s, but unabashedly since the formation of the CIA’s venture firm In-Q-Tel just before the turn of the millennium.

More...