Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
😳😳 "Fcvk Sizwe Dhlomo, He hasn't proven himself beyond what he has been given." 😭 Entrepreneur, global speaker, Vusi Thembekwayo address Siz on #ThePenuelShow: Musa Khawula Boity #NationalShutdown Akon Thando SANDF Phala Phala #RIPCostaTitch
814,359 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
!["How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dick’s conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2087243559091261706/amplify_video_thumb/2087241641329561600/img/dSAd4v8WLh8yq8Qw.jpg)
![💥 LAP Alert 💥 "I did this sort of spy thing where I changed hotel rooms and I changed taxis. I was making sure I wasn’t followed." ~Knapp Is Lacatski Lying to Us About the Craft and Breaching the Hull? ~ "If not for that [2017 NYT] story about AATIP and the problems that [Lacatski] saw with it, he would never have mentioned [AAWSAP]...I don't think, ever." ~Knapp (So, in other words...thank you from the UFO community, to the NYT, for getting it wrong? 🙂) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Should we listen to Dr. James Lacatski on UFOs, on the fact, or the idea, that our government has at least one, he's admitted, and we breached the hull? Should we listen to him, George?" George Knapp: "I know a lot of people have noticed that he's talked about his role in counterintelligence as part of the AAWSAP program. And because they equate counterintelligence with lies, false info., cover stories, misdirection. Aha! He's putting out a bunch of false info. a decade after he retired from government service." (I saw one person suggest that, and I thought it was a questionable take...) Grant Lavac: "Given that Dr. James Lacatski was the 'counterintelligence coordinator' for AAWSAP, how much confidence can we invest in the veracity of his public statements that 'at least one recovered craft of unknown origin, a flying machine with no wings, no engine, no fuel, and no fuel tanks' is in the possession of the US government and that they had 'breached the hull' of the UFO? In the context of the counterintelligence value of UAP/UFO, his comments in this most recent interview on WEAPONIZED (edited for brevity) only raise more questions for me." ~~~ Knapp: "A, it's not [Lacatski]. He's not out there beating the bushes. He's talked to us, but that's pretty much it. He's telling the full story as much as he can in a series of books. And I was co-author on two of those, not on this one. And, you know, I remember the first time I met him, it was in 2018." ~ (In April of 2019, Knapp shared that story, minus Lacatski's name, at UFO MegaCon. Knapp in 2019: "I thought today I would share with you, sort of the informational foundation that I’ve acquired. So, one year ago, I made this trip to Washington, D.C. at the invitation of Senator Harry Reid. It was St. Patrick’s Day, 2018 and I already knew a little bit about AATIP and AAWSAP and what they’ve been studying and where the money came from and how the program was created. I did this sort of spy thing where I changed hotel rooms and I changed taxis. I was making sure I wasn’t followed. And if there was ever actually, anybody following me, they must have thought I looked ridiculous because it was way over the top. "But I ended up having to meet with Senator Reid and some other people who were directly involved in these programs and they gave me a download. And I thought I knew a lot about these programs when I went there and realized that I only knew a little tiny bit. The purpose of this was to learn about these programs. We all know about AATIP, but in reality, there was something before that. "I sat down for a couple of hours with Senator Reid and other people whose names, they don’t want to be known. They brought me up to speed on how AATIP was created. How its predecessor was under way for a number of years. It coexisted for a long time. People in this room. People who investigate this topic may have suspected for a long time that there was some kind of a program that still existed. We’ve all heard that Project Bluebook was the end. 1969 it ended and the government was done with UFOs. They closed up shop. And the reason they closed it down is because there was no evidence that it involved national security. "And we all knew that was baloney because of the stories that we’ve seen that are really well documented. For example, UFOs over nuclear missile bases. UFO encounters with the military installations and atomic facilities. Things of that sort the have been well documented over the years. There are cases that involved national security. So at the end of Blue Book, of course, this memo said, alright, any cases involving national security will continue to be investigated in the regular way. Well, what the heck was the regular way? We didn’t know. Well now we do know. At least a little bit of it." (Project Blue Book was shut down in December of 1969, but a few months earlier, in October, we had the Bolender memo, which noted that "reports of UFOs which could affect national security should continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedure designed for this purpose." What standard Air Force procedure? The regular way? Where did those cases go? We still don't know what Bolender was referring to in that memo.) ~ Knapp in 2019: "And one of the regular ways was this program called AATIP. So I went on this trip. [and] I learned this stuff about AATIP. I had known a lot about it before but I got this briefing about this alphabet soup of different programs, how they began and what they studied. December 2017, the New York Times breaks this story about AATIP. Now, I had known about it for a long time because I lived in Las Vegas. I knew Bob Bigelow. I knew Harry Reid. We’d talk about UFO stuff and what was going on. "So when I was told the New York Times was gonna break the story, I’m kind ticked off about it. Because hey, I’ve been sitting on this for a long time. Why don’t I get to break the story? And they had to, one after another, gently remind me, 'You know. You’re not the New York Times.' Which I had to admit! It was true. And if I had done the story, the Times had said that they weren’t going to do it if somebody else breaks it. So, if I had done it, it’d be another story from a UFO reporter. "The New York Times did it and they changed everything. Because they did it, wider organizations did it. Some of them took shots at the New York Times because The Times got the story and they didn’t. But that story was accurate, to a degree. But the story that it told was not the full story. AATIP, that we know about…the AATIP that studies nuts and bolts saucers…case of UFOs that have encounters with military units such as the USS Nimitz, that is studied by a group of people, Lue Elizondo was the head of it. "It’s not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies, including the Air Force and the Navy, CIA, DIA, DARPA…there might be a couple of other agencies. But a case would come in from any one of their units [and] it would be shared with this group of people, analysis would be done, evidence would be looked at and then stashed in a draw and nobody ever sees it. It’s not passed up the chain of command. "In 2007, that changed. One of the guys (Lacatski. ~Joe 2025) I met with in this meeting in Washington is the one who changed it. He had been in the same position that Lue Elizondo had been in. And his name is just not out there. He grew frustrated with what was happening with the phenomenon and he suspected that UFOs flying around the sky, buzzing our military units every once in a while, is not the full story. Even if you could solve that part of the mystery it wouldn’t solve the bigger part of the picture. "So he grew interested in Skinwalker Ranch and he had read the (Knapp/Kelleher – 'Hunt For The Skinwalker') book. And after he read it, he called up Bob Bigelow and said…actually, he wrote him a letter and said, 'Hey, can I go to the ranch…go look around? I’m with the DIA.' Bigelow says, 'Come on out to Las Vegas and I’ll take you there.' And that’s what happened. He flew to Las Vegas. They flew on Bigelow’s jet. They went to the ranch. "This guy’s not there fifteen minutes and he has an experience. And I’m not gonna go into detail. I’m hoping that he’s going to maybe come forward at some point and describe his experience. But it was just for him. Of all the people in this room, in the encounter, he was the only one who could see it. He’s the only one who had an angle on this thing that appeared. And he’s pretending that he’s not seeing it but it’s right out of the corner of his eye. And he doesn’t say anything until he leaves the ranch. And he gets off and he asks Bigelow if he had seen it. And he had not. The other people who had been in the room had not seen it. "He flies back to Las Vegas, goes back to Washington, D.C. and looks up Harry Reid and tells him about it. Now Reid had some experience in these matters that I’ll get into in a little bit. But as a result of that conversation, Reid, who had an interest in UFOs and had maintained that interest over many years – and I can attest to that personally – called in a couple of his friends in the Senate – Daniel Inouye and Ted Stevens. They had a conversation in a secure room and they decided to provide some funding for a much broader study. Something that looked at…beyond flying saucers, that looked at other paranormal aspects…supernatural aspects that we would not normally associate with aliens or ETs. Assuming that that’s what this is, which I’m not sure anyone knows for sure. And that is how AAWSAP was born. The Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program." ~~~ Knapp Yesterday: "The only reason [Lacatski] came forward, he was ticked off about how AATIP had been described in major media reports, and no mention had been given to the actual, real program. That one that had a $22 million budget, lasted 27 months, and which put together the biggest UFO data warehouse in history, that had written all these papers that still have not been released." (In the most-recent interview (Part 1) with Weaponized, Lacatski let it fly with his issues related to the 2017 NYT article: "The initial reporting...by the New York Times story in 2017 was totally inaccurate. Contrary to what some people claim, the authors knew my name and position at AAWSAP, yet never attempted to contact me. Likewise, the The Washington Post. POLITICO (laughs) contacted me within hours after the articles were published in the free publications, asking for my opinion. They knew my name, they had my phone number. Why didn't they contact me [beforehand]?" ~Dr. James Lacatski on Weaponized ~ Knapp: "So, Jim was a counterintelligence guy for AAWSAP, but in this role. He wasn't putting out cover stories or lies, he didn't put out anything. The world didn't hear that AAWSAP existed until years later, at least by that name. There was one statement made to the press about that program. It was by Robert Bigelow, whose company, BAASS, got the contract. A week after he signed it, he came on with me on Coast to Coast AM and said, 'We got this program dealing with UFOs, we have an unnamed partner, and we're excited to get going.' That was it. "Jim Lacatski wasn't putting out PR releases about AAWSAP. There was nothing. That was the last thing anybody said until the New York Times did the AATIP story, and then Jim Lacatski felt the real story was being covered up. If not for that story about AATIP and the problems that he saw with it, he would never have mentioned this. I don't think ever." (Well, then, thank you to the NYT journalists and editors for pissing off Lacatski!) Knapp: "You'll recall, AAWSAP, at the time that things went downhill, that the funding was moved away, they were trying to make it into a SAP, a Special Access Program. And if it had happened, we probably would never have heard of it. If it had happened, Lue Elizondo would have been the counterintelligence guy for AAWSAP, that he had already talked to Lacatski. "But Lacatski is not proclaiming the greatness of the program. He's not out there beating the bushes on podcasts and newscasts, other than with us, and he never put out in counterintelligence. His role, counterintelligence, meant something different for AAWSAP. The thing that DIA had told him was, 'Look, you know, it's not a rogue program. I know it gets weird into some of the phenomena that was at Skinwalker Ranch and other places. We don't care. Here's what we care about: Don't let the secret out. We don't want to see this on the front page of the Washington Post. We want it kept secret.' (John Greenewald was one person questioning whether AAWSAP was actually a prosaic program and Lacatski just decided to go rogue with a foray into UFOs and the paranormal.) Greenewald Tweet: "Did the U.S. government really sanction this, and if so, is this really how it was run? Or was this a rogue operation by a select few on the inside playing with Uncle Sam's coffers?" (Greenewald was quote tweeting a Greenstreet hit-piece video on AAWSAP. In his interview on Weaponized aired over the past few weeks, Lacatski said that former Deputy Director of AARO, Tim Phillips, also used the "rogue" word when describing AAWSAP. Did DIA really not know what AAWSAP was about? Did Lacatski go rogue and turn a program that was supposed to look at prosaic, advanced technology into one that studied UFOs and the paranormal? Here's an exchange from the 2023 interview Knapp and Corbell did with Lacatski and Colm Kelleher.) Kelleher: "The critical part of AAWSAP that we tried to convey in 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon,' was that there were two fundamental, parallel tracks that AAWSAP ran on. The first one was the examination of UFO performance. And, you know, the UFO performance part was getting all of the data from eyewitnesses, plus deploying sensors into the field, in order to gather data on the performance of UFOs. That was track number one. And track number two was: What effects do UFOs have on humans? That was a parallel track that, from the get go, AAWSAP decided, unambiguously, to run both tracks in parallel. We documented psychological effects, and then we also documented paranormal effects." Lacatski: "Anything can be said on the internet it seems, factual or not. Well, one thing that is not factual is, DIA knew what it was getting into in regard to both aspects that Colm just described to you. And let me end my statement right here. We had no choice but to pursue both aspects." (That was a poor way of him saying: The claim that DIA was unaware of AAWSAP looking into all aspects of UFOs, including the paranormal, is NOT true.) Lacatski: "I want to emphasize something I said on my first and only interview. It was a closed program. It operated very similar to a SAP. The director, the director of analysis, and my office chief...and, of course, division chief, knew about this program. No one else did. Now, I was also protected by the stovepipe nature of that. I did not have to address political-type questions. I was insulated, but they were, too. There was no one else. People in the surrounding cubicles didn't know. Nothing was purposely being hid. It was a closed, stovepipe system, and it needed to be. It needed to be operated that way." ~~~ Knapp: "And so, Jim Lacatski took it on himself, put it in his own hands. He and Colm Kelleher interviewed all these people who applied for the jobs, the 50 full-time positions that they staffed, in a matter of months. They did background checks, they required security clearances for all those people, and they were worried about leaks. They didn't want information to get out. "They also were concerned about espionage by foreign players, by foreign companies, things of that sort. And some of that really did happen. As Jim has shared with us, there were a couple of phones that were transmitters that were found inside Bigelow Aerospace, inside the Bigelow, uh, facilities, and it was very alarming because they weren't sure who was doing it. I think they think it was a foreign government. I'm not going to say which one, uh, they suspected the most." (Lacatski said that the phones in question were made in China.) Knapp: "But, and then they also found weird frequencies emanating from Skinwalker Ranch. That's not strange, and there's a lot of unusual stuff that happens there, but it was some sort of a an espionage program that they believed was was not only looking at the ranch, but also at BAASS. "That was his primary concern. He was worried that the story gets out, because secrecy was of paramount interest to the heads of DIA and he's worried about the information getting out to the public. Because once it happened, then the knives come out in the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, which is kind of what happened. A memo was sent from Harry Reid's office, let other people know that AAWSAP existed, and that's when things started getting problematic." Corbell: "The bugging thing. So, it's not just like Bigelow Aerospace was tapped with something, he said, specifically, AAWSAP, right? So they were looking at that new UFO program. And I don't know how public this is, but he did say it was - not just him, other people have all said - it was multiple nations, multiple, different devices from those phones. And he also said that they worked with FBI, they had FBI liaisons looking at the ranch property, and also at Bigelow Aerospace. "Because, remember, they were supposed to receive a transfer of materials. That's why they reverse, reverse engineered (laughs), you know, they built everything to be able to hold SCIF-capable and material-capable property at that classification level. So, look, I think if we pull it back, the whole idea is, James Lacatski made a statement at some point that he was, you know, head of, or part of, or running the counterintelligence for AAWSAP. But his point was to keep AAWSAP itself secret from foreign nations. So then he has to keep it secret from the U.S. He did it. He did a great job. They actually kept it secret. That doesn't mean he's going out and creating false information to the public like he's been accused of. "So, should we listen to Jim Lacatski? That was like, you know, the main question. Oh, one second. He also identified that there is currently a counter-programming, counterintelligence operation going on to the American public, but not against the American public, by AARO." (In other words, spread misinformation to the American public so they can advance their goal of misinforming and confusing our adversaries who are always listening. National security! IMO, that's only acceptable if we're talking specifics related to propulsion, technology and weapons that can be used to give us a leg up on said adversaries. But everything else should come out and be made public. We shouldn't be told a bunch of lies about information we paid for and that could, potentially, give us some clarity about our species and other lifeforms on this planet.) Corbell: That was so clear in our interview with him that he said that, you know, 'Look, they're acting this way. They are telling you lies about AAWSAP and what happened.' And that's why he said, 'My books, I'm a government employee. This was paid by taxpayers. I'm trying to give you information.' And that's what his books are. "So it's clear from these rounds of interviews that we just had with Dr. Lacatski that he supports a controlled UFO disclosure. He made that very clear. So should we listen to what he has to say? I mean, he was a big dog, right, George?" Knapp: "He was the head of the largest U.S. government-funded UFO investigation in history, that we know of. He worked with Colm Kelleher, who was the boots-on-the-ground guy in Las Vegas. He worked with Jay Stratton. Stratton's role in the development of AAWSAP has not been really fully explored, but he's got a book coming out at some point, once it gets through the DOPSR process. But then we'll get additional information to buttress what Lacatski has said."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1991268528771748027/amplify_video_thumb/1990932248116539392/img/QA2EH0b-Bfna8TB4.jpg)
![Really hard not to make the parallel between JD Vance's speech right now at the Munich Security Conference and Putin's 2007 speech at the very same podium. Both were watershed moments that fundamentally transformed the existing consensus. Putin at the time delivered the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the unipolar moment. JD Vance's speech will probably be remembered as the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the post-WW2 Western alliance. As a European, I'm in two minds about what Vance said about Europe. He is of course right about many things. For instance Europe's attitude with respect to Romania's elections was beyond appalling and unequivocally antidemocratic. I myself called it out repeatedly on this platform. But - and this is a very big BUT - on Romania and much of Vance's criticism directed at Europe, the U.S. was right there alongside Europe acting jointly, and often even guiding Europe's actions. Specifically on Romania for instance, I believe that the US State Department was first in issuing a statement on December 4th ( expressing its concern about "Russian involvement in malign cyber activity designed to influence the integrity of the Romanian electoral process" which led to the elections being cancelled two days later (and which, it was later proven, was completely false: it turned out that this "malign cyber activity" were paid for by the very Romanian party in power that cancelled the elections!). It's only after that State Department statement that the Europeans followed the U.S.'s lead. So it's a bit rich, even very rich, for Vance, less than 2 months afterwards, to lecture Europeans on this without as much as acknowledging the U.S.'s own role in a lot of it. Same could be said about European content moderation and "censorship." He conveniently forgets that much of Europe's current approach was developed in close coordination with American agencies and tech companies. The EU's content moderation framework didn't emerge in a vacuum - it was heavily influenced by American practices and pressures. Or take Vance's criticism of European mass migration policies. He spent a big part of his speech lamenting over the attack in Munich yesterday by (apparently) a young Afghan asylum seeker, describing it as a direct "result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the [European] continent". But he conveniently fails to mention why Afghans migrated en-masse out of their country, which might have a little something to do with a certain great power that decided to wage a 20-year long war over there and completely wrecked the country... Same story for many migrants in Europe, a huge share of them being a direct result of disastrous US foreign policy decisions. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with Vance's stated intentions to meddle in European politics. He calls out - rightly - Europe for not living up to its democratic values, yet in the same breath he's explicitly announcing America's intention to intervene in European politics by supporting certain movements against established institutions. He criticizes European elites for not respecting democratic choices while simultaneously suggesting that a Trump administration would actively work to influence those choices. How is this any different from the kind of interference he hypocritically condemns? Perhaps most worrying of all, Vance's vision seems to completely disregard why the post-WW2 European architecture was built in the first place. Europe is the place where both world wars started, 100% of them. The past 80 years were a uniquely peaceful time in European history: due to the high density of states in a relatively small geography and the somewhat disagreeable character of many European nations (the French very much included), the continent had been in almost constant conflict for the previous millennium. I really dislike European institutions as much as the next guy but I don't forget the original spirit with which they were built: to put an end to endless war in Europe. By positioning America as an ally of nationalist forces against these institutions, Vance isn't just ending an alliance - he's actively working to unwind the entire post-war European peace architecture, which could have immense ramifications. In fact I think we can even legitimately ask ourselves if the U.S. doesn't now have war in Europe as one of its strategic objectives. Given the U.S.'s history in triggering wars left, right and center when it believes they're in their interests, and given Vance's speech, I think the question has merits. All in all, I'm not ashamed to say that I much prefer Putin's 2007 speech to Vance's. Whatever you may think, Putin remained within the confines of what he thought were challenges to Russia's national interests, issues like NATO expansion or American attempt at global hegemony. He didn't try to meddle in intra-Western politics or position Russia as an active force for undermining Western institutions from within. His vision was about creating a multipolar world where Russia would be one independent pole - not about dismantling the internal architecture of other poles. Where Putin wanted to limit Western power globally, Vance seems to want to fracture the European order locally. That's a far more dangerous proposition. I'm all for reforming Europe and I constantly call for it. But to me by far the biggest issue for Europe is its lack of sovereignty and strategic autonomy, especially vis à vis the United States, in almost all domains. If Vance's speech could have any silver lining, it would be to finally wake Europeans up to this reality: let's hope that for once Europe draws the right lesson.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1890451912342008178/amplify_video_thumb/1890421458028892161/img/WIHUzA5MRnWcEJqi.jpg)
!["You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2078449842368483816/amplify_video_thumb/2078427007344427008/img/tCO3n_fY3sOVQlej.jpg)
!["I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2052883224360268226/amplify_video_thumb/2052858049346588672/img/orKO2FR28wwc7S1J.jpg)
![‘Doctor Death’ Gives Life to Gold Mines Dave Fennell chain-smoked and studied law while winning 6 Grey Cups. He sent 3 quarterbacks to the hospital in one game, becoming 'Dr. Death' and a household name in Canada. Next Dave turned to gold exploration, building 5 ventures worth ~$5 billion. He's never shared his story publicly—until now. After dominating football, Dave Fennell's Midas touch in Guyana could lead to his greatest victory. Mining legends Louis Gignac, Rick Rule and others weigh in. "I was capable of playing very violently," recalls Fennell. "If you're going to survive as a defensive lineman. The people who are opposite you, have to be afraid of you." He played 10 seasons for the Edmonton Eskimos (renamed Elks in ‘21), appearing in 8 Grey Cups (Canada’s Super Bowl). The Eskimos won 6, including 5 in a row 1978-1982. Fennell, who turned 71 Feb 4, is chain smoking Marlboros on a Zoom call with me Feb 5. He’s reflecting on a career that spans beyond the gridiron to golden ventures. His resume includes co-founding Golden Star (US $467M sale in ‘22) and Miramar ($1.5B sale in ‘08). Fennell was a tenured director of Sabina ($1.1B sale in ‘23) and Torex ($1.2B market cap). His Reunion Gold ($485M market cap) has rapidly discovered a major gold deposit after setbacks. Fennell's sons picked up his drive too. David Jr. played Michigan State football then turned engineer. John raced luge at the Sochi Winter Olympics, now he's a corporate analyst. – Raised in a middle-class Edmonton, Alberta family, Fennell was the second of four children. “I was taught very early on, you're not allowed to quit when you start something. It was not acceptable.” He completed a 4 year undergrad degree at U of North Dakota in 3 years. Fennell could have gone to the NFL, but chose to stay in Edmonton, joining the Eskimos on the condition he’d also go to law school. It's hard to imagine a pro athlete smoking, studying law, and winning six championships today. But Dave Fennell did it all. He planned to play pro for 10 seasons, and wondered, “What do you do when the cheering stops?” Joining a law firm next, the bosses leveraged his "Dr. Death" fame for networking. Fennell recalls, “They loved taking me to the Petroleum Club on Mondays.” His law practice worked with many small miners. After three years and a Guyana field trip, Fennell decided to get into gold mining himself. At 32, Fennell founded Golden Star Resources (GSR). He partnered with Roger Morton, a U of Alberta geology professor, to explore Guyana. GSR spent $20K staking the forgotten Omai gold deposit. “It was open ground.” Anaconda Copper explored Omai extensively in the late 1940s but stopped when the Korean War began. Secrets of the Anaconda Library A private detective helped Fennell find Anaconda’s geological data. They learned of a cavernous library in Montana, holding 100 years of records. A librarian, just laid off, liked Fennell and sold him the Guyana files for $30K. GSR hired SNC Lavalin, with their top supercomputer, to process this historical information. It showed a big potential mine. Placer Dome partnered on Omai in ‘87, before walking away. Fennell didn't give up. He invited Louis Gignac’s Cambior to visit Omai during a 3 day rainstorm. Cambior ended up funding construction for a 70% stake. It produced 3.7 million gold ounces from 92-05. Renowned mining investor Rick Rule says Fennell is easy to underestimate. "The physicality obscures a great intellect and a guy that's actually very kind. He's the classic entrepreneur. When he sees an opportunity, he can't not grasp it.” Next, GSR pursued Cambior to partner in Suriname. “If I had a mine each time someone told me a story about a property, I'd be a very rich man,” Gignac says. GSR’s Rosebel discovery was in region reeling after Suriname’s civil war. “David, why don’t you settle down, get married, do something easier than this,” Gignac advised him. Fennell persisted, inviting Gignac to tour Rosebel. It poured rain again on that trip, which Gignac saw as a good omen after Omai’s success. Cambior eventually built the mine. Rosebel became one of South America’s largest, yielding over 6 million ounces. Today, it’s operated by Zijin. GSR stock jumped 600% in the early '90s thanks to these wins. Investor Mike Halvorson says GSR’s work in the Guianas and Suriname put the area on the map for mining. “Back in those days, from a political point of view, it was considered high-risk to go into the Guianas,” Gignac remembers. “It took a lot of guts for [Fennell] to get involved, and a lot of guts to follow him there. We eventually mined about twice the [initial] reserves at Omai. By doing Omai, it was that much easier to do Rosebel. We were comfortable with the region and its people. There's a lot of advantages in these countries. It's simpler. Decision makers are easier to know and be in contact with.” Halvorson remembers Fennell throwing a 'chirping' analyst into a pool on one Suriname stay. The guy skipped on the water like a stone. Fennell and Halvorson connected in Edmonton in the 1980s through their love of migratory bird hunting. “Anything that walks, flies or swims, Dave has killed,” says mining engineer Bruce McLeod, who hunts and fishes with Fennell. A massive Anaconda snake skin once adorned the crown mouldings in Fennell’s Montreal offices. At 41, Fennell lucked out as the sole bidder for Sigrist House, once King Edward VIII's Bahamian villa. Fennell lived there 28 years before downsizing. In the late 90’s, Fennell clashed with GSR's board and was pushed out. Later, GSR refocused on Africa and was sold to a Chinese company. To avoid GSR conflicts, Fennell eyed new gold regions. BHP's Hugo Dummett offered him all their gold assets for $80 million. But with few flush bidders, BHP sold the portfolio in pieces. Ivanhoe got Mongolia and discovered Oyu Tolgoi. Randgold took West Africa, and Harmony got East Africa. "If you'd have kept that package together, it'd be the second largest copper company [today]. And you'd be arguing with Newmont about who was the biggest gold company," Fennell says. He bought the Canadian assets for US $20.4 million. It had Hope Bay, a 4 million ounce gold discovery in the high arctic. Fennell dealt through Cambiex Exploration (CBX), where he’d been appointed Chair and CEO in January ‘99, when CBX was a 15 cent stock with a $3.5 million market cap. CBX split the tab with Miramar, a modest gold miner sitting on cash. Miramar swallowed CBX in 2002, appointing Fennell Executive Vice Chairman. Miramar invested about $100 million in Hope Bay and led it through permitting. In 2008, Newmont bought Miramar for $1.5 billion. Every $1 invested in CBX’s equity funding when Fennell took over in early ‘99 was worth $19.50 when Newmont acquired Miramar 9 years later. CBX shareholders made even more money through a spinout company, Ariane Gold, acquired by Cambior in ‘03. Rob McLeod, a geologist at Hope Bay, admired Fennell's strong presence, humour, and optimism. Fennell built bonds with Inuit partners through fishing and Crib games, easing the permitting process. Fennell would need that optimism for his next venture. – In 2004, Fennell listed Nevada explorer New Sleeper. A name change to Reunion Gold (RGD) came in 2006, after recruiting former GSR colleagues and pivoting again to the Giuanas. The stock ran from 30 cents to over $2 in early ‘07 on the back of a Suriname gold find. It didn’t pan out. RGD crashed to 3.5 cents during the ‘08 financial crisis. “When you take your shareholder's money and you say you're going to do this, and if it's not successful, my job is to fix that and I'm not going to roll all the stock back. I'm not going to wipe shareholders out,” Fennell says, explaining RGD’s current 1.23 billion shares. Reunion roared back above $2 again after a Guyana manganese discovery. Then, metal prices crashed, cutting RGD to one penny by 2016. “You're going to fail a hundred percent guaranteed in both exploration and football,” Fennell says. “The real question is, what are you going to do after you fail?” A US $10 million sale of the manganese project provided a lifeline. In 2019, Barrick partnered with Reunion on exploration, committing $4.2 million. Reunion was a 7 cent stock in 2020 when they found gold at Guyana’s Oko project. But, Barrick quickly abandoned the alliance and skipped a $3 million commitment. They even sued Reunion after Oko's success. In 2023, Barrick and RGD settled, owing nothing to each other. Oko moved from a prospect to a major gold deposit rapidly. An initial 2023 resource estimate showed 4.3 million ounces (indicated plus inferred). Fennell believes Oko could be the best gold mine in South America. He sees a 300--400,000 ounce per year, low-cost mine, with a 12 year initial mine life. "It’s going to be much bigger and longer,” Fennell says, optimistically. “Whether we're going to live longer is a whole different question." Reunion aims to publish a PEA study on Oko before Summer. Fennell also looks forward to a feasibility study and final permits in Q1 2015, with construction to start soon after. "From a discovery to a tier one mine in [potentially] six years, it doesn't get any better," Fennell says. He’s in Georgetown this week, talking with the Guyanese government about Oko's future. Reunion’s looking at options: build, sell, merge, or partner up. Fennell wants RGD to avoid execution risk and debt. G Mining Services, led by Fennell's old friend Gignac, is advising on Oko. They've successfully built many mines, like Fruta del Norte in Ecuador (Lundin Gold - $3.7B market cap). Gignac's G Mining Ventures, doing well and on track in Brazil, could be a key player in Oko's future. “There will be a mine [at Oko]. There's absolutely no question,” says Gignac. “The size, grade, and gold content. That's going to be the next one to put on his record.” There’s a slight problem with Venezuela’s claim over Guyana’s Essequibo region, where Oko is. Fennell isn't worried. He says the US will protect it because of Exxon and Chevron’s huge oil investments there. Gignac says Fennell hasn't changed since they first met in the late 80s. "Always glass half-full, always enthusiastic. A track record as good as anybody at finding deals, doing exploration, and developing orebodies." Fennell is honest and a consummate salesman according to Rule. “I don't think in 35 years he ever lied to me, but he would polish the living shit out of the rear view mirror.” Some colourful highlights of my 2 hour Zoom with Mr. Fennell were published in raw video form below. It’s full of wisdom about gold exploration and football. “David is one of the most low key and commercially successful entrepreneurs in [mining],” Bruce McLeod wrote. “He has played a huge part in mentoring others too. Without David I wouldn't be where I am today.” Fennell says, "We always overcome challenges. I never give up." Reunion Gold (RGD-TSXV) is worth $485 million at press time, last at 39.5 cents. Fennell owns 61 million RGD shares. He has warrants and options to purchase 12.6 million more. B. McLeod, Rule & Halvorson all own the stock. All figures CAD unless otherwise indicated. Like, Share, & Follow me Tommy Humphreys for more Big Score stories!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1756310764544197095/ext_tw_video_thumb/1756167133699141632/pu/img/HDmCXr4un9vC0uxD.jpg)
![The Enemy Within: An American Muslim Claims - The U.S. is the Enemy of Islam By: Ofer Binshtok Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose many followers rely on his vast and profound knowledge of Islam, positions the United States—his birthplace and country of citizenship—as an enemy of Muslims. He asserts that the West, led by the U.S., fundamentally opposes Sharia and Tawhid, listing it alongside Israel and Russia as part of a hostile coalition against Islam’s victory. To him, Islam views the U.S. as an enemy, and every believing Muslim must recognize this. "The army of the Jews is a stone’s throw away with tanks and planes, waging war alongside the U.S.," he says, yet emphasizes: "They achieve a stunning, lightning-speed victory"—a clear allusion to the conquest of Damascus and the fall of Assad through Jihad. He declares Jihad as "the central pillar" of Islam, rejecting any permanent treaty with disbelievers like the U.S., who "will never accept Sharia," as it negates the struggle to impose Allah’s laws. Citing verses such as "And fight them until there is no more fitnah" (Al-Anfal 8:39), he permits only temporary truces. Jibril sees the victory over Assad as a step in the Jihad to establish Sharia, paving the way to defeat the U.S. and Israel—Islam’s primary enemies. Details of His Criminal Acts: In 2004, Jibril was convicted in Detroit, alongside his father, on 42 serious charges: conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon. The prosecution uncovered a sophisticated scheme involving the destruction of his properties to collect insurance money, resulting in losses of about $400,000. A mail carrier identified mail sent to over 80 aliases, and fake voter registration cards under fictitious names were found at his sister’s home. Sentenced to 6.5 years in a maximum-security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana ("Guantanamo North"), he was released in 2012 and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. These crimes reveal a pattern of criminal behavior that aligns with his views. Background: Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril is an Islamic-American preacher, a graduate of the University of Medina in Sharia, and holder of a law degree from Michigan. He gained prominence through his lectures on Tawhid and Jihad, attracting numerous followers who admire his deep knowledge, though he sparked controversy after his 2004 conviction. His words are seen as influential among Jihad supporters via social media. Part Two: Implications for the U.S. and the Historical Dimension Muslims in the U.S. who adopt Jibril’s worldview pose a cunning and dangerous internal threat lurking within American society. With his profound knowledge, he makes it clear this is a religious duty for every believer, backed by commands like "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (non-Muslims)" (Al-Anfal 8:39) and "Slay the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them" (Al-Tawbah 9:5), perfectly aligning with Jihad’s practical actions. They live in the U.S. but are loyal to a vision aiming to topple it from within—part of a 1,400-year Islamic colonialist campaign that began with Muhammad’s sword, conquering Persia, Byzantium, and Spain, replacing entire cultures with Sharia. For them, the U.S. is a future battlefield, continuing a patient tradition that waited centuries to seize "infidel" lands. America’s internal security faces a severe threat—not immediate, but as part of a long, calculated historical process that Jibril and his followers represent. They exploit democratic freedoms to grow stronger and plan, just as Islam waited before Constantinople fell in 1453. The victory over Assad proves their plan is in motion, and the U.S. is a future target that could take decades or centuries—a strategy that reshaped the world over 1,400 years and, in their view, will succeed again. Chapter on Additional Supporting References: As stated in Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” As stated in Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." As stated in Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." - The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran ); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana publications-Beltsville. Maryland U.S.A. Page 599-601. [CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy. General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. Mr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amman, Jordan. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat alnasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H.l11 February 1991 A.D. General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed] Muhammad 'Umar Muhammad 'Umar [signed] Seal of al-Azhar [stamped] General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. - Can Islam live in true peace with the infidels? No. By: Ofer Binshtok Only Hudna (truces), a temporary ceasefire, is made because Islam is in a weak position against the infidels. Hudna buys Islam time until its power overcomes the infidels, and then it will exterminate them, in accordance with Allah’s commands from the Quran and Muhammad. *According to Muhammad, Bukhari 1765, the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger, to Islam: Bukhari 1765: "…The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle…" * According to Allah, from Qur'an 47.35, Allah commands the believers, do not seek peace when your hand is uppermost: Qur'an 47.35: "…So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior…" * When Islam is in a position of weakness against the infidels, they have a holy command from Allah from the Quran and Muhammad to lie to the infidels to buy time: Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." * Indeed, Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels: “Islam is in an eternal state of war against heresy and disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: "Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected…" * In 628 AD, Muhammad moved towards Mecca with an army of 1,400 warriors, a force that was not strong enough to face the mechanical army of the Quraysh tribe. This is why he signed the Hudna Treaty of Hudaybiya, a temporary 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe. An agreement that was considered humiliating for him since he was forbidden to sign it while mentioning his status as a prophet and messenger of Allah. But Muhammad saw this agreement as a victory that gave him time to break the Quraysh's defense agreements with third parties (Bukhari 2731-2732). Which indeed allowed him a year later, in 629, to also attack the Jews of Khaibar. * According to Sharia law, hudna is a temporary ceasefire agreement for ten years; this is the only agreement that Muslims are allowed to sign with the infidels: * TRUCES (Hudna) 09.16 (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: (1) "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); (2) "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8:61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran ) Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. * In 630 AD, Muhammad's power increased; he broke the agreement with Quraish and moved towards Mecca with about 10 thousand warriors and conquered it. The Quraish tribe converted to Islam, and Muhammad abolished the religious tolerance that existed in Mecca. With his own hands, he began to destroy the 360 holy sites for the different religions that lived there in mutual tolerance and harmony. He abolished this tolerance and left only the Islamic holy site. * Quran 8.58, in fact, allows Muslims to cancel any contract for "fear” that the other party will break it. Not because the other party violated the agreement, but only out of fear. So signing an agreement with Islam is basically meaningless. Quran 8.58: "If you are afraid of the treachery of some of your allies, you may disregard your treaty with them. God does not love the treacherous ones." In conclusion: As a religious command, from Allah, from the Quran, from Muhammad, and from Sharia law: * Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels, until it destroys them. * When Islam is weak, the believers are commanded to obtain a hudna (temporary ceasefire) so that they can gain strength that will surpass the strength of the infidels. * There is no meaning in signing an agreement with Islam since they are allowed to violate it at any moment. * When the power of the believers exceeds the power of the infidels, the believers are ordered to abandon the Hudna agreement and destroy the infidels. - A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." - Islamic Conquests Throughout History](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1893989034554253679/ext_tw_video_thumb/1893986101515149312/pu/img/su5JR-omZK5TyU5m.jpg)
