Aggregator
Fans rage at insane Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Pizzeria prices ahead of its Santa Monica opening
Will There Be A ‘Widow’s Bay’ Season 2 On Apple TV? Premiere Date Info And More
Kylian Mbappe passes Lionel Messi on all-time World Cup goals list in France’s win over Senegal
Chicago cross-burning feared to be hateful racist threat turns out to be idiotic anti-Trump protest: ‘Saw the Wikipedia page’
Breece Hall believes ‘hungry’ Jets have what it takes to defy expectations
It’s Rory McIlroy and Scottie Scheffler atop the golf world — and a field in awe behind them
New Oregon Initiative Would Criminalize Hunting, Fishing And Farming
Only 1% of the American population identifies as vegan (a person who refrains from using or consuming any animal products), and around 3% of the population identifies as vegetarian. It is therefore a little confusing as to why American political and social discourse is hijacked by vegan issues so often.
Leftist activists have adopted the age-old mantra that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil"; but imagine a wheel that never gets enough oil? Imagine a movement specifically designed to keep society constantly on egg shells, trying to figure out different ways to satisfy that squeaky wheel so it will finally shut up?
One eventually has to ask the obvious question: Why don't we simply throw that insufferable wheel in the garbage?
A perfect example of why Americans need to start aggressively discriminating against veganism as a movement has popped up in Oregon. A new initiative called the PEACE Act (IP28) has enough backing to make it on the state ballot in November. The initiative originally gained support as a way to "end animal cruelty", but the details of the proposed law turned out to be a vegan's version of Orwell.
The petition has more than 120,000 signatures, according to the Oregon secretary of state’s office. The campaign needs about 117,000 valid signatures to make the ballot. Initiative Petition 28 would expand animal cruelty protections in Oregon by effectively giving “all” animals the same protections currently in place for dogs and cats, supporters say. Opponents argue the measure would go much further, potentially criminalizing hunting, fishing and raising animals for food.
It's important to understand that vegan activists and leftists in general do not operate from a basic understanding of the environment. They know next to nothing about the science behind these issues and legislate from a purely emotional position. Banning hunting would effectively destroy various wild animal populations, causing disastrous disease outbreaks that the hunting community has kept in check for decades.
That said, a lot of attention in the media has been paid to the hunting side of this law while the biggest impact would be felt in cattle farming and the fishing industry in Oregon. If passed, the law would effectively criminalize the entire meat production base for the state under "animal cruelty" statutes.
No state has the capacity to sustain on a mass vegan diet, so, animal products would have to be shipping in from the rest of the country, driving up prices.
Of course, this tiny minority of militant animal rights activists are not working alone. They are able to thrive and organize because they have a host of international NGOs and politicians working with them. These institutions act as amplifiers for activist groups that would otherwise go completely ignored. The United Nations, for example, has long been involved in global efforts to remove meat from the menu for most of the human population.
The UN fabricated the notion of animal agriculture acting as a primary mechanism for greenhouse gases and global warming. Of course, there is zero evidence of a causation or correlation relationship between animal methane and changes in the Earth's temperatures, just as there is no concrete evidence of a connection between human industry and climate change.
One can speculate as to why the UN is so interested in eliminating meat from the human diet, but stopping global warming is certainly not the real reason.
Global warming claims continues to be debunked as one of the biggest hoaxes of the century, and the idea of compelling the public to stop eating meat in the name of "saving the climate" just isn't going to work. It would appear that the political left and their NGO backers intend to criminalize meat if they can't convince people to go vegan voluntarily.
This is why the majority of Americans distrust and despise vegans: It not because they've chosen a different lifestyle, it's because they are obsessed with forcing that lifestyle on everyone else.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 21:20Public utilities seek LGBTQ+ contractors — whether they keep the lights on or not
Shock breakthrough on serial killer ‘The Doodler’ after horrid string of murdering gay men: investigator
‘Summer House: The Aftermath’: Did West Wilson Already Cheat On Amanda Batula?
Dangerous new drug could be ‘next wave of the opioid epidemic’ — and you can buy it at gas stations
New homeowner finds 3 sets of human remains in CT house bought ‘as is’ at foreclosure auction
Tom Izzo furious over Michigan State leadership after president, AD exit: ‘Ashamed and disgusted’
George Pickens gets candid about playing on Cowboys franchise tag
Will Trump Break JFK's Agreement On Cuba?
Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,
In October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) came within an inch of all-out nuclear war with each other. To resolve the crisis, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev entered into an agreement in which the United States agreed not to invade Cuba in return for Russia’s decision to withdraw nuclear missiles it had installed in Cuba.
For more than 50 years, both Russia and the United States have complied with that agreement.
Russia has never re-installed nuclear missiles into Cuba.
In turn, the United States has never re-invaded Cuba.
Given President Trump’s recent acts of aggression against Cuba, the question naturally arises: Will Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment break the commitment that President Kennedy made by initiating another military invasion of Cuba?
Soon after Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961, the U.S. national-security branch of the federal government, which, by this time, had become the most powerful branch, employed deception, subterfuge, lies, and manipulation to induce the new president into authorizing a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The plan called for using a contingent of CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade the island, with the aim of ousting the communist regime that had come into power with the Cuban revolution in 1959.
The CIA told Kennedy that no U.S. air support would be needed. They also told him that the Cuban people hated Cuban leader Fidel Castro and would rise to the assistance of the U.S. invaders.
Both were lies, and the CIA knew it was lying to Kennedy. The CIA figured that once its invasion got underway and was going to go down to defeat at the hands of the communists, JFK would have no other effective choice but to authorize the air support — as a way to “save face.”
But JFK stood his ground, and the U.S. invasion of Cuba went down to defeat. This was, of course, the beginning of the vicious and ruthless war between JFK and the U.S. national-security establishment that would end in JKF’s defeat on November 22, 1963. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National-Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.
After the disaster of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon continued to pressure Kennedy into ordering an invasion of Cuba. As part of this pressure, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented JFK with one of the most shameful and immoral plans in U.S. history — Operation Northwoods. It called for terrorist attacks on American soil in which innocent Americans would be intentionally sacrificed at the hands of U.S. agents who would be falsely portraying themselves as Cuban communists. The terrorist attacks would then be used as a justification for invading Cuba and violently achieving regime change.
To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods, much to the deep anger and rage of the national-security branch against which he was at war.
Why was the national-security branch so obsessed with invading Cuba? Their mindset was part of their old Cold War racket, which came into existence after World War II to justify the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian-like governmental structure with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.
The Cold War racket involved inculcating the American people with a deep fear that the Reds were coming to get them. Central to this racket was the notion that the Reds in Cuba were only 90 miles away from American shores and, therefore, needed to be taken out before they invaded Miami, fought their way up the Eastern seaboard, and captured Washington, D.C. Never mind that Cuba was an impoverished Third World Country that lacked the remotest capability of even crossing that little stretch of water and successfully conquering the well-armed citizens of Miami. Never mind also that Cuba has never initiated any act of aggression against the United States and that it simply has always wanted to be left alone by the U.S. national-security branch, which has always steadfastly and obsessively refused to leave Cuba alone.
Castro knew that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were pressuring Kennedy into ordering another invasion of Cuba. That’s when the Russians came to his assistance. They installed nuclear missiles in Cuba to hopefully deter the U.S. from invading again. Alternatively, the missiles were to serve as a means of self-defense if the U.S. were to initiate another war of aggression against Cuba.
It’s important to recognize something important here: The Cubans had every right in the world to have those nuclear missiles installed in Cuba. After all, Cuba is a sovereign and independent country. It is also worth noting that Cuba, like every other nation, has the right to defend itself from invasions and wars of aggression, including those initiated by the United States.
But no one (including Russia), likes to have nuclear missiles pointed at it from just a short distance away. The U.S. certainly didn’t like it (just as Russia wouldn’t like it if U.S. or NATO nuclear missiles were installed in Ukraine). And so, JFK demanded that the Russians withdraw their missiles from Cuba. If Russia had refused to do so, it is a virtual certainty that JFK would have ordered an attack on the missiles and an invasion of Cuba, both of which the Pentagon and the CIA were demanding. The result would have been World War III.
To resolve the crisis, Russia agreed to withdraw its missiles, and the U.S. committed to not invade Cuba again. It’s an agreement that has been honored for more than 60 years.
Of course, Trump, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA can argue that the agreement, which they considered was a betrayal of America and a grave threat to U.S. “national security” was not a treaty. That’s true. It was simply an oral agreement — a handshake, if you will. Nonetheless, an agreement is an agreement. There was no time limit on the agreement, which meant that it would exist into perpetuity. The Russians would not reinstall their nuclear missiles and the United States would not invade Cuba again.
If Trump and U.S. national-security establishment decide to break JFK’s agreement, undoubtedly the Russians will not retaliate. But it will be another reason why people around the world understand that the United States can never be trusted to keep its word.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:55