science

JFK Files Released… Here They Are

Update (2120ET): Roughly 80,000 pages of JFK files have finally been released in the form of 1,123 PDF files on the National Archives website, after President Donald Trump announced on Monday that they would be made public.

Click Here to access

“So, people have been waiting for decades for this, and I’ve instructed my people… lots of different people, [director of national intelligence] Tulsi Gabbard, that they must be released tomorrow,” Trump said during a visit to the Kennedy Center in Washington.

“You got a lot of reading. I don’t believe we’re going to redact anything. I said, ‘just don’t redact, you can’t redact.'”

The files, so far, still point to Lee Harvey Oswald as the culprit. That said, Jefferson Morley, VP of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, said in a statement that it’s still missing a lot of information…

“The first JFK files release of 2025 is an encouraging start. We now have complete versions of approximately a third of the redacted JFK documents held by the National Archives (1,124 of approximately 3,500 documents ). Rampant overclassification of trivial information has been eliminated and there appear to be no redactions, though we have not viewed every document. Seven of ten JFK files held by the Archives and sought by JFK researchers are now in the public record. These long-secret records shed new light on JFK’s mistrust of the CIA, the Castro assassination plots, the surveillance of Oswald in Mexico City, and CIA propaganda operations involving Oswald. The release does not include two thirds of the promised files nor any of 500-plus IRS record, nor any of the 2,400 recently discovered FBI files. Nonetheless, this is most positive news on the declassification of JFK files since the 1990s.”

A few notable findings:

Cuban diplomats initially assumed the CIA killed JFK in order to get revenge on the botched Bay of Pigs invasion.

“If the Yankees or CIA assassinated Kennedy to resume the assault on Cuba, then a third world war would start,” one diplomat said, according to journalist Sean Davis.

In a separate deposition, one American intelligence operative noted that multiple CIA assets connected to a particular CIA agent had been spreading “misinformation” that Cuba was behind the assassination in the immediate wake of JFK’s murder. -Sean Davis, X

Upon learning of JFK’s assassination, Cuban diplomats immediately assumed the CIA killed JFK for the purpose of finishing what it started with the Bay of Pigs invasion: “If the Yankees or CIA assassinated Kennedy to resume the assault on Cuba, then a third world war would start.”… pic.twitter.com/nZQhWEWUSU
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 19, 2025

A topic of note is Lee Harvey Oswald’s trip to Mexico City just months before the assassination.
Oswald visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico, looking for a visa, and his request was handled by a loose-cannon USSR intelligence officer.
Oswald was presumably looking for a visa to… pic.twitter.com/udnnFBfyZx
— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) March 19, 2025
This file has CIA, FBI and Secret Service interviews.

*  *  *

Save 25% on one of ReadyWise’s most popular products:
Click pic… add to cart… enjoy!

Here’s…

“GenderQueer” Newborns? Jersey Hospitals Now Ask For Newborn’s “Preferred Pronouns” And “Sexual Orientation”

Just when you thought the insanity was starting to subside with Democrats out of office, we learn last week that New Jersey hospitals are now requesting parents to specify their baby’s preferred pronouns and sexual orientation , according to a report from the NY Post.

Inspira Health’s “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Questionnaire” asks parents to “identify” their baby as “Male, Female, Transgender, GenderQueer,” or “Additional gender category.”

The healthcare system, which runs multiple hospitals and centers in South Jersey, introduced the form last year to comply with a new state law requiring providers to collect demographic and identity data “in a culturally competent and sensitive manner.”

One 34 year old resident told the Post: “That form is completely crazy, and anyone who would dictate a baby’s sexual orientation probably has an agenda. If I was told to fill this out, I’d rip it up in front of them. It feels like we’ve entered ‘The Twilight Zone.’”

Another mom-to-be commented: “Identifying my baby as gay on Day 1 is insane. I had no idea about this form and I’m shocked.”
Photo: NY Post

New Jersey State Sen. Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen) criticized the form, calling it “lacking such common sense” and having “no medical value.” She noted how overwhelming childbirth is, saying, “To be handed that sort of form in the midst of all that has no medical value, it makes no sense.”

Schepisi sparked debate by sharing a photo of the form on Facebook, with many questioning its authenticity. She plans to introduce a bill next week to restrict such data collection to patients 16 and older, arguing the mandate was rushed through the legislature with little scrutiny.

“What was the genesis of this bill?” she asked. “How did it move so quickly with barely any committee hearings on it?” She also speculated that the data might be sold for an undisclosed purpose.

The NY Post report claims that the bill, introduced by Democratic State Sens. Joseph Cryan and Angela McKnight on June 23, 2022, was modeled after an Indiana law. Democrat Herbert Conaway, who also worked on it, defended the measure, stating, “The bill is designed to provide public health officials with the data they need to develop public health measures that effectively serve all New Jerseyans.”

He emphasized that “no patient or parent is obligated to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable.”

An Inspira Health representative confirmed the form is “required by New Jersey law” but that parents “are permitted to decline to provide this information.” The health system sought a waiver from the state, but it has not yet been granted. Meanwhile, NYC hospitals confirmed they do not collect such data, the report concludes. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/18/2025 – 18:00…

Markets Need More Than Rate-Cuts To Recover

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The consensus narrative tells you that markets are weak because of Trump’s tariffs. However, that is a typical excuse that makes no sense. If tariffs were the cause of concern, markets would have tanked in 2016 and in 2021. Remember that Biden maintained and increased all of Trump’s tariffs. Between 2016 and 2024, the tariffs imposed by the European Union and China on the United States were much larger than levies against them. However, you never read or heard that the EU and China tariffs were going to destroy the economy or lead to massive inflation.

The mainstream consensus narrative always wants you to believe that tariffs are fine if imposed by socialist countries and evil if imposed by the United States. However, if the market was alarmed by tariffs and the disastrous impact they may have on the economy, German and Japanese bond yields would not have soared. Instead, they would have plummeted as investors sought refuge. Furthermore, if the world feared a US economic disaster, Treasury bond yields would not have declined.

German and Japanese bond yields would be declining and US yields rising if that were the case. What is happening is the opposite. The German 10-year bond yield has risen 21% in 2025, and the Japanese equivalent has soared 34%. The US 10-year Treasury yield has declined 5.6%.

What is really going on? Many market participants are addicted to money printing and dovish central banks. In fact, two generations of traders have only seen rising debt, liquidity injections, and negative real rates, which helped justify increasingly demanding equity and risk asset price valuations. Thus, the market greeted bad economic data with optimism, anticipating another round of monetary laughing gas.

The reason why markets are so volatile is because few know what to do when inflation remains persistent. The Fed panicked twice in 2024 and conducted a misguided dovish policy. It delayed the reduction of the balance sheet in June despite rising inflation expectations and loose financial conditions. In September, the Fed decided to implement an unjustified large rate cut despite concerning core inflation figures and exceedingly loose financial conditions, the loosest in five years. The Fed’s excessive optimism about the disinflation path led to a significant increase in margin debt and exposure to equity markets.

Consensus estimates assumed three or four rate cuts in 2025. However, in November the Fed went hawkish and started to worry about a persistent inflation that was already evident in its previous two dovish moves. Markets did not care and continued to believe that inflation would drop magically despite soaring deficit spending and record debt as well as the highest money supply growth in twenty months. By January, market participants started to worry about persistent inflation. The Fed decided to be serious about inflation and provide hawkish messages coinciding with the end of elections.

Were you not surprised to see how the Fed was unusually dovish and optimistic throughout the campaign and elections and suddenly went hawkish and tightened monetary policy…

Predicting The Shape Of Future Military Conflicts

Authored by Christian Milord via The Epoch Times,

It’s difficult to forecast how military conflicts will unfold once they are initiated, but military realists can identify likely scenarios based upon precedent as well as current ongoing conflicts. What might future conflicts look like and what types of platforms would be utilized in these kinetic and non-kinetic environments?

In a highly informative and thought-provoking book, “Unit X—How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Future of War, 2024,” authors Christopher Kirchhoff and Raj Shah attempt to map out what might occur in both defensive and offensive scenarios. Unit X refers to the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), which was the brainchild of Raj Shah, a former F-16 pilot with the Air National Guard.

Shah came up with the idea of an experimental innovation unit after experiencing as a pilot the almost obsolete mapping and navigation capabilities of his fighter aircraft. He had a difficult time knowing for sure whether or not he had crossed a particular prohibited Middle East national border.

Moreover, there were outmoded methods of aircraft scheduling during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Middle East aviation command center that scheduled air operations was still using markers and whiteboards instead of computers for data analysis and the scheduling of hundreds of inbound and outbound aerial missions.

After Shah left the Guard, he had a desire to find solutions to these problems by seeking answers from the Pentagon and venture capital innovators who were forward thinkers. This is where Christopher Kirchhoff entered the picture as a specialist in disruptive and emerging technologies.

Kirchhoff had advised a number of tech companies and the government on national security matters. In the beginning of the DIU venture in 2016, it was tough sledding to create an innovation unit at the Pentagon for two reasons.

First, the Pentagon already had the entrenched Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which was formed in 1958 as a response to the Soviet Union’s Sputnik moment. DARPA had developed the ARPANET, a predecessor of the internet, as well as aerial drones, GPS, night vision goggles, and more. However, DARPA’s failure rate from design to prototype, to testing to production was more than 80 percent.

Next, according to the authors, tense relations existed between the Dept. of Defense (DOD) and California’s Silicon Valley incubator startups. Private sector innovators were impatient with the bureaucratic obstacles encountered when interacting with the Pentagon, while the Pentagon was dissatisfied with some of the innovative technologies coming out of Silicon Valley.

In the first year of the DIU, there were intense discussions, and funding was difficult to garner. However, with some assistance from former Defense Secretaries Ash Carter, Mark Esper and James Mattis, some of the bureaucratic hurdles were overcome and the DIU got off the ground. Relations with Silicon Valley gradually improved in the second and third year. Retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who is a Middle East combat veteran currently at the Hoover Institution, also played a role as an adviser…

Newsom’s Podcast Disaster: Why The Left Is Fuming And The Right Smells A Rat

With Kamala Harris’s spectacular failure in the November election, California Governor Gavin Newsom – despite running his state into the ground, may be Democrats’ best hope at victory in 2028. But his latest endeavor – theThis is Gavin Newsom Podcast – has left both progressives and conservatives scratching their heads. 

While Newsom pitched the show as a platform for engaging with both ideological allies and opponents, his first two guests – TPUSA co-founder Charlie Kirk and former Breitbart EIC Steve Bannon – have turned the effort into a full-blown spectacle.

The reaction from the left? Absolute fury. The reaction from the right? Distrust and ridicule. And from the voters? A mixed bag that could spell serious trouble for Newsom’s future ambitions.

Some key stats, according to a poll of 1,000 California voters conducted by Capitol Weekly (h/t Yashar Ali):

While 54% said they had heard of the podcast, just 0.57% of California voters have listened to it, and 58% said they weren’t likely to listen.
Favorability amongst liberals has dropped from 46% to 30%
Republicans polled overwhelmingly viewed Newsom as insincere – calling him “fake,” and “pandering.”
Newsom’s net favorability dropped from +4 to -6, a 10 point swing
Just 13% of voters had an improved view of Newsom, and only 1 out of 5 polled said it made them want to tune in again.
Charlie Kirk

When Newsom announced that Charlie Kirk would be his first guest, progressives braced for a battle of ideas. Instead, they got a softball exchange where Newsom lavished Kirk with praise – agreeing with him 125 times and “appreciating” his ideas 52 times. Even Kirk, who makes a living bashing Newsom’s policies, found it over the top. “Governor Newsom was being overly effusive in his praise of me,” Kirk chuckled on his own podcast, before launching into his usual tirade about Newsom ruining California.

NEW: California Governor Gavin Newsom tells Charlie Kirk that his son is a massive Charlie Kirk fan.
Newsom: My son really wanted to meet you.
Kirk: You let him to take off school?
Newsom: No. Of course not. He’s not here for a good reason.
Kirk: Well you cancelled school… pic.twitter.com/Bh21YArY36
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 6, 2025
The backlash in Sacramento was swift. The Sacramento Bee’s Robin Epley declared the show “sucked,” while Los Angeles Times columnist Mark Barabak predicted Newsom might “talk himself to political death.” But the real political firestorm erupted when Newsom doubled down, inviting Steve Bannon as his next guest.

Newsom Ditches Wokes

Meanwhile, the interviews have further alienated Newsom’s traditional base. In a conversation with Kirk, he blasted the term “Latinx” as out of touch and mocked workplace pronoun declarations. Then, in an even more incendiary moment, he dismissed California’s 2013 policy allowing transgender students to compete in sports according to their gender identity, calling it “deeply unfair.”

California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, long considered an LGBTQ ally, broke with his party, saying that transgender athletes playing in female sports is “deeply unfair” on the first episode of Newson’s new podcast…