Iran issued a notice to air missions (NOTAM) within areas across its southern regions, the United States Federal Aviation Administration website showed on Wednesday.
The notice to airmen added that the country plans rocket launches in areas across its south on Thursday, February 19, from 3:30 GMT to 13:30 GMT.
https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Iran-issues-alert-over-rocket-launches/65701183
United States officials said Washington is moving toward a full military exit from Syria, with plans underway to pull out roughly 1,000 troops over the coming weeks, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
People familiar with the matter said US forces have already pulled out of key bases, including Al Tanf and Al Shaddadi, with remaining troops expected to leave over the next two months. US officials said the drawdown does not affect Washington's ability to respond to threats from the Islamic State.
The move comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks to strengthen diplomatic ties with Syria's new leadership following the collapse of Kurdish-led control and a fragile ceasefire with Damascus-backed forces.
https://breakingthenews.net/Article/US-said-to-withdraw-all-troops-from-Syria/65701272
National Institutes of Health head Dr. Jay Bhattacharya will serve as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House told Politico.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ousted CDC Director Jim O'Neill last week as part of a large-scale shakeup at HHS. President Donald Trump plans to name O'Neill as head of the National Science Foundation.
Bhattacharya rose to prominence as a critic of COVID-19 mask mandates and lockdowns. Trump tapped him to lead the NIH in 2025.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/jay-bhattacharya-become-acting-cdc-director
by John R. Lott Jr.
“The bottom line is this: voter ID is not controversial in this country,” Harry Enten, the chief data analyst for CNN, recently reported. Nor is it controversial in virtually any other country in the world. Yet despite massive support among both Democrats (71%) and Republicans (95%), only one Democratic member of the House and one in the Senate are supporting the SAVE Act. Unless seven more of the 47 Senate Democrats step forward, their filibuster will kill the bill.
Democrats argue that requiring free voter photo IDs – even when the ID itself costs nothing – harms eligible voters by creating practical barriers to casting a ballot. They contend that blacks would be especially hard hit. Interestingly, every country in Africa requires government-issued identification to vote.
They also argue that such requirements would disenfranchise Hispanic voters. Yet Mexico, all twelve South American countries, and Spain require government-issued photo IDs to vote.
All of these countries have lower per-capita incomes than the United States. If citizens in those nations can obtain the necessary identification to vote, why would American Hispanics and blacks be unable to do the same?
While 83% of American adults support requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, support is also strong among the very groups Democrats claim would be harmed: 82% of Hispanics and 76% of black Americans favor the requirement. Those figures suggest that most black and Hispanic Americans do not view obtaining a photo ID as the obstacle Democrats describe. Ten U.S. states have similarly strong photo ID requirements.
Democrats claim that women are disproportionately disenfranchised by voter IDs, but women are also strongly supportive of IDs and have exactly the same level of support as men.
Democrats argue that voter ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise people with the least education and lowest incomes. Yet, ironically, survey results show that voters who did not graduate from high school were 27 percentage points more likely to support photo voter ID laws than those who attended graduate school. Similarly, individuals earning less than $30,000 per year were seven percentage points more likely to support photo ID requirements than those earning over $200,000 annually. The well-educated and higher-income individuals thus express more concern about the impact of ID laws on the less educated and lower-income groups than those groups express themselves.
But it isn’t just South American countries and all of Africa that require voter IDs to vote. Both of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, require them, with Mexico also requiring a thumbprint. All 47 European countries, except parts of the United Kingdom, require a government-issued photo ID .
After widespread vote fraud, Mexico enacted major voting reforms in 1991. The government mandated voter photo IDs with biometric information, banned absentee ballots, and required in-person voter registration. Even though these changes made registration more difficult and eliminated absentee voting, turnout increased after the reforms took effect. In the three presidential elections following the 1991 changes, an average of 68% of eligible citizens voted, compared with 59% in the three elections before the reforms. As confidence in the electoral process grew, more citizens chose to participate.
Many countries in Europe and beyond have learned the hard way that fraud can result from looser voting regimes – and they have instituted stricter voting measures in direct response to it.
In Northern Ireland, where a bitter sectarian conflict fuels hardball electoral tactics, parties on all sides have engaged in what observers describe as “widespread and systemic“ voter fraud. Both Conservative and Labour governments enacted reforms to curb it. In 1985, under the conservative Margaret Thatcher, the U.K. began requiring voters to show identification before receiving a ballot, but that measure did not solve the problem. In 1998, a Select Committee on Northern Ireland reported that people could “easily forge” medical cards – accepted as ID under the 1985 law – or obtain them fraudulently, enabling non-existent individuals to cast votes.
By 2002, the Labour government strengthened voter identification cards to make them far harder to forge and used the more secure IDs, along with additional rules, to stop people from registering multiple times. These anti-fraud measures immediately reduced total registrations by 11%, suggesting to Labour how extensive earlier fraud had been.
A study of vote fraud in Northern Ireland before the 2002 reforms interviewed Brendan Hughes, the former IRA Belfast commander. Hughes described how he operated a fleet of taxis to transport fraudulent voters from one polling station to another. He said they dressed volunteers in wigs, different clothes, and glasses, and noted that this practice continued for decades. He added that they typically used young women for voter impersonation because officials were more likely to let them vote if any doubt arose.
A 2002 survey of Northern Ireland by the U.K. Electoral Commission, conducted after the rules passed but before they went into effect, found that by a 64% to 10% margin, voters thought that vote “fraud in some areas is enough to change the election results.”
“I support the SAVE America Act because I believe in a fundamental principle: American citizens should decide American elections,” Henry Cuellar, the one House Democrat voting for the bill, noted. “That principle strengthens our democracy and protects the value of every vote.” There are currently seven states that require proof of citizenship just as required in the SAVE Act (e.g., birth certificate, passport, tribal documents, naturalization papers). Sen. John Fetterman, the only Democrat in the Senate to speak out favorably for the bill, said requiring voters to show identification is not “unreasonable.”
But Democrats follow the line of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who claims “The SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow style restrictions on voting.”
If banning voter IDs is a hallmark of democracy, Democrats will need to start castigating virtually all the other countries in the world as anti-democratic nations.
by Paul Thacker
\I just released a Disinformation Chronicle Podcast interview with author Jan Jekielek discussing his new book “Killed to Order” on the evil practice of organ harvesting in China.
As I explained here yesterday, this is a really a tough subject to talk about. It’s a topic that makes people queasy, like child pornography. We know it’s happening, we know people are being hurt, but nobody wants to bring it up as a topic for discussion.
Better to just ignore the issue.
You can purchase Jekielek’s book at this link on Amazon: “Killed to Order: China’s Organ Harvesting Industry and the True Nature of America’s Biggest Adversary.”
An excerpted chapter follows.
Prologue
“May” is forty-five years old; she could be someone you know. She could live in Des Moines, Iowa, or the suburbs of Vancouver, or Manhattan, New York. She could be an attorney, or a stay-at-home mother, or perhaps she’s a sixth-grade science teacher—a job she loves so much she doesn’t even think of it as work. She has a loving husband and two young daughters, eight and ten.
Her symptoms begin subtly—fatigue, swelling in her ankles and feet, a loss of appetite— then steadily grow more alarming: shortness of breath, nausea, muscle cramps, darkening skin, numbness. After months of doctor’s visits and a battery of tests, she is finally diagnosed with chronic kidney failure.
Within a couple of years, May’s condition progresses to the point that she requires dialysis three times a week, tethered to machines that perform the work her kidneys no longer can. She is suffering terribly—not only from the pain, exhaustion, and relentlessness of dialysis, but from the sense that she has placed an unbearable strain on her family. At times, it feels as though she has abandoned them. She knows they are doing everything they can to hold things together, but their best no longer feels like enough. Their lives are slowly coming apart.
A kidney transplant is possible, but only in the distant future. No one even talks about it. The waiting list is measured in years—often two to five, sometimes longer—so long that it feels almost abstract, and impossible to plan around. For now, there is only more of the same: a slow, painful decline in the quality of May’s life, and in the lives of those who love her, and the doctor 3 tells her that less than half of people on dialysis survive to 5 years. It is enough to make her cry, which she does—quietly, often, and alone.
One day, while waiting for yet another medical appointment, she overhears a conversation between two women. In low voices, they are discussing something they keep calling “the China option.” May apologizes for eavesdropping, but asks what they are talking about. “What’s the China option?” She would not normally be paying attention, but she’s desperate.
The two women exchange a look. They explain: quick transplants, no wait times, organs matched very fast. You might make it. You might get to spend many more years with your family. You might not leave them broken and bereaved. For kidneys, at this point, it’s thirty grand.
“Here,” one of the women says, pulling out a piece of paper. “It’s an ad, but there’s some good information. And a broker’s name.”
When she tells her family about the conversation, they are elated. It seems too good to be true. Is it really possible? Why hadn’t anyone mentioned this before? Should they do it? It’s a lot of money, but it’s for the family, for the future. Who can put a price on health?
“It seems risky,” May tells her husband.
“What do we have to lose?” he asks. “If it works, just think…”
She doesn’t have to think. All she’s been able to do is think: What happens if it works? It would be…a miracle.
“Let’s do it,” she says.
May calls the number on the ad, speaks to a broker, and they agree to the terms. Though it all seems legitimate and too good to be true, May does not ask too many questions. She is 4 surviving at this point more on hope than anything else. When the money is paid, no receipt is given—only a note that, for all intents and purposes, says nothing.
The broker arranges everything. Blood samples are sent ahead. Within days, a match is made, and travel arrangements are set. May will fly to China, and the surgery will take place at the Shanghai Number One People’s Hospital. It’s a stark building, far from the bustling street. There is a transplant ward with thirteen rooms, three beds each. Patients come from Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, Hawaii—all over the world.
When she arrives, everything goes according to plan. May is picked up from the airport and travels, in relative comfort, to the facility, where she meets with doctors and nurses. Nothing about it seems remotely suspect, and any concerns she’d been harboring begin to fade.
The operation will be tomorrow at dawn. May is isolated in a sterile pre-op area. She does have one question, though, which she asks one of the doctors: Who is the kidney coming from? She feels grateful to the donor.
All she is told is that the kidney will be sourced fresh. She doesn’t ask any more questions.
Before the operation, cross-matching is done, and the kidney, when it is delivered, is found to be incompatible. The organ can’t be used. It happens, they explain, but not to worry— there are more donors. The next day, another kidney is brought, and this one is a match. The operation lasts about four hours. Four other patients receive their kidneys the same day. May sees them around as she recovers.
For the next five days, she remains in the hospital under observation. Then another seven in an ordinary room. After about two weeks, May returns home with two souvenirs: her new kidney, which is functioning perfectly, and a small booklet containing information about aftercare. That’s it.
For a while, she’s constantly reminded of her new kidney, and of the whole strange experience. There’s the recovery, first, and the pain. But then there’s just a scar, which itself fades. In time, she puts the whole experience behind her. She moves on with her life, profoundly grateful to have it.
But one day she reads a news report that catches her eye. It’s a story about a whistleblower claiming that her husband, a surgeon, has performed thousands of surgeries on Chinese prisoners—without their consent. She suddenly feels a sharp pain—a pang of awareness. She remembers something someone told her—maybe the broker, maybe a doctor—that the organs came from death-row prisoners. But that’s not what the whistleblower says. She says the organs came from political and religious prisoners, people who practice something called Falun Gong, a spiritual practice persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party with hundreds of thousands of practitioners locked up.
May’s hands are shaking as she reads on, a terrible thought dawning on her: that someone died—no, that a person was murdered—so that she could live. A wave of nausea hits her. She feels disgusting, violated, guilty, complicit—criminal. She thinks of calling the broker, of demanding answers, but she knows what he will say. And anyway, she’s alive, isn’t she? These things are complicated, he’d told her early on, when she’d asked for a few more details. What matters is the end result: you get to live. For a long, long time.
Yes, she thinks now—but at what cost?
May’s discovery—that was enough to make her sick—is actually just the tip of the iceberg.
Whistleblowers first sounded the alarm over systematic forced organ harvesting in 2006. One of them, a medical staff member in a northeastern Chinese hospital, told The Epoch Times that her neurosurgeon ex-husband removed corneas from detained Falun Gong practitioners and that the remains went straight to the incinerator for cremation. An independent people’s tribunal—chaired by war crimes prosecutor Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—confirmed in 2019 that forced organ harvesting had been occurring across China under the state’s watch, with Falun Gong practitioners “used as a source, probably the principal source of organs. ”
Falun Gong makes a convenient target. The spiritual practice, which drew about 70 million to 100 million people by the late 1990s, has been targeted by the regime since 1999. Its practitioners meditate daily, don’t smoke or drink, and aspire to a peaceful mindset—healthy lifestyle habits that researchers suggest have made their organs ideal for the organ transplant trade.
To avoid implicating their friends and families, many Falun Gong practitioners refuse to give their names when police officers detain them. And without official records, they are easy prey for the illicit organ trade, where secrecy is key. “There has been a population of donors accessible to hospitals in the [People’s Republic of China] whose organs could be extracted according to demand for them,” the Tribunal said in its Judgment. Chinese authorities, it states, “would have no difficulty in committing Falun Gong practitioners to any fate,” turning them into a ready donor pool.
One former Chinese official connected to organ harvesting—the overseer of the health department of the Chinese army logistics branch—told undercover investigators in 2014 that taking organs from Falun Gong practitioners was an order from the top.
Why? An elite obsession with longevity, survival, and rejuvenation.
Chinese officials have eyed replacing organs as an option for rejuvenating life since the late 1970s, when China’s organ transplant industry was in its infancy. In 1978, according to a US-based Chinese-language magazine, now known as the China News Digest, medical workers harvested kidneys from a political prisoner right after execution. The organs went to the child of a high-ranking official who was suffering from kidney failure.
As the practice proliferated underground, regime leaders kept a tight lid on the health records of the political elite. Nonetheless, accounts of organ transplant surgeries on political dignitaries have trickled out over the years.
In 2023, the death of former Chinese Deputy Cultural Minister Gao Zhanxiang made headlines after an obituary inadvertently divulged that he had replaced “many organs.” The 87- year-old had changed so many body parts that he once joked that “many components are not his own anymore,” the obituary read.
The historical lineage of projects aimed at boosting health and longevity dates back even further—almost to the Party’s founding. As early as the late 1920s, while struggling to survive civil war in China, the fledgling Chinese communists already had a hospital for treating their top leadership. Not long after the communist party assumed control over China in 1949, the communist authorities began a 100-acre farm staffed with soldiers to supply fresh dairy and produce for officials near Jade Spring Hill, according to a Chinese state history magazine. The area, commonly known as the “back garden” of Chinese politics, is home to private villas of high-ranking military leaders.
The farm, the magazine article said, cultivated rare off-season foods that first Party chief Mao Zedong enjoyed—such as seedless watermelon, which didn’t become commercially available until at least the late 1990s.
Between the 1960s and 1970s, injecting blood from young soldiers was a popular “tonic” for senior communist officials, Li Zhisui, the 22-year-long personal physician for Mao, wrote in his 1994 memoir, which was published in the United States and banned in China.
Whatever the latest fad in the hunt for longevity, one theme remained constant throughout the years: The ruling elite has always come first.
Chinese communist cadres get free premier health care in VIP patient wards; for those at the top, a select panel of nutrition experts deliberates on what they should eat, Chinese media reports show.
In 2006, Chinese state media quoted a former deputy Chinese health minister as saying that four-fifths of Chinese health care dollars serve the 85 million Chinese Communist Party members. The official later walked back the statement after a nationwide backlash. It’s unclear if was truth, or simply bluster.
“Protecting the leadership” when it comes to health is a national priority, a deeply-placed China source once told me.
Dr. Ning Xiaowei, a cardiologist who worked in VIP wards at a major Chinese hospital, recalled that a deputy provincial official summoned specialists from the best hospitals across the entire province to treat an injury.
Ning said it was a textbook case of how the Chinese communist hierarchy works.
“The so-called people’s servants have the entire Chinese population serving them,” she told The Epoch Times.
The special treatment for the elites shows in the data.
In the late 1970s, when Chinese people lived to 68 years on average, the top communist statesmen reached their late 70s and 80s, an Epoch Times analysis of public data found.
One of the longest-living people in China’s modern history was Zhang Lixiong, a major general of the People’s Liberation Army. He died in April 2024 at the age of 110. Former State Councilor Song Ping, who is still alive, is 108.
The once-obscure and deeply secretive forced organ harvesting industry came into the public eye in 2025 after a hot mic moment between the Chinese and Russian leaders, who discussed the prospect of longevity via multiple organ transplants and made reference to a 150-year life span. Chinese state television captured the hot mic musings on Sept. 3, 2025 as Chinese leader Xi Jinping escorted his Russian and North Korean counterparts to an enormous military parade at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. “Earlier, people rarely lived to 70, but these days at 70 you are still a child,” Xi told Russian President Vladimir Putin, prompting the latter—who, like Xi, is 10 72—to reference continued organ transplants as a key to immortality. “Predictions are that in this century, there’s a chance of living to 150,” Xi said just before the audio faded.
That longevity claim harks back to a one-minute ad in 2019 promoting the 301 Hospital in Beijing, China’s top military medical center dedicated to treating those in the top political circles.
“A 150-year lifespan project to combat death,” the voiceover in the ad calls it.
The clip describes a health system decades in the making, combining the best of traditional Chinese medicine with Western technology. At one point, the voiceover touts the system for the Chinese elite as “tried and true” and first-rate, backing up the claim with a graph that depicts Chinese leaders outliving their American and British peers by at least a decade.
The bold declaration troubles medical ethicists.
“Sickness is not something that is turned on and off like a light switch,” Dr. Torsten Trey, executive director of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting, told The Epoch Times. “It is one thing to talk about staying in power and becoming 150 years old. But how would they do that?”
There are still many unanswered questions about China’s forced organ harvesting industry— questions with grave implications for the future of medicine, the future of morality, and the future of the free world.
But thanks to the tireless work of investigators, reporters, and unbelievably courageous Chinese whistleblowers, we know far more than we did two decades ago. We know for certain that Falun Gong, Uyghurs and other groups are still being targeted. We know that the Chinese Communist Party will stop at nothing to ensure its own survival. And we know that Western 11 elites and Western media are being steadily co-opted—made complicit in the CCP’s crimes against humanity.
At the end of the day, that is what forced organ harvesting is: a crime against humanity and we must not allow ourselves to forget the human element.
At the exact same time that May is making her way to China—traveling to the airport, flying across the ocean, sitting in the back of a car, and lying down in an operating theater in Shanghai—a dark, deeply evil inverse journey is taking place: the donor’s.
We know almost nothing about the prisoner—not even her name—because she will not survive her part of the story.
Perhaps she had been arrested months earlier for protesting the government’s treatment of Falun Gong. Perhaps someone asked whether she was a Falun Gong practitioner, and because one of Falun Gong’s core tenets is truthfulness, she answered yes. Perhaps someone threw a picture of Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, on the ground and said, “Step on it,” and she refused. Many of the people around her, it seems, have been poisoned into believing Falun Gong is something it is not—something dangerous and evil. She has witnessed a massive propaganda campaign—something like half a million distinct pieces published when the persecution began— to dehumanize her and her fellow practitioners, many of whom had been pillars of their communities and pictures of health.
Perhaps she went to the police herself and argued that Falun Gong practitioners should not be harmed—that they are good people. In any case, she was arrested and thrown into a prison camp. In prison, she was tortured, abused, and treated with relentless cruelty. A range of instruments was used—electric batons and other sadistic contraptions. It was a living hell. She saw people disappear. She heard screams in the distance. She screamed herself. But she was also subjected to extensive medical testing—blood and tissue tests, and organ scans, far more sophisticated and expensive than anything she had ever seen before.
It made no sense. Why treat me as subhuman and then spend so much time checking my health? she would wonder.
She began to hear whispers and threats from the guards: reform or else. Or else what? she thought. They are already torturing me. I’m barely a human in this place.
Then one day, she is taken from the prison to the very same hospital in Shanghai. No explanation is given. The journey is shorter, rougher, and far less comfortable than May’s. In the hospital, everything is perfunctory, mechanical. She barely has time to think, even as the answers to her earlier questions—why the tests? What did the guard mean by “or else?”—come into focus.
Perhaps she is told she’s there for more tests. Perhaps no one says anything at all. She is quickly prepped, opened, and harvested. There is no reason to let her live to tell the story, no matter how implausible it might sound. So it is agreed, as it always is, that she cannot wake up. And she doesn’t. Ever.
Her death is ruled a suicide, as it so often is with Falun Gong practitioners—despite the fact that Falun Gong explicitly forbids self-harm.
Perhaps someone in the hospital—a nurse, or even a doctor—pauses over her lifeless body and looks upon with something like sadness, guilt, or shame. But perhaps not. There is no time. There are many more surgeries to perform that day, and the next, and the next.
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/book-excerpt-killed-to-order-chinas
