One Year Later: Still no justice for victims of MH17

One year ago today, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was blown out of the sky by a missile that killed all 298 passengers aboard. The evidence increasingly shows that the Boeing 777 was annihilated by a Russian Buk missile launcher that has a total range of 82,000 feet. There has be no justice for that atrocity. There has not been a change in the policies of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. Buck Sexton spoke with World Chess Champion and political activist Garry Kasparov about the crash, Putin, the Ukraine, and more.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

BUCK: One year ago today, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was blown out of the sky by a surface two air missile that killed all 298 passengers aboard. This Boeing 777 was annihilated by a Russian Buk missile launcher that has a total range of 82,000 feet. The MH17 flight was hit at 33,000 feet. That was a year ago today.

There has be no justice for that atrocity. There, in fact, has not been a change in the policies that led to it. The policies of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

I wanted to bring in somebody who can speak with us about this with tremendous knowledge. Garry Kasparov. He's an author, political activist. His latest coming out in just a little bit. Pardon me. Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped. It's out October 27th. It's available for preorder now. Garry, thank you very much for joining.

GARRY: Thanks for inviting me.

BUCK: Garry, it seems almost unfathomable that this kind of an atrocity could happen and that there would be no justice and, in fact, no real investigation at this point in time. And the latest from Putin is that he's rejecting calls for the establishment of the UN tribunal to prosecute any suspects. He's essentially saying, nothing is going to happen here. And I think he's right. Nothing is going to happen. How is it possible that he can get away with backing a policy and putting separatists in this region that shot a plane out of the sky and the international community essentially yawns?

GARRY: No, the very fact that Russia is the only state that categorically rejects the idea of international tribunal tells us that Putin knows who did it and he wants to cover it. Every other country, including Ukraine is inviting this idea because they have to find out who did it, and these people must be brought to justice.

But this tragic -- this tragic event, 298 lives are lost in the skies of Ukraine, brought down by a Russian-made missile and naturally fired by either pro-Russian forces or maybe the Russian regulars (phonetic). It's a result of Putin's unarmed aggression in Ukraine.

Everybody who talks about engagement and diplomacy and all sorts of attempts to bring dictators to the bargaining table, they ignore the fact that dictators never ask why. They always ask why not. And we would hate to hear about isolation (unintelligible). But, at the end of the day, if we don't stop them at an early stage, we pay more and more. The price goes up. And in this case, it's nearly 300 lives.

BUCK: It seems like Putin has taken the measure of the international community's response time and again and keeps finding the response to be wanting. Meaning that he doesn't think it's enough of a -- we don't pack enough a counterpunch with sanctions, with anything else to stop the policies. In fact, every time he seems to test our metal, whether it's in Georgia or the annexation of Crimea and now the continued aggression in eastern Ukraine, that as we know, it's one thing to say that this is a -- as I'm sure many do, and I know many do in Russia -- this is an internal dispute. Once you start shooting planes out of the sky with the international contingent of civilians, it should be the world's problem. There should be more of a focus on this. But, again, nothing happens here. What should be done? What could be done to make Putin actually stop?

GARRY: I've been saying for a long time that Putin was at one time Russia's problem. But it would be everyone's problem. Putin is a dictator. And he has enormous potential, Russian military and also Russian nuclear, to blackmail the rest of the world. And unless he's given an ultimatum, unless he sees a strong response from the West, start with the United States of America, nothing will happen.

And I have to say that, you know, NATO -- we could see American and NATO tanks in Estonia and Latvia. It's a small country bordering Russia. Again, the overall climate, political climate now, it's insane to stop Putin. And especially after what's happened now with Iran, where Putin has praised for helping Iran to get a phenomenal deal, I think Putin will become more arrogant because he sees nothing but weakness.

BUCK: Garry, you're actually taking me exactly where I wanted to go next. Which is, given this deal, as you said, Putin -- the Obama administration is high-fiving Putin for his help. Meanwhile, I think we know that the conventional and ballistic side of this agreement had to have some Russia collusion in here. Because where will they be buying this kind of missile technology and stuff? The most likely sellers of this will be Chinese and Russian. So it's good for the Russian arms market. And they're perfectly happy to sell them the S300. What does Putin do now that this is done? Now that he feels emboldened by this. This treaty is signed. What is Russia's policy under Putin going to be, vis-à-vis Iran?

GARRY: He sees this agreement as a step towards a big war in the Middle East. Iran now will get tons of money. It has international recognition. Iran's nuclear program, unlike was promised by the Obama administration to dismantle it, it's simply slowed down. And they can restore it at any moment. And of course, a big chunk of this $100 billion cash that Iran will receive under the terms of the agreement will go into Putin's pockets because as you said correctly, Russian weapons will be sold there.

And I believe that in this case, Putin and Obama, they're allies. Because both believe that America's power is something that should be reduced. Obama doesn't think that America should be involved in global affairs, and Putin agrees with him.

BUCK: Now, there's some places that people are already pointing to as possible flash points with Russia that have not yet flared up. People are saying the Balkans are getting quite a bit nervous. And there's been some NATO activity, where they're sort of prepositioning forces. They say it's for training forces. But to some of us, it looks like, well, it also is sort of a tripwire purpose. If not a quick reaction force purpose to have these NATO forces here.

Can you see within, let's say, a 12 to 18-month time frame from now, Russia backing another one of these -- this seems to be sort of the playbook. They find Russian speakers. Whether it's in the Baltics in the future or Transnistria or one of these places, and they'll try to push from some kind of a -- again, this separatist movement. They have swoop in. They'll be peace keepers for the Russians or something. Can you see that going, or will they just focus on Ukraine?

GARRY: We don't know what's exactly in Putin's mind and where he's going to hit next. But what I know is that when you deal with Putin, when you deal with Iran, when you deal with all sorts of dictators, you should understand that the nature of their regimes is quite different from the democratic institutions in this country or in Europe. They need enemies. And the moment they run out of enemies inside the country, they look for it outside. It's ridiculous to talk about Iran changing its behavior because the whole idea of Iranian revolution, you know, Saudis 1979 under Khomeini (phonetic) was to export revolution (unintelligible). Same for Putin. The moment he stops his aggression, foreign aggression, he will lose the rationale of staying in power in Russia. So dealing with these countries, you must understand that they will never change their behavior because it simply means they will have to relinquish their power.

BUCK: Now, Putin's popularity inside Russia at this point with this conflict that's been going in eastern Ukraine, it's increasingly clear that there's -- there's -- they say they're Russian volunteers. Then we find it's actually GRUs. And it's Russian Spetznaz. And some of these so-called separatists that are claiming they're Ukrainian or claiming that they're Russian volunteers. Or straight-on orders from the Kremlin. It doesn't seem like he's taking a hit when it comes to popularity at home. It seems like his aggressive ways and his sort of bellicose policy and the playing of the West and the United States has resulted in some pretty strong numbers for him. The polling numbers I see are astronomical compared to what a US president would expect after this many years in office. Is that still the case? Where is the sort of opposition movement?

GARRY: It's a big mistake to compare any polls taken in the United States or any democratic country compare them to opinion polls taken in the countries run by dictators. It's an element of fear. I mean, how many people are comfortable saying that they're not happy with Putin's rule? It's a country run by the KGB. And every day we see new laws being posted, Draconian laws being posed in Russia. And it would be the lost elements of civil rights and freedom disappearing, rapidly disappearing from the surface.

We don't know how popular is Putin. I mean, we don't know how popular is Kim Jong-un or how popular is Bashar al-Assad because running polls there means that you are calling people anonymously and you ask them to confess about a dictator. And they do understand this kind of information could be used against them because they were born and raised under the KGB rule.

BUCK: Garry, I know your book, Winter is Coming out in October. I assume in that book, based on what you're tackling, which is western appeasement since the end of the Cold War and the empowerment of Putin, I assume that you come out with some recommendations.

Before we close out here, Garry, what are your recommendations for how to deal with Putin and other dictators, including the Guardian Council of Iran and as you said Assad and elsewhere.

GARRY: Unfortunately, as much as we want to know to move with the globalization with peace, with trade, with development, with new ideas, we have to recognize that we are at war now. I named the book Winter Is Coming because we are entering the new Cold War. And it's up to us to stop it. There are many dictators from the world that could stay in power only being at war with the free world. And of course, America is the number one target. And the tragic events yesterday in Chattanooga, they proved that no one is safe. So we just have to understand that unless we take the challenge at an early stage, the price will go up. And whether we like it or not, we are in. And we have to defend the values of the free world again. And I believe that in this country, we must take a lead. And hopefully that in 2016, we'll see a new president who will change this suicidal course taken by the current administration.

BUCK: Winter is Coming is available for preorder now. It's out in October. The author Garry Kasparov. Garry, thank you very much for joining us. Good to have you on board here today.

Featured Image: A picture taken on October 15, 2014 shows the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 near the village of Rassipnoe. The flight MH17 was shoot down on July 17, 2014 with 298 people on board. AFP PHOTO / DOMINIQUE FAGET

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.