Ivan Aivazovsky Sea channel with lighthouse 1873
Very interesting. The Constitution protects the Office of the President. You can not drag a sitting president into court, because “to wound [the President] by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus..”
Only the Senate can investigate him/her. And guess what? “Jack Smith’s indictments of Donald Trump are unconstitutional because he was already tried in the Senate.”
Ergo: Since the Senate did not remove Trump from office, Jack Smith’s indictments are null and void.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution reads “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Therefore, President Donald Trump had executive power vested in him through his presidential office. From that power flows certain privileges and indeed executive immunities. Among these privileges are those expressly delineated in the Constitution itself. The impeachment process, for example, as stated in Article II, Sec. 4, requires that for all “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the President “shall be removed from Office.” In other words, the Constitution lays out a process by which presidents of the United States are to be prosecuted—through impeachment. The reason impeachment, rather than traditional prosecution (and attendant punishments like incarceration), applies to the president is because of the uniqueness of the office itself.
The president exposes himself to outsized publicity, controversy, and risk as a result of his office. Therefore, the punitive measures that uniquely attach to the executive officeholder are consonant with the duties and powers of the office itself. In addition, there is a special constitutional prerogative, one might say, in safeguarding the integrity of the presidential office, no matter the character and fitness of its occupant. Specifically, that would mean not imprisoning the officeholder or former occupants of the office based on alleged criminality done within the officeholder’s official capacities as president. It is for this reason that the Department of Justice has confirmed, “to wound [the President] by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.” (Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Asst. Att’y Gen., O.L.C., Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President, and Other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution While in Office 30 [Sept. 24, 1973]). How far-reaching the scope of those capacities cover while in office should give way to a liberal construction due to the catastrophic impact such charges would necessarily have on the political fabric of the country.
In any event, and for the purposes of what is relevant in Jack Smith’s two indictments, the factual grounds on which President Trump allegedly committed crime(s) within his official duties as president have already been twice considered by the House of Representatives, for which the President—in conformance with Article II, Sec. 4—was acquitted both times by the Senate. Because the Senate voted not to convict President Trump of his alleged crimes, any and every remedial measure afforded by the constitutional process has already been exhausted. Therefore, to continue to bring charges against the President for the asserted crimes on which he has already been prosecuted is by definition an abuse of the judicial power and an expressed violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment: “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”
Notably, the Impeachment Judgment Clause of the Constitution, Art. I Sec. 3, reads as follows: “a person convicted upon an Impeachment, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” A plain reading of the clause allows for the subsequent indictment after a person is convicted and convicted only. This is in agreement with the longstanding judicial canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “the expression of one is the exclusion of others,” which provides that because the text excludes the term “acquittal” from the relevant clause, the framers’ intent was that only convicted officeholders would be open to additional prosecution, and not officeholders that were already acquitted based on constitutional procedure for their alleged crimes, therefore exhausting the constitutional remedy in toto. United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 357 (1988).
[..] In conclusion, Jack Smith’s claims are ill founded; to the extent they have any merit at all, they have already been prosecuted to the fullest extent the Constitution allows, and on each count, President Trump has already been acquitted of any and all criminal wrongdoing.
“Think Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945. That’s your future. Enjoy..”
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine will conclude with Kiev’s unconditional surrender, according to Scott Ritter, a former US intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector. On Wednesday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky claimed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “Ukraine does not trade its territories, because we do not trade our people.” The message was dedicated to the Third Crimea Platform Summit, where Ukraine discussed ways of “de-occupying” the peninsula, which reunited with Russia in 2014 following a referendum triggered by the US-backed Maidan coup in Kiev earlier that year. Replying to Zelensky’s post, Ritter wrote that “it was NATO that suggested a trade. Russia isn’t trading anything.”
The former US intelligence officer was apparently referring to remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s chief of staff, Stian Jenssen, who said in mid-August that Ukraine could “give up territory [to Russia], and get NATO membership in return.” According to Jenssen, this idea was actively being discussed within the US-led military bloc. The suggestion caused outrage in Kiev, with presidential aide Mikhail Podoliak branding it “ridiculous.” Such a move would amount to “deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy… and passing the war on to other generations,” he claimed. The head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, Aleksey Danilov, reiterated that Kiev would never negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that “Russia must be destroyed like a modern-day Carthage.” Jenssen later apologized for his remarks, saying they were “a mistake.”
Ritter insisted that Moscow is “dealing with reality” when it comes to the conflict with Kiev, including “where Russian boots will be when Ukraine capitulates unconditionally.” “Think Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945. That’s your future. Enjoy,” he wrote, addressing Zelensky. On that date, representatives of the Japanese Empire signed an unconditional surrender to the Allies aboard the USS Missouri, ending the country’s participation in World War II.In line with the deal, Japan agreed to the loss of all its territories outside of its home islands, complete disarmament, Allied occupation of the country, and tribunals to bring war criminals to justice. On Wednesday, Zelensky admitted that the Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russian forces, which began in early June, was proving “very difficult.” However, he also claimed that the operation was moving “slowly, but in the right direction.”
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that the Ukrainian campaign is showing “signs of stalling.” The newspaper warned that “the inability to demonstrate decisive success on the battlefield [by Kiev’s forces] is stoking fears that the conflict is becoming a stalemate and international support could erode.”President Putin claimed on Wednesday that it was “astonishing” to see how little the authorities in Kiev cared about Ukrainian soldiers. “They are throwing [them] on our minefields, under our artillery fire, acting as if they are not their own citizens at all,” the Russian leader said. According to Moscow’s estimates, Ukraine has failed to make any significant gains since the launch of its counteroffensive, but has lost more than 43,000 troops and nearly 5,000 pieces of heavy equipment. Kiev has so far claimed the capture of several villages, but these appear to be some distance from Russia’s main defensive lines.
“I am convinced that Russia can continue the war in Ukraine for a very long time..”
Ukraine might not be able to achieve its goals in the conflict with Russia, the EU top general, Robert Brieger, admitted to Germany’s Die Welt daily on Thursday. Moscow possesses vastly superior weapons and personnel reserves and can continue fighting for a long time despite Western sanctions, the head of the bloc’s military committee believes. The Ukrainian counteroffensive launched more than two months ago “has not gained any ground yet,” Brieger said, adding that he would be “cautious” about expecting any breakthroughs in the future. “The number of brigades available to Kiev for the offensive is limited,” he told Die Welt, adding that the Russian forces had built “well-secured defense lines” in the months before the Ukrainian operation.
The Austrian general, who chairs the meetings of the chiefs of staff from all 27 EU members and serves as an adviser to the bloc’s top diplomat, Josep Borrel, believes that the conflict between the two sides has come down to a “war of attrition.” Under such circumstances, Moscow has some visible advantages over Kiev, Brieger said. “Russia has a very large number of weapons and a huge reserve of potential troops,” he explained, adding that “in this regard, Russia is clearly superior to Ukraine.” The sanctions imposed by the West against Russia over its continued military campaign in Ukraine have also barely impacted Moscow’s ability to continue the fight, the general noted. “I am convinced that Russia can continue the war in Ukraine for a very long time,” he said.
Kiev’s ability to recapture all the territories it considers part of Ukrainian territory “remains questionable,” Brieger said. The general also said he does not expect the EU to let Ukraine join the bloc before the conflict ends and a peaceful solution is found. Even after that, Ukraine’s membership might pose additional security risks for the EU, Brieger believes. The general said that territorial disputes with Moscow could remain even after the end of the fighting. In the future, if another conflict breaks out, the bloc would have to defend Ukraine under Article 42.7 of the EU treaty if it becomes a member state, he added. “As soon as Ukraine joins the European Union, this would mean completely new obligations for the EU in terms of security policy,” Brieger said, adding that the organization “would be challenged much more than before.”
This is a topic a New York Times journalist should be investigating. Not a constitutional law proffesor. But here we are.
He is a man with many names. “Celtic.” “The Big Guy.” According to congressional investigators, most citizens know him as “President Biden.” Alias are tricky things. They are sometimes innocent or essential like the code name that the Secret Service gives you as part of your protection like “Celtic.” Then there are nicknames that are preferred to your given name. Take the Big Lebowski. He did not like being called Mr. Lebowski and preferred “Dude” but he was flexible: “I’m The Dude. So, that’s what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or, uh, Duder, or El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.” It appears that President Biden also preferred on occasion not to be called “Mr. Biden.” The question is why and whether Mr. Peters is more Big Lebowski or Big Guy.
People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Biden associate James Gilliar explained the rules to Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, and not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.” So it was not “Mr. Biden” who would receive a planned 10 percent cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm. It was “the Big Guy,” who also was to receive benefits like office space from foreign sources. Recently, an FBI document showed that a trusted source relayed an allegation of bribery where Ukrainian businessman said that he was told not to send money directly to “the Big Guy” but used a complex series of accounts to transfer the funds.
The question is whether “Robert L. Peters” used in various emails was in fact Joe Biden. House investigators want to find out, but the Administration does not seem eager to resolve the question. The earlier email using the alleged alias is from 2016. It holds particular significance for House investigators because it cc’d Hunter Biden about Ukraine. In the now widely accepted influence peddling operation, the object of the influence was Biden. We now know that the President lied for years in denying knowledge or conversations about his son’s foreign dealings. Even the Washington Post now admits that the President lied when he said that Hunter made no money in China. However, these emails may show the quid in the quid pro quo. Biden is accused of sending official information on these countries to his influence peddling son.
The nothing-to-see-here crowd is dismissing the allegation while resisting any further confirmation of these emails. (Notably, many of them insist that the false claims of Russian collusion against Trump were established by the fact that his campaign chair, Paul Manafort, gave polling data to a Russian client). Yet, there are 27 emails linked to Joe Biden’s alleged “Robert L. Peters” alias including sent from John Flynn, a former senior adviser to Joe Biden, with the White House “@ovp.eop.gov” domain name. For his part, Peters uses “@pci.gov” domain name on a government network, which includes the Executive Office of the President. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) has pushed the National Archives to share unredacted copies of these emails and has said that the House has not received the evidence. If so, it is not clear why the Archives would redact names from these emails or other information. If that matter comes to a head, the House is likely to win in court. However, efforts to obstruct such efforts could soon be one of the subjects of an impeachment inquiry.
“So what is the Congress to do now—un-impeach and exonerate an innocent impeached Donald Trump, and instead impeach a guilty Biden for essentially the same allegations?”
Despite years of Biden family and media disinformation, we are finally learning that Joe Biden really did fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin for looking into state corruption involving the oil company Burisma and Hunter Biden—and ultimately Joe Biden himself. As Vice President, Biden, in his own words, bragged that he had threatened to cancel the deliverance of American foreign aid to Ukraine unless Shokin was dismissed. So what is the Congress to do now—un-impeach and exonerate an innocent impeached Donald Trump, and instead impeach a guilty Biden for essentially the same allegations? After all, the Left redefined the impeachment bar in 2019 as leveraging foreign aid to Ukraine to benefit one’s political career.
And that is exactly what Joe Biden did to ensure his son could continue to raise millions for the Biden family with foreign governments, while being shielded from political consequences. An impeached Trump also was accused of using the power of government to go after his likely 2020 presidential rival by suggesting that Joe Biden and his family were corrupt, and should be investigated by Ukrainian officials for fraud and bribery. Despite Joe Biden’s denials, Trump was right: there was plenty of evidence to link Ukrainian unwarranted payoffs going into Biden family coffers. So Trump in 2019 had good reasons to ensure that none of the Bidens were still burrowed deeply into the Ukrainian payoff machine. In contrast, Joe Biden had far less grounds to unleash the full powers of government against his probable 2024 rival ex-president Trump.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is not charging Trump with bribery of the Biden sort. He does not allege that Trump gave special foreign policy preferences for those foreigners who paid his family for such services. Instead, Smith argues that Trump unlawfully took out classified presidential papers—although Joe Biden did nearly the same. Biden kept quiet about his vast removal of classified documents for over a decade. Not until Trump was being investigated did Biden suddenly notify the government of his illegal removals. In contrast, a combative and boisterous Trump fought openly and constantly with federal archivists over which of his papers at his Mar-a-Lago estate were truly classified. Prosecutorial leaks floated all sorts of unproven nefarious agendas that had prompted Trump’s disputes over his presidential papers.
But no one to this day has seriously asked why senator and then Vice President Biden secretly and weirdly removed and kept such sensitive material for years. Recent reports allege that Hunter Biden may have been treated with kid gloves by prosecutors, partly because Hunter’s lawyers had threatened otherwise to call Joe Biden to the stand as a favorable witness. Government prosecutors under pressure from the White House apparently balked at the nightmare of a befuddled president of the United States testifying under oath about the supposed innocence of the very guilty Hunter Biden.
PRIMETIME EXCLUSIVE: Hunter Biden used Air Force 2 to get to at least 15 different countries. Joe Biden can no longer deny he was in business with his son. pic.twitter.com/vHo7dOfTye
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) August 25, 2023
“..with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran set to enter the fold, it will have three of the world’s biggest oil producers..”
At a moment China and Russia have envisioned the future of BRICS as fundamentally an anti-Western bloc of developing nations, the Gulf oil powers Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been formally invited to become members, which marks the bloc’s first expansion in over a decade. “The membership will take effect from the first of January, 2024,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said, adding that additionally Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran will be added to the fold next year. China’s President Xi Jinping hailed the rare expansion, beyond the current large economies of China, Russia, Brazil India, China and South Africa as “historic”. He said it will “inject new impetus into the BRICS cooperation mechanism and further strengthen the power of world peace and development.”
President Putin too congratulated the soon to be newest members, saying in a video message, “I would like to congratulate the new members who will work in a full-scale format next year.” “And I would like to assure all our colleagues that we will continue the work that we started today on expanding the influence of BRICS in the world,” the Russian leader added. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also hailed the expansion which he said will strengthen the bloc. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan’s statement said, “the special, strategic relations with the BRICS nations promotes common principles, most importantly the firm belief in the principle of respect for sovereignty, independence and non-interference in internal affairs.”
He vowed in words before the BRICS conference on Thursday that the kingdom will be a “secure and reliable energy provider,” and noted that total bilateral trade between Riyadh and BRICS countries exceeded $160 billion in 2022, the Saudi foreign minister said. Set up in 2009, the BRICS nations represent some 40% of the world’s population and significantly over a quarter of the world’s GDP. And now with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran set to enter the fold, it will have three of the world’s biggest oil producers. As for Iran’s statement on it’s upcoming entry into the bloc: Mohammad Jamshidi, the political deputy of Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi, called the decision to add his country “a historic move.”
“A strategic victory for Iran’s foreign policy,” Jamshidi wrote on X, the website formerly known as Twitter. “Felicitations to the Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution and great nation of Iran.” In Putin’s virtual address the day prior, he emphasized that de-dollarization is “gaining momentum”. He said the dollar’s receding global centrality is an “objective and irreversible” process.
“.. it’s the beginning of the end of the petrodollar..”
Integration of new members into BRICS will facilitate the advent of a new world order, marked by the end of the petrodollar’s “yoke,” Michael Goddard, president of the Netley Group, told Sputnik. Earlier in the day, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were invited to become full members of BRICS. “The membership will take effect from January 1, 2024,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Thursday at the BRICS Summit in South Africa. With two of the new countries located in the Middle East, two in Africa, and the rest – previously neighbors of the association of five nations that incorporates Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, this expansion is a hugely significant event in the world history, said Goddard.
“Obviously Africa is emerging, and that’s very important. But the main news is Saudi [Arabia] and the UAE. Basically, this will change the balance of power in the world, as it’s the beginning of the end of the petrodollar. And this is the main catalyst to bring about the new world order,” Michael Goddard underscored. He added that in his opinion, the “Saudis will begin to price more and more oil only in local currencies, in yuan, and whatever.”Integration of the six abovementioned countries in the BRICS group is “relevant on both economic and geopolitical grounds, for at least two reasons,” according to Sergio Rossi, professor of macroeconomics and monetary economics at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.
“On the one hand, these countries export some key goods much demanded in the global supply chain, which could thereby contribute to economic growth across the global economy, particularly with regard to the so-called ‘Global South’ of the world. On the other hand, their own contribution to the global economy could accelerate the de-dollarization of this part of the world, with all the ensuing geopolitical consequences that could actually accelerate the creation of a multipolar economic system at global level,” Rossi told Sputnik.
Lots of stories, his body was not found but his phone was, he was seen in Mali etc.
Yevgeny Prigozhin was a man of many talents who made a “significant contribution” to the struggle against neo-Nazis in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday, commenting on the plane crash that reportedly killed the Wagner Group head. Speaking with journalists at the Kremlin, Putin said that he had known Prigozhin since the early 1990s, and described him as “a man of complicated destiny.” “He’d made serious mistakes in his life, but also got results. For himself as well as our common cause, when I asked it of him in these last months,” Putin added. He described Prigozhin as “a talented businessman” who worked in Russia as well as in Africa dealing with oil, gas, precious metals and gems.
It’s all THEIR fault…
As the summer approaches its end, US officials have begun to openly attempt to shift the blame for the failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive from the West and NATO onto the Ukrainians. US officials speaking anonymously told America’s so-called “newspaper of record” this week that the counteroffensive has not succeeded because Ukrainian commanders spread troops out across the 1,000 km frontline with Russia, instead of concentrating forces on “severing” the “land bridge” linking mainland Russia and Crimea through Zaporozhye region. US strategists reportedly “advised Ukraine” to pump more troops toward the “top priority” target of Melitopol in Zaporozhye’s southwest, and to “punch through” Russian defenses and minefields, even if it cost large numbers of soldiers and equipment.
Instead, Kiev has reportedly spread forces out, keeping a significant reserve near the Donbass city of Artemovsk (Bakhmut), despite US estimations that trying to take the city back from Russia would “lead to large numbers of losses for little strategic gain.” Senior NATO military officials, including Pentagon Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Christopher Cavoli, and British Chief of Defense Staff Tony Radakin reportedly held a video call with Ukrainian command to push for a change in focus, with officials briefed on the call saying Ukraine’s top commander had verbally agreed to do so. US officials also confirmed anonymously what the Russian military has been saying publicly: that Ukraine’s forces have been taking staggering losses, and running out of senior commanders and experienced fighters, whose units have had to be “reconstituted a number of times” due to the intensity of the fighting.
Along with erroneous tactics, US officials have also criticized Ukraine for supposedly operating under the “old Soviet Communist doctrine, which seeks to minimize rivalries among factions of the army by providing equal amounts of manpower and equipment across commands,” and thereby “failing” to prioritize key objectives.
And even that is not true..
Russia is right behind the US in military strength, with China rapidly catching up, the Global Firepower (GFP) website said in its 2023 rankings report, released this week. GFP has been producing the annual report since 2006, ranking 145 countries around the world by “potential war-making capability across land, sea, and air fought by conventional means.” The in-house formula considers “manpower, equipment, natural resources, finances, and geography represented by 60+ individual factors” to arrive at an index, with zero being the theoretical perfect score. The US “leads the world technologically and is advanced in key medical, aerospace, and computer / telecom sectors,” according to GFP, which assigned Washington an index of 0.0712. It also has “a certain degree of self-sustainment,” while displaying “commanding numbers in key material, financial, and resource categories.”
Factored into GFP’s calculations were the size of the Pentagon budget – over $750 billion, more than triple that of China – the US Navy’s carrier fleet, and the size of the US Air Force. GFP claims that the Ukraine conflict has “showcased key limitations in Russian military capabilities” in terms of “preparedness, leadership, training, and supply issues,” admitting that it has relied on ‘open-source intelligence’ to estimate Russian combat losses. Even so, the outfit assigned Russia a score of 0.0714, just .0002 below the US. China came in at third place with a PowerIndex score of 0.0722, but “continues its climb to the No.2 spot owned for some time by regional powerhouse Russia,” according to GFP. India was fourth with a score of 0.1025, followed by the UK in fifth place at 0.1435. London’s ranking seemed to be influenced in part by the two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in Royal Navy service.
Global Firepower rankings showed France (9th) behind Japan (8th), Italy (10th) ahead of Türkiye (11th), and Iran (17th place) ahead of Israel (18th). Poland was supposedly 20th, ahead of Germany in 25th place. Ukraine ranked 15th, up from 16th place in 2022, “as a result of its response [to the conflict], financial and material backing from the West.” It had a score of 0.2516 as of May 31, and its armor, artillery, and aircraft numbers were based entirely on estimates. Global Firepower’s location, funding and ownership aren’t entirely clear. The outfit “does not assume responsibility as to the accuracy, correctness, completeness, reliability and ‘up-to-dateness’ of information made available throughout,” per its own disclaimer.
“Ukraine gained independence with an economic clean slate, with an unheard of $0 in foreign debt in December 1991. Three decades on, the country’s socio-economic status is nothing short of catastrophic..”
“The Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic resolves that: Ukraine shall be declared an independent democratic state on August 24, 1991. Upon declaration of its independence, only its Constitution, laws, orders of the Government, and other legislative acts of the republic are valid on the territory of Ukraine. A republican referendum shall be organized on December 1, 1991 to confirm the act of declaration of independence.” This was the partial text of the Ukrainian act of independence, adopted into law by Communist Party boss-turned-first president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk. Just a little over five months earlier, in the status referendum of March 17, 1991, Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly (71.5 percent to 28.5 percent) in favor of saving the USSR. By December, 92.25 percent favored independence, with only 7.75 percent opposed.
Ukraine entered the 1990s with perhaps the most enviable status among all the former Soviet republics, starting out with an advanced industrial and agricultural economy comparable in size and complexity in Europe only to Germany, France, and the UK. Ukraine boasted a vast industrial sector ranging from heavy machine-building to aircraft manufacturing and rocketry, and some of the richest farmland on the planet. Unlike Russia, which agreed to shoulder responsibility for paying off the Soviet Union’s $100 billion debt, Ukraine gained independence with an economic clean slate, with an unheard of $0 in foreign debt in December 1991.
Three decades on, the country’s socio-economic status is nothing short of catastrophic, with Ukraine now one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Europe (even before 2022), its economy almost entirely dependent on Western economic aid, and the nation facing an unprecedented demographic crisis (with a current population of 36.7 million, down from 43.5 million in 2021, and a peak population of 52 million in 1991). Politically as well, contemporary Ukraine’s fate is unenviable, with the Volodymyr Zelensky administration cancelling elections scheduled for 2024, banning opposition parties and imprisoning political opponents “linked to Russia,” and targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, again over suspected “Russian links.” His predecessors’ record was little better, with the post-Maidan coup authorities disappearing dozens of political opponents, banning the largest pro-Russian opposition party, and unleashing a wave of terror across the country’s southeast after coming to power in 2014.
Is Germany an exceptionally stupid country, or are they just “early adapters”?
Germany is projected to be the only G7 economy to contract in 2023: the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) will slide by 0.3%, as per the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) forecast. The IMF attributes the trend to weak production output as well as economic contraction in two consecutive quarters (Q4 in 2022 and Q1 in 2023). The latter factor prompted international economists to conclude in mid-July that the country had fallen into a technical recession. “The end point after which the German economy began to shiver was the conflict in Ukraine and related [anti-Russia] sanctions,” Eugen Schmidt, member of the Bundestag, told Sputnik. “All these had a tremendous effect on the German economy.
Now we are witnessing inflation which is unprecedented over the past decade, and which the government, despite numerous measures to support the economy, has not been able to reverse. We also see this in the form of high energy prices, including for utilities for ordinary consumers and industrial enterprises.” “As a result, German industry (and we know that the wellbeing of the German economy and German citizens was based precisely on German industry) is feverish precisely because energy prices make the products of German enterprises unprofitable, that is, uncompetitive. Therefore, there is now a trend seeing energy-intensive enterprises in Germany either radically reducing production in the country, or even transferring production to those countries where energy prices are much lower,” the German parliamentarian continued.
Despite the nation having fallen into a recession, the German government is doing virtually nothing to smooth the situation, according to Schmidt. He argued that Berlin was guided by purely ideological ideas when it closed its nuclear plants, which had worked quite normally, covering the energy needs for the nation’s industry. “Now we buy expensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US and Qatar,” he said. “We import electricity from neighbors, from nuclear power plants that are located in France or Belgium. That is a completely absurd and harmful policy toward German industries.”
“..Ukraine, perhaps more than any other case study to date, demonstrates the effective synergy between private “soft power” wielded by billionaires like Soros combined with institutions like USAID and the US State Department..”
X CEO Elon Musk dropped a bombshell late Wednesday after confirming that his social media empire would “be filing legal action” to “stop” an attempted crackdown on free speech by politicians and George Soros-funded NGOs justified using trumped-up data on the number of “hate incidents” in the British Isles. “Can’t wait for discovery to start!” Musk wrote. The billionaire did not elaborate, prompting users and media to speculate on the exact nature of the case. Musk’s message was a response to a report by an independent Irish journalist accusing authorities in Ireland and Scotland of inflating statistics about “hate-based offenses” to pass a new “hate speech” law which would make it a criminal offense to possess “hateful material” on your person or in your home – including up to a year in prison and a 5,000 euro fine for those refusing to hand over their digital device passwords to the authorities.
The crackdown is reportedly being backed by George Soros-funded non-government organizations (NGOs) accused of supporting a hardline censorship agenda, including by supporting police intervention and the seizure of personal phones and computers, as well as raids on the homes of the accused. Soros-backed NGOs’ alleged attempts to influence Irish and Scottish government policy are a prime example of soft power. Soft power, or the use of ideological, cultural, or economic influence rather than force to achieve one’s policy objectives, has been a primary tool of US and European foreign policy from at least the mid-1980s onward. After 1991, Western countries working to build the post-Cold War unipolar world order used soft power tools to spread visions of liberal democracy, free market economics, and “open societies” as “universal values” applicable to all nations. Countries refusing to adhere to these concepts have faced invasions, crushing sanctions, and coup d’états (among them Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, just to name a few).
[..] Setting up shop in Ukraine immediately after independence in 1992, Soros’ foundations played an intimate role in the formation of the country’s post-Soviet elites, especially its liberal, pro-Western faction. Both during the Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Euromaidan coup in 2014, the OSF had a critical job to play in financing and otherwise supporting the “revolutionaries,” from lobbying efforts targeting US allies to “legalize” the coup, to meeting with the country’s new authorities to advise them on policy, to spending vast sums of money on an array of domestic “civil society” initiatives (including over $181 million by late 2015 alone). Ukraine, perhaps more than any other case study to date, demonstrates the effective synergy between private “soft power” wielded by billionaires like Soros combined with institutions like USAID and the US State Department, showing the effective role soft power in creating a crisis from scratch, and then attempting to use it to achieve a geopolitical objective.
Check if your fish comes from Japan…
The tritium contained in filtered cooling water from the Fukushima nuclear site is very dangerous, renowned nuclear expert Dr. Christopher Busby told Sputnik. “It gets inside you easily. It exchanges with normal hydrogen, sometimes it becomes organically (covalently) bound. It causes genetic damage at tiny conventional doses (calculated using the energy per unit mass, joule/kg formula of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, employed by the IAEA),” said Busby. After months of controversy, Japan earlier announced that it would begin the release of over a million metric tons of treated, highly-diluted radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) into the Pacific Ocean on August 24.
The decision was made regardless of a torrent of criticism from the local population, the international humanitarian community, as well as vehement objections from China and other neighbors in the region. The plan to release the water had been in the wind for years. Back in 2019, Japan’s authorities had warned that they were running out of space to store the material. “The water has apparently been treated to remove the radioisotopes that the regulators believe pose the greatest risk, strontium-90, caesium-137, and carbon-14. But to take out the tritium is too expensive, and so the radioactive water is largely contaminated with large amounts of tritium oxide, in the form of tritiated water HTO. Tritium is the largest contaminant in terms of radioactivity, disintegrations per second, clicks on a counter, from the operation of all nuclear energy processes.
The neutrons, which are central to nuclear energy, produce tritium by various processes in reactors, and even outside reactors, where the nuclide, a radioactive form of hydrogen, is formed by adding neutrons to nitrogen in the air, and oxygen in the water, various other processes,” Christopher Busby, physical chemist and scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, explained. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. While it is produced naturally from interactions of cosmic rays with gases in the upper atmosphere, it is also a by-product of nuclear reactors. Tritium possesses the same number of protons and electrons as hydrogen, but unlike regular hydrogen, which does not have any neutrons, tritium has two. Thus, it is both unstable and radioactive.
While the Japanese (also the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a long list of self-identified experts) collectively say: “no problems, the quantities are very small and pose no risk to health, neither to people nor marine life,” this is not the case, according to Christopher Busby. “Tritium is interesting stuff. Its radioactivity is extremely weak: it emits a very short-range beta electron and itself then changes into nitrogen… In terms of radioactivity, because the decay electron is so weak, the method that the risk agencies use to quantify radiation effects has classed tritium as almost a non-event, in terms of health effects. This is most convenient for the nuclear industry, as it means that the exposure limits for tritium (in terms of Becquerels per liter) are truly enormous, when compared with other radioactive waste,” the nuclear expert clarified.
“The low beta energy of tritium allows the regulators to argue that the releases of huge amounts to the sea and rivers is safe. But the regulators are wrong. The system of analysis using the concept of ‘Absorbed Dose’ is unscientific, dishonest and at the origin of a huge historic public health scandal that has caused hundreds of millions of deaths from cancer due to badly regulated releases of certain specific contaminants, and this includes tritium, carbon-14, uranium (as particles) and certain other substances produced by nuclear processes,” Dr. Busby explained.
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.