Menu Icon

Debt Rattle October 25 2026

Oct 252026
 
 October 25, 2026  Posted by at 9:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  Add comments


Detail of a fresco from the House of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii, 2nd century BC


• Ukraine Says Starlink Speed Restrictions Lifted (JTN)
• Musk Admits SpaceX Throttled Starlink In Ukraine
• Kiev Retreats On Nazi Collaborator Tribute – Warsaw (RT)
• Zelensky Accuses Trump of ‘Totally False’ Statements (RT)
• Trump Is More Serious Than Ever About Cutting Deals With Putin (Korybko)
• Only Citizen-Patriots Can Save the West (J.B. Shurk)
• The Globalist Assault On America (Istvan Toth)
• Many Western Governments Won’t Survive (J.B. Shurk)
• MS NOW, Omar, and the Art of the Evasion (Turley)
• The Democrats Plan a Coup to Overthrow the Federal Government (IPaul Craig Roberts)
• The Deep Midterms (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Another October Surprise? (Kenneth R. Timmerman)
• A Final Appeal to Michigan’s Jewish Voters (Hanscom)

 

 

 

 


A lot of content today. Good thing it’s Sunday. Smiley.

• Ukraine Says Starlink Speed Restrictions Lifted (JTN)

Ukraine’s military has regained full access to Starlink satellite communications for drones and other fast-moving equipment after restrictions disrupted operations on the battlefield for more than a week, Ukrainian officials said. Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara said monitoring systems confirmed stable connections for equipment traveling faster than 250 mph.


The speed restrictions affected Starshield, SpaceX’s military-grade satellite communications service, which Ukraine relies on for drone missions, military logistics and communications near the front lines. Khmara cited direct negotiations and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s diplomatic efforts with Washington as instrumental in restoring access.

Read more …

“Because Kiev Violated Terms Of Service..”

It’s still not super clear, but from what I understand:

Ukraine broke into Starlink/Starshield, in order to make it work faster for their drones.

Starlink found this out and threw them out.

• Musk Admits SpaceX Throttled Starlink In Ukraine (ZH)

Elon Musk said Saturday that SpaceX throttled Starlink service in Ukraine, ending a week in which Washington and SpaceX pointed at each other over who limited the connection Kiev’s drones depend on, the Associated Press reported. The admission came after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said access to Starlink and Starshield had been restored to its earlier speeds.


Musk replied “Correct” on X and wrote that “Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be,” adding that Starshield, “a different system, is controlled by the US government. What they decide to do is up to them.” The rest of the post, as AP quotes it: “Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week.”


Neither Musk’s post nor Hegseth’s reference to terms of service names a specific violation. The Defense Secretary said Tuesday that terms of service “ultimately need to be complied” with, but gave no detail, Stars and Stripes reported. Ukrainian officials said the speed limit arrived without warning, and Zelenskyy said terminals in EU countries worked at speeds above 112 mph, which suggested the cutoff was not a technical failure.

Musk’s account also sits awkwardly with what he said on Oct. 14. He then wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government” and that any limits on speed or use “are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS,” Straight Arrow News reported. On Saturday he claimed credit for closing the Starlink “loophole” while still insisting that Starshield, the military-grade system behind Ukraine’s drone operations, answers to the U.S. government, AP said.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk personally ordered the cap. One of its sources said he and President Trump discussed the move before it took effect, while others said they spoke only after it became public, and some U.S. officials said Musk acted alone. Administration denials have been broad. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “there was no foreknowledge,” Hegseth said “we haven’t pulled anything back,” and a White House official said “we didn’t slow down Starlink at all.” Trump has said he did not make the call but that Musk should not be blamed, AP noted.


The Journal later reported that Trump called Musk on Wednesday and asked him to lift the limits, a story ZH covered Thursday when Kiev said disruptions continued. Zelenskyy has since written that “the speeds are now where they need to be,” with restoration starting overnight, and Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara credited “direct dialogue” with Washington.

The cap, which Ukrainian officials put at about 100 mph, or 160 km/h, dropped terminals offline and, Zelenskyy said, caused interceptor drones to crash. It also landed as Kiev defied Trump’s calls to stop hitting Russian refineries. Oleksandr Merezhko, who chairs Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, called it “an attempt at blackmailing us,” Newsweek reported. That is one Ukrainian lawmaker’s reading, and nothing in the reporting confirms a link.

Congress wants answers. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said that if Musk ordered the disruption, “that is likely a violation of law,” and Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) asked Hegseth on Oct. 19 to investigate and report to the defense committees within 30 days, per Stars and Stripes.

The restoration follows a new U.S. diplomatic push. AP said Russia agreed Wednesday to resume three-way talks with Washington and Kyiv next month, and Kyiv and Moscow agreed Friday to a localized ceasefire around occupied Oleshky, brokered by Melania Trump. Ukraine, meanwhile, kept striking Russian industry, with its General Staff claiming hits on a Tolyatti chemical plant and an Oryol electronics plant, and drones reaching Omsk, more than 2,000 kilometers from the border.

Read more …

“Vladimir Zelensky’s office has pledged to block a regional plan to honor UPA leader Roman Shukhevich, Polish officials claim..”

• Kiev Retreats On Nazi Collaborator Tribute – Warsaw (RT)

Kiev has moved to block a planned tribute to Nazi collaborator Roman Shukhevich, who was involved in the killing of an estimated 100,000 Poles during World War II ethnic purges, officials in Warsaw have claimed. The reported retreat comes amid a series of disputes between the two countries in recent months over Kiev’s veneration of Nazi-linked figures that have eroded Polish support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.


The controversy erupted on Tuesday when the Lviv Regional Council in western Ukraine voted to declare 2027 the Year of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and to celebrate the 120th anniversary of its commander Roman Shukhevich while deciding to organize “cultural, memorial, scientific, and mass media events,” as well as exhibitions and national patriotic rallies on the occasion.

The move triggered a fierce response in Poland, which regards the UPA as perpetrators of genocide against Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia and Shukhevich as a key “architect” of the massacres. Before becoming a UPA leader, Shukhevich served in Nazi Germany’s Nachtigall Battalion and the German-controlled 201st Schutzmannschaft Battalion, which operated in occupied Belarus.

On Wednesday, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk condemned the resolution as “unwise” and “suicidal tactics,” saying it “harms Ukraine,” while Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz called the move “unacceptable,” warning that it would deepen divisions between the neighboring countries. Meanwhile, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called for the resolution’s key sponsor, Lviv regional lawmaker Svyatoslav Sheremeta, to be put on a list of individuals deemed undesirable in Poland.

Following the backlash, Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marcin Bosacki said on Wednesday that officials of Vladimir Zelensky’s office had assured Warsaw that the controversial resolutions would not come into force. On Friday, Tusk echoed the claim, saying that Zelensky had personally signaled he would not endorse the resolution, adding that the Ukrainian leader was “unhappy” with the situation.

This also came after the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry called the Shukhevich tribute in Lviv “counterproductive to our current efforts aimed at further developing Ukrainian-Polish relations.” The ministry stressed that the local authorities had sought no advice from government bodies to assess the consequences of their actions.

An unnamed source in Zelensky’s office cited by Ukrainskaya Pravda went so far as to describe the decision as a “catastrophe.” “Ukraine looks erratic. We have just resolved the previous crisis – and now this,” the source said, accusing regional officials of pursuing “cheap one-day hype” despite knowing all too well what the resolution would lead to.

While senior Ukrainian officials apparently distanced themselves from the controversy, the Lviv council’s original announcement remains accessible as of Saturday. Sheremet also previously defended the resolution, saying “This is our history, our heroes, and we must duly honor their memory.”

The dispute is the latest in a series of heated clashes between Kiev and Warsaw over Ukraine’s continued veneration of nationalist figures that collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II.

In May, Zelensky awarded an elite Ukrainian special operations unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA,” prompting another diplomatic uproar, with Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripping the Ukrainian leader of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state decoration.

Read more …

How to make friends in 5 easy steps..

“The US president is “deflecting” and unfairly blaming Kiev’s strikes on Russian refineries for rising global diesel prices, the Ukrainian leader has claimed”

• Zelensky Accuses Trump of ‘Totally False’ Statements (RT)

President Donald Trump made “totally false” statements when he blamed rising US diesel prices on Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, Vladimir Zelensky has claimed, accusing the American leader of “deflecting the focus away from Iran.” Zelensky’s remarks came amid a growing spat with Trump, who has repeatedly accused Kiev of exacerbating the global energy crisis with continued attacks on Russian oil infrastructure.


Russia has historically been the world’s second-largest exporter of diesel fuel, behind only the United States, accounting for roughly 10% of global exports. Disruptions to Russian supplies have tightened the global market, driving up prices even in countries that do not directly import Russian fuel, including the US.

“The volume of diesel exports is so negligible from Russia that it has zero impact on prices in the US. That is totally false information,” the Ukrainian leader claimed during an appearance on Steven Bartlett’s The Diary of a CEO podcast on Thursday.

If Trump cares so much about US energy prices, then “why do American companies export energy?” Zelensky wondered rhetorically. “Well, because how can the president of the United States ban private sector exports?… It sells and money comes in.” Zelensky accused Trump of unfairly “deflecting the focus away from Iran” and lamented that “everything gets shifted onto us and I’m made the target as the leader of our country.”

According to Zelensky, “the root of the problem” lies in the Strait of Hormuz, where crude exports and other maritime traffic have dwindled to a trickle following the start of the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran in February. Earlier this month, Zelensky similarly hit out at what he described as a “weak decision” by the Trump administration after Washington temporarily waived sanctions on Russian diesel exports to ease the global fuel crisis.

Moscow agreed to immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to American and global markets, followed by 500,000 tons in November, another million tons shortly thereafter, and potentially another 3 million tons, depending on refinery capacity.

Washington struck the deal with Moscow after Zelensky had repeatedly ignored Trump’s requests to stop strikes on Russian refineries. “We said, you can do whatever you want to Russia, don’t hit the refineries, because that’s a world problem that’s caused,” the US president recounted earlier this month.

“And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel,” Trump lamented, accusing Zelensky of wanting to “make problems for the world.” Trump also said he found it more difficult to deal with Zelensky than with Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting that Ukraine should get a new leader who would not obstruct Washington’s mediation efforts.

Rising fuel prices have become an increasingly pressing domestic issue for Trump ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. US diesel prices surged to record highs above $6.50 per gallon in September, with prices in California exceeding $8 in some areas. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week that Zelensky was directly challenging Trump by refusing to accept a deal aimed at easing the global diesel shortage.

In recent months, Ukraine has ramped up long-range strikes on targets inside Russia, including civilian and energy infrastructure, amid continued setbacks at the front. Moscow has denounced the attacks as acts of terrorism and responded with strikes on Ukrainian military-related facilities.

Read more …

Trump is a man who cuts deals. Putin is not. He is a former secret agent.

But they still greatly respect each other.

“Although Putin might agree to some trade-offs in Ukraine as the quid pro quo for these deals, it’s not guaranteed, but they can still be clinched so long as Trump has the will to waive more sanctions without a ceasefire first.”

• Trump Is More Serious Than Ever About Cutting Deals With Putin (Korybko)

Putin’s top aide Yury Ushakov confirmed after Steve Witkoff’s latest meeting with Putin that “Other large-scale joint economic projects, which offer significant prospects for bilateral cooperation, were also discussed in detail; some of them are now nearing the implementation stage.” This followed Putin courting the return of US investment to Russia’s resource sector in early 2025 and Kirill Dmitriev recently confirming talks on nuclear-powered data centers.

Here are the five most promising joint opportunities:
* Oil & Gas
US stakes in Russia’s energy infrastructure and companies can incentivize it to get the EU to return Russia’s frozen assets through the sequence proposed here. They’d also serve as security guarantees against Ukrainian attacks on pain of the US cutting Ukraine off if it attacks assets in which Trump personally obtained stakes for the US. A separate injection of US capital into Russia’s energy industry as the new “deal of the century” can reshape the global industry by reducing dependence on the Gulf.

* Critical Minerals
Russia’s globally significant critical mineral deposits remain woefully underexploited, but with US stakes in this industry through the abovementioned sequence and separate capital injections, it can be brought online relatively quickly for accelerating the US’ diversification from dependence on China. Russia’s sparsely populated Siberia and Far East regions can also host pollution-heavy processing facilities far away from populated and agricultural areas. This makes joint investments extremely attractive.

* Data Centers
Per Dmitriev’s recent disclosure, talks on nuclear-powered data centers represent another promising opportunity for both countries. Russia’s globally significant critical mineral deposits could be processed in the country as proposed above and then immediately put to use within these facilities. That can greatly lower the cost of constructing them, while maintaining them would be similarly cost-effective through nuclear-powered means. This could lay the basis for global nuclear and tech partnerships too.

* Power Plants
Critical mineral processing facilities and data centers can also be powered by hydroelectric dams, not just nuclear power plants, and the US can obtain stakes in all four – the facilities, centers, dams, and plants – through the return of Russia’s frozen EU assets as proposed. Separate capital injections can help fund the costs of construction in exchange for greater stakes, and any excess electricity produced through new dams and nuclear power plants can be exported to Russia’s neighbors, both in Asia and Europe.

* International Logistics
The mineral deposits in which the US recently invested in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan can reach jointly owned processing facilities in Russia through the Trans-Siberian Railway and then onward to the global market. The same goes for the US’ related investments in similarly landlocked Mongolia. As the gatekeepers of the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage through their control of the Bering Strait, separate Arctic logistical cooperation is possible too, as is cooperation on nuclear-powered icebreakers.

“Trump Is More Serious Than Ever About Cutting Deals With Putin” in order for their long-negotiated resource-centric strategic partnership, the essence of which is described in the preceding hyperlinked analyses, to irreversibly shift the balance of the Sino-US systemic rivalry in the US’ favor. Although Putin might agree to some trade-offs in Ukraine as the quid pro quo for these deals, it’s not guaranteed, but they can still be clinched so long as Trump has the will to waive more sanctions without a ceasefire first.

Read more …

“The war for Western civilization is here.”

• Only Citizen-Patriots Can Save the West (J.B. Shurk)

In a previous essay, I wrote why “Many Western Governments Won’t Survive.” Now I will address why many Western nations will prevail, despite the destructive policies of their governments. Who will save the West? Citizen-patriots. Most Western governments have already proved themselves incapable of defending the West.


They cannot or will not defend their sovereign borders from foreign invaders. They will not defend Christian principles and prefer to mock (and even prosecute) followers of Christ. They will not defend their cultures, historic symbols, traditions, or beliefs. They will not defend private property or the fruits of a person’s labor and instead use taxes and regulations to steal more and more from citizens. They will not defend free speech or the right to self-defense. They will not defend the West’s rich intellectual inheritance accumulated over millennia and stretching from Jerusalem and Athens to Northern Europe and the Americas. They will not defend the West’s way of life.

Western governments have failed to protect the West, or worse, they have intentionally sabotaged the West through many decades of institutional duplicity, psychological warfare, moral decay, venality, public contempt, foreign allegiance, and self-hatred. As Western governments have led the charge to destroy Western nations, they can hardly be expected to save us from the very carnage that they have unleashed. Instead, the coming Western renaissance will arise with the people.

We have seen flickers of this incendiary social revolution since the turn of the century. After the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks on the United States, a patriotic fervor united Americans who promised each other, “Never again.” Many of us thought the West was finally prepared to defend its civilization from the scourge of Islamism.

Rather than securing Western civilization from its enemies, the U.S. government gave us an expansive domestic surveillance system that eliminated Americans’ privacy, twenty years of war filled with ephemeral successes, misguided “democracy-building” missions in parts of the world hostile to our presence, and an influx of Muslim immigrants into our hometowns.

President Bush and Congress spied on us with the USA PATRIOT Act while calling Islam a “religion of peace.” President Obama mocked American exceptionalism during a global apology tour and preposterously insisted that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding.

Eventually, the same members of Congress who overwhelmingly voted for war in Asia and the Middle East repudiated American patriots who risked (or lost) their lives fighting Islamic warriors “over there” so that we wouldn’t have to fight them “over here.” In another instance of bitter irony, American veterans of those wars are often called “Islamophobes” and monitored in the U.S. as “potential domestic terrorists.”

New York City has a Muslim mayor from Uganda. Minnesota has a Muslim congresswoman from Somalia who might not even be a naturalized American citizen. Michigan has another Muslim congresswoman who hates America and loves Hamas. And Michigan might elect as senator a man with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both the number of mosques and the number of Muslims in the United States have doubled since 9/11.

After the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, American patriots volunteered to defend Western civilization from Islamic conquest. Infuriatingly, the U.S. government imported Islamic civilization into America while patriots were too busy fighting elsewhere to defend the Bill of Rights and their countrymen at home. The sting of that betrayal will never dissipate.

Patriots in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and across continental Europe have felt that same sting of betrayal. No Western government ever asked its citizens for permission to cease enforcing national borders so that it could flood ancient homelands with foreigners.

The 2016 Brexit referendum in the U.K. was an after-the-fact vote on, among other things, Britain’s European Union-mandated open borders policies. After British patriots voted for the government to get out of the E.U. and secure the kingdom from further invasion, the British Establishment effectively ignored the outcome and flooded the U.K. with even more foreign nationals.

Aside from a few Central European countries whose people and leaders have doggedly resisted the E.U.’s attempts to replace native citizens with foreigners, Europe’s demographic composition has substantially changed this century. From 2015 to 2024, over six million foreigners settled in Germany, increasing its foreign-born population from 13% to 21%. During that time, the U.K. added over four million foreigners. Malta’s foreign-born population jumped from 9% to 32%.

A new documentary called Replacing Europe traces how European governments and Western NGOs use taxpayer funds to destroy once sovereign nation states with mass migration. As one critic of the E.U. Establishment puts it, “Bureaucracies in Brussels regulate everything except the influx that is changing Europe’s demographics permanently.” The end result was entirely predictable: 87% of criminal suspects in Germany are foreigners; 74% of sex crime suspects in Spain’s Basque region are foreigners; foreigners are responsible for 87% of thefts, 61% of sexual violence, and 60% of robberies on Paris public transport; 47% of violent criminals in Bavaria are foreigners; over 80% of North African asylum seekers in Switzerland are criminal suspects; and after covering up the atrocities of Muslim rape gangs who raped over a quarter of a million British girls over the last two decades, British authorities now hand out a booklet to invaders informing them that raping women and children is illegal in the U.K. and may negatively affect their fake asylum claims.

An evil has fallen upon all of Europe, and Western governments that have opened their nations to an invasion from violent foreigners are to blame. Western governments that aided and abetted illegal immigration into their countries are criminally liable and morally culpable for every rape, robbery, murder, and terrorist attack that foreigners carry out in Western lands. Western citizens who refuse to let their families and friends be raped or murdered are not “racists,” “bigots,” “Nazis,” or “white supremacists.” On the contrary, Western governments are guilty of crimes against humanity for actively assisting foreigners who intend to rape and murder Western citizens.

Read more …

“Trump stands firm against a consumerist Europe and a woke Democrat party.”

• The Globalist Assault On America (Istvan Toth)

While Democrats continue their political maneuvering in lockstep with their European globalist allies, Donald Trump is doing something remarkable. He’s prioritizing the interests of American farmers, truck drivers, and business owners over those willing to sacrifice American values for the chimera of international approval.


European leaders operate under the naive assumption that they can exploit American generosity indefinitely without consequence. Blinded by arrogance, they have made criticizing Donald Trump a national pastime, believing they can attack him with impunity while enjoying the benefits of U.S. economic strength. This isn’t partnership; it’s treating America like an endless ATM.

The recent global diesel crisis illustrates this hypocrisy. Many “liberal intellectuals,” including those in the United States, rushed to condemn potential restrictions on American diesel exports. They conveniently ignored the fact that millions of hardworking Americans might view such a move as a long-overdue act of fairness.

European elites have grown accustomed to viewing the United States not as a sovereign nation with its own needs and priorities but as an inexhaustible resource for their benefit. They demand loyalty from Washington but are unwilling to reciprocate, supporting Trump’s policies only when they fit neatly into their utopian vision of a borderless world.

European countries have fiercely resisted U.S. efforts to redistribute roles and financial obligations within NATO. Consider the numbers: The European Union has approximately 452 million people, the United States has 340 million, and Russia has just 140 million. Despite this demographic advantage, European nations have long expected the U.S. to defend them against Russia, whose economy is already strained by its war in Ukraine, without contributing their fair share. They call this “transatlantic solidarity.” A more accurate term would be “freeloading.”

This disregard for shared responsibility extends beyond military spending. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is a prime example. Its complex supply-chain vetting requirements, including those affecting American dairy producers, threaten to impose substantial financial and administrative burdens on American companies, undermining their competitiveness. Even businesses serving primarily domestic markets can face compliance pressures through their relationships with European clients.

Essentially, Europe believes it has the right to exploit American energy resources, products, and markets while imposing its own regulatory demands. European leaders have no intention of backing down. This is the distorted reality they’ve constructed on the eve of crucial congressional elections.

The Democrat party: Globalism at Home and Abroad
But the assault on America doesn’t end with Europe. In lockstep with these globalist forces, the Democrat party is undermining America from within. While Trump addresses real issues such as fuel prices, job creation, and energy independence, Democrats engage in a kind of “political cosplay,” lost in a fantasy world of utopian ideals and disconnected from the struggles of everyday Americans.

Their domestic policies have devolved into a series of unproductive experiments. Their failure to secure the southern border has unleashed a wave of illegal immigration, fueling crime and overwhelming social services. The radical socialist programs they support require unsustainable taxation and government spending, threatening inflation and economic stagnation.

Dividing America: Elites vs. the Heartland
Democrats are widening the gap between Washington and the heartland. Coastal elites, comfortable in their offices and insulated from reality, view the problems of ordinary Americans as mere statistics or talking points for the next campaign rally.

Rather than strengthening the industrial base or supporting the middle class, Democrats devote resources to ideological wars and questionable social trends. They have weaponized the justice system against conservatives, while mainstream media and social networks suppress dissenting voices and censor conservative opinions. Their relentless cultural warfare, fueled by woke agendas and disdain for traditional values, threatens to erode America’s national identity.

It Is Necessary to Put America First
While Democrat activists continue to impose their radical agenda, Donald Trump is doing what any true patriot would do—defending his people. Unlike Democrats, who sacrifice national interests for the approval of European salons and globalist elites, Trump prioritizes Americans.

To Trump, the voice of a working-class American struggling with inflation matters far more than the demands of foreign leaders. He believes that ordinary Americans, not bureaucrats in Brussels or politicians in Washington, will make America great again.

Read more …

“Why would citizens defend governments that abuse them?”

• Many Western Governments Won’t Survive (J.B. Shurk)

Western governments have put themselves in mortal danger. They are actively doing things that are destroying their countries:
(1) replacing their native citizens with unassimilable foreigners;
(2) centralizing government power in unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies;
(3) censoring and criminalizing public dissent;
(4) offshoring industrial and manufacturing jobs;
(5) exacerbating energy costs and general inflation by demonizing hydrocarbons and pushing “global warming” delusions;
(6) increasing taxes, government spending, and public welfare in unsustainable ways;
(7) demolishing their nations’ historical identities, traditions, beliefs, and common cultures;
(8) providing foreigners with “free” homes, food, and educations, while accusing native citizens of being “racists,” “xenophobes,” and “white supremacists”;
(9) discouraging healthy marriages and stable families; and
(10) indoctrinating the youngest generations to believe that war, “climate change,” overpopulation, and economic collapse will prevent them from ever having happy, hopeful, purposeful futures.


Those are just ten ways that Western governments are hurting their citizens. There are many more. But a reasonable person should be able to read the above paragraph and understand that nations cannot survive under such a destructive barrage of harmful policies.

Western governments are waging wars against their own nations. The progress of these wars may look a little different in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the United States, but what happens in one country soon enough spreads to all the rest. It is as if Western leaders got together many years ago and agreed that their countries would drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid and take long dirt naps.

Perhaps they formed this suicide pact during an “elite” gathering of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Perhaps they chanted, “Build back better,” in unison while voting to euthanize the West.

Adversarial political parties ostensibly compete for control of Western governments, but, in reality, the party system is kabuki theater wherein the same special interests own the politicians on both sides of the aisle. Until so-called “populist” parties emerged in the West, voters were given merely the illusion of choice.

After all, the Conservative Party held power in the United Kingdom for fourteen years, and despite repeated promises to do so, its leaders failed to secure Britain’s borders from foreign invasion or to extract the kingdom from regulatory enslavement to the European Union.

In the United States, President George W. Bush calls President Bill Clinton his “brother” and Hillary Clinton his “sister” and once described Michelle Obama as his “best friend.” Establishment Republicans such as lame-duck senators Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and Thom Tillis spend more time attacking President Trump and the 95% of Republican voters who support his MAGA policies than they do warning Americans about the growing number of communists in the Democrat Party.

Western nations have political Establishments that pretend to fight in front of the public but largely conspire behind closed doors and agree about most everything. We know this to be true because we have witnessed how these political Establishments work together to prevent “outsider” political candidates from reaching higher office or holding power.

In Europe, the political Establishment enjoy enforcing so-called “cordons sanitaire,” or “firewalls” meant to hinder the leaders of “unacceptable” political movements from obtaining power. In the Netherlands, the political Establishment have blocked Geert Wilders from becoming prime minister because of his opposition to mass immigration, Islamic supremacy, and the European Union and despite the fact that the party he leads has significant public support.

In France, the political Establishment have done the same thing to Jean-Marie Le Pen, his daughter Marine, and their National Rally because of the party’s pro-national-sovereignty and anti-immigration policies. In the United Kingdom, the political Establishment have blocked Brexit stalwart and Reform UK chief Nigel Farage from leadership roles in parliament. In Germany, the political Establishment have attempted to delegitimize the popular anti-immigration party, Alternative for Deutschland, by defaming its members as “domestic terrorists,” “Russian agents,” and anti-constitutional “national security threats.”

In the United States, Establishment Democrats and Republicans did everything they could to prevent President Trump’s election and then to remove him from office after he soundly defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, actively campaigned against Trump in 2016. So-called “conservative” political pundits, such as Bill Kristol and George Will, repudiated Republican voters and supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Even though Republicans controlled Congress, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan advanced the Clinton-Obama-Intelligence-Community operation to frame President Trump as a Russian spy.

Read more …

“The questions not asked..”

• MS NOW, Omar, and the Art of the Evasion (Turley)

“I am trying to figure out the way to do this.” Those words from MS NOW’s Chris Hayes say all you need to know (and likely all you will get) from his interview on Wednesday with Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. There is a litany of questions the liberal host never asked of Omar. Those questions have only increased over the years, leading to the current criminal investigation into immigration fraud. At points, Hayes sounded more like a supplicant than a journalist given his discomfort with asking pressing questions.


The interview had the journalistic nutritional content of a Slurpee that would give any liberal a sugar high and any non-liberal a stomachache. Many of us have stressed that these allegations are unproven, and that little evidence has been confirmed to support the underlying criminal charges. However, I have also written that Omar has been remarkably unforthcoming in rebutting the allegations or providing her own exculpatory information. Instead, she has spent years denouncing the allegations as racist or Islamophobic without addressing the specific claims.

While the Biden administration began aspects of these investigations years ago, Omar again sat for another prolonged interview without being pressed (beyond cursory questions) about long-standing allegations.

Hayes exhaustively explored Omar’s feelings and reactions to the recent search while largely avoiding any detailed questions about the very allegations that a Washington, D.C., judge found sufficient to show probable cause of criminal conduct. It may be useful to consider 10 questions not asked of Ilhan Omar. Asking these questions is not to assume that the underlying claims are true, but to establish the facts from Omar’s perspective.

Immigration fraud
It took 12 minutes for Hayes to mention immigration fraud, and he did so by asking her, “How seriously do you take it?” He then prefaced the fraud question with a laugh, saying, “I am trying to figure out the way to do this that doesn’t sound like I’m insane.”

Hayes then laughed further with Omar about questions of marriage fraud and said, “There are right-wing people who believe” these allegations, after Omar agreed that such questions are “insane.” Hayes made a series of statements about how “there is not even a kernel of truth” to these claims before inviting affirmations from Omar. He then made a general reference to “moving on to other allegations” without any details.

The questions not asked:

  1. It has been alleged that you are not using your birth name and the government is referring to you as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.” What was your name at birth, and have you ever legally changed your name? Are you using a name that is different from your birth name on your birth certificate?
  2. You stated in the interview that the government did not remove DNA evidence. Various legal experts have said for years that such samples could put the allegation of marrying a relative to rest. Have you ever offered a DNA swab and, if not, why?
  3. Have you had any contact with your former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, directly or indirectly, since becoming a member of Congress?
  4. Your father was reportedly a colonel in a brutal Somali regime. Is that true, and did your father fully report his Somali background when applying for citizenship? Also, have you ever confirmed the information your father submitted, and if not, why not?
  5. You stated that the issue in this case is whether you, as a 12-year-old child, were a mastermind of a fraud. However, that is not the allegation, correct? The allegation is that you obtained citizenship through your father’s naturalization after he represented that you were 17 years old and did not have to file for your own citizenship. Was that accurate, or were you, in fact, 18 years old at the time?
  6. Your staff reportedly tried to change your birthdate after your election to Congress on federal sites. Did you order this effort, or were you aware of it?
  7. Do you have conflicting documents showing that you were, in fact, 18 years old when you became a citizen?
  8. Reports indicate that this investigation changed after your sister sent you messages and that she is now cooperating with federal investigators. Are you aware of what those messages were, and what did she say in them?

Financial fraud In the interview, when Hayes moved on to Omar’s previous financial disclosure that she and her husband were worth $30 million before dropping to a little over $100,000, he again failed to address allegations that the drop in income was due to fraud. Instead, he asked about her “lifestyle,” then moved on to ask what it is like to be one of the least wealthy members of Congress.

Questions not asked:

  1. There are reports that the decline in your income was due to a drop in the value of your husband’s winery because of fraudulent practices, including selling empty barrels to investors under the guise of “wine to be aged.” Was that the reason for the adjustment, and when were you first informed of these fraud allegations?
  2. Your sister Sahra Noor reportedly listed a Minnesota home address when creating her Grit Partners Consulting business, which received millions in government contracts. That same address was used as a residence by figures convicted in the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud scheme. Were you or your sister involved in or aware of the fraudulent activities of Feeding Our Future? Have you ever intervened or taken any action in connection with your sister’s contracts or those of Feeding Our Future?

If Omar had answered them, any of these questions would have produced a scoop, but that was clearly not the purpose of this interview. Instead, Hayes spent more time asking Omar how she felt about former President Barack Obama defending her than asking about the specific fraud allegations she faces.Never has so much been expressed with so little said.

Hayes culminated the interview by asking, “Do you ever just want to tap out?” and Omar congratulated him on reaching the “real question.”Unfortunately, MS NOW tapped out of the interview long before that question was asked.

Read more …

“Democrats are preparing for an American color revolution in which they overthrow the United States instead of Ukraine or Georgia.”

• The Dems Plan a Coup to Overthrow the Federal Government (IPaul Craig Roberts)

[..] there are sufficient numbers of Democrats alienated from MAGA Americans and the existing social institutions and Constitution of the US to have a go at seizing power. Some of the interview hosts accustomed to thinking that the two parties are the same and merely fight over the grift were skeptical. But we have confirmation from Democrats themselves.


An independent researcher Jennica Pounds discovered “thousands of new transcripts and hundreds of recordings” describing a well organized Democrat plot centered on 300 former Democrat AID officials and bureaucrats experienced at overthrowing governments, blue state governors, and community activists to seize power with the help of the Washington Post and other presstitute media in the event that they can assert a case that the Trump regime interfered with the midterm elections in order to keep Republicans in power.

Obviously, there are sources of money financing such a vast organization that is organized for a seizure of power. Laura Ingraham reported on Fox News the information revealing the Democrats’ plan to overthrow the US as presently constituted by the US Constitution and traditional social mores and values.

The Washington Post immediately jumped in to control the narrative by presenting the plot as a Democrat attempt to protect Democracy from Trump using the Insurrection Act to impose tyranny, whereas the way the plot works is that the Democrats flood the streets until Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, which becomes the justification for overthrowing the government.

Tapes of the discussions of the plot are revealing. One plotter, Luke Pickerel says: “We have to be the ones who are creating an organization that is explicitly anti-constitutional.” Danielle Reiff, another plotter, asks what “happens if we need to go extra constitutional to create the kind of transformation that we’d all like to see?”

In other words, Democrats are preparing for an American color revolution in which they overthrow the United States instead of Ukraine or Georgia.

The Washington Post covers up the plot as “noble resistance fighters struggling to hang on to the last remaining shreds of democracy in a world teetering on global right-wing fascism.” The overthrow of America is the work of patriots, not treason: “A small group of U.S. national security officials has been discreetly advising state governments and congressional lawmakers on how to prepare for the possibility that the Trump administration will attempt to interfere in November’s midterm elections,” the Post reported.

I will not be surprised if this revelation of an internal plot against America is dismissed as another tinfoil hat rightwing fantasy. When a population is as brainwashed, indoctrinated, insouciant, and deprived of valid information as the American population is, all truth becomes “conspiracy theory.”

• The true explanation of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination is a “conspiracy theory.”
• The true explanation of 9/11 is a “conspiracy theory.”
• The true explanation of Washington’s wars for Israel in the Middle East is a “conspiracy theory.”
• Indeed, all facts that do not fit the official narratives are “conspiracy theories.”

Truth is simply dismissed as it is inconvenient for self-serving agendas and the official narratives that support them.

My take on the Democrats’ plot against America differs from the one revealed by Jennica Pounds. In my explanation Trump doesn’t have to invoke the Insurrection Act in order to launch the Democrats’ plot against America. Democrats have already announced that they will use lawfare to dispense with Republicans. If the Democrats win the House or Senate or both in the midterm elections, they will unleash the use of law as a weapon against the Republicans, a weapon that they perfected in their eight year long criminal and civil attacks on Trump and his supporters.

As I recently explained in an article on my website, state Democrat attorney generals have explained how they have the power to destroy targets, as they did to the immigration site Vdare and almost succeeded in doing to Trump, without ever taking a charge to count to test its validity. They don’t need any evidence. The financial burden they impose on their victim and the presstitute media’s destruction of the victim’s character suffices to destroy the victim.

When we have a Democrat attorney general bragging openly about his power to destroy Republicans, you should be able to see that law in Democrats’ minds no longer serves justice but is wielded as a weapon to destroy enemies. America has crossed that threshold, and once crossed how do we go back? .

Read more …

“Rarely in American history have the two parties been so far apart or the choice between them so stark..”

• The Deep Midterms (Victor Davis Hanson)

There are two ways of looking at the midterms, now less than three weeks away. One is as a simple referendum on the issues and politicians of the day. The other involves a far deeper conflict of visions (as Thomas Sowell puts it): socialism versus capitalism, intrusive versus limited government, and the destruction of time-honored institutions and traditions versus their preservation and renewal.


Rarely in American history have the two parties been so far apart or the choice between them so stark. In brief, Islamist-sympathizing socialism is on the ballot against free-market capitalism and American exceptionalism.

The new Islamist-allied socialist Democratic Party is confident, largely because the party holding the White House has increased its share of House seats in a midterm election only three times since 1900. Each of those exceptions arose under unusual circumstances.

In 1934, FDR was still riding the wave of his New Deal promises to end the Depression.
In 1998, Bill Clinton enjoyed backlash support after the Republicans’ unpopular impeachment inquiry, at a time when the economy was robust, and the budget was finally being balanced.
In 2002, George W. Bush had united the nation after 9/11 and had not yet begun what proved to be an unpopular Iraq War.

In other words, the party in the White House has gained House seats in only about 10% of the 31 midterms over the past 126 years. Pundits also point to President Donald Trump’s approval rating, now below 40% in most polls, and the persistently high price of regular gasoline ($4.33). Uncertainty over the 33-week Iran war, they argue, makes it difficult for Trump to preserve his majorities in either the House or the Senate.

Those are the issues ostensibly at stake. But the choice goes much further than that: Voters face a “deep” midterm election that will help determine the very future existence of the nation. The new Democrat agenda is not about lowering gas prices. Americans are being asked to hand Congress to what has become the most radical major party in U.S. history, as socialists and neo-communists believe they can finally win statewide races across the country. What would that entail?

Lawfare
The Democrats have not outlined any agenda other than “Trump! Trump! And more Trump!”. If they win the House, Democrats plan to spend the next two years impeaching, investigating, and hounding Trump, his administration, and his family. Their aim is to block new Republican legislation and paralyze the remainder of his presidency.

The Iran War
The Left condemns the effort to denuclearize Iran as a lost war, even though the United States has nearly destroyed the Iranian theocratic apparatus along with much of the country’s nuclear, military, industrial, and economic infrastructure—at a relatively low cost in blood and treasure by historical standards.

An enfeebled Iran, stripped of its military and economic dominance and facing an uncertain future, would no longer be able to blackmail or threaten Europe and North America as a nuclear-armed theocracy. Its terrorist clients would also lose funding, weapons, and leadership, with profound consequences for the Middle East.

When the war ends—as it soon will—and gas prices return to previous levels, policies already in place, including tax cuts, deregulation, foreign investment, energy development, and advances in AI, should help fuel an economic boom.

But the Democrats’ plan is simply to withdraw from Iran, count on the goodwill of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to guarantee free passage in the Strait of Hormuz, allow Iran to resume full oil production, and accept the Iranian regime’s word that it will no longer threaten the Gulf states or Israel and cease its decades-long support for the terrorist proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas, and, more recently, the Houthis.

Energy
The party that has repeatedly blocked federal oil and gas leases, canceled the construction or reconstruction of dozens of pipelines, and spent billions of dollars to subsidize unreliable, costly, and inefficient solar and wind power is now promising to lower the price of fossil fuels? Who really believes that?

Instead, the Left has vowed to end the production of natural gas, diesel, and gasoline as quickly as possible. Voters need only look at the once robust British and German economies, now struggling after years of restrictions on oil and natural gas exploration and development, as well as Germany’s elimination of nuclear power.

We should recall Barack Obama’s energy secretary Steven Chu. He infamously let slip that his goal was to keep American energy prices at European levels. In the U.K. and Germany, gasoline is currently around $9 a gallon—a great thing for Democratic Socialists who see high fuel prices as the best way to cool the planet and remain in power.

Gasoline in the United States now averages only $4.33 despite Iranian oil being off the market, attacks in the Gulf, and Iran’s attempted blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The reason is that Democrats were prevented from blocking new fossil fuel leases, pipelines, refineries, and fracking between 2017 and 2021 and again from 2025 onward.

Immigration
Almost none of the current Democrat candidates—at least until the eve of the 2024 election—criticized the Biden administration’s destruction of the southern border, much less the open-armed embrace with which it welcomed some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens, including 500,000 criminals.

The Left wants to dismantle border enforcement and the wall and to ensure that the current near-zero level of illegal immigration expands to the Biden administration’s peak of 10,000-plus illegal entries per day. Voters may be disturbed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement detentions, but they should remember a high-profile ICE presence was only necessary because the border was effectively eliminated by Joe Biden.

By contrast, it is almost impossible now to find Biden’s millions of illegal aliens who were deliberately dispersed by the Left throughout the country—and particularly into Democrat sanctuary-city states. The Left will never close the border. Nor will it ever allow immigration to become entirely legal, meritocratic, diverse, and manageable, because to do so would cut off the Left’s supply of future constituents.

Fraud
Some estimates put aggregate current federal-program fraud at nearly $500 billion annually. There is also widespread welfare and social services fraud concentrated in blue states like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York.

In these states, welfare and social services are generous and, by design, subject to little scrutiny. Fraud is treated as a minor problem in what Democrats regard as a successful effort to attract voters with federal and state dollars. Few major Democrat officeholders sincerely denounce such fraud, since doing so could cost them votes.

Read more …

“The Democrats would love the Iranians to pull off their own October Surprise this year. “

• Another October Surprise? (Kenneth R. Timmerman)

The Democrats first invented the term “October Surprise” in 1980, to describe what they claimed were secret efforts by the Reagan campaign to delay the release of our hostages in Tehran until after that year’s presidential election. vDepending on the version you read, the negotiations with Iranian intermediaries were conducted by vice-presidential nominee George H.W. Bush or by Reagan’s campaign manager and future CIA Director, Bill Casey.


Abolhassan Banisadr, who was Khomeini’s spokesman during his brief exile in France and later became the Islamic Republic’s first president until he broke with Khomeini in June 1981, was absolutely convinced the October Surprise was real. But neither he, nor Democrat conspiracy-theorists such as Gary Sick, were ever able to prove it. I interviewed most of the alleged co-conspirators as a young journalist in Paris in the mid-1980s, and I can tell you definitively: it never happened.

But that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from believing it was true in 1980, and continuing to attempt their own October Surprise against Republican presidents ever since.vPresident Trump this week accused Iran of “making up fake hits, mines, and everything else” in an effort to drive up the price of oil before the midterms. vAnd they have had some success, with the price of Brent crude briefly spiking to $116/barrel and West Texas crude topping $102, primarily because of supply bottlenecks in Asian markets.

The job of Republicans and the President is to convince Americans that high gas prices are a small price to pay for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran with missiles pointed at us and at Israel. And those who argue Iran does not have ICBM capabilities, let me remind you: they don’t need them.

As I pointed out in Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, the IRGC has long practiced launching a nuclear payload from a surface vessel, such as a tramp steamer loitering, say, two hundred miles off our coast. Some in the military refer to this as the “SCUD in a bucket scenario.”

Big diplomatic efforts appeared to make a comeback this week. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov went to Tehran to discuss a potential peace deal that would require the IRGC to send the “nuclear dust” to Russia in exchange for an end of the U.S. economic and military blockade. A Qatari-owned news outlet, al-Araby al-Jadeed, even claimed that this would be part of a “breakthrough agreement” announced this week, and was tied to a future Russia-U.S.-China summit.

Well, that didn’t happen. Why? Because as I have been saying since cows learned to come home at night, the Revolutionary Guards will never ever give up their nuclear weapons capabilities. Without them, they would cease to exist.There are only two ways to get Iran to give up the nuclear dust. Take it from them by force, or get the people of Iran to hand it over once we have armed them and they replace the Islamic regime.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the UAE was carrying out military strikes inside Iran, apparently with ground troops. And on Thursday, video appeared on X of huge explosive fires at an aluminum plant at Arak, where the IRGC was making oxidizer for solid fuel missiles.

CENTCOM has been uncharacteristically quiet in recent weeks. Instead of acknowledging U.S. counterstrikes following Iranian attacks on shipping in the Gulf, they just bombed Iran’s largest naval base at Bandar Abbas this week in the early hours of Tuesday without a word.

All of this is part of President Trump’s strategy to downplay the Iran war and keep his powder dry for whenever he decides to launch the knockout blow everyone is expecting to come.

Read more …

Which America do you want?

• A Final Appeal to Michigan’s Jewish Voters (Hanscom)

Does New Zealand have a right to exist?


Retired Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz posed this question in an interview this week with JNS TV’s Jonathan Tobin, pointing out that the island country is the “paradigm of a colonial settler state.” He noted that British settlers, who had never been to an island in the Pacific, colonized New Zealand, murdered many Maori, and used what he called a fake treaty to set up a country.

By contrast, he said, the history of Jews in Israel goes back more than 3,500 years. He added that Jews have never stopped living in the land, while Palestinians have had many opportunities to establish their own state. Dershowitz then brought up Taishya Adams, the Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed candidate for mayor of Boulder, Colo., who won’t say that Israel has a right to exist but has never questioned New Zealand’s founding.

Adams isn’t the only Democratic candidate this cycle with an obsession with and pronounced hostility toward Israel, and Jewish Democrats in Boulder aren’t the only voters facing a test of their loyalty to the party.

Tobin noted that leading Jewish Democrats in Michigan are supporting Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate race despite his alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That includes Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who has endorsed El-Sayed, told Jewish Democrats they have a moral duty to put the world’s needs above “even our own survival.”

Tobin asked Dershowitz, who voted Democratic most of his life before leaving the party and registering as a Republican this year, whether there was any justification for Nessel’s position. Dershowitz’s answer should be required reading for any Jewish Democrat still considering voting for El-Sayed, a man who is unable to say that Iran is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Israel, and who said that “hurt people hurt people” after a terrorist attack on a synagogue in Michigan:

The idea of putting party before your own people is absurd. And, you know, Jews voted for Mussolini, too. If Jews lived in China, they would have voted for the Communist Party there too, as they supported Stalin. Many, many did during the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s, even before being oppressed and, you know, thrown into the gulag or killed. Yeah.

And you know what? I knew a lot of Russian Jews because I represented them, and I’d meet sometimes, and they would say, “Oh, we’re not in danger. It’s only those Jews that are in danger, like Sharansky.” And, you know, the answer is always: first they come for the Sharanskys, then they come for the ordinary Jews, and then they come for the Catholics and the Protestants and everybody else. So you don’t have to be a single-issue person to be concerned about what’s happened with the Democratic Party today.

This is why Dershowitz now wants Democrats to be defeated in every election and why he supports President Donald Trump, probably the most pro-Israel U.S. president in American history. But is it Trump, or better yet, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), that will ultimately keep way too many Jewish Democrats, even the ones concerned about the party becoming anti-Israel, in the Democratic tent?

In answer to this question, Dershowitz mentioned a Jew he knows very well: his wife. Although she left the Democratic Party and registered as an independent, she can’t bring herself to join the GOP. Dershowitz agreed with Tobin that it’s not about the issues but about the man.

Jewish Democratic voters need to look deep within themselves and ask why this man, who recognizes the existential threat Iran poses to Israel and the United States and who struck the Iranian regime in what Ben Shapiro called “the single bravest foreign policy move of my lifetime,” provokes such rage.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Home › Forums › Debt Rattle October 25 2026

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 25, 2026 at 9:25 am #254051
    Raúl Ilargi Meijer
    Keymaster

    Detail of a fresco from the House of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii, 2nd century BC • Ukraine Says Starlink Speed Restrictions Lifted (JTN) • Musk Admits Sp
    [See the full post at: Debt Rattle October 25 2026]

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.